Transcript of RM130: “I can’t breathe!” Will it matter this time?

Posted on June 1, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM130: “I can’t breathe!” Will it matter this time?

Andy 0:00
Registry Matters is 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.

Andy 0:12
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 130 of Registry Matters. Larry it is yet another Saturday night and we’ve made it for a whole other week.

Larry 0:24
We did. I don’t know how but we’ve we’ve managed.

Andy 0:26
We did. It’s pretty amazing. anything exciting going on this week?

Larry 0:32
We are headed towards a partial additional reopening coming Monday so the governor made an announcement a couple days back that was exciting for the businesses that are gonna be able to open at some level.

Andy 0:43
And have you been effectively shut down still since then?

Larry 0:47
Well depends on what you mean by shut down the the law offices that do that do regular law work are listed in the exempt category they’ve been able to operate all along. the nonprofit’s on the other hand, it’s clear that most nonprofits that weren’t providing essential health related services were were closed down. So the Liberty and Justice Coalition and the NARSOL effectively shut down except for volunteer volunteer work that’s being done but we were not having our our part time staff are coming to the office because I read the order to include the my interpretation was that that we were not essential.

Andy 1:27
I gotcha. Um, how about like restaurants and so forth, because Georgia hasn’t been a month it’s at least been three weeks since they started opening things back up.

Larry 1:35
We have been on takeout drive thru and takeout service only. Monday, they’re going to be able to open at 50% of rated capacity with all the PPE that you can find which is hard to find, but but with paper menus, with people distancing and the hope is there won’t be a spike. We’ve actually had a really good trend with the exception of of McKinley in San Juan County, which is, encompasses a lot of reservation land and they they’re really struggling on Navajo land. But we’ve we’ve actually had a pretty good stabilization and actually decline in new cases in most of our other counties.

Andy 2:18
So speaking of restaurants and paper menus, you’ve heard of a restaurant changed called Waffle House?

Larry 2:23
I think so they’re pretty much nationwide. I’ve heard of them. Yes

Andy 2:26
They’re the only place that I’ve been to that they have a QR code. I’m hoping you know what a QR code is, and (Larry: I do) where it’s just like a whole bunch of little boxes inside of a square. Their menus are available on a QR code. So you can just use your phone to look at the menu, which I find to be very cool. And I haven’t seen any of the places do it.

Larry 2:42
Well, I haven’t gone to a waffle house in, I think since we were in Atlanta at the conference, but that’s not one of my normal dining establishments, but I’ll keep that in mind.

Andy 2:54
Yep, there you go. I want to announce that we had like a whole cornucopia of, a cacophony, I guess Maybe a better word, of patrons this week and I totally blanked on announcing, one from the week before was Ashley. But so we got Ashley Don Howe and a very generous contribution from Teresa. And then also Mr. Anonymous tripled his monthly contribution.

Larry 3:15
So that puts him at $1,500 a month right?

Andy 3:18
Pretty close to it. Yes, he he was doing gross before and now he’s triple gross.

Larry 3:24
Oh, well, no, it’s not quite that but the tripling is it’s all relative to what you’re giving but I think that regards to the base amount is an expression of appreciation and gratitude and and generally if you triple your contribution in general that would be an affirmation that you that you value it. I wouldn’t pay triple what I’m paying for the Albuquerque Journal. I struggle what I pay for it, much less tripling it.

Andy 3:52
Yes, and I can’t thank everybody enough. That a definitely gets us closer to our patron goal of 100 people gets us much closer And I can’t thank you all from the bottom of my heart enough for contributing to this little project that we do every week.

Larry 4:05
And we’re going to be at 100 by the end of August.

Andy 4:08
How about let’s see, let’s let’s fire off. Let’s go into a question that we received. It’s in relation to our content from last week. Will in Tennessee, he says, Will in Tennessee says, How many times will humans forced to register have to be slaughtered by vigilantes before the courts get an honest, excuse me get honest about the inhumane cruel and unusual punishment the registry exposes individuals listed there on to. Again, I bring up judge Mage a ruling thats still languishing in the 10th circuit. Judge Mage made such a true statement when he said the sex offender registry tells the public these people are dangerous. How is the public supposed to react to that? The cruel and unusual punishment of the registry comes not from the government, but from the public at large. This act of vigilante murder proves judge Mage exactly right. But I can’t wrap my mind around how the registry can be considered so punitive that it outstrips its stated purpose when applied retroactively in violation of the ex post facto prohibition, and thus be unconstitutional, but not be considered in the same light when applied prospectively. so neat question Larry.

Larry 5:16
I really, really liked the question and it gives us a chance to do a deeper dive. I’m sure this is inspired by the recent decision in Tennessee that we talked about last week. And the answer is kind of convoluted. When you when you bring challenges your intent is to win. And your focus is on the client that you’re representing, the client or the group of clients. And those clients have to have standing to make the challenges to assert the challenges that they’re asserting. If your crime predates the registry, you would be limited to making that challenge because if they pass a new law that for people that were convicted after the registry, that’s not your issue. Your issue is that the registry is unconstitutional as applied to you. When you when you when you look at what the plaintiffs were challenging what what was in issue before the court, that was the issue, they chose the Ex Post Facto Clause because they thought that they could win. The cruel and unusual punishment clause is a much more difficult one to win under because as listener, regular listeners have been around for a while, I’ve said and I’ve played we’ve played clips of of late Justice Scalia talking about cruel and unusual it’s a very high standard because it it looks at backwards at what punishments were in play at the time, as far as the conservative originalist interpretation and executing people was not viewed cruel and unusual. So if putting someone to death by very painful means, which we’ve done throughout the history of the Republic, it’s hard to imagine that when you force the someone to sign their name on a list, and have their picture made available on a medium that nobody could have ever even fathom back in the colonial times. But that would be cruel and unusual, if taking their very life away isn’t? Well, that’s that’s where the problem lies. It may be cruel and unusual punishment. If we have a different, a different group of interpreters on the Supreme Court, and the person with the requisite standing, makes that, asserts that and they build up an evidentiary record at trial. It may be that we can prove that the mere registering and and putting all the information which is not public public, does, in fact inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Most of the challenges have not been been that has not been raised as the issue. So the courts can’t, they don’t operate as roving tribunals looking for things that you could have asserted. They look at what you did assert, and therefore if we want to make that claim, we have to start building cases, saying that the registry is cruel and unusual punishment, we need to pony up a bunch of money to build the evidentiary record that it’s going to take to put on the experts to show how cruel and punishment it is. anecdotal evidence is not enough. And everybody struggles with that. Yes, we know it intuitively we know that that that there’s going to be harm that flows to registrants. But we don’t know. We can’t prove conclusively that that float is a result of the registry that they didn’t go down to the old fashioned criminal records repository and find out that you had this criminal record and they didn’t look you up through many of the massive publicly, think you did a background check on me one time you told me who my relatives were and stuff with just a click of a mouse or two and my most recent addresses, right, you remember that? (Andy: I do.) Yeah. Well, so we don’t we don’t know that. We have to prove that if we’re gonna if we’re gonna say the registry constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Remember, it’s proof it’s it’s presumed constitutional Until we prove that it isn’t. The presumption weighs heavily in favor of the lawmakers would never pass an unconstitutional law. Great Question.

Andy 9:01
But we do know that they don’t.

Larry 9:02
Well, we know that they pass unconstitutional laws, but sometimes you don’t know that they’re unconstitutional, give people the benefit of the doubt the people that are advising them, the people that have the pretty uniforms, and the people who have the clean cut cropped hair, the people who hold offices called state attorney general, the the the head of the Sheriffs Association, all these different people that you look to for advice, when they’re telling you it’s not unconstitutional. And you your your day job is something other than being a constitutional lawyer, which most citizen legislators, that’s their day job is not being a constitutional lawyer, their day job, maybe in any number that runs the gamut of what society represents society. They don’t know all this stuff. What are they supposed to do?

Andy 9:49
True that and then I guess you could if we’re going to hold the standards from when things were signed, whatever 240 years ago, and like you said, If cruel and unusual punishment was like you can’t make punishment worser then whatever was considered acceptable punishment, then you would have to think that having your name listed on a website, that’s not having poo thrown at you and rubbed in open wounds while they execute you like that would make punishment worser. So how is just having your name on a website so bad? And yes, I’m saying all that tongue in cheek, don’t take this out of context, all that, but I get the point. But if we do have an evolving set of standards, then having this little public scarlet letter would totally be punishment.

Larry 10:31
The second part component of Will’s question is that the cruel and unusual punishment, excuse me, I’m getting senility here, the The Ex Post Facto Clause, the Ex Post Facto clause is, is unequivocal that it intends to prohibit you from having punishment imposed upon you that that you wouldn’t have known about at the time or punishment increased from the time that post the when you commit the event you need to be on notice. The Ex Post Facto Clause does not prevent you from imposing prospective punishment, that’s very harsh punishment is left in the eye left to the discretion of the people that we elect to represent us. So your your, the fact that we impose these registration requirements that none of us support on anybody, if it’s done prospectively, at least you had notice prior to that happening, as opposed to the sheriff knocking at your door and say, by the way, you committed this crime in ‘86. we’ve tracked you down you have to register now for the rest of your life.

Andy 11:34
It is significantly harder to then go visit your local courthouse to find any sort of records on the person. You may I think maybe you even have to pay a fee to do it? Do you think if you’re trying to look up someone’s criminal background at the courthouse?

Larry 11:49
well you run into you run into some fees, but with digitization, it’s those fees are a lot less, less common. Now, in the old days, you would go down and you would actually have them pull old paper files. And depending on the age, how old or the age of the case, they may have to keep you waiting for days while they pull that out of some archival storage if it if it hadn’t been destroyed. And nowadays nowadays, it’s all been digitized. They’ve been scanning stuff for years and years and years of old files. And so the cost is not really such a barrier anymore. There’s these private businesses that have just been scarfing up records left and right, (Andy: certainly) and making making them available. I mean, that’s capitalist at its finest. I don’t know how anybody in our listening audience, which is, capitalism is the greatest system ever devised. Why would we have any opposition to people scarfing up records and being an entrepreneur and figuring out how to make money from from having those records?

Andy 12:43
Absolutely. All right.

Larry 12:46
Well, well, that also is that also is tongue in cheek because we are going to have to have a conversation at some point in this country about what records should become invisible and when, otherwise we’re gonna have a society of lepers.

Andy 12:59
Yeah, We definitely have a society of lepers. Well, I guess we should start moving on to some articles.

Larry 13:06
I think that’s a good, good thing. So the next article is about the Louisville police chief Steve Conrad announces his retirement.

Andy 13:13
Now why would, Why would a police chief go off and retire?

Larry 13:18
Well, I suspect that had to do with the public outcry over Brianna, the Taylor shooting that we talked about last week with the no knock warrant, and I guess one of the officers got shot in the leg and while the counselor said that the the person who did the shooting was the hero, which that’s one way of looking at it if you think your house is being raided by criminals and you shoot at one of the attackers that that’s a justifiable way to look at it.

Andy 13:45
My understanding is that the the male, boyfriend, husband Forgive me on that. There was a male in the house with the woman and he called 911, there’s a 911 call of Hey, look, there are people breaking into my house.

Larry 13:58
That’s what I say. That’s the danger of doing stuff in the middle of the night. You’re not expecting it. That’s why we’re so hot to trot at NARSOL with Cobb County going out in Georgia. Cobb County going out knocking on doors late at night because it’s a dangerous situation.

Andy 14:14
Larry maybe we should put in the in the correspondence with them about Hey, did you see this happening and in Kentucky, be careful this pin to you?

Larry 14:24
Well, they would probably get us for terroristic threats If we did that. We we did imply that strongly in the letter that that going to people’s houses that late at night is a risky proposition. That’s the one time when you’re expecting to have a little bit of privacy. You’re doing various things, including sleep and things you might do before you sleep, and you’re not expecting a loud pounding at the door nor you are you expecting for someone to start cracking their way through your property without announcing themselves. You’re just not expecting that and a rational reaction is to fire away.

Andy 14:56
Yes, and we do have second amendment privileges. Rights to own weapons and like the police would have to expect this coming through the door, but to to, you know, not to really get on their defensive side so much. But, you know, we the police would be justified in firing back I suppose?

Larry 15:15
I think it’d be a natural reaction but but but then the question is did the police create this situation to start with by not announcing themselves and by getting a no knock warrant And by serving it in the middle of the night? What capabilities is the police have for this?

Andy 15:32
And because of that, so now she is dead and I can’t imagine like you’re just doing your whatever you’re doing, like whether you’re just napping, sleeping, and there’s the pounding and Next, you know, like, Hey, I’ll see you tomorrow at work. And hey, overnight, your coworker got shot eight times I think this was by the police. (Larry: Mm hmm. Yep.) This is really tragic. It really infuriates me, but so the sheriff has stepped down.

Larry 15:57
The police chief of the city Yeah has stepped down. And so now they’re going to do a nationwide search to find a replacement.

Andy 16:05
Yeah. And I guess like the deputy is going to serve as the interim chief. All right. Well, that’s great news. Hopefully, somebody doesn’t suppose hopefully that police, the interim police chief will try to have some, like sensitivity training to try and keep them from from doing this. Like, what is the course of action that the next police chief, the police chief comes in and does?

Larry 16:28
the chief won’t be able to do it. I mean, the chief could do it. The chief possesses the power to do it. But it’s one of those things like what you can do versus what you will do with the police chief in order to have loyalty and the rank and file would turn their back if the police chief work to decry on its own initiative, her own initiative, if it happens to be a woman chief. They would they they would, they would undermine the chief. So the chief the chief has to have political cover to do anything. It really rests with us, the people. We’re going to get into up more when we get into the to the Minnesota case situation, but when are we going to take control of our police? That’s what we’re going to delve into later in the in the main event.

Andy 17:13
Sure. Then we have a couple articles that I’m not really sure I remember where they came from. But the website is called Frank report. And there are two articles about our people, PFRs. The first one is interviews with several people, including Sandy of NARSOL and Vicky of WAR, and so forth about just the tragedy and the misconception of what the registry is, who’s on it and what it means and the the impact that it has. And I didn’t necessarily want to go into it in a whole great level of detail, but I really just wanted to point out to it that that was the first article. And the second article was some interviews with some of our people that are PFRs.

Larry 17:52
Yeah, I did. I did a skim read of that. Now. I didn’t put it in here. So it must have fallen in from the heavens.

Andy 17:58
It could have but I know that I put it in, I just don’t remember where I picked it up. I could have picked it up off of Reddit, maybe but I don’t recall. But you know, I just always like to point out these articles when they end up out there in the, on the interwebs. The intertubes to, to, you know, this is someone that I don’t believe has a whole lot of relationship with us and he is listed like his own self bio says that he is some kind of investigative journalist independent just doing his own thing. Frank Parrlotto is the individuals name in the report.

Larry 18:29
Well, on the interviews of the five registered offenders I, I, I, I’m glad that the people are willing to be interviewed. What strikes me always is that there seems to be a tone of I don’t deserve this. And of course, no one deserves that, in my view, but they they point out the relative benign nature of their offenses, and not all five of them did that. But but they point out Well, I was 21 and she was 15 If she would have been two weeks older then it would have been Okay. well, yes, it would have been. (Andy: right) but but it wasn’t. And and and the person who says that is pronouncing the registry in this situation is okay if the right person is subjected to it, which I don’t believe anyone should be subjected to this, particularly after they’ve paid their debt to society. Now some of these are still on supervision and their paying their debt. But when you have finished paying your debt, there can be no justification for imposing any disability restraint upon you. Any accountability upon you, any tracking upon you, that is not justifiable, we are supposed to be restored When when you pay your debt, you’re done. And I don’t want this imposed on anyone, and particularly if they’ve paid their debt.

Andy 19:42
Certainly, it is pretty brutal. There are people that have it more brutal than others for sure. Some people live in states where they have, you know, for all practical purposes, no disabilities or restraints and then other people are just beat down and just constantly constantly, all the living restrictions and supervision and restrictions and work restrictions and internet restrictions, like there’s just a constant beating.

Larry 20:07
Well you should have thought about that in 1987 before you did it.

Andy 20:10
Of course. Of course, of course. Um, this one’s kind of funny to me. This one is from reason.com It says Justice Department asks Supreme Court to block a judge’s order to release inmates at Ohio federal prisons prison. So somebody’s asking for them to go and someone else is blocking them. Is that is that the way that I’m reading this?

Larry 20:28
That is correct. The the lawsuit has resulted in a district judge named James Quinn, who believes that that that the situation is so dire, that people need to be released. The judge has taken action and the the the appeal is by the Department of Justice, to try to get the Supreme Court to block what the judge is doing because they claim they claim that it’s disrupting their orderly process of of releasing people but the only problem is they haven’t released anybody. Very few.

Andy 21:02
like a 10th of a 10th of a 10th of a percent of people have been actually, somewhere down the line of these articles, the only people that have been released, I shouldn’t say only but the high profile people have been released the Paul Manaforts and those kinds of people have been released where Joe Schmoe, john doe, Jane Doe, they are having troubles getting released.

Larry 21:22
And and that’s what this federal judge has tried to do something about but but like I say the, the appeal was taken to the Supreme Court to try and I haven’t gone online trying to track this. This article was dated on the 21st. And it’s possible the Supreme Court has already said no, we’re not going to intervene. Or it’s possible they could have intervened, but I don’t know. Maybe the listeners can, can let us know. But this is your…

Andy 21:45
Maybe chat wants to do some research for us on the fly here real quick. Well get on it.

Larry 21:49
This is your this is your department of justice at work.

Andy 21:52
and who who appoints the Justice Department.

Larry 21:55
That would be the president of the United States.

Andy 21:58
So we get what we vote for, is that what we’re saying?

Larry 21:59
Well I’m saying that the attorney general appears to be saying things inconsistent with what the department of justice is doing. He publicly states that he wants the BOP to release people. But then his very department is standing in the way of the BOP releasing people. I’m suggesting there might be a little bit of duplicity here.

Andy 22:20
And is this a like Supreme Court of the US or Ohio supreme court? It’s gotta be. Yeah, yes, it’s Ohio federal prison. It’s not a state level prison. Just wanted to make sure. And then we have over at the AP Gov overruled Deputy Attorney General to deny prisoners unemployment, Larry this I don’t even see how this would work. Just like, I don’t necessarily think that having a job in prison is a privilege, per se. But if you then go on and get laid off because of COVID, I don’t, I don’t see the conditions that you would collect unemployment in that, like, you’re not paid standard wages. So your unemployment would be you know, here’s your $5 a week unemployment check.

Larry 23:00
I didn’t understand it that way. the way I interpret this. These were people working regular jobs. These were work release jobs where they weren’t working in prison industries. They were working in the community. It says Maine inmates whose work release jobs were suspended because of the pandemic were paid nearly 200,000 in unemployment benefits. And now, we just got through. I tried to discreetly bash the the Nationals administration with the Attorney General. Now this is a democrat governor. So I’m following the bashing of the of the Trump administration for being duplicitous with a very scathing bashing of a democrat administration at the state level. If if they were eligible for these benefits and their work release jobs in the community. And they’re not allowed to do these work release jobs. It seems like to me the governor the democrat governor is overstepping the democrat governor’s authority by by squashing these benefits

Andy 23:56
because they’re federal benefits.

Larry 23:58
Well, no unemployment benefits by and large are state. And we could spend a whole show on this. But But the basic benefits are paid by the employers into an insurance fund by contributions that are made based on the industry. different industries have different contribution rates. Some industries have high levels of seasonality and layoffs, and they’ll pay a higher rate of unemployment, compensation, insurance into the unemployment fund. And then you have the federal supplement, which has come about as a result of the pandemic, they have added the $600 a week to the basic state benefit, and then they’ve added a new eligibility group for for the gig workers because traditional unemployment, since it’s paid by employers, if you’re a gig worker, you’re not paying into that system. So we have a new group of covered people that the feds are picking up and then we have the $600 a week for each eligible person that the feds are picking up. But basically unemployment benefits are managed and funded at the state level.

Andy 24:50
Then why do you think she’s overstepping her bounds?

Larry 24:54
Because, I haven’t done great research into to Maine law but I’m sure that that that the the the employers have contributed into this system. They’re unemployed by no fault of their own. And that’s the basic qualifications for the state benefits. It’s not whether we like you or not, or whether we would prefer that you not have them. If your employer has contributed into the system, and you have a sufficient qualifying wages in the base period, which is usually four of the most five completed quarters, and you did not separate by fault of your own, you’re entitled to benefits. (Andy: Alright.) Now there’s one other component, one other component, usually you have to be able, available and actively seeking work. Theoretically, if you’re not if you’re in prison on work release, you might not be actively seeking work, but they’ve suspended the actively seeking work during this pandemic. So most states are not enforcing the seeking work requirement. So therefore, I think she’s overstepped her authority because the law provides for this. If she doesn’t like this, she should call her legislature in session and ask that they change the law.

Andy 25:54
And and also like we are paying people to stay home so that they don’t need jobs. For This period of time, so that they’re not out there, like infecting everybody. I mean, that’s like the whole point of the 600 bucks and the 30 million I don’t remember the latest numbers, the 30 million people that are unemployed. I mean, the point of that is to keep them home and infecting all of humanity with the crud.

Larry 26:15
Well, it’s it’s 40 million now, but who’s counting? Yeah. But but the the, we don’t, it’s like but Social Security benefits when you when you’re eligible based on one of the qualifying conditions. Social Security is not a means tested program. Unemployment is not a means tested program. It doesn’t matter whether you need the money or not. If you file a claim, and you’re eligible, yes, it’s one of those things where your employer has contributed to the system. And as long as you meet the requisite requirements of having a covered wages in the appropriate quarters, and you’re able available and actively seeking work, you’re entitled to the benefits for the for the duration. Now the southern states like yours, and in particular North Carolina, they’ve reduced the basic 26 week package down to like 12 to 18 weeks. Because their theory is the faster you cut people’s benefits off, the faster they’ll find work. But the basic unemployment package runs 26 weeks. So then, when we’re in high times of employment, the feds typically supplement that by extending in 13 week increments and like in the last recession, it was extended toward the basic package turned into 100 weeks of eligibility, which was just shy of two years.

Andy 27:24
I gotcha. Um, we’ll see how this plays out, then. Let’s move on.

Larry 27:29
I think i think i think i think someone’s gonna have to file a court challenge.

Andy 27:33
That could be the way to go. This next article comes from ajc.com. And the title is former Georgia governor leads push for federal criminal justice reform. I have to tell you, Larry, that I sat in on a couple sessions, where there was like a criminal justice reform Group here in Georgia. And someone sitting next to me goes, man, there’s something about Nathan Deal and he just really has he’s just very Determined to help people recover from prison and move on and do the right thing. And even though he was Team Red, he was very focused on some criminal justice things. And I only heard good things about him from that side of the equation. And so here he is trying to to push that that ball move the needle with a criminal justice reform Task Force.

Larry 28:21
And due credit to Governor former governor Diehl from Georgia. He was he was one of those rare pragmatic republicans that are harder and harder to find. And he he did, he did in spite of being in a very conservative state, he did lead the charge towards criminal justice reform. And he’d really showed an enormous amount of courage and when he vetoed the bathroom bill, the the after after, remember all the controversy that we had about bathrooms? (Andy: I totally totally remember.) and and the Georgia assembly falling dutifully in line past a bathroom that you will use the bathroom that’s assigned on your birth certificate. Now he vetoed that. And and he he, he did consider the adverse impact on business. But also if he, if he had wanted to succumb to the wishes of the Georgia, citizens of Georgia, he would have signed that because the citizens as spoken through their lawmakers, they wanted that bill passed. Not everybody. But of majority of Georgians were for that, and he vetoed it. So he he’s, he has been, he’s been an amazingly moderate person to serve in government, government. And I think he’s ideally suited to lead this charge because he won’t be accused of being a liberal do gooder who’s just hell bent on churning people out of prison and releasing a tidal wave of crime on society. They will never attack a republican for that. He has the credentials of credibility. And he’s just, he’s one of the best suited people for the job. And I’m glad he’s glad he’s in a position of that he is

Andy 29:58
perfect, and I wanted to Put that right up against the the courthouse news articles. It says Florida’s pay to vote law ruled unconstitutional. We’ve talked about the difference of when it says that you will, I forgot the way that it words it, that you will pay all fines and fees and restitution before you will get your voting rights back. And, and you worded it differently. But so what is included? Like if it says all of the things, then don’t you have to do all of the things but they ruled that as being some kind of poll tax, that you have poor people that can’t afford the lowest of fines, and you have rich people that can afford all of the fines and that sets up a discriminatory policy of who can vote and who cannot. So this judge said can’t do it, which I like.

Larry 30:45
Well, it has 125 pages. It’s the longest I can recall in the history of the podcast of a decision. So therefore I did a skim read in preparation today.

Andy 30:56
How dare you!? It’s double spaced, it only makes it look like 60 pages.

Larry 31:03
Is that all? So the the, the key points I think I briefly touched on and the judge makes it clear on page two the order holds that the state can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting and payment on amounts a person is unable to pay or on payment of taxes, even those those labeled as fees or costs. And I went throughout it marking in highlights things that that I thought were really interesting. And as I started getting closer to the podcast, I started skimming even more, so I’m sure I missed some very important stuff. But what we what we what I figured out when reading this was that it wasn’t so simple as as it’s the language actually looks like it favors the the republicans who this was, according to the decision was a straight party line vote that passed this in the legislature and was was was this way a straight, straight partisan thing. But it looks like that the the the amendment was the language supports their position because it says on page eight, except as provided in Subsection B any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence, including parole probation. Now, that begs the question, if you only cared about probation or parole, why did you put in there all terms of sentence? What does all terms mean?

Andy 32:35
Could be like classes that’s another thing, sort of treatment kinds of classes or DUI classes, things of that nature.

Larry 32:41
Well couldn’t it be economic as well. Couldn’t it be restitution?

Andy 32:44
Totally, totally. But doesn’t that so I saw people in treatment that they couldn’t pay and the doctor would still see them. He just added it to their bill and they wouldn’t graduate. If you want to call it graduate, whatever, wouldn’t terminate the class until they had paid all the The fees owed, but some people got a pretty significant discount based on their economic standings.

Larry 33:07
So well, but But back to the the importance of drafting. This was a constitutional amendment something you were going to put in the Constitution of Florida. Why did you not make it clear what all obligations, all terms of sentence? Because clearly, you didn’t just care about parole or probation, because you would have just said upon completion of parole probation, what did you mean, by all terms of sentence?

Andy 33:34
And that’s worded that they just rolled the Fourth Amendment back. Like they just said, hey, let’s just take this out. Because I mean, the Fourth Amendment was like, Hey, if you’re a felon, no voting for you period, and two thirds of the voters in Florida, reversed that in 2018.

Larry 33:49
64.5% I think it was almost two thirds but but but but again, I’m struggling on the drafting. How is it, a constitution amendment is important stuff. You’re changing the Constitution of either the United States or the state of Florida. If it was that important to change the constitution, why is it not clear what you meant? Why did you leave so much ambiguity? But in the trial, which this wasn’t decided by summary judgment, they actually had an old fashioned trial on this. It came out in trial, that it was impossible to figure out what people owed, (Andy: Right) because of all the the the accounts being sold, the judgments not being available, depending on the age of the case, how they calculated the interest into it. Well, if if if part of the part of the lead had been collected, how much it had been properly recorded to the county, and did they get credit for the amount they paid or just the amount that the system retrieved because the collection agency got a cut, there were just all these problems and trying to figure out, even if you’re going to interpret it to include financial obligations, how do we know what you owe? How do we know what you’ve paid? And how do we deal with the fact if you can’t pay? And it was just so haphazardly done for a constitutional amendment, that that, and the state, of course, argued that, that if you strike the thing then the whole constitution amendment has to fall, and we go back to the status quo, and the judge said, Nope, doesn’t work like that.

Andy 35:21
and what do you think about the impact that this particular ordeal has against at least the surrounding states, if not all, 73? How many states do we have now? somewhere up there? Ah, I know that it’s supposed to impact the directly connecting states fairly significant because I think they have similar prohibitions from people, not necessarily like just prohibited from voting, but you have to pay your fines and fees and stuff before you can get voting rights back.

Larry 35:44
Well, this would directly affect the 11th circuit, which is Georgia, Florida and Alabama, that this case is going to be appealed. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind, I will unequivocally say that Governor Desantis will insist that this be appealed with all the vigor that the state of Florida can muster. Because we have got to get this liberal lifetime Clinton appointed judge overturned at the 11th circuit. And the 11th circuit is by all professional accounts much more conservative. In fact, I think there’s one or two justices formerly Desantis had appointed to the state court have now been appointed to the 11th circuit by President Trump. So he will want that he will want the opportunity to argue in front of his judges, so there’s no doubt in my mind this will be appealed.

Andy 36:33
I Do do do do understand, and I think that we have a companion article it says a game changer five takeaways from Sunday’s ruling on felon voting. And that yes, just expands out what we’ve just been talking about.

Larry 36:47
That’s that’s what it was in there. But another solution is to say, well, we don’t restore anyone. And that’s the risk of this is that it’s like, when you when you do good, remember Park versus the state of Georgia with a GPS monitoring? (Andy: Mm hmm.) Well, the legislature comes back and they’re going to pass a law that put it into the statute again. But the if if this if if the 11th circuit does not affirm the district judge, if they overturn the district judge, we’re back to square one. But if they don’t overturn the district judge, if they affirm and uphold the district judge, what the what the people in Florida that are so dead set against felon voters because they said in the trial, they read transcripts, that this appeared to be fear of democrat votes, because everybody knows, according to, this came out in trial, this is not Larry saying this. But what came out of trial was that these people, these African Americans, they all vote democratic. Everybody knows that. Maybe that they that they don’t want to take the chance of having democrat voters so they just may not enact a new statute. They may not. You might not be able to get get something like this enacted again. They may demagogue this so much. I mean, We don’t know how this is gonna play out. All we know is that a bad amendment was adopted. It was not clear what the intent was. We know that the Florida Legislature passed a bill to put it to what they thought was intended of what satisfied them but they got the governor signature. And we know that the district federal judge has said it’s unconstitutional what the legislature did. That’s what we know. But we don’t know where this is going.

Andy 38:24
Of course not. Well, I think we should let people vote. It’s just my opinion.

Larry 38:27
Not when they’re gonna vote Democrat.

Andy 38:29
Yes, because that would make them bad.

Larry 38:31
Of course it would.

Andy 38:33
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 registrymatterscast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message (747)227-4477 want to support Registry Matters on a monthly basis? Head to Patreon.com/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. How about that article over at courthouse news. Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of a black man? Like, huh, what is this all about Larry?

Larry 39:32
Well, this is one of the saddest things we’ve that we’ll be talking about tonight. This is in Minneapolis. I suspect probably every listener knows what we’re talking about. I suspect that this may be a game changer in terms of what we do about police misconduct, but we have talked about police misconduct throughout the history of this of this program. And in fact, I think you have a little special For people, how much we’ve talked about, don’t you?

Andy 40:02
I do and I know for certain that things were missed because after I put all this together, I was thinking of the time where the cop like tased the kid in his head like smashed on the ground. I didn’t find that one. I did a I did some snazzy Google searches and put this together. So about two minutes long. Episode 69, recorded March 24, 2019. And another article from the appeal is Albany police shot a teen in the back and paralyzed him. The DEA said it was justified. Now so I think that if you run away from the police, they have the right to shoot you. (Larry: I don’t see a problem with it). Let’s go into this that article. Episode 106. Recorded December 15, 2019. A police officer shot a fleeing teen. It was a second on-duty killing in less than a year. This is from the Washington Post. Episode 39 recorded August 27, 2018. From the guardian and hundreds dead no one charged the uphill battle against the Los Angeles Police killing. Tell us about this one.

Larry 41:01
Well, I put it in here because it gives me a chance to pontificate about the citizens. But the real purpose of it was to draw attention to the huge number of citizens that are killed across this country at the hands of law enforcement and how nonchalant we are about it. It’s like I believe the count was 370 In the article.

Andy 41:18
Episode 113, recorded February 2, 2020. A police corporal in Maryland was charged with second degree murder on Tuesday in the fatal shooting of a suspect who had been handcuffed in the front passenger seat of his patrol car the previous night. Why do we let cops kill people when they’re handcuffed? I still am baffled by this whole thing all the time.

Larry 41:40
Well, I don’t think we’re letting them do it. I think you read the article he’s been charged,
the question is…

Andy 41:44
He has been charged but that would be the sort of like the weird part of this is that somebody is actually getting charged with something

Larry 41:49
well, that’s that was gonna be the point I was gonna make. whether it be convicted, convicting a police officer is very, very difficult.

Andy 41:55
Episode 108, recorded December 29, 2019. All right, this next article comes from the Washington Post. Police slammed a man’s head into a car that they thought he had stolen video shows. And then he died. Episode 74. Recorded April 28, 2019. Let’s head on over to Baltimore where I don’t know how this guy actually survived. How did the police shoot a guy 44 times and forgive me for the way I’ve just I’m gonna be blunt. How does this guy not die?

Larry 42:27
I think they hope he does or did.

Andy 42:30
So that’s the little montage of how many times like, I don’t know, half dozen eight times that we’ve talked about people being to some degree assaulted or died in the police in the hands of the police.

Larry 42:43
I remember we had one where where a student was body slammed by a police school resource officer was

Andy 42:49
That’s true. Oh man, I totally Yeah, you’re right. You’re right. You’re right.

Larry 42:52
Yes. And, and we’ve got we’ve got a problem, which we’re going to try to dissect a little bit but the problem is really us, when you look in your mirror each day, the problem is in that mirror, we have not been willing to impose control on our police, they have been able to do this without any accountability. And the police are not going to be able to impose that control on themselves. We are going to have to rise to the occasion, and tell the police what they’re allowed to do, and what they’re not allowed to do. And if they do what they’re not allowed to do, we’re going to have to impose discipline up to and including putting them in and in prisons. And that’s that’s what that’s what it’s going to take and this violence in Atlanta is really personal to me because it’s so close to my home. And I know we’ve got some clips I wanted to play from the mayor of Atlanta, because I want to make it clear, Registry Matters doesn’t condone violence. Neither does the mayor of Atlanta or any any players that I’m aware of. But I want to give some context of what what has brought us to this point. And so we can we can We roll the clip of Mayor Mayor Bottoms from Atlanta?

Andy 44:05
Absolutely. Here we go.

Bottoms (Audio Clip) 44:06
If you care about this city, then go home and pray that somebody like Reverend Beasley will come and talk to you and give you some instructions on what a protest should look like. And how you effectuate change. This police chief made a video on yesterday pull it up on YouTube, where she said she was appalled to watch the murder of George Floyd. This woman did that. You’re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. You’re not protesting anything running out with brown liquor in your hands breaking windows in this city. TI Killer Mike own half the west side. So when you burn down the city, you’re burning down our Community. If you want change in America go and register to vote show up at the polls on June 9 do it in November. That is the change We need in this country. You are disgracing our city. You are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country,

Andy 45:10
Go out and vote huh Larry?

Larry 45:12
That was the point of that. She was very eloquent She went on to, to this was not just talking down to calling people thugs, which we’re going to hear from, from a former Obama administration official in the next clip, and although we don’t condone violence, and we prefer that things be resolved through our processes, what do people do when the processes are not able to respond and to resolve or even address these issues? So let’s let’s listen to Van Jones now.

Van Jones (Audio Clip) 45:46
hurt people holler hurt people holler. And one of the things that we’re dealing with right now is it’s hard to speak up when you see injustice when things are going wrong and things department first starts to go sour. When you start seeing things that don’t make sense, but if you speak up and you’re not heard, then you might shout. if you shout and and then you’re still not heard, then you might scream. If you scream and you’re still not heard, then you might throw something. Look at your own children, and how they act when there’s something desperately wrong and no one will listen, people go to more and more extreme forms of expression and then of action, not to justify it. But that’s there. So if you are concerned about lawlessness, and by the way, I’m raising two black boys in Los Angeles, I’m not a part of any pro Riot lobby or any pro crime lobby. I want peaceful streets, but I know that if I want to end lawlessness in LA, I’ve got to make sure there is not lawlessness in the police precincts in LA.

Andy 46:51
So, there’s there’s Van Jones.

Larry 46:52
And there’s the frustration because as as I was doing research for this, we have we have an article from the New York Times. The last time this country was focusing on police abuse was back in 2014, when when Obama was president, and in the preceding year of 2013, this article from the TIMES talks about police killings now, folks, we’re just talking about the police who have killed citizens. We’re not talking about the tasings. We’re not talking about the pepper spray. We’re not talking about the smashings on the hood of the car. We’re not talking about the the the pretextual arrest that or we’re not talking about all the type. We’re just talking about people who have died at the hands of the police. There were 1111 in 2013, according to the TIMES. In 2019, which is the most recent data we have there was 1099. So we’ve had through the intervening years 1050 to 1100 people killed at the hands of the police. That means that all the screams, all the talking, all of the protests that were peaceful have yielded absolutely no discernible result. What do you expect people to do? After seven years of this being on the forefront of we’ve got to do something about what the police are doing in our cities. And then seven years later, there’s been no discernible change. It would be natural to expect people to exhibit some level of frustration. Again, don’t burn up buildings don’t break windows, but it would be rational to expect people to be frustrated.

Andy 48:33
2013 marks a significant event. I think that would be the the year prior to and I’m sure I’m sure there were wrongful-type deaths before this, but somehow Eric Garner became what we’ll call a case number one, maybe this was the dude in New York that was selling cigarettes on the street, and he got put in the the chokehold and he’s saying, I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe, and there’s six officers surrounding him as he gets choked out and dies. So like, I I’m sure that’s not case number one, and I don’t want to be insensitive to that. But that seems to be like where this whole. This whole thing started is with that particular person, it was 2013 in the graph that I have up on the screen is showing 1111 deaths in 2013. And the number hasn’t appreciably changed in the following years after 2013.

Larry 49:21
And that was the era when we had Laquan McDonald in Chicago and Tamir Rice in Cleveland. We had these high-profile cases that made national news. And, and then the Ferguson case I forget the name of the one in Ferguson, Missouri, but there was quite an uproar. And we had President Obama who tried to bring the Department of Justice the powers of the federal government and all these all these local agencies that were violating people’s citizen civil rights and my city of Albuquerque, we ended up having our police department ended up we were having a lot large number of police shootings, I think we had something on the order of 30 within about a 13 month period of time here. And the DOJ came in here we, we have made dramatic reforms the police department here has has has changed a lot of their protocols in terms of how they deploy force. This, they’ve got a long way to go. But things are a lot better than they were. But this administration, the Trump administration, has called off the attack dogs. They say that we need to let the police police themselves.

Andy 50:23
I was just gonna ask that.

Larry 50:25
That is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Andy 50:29
Can you expand on this? As I understand it during the previous administration, they had started to some degree like the federal level was investigating the city and the state level police units and and that all got shut down Jeff Sessions like, Hey, we’re gonna turn all that shit off and they shut all of those investigations down.

Larry 50:47
That is That is correct. Now the decrees that were already entered into, are still enforced like the one with the Albuquerque Police but but they are not seeking out any police misconduct at the federal level for civil rights investigations. This administration believes that it’s best left to the locals. And therefore, we’re going to probably have a continued level of maybe hopefully this will get their attention. I can’t speak for the administration, but I’m hoping that it does get their attention. But the reason why the Obama administration was in these communities doing these investigations is because the locals have not done what they need to do to oversee their police. It’s you in Louisville, it’s you that elect the city councilors, it’s you who elect the mayor, it’s those people who decide how the police department operates, and they have abdicated that responsibility all across the country. They believe that police operations are too complicated for civilian oversight. And therefore we let the police police the police and we see what we get from the from this result. The police are not capable of policing themselves.

Andy 51:54
Who should oversee it Larry, should it be Mother Teresa that oversees the police?

Larry 51:57
Well, I don’t have the I don’t have the exact model. But it should be civilian oversight. The police are accountable to the citizens they serve. And the citizens they serve, that they provide service to should be the ones who tell them what type of equipment they can use, what the rules of engagement are, whether you can choke a person out with a particular hold are not. Those should be things that we decide, we will not allow you to do this we will not allow you to handcuff anybody less than a certain age. These are our rules for society. And if you don’t like these rules, there’s a there’s a solution for you. Don’t put on the uniform don’t become a police officer for this city. It’s not that complicated. If you believe you should be able to handcuff a nine year old then go work for a department that allows that we don’t allow that here.

Andy 52:44
Yeah, good grief. We did have one of those too, didn’t we? I forgot about it. He was younger than nine, the girls like screaming for Mom and Dad Mom and Dad and like that Yeah, okay, that wasn’t even that long ago. Totally forgot about that one.

Larry 52:57
You know, we’ve we’ve had and the Citizens somehow believe that they should not take control of their police. And I don’t understand where that comes from. And I would like for a person on the other side to chime in with us and tell us why it is we’re not capable of overseeing the police. we oversee the United States military. President Trump gives the orders. The generals follow the orders. The Secretary of Defense is a civilian, but for some reason we’re not capable of overseeing our law enforcement, really?

Andy 53:28
I got to think that our military is is at least some tiny tiny little bit more complicated than the police forces. So let’s let me let me throw this at you. I’m thinking about this off the cuff though. Like we have a federal armed forces that is only under the most extreme circumstances they are not allowed to be on American soil to to deal with. That’s why we have National Guard’s because they are not trained. They are not equipped to handle our civilians. So that’s why We deploy them overseas to handle like, Big Boy stuff, I guess you could say. But the police force like they have the little slogans on the cars that’s supposed to say to serve and to protect. I think serve means like, Hey, you serve me as the citizen and then to protect you’re supposed to protect me. You’re not supposed to put your knee in my neck and choke me out. that’s not serving or protecting.

Larry 54:22
Well, Andy, I agree. And I see a glimmer of hope in this with a silver lining that is, you know, I listen to a lot of conservative points of view. I don’t just listen to one point of view. And I heard on the Rush Limbaugh program, which I believe is the most listened to radio program in America at least he purports to be with a weekly audience of 50 million.

Andy 54:43
I could see that. I can see that he is

Larry 54:46
he he has he has not justified that. And Rush is typically able to justify what the police do. He was not able to justify he had a guest host this last week because he’s got health issues. He’s got lung cancer, and the Poor guy is it is in a lot of struggle for for his life, but he had a guest host and the guest hosts usually are lockstep with with the law enforcement. The guest hosts, I forget his name, last Thursday, was not able to justify. We’ve got a former in New Mexico, former Sheriff of bernalillo County and the the secretary, the cabinet secretary for the department of public safety, which that would encompass the state police force here. He unequivocally on his talk show made it clear that this was not justified, and he’s disappointed. Darren White is who I’m talking about. Darren made it clear that that he didn’t understand why other officers did not intervene. And he feels like there’s criminal culpability. And to Darren’s credit, and I have not been a big fan but to Darren’s credit, he was very reasonable on this and he’s been very reasonable on his talk show in terms of the COVID-19 and being fair to to all the officials. He has not been partisan. He has been right down the middle and and he has he has a emerged as the moderate on a station that is notoriously conservative on KKOB. He’s basically he’s the moderate, picture that, the former sheriff, the former cabinet secretary for the department of public safety being the moderate on the largest list of two station in New Mexico KKOB.

Andy 56:24
tell me your thoughts on this. And we have a few more points to go over before we close out on this one. Why do you think it is that this event has have the cup runneth over, so to speak. I mean, we’ve been talking about this for years. And finally, this seems to be the one that gets all has brought everyone to the forefront. I saw a picture of, you know, a bunch of white women standing in front of a line of police officers like they were they built a human wall between the police and the protesters and which is kind of ridiculous on its own, but it just goes to show about some white privilege in the united states that the police are not going to go attack a bunch of white women. But the protesters behind there are now being protected by a bunch of white women, which is redonkulous.

Larry 57:09
I think it’s a combination of things that have come together. The first is this one is so blatant. There are a lot of apologists for the police that want to…the average citizen who who, who considers them self a law and order person. They see the police as the only difference between them and anarchy. And they do believe anarchy is just around the corner, they do not realize that the crime rate has been plummeting. And this is the safest time to be alive. The average middle-class white person doesn’t realize that and, and, but this, there’s no denying, denying this, you can’t watch a person suffocate and their life just evaporate in front of your eyes. It’s hard to continue to justify that now. I did talk to an acquaintance of mine who did want to justify it who said that he would like to see the rest of the video and I said, Well, there is no more Video unless the police has it. This was video captured by a bystander. This is all that they got when they got on the situation. But if the police followed their protocols, and used their body cams, they can release whatever video they have. But I think that that is the culmination of, of the political season. You do not want to be on the wrong side of this coming into an election cycle. And so this has struck at the chord. The media is all over it. It’s undeniable that this is wrong. And I think that the politicians are going to have a hard time ignoring this. And I think that’s what’s come together in this and even middle class America who wants to find a reason to justify the police. They’re having a hard time watching a person be deprived of their life when they’re in handcuffs, facedown, you what, what can you say?

Andy 58:50
I want to make sure to acknowledge one of our listeners, like a very loyal longtime listener here in the state with me and I’ll leave them anonymous that he saw someone I don’t know the circumstances but he saw someone murdered in prison. And he is likening this to something along those lines and he’s having like very severe issues and he’s very upset this has really like messed him up and I just want to make sure to acknowledge that this video if you I don’t want to watch it, frankly, Larry, I saw clips of it and I just I just I’m not trying to say that I don’t care. I certainly care. But I don’t I don’t want to have these images in my head either. But I certainly want to recognize that people are having this is some really tough stuff to try and digest.

Larry 59:33
It is and what’s really particularly sad for me is with the existing police oversight in Minneapolis apparently if the reports are accurate, he had been this officer the the primary actor what was his name, Shelvin, he had been reported to the for 18 internal affairs investigations. Now, I think we should conclude at some point, you’re going to get a complaint no matter how nice you are. There are gonna be people who are going to make complaints to try to gain an advantage. So therefore every complaint has to be start with the presumption that that the officer didn’t do anything wrong and the evidence is yours to bear is the accusing party. I stand with that. But after 18 of them, if that’s accurate, at some point police management ought be asking what is going on with this officer? Because 18 is representative of hundreds more that didn’t file complaints because you have no faith in this system that is going to do anything to remedy your complaint. only a few people would file complaints. So this would be indicative of a large amount of issues with this police officer. Why didn’t administration do anything?

Andy 1:00:43
Yeah, it there’s so many questions surrounding it. Even in like the little montage that I did where we cover the cop in in California that this was his second killing in a year. I think it was the way that it was worded. Which is insane that we Have a armed and shielded, like physically shielded. But then on the other side of that when they end up somehow being questioned and challenged in a in like, if their actions were justified, then either the police administration won’t do anything about it. And then if they are brought to court in some kind of way, they will not be indicted. And if they’re brought to court all the way through, the jury will not convict them. I mean, it’s like, all the way from the top to the bottom. There’s nothing being done to the officers, which kind of in a roundabout way would say, Go forth and do what you want to do because no one’s gonna hold your hand and put your feet to the fire.

Larry 1:01:37
That is true. Now this particular case, you know, I can’t help but reverting back to my defense orientation it’s going to be really hard for this officer get a fair trial. I mean, the the public opinion is so massive and he has every right to a fair trial. He doesn’t have to plead guilty and they’re not gonna even offer him a plea bargain The only way he could plead would be straight up down to the to the charge, but they’re not gonna offer him any inducement to plead. And this is one of those cases where you just can’t offer a plea of any type of favorable terms for a plea. But he’s entitled to robust representation. He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence. It’s supposed to follow him to the conclusion of the proceedings. And he’s entitled to cross examined vigorously anyone who’s coming in to testify against him. He’s entitled to all these things. And I will say that unequivocally and I always revert back to I wish the police would say the same thing about someone who’s outside the uniform, who’s accused of a crime. I wish they would be as adamant as I am about what this man is entitled to. He is an innocent person. Even though we saw what we saw in the eyes of the law, he is still innocent until that gavel comes down, and the jury verdict has read. And if it’s guilty, he has to be presumed innocent all the way till the conclusion of the proceeding. And that’s just the way our system is supposed to work. And he is not revictimizing anybody If he cross examines people who testify against him, that is not a victimization. That’s forcing the state to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Andy 1:03:10
Will is adamant that I ask you this question. Do you think that the people that have released videos of it, do you think that there’s any sort of risk that they will be retaliated against by the by the police force?

Larry 1:03:21
Sure. There’s always that risk, I don’t know that they’d be able to determine how the video because I think it was, well, I guess you could figure out how If it was posted on Facebook Initially, I guess you could figure out who, but but it to the extent that the police can figure it out, they’re going to be hard pressed to do anything to these people officially, but what about the unofficial stuff? What about the What about the pretextual engagement? And just the harassment, you know, you’re going 36 in a 35.

Andy 1:03:49
Right, Exactly.

Larry 1:03:51
And I don’t know what you can do about that. Hopefully, hopefully that this case will resolve itself and justice is done and hopefully that this will be a beginning of a trend towards us asserting control over our police forces in this country. Folks, you can’t just sit and stand back and I’d like wait for it to fix itself. It is not going to fix itself. It cannot fix itself.

Andy 1:04:14
So some threads of the chat I mean, like chat is super lively tonight, Larry. I know you don’t watch it but holy crap, it’s very popular. Hey over on the discord server, if you want to engage in chat with us, then you can you can find links in the show notes to enjoy chatting with all of us and people peppering questions, but so I forget which quote it was from the mayor or the other gentleman that spoke about voting like voting has consequences, but Teresa is saying that this is so far beyond voting to get this stuff fixed. And while I don’t want to discount Teresa’s fury over this, I don’t know how else we do fix this. If we don’t have our elected people to trickle down what is acceptable so that our sheriffs trickle down what is acceptable and so forth? Like, to me this is the only thing to me is our voting is the avenue that we have to fix this.

Larry 1:05:08
I understand where she’s coming from. When it’s this bad and this systemic, you’re looking for a silver bullet, but there really isn’t one, there’s no silver bullet like there is in our issue. There’s no silver bullet for fixing this. This is going to involve, each each police agency is managed in a different way. You may have the chief of police may be solely hired by the mayor’s in our case, or it may be that they need city council or city aldermen or whatever they call them in your particular city approval. In the case of sheriff’s offices, they’re generally elected. So you have you have all these different different mechanisms to bring that that that that are going to require a different type of fix. If it’s if it’s the mayor that appoints the police chief and it’s his or her decision entirely. Well, then you’re gonna have to ask the mayor these candidates for Mayor these tough questions, but but it is the political process. It is the taxpayers who fund the police. And it’s the taxpayers who make the rules. The police only get to make the rules because we are allowing that to happen The police cannot bring any equipment on the streets of Albuquerque that we do not allow them to have. It’s not their decision, whether they have tanks operating on the streets of Albuquerque, that’s our decision. It’s not their decision, whether they have helicopters, it’s our decision. It’s not their decision about how they engage with citizens in terms of standard operating procedures. We’ve delegated the SOPs, the creation of SOPs to the police. But ultimately, we can control those processes. We can tell them these are the SOPs these are what you will do. And I understand you don’t need to send me emails, there will be some people who will resent that and they will not want to be a police officer. That is good, because you do not want people who do not want to be subject to civilian oversight being a police officer. So therefore, I say Knock yourself out and go to someplace else. Because we will be able to fund, we will be able to fill our police openings with qualified candidates as you are leaving, trust me, there are way more applicants far more people apply than get accepted. And they get turned down for a number of reasons, including minor criminality, physical fitness, mental fitness. And sometimes they’re just not fast enough on the draw. When they do this, when they do the simulation training when they do the testing to find out if you’d be alive or dead as a cop. The systems tend to weed out people who don’t fire quickly enough. Who’s to say that that wouldn’t have been a good police officer? (Andy: Right.) So we may need to start revamping how we allow people to go through the process, we might need to open it up to people who are a little bit older, might be a little bit chubbier. They might be more representative of the community. We might need to, and in fact, I’m gonna say this we might need more women on the police forces because you don’t hear of women officers doing this. I’m not saying they’ve pierced the winter land snow. But I have not we have anything we’ve covered. I don’t think we’ve shot we’ve covered a fatal shooting of a female or a female officer. I don’t think we’ve covered a body slamming or anything but this the we’re always covering men when we’re talking about this stuff. So maybe that’s part of the answer.

Andy 1:08:22
Maybe so we should Institute some sort of quota of some like something close to 50/50.

Larry 1:08:27
Well, I don’t know if I, you know, quotas drive people bananas. But I think that that that our police ought to be more representative of the community. And being that women make up 50 plus percent of the population, we should do our best to represent that population, we should do our best to represent all the community that’s being policed. If the community is half black, we shouldn’t have a 95% white police force that’s not representative of the community. And that’s what a lot of southern cities have, you’ll have a community that’s 40% black, and a police force will be 85% white.

Andy 1:08:56
But Larry, we can’t even let women go to combat and I know that that has changed, but Just bear with me and roll the clock back to the 90s. We can’t let women go to combat we can’t have them be police officers too Can we?

Larry 1:09:05
Sure we can.

Andy 1:09:08
Do you think there is a sinister a cynical motivation here of of the politicians getting on board with this? You know, like Senator Rand Paul. I mean, that’s probably more like just in his wheelhouse of the no knock warrant but all of the other politicians getting on board and and denouncing this particular action. Do you think it’s because of the November election, you know, being six months away from now being such a big deal that we’re going to court the black vote by saying that this is something that we shouldn’t do is kill run around to kill black people?

Larry 1:09:38
I think that there’s every risk of that happening, because I’ve mentioned that earlier that we are in an election cycle. And I think that that’s helped politicians now feel the need to go out and take a strong position because this has this has connected with the people. There’s certain cases that connect with the people and I can’t explain it some of the media gurus that we have, why does Jessica Lynch catch the attention of America like they did in the Gulf War. Why? her team was she wasn’t the entire team. There was a whole group of people in that team that was some kind of transport convoy, if I remember right,

Andy 1:10:12
yes, you’re right. And she was a cute white girl. That’s why she that’s the same thing with JonBenet Ramsey. That’s Jessica Lunsford, is that. Who the…?

Larry 1:10:23
The daughter? Yes. I forgot the first name.

Andy 1:10:26
Yeah, that’s I think we have a pretty identified bias towards cute blonde haired white girls in the country. And yes, send all your hate mail me I’m sorry. But that is typically like a gender race bias that we have in the United States.

Larry 1:10:43
Well, clearly, this is not a cute white, blond headed, boy, but Trump has connected with the people. And I think the egregiousness is like most Americans think that they’re fair and that they’re open minded. We all think that. we think and your life Experience precludes you from understanding a lot of things you would not experienced. You and I don’t experience much interference with the police in our daily lives. We don’t we don’t have to explain why we’re in a particular location. We don’t have to open our trunk and let our consent to an inspection. We don’t encounter all this. So in our mind, it’s okay. And most of the time, you’ll have to admit that all your encounters with the police have been reasonably professional. I know when I’ve been pulled over I look back started Decades ago, when I first started driving. Every time I’ve encountered a traffic officer, by and large, they’ve been very professional. So our relationship with the police is not the same as the people in these communities of color where they don’t get the same treatment that we get. So as far as the Americans that have not encountered any of these problems, they’re invisible. They don’t they don’t see it the same way. But what they saw that they can’t deny it they saw a compliant individual in handcuffs with his face in the pavement being suffocated and you can’t make excuses for that anymore.

Andy 1:12:02
Now it seems I really struggle with he was resisting, he was facedown with cuffs behind his back. I like you can’t get up quickly. I mean, unless you’re Jackie Chan, some sort of Ninja Warrior. Perhaps you can like skirmish your way out like I like no, that’s not typically nobody’s going to be able to resist effectively in that kind of condition.

Larry 1:12:23
Well, one of the police officers, according to the article I forget which one of the four we’ve got here but one of the police officers said we need to roll him over. We need to get him, so he can breathe the officer apparently didn’t think much of that advice. My question is Why didn’t you take it to the next level? Why didn’t you say back off? (Andy: Yeah, put that guy in the chokehold!) Yeah. So it’s like you have a duty to protect at the point where you see the The suspect is compliant and life is in jeopardy. I think you had a duty to intervene and a citizen called In an the Rush Limbaugh, not to Rush Limbaugh, but the Darrel White show and asked what would have happened if he had interviewed and Whites said that it would not have been good, it would not have been pretty what would have happened if you tried to intervene. Particularly if you were a male, you might have gotten a little bit of slack if you had been a woman. But if, if a man tried to pounce in there and pull the cop off, that would not have been a pretty sight.

Andy 1:13:19
The only other thing and you know, we’ve been talking about this a while we can, can put this to rest here shortly. We we talked briefly on the phone earlier today about like, why didn’t any of the people that were observing, I don’t know how many people were there, observing this whole thing go down. But we started talking briefly about the bystander effect that everyone’s standing, there’s like, well, maybe somebody else will do something about it. If you’re the only one that is witnessing something like this, then you have the inclination to go well, no one’s gonna do anything but me so I will go jump in there. But when there’s 50 other people standing there, you always sort of like nudging the person next to you like hey, step in there and do something. And so nobody steps in and does anything because everybody’s waiting for Someone else to go do it.

Larry 1:14:01
That is true. The same thing happens in reverse when someone does something then you have though, you have the mob mentality set in and that’s why the police would not have been receptive to the intervention. they would they would they would have escalated dramatically if the citizens had started interfering. (Andy: Yeah, yeah). It would not have been pretty you would have had to bet on an older person and probably an older woman and if you could have screamed and scratched enough you they might not would have tased an old women, but then again they might would have so

Andy 1:14:32
all right, well, we can we can move on. I just I’m so I’m like deeply infuriated by this again, because it’s just ridiculous that it continues to happen. Ah, all right. Well, a couple last articles. The from propublica Bill Barr promised to release prisoners threatened by Coronavirus even as the Fed secretly made it harder for them to get out. This is related, I believe, to the first step act. And did I catch that one Right, or did I confuse this with something else?

Larry 1:15:02
Nope, you got it. You got it. Right. It’s correct

Andy 1:15:04
Hurray. And so there are there are reasons that people should be able to get out for some compassionate release. And I think Bill Barr is trying to help that move along. But then other places are not. so nobody’s getting out.

Larry 1:15:16
Well, I wouldn’t say Nobody I think they might, I think was it .2% or something.

Andy 1:15:23
Yes, it’s some stupidly low number.

Larry 1:15:24
it says the fewer prisoners have been released than was expected when the attorney general made its announcement, about 3050 inmates had been moved to home confinement as of May 21. That’s about 1.8% of the people in the bureau supervision. That figure significantly smaller than roughly 20% who fall into the to the minimal risk category. Now, when we say minimum risk, we’re talking about your security classification. If you are if you’re convicted of a sexual offense, you can only get as low as medium in the federal system. You cannot be at a minimum cap because of the community safety factor that you might start going off the prison campus And perving in the community. So we can’t have that. So the people that would fit within the risk group of having potential complications from from the virus, that 20% they’re nowhere near that at 1.8%. So they got they got one 10th of what of the people who already excludes our people, they’re not eligible to even be considered.

Andy 1:16:26
Ah, so the bottom line is, you get put behind the walls, and there’s not much that could happen, including a global pandemic that will help you get released.

Larry 1:16:35
And the point that my my sneaky motivation was putting it in here is because a lot of our people are very fond of the Trump administration. And they think that the Trump administration is doing all it can because when you listen to the Attorney General’s pronouncements, but the Attorney General’s Department of Justice is the the Bureau of Prisons is a part of the Department of Justice and the Bureau is not doing what the Attorney General is saying. So either we have an attorney general who’s duplicitous, or we have an insubordinate, BOP director and BOP administration, but the BOP is doing very little in their fact making it harder according to some some analysis. I couldn’t quite follow exactly what they’re doing. But the the implementation of the first step act they apparently are making it harder, but certainly there’s no massive number of people being released 3000 is a paltry amount. It’s significant if you’re one of the 3000. It’s very significant.

Andy 1:17:36
Oh, certainly. Certainly. Certainly, just like you bring up your New Mexico Riot thing if you got out on the 28th I think of February versus the 29th. You had a much better day.

Larry 1:17:44
You had a much better day.

Andy 1:17:45
All right. Then to close things out. We have an article from the Indiana lawyer it says removal from sex offender registry makes man’s case moot. Larry, this one has some some flipping back and forth like a game of Othello and it confuses me and I really hope that you can clarify what’s going on here?

Larry 1:18:01
Well, it’s very simple, Andy. (Andy: So you say.) It is. He was convicted in Maine, and he moved to Indiana. And he he was required to register because the Indiana determined he was substantially similar to the to the main offense. But then he challenged that because of some litigation in Indiana that that dealt with ex post facto. And the the court disagreed with him and said you have to register not because of the out of state interpretation, you have to register because your crime is an arrestable offense here. Well, the state decided to go back and look at the substantial, substantial similarity and they decided that he didn’t no longer have to register. So therefore, his case was mooted, which is a very, very fond trick that the state does. If you start gaining traction with your litigation, they find a way to give you the relief which makes the case no longer relevant, there’s no longer what is called the justiciable controversy because the person, he’s no longer having to register. So the state of Indiana mooted his case, they they said, whoops, well, upon closer review, it’s not such an equivalent offense and you don’t have to register. So we’re going to remove you from the registry. So then there was joint motion filed by by both sides saying that the controversy has ended. So the court had no no prerogative, but to say, Yep, the controversy is over.

Andy 1:19:27
So does he or does he not still have to register?

Larry 1:19:30
He doesn’t have to register. He already gotten relief. He’d already he’d already gotten relief in Maine by litigation from some years ago. They had they had a series of decisions in Maine but since he wasn’t living there, Maine couldn’t really release them from a DNS registration requirement. And that’s the misconception A lot of people have Well, I got off the registry. Oh, well, it doesn’t do anything because you’re not in that state. If you want to be off the registry and the state did let you off. Stay in that state.

Andy 1:19:55
Right. Okay. I thought I the way that this was sort of worded To me, the way it looks is that they almost They pulled the rug out from underneath him. And then he still had to register. But they removed the conditions like, I don’t know, that’s very confusing.

Larry 1:20:06
Yeah, they removed him from the registry and the joint motion to dismiss the case because of mootness. And that that that happens, I think it’s a it’s a more common. I think it happened in Maryland on a class action that they tried to get certified and the state removed everybody and asked for the court to dismiss it, and the court obligingly did. And the same thing is similar has happened to our case on out of state translations here. We’ve lost all of our plaintiffs in our case, it’s going to be mooted out potentially very soon. And it’s it’s it’s part of the litigation, and you can argue exception to the mootness doctrine. But why would you want to? If you’re wanting to get your client off the registry, and the state capitulates and says he’s off the registry, why would you want to keep litigating? the case is over.

Andy 1:20:51
Absolutely. sure. Perfect, perfect. You know, Brian in Louisiana in chat said he’s on his way out to do offshore work again. And he said this before he departed. He said Registry Matters is the number one Live podcast in the Gulf of Mexico, Larry. how about that?

Larry 1:21:06
In the whole Gulf of Mexico?

Andy 1:21:08
the whole Gulf of Mexico, he like puts up a hotspot and pays like big bucks so that he can listen. Listen to us do the live stream out there on his way out offshore. I thought that was an amazing compliment there. Can you imagine how many other programs we’re competing with in the Gulf of Mexico?

Larry 1:21:27
Yeah, and we have thousands of listeners in the Gulf of Mexico, I’m sure.

Andy 1:21:31
Could be true. Could be true. What else do we have to cover before we get out? am I forgetting anything Larry? Oh, well, you know, we have to cover, Our special guests that we were going to have this week was Christian and…

Larry 1:21:41
I see he is here.

Andy 1:21:42
Yes, he is here. And oddly, he lives in Minnesota. And there’s some kind of craziness going on there and with his particular job that there was extra work. So anyway, he arrived an hour late. So we’re going to kick him back to next week. And try and do that over next week, then have him as a guest.

Larry 1:22:00
That sounds fantastic.

Andy 1:22:00
On the sixth or something like that, I think is next week. Yeah, the sixth.

Larry 1:22:07
So, Can we have Lloyd on with us?

Andy 1:22:09
Uh, sure. Your your Lloyd in New Mexico?

Larry 1:22:10
No, his his Lloyd.

Andy 1:22:11
I mean, like, Okay. Yeah, I guess I didn’t know that We were doing that. But yeah, that’s fine.

Larry 1:22:17
I was waiting for him, We’re not going to get Lloyd to come on. That Lloyd is not going to come on. he’s a he’s a federal house, I think he’s still in the house of representatives. Right, Christian?

Andy 1:22:26
Oh, is that right? So, Larry, where can people find show notes? They can find links to the articles they can find anything else? Where do people have to go to find those things?

Larry 1:22:41
They need to go online.

Andy 1:22:43
Online like AOL. Like you have mail?

Larry 1:22:47
That would be one place or you could go to registrymatters.co

Andy 1:22:53
perfect registrymatters.co And I know that you love it when people leave voicemail. How would people dial in and leave some voicemail?

Larry 1:22:57
Well you go to your grandmother’s closet And you find the old telephone that she’s got stored in a box. It’s black and it has a circular thingy on it. I guess I call that a rotary dial and you plug it into an outlet at grandma’s house, and you and you start dialing the numbers you dial 1(747)227-4477

Andy 1:23:24
now I have a quick little detour story for you about this. When I first started getting into computers, I had a modem, and you could configure how it would dial. So you know, your your rotary phone would be like, that’s about how fast it went to the little clicks to register the phone number, you could change that configuration. So you could make you could make it go faster than the phone company could pick up. So you would have to find some sort of specific range where it would still pick up the digits. So you would make it like really, really, really fast at dialing, even though it was dialing with a rotary signal. How about that?

Larry 1:23:58
I remember those days.

Andy 1:24:00
Oh, yeah. And

Larry 1:24:02
did you did you ever have a box?

Andy 1:24:05
No, I never did any blue, gray, black. I never did any of those boxes. Yeah, that’s that’s a whole other conversation. How about sending in some email Larry? Where do people send email?

Larry 1:24:20
They send it to registrymatterscast@gmail.com.

Andy 1:24:27
And we had a whole bunch of new patrons to announce tonight and I can’t thank you, you people. I can’t thank you people enough. And where do people do that?

Larry 1:24:32
Oh, that would be patreon.com/registrymatters And, again, we would we would be happy with just half of your stimulus check.

Andy 1:24:44
What about if they have like four children? Are we doing half of the total or just half of the individual?

Larry 1:24:51
I think it’d be fair if we got half of the total cuz we’re we’re trying to work on behalf of the children also.

Andy 1:24:54
Oh, definitely. It’s because it’s all about…That’s funny, Larry. Well, we record the show usually on Saturday nights at 7pm. Eastern you can join the discord server and listen 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. If you would do me a favor and subscribe, this is doing yourself a favor to subscribe in your favorite podcast application whether that’s Apple, Google Stitcher, Pocket Casts, Overcast, whatever, you know, even YouTube by subscribing, you do two things. One, you make sure that you get every episode, the minute we post it, it’ll come right to you on your device. So you can have plenty of time for your Tuesday morning commute. If you’re commuting yet, I guess there’s a caveat there. But you’re also sending a signal to those apps. Hey, people listen to the show, and it will help other people discover it as well. At registrymatters.co You can find show notes and even transcripts, it gets every um, and it’s all in there. It’s just like reading, but you’re listening. That’s all I got Larry and I hope you have a fantastic rest of your weekend and watch out. Don’t get in the sun for too long because you get nice and toasty and crispy like me. Do you want to talk about your little photo real quick? I found a I found like an elementary school photo of you online. And what do you think about that photo? You think that’s…?

Larry 1:26:11
I think that’s a great photo. I didn’t know they had photos back then, but apparently I forgotten about it.

Andy 1:26:18
You can find that over on the YouTube stream that I’ve been putting together lately. Larry, as always, you are a Master of Information and explaining and you are the best and I super-duper appreciate it. And I hope you have a fantastic night.

Larry 1:26:31
Thank you. Thank you. Good night, everybody.

Andy 1:26:33
Bye bye.

Transcript of RM128: Grabarczyk in NC and T.S. in PA

Posted on May 18, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM128: Grabarczyk in NC and T.S. in PA

Andy 0:00
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 128 of Registry Matters. Happy Saturday night to you, Larry, how are you?

Larry 0:23
Fantastic. It’s 90 degrees here in the outdoors, and it’s 72 of the office. And it’s just fantastic.

Andy 0:31
That is amazing. It’s hot here today too. But it’s delightful. I’m tired of like, ups and downs, cold, hot, cold, hot back and forth. It’s crazy.

Larry 0:42
So well, you should be very happy then. Because it’s going to be a 95 everyday next week in Georgia.

Andy 0:45
Yeah, I suspect that we are. I mean, finally I mean, it’s the middle of May we are probably finally done with anything that resembles cold and now we’re just going to go into Inferno mode.

Larry 0:54
Well, it’ll it’ll get it’ll get worse as the weeks go along. I think the hot time is still August. Time is June.

Andy 1:02
Okay. Hey, we have a guest joining us tonight they you sprung me like 10 minutes ago.

Larry 1:06
It was 17 and 20 seconds to be precise.

Andy 1:10
Oh, sorry. We have a Robin Vander Wall. And Robin I forget the title. You are the executive vice chairman of the universe or something?

Robin 1:19
That’s exactly right. As well as president of the foundation that supports the universe.

Andy 1:28
And that would be the universe of NARSOL, correct?

Robin 1:31
That’s right, NARSOL, yes.

Andy 1:33
Okay. And the name of it is Vivante Espero?

Robin 1:36
Vivante Espero indeed. Vivante Espero.

Andy 1:40
That’s Latin-Greek, something for…?

Robin 1:42
It’s Esperanza. At least that’s what Brenda says.

Andy 1:46
Seriously? like the non-used language?

Robin 1:50
Exactly the one that they don’t resurrect Latin and it kind of just didn’t go over too well. But but hey, they converted Brenda.

Andy 1:59
It’s a It’s a neat line language that’s like crafted by our intellect of the modern day to like make a consistent set of rules of the guys like the the male, female and all that stuff.

Robin 2:10
Well, there was actually political motivation behind it there was a desire it was part of a group of people who would actually form the Nexusor the core of movements towards a more unified Europe. And of course, we saw the evolution of that in the European Union, but this guy I can’t remember his name, but he was very engaged in the idea that they needed a common language and if they had a common language, they could deal with their disputes more, I guess, less pugilisticly.

Andy 2:42
I see. Hey, take a quick breather real quick Robin. It appears as though Can you move your microphone either like down to your chin? Because you are panting and breathing a little bit?

Robin 2:52
Yeah, sorry. I hate to breathe.

Andy 2:54
If you could stop breathing that would be better.

Larry 2:56
Well, he reminds me of people who make obscene telephone calls.

Robin 3:01
I wouldn’t know anybody like that.

Andy 3:04
Nobody at all? Nobody? Nobody, nobody. Alright, so are we gonna go back in? Are we ready?

Larry 3:09
We are ready. Let’s do it. This is going to be a fun episode because we’ve got such a delightful rulings out of the court system both federal and state to talk about tonight.

Andy 3:20
Yeah, we do. Um, we should first thank, you received a gift in the mail, didn’t you?

Larry 3:27
I did. I received some fudge.

Andy 3:29
We had a listener, a very loyal listener, who offered to send in some fudge. He is a Patreon person. And we’ll just say that his name is Justin and I can’t thank you enough that is super generous and kind for anyone to think of us and I’m pretty sure it’s homemade too.

Larry 3:46
It is indeed he put a lot of effort into it plus the cost but the girlfriend packed it up in some nice containers. I don’t even buy containers like that for myself. So I use the little throwaway ones that you buy other products in and then you save them after you wash them but there are these nice lockable containers and it did get a little soft because it was in the outdoor package box for hours before I realized it was there because with the building closed all they do is just leave the key in the regular mailbox so when you go down to pick your mail up I have a key and I have a package I saw refrigerated it so it would be it would be a little bit more back to its original form and it’s fantastic.

Andy 4:25
Awesome. So hey, if anybody else would like to send large screen TVs, perhaps microphones or fudge, Blue Apron boxes, cash works to I’m all open for these ideas.

Larry 4:40
Now Now I did in my last will and testament since I’m at the age I am. I put it in there in case anything happened to me that they should check the fudge in the fridge but so far nothing has happened.

Andy 4:51
All right, well then let’s move on. Let’s talk about this decision from North Carolina which is the entire reason why Robin is even here to begin with. Can please someone pronounce the name of the plaintiff?

Robin 5:02
Grabarczyk

Andy 5:06
Grabarczyk

Robin 5:08
Yes, Grabarczyk

Andy 5:10
there’s, there’s a significant number of consonants that are all strung together that makes it challenging for me to put those syllables together.

Robin 5:15
Well, he’s a gracious man.

Andy 5:17
I imagine so and i don’t mean any disrespect to the individual over this, just like that’s a crazy number of consonants to go together. Larry before I just want to clear something up says on behalf of himself is did he file this pro se?

Larry 5:30
No, he did not.

Andy 5:31
Okay. Okay. Well, then can you guys go beat it around and educate all the fine listeners on what is going on here in North Carolina?

Larry 5:39
Well, I’m going to let Robin do most of that. But I will tell you the issue is really quite simple. When you when you move from one state to another, depending on the language of the statute in that state. You may or may not have to register you may not be required to register. In our state, our state statute says that it’s the offense that’s on our list or their equivalents. In North Carolina at that time, there was a, there was a component that required substantial similarity, which equivalent is a little stronger standard than substantial similarity. So this person was not provided any due process. Now, folks don’t misconstrue the question. The question is not whether you have a sex offense conviction in Georgia, when you move to North Carolina, whether Georgia should have ever required your register. The question is, when you get to North Carolina, is that Georgia conviction substantially similar, and what they were doing in North Carolina, most states, they’re letting the sheriff when you come in you say I’m here to register in Georgia for making obscene phone calls. They say, Well, it looks kind of like it, I guess it would it would fit it’s similar to this. And they were making an administrative decision without due process saying you have to register because it’s equivalent to this. And therein lies the problem because there was no due process. So Robin, how did this case come about? What what what precipitate? And I know the answer to this but for the listeners what what caused this case?

Robin 7:04
You can’t really start with this case, you have to go back to a preexisting case, the outcome of which we got in I think November of 18. That was the Meredith case, Meredith v. Stein, Jonathan Meredith, was registered I think his conviction was, I’d say it was Oregon or Washington or someplace, but he moved to North Carolina back in the mid 2000s. And he stayed he was in Person county where they did not require him to register. Then he moved to Wake County, I think in 2009. And they didn’t require him to register there, either. And then back, let’s say around 2015, the sheriff came and knocked on his door, same County, Wake County and said, Oh, we’ve made a mistake. You have to register after all, so he lived in the state for, oh goodness, 12, 13 years without having to register with this preexisting conviction from another state. And then he was placed on the registry, by virtue of the sheriff’s department’s determination that he ought to be on there. And he didn’t, that didn’t sit well with him. And he actually, as I recall, he contacted us North Carolina RSOL wanted to know, what should he do and I said well, you need to talk to our attorney and, and Paul picked up the case. And they filed the original case, which was styled the very same way. It was the exact same complaint. the contours of the complaint were identical to what you just got done explaining as a due process violation where local law enforcement was placed in a position of essentially having a judicial role making a judicial determination without any guidelines without any kind of information from the state about how to proceed. They just more or less willy nilly decided who should and shouldn’t be on if they came from out of state and that case proceeded along I think it was in October is when it was filed. And December of 2017, the state actually removed Mr. Meredith from the registry in an attempt to moot the case. And then they filed a dismissal based upon the fact that it was moot. And the judge would not hear of it and decided that, and in fact, Mr. Meredith wanted to pursue the case. He didn’t back away. Paul, I think, spoke with him and I gave him an opportunity to back out He said, No, I want to, I want to do the right thing. And so long story short, we win that case. The only problem with the Meredith case is it only applied to Mr. Meredith. And because the scope of that decision was so broad, and seemed to be so clean, it looked like a great opportunity to go back at it and take another crack at, you know, at the law, at the statute and produce a result that would apply to everybody who was affected in that class and there’s more than 1000 individuals on the registry in North Carolina who were there as a consequence of an out of state conviction, or an out of state registration that occurred prior to December 1 2006. And Mr. Grabarczyk was willing to play point in that case, but it was planned sort of from the beginning that he would step out as the plaintiff. And then after that, after the complaint had been filed, Paul motioned move the court for the establishment of a class, which included everybody similarly situated. And then he got the court’s permission to, to represent that class of individuals in their in their absence, so to speak. So that’s where the case came from. We never were in any doubt about the outcome. There was quite a bit of work that went into it. North Carolina RSOL played a role in that because we contacted as many of the thousand folks that comprised the class. we contacted them through mail. I think there was about 950 people, we could get good mail addresses for, some in state some out of state. And we sent them a letter, we had a them nice little reply mechanism that they could send back to us with some check marks, which would help us determine what we were after. The reason for the mailing is we wanted to create evidence to support the fact that we didn’t believe anybody in that class had gotten any kind of process that they could recall. And out of the 950 people we mail we got back about 345 responses in the mail, which is an incredible response. And, and everybody had checked what we expected to check there was about five of these individuals who checked either both boxes, or clearly didn’t understand. So we followed up with those folks by phone, and we got the results that we needed. Now the funny thing is we never actually had to use that evidence because it the state was so convinced of its impossibility. Going to trial, they spent about two months of time negotiating a settlement back and forth, back and forth. And, Paul, I mean, I mean several occasions, I know Paul felt he had them exactly where he wanted them to be. And then something would happen in the eleventh hour and the deal that the stipulations and the detail on the deal would fall through. So Paul finally just got frustrated and said, you know, what, the heck with this, I’m filing for summary judgment. He filed for summary judgment, the state, interestingly enough, the state did not file a cross motion for summary judgment, they simply replied to Paul’s motion and, and, and the matter was resolved without a trial. And of course, we know the order was signed on May 12, granting all the relief that Paul had sought for his for his clients.

Larry 12:55
I’ve got a couple questions Robin, and there’s an importance of December 1, 2006. What is what is the importance and significance of that date?

Robin 13:06
The importance of that date is that’s when the state and I’m not sure how they came to understand the problem they were facing. But somebody was smart enough to realize this statute is probably at some point going to cause us some issues. So they went in, and they replaced the preexisting statute with a new language. So while the substantially similar language, I believe is still in the new statute, they added additional language, which essentially means that if you come to North Carolina, and you’ve been convicted for any registerable offense in any other jurisdiction, then you automatically qualify for being placed on the registry in North Carolina. So it took the burden off of local law enforcement from having to have any kind of process. So there’s still no process, but at least insofar as the complaint here was concerned, the law enforcement agencies, the local deputies, and chairs, departments are no longer in a position of having to make any sort of determination. It’s a more or less a yes or no question. Were you registered in the state that you came from? And if you were, then you’re going to be registered here.

Larry 14:11
This reminds me of when I was assisting in the challenge in Maryland some years ago, when the when the state put forth their arguments about why that they should prevail. And I said, Well, that’s all I’ve got. They don’t have nothing. I wouldn’t be quite as adamant in this case. If this is all they’ve got, but you’re correct, Robin, they did add the language, it still has substantially similar or if they’re required to register in another state, another jurisdiction. But I believe that that is a brand new cause of action. And I believe that the Equal Protection Clause will be the hook that you’ll use to go forward. And I think we discussed a case on this podcast some months ago out of Indiana where that foundation is already in place for a federal court saying sorry, guys, when you come into Indiana and it may have been a state court, but there was a there was an appellate level decision that said, when you come to Indiana, you deserve the protection of the Constitution. So I think that that’s going to open up a new front for litigation. But then you did say something that puzzled me. You said you wrote to the people who are out of state. So if they moved from Wisconsin to North Carolina, and then they left North Carolina, what was the relevance of seeking contact with those people, they’re no longer in North Carolina. So what, what hook did North Carolina have over them?

Robin 15:30
you know, I’m not exactly certain the answer to that question. I just remember asking Paul, should we and he thought he thought that we should and I know that in the follow up, he still fully intends to contact those individuals, but it is a fair question to ask. now some of these individuals apparently are still on the registry in North Carolina, even though they’re no longer here. So it’s possible that they will be removed. Paul’s opinion is the state will more than likely not give much care one way or the other, about these individuals, so that’s, that’s, that’s moving. That’s a moving part. There’s a lot of moving parts right now because we don’t know what the state’s going to do. And when we talked about this on Thursday in our conference with Paul, he wants to give the state a couple of weeks to do as he put it the right thing, because they have the tools, they have everything they need, if they need a list of the names, we’re happy to provide that for them. It’s not a very difficult thing for them to do it at their level. Whether or not they’re willing to do that, or will do that who knows, we don’t know if they’ll file for appeal. They got 30 days to file a notice of appeal. I’m dubious that they will and the reason I say that is because they didn’t do it in the merit of the case, although they postured as if they were going to do it. Ultimately, they didn’t. And I really can’t understand, given the similarities between the two causes of action. I can’t imagine why they would think that their strength is greater now than it was on appeal. And in fact, if I were Josh Stein, I would say, we probably want to keep this away from the circuit. Because if we get, if the circuit affirms, then we could open the door to challenges like this in sister states that wouldn’t be too pleased with us. I don’t know if they think that way, but I’d be thinking that way. So we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. But I know Paul’s got his eyes on it. And he’s he is eager to force the state’s hand in this matter and to do the removal that’s required if that’s what has to happen.

Larry 17:35
Well, what I would say and I know at the risk of sounding negative, as I read through this, and I made highlights what I do Robin is I make highlights in yellow in decisions that we’re talking about. And then the people can go back and look at and looking at the disingenuous way that they litigated and the arguments they put forward, my reading of this as that they will do exactly what they states typically do. Which would be to, the difference that I see here to address your point, the difference is, this is hundreds if not approaching 1000 people that’s different than just one person with Meredith. So this gives, this gives the opportunity for a lot more people to get relief. So I think that that would weigh more in their in their favor of one to take an appeal up to the circuit. And I don’t think I don’t think they’re gonna care a whole lot about the other states. But everything in terms of what they argued was so disingenuous, I would be very surprised if they magically became ingenuous at this stage, and decided to just fold their attempt and do the right thing.

Robin 18:38
Yeah, and you may very well be right. I mean, given that this is obviously an issue that cuts politically and making decisions about how to how to proceed on their part will largely have more to do with the politics than what’s legally possible or not. And if they go that route, I guess we’ll just have to wait a little longer for a final disposition. But Paul’s 99.9% certain that the circuit would look at this and just affirm, and we’d all be quite shocked if the circuit the Fourth Circuit Court to make any, if assuming there was an appeal, we’d all be shocked if the Fourth Circuit set aside this this verdict because it’s so clean. It’s so tight. It’s, as you say, I mean the state’s arguments are disingenuous. They didn’t they really didn’t have an argument. Other than to say, I think there are two arguments whereas you know, they tried to make the argument that they did get process, which was just the way that they presented that argument was tortured. And then they tried to make the argument that it didn’t matter whether they got process or not. They were ultimately, they were required to register by virtue of the federal law. So they, you know, they, they tried to sink a hook in Adam Walsh and claim that that that they would have to be registered anyway because of the outcome there or because of the law there. Well, the judge was quick to point out that North Carolina has never adopted Adam Walsh and has never even defined the term sex offender in the same way the federal statutes do. so I’m not sure they were just grasping their whatever they could grasp and the judge was was too wise to to fall for that and judge Boyle; You know, he, again, I get what I get secondhand through Paul, but Paul’s opinion and perhaps I shouldn’t share it too. Well, let me just put it this way without putting words into Paul’s mouth. Boyle appears to be someone who finds the entire regime of the registry problematic and is probably willing to go a little further in in in helping dismantle certain aspects of it.

Larry 21:01
I would say that what judge Boyle did here would probably be, it would be hard to flip on appeal to overturn this on appeal. And now what the North Carolina legislature would likely do to address this decision is their strategy would be to change the state law to define a sex offender as anyone who is defined as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act. But that still doesn’t save them. Because since all the states have different definitions of sex offenses, some state may be… a good example is indecent exposure. Georgia or most states, for that matter, require indecent exposure, that is not a defined sex offense under the Adam Walsh Act. No state has to register indecent exposure, they all do. So that that creates, I would love to, if they passed that law, which would be the logical thing they would try to do, and say if they have a federal duty then that translates to a state duty. But I would come back to him again and say, Well, what is a sex offense because states have sex offenses that are not a federal sex offense so then they would have to clean up the language and say, if it’s a federal sex offense, and again, I would still come after him and say, well, a sex offense under federal law. How do we determine what’s a sex offense under federal law, because they’re still you’re still going to need due process what the state so desperately wants to avoid is due process. And I don’t see any way they can do that.

Robin 22:29
Yeah. Well, I see that part of it. I do believe that the state certainly could still create a process you can tell from the reading of the opinion here, the judges is a little miffed that they’ve neglected to do anything to address this issue. My thinking is given that he has rooted judge Boyle has routed so much of his due process analysis in the fact that he sees Registration in and of itself, and particularly the restrictions that go along with it is definitely a punitive effect of these policies. At that point, I think if they were to come up with the process, and then these individuals ended up back on the registry, by virtue of that process, I think we’d be set up for pretty darn solid ex post facto claim, given what has been said, and what already kind of pollutes, or I should say populates the legal analysis, at least insofar as these individuals are concerned, where the judge has already recognized that being placed on the registry in North Carolina has a punitive effect, and is a certainly certainly creates a number of depravations on one’s liberty. Well, for the state to create new process at this point, put all these people back on the registry, I would see that as being a great opportunity for us to go back at it from an ex post facto angle. So there’ll be several, you know, tools that we could put into our toolkit to use in a further challenge somewhere down the road. And I agree with you too. And we ought to, we ought to pay some attention to what we can do to provide some relief for the folks that that are registered as a consequence of an out of state conviction post, or after December 1, 2006.

Larry 24:18
Well, creating a due process is going to be the last thing that they’re gonna want to do because that costs money. So they are going to look at every option short of creating due process because of the administrative cost of that. And in their mind, the easiest way is to change the law, and I’m not saying that they’ll be able to succeed, but that’s going to be their first course of action is to try to change the law. They put forth the argument in this case that there’s a federal registry, which there isn’t, but they put forth that argument. So they’re what they would do is they would propose to modify North Carolina law to say that if you have a duty to register under federal law that you have a duty to register in North Carolina and that would eliminate due process. in their mind, they would say, Well, he came from Wisconsin, he had a duty to register in Wisconsin. under federal law, he has to report in North Carolina. But that’s not where the analysis ends because the federal law can’t force North Carolina to register a person they don’t want to register if they don’t cover that offense. All they can do is force you to present yourself to North Carolina for registration to participate if North Carolina wants you to register. If North Carolina says we don’t register obscene phone callers here, then that ends the inquiry since there’s no federal registry. And that’s where I get back to my point, you still have to have due process to figure out all those things. So what North Carolina wants so desperately to avoid, and all states want to avoid is due process because it costs money. I don’t see how they can do that. But that’s what they’re gonna want to do.

Robin 25:48
Well, I guess you know, at this point, we’ve got a lot left to watch here. And we’re pleased with the outcome. But the devils in the detail, and there’s still, there’s still a lot more to this story. We’re already Of course getting emails from people who were part of the affected class and that we’ve been in contact with. And many of those individuals are now more connected than they were before. Because we’ve collected up quite a few names and numbers, and we keep those folks in touch with us for other reasons. So we’re getting a lot of inquiries, what does this mean? What am I supposed to do? And at this point, we’re just telling them, hey, just, be careful. Just be cool. We’re, there’s a process here. Some of some of what we’re dealing with right now is a bit of a wait and see. And we see this happening right all over the place. We see it happen in Michigan, we see it happening in Pennsylvania, when we have something really wonderful happen. It doesn’t necessarily fix anything right away. There’s still parts of it that have to be completed and there’s still options the state has and there’s still things that the lawers have to pay very close attention to right, going forward from that point. So it’s not a Pyrrhic victory, but it’s, it’s a victory that begins a chain of things that come afterwards.

Larry 27:16
It’s It’s a fantastic victory. Paul Dubbeling, who will be speaking at NARSOL’s virtual conference, is a marvelous litigator. He’s a marvelous speaker. And he’s a great attorney. And I enjoy working with Paul. He’s actually working with us on our case where we have a similar challenge pending here. And we haven’t quite gotten the same traction that he’s gotten in North Carolina. We’ve got an older federal judge who hasn’t, who hasn’t seen things the same way. But I would not say that that’s in any way a slight to Paul. But we are tracking this very carefully. And it’s a fantastic win because it’s a class, it’s a certified class. And that’s hard in and of itself to do because of the complexity of that people think you just take a rubber stamp and put class action and that makes it a class action and it doesn’t. And every time I have the opportunity with an attorney, I always ask the same question. Can you explain what it takes to certify a class? Because it’s not just a rubber red ink that says class action, that makes it a class action?

Robin 28:18
No, it’s not. And let me too while I have this opportunity. There’s been a couple of individuals who’ve commented on the blog post about this case, this is not the same case that we’ve been talking about for so many years now. The NARSOL v. Stein case, which continues to, it is still pending before judge Biggs in the Middle District of North Carolina. That case is ongoing. We’re still in the discovery phase. We I think have a trial date now set for April 2021. And we’ve got all the various timeline has been set for that. This case, the Grabarczyk v. Stein case is a separate case that only concerns individuals who were made to register in North Carolina on the basis of an out of state conviction. It is not the NARSOL v. Stein case. We still proceeding with that case. And when we have something to share, we will. But that case, the NARSOL v. Stein case, has the capacity to be far more reaching in its impact.

Larry 29:29
Well, I think this, this helps you get in that direction. But go ahead Andy.

Andy 29:33
Well, I think rolling back to the due process side of it. I guess I’m trying to even like formulate a thought just for all that was said. But because there’s no due process, meaning there was nothing established that says crime A in state A is equivalent to Crime A in state B. That is almost at the core of this. I guess

Robin 29:59
what judge Boyle said is this and he quoted he said it in the Meredith case and he restated it in the order in this case, there is no process, period. So that’s the problem is that, you know, had there been something that’s some sort of guideline that the state had cobbled together and put out for the for the law enforcement agents in the hundred counties that we have. So when you come to North Carolina, we don’t have a statewide police force here. We don’t have a centralized police force other than the State Highway Patrol. So registration here occurs at the local level, and it is administered by the local sheriff and his agents or her agents. And so that there there’s really where the rub was, is that what what judge Boyle was looking for was some kind of state agency or some some larger, greater power, it helping to instruct the local law enforcement agencies. How do you deal with this question? Is this person in front of me right now, were they convicted of a crime in x state that had they committed a crime here, that crime was substantially similar such that they would have to register here. There was no process at all. And so what what the judge said in both cases is where there is no process, there can be no due process, right? You can’t have due process, unless there’s some kind of process. So, so the state laws from the get go just for lack of process. In fact, they, they might have been able to come out and fare better here if they were able to point to some kind of policy some place that said, okay, when you’re dealing with this situation, here’s what you’re supposed to do. But they didn’t even have that. So you had each of these counties doing whatever the heck they could, and in most cases, essentially saying, Okay, well, I’ve looked at the statute you were convicted of under in whatever state you came from, and it looks it looks very similar to this one here we have. So let’s just figure that they’re more or less the same and boom, you’re going to be required to register. There was just no process at all.

Larry 32:07
Well, Andy I’d go a little further than Robin did, due process, is an opportunity to be heard, and to present evidence, and that’s the reason why they’re not going to want to provide this because that is expensive to do that. (Andy: Mmhmm). So they’re not going to want to do something that cost the state money. But that’s what due process consists of.

Andy 32:30
And I know we talk about that, because all the metoo stuff I believe that this goes ties into that of due process. You can’t just accuse Joe Biden of doing something and like, okay, now you’re just guilty without hearing evidence. I mean, that’s what you’re referring to is due process, correct?

Larry 32:47
Yeah, an opportunity to be heard and to present a counter argument.

Andy 32:51
and so it reminds me of something maybe it was a year ago, something out in North Carolina, just the same where the person moved into the state asked If he had to register, they said nope. And then moves and asks again and like, Oh, my God, you haven’t been registering isn’t this vaguely similar?

Robin 33:10
That that was the Meredith case. what actually happened there is he moved to Wake County. And after he moved, initially moved to person county, then moved to Wake County, person county said he didn’t have to register. He stayed there three years, he moved to Wake County, he went to the county sheriff’s department. He said, Hey, I just want to make sure you’re aware of this. no no’s, no big deal. You just know, you don’t have to register here. And so it wasn’t until several years after that, that yes, the same county Wake County then changed its mind and decided he needed to be registered. So yeah, very frustrating because he lost so much he, he he by that point in time, he had a wife and he had kids and he had a job. I mean, he done a lot with his life. And that was only because he didn’t have to register that he was able to do all these wonderful things. And then we had to register you know what happens then. devastatation all around.

Andy 34:01
So and what I wanted to bring up specifically out of that is what you were describing Robin, that there’s no central authority that you have individual counties that are running their own show. That’s what I wanted to bring up as the similarity between these two pieces.

Robin 34:13
Well, that’s Yeah, in some states, like if you go to Virginia, they have the state police force in Virginia. And the registry in Virginia is managed by the state police, the Virginia State Police. So there’s at least some hegemony between the people that are doing the registering and the people who are managing the registry here in North Carolina. it’s disjointed. You’ve got the local county sheriff that’s doing that part of it, the registration part of it, and then once they collect the data and the information that’s pertinent required by law, they pass that over to the state Bureau of Investigation, and the state Bureau of Investigation is responsible for the repository of the registry. So it’s, you know, there’s some disconnectthere, there’s no real central control here in North Carolina for registration policy, and the enactment of legislative policy regarding the registry. So you really got to have 100 different counties doing what they want. And this runs the full gamut. This This not only is a problem for this particular case, but it’s also a problem with just managing the restrictions related to the registry. Generally speaking, in some counties, people can do things that they can’t do in other counties, because that Sheriff may, for instance, you may have a sheriff in one county who thinks is perfectly fine for somebody to go to church and the county right next door, may say, No, we don’t want them in church. So it’s all it’s a kind of a mess For folks here, trying to know what they can and cannot do, where they can and cannot be. It’s really dependent upon how determined the county sheriff is to exercise the full measure of the law. That’s a problem period, as Larry, I’m sure will affirm is when you have law enforcement, coming to different conclusions about what a law means and what a law requires and what a law permits, there must be something wrong with the law if you end up with 100 different outcomes.

Larry 36:20
Well, Robin, the registration process you’re describing is more typical of the states where local, where you have that bifurcated system that I, that I talked about, there’s only a handful of states where the state runs it. And even in those states, there’s more uniformity. But But still, there’s there’s there’s differences between the regions within the state, we could, we could ask the states like Pennsylvania or Virginia, we would find some of that. But what you’re describing is consistent with most of the states. They mandate this registration process, they dump it off the local law enforcement. They dump it off, in most cases, to elected sheriffs who have political considerations. I mean, I don’t write the rules. We elect sheriffs for this country, and they have political considerations to discharge their duties. And they’re going to reflect what they perceive to be the political leanings of the constituents that elect them. And being easy on people forced to on PFR is not what is going to endear you to most of your constituents

Andy 37:21
Will then chimes in and says there’s no uniformity among supervision officers either. Some officers will let their caseload go and go to the movies and some won’t.

Larry 37:30
But that’s the point I’m making when we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with human beings and human beings have different life experience and they have different views on life. And some some human beings that have the exact same jobs with exact same powers believe that it’s their duty to inflict punishment. There are some people who would they when they work in jails the jailers have made it clear Our duty is merely to hold you to until the authorities that put you here release you. Some jails take the position like Joe Arpaio, Our duty is to make your life as miserable. So you won’t Come here. That’s just human nature. I mean, that’s the human condition.

Andy 38:06
Have we beat it to death yet?

Larry 38:08
We have is time to move on. that was delightful to have to have you here on this and you’re Welcome to stay if you ilike.

Robin 38:16
I Appreciate the opportunity to talk about it.

Andy 38:18
Fantastic. Do you want to stick around or should we let you go?

Robin 38:22
I’m gonna go ahead and depart I think. Appreciate it.

Andy 38:25
All right then. Well, thank you so much for coming, though.

Robin 38:28
Yes. Thank you for having me here today.

Andy 38:30
Beautiful, beautiful. Mr. Larry. Well, thank you, Robin and I will talk to you talk to you very soon. He’s already, No he’s not gone.

Robin 38:38
I’m not gone yet. Yep, yep. So talk to you soon. Thank you.

Andy 38:43
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. registrymatterscast@gmail.com you can call or text or ransom message. (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. The article the first article that we’ll cover is from the appeal and it’s a pregnant woman in Pennsylvania denied release. And tell me what you find funny about the article. What did the judge say?

Larry 39:43
This is in Erie County and i’m not i’m not sure which what the seat of Erie County is, but the judge said that she would be safer in prison for her and her unborn that that would be the safest place. It’s a stretch to think The prison, I mean, you would have to be a pretty dysfunctional individual. And you would have to be hanging out with some really strange characters to imagine that a safety factor from a pandemic, you’d be safer in a correctional facility, but that’s what the judge said.

Andy 40:17
Wow. safer that way Yeah? That’s crazy.

Larry 40:19
Well, and the prosecution was they were not in support of the release, because apparently she has difficultly complying with probation conditions. So so they think it’s a good idea that she stays in custody. But again, I’m, I’m soft hearted when it comes to people. Even if I have no heart for the person who’s carrying the child, I want to keep the child safe.

Andy 40:43
I don’t want to like try and jump into a medical field that I don’t understand, but I don’t know that I’ve heard that there are they’re probably they’re going to be risks to the mother but I don’t know that there’s any direct or internal impact on the fetus the baby? I’m not I’m not sure about that. But obviously if a if a woman gets deathly ill and has to be intubated, it’s probably not good for the, for the growing kid.

Larry 41:08
Well, what is the woman dies? Would that be good for the kid?

Robin 41:11
That’s probably going to end up poorly for the kid. Just Just as a rough rough idea.

Larry 41:14
Well, that’s what happened in the case on April 28, four weeks after given birth by C section while on a ventilator Andrea Circle Bear died from COVID-19 in Texas. So they went out to baby and save the baby, but but she died.

Andy 41:31
it just seems like not a good thing.

Larry 41:34
It doesn’t seem like that. And I would think that we could find some, it’s kind of hard for, for a woman to go out and conceive a pregnancy at this stage to avoid I mean, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. And you didn’t, and you didn’t. I don’t think anybody who got pregnant to try to get out of jail because of the pandemic.

Andy 41:57
Haha, Well, I’m probably gonna get locked up in a couple weeks Larry so why don’t we go get knocked up so I don’t have to So I don’t have to participate in that silly jail thing

Larry 42:06
knocked up, knocked up. Can you be more specific what knocked up means just for our audience?

Andy 42:11
That seems like that would be a colloquial term, that would be the expression of getting pregnant. I’ve never I don’t think that I’ve ever heard it defined, Larry. I’ve just heard it used.

Larry 42:23
Okay, so as long as we understand that that’s a colloquial for becoming pregnant.

Andy 42:29
If anybody wants to chime in and chat and help me out here, I would be much appreciated to help bail me out of this mess that I’ve just gotten myself into. Um, but he just says you’re going to be safer in prison where we have discovered that there’s not enough cleaning for people. There’s all kinds of challenges going on from that side of the house. I believe. (Larry: I don’t understand it.) Alright, well, then I guess we will move on to an other article. Also from the appeal. It says jails and prisons must reduce their population. actually this is mostly related. And how many people got released from just just a very small number of people, we won’t stick here for very long. But there were a couple things that were interesting in here, I think

Larry 43:14
it’s been far less than what would really be necessary for achieving any tangible result. Because of the crowded, crowded conditions that would still exist. I think we’ve talked about getting prisons down, we pull it out of our hat, and we confess we pull it out of our hat. But we don’t know how you could do anything that approximates social distancing. If you didn’t cut the population, at least in half, if you’re running at capacity, which most institutions are, but the reductions have been so minuscule in comparison to the number of prisons that we’ve lagged so far, far behind, I’m dubious It’s going to have any result. now in pre show discussion with another one of our supporters it was pointed out that Just because you release people, they don’t magically have any place to go. And my response to that is you’re absolutely right. Just, there’s not magic, but you put people in jail, it often disconnects them from their support structures, if they have an apartment, very few could continue to pay the rent on the apartment. And, and their income streams do usually dry up unless they’re on some sort of pension. So I understand all that part of it. But we could also relax the requirements of what we will allow for a residence for people, for example, on the people forced to register, rather than not letting them live within 1000 feet of everything that you could conceive of, including, I think, in my state, I’ve been hearing that they’re telling folks that they might put a school bus stop somewhere so you can’t live there because that looks like a prime location where they might put a school bus stop. If they would relax some of those limitations, I think we would find some of the answer in what what people would have in the way of options, but it would not make an option for Everybody, there would be people who’ve been locked up for a lot longer of years. And if you shave a year off of their time, and they and they had not been planning to get out until a year from now, they might not have any place to go. I understand that. So what would it be? Would it be good just open the gates and let them out with no place to go? Well, that’s a public policy question that that is legitimate. Would they be safe for homeless pushing a shopping cart around?

Andy 45:25
I can’t imagine that they would be there. There was something in there it says most prisons and jails the United States operate at 100% capacity. I bet you that’s demonstrably false, that it’s not %100. It’s %120, %140, 200% capacity. So it’s not %100.

Larry 45:41
Well now those liberal godooders in San Francisco, they say their facilities are operating at 50% right now. Which like I say…
Andy 45:48
maybe if they include the gymnasium?

Larry 45:51
that well but they’ve been on a campaign to release population out in San Francisco. They’ve actually taken it seriously. But, but they’re the anomaly in terms of Releasing people. In my state, the state itself have, last count, something in the range of 30. And we’ve got a state prison population of around just shy of 7000. But what impact is releasing in 33, 35 inmates have on a population of 6800?

Andy 46:17
that doesn’t even matter.

Larry 46:20
It would matter if you were one of the 33 that avoided a death sentence, but but it doesn’t have any tangible impact on the spread of the of the COVID-19 virus, it just wouldn’t.

Andy 46:34
No. And then again, if we, if we, you know we’ve talked about that, the DA is the one in control of the whole thing. So the DA could be like, Hey, we’re not going to bring these cases because they’re pretty minor. We could have, if you’re less than a year out something along those lines, like we’ll just we’ll just wipe out the rest of that you’ve already How much time do you need to do? Are we just going to put the screws to you to get every last day out of you? But how bad would the prison guard union and those cats, How hard would they push back on doing anything like that?

Larry 47:05
Well, initially, they wouldn’t push back because everybody wants a lighter workload. They just don’t want to lose their job.

Andy 47:11
Yeah, they wouldn’t push back until somebody starts getting laid off

Larry 47:14
well, but you would have to really reduce the prison population to the point where it would start compromising jobs. Now, so if you take a president from 120% capacity down to 90% capacity, how much staffing reduction would go along with that?

Andy 47:27
it’s probably pretty close to zero,

Larry 47:29
probably not much. But if you reduce the prison population from 120%, capacity down to 50% capacity, theoretically, you would need less personnel. I mean, you still got the same number of square feet that need to be monitored, but you’re not taking people out for various things to see the doctor ,to see their attorney, to sick call wherever they take them to the infirmary. You wouldn’t be having visitation you wouldn’t be screening as many visitors that are coming into the prison. So there’d be a whole lot of tasks that would drop you wouldn’t be you would not be serving as many meals so that perhaps the, perhaps the civilian staff, and the officer corps would start dropping, they would oppose it at that point, because all of a sudden we’re talking about people’s livelihoods.

Andy 48:12
Ahhhhh.

Larry 48:14
well, I mean, are you in favor of eliminating your job?

Andy 48:16
Well, I mean, we, my job is almost to eliminate my job and eliminate all the other people. I mean, that’s almost my job to begin with. So no, I’m not in favor of eliminating my job. Well, if I could write perfect code that would never have bug then yes, I guess I could code my way out of my own job.

Larry 48:34
But very few people are in favor of eliminating their own jobs. They’re in favor of having the competitive advantage. But I doubt very many people when you ask them, now you realize if we succeed, there’s going to be only the need for a third of the previous level employment. Very few hands would go up to say this was the right course of action.

Andy 48:56
Yeah. All right. Well, then since you, you love me and my technology. We have an article from law360.com that says ankle monitors are replacing cash bail, but at a cost. How is it that we would send somebody into the bail system? So they’ve been charged with crime, you know, my favorite felony jaywalking, and the judge says, well, we’re not going to lock you up, we’re going to put you on an ankle monitor. And that’s going to cost you somewhere between $100, $200, $500 or even $600 a month. And now you’ve got this I don’t know what to call it. You’ve got a little you’ve got a bracelet around your ankle that it’s not really a bracelet. It’s not attractive. It doesn’t come in fancy schmancy colors, probably a little bit uncomfortable. But if you weren’t to sit in prison, the county, the city, the state would bear that cost but now we push it off on you. It doesn’t seem right.

Larry 49:46
Well, of course it isn’t right. But this is the reason why I push back when you do all your fluttering and jumping for the for expanding use of technology. Well what happens is we don’t actually reduce the number of people who are in the correctional setting. We merely replaced the revolving door with a person who got booked into custody. And we tell them and all your liberal progressives out there think this is such a great thing, what we tell them is well, you don’t have to post a bond, we’ve abolish cash bail, and we’ve got this great system now. It’s called electronic monitoring. And it’s for $300 setup fee for anywhere from five to $20 a day, you can be out in the community being monitored. And, and that’s also a travesty. Because how many people can afford that? I mean, there are people who can afford it. But there are a lot of people who are earning minimum wage, which is I think, $7 and 25 cents an hour at the federal level. And they can’t they can’t be…

Andy 50:49
I can’t look at math, how much would that be per month?

Larry 50:51
it wouldn’t be enough to cover $600 a month if you’re earning $7 and 25 cents an hour.

Andy 50:56
Seven times four would be 280. So you’re making $280 before taxes, and then so to afford that you’ve got to work somewhere close to two weeks. And then you still have rent and transportation and food and whatever else. What I am curious about is there’s a section in there where they talk about who has the various levels of jurisdiction that some of these places almost seem, they almost seem like debt collectors, and they have almost no authority over you. But other than other ones do have some sort of hooks into the system and it was a little bit confusing. I was hoping that you could clarify some of it of where jurisdiction might lie with these companies.

Larry 51:34
Well, apparently as best I understood the article and I agree with you it was not clear but the these companies and your state is a good one at privatizing everything, including probation supervision. I mean, it’s a great system you have in Georgia, isn’t it? But like in Alameda County, California, which is the bastion of progressive thinking where you would never expect anything to be oppressive because they’re so much lightyears ahead of the rest of the country. You pay this organization called leaders and Community Action, Leaders and Community Alternatives $25 and 50 cents per day for your monitor. And I’m guessing that’s a nonprofit. And so one guy that in the article had Leukemia had to borrow money after LCA repeatedly threatened to jail him. According to Phil, Executive Director of equal justice under law, by the way, Phil will be speaking out the virtual conference which is coming up next month. (Andy: I wanted to bring that up. Yes.) But this, this is this is a travesty of how technology gets misused because technology should be used as an alternative to incarceration, not simply to allow you to expand the universe of people under the correctional control. watch the news. I know that you would never turn on the news if your life depended on it. But for those of you who actually watched the news, when you hear that someone got released from custody, listen to the amount of times they say and they were required to be on ankle monitor, just the standard jargon. And they were released on these conditions and ankle monitor. Everybody is on ankle monitoring. Now, no matter what you’re in trouble for, if you’re released from custody pretrial, you’re on an ankle monitor. And usually they’re cost associated with that monitoring for the privilege if being… So we’ve abolished cash bail, where you pay a one-time fee, and then you get to pay on and on and on and on. Wouldn’t that encourage you to get your case resolved because you pay $25 and 50 cents a day to be monitored while you’re pretrial.

Andy 53:39
But isn’t this diversion from having people sitting in jail?

Larry 53:45
Well, it should be but that’s my point. It isn’t.

Andy 53:49
Sorry for the softball question.

Larry 53:50
It’s not a diversion because they continue to jail people. Unfortunately, law enforcement believes that they need to be arresting and jailing as many people as they can even In a medical pandemic and a global pandemic, they’re doing that they’re still arresting people. They’re still bringing people in on what I would call bs. And so they arrest people so they could issue citations. And the only way that we’re going to stop cops from arresting people is we have to require that they be issued a citation for enlisting offenses for them. But if you give the cops discretion, more often than not they’re going to book the person and I and I don’t have any statistical data so don’t write me an email say I can’t substantiate that. But I know that a lot of people get arrested when officer has discretion to issue a citation

Andy 54:37
hmm All right. Well, I don’t really have anything else should we move on?

Larry 54:40
We should I’m tired of this cuz cuz cuz you know I have ambivalence about the abolition of cash bail. I see the problems and I agree what the problems are, but I don’t think the solutions we’ve come up with has done anything other than create new problems

Andy 54:55
very well. So from the New York Times, sentenced for three strikes, then freed Now comes a push back. This is where three strikes law. And one of the cases that they profiled in the three strikes, like the guy needed some cash. So he shoplifted some alcohol so that he could sell it. So he shoplifted, Let’s say it’s $20 with alcohol, he gets tackled by the police. And that pushed him over the limit to be three strikes. So he gets life in prison. That seems a little excessive. However, then in I think, 2012, there was some rewriting of the laws that allowed a pretty good number of people to have those rolled back to, you know, maybe they’re getting out very soon in the next year, two, three years, something like that. But why is there pushback?

Larry 55:42
Well, let’s, let’s do a little bit more detail. What happened is California being the bastion of progressive thinking that’s so far much further ahead of the rest of the country, you know, being that the sophistication level, they have this referendum system where people, the people themselves can enact requirements. This referendum process is horrible. It’s the whole thing that the country was founded not to have, because it results in uninformed decisions being made by the people who are not qualified to make the decision. So California’s three strikes law, along with other states resulted in an overwhelming prison population. And the federal judge finally set their foot down and said, You got to reduce the prison population, or you got to build more facilities. And course, you know, you can’t build more facilities because that costs tax money. So they went back and they made it where the three strikes law wasn’t as onerous. And I don’t know all the details of it, but they changed it where people that were previously sentenced to three strikes were eligible for relief. But now the pushback is coming because some people that’re getting relief, It says now among the 6000 sentenced over the three strikes that have been freed, or reduced, Californians first voted to soften the law and in November, the state’s residence will be asked to vote on whether to go in the other direction and toughen because of the pushback. All it takes is, If you release 6000 people, of course, there are going to be people who are going to mess up. They’re going to be people who were in those overcrowded prisons who were not rehabilitated because there were there were no programs available. There’re going to be people who had no desire to be rehabilitated. (Andy: Right). And, of course of the 6000, Some will have messed up that is not a reason to change the law. That is a reason to deal with those people. As I’ve said before, I agree with the police on this. The police say that if one of us messes up, don’t tar and feather all of us because of what one did so let’s look at the 6000, 37 of them messed up. Let’s deal with those 37 and let’s do what the police say. Don’t judge the 6000 by what a few did and don’t paint with a broad brush to change the law because of what a few did. But that’s what’s happening. The push back.

Andy 58:05
you probably didn’t see the movie Full Metal Jacket Did you? (Larry: No). all right well there’s a scene towards the beginning there in basic training and I can’t think of the there’s there’s a an overweight person, I would say fat, but that’s not PC these days. And he causes all kinds of problems for the platoon. And the drill sergeant finds a donut in his in his footlocker. So then everybody has to do push-ups while he eats the donut. That’s what you’re describing is when one person messes up, everybody has to do punishment for it. And it’s not cool.

Larry 58:36
that’s precisely that. But that’s what happens when you when you have a state setup like California, and I love you to death California, but your government sucks. This referendum process is a joke, and it lends itself to mob rule. And that’s what you get, but judge Persky. That’s what you’re gonna get with this because if you give the voters the chance to be tough on crime… That was 2012 most California’s have long since forgotten about what they were facing in 2012 when they were running at 160% of capacity, and they were told to cut their jail. All they know now is they’re hearing on the news that some of these people have done serious crimes since we released them since we lightened up requirements and let people out 6000 of them and there’s been some bad apples and we’ve got to do something and they’re gonna go the other direction.

Andy 59:26
Well, riddle me this though. It is the referendum process and I’m doing air quotes when I’m not on camera. Is that isn’t that what would be like true democracy where people are sitting there voting on everything that happens if we take everyone’s voice and takes everyone’s opinion of Yes or no? of everybody? That would be true democracy?

Larry 59:45
It would be except that’s not what our founders intended us to be. they never intended it, we’re supposed to not be a true democracy, we’re representative…

Andy 59:51
totally understand so then has, as far as you know, or do you know has California always had or did that get put in place somewhere else along the way?

Larry 1:00:00
I do not know we’ll have to have a Californian explain that process to us. But I know that as far back as 1978 when they passed Proposition 13 that destroyed their state revenue base, because their taxes were so high that they decided to cap tech property taxes. That advocate were in the process that they’ve been using all these decades sounds and enacting junk law all these decades since then, and it hasn’t changed.

Andy 1:00:26
And while I can see why certain people would be in favor of it, but you then need an unbelievable amount of education from that doesn’t get slanted and twisted by the people giving you like the Marcy’s law stuff is, the information about it is complete garbage and they get a famous actor on there to describe what it is and how it is and like oh my god, well, I like Kelsey Grammer, so we should vote for this thing. But when you are just an average or low informed voter, then you’re easily swayed and that’s why we would want like the professional so to speak to be driving agenda, I guess? I think?

Larry 1:01:04
Well, I think it’s preferable. It’s not the cure all end all either because they’re supposed to be representing the will of the people. If you’re, if your phone calls and emails and all the communication from your constituents is running heavily in favor of something, theoretically, that’s your position because you’re the voice of those people. (Andy: Yep. Yep.) And it always tickles me when people when I say, Well, wait a minute. They are representative of their, of the constituents of their district. What are they supposed to do? Are they’re supposed to flip us a middle finger and say, Well, I don’t care what you people are telling me. I’m going to vote completely contrary to my constituents, and to hell with you people, is that what you would want them to do?

Andy 1:01:41
That’s probably what they want them to do. No, just kidding. That’s not what they would want them to do. then they wouldn’t get reelected. I mean, I’m assuming that when someone gets into office, very few get into office going, I’m going to be a one term person. I’m going to do my agenda and I’m going to get out. They probably want to get reelected.

Larry 1:01:58
I would say that’s Probably the case, you generally can’t achieve all your goals in one term. And if you’re sinister and cynical, you believe their goal is to line their pockets. If you’re not as cynical, which I’m not, then you believe that they have They have a desire to see the formulation of public policy, it’s going to improve the life of future generations that come after us, as well as the present generation. And you can’t do that if you’re not in office

Andy 1:02:24
very well. And then from the Salt Lake Tribune, a Utah man convicted of gang related robberies to be let out 40 years early because of a new law. This I almost confused these two articles there, they seem to be very similar, that they’ve changed a law that a person was put into prison for 55 years. That’s a long time, Larry 55 years is a monster man, not for someone as old as you. 55 is, I don’t know that’s almost like teenagers for the average person. And they enacted a new law and he may get out in the next like, year or so.

Larry 1:02:59
And that’s The reason why I put this in here because it’s it’s a this is federal. And the first step Act provided the flexibility So this person was able to come back and get a sentence reduction because of changes made in the first step, first step act, unfortunately, due to the republicans led by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, they weakened the first step Act. So therefore, most people that would be in our constituency audience are not able to benefit from this. But This is an example of some good that could have been more wide, widely available, had it not been for Tom Cotton and his henchmen that followed him. I’m on a roll tonight, Now see, I spent an equal amount of time bashing the democrats in California, and I just bashed the republicans and I bet I get more criticism for bashing the republicans and they’ll forget all about that I bashed the democrats right before. I’m about public policy folks. And bad public policy deserves criticism, regardless of which party is, is promoting the bad public policy.

Andy 1:04:10
How about how far like how many? Did they just, you know, soften the blow of it? Do you happen to know any specifics of what got reduced from the first step Act that of things that would have been far more impactful?

Robin 1:04:23
I don’t we’d have to do an episode on that. I do know that the rigidity of the sentencing guidelines was relaxed. And the enhancement features were relaxed, but I don’t know all the details, but he was evidently able to come back and ask for a reconsideration. And he was able to show a lot of support from the community and the details of his crime and his youth. And the judge felt like this was enough time. So therefore, his his his time in incarceration has been reduced. But my bigger point is that I’m glad President Trump signed it. I’m not happy that the republicans in the United States Senate wrecked what would have been on even stronger improvement, better improvement at the last minute led by Tom Cotton. You folks in Arkansas dump Tom Cotton.

Andy 1:05:13
Arkansas. all right over at the appeal again cleaning supplies are so scarce at this Arizona prison detainees are using shampoos and menstrual pads, lawsuit says. this is deplorable Larry that you would have to like hey, I can either keep my body clean, or we can clean the dayroom This is how do we do this man? I’m laughing really out of disgust not really laughing.

Larry 1:05:36
So can we go right back to the first step Act there was one thing I’d like to qualfy. (Andy: Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, sure). the first step act now allows defense attorneys, I’m reading from the article, to argue that lengthy sentences don’t match the crimes and avenue that defendants like Angelo’s didn’t have before. His attorneys asked for his 55 year sentence to be reduced further. A motion that Campbell granted in February. federal prosecutor supposed the reduction and argued that Mamaw should spend at least 25 years of prison for what he had done. So so like I say, it’s it appears to be flexibility that the judges have gained that they did not previously. And then he showed an enormous amount of community support. So Okay, back to the….

Andy 1:06:17
And he’d already done 12 years. So I mean, you know, 12 is still a good chunk of time compared to you know, and,

Larry 1:06:24
yeah, it is. It is. I always believe that if you’re gonna learn anything from prison, you’re gonna learn it in a couple years. I don’t see. I don’t see the need for lengthy sentences.

Andy 1:06:34
Yeah, I understand. And so after a couple years if you I’ve said this before, too, that I never saw any hard kind of drugs until I was gone Larry. So if you wanted to keep me sort of, like innocent and and dough-eyed, I guess, I’ve never seen cocaine or meth or anything like that until I was in prison, which is a strange place to find it, I think. But, you know, so, there, that’s where I’ve seen hard drugs is in prison. There you go.

Larry 1:07:01
In the interest of time, in the interest of time, should we move on to Pennsylvania before we move this along.

Andy 1:07:08
We totally can. So we will we will skip all that fun stuff.

Larry 1:07:11
Did you really want to cover up the remaining ones?

Andy 1:07:14
No, no, no, no, I’m good. I just, I mean, we Okay, yeah, we can totally just bounce over to Pennsylvania.

Larry 1:07:24
So, okay. We’re gonna spend some time on this case. Also, it’s 58 pages.

Andy 1:07:27
Are you going to read all 58 pages to us?

Larry 1:07:29
Most of them Yes.

Andy 1:07:32
All right. Well, this comes from the Commonwealth court of Pennsylvania. And there’s like 700 judges that ruled on this thing. And this is please explain it because I don’t even I remember reading it. petitioner seeks mandamus and Declaratory relief against Pennsylvania State Police challenging as unconstitutional as applied. Larry, as soon as I read that my eyes roll in the back of my head, and I’m done. And I don’t know what else happened after that for the next 57 pages.

Larry 1:08:00
Well, we could spend a podcast on this and I think we’ve got Theresa in chat. I don’t know if she has the capacity to get on with us. But we do have Theresa in chat. But what this, what this case involves is the Pennsylvania court system. This is an appellate level tribunal. We looked that up before we went live. This is this is an appellate level court. So this case is precedential. It’s not the Supreme Court, but it’s the intermediate level review. But the the person who who brought this case, brought the case because his registration obligation arose from from something that happened in 1990. And at that time, there was no registration at all in Pennsylvania, or in most states, for that matter, except California and I think Washington came along in ’98, ‘99 in that area, but most of the states didn’t have a registry. And Pennsylvania has had five iterations of registration. They Had Megan’s Law One, two and three. And then they had SORNA. And then, after the Munez decision, striking the SORNA, which was their their version of the Adam Walsh Act that took effect in December 2012. Then they they passed act 29, which created a new SORNA to try to restore what had been declared unconstitutional. And this this guy brought in the reason why it’s the issue of first impression is because of all the decisions related to SORNA. None dealt with a person whose offense predated registration. That’s what makes this one so juicy. For me anyway, and for the legal people.

Andy 1:09:43
First impression means what?

Larry 1:09:45
they had not ruled on that issue, it had not been dealt with before. They had not dealt with anyone who had brought a claim challenging registration whose offense predated the registery. (Andy: Okay.) This guy’s did.

Andy 1:09:57
All right. And all right. So what happens of these 50 whatever pages that is so exciting to you?

Larry 1:10:04
Well, some of the stuff that I’ve said for years is beginning to make its way into these decisions. And I love it because people I know are listening to the Registry Matters podcast that are that are litigating. They’re listening to what we’re saying here.

Andy 1:10:18
Well, So we had a title. It was the last episode, I think of December reflecting back and the title is the building body of case law. (Larry: Yes). And this goes along with that, this ties into that.

Larry 1:10:30
This does but but the thing that’s so exciting to me is because they are recognizing, finally, that what you’re required to do is not merely providing the public with information that was already part of the conviction, which is what I have said for a long number of years, at least a good I think, since I was helping Maryland some years ago, I kept saying this is the registry If you look at what the US Supreme Court decided in the Connecticut Department public safety versus Doe, they said it was okay to have an internet, have the publication because they were merely redistributing information that was already public. I said, fine. Keep it to just the information that was already a part of the conviction and public. That’s what I said at that time, I have since evolved in my thinking, because now, the internet has become so prevalent, that merely just putting that information out to the world is problematic. But at the time, I said, You’re not just giving them the information that was a part of the crime and the conviction, you’re giving them a whole bunch of information that is not a part of the conviction, it continuously has to be updated. And that’s what’s in this decision That is so exciting to me, because the court recognizes that you’re not just requiring them… they have concluded that as applied to this challenger, And by inference, anyone who is in his situation whose crime predated any registration in Pennsylvania, that the registry as they attempted to recreate in act 29 is still unconstitutional. Now, what they didn’t say is that there’s no registration that you can do That’ll be unconstitutional. In fact, they said just the opposite. They said you could conceivably come up with a registery that would be constitutional, but this isn’t it.

Andy 1:12:30
And having something that you’ve said a number of times that you could have a constitutional registry.

Larry 1:12:35
you could. Pennsylvania if you want me to design you a constitutional registry, remit the standard fee into my account, and I will design you a constitutional registry. It’s not that hard to do. don’t require people to have any restraints on what they can do. don’t require them to come to a police station to be fingerprinted and photographed. Don’t impose any restrictions on where they can be physically present. And don’t put information out to the world that wasn’t a part of the conviction, you will probably be able to have that registry. And don’t require them to ever come see you again after they register, because that’s a disability or restraint. Just simply put their name in a database and tell them go on have a great life, you could get away with doing that. And you could possibly get away with doing a little bit more than that. But you can’t put people on probation supervision, which is what the arguments were compelling in this case, even though they peeled it back to once a year that people with act 29. They said, we’re going to reduce the universe of registerable offenses, and we’re going to take out some of the minor offenses, the misdemeanors and some of them are going to go away. And we’re not going to require them to come in but once a year, it’s still too much. And then they put all this stuff on the internet if you go through, I’ve highlight all the stuff that they put On the Internet of people, it started on page, I believe it’s Page Six here. all the information that they require, It goes way beyond anything related to your conviction.

Andy 1:14:14
Is it too early to bring up why there are I think seven judges signed on to this?

Larry 1:14:20
No but this is an appellate level decision. So when you have a case go on appeal there, they’re decided by more than one judge. So this is this. This is this is an appellate level court, not a trial court. When you’re in a trial court, you have one judge looking at you. (Andy: Right). When you’re in an appellate court, you have at least three judges. And then if you if you do what’s called en banc, where they have the full panel of all the judges that sit in that court, and I don’t know, this is clearly more than a three judge panel. This may be the full court, this may be the full appellate court and I think it is and that’s where we could get some clarification from from from Pennsylvania, but like in our Court of Appeals here in New Mexico, you get a three judge panel, we do exactly the same way they do in the federal system. When you go to the 10th. Circuit on appeal, you’re going to get three judges assigned on a panel at the US Court of Appeals. Well, you do the same thing here in our Court of Appeals, you get a three-judge panel. If you disagree with the three-judge panel, you can ask for full court review, which is seldom granted. Because if they started granting that what would happen with everybody who was not happy with their panel? (Andy: They would do what if they did what?) What would what if if they were more generous in granting full court review for people who weren’t happy with their panel decision? What would be the result of people who did like their panel decision? What would they do?

Andy 1:15:41
start removing judges?

Larry 1:15:44
No, they would file more appeals. And all of a sudden the full court would be convened all the time to do these en banc reviews. And they couldn’t do that they could not move the mountain of appeal cases that are under appeal without going off into panels. So therefore, when you ask for a full court View, you are not likely going to get it. Because if they say start granting full court review, then everybody would want full court review.

Andy 1:16:09
Yeah, sure. Okay. Um, I just wanted to, I wanted to clarify that it’s not a single judge, judging against an individual, that it’s a much larger panel, that is, what are the consequences of this? What is the impact that this has on the larger scope of things?

Larry 1:16:26
Well, anytime you’re in appellate court that that decision is precedential. Unless, unless it’s unless they designated it’s not if it but if they designate it as published a published opinion, this is precedential. So this, assuming that Pennsylvania doesn’t appeal, this would be a presidential decision that would take everyone who’s sex offense who predated registration, out of the zone of act 29, which is the most current iteration that’s enforced there. This would take all those people off. I know that caused hundreds of maybe thousands of people to hurl themselves off of buildings when I said that I thought that they would appeal. I think the good chance is they would appeal this. And I would have to have more information to to really come up what I think the odds are. But when you’re talking about closing the door on registration to a large number of people, if this only applied to one, but when you’re you’re talking about people disappearing, like what I said, in the wind, last week, I think when we were in private chat, I think the odds are way more in favor of they would ask the state Supreme Court to take a look at this. And I think the state Supreme Court probably would take a look at if they’re asked, and I think that they did such a spectacular job writing this, they would probably affirm the work that they’ve done below. But I just I would be very surprised if they don’t and I hope that they don’t. But I think the odds are that they will.

Andy 1:17:54
What does then this do for any other states?

Larry 1:17:59
Well, it has what it what all these decisions do when we are litigating we will shepardize this case and put it in the, in the cases that are that are on point. And we will like if I were to go to try to bring a challenge for people who have to register in our state now who’s whose criminality predated the registry. I would cite to this case, I would say, although this case isn’t binding in this state, there’s a very fine analysis of why this is punitive, as applied to people whose crime predated. They made it very clear that this person could have had no idea of what he was facing. There would have been no notice and they go through a brilliant ex post facto analysis that goes through the Kennedy Mendoza seven factors and they totally disregard two of them. They say that they’re not really relevant for the for the for the analysis, but they go through in great painstaking detail about how the disability restraints of What that is, and that goes through great detail about explaining what the internet does to people and how it has evolved into how it disables a person. And it’s just, so I would cite to it, and every other litigator would cite in this case, in particular, if the Supreme Court reviews it and affirms that, we would say, and the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, we would add this to our list, and it would be a compelling argument, although not binding.

Andy 1:19:23
And if the next state if New Mexico if Utah if Georgia, if they think it cases like this into court, do you think that they have a shot at having things like this, affirmed?

Larry 1:19:38
I do because the internet and the constant reporting in. I actually know a person who’s Well, I don’t think I want to disclose too many details, but I know a person whose crime was well in advance of our registry. And he’s stuck on this thing now because they post a harsh sentence and by the time he got out, we had gone through version one to version two, which requires lifetime registration every three months. He’s essentially on probation through the registry for the rest of his life with all the disabilities restraints, although we don’t have as many disability restraints as some states we have, nope, you can live in where you want to live here. If you can afford it, and they’ll rent to you, they’ll sell it to you can live in it where you want to, but he has all the information related to having to be at the registration office every 90 days. And, and and the information they disclose on the internet. And he would had no idea that this would ever when he was committing the act, he would have no idea that this was going to follow him after he did his time. So he thought he’d be done. Well, he would have been done except for the retroactive inclusion. So I’m going to approach people now that that that this case is out here and say, Hey, you know, we’ve got we’ve got a body of case law that’s expanded to include another state, where they have found that those who were required to register before a registry existed that the register History has existed as too punitive, it cannot be considered a civil regulatory scheme.

Andy 1:21:05
I keep having conversations with people talking about the civil regulatory scheme versus the punishment and you end up like a dog chasing its tail that Well, okay, so you have to do something very simple you have to take you know, you have to send updated address information, find something super benign. Okay, well, that’s great. And then the information gets published on the internet and then people egg your house. And then like the concept of disabilities and restraints of where you could live or not being able to maintain a job well then that moves into punishment, but it’s a civil regulatory scheme and if it’s punishment, then it’s ex post facto and it’s unconstitutional. Anyway, you end up in this like crazy loop that just never ends. And I find that to be an incredibly interesting type of conversation that as they keep throwing up, hey, well, we should have them do this. But that would possibly be punishment and that would be ex post facto see, like, anyway.

Larry 1:21:57
Well the only problem is the sex offenders aren’t there when these conversations are being held. (Andy: I understand). I mean, how many people have you sent up to Atlanta to be in the mix when they’ve been debating this stuff in the last few years? (Andy: Every day). And ff course, the reality is you don’t have the resources. No one can afford to pay to park no one can afford to lose the days of work no one can afford all the… because you have $12 and 14 cents in your bank account. And I think I might be off by a little bit, but not much. And, and but but it’s,

Andy 1:22:32
But for real, even at those rates, though I mean, even if it were, you know, $10 a day for parking, the bank account would get depleted, you know, in not a huge amount of time, if having to spend, how many days do you think someone would have to spend at the state capitol during that two ish month window of the legislative session? Is it an everyday thing? Is it a weekly thing?

Larry 1:22:49
Well, ideally, it would be an everyday thing because even though they’re not talking about this every day, you could be talking with people as you can grab them. Sure. So you want to network with people so if Georgia is in session 40 days, Ideally, you would have someone there for forty days. Now, we can’t even do that here. So we’re not there all 60 days so that ideally, we can’t do that. But don’t worry, it breaks down. In most cases, you don’t have the relationships. I’ve got text messaging at my disposal.

Andy 1:23:15
No, I get it. But what I’m trying to get if I don’t even think it’s $10 a day, I don’t think we could put someone at the Capitol for $10 a day in downtown Atlanta parking,

Larry 1:23:23
That’s what I’m trying to…

Andy 1:23:24
$10, that’s 400 bucks. You know, we could only support a handful of years if at our current volume.

Larry 1:23:30
but that’s what I’m trying to get at was when you build those relationships. So if you were there for 40 days, continuously, for 2021 and 2022. Then, theoretically, if these people get reelected, and you build relationships, you will have them in your text database, and you will be able to contact them without having to be at the capital, and you will have access to them as someone they respect and trust. But you have to start by being there a lot. You can’t establish Relationships by sending people an email. I know how much you guys believe in email, how much you love never having to go out in person and how wonderful the internet is. But you don’t build relationships that way. (Andy: I do). Well, they’re not very solid relationships if you do that, but but if you if you really want to be effective, you’ve got to know these people and to get to know them, you’re going to have to mingle with them.

Andy 1:24:24
You mean people like you?

Larry 1:24:26
sick people like me. Yes.

Andy 1:24:28
I’m not, man, I’m not on board now. I was with you up until that point, if it’s gonna be hanging out with people like negative

Larry 1:24:33
Well, on page 20. It’ll be worthwhile, I highlighted, there are traditionally four categories of laws that violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws, including laws that one, make criminal and punish actions that were innocent at the time they were committed before the law was passed. Two, aggravate a crime to something greater than it was at the time it was committed. Three, change the punishment and inflict a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime. At the time it was committed or four alters the rules of evidence from that required at the time the crime was committed. Now, number four, something that the metoo movement just loves to do, which is to alter the rules of evidence. But in this, the previous factors are more important because what they’re doing is imposing all these things, that he would have never had to have any idea that he would be forced to deal with. And it was many many years and decades, in Act 29, decades after after he committed the offense.

Andy 1:25:34
Could you expand on that then please? (Larry: On what?) well on this number four alter the rules of evidence from that required at the time of the crime? Could this be like all that’s coming to my head right now it would be DNA, something new.

Larry 1:25:47
Well, I was harping about the metoo movement. they do not believe they do not believe that you should ever confront anyone that is too painful for a person who’s accused a person of a crime, it’s just too painful to have them actually be confronted. So therefore we have all the shield laws where we can’t actually do any, any heavy duty cross examination. Those are laws that are constantly being changed. The legislature is constantly being asked to alter the rules of evidence. Now in our state that don’t get very far with it because the Supreme Court says, the hell with you people, we decide what evidence we consider in our court and you don’t, but in states like Louisiana when we’ve had King Alexandra and he tells you that no matter what they do, they win in court, the legislature just comes back to change the rules of evidence, and the metoo movement just loves to change the rule of evidence because due process and evidence, it’s very inconvenient. It takes time, and it costs money. And it can be very uncomfortable for people who are being put on the hot seat about something they’ve alleged.

Andy 1:26:54
I was just I was just hoping to get something specific of an example of of rules of evidence that might be changed?

Larry 1:27:01
Well, I just I just did in terms of what the example of cross examination with rape shield laws. You can’t ask anybody anything. The cross examination we’re all but shut out of that. (Andy: Okay.) Because it’s too, your re victimizing the victim. (Andy: Yeah, sure. Okay). And that is a farce, our system is one of adversarial. Now all you people who believe that we should have this Kumbaya where we what do they call it, that Connecticut advocates for restorative justice? That’s nice. We don’t have that. We have an adversarial system in the United States. You have parties in controversy, and you have attorneys representing the parties in controversy. And the presumption starts out in a criminal setting, that the person who has been brought before the court is presumed to have no criminal culpability. All that was shown was it there was probable cause to get them to that state. And that’s that’s all that was shown is that there was probable cause. That person under our Constitution is not required to do anything. They’re not required to testify. They’re not required to do any rebut any rebuttal. But that’s not the way the victims advocates want it. They want you to be presumed guilty, and they want you not be able to cross examine their accuser because they’ve already been victimized by you to begin with, and how dare you be allowed to, to question what I have said or what was made in my statements to police. Why do I have to go through this, Your Honor?

Andy 1:28:36
What else did you highlight as important things?

Larry 1:28:39
Well, in 58 pages there are a lot of highlights a lot of highlights. (Andy: I imagine so.) it goes all throughout it Yeah, I think there’s some there’s some good ones in there only the clearest of proof may establish their laws punitive in effect and determinant under statute is a civil or punitive we must examine the laws entire statutory scheme. So I harp on that, because we have to prove, what a concept., The statute is presumed valid and we have to prove that. And they make that clear here, that the legislature gets the benefit of the doubt. And the legislature issued all these findings that drive us up the wall about recidivism. And they said that, although they’re conflicting information about recidivism, it is the right of the legislature to find anything they want to find. And that drives our people over the edge, they can find that the world is square if they want to. You don’t have to believe it. But they can issue a finding if they can get a majority of the people to vote for it to sign it, the finding can be that the earth is square. Right? They can find that, so that drives people crazy. It’s the legislature finds that sex offenders pose a risk of recidivism. They have the right to make that finding. If you don’t like that finding, ask the people who made the finding to retract that finding or remove them from office, but they have the right to find anything they want to find.

Andy 1:30:04
And it’s presumed constitutional when they write it and sign it. And then most of the time that our people are not at the table to even push back and say this is not true information.

Larry 1:30:14
That is correct. And and so they they afforded all the deference that they could to the legislature, but despite that, when they found that they did not intend to be punitive, and I think it’s kind of cute, they put in the law, that that, that the dissemination on the internet shall not be construed as punitive, that’s worth a bucket of warm spit. That’s like putting up a sign at your business establishment and saying that if you fall down in my store, it’s on you and then you leave banana peelings, and you can pull out all sorts of cooking oil. I mean, that’s the crazy thing, just because you say that that doesn’t make it punitive. that has no bearing, but they put in the statute that that issue should not be construed as punitive but that’s nice, but the courts construed it as punitive anyway because it’s not for you to Decide how something is construed. And I think that was cute also.

Andy 1:31:04
Yeah, that is I just found that in the document that is on page 11.

Larry 1:31:06
Oh, is that where it was?

Andy 1:31:08
I believe so. Yes. I mean, I looked for the word punitive and and it says the General Assembly intends the internet dissemination provision solely as a means of public protection that shall not be construed as punitive.

Larry 1:31:21
Well, that’s really nice. I appreciate you saying that. But you don’t get to decide how the court construes it.

Andy 1:31:26
Yeah. And that’s why we have the separations of powers. (Larry: Yes). Well, very well, Larry before we wrap it up anything else?

Larry 1:31:35
So Well, let’s see if Theresa has anything, can she be miked in her or she just listening or watching?

Andy 1:31:40
she is just listening and has not chimed in that she would like to.

Larry 1:31:43
Okay, well, then we know we learned a long time ago don’t ask anyone who wasn’t previously invited. So and now she’s typing. Do you like our patrons Larry?

Larry 1:31:57
Of course not.

Andy 1:31:58
You hate them. Okay. Well, great. You won’t thank them but I would like to thank our patrons I’d like to I’d like all of our listeners, but especially, definitely want to thank our patrons for being such ardent supporters of the podcast and helping continue to grow and share and like and support the podcast in general. Love it, love it love it,

Larry 1:32:14
and especially the ones that send us fudge.

Andy 1:32:17
You like that fudge thing, don’t you? That warm fudge that you got? That’s funny.

Larry 1:32:25
The next the next thing you need to do is in addition to making the fudge in addition to spending the money to ship the fudge, you need to put the tracking number and then you need to text me when the fudge is in my mailbox so I can get it out beforehand. That’s not asking too much is it?

Andy 1:32:43
probably not but they don’t always get tracking them to come by ups or Postal Service. (Larry: It was in the postal box.) Then it might not have had tracking information.

Larry 1:32:54
It had tracking. He knows when I got it so

Andy 1:32:59
okay. Well, very good, Larry Where can people find the podcast? (Larry: They can find it online.) Would that be the information superhighway that Al Gore created in the 80s? When did Al Gore create the internet?

Larry 1:33:09
I forgot.

Larry 1:33:10
That would be that would be registrymatters.co

Andy 1:33:12
And we didn’t get any voicemail this week but how could people if they were so inclined to leave a voicemail How would they do that?

Larry 1:33:23
they would either press the button or if you’re an older person and you have a rotary phone, you would dial (747)227-4477

Andy 1:33:34
Oh you’re thinking people should put us on speed dial.

Larry 1:33:36
No I’m thinking of the rotary phone where you actually spin the little dial of the rotary around until you get the numbers to dial all those numbers.

Andy 1:33:43
But you said push the button. You mean you mean like pressing the buttons that makes the two tones? Do you know about those two tones? Right? I’m assuming you know like, do you know about the frequencies?

Larry 1:33:52
Well, I do but what I was saying was most people don’t dial rotary but there might be a listener out there That’s as old as I am that they actually still have a rotary phone. (Andy: Do you actually have a rotary phone?) I sure do, I don’t use it, but I’ve got one.

Andy 1:34:06
That’s we need a picture of that. How about some email Larry? How can they email us?

Larry 1:34:14
That would be registrymatterscast@gmail.com.

Andy 1:34:16
And lastly, of course, the bestest, bestest way, my favorite way to support the podcast is over patreon.com/registrymatters. As little as $1 month if you want to show your love for the podcast, it certainly goes a long way to showing that we, the value of the product that we are putting out. And so yeah, Patreon is a great place to support the podcast,

Larry 1:34:38
I understand that more than 80% of Americans have received their stimulus checks. So therefore,

Andy 1:34:43
You have no excuse. You are Terrible, terrible, Larry.

Larry 1:34:47
So, have you gotten yours?

Andy 1:34:52
Yes, it finally showed up after putting in some direct deposit information. I was hoping to get a check signed by the Donald. (Larry: But you didn’t?) but alas, Nope, nope, no sign check. I would take a picture of it and put that in a scrapbook somewhere. That’s all I got Larry, anything else that you want to before we depart?

Larry 1:35:08
Thank everyone again for, for listening. And for our YouTube subscription has gone over 200 I think 213 or something. Thank you we were trying so hard to make it to 100 when started the channel. And now we’re getting more views because of your lovely FYP studio and you’re live. And I don’t know how much of it because of my beautiful picture but we’re, we’re getting more views on YouTube.

Andy 1:35:34
I think you totally can because of your picture Larry I think it totally could because of that.

Larry 1:35:38
So, but anyways, thank you for everybody for supporting us in whatever way you can.

Andy 1:35:43
Thanks, everybody. Have a great night and we will talk to you soon. Take care. Bye bye

Transcript of RM127: Internet Ban Ruled Unconstitutional In New Jersey

Posted on May 11, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM127: Internet Ban Ruled Unconstitutional In New Jersey

Andy 0:00

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 127 of Registry Matters. Larry like how in the world so I know we’ve like talked about weather and it’s just kind of silly, but it’s snowing in May in the northeast.

Larry 0:29

It is I’ve never heard that.

Andy 0:31

My boss sent me a picture I think it was yesterday morning. Maybe it was Thursday morning of there’s snow on his deck and I know that it was snowing in Pittsburgh. This is I don’t think it’s supposed to be snowing around Mother’s Day. I don’t think unless you’re in like Minot, North Dakota or something.

Larry 0:45

So well. I’ve heard of May, we’ve actually had a little bit of snow here in my city in May. It’s not that uncommon in April, but it is pretty uncommon in May, but right now it’s 85 outside so we’re not having that problem.

Andy 0:58

Wow. Yeah, but you’re on the other side of the planet. I mean, like, you could throw a dart through the earth, and you would be on the other side of where I am,

Larry 1:05

If you say so.

Andy 1:07

I have to tell you a funny little story, and I want you to give me some feedback. I had to mail a letter today. And so I stuffed one piece of paper in an envelope and I addressed it and all things. And I was down to my last two stamps. So I put them both on there figuring I may as well use it up. And so I sent off my letter and I was just wanted to share that idea with you and see if you had any thoughts to get me back on what my process was.

Larry 1:29

So you would want to exhaust your stamp supply faster than what they would have exhausted?

Andy 1:35

If it’s going to expire, right? I mean, it’s forever but that doesn’t mean forever.

Larry 1:40

Well, I can’t follow the logic of exhausting. When you go to the store, assuming that anybody has cash anymore. Do you throw the little bit of cash you have left away? Because that’s all you’ve got? You’re down to your last dollar, your last five, do you toss it in the trash?

Andy 1:56

roundup man just you know, if you buy something, it’s $1 one just give it to them and say Keep it.

Larry 2:00

I see.

Andy 2:02

I do actually you know that I’m trying to be silly with this other thing but for real you have cash and now we have moved into like, I’m not touching anything that anybody else has touched so I will go 100% I don’t even want to hand them my credit card or debit card to pay for stuff. You can do tap to pay where you have your phone and you just like touch the terminal with your phone and it charges you and you never touch your hand anybody anything. Cash is dead man This has killed it.

Larry 2:28

I would say it’s certainly adding to the decline of cash. I was at a chick-fil-a couple weeks ago and they would not touch my card they had gloves on, they handed me the device and said run it yourself.

Andy 2:42

Haha, YOU do it. You people do it. Is that what you said?

Larry 2:48

That’s what they told me to do. they handed me the thing. He didn’t actually let go of it but he put it toward the my window and said process your own transaction.

Andy 2:58

All right. Well, I think that’s enough goofing off for us. I gotta make sure the scene switcher is switching off of me here in a second. Well, it will it work? Will it work first try, Larry? That’s the question.

Larry 3:08

Of course it will.

Andy 3:10

Of course it will? Our first article comes from Law 360. Cops sued for forcing sex offenders to appear amid COVID-19. So tell me if, you shouldn’t have to go appear because all the people in the office could be infected with all of the things and you’re under a lockdown order but they’re still like, dammit, you’re coming to the office no matter what.

Larry 3:35

Well, I don’t think there’s, this was from Fresno, California. And I don’t think there’s a universal answer out there even within the state of California. I would, I would say that people need to look at their health orders carefully and see what has been exempted from the stay at home order and if there’s not an exemption for going to the registry office, my position personally would be that you’re not allowed to go by virtue of the health authoritie’s declarations and proclamations and instructions. So I don’t think a lawsuit’s necessary. Now, having said that, I’m not the one that’s facing a potential prosecution. And we have people who are just terrified because the penalties can be very significant. So they get on their phone and they call and they say, Do I have to come in? Well, the answer is, well, the law hasn’t changed. So of course, you have to come in and they’re right. The law hasn’t changed the law. This pandemic came so quickly, that legislators didn’t say, oh, my goodness, we’ve got to convene a special session so we can figure out how to make sure the sex offenders don’t have to come in person. I mean, that never crossed their mind. And even when they’ve drafted these orders, that never crossed their mind. They were thinking about schools and businesses and universities and, and senior citizens and they weren’t, I mean, Sex Offenders never entered anyone’s thought process because that’s the last thing, the lowest things important to you would think about. But my position is if your order is clear, and it says you’re not allowed to go out except for these exceptions, that it’s not one of the exceptions listed. You’re not allowed to go register.

Andy 5:20

And so here is a lawsuit being filed to I think we had a guest on that was talking. I don’t know if it was on air or off air that well, who do you call when you have these grievances? Who is supposed to heavy air quotes here, judge what is okay to be done if something isn’t clear?

Larry 5:39

Well, I think the law is clear. The law, the statutory language is clear in terms of what each offenders required to do in the various jurisdictions. You either have to come in in person or you have to mail in a form, those obligations are clear. What’s not so clear is that those laws are being impeded by a health pandemic that none of us have ever lived through before. Actually, we did live through it in 1918. But, but most people listening, other than me have not lived through one of these pandemics, and we didn’t do this back in 1918, everybody went on with life pretty much as usual. But there’s lack of clarity in terms of the power of a health order because they don’t implement they don’t invoke those powers. I mean, how many times have you been ordered, or strongly urged to stay home in your life by anything related to government that you can think of?

Andy 6:37

I mean, short of if you had some sort of home arrest sentence, No, I’ve never had but I you know, something like that would exist, but that’s on the individual. We haven’t said the whole state shuts down.

Larry 6:46

That is correct. So we’re in uncharted territory in terms of what the law is. We know what the statutory law is. If it says you need to come in every 90 days, within three days or a birthday or whatever, we know that But what we don’t know, as if there has been a global pandemic, and all your officials have said, I’m ordering things shut down. And the only exceptions are these things here on this list. And we don’t know if you invoke that yourself and say, Okay, I don’t see going to the registry office as an exemption. So therefore, I don’t feel like I can go without being in violation. So I would, if I were required to register, I would mail the registry office a letter and say, in view of, and I would cite the date of the order, and the language of the order, I would say, I’m not allowed to be out because this is not one of the exempt activities. It’s not grocery shopping, it’s not medical, and that whatever the litany of exemptions are, you’re not one of them. So therefore, I’m not allowed to do this. And but please be aware that nothing has changed. And if you have any desire to verify, feels free to call me, email me or whatever it means the communication that people use these days. There’s all these snapchats and things I don’t even understand or do. But that’s what I would personally do. But I’m not recommending anybody do that. I can only speak for what I would do.

Andy 8:11

And were you to file a challenge, what degree of success do you think would go behind it?

Larry 8:19

I would never file a challenge on this. I don’t see the point. As far as I’ve just said, I think the position is, look at your health order, and see what it says. And if you’re not exempt, why do you need a challenge? If going to the registry office wasn’t listed, then you’re not allowed to go. So I would never file a challenge. I would let them file the challenge.

Andy 8:40

You would put them on the offense so that you didn’t show up? You would be the registrant the PFR. And you would make them say, well, we’re hauling you into court.

Larry 8:50

That is correct.

Andy 8:50

That you got you got locked up already. And now we’re filing charges against you because you failed to show up and then you say hey, look, here’s the governor’s order that said you weren’t on the list. So I didn’t show up, eff you.

Larry 9:00

well remember I outlined another step, I would send them a letter in advance of the day that I was supposed to be there. articulating that I won’t be there, nothing has changed. Here’s why I won’t be there. And if you have any thing you’d like to verify, don’t hesitate to contact. But for health reasons, I will not be checking in with you in person until this order is lifted. That’s what I would do. There is no jury anywhere in any of the 57 states that’s going to convict a person if they are under a health order, and that that activity is not exempt. Now, I don’t even think that anyone would file a prosecution. Now, we could have Ashley come on, we can have anybody who’s been a prosecutor. I can’t say what a sheriff’s deputy or a police officer would do. They’re a little bit less predictable, but once the Sheriff files the charges, someone, have you ever seen a sheriff present a case in court? Have you ever seen the sheriff be the attorney representing the state of Georgia or the state of Illinois or any state? Have you ever seen the uniformed officer get up say when they when the when the judge says, counsel for the party state your appearance, have you ever seen the sheriff stand up and state his appearance on behalf of the State?

Andy 10:14

No, I don’t I’ve only seen the Butts County knucklehead do his thing when we sued them, but he had no attorney.

Larry 10:22

Yes, but the sheriff did not represent the state of, the sheriff was a witness. You have to have a prosecutor willing to bring the charge. And I still have some faith in humanity. I do not believe that a prosecutor would bring such a charge when there is an order saying you cannot be out in public except for these things. And that’s not on the list in the except for

Andy 10:51

you know, and I just had a question I wanted to ask you about that. And then it left my brain. Why does this always happen?

Larry 10:57

Because you have dementia.

Andy 10:58

Dementia. Maybe I should Replace the picture of me with the picture of you? Dammit, I had a question. Oh, here, here’s what I mean, my point was going to be that had you moved a month, six months ago, you would have already gone into the office and updated your information already. This whole little thing around your birthday, three days, whatever, you know, for different states of doing it. In addition to that you were already required to do it whether you changed your car changed your internet identifiers, all that stuff, you’ve already gone into the office to notify them of these changes anyway. Right?

Larry 11:31

Well, well, but that doesn’t, that doesn’t lift the law that if it requires you to come in every 90 days or every 30 days or every 10 days or seven days for a homeless person. But but like i’m saying i don’t i don’t think that that a prosecution is very likely. But I can’t guarantee it. So everybody that’s listening. I’m not suggesting you do anything. I’m only telling you what I would do. And from the traction that these court cases have gotten that have been filed. I’m not aware of anybody getting a whole lot of traction with these court cases. And I think this would be a good time to answer Will’s question that we answered last week and in chat. And if we could, if we could do that, that’d be great. So we’re while we’re on the subject.

Andy 12:12

Yeah, totally. Do you want me to unmute Will? Will are you prepared? Or should? Should we just sort of recap it?

Larry 12:19

If he can do a succinct question, let’s just let him ask his question about the disparities.

Andy 12:23

Well, I’m starting my timer. I’m going to unmute you and you have 60 seconds to make your case. Will welcome to Registry Matters. How are you doing?

Will 12:31

I’m doing well, Andy, and thank you for having me on. And to get to it. I was just wondering how they justify the different rulings in different areas of California. Yes, some sheriff’s are saying we’re stopping reporting. But then you have judges in other areas saying no. And I was just wondering why there’s a difference if the statute applies across the state. Why can one area exempt it and the other not?

Larry 12:59

That’s a great question Will and we talked about it privately last week, actually not privately but in the after-chat, and what people need to recognize that there’s very few things you can order an elected official to do. As far as, as far as I’m concerned, a sheriff who’s elected in his or her own right, they can’t be ordered by anybody else to do anything. The the sheriff, the sheriff has the law book, and they have an obligation to enforce those laws. And having said that, that obligation does not mean that there’s no discretion. And let’s just give a hypothetical. If the sheriff has a car pulled over, and another car whizzes by at 95 miles per hour, and the speed limit is 55 miles per hour. And the car whizzes by, okay the sheriff saw the car go by and it blew the, there’s so much wind coming that almost knocked him off the medium and into the into the embankment, so he clearly has the duty to keep the public safe. But the person he’s got pulled over appears to have an outstanding warrant for a felony. So the sheriff in his or her discretionary discharge of their duty, they decide to maintain the contact with the person who appears to have a felony warrant. And they let the person driving 95 miles an hour keep going, that may kill somebody up the road. But that is a whole different thing than the sheriffs when they say that they have to enforce the law, yes, the laws on the books. The California assembly said that you have to do these processings once a year, twice a year, whatever the frequency is, and they prescribed that. But also the sheriff has discretion to say well looking at my current situation, I can’t risk my personnel. Therefore I’m not going to do that. I’m going to minimize the danger to my personnel and I’m not going to have the the the in person contact and in order for that to be ,for you to bring an action against the sheriff, first of all, we would need someone who has standing. And I do not believe that anybody who’s on the sex offender registry they would have little standing. I doubt very many people in the registry except for maybe some, one person in Georgia might, but would bring an action saying that I demand to be able to come in in person. So therefore, the most significant party would have standing. I doubt anybody would file a complaint saying I demand the right to register in person. Then you got to look around who else would have standing? Well, perhaps the Attorney General of the state might have standing if the sheriff is being derelict in their duty. I don’t see an attorney general bring in any type of action to remove a sheriff for dereliction of duty because the Attorney General is also an elected person and the Attorney General is not going to say well, I demand that you will put your deputies in the line of COVID-19 and you will process these people in person or I will seek to have you suspended or removed from office. I don’t see anything bad happening to to a sheriff who decides that therefore we’re just going to do the telephonic. So that explains the disparities. You’ve got some gung ho sheriffs, who believe it’s in their political interest. And by golly, I read the book and it says, I gotta go right by this book, and I’m gonna do it because that’s what I swore on the Bible to do. And you’ve got others that look at it and say that they’re not going to jeopardize their personnel. But there’s nobody, the California in my opinion, I don’t know the California law inside out. But it’s very difficult for an elected official to be ordered to do anything. the people who give elected officials their orders are the people who elect them. Who would be the party that would order the sheriffs to do anything? I don’t think the governor has any direct power over the sheriffs. I know in this state, the governor has no direct power over the sheriffs. They have the power of the purse with funding that they can dangle funding or lack of funding, but the government can’t order a sheriff from New Mexico to do anything. But anyway, I hope that answers the question somewhat that the disparities are simply because the people who run these jurisdictions are taking a different view of their obligations, and some are being more aggressive and they’re willing to put their people at risk and some are being more compassionate, both about the offenders and the risk of their personnel. And it’s just that simple. But the courts are largely staying out of it from what I’m hearing. I’m not aware that there has been any judicial orders shutting these people down from in person processing? Have any of these cases worked Andy?

Andy 17:38

I don’t think so. Where the judges have told Sheriff to do a thing?

Larry 17:45

On these, there’s been actions filed particular in California seeking does not stop a person… have any of these litigations, have any of these worked?

Andy 17:53

I think they’ve doubled down on it, I believe. So Will does that answer your question?

Will 18:00

It answers it very well.

Andy 18:02

All right. Well, thank you. And we appreciate you attending the live stream of Registry Matters.

Will 18:08

Thank you.

Andy 18:10

Any other closing thoughts on that concept there, Larry?

Larry 18:13

Well, I hope it covered it well enough. But we’ve got so much content.

Andy 18:18

If not, we can circle back.

Larry 18:21

Yeah, we better get moving. We’ve already been on an hour.

Andy 18:23

Just about, um, what are we going to do with this Michigan smarmy thing? I think I have a voicemail from Will about it, who we just left and then I also have like some comments from the chat that I had with him talking about it. Can I can I play this voicemail message?

Larry 18:38

Fantastic. Let’s do it.

Will (Voicemail) 18:39

Good evening, Larry and Andy, this is Will from Tennessee. And I received an email today from cureSORT from Wayne Bowers, and tomorrow, not a week from Wednesday as I originally thought but tomorrow, the Michigan legislature is going to have a committee hearing the Judicial Committee on House Bill 5679, which is their new registry law. And it doesn’t look like it addressed very much of what judge Cleveland had targeted with his ruling. And they’re having this meeting this hearing during a time when they know people cannot be present to publicly discuss and debate the law. There will be some people there. Some will be able to speak online. But this is being done, if you asked me, in a very underhanded sneaky way, and I just wanted to call and give you guys a heads up of what’s going on and find out what your take on this is Larry, it just seems awful underhanded to run this through when people can’t be present to discuss it when there’s such a broad interest in it right now. But thank you for what you do. And to all you wonderful people out there who think this registry is such a wonderful thing, you’re such friendly young people have a great day.

Andy 20:07

He’s still just very resistant to actually saying fyp and understanding what fyp stands for.

Larry 20:11

That’s why you should never have told him

Andy 20:15

Maybe Oh, that’s right if he would never have known then he would just run around ignorantly saying fyp going ah it just means friendly young people but he would say fyp, haha. also Will used a term that I need some explaining. He said, smarmy I’ve never heard this word smarmy.

Larry 20:31

I have I haven’t heard it either. So I’m not familiar with that. Must be…

Andy 20:35

He said it means underhanded and shady and like sneaky backhanded He say. so did the house get together and go Hmm, we’re gonna wait till this pandemic occurs and we know that nobody will be able to come to the state capitol to oppose this. So we are going to ramrod our new Sex Offender Registry law into place while no one can oppose it.

Larry 21:02

I really don’t think that’s what’s happening. What’s happening in Michigan is that and now remember, I’m looking backwards now, but I was also looking forward at the time. What what’s happening now is, is the culmination of all the strategy that went to putting us where we are now, the legislature their back is to the wall, the federal judge is about to have the registry go dark. And I think they gave him some additional time because of the pandemic. But there was a date certain established where, that they can no longer enforce the registry. And I said all along that until that day comes that there would be no incentive to legislate because the registry was still being enforced. Why would you want to legislate because if you’re happy with the way it is, and the only thing you would want to legislate to do to maybe to make it tougher, there would be no incentive to make the registry less tough and since the court is already concerned about it being too tough, the politically smart thing to do is to do nothing, which is what they did. And then there was a date certain where the registry is going to go dark. So now they’re faced with a much more difficult choice. They can do absolutely nothing, and let the registry go dark. And they can take their political hit for that. Or they can try to save as much of the registry as they possibly can, which is what I predicted a long time ago that that’s what they would try to do. they’re going to try to save as much of the existing infrastructure as they possibly can. And it may result in another court challenge. I don’t know. I glanced through this bill, I did a quick scan. And I don’t see that it makes much any better. So there may be another court challenge. But if they pass this and I expect there’s a good probability they will because the other choice is so horrendous that it’s thinkable to let the registry go dark. If they pass this, then there may be another challenge. There would have to be another challenge because it would be presumed constitutional upon the governor’s signature. And Gretchen is not going to veto it. It will pass unanimously and she’s not gonna veto, she would not veto it. Governor Snyder wouldn’t have vetoed it. Governor Blanchard wouldn’t have vetoed it back in the 80s. Governor Belkin, wouldn’t have vetoed it in the 70s. I mean, if it gets to their desk, they’re going to sign it.

Andy 23:11

Doesn’t that say something? So the judge says, You can’t make felony jaywalking, a thing because it’s unconstitutional. Well, then they turn around and they write that into the new law. The judge has already ruled that this thing can’t be put in place and can’t be enforced. But the legislature turns around and writes the exact same thing and maybe they say tomAto, not tomato, but they write the exact same thing into it and that is also presumed to be constitutional because the legislature does it?

Larry 23:40

Well, but let’s dissect that. First of all, I really don’t like that felony jaywalking, because there’s no such thing.

Andy 23:48

I think there’s the the residency restriction kind of thing in there and that got ruled to be not enforceable.

Larry 23:54

that will probably not survive for the people who are within that zone. They would not put that Back in there. But the tiering system, for example, where they tiered the offenses, the tiering could still be done as long as you didn’t lengthen the time of their registration retroactively. So they could still potentially have the tier system that they have. And they could say you’re a tier three, but you will still get off under, you will be released from registration under your previous term of registration. And that would survive. I think that would be more likely to survive, but they could just take the tier off. And have you, have the older people have a tier, remove their tier designations, and put them back to the original amount of time they had. There’s all sorts of things they can do. But the judge never said you can’t have a registry. The court didn’t say that. they the judge found that the enhancements in 2006 and 2011 elevated what was a civil regulatory scheme to become punitive. And people want to imagine somehow that that means you can’t have a registry. You can have a non-punitive registry, you can actually have a registry that is non-punitive. Up until Does verses Snyder was decided every previous court that had looked at Michigan’s registry had found it to be non-punitive. It was only when they couldn’t stop piling on. Okay, well, well, why can’t they go back? The judge didn’t say you can’t have a registry. The judge said you can’t do these things to these people retroactively.

Andy 25:27

And isn’t that the point of, I mean, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. If they said they can’t do residency restrictions, the internet identifiers and I’m speaking mostly from what I remember a conversation being it, I didn’t I don’t know all the things that were in there and what are coming back, if the judge said you can’t, these are the things that made it go beyond the threshold. And the legislature goes back in there and says, Okay, well, we’re gonna call this one slightly different, but it’s the same thing.

Larry 25:55

I don’t think it is. I don’t think it’s the same thing for the for the old people. I think like I say, think that there taking off the residency restrictions, the proximity restrictions for the people who predated for the retroactive, and I think they’re taking the tier. We could have, have someone from Michigan Come on, and that would be a good thing to go get into once they pass this, we can get into the nuances. But that’s, the point I’m making is that people got their hopes up, we had a guest on the show that said they could just let those people go, they’re not going to do that. And I hate to be the bearer, they’re not going to do that.

Andy 26:32

Yeah, they’re not just going to let it go dark. But you know, we could go back to whatever 1990 version of the registry where you just sort of showed up and said Hi, here’s my stuff. It hasn’t changed and you walk out of there. I really do love the term disabilities and restraints. I think it’s incredibly effective at what it is.

Larry 26:47

And they, they are taking steps to try to do… their incentive, the politicians who face the wrath of the voters. Their analysis would be, let’s do no more than we have to do. And we can point our fingers at the court and say, this is what we had to do to keep the registry alive. That would be the political analysis. And I don’t make those rules. I’m just telling you what they are.

Andy 27:15

I think you should make rules Larry

Larry 27:17

People get mad at me when I tell them. You’ve got to change the way the public feels about registration. If you really want the results that you claim you want, because they are responding to what the citizenry is telling them that they want, which is to keep tabs on these horrible people.

Andy 27:37

And people would immediately take exception to saying that they’re horrible people

Larry 27:41

That’s, I’m speaking for what the public is saying. That is what they’re hearing from their, from their constituents. And what are they supposed to do when their constituents are saying keep tabs on these horrible people? Are they supposed to say you go to hell?

Andy 27:54

I know. They’re, they’re in a rock and a hard place too, even though they could be sitting there saying, well, all the evidence says that there’s no point in doing this. It doesn’t increase public safety, but the public wants it and they think it makes them feel better. And I would like to be reelected. So what are they supposed to do?

Larry 28:10

Well, I would like to have an episode where, because we seem to have this constant tension about when you’re supposed to be responsive to constituents. So I’d like to know, when you’re supposed to represent your constituents and do what they want. And when you’re supposed to flip the burden, and say, fyp. This is what the people want. In a representative Republic, that’s kind of what our system is designed around is to represent and provide the citizens their avenue to get the governance This is government of for and by the people. Hello?

Andy 28:42

Right. And Brenda brings up an interesting point in chat, she says isn’t Will’s question about the hearing is happening when it’s hard for people to show up to testify? But she thinks it’s cool that a bunch of advocates did show up and testify.

Larry 28:55

I think that of course it’s hard. When we’re in a global pandemic. What are they supposed to do shut down all government and say, well, We’re not gonna deal with budgetary crisis, we’re not gonna deal with health crisis, we’re going to shut down the legislature. This is something that they feel that they must deal with because they’ve got a date cert that they have they have to deal with this. And as I don’t, yes, it’s inconvenient. But they’ve provided as Will said in the question, they provided other options. Nothing stops you from writing or calling or emailing your lawmaker. Nothing stops you from going on the Michigan legislature and looking up every member of the House Judiciary Committee, since this is a house bill, I’m assuming it’s in the house. Nothing stops you from doing that. Does it?

Andy 29:38

I understand? I don’t I don’t think so. I mean, yeah, you’d still pick up the phone. I mean, we’re all trying to do our physical distancing. And we’re making zoom calls and phone calls, and, and so forth. And, I mean, we had to move you to the other side of the world so that we can have our particular distancing. So yeah, I mean, this is, this is what you’re supposed to be doing.

Larry 29:57

And the reality is that very few show up anyway, in the case of Michigan since there’s been so much litigation, without the pandemic, perhaps more may have shown up. I don’t know that but in reality when these things are heard, Brenda knows she’s been to Annapolis enough times the victims advocates outnumber, many times over the law enforcement apparatus and the victims advocates when they call for testimony, the whole room is tilted to one side and then you call for the people in opposition. There’s two there. There’s the public defenders and and and perhaps fair, but but that’s the way it is across the country.

Andy 30:38

Let’s move over to an article from courthouse news. says college sexual assault rules change to give more rights to accused. Uh, I thought that we were just supposed to believe the alleged victim that their story is 100% true and we should drive a bus repeatedly over the person that is being accused of these crimes.

Larry 31:01

That is that is apparently has been the standard, but now with a vice former Vice President Biden being accused now there’s apparently a new standard evolving. And that is apparently now that we take the accusation, and we now investigate. what a concept andy we investigate allegations of criminality. Wow.

Andy 31:30

Hmm. And this would be based on your accuser gathering evidence, taking testimony and so forth to try and build a case against the person being accused of to see if it still holds water? I guess would be an expression.

Larry 31:43

remember, the accused doesn’t have to do anything.

Andy 31:46

Correct. I’m with you. The burden of proof is all on the accuser.

Larry 31:51

always under our system, the accuser, bears the burden of showing by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what they have accused this person of is true. And we’ve turned that upside down in the area. And I don’t I don’t often say good things about the Trump administration, but I support this 100%. And I find…

Andy 32:19

Can you remind me what beyond a reasonable doubt means.

Larry 32:22

I don’t think we ,there’s no legal inter- It’s it’s the proof that, you know…

Andy 32:28

Doesn’t that mean that the 11 out of 12 or like, you know, I sort of thought that that might mean like unanimous jury?

Larry 32:34

Well, in most in most instances, that does mean unanimous, but but some of the quotes here, I encourage people to read this I mean, the quotes from the Democrat Party, that this is so heinous, according to Pelosi, I respectfully disagree with madam Pelosi. I don’t think this is I don’t think this is so horrible at all.

Andy 32:59

Anything specific you’d like them to point out? I mean, you know, it’s not it’s not a terribly long article take you two minutes to read it. Just wondering, is there anything specific about anything you want them to focus on in there?

Larry 33:13

Well, unfortunately, it’s the Democratic Party appears to be on the wrong side of this issue. But the way Pelosi and Adler are talking to this is going to be I mean, this is setting back victims or survivors by 100 years. So, but I totally vehemently disagree. I think it’s restoring the proper balance, or at least getting us closer to that proper balance, and Pelosi slammed the rules as callous, cruel and dangerous, threatening to silence survivors and endanger vulnerable students in the middle of a public health crisis. End of quote.

Andy 33:52

I see I see. All right, well, reason magazine, and then I don’t know 45 other articles. For those of you who are PTSD over all of the COVID article So here’s your, I don’t know, 20-minute trigger warning that we’re going to cover some COVID stuff for a little while, but this first one is probably on at least the positive side. Lawmakers call out Cuomo and other governors for letting prisoners die of COVID. This covers like AOC and other legislators bashing the various governors saying that, like they’re not letting you know, there’s some sort of token number of people being released. No significant number of people being released from prison from for being old for being some level of compromised health, very minor offenses or even like, hey, you’re getting out in three weeks. Why don’t we just let you out now? No, it’s a it’s a kind of cool article calling them out.

Larry 34:43

I I appreciate that. Most issues with criminal justice that the Democratic Party typically is on the right side, those Democratic governors who have the power they have been very timid and I know that they’re concerned about political consequences. But Sometimes you have to do what the captain did that was rescuing on those sailors in the shark infested waters in World War Two. You just have to do it. And the governors they’re just not doing they’re not exercising the powers that they have.

Andy 35:14

Wouldn’t this be equivalent to, going back to the legislators in Michigan that they’re going to be held to the fire come election time in two or four, six years that, you released all these horrible criminals from prison during this thing, like you could have left them in there, we didn’t want them on the streets to begin with. Now our safety is compromised along with our health, blah, blah, blah?

Larry 35:36

That is always a real possibility that that that would happen. And I think you have to you have to tell your constituents that when I put my hand and took the oath. I swore to do follow the law. The law gave me the power and I think it was the right thing to do. Your judgment will ultimately vindicate or you will sink I will, I will fall to but but you can’t politicize everything at some point. You just have to do the right thing. And our democratic governors, I don’t expect much other republican governors because we’re going to get to an article later. So I’m calling I’m calling out the Democratic governors who profess, who profess to be about reforming the system. And who profess to hold compassion in their heart. Like I said, I wouldn’t expect much from a southern governor, because they’re all republican, I wish they would They would deliver more, but I don’t expect much, but I expect more out of Mario’s son, I expect more out of out of Cuomo I expect more out of Noosum.

Andy 36:41

Yeah, and on that I’m going to highlight the asshat of the night is the Mississippi governor says pandemic is no excuse to release inmates. Mississippi governor Tate Reeves said Wednesday that the state will not consider early release for prisoners during the Coronavirus pandemic. Even with inmates living in conditions that make social distancing difficult. Eff You on this one, you’re just being. I have a lot of words that I would like to say, Larry, and I’m not gonna say them.

Larry 37:11

Well, he, I mean, he makes one semi valid point. He says that it’s not his job to rewrite the sentencing of the state. his job, that’s a legislative function. But he has a, he has a crisis in Mississippi to begin with. If I’m not mistaken, their prisons are running a significant capacity issue already. prior to this They’ve had deaths. I think we’ve talked about this podcast. He’s got a prison system in chaos before this comes along. And he’s, he’s absent, as far as I can see, in terms of trying to take any proactive steps to deal with but he said that cell phones were the problem, remember?

Andy 37:54

Yes, yes. Yeah. Oh, yeah, that’s right. He did say yes. Because of the cell phones. We had riots no, people use the cell phones to document the shitty conditions that you had your prisons in. That’s probably what created the riots.

Larry 38:08

But I’ll just give you some proportionality about our state has a population of 2 million. We have roughly 6,800 in custody and our state prisons, Mississippi has a population of 3 million, which on a per capita basis, that would add 50%, so they would go from from 7,000. So you would their prison population would be a little over 10,000. Mississippi has more than 18,000 prisoners in custody. And they’re they’re one of the highest incarceration rate of incarcerations in the in the in the nation. And I have to conclude that either Mississippians are predisposed to commit crime and that’s all over the South. that happens the same in Louisiana happens the same in a lot of southern states. Either Mississippians and southerners are inherently criminal by nature, or there’s something about the south that’s different because they have this fixation on incarcerating at such a high level compared to the rest of the country.

Andy 39:04

You know, I used to live much further south. I used to live in New Orleans for a long time and I worked at a job where we would travel across all the southern states. And every time I crossed into Mississippi, I just had this overwhelming compelling, like, energy that I needed to do horrible, terrible criminal things. So maybe Mississippi does have some sort of aura around it that makes people do criminal things.

Larry 39:24

I never knew that.

Andy 39:28

Yep, it’s totally true. That’s fact. You could go find it on Alex Jones and Infowars for sure. Cuz That’s reliable information. Then over at slate. Other countries’ courts are treating the prison pandemic as a real emergency. US prisons’ COVID-19 response lag behind countries such as Tunisia and Palestine hmm those are first world like those are very progressive kinds of countries I think.

Larry 39:53

I didn’t even know we had a country named Palestine. Did we know a country named Palestine? Where’s that?

Andy 39:57

I do not believe so but do you recall, nine ish months ago, we covered an article. And it said there were 205 countries made some number like that. And I had just recently read that there are 195 countries. And I’m like how do we have a disparity of 10 something countries? I know that like Eastern Somalia is like the newest country when the two, I want to say it’s small. Yeah, it could be. I don’t think it was Sudan, maybe it was Sudan, one of those two split in the last decade. I was like, that’s the newest country. we have 195, but maybe it’s recognized countries by the UN?

Larry 40:32

A lot of recognition has been afforded to the Palestinian Authority. The problem with the Palestinian Authority is you have you have split authority, you have the west bank of the Jordan River, where the Palestinian Authority is controlled. Then you have the the the Gaza Strip, which is a much smaller sliverof land, which is under which is under a different regime of Hamas, but they were elected. And we really want countries to have their own elections. We sure do get amazed when they have elections. And they elect people that we don’t like. But but to the point of this article, these countries that we think are so horrible, they have really, it said Iran released 100,000 people, nearly 100,000 people, right?

Andy 41:18

Yes, well, I remember being 50, but maybe it’s up to 100. By now, there must be just an overwhelming tidal wave of crime in their country.

Larry 41:25

So but it said it Iran had a prison population of about 189,000 in a system that was designed to hold to 150,000. And the government felt, it took meaningful action Only after thousands of infections and hundreds of deaths are reported. Did officials take the situation seriously and release nearly 100,000 people, assuming that’s accurate, more than far more than had been released in the United States? Now remember, folks, we have 2.2 million people in custody. And we have said on this podcast that they would need to release half of the people on some sort of community supervision. Home arrest or something for the prisons to be able to have any hope of containing a pandemic. Now, if Iran released two thirds of their prisoners, we would have to on the same scale release How many, what would be two thirds of 2.2 million to replicate what Iran has done?

Andy 42:18

Six times to over a million people like 1.4 ish 1.5.

Larry 42:24

Well, 1.1, million would be only 50%. So yes, we would have to. We’ve only released a few thousand. Nationwide.

Andy 42:33

Right, yeah, the numbers are just like token one person here two persons there. It’s it’s pretty, pretty disturbing.

Larry 42:38

At last count. We have 33…

Andy 42:40

But these people have commited crimes, man. But you only have like 25 people locked up.

Larry 42:46

6800 and we’ve released 33.

Andy 42:49

That’s close.

Larry 42:51

So but yeah, this is this. This is sad because once once people we’re seeing stats, I think and some of these articles where 50, 70, 80% of the people are testing positive and those who have who have immune issues or are more prone to suffer ill side effects. It doesn’t I mean people some people have it they they don’t know they have it or they think they have a common cold. But uh, but there’s a lot of people who who are going to die that weren’t sentenced to death.

Andy 43:23

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 registrmatters cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message. (747)227-4477 Wanna support registry matters on a monthly basis. Head to Patreon.com/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. How about over at ABC News over 5000 corrections officers have contracted COVID-19 I’m just gonna throw out there Larry, you can you can tell me that I’m crazy as poop if you want to. I believe that there are more correction people, people incarcerated than there are corrections officers. So if 5,000 correction officers have had it, whatever proportion that is way more people locked up have it.

Larry 44:34

Absolutely. And I think we know that there’s been a serious lack of testing. It’s been it’s been far less testing in the prisons than have been in the in the in the free world which has been inadequate itself.

Andy 44:47

And that seems like a great way to manage the whole thing is if we don’t test it, if we don’t know about it, then we can just sort of ignore it and say it’s not real, not there. It’s not a problem.

Larry 44:57

There is there is some truth to that. We’ll get to an article next about our state’s Supreme Court here. And that was the corrections department’s defense. They said, Well, we we’ve only found a small number of people positive. Yeah, but you’ve only tested a small number of people.

Andy 45:14

What do you think we should do with an officer? Should we should we still let that officer go back to work when they have it? I mean, should they be running around a dorm, like doing headcount and things of that nature interacting with the inmates if they are testing positive?

Larry 45:30

not being a medical person, it just doesn’t seem like it would it would be a prudent thing to do if it’s as contagious as we’ve been told and led to believe it doesn’t seem like you’d want those officers around anybody while there. Isn’t there like a period of time where that is highly contagious. We’ve been told,

Andy 45:46

oh, you know, honestly, I haven’t heard about that aspect. I just know that you can be asymptomatic and infectious for something of two weeks before you would show symptoms. I think if pulled that back to 10 days, but I don’t want to split hairs over that one.

Larry 45:59

But if it If there was no need for if it wasn’t something that was contagious, why are we social distancing? There’d be no point in social distancing. If you couldn’t catch it from anybody.

Andy 46:09

That would be correct, though I still am pretty sure that that’s how people are catching it. They’re not catching it through drug use sharing forks, they’re catching it by like, being nearby someone in you know, at a grocery store at a restaurant. That’s, I’m assuming that’s how it’s caught.

Larry 46:25

Oh, well, we’ll have to have a medical person. Come on. Add that to the list.

Andy 46:30

Yes, we should. I’ll put that on the roster. Then over in your neck of the woods, New Mexico Supreme Court rejects requests for mass prisoner release, why won’t you people release our people?

Larry 46:39

Well, this has been a pattern of Supreme Court. There’s been a number of petitions taken asking for this. And the problems that we’re having is that all of a sudden, we’re asking our courts to become the legislative branch. And for most of my life, I’ve heard this terminology about legislating from the bench. I don’t won’t judges that legislate from the bench. I want them to interpret the law. And that’s what I’m looking for in a judicial selection. Well, there are processes in place in practically every state where these petitions have been filed. I think in fact, every state where these petitions have been filed they’re processes in place already to release people, and they’re primarily under the executive branch, but also the judges have certain powers depending on the state to release people. pretrial, the judge, almost everything in a pretrial setting would be controlled by the by the, by the judge, because the person hasn’t been convicted yet. So the judge would have the broadest of discretion in pre trial, but even a sentence person, sentences can be modified and types of confinement can be modified by courts in some instances. And then there is the extraordinary powers that governors have. And these governors are hesitant to exercise these powers and everybody’s running to court and I understand if you realize that nobody is going to get out the court is your last Stop. But these courts are saying no, the processes already exist to have people released. And we’re not this is not our role. We’re not supposed to be doing this. So they’re ducking these petitions.

Andy 48:14

We often call them super legislators. Now we’re almost asking them to be super governors.

Larry 48:20

Well, well, I’m deliberately trying to make that point. As I continue to believe their audience leans primarily conservative. Most of I suspect our listeners say they don’t want judges legislating from the bench. And that’s exactly what’s being asked of them. They’re being asked to pretend like the processes that are there are not there, simply because they’re not being utilized in the way that you would. I would like for these people to be out. I’ve said that over and over again, I would like for the prison population to be released, reduced considerably, but the processes exist already. Our politics won’t allow us to do that. So it’s a political paralysis that’s taken taken control of this. It’s kind of like the thing with guns clearly our country, we could reduce gun violence, we’re not going to, but we could reduce gun violence. But we would have to look at the second amendment and what type of alterations we would be willing to make. And the gun enthusiasts would come out in droves. And they would so politicize it and demonize anybody who even wanted to have a discussion about it. But we have a process in place and these courts are saying, Hey, we’re, we’re not here to do that for you. If you want if you want these people out, utilize the processes that already exist.

Andy 49:40

Do you, can we reflect on the the protests the in Michigan, though, that they’re demanding that the governor open the state? Do you see any relationship there to the mindset of people and their state’s rights and legislating from the bench and marching with loaded weapons on the state Capitol?

Larry 50:00

Well first of all, I have absolutely no problem with people exercising their rights to to petition the government for redress of their grievances. So demanding that they be allowed to work and to go about their lives I have no problem with that. It may not be prudent but we’re constantly getting different information and new information and I can understand if you’re if your life is being destroyed and some people’s are. some businesses are being destroyed just I don’t know if you’ve ever gone to Sweet Tomatoes but they they announced two days ago that they will not reopen any of their of their locations because of this pandemic. Have you ever eaten at a sweet tomatoes?

Andy 50:40

I’ve never heard of it.

Larry 50:42

Well Sweet Tomatoes is basically a super salad bar. those those buffet lines are difficult to…

Andy 50:54

Yeah, that’s a dead industry probably.

Larry 50:57

But But people’s people’s businesses they built in their life has been destroyed, being destroyed. And if you don’t have the right to petition the government for redress of your grievance when your life has been destroyed, when would you have a right to petition the government and the protests? so I have no problem with them protesting.

Andy 51:15

Yeah. And I yeah and I, I do find that this is it seems that our people the PFRs have they think that the Supreme Court is going to save us from what is a state issue and here is the quote unquote, global pandemic. And the states are picking what is allowed to happen, what isn’t when they’re closing when they’re not exactly as it is a state issue. And I still continue to think that this overlays exactly as an example as a metaphor for the registry that the state has residency restrictions. This does not you’re looking for your grievances to be resolved by your legislators or your Supreme Court. Like, they lay on top of each other. They’re exactly parallel to each other.

Larry 51:59

So well I’m not completely sure I followed that, that whole thought process, but the protesters they’re being they’re being encouraged a little bit by the president, which I don’t really, I don’t really support the president saying that. he makes a comment about getting rid of these democrat governors? That are they’re being a bit cautious on the reopening. But these governors are doing, what their health experts are telling them. I do not believe that the democrat governors are convening in the middle of the night on some sinister motivation to try to deprive Mr. Trump of reelection to try to keep their state shut down. I mean, I cannot be that cynical. I know there are people out there that are but I don’t believe these democrat governors are doing that. By the same token, I don’t believe that Governor Kevin in Georgia had sinister motivations to “Well, Somebody made a major campaign contribution to him, he owns a big business. So therefore he decided to open…” I think he’s got health advisors that are telling him that That they can safely do what they’re doing. And I believe he’s following following what he has, he has been told. And he’s doing what he thinks is best for the citizens of Georgia. Guess what, we’ll have elections for governors in all these states very soon. And the governors will be held accountable for the decisions that they made, we will be able to look back. And we’ll be able to look back critically at what was done and what was necessary. Some things that we thought were necessary. I think we’re looking back we I mean, we we brought in a naval ship in New York and we built hospitals in central city park and we built stuff that have largely gone vacant because of this massive and massive amount of ventilators that they needed billions and millions of them. They turned out to be wrong. The ship has now gone What was that the comfort or the mercy of whatever, one of those one to one. but but the people I don’t think they’re making these decisions with all these sinister, conspiratorial, I mean, our thoughts about our governance is sunk to such a low that You would think you would think that they do that. I’ve been around elected leaders for a great number of years. And these conversations seldom happen. I mean, there are political conversations about how to maximize political advantage for certain situations. But a global health pandemic is not one of them. They will have conspiracies about things like we want to, we want to be on the right side of public education. And we want to make sure we get credit for getting the teachers their raise, they want to make sure that the union members recognize that we fought hard, and that the Republicans fought against that or blah, blah, blah. We want the workers to know that we fought for an increased minimum wage. There is that type of trying to maximize the political, but they don’t sit around at night trying to figure out how to make bad things happen, so that they can make the other party look bad. that that just doesn’t happen, folks.

Andy 54:52

Next article comes from law.com California Supreme Court won’t open jail doors but says local courts have options. This actually probably dovetails exactly on what I was just describing that your local community can address whether people get out or not. And we the people probably have the power to call them and tell them that they should and that they will pay for it in the polls Next go around if they don’t do the things that we are asking them to do.

Larry 55:20

I wasn’t able actually look at that article because of the law.com suppression. But…

Andy 55:26

it’s expensive, man, I’m telling you, it’s like 30 bucks a month or something. It’s crazy.

Larry 55:31

But But what what I was just talking about in my previous rant about the people that are pre trial, clearly, the local courts have control of that even people that are there post trial. There are some controls. there are sometimes where you don’t have any control as a judge after they’ve been sentenced. But there are a lot of levers that are not being utilized right now. And there’s there is the temptation to pass the buck. I don’t want to have this on me if it goes bad. Very few people have forgotten willie horton in 1988.

Andy 56:03

Who is that?

Larry 56:04

We’ve talked about Willie before. Willie was Willie was a person who was serving time in a Massachusetts prison. And Michael Dukakis was the governor and he was a Democrat Party nominee for President in 1988. And he was running against the incumbent vice president George HW Bush, and H.W. ran all these evil racist ads, because Willie had been furloughed one weekend and he went out and did something heinous. I don’t remember what it was if it was a rape or pillage or plunder or murder or what it was, but he did something really bad on a furlough. And H.W. made it sound like in his advertising. He appealed to that silent majority out there about if you elect this man president, this is what you’re going to have this weekend furloughs for people like this. Dukakis had no idea that the man was out on furlough. He never even thought about the furlough program. He probably didn’t even know that they had such a program until willie horton happened. He I mean, it would have been the furthest thing from my mind, you put a person in charge of the corrections department, you hope they do a good job. And you’d keep that out of your mind because it doesn’t win you a whole lot of votes. It could cost you a whole lot of votes, but it doesn’t win you a whole lot of votes. And so he had no idea. But that’s what willie horton and everybody who’s in politics. They remember, Willie Horton.

Andy 57:23

speaking of Massachusetts, though, from WBR Massachusetts highest court asks, Who releases prisoners in a pandemic? I didn’t think that the Supreme Court of the state would ask questions back into the lower section of the other branches. I thought everything would like flow in their direction first.

Larry 57:41

Well, it is it is a good question. Since everybody is dodging who who would make the decision? I think that I think the courts trying to figure that out

Andy 57:48

the executive has the power to let people go for low commute all those they have those powers. Do they have that power in Georgia though, that’s a separate like the pardon & parole board has the ultimate authority?

Larry 58:01

I don’t believe in Georgia. I think a long decades ago they took that power away from the governor because of abuse. And they created the independent board of pardons and paroles and Georgia actually has one of the better systems in my view.

Andy 58:15

I think I think the governor could say your sentence is commuted, that would be that would be final, but I don’t think he can say, Hey, we want we would like to let this guy go because he’s a nice dude. I don’t think they have that power.

Larry 58:26

I’m not sure the governor of Georgia can pardon anybody. I’m sure. I think that only the pardon and parole board can do that. They were selling they were selling pardons back in the Tallmadge administration, a long time ago.

Andy 58:41

And so in that question, though, then could the legislature meet and say, and rewrite some sort of sentencing law that says everybody who has less than a year can go home tomorrow and they sign it governor signs it and then the doors just open and the thousand, the one year less go home? Could the legislature do that? Even in a theory point of view?

Larry 59:00

Theoretically, they could, they’re not likely to do that. First of all, most states have part time legislatures that are not in session. So you’d have to, you’d have to be in session. I don’t see anybody calling a special session, Oh well we want to figure out how to get the prisoners out. Let’s call I mean, I don’t see that happening. You could possibly convince if there’s going to be a special session which we will have one because our budget is so far out of balance, because of the pandemic, you could possibly convince that be added to an agenda. But it’s so controversial, that a governor in a special session is going to say no, I don’t really don’t want that to be talked about because we’ll never get out of here. We’ll never get the budget. We’ll never do the things we have to do. And this is going to be this is going to be a free for all. But theoretically, it’s possible, but politically, it’s just not likely that you would you would have… these are the types of decisions that need to be made before we have a pandemic, about about how we will, how we will, all these things we need to have in place. We need to have like the unemployment. every time we have an economic disaster in this country and we’ve had a number of them in my lifetime. we lived through the Great Depression in the 1930s. And then we’ve had economic slowdowns in the 70s. And each time we have that they convene. And this time they had to do it with only a few members present but they they passed this cares act. And they put these things together quickly to respond to an emergency. And then there there end up being gaps and unintended consequences, what we have to do is to have these in place where that these things happen automatically. When we have unemployment going up, there would be an automatic kick in of extended benefits. You don’t have to have that debate. And then things would pull back when the when the unemployment rate falls. And I know that that that’s hard to do, because nobody wants to plan for a pandemic. But now we’ve had this experience and we ended up we ended up not executing very well. We didn’t do a very, We didn’t execute well on the payroll protection program. We didn’t execute very Well on the unemployment, the Republicans had concern about the extra $600 a week. They were correct. That’s an incentive and inducement not to work, because the state benefit is compounded by the extra $600. And so you got a person that was making, and I won’t call particulars, but an old person who was apparently about $150 a week is getting paid $769 a week not to work. And there’s no…

Andy 1:01:25

I mean, that’s the ideal though, like, You need to be incentivized to stay your tushie home, because we need you to stay home to not be in a position where you’re forced to be compromised to go out in public.

Larry 1:01:35

But when the when the pandemic abates, then the person still has no incentive, because those benefits those benefits lasts for at least 16 weeks. And, and the democrats were right when they argued for the $600 because they said, if we’re not going to allow people to work, if the government’s going to force the closure of their businesses, then the traditional replacement of 40 to 50% of a person’s earnings is not fair to them because they got mortgages. They’ve got their expense structure to support built on what they were earning. both sides were right. The Republicans were right that it was going to provide a perverse incentive not to work and the democrats were right that we couldn’t just tell people not to work and then not make them whole. So but but the solution is to think this through now that we’ve gone through this pandemic, and let’s put together emergency measures that that are able to be triggered without having to do a fly by night, quick pass of something where you don’t have time to work out the details.

Andy 1:02:36

Jen in chat, and by the way, if you want to participate in the show, we do have a chat room, you can find it in the show notes over at registrymatters.co and participate and watch the live stream and chat along. but Jen in chat says but the money isn’t lasting forever and who knows if the jobs are even coming back. It’s a pretty decent point. I mean, I guess I’m of the mindset that we are going to say okay, All clear. And we’re going to flip a switch and not everybody, but everybody’s going to kind of sort of go back to work the way that it was in February.

Larry 1:03:07

Well, well, Jen is absolutely right. The jobs are not going to all come back. Right now, I just mentioned Sweet Tomatoes, their jobs are clearly not coming back. But what I’m talking about is employers who have had their, their permission to open, as the restrictions have been lifted. They’re reaching out to their employees, and trying to recall them and employees are saying, why would we want to come back to work? I’ve had an employer tell me that. He said, I want to recall my people and they don’t want to work. And I said, Well, why would you want people who don’t want to work? Why don’t you go out and hire brand new people? Well, but they’re collecting unemployment, and they’re going to keep collecting it. But if you force people to come back to work, when they’re going to be getting $1,000 a week not to work, you’re going to pay him $475 a week to work, they would be nuts to want to come back to work. But that does end that $600 supplement ends at the end of July. And then it’s got to be a more normal payment level for those who are unemployed and those jobs are going to not come back all at once.

Andy 1:04:03

I’m wondering though, I keep hearing stories of people spending, you know, five, six weeks at home with their kids and they are ready to get out, they will go back to work.

Larry 1:04:12

Well, I’m not saying that everybody who’s getting $1,000 a week to not to work is going to be happy with it. But there are people who are being offered the opportunity to come back to work and they’re saying no, I don’t want to but when the $600 peels off and they’re back to the, state benefits are pretty low. Our state is actually on the high side, but state benefits can run as low as about $300 a week maximum benefits.

Andy 1:04:33

Yes. And that’s roughly somewhere around what it is here.

Larry 1:04:36

Yeah, I think Georgia maxes out at like $335 or $365 a week. And, and ours is closer to $500 a week. But but but that’s still if you had if you had a job that was paying your $70,000, $500 a week times times, If you annualize that, that’s only what $500 a week times 50 that’s nowhere near that’s nowhere near $70,000.

Andy 1:04:59

Sure, sure. Yeah. So all right, do you know what my favorite kinds of articles are Larry?

Larry 1:05:05

they’re the ones where we don’t have to talk about them.

Andy 1:05:07

Yes. So we’re going to have a moment of silence while we not talk about this next article. All right, that was the moment of silence. I like the ones that are related around technology of course and here is New Jersey yet another state saying that it is unconstitutional to ban PFRs from using the internet here is a state of the of New Jersey where I honestly I totally need you to dumb it down because all the legalese and all that I don’t follow it but I know packingham was referenced and modern day internet, social media all that it can’t keep people from doing it just because you said they did a naughty thing some time ago.

Larry 1:05:43

Well, I went through the 43 page opinion, I haven’t done this for a while and I made yellow highlighting through things I thought were interesting that you might find interesting, but what struck out at me is, now folks this is an appellate court decision, but it’s not the New Jersey Supreme Court, and I asked in pre shell banter If I’m allowed to tell you what I think they’re likely to do. So Andy am I allowed to tell you what I think they’re likely to do?

Andy 1:06:09

Let me, God if I would have known that I would have actually gotten the the words from Super patron Mike and he would say, I like that you do not hold back, Larry, tell us what you want to say.

Larry 1:06:18

So it would be more than likely that they would appeal this. they’ll follow, Since this is the mid level. It went from trial court to the Appellate Division. And then there’s the state Supreme Court. When a state statute is struck down, and they did strike the statute down that New Jersey has. It would be so unlikely that they would not file a cert petition. That I would be I would be remiss to tell you anything to the contrary. They should because the Attorney General is bound to the defend the laws of the state. It would be more than likely that they would file a cert petition and they would want a state supreme court review of this appellate level decision, but in the meantime, it is a good decision. What struck me out at this, this guy had an old defense that goes back to the year 2000. And that, and what? And his sentencing in June of 2000, he was given time served, and three years probation. Now, let’s assume he might have stayed in jail, anywhere from a few days to a couple months to maybe a year, year and a half. But whatever that amount of time was, his sentence was time served in probation. And then he was given what they call community supervision for life. And then with it within a few years, in 2004 He was sentenced to four years in prison for violating probation. His sentence of probation was only three years, folks. So now he’s been sentenced to serve four years. After a second violation of 2005 He was sentenced to four years of adult diagnostic and treatment. So now you had four and four, were up to eight. But it doesn’t stop there. He, he, he, they continued to pile on conditions. In 2007 The board added a new condition, to his parole as they did to all other individual serving the CSL sentence that he was prohibited from using social media on the internet without the Express authorization of the district parole supervisor. And so there’s where the present day troubles come from, as he had, They kept piling on more conditions and more conditions. These people don’t know how to stop. So almost six years after his conviction for violating the social networking ban, He filed two separate motions to correct the sentence not authorized by law. And This is a unique and novel way to get to court because he’s still under sentence. And courts generally have the power to correct an illegal sentence. And he argued that the social networking restriction added to his June 2000 sentence related to his guilty plea in October 1999 Was unconstitutional. And he cited the US Constitution, and the New Jersey constitution. And he won. And he won based on packingham. And I think we had Ashley on some months back and she had more faith that packingham was going to help those under supervision. And we need to say emphatically she was right, because she read a lot more into packingham than what I did, because clearly it was a case where the issue was not before the court for people under supervision, that people in North Carolina challenged. They were not under supervision. But she read more to the dicta than I did. And and so this, the courts are starting to say, with a couple of exceptions which are cited in this opinion in the Fifth Circuit and I forget which other circuit, the courts were beginning to say that you do have the right to access social media. And that the that the that the bans are unconstitutional, and they felt in this particular case that it was facially unconstitutional, which is the toughest challenge to make.

Andy 1:10:31

Here we go with another state what district is this Larry?

Larry 1:10:35

Well, this is this is in state court, but but were in the Northeast so I think that might be the first or second circuit, but uh, but, but this, but this is not in federal court. The only way this could get into federal court would be if the, the state does, which I anticipate they will do if they seek a Supreme Court review, and I’d be very surprised if they don’t, then if the supreme Court upholds the appellate court, then they would have the right to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court. And they could ask the US Supreme Court to answer the question. Did you people intend to protect those who are under supervision? Or did you people when you did packingham only intend to protect those who had paid their debt to society? And that would be the basis that I would write the cert petition If I were representing the state, I would say now you people had the dicta in here. But that wasn’t the issue before the court. So therefore, this is a novel better first impression. And to clarify for the whole United States, please grant review, and tell us what you meant, when you said that, that that it was unconstitutional to ban people from social media. And that’s what I think that they could conceivably do If if the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court, the state Supreme Court that is.

Andy 1:11:54

and do you want to like lay your chips down and say which way that goes?

Larry 1:12:00

Well, if the Supreme Court were to get a cert petition, I think this is juicy enough that they just might grant it. They like exciting things. And I think that if they were to get a cert petition, they would they would they would want to grant it, but who knows?

Andy 1:12:17

do we have any cases where they have ruled in the other direction where they said you can’t, and it held up?

Larry 1:12:26

Yes. In this decision, like I said the Fifth Circuit has said that, that those under supervision don’t have these rights, that packingham has nothing to do with those under supervision. Illinois Supreme Court, I think said the same thing.

Andy 1:12:40

And so that accelerates the opportunity to get it in the supreme court where you have different regions saying yes and no.

Larry 1:12:47

that would enhance the likelihood. But I think it’s just juicy enough that they would want to review it anyway. Because they’ve laid down the law in packingham, that you don’t give up all your rights.

Andy 1:12:58

Well, this is almost like Attacking, they’re like putting chinks in the armor of the decision that they have made sort of. I mean, like it’s at least tangentially related to it.

Larry 1:13:07

I don’t think it’s that way. I think that it’s it’s, it’s an evolving area that needs to be addressed. And it’s, it’s exciting because we’ve got new technology, we’ve got any evolving society, and we’ve got the town square as a, as they considered in packingham, they referred to it as the equivalent of the town square, and we’re having a massive amount of disenfranchisement from people being allowed access. And in the case of New Jersey, it was up to the district supervisor, and this opinion pointed out that you just can’t let the constitution be subject to the whims of a district supervisor, what, what, what constitutional right is that if your right is dependent upon how someone feels,

Andy 1:13:52

okay, yeah. I follow, follow follow.

Larry 1:13:54

So, so, so this was a great decision if it holds up on appeal to state Supreme Court.

Andy 1:14:00

Moving over to yet another law.com article but I think we have enough to go on with this one. shackling a defendant leads to murder conviction reversal. I guess this story goes along the lines of that a person was being tried for murder and he was brought into trial court with shackles and that would have swayed the jury’s decision and how they applied their judgment against him. And this is the Georgia Yeah, the Georgia Supreme Court is reversing that decision just simply because the guy was in chains?

Larry 1:14:32

Well, they also, according to the article, they all opined that there was enough evidence to convict him anyway, but they still set aside the conviction. So the prosecutor will just try them again. But for the life of me, I do not understand. How will you put on that black robe and you swear that you’re going to be impartial? And that you’re going to do justice? How would you tolerate allowing a person to be shackled in your courtroom? Why did you let it come to this judge? Why did you do this? You didn’t need to let this happen. You could have said deputy please take those shackles off. And you could have discharged the duty if they if they probably been shackled. You could have said sua sponte I’m declaring a mistrial. And you could have said sorry, that this this defendant should not have been seen in shackles, and therefore there’s presumptions that I cannot erase from the jurors’ mind. And why did why do we have to even have this go to supreme court? Why didn’t the judge do the right thing? Of course, I know the answer to that because he didn’t want to, he or she. (Andy) because It’s Georgia. Well, it happens in other places. But but but I worked on a case in Georgia with a with a gentleman that you know, that where the judge allowed the trial to be going forward When the man was clearly mentally defective. He keeps he keeps the court waiting and the judge says How come you’re late? And he says, cuz I didn’t take my pills and he says what pills? And he says my little blue pills. And the thing to do was to say to the counsel , approach the bench. Tell me about these pills that this guy is taking Do you know anything about his medical condition? I think we’re going to need to have a psychological examination before I can allow this trial to go forward. He’s talking about stuff that renders him where he’s gonna tell the court that that I kept you waiting because I was looking for my pills? Yeah, that’s that’s just bizarre behavior.

Andy 1:16:25

But he, I know the case, but I’m just gonna ask so he was found guilty and then you helped him push back to get that reversed correct?

Larry 1:16:33

Yes. based on his mental deficits his conviction was set aside, he was not competent to stand trial. You can’t try an incompetent person.

Andy 1:16:44

And his, which would make sort of like a farce of the courts.

Larry 1:16:49

Yes, It was a farce. But my point I was making is that the judge in that trial saw the man exhibiting strange behavior. The first step is to call the counsel for both sides and say what is going on here? This is really bizarre. What kind of psychological records do you have on this? This client, but what do we know about his medical condition? And if the counsel says we don’t know anything, the judge says, Well, I think I’m going to call a recess, and I’m going to ask that we get some psychological information, find out if he’s competent, because I don’t want to risk a mistrial here. I don’t want to risk having to do this over again. This man is entitled to be competent before the state proceeds against him, and I’m not so sure he is.

Andy 1:17:30

Then why I’m thinking back to the shackles part but there was a case there was a person in Georgia the name completely escapes me, where the person overpowered the deputies and then grabbed I want to say like one of the bailiffs if that’s the right word.

Larry 1:17:49

There was a shootout in the Fulton County, Fulton County, not that many years ago. His name was Nickels.

Andy 1:18:00

I mean, doesn’t that then add credibility to like, well, we probably need to keep these people locked up so they can’t do those things.

Larry 1:18:07

No, it doesn’t do that. What it does is it means that we just have to be more diligent about, about how we how we monitor inmates that are that are in custody. But but you have the right to be presumed innocent, and to have no inferences drawn. And the easiest way to draw an inference is to have a person in custody, the jury doesn’t need to know they’re in custody. They don’t need to draw any inferences, that that’s a bad person. And if the person wants to make themselves look bad if they’ve got tattoos from head to toe screws and bolts and everything that they’ve done to themselves, that’s not anything to the system, but we don’t put prejudice. we don’t do things to a person who’s in trial to prejudice the jurors. And that’s what the shackles do

Andy 1:18:51

I understand.

Larry 1:18:54

Screws and bolts. When have you see anybody with screws and bolts in their face?

Andy 1:18:58

My neighbor has screws and bolts in his Face Larry. And I think about it every time I’m like yeah, let’s, you know, maybe we could help you find a job he would have to find something of an incredibly progressive job where like that then adds culture and clarity to the position that he’s trying to get. And so he currently delivers pizza.

Larry 1:19:20

Well, if that’s his choice because he wants to have screws and bolts I guess it’s up to him.

Andy 1:19:25

Yes, it is. Um, and you know, that conversation came up just to take a quick little detour maybe I even talked about this that he was all up in arms about that. He is quote unquote forced to go do this job now that everyone’s on lockdown, but everyone’s ordering pizza. So his efforts to to make a living are enhanced because everyone is ordering a pizza. And he’s freaking out because now he has to like hand them a pen for them to sign the check. And now he’s got the pens back. And now the pen has Corona on it. What is he supposed to do? And he has to try to deliver the pizza from you know, his arms only three feet long or whatever. And like he’s freaking out. He is forced to do this job. I’m like, I feel horrible saying you should have thought about that before. But I know that’s not reality. You can’t think about it Now. you can’t time travel. But these are things that you should probably think about. When you have the opportunity to think about,

Larry 1:20:15

well, how is he forced into this job? He can stop this job tomorrow, who’s forcing him to do this job?

Andy 1:20:21

He doesn’t have an alternate form of income. And if he quit, I don’t think he would collect unemployment.

Larry 1:20:26

Well, he probably wouldn’t. But he’s not being forced to do the job.

Andy 1:20:30

I mean, unless he doesn’t want to eat too. Well, that’s the force part. So I bought him a box of pens. I bought him 100 pack a pen so that he could just like here, keep it we’re done. Move on. It was an easy problem to solve.

Larry 1:20:43

That was very kind of you.

Andy 1:20:45

That’s That’s why I’m here. from the New York Times. Appeals Court vacancy is under scrutiny ahead of contested confirmation hearing. My most I the person I hate the most in Congress and I use the word hate and I really do mean hate as in dislike greatly is the leader of the Senate, he’s a really, really big dirt bag, Larry.

Larry 1:21:04

I would not be able to disagree with you on that. But this is an individual who has been. Now we’re talking about for those who want to understand this is the United States Court of Appeals, which is the level of appeal courts directly below the Supreme Court, they’re lifetime, as all federal judgeships are, except for the magistrate judge level. We’re talking about the DC circuit, which is the most prestigious of all the circuits. It’s the smallest in geographic territory, but it has the propensity to hear things all related to the government. So it’s, it’s it’s an ideal place to be.

Andy 1:21:40

a feeding pipeline to go to the Supreme Court. That’s where Kavanaugh comes from, if I’m not mistaken.

Larry 1:21:46

It’s It’s It’s we’re talking about a 37 year old protege of McConnell, who has been a district judge for a very brief amount of time. And we’re talking about a person who was related as unqualified by the American Bar Association. We’re talking about if the allegations are true that that Leader McConnell is contacting judges that are older and saying, Would you consider retiring to create a vacancy and that’s what he apparently has done in this case is to create the vacancy via a retirement so that he can fill it with a 37 year olds that’d be around after you and Methuselah are all are dead. And if you don’t have any, if you don’t have any ethical problems with that, then that’s that one’s on you. But I just it just seems a little what was Will’s word that he said about the?(Andy) smarmy. How do you spell that?

Andy 1:22:40

SMARMY. Something like that. We can probably add a bunch of letters after that if we wanted to.

Larry 1:22:46

if, if, if, if that if there’s any such thing that would qualify, being the leader of the Senate, the person who appoints the members of the Judiciary Committee, if you’re out at asking judges to consider stepping down so that they can appear before Committee, which your party has the majority of, that you’ve named the chair of. If that doesn’t sink to the level of something that’s beyond ethical, I can’t think of anything that would. But that’s but this is the same person who decided that the President of the United States in 2016 was not entitled to fill a vacancy. He said it belonged to the American people, and that the next president would fill that vacancy. This is the same person who held up the previous president from being able to fill vacancies and that’s why the democrats in it abolish the filibuster for all appointees except for the Supreme Court. This is a person who’s been nothing but an obstructionist and he’s got an agenda. And apparently the people of Kentucky love him because he continues to win reelection and he’s on the ballot this year, what do you bet he gets reelected again.

Andy 1:23:55

I have heard things about him that he is one of the most unpopular people ever. And somehow he gets elected. And I think that has a lot to do with nobody runs against him. He’s incredibly well funded. He gets incredible campaign contributions because he’s so underhanded and smarmy that he just continues. He’s been in the Senate for like 30 years. He’s been there forever.

Larry 1:24:19

well, I don’t think I can say anything more about the guy he, as far as I’m concerned, he’s,

Andy 1:24:24

I don’t think he’s contested by somebody. And I certainly certainly hope I’d like I would consider putting contribution money behind that person five or 10 bucks, whatever I could put together just to try and beat Mitch because he is terrible human. He’s really a bad human being.

Larry 1:24:40

So well. He reminds me of Jesse Helms, and so many of those Southern senators that everybody hates, they’ve managed to get reelected. So how does that work? Are the polls dishonest or the people are they are they rigging the ballots because they win?

Andy 1:24:55

Yes, I know. I know. Over at The Daily Herald Tennessee to test all inmates and prison staff for virus I should have moved this over into the COVID section there. Why would we want to test all the inmates and prison staff for the virus?

Larry 1:25:08

Well, I think we’re learning from where they’re doing that the infection rate is just off the charts from the 70s 80s 90%. I think I heard in one situation where that 90% of the inmates tested, tested positive, but they’re saying that they’re asymptomatic. Now, I’m wondering if that’s true. If they’re asymptomatic, because they don’t want to be put in isolation, or if they truly are asymptomatic.

Andy 1:25:31

You’ve got to think that when you put 80 people in 100 square feet, that everyone has it, as soon as one person with test positive, you could just assume you could just, yep, I’ll have it and just be done with it. I mean, and I don’t mean that literally, you probably still want to do testing, but you could just assume they all have it and go from there and start treating accordingly.

Larry 1:25:51

So well. I think it’s a good positive steps, and that they say they’ve also ordered masks that 93,000 masks have been distributed to inmates. I’m not sure that I’ve heard of that any other system have you?

Andy 1:26:07

No, have not. it is it is a terrible idea that we have people in such close proximity and we have this infection, this thing I, you know, AIDS 30 and 40 years ago was a death sentence. So, if you had it, you were going to die, but you weren’t I don’t use the word contagious and be misleading. You were not contagious as an airborne illness, you had to have very intimate contact with a person. This is just like, Hey, dude, what’s up and you’re now you’re affected? I mean, this is just, it is so radically different that you just proximity and you’re, not doomed could be doomed. It’s very bizarre and that we have these people in prison in lock up various ways. And everyone is going to have it and we’re not doing anything to help literally like the most misfortunate people in the in the state and I know we should, they should have thought about that beforeh and blah, blah, blah. Well,

Larry 1:26:57

how would you think about a pandemic

Andy 1:27:00

Wasn’t HIV considered one of the other pandemics because like no treatment for it spreads indiscriminately. And this would obviously fit into the same sort of category but it again with HIV just being in proximity of someone with it, you’re not going to catch it this is so I don’t like you’d have to let you have to put everybody in their own isolation chamber but that’s obviously not feasible and not humane either. And leave them there for eight weeks.

Larry 1:27:28

So well AIDS also had the component of blood transfusions that the blood supply of course of course was tainted and that’s how Ryan White got it. he was the little kid that 10, 11, 12 year old boy that caught it through a blood transfusion. and then Greg Louganis an Olympic diver took an interest in Ryan while he was alive.

Andy 1:27:51

I recently came across a picture of Princess Diana, the late Princess Diana and she had visited someone look like the late stages of whatever illness they had contracted with having HIV. And there she is shaking his hand and being very close. You couldn’t do that with this situation. And that’s that’s the distinction. I’m not trying to these are almost apples to oranges comparisons, both resulting in death, most likely. And but yeah, transfusions, you had to have very intimate, some sort of fluid transfer between the two for HIV. And this is just like, Yo, dude, how’s it going? Oh, sorry. Now you got it.

Larry 1:28:30

So yeah, it’s, but I think as it was pointed out, some number of episodes back that it’s probably, there’s probably little we can do. Now. I mean, if you turn the doors, if you do whatever, and let the people out, the lot of the people you’d let out are already infected. Perhaps they get better treatment, but there’s really not a lot of treatment. As I understand it. The only treatment you get is when you have to be provided oxygen, or ventilator, but there’s really there’s really not much there’s not much they could do.

Andy 1:28:58

Nope, no, there’s no Other than treat symptoms and make you comfortable and keep you hydrated and whatnot, I’m sure we could disinfect your blood. Just kidding.

Larry 1:29:06

So well, that that was a theory that was explored on national TV.

Andy 1:29:14

Yes, yes, it was with a lot of people holding their heads shaking. Larry, I want to wait, we have, we can, we’ll do the last article, and then we can do the voicemail that I have to read. But I came across something that I think is helpful, and I know that you’re going to like, pass the buck and say it’s all you but I was listening to a podcast with an interview with a Yale professor. It’s called the science of well-being and it turns out that there’s a free course that you can take at Coursera which and this is a Yale professor, and it’s a like a 14 hour long course, on helping people adjust to being happy and because Considering that many of our people live in very, very constrained, lives with either family being shunned and so forth, like jobs are hard to come by, perhaps this may be some sort of set of tools for you to figure out how you can be happy within yourself. Just something I came across that I wanted to share. Again, it’s free. And I know that you have to be on the internet but we keep having cases that says that you can be on the internet. A couple million people have signed up for this case. If you want to find the podcast it was over it today explained it was just a handful of days ago sometime late last week is when it came out. And today being the the ninth of May. Anyway, that’s just that’s what I wanted to share about.

Larry 1:30:43

Well, thank you.

Andy 1:30:47

You are very welcome Let’s hit a voicemail and let me let me just roll back for a voicemail. If you do leave voicemail do your best to be clear the the voicemail that I played earlier from Well, he did it over Discord and recorded on his computer. It sounded fantastic. And then this one, I was almost unintelligible and I didn’t want to torture everyone with listening to it. But Chris writes in, he says, Hey, guys, I’m just wondering where in Georgia when you’re on probation, if your crime was committed prior to 2010, the law stated that if you were on supervised probation for two years, you would be put on unsupervised probation automatically. This law was changed in 2015. And I’m wondering why this applies to people on probation. But when it comes to distant restrictions, like schools, church playgrounds, there are different tiers. And I’m wondering, what is the difference in the two pieces? Thanks, and fyp. i think i transcribed that to be roughly coherent, it was kind of hard to hear it.

Larry 1:31:45

Yeah. I was still struggling with what he was getting out there of the two things he’s bringing together is confusing me.

Andy 1:31:54

Right. And as I was transcribing, I was trying to put it together and I think We did a lot of discovery on the two year unsupervised probation thing. But that is for people that are on supervision. And we talk a lot about what they cannot do anything they want while you’re on supervision, but they can do a lot of things while you’re on supervision. But the distance restriction thing that’s part of the state statute, it’s not a probation restriction. I think that’s where he’s going.

Larry 1:32:21

But what’s what’s, what’s the what’s the point he’s making the distance restrictions, they those were in response to a lawsuit that said that applying those retroactively was unconstitutional. There was the case of Wendy Whittaker versus Sonny Perdue, in federal court and the the the, so the Georgia legislature passed in response to that litigation, they made sure that they weren’t applying those retroactively. So it’s based on if you look at the Georgia sex federal registration statute. As you go through the more recent years, there’s more and more restrictions on you in terms of what you can do, you probably know this better than I do. But but there’s a point where you have no restrictions and then you have, you can’t be within a school and they expand the restrictions depending on what year your offense occurred to have more restrictions on you.

Andy 1:33:12

Right? Yeah. So ’03 is when it started, and then kind of sort of every three years following so ’03, then ’06, then ‘08, I believe. And they kept adding stuff like at first, it’s like churches, schools, then they added daycares, and they added parks and they had playgrounds, then they almost added it to be where it’s like humanity. It started getting challenged later in the game, when they added bus stops, school bus stops to it. And since those move, they move around from year to year, depending on where the kids live, like you couldn’t make a statute that said, Well, you can’t be 1000 feet from this because in six months from now, it’s going to be in a different place.

Larry 1:33:44

That is correct. But in terms of that, that was they, they they didn’t used to have that tiered system. On those restrictions. They applied to everybody. And Wendy Whittaker sued through the southern Center for Human Rights SC whatever that is. acronym is for them. And she, she, she brought a case because she was over in Columbia County and the sheriffs said, by golly, I put my hand on that Bible, and I swore I was going to enforce the law. And she ain’t allowed to lay up there. And I’m going to throw her out, because I’m doing my job. And she was a sympathetic individual where that she had had consensual sex with an underage partner. And that was assigned to a liberal judge Clarence Thomas, Clarence Thomas, Clarence Cooper’s, please forgive me for saying palomas, Clarence Cooper. And the state of Georgia got an unequivocal message that your registry is in deep doo doo. And they, they, they they appeal those, that’s when they put the removal process in place at the same time as that. that petition process didn’t exist. So we’ve got a registry statute that has restrictions and then we’ve got the supposed to be put on unsupervised probation. But after two years, if you paid your fines that and I forgot all those things that they were required to do, but people, people, there may be grounds for litigation. If you should have been asked before they changed the law, unsupervised, converted to unsupervised. We don’t know what the courts will gonna say, because we haven’t asked that question, have we? So Georgia, what? what’s holding you back? Why don’t you challenge that?

Andy 1:35:30

It’s a good question. Well, I have to ask we people,

Larry 1:35:33

oh, well, a well, of course, I know what’s holding you back lack of financial resources. But, but but that that’s one of those things where we don’t know the answer to it. They they changed the law. And of course, they said, well, the law is in effect, they will those courts issued orders of what they refer to as standing orders, which I don’t think were worth a bucket of spit. But they issued an order saying that despite those but the statute bound unequivocally clear that that in my circuit, they’re not going to be released from supervision. And nobody challenged that. So I don’t know what the answer is because until a challenge is raised, they can do it until they’re stopped.

Andy 1:36:13

You know, that bucket of spit comment? I bet you if you had a bucket of spit from Elvis, it would be worth a lot of money.

Larry 1:36:18

I’m thinking Probably not.

Andy 1:36:20

Really? I think there would be some people that would pay big fat money for that bucket of spit. Will probably included because he he’s a Elvis fan.

Larry 1:36:29

I think you’re I think you’re having a wild figment of your imagination, maybe for a scarf or something. But I don’t think the spit would be worth a whole lot.

Andy 1:36:37

He doesn’t admit to being an elvis fan. I think he’s lying. You ready to shut it down Larry Did I miss anything? I think we got everything well, other than our thank you to our wonderful patrons. We have to totally thank the patrons.

Larry 1:36:49

Thank you for all that you do to make this podcast. Successful. There’s one other thing you can do and that’s to grow the audience

Andy 1:36:56

How would they do that, Larry?

Larry 1:36:59

Well, you’re the expert. But we’re not reaching enough people. And I would hope that what we’re doing could be more helpful to a lot of people if they knew about us and tuned in and you never have to listen to the whole podcast thanks to Andy’s laying it out for you. You can look at the layout the show notes and decide there’s two things you want to hear. And you can fast forward and listen to those segments and you can turn the thing off. But there has to be useful information here that people if they knew about it, and the only they’re going to know about it is if we help spread the word.

Andy 1:37:28

Absolutely. You can find us all over the internet.were up on YouTube. So go find us over there. And friend us like us. Subscribe to us over there, Spotify, Google Play Music, it’s called Apple podcasts. Now it’s not, I still call it iTunes, whatever, same thing. But you can find us at registrymatters.co and Larry, why don’t you give him the phone number because it’s your favorite thing in the world.

Larry 1:37:52

747-227-4477

Andy 1:37:56

you did miss a number it’s (747)227-4477 You missed a two.

Larry 1:38:02

If you listen to it on playback, you’ll hear I said 227. But it probably faded out when I was saying it.

Andy 1:38:08

Oh, it could have done that. It totally could have. You’re right. You’re right. registrymatterscast@gmail.com. And of course, we love all of our listeners, but our patrons especially and that’s patreon.com/registrymatters. show notes so you can find those at the website. You find a transcription there. What else what else? What else? What else? We love our patrons. Please subscribe over there even $1 a month and it makes us super happy. And we are privileged to have all of you people listening.

Larry 1:38:33

You People. It doesn’t sound the same when you say it.

Andy 1:38:37

No, you sound, it sounds like you people. Larry, thank you. As always, thank you everybody in chat for hanging out and listening to us banter and all that and we will talk to you soon. Have a great night, Larry.

Larry 1:38:49

Well, thank you and we apologize for being off schedule last week, but it was 1000 degrees on this building last week.

Andy 1:38:57

Absolutely. Take care. Good night.

Transcript of RM126: I’m Confused MeToo, Please Explain

Posted on May 4, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM126: I’m Confused MeToo, Please Explain

Andy 0:00
We’d like to thank our patrons for supporting this episode of registry matters. Recording live from fyp Studios, east and west transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 126 of registry matters. How the hottest hell are you, Larry?

Larry 0:14
Fantastic. You’re looking really good on that cam. Oh, you figured it out. It’s pretty. It’s pretty nice. And trying something new. The picture of me looks pretty nice, amazingly accurate.

Andy 0:27
It’s a recent photo I promised at the last conference, I think I got a picture of you. And that’s what it’s being. That’s what’s being used for representation of you.

Larry 0:37
Well, it’s so close that I think it’s, you couldn’t have done any better. Well,

Andy 0:42
photos Don’t lie. I mean, it did it did add maybe 10 or so pounds to you. That’s a pretty pretty typical complaint about photos as they make you look bad. 10 pounds fatter. So Oh, all right. Here’s a little long though. You must have some COVID hair going on for this photo that’s being used?

Unknown Speaker 0:57
Yeah, I reckon I do.

Andy 1:00
I can remember those black markets or services or

Larry 1:03
I gotta remember not to say those type of words because the transcription is has trouble trying to figure out how to spell record. Oh,

Andy 1:10
yes, because he might spell wr etc. But wreckin like actual ranking stuff.

Larry 1:18
We’ve got to make it very simple for the transcriber.

Andy 1:21
Now tell me why are we recording like seven hours early? Well, because it’s the

Larry 1:25
heat is getting warmer and warmer in this office that I’d like to be out of here before it hits 90. It’s in the 80s. Now, do you not know how to turn on the thermostat? I’m pretty sure I know how to turn it on. It’s it’s it all promote the moment.

Andy 1:42
Are we going to cover 700 articles from COVID related things tonight?

Larry 1:47
Hopefully not. But we we’ve got a few.

Andy 1:50
Okay, we’re trying to I’ve got I really do think that there’s a certain amount of COVID fatigue with you know, all you hear is about how many people have died. all you hear is about it’s just all the problems and I’m trying I’m trying Trying I’m trying as best as I can to avoid doing COVID articles if we can. I mean, if they’re relevant, irrelevant, but if they’re not like, Can we drop them?

Larry 2:08
We dropped about 10 already?

Andy 2:10
Yes, we did. So are you are you ready to begin with this first one that I think you would classify this one as funny? I think I would. All right. Well, this first one comes from Tech dirt. Ninth Circuit says man can’t sue officers who destroyed his home to capture an unarmed homeless man. I got a question. unarmed, the guy was actually like he didn’t have his upper appendages.

Larry 2:33
Well, he was. He was not. He didn’t have a weapon, but he indicated to the police, he did have a weapon. And as the case unfolded when he finally was taken into custody, he didn’t have a weapon. But they responded as if he did have a weapon.

Andy 2:49
They responded as if he was like Osama bin Laden and he was hiding in the bunker or something. I mean, they responded with 55 vehicles, including a crisis response team a motorhome and two helicopters, an unarmed homeless guy. That seems a little above what would be necessary? What’s the word that you use? Like? Isn’t there a word that we should use the I mean, I guess appropriate response. This is an unarmed homeless guy like we need 55 vehicles.

Larry 3:17
But again, the unarmed was not discovered until after the apprehension. He he had told the police that he was armed. So there are they’re operating on that premise that that they were dealing with an armed person. Now I’m not justifying the response, I think. I think it was still probably excessive, but, but the Fresno Sheriff’s Department and the Clovis PD, they were operating under the belief that he was armed at the time and but 55 vehicles and two SWAT teams does seem a bit much.

Andy 3:47
I i know i know that we’re going to say that if we don’t want them to use these things, and we shouldn’t give them to them. I’m thinking of you probably didn’t see the movie called The Hurt Locker but it was about a bomb disposal. guy over in Baghdad, Afghanistan, somewhere over in the Middle East. And the suit that he puts on to go dispose of a bomb. He the suit is designed for him to take a bomb blow directly to the face. And I’m thinking that we could have suited somebody up in a full suit of this and he could walk in and go, I’m here to assess the situation, I could figure out that he doesn’t have a weapon. And then we could respond appropriately and just go in there with two guys or you know, five people and not tear down the place. Maybe,

Larry 4:33
probably so I’ve always believed that, that if you can contain a perimeter around crisis situation that time works in most instances in your favor, because if there’s only one person, the police agencies will have a multiple they can do shift rotations and, and and time will eventually exhaust the person which as they fatigue, they’re either more willing to talk surrender they’re more or explore likely that you can catch them off guard and do an arrest and a disable incapacitate him I think is the word I’m looking for. But you can incapacitate the suspect. But again, the question in this case was whether or not that that the police have immunity for their behavior, and they violate some some. They used a vehicle 1983 under 4042. United States Code, section 1983 civil rights, they use that section. And they have a pretty hard high standard to show that there was some willful disregarding of a person’s constitutional rights, that precedent has to be clearly established and they weren’t able to beat that higher because law enforcement has provided broad latitude and what what deployment of force they use to bring a crisis under control and they they were they they were found to be immune from the action by our people. The ninth circuit which I know it’s gotten more conservative since Trump has named several judges but it’s supposed to be one of the more liberal circuits still, and and they just they defer to the police so that we don’t know the three judges on the panel which we know who appointed them. I didn’t get that far into analyzing it, but he just didn’t know that the damage was unfortunate, but the police are not responsible for the the things that they damage when they’re performing their official duties.

Andy 6:29
And I don’t think we’ve described that the damage done was that they, they did $150,000 of damage. Five rooms were tear gassed, four doors and seven windows were destroyed along with 90 feet of fencing that was rolled over by SWAT vehicles. I don’t think vehicles come 90 feet wide, even under the worst of circumstances or best of circumstances like your car is six feet wide maybe. So how did they do 90 feet of damage to the fence couldn’t they have made their way through it? And then follow the car in front of them.

Larry 7:01
They probably wanted the they wanted that sight barrier open. I’m guessing this is all conjecture here, but I’m guessing that a lot first met tends to be officer safety’s first. And those other factors are extraneous, but officer safety, clear sight lines, and making sure that they they have a containment perimeter now, not knowing the layout of it, perhaps maybe that wall would have served as a better containment barrier than that.

Andy 7:29
Right. But yeah, you would say the guy and then he would have to, you know, unless it’s like a two foot high fence and he just steps over it, but you know, assuming that the guy would flee, and then he would have to entertain the obstacle. Like that would be a barrier for the person to go by.

Larry 7:43
Well, I I pulled up the, the decision, I was very brief, and it’s not precedential this, it’s not published. But then there was a, there was a reference to a case of the 10th circuit was similar in an inner city in Colorado, and they They did extensive damage to a home person had called the police and they were trying to apprehend the suspect. And they, the 10th circuit did a much deeper analysis and that that complaint was on the takings clause of the US Constitution. And they the 10th circuit, resoundingly said that, that, that the takings clause was not an issue, because the takings clause has to do with compensation, due process and compensation for your property that’s converted to public use. And they said that police didn’t convert the property to public use. They barely did what they needed to do to extract the value, and therefore the takings clause didn’t apply. And I thought that it bears some relevance to the present circumstances with COVID-19. Because I predict there will be and I’m not alone in my predictions, there’s been many people predict that there’s going to be a plethora of litigation. But one of the things that’s going to be the takings clause, businesses that have been shut down and shut down and losing many, many thoughts And some hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars, depending on the size of the business, they’re going to come in alleged that the government took from them. And this is going to be the comparison. Because if you do the same interp, if you use the 10th circuit precedent, so if anybody were to bring this claim to me and asked me to screen it, I would say, well, the case law is not very favorable to you the 10th circuit because even though you have had your life wrecked and your business just destroyed, it’s not like the government went into the your business and took it over and started operating it. And exploiting the profits, they have just simply shut it down. So they have not in the literal sense that I know, we believe in strict interpretation that has not been converted to something for the public good. It’s just simply you’ve not been allowed to use it. And and we’re going to have this this deluge of litigation. And it’s going to be very fascinating for legal junkies like me, like me, to see how this unfolds. So what the courts say in terms of whether the government is liable for any of the damage should spend on

Andy 10:01
so that I can come back and say you’re wrong later or right later You did? Did you just semi predict that it’s not favorable for some business saying you shut me down for X amount of months and I am going to sue the government for X total dollars. And you don’t think that that would win? Because the precedent?

Larry 10:18
Well, if they were going to use the takings clause as the basis supporting their claim, if they were in the 10th circuit, because I just read that decision before we started recording. So if they if their theory, if they came to me with a theory and said, I believe the government has, has violated the takings clause of the Constitution, I would say Really? Have you looked at the 10th circuit case law? This one? No, I have not said Well, I have and I say what did the government take from you? And they would say, well, they didn’t like now print my business, I would say but the takings clause has been interpreted to be converting sometimes a public good. without compensation without due process. You still own your property so it hasn’t been taken from you. It has a was not used for the public. Without it would be it would be different if they came in and said, we’re taking this facility from you and eat it for the public good. We’re going to operate it for the next 90 days we need we need housing, your hotel has just become a hospital board. Yes, then then you would think you would have something under the takings clause. But if they just simply say your hotel can only operate at 25% capacity, that’s an order for the public good. Nothing, nothing has been taken from you. And at least in the 10th circuit’s interpretation of the takings clause, I would tell you that I think your case is not going to be very strong. If that’s your sole theory for winning, that you probably won’t get very far in this circuit. Huh?

Andy 11:39
Well, there you go. Larry has said it mark the date that we can either applaud you or condemn you.

Larry 11:46
Alrighty,

Andy 11:48
let’s, how about over at NPR voting rights for hundreds of thousands of felons at stake in Florida trial. This is related to the amendment I believe from the 18 election where Florida voted against or to remove to repeal the fourth amendment that prevented people with convictions from voting yet then not long after that the republican controlled legislature put in barriers say you can’t vote unless you’ve paid all money. But it’s a challenge for people to figure out how much they owe and to whom and how to pay it and all that stuff. So they’re just sort of like stuck in this murky rabbit hole.

Larry 12:26
Well, they, the amendment for that passed. Overwhelmingly, I don’t remember the margin, but our super patron could probably tell us, it restored the right upon completion of all obligations, but the voters voted on language was all obligations, I believe it was the language and the the, the lawsuit is, is because the legislature and we’re not picking on republicans that just happens to be who is in control of the state of Florida, but they, they, they they have the all terms. That’s what action in the article relevant all obligations, all terms. They defined that language to mean, any, any civil levies at restitution beyond just serving your probation and parole. Now, we don’t know what that when people say, what’s the courtroom side? We don’t know. What did the voter visualize in Florida? What were they led to believe that we were voting for? Are they voting that you could have your right restored when you had paid every bit of restitution, in case related cost? Or were they voting to make you whole once you had served your prison time in any post prison supervision? What did that amendment mean to the average voter? Because the language says all terms, what does all terms mean?

Andy 13:50
How could you even that seems like post How would you even determine you could find that information out prior to but then all the waters would be muddied at this point. You couldn’t go back I can ask I don’t think I don’t think you could get honest answers. Because with all the reporting that would have been done up to this point, people would have their opinions altered pro or, you know, pro or against, just in light of all the hoopla about it.

Larry 14:15
Well, this is going to come down to a judicial interpretation. And we’re going to have the, the Scalia model, which is going to go straight to the letter of the What does the word mean? What do all terms mean? Scalia would say, well, the law makers are very smart people. And they said all terms, and I look at your j and Esther judgment sets. And one of the terms of your sentence was that you pay restitution. So to me, it’s cut and dried black and white. If I’m a Scalia, that if you go strictly by the text, if you’re a textualist. If you’re if you go to that craziness that people that believe that purposes, is what you should look at if Look at what what’s cyclical that purpose of Islam? If you look at if you look at that, well, what did the voters think they were voting on? I have no idea. Was it in Florida? That I’m sure there was a lot of advertising a lot of promotion. You have to vote in favor of me but for I don’t know what the debate was on the floor of the Senate, the house when they were pass passing this and sending out to the voters because I’m imagining it, but like, if it’s similar to our state, the amendment has to get passed the legislature that is presented to the voters, that it doesn’t have to be signed by the governor. But I’m assuming that’s very similar. Well, what did the voters intend to do? If your purpose of just and I just don’t know how this is going to play out? Because all terms if you take it literally, that was a term, wasn’t it?

Unknown Speaker 15:51
Yes.

Larry 15:53
All right. Well, have you paid your fine Andy?

Andy 15:56
That would, I would think that that would be one of the terms of your sentence. Okay, well,

Unknown Speaker 16:01
then the Why are we even having this discussion? When I look at your list of terms and you had to pay $1,000 in restitution, you had to pay a victim impact fee. You had to do this or that. And I see a whole bunch of terms. You served your time you did that. But I see some jobs are incomplete. So I don’t know what we’re having this discussion for?

Andy 16:22
Could it be that you have unpaid parking tickets? And maybe that doesn’t cross the threshold? But could you you could have fines from other felonies that you’ve already served your time and all this stuff? And then this one is still those things from 10 2030 years ago are holding you up from being able to vote? Now?

Larry 16:38
That’s correct. If you have if you have any outstanding terms that are unsatisfied under this amendment for the way I understand it, you’re not going to be able to vote until the legislature said that all terms and our opinion means this. Now if the people are so righteously indignant about that because it matters The past the citizenry by a significant margin to people don’t have to accept this dis interpretation by their legislature. They could register complete resentment at them at the polls this this

Andy 17:12
November couldn’t take. I would think so. And they could hire a whole new staff of legislators to put forth that says, hey, if you’ve done your prison term or your your supervision term, then you can then go vote be damned the monies?

Larry 17:26
Well, that’s what we’re gonna do. What’s gonna come out of this case? And there’s a lot of states looking at it, according to the article.

Andy 17:33
Very well, sir. Very well. Then we should move over to an article from reason magazine, it says condemned to death by a split jury in Florida. We just talked about something about this and I thought that death sentences were all unanimous. And this confused me in them talking about not unanimous sentences in other states.

Larry 17:55
That’s how I put it in here. I knew exactly that this was going to go Because the guilt or innocence has to be determined unanimously, and then you proceed in a capital case to the sentencing phase. And in some of these particular southern states, not just Southern but particular southern states, they allow the the jury to make a recommendation that the judge is likely to follow in some cases actually allow the jury to impose but a Florida if the jury is in terms of the guilt has already been decided to take committed the act, then if 10 of 12 agree that the deathbed is appropriate that’s what’s imposed so you you get a you get a punishment that you not not unanimous but but guilty in a sense is unanimous. Unlike, unlike Louisiana, and Oregon, where they are there, the verdict itself was not unanimous in terms of your guilt or innocence.

Andy 18:47
Can word it my own stupid terms. So you could be found guilty by less than a unanimous jury but then the court imposes a death sentence on you know,

Larry 18:57
the decision on your guilty innocent guilt or innocence has to be unanimous in Florida. All right, but then we proceed to punish. Okay, the jury decides, what do we want life in prison? Or do we want the death penalty? And if 10 of the 12 jurors agree that the death penalty is appropriate, that’s enough on the punishment, but all of them had to agree that you were guilty of the murder.

Andy 19:20
Oh, so the jury gets to make two decisions about Yes, since are guilty, and then what punishment?

Unknown Speaker 19:28
Yes, in some states, the jury recommends that in some states they actually impose it. In Florida. Apparently the jury is the sentencing on these cases. Like in Arkansas, the jury recommends and the judge often almost always follows that recommendation. But But this is only on the Punnett This is only on the punishment phase. So you’re you go to death row without a unanimous decision of the jury as long as 10 or 12. Agree.

Andy 19:52
Okay, again, back to my stupid brain my uninformed brain, like innocence or guilt is less Sir, then sentencing someone to death, it would seem that we would have a higher bar for that level of finality.

Unknown Speaker 20:08
It would seem wait but you’re you’re confusing issue. The jury has to be unanimous on whether or not you committed the act.

Unknown Speaker 20:16
Right. Just as good that

Larry 20:18
the state has to prove out beyond reasonable doubt that you’re a murderer.

Andy 20:23
But but then they could be 10 of the 12 could say yes nukem and that’s enough to get nuked. That’s bizarre to me.

Larry 20:33
So well that’s what Florida decided to do after the Supreme Court declared their death penalty unconstitutional. So they came back and and they they fixed it.

Andy 20:42
Wow. Hey, go Florida. They did something right. Finally.

Larry 20:45
Well, I don’t know if they did it right. depends on if you if you believe in non unanimous verdict, I would prefer someone’s going to get the death penalty. I prefer there not be a death penalty, but I’d prefer it everybody agreed. I would bet

Andy 20:55
Yeah, that’s that’s sort of where I was going with that that like for that level of finality, to make Make sure that everybody is on board with that idea that that should be. That’s that’s that’s a heavy burden. That’s a heavy toll to impose on someone.

Larry 21:07
So but yes, that’s that’s what happens. Hmm.

Andy 21:12
Well, we should we should we should take up this article it comes from patch comm which is always our favorite publication source during the during the Halloween season because they’re the ones that are posting all the articles, the hate articles about registrants and I’m sorry p FRS, people forced to register around the Halloween holiday, which is odd. But this is a modified sex offender registration system. at first blush, this seems like one of the things that we’ve been asking for this is an automated way because of COVID that people can’t go into do the registration that this might be an avenue for you to do your registration without being physically present that you could do update your your residence, maybe update a photo and so forth. Did you read it the same way?

Larry 21:57
I did, but but what’s gonna happen is It’s gonna have a monetary component attached to it. As everything does all this great technology comes with money attached to it. And for the convenience of being able to go to the kiosk, you’re gonna have to pay just about batch.

Andy 22:13
Oh, do you get a convenient we get a convenience checkout fee?

Larry 22:16
Yes, I’m figured that all this all this is driven. This is your great capitalist system figured out a new way to extract money.

Andy 22:25
And they’ve been in business since the early 2000s. I went and looked up like their about page and their whole purpose is to monetize the registry system.

Larry 22:34
Well, absolutely. They monetize that the government’s paid up gobs of money for what they’re already doing.

Andy 22:38
They I for Do you happen to know how many states use offender watch as the like the online reporting like to go look up someone’s address in your neighborhood? Do you have a negative state? I think it’s more than the majority. I

Larry 22:49
don’t know. I think the last turn over to over 30

Andy 22:52
it’s yours. It’s not mine. So anyway, so this would allow you to I think put something of an app on your phone. Do your update which then you think might come with, hey, if you want to do your update here, you could do it pay us 2995 to update your your status instead of going into visit the Popo.

Larry 23:12
That’s what I’m predicting. I base it on vehicle registration. All the things that our state does what we call the motor vehicle division. Most people call it the DMV department motor vehicles, but we don’t have a department we have a division, which is a part of taxation revenue department. And the motor vehicle division is privatized. We have both state operated, MVD and we have private MVD Express. And if you want the convenience of being able to go and be treated with dignity and respect, and not have to wait in line and deal with those awful government bureaucrats, you can pay a transaction fee and I think last time I tried it was around $16. To do an addition to the sword, your license was gonna cost you $16 for example, you’d pay the 1695 fee to the to the private provider. Now I found it to be last time I went in, I was going to redeem my driver’s license, MVD Express for the very reasons I just said. And I went in. And they told me that I did not qualify with my visual, I just had had a visual exam. And I just had a brand new pair of glasses. And they told me at MVD express that I did qualify, because I was not able to read for both eyes, but you’re not required to. And I told him, You cannot show me anywhere in the Motor Vehicle Code that you’re required to have binocular vision. You’re not even required that to have that to have an pilot’s license, much less to drive a motor vehicle. And I said, I’ve been licensed for all these decades. And you people are telling me that I have to have an RV. That’s right. So show me the code. Well, nobody can show it to me the code. So I finally left. I went to the state operated office that I got my number and i said before i sit Wait, do you people understand whether or not I Have to help by Dr revision to get renewed by licensed they said yes we do it I said so you understand that if I only have one eyed vision you can actually issue me a license before sit here and wait and they said yes of course. And I said okay, so I waited so sometimes the private company doesn’t know best but anyway

Andy 25:20
we’ve taken that little detour I’m trying to if you have a job where your employer is not flexible maybe they have a tight schedule of some sort maybe you’re a truck driver of some sort you’re on the road maybe traveling whatever this could be, you know a saving element for you and as a convenience fee maybe it’s a you know, maybe it’s a $20 fee like you described 1617 bucks that but that could be a huge burden for someone now they have to take a day off from work without potentially miss that whole days of pay. That would be a pain in the ass.

Larry 25:50
Well, that’s what that’s for. I brought the point up if if, if I’m guessing right, this is gonna turn into something where they will agree offender watch will provide the kiosk to the state doesn’t have To invest in your money at all, we ask us that we just be compensated for our technology, which is a transactional fee. And people can decide they can go to the sheriff’s office and they can wait in line. And they can sit and get COVID-19. And they can be fingerprinted or they can come to us this nice thing and put their finger on the screen and over read their for their plumbers or fingerprint, and we could have them out in a blast, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t pay. That’s why I think this is potentially gonna head

Andy 26:28
on with you, wow, and people and people will pay. I can see it if instead of going and being manhandled. If I can just talk to a computer like I would pick to talk to a computer or being manhandled any day of the week.

Unknown Speaker 26:40
And how much would you pay for that service? Because we know law enforcement listening so we can get some idea of what to put the fee yet. What would you be willing to pay? So talk to 95 cents.

Unknown Speaker 26:49
That’s it. So if so, if it’s 895

Unknown Speaker 26:51
You Won’t you won’t pay it. I would

Andy 26:54
probably I don’t feel it were less than 20 I would most likely just Just do that, but more than I would have to start having a question with my conversation with myself about it, and I would say self, let me ask you a question. So and but if it were like 50. Now I’d probably go get manhandled. But that also has a lot to do with that. My process here has been super stress free, in my opinion, like the individual that does it is, you know, I don’t know if the bedside manner is the right term, but he is professional. He is not, you know, he’s not like a drill sergeant telling you to get down on the floor and do push ups all the time. He’s, he’s a cordial individual. And I don’t, I don’t have a stressful situation when I do it beyond the stress of having the day to go do it.

Larry 27:39
Well, you’re fortunate there’s so many, there’s so many that that have very stressful encounters, and they are told to do things that the law doesn’t require. Right. And in fact, we were looking at your county just north of Atlanta, Northwest Cobb County that where they’re bidding a lot of requirements

Andy 27:57
and being sued on behalf of such things. Right.

Larry 28:01
Well, we’re working on that we’re trying to put together the right claims cause of action. I really don’t like losing litigation, I have this thing about you. You have to, you have to select carefully, you have to make sure you have solid case law on your side. And you pick the right plaintiffs, then you go into it with intent of winning. And of course, you can’t win them all. And no one wins them all. But except for the state, they do win most all of them when they prosecute people but but when you’re doing civil rights litigation, you’re not gonna win a while but you need to you need to win. The majority of them. You can’t stay in business because it’s very expensive. And your donors won’t support you if you continually lose litigation.

Andy 28:41
That might not always be true there. I’m not going to go into who I might be referring to, but that might not always be true.

Unknown Speaker 28:48
All right, either.

Andy 28:50
over at my news la.com buyers of $1 million. Glendale home say they weren’t six. Wait, there’s a missing word in this title. They weren’t informed of a sex offender living next door. So here’s this Glendale couple suing because they bought a million dollar home that had, quote unquote, substantial defects and also that they RSO PFR. live next door. I have spoken at length with a friend of mine, that’s a realtor. And that person is not required to divulge anything about crime statistics in the neighborhood about any of the professions of people living nearby. And especially nothing about any pf ours living next door or within 1000 feet or in the state. It’s not on the list, it would introduce personal biases it would introduce you know, their opinion into your decision to buy a house leave, it’s on you to go do those due diligence things and finding out what the crime rate is in your neighborhood and whatnot.

Larry 29:51
I agree with you wholeheartedly and I suspect this claim is not going to go all that far if the if you’ve got an online registry, and I think California As his think all all the people that may be juvenile are on the public registry if you if you’re going to buy a home and that’s a factor for you, it would be like any other research as you described a crime statistics the schools. Now most most realtors will list the schools the attendance boundaries, they’ll tell you what your designated school would be. But, but if you want

Unknown Speaker 30:24
an opinion, but if you want to know,

Larry 30:27
well, when a PFR be a fact also. Ah,

Andy 30:30
yeah, I suppose I suppose.

Larry 30:33
But But I think that if we have a public registry, it would be behoove you if that’s a factor for you to do that research to figure that out. and whatnot, what will happen is that the lawsuit will probably get tossed, then the person will go to a lawmaker and assembly in California and say, pass a bill that requires this and everybody they put the position where they can’t vote against it. Because how could you vote against this? disclosure, I put my whole life savings window there. So come to find out what was next door,

Andy 31:07
about a million dollar home. And I don’t think that that’s their life savings. If they got that high to get a home, somebody’s making some pretty decent cash at that point.

Larry 31:15
So,

Andy 31:16
but But yeah, it’s how do you think that because California I don’t want to use the term nanny state but more of a nanny state they may have this on their books.

Larry 31:24
Well, it didn’t say that in the article. It didn’t say that there was a requirement to disclose that.

Andy 31:30
Yeah, I was just, I was just wondering if possibly, I mean, this could be something a blindside that. Me being over in red Ville, that that’s being blue Ville that maybe they have a little bit more of a nanny situation and the realtors are required to go do it.

Larry 31:44
Well, if they if they’re not, they’re going to soon have that introduced in the California assembly.

Andy 31:49
Well then pontificate for me, Mr. lobbyists person that how would a realtor protect themselves in that situation that they did a search A week before closing and then a PFR moves in next like they’re supposed to continually update update until the second that they’re signing the piece of paper. They like they close the documents like two or three days before so like you have to have everything updated prior to that or else. Now the realtor and the realtor companies liable for it?

Larry 32:19
Well, I think you would do it kind of like you do when you when your site to a to a website when you’re doing a briefing you put last visited on the what we put the link and then we put last visited because the stories get updated. And I think you would you would say that on your disclosure that that’ll search had been done on the California sex offender registration website. And as of this date, there was nobody within this radius I think because what you would do and then the but there’s no guarantee that there won’t be anybody with that radius very shortly thereafter.

Andy 32:51
Because there’s even a delay in the reporting side of it. That new person comes out of prison and goes to move in with mom and mom and nim. All, you know, how long does it take before the website gets updated? Maybe it’s a week, maybe it’s 48 hours, maybe it’s two weeks. And in that window, you did your checks. And now you got that gap that window seems almost impossible to actually keep up with.

Larry 33:13
It would be it would be something where I would not be in favor, but it is such a piece of legislation is introduced, it’s gonna be hard to vote against it. So you have to kill it in committee. Are we back to that? That’s where we are. If it makes it out of committee, it’s going to be hard to kill this thing on the on the floor. Can you imagine the identification you would take or voting against alerting families that there was a PFR in their neighborhood? Very much so very much so.

Andy 33:40
Alright, well, I found a video from we’ve covered the individual. I think we covered a video like a year ago and it’s just this dude that, like moved to Germany. And he periodically puts out videos. He seems to be doing a little bit more and one showed up data today about Language levels and certifications. And by all means, please go watch it. It’s it’s just shy of 20 minutes long, I find the individual super interesting. And the idea of just moving away from all this registry bullshit, like just, hey, look, it happened long enough ago that perhaps they don’t care if that narrative is true. I don’t know how to validate that other than hearing his testimonial. But I have a little clip and after you give me your feedback, initial thoughts on it, I will play it and I just have about a minute or so clip of something he says at the end, that doesn’t just apply to this, but applies to anything that we are going to talk about trying to make life better for people. But before I play that, do you have any initial thoughts?

Larry 34:42
Well, you remember when we played him the last time I said that, his experience with the German police, I would not be ready to say that that’s what every foreign national would encounter with the German immigration customs or like, oh, they’re equivalent. So I would say the same thing again. Again, that this individual may not be representative of what the nation?

Andy 35:06
Yeah, your mileage may vary.

Larry 35:08
Yes, you’ve been past performance may or may not indicate future results.

Andy 35:15
That sounds like a stock tip.

Unknown Speaker 35:17
That’s what they say. Yeah.

Andy 35:19
All right. So I got this little clip, it’s a little over a minute long to play. I tell you all the time, in every video that I have, I always make it a point to say, if you’re not happy with your life, if you’re not happy with your situation, do something about it. And I mean it, but it’s on you to do it. Nobody’s going to do it for you. If you just wait for your circumstances to change, you’re going to be waiting an awfully long time. So people ask me often, what’s the first thing I should do? What’s the first step I should take? If I’m thinking about moving to Europe? This is the first step you should take. You should start thinking about where would I like to live in Europe? Where do I think I’d fit in? Let’s say that it’s France. At that point, what you need to do is you need to start learning French, but you need to start learning it like you mean it. And let’s say you have a year left on your probation, let’s say you have two years left of parole, you spend that time devoted to getting the basics of your language. Now, granted, you’re going to learn that language much, much better once you’re in country. But this is a concrete step that you can take today. This is something that you can begin to date, and you can start taking back control of your life. Because I understand that your freedom, your physical freedom, is restricted by the sex offender registry or parole officer or your conditions of probation. I understand that, but nobody’s going to stop you from studying a language. And this is something that you can do now. So stop being a victim of your circumstances, and start being a survivor. Start looking for solutions to your problems. This is a distinct step forward that you can do right now. And I highly encourage you to do If you are considering moving to Europe,

Unknown Speaker 37:03
so the

Andy 37:04
main emphasis behind this is you can transpose out of there anything about language and move into Germany. But if you want to change your situation it is on you to go figure out things that you can do to improve your situation. And, and while I know that it’s crushing all that comes down the pike with the registry, there are things that you me we can do to make things better for our own personal lives and things that we can make better for us as a community of PFR lives.

Larry 37:31
I figured that was why you’ve zeroed in on that segment, and I agree that what we we sit back and there’s a there’s an apathy of wanting to be saved. This is so wrong, that someone should save me and the someone is you, right? The someone is you each and every one of you that are listening and friends that you know they’re in a similar space. circumstance, it’s us that will convince the lawmakers, one by one, we can educate people and sway them that everybody is not the monster that they think because most lawmakers don’t even know the breadth of the registry is ever been at this. It’s something that’s out of sight out of mind. They don’t think about the register. They know that as far as they’re concerned that people are really bad. And the only way to dispel that rumor is for you to go meet with a lawmaker. And if you have the ability to say I am on the registry, and I’m on the registry for this and what watch their eyes glaze over when you tell them that what you did that was relatively many of the people who are on the registry for relatively minor incidents like the the the consensual sex with an underage partner. You say, Well, I was 19 and she was 17. And anything under 18 in this state is a felony and I’m on the register for that. But we were both in love. They go ha you’re on the registry. For that, yep. I’m only registered as a child sexual violent child sex offender and I won’t lie, right? Those are stories that they need to hear.

Andy 39:06
And you’ve also said that the stories from probably more so like on the young children that says I miss my dad would have a lot of impact as well.

Larry 39:15
They would the the, the adolescent stories, particularly because when you’re, when you’re in single digits, the the understanding of a child 10, less than 10 years old is probably minimal. But once they move past that age, and they start understanding more and relating to the circumstance, their families, then you can only hide this from your children for so long. And and then at some point, they want to know what what this means and you have to explain it to them. And the things that they’re not allowed to do because of their, of their parent being on the on the registry. You have to deal with that. And then those stories will be compelling, coming from an adolescent that I would like to be able to do these things, but I’m not allowed to. I’d like to help I’d like to have my parents both at my school play, but I’m not, they’re not allowed to be there.

Andy 40:04
There’s another another particular piece, I think it was in the clip that I played about learning something that they cannot take away. And I’ve held this philosophy for my entire professional career that instead of having an employer pay for your training, if it’s something you can afford, if you can go buy a series of books and train yourself, they can’t ever take that away. And it puts you in a negotiation position where you can say, Well, I know this thing and you’re not willing to pay for it. I’m not obligated to you because I learned it on my own, then I can go take my skills elsewhere and get compensated for it. Whether that be a bachelor’s, master’s certifications, truck driver, forklift driver, fill in however you want to, you know, improve your skill set, then they can’t take it away from you.

Larry 40:48
I agree that when when people say what, what they’re not allowed to do, there are a lot of things that they’re allowed to do that they self impose, that they’re not allowed to do. You do have some limitations. on attending a structural university or college or educational setting, but there are a lot of things where there would be no such barriers. You’re doing a self study online. And I like to go back to Apollo 13. I don’t want to hear about what this thing was designed to do. I want to hear what it can do. And I want to I want to hear people talk about what they can do, what options they have available to them. And not not I mean, yes, we we understand their lower barriers, but let’s let’s focus on what, what we can do rather than what we’re prohibited from doing.

Andy 41:34
Let’s bounce over to the Washington Post’s no one should profit off of prisoners trying to stay in touch with their families. I personally know that this is horrible that how much they charge for phone calls, which has got to be why you would find so many contraband cell phones in prison, but they’ll you will possibly end up spending 20 or something dollars to make a 15 minute phone Call, I always come back to I really, really thought that the idea of prison was rehabilitation. But a key component of rehabilitation would be contact with those friends, family, whomever. And there are so many barriers where you have to get approval for who’s on your call list before you can make those phone calls and they do minor background checks on those people. And then they hit you with this huge fee of keeping in touch. It’s so so challenging to then ask someone to say hey, I’d like to call you once a month. Can you accept a $15 $20 phone call from him? They’re like, No, no, you’re not worth all that.

Larry 42:38
Well, I think we’ve talked about this this isn’t the federal and the carrots Act, the Coronavirus relief, whatever that acronym stands for, but the feds are not charging for phone calls. And so I understand it. Now of course if you lock down that limits your ability, but but this is provoking some debate about about the unreasonable charges for telephones, but Go back to what I’ve said before, it is a revenue stream for our prisons. I’ll give you an example. That’s a much, much different example. But since I’m in a state where or the income tax and state income tax, piggybacks, federal, you can end up paying tax on your social security benefits that were only like nine or 10 states that do that. And people say, Well, why don’t you take it off? Well, there’s a revenue component that goes with that tax. We are collecting some money that funds part of the state operations from that tax. And then they’ll come back and they’ll say, Well, if we make new mexico retirement Haven, more people will come and we’ll get all that tax revenue. But see, there’s one slight flaw with that argument. If all the states are doing except for nine or 10 already, people are people already set in their old age and they may not come, but even if they do come. If that gush comes that’s off into the future I have to balance this budget now. So if I pull out 33 billion or whatever that brings in, of tax revenue, that is something that I have to replace now, because making the cuts is difficult, nobody wants to be cutting up, we’re going to be cut because of this pandemic where the states are going to be doing some significant cutting. But the same thing goes with a prison in our county jail, which county jails tend to charge more, but this is a revenue stream for the institution. And it’s difficult to take away a revenue stream and go back to taxpayers and say, well,

Unknown Speaker 44:36
the the phone contract that the MDC which is our local county jail, brought in $2.2 million. We’re turning that thing off now. Okay, well, now about our about 350 million county budget. Where are we going to plug that 2 million of revenue back from to take up for the phones like what what are we going to cut or what are we going to increase? What are we gonna do for that for that money?

Unknown Speaker 44:58
Couldn’t be just lock up fewer People? Well, we could do that. But

Larry 45:02
that still wouldn’t address the issue of the free phone calls that would there would still be a revenue stream there that would be going away. If you if you cut the population jail from 2500 to 1500, clearly, they would likely be fewer phone calls. But it’s still a revenue stream, right?

Andy 45:15
Yes, it is. Well, there a there was a change my position while I was gone about because you’ve committed a crime against the state. And it is in the state’s interest that you not commit those in the in the future, that the state should bear the burden of rehabilitating you and all that the whole private prison thing and all the private services stuff. There shouldn’t be this massive markup on it, if a private company is going to be provided is almost make it like a Georgia Power thing where it’s a private public partnership and they are regulated at to what they can charge. They have to get legislative approval before they do rate hikes and whatnot. And there’s some sort of balance set in there to keep prices as low but then the company can still make money and I don’t think This is in that layer. This is totally Hey, well, these, these people, no one gives a shit about and we can gouge them. And they’re forgotten group in society. So let’s, let’s just gouge them. They deserve it.

Larry 46:12
Well, it’s, it’s, it’s that but it’s the apathy of the population that go out and campaign try to try to try to sell this politically, that we want to turn off all the revenue streams that come from prisoners. And we want to divert a lot more money out of the general fund to rehabilitative programs to counseling and to reintegration. And tell me how that sells for you. You’re in a good county go out, do that and tell me how that works.

Andy 46:39
I’m sure it wouldn’t work. But you know, like you could easily say, just like with people that when they fall down on their luck and they lose their job, I don’t have any money and say, well, you should have thought about before bla bla bla. Well, the state should have thought about that before a global pandemic kicks in. And we implement procedures and things so that people can stay in touch Because we’ve also shut off visitation, like they should have thought about this beforehand to have a buffer in their coffers.

Larry 47:07
Well, I mean, I agree with you that, that we should not be gouging people for telephone but I’m giving you the political reality that you’ve got. You’ve got, you’ve got revenue that flows. And one thing that most Americans almost unanimously agree on is that people who are being kept up by the taxpayers should be contributing all they can and this is one way where they give back as they pay for the privilege of talking on the telephone. And for using the internet for for the they’re doing these video visitation sound they’re charging for those. And that that’s we’ve got to change the mindset of the of the public in terms of what they want and their corrections right now. I don’t see us making a massive lurch towards I mean, if you look at how, how timid we’re being on releasing people, that should tell you that we have I’ve got all of a sudden had an epiphany about being soft on people who are incarcerated, right? If you can’t get people out of out of out of death way that they’re in these institutions that are so grossly overcrowded, they have no way of providing any buffer for them whatsoever.

Unknown Speaker 48:14
I don’t like it, they do not like it.

Larry 48:17
Well, I got an idea. I got an idea rather than going rather than going out and going to some of your groups on Sunday go out and spend each Sunday trying to educate, spend your time at the Macon mall or whatever it’s it’s it’s still where there’s still people and talk about it out there and try to inform people about the misguided nature of our correctional system in United States and, and when I’m over one at a time,

Andy 48:42
I will start working on that for sure. And I will wear something of a bomb suit because I’m sure people are gonna throw things at me. We have a we have a trio of articles talking about this particular one is and this particular one is from CNS news. This is California da calls out court for us. In COVID-19, to justify releasing seven convicted high risk sex offenders, I wanted to get an audio clip that someone shared and had trouble actually getting the little bit of a clip. But even if you take just the little clip of the DA saying it and and I tried really hard to figure out how I could say I’ve taken to take it out of context, and I don’t want to, but he said sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, and they need to be monitored. And I don’t know if he said for life after that, but he said they Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, there’s even a quote in this particular says, Yeah, I did call it the court for at least seven convicted. Ira sex offenders who are failing to report for parole. Oh, never say it does it does it? No, it doesn’t have a quote in the article than it does where he said it but he said they can’t be. They can’t be rehabilitated.

Larry 49:49
Well, he he’s better than that. He says that the district Orange County District Attorney is named Todd Spitzer. And and he was on Fox and Friends, does that tell you anything about it? He’s on a that’s a national show. So he’s applying nationwide pressure to judges in Orange County that have released some offenders for their safety. But but he could but he says that, that they that they were charged with cutting off the GPS monitors and otherwise tampering and that in all likelihood they probably weren’t cutting it, they’d love they lost signal that you know, the GPS loses. And I’m not saying that no one cut that but I’m sure that very few people have cut their those. But he he’s lambasted the judge. He’s getting public opinion. all excited. These people shouldn’t be released to the street. They should be locked up in our jail he told from fox and friends and and and he says that they can’t be rehabilitated. And this is what I was just describing previously. This is this is where the public is. Pay saying this because the Public there, they’re loving this. Who do you think has better public support right now the judge who’d like these people out in a compassionate way, or are Spitz hoodies or if you took a poll towards Chad, who do you think would be a hit?

Unknown Speaker 51:14
I would be willing to bet he is.

Larry 51:16
So that is that is the whole point.

Andy 51:19
And here is the quote says, I’m here to tell you sex offenders can not be rehabilitated. And when they’re trying to avoid detection, like they are here in Orange County, they need to be locked up. And we need to protect the public. And if you see a picture, forgive the seven individuals pictures, they are very scraggly looking individuals that you would probably be afraid of to encounter on the street. So

Larry 51:41
well, and then toward the end of the article, he says what’s happening, though, though, is that I think it’s been a roof on the American public about freeing our jails, and there’s actually been an advancement of a social policy to not incarcerate. So,

Andy 51:57
throw all the tomatoes at me. Do you think there has any question? incidents are these on Fox News same?

Larry 52:02
Don’t don’t think there’s any coincidence at all.

Andy 52:06
All right, so before I get angry about that particular one over at the appeal, while I’ll get angry about this one, Tennessee set to execute intellectually disabled black men and killing of white women, even though innocent questions persist. This happened a long time ago. And the person like his girlfriend lived across the hall. And he apparently like was going over to her house and found the door open goes into attempt to help and to see what was up maybe here to a scuffle or something like that hurts some crying maybe, and goes into help ends up with like blood on his hands and all stuff. And then they prosecuted him and got convicted. And there’s a execution coming halfway soon. But there’s a lot of questions about how the case was developed and the guilty verdict and all this stuff. These things are terrible. They’re so

Unknown Speaker 52:58
yeah, well done. The part that that puzzled me a little bit is,

Larry 53:04
I guess the pulling the knife out If a person’s dead, there’s no need to but if they’re not dead, I’ve always heard that you could do more damage but if you’re intellectually challenged, I guess I would explain why you wouldn’t where you wouldn’t necessarily comprehend that but but pulling the knife out was what he did that got the blood on him and his version of the events. Yep. Would I mean you’ve you’ve stumbled in situations like this with knives and people before What is your reaction going tonight? Yes,

Andy 53:30
all Omar demos daily Larry, do you already

Larry 53:34
are or have you ever voted if when you’ve run into this in the past,

Andy 53:38
this is one of the things in the quote unquote treatment programs that they provide that if you are encountering a single child and they are crying for help, you should probably go the other way less someone accuse you of doing something that you did not do. I find that to be incredibly inhumane. But were I to come up on someone that had a knife in them. I would certainly know not pull it out. But I do know that already because you the art the knife could be blocking the artery from them bleeding out. But if you are intellectually disabled, I don’t think the article said Is he 10 points below average is 50 points below average doesn’t say how debilitating disabled he is that and not that I have any level of expertise to make that decision, but maybe the person just doesn’t know there are all kinds of people that don’t know all kinds of quote unquote, common sense things to

Larry 54:30
absolutely add, add. And executing a person in this pandemic, makes it very difficult with the distancing orders to have the people there to witness that there’s a process an execution is a complicated thing. Yeah. And I learned that When, when, when, when we we had our last execution, I’m trying to remember what year it was a long, long time ago, a very long time ago, we had in this state of last execution. I think it was maybe about 2000. So at least 20 years ago. Maybe even a little bit for 2000 bucks somewhere in that range. And those who want to bring the death penalty back. They said that that, that they they admitted that they would have to go be trained on how to do an execution to go through all the processes of gearing up preparing the inmate preparing the families preparing the witnesses. And if you can’t do all that in middle of this pandemic, because you’re you don’t want you don’t want those people together in the execution room and the visitation room where you’re the viewing room.

Andy 55:29
Yes, I understand. So So do you think that this gains any traction? I don’t think our supreme court does a whole lot with these kinds of cases very often.

Larry 55:39
If he’s down to 2000. But the federal court his his, his chances are very slim. He’s going to need something to happen within the state of Tennessee. But the US Supreme Court has taken a hands off posture largely almost executions, the the supreme court justices that’s assigned to that circuit has The power issue is stay. But the experience is that the full court convenes and dissolves to stay. So they’re pointless to issue states anymore. So, so that’s one of the things where you call the circuit judge that presides over that circuit. They say it’s not going to be good if I gave you a stay there or dissolve it within a few days.

Andy 56:20
Gotcha. Then we have an article from the hill. Welcome back to COVID articles. 96% of inmates in four state prisons who tested positive for Coronavirus were asymptomatic. So what does asymptomatic mean

Larry 56:34
there? Well, it means it means that they weren’t displaying any of the expected symptoms that that we’ve been told to look out for. But I’m not so sure about that that number because if they’re going to isolate you put you in the hole and that’s prison jargon for not a nice place to be. They’re gonna put you in sag. I would suspect a lot of people that that have symptoms are doing everything. They can To hide those disguised symptoms, wouldn’t you?

Andy 57:03
Yes, totally. Because Yeah, you would, you would be miserable. It is miserable in isolation.

Larry 57:08
So I’m a little dubious about the numbers.

Andy 57:11
You don’t think the 96 is accurate?

Larry 57:12
It’s hard for me to believe that that that would be realistic that that, that 96,000 asymptomatic,

Andy 57:20
that would also imply that they all got tested.

Larry 57:23
But if that’s the case, so we’ve got an awful lot of people that are that are running around that are positive out in the population.

Andy 57:29
I would agree with that, too. And I mean, that’s one of the big challenges in the United States is we haven’t had anywhere near enough tests, compared to I think, I think South Korea is reporting single digit numbers of new cases, and we’ve detected it. In country as far as I know, unless the information has changed. Both both us and South Korea detected it in country on the same day, and they’re down to single digits across their country of, I think 100 million people in South Korea. Maybe it’s 80 million people in South Korea. So I realized it’s not cheap. Graphically similar and population, it’s not terribly similar. It’s kind of sort of similar. But they, they have enough tests and a different government structure that they can implement testing better or something like that. Anyway, we don’t have enough tests. So I don’t know how they would get 96% of the prisoners to be tested. That’s a puzzle because most of

Larry 58:20
what I’m hearing of institutions is that no one can get a test. Very difficult to get a test.

Andy 58:26
Yeah. And but if you’re if you’re in a room with 80 people and one person has it, you could probably just, I don’t think it would be very much of a leap, Larry to go. They all have it in that dorm. I don’t think that would be that much of a stretch.

Unknown Speaker 58:39
Very likely. Very likely.

Andy 58:43
Let’s see, where do we have to go? Next up was the hill then B. You are in Boston. We have an article that says mess. Massachusetts, I think you call it tax cheats. It’s high court urges governor to use his powers to release prisoners because of COVID-19. Why are they Release people based on COVID-19.

Larry 59:02
The reason why I put this in here is because the court, the court stood down and said we’re not, we’re not going to usurp the power. The executive has an enormous amount of power to regulate their puppet population of present, they have the levers and tools at their disposal. And those who believe that they don’t want judges legislating from the bench, they should be as happy as a lark with this decision, because this is the the Supreme Judicial Court, which is the Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts saying that we are not going to invent a law there’s already processes there’s already laws on the books to cut down on the present population. Governor Baker, you have those powers you have those levers if you if you want to reduce the prison population, do so. And we’re

Andy 59:49
gonna he’s gonna he’s gonna hold that account though. They’re gonna hold him accountable for that come next election.

Larry 59:54
Well, we’ll see if they do or not, but I mean, that is a decision. You would expect and want from a court that’s not going to be legislating from the bench, which most conservatives decried legislating from the bench.

Andy 1:00:08
We don’t want them legislating from the bench doing.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:11
Well. That’s what I’m saying. If you’re conservative, you certainly don’t. Now, the truth is we do want everybody wants the judges to legislate from the bench when it’s something therefore they can’t get through the regular process. Everybody wants to course to legislate from the bench. That’s why everybody file stuff in court. Yeah, but but that’s the big mantra, the conservatives, we don’t want what I want the president to appoint people who ain’t gonna do my legislating from the bench. I’m just to interpret the law and that’s what this court did.

Andy 1:00:36
And that’s what Gandhi is.

Larry 1:00:38
That’s exactly right. For those of you who don’t remember Gandhi, that was the US Supreme Court decision that interpreted the the Attorney General’s delegation. The Congress still delegated to the Attorney General, how to how to implement the animal check.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:53
Right, right, right, right.

Larry 1:00:54
We’re missing we’re missing an article in here. We’re going to talk about hypocrisy tonight. weren’t we?

Andy 1:01:00
And which hypocrisy were we going to talk about? We’re going to talk a particular vice presidential presidential nomination. Yes. We’re

Larry 1:01:09
gonna talk we’re gonna talk about us a little bit of hypocrisy. So we need to have Lester better shared and

Andy 1:01:14
oh, I can get that ready. But you never shared an article which one you wanted to talk to me about. Accuracy ready?

Larry 1:01:21
I did send you one on the on the normal back channels we use. Describing describing what Kavanaugh had been accused of, and then we talked about what Biden’s been accused of. And so y’all want to, but just a generalities. We don’t have to talk about an article we can just talk about the hypocrisy.

Andy 1:01:43
See, you tell me that it’s not there. But lo and behold, it is now there. The magic of the Internet has made it possible there. So tell me tell me what’s up with with comparing Brett Kavanaugh to Joe Biden.

Larry 1:01:58
Well, I’m struggling but this I remember talking about the governor of New Mexico some few episodes back being accused of sexual misconduct. And she did not resign from office. And I could have sworn we’ve had, who was the Senator from Minnesota? Well, that would be out Al Franken right. I thought that if an allegation is made, that under the standards that to me to movement have, have universally adopted as this this seriousness of the allegations, and that, to even dare to question the allegations, is to re victimize the victim who finally, after all these years and sometimes decades, has had the courage to come forward. And I’m just wondering why that Senator, former senator, former Vice President Biden is able to deflect these allegations. And just so cruel and heartless they say that they’re not true. And he says he does remember it. Now, if something didn’t happen, you would have a very difficult time remembering something that didn’t happen. So I would agree. I would agree that that if someone says I don’t remember it, if it didn’t happen, of course, you wouldn’t remember it. But I’m trying to understand the me to standards because it seems like with Cavanaugh, now we had a young man we’re talking about in high school and college, who was accused of my life made it this way describe it rather than rape. And correct. Then we have a sitting United States senator who was accused in 1993. Now, the accusation wasn’t made official with the police as it was with with a blog a forward with Kevin, but so we’re talking about a person who’s much more mature than a high school or a college student. Not to that justifies misbehavior, but we have a sitting United States Senator Who had at that time, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had overseen the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had heard all of the stuff with Anita Hill and this person, if these allegations are true, there’s some pretty gross legs to the staffer. And I’m just wondering why that it’s okay. And I don’t see the difference because if anything, a senator would be held to a higher standard of conduct, then a college or high school frat boy, are just not in fraternities in high school but a high school kid or a college frat boy. And I’m just I’m just puzzled at the apologist and the people who now all of a sudden, they don’t have any issue with with these allegations. And I thought that was the whole thing was about the seriousness of the allegation disqualify a person from public life

Unknown Speaker 1:04:57
and believe the woman

Larry 1:05:00
That’s what I’m trying. And I would like for someone really sincerely to come on the podcast and explain to me what I’m missing because clearly I’m missing something here. And the me to movement in if you’re listening, contact the show and we will try to get you on. But I want to know what the difference is. We had the thing with Roy Moore, we’re talking about something. Kavanagh’s was in the 80s. Roy Moore’s was in the 70s. And we’ve got a United States senator in the 90s, where there’s at least as much evidence as there was, and those allegations, particularly with with with Cavanaugh, was that so apparently there was a call from her mother to the Larry King show, saying that a prominent United States Senator had done these inappropriate things. And to

Andy 1:05:50
highlight some distinctions, though, so Roy Moore was, as I understand the story he was, I think, in his 30s he was an ADA maybe assistant, da and A consensual dating relationship with I think maybe a 15 year old but the family was in on it. They were like going out to barbecues and whatnot. But you you just introduced the quote unquote key factor, I guess. Kevin was alleged to have had sex with, I think a passed out drunk girl at the time woman now obviously Al Franken The only thing that I know that he did, there was a picture where he had his hands out like in front of, I’m not justifying that it was an okay thing to do, but it’s like he didn’t do what Cavanaugh was alleged to have done. And it still seems to be farther back than what Biden is being alleged to have done, but not to the degree that Kevin was, and everyone blew off the whole Cavanaugh thing. Not everyone, but he obviously got voted in as a Supreme Court nominee. But Franken for doing something as a prank. Stupid, inappropriate, fill in all those words, that’s fine, but forced out. Well, that’s what I’m trying with you on the confusion. I’m with you. 100%

Larry 1:06:59
at Want to get this down on slack and understand and explain it to people? Now, Franklin was supposedly a liberal. Yes. But here, we’ve got a liberal moderate candidate for president. And I don’t hear a lot from the metoo movement, and I’m just trying to figure out, there’s gotta be something that I’m missing. That makes us different. And I need someone to help us with that.

Andy 1:07:26
All right. So if you want to, hey, Larry, how could they contact the program if they wanted to reach out to us?

Larry 1:07:33
Well, they would do one of the many, many options we have. The best way of course, is to call us that way. We can play what you say. That would be 7472 to 74477. But if you don’t like speaking, you can send us an email to registry matters. cast@gmail.com

Andy 1:07:55
you know what I’m going to do there. I’m going to do this impromptu, we received a voicemail Just as we started recording, we did it. We did. I can play it. It’s not gonna be edited and I might have to cut it.

Larry 1:08:08
Well, let’s see what we have.

Andy 1:08:10
Let’s see if I can make this work on the fly.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:13
Hi, Eddie and Larry, this is Robin Pennsylvania. Keep up the good work guys doing a great job. I enjoy listening every week, and I am a supporter patron. My question is is in reference to the registries, and you hear it floating around and the numbers are almost up to a million in the country of people in the registries. But my question is, is how accurate it is that? Does that include people who aren’t actually listed publicly? Like for instance, in New York State level ones are not publicly listed on the website? Does that almost a million would that include those people or is that really based on public, public accessible information and also As I take into consideration, people that are maybe registered in two different states, like for instance, they visited in Florida for their own for life and in their own home state. So that’s a question, just wondering how accurate that number is. Thanks, guys. Keep up the great work. enjoy listening every week and fyp.

Andy 1:09:17
I think that’s an excellent question. And well done. Rob in Pennsylvania,

Larry 1:09:23
I think it was a great question as well. I do not believe the number is accurate at all. And so the first component of the question about the people who are not public, my understanding is, is that it only includes the people who are public. Now that is the overwhelming majority of registrants across the country, but he is correct or states where there’s a segment or slice. It could be juveniles, that could be juveniles only or could it be juveniles and level ones. And there is a segment and slice up the population that are that are not in that count in my in my experience. The other component of it is that that there are dual registrations. And there there are people who have deceased. And if you simply go to the register website, if that’s what the compilers are doing, you would have dual registrations. A person who’s left a state and then they’re carried in both states are they’re legitimately connected to two states because of the proximity to a border, and they’re traveling back and forth, and they’re registering in two states. And, and I believe that does a lot of duplication of that. So I’m not convinced it is, million, but I’m convinced that a significant number of people, well over well over a half million, and probably closer to just three quarters of a million easily. And then there are some who are who are actually on the list that are incarcerated. They, they’ve they’ve been in the public and they they’ve been returned to prison, or in some instances, they were put on the public list just because they were sentenced for a sexual offense. A few states do that. They go ahead and list them upon conviction on the registry and then a short list of that there. We’re gonna present it costly, but it’s a huge number of people.

Andy 1:11:04
Hey, Brian in Louisiana says since NC mec stopped counting, at least publicly who knows anymore? That’s the national National Center for next.

Larry 1:11:14
Yes. What does he say?

Andy 1:11:16
He said they stopped counting, at least publicly. I didn’t, I wasn’t aware of that. That’s the only reason I bring it up.

Larry 1:11:21
So well, the last time I looked, I still have a website that tells how many offenders are on each state’s registry as of a certain date.

Andy 1:11:30
How many people do you think are dual registered and do places like where they don’t publicly register tier ones does Nick Mac and and others would like patch in offender watch? Would they still have those numbers?

Larry 1:11:45
I don’t believe they do. I believe you’d have to do a public records request from each state of what their total number of people registered are and I don’t believe they do that. But I can’t be absolutely positive. I believe that that they just simply use the public available information. And, and like if you were to our state doesn’t have everyone on the website, it’s not a level system it’s at a particular group of offenses that are not listed. And then don’t you know, juveniles are listed. But But to get the total for Mexico you would have to contact the Department of Public Safety estimate the total number of people that are registered, and the website would have a lesser number. But but the dual registrations are the ones who are deceased. That’s where the big offsets are because you’ve got people who started the registry journey in Florida, and they went to another state and Florida says, We keep your picture and make it we keep your registration information we show you living out of state, so that creates a registered register record twice that person and you have people who dutifully go to Florida, and they don’t want to be in the state more than the what is it 72 hours or whatever it is. So this on those that go register, and then they find themselves listed on both both Florida and Their home state registry, they find themselves that the same thing happens in Nevada. So there’s there’s duplications for sure. So it’s hard to know what the accurate number is.

Andy 1:13:09
And I’ve just added an article to the show notes with a source talking about why did they delete their map of registered Essos in the United States? No idea the veracity of the article at all, but I am providing you people with a source. And I

Larry 1:13:27
just misspoke about the Center for Missing Exploited Children. I was thinking of the class foundation. They’re the ones who had a map of the United States with a with a list of each state’s total. And I have gone to that Foundation website in a long time, but they used to have a total, but it wasn’t. It wasn’t sitter for missing Exploited Children. Okay.

Andy 1:13:51
And something else to bring up that Rob in Pennsylvania as a Patreon supporter, Larry, what is the best way to support this podcast?

Larry 1:13:58
Well, if you’re a patron Go immediately login and double your patron donation.

Andy 1:14:06
We all know we know that everyone just got a 1200 dollar check. Right?

Larry 1:14:09
Right. Well, why not give us? What would be a fair all of it all? All?

Andy 1:14:15
I don’t know including your kid.

Larry 1:14:19
The $500 dependent?

Andy 1:14:21
Absolutely. All of them if you got one for your dogs and that one too.

Larry 1:14:25
So registry batters dot see Oh,

Andy 1:14:28
that’s where the website is patreon.com slash registry matters is the other the place for the Patreon part.

Larry 1:14:35
So somebody did a CL well Who did that?

Andy 1:14:38
But there was me and I still don’t know why. Maybe you were smoking that wacky weed when you did that. That couldn’t possibly true, but hopefully my handlers aren’t hearing about that. That way. I don’t get in trouble for smoking the wacky weed. I would also like to add, hey, look, we have a YouTube channel. You can friend us like us, whatever. Subscribe to us there. Help us get our numbers up. We’re on Twitter. post there at least monthly, at least monthly. But you could become a follower there. And that would also be helpful. You can like and subscribe and write a review for us at all of the places where you where you subscribe to podcasts and all those things would be helpful for us to help other people find us. Larry, is there anything else that we need to cover that we’ve missed that we need to chime in on before you roast and melt?

Larry 1:15:25
Well, it has continued to climb in here. I think we’re about 82. Now, but it’s it’s it’s not that bad. No, I think we I think we’ve had a reasonably short, concise podcast tonight.

Andy 1:15:37
Yes, and we did record our lives. Brian in Louisiana, saying hey, and I was already for a six Central Time start and any catches the end? Yes. But that’s because it’s roasting hot and Larry’s recording location and wanted to get things knocked up before he melts.

Larry 1:15:53
And I just love my picture that is just so awesome.

Andy 1:15:56
I’m glad that you like it. And if you want to find that page I don’t know if I’m going to publish this to YouTube or not. But otherwise come check out the live stream. If you want to. There’s a link in the show notes and you can come in and watch my, my large teeth record the podcast and a picture of Larry at his ripe young age of 302 50. somewhere around there.

Larry 1:16:20
So well, Alrighty, Andy,

Andy 1:16:22
have a great night there and I’ll talk to you soon. Good night. Good night. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Transcript of RM125: Preservation of Our Constitutionally Promised Liberties

Posted on April 27, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM125: Preservation of Our Constitutionally Promised Liberties

Andy 0:00
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 125 of Registry Matters. Larry, we’re catching up to your age, almost kind of sorta, aren’t we?

Larry 0:24
you’ve got a ways to go yet, but you I think we do about another 75 we’ll be there.

Andy 0:30
Wow. But you’ll have another birthday by then too, I would imagine.

Larry 0:34
Yeah, but I’m just shy of 200 years old

Andy 0:37
Oh, really? Oh, I didn’t realize that we actually had a number that we could put on it. That’s amazing.

Larry 0:42
Yeah, well, I calculated it, right, cuz I served in the Lincoln administration. So if I did that, that was, I might be, yeah I think 200 would do it.

Andy 0:55
I have a voicemail and it’s going to give us a perfect segue into the surprise for the night. I’m going to play a voicemail message real quick

Christian (Voicemail) 1:05
Andy, Larry, Christian up here in Minnesota, Minnesota Four a lovely show this evening, April 19. You forgot one big person Jesse Ventura was on the WWF. And he became governor of Minnesota. And Phoenixville, it’s actually called Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. And the third thing more of a suggestion. What if you guys went to every state and had every affiliation to NARSOL on your show? Starting of course with Minnesota Four which is obvious, cause of me, Larry, I mean, come on. Anyway. Great show. Thank you guys. And fyp.

Andy 1:44
Christian has put his finger on kind of what I’ve been sort of hinting at doing for a while of having, you know, maybe it’s monthly and we sort of rotate around to different advocates doesn’t have to be a NARSOL affiliate. And this evening, we have Brendan joining us from Georgia. He is the president of the, should I name it Brendan? We haven’t officially announced it yet.

Brendan 2:07
Sure yeah, now it’s got a website. Let’s do it.

Andy 2:20
So RSOL Georgia has been renamed into Restore Georgia, Incorporated? Is that what we’re going with?

Brendan 2:17
the official legal name is the Restore Georgia Coalition, Inc. because somebody is squatting on Georgia. We’re going to fix that whenever that expires, though, you know this, this show talks a lot about law and I’m getting way more involved in law than I ever thought I would and never knew that you could squat on a name with the Secretary of State. But that’s neither here nor there. We’re going to make progress as Restore Georgia.

Andy 2:42
Very good. And so anyway, so you’re our guest for the night and thank you so very much for joining us. Brendan. So tell us, do you want to tell us about some other organizations that you do work for which are focused on… give you the spotlight for a minute?

Brendan 2:55
Here? Yeah, in Georgia, I am involved with several organizations. One of them is The National Incarceration Association so when we’re talking about the phone calls that they’re placing to their families, that’s where the NIA comes in. We are about the families, getting the families of the loved ones that are incarcerated the resources they need, whether you get your glasses prescription or your medication on the inside of the family member would call the NIA. We would act as kind of an ombudsman. I do a lot of advocacy work at the Capitol in Georgia for the NIA. So I’m going against some outrageous things that impact the families of those who are incarcerated. Of course, you mentioned at the beginning about Restore Georgia that is specifically for the registry. We’re trying to make rational laws here in Georgia and fix some of the irrational laws in Georgia around the registry. That website is restoregeorgia.org

Andy 3:52
And, Larry, you have anything to go on before we go on.

Larry 3:57
Well, hello, Christian, and he’s been a longtime supporter and we’ve talked about Jesse before Perhaps he’s missed the episode, but we talked about his governorship and how he’s, since his governorship is going off the deep, going in to this conspiracy stuff. But yes, Jesse was proud of himself that while he was governor of Minnesota, he did not raise any taxes. And so that was his proud, as I recall, moment was that he left office without signing or agreeing to any increase of taxation.

Andy 4:30
Ah, and what are we going to do?

Larry 4:34
Well, we’re going to do a program that’s filled tonight with all sorts of articles about COVID-19 and about Supreme Court decisions. We’re going to talk about so many things that that I don’t know how we’re going to jam pack this in a four hour podcast.

Andy 4:49
It won’t be that long. I promise. I promise, I promise. Because first off right off the bat, we have an article from Highland County Press that the juvenile court lost right to send serious youth offender to Adult prison. This isn’t COVID related.

Larry 5:02
It is not. And I think it’s a great decision. There’ll be people out there that will say he got away with it, but he didn’t get away with it. He was punished in the juvenile system. And Ohio, perhaps like some other states, after you go through the juvenile system, if you don’t avail yourself of rehabilitation, they can sentence you a second time as an adult. We had a case recently here, that rarely happens here, but we had a case like that, and due to a clerical error and previous court precedent that his birthday is recognized at 12:01am. They missed filing their transfer of him to adult court by a day. So therefore, his adult sentence was set aside.

Andy 5:49
They missed it by how many, how much?

Larry 5:52
A day.

Andy 5:55
I bet you someone’s a little pissed off about that one.

Larry 5:56
Well, I’m sure they are but the Supreme Court of Ohio has Spoken, and there is no appeal from that. There’s not a constitutional issue that can be taken up on cert to the US Supreme Court, the only thing you could do, but best not allow the Supreme Court to reconsider. But this case is over.

Andy 6:13
That’s it. That’s the end of that story, huh?

Larry 6:15
Well, it’s I mean, that they will target him for, or he’ll be one of those that’d be arrested for your famous felony jaywalking. I mean, they’ll be they’ll be looking to get him back in the clutches of the system, but until they can get him in the clutches, this case is over. Oh,

Andy 6:31
is that is that uh, how did they miss it by a day?

Larry 6:35
they didn’t file the paperwork.

Andy 6:40
They didn’t see it coming down the pike?

Larry 6:42
Well no they did, they just didn’t file the paperwork with the clerk of the court. I mean, the order was issued, it just wasn’t filed. So they just missed filing. But it’s one of those nuances. I mean, these things are important. We have deadlines for reasons.

Andy 6:54
Oh, almost like a statute of limitations.

Larry 6:57
Well, I guess you could call it that. Yeah. He needed to be transferred prior to his 21st birthday and he wasn’t. Your 21st birthday, If you’re in the conservative mindset, the statute is clear, it doesn’t say 21st birthday plus a few hours give or take for you know for cushion. it said 21st birthday, that didn’t happen go ahead Brendan.

Brendan 7:19
The devil’s in the details here, I mean it works for you and against you. That’s why attorneys get paid the big bucks to look at these type of things. And they just found one here that squeaked by but this happens all the time when you’re talking about the legal system and pushing papers and stuff through they’ve got so many cases and trying to keep track unless you had a DA that was really paying attention and really wanted out to get this guy. It’s no wonder it slipped through the cracks like this but it could work for you or against you and in this case it worked for him.

Andy 7:49
I actually want to say that the thing that we have coming up with the 17 months that it’s the same almost seems like the same thing of that working against you where you he spent 17 extra months in prison.

Larry 8:00
Yep, he did because he wasn’t eligible for any relief utilizing the mechanism that he tried to get to get compensation. We’ll talk about that one later. But yeah, this one worked out well for this person.

Andy 8:12
And so is he because he was a juvenile, Does he have registry obligations? Is there anything? Or is he just sort of like out of the system now?

Larry 8:21
Not sure if he has a registry obligation or not. But in Ohio I believe he probably would, because they have to be AWA compliant, substantially you have to register juvenile offenders, at least for the aggravated universal offenses. And he may in fact have a registration obligation but not having the prison sentence. I tell you I know some people said I’d rather be in prison. I wonder if the people that say that would still say that today.

Andy 8:46
Yeah, I know I there’s not really much of anything that would make me say Oh, yeah, I’d rather be there.

Larry 8:52
I heard that people said well being on the registry is so horrible and the Sex Offender supervision is so horrible. I wonder if anyone is saying that today? Brendan, have you of anyone saying that they’d rather stay in prison today?

Brendan 9:06
If there’s lack of resources, yeah, people are saying, you know, I’ve got it better here. If you talk to people in prison, they’re saying, Yeah, you know, this I can’t survive on the streets. This is this is where I need to be. I have actually heard that, surprisingly.

Larry 9:19
But I’m talking about in view of COVID-19. In view of the current circumstances as it exists right now, I betting a lot of people who have said that have changed their mind.

Brendan 9:27
I think so because you cannot move you cannot leave, you can’t get six feet away from anybody. You can’t barely get six inches away from people.

Larry 9:37
Well, that’s my point. I’m betting people who thought that they would rather be in prison, I bet at this point, they have rethought that.

Brendan 9:42
Of course.

Andy 9:44
And then we’ll quickly move over to an article from Forbes that is: lack of direction from Bureau of Prisons showing in federal court. This one is also pretty complicated to me Larry. I wrote a note on the previous one that says this is confusing as hell but this one is also they seemed to have one policy on one way, like the right hand and left hand don’t know what’s going on.

Larry 10:05
I don’t, I don’t think it’s as complicated as it, I mean, I guess I’ve gotten soft in old age, but I’m giving people some benefit of the doubt for unprecedent and unchartered territory. We’re trying to do things that haven’t been done before. I mean, in my life, I don’t remember I’m trying to empty prisons, reduce populations simply because of some medical issues. I mean, it may have happened, but I don’t recollect it. So it’s like the stimulus program that they threw together and I’m hearing all this criticism. I mean, today on the radio, they’re saying that dead people are getting checks, well, of course, dead people are getting checks. Why wouldn’t dead people get checks? If you’re using 2018 tax returns? if they died after they filed their 2018 return, they likely didn’t file a 2019 return, would you concede that?

Andy 10:52
Sure.

Larry 10:54
And therefore, therefore, if you’re trying to pump money out quickly, and you’re using 2018 returns, and being that people do die in the course of two years, it would be totally ridiculously absurd to think that dead people wouldn’t get refunds, of course, they’re gonna get refunds. Now, I mean, hopefully we recover the money. But the same thing is going on here. You’ve got a crisis, unprecedented. And you’re trying to figure out how to get people out of custody without having a massive public backlash about it. So everybody wants to see why… the bureau presidents doesn’t want to take any unnecessary chances. So it’s not in any great rush even though the Attorney General cleared them to make provisions to get people out of prison. And, and the courts have some latitude limited latitude that they can that they can let people out. And it’s really just, I would think it’s more of a new processes, due processes being developed on the fly. And no one wants to be the Fall Guy if this goes wrong. And I think the bureaucratic inertia is more of the problem. But Brendan, I’m sure you have a different take?

Brendan 11:58
what this has kind of shown is that Nothing happens overnight and even let’s say a judge orders something to happen. Like let’s say a judge orders your release. That doesn’t mean you get released at that very second. I mean, there’s been cases where you can go for first appearance and the judge orders you released on your own recognizance, and you sit in jail for another 24 to 36 hours waiting on the outbound process waiting to get released. The Case in point in this article is Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen was slated for release got a judge’s order, what a week and a half ago? I just looked him up on the inmate locator. He’s still in Oatsville. So he has not been released yet, even though a judge has ordered it. So they’re taking their time and making sure that everything is safe. And you’ve also got victim notification. A lot of times you have to notify a victim before you release someone. And here in Georgia, there’s a 90 day period where you have to notify that victim and what we have asked for in Georgia is for the board of pardons and parole to suspend that 90 day requirement. They have 90 days to notify the victim and get response before they release someone and we may not have 90 days.

Larry 13:05
a lot of people will die in 90 days.

Andy 13:08
I’ve heard podcast with economists and they’ve compared this to I guess what was it? ‘03 stimulus? Larry, when did the $300 come out?

Larry 13:21
I’m thinking it was ‘06 not ‘03 I think the economy was pretty solid in ’03, but I’m not sure on that. But I think um, I think it was ’06.

Andy 13:29
and then even in the in the crisis with around ’08 or ‘09 with the shovel ready programs like they I’ve heard that the lessons learned was to move fast and break stuff to use a Facebook term, but to get as much money out as possible and be damned making mistakes because we need to get that stuff out there for people as quickly as possible. So yeah, I mean, you would certainly have people getting it that potentially don’t deserve it, but err on the side of giving out money to keep people alive and keep the economy sort of in a pause state instead of saying eff you. Sorry. We’re gonna make sure that the only people that get money are the ones that filed. And deserve it. like, I don’t know, that’s the way that I’ve heard it described, at least from an economist’s point of view that

Brendan 14:08
This shows how bad the data is how bad the data that we’re keeping is, if dead people are getting checks. I’ve heard this is kind of scary, though. I’ve heard you know, our number that we keep using one in three Americans has a criminal record, that includes dead people. I mean, we have not pruned the GCIC or the NCIC to roll dead people off of that registry. So, you know, we don’t know exactly how many people have a criminal record. We know how many records there are in the system. But are all of those alive? We don’t know.

Larry 14:39
Well, on the on the dead people, though, What point Andy is making is that it would be an extra step and, not being an expert on what our database limits are, Typically, governmental computer systems tend to be outdated. And whether or not all the state’s vital records that record deaths, Social Security Administration is probably the most up to date of all of the records in terms of people who die but people receive Social Security benefits. dead people receive Social Security benefits all the time. Nothing sinister happens they notify them but it’s too late to suppress the payment and they’re too far into the to the cycle, too close to the next payment. Sometimes the person who’s responsible for the deceased’s accounts doesn’t get around to notifying, the funeral home drops the ball, a number of things happen. So this is going to happen. But what we think we learned in ’08, ‘09 was that the that the economy would have recovered faster had there been more stimulus sooner. That is something the Republicans griped about the whole time that the slowness of the economy the anemic recovery as they called it. now they get the benefit that they can they can pour the money out there a whole lot faster and to their credit, They are putting money, this is the fastest any stimulus has been distributed to the American people but in the process, If you want it done fast, don’t criticize them for the fact that some people will get it that probably shouldn’t have gotten it. we’ll try to recover that money later. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have it extremely efficient and error free.

Andy 16:11
It’s also got to be a rounding error for a lot of people, too. For the number of people that would get it that weren’t supposed to get it.

Larry 16:15
Well, but but that, like I say most of that money will hopefully come back. If a dead person receives a check. Financial institutions are pretty good about not cashing checks unless, unless the customer is alive. So it’s gonna present a challenge, but it’s those people that are always looking to criticize. that’s been really bothering me throughout this crisis is that that no matter what you do, there’s a segment of people that are always wanting to criticize. They could have done it better. They had greater ideas, better ideas, but but I think the administration is doing some good things. I think this stimulus, although I wish they would have talked about paying for it at some point. How we’re going to pay down these trillions of dollars that we’re borrowing now, but I think this stimulus is the right thing to do. I just hope that the conservatives who voted against President Obama’s relatively anemic $787 billion stimulus, I hope they will remember, the next time we have a democratic president, we have an economic crisis, that they said that no price was too great to bear. And when they were willing to spend trillions, I hope they’ll be just as supportive next time around when the person occupying 1600 is not of their party. I doubt they will, but I hope they are.

Andy 17:35
We could have somebody say something like, well screw them. We’re not going to bail them out. We’ll let them go bankrupt. I’m not mentioning any names.

Larry 17:41
well, We have a senator from Kentucky saying that right now in terms of workarounds in state governments, he’s saying that. we will find out if he pays a price at the polls. He’s up for reelection this year. Kentucky from what I understand like most states is going to be in terrible financial condition and we’ll find out if the citizens of Kentucky are happy to see their state go bankrupt. We’ll find out if that’s a sustainable public position.

Andy 18:06
What happens in that regard Larry?

Larry 18:09
I don’t think we have a roadmap for that. We don’t know.

Andy 18:11
Okay, because I think in ’08 and whatnot. We had cities that were on the verge of, I think, like Chicago kind of places. Do you remember those events Brendan?

Brendan 18:21
I don’t, no.

Larry 18:22
Yes, we’ve had, well, we’ve had it further back than that. We had it in 1975. We had to bail out New York City, and president Ford swore it down that he would never agree to a bail out. He eventually did. And he said New York, I think something to the effect, could drop dead. We’d have to do a Google search. But we’ve had financial crises in the past, but nothing that approaches this. This is going to impact every state.

Andy 18:46
Yeah, of course.

Larry 18:48
since every state is under emergency orders of some type or another. They’ve had economic slowdowns because they’ve shut down businesses. And states rely on sales tax. They rely on income taxes, and if you don’t have People working, they’re probably not doing a whole lot of withholding out of their, their income, this is going to have a dramatic impact on fees because they’re forgiving a lot of fees for stuff right now. I mean, it’s gonna, it’s gonna blow gaping holes in state budgets, it’s gonna blow a gaping hole in New Mexico’s budget because we’re about one third energy. And when oil hit negative $37 a barrel earlier this week. the state doesn’t get a whole lot of revenue on negative prices.

Andy 19:28
I went out today because I needed to pick up some stuff at Lowe’s. And first of all, as soon as you turn onto a main road, you wouldn’t know that there’s any sort of quote unquote, emergency going on. And the parking lot of Lowe’s is smack full of people and maybe half of them are wearing masks. I don’t know what your experiences up your way, Brandan. But good grief.

Brendan 19:51
Same.

Andy 19:53
Are half of the people wearing masks or more than half?

Brendan 19:56
I would probably say half but they’re not adhering because it’s a six-foot designation. you go into a grocery store and the grocery stores by me all had the one way aisles. I think Walmart is even instituted that. I mean, you’re going down the wrong way. You’ll see you almost have collisions with people, because they are not adhering to those. You can put all the rules in place and we’re still human. We’re going to say, No, I don’t care about your rules.

Andy 20:21
I’m just wondering if this is not going to have a massive, massive massive backfire on Georgia come two months, three months from now. And you know, we have New York City numbers.

Brendan 20:32
And I’ve got to get my tattoo. I’ve been waiting all this time to get my tattoo and I finally I’m gonna get the Coronavirus of all the little spokes on it and everything that’s gonna be on my forearm you know, I can’t wait.

Andy 20:44
that’s funny.

Larry 20:45
Well, I’m getting a lot of hate mail for my position. So keep it coming. I’m going to take a position, it won’t be very popular with some. I would have to assume I like to give some benefit of the doubt being that I’ve been exposed to public service for a great number of years. I just can’t imagine that the governor of Georgia would be so callous that he would convene his experts and then say, well to hell that I’m going to disregard everything. And I’m just gonna put everyone at risk and we’re just gonna flip a coin and hope for the best.

Andy 21:25
The numbers are not abating in any way. like the numbers are still moving in a positive direction and positive as in increasing not, It’s not slowing down. And I understand that he didn’t he didn’t consult the mayors and did not consult the Department of Public Safety, whatever that organization is there.

Brendan 21:42
He’s got a task force. Brian Kemp has a Coronavirus Task Force and they’ve come out this week to say we weren’t even informed that he’s gonna do this.

Larry 21:50
Well, the President said that he disagreed with it, but I mean, if he is just fly by the seat of his pants and making decisions without consulting anybody, then you guys might have pretty poor choice for your governor is all I can tell you

Andy 22:11
Well there were a lot of people that didn’t have the opportunity to vote, and it was about 18,000 shy of having somebody else.

Brendan 22:18
He was the Secretary of State when he ran.

Larry 22:20
Yes, he was the one who ran the election that elected him. But I’m saying, I just have a hard time stooping to the level of believing that someone would want to sabotage. What does he gain by killing off a bunch of Georgians?

Andy 22:32
I do not know other than to be popular that oh, this Corona hoax whatever. that frame of mind thinkers are now going to be all like super-duper Kemp supporters.

Brendan 22:43
We were really late to close the economy here in Georgia. He stood by and did not shut Georgia down for the longest even though there was a lot of pressure. So I think what’s motivating him is the economy here. Of course, he doesn’t want to the economic impact, and so he wants to open it as quickly as possible.

Andy 22:58
Yep. I agree with that.

Larry 23:00
well But then again, how much, since I’m in public service and I get these emails and phone calls. How much suffering can you inflict on people who you cannot make whole when you destroy everything? I would equate it to the fallout shelters in the 60s when we finally abandoned, in the 50s and 60s that we couldn’t build them, because we realized we wouldn’t have to come back to, what would be the point? If you totally decimate and destroy everything that people built their lives around. You destroy every business there is to come back to have we not done more damage than the disease itself? I mean, we don’t know I’m posing it as a question. So don’t say that that’s my position. But if we wreck everything, what is there going to be to reopen?

Andy 23:41
I agree with you. I mean, I can at least toe that line. I don’t know what the right answer is certainly above my paygrade I do not know that one’s very complicated to balance between letting people catch a virus that ultimately could kill them or at least cause massive Well harm to them.

Larry 24:02
Maybe there’s something in between maybe, maybe you could open things without just letting it be business as usual. They’re metering the big box stores here. They’re letting people they’ve the big box stores themselves have put the six foot stand in line outside, and they have heat sensors in the store, the computer tells them how many bodies are in there. When three bodies come out, they let three bodies go in and the fire marshal says this store can have 115 people in it, and they keep it to 115 people and they keep them six feet aside apart outside. And it seems like that that would be something rather than it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Why do you have to be, Well, let’s just go back to normal? Why not do some precautionary stuff and try to come down between the two extremes?

Andy 24:43
What do you think, Brendan?

Brendan 24:45
I just think we’re opening the wrong businesses down here in Georgia and hopefully we’ll see this across the country they’ll be looking at Georgia there’s no reason that nail salons massage parlors and tattoo parlors should be opened at this point. We’re opening the wrong businesses right now

Larry 25:00
So well, I could go along with that. But here’s, here’s the thing that that’s a tad bit troubling, although those are not as essential. But what about those people that have those businesses and that’s their livelihood? What do we do for them? Do we just say, well, you should have had more money saved up?

Andy 25:16
Right.

Brendan 25:18
That’s where these small business loans should come in, that aren’t getting to, that are going to Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse and some of these other larger companies and aren’t going to your small barbers and your nail salons.

Andy 25:27
or wait, and I know we’re going to have an article about it. How about why don’t we include people with felony records to get some of these small business loans? We should jump over to that since I just spoiled the segue to it. But I mean, we’ve covered it before that had we talked about that the small business loans, people with felonies, specifically sexual offenses don’t qualify for the, Was it 400 billion that was included on that side of it, I forgot how much it was exactly.

Brendan 25:56
Not exactly true. The only people that don’t qualify for the loans are people that are currently on probation or parole or have had a felony conviction within the last five years. So it doesn’t specifically say sexual conviction. If you’re on probation, there’s one outstanding case where a guy has, I believe it’s one year left of probation to serve. And he’s got a company with five employees and he’s not eligible for the payment protection plan because he has got that one year left to serve on probation. So as long as you are off of probation and parole and you haven’t committed a crime in five years, you’re eligible.

Larry 26:35
That’s the way I read it as well. And that was a directive that they put out on April 3, there was nothing in the Cares Act itself prohibiting felons but because someone raises the question you mean to tell these hard earned taxpayer money course they always I get so sick when I hear that cuz it’s not hard earned taxpayer money. It’s easily borrowed, indebtedness. so let’s call it what it is. Don’t call it hard earned taxpayers’ money. We haven’t paid the taxes to balance our budget for so long. Since Bill Clinton was in the Oval Office, we haven’t paid enough taxes. So don’t call it a taxpayer money, call it easily borrowed money that’s going to be possibly paid back, repudiated at some point in the future. But the public pressure was brought to bear because, Can you believe that we’re out paying taxes, we’re lending this money, these people are gonna get free money. And we play by the rules and look at them. Can you believe that? That’s what happened.

Andy 27:37
You and your little voices that you make Larry.

Brendan 27:40
you’re not just impacting the people that are on probation or parole, this gentleman who has five employees, he’s not getting the money. It’s his five employees that are going to get the money the payment protection and now you’re going to impact the five people, but it does say an owner with 20% or more of the equity that’s incarcerated on probation or parole or presently subject to an indictment or criminal charges within the last five years is ineligible, that’s really the only guidance from the Cares Act. And this is actually an SBA questionnaire on their application and you click yes or no. Do you meet these criteria are not? I would guess if you lie on that you’re subject to not getting the loan forgiven.

Andy 28:18
Why is that there to begin with?

Larry 28:20
Because it was a regulation that they decided to adopt after the outcry about, why wasn’t this put in… the Cares Act, this this was not put in the original language of the 900 pages. But, but all it takes is an enterprising reporter, calling say, Do you know that felons are… what are you gonna do about felons? Oh, well, we didn’t think about that. Okay. We’ll fix that. And that’s what they did.

Andy 28:48
And you said you’d fill out paperwork Larry.

Larry 28:50
I was just confirming what Brendan said that the application asks, does the person who owns more than 20% of the equity have the felony or been indicted, it’s on the questionnaire.

Andy 29:04
since so many of our people and all include all felons in that there’s so much of a problem of getting a job that many of them are, quote unquote forced to pursue something of an entrepreneurship so they don’t have to worry about background checks and can try and you know, go at it their own. And then this obviously like, you know, we turned the light switch off on the economy. So now your barber shop, your auto repair shop, some sort of job that you that the taxpayers paid for it, the taxpayers borrowed to get you the vocational training while you were in prison. And now we’ve turned off the economy and you’re sitting there with a thumb, somewhere the sun doesn’t shine, and you don’t have any customers coming in, and you’re hoping that you can get this money and Oops, sorry, eff you because you made a mistake some years ago.

Brendan 29:49
thinking the biggest piece of irony what I heard this week was you know, that President Trump declared April a second chance month and someone in Washington, “Well, how can you have second chance month and you’re not going to give people second chances to get their SBA paycheck Protection Program loan?”

Andy 30:05
I’m sure there wasn’t a reply.

Brendan 30:07
not really, he darted out of the room.

Andy 30:10
Anything else before we move on?

Larry 30:12
Well, it’s a dangerous path that we started going down. Large number of years back of holding up people, I don’t believe in disqualifying people, for things because of mistakes they’ve made. To me that defies what this nation stands for it, it goes against the grain of what, who we claim we are as a people. But it sounds good when these things are proposed.

Andy 30:33
Perhaps some of these companies that have taken the money that didn’t necessarily deserve it, maybe they should be put on a banned list for the next time. If there is a next time that we send out some sort of relief funds so that other people may be able to get it. You know, I mean, some big big franchises that have locally owned stores have received some of that cash.

Larry 30:55
Well, they’ve added another question to the application now and I don’t know if the people who have applications pending with their money run out are gonna have time to reapply. But they’ve added in the application you have to certify that these funds are essential that you won’t be able to operate without them. And that wasn’t on the application that I had filled out.

Andy 31:14
And it’s just a personal testimony that you’re being asked that?

Larry 31:17
Well, I don’t think any person would lie on a federal application.

Andy 31:21
Ah, no, of course not. No, no, no, no, no, never.

Larry 31:25
Well, I think so.

Andy 31:27
Alright, from WBAL TV, thousands of inmates to be released to stem coronavirus outbreaks in Maryland prisons. This I think if I remember, ah, I keep getting audio from these videos they’re auto-playing. I’m gonna mute this tab real quick so it stops. Um, it looks like they’re releasing a whole bunch of people in this article. But when you actually like break it down. It looks like it’s a shell game that they’re saying they’re going to release them but they actually aren’t. And I think it might just be something where they’re trying to make the justice system look like They’re doing something where they’re not really doing anything

Brendan 32:03
It could be they’re releasing people that they would have already released anyway. And they’re kind of including those numbers in there, like you said, the shell game. I know here in Georgia, the parole board is looking at people who were six months out from their release their maximum release date or their parole date, looking to get them out of there. But they’re saying that number is going to be about 200. In addition, they say they release 800 people a month, and it would be, you know, 200. We’re seeing they’re very slow in doing that. And again, it may be victim notification, but what I’m thinking is that most of these are coming from people that they would have released anyway.

Andy 32:39
Larry?

Larry 32:41
Yeah, I was gonna say that all of it is very timid in terms of the releases that are being done, whether it be in the States, various states or in the federal system, there’s a very, very small number of people in the totality of the incarcerated population being released. Brenda said, two or three weeks ago, it was probably too little too late. And I think we’re seeing that in some of the numbers as they’re escalating around the country. We’re going to get to an article here in Ohio about how many prisoners are infected at one particular institution. So it’s just woefully inadequate, what’s being done.

Andy 33:21
It’s really, really tragic. And but I have to think that the way the way the prison is designed is everyone is squished in there, kind of like the whole thing with the Navy ship. I mean, it is just designed spaces maximize like you have an RV, like every inch of space is highly coveted. And so to, they don’t have the resources, they don’t have the facility or anything to try and treat people, separate them. so to accommodate that, we could send them home, but we’re not even really doing that. Like, this is just this is just horrible, like all the way around. I can’t figure out how many anybody doesn’t see that, um, that we should let just droves and droves of people get out. I ran into… go ahead, Brendan.

Brendan 34:09
I don’t know how bad it is. We know the people that are showing symptoms and are actually getting sick and dying. That’s the cases that we’ve seen. Here in Georgia, you’ve got to go to the medical facility to get tested for this. And you’ve got normally a $5 copay to go in there. And that that makes people not want to go in. Georgia is waiving the $5 copay only if you test positive for the Coronavirus. If you don’t test positive, you owe that $5 to go down there and sit with a bunch of other sick people for a day waiting on your test results. So a lot of people are not going to take that risk. Therefore we’re not going to know if you really have it or not. Those numbers could be a lot larger than we even know.

Andy 34:55
That’s very true. I ran into a woman I used to work with a long time ago when I was coming back from lunch. And I was speaking about this issue with her. She was a nurse. She’s a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel. And I mentioned something to her about it. And she goes, Well, I mean, I read something about that they were going to release murderers from prison. I’m like, they probably would, but maybe the person has done 30 years, and maybe not the same person that they were at the time. It’s not like, I can’t imagine that you would see somebody convicted today that has spent life in prison, Oh, tomorrow we’re going to release them because of this pandemic. I don’t think that would happen. Even in the most generous of letting people go situations.

Brendan 35:35
Most states are going for the nonviolent and they still have to do the victim notification, and that is taking time. So everybody’s got to be in agreement. You know, you still got to notify the victim. The victims got to agree that this person if they follow the same parole route, they’re just getting paroled early. They’re still under the care of the Department of Corrections in most states, but they’re being paroled. Same rules apply. We’re not just opening the gates and letting them walk free. We’re still monitoring them on parole, assigning them a parole officer, the same regimen.

Larry 36:06
Well, no one is advocating that people just open the gates and let them out, although that’s what they did in Iran. But any type of release here is going with conditions. It would be anything from home confinement, monitoring by electronic, to intensive supervision, where you would be on a screen and be tested by I think they have alcohol monitors they can put on you through the skin. I’m not an expert on that. But I think they have such thing. But we’re not talking about just letting people go out and wander the countryside and it’s just so misunderstood. We’re talking about letting people serve their time in an environment that’s a little bit safer than the prison facility. That’s all we’re talking about. If they’re pretrial, we’re talking about letting people that are presumed innocent, be out in the community during this pandemic so that they won’t die and never get to go to trial. I mean, you would like him to come to trial alive, wouldn’t you?

Andy 37:02
It seems to be hard to try somebody that’s dead.

Larry 37:05
But the spin that’s being put on it is that these people are just being told to go away and said no more. That’s not what anybody’s asking for, that’s not what’s being requested, it’s being requested to find alternatives to being behind the walls and nobody that just got convicted of a heinous offense that’s even going to be considered. We’re going to be talking about people who have served a significant amount of time who have good institutional behavior. And it’s not going to be just an open door policy. It’s really ridiculous.

Andy 37:36
Over at WB TV on your side, this is out of Charlotte, North Carolina, the Mecklenburg County Jail received a shipment of 50,000 protective surgical masks, which it began distributing to jail personnel. 50,000 seems like a lot even for some massive 20,000-person prison. I’m gonna bet that this jail isn’t that big and I’m just guessing that they have more than adequate to cover the staff that they could probably pass some of those out to different people that are housed there. But that doesn’t seem to be what they’re doing.

Larry 38:10
Well, let’s just dissect this. I don’t know, the population of Mecklenburg. I was trying to do a quick Google search to find out what population of the jail typically runs.

Andy 38:21
1392 on Monday.

Larry 38:23
How many?

Andy 38:24
1392. So 1400 people.

Larry 38:26
So that’s, that’s pretty good sized detention facility.

Andy 38:28
Agreed it is.

Larry 38:31
Well, would you agree that the people who are lodged in the facility are having less exposure to the outside world than the people who were working at the facility? Could we agree on that?

Andy 38:42
Oh, yeah sure.

Larry 38:44
Okay, well, then, it would seem to reason if you do have a shortage that you would want to keep from contaminating the people who are not going outside. So the question I would have since I’m not a medical expert by any means, would you be able to protect the inmates better by having them all have a mask or would you be able to protect the inmates better by having the staff who are out in the world who would, where would the mask be most beneficial if you had a finite quantity of them?

Andy 39:09
Well, but I mean that there’s 1300 inmates, so let’s call it I don’t know 2- or 300 staff maybe I don’t know what the staff number is. You have weeks and weeks and weeks of giving somebody a mask daily to do it that way. Yeah, you would certainly want to protect the, I think that it seems like you would prioritize the staff over the inmates provided that the inmates are still clean, but it’s not like you’re given 1500 masks and you have to ration them out. You have a month or two months worth of daily masks that you could give out to people.

Brendan 39:44
Especially those that have details that interact with staff. I know that you’ve got some that wash the county vehicles and that’s still going on. you have barbers I know for a fact that’s still going on. Even though you can’t get a haircut in the free world. Staff are going into the jails and Getting haircuts by the barbers in the jails. So if you have interaction with the staff in the kitchen or whatever, you should be allowed that mask.

Larry 40:08
Well, I can’t argue that. the population of that county is 1.1 million. So it’s not an isolated place. It’s an urban area.

Andy 40:20
So that is a place holding up a huge geographic area of detainees.

Larry 40:26
Well, I’m just saying the population of Mecklenburg County is 1.1 million. So it’s not a fly by night place. This is not Mayberry, North Carolina.

Andy 40:38
Mayberry, huh?

Larry 40:40
It’s not Mayberry. Well, I think the lesson we’re learning in this is that having insufficient amount of stuff for pandemics, if we’ve learned anything, we should have learned that the United States and I don’t want just put this off on the federal government, but governmental units in the United States need to be better prepared and equipped with masks, protective equipment, all variety of things that we seem to be in terribly short supply right now. it just seems like a no brainer going forward that, masks, do masks go bad? if we had a supply masks that were made in 1989, Assuming they were stored properly good temperature and the roof wasn’t leaking. with those masks, they might not be up to the modern day high tech. But wouldn’t they be preferable, had they been stored properly since 1989 to what we would have today, which is nothing?

Andy 41:36
I think I agree with that.

Larry 41:38
So I would say that if we stockpile stuff that’s not perishable, then it may not be the most modern stuff the masker making in 2020 may be a little bit more of a filter, able to filter more, but if you give someone a mask made in ‘99 and tell them you have this or your choice of your undershirt, I think most people would take the mask made in ’99, as long as it wasn’t destroyed by a leaky roof or rodents or whatever. Like if it was in sound condition, I think most people would prefer one that was designed to do some filtration. Your t shirt really wasn’t.

Brendan 42:14
As a counterpoint to Larry’s earlier comment about not giving the masks out to the population because they’re not interacting with staff all the time. The article, it shocks me, it says wearing the masks is optional. And jail staffers are being strongly encouraged to use them. But the staffers aren’t using them. I would want a mask if I were in there, I would want one.

Larry 42:39
I would agree with that. Now, if you’re going to hog the masks, then all the staffers ought to be required to wear them because otherwise it kind of defeats the point you won’t let the inmate protect themselves. And you don’t require the staffer to protect the inmates from themselves. that’s a catch 22 there.

Andy 42:54
That’s like some states around the country have mandated that if you’re out in public that you were going to put on a mask

Brendan 43:00
California has, yeah.

Andy 43:02
Okay. And you know, I’m making that in contrast to Georgia like just willy nilly do what you want to do. Uh, and so here you are, again with a with a prison or jail doing the same thing. Someone in chat says Pennsylvania too.

Larry 43:15
You need to kick that person out of chat from Pennsylvania.

Andy 43:20
Well, let’s move over to the New York Post Larry, I like articles like this. The judge orders release of ex NYPD cop convicted in disability scam. I find this to be just, I think you would use the term funny that this person’s…

Brendan 43:35
do cops commit crimes?

Andy 43:37
I know and you know and I had a conversation with Larry yesterday and this just befuddles me and frustrates me that I walked my way to get a haircut yesterday and as I was walking back, a cop came up to the corner and he has a phone stuck up to his face. He’s holding his telephone and Georgia just what a year or so, two years ago put in a hands free law. I’m pretty sure that he’s gonna then like go through some intersection and see somebody’s using their phone up on their face, he’s gonna go pull them over, just as he’s laying his phone down on the seat beside him. It just infuriates me.

Larry 44:09
but there’s one little problem with that that often gets overlooked. It’s like the person who buys the six packages of something, when you think that they’re being selfish. You don’t know whether or not they’re going to go out and feed a Boy Scout troop or a baseball team or something. What you don’t know about that cop, And I do know cops break rules. And I’m not saying that that we don’t know. But what if the cop was in route to a domestic violence, and he was talking to the victim. And the only way he could communicate would be by telephone, see we, that’s the missing part that we don’t know about that situation. We make the assumption that the cop is talking to his girlfriend about who he’s going to go out with tonight. Or he’s talking to his kid that’s on his way home from school or whatever. We assume the worst and we truly don’t know what the circumstances were talking on the telephone, do we?

Andy 45:01
We do not but they’re going to assume the worst of us when we are using it

Larry 45:06
Well, I wouldn’t say so I’ve been cut some breaks in my life by cops when I’ve been pulled over. So I think if you told the cop that you were talking to your doctor that you’re having chest pains or something, and the cop could call the thing back and it was a doctor, I think you’d probably get fine most cops and would probably give you a little bit of slack.

Andy 45:27
And they would after they’ve pulled you over and you died from cardiac arrest because they pulled you over.

Larry 45:32
But they wouldn’t know what the circumstances were until they inquired would they?

Andy 45:36
I completely agree with you.

Larry 45:39
I’m starting to sound like a right winger, aren’t I?

Andy 45:42
You’re totally in the camp with the police, man. We’re gonna exonerate all of them for police brutality left and right. Let’s start Stop and Frisk all over the country, Larry.

Larry 45:53
Well, but there’s a fundamental fairness about stuff that that I try to humanly, we’re only human so we all have our biases but I try to be fair with the cops. I don’t presumptively hate anyone. And I think, I wish the cops would feel the same way. I wish the cops would say the same thing. I wish when these few people that are going to abuse these early releases and these furloughs and stuff. I wish the cops who say, Don’t judge us all by one bad apple, I wish the same cops would say, and we released 27,000 inmates and 114 of ‘em messed up. Let’s deal with those 114 and let’s not throw out the whole 27,000 who’s possibly their lives were saved by this. I wish the cops would do that because I will do that for them. I will stick up for them. But I’ve never heard them stick, they never stick up for anybody on our side. Do they?

Andy 46:47
Never, not one.

Larry 46:49
I don’t hear it very often. You know what? When one of them gets accused of something they always say, well, you just haven’t heard the other side. You haven’t heard the other side. Wait till there’s two sides to Every story, and I agree there, there would be two sides to every story, but I wish when they arrest someone to their purple, I wish they would say, and you haven’t heard this person’s side of the story yet, but they never do that.

Brendan 47:12
They never Larry, they don’t it’s always, you know, tell it to the judge and guilty until proven innocent. Hopefully that will change with the public opinion. But I don’t know. I still remember my father telling me he was the foreman on a jury and one of the jurors said to him, the police don’t arrest innocent people.

Larry 47:31
Of course they do. I mean, that’s the silliest. Anybody make a statement like that isn’t fit for, of course they’ve arrested innocent people

Andy 47:39
not fit for jury duty?

Larry 47:41
They’re not fit for anything. We cannot devise, humankind cannot devise an error free system of course we arrest innocent people. Now that’s not our desire. No one should go to bed at night saying Gee, I arrested an innocent person, but in the course of all the people that handle a criminal prosecution from investigation to indictment, to prosecution, to conviction. Of course, innocent people get caught up in it. I mean, it would be to think. Like, we got checks and balances, but they don’t always catch it. But back to this article, what is your consternation with him being released? Because he’s a cop? Or because is it special treatment? Where are you consternated?

Andy 48:19
That is sort of my idea. Like I, I expect that when we put someone in the uniform with a badge that they are to, to act with, with a higher level of integrity, and so forth. So here is somebody in that position that went and stole 1.4 million bucks from our population. And he’s only going to get 18 months in prison where you have someone that commits a significantly lower offense and they go to prison for a much longer time than that. I don’t find it to be…

Brendan 48:50
I don’t have a problem with him being released. he’s 18. He’s less than six months away from his release data, it’s a nonviolent crime. He’s eligible, just like we’re arguing a lot of people should be eligible. The fact that he’s a police officer, I don’t really think that comes into play here that he should be, be forced to stick with it for the other six months, a cop.

Larry 49:11
I don’t have any real disagreement with that, to be intellectually honest, if we claim that we incarcerate too many people in this country, and we only want people who pose a danger to the community, now I know, depending on whose money you steal, it can be a dramatic impact on their lives. But we’ve got a person who I’m guessing this was the first-time offense. Usually they catch you on the police force before too long. I’m guessing this was a first time offense. To be cleared, to be on the police force he had to have no record right? Most of the time, unless it’s a very minor offense. So he had no criminal history. Now, when I say no criminal history. That doesn’t mean that you’ve never committed a crime. It means you have not been caught, apprehended, prosecuted and convicted.

Brendan 49:58
But Larry, they ask you that question on the application to be a police officer, please list all the crimes you’ve ever committed in your life. They really do. I have seen the application.

Larry 50:09
But he received under the federal guidelines he received, I’m guessing a sentence within the guidelines unless there was a downward departure, which you can do. And we’re saying get these people out of custody. If we can do it safely. And I don’t know why we would exclude him. I’m just, I’m just lost in why he would be excluded because he’s a cop.

Andy 50:33
No, that that’s not really my point. My point is mostly that we are expecting that the person to act with a higher level of standard and morals because we’ve given him this extra level of authority in the world. And I don’t know 1.4 million, That’s, that’s a good chunk of change. And that’s money That is, I’m assuming not in the tax coffers, for you know, roads and schools and whatnot to be spent on and I’m not saying he shouldn’t get early. I’m saying that If we’re going to give that person, not special treatment, but we’re going to consider them, let’s make sure that we consider other people. do it, do it consistently on both sides either. Don’t let him go, because we’re not letting other people go. But at the same time, if we’re going to let them go, Well, they’re probably other people that should be considered to go and let them go.

Larry 51:18
But we are letting other people go. He’s not the only one who’s going.

Andy 51:20
We keep covering articles where they, hey, they released 10 people from a 400-person jet. Like that’s not going to change any numbers of any sort of density. So

Brendan 51:30
well, there is a sentence disparity when it comes to white collar versus criminal crime. I just see that we’re seeing a lot of white collar crime get, you know, get slaps on the wrist and I think this is what we’re seeing. He got 18 months for 1.4 million. That’s pretty typical, isn’t it?

Larry 51:46
Well, but on the other hand, let me ask you this when you’re walking down the road wanting to be safe, would you rather encounter a person who siphoned off 1.4 million from the federal government or would you rather encounter someone who’s been beating up folks and busting their head open with crowbars. I mean, which, which would you feel like you would be more comfortable passing on the street? If you do not have limitless resources to put everybody in prison, Who would you want to spend those precious resources on? Tell me.

Andy 52:14
Uh, you know, that’s an extreme example that makes it very difficult to make a fair choice, but bring, bring it down into scale of somebody, a different kind of crime that scales more evenly. And maybe those people aren’t getting released. That’s, that’s all I’m really getting at is just…

Larry 52:31
okay, well, let’s scale it down. Let’s scale it down to the convenience store. Okay, when you’re going to pass someone on the street? Would you rather pass a person who siphoned off $1.4 million from the federal government and still have them on the street because there are things we can do to try to get some of that money back. And we have a better chance of getting it back if you’re on the street. I mean, would you agree with that?

Andy 52:55
Sure. I mean, if you’re not earning income, then you’re probably not being able to pay it back.

Larry 52:58
Right and at 15 or 80 cents an hour, whatever the federal prison is, it’s gonna take you a while to pay back 1.4 million. But if you’re going to have to pass a person, would you rather pass that person on the street? Or the person who sticks up to 711 on the graveyard shift? And gets $40, $80, or $110 or whatever, and hold a gun trembling, and they could fire it at any moment. But I mean, which would you rather pass on the street?

Andy 53:19
Well, I would just if that person just doing it for the joy ride, or do they need like the 40 bucks because their kid needs diapers?

Larry 53:28
But would you rather pass that person on the street or this person on the street?

Andy 53:32
that’s why I’m bringing up that detail. If it’s the person that is just going over to the convenience store because they need some food because they’re hungry. That’s a different scenario. That’s a crime of necessity, not a crime of just because they want to

Larry 53:42
well, but even if it’s the person who needs to have diapers for their kids, when you pull a weapon, there’s always a chance and how many times have you heard in your life of a gun, it went off? \you hear that phrase all the time.

Andy 53:43
Of course. Of course.

Larry 53:45
I don’t know how guns just go off. It seems like to me that they have to have pressure on one of the firing mechanisms. But I hear that all my life. I’ve heard that all my life. Guns, you know, they were holding the gun and it went off. Well, if you’re sticking up convenience stores, isn’t there a chance that gun might go off?

Andy 54:09
Of course.

Larry 54:11
well then I would rather have that person behind bars if I had my choice.

Andy 54:15
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 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. Let us move on to this one that has the little expression, the little phrase in there. This is from the appeal, the Supreme Court just struck down the last state law allowing split jury verdicts. It would seem to me, Larry, that it is kind of engrained in my head that when you go to court and you have a trial by jury that it has to be a unanimous jury. That is like just something in my head. And then First of all, this concept of not having a full jury, you know, it’s a hung jury. It’s not all 12 or whatever the number is. And then also in this one, there’s something about this word, it looks like stare decisis. Please help me understand this.

Larry 55:45
decisis is just a legal term for respect for precedent. And it comes up a lot in Supreme Court confirmation. Because the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 people want to know are you going to respect that or what’s your feeling, before we confirm you. And that’s when they ask about stare decisis, They’re trying to figure out, what are you gonna do with Roe vs. Wade? And they don’t want to ask how are you going to vote? How are you going to rule on this? Because anybody’s sitting in the confirmation chair is gonna say, well I don’t think I can tell you what I might do on a case that I might hear. But, but that doesn’t mean that you can never reverse. It means that, that to have the stability, predictability of the law. The law itself is evolving, has evolved and has stability. You grant deference to the people who’ve made the decision before you. So these nine wise people and it was largely men until 1981, I believe, ‘81, ‘82 somewhere in the early 80s, when Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor, you’d give deference to these nine wise souls that have put their heart and energy into figuring out the right decision on a case And you defer to it unless they clearly were wrong. Not that you disagree. That’s not the standard that they were clearly wrong. And in rare instances, they go back and they overturn existing precedent, which is what they did here. They, they, they had it in 1972 on the divided court with, uh, with justice, I believe it Lewis Powell. I read this 87, I did a really quick read of this 87 pages, but I believe it was a judge justice Powell who had said we can make an exception for a non-unanimous verdict in the state courts, even though they’re not permitted in the federal courts. And but now, yeah, it was justice Powell. But now they have decided that that they were wrong, and they’re overturning themselves, but they said 13 previous times before, before the ‘72 case, they had said that unanimity was required, so they’re just going back to where we were.

Andy 57:56
And doesn’t that bring up the idea that the law like evolves, it moves like we have a, an evolving standards of decency to use that term.

Larry 58:06
I don’t think so in this particular case, I think that this is just correcting what they see is an error that they made in ‘72. would be like Plessy versus Ferguson, with the 1896 saying that separate but equal was equal. And then, I believe it was 1954, in Brown versus Board of Education, they said they were overturning Plessy and we were wrong. The previous court was wrong. And they’re saying the ‘72 court was wrong and I think people want to know exactly how the, starting on page 35 for where justice Kavanaugh explains stare decisis he goes into great detail to explain the relevance of it in his concurring opinion where he could . And that way you’ll have a professional opinion versus mine. A legal professional who’s sitting on the US Supreme Court.

Andy 58:57
I think I would trust you more to be honest with you. I don’t know who it is, but I think I would

Larry 59:01
but this is Kavanaugh you would trust Kavanaugh, right?

Andy 59:05
I would trust him on his beer opinions, perhaps.

Larry 59:09
Actually, he did a nice job explaining it.

Andy 59:12
I’ve heard he’s an incredibly good writer, a super duper smart dude, but he apparently likes beer. Um, well, this is Louisiana, allowing, and Oregon just recently stopped doing it. But this is where you could be convicted in 10 out of 12 jurors of things like murder, like the high end crimes.

Larry59:32
And Oregon has not stopped doing it. Louisiana had a constitutional amendment. But this is effectively going to stop Oregon. But where the three dissenting judges have problems is because this like Roe vs. Wade. You know, this has been decided law for a long time, and Roe came out in ‘73. And the case, Apodaca versus Oregon came out in ‘72. So we’ve got a precedent of equal age and the dissent, or those three justices are saying that this is going to upset and cause extreme hardship because it basically opens anyone’s conviction that got convicted by non-unanimous verdict, it opens those cases up again. And they’re saying the floodgates, the proverbial floodgates, are going to open and it’s going to cost us a fortune to deal with all these post. So if you’ve exhausted all of your appeals in your state conviction, and you were convicted on a 10 to two or level one decision, then you go back into federal court, and you go and file a habeas and say my imprisonment is illegal because now based on this decision, your conviction was unconstitutional. And so the dissent was concerned about the floodgates on the cost of and inconvenience and anytime, anytime you have due process that costs money, so yes, there’s going to be some disruption. There’s gonna be some petitions and there’s gonna be, the courts are gonna have some work to do.

Brendan 1:01:00
My view is the job of the prosecutor is to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you don’t have a unanimous verdict by the jury that leaves doubt. there is some doubt that this is not a just case to get on. So I think that if you have the unanimous jury it protects prosecution from appeal and from habeas and everything else. Sounds like a great idea to have a unanimous verdict. And I can’t believe that some states are still holding out.

Larry 1:01:27
Well, they won’t be holding out any longer.

Brendan 1:01:31
But for all this time, they’ve I mean, this was ‘73 that they took a look at it because I think before that it was nine out of 12. In ’73, the Constitution was amended to require 10. Why at that time, didn’t they say, you know, what, we probably need to defend ourselves should have it 12 out of 12?

Larry 1:01:49
Which constitution was amended to require, I didn’t catch that. What, what, where, where does that come from?

Brendan 1:01:55
That was in the article the state constitution of Louisiana in 1973 was amended to require 10 of the jurors to agree.

Larry 1:02:01
Okay. I didn’t catch that.

Brendan 1:02:06
there was a convention that replaced a unanimous requirement that was said that of the votes of nine jurors out of 12 are enough Vic defendants of non-capital felonies. So before ‘73, it was 9, in ‘73 they met and decided it needed 10. And why can’t you say unaminous? Because if you have unanimous then like I said before your appeals are less your habeases are less because look, the entire jury thought you were guilty.

Larry 1:02:34
Well, well, like said. I encourage the people that are legal Googlers to read, in particular if you’re not gonna read the 87 pages, read starting at page 35 with what Kavanaugh explains the legal doctrine. And I know I hate people reading on the podcast, and I don’t want to do it here but it’s there and it’s very, very eloquently written. And I guess if I could just read one sentence, the doctrine of stare decisis does not mean of course that the court should never overrule erroneous precedents, all justice is now discordant read it’s sometimes appropriate for the court to overrule erroneous decisions. So, so it’s not an absolute.

Andy 1:03:13
right. There was a passage in the article and I guess it comes from the decision says whether that slice turns out to be large or small, it cannot outweigh the interest we all share in the preservation of our constitutionally promised liberties. To me tthat resonated with the fight that we are all in that we have a certain level of diminished constitutional liberties with the registry and presence restrictions, living restrictions, etc. that uh, I just found that one kind of struck a chord with me.

Larry 1:03:42
Well, where do we have a diminished Liberty expectation? Because you’ve been convicted of a sex offense? I don’t subscribe or agree with that that once you pay your debt to society, your liberty is not diminished?

Andy 1:03:54
No, That’s my point. That’s my point. That’s my point. That’s exactly my point that in the state of Georgia while you were still on the registry, You have, depending on when you were convicted, you have the thousand foot kind of blah, blah, blah bullshit that goes with it. Well, after you’ve paid your debt to society, all that should go away. And in other states you don’t get your voting rights back. All that. That’s those are that’s what I’m focusing on with that particular sentence.

Larry 1:04:17
Well, I think I think that over time, we’re gonna have to have hope that we’re going to win those liberties back because the courts can’t continue to turn a blind eye and they’re not turning a blind eye to the ever escalating and encroaching restrictions. If they were, we wouldn’t have these decisions out of Pennsylvania, out of Michigan, out of so many states, where, where the courts are not turning a blind eye. There, there are limits to what you can do and call it a regulatory scheme. And unfortunately, the boys and girls in the legislatures around the country don’t recognize that.

Andy 1:04:49
right. Over in an article from above the law, how to bail out an inmate. this profiles an interesting case and as I the way it read to me was that A gun shootout happened. But it was in a self-defense kind of posture and the one that was defending, ended up getting arrested. And he is going to get remanded to Rikers and they call it a petri dish for Coronavirus. And that this person should be able to get awarded bail, but he is having a very hard time getting any sort of bond and possibly then going to go into a very nasty place because his little problem, used a weapon.

Larry 1:05:31
And therein lies the problem of all this bail reform. And I’m not saying i’m i’m not in favor of money alone getting you out of out of jail, but we end up when we do these reforms we end up putting in provisions where a person can be detained, much like the federal system had in the bail Reform Act of 1984 the US Congress passed, signed by President Reagan the pretrial detention was authorized. And it was challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. In Salerno, the Supreme Court ruled in US versus Salerno, that pretrial detention, holding a person without bail is constitutional. And they did that because they said the due process is afforded to the person if a judge in the federal system orders you held, held without bail, there’s an immediate appeal available to you an expedited appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. And therefore, it’s a civil remedy since you’re not convicted, and you have an immediate appeal available to you. But my consternation is this very thing like this article we’re covering right now. If you have a constitutional right to bail, now I’m with the conservatives on this. We have to interpret bail to be in what it meant back when those words were written, right? Bail did not mean a GPS monitor and going through some type of grid sheet and then going through some type of an assessment for danger. Bail meant that a person who was accused of a crime was entitled to release by posting some assurance that they would come to court. We’re all but obliterating that with all these fancy reforms that we’re doing to make it more fair. So here’s a person who may have very good defenses against the charges, maybe even self-defense, they can’t have a bond because that grid sheet in that fancy computer that you’re so fond of that’s done the analysis has decided that on the dangerousness assessment he poses a threat to the community. So therefore, we throw the presumption of innocence out the window, and we hold him without bail. It’s a great system.

Andy 1:07:41
I think so. Brendan?

Brendan 1:07:43
bail should not be used as a punishment. It wasn’t designed to be a punishment. It’s to guarantee your appearance in court. I mean, some people that are staples of the community have lived there forever have great ties are released on signature bonds, they can just sign their way out and know that they’re going to be back because a lot of the news media’s on them and they’re going to be tracked. Other people, high profile celebrities and things that have access to private jets, we put them in the million dollar range, but everybody should be awarded bail and if guarantee we could put ankle monitors on them. I mean, the level of dangerousness should, in my opinion, levels of other hacking devices on them, but I think everyone should be awarded bail.

Larry 1:08:27
So well, Brendan, you’re just not sensitive to people who don’t have money. It’s just not fair for a person to be able to post money. This man should sit in Rikers and he should die because he’s got money. And that is not that is not fair. And I don’t know why you don’t understand that Brendan, I’m disappointed you

Brendan 1:08:48
the money goes into how much can they afford, like you’ve got the celebrity with a private jet. It’s kind of equal out to they’ve got the money and this would hurt them. You know, this would compel you so If I give RKelly a $1,000 bond, he’s gonna he’s gonna, you know, pull it out of his wallet and give you the thousand dollars. But if I give RKelly a $10 million bond, he’s gonna want that $10 million back so he’s gonna show up to court. So it’s kind of in, the way it was designed, I feel is what’s going to compel you. So the gentleman or gentlewoman that’s making maybe 20,000 a year, a $2,000 bond may be significant enough for them to come back to court.

Larry 1:09:30
But Brendan, you’re missing the point the reformers believe and I agree with him partially that it’s not a fair system where those who can come up with, many jurisdictions operate on a bail schedule. That particular offense has a particular preset bond. And sometimes you can wait and see the judge and get a lower bond. Sometimes you’re waiting see the judge, you’ll get a higher bond because they realize you’ve got resources and you’re more of a flight risk. And more information has come in on you and they’ll set the bond higher. And you’d have been better to post the preset bond and hope that if you showed up at your preliminary hearing, at your arraignment, not your preliminary hearing, but your arraignment, when you’re formally advised to the charges if you bond out in jail generally you’re not arraigned until later, you hope they don’t raise the bond. But Brendan, you don’t understand. It’s not fair for that person who may also have viable defenses if they can’t post any money. How do we fix that? That’s what is trying to be addressed is the person who doesn’t have resources to post a monetary bond. But we throw out the constitution that says you have the right to bail in the process of doing this. And that’s what troubles me. What do we do to solve that problem?

Brendan 1:10:38
It’s tricky one, because you’ve got to compel them to come back. And if they don’t have any skin in the game, so to speak, then what’s to say that they’re going to come back if you give someone who’s indigent a signature bond and say, hope to see you next month. There’s really no guarantee that you will.

Larry 1:10:54
Well, the statistics are showing that the appearance rates are pretty doggone good on these unsecured bonds. I can’t quote you any exact study, but I know here we’ve had that debate because we ammended our constitution to allow pre trial detention, our state constituion. And the statistics that they touted around and have touted around since our Administrative Office of the Courts, Pepin, he’s just recently said in the last few months that this is doing exactly what we intended it to do, and it’s working fabulously. That the appearance rates or the no show rates have not gone up but I have a real problem with this. This illuminates what my consternation is about is a person who cannot have a bond set because the rubric has decided that well I went down this little cheat sheet and a weapon was involved. Yep, there was a gun. Well, that might be self-defense- Oh, we don’t have a formula for that that, we decide that later when you go to trial had a gun okay. the gun was fired. Okay, that’s another point for that. Okay. You end up at the bottom of it, it says not releasable, danger to community. And that’s very troubling to me.

Andy 1:11:58
Interesting. Yeah. I don’t know. I don’t know how you fix that one, but it does it does seem to me that most people don’t have the resources to, like, just disappear. Like I mean that takes a significant amount of resources and connections especially in the modern era where everything is tracked. I mean, as soon as you touch a credit card, they’re going to know where you are. If you did abscond like I don’t know just doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to give someone depending on what scale they can afford. If you know if it’s a very very low economic status person, you know, $5 bond, let them go and you will probably know where they are. And RKelly, Larry, do you know who RKelly is?

Larry 1:12:35
I’ve heard the name but I wouldn’t be able to pick the person out.

Brendan 1:12:41
we tried to end cash bail here in Georgia and the biggest lobby to cash bail is the bail companies. They are fighting tooth and nail to keep bail as an existence because every time you get arrested and you go to post bail. They’re involved they take 10% or more And they’re going to fight this every step of the way. The sheriff’s departments that are getting the pot. It’s all about the money.

Larry 1:13:12
Well, Brendan, would you want to eliminate your job? If you’ve invested in a bail bond business and you’ve This is all you know, would you say Attaboy? Well, let’s let’s close down. Why didn’t I think of that? Of course, they went to court filed a constitutional challenge here against our constitutional amendment. They lost they didn’t get any traction, but they challenged. they took the citizens of the state to task and went to court and said that the constitution amendment violated the Constitution, in parts I agree with them. But their challenge was not successful.

Brendan 1:13:45
At least they did it overtly. In Georgia. They did it covertly. They would go and testify before the Senate and say I’m a concerned citizen. I’m very concerned and someone would cross examine him and say Who do you work for? Oh, that’s beside the point.

Larry 1:13:57
They did that here too. They did everything to reckon the legislative process, but then when they failed they went to court. But I, I expressed my misgivings about this when it was going through. This is not some epiphany that came about, I expressed my misgivings. While I’m very sympathetic to the argument about the people lacking means and try to get them out of custody. I’m also sensitive to what happens to people who don’t get out of custody. This is an example of this.

Andy 1:14:24
Let’s jump to an article from the hill the importance of ongoing contact for prisoners, obviously, due to all of the global pandemic that is going on, that they have shut down visitation. Is this the article where they had the deal from… Yes, yes, yes, this is, Hey, Brendan, you work in a technology kind of capacity, don’t you?

Brendan 1:14:51
Yes.

Andy 1:14:53
What is the cost of sending an email message from Person A to Person B?

Brendan 1:14:53
This always gets me because you know the prison system charges, in Georgia, it’s 35 cents an email. To Send one of these emails out.

Andy 1:15:01
right. And so they’re offering in this I’m pretty sure it’s this article. they’re offering, yes, there it is. It’s very close to the bottom. It says, For example, at the time of this writing in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, with Securas has instituted five, free 15 minute phone calls a week and five free emails. The cost of sending an email is just slightly above zero. I mean, it’s, it’s effectively free, but they’re gonna give you five!? I think they could give you 100 and they wouldn’t notice it. And this deeply troubles me.

Brendan 1:15:34
What’s really crazy though is that these companies, they have a monopoly on it, you know, GlobalTel and Securas and CenturyLink all had the monopoly on the phone systems and it’s by state. So here in Georgia, it’s Securas. They have the phone system here. And I’ve actually done some research for the National Incarceration Association. And what we found is that the same company Securas is offering different deals to different states. That five calls and every thing in Pennsylvania it could be it’s different here in Georgia, Georgia is only getting I think it’s two calls and one email a week, but vary state to state, same company, different state, but it’s really up in the air. They could be doing more.

Andy 1:16:13
Can you tell me what’s going on in the background Larry, of why they’re able to like, I mean, what, is it a different political structure? Is that the different political climate? Why would they be able to negotiate those things so radically different among different states for the same thing?

Larry 1:16:28
Well, here we had our public regulation commission, which does regulate the cost of intrastate calls those originating and terminating within the state. That regulatory body has taken a more aggressive posture and kept those phone calls very inexpensive. They’re less than $2 a phone call. I think they’re actually less than $1. I don’t receive many of them, but I know they put some very tight controls. The Obama FCC, the Federal Communications Commission had done the same thing, but those were rolled back by both challenges and the administration’s in power now is more Laissez fair but let the company dictate it. But this is the correctional system man, I hate to break it to our listeners. But when you’re trying to fund all the competing things that governments at the state levels do. Its prisons are just not high on the constituents’ wish list. When you’re trying to figure out how to divvy up the state revenue base and who gets it, prisons just don’t rank very high among the constituents. They want people in prison. I’m not saying people don’t want folks in prison, but they don’t want to contribute tax dollars to that they want prisons to be money generating to the extent they can. So that puts an enormous amount of pressure on corrections departments to figure out revenue streams, well, the $5, copay, $10 copay. Those things have the dual effect of bringing in a small amount of revenue but more importantly, it discourages the needless use of medical resources. The Prisons oftentimes will argue that people will go to medical college just to get out to get out of the cell, and that they’re trying to scam some pharmaceuticals, they can trade on the black market in prison. But these phone calls and these emails, these are revenue streams for the for the facilities. And in some of the more progressive states, they still do this, but they put it into an inmate welfare fund, but oftentimes this money just goes directly into the correctional budget. But I challenge any of you go to a community function, and when they ask for public comments, say I’ll tell you what I want to speak up for. I want to see how we can get more money for inmate programming. And we can stop hitting these inmates up and their families for these phone calls. How many of you agree with me and tell me how many hands go up? I want either one of you to do that. Tell me what happens.

Andy 1:18:46
And I know I’m preaching to the choir in saying this. It’s so short sighted that if we don’t want to keep spending money, the next go around, that we have to invest in something now. I mean, this isn’t anything different than putting someone through the whole education system, it is not something that we reap the benefits of now, that’s a 30-, 40-, 50-year investment to get that money back. This is not it’s certainly different, but it’s not different.

Larry 1:19:11
Well, I was reading the article here. I think it’s funny when you get down to Kentucky below the paragraph you’re reading it says that an incarcerated individual in Davis County, Kentucky, for instance, frantic to hear the voices of family members might end up paying an additional $5 and 61 cents for any portion of the next 15 minutes. Now that’s funny.

Andy 1:19:29
So they don’t they don’t kick you out at the end of the 15 minutes. If you go over they hit you with the next charge just because you went over. That’s shitty. Evil, that is What’s the word, exploiting? It’s not the right word extorting, sorry.

Larry 1:19:42
but let’s give let’s give credit for where the institutions are giving the free phone calls. I mean, that is a step in the right direction. Now, I haven’t been behind the walls before. But if they opened it up to unlimited free calls, would there be enough capacity to handle it? In terms of, I mean I’m looking at the guy sitting there looks like there’s three phone devices.

Andy 1:20:04
And they’re like on top of each other, I was gonna bring that up.

Larry 1:20:07
And it looks like most of these housing units have 60 to 80 to 100, sometimes 150. If you had unlimited phone calls, wouldn’t those things have a constant line all the way around snaking around the housing unit?

Andy 1:20:18
They would.

Brendan 1:20:20
but I wouldn’t have a chance of getting on there. Larry, I’ve seen that in cases where there are free calls when you go to like a county jail and you get local phone calls. You can never get on those phones because people are talking to their girlfriends and staying on there all hours of the night like a party line.

Larry 1:20:37
So but yeah, the communication side since the beginning of this crisis they need to if you’re going to keep inmate discipline and prevent uprisings, the very minimum you can do is make some free calls and some free video visits and some free, make some free things available. I suspect that the money can be appropriated for that. If it’s not in the federal package, you’re not talking about a huge amount of money to make these things happen. It’s like, it’s like more soap and stuff. These are not terribly expensive things to do. And you have a whole lot quieter institutional life, if you make phone calls and visitation by video, it makes sure that people can keep those cells as clean as they can and make sure that they have basic laundry more often. These things are not terribly expensive.

Brendan 1:21:25
I think that we’re missing the point here with this article is I know at least in Georgia, they’re on lockdown. If you are in a cell and not in an open dorm, you’re not getting out to use the phone anyway and a lot of these free calls are use it or lose it. If you’re not able to get out of your cell because you’re on 24-hour lockdown, you’re gonna lose it.

Andy 1:21:45
That’s a very happy point to point that out, Brendan.

Brendan 1:21:48
I mean, that kind of right now does prevent the spread of COVID-19. I mean, this was probably a good idea in the beginning when we still, people had free range of their prison but there’s no movement. They’re feeding people in their cells. And what I understand most prisons are on lockdown. So you’re not getting out to even use that phone.

Larry 1:22:08
my understanding that Georgia prisons though, you know, you, you have an awful lot of open dormitories in your system in Georgia because of the overcrowding. Georgia is a very high incarceration state. There are they’re not the top three, but they’re in the top 10. And so they’ve got a lot of open dorms in prisons in Georgia, don’t they?

Andy 1:22:27
Yes.

Larry 1:22:29
that’s what I was thinking. Because I used to have a friend that worked at the corrections department, and there’s a lot of open dormitory in the Georgia State Prison system.

Andy 1:22:35
The last number that I had heard and this was a pretty long time ago, 105% capacity of somewhere in the low 50 range. And I don’t know how that’s changed in the last five ish or so years.

Larry 1:22:46
Mm hmm.

Andy 1:22:48
You have a different number, Brendan?

Brendan 1:22:50
I think they keep them full. And then you’ve got the private prisons who are contractually obligated to keep it full. So it’s a revolving door. Full.

Andy 1:22:59
Over at The Advocate, Coronavirus hits Louisiana prisons, medical director, head Warden and first aid inmate die. this is I think we should probably put this under the category of irony that even like the medical director and the head Warden have passed due to COVID-19. And just, again, just all-around shitty. People are denouncing that this thing exists, they’re calling it a Corona scam, open everything back up. And it seems obvious that people around them are dying that here we are in the prison system where they are not treating inmates with the level of attention that probably needs to be done. And then the top two people get succumbed to the disease.

Larry 1:23:44
Well, it’s tragic. I hope it has awakened those decision and policymakers in Louisiana that it’s not a hoax. I would assume that if you’re a warden and medical director that you’re in reasonably good health. Again, I haven’t been in prison, but I’m assuming that they don’t make 70, 80, 90 year old, decrepit people Warden. they’re probably at the midpoint of their life right to have that responsibility. But I’m assuming these are very healthy people that were in these positions.

Andy 1:24:12
Probably not healthy but not ancient either. Probably not ancient, but I wouldn’t say that they’re healthy. There’s a pretty good obesity problem in the state of Georgia Larry.

Brendan 1:24:21
to be a head Warden, you’d have to serve a lot of time in the prison system, you’d have to probably be graduated up from, you know, Lieutenant on up and pay your dues. So I would say the wardens are probably in their 50s and 60s.

Larry 1:24:34
Well, well, if these people were doing all they could to try to provide an improved safety margin for the inmates. I equate it to Captain Crozier of the Theodore Roosevelt. He had no hesitation to go public when he wasn’t getting any reception from the Navy’s chain of command. If these people were doing everything that they could then it’s a terrible tragedy. But if they were keeping their mouth shut because they wanted to protect their job, that puts a slightly different light on it. Hopefully they were doing as much as they could and just weren’t allowed to do more.

Brendan 1:25:08
You read an article like we read before where it said the use of masks is only encouraged. I’m sure the same thing happened in this Louisiana prison, they told their staff, well, we would like you to wear a mask, but don’t worry about it if you don’t want to. It should be more than just strongly encouraged when you’re going into a vulnerable population. I’m sure nursing homes requiring their staff and some of these other, you know, jewel organizations that have vulnerable populations, if you’re working with a vulnerable population, and I would argue that a prison is full of vulnerable people. You should be wearing that mask mandatory.

Larry 1:25:42
I can’t disagree with that. Brendan. I think if we’re not going to provide the equipment, any gear for the inmates, we have to at least do what we can for those who are coming in from the outside

Brendan 1:25:55
Again in Georgia. It hasn’t been reported on but I keep track of, They are self-reporting the number of people that have contracted it both incarcerated and staff. And I saw last week a case at the special management unit here in Georgia at the GDCP. Special management is solitary confinement. It’s the quote unquote worst of the worst. It’s where the bad people go to, you know, go in a hole in the ground, and there’s no real movement and you don’t see other people you’re stuck in your cell all day. There was one case of someone getting it in there. How does someone get it in there unless someone’s not following the proper safety procedures.

Andy 1:26:34
this next article comes from cleveland.com federal judge orders Elkton prison officials to clear out vulnerable inmates because of Coronavirus. Wait a minute, this is somebody that’s doing the right thing and releasing a pretty decent number of folks as opposed to the other one where it just seems like token ones and twosies in here and whatnot.

Larry 1:26:53
This is I’ll put the judge’s opinion in for the show notes. I didn’t make any highlights. I didn’t make any highlights in there, but I would recommend people read it because he explains, in the opinion about the standards for getting a restraining order, injunctive relief in other words, and about certification of classes of individuals, and about presumptive certification. And this is just a great thing this judge this judge knows, at least judge but possibly the judge knows exactly what he’s doing. And I expect this to stand up on if Ohio, if they appeal this. This is good stuff.

Andy 1:27:35
He is a Clinton appointee.

Brendan 1:27:39
This is what the justice reform advocates all across the country are calling for just a kind of almost a blanket relief for home confinement or compassionate release of people with preexisting conditions. Really, we’re paying a lot of money for them inside the prison system anyway. oversee the age of 65 with preexisting conditions. You know, they need to be released anyway to compassionate release to home healthcare. And now if the Coronavirus got into that prison system, they’re probably susceptible to it. But this is what we’ve been calling for for a while. It’s great to see a district judge is actually listening to the advocates.

Larry 1:28:19
Well, I’m gonna highlight right now while we’re talking about this part about enlargement because he makes it clear. It says in other words, petitioners seek an enlargement. An enlargement is not released, although some courts refer to using the terms release or bail. When a court exercises its power to enlarge the custody of a defendant pending the outcome of a habeas action, the BOP maintains custody over the defendant, but the place of custody is altered by the court. So the court is saying, Yes, you’re right BOP, these people are still in custody, but I’ve enlarged the definition of custody to include something other than Elkton. Fantastic.

Andy 1:28:56
So we have one example of somebody doing what would appear to be the right thing and a bajillion examples of people not doing the right thing.

Larry 1:29:03
Well, you might as well,

Brendan 1:29:05
Just a good proof of you can do the right thing and the world will not collapse in on itself. It is going to take someone like this gentleman to do the right thing. We can say See, nothing bad happened.

Larry 1:29:18
Yeah. But also, Brendan, you gotta realize he’s a federal judge who does not have the… a Georgia superior court judge has the wrath of the voters. They have considerations, this this constitutionally guaranteed for life position in the United States District Court. There’s a little bit more latitude there. So in fairness, it’s not a fair comparison, when we when we look at what a federal district judge can do versus what a state elected judge can do.

Andy 1:29:48
Do we want to move over to this Mother Jones article or skip this one?

Larry 1:29:51
What kind of Mother Jones article do we have?

Andy 1:29:54
Well, the title of a woman asked ICE for soap. They got pepper sprayed instead.

Larry 1:29:59
I don’t see a problem with that.

Brendan 1:30:02
Misunderstanding?

Andy 1:30:06
I can see how you would make that distinction. That would be a problem. Like I want soap and then schhhhh ahh my eyes are burning up. I don’t really want to make like light of something that is really terrible. I had a phone call that the person says that they just sprayed pepper spray in here and everyone is practically dying from coughing we can’t breathe. So that’ll teach you to ask for soap right?

Larry 1:30:27
Well, I bet they won’t ask again.

Andy 1:30:27
They probably will not ask again and be happy about it. Right?

Brendan 1:30:33
That’s a collateral consequence. I don’t know if you’ve ever been in a room where pepper spray has been used, but that stuff carries.

Andy 1:30:39
It does and it sticks around for a very, very, very long time. Very long time.

Larry 1:30:44
I’m sure it was a misunderstanding that I think the duty officer thought they said I want some spray.

Andy 1:30:58
Can I get some spray-on soap? sure I got some for ya.

Larry 1:31:05
We’re gonna get some hate mail for this.

Andy 1:31:07
I did basic training twice. And I’ve gone to the gas chamber and basic training two times. And they don’t use real pepper spray they use an offshoot like a reduce kind of capacity kind of thing. I don’t think the prisons are using reduced capacity stuff. When you get hit with that stuff. You start like drooling and every ounce of mucus comes out of your face. This is not a happy experience.

Larry 1:31:34
What about this prosecutor, charged with child porn?

Andy 1:31:38
That one is amazing to me, California state prosecutor charged with child porn from NBC San Diego. Yeah, so tell us about this a little Larry.

Larry 1:31:48
Well, what would you like to know that? I know what the reaction will be because the person was released with very minimal oversight and quickly and That wouldn’t happen in most of these types of cases. So it’s just not fair. That’s where this is headed, restituted, pleaded not guilty to release on $100,000 bond. According to the complaint, the Attorney General’s Office said they are aware of the matter, the 53 year old was placed on administrative leave. That’s just not right. He shouldn’t be out of jail.

Andy 1:32:20
Right, I would hearken back to the other article that we covered. If we’re going to treat this guy in your expression as kid gloves, then maybe we could find a way to treat other people with the same kid gloves. Or since we’re throwing the book at the other people. Maybe this person should have the book thrown at him. Just for consistency.

Larry 1:32:36
But he’s still innocent, though. That’s the part you guys are missing. He has been arrested and accused of a crime. The presumption of innocence follows him through the duration of this process until a jury or until he decides to say I’m guilty of this. his plea right now is not guilty.

Andy 1:32:58
I’ll agree with you there. But I don’t know that that is always afforded for normal people for the mere mortals that have normal day jobs that get these accusations.

Larry 1:33:07
Well, I agree it isn’t. He works with the Attorney General’s office and I don’t know what division what he did for the AG’s office. But it would be interesting for future podcasts if somebody wanted to do a little research on this Deputy Attorney General and find out if he fought everybody who brought any type of complaint, tooth and nail, if he was in criminal prosecutions, if he was in child pornography, what he did, and find out what type of character he had. Because, interestingly, he wants the system to work for him, which he deserves. He deserves everything that every American deserves. But I would be interested to know if he actually afforded anybody else the presumption that he would like to have for himself now. I would be curious about that.

Brendan 1:33:53
I’m wondering what kind of job places you on administrative leave whenever you get arrested for a crime, I mean, Normal jobs, you’d be, you know, you wouldn’t be allowed back in the door and he’s just on administrative leave in the attorney general’s office. So I, I just I don’t see how this is fair. You know, it should be everyone should be treated equally under the law and he’s on home detention wearing an ankle device doesn’t say how long he spent in jail waiting on that, but I’m guessing not very long.

Larry 1:34:23
Not very long.

Brendan 1:34:25
They’re allowing him to keep his job, kind of furloughed. I don’t know any other job that would say, Well, you know what, we understand that you’ve been accused of this, but let’s just see how this plays out.

Larry 1:34:35
Well, there’s actually quite a few jobs that do that, Brendan, I wish more did but it’s not that uncommon that now what it’s not clear if he’s on administrative leave with or without pay. That’s not reported in the article.

Brendan 1:34:50
It does say a $100,000 bond. So it does say the amount of bond which that that I don’t know how to read that either.

Larry 1:34:58
Well, the average person would not be able to post $100,000 bond. It’d be a challenge for the average person. Because assuming you have the $10,000 on a 10%, the collateralization most bonds people are looking for collateral, they don’t want to have to go turn over 100 K to the court if you flee the country, and then they have to put a bounty hunter out to look for you, even if you don’t flee the country. So they prefer that they have some collateral, in case the bond should be subject to forfeiture. But clearly he got he got he would have been expedited through the system in terms of release for his own personal safety they would have they would have moved him through the system very quickly. And that consternates a lot of people.

Andy 1:35:40
Definitely. We have an email question, and I put it in the show notes. And I will do a quick read here. It says good day. There’s a law on the Georgia books. That’s the Georgia code says in part, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so. Can a person wear a mask in public or not amidst this pandemic. It is an interesting question. Well, if there’s something there that says you can’t then what are you supposed to do?

Larry 1:36:25
Of course. Of course. Well, if you read…

Brendan 1:36:26
this one’s pretty easy. Brian Kemp, our governor signed an executive order on the 13th of April that suspends that 1951 law. So there is an executive order now saying that you can wear a mask in public.

Larry 1:36:40
Well, I didn’t. I didn’t know the date of that. But as I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, if you are in a medical emergency, where we’re in a global pandemic, and you’re being told by your state, governmental, local, governmental, county governmental officials that we strongly urge you to wear a mask. Of course, you can wear a mask. Nobody is going to prosecute this in the state of Georgia, nobody would convict a person for this. This is not going to happen. Yes, this is on the books. This is not, it wasn’t put on the books for this reason. It was put on the books because criminals you don’t want them running out in public hiding their identity. You don’t want people doing Klan rallies and hiding their identity. This has nothing to do with it. I’m not trying to be dismissive. I’m glad the person found it, but it has no relevance to the situation at hand.

Brendan 1:37:40
Also goes to enforcement. There’s a city in Georgia, Kennesaw, where every resident is required to have a gun. I don’t think law enforcement is going door to door saying, Hey, where’s your gun? I’m going to arrest you if you don’t have it. It’s all goes back to enforcement. No one’s going to enforce that law amid a pandemic.

Andy 1:37:58
still seems kind of sketchy that you’re leaving it to some, you know, loose cannon cop to be like, you’re wearing your mask. Let’s come haul you in. Remember the thing we covered was I got my rights. I’m a police officer, I do what I want.

Larry 1:38:13
Well, I tend to want to actually deal with real problems. If someone can cite me a case in Georgia where there’s a prosecution under official code of Georgia 16-11-38, if someone can send me a prosecution that occurred where the facts arose during the pandemic, please do it.

Andy 1:38:36
Brendan, if people wanted to find you on the interwebs How would they do so? We’re gonna shut this whole thing down.

Brendan 1:38:42
Yeah, to find me, yur best bet is to go to restoregeorgia.org and you can also email me at brendan@restoregeorgia.org

Andy 1:38:53
Outstanding. You’re not on any sort of social media, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, anything like that?

Brendan 1:38:59
I am prohibited by law from being on social media. So how about that?

Andy 1:39:04
How about that, Larry? Uh, let’s, let’s close this thing out. And we’re going to go back to the old ways and how can people find the website?

Larry 1:39:10
They look for it very carefully.

Andy 1:39:13
Okay, so they’re going to be, magnifying glass? Are they going to use Morse code?

Larry 1:39:21
They’re gonna search for anything to do with registry matters. And that’ll find us

Andy 1:39:27
I probably should do it. registrymatters.co if you want to be all fancy and type it in. And Brendan, I’ve gone over this. I still don’t remember why I registered a .co and not a .com. I have no idea because you owe me two dollars.

Larry 1:39:40
Yeah, you were temporarily deranged and call us 747-227-4477 or send an email to registrymatterscast@gmail.com that’s registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Andy 1:39:55
How about some Patreon support?

Larry 1:39:58
That would be the bestest of all and then I’m going to mess up our transcriber. that’s going to be the best of all to go to patreon.com/registrymatters or just search for registry matters when you go to patreon.com. And you’ll find us

Andy 1:40:13
outstanding. And I was encouraged in chat to recommend that people find us find the links to go to the discord server so they could participate in the live stream so you can have conversations back and forth and yak, yak yak and pick at me and make me laugh and possibly make people spit up water while they’re drinking it and somebody says something funny.

Larry 1:40:32
And by the way, did that did that fabulous transcript that we had done for us did it make its way out to publication this week?

Andy 1:40:40
It did. It did. It did.

Larry 1:40:43
I’m hoping that people that use the transcript can notice an improvement because we spent a fortune having that done.

Andy 1:40:48
Yes, we use a computer and then we have an actual human edit it and make it more gooder.

Larry 1:40:53
Yep and when I use colloquialisms like I’m afeared [afraid] he had to try to figure out what I meant.

Andy 1:41:02
Brendan, thank you very much for joining us and you are certainly welcome to come back at some point in time in the future if you’re so willing.

Brendan 1:41:09
You’re welcome longtime listener first time caller.

Andy 1:41:12
Wow, look at that. How about that Larry? That sounds just like a typical am radio Colin shows.

Larry 1:41:17
Now that sounds like it. Next thing you know he’s gonna say ditto.

Andy 1:41:22
my god we got mega ditto heads. Let’s not go there. Thank you everybody for joining. Have a great night and I will talk to you soon. Good night Larry.

Larry 1:41:30
Good night.

Transcript of RM124: Bashing Liberals

Posted on April 20, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM124: Bashing Liberals

Andy 0:12
Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 124 of registry matters. Larry, I have one thing that I want to tell you before we get anything going. You ready?

Larry 0:25
I’m ready.

Andy 0:26
I have complete and total control over this podcast. And that’s just the end of the story.

Larry 0:31
Well I’m glad someone does ‘cuz I know I don’t.

Andy 0:34
Well, that’s good. Because I mean, I can’t even delegate this one out. I’m not even going to ask any extra parties, any of the 57 states if they’re in charge, I am in complete control.

Larry 0:45
Well, I think I think I’ve heard that similar language over the preceding week.

Andy 0:52
That’s my point. Did you break any tires this week?

Larry 0:53
I did not. I did pick up another grocery order at the click list through the click list process. It went smooth. I’m sold on this. I don’t know if I’ll ever do major shopping again in the stores

Andy 1:08
but you didn’t catch any tires? That’s the question, it wasn’t another $300 grocery bill?

Larry 1:14
No didn’t do that. I can’t believe that I can’t spot a piece of metal sticking up in an asphalt parking lot. That’s ridiculous.

Andy 1:26
Maybe you need new glasses.

Larry 1:28
I just got them five years ago.

Andy 1:30
That may be time for you to adjust them ever so slightly.

Larry 1:34
I’m not having any problem.

Andy 1:35
Is this going to be another COVID-19 show?

Larry 1:39
It seems like that that’s the dominating force to be reckoned with all of the news is leading off and then significant segments of the news and then with the courts being on reduced operations. There’s not a lot coming out of courts. Anything that’s in the courts has to do with the with the pandemic it’s related to prison release with a election postponements, it has to do with everything related to the pandemic and then the flood of lawsuits, it’s going to be coming afterwards for people who, who are harmed and it could have been possibly saved. I mean, this is just the beginning of what we’re going to be dealing with over this pandemic.

Andy 2:16
That is a question I’ve wanted to ask you. Of course, I realized that you’re not a lawyer, you’re not a constitutional lawyer, bla bla, bla bla bla, people have a constitutional right to a speedy trial. How does that play into the fact that the courts are shut down?

Larry 2:28
Well, we’re gonna have to have this be litigated to find out because the, like the courts are taking a handoff-ish approach. For example, I believe it was the Legacy Church here in Albuquerque, it’s one of the large mega churches, filed a lawsuit saying that they shouldn’t have been closed out and forgive me if I’ve got the wrong church, but it was one of the mega churches and the federal judge just rejected that this past Thursday or Friday that it was Public Health takes paramount importance. So, the question we’re going to have to have answered is that your constitutional right to a speedy trial, does that go away when we have circumstances beyond everyone’s control. Clearly, I think we would all admit that if we’re in social distancing, and the courts can’t operate, that you really can’t blame the prosecution for not bringing the person to trial. And that’s what that’s designed to protect is a person languishing at the hands of a prosecution that’s not ready to go forward. But if the prosecution can’t go forward, I don’t know how we can hold them accountable. But then what’s the balancing the remedy? What’s the remedy for people who, whose speedy trial right is being violated? ‘Course the easy one is to release them from custody, right?

Andy 3:46
Right. And that’s certainly where that goes. You could have maybe detain them, book them gotten their fingerprints, DNA swab, whatever all those things are and then said, we’ll call you when things progress after we’re done dealing with this outbreak.

Larry 4:00
Well, I mean that I don’t see a lot of creativity on how this is being handled. You know, we’ve talked about on previous podcasts about using the GPS monitor, which you’re so fond of, for, for using it for, for graduated-type sanctions and for a more individually tailored situation, we could do the same thing on this speedy trial. Since people are presumed innocent under the Constitution, we could come to them and tell them, we have an option for you that we would like to propose that that you waive your right to a speedy trial in exchange for being released on home confinement if they’re in custody. And I just about bet you people that are facing the ravaging, spread of COVID-19 in a correctional facility get the opportunity to waive their speedy trial, to be on community custody, I’d just about bet almost everyone will accept that.

Andy 4:53
Probably it’s just that one day of freedom.

Larry. 4:55
We would get to use some of your famous technology that you’re so fond of.

Andy 4:57
Woohoo, I am about some technology, but going back to question I asked you about COVID. I mean, everything that I listened to which goes across politics goes across religion goes across tech. There is no news, other than things that are related, tangentially related being impacted by COVID.

Larry 5:13
Well, that’s the situation we’re in here. I mean, we could, we could talk about recent decisions, but there’s not anything really being decided that’s coming across my radar of significance. If we talk about the problems with the registry. I mean, other than existing problems we’ve been talking about for 123 episodes, the problems now we’re dealing with are related to COVID-19. And how are they handling that? I mean, anything that we talk about has a connection to it with people that are afraid that if they don’t report to their designated officer, at the designated time, they’re going to be prosecuted. All this stuff is related to the pandemic. So if we don’t talk about the pandemic, it really limits what we can talk about.

Andy 5:58
Well, there you go. Well, so This one will not be at all COVID related and I think that this might be roughly the, I don’t wanna say it’s the only one tonight, but coming from law.com and the Texas lawyer, a.k.a a judge in Texas was sanctioned for displaying the rainbow flag. Was she wrong? This is a like I think I don’t even think this was like a narrowly elected judge in Texas. And we don’t know how big it is. But she displays the rainbow flag in her courtroom. And someone has decided to be, I’m just gonna call it for how I see it Larry, being a bigot and suing to have that removed, sanction whatever the right words are. Do I have that semi right, characterized?

Larry 6:41
I do. I do think that’s about as good a description, the, the judicial, what they call the judicial standards Commission here in New Mexico, the judicial review commission there in Texas was made aware of this as a complaint of some sort and under their canons of judicial Conduct they, they felt like that the display of the flag would tend to cause litigants to wonder if they had an impartial court. And I didn’t feel, line in pre-show discussion, that we really have enough information to know what the display consisted of. We’re talking about: What’s the size of the flag? Where was it displayed? Was it on the desk? Was it on the wall? Was it a large flag? Was it a small flag? Was it a replica? You know, I just don’t feel like we know enough about it. But what I can say is that when you’re on the job, you don’t have unlimited rights to free speech and expression. You are on the clock when you’re in the courtroom. When you’re a judge, you’re still on someone’s clock.

Andy 7:42
Definitely, and you know, I’ve heard people debate this from the point of view of like, in a school if you were, you know, I’ve heard stories of maybe a Muslim kid being bullied. And then they go into the guidance counselor to try and get some sort of relief, some sort of safe zone and you walk in there and there’s a super-duper big cross on the wall, you may not feel, so like you’re in safe harbor if the person you’re going to try and get relief from is potentially in the same camp as the people that are bullying you for having a different faith than they are. I’m not trying to pick sides. I’m not trying to say who’s right or wrong. But you may feel odd in that regard.

Larry 8:19
I would certainly say that you would feel odd. I think that when anytime you’re in the majority, it takes a special effort to be considerate how people will perceive and feel things that are not in the majority. And that runs across the board for being in the religious majority, being in the ethnic majority. When the Christian, when they’re in any type of ceremony and some are not sure after COVID-19 they’ll be so fond of holding hands and coming together in a circle. But they have no hesitation to ask you, “Would you please bow your head and lets hold hands together.” But then at the end of that, at the conclusion of that, if there was a person who was not a Christian, if they were to say, “Okay, now let’s do my religious thing” those very same people would say, “No, I don’t believe that way.” And they would be very intolerant and it’s hard for them to even relate to because in their world of experience, in their life of experience, everybody’s a Christian.

Andy 9:20
Yes. And you know, it’s funny that the comments you were making, I think it was last week at the end of the show, when you did your really, really poor imitation. The point that was you were making was an excellent point, but we were trying to pick on you about the accent.

Larry 9:34
Well, I probably could do it better if I practice more. I was trying to make that point when someone is different from you, you already have your skepticism level higher. If you go into a hotel that’s American owned, and the people look very similar to you and they talk very similar to you, your reaction is going to be a lot different than when you go when they have the foreign accent. And Americans’ look, there’s nothing that describes what an American look like because we’re a diverse country, but in your sphere of who surrounds you, you have your idea of what Americans look like, at least many people do. When you go into what you go into a Middle Eastern owned hotel and the person, for example, if they were dressed a little differently, and they speak a little differently and they were to say, “No, ma’am, I can’t rent to you because it violates my religious beliefs.” You would not be very tolerant of that. Because you’d say, Well, wait a minute, your religion doesn’t belong in this business. You would be you’d be indignant. I don’t think many people could honestly say that if a person said I won’t carry you in my taxi cab because you’re not accompanied by a man, and my religion… You just wouldn’t tolerate that. So that’s the point we’re making is that we tend to be more tolerant of what we understand. The person who goes to the guidance counselor and sees many symbols of Christianity, they probably would be a little bit hesitant to talk to the Christian because they don’t they wouldn’t think that the Christian could identify with what they’re feeling.

Andy 11:09
Well, and then back to this, personally for me, if I walked into a courtroom and saw that flag, I would be like, this person is a compassionate person that understands multiple people being oppressed and picked on. Perhaps I will get leniency here. To me that’s what it would imply to me in seeing that flag. Now, that might not be at all how this judge actually acts, but that’s what it would indicate to me.

Larry 11:33
But remember, that’s the way I would perceive it. But remember, when you walk into a courtroom, if you watch People’s Court, remember that there’s two parties, there’s two sides to the case. Remember when the police walk it if it’s a criminal case, or if it’s a civil case, remember the other side walks in, they’re supposed to have that same feeling of impartiality. It’s not just you as a defendant in a criminal action. It’s supposed to feel like the judges. Every party to that action is supposed to feel like the court is totally neutral and that’s what a court is supposed to be. Now, humans can’t be totally neutral because we’re humans.

Andy 12:05
Yeah, you talk about this sort of thing all the time of. “Don’t walk in there with bolts and screws in your face.” And, you know, certainly people in the military, like they often have a tattoo on the upper part of their arm. But if you have tattoos on your face, like all these things color how people perceive you.

Larry 12:21
That is correct. And and so the other litigate may not feel the same way. A litigant that’s coming from us from a more conservative viewpoint. In particular, if it’s a law enforcement officer, they might say, have some pejorative term that I don’t think I need to say on the podcast, and they would think, possibly think that they’re not going to get a fair shake. And I think that’s what the judicial commission was looking at is, does this color the flavor of the courtroom to where the impartiality of the of the presiding judge is in doubt?

Andy 12:52
And I don’t know how much we touched on the person that, like there’s another judge in the same office, whatever the right word is, and he is of Irish descent and has an Irish flag. How is that, how is that significantly different? Are you just showing that you have Irish pride? Irish people I think are known for being like, huge drinkers. So is that what that implies?

Larry 13:14
Now I’m not sure, I’d want to know that that flag is displayed the same way the same size. And I’d also want to know that they were talking about the flag of a nation. Ireland is a nation, right?

Andy 13:27
As far as I know. Yes.

Larry 13:29
At least it’s a province of government if it’s not a full nation. But I’m not sure that there is a flag of a nation that we’re talking about here. Oh, this is this is a flag and I don’t even want to try to describe it because I’m going to get hate mail if I do. So why don’t you describe what the rainbow flag is?

Andy 13:48
Oh, well, the rainbow flag is I mean, we have a picture of it in the show notes but it’s a, so it has looks like red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple, which I think is just the roygbiv almost. That is often how people that are part of the LGBTQ, and figure out all the other letters that may go along with that, they represent that. So it’s gay pride. And that’s just constantly referred to as the as the gay pride flag, something like that.

Larry 14:15
So I think you’ve done a fine job explaining it

Andy 14:19
Just send all the hate mail to me and that’s crackpot at registrymatters.co.

Larry 14:26
So, it’s been around for a long time, I remember when I was quite, quite a bit younger, and I don’t know if it has evolved with the evolving standards of decency, but I’m gonna go to Wikipedia and see what it says. What does it mean and that way, love who you want, when you want without feeling like an outcast. Love is beautiful no matter what form it takes. That’s what I’m seeing here on the meaning of the flag.

Andy 14:53
Sure, you know, and to move on to the next article, though. I am unable to pull it up at the moment. Can you, uh, so the title of it is from the crime report. It says Don’t Let Criminal Records Bar Health Crisis Relief Civil Rights Group Says. Do you have that one pulled up that you can cover?

Larry 15:09
I do. So this is from the crime report. A dozen civil rights and advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Leadership Conference of civil rights and civil human rights have asked Congress to take immediate action to remove barriers based on arrest or conviction history for small business owners seeking COVID-19 relief under the Cares Act. And, and so like the payroll Protection Program, the $376 billion dollars that’s supposed to protect payrolls, apparently it says this is administered by the Small Business Administration and I’m qualifying it with apparently because I have not verified this myself. But apparently, either there have been denials or fear of denials for businesses, because they do ask for ownership, I have completed the application for our business and they do ask ownership information. And, and the fear is that these businesses are being excluded because of the existing prohibition on, on SBA assistance for people with certain criminal records. And if you’re protecting payrolls, I’m just really confused. If you’ve got a business that employs whatever number of people that it employs, and you’re trying to keep those people alive, and keep them on a payroll so that they’re not out holding a 10 cup. Why would the owners be as relevant? I mean, why would the ownership be significant? This is about getting hands in to our former employees pockets, and if they don’t have this money, most businesses I’m told can operate anywhere from about 16 days to about a month and a half with their cash reserves and then they’re out of business.

Andy 16:57
Mhmmm. Yeah so how does the owner of the business impact they have 1, 2, 5, 100 employees. What’s the difference?

Larry 17:03
Well, that’s what I’m trying to figure out if, the way when I did the application, they ask you for your payroll documentation for the calendar year 2019. And then it was based on 2.5 times your payroll, your monthly payroll costs and adding your payroll, your fringe benefits your taxes related to payroll, health insurance, and those things they ask you for that information. And then you could borrow 2.5 times that and then it’s theoretically forgivable if you meet the requirements for, for either recalling laid off workers or not laying anyone off during this pandemic. And I’m just wondering how it serves society’s interest to have these people because you’re actually punishing the employees. If, if they if they’re not allowed to, if their owners are not allowed to have this help. It’s not going into the owner’s pocket, this was going into payroll. Now the owner might be on the payroll but, but if they wanted to, if they were that vindictive and venomous, they should have said, if it’s if it’s a business owned by one person, that person has one of these exclusions, but this is apparently applying to everyone who’s on that payroll.

Andy 18:11
Tell me, tell me what you think about what the origin of that is. And I think I’ve asked you this before, but is that I mean, there must be some page or you know, some staffer that has some level of templates that they just copy and paste stuff into. And then they write details around the edges about stuff. And this just shows up as a part of a default template to go, “Well, these people don’t qualify because these are the worst people and you should have thought about that before you went in and committed your crime and started a business and hired a dozen, two dozen people.”

Larry 18:41
Well, I’m not sure what this is in the Cares Act, I’m thinking from what I’m hearing is that it’s because of the SBA’s existing limitations. It’s not actually it, they didn’t actually drop this template into the Cares Act. Now, again, I haven’t read the 900 pages of the thing, but from what I’ve heard on the talk shows is that this is something that’s just, because that’s SBA’s existing policy. We’ve probably in our listening audience got some people out there who own small businesses. And I think we should extend this invitation to them, that if you’re in a situation, please email us and give them the real email address, because I’d like to hear if they’ve been, and if so what they were told was their reason, but, but that’s the rumor out there. And this is this whole story is about don’t exclude these people because of a record. I mean, this is about helping everyone. They are Americans.

Andy 19:37
Yeah, I think so. But check, you can either go to registrymatters.co and there’s a contact form on the website, or registrymatterscast@gmail.com Yes, certainly, we would love to bring you on the program. And you can talk about how this is impacting you in a, certainly in a negative fashion, that you can’t do payroll. Tell me tell me this though, Larry, that if someone were to, let’s try and say they were going to, you know, fudge the system a little bit and they have a spouse, they have a brother, and they’re not going to have anything to do with the business, but they create the business in that person’s name just so that they are not like, you know, registrant owned, how far over the line of being fraud does that cover, does it go?

Larry 20:18
I’m not sure that would be fraud at all. I mean people, people give ownership interest of businesses all the time to spouses, but according to this article, one in three Americans have some sort of criminal record. And those with records have an unemployment rate five times higher than average. And, and the SBA is has not said for sure, to this report, it says an announcement of the funding, the small business administration did not specify whether existing rules, blocking help to those who, who did not demonstrate good character, including those with criminal records would be waived, so that they’re hanging their hat on the existing rules since they’re the administrator of the program.

Andy 21:01
And is that just is that uh, is that a public private partnership? Or is that just straight up an entity of the government? The SBA.

Larry 21:08
I believe the SBA, I believe it’s an entity of the government created long time ago back in the 50s or 60s. It’s been around a long time.

Andy 21:16
Like the executive branch that the head of that gets appointed by presidents when that term comes about, or?

Larry 21:22
yeah, I’m not sure about that. But I know that the SBA has been around all my life. And I’ve been around for a while.

Andy 21:27
but no doubt. And so now you can take notes that this is something that Larry didn’t know right off the top of his head. So that’s impressive that finally after 124 episodes got you to go, Hmm, don’t really know.

Larry 21:40
Form in 1953. So I’ve been around for a while, it formed in 1953. And it’s a United States government agency that provides support to entrepreneurs, small businesses, according to Wikipedia.

Andy 21:55
right. And, you know, I still say that that’s a trustworthy source. It will end up with some garbage sometimes, but it usually like turns around and gets fixed. I remember maybe it was somewhere during Bush Jr.’s term, people would go eff with that page a lot. And they eventually had to, like lock the page from people making updates. And anyway, there’s a whole like hierarchy of people trusting people trusting people before you can go edit high profile kinds of pages. If we make a Larry profile page, no one’s going to mess with it, because no one cares.

Larry 22:24
So that’s true. But yes, this will be tragic if these folks employed and businesses owned by anyone with a record are not able to be retained because of this prohibition. And, and clearly, a lot of people are going to be delighted to have the loan forgiven. But the alternative would be that the people would be either on the street or on public assistance or on some sort of other. You know, it’s like, if the business got two to four weeks worth of reserves, these people I mean, we’ve been shut down pretty much for at least a month in most states, right?

Andy 22:58
Correct. Um, and god I just had a thought I just had a thought and it disappeared. Yep, it’s gone. Sorry.

Larry 23:05
That’s cuz you because you got old timers.

Andy 23:07
I know right. All right coming over from courthouse news, private immigration prisons take away prisoners homemade face masks. I can speak to personal experience that when you have someone that has maybe some, some body funk about them that you’ll like wrap a T-shirt around your face. And obviously now with COVID again, that you would do kinda sort of anything, maybe would just lay there on your rack all day on your bunk and just like leave your face stuck in your pillow all day to help try and filter out whatever you can. So people are cutting up T-shirts, they’re trying to do whatever they can. And then of course, the prison guards go in and say no, can’t do that. Take that crap away.

Larry 23:47
And what’s the problem with that?

Andy 23:48
Well, you know, you’re kind of in tight quarters, you’re kind of confined and I don’t think that I would want to get sick. You know, I knew that I was getting a six-year sentence and I you know, it was going to be a maximum of and hopefully less, turned out not but I also didn’t want to get any extra things while I was gone you know perhaps like staph infections or any you know food poisoning or lose a tooth and then also COVID-19.

Larry 24:12
well this is sad and I’m trying to poke a little fun at a sad situation but if you read the article thoroughly it looks like that they offered them a mask, but they have to sign a waiver. Is this the right article?

Andy 24:28
Yes, it is. They were signing making them sign a waiver that if they did catch it that they wouldn’t sue. And just some garbage. So that’s I mean, that’s one of those of, I can’t remember the word that I got from the…

Larry 24:40
Hobson’s Choice.

Andy 24:41
Yes, Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, when you have two impossible choices. So don’t sign the waiver, don’t get a mask, sign the waiver and get a mask, like that’s garbage.

Larry 24:48
Well, this is a prison in the Houston area. So this is for illegal, for immigrants. This is one of the network of prisons we have to hold people who, who can’t be releases or are being for for ICE. The Otay Mesa Detention Center. That’s the name of it. And private prison company Core Civic, formerly known as Corrections Corp of America operates the Otay Mesa. And it’s, it’s sad that they won’t let them use homemade protection. And then if you look at the picture, if that’s indicative of how crowded the place is, there would be no social distancing there.

Andy 25:30
Now that looks more like an intake holding kind of photo. Because I mean, they’ve got like aluminum, something, maybe those are even like blankets, perhaps, that doesn’t look like, that looks like a temporary place before they put them into the general population. But we did see videos, pictures, like what was it over the summertime of the kids in cages? And they were not they were not in anything. You know, they weren’t like in dorm rooms or in cells. They were like in cages, almost on the floor. That could totally be what that is.

Larry 25:57
So yeah, this would be but even if this is an intake you, you’ve got quite a crowd of people there. It kind of, I mean, I know when we when we say that Americans are not very compassionate. As we go through the articles tonight I’ll be able to say this is what I’m talking about. We’re not very compassionate. But whether or not they’re here, legally or illegally, they’re entitled not to a death sentence.

Andy 26:24
And they’re entitled to be treated like humans too because I think they are humans. I’m pretty I’m pretty sure what that might be sketchy, but I’m pretty sure they’re humans.

Larry 26:31
So I would say the same thing about the people in ICE detention that I’ve said about the people in regular correctional facilities, we should be doing everything we possibly can to cut these populations, because that’s the only way you’d have any hope of distancing would be to cut the population. And thats the only way you’d have the hope of being able to provide supplies and improve sanitation is that you can’t be running something at full steam. And even in the case of one the articles we’re gonna get to 230 percent of capacity. But we just, you can’t do that. But we’re doing it and we’re not taking the bold actions that are necessary and there’s going to be a significant price paid and loss of life.

Andy 27:14
Ah, man, oh man, I have a vision of what it’s going to look like. As we start to reopen things here. Maybe in the next week or two weeks that you’ll go to a restaurant and they will remove something off half the tables, they’ll block off, maybe half of the booths, something along those lines. So that you will obviously keep your distance and then waiters and servers and waitresses, they will stand a certain amount back. You would have to envision that they would do something identical to that to prisons to keep people safe. And this is you voluntarily going to an establishment to have them put food in your face. But here’s a place where you are detained and you cannot leave and you can’t do anything to get separation. They would have to release at least half of the people, if not whatever that number is larger if they are exceeding 100% of capacity

Larry 28:01
And, that is clearly not going to happen. The politics won’t allow it to happen. And so we’re going to, we’re going to end up with, with loss, unnecessarily loss of life. And I can’t even begin to predict the numbers but you’re seeing some exponential growth of the spread in some prison systems. I think one of the articles says it doubled or tripled overnight.

Andy 28:24
And then these are also people that probably wouldn’t be counted properly, because, you know, they’ll just sort of disappear into somebody’s book that doesn’t really get tracked. I mean, a place like, you know, we get articles from them all the time. Who am I thinking of the appeal is one of the places that maybe they would come up but you know, that doesn’t make any level of mainstream media to for anybody to give a poop about it.

Larry 28:50
So the next article is from New York, why don’t we combine that one with the governor of the other state thats also said she’s not going to do anything dramatic either so that way I can bash the liberals together.

Andy 29:04
Very good. Um, well, but the one that we do have next is from the New York Times about the Doctor.

Larry 29:09
Okay, yeah I jumped ahead.

Andy 29:11
That’s cool so but this one is from the New York Times it says the Miami police. Oh wait. Yeah yeah, yeah, so the Miami police chief promised an investigation after video showed Dr. Armin Henderson being handcuffed outside his home on Friday. This is a black Doctor who tests homeless people for Coronavirus. And the way the video runs it is he’s like organizing what looks like just kind of an unmarked box van or whatever. And he’s walking back and forth and someone called the police that there’s a black man like doing something with a van. And so the cop comes by and he’s like, “Hey, what are you doing?” There’s no audio on it. And eventually the cop gets out and handcuffs the guy, detains him and he’s a doctor that’s trying to help test homeless people. Eventually his wife comes to his aid and shows him identification and he gets released but like, why can’t a black guy be in a neighborhood and doing something very nice without getting detained in some compacity? I’m not really laughing but I can’t stop laughing about this.

Larry 30:13
The officer said that he thought he was littering.

Andy 30:16
Yes. Because it looked like he was until he took his the stuff that was in his hand and like smashed it out, and now it’s on the ground. And so now it’s like, probably like, you’re now you’re littering. I got you. So, well, what’s wrong with you people Larry?

Larry 30:28
Well, I’m always skittish on, I mean, I deplore racial profiling, but I’m always skittish. What when, we whenever want to allege that unless the evidence is overwhelmingly there. It’s to me it demeans, it’s like calling something rape when it isn’t. Yeah, rape is so horrible, that we should never minimize it by calling something rape that isn’t. We should never be tolerant of racial profiling, but we have to actually look if the evidence supports that. And unfortunately, there’s no audio with this. But I mean, if you roll up on a scene and it looks like a person’s littering, you’re gonna have some questions for them. I mean that, if you’ve received a phone call, you see I’m trying to give the police just a tad bit of a doubt here. But I would find it very objectionable if he was racially profiling.

Andy 31:20
Here’s an interesting story. And I always found this one to be super ironic that this is a lifetime ago for me, but I when I was in the army, and I, I was working in the orderly room where they would, you know, track all the personal paperwork and all this stuff. And one of the reports that I had to put together was to what was the ratio of the different races and what kind of awards and medals and, you know, commendations did they receive in whatever that period was? And I’ve always thought of it being odd that if it’s something that you’re tracking, then that means you could have you know, you could assign quotas. Well, okay, so we have 10% black people in the army, but you know, whatever that number is. So we have to make sure that they are proportionally given awards. But now you’re just standing somebody up for getting an award that might not deserve it. But if you don’t track it, then they you know, then things might be out of whack. But I’ve always just found that to be a really interesting situation that if it’s something that you should be tracking, then someone’s going to influence it in the direction to make it equitable for somebody that may not deserve it. But if you don’t track it, then it’ll be all, could be all out of whack.

Larry 32:29
Well, in a true colorblind society, it wouldn’t matter if it is out of whack. I mean, you’re not, you’re not guaranteed a specific outcome. In life, you’re guaranteed, at least in my interpretation of the Constitution, equal opportunity more than outcome. So, but we are nowhere near that even with all the dramatic progress we’ve made. We still have so many barriers that stand in the way and despite a middle class person to upper middle class person who believes that things are equal, it really isn’t. All you have to do is go to a place where children are growing up in poverty and look at what their chances of those children would be even if they worked every bit as hard as your children do, that their odds are heavily stacked against them. But in a true colorblind society where no one is giving any preference or disadvantage to that you wouldn’t need to track it because there would be a meritocracy. I believe that’s the word I’m looking for.

Andy 33:28
I will I will go along with that 100% right there, I will go along with that.
Yeah, I don’t know how you would square that and have people like I like the term used, a colorblind society, and we are so very far from it. By no stretch of the imagination could you say that we are equal in that regard.

Larry 33:41
And I always like to qualify with I agree, but how much progress we’ve made if we, if we downplay the progress then you have people out to assemble you liberals just don’t tend to, nothing ever satisfies you and you’re right. Until we reach the optimum of development which would be a colorblind society. But we would have to be clearly willing to recognize that dramatic progress has been made. You’re a whole lot better off growing up as an African American in 2020 then you were in the 1950s in the rural south. But does that mean you have equality under the law? No, it just means you have a whole lot fewer barriers than you had in the 1950s.

Andy 34:21
Definitely that, hey, do you want to go bash Cuomo now? Isn’t Cuomo doing a halfway decent job of managing New York? It seems to me that he is.

Larry 34:30
Well if you consider being on a soapbox managing, then I would say so, I think what people are tempted to do is they’re tempted to rate their state’s performance on what the governor says. And, yeah, I would like to be a little more objective after we get beyond the crisis to rate the governors on what they actually did before the crisis, during the crisis and what they’ve announced they’re going to do for future pandemics, because now we’ve experienced one in our lifetime that’s really had a dramatic adverse impact on society. So in terms of the Cuomo being in the nation’s largest city, having access to the media, is he doing a fine job getting himself on TV? Yes, he is. Has he positioned himself to be a possible Democratic nominee for high office including the President? Yes, he is. Has he been right about everything? No, he hasn’t. He’s, he’s over overestimated. I mean, according to him, they were going to have millions and millions of people dying and they didn’t have all these ventilators and he was wrong about that. It’s better to be to err on the side of having too much than too little. But, you know, is he doing a good job? I think I’m gonna let New Yorkers judge that. Whether he’s doing good job but he’s certainly received a lot of notoriety.

Andy 36:00
This seems like an impossible situation for a politician. If you underestimate and the shit hits the fan, you are doomed. And you know, you end up with things far worse than you ever anticipated. But just like you know, like a hurricane forecast would end up in the southeast. And then at the last second detour, so they made all these preparations and like, Oh, you weathermen, you’re all full of crap. And then they stop listening to it in the future. And then all of a sudden, the big you know, Katrina, whatever hits that area, you’re like damned if you do damned if you don’t, you almost can’t win.

Larry 36:32
That is true. And with this article that we’re going to cover, combining it with Oregon, my point is, I would be more pleased with Governor Cuomo if he were taking bolder action when it comes to the people incarcerated. And, and his action is very timid in terms of what to do about it. He’s not, you’re going to get bashed as a liberal, you’re gonna get bashed as liberal no matter what. So you might as well do the right thing. You are, the conservetes are going to hit you no matter what you do when it comes to releasing people fromprison. I gotta go back to the Middle East with the Yom Kippur War 1973 when the question was how do we save Israel from being annihilated? And there was a discussion of whether we paint over American military transport planes, so that we can have plausible deniability. And of course, it would still be known that they were coming from the US and then the decision was made. If we’re going to take the hit for an airlift, we might as well do around the clock airlifts. If you’re gonna get criticized for releasing 150 prisoners or 250 prisoners, you might as well do the right thing. And release as many as you can to make the institutions as safe as you can for the duration of the pandemic, cuz they’re gonna hit you, whether you release 2% of the prisoners, or whether they release 20% of the prisoners or whether they release 40% of the prisoners. They’re going to hit you and they’re going to say you’re soft on crime. They will not be able to help themselves. That’s what they’re going to do.

Andy 38:05
And what power does the governor have with state prisoners?

Larry 38:09
Well, I’m assuming that they have a dramatic amount of power, but including, most correctional systems have furlough programs, so they could probably temporarily furlough a lot of people. They have sentence reductions where, as a general rule, most prison systems operate at or near or sometimes above capacity. They have population reduction measures where they could they can shave off the time on the end of people sentences, it’s already under existing law and policy, so he could have a variety of tools in his arsenal including moving up people’s release dates, under any existing law that he has in New York. He has executive powers. I mean, he could do a whole number of things, and any power he’s lacking I could just about guarantee you that that since he’s got a relatively progressive legislation there, he could probably get it through the legislature to the extent they’re in session, which they probably are not. So, he would probably have to take executive action because, come to think about it, they’re probably closed down like most of the legislators are.

Andy 39:14
I mean, you know, I was making a tongue in cheek comment about the total power at the beginning of the show. But as far as I know, the governor can just say we’re letting you go. He has the power of the pen to commute or like you said, I guess maybe would a temporary furlough would that require the legislature?

Larry 39:32
A furloughs a, you know, I’m telling people you don’t have to, you don’t have to release people never to come back. You can do furloughs. Most every state I’ve been in has a furlough opportunity. And they tend to be very selfish with granting those and what you describe is if you have a death in the family, you have to pay for an armed guard to take you to the funeral. But furloughs are, my first choice is to tell people, “Now we can let you stay here if you don’t want to be furloughed, but you will be having to come back to prison when the pandemic subsides. And if you don’t want to be inconvenienced by having to come back to prison don’t leave.” And I suspect most people will take the furlough, but the early release would be my second choice.

Andy 40:20
Yeah, and Josh had said something about that. If someone is within that like window, like, you know, maybe it’s six months, maybe it’s 12 months, like, they’re probably done baking, you know, so to speak, and that six to 12 months, probably is not going to change their quote unquote, rehabilitation, which we know we don’t do in the United States, but I’m just using that term just cuz. So like, in that case, what the hell is the difference?

Larry 40:44
Well, the difference of I mean, I’ll be little cynical here, the difference is oftentimes, I can’t say oftentimes, but if they really are out to get you, they’ll wait till you get near the end of your sentence, and then they’ll find something else to charge you with. Assuming the statute of limitations hasn’t run, and they’ll file something to keep you in prison. And so if we start, like if you started a matrix of releasing people that were in, and you wouldn’t take long to run the computer, I mean, if you’re trying to read, if you’ve got, if you got 70,000 people in prison and you’re trying to get 20,000 out, you would have to run a matrix to see, to figure out how many days you have to shave off to reduce the population by 20,000, if you were trying to merely expedite people’s release, but that would be the only tool you would have. You would have furloughs you could do and then you could look for alternative confinement. It may come as a surprise to you, but everybody doesn’t have to be imprisoned to be confined. I mean, we’ve got all this fabulous technology that you talk about, that we could tell people that were putting you in home confinement, and it’s like a solid program, but 30 years ago about club fed when the federal prisons were supposed to be club fed and the ones that didn’t have walls, didn’t have guard towers, and we can tell a person, We’re putting you on home confinement. And you cannot leave home except for these situations or whatever they are. And if you leave home, we’ve got a place for you as an alternative if this is too much of a temptation, we can provide you with that additional protection so that you if you can’t help yourself, and that’s what the board would give each inmate was a speech. He said, we don’t have guard towers here. We don’t have a perimeter fences. We don’t have barbed wire. We don’t have any of that stuff here. And if you feel like you need that, go ahead and let me know now and we can reassign you to a facility that can accommodate that. But between all the tools that they have at their disposal, they could really reduce the prison population dramatically. The will isn’t there, Governor Cuomo, the will isn’t there in your heart to do this. And the next article from Oregon Live the same thing. The corrections department did a story, a study of what it would take to get to where they could do some social distancing. They would have to cut the prison population by almost 6,000 inmates. And the governor said “No way.” She’s not even gonna think about it.

Andy 43:07
Yeah, you know, I had a funny little play that I was going to do with this. I was going to ask you like, well, what about these people? And you would just say no. Well, what about these people? No. What about these people? No, just no, no, no, no. So she’s awesome. That’s governor Kate Brown.

Larry 43:25
Well, and I know that, that I don’t know not a lot about Kate Brown, but I know that that Cuomo presents himself as a progressive. So let’s see it. Governor Kate Brown, I don’t know if she claims to be a progressive. Oregon tends to be somewhat of a progressive state. There’s a lot of rule nature in Oregon, and they do have a very high prison population per capita there. You’d be surprised if you look at their incarceration rate. They’re on the high side. So I don’t know if we can extrapolate because they have some liberal tendencies that Kate Brown is a progressive, we’ll just have to, we’ll have to let the Oregonians explain that to us. But again, she’s not using the powers and she’s made it clear she’s not going to

Andy 44:11
A member of the Democratic Party. So she’s a D, and has decided to not release any of the peoples from that state.

Larry 44:20
Well, well, she she’s clearly fearing a backlash, but again, you’re going to take a backlash, no matter what you do if you release anybody. Let’s see George HW Bush, railed on Michael Dukakis for one furlough that happened in the state of Massachusetts, of Willie Horton, one furlough. Now that Willie Horton did something while he was on the furlough that was pretty heinous. But Dukakis had no idea that he was out on furlough. He didn’t personally approve the furlough. The law was probably on the books before he ever was governor. And it never occurred to him. I mean he wasn’t saying, “Oh, well, I’ve got to give the guy a weekend pass.” My point is, if you release anybody for this pandemic, and anything goes wrong, you’re gonna take a hit. So you might as well do what you need to do or don’t do anything. Just say they’re dying, which it seems to be what Kate Brown is saying.

Andy 45:19
Yeah, that totally would seem how it has been presented. How many people, I mean, like, Oregon, like there’s 45 people that live in the state of Oregon. How many? Like how do they have 5800 people locked up?

Larry 45:29
Where are you getting your population figures?

Andy 45:33
There’s nobody that lives there. How many people live in Oregon? What is the prison population?

Larry 45:42
Oregon has over 4 million people so.

Andy 45:46
So, looks like they have 24,000

Larry 45:50
Yeah, they have a high incarceration rate in Oregon. And so now all of the people who get mad at me said I never bash liberals. I’m bashing liberals, two of them today. At least one for sure claims to be a liberal. And the other one I’m not sure of. But I’m bashing democrats today.

Andy 46:05
You just gave me the title for the podcast. Thank you.

Larry 46:10
In fact, I would say they’re being more timid than what the federal government has been. The federal government has not been nearly bold enough. But they’ve been more bold than apparently these two have been. I mean, Attorney General Barr spoke out a long time ago and gave the directive of to start releasing people a long time ago, weeks ago. So in fairness, I think that the Federal, the feds have been more responsive than what these progressives have, so we have to call it the way we see it.

Andy 46:43
Can we take a quick little detour for just a moment to thank some people?

Larry 46:49
Absolutely. Yes

Andy 46:51
I want to absolutely 100% make sure that our listeners and especially our patrons, that I bring some highlight to you people, that you guys helped make the show possible, even just straight up listeners, because, you know, if we didn’t get the 10,000 downloads a week, then we would not continue to make this. And then, of course, the patrons, but specifically, my favorite patron, super patron, Mike, super great guy, Best Friend of all time. And I just wanted to make sure that, that we highlighted that we have a very loyal fan base and listeners, and I want to make sure that we recognize that.

Larry 47:22
We do indeed and they have been loyal with us through the crisis. And still supporting us both with the downloads, the numbers are very strong. And as far as I know, I think we’ve lost only one.

Andy 47:38
Yep. And he actually he just ultimately changed his level. So maybe he did have some hardship and, and just changed his contribution level.

Larry 47:47
So thank you to each and every one of you. Thank you.

Andy 47:54
Thank you people? Or just you?

Larry 47:55
Thank you. I’m talking to each one of you individually.

Andy 47:57
Should I give you a roster of names for you to “Thank you and you” What is that? That’s from a TV show, right?

Larry 48:04
We would be here for a while if we did that.

Andy 48:06
Yes, of course. All right, well, then let’s move over to Political and Federal Prisons Make Inmate Calling and Video Physical Visits Free During Pandemic. I’m shocked.

Larry 48:18
I remember calling for this, I think someone must be listening to Registry Matters.

Andy 48:23
That’s could be true.

Larry 4:25
Yes, because I remember saying that if you’re going to cut off their visits, if you want to keep order in the prisons, and have inmates not being so belligerent about this, that you need to make the phone calls free and you need to make visitation by the ones that have the technology for the video visits, you need to make those free and, and someone is understanding that and they’re doing it. So it’s a great thing.

Andy 48:48
Outstanding. Yeah. And then the key would be and I’m sure it won’t happen. So as soon as quote unquote, you know, the national crisis is lifted do they then say okay, now it’s $7 a minute for a phone call again.

Larry 49:00
They probably do because apparently this was part of the $2.2 trillion relief including language for the Justice Department’s blessing allowing the Bureau to make such communication services free for inmates if emergency conditions materially affect operations. And so some letters, some people in Congress, particularly senators, have had written to the Bureau saying, What do you folks do and the Bureau has responded, the Bureau of Prisons that is, has responded by making this adjustment. To all the people that are listening to us in BOP facilities, which believe it or not, I bet there’s somebody who has figured out how to listen to this, simply because phones are in prisons more wide than what you would imagine. Let’s let us know. Let us know what’s really going on. If they’re if they’re actually adhering to this free. It’s one thing to have a policy. It’s another thing to actually have it implemented where people are getting access to the Phone Center, the visitation if you don’t have any staff because they’re all infected, and everybody’s on lock down, it doesn’t make any difference what the policy is.

Andy 50:07
true. Do you see the note that I wrote below the link of the article? And is that something to bring up? Or should we skip that?

Larry 50:13
Well, the letters that went there weren’t any Republicans mentioned. And I wouldn’t expect that this would be something that I mean that the average Republican isn’t thinking about this issue. I mean, we’ve gone over many episodes about Republicans’ fear that people in prison are just a block a democrat voters waiting to happen. And so I don’t, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t expect that they would be trying to be there. But I don’t know if I’d make anything of it at all the letters that were mentioned went from Democratic lawmakers?

Andy 50:47
Yes. If there’s like six or seven senators that are listed in there, and they all have Ds by their name. That was just the a comment that I made. I said, is it just my imagination or are only Ds listed, no Rs.

Larry 50:59
No, it’s not your imagination that that’s were the ones that have written letters. But if you’re a Republican, you can write a letter because no one’s going to vilify you. I keep saying that you have carte blanche to do anything in justice reform and you will not get vilified.

Andy 51:16
All right, well, then for detour number two, we have a very special guest. I have a, like a personal like hotline to one of the board members on NARSOL, and he has some super-secret information that he is going to divulge for us as an exclusive for Registered Matters. I think this is our first exclusive Larry. And so joining us is Richard Mori. And he’s currently a board member serving on the conference Planning Committee and the Conference Operations Committee. And he’s been involved with NARSOL for nine years. That’s like an infinite amount of time and, of course, is an all-around nice guy. Richard, what’s up?

Richard 51:52
Hey, Andy and Larry.

Andy 51:56
Good evening. Can you say something very New England-ish for me just so we can get the accent stuff out of the way first.

Richard 52:01
Well, I’ll say first of all, it’s Romper Room.

Andy 52:04
Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Romper Room.

Richard 52:06
That’s the magic, the magic words. Romper Room.

Andy 52:09
Thank you and thank you and thank you.

Richard 52:17
We want to park your car at Harvard yard there are a lot of parking spaces at the moment because no cars are to be found in Harvard.

Andy 52:22
I can never, it never ceases to make me laugh. I love listening to the program Car Talk because they just it’s so funny to me.

Richard 52:29
They were they were great. They were they were actually…

Andy 52:32
terrible tragic loss of, I don’t remember the names but yeah, god, super program. Yeah. What is your super-secret information that you’re gonna divulge for us?

Richard 52:44
I did swear you to secrecy right under penalty of perjury and death.

Andy 52:52
Not a soul outside this podcast will know of it. Yep.

Richard 52:53
Yep. Just between you and I. We’re having a webinar. Not only are we having a webinar, but we have all the speakers that we were going to have for our conference have agreed to be part of the webinar. So that that is the biggest part of the news. We’re just about ready to take a professional business, I guess that’s really what they are. Who knows what they’re doing in terms of the technology. And it looks like, I’ll put it to you in its simplest terms, I have become a webinar aficionado in five days. I have done five different webinars this week. And I’ve never done that before. And I’m telling you, this stuff is so simple. Even I’m doing it. And trust me, those who know me know that I’m the tech lowball here.

Andy 53:49
I was gonna ask you on a rank of 1 to 10 where are you on the tech savviness scale

Richard 53:55
Zero-three maybe, certainly below zero, minus three. Yeah, I think that would be failure like Brenda could probably qualify that for you. But yeah, I’m not up there very far.

Andy 54:09
well, that’s cool. I didn’t know about all the speakers. So like all of them are almost all of them.

Richard 54:14
All the speakers have signed on board with the webinar, we’re gonna add we’re actually we do have some I know I do have some super-secret things I can’t even tell you yet that we’re planning, but when the COC is going to meet this week, and when we do, we’re going to kick out, we’re gonna kick butt is actually what we’re gonna do. We’re going to make this webinar so exciting and so much fun. People will be saying, “We should do this like every other year.”

Andy 54:47
right? Do you know anything about pricing or anything of that nature?

Richard 54:51
Um, our attempt is going to be to keep the pricing very low. We may have to do a little bit because this the cost of this is actually in the thousands of dollars, not in the hundreds. So there will be probably some cost. But we have an idea. I’m not gonna divulge it yet, but we might be able to subsidize the cost a little bit with this other idea.

Andy 55:15
Excellent. Larry, do you have anything that you would like to inject?

Larry 55:21
Well, Richard, what what CAN you tell us?

Andy 55:23
I know, right.

Richard 55:24
It’s gonna be a fantastic time. We’ve got wonderful speakers. The lineup we had for this year’s conference was really strong to begin with. And of course, I don’t have it in front of me. Although, I have the brochure, but it’s not handy.

Andy 55:39
Hey, Richard, what are the actual dates? June, July? What are the dates?

Richard 55:42
It’s gonna be June 12 and 13th. It’s gonna be Friday and Saturday as we had scheduled

Richard 56:01
By the way, I want you to know something. This is the first time I participated in your chat room or greet room or whatever you call it. Sure. And it’s really fun back there. I may just, I may come every week just for the just for the chat room. I mean, did you? You can’t imagine the things they’re saying about you in that chat room.

Andy 56:23
I can imagine them but actually Brenda sometimes just hangs out in chat and doesn’t listen to the live stream. Just because you can pick up whatever we’re talking about. She’s but she’s sitting on a secret. She hasn’t shared that with anybody. I’m telling you. I’m gonna tell people.

Andy 56:38
I try to tell them every week but nobody listens. Maybe they’ll listen to you.

Richard 56:40
Well, let’s hope so. I mean, it’d be the first but you know, what the hell.

Andy 56:44
Are you done rustling papers?

Richard 56:47
I am, I have it right in front of me. So we have Kimberly Boudin from the ACLU of Michigan is going to be with us. JoAnn Wypijewski I think I pronounced that correctly. She’s a columnist and an editor. I think she’s from the Chicago area. But I may be wrong on that. Paul Dubling whom I think everybody, everybody knows. Everybody knows Paul and he, I think he’s working up a special talk for us, Phil Telfeyan, the executive director of Equal Justice Under the Law, and Dr. Fred Berlin psychiatrist and sexologist and so we’re going to have a full blown array of wonderful speakers. The technology the thing we really most concerned about is making sure we get the technology right because if the technology doesn’t work, and you know it Andy, it don’t work well.

Andy 57:45
I know a little about that sort of thing.

Richard 57:48
So we’re gonna, we’re really wanting to focus and make sure that this comes off really well and that people are going to be satisfied with it and happy with it.

Andy 57:58
Fantastic. Larry, anything before we Richard go?

Larry 58:00
No, Richard, I appreciate you coming on and sharing those super secrets. I just can’t wait to see how it is. This is a new experience for NARSOL in terms of doing it online. And we’re going to find out what the participation level is. I have I have a little bit of dubiosity. But we’ll see.

Richard 58:21
I’m anticipating that we may hit 300 people for this event. I’m, I haven’t put my feet to the fire on that one yet. But I really think that the people will be able to gravitate towards this much easier than they could in terms of flying to Raleigh, and the troops and people who are out there would like to be part of it.

Larry 58:49
Let’s hope so, Richard.

Richard 58:53
Great. Well, I thank you for it’s been fun to be here.

Andy 58:56
Thank you for joining. Thanks, Richard. Have a great night and we will talk to you soon stay safe.

Richard 59:02
I will.

Andy 59:05
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 registrymatterscast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message (747)227-7477.Wwant 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. You ready to move on there. Now that we got that crackpot out of the way?

Larry 59:55
Yeah, let’s do it. We’ve got 20 minutes to go through 12 articles.

Andy 1:00:01
Is it 12? All right, well then we’re going to enter into the speed round. This. This next one. Oh my God, this one is terrible. A Philly judge has denied every inmates bid to get out of jail amid the Coronavirus. Defense Lawyers are trying to cut her out of the process. This is from the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is a stellar human being in, and Philadelphia county is like they’re in Philadelphia. So it’s like New York, New York is like you’re in New York City, but you’re in New York. And then so Philadelphia County, it’s in Philly. This is terrible.

Larry 1:00:29
Well, she’s doing what she put her hand on the Bible and said she would do. She’s upholding the law.

Andy 1:00:39
I mean, I suppose. But don’t judges sort of have the capacity to have compassion and think about like things in totality. Hey, you did felony jaywalking. Maybe you don’t need to be in prison to where you’re going to catch a deadly disease.

Larry 1:00:53
Well, the funny thing is it says that in some cases that she increased the detainees bail after they filed their motion to get out. Now that’s funny.

Andy 1:01:01
That’ll teach you. come into my courtroom and waste my time asking for some sort of compassionate relief to get out of prison. I will just so $5,000 bail, let’s make it 25.

Larry 1:01:11
So well, we had a judge here in Bernalillo County that I never saw it, but I had more than one attorney say this was true that she would ask, tshe’s no longer on the bench, so I don’t think there’s any need to name her. But she would ask when she was setting the bond, are you gonna be able to make that? If the person would say yes, she would say, Well, I’m increasing it. So now of course, if this is your first arrest, you have no idea. You would think that the judge is trying to make sure that since you’re presumed innocent, you’re going to get out but the rumor has it and this will be an Ashley question if this is true because she’s been practicing 25 years around here. But the rumor has that she would say you’re gonna be able to make that bond? and they’d say, I believe I will, Your Honor. And she’d say, well, it is $10,000

Andy 1:01:58
That’s awful. And I’m assuming that she’s an elected person, I’m assuming we talked about this frequently that state level judges are generally elected. Is that fair?

Larry 1:02:08
Generally, there’s some elected component to it. I don’t know in Pennsylvania, but by her actions, she’s either a very, very close minded individual or she’s afraid of something. And she’s, apparently that it’s so egregious that they that the defenders are trying to get her off of the decision making, out of the loop.

Andy 1:02:35
How does that work? Like, tactically, you know, from your point of view of how do you get it so that aren’t judges randomly-ish assigned? And so you just get the short stick and that’s who you get. How do you get a judge out of that process?

Larry 1:02:48
Well, not knowing enough of the intricacies of the of the court system in Pennsylvania. I would say there’d be a number of ways you could do it. For example, usually in the larger jurisdictions, and Philadelphia would qualify for that, a judge doesn’t go back and forth between civil and criminal domestic relations and the specialized courts, they’re usually assigned to a division of the court. So she’s a Common Pleas judge, for example, which is the is the trial level court, if she’s a judge in Common Pleas and she’s in the criminal division, one thing you could do would be to get her assigned to it. She could be assigned to domestic relations or to juveniles, that’s a scary thought, but you could have her assigned to the to the Civil Division to one of the other divisions, and that would get her out of the process. And our state, we can excuse a judge. So what happens here is there’s a peremptory challenge that either side can make and you end up excusing a judge so many times that the reassignment happens if that judge is not never going to have a criminal case because all the defense lawyers are disqualifying excusing the judge. They end up being assigned to do different types of work. So I don’t know what all the options would be, but it mentions in the article that the Supreme Court overturned one of her excessive sentences as being extremely harsh. So it this is this is a known thing.

Andy 1:04:18
Like this is like the judge in Georgia named Amanda Williams. There were a bunch of profile like radio programs, This American Life profiler, she would just rake you over the coals and almost entrap you through things terrible terrible terrible.

Larry 1:04:33
I’m gonna correct myself I said supreme when I met superior court. It says in February, Superior Court overturned a seven year prison sentence imposed by Judge Marie Coyle and this is the judge’s name, on a man who had violated probation saying a reasonable observer could question whether the Judge comported herself in an unbiased and impartial manner End of quote. So, you know, like I say this is well known around the circles. What all their options are to deal with her, I don’t know.

Andy 1:05:01
Gotcha. Ah, and then I guess otherwise she comes up for election in another half decade or something and then maybe she gets voted out but probably not, because she’s probably tough on crime and that makes everyone feel squishy inside and gets reelected.

Larry 1:05:15
Well in Philadelphia, that doesn’t seem to be the mood that carries the day.

Andy 1:05:21
True. Wonder what Larry Crasner has to say about her? Probably besties because they’re golfing weekly.

Larry 1:05:28
I thought he was mentioned in the previous article that we were just talking about it. He was quoted in there if I remember right, but I don’t remember what he said. My old timers has kicked in, but I’m pretty sure he was mentioned in there.

Andy 1:05:41
District attorney Larry Crasner said he understood Bradford Gray’s position given the effort parties have put into finding candidates worthy of possible release from jail. The previous article like the one I think you’re thinking of the reason article, those are just in the Philadelphia.

Larry 1:05:54
Yeah, yeah.

Andy 1:05:56
They’re just a companion, just different point of view on the same article. Well, I guess we can then move over to Cleveland.com and fifth inmate dies of Coronavirus at Elkton federal prison in Ohaya, I learned that Ohio is pronounced Ohaya this week.

Larry 1:06:11
So I have never heard that.

Andy 1:06:14
Yeah, that’s from Ohaya natives. I guess one of our patron listeners probably would know of it as Ohaya since he’s from up that way. Hey, man, that’s only five. What’s the big deal? Right?

Larry 1:06:26
Well, that’s one of the facilities that ends up with a lot of the Federal, it’s a federal facility, it ends up with a lot of people that have sexual convictions. And I don’t want to jump to a conclusion if it has anything to do with anything but the Prison has, it says currently houses 1999 male inmates and 418 in an adjacent lockup. If they haven’t got that population down I think this is just the beginning of what we’re going to see.

Andy 1:06:57
Yeah, I got to think that things are going to get worser. Isn’t that a word?

Larry 1:07:00
It is a word and the way we judge it on the on the NARSOL side is we know where the institutions are where we send the most of our newsletters and that is one of the top five where they, where we have subscribers, in Elkton.

Andy 1:07:18
And then I guess we can move over to, hey, we do have one from the appeal. This is: A Man With Innocence Claim is first to die of COVID-19 in Pennsylvania prison. This guy who was serving 30 years in prison and was claiming innocence and was working with possibly the Innocence Project, is that who I saw in that article to try and get released for? you saw,

Larry 1:07:44
Yes, that’s what you say. 67 years old.

Andy 1:07:50
I’m just gonna call that shitty, Larry.

Larry 1:07:52
But I’m confused because I’ve read the article and it said he was in prison, Pennsylvania prison but then it referred to Phoenix. Is there a Phoenix, Pennsylvania?

Andy 1:08:03
There’s probably a phoenix everywhere.

Larry 1:08:06
Well, I’ve never heard of that.

Andy 1:08:07
“was held at the state correctional in Phoenix.” Maybe it’s just titled Phoenix and not Phoenix, PA? Anyhow, we don’t we don’t have to look for that.

Larry 1:08:18
Yeah, we don’t know. But yeah, that caught my eye when I was reading this. And then another thing that caught my eye and of course, the name John is fairly common. But the name Wetzel is not. The corrections had his name, John Wetzel. And back in the 70s, there was a basketball player for the Atlanta Hawks named John Wetzel. Did john Wetzel go into the corrections business after he retired from basketball back in the days where they paid him 30 grand a year?

Andy 1:08:50
Well, I mean, that’s possible. You always hear about sports people opening up restaurants. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of one doing corrections, though.

Larry 1:08:57
Well, but that’s not true. The the lineup Braves had a picture, a pitcher, not a picture, a pitcher named Pat Jarvis, who became the sheriff of DeKalb County, which is the county directly east of Atlanta. He played for the Braves and he was like the Sheriff. So but the salaries back in the days we’re talking about when Wetzel played and Hank Aaron, the salaries were just minuscule by today’s standards. I mean, when you inflate Hank Aaron’s hundred thousand dollar a year salary for inflation from the 1970s he would be making $900,000 today, not 7 million or 8 million or 12 or 14 million a year like people are earning these days for playing sports. I mean, so is it possible that it’s the same person? I have no idea. All of our listeners in PA you can tell us is John Wetzel a former basketball player?

Andy 1:09:51
And you could also throw in there that Steven Seagal became like an honorary Sheriff. Wasn’t that in Arizona?

Larry 1:09:56
I didn’t know that.

Andy 1:10:01
I’m pretty sure. Hang on, I’m looking it up now.

Larry 1:10:03
But how many how many Wetzels have you met in your life?

Andy 1:10:06
Very few. Oh, he said he’s a reserve deputy chief in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. How about that?

Larry 1:10:12
Who is?

Andy 1:10:14
Stephen Seagal, He’s an actor. I’m just messing with you.

Larry 1:10:17
All right, in terms of this with, with the his innocence claim, it’s a sad thing because apparently there was significant support that he should not have been imprisoned for all these years, so there was evidence to support his claim, I should say.

Andy 1:10:38
Because the Innocence Project doesn’t take on just every willy nilly case, there has to be some sort of decent chance to even take it on to put forth the man hours to try and get you released.

Larry 1:10:49
The resources they have are so miniscule compared with the need that they have to be very selective. I mean, well, let me try to explain that this is this is for me to pontificate if you’re out looking for Funding for something like the Innocence Project, first of all, you’re not going to find most of your fortune 500 companies are not going to be, that’s not gonna be where they’re looking to put their philanthropic resources. So you get money to pay these poor attorneys and these investigators to try to pursue these claims of innocence. And if you just take every comer that comes off the street that says, hey, I’m innocent, and you don’t ever actually take a claim that works, it’s gonna be very difficult to go by your back to your funders and say, we’re actually freeing innocent people. So therefore, it’s a part of the process of screening cases, so that you can justify your existence and inspire your donors to keep giving. You have to be selective about the cases you take. Otherwise, if you go back and say, well, we took 114 cases in the fiscal year, how many got out? Nobody, but there’s a big need for what we’re doing. So that’s, that’s why they have to be so selective because it’s an Innocence Project, and nobody will fund a project that no one’s ever found to be innocent. Because it kind of defeats the purpose. You can’t make a credible argument that all these people are in prison that shouldn’t be if you can’t ever succeed, so that’s why they have to be so selective.

Andy 1:12:10
Certainly, hmm. It’s just, I can’t imagine you’re like, yes, I’m gonna get out and then all of a sudden this thing happens and boom, three months later, you croak because of it.

Larry 1:12:21
Tragic.

Andy 1:12:22
That’s our compassionate system that we have here. Love it. Love it, love it. Love it all the way all the way to the bank, Larry. Next up is an article from the Washington, what do you call it,The Washington what?

Larry 1:12:35
Compost.

Andy 1:12:36
Compost, got it. This is DC jail inmates with Coronavirus barred from access to lawyers. That sounds like a constitutional violation. Maybe they’re in DC they don’t have constitutional rights because it’s not a state? Family showers and changes of clothing Inspectors say. why would they like have reduced access to these kinds of things across the 1442 prisoners system, inspectors found inmates lack adequate cleaning equipment, training to disinfect cells, toilet areas and communal areas. But what’s the problem with that Larry?

Larry 1:13:06
Well, it’s another tragedy that I was afraid of. Because in my mind with no medical experience whatsoever, it would seem reasonable to me that you’re going to have to really make an effort at sanitation. And that means laundry has to be increased means that cleaning up the housing units, all the bedding, everything has to be increased. The clothing has to be increased. Well, that’s difficult to do if you’re overcrowded to begin with. And if you start having staff shortages, because people don’t want to work there because they come and become infected and that scares off the rest of the people. So the whole system will begin to break down because if you have a staff of 300 for the 1400 and a hundred of those quit showing up for work because of fear. How much work can the 200 do that are remaining?

Andy 1:14:06
Yeah, you end up with some bad problems.

Larry 1:14:09
And, and again, that’s why we needed to clear out the facilities of as many people as possible. Because once you do that you can put distance between people, you can increase the laundry, you can increase, you might have to give some inmates some extra incentives to work around the clock. But I’m confident that if I were in charge of a correctional facility, I bet I could find people who will do laundry around the clock, and people who will clean housing and common areas around the clock. I believe I can pull that together. I really do. If you don’t think

Andy 1:14:44
If you had a lot of pizzas I think you could pull it off.

Larry 1:14:47
I don’t think it’s gonna cost a lot of money to do that. Yeah, I think you could, you can do things like extra good time. I think you can do things like extra privileges, and I think that the cost will be very minimal to really increase the operational capacity of how the facilities are operated in normal times. In normal times they won’t let you have very many extra sheets and stuff because we do laundry here once a week and your, housing unit, you get your new sheets on Tuesday, and that’s the way it is. You get your new jumpsuit every Tuesday, that’s the way it is or every Thursday or whatever. And that’s the way it is. You could probably describe that routine better than I can. How often did you get your stripes in Georgia?

Andy 1:15:28
They did laundry multiple days a week, two or three days a week. I’m pretty sure was three like you know, Monday, Wednesday, Friday kind of thing. Maybe it’s a Tuesday Thursday, Saturday, I’m pretty sure it was Monday, Wednesday, Friday.

Larry 1:15:39
How often did you get to trade your stuff out for new, how often did you get to get new uniforms and new bedding?

Andy 1:15:46
Like they would do like a sheet tear down like that was a one day out of the week. So your bed was supposed to be unmade. A lot of people just throw their stuff in their locker and hide it so they didn’t have to wait for their stuff to come back. Plus, often times stuff doesn’t come back. But as far as like your other uniforms and stuff, you would just do them with the laundry like normal, they would just bleach the crap out of it and wash it in thousand degree temperature water.

Larry 1:16:10
But I’m assuming you had more than one uniform otherwise you would have been nude so they gave you a number of kind of 3 like a uniforms.

Andy 1:16:17
Yeah something like that. Yeah, so the empty one you have in your locker and then one in laundry kind of sort of always. Was it five? I think it was five.

Larry 1:16:22
So did they do they run laundry daily to the housing unit where you could throw your uniform one in there every day or twice a week or?

Andy 1:16:37
it’d be three times a week like I said Monday Wednesday and Friday? I think it’s been a while now. So and that’s something that I try to reflect on being like wow, this is happy times. “Do you remember back in the day when we were doing…” no I don’t really reminisce like that.

Larry 1:16:47
So yeah, it’s sad that this is going on but at least it’s getting some attention but the attention will probably be too little too late.

Andy 1:16:56
Yeah, as soon as everybody goes back to go into Hooters and whatnot. Like who’s going to give a crap about the inmates then?

Andy 1:17:03
yeah, let’s go to NPR News. ACLU sues to release Moose Lake inmates due to COVID-19. This sounds like a kind of a regurgitation on the other articles that we’ve had not to discount the people from Minnesota but.

Larry 1:17:20
This is big. This is the civil commitment. This is the people who are in that special civil commitment for sexual offenders and a federal district judge had found it to be unconstitutional. And then the Eighth Circuit overturned the district judge saying that, that you don’t have a right to get out. There is to be released from civil commitment, you have the opportunity under the law, therefore, it’s not unconstitutional. And now these people are are essentially in prison. I mean, it’s as close as to prison as you can imagine. And so they’re saying, well, since we’re, we’re not prisoners, we’re civil. We’re patients. Let us out during this crisis. And then that’s what they sued for.

Andy 1:18:01
Okay. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. Do you think they’ll gain traction?

Larry 1:18:07
It’ll probably be too little too late. Being that the courts are working on slow schedules these days

Andy 1:18:14
And then there’s a huge backlog Once they do finally get back to a normal schedule, there’s going to be a gigantic backlog if the courts weren’t already stacked to the gills with overloaded work as it is.

Larry 1:18:25
Well, the judge that had the previous case that he got flipped or overturned, means he got overturned. If he happened to have gotten this case assignment again, he’s going to be a little gun shy. When you’re flipped by the appellate court, it makes you a little gun shy the next time around, so he’s probably going to be if this case came up, of course, he could always recuse himself and say he doesn’t think he can be impartial. And he can punt the case to someone else. But, but I just think it’s gonna be too little too late.

Andy 1:18:54
Gotcha. And then we have another article from law.com which is titled: This is a legal malpractice claims against public defenders subject to Tort Claims Act. Larry, I understand every word in this article. But I do not understand what Tort Claims Act is. I don’t understand how this gets put together.

Larry 1:19:13
Well, this, this one won’t take a lot of time. It just means that if you feel like that you’re that you’ve been improperly represented, which is a pretty hard, hard barrier to prove that you had malpractice, like medical malpractice. People make a big to do about medical malpractice, but most of them go nowhere. If you feel like that your attorney has committed an act of malpractice, which is not the same issue didn’t like the outcome is that that there were actually tangible things that the attorney should have done that would have made the outcome different all but for those mistakes. If you’re going to sue the public defender’s innocence out of the state of New Jersey, you have to comply with the elements of the Tort Claims Act. tort means an injury. And if you’re going to claim that you’re an injured by the New Jersey public defender’s office, you have to Submit a notice within 90 days of the entry, preserving your opportunity to bring that claim. So everybody in New Jersey, if you think your attorney committed malpractice, you’ve got 90 days to file that notice otherwise you’re going to be barred by the Tort Claims Act. You won’t be able to seek any redress because of your failure to put that state on notice that you have a claim.

Andy 1:20:19
And tort is just a legal word for injury. I know you just said that.

Larry 1:20:22
That’s all that’s all it is. Yes.

Andy 1:20:24
Okay. Obviously, not physical.

Larry 1:20:27
Any type of any type of injury can be physical, but yes, you’ve got an injury by the lawyer’s incompetence or omissions.

Andy 1:20:37
Okay. I’m trying to I’m trying to wrap my head around the actual meaning of this just for my own personal I’m taking one moment to go Hmm, now I understand. Oh, hey, and then let’s punish you for being in prison in Alabama. Alabama reopens what is called a deplorable prison to quarantine new prisoners. Wow.

Larry 1:21:00
Not new, not new prisoners.

Andy 1:21:04
Well, it says to quarantine new prisoners, that’s what it does say.

Larry 1:21:07
For the people to people who have been tested positive for COVID-19?

Andy 1:21:12
Right. It does say so they’re following a 30 day moratorium anyway, either way, Larry, they’re being put in a shitty place. And I’m not laughing because it’s funny laughing because this is like, well, it’s deplorable. It’s just terrible. What is wrong with this place?

Larry 1:21:25
Well, it was closed in 2018, for being notoriously horrible, and outdated, and it was going to cost millions to bring it up to standards to renovate it. And it looks like now that the way to deal with people who become sick is to move them to a previously condemned prison. But the Alabama Department of Corrections says that they have renovated the particular section where they’re going to be putting these inmates and That’s gonna relieve the overcrowding at two facilities Alabama which are grossly overcrowded. Staten is operating at 274% and Elmore is at 200% according to the corrections department’s statistics, so, again we talked about cutting the prison population by half if you cut those two prisons by half, one of them would still be above capacity the one in Staten if that’s how you pronounce it would be still overcrowded and, and these to put the people that have these Well, I guess you can’t have it without getting really sick. But it just seems like when you have a person who’s sick though, you want to put them in a dilapidated place.

Andy 1:22:43
You do have a tendency when someone is sick that they like to it seems for their own self-interest for their for their best interest that you put them in a comfortable place like climate controlled and then yeah, I’m pretty sure that this is not how they’re going to be treated in the end. They’re going, you know, almost like how we shackle pregnant women. Like, I don’t see why we would do that. But, you know, so, of course, if you get sick in prison, it’s just here’s some Motrin. I hope you feel better, eff you.

Larry 1:23:13
well it says in Staten 68 men share three toilets and three sinks in one dorm.

Andy 1:23:18
I don’t think that’s an uncommon ratio, to be honest with you.

Larry 1:23:23
It seems like you’d have a lot of competition for those toilets.

Andy 12:23:26
Yeah, you better plan ahead, because if you’re like, Oh crap, I’ve got to crap. And the three people are using it like you’re in deep kimchi.

Larry 1:23:31
You know that, that just seems hard to relate to when, in the private world where we’re unhappy if we don’t have our own. My brother has a house that was built in the 50s. In those days, they built homes where families grew up, raised families and you’d have three bedrooms and one bath and now he talks about no one can live in a house with him because it only has one bathroom. And I said well that’s strange. In the 1950s people raise families in this very home and didn’t think anything about it, but now no one can live here with you. You must have this entire place by yourself because it only has one bathroom. So think about 68 people sharing three just that’s….

Andy 1:24:11
My one thing about this particular thing is, So there was a Department of Justice investigator called conditions at the facility deplorable and noted numerous dangerous and unsanitary conditions. This is where it gets to be my favorite, including raw sewage, vermin. I love that word Larry, and toxic fumes. Vermin, I think that means rats. I think.

Larry 1:24:29
Yeah. Well, if you look at the picture there, does that remind you of what the dormitory looks like? This is L bar.

Andy 1:24:37
Exactly what it looks like.

Larry 1:24:39
How would you do it is social distancing there?

Andy 1:24:43
The best you can man. Just make it work. People would most likely be walking around with T shirts wrapped around their heads.

Larry 1:24:49
But those get laundered once a week so that they’re gross to begin with.

Andy 1:24:51
I completely agree and understand and people try to you know, the bottom bunk they would try to set up little tents, that would help you to a certain degree but the person on the top bunk is that people are just walking by hacking up a lung right on your bunk. person on the bottom just has. I can’t say it Larry. I can’t say what is right in your face when you’re on the bottom bunk and someone walks by. You know what I’m saying?

Larry 1:25:15
Ha ha, this is a family friendly program.

Andy 1:25:19
Yeah, I mean, I would say it but I’m not gonna say and I think finally i think i think i think we have an article from Cleveland.com Ohio prisoners with confirmed Coronavirus cases skyrockets overnight as state increases inmate testing. That’s a novel concept, Larry, like how would you know how many people are infected with a thing if you didn’t have tests for them to test for the thing.

Larry 1:25:54
That’s the whole thing that’s been going on throughout this is that it was something that I don’t want to point fingers because I don’t know the intricacies of having a test and, and being able to test at a level appropriate level. But clearly, there’s a lot more of this out there than we know about simply because tests have been so limited, you have to beg for a test. And I personally know, the public defender here in our state that tested positive. And she had to beg for days and days to get a test and it was only when she got sick that they finally agreed to test her. Now the president says that the testing is going to get better and better and it has gotten better. But But initially, testing was almost impossible.

Andy 1:26:22
I know that when they first started detecting it, that you would almost like eliminate it. So you know, you would test for the flu. No, it wasn’t that you would test for this you test for that you do chest x rays, and you would do all these things to be like, we know that it’s not this we know that it’s not that we know it’s not this and all we’re left with is it’s probably this, go quarantine yourself.

Larry 1:26:40
Well, and the number of staffers in Ohio prisons with it is up to 159 as of the writing this article. What’s that going to do on the call-in rate of people who are not going to go to show up for work when you got that many staffers testing positive. It’s one thing to sit in your office and hang out in the staff lounge and chew up the fat and let the inmates make it by themselves. But if you’re chewing up the fat with with the staffers and they’re all infected also, you’re not gonna want to go to work. And they’ve approved, releasing 105 inmates from state prisons in Ohio. Like that’s gonna, like that’s gonna make a difference.

Andy 1:27:24
That’s a dramatic increase, man. That’ll work that’ll do it.

Larry 1:27:27
And it would make a difference if you’re one of those hundred five.

Andy 1:27:30
Yeah, and that’s the story that you tell about the mass riot in I think was in your state 700 years ago.

Larry 1:27:36
Yeah, the one we talked about 1980 Yep. that’s, that’s the one where I tell people that one day makes a difference when people say What difference does a day make when you’re getting out of prison? I said, Well, if you were in prison, on this date, in 1980 and you got released, it made all the difference in the world. That’s what difference a day made because 43 inmates died and dozens more were injured. It made a big difference that one day.

Andy 1:28:00
Should have thought about that before you did your crime. But before you did your felony jaywalking, you should have thought about that.

Larry 1:28:04
Well, we read the names of those people. And they were very young. And it was very touching 40 years later to read the names, because we had in those days, we had only that one prison we had very little separation between the non-serious offenders, and it was just a tough place to send people to and as the outcome showed.

Andy 1:28:26
well, that was a happy show. Larry, I think we can wrap it up. Are you ready?

Larry 1:28:29
I am. So how do people get in touch with us if they want to?

Andy 1:28:32
If they want to, you certainly should go visit registrymatters.co. And you can find show notes which will have links to all of the articles that we covered tonight. There will be a transcript there so you can read along with our happy thoughts for the evening. I’m sure your favorite place to have them get in touch with us is with a voicemail message and what is the phone number for them to reach us

Larry 1:28:52
(747)227-4477 now what will the transcript do with when I say “afeared?” How would it transcribe that?

Andy 1:29:03
It would probabaly spell it out as “a feared.” It’s not going to do grammar checking. So it’ll probably pull that one off as two different words, just a guess. But there are sometimes some words like I said, I don’t I bet you it doesn’t do bestest or worser I bet she doesn’t pull that one off. How about email? Larry, I know that you’re reading our emails on a daily basis. How do people email us?

Larry 1:29:30
Oh, that’s easy. That’s registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Andy 1:29:35
and I’m going to alter things here just ever so slightly, please visit patreon.com/registrymatters if you would like to become a patron. If you are unable to become a patron. Go to the Apple podcast, go to Google podcasts. Go to any of those places where you download your podcasts and leave us a review. Preferably a five-star review. Say something nice about us and that will help other people find us. You know, we received a YouTube compliment very recently of someone just saying stupendous content, keep up the great work. So I mean, that just helps people, you know, even go to YouTube and gives us a thumbs up, subscribe over there. And so that’ll do it, man. I think that’s all I got.

Larry 1:30:17
Thank you Andy and the thumbs up helps. From what little I understand. When you get thumbs up more people want to look at these. “Wow there’s, there’s 12 thumbs up. Well, this must be a good thing to listen to.”

Andy 1:30:29
Absolutely. I appreciate your time and expertise and knowledge, Larry. Thank you, Richard for chiming in. And thank you to all of those in chat all of you people in chat. And like I said, Larry, thank you very much. I hope you have a great weekend and stay safe.

Larry 1:31:12
Good night.

Transcript of RM123: Registry Enforcement Blocked by Federal Judge Until COVID-19 Is Over

Posted on April 13, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM123: Registry Enforcement Blocked by Federal Judge Until COVID-19 Is Over

Andy 0:00
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 123 of registry matters. Larry, do you have an interesting story today to tell me about how your car works? Oh, by the way, how are you tonight?

Larry 0:27
Oh, well, my I’m not walking in a balanced fashion anymore.

Andy 0:34
Your tires are unbalanced.

Larry 0:36
No, my, my the weight of my

right pocket has changed dramatically since I left my house.

Andy 0:45
Okay. Now I understand now I understand what happened. Just give you the brief synopsis.

Larry 0:49
I was I was doing my social distancing. And I did my first order by click list. I went to the grocery store to pick up the order which they bring to your car. I didn’t bother to scope it out it wasn’t a store next door to our office but it was one that had only had to wait a week to get a slot and I would had to wait longer at my store. And so I I’m circling through the parking lot and I did a cut across and I apparently picked up a shroud of metal that gash my tire. So I ended up with a $330 repair bill for replacement for two tires because it got a long ways it was not like a just a nail puncture hole, it couldn’t plug it so so my $70 grocery turned into a $400 trip but when I added the tires,

Andy 1:38
so that serves you right for ordering groceries online to go pick them up.

Unknown Speaker 1:42
Well, I did it certainly did. I hope that that I can get the weekly cost down a little bit lower than that what this week’s or

Unknown Speaker 1:49
that’s definitely not an affordable grocery bill.

Unknown Speaker 1:52
Well, hopefully, we’ll How many times can you run over a piece of metal infinite, I suppose.

Andy 2:00
Another thing in front of your tire on the next rotation.

Unknown Speaker 2:02
So but yeah, that was, but I checked my tires routinely before I start every trip. And then I got an indicator on the way from the store to the office that that I had low tire pressure. So I started circling the car trying to figure out which one was low and I couldn’t spot it by visual, but I put my ear close when I heard the hissing of the loss of air. So then I realized which one was leaking.

Andy 2:27
Well, I will introduce our guests for the evening. I don’t know that we’ve had two guests on here. At the same time, Larry, this is a this is a first for registry matters to have two guests at the same time, from opposite ends, the north and the south parts of the United States. Joshua, you are well known on the podcast and certainly doing your own podcast, Josh. Whoa. Doing decarceration nation and Twitter extraordinaire. How are you tonight? Pretty good thing. I’m so glad that you can join us as you’re always always welcome in a very excellent addition when when you are on Larry, can you do me a favor? Introduce King Alexander from Louisiana. Okay, we

Larry 3:05
have a person who has been with us occasionally both on Arslan action. And on registry matters. The King Alexander who is a supervising felony without parole attorney, and the State of the State of Louisiana, and it’s the calcasieu. Parish, welcome King. And this is really short notice I happen to see the press release that we’re going to talk about, and as I was doing show prep today, and I said, Well, I’m going to call him and he actually answered the phone. And he actually said he would join. So thank you for coming.

King 3:37
Glad to be here.

Andy 3:38
Thank you very much King. Let me start this up. I have this and everyone feel free to chime in with I came across something that was a national poll. So today, I learned a poll once included the question, have you ever been decapitated? 4% of the population said yes.

Random thought that sounds that sounds. Sounds about right. That’s about an error.

Unknown Speaker 4:01
I have a feeling

Andy 4:02
that they don’t know what the word means. But I find that to be hysterical.

Josh 4:06
I’d say about it’s possible that they read.

Unknown Speaker 4:09
I’d say about four out of every hundred people I pass or walk around. Hey, let’s let’s say that’s about right. Mike in chat says he has never been decapitated.

Andy 4:17
I just wanted to start things off lightly with that one.

Josh 4:20
They could also they could also be relatives of the head.

Unknown Speaker 4:24
Okay, that’s one in 25. That’s the exoneration rate from Louisiana’s death row.

Andy 4:31
Oh, all right, Josh, you are here, mainly for this. For this late breaking news. I believe that a federal judge blocks Michigan from enforcing state’s Sex Offender Registry until COVID-19 crisis has ended. This is this first article is coming from the appeal. What’s going on?

Josh 4:49
Yeah, so you know, the same judge that just handled the case that everybody’s familiar with the cloud does what’s called dose two or the class action V. Snyder was asked to more or less weigh in on the problems of trying to enforce the registry at the time of COVID. It’s the same. And so basically, he did several things. One thing he did was delayed the time for the clock to start on his recent ruling on the dose class action until the crisis is over. But more importantly, for people on the registry, he basically said that the registry can’t be enforced from the beginning of the crisis until the end of the crisis. And he actually has a particular definition of when the crisis ends, which is removed when the state of emergency gets lifted, and everyone gets notified, if I remember correctly. And then in addition to that, and this is what I thought was the most important part. He very explicitly said that prosecutors then can’t go back and enforce strict liability failure to register cases after the fact. And so it gives everybody an essence a Liberty, no amnesty until this crisis is over, because what you’re experiencing was a lot of people not wanting to have to go into police stations to register at a time when they’re not supposed to be at when they’re supposed to be socially, socially distant from people. And then we also had the problem where police stations were turning people away who were trying to register, which would have left them down the road potentially with having violated a strict liability law. And so it was, I think, a fairly good solution. And unfortunately, I doubt that that’s the case in most states across the country, but it really should be given the situation. Well, I’ve I’ve

Unknown Speaker 6:47
I do. Do note that I think that I saw an article that Michigan had had the state place had asked the local police already to stop to stop there in person. Did I read that correctly? I think Hills, Michigan are that the the state place?

Josh 7:02
Yeah, they were going to stop the in person registration for anyone who is before 2011. And that was going to happen relatively soon. But then there were some there was some infighting about that and it hadn’t. It had been announced. So it’s probably going to happen but it wouldn’t have covered everyone. This order covers everybody. Okay. At least until the emergency law. I find I find it so discombobulating to me and and I have trouble even understanding that these departments would even consider having in person reporting taking place because you would want to keep your officer safe even if you don’t care anything about two people. And it’s one of those things where you have an absolute defense where you don’t have an absolute there’s never such things absolute defense, but you certainly have an affirmative defense in my opinion, because if you’re under health quarantine and this is not one of the lists Have exceptions to the quarantine or that you’re supposed to stay home. But you know, the registry is not a grocery store. It’s not a pharmacy. And it’s not you’re not a tier one responder that’s going out to a job. So it seems like to me you have a very good affirmative defense that you could not comply because to do so would have been violating a directive. Therefore, I think that a case would go nowhere, even if a renegade prosecutor would bring such a case. That’s a good thing. We have a lawyer in the room because I mean, the way it was always explained to me and I could clearly be wrong on this one is that I remember literally sitting in my lawyers office, and when I sat down, when I first got arrested, I said, Well, I have a whole bunch of affirmative defenses. And he looked at me and said, you don’t really know don’t work so well, because it’s a strict liability law. And in the case of failure to register, most of those, as I understand it, are strict liability. And so you could have defenses till that, you know, as long as the day is and maybe it would work. I don’t know. But I think you’re my understanding at least is legally you’re still responsible to register. I could be totally Well, thank you. I think you’re diagnosing I’m describing a strict liability. There’s a little misunderstanding of strict liability offense is not what you described with strict liability is that that, that you can commit the crime without knowing and analogy, but we’d be like speeding, you could be driving down the road and be going 55 in a 35 mile an hour zone, and you can sell so I didn’t know. And it doesn’t matter that you didn’t know that knowledge is not a requirement. But in and for serious offenses and all felony level offenses with exception of sexual offenses and a few drug offenses in state of Florida, and I worked on a case in Florida, so I’m familiar with their strict liability. There doesn’t have to be any knowledge or intent to break the law you just simply by the fact that you’re not compliant, but your own orders. It’s not even the same analogy, your own orders to stay home. And I would just love to do the closing argument if a prosecutor brought a case. And I would say Your Honor, did LaserJet To jury, if it’s a jury trial, we had a situation where the person was complying with the governor’s or the whatever authority issue issued to say at home orders, and they could not go out without contaminating a risk and public safety. And therefore you should do this, this person should be acquitted, and I don’t think anybody’s gonna be convicted. But that doesn’t mean that someone might not get arrested. And that’s the fear. And they give a lot more faith in Judges, the

Unknown Speaker 10:28
king, what do you think do you think Larry or Josh is right?

Unknown Speaker 10:31
Well, I would just add this strict liability is one of the subject matters that the federal courts who have looked hard at registration have in in their crosshairs. strict liability is supposed to be for really low level type offenses like a parking thing and to apply it to very serious crimes where it doesn’t matter like lack of knowledge of the victims age shall not be a defense. That’s that’s almost universally, and that’ll Louisiana sex laws that deal with that. But I remember in putting together what I’ve done for the CLS that I teach on this that in the federal cases where this has been litigated strict liability is one of the subject matters that they look at it as a due process issue. And so it is kind of a sliding scale, whether it’s okay that you don’t have notice that you’re violating the law. I kind depends on what’s its stake with the law in question.

Unknown Speaker 11:30
The

Unknown Speaker 11:33
I can tell you that in my point, there was that strict liability already was problematic when we didn’t have this pandemic emergency. Now, it’s crazy to require it in person reporting is a whole other area that is questionable, whether it meets reasonable basis test, you know, for for legislation and things that restrict Liberty, you know, should be subject to a little bit more than just the reasonable basis test. But where I live, it’s not uniform in Louisiana, a Jefferson Parish attorney recently chimed in to our lists are further for the Louisiana criminal defense lawyers that because I asked Are they still requiring in person reporting there and one lawyers client in Jefferson Parish, which is part of the Greater New Orleans area, which is a hotspot. They said that they had been allowed to report remotely Well, I’ve been told that here in calc Shu Parish, which is the 14th district. Jefferson is the 24th there in captured they’re still requiring in person reporting, and they’ve got the most boneheaded people that they could possibly have over that people that didn’t work out another detective squad. Is

Josh 12:55
what what are what what a surprise King you know, I He used to talk about that When, when, when the sheriff is is responsible. Unfortunately for us here in bernalillo County, the sheriff does run the jail. But in in the majority of jurisdictions I do and the people that end up on jail duty are usually not people who say, Sheriff, I tell you if you write me a deputy, I sure would love to work in the jailhouse. I mean, when you when you end up at the jailhouse, it’s because you failed usually at most other assignments, you’re on some kind of punitive detail because you couldn’t get your act together. Most people want to be able to patrol or be able detectives. They want to be on course secured. They’re not interested in working in the jailhouse. So you don’t have the cream of the crop of the sheriff’s department working in jails. But you do have some good people always put that qualifier in there because people say that I’m stereotyping everyone, but the cream of the crop doesn’t rise to the bottom of jail detention centers.

Unknown Speaker 13:50
Well, I could I could say how it’s done here and cashew they all start out in the jail. Everyone who works for the sheriff starts out in the jails, but if they’re still there after two years, that means they They cream didn’t rise.

Unknown Speaker 14:04
Alrighty. Do you want to move on to the article forking there there? Are we ready to go there?

Unknown Speaker 14:11
I think he’s ready to talk about his press release. In and your case King, your department filed a file some legal action. And my story says motion and I just want to let you explain it but but your your your department has undertaken some action front of free hundreds of people from custody. So tell us what you did.

Unknown Speaker 14:33
Well, the original reporting on k PLC, which is the NBC affiliate here, it was by Teresa Schmidt, who’s been there a long time I know her. And when I saw what she the way she had originally phrased it, she said that we filed a lawsuit. And I texted her and I said, we didn’t file a lawsuit. You know, it’s emotion. Our clients are the defendants, you know, and they want a hearing on this. And she said, Well, I’ll fix it on the online version. But that’s That’s what we did I have a copy of that. And then the district attorney’s reaction, oh, it was just kind of typical.

Unknown Speaker 15:11
And I crafted a rebuttal to it.

Unknown Speaker 15:14
He let me just click on the article for a second to see what he said. And this is pretty typical of when he talks to the media, this john de Roget de capital Oro si er. There’s a lot of press about him. The Washington Post has written about him for different things. So he’s, he’s, he’s being challenged. This is an election year, and the prior electorate elected district attorney Rick Bryant is running against him. The guy who handed it off to him in the first place, is now trying to unseat him because he’s just become ridiculous. And what he says in here with it rubbed me the wrong way. He says the public defender’s office refuses to recognize the difference with Those who have civic nificant violent criminal histories and those are currently charged with a non violent crime. Well, you know, he let me just say it’s it’s typical for him to start out his comments to the media by denigrating the defense function altogether. This time he falsely accused the public defenders of quote, refusing recognize that inmates aren’t all the same. Frankly, that’s just ridiculous. He goes on to say that there needs to be analysis and adjudication which of course that’s what we asked for. Sorting one inmate out from another is for the judges were advocates and the district attorney to Roget is an advocate. We filed a motion he didn’t that’s his prerogative, but he has no business saying we shouldn’t have filed. If he thinks it’s frivolous, then let him ask for sanctions. Don’t hold your breath on that. He’d rather just, you know, bash us in the media and unfairly it’s just you know, I wouldn’t be saying so much about it. If he didn’t do it, ever. Time. Now here’s the issue. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued emergency orders and guidelines for release of prisoners due to the corona virus pandemic. Now those orders and guidelines need to be enforced and calcasieu parish. Now that would be done at all only after a hearing on the record in the light of day. The da doesn’t want to motion file that way nothing happens on the light of day nothing really happens at all by mid the sheriff is not you know if the sheriff has a dog in this fight it is that he needs fewer people in his jail right now he has a not only a jail but his sheriff’s prison where he has State Department of Corrections prisoners. And it’s sad when the only limitation on the overcrowding in our local jails is because the fire marshal has to say something if the the defense attorneys are Filing motions, and they’re not doing what they should do. And this needs to be done with you uniformly across all the divisions of the court. There’s no unity in the court here, you have a couple of judges that don’t want to let anybody out for anything, they set million plus dollar bonds on every case case of a certain type, and so on. So what we’ve asked for is an on mock hearing. That way all the judge, if they grant this, all the judges would sit together in a single body, it would probably just convened by video from where each one of them happens to be. And they would all hear all the applications and they would vote on each one. And what that does is you would have maybe a reasonable more reasonable core or a majority among all the six districts that have adult felony cases going and he would get more you for uniformity result across the board instead of some judges that go light on everybody and some that go heavy on anybody. There’s no uniformity and that’s a problem and it goes without saying that time is of the essence on this. Look at the mounting deaths next door to us and Alan parish at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility there. They were up to six dead in there as of this morning with the morning paper. Last time I looked at and there are many more inmates and employees sick with the COVID-19 Coronavirus. They’re, we’re asking our judges for a prop hearing before this disease gets into our jails or it may already be there. I mean, it they may not even be testing. We haven’t heard anything. Now. They say they don’t have any cases now. That’s great. That means you don’t have to fear them getting out and giving us the disease. But if you have it sweep through there and kill people, the level of care is notoriously low anyway all the time. And it

Andy 19:51
Yeah. You said a term that I’ve heard of legal podcasts to listen to us. Did you say on Bach

Unknown Speaker 19:59
well It’s French words in is the first one and the second one is bonk ba NC bank like in a panel. It’s like a panel of judges all ball competes in the Federal Courts of Appeal. For instance, we’re in the Fifth Circuit. Sometimes litigants may ask for a hearing are we hearing on Bach and that just means that all the judges or a quorum of the judges sit to hear the thing together. Instead of one judge Genet Courts of Appeal, it’s usually a panel of three but a non balk is a much larger panel that cuts across all the different little, well, three, almost,

Josh 20:37
I was wondering if we can zero in What did you ask for in your in your motions, because we’ve gone into a lot of detail about the what the prosecution said, but what are you seeking? So simply, what are you asking to be done?

Unknown Speaker 20:50
I’m ready summarizes motion for you. It’s just barely over two pages, and it’s very much along the lines of what Josh was saying. And really goes to what the work that Louise Supreme Court has already done because they categorized everybody into risk categories. And they made recommendations to the district judges, that what they should do is just that here, they haven’t done it or they don’t have any unity among the judges, they’re all doing different things. Basically, we’ve asked for an on box so that we have the whole deliberative body and there’s more uniformity in the result across the district, four categories of things judicial release persons, who are not a serious danger to the community, to meaningful Bond Reduction, so that which have been scarce. Three setting of detainer bonds, that is allowing people to bond out on something that would normally hold them in jail if we weren’t having a pandemic and you didn’t have to have social distancing. And then the last fourth thing is to reconsider sentences of people who were very near the end of their sentences if they’re within six months of release. Just go back, revisit that sentence and see if it doesn’t make sense to just cut that person loose. And get him out of there. Now, man, all this is just in line with what the you know, the top judges have already said go ahead keynote. So now we’re now we’re still discussing jails, right? This is not the Louisiana Department of Corrections. You’re talking about the

Larry 22:14
local jails,

Unknown Speaker 22:15
local jails, but you have people serving State Department of Corrections terms in these jails as well. And you have parish jail term. So it’s all of the above. Okay.

Josh 22:25
So but it wouldn’t do anything for the actual Department of Corrections Frankel and places like that it wouldn’t do anything for them. You’d have to be on a local jail, correct. Right. Okay. Just Just for clarification. So the corrections department is a whole different it’s a whole different ballgame in terms of that, because they’re not doing

Unknown Speaker 22:40
a whole different thing. But the judge who was the sentencing judge who is in the division that sent it so on to the Department of Corrections Senate, so they are now authorized to revisit those sentences if they’re within six months of completion that’s across the board. And so if they’re here doing a DFC Senate’s most of those people will have been sentenced by one of our The judges in our district.

Josh 23:02
And so like in Michigan, you know, we have the situation where about it was about a week and a half ago where the governor put out an executive order on jails, and did a lot of the things that are similar to what was in that, that that letter and a few other things. We’ve been waiting patiently for well over a week now for her to also put out her executive order about prisons that we we’ve heard about, but it seems to be delayed. And it you know, as we were saying earlier in the politics of the thing, you know, what we, you know, we really like to see is what King just said a second ago, you know, a lot of times we get caught up in these discussions about what kind of crime category people were committed in, in my opinion, if someone’s a couple months away, and they’ve done a 20 year sentence, who gives a damn if they get out in April, or they get out in June? You know, I mean, if you really are that worried about the two months, then you know, I mean, I think you’ve got the wrong price. You know, and you should be trying to get out everybody who you can get out. That’s that’s, you know, either inevitably going to get out soon, which means the same risk of the, you know, same public safety risk, or people who are a low public safety risk. At the very least, we should get everybody who’s a low public safety risk, you know, people who are, you know, in for everything from you know, nonviolent offenses, low level offenses, you know, personal use drugs and stuff like that and then start working on a case by case basis to get as many of the people as out as you can after that. That’d be my Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 24:37
exactly. It’s just it’s just the comments that stuff cut down the population in there. It’s dangerously close as you said. And I remember meeting you now I want to say, Houston.

Unknown Speaker 24:50
When you when you mentioned having served

Unknown Speaker 24:54
the

Unknown Speaker 24:56
the edit this is a multi faceted approach at the Louisiana service. preme court is fashion and you got some judges just refusing to play ball. And that’s why we asked for on bonk so that a majority of judges might be able to out vote the outliers. And in this in some cases, this would be rehearing that we’re asking for but it’s the Louisiana Supreme Court has already laid out exactly the type of people that they think should be removed from the jail populations and we just have not been satisfied with the local action. Do you

Unknown Speaker 25:24
have any idea king of what type of time cuz every day is important? I mean, we went to court sir. courts are on distance, business conducting business at distance. Do you have any idea what’s the timeline of the progression of these motions?

Unknown Speaker 25:41
We asked for a hearing it to be said as expeditiously as possible but no later than Monday, April 6 2020. And that was Monday and here we are on Saturday. And we’re still waiting to hear if they’re going to set this for hearing at all. If they denied it. I mean, they they would have the right to the judges to decide whether they would grant it on bog hearing or not. But they haven’t even told us whether they’re going to do that much less than they’re going to give anybody any relief. It’s really sad. I think the priorities are in the wrong place.

Unknown Speaker 26:15
Well, I was the reason why I put the political article in there because I don’t want people to misunderstand this.

Josh 26:23
It’s easy to say do the right thing. But when you get vilified for doing the right thing, and it cost you your livelihood, judges of Louisiana are elected judges of Georgia and Florida, most of southeastern elected I don’t know about Michigan. Josh, you can tell us but but judges are elected. This is a dangerous step for these people to take. It’s very risky. As far as the way they would be looking at it from a political standpoint.

Unknown Speaker 26:46
They’re safer in groups and that’s that, you know, the arbok is another thing that plays to that, that it wouldn’t they wouldn’t be alone. And that’s why panel is better than a single judge sometimes.

Josh 26:56
Well, and that’s why I think it also helps for it not to be late. at the feet of judges, and that’s why, you know, I think it’s important. For instance, like I said, our governor did a jails order that has made it very easy, relatively easy for people to take these actions and have some political cover. It would be excellent if she used her emergency powers to do something about the princess. We’re very hopeful that that will happen. And I don’t know if it will or not, but she did do the jails order. So we’ll hope that she does the prisons order as well. Of course, were part of the reason I think there’s a delay is all of a sudden she’s become one of the shortlist people for the vice presidential nomination. And so there’s a lot of other considerations going on. It’s kind of unfortunate.

Unknown Speaker 27:43
Well, I’m envious, that you have a federal judge and article three judge who has jurisdiction over the overall situation because that’s that’s how you happen to have an order that does away with the in person reporting. We don’t have uniformity across the state on that and we don’t have a judge who litigating the overalls registration scheme Now unfortunately, although we have hopes of doing that in the future and Michigan, certainly as a guiding light for every jurisdiction right now.

Larry 28:11
Yeah, it’s certainly been interesting.

Andy 28:24
Well, for everyone to chime in if you have something to say from the appeal amid COVID-19 panic, Pennsylvania republicans warned governor against taking executive action to release prisoners. As I understand it, this is the governor trying to release like 15 1800 people. And I, you know, there’s 40 something thousand people in prison in Pennsylvania. So this is just a drop in the bucket, a couple percentage points of people that could be released. Obviously, there’s a whole bunch of people that would be excluded from this. Uh, I gotta think Larry gotta think that prison is certainly not designed to keep people separated from each other by any stretch of the imagination releasing 1800 people is not even any sort of significant number, but it’s something this is crazy.

Josh 29:13
Well, I only put this in here for one reason and it’s not to bash Republicans. It’s it’s an education. It just happens to be this the republicans who wrote the letter, but as to educate people about the political politicization potential, when we talk about why don’t they just do the right thing. And I was pretty, pretty adamant on the previous podcast last week or the week before, just do it. And I’m still saying, Just do it. But this is an example of just doing it what the consequences going to be. These Republican lawmakers have already fired a shot over the warning bell to Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania, if you just do it. We are going to vilify you when the time and opportunity presents itself. And so, so it’s mainly an educational opportunity for people Realize the republicans argue in their letter. This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard that people in prison may actually be safer from the bar. So those are the general community. The social isolation inherent and operational state crushing institution is an advantage shielding our offenders from community spread of COVID-19 or Hillsborough. That’s a quote, apparently, from there later. That is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.

Unknown Speaker 30:22
I hear you chomping at the bit, Josh.

Josh 30:25
Yeah, I mean, I’ve been more or less working on this non stop for the last three weeks. So I don’t know. I guess one thing I might add is just, I want to read a little thing from this crazy radical journal called the New England Journal of Medicine. Ah, no,

Unknown Speaker 30:43
that’s not even peer reviewed. Just kidding. Well,

Josh 30:46
it is on it is Yes, it is. Okay. Therefore, we believe that we need to prepare now by decarceration releasing as many people as possible, focusing in on those who are least likely to committed crimes, but also for the elderly and infirm, urging police and courts to immediately suspend arresting and sentencing people as much as possible for low level Crimes and Misdemeanors, isolating and separating incarcerated people or infected and those who are under investigation for possible infection from the general prison population. It goes on but the point is, it’s not just the crazy radical it’s like I got an A big Twitter thing with a woman who worked as kind of the head person on Buda judges campaign yesterday was sort of made the same point that the republicans are making in that article. And it’s just, I mean, first of all, I mean, let’s just start at the tail end. Everyone’s scared Oh, my god, you’re letting people out Well, there’s all kinds of jurisdictions all over the country who have been letting people out. Most county jails across the country have been decreasing incarceration and letting people out. For weeks now jails are at their lowest rate in in decades right now because of this issue. As a result of that, a lot of police predicted there will be huge increases in crime. Well, there have been multiple stories that have come out in the last two weeks that suggests that not only are crime rates plummeting, but they’re pointing to historic lows, and that even in the major cities, where decarceration is happening, that crime rates are plummeting. That’s not entirely surprising, but that’s the opposite of what people predicted. You know, I mean, the truth is what you know, you’re right, Andy, that there’s a lot of people who are crowded in prisons, we both experienced this. And different prison levels have different levels of crowding. But you still want to try to ensure that the people who are most at risk get out you know, you need to test to make sure that they haven’t already been infected, but if they’re not infected, they need to, you know, get them out. By getting any people out. It makes it more possible to socially distance inside the prison. So every person who gets out is a benefit to it to the people who are incarcerated and so the more people that you if you’re going to keep people incarcerated, you want to let as many people out so there is more opportunity for social distancing. And on top of that, the more that COVID-19 spreads inside prisons and jails, and the whole idea that this, these prosecutors or whoever it is, the idea that somehow it’s more safe in prison is just insane. I mean, I was in a, in a pole barn with 160 people when I was incarcerated. And so we were in, you know, 160 people in one big room, that’s, you know, there’s no social distancing and that that’s not a place you’re gonna stay safe. So, you know, I mean, what you don’t want to do is have a whole bunch of people coming to work every day in a situation like that, where they can become infected and get taken it right out. I mean, even in a place like Michigan, where our Mr. Our department of corrections has been extremely proactive, like from the very beginning and extremely transparent and trying to deal with this. We have over two hundred cases and over seven deaths already. And you know, that’s likely to increase by quite a bit before this is over. And and just the idea that it’s better to keep people in prison just I’ve never heard anything as ridiculous as that. And that’s why I started with the New England Journal of Medicine articles because even even epidemiologists agree that that’s insane. And, you know, you just really, it takes a special kind of person to make an argument like that, in my opinion. It does. It does, indeed. And I would just add, I mean, that’s very well said, Josh. But I would add one point that when we talk about releasing people from prison, this doesn’t have to be a permanent release. Most people when they’re released from prison do not vanish into thin air. These releases can be temporary. We could release even Weinstein temporarily, because he’s doing great. I think he’s already in fact a tribe member. I think they’ve already announced that he’s already infected, but They act as if this is a get out of jail free card never to returned. No responsibility for your actions. No. We furlough people all the time in the United States of America, and they come back at the end of the furlough period.

Unknown Speaker 35:15
Michael avenatti is out. He’s out. But he’s, he’s convicted to but he has an obligation to report back when they say he should do it.

Josh 35:24
That’s an excellent point, Larry. You know, there’s also a lot of other powers that governors have under emergency powers in some of their other stuff that’s happened as a result of COVID that they’ve been extended powers. And so you can do things like, you know, like in Michigan, we have to everyone who’s been incarcerated in a prison has to be in a secure facility. Well, the governor could theoretically suspend that secure facility requirement and allow people to be in an area that wasn’t in the definition of a secure facility so that they could socially distance more. You know, you can move people to places that you know, the average gyms or whatever, and just have any, there’s all kinds of things governors can do within that power. And then there’s also like Larry saying, there’s lots of things you can do. You can send people to parole and probation, you can put them on electronic monitoring, you can put them out for a while you can, you know, there’s all kinds of ways that this could be dealt with. And, unfortunately, it is all bound up in the politics. We’ve seen, in many states, there are governors who have really stepped up and started to try to do something about this. And in other states, we we really have not seen much action. And that’s basically caught up in the politics.

Andy 36:34
How I assume this would put a huge burden. If we did that, you know, if we released that number of people, it would put a huge burden on the parole and probation departments. It does.

Josh 36:42
It doesn’t have to and if you don’t have to, I mean, this is so simple, that it’s ridiculously simple. You can tell people, you are furloughed until further notice. Call this number periodically to check in to save the furlough has been lifted. It’s your responsibility to know when when when when to report back to Listen, you don’t have to report anybody. Right?

Unknown Speaker 37:03
Right. If you don’t you’re getting a fugitive warrant or a bench warrant.

Andy 37:08
Well, let’s move on to an article from ABC News. This is Mississippi court won’t undo a 12 year sentence for a jail phone. There was scant details here. But it seems that this person was picked up for a misdemeanor. So let’s just say he was speeding. And he ends up I guess he makes it through like the initial kind of Shakedown, whatever. Anyway,

Josh 37:28
we talked, we talked, we talked about this a few episodes back. We did. Yes. Yeah. Well, I think I was actually on that. Yes, way we talked about shows what I pay attention to. Yeah, well, this is a word guy. He he got booked, and they did not discover his phone. They did. They did a sloppy search. And he had a cell phone. And of course, it’s hard for me to conceive that you would know that you weren’t allowed to have a cell phone but he had the phone. He’s running around the jail that maybe since people don’t use regular phones anymore. He thought well, this is cool, bro. So he runs out. Electricity runs on a charge and as the guard says, Hey, bro, can I get some juice and they they prosecuted him for clearly had not been incarcerated for long. They they, they prosecuted run out of battery. They prosecuted him for having the contraband at a correctional facility. And and, and he has a prior offense that resulted in a mandatory sentence. And it’s, it’s, it’s the harshness of the sentence that that’s at issue here because he got he got 12 years for having the contraband. And the range of sentences was 350 years, he didn’t get back style. He got what was within the zone. And that’s within the sound discretion of the sentencing judge. And it’s whether the South discretion of the state legislature to set penalty scheme that’s not for the courts to determine. This appeal is likely to fail. The cert petition is likely to be summarily dismissed with their famous one line order. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t support the appeal. Completely support the appeal. As a matter of fact, I’m thinking about trying to contact them to see if there’s anything we can do. But with the current makeup of the Supreme Court United States, that I don’t think they’re going to want to second guess the state sentencing of an offender for a penalty scheme that they set in place. And it’s been it’s within the sound discretion of a judge to send us within the sentencing zone. I just don’t see it happening.

Unknown Speaker 39:22
Well, you say two things. One, that is the state legislature has complete discretion on sentencing for an offense and the other is that you don’t see them granting cert now. You know, it’s rare for cert to be granted by the US Supreme Court in any case, but so that’s a different question. But as far as the power of legislators to establish any penalty, they want to there are constitutional limitations on that. It’s the eighth and 14th amendments and we saw that enforced. Last, well, a year ago, February 20. In Timms versus Indiana. Of course, that was they had to poke Through the fact that it was a civil forfeiture to get to the excessive fines clause but that was when they forfeited the guy’s Range Rover $40,000 Range Rover that he bought with inheritance money because he had a little bit heroin in it that he might have been selling. Well, you know, the terms of imprisonment can be an excessive under the Eighth Amendment, which is provides against cool and unusual punishments and excessive fights and that sort of thing. And you have proportionality doctrine, which has grown up out of the Eighth Amendment. This could possibly I would, I would actually make the effort if it were a Louisiana conviction. With the sentence like that. We have actually code FIDE are our legislators to later I say codify not codified because it’s code not a cod that there is a state constitutional limitation, depending on the case if the Senate’s given even though it would be within the statute. range, it may be constitutionally excessive. And I’ve seen them start sending down cases for resentencing. Even in my life without parole cases, if the judge says, well, there’s only one sentence I can pose, it’s a mandatory sentence. And so I don’t have a choice, I oppose it, they’ll send it back to say you shouldn’t have said that you didn’t have any choice because there’s this constitutional escape clause that is now codified or codified. I don’t see that being granted a whole lot, but it’s there and they objected people saying that it doesn’t exist.

Josh 41:32
Well, in theory, you’re correct. I but when when the electric chair is not cruel, unusual punishment. It’s rare that you’re going to get a US Supreme Court just like anything. It’s cruel to use your punishment. And there’s just not a lot of guidance, the case law in recent decades that they found anything to be cruel or unusual or excessive. I hope he wins. I just I’ve just, I’ve just a hotspurs I’m looking at I don’t see it as being a case that I mean, they’re, they’re likely to grant the one line order saying, too bad. So sad. You’re 12 years?

Unknown Speaker 42:01
Well, I’m just saying last year, the US Supreme Court did hear such a case. And they ruled for the way. I’m familiar with that one.

Josh 42:07
Yeah. But but it was a slightly different issue. But, yeah, I mean, I obviously come at this from an entirely different direction, because, I mean, I understand that he’s likely to not have much of a remedy in the court. But I find all of these rules and laws on cellphone usage to be pretty ridiculous, in my opinion, do see should just like they do a tablets just like they do with a lot of stuff. You know, give the people the ability to communicate just the way that the federal government does with emails in federal prison. And the argument that people usually make against that, is that, well, they’ll, you know, people in prison will continue their criminal enterprises with people on the outside using the phone and let me tell you That happens now. It happens using the regular phones and using the mail. And it’s a little more difficult that way. And that’s unfortunate, but it does happen. And you know, there’s really not much difference. criminal enterprises are going to criminal enterprise. And the question really becomes, how important is it for people to have communication in prison now, in the kind of work that I do, almost every bit of evidence we’ve gotten in these places like South Carolina when the riot happened in the LA riots in Mississippi with parchman in, you know, pretty much every time that we come up against really brutal prison conditions, Alabama, you know, I mean, where the DOJ declared that it was had to go in and declare that it was unconstitutional, even though that obviously has to go to court to be determined. You know, and in all these places, the reason we know what happened in those places is because of the cell phones and that’s The reason the real reason why the DRC spike is so hard is the last thing they want is transparency. And obviously on my side of the street, we want as much transparency as possible.

Unknown Speaker 44:11
crickey as the senate says,

Andy 44:15
this sounds completely silly to me is given this guy 1513 years for this 12 year, so that’s 12 years.

Unknown Speaker 44:21
Well, he, he was he was a repeat offender.

Larry 44:25
Yes. Well,

Josh 44:26
I mean, this is the this is the classic debate about sentencing enhancements and, and and habitual ‘s and stuff like that. You know, there’s a guy in Michigan who is in prison for like 60 years and never know he says that he’s in prison for pot which is technically sort of correct. He was arrested for pot, but he also when they went to his house after they arrested him, he had a previous felony and they found a handgun in his house and they found ammo in his house. So he the combination of his previous felony, the new felony The handgun and the ammo gave him a habitual. So he’s actually in prison for the habitual offense, even though the the actual instigating action was selling marijuana. And this happens all over the place. I mean, people think that whatever you got arrested for is all that your charges. And that’s that’s just not the case.

Larry 45:22
Well, I’m not I’m not I’m not condoning to sin us, but I’m just telling you that in my assessment before the court is and in the Supreme Court, it’s unlikely they’re going to grant the guy any relief, and he has no other remedy that I’m aware of other than possibly executive intervention. Now, I would certainly do that as well. I would I would apply for executive intervention, but when you apply for criminal clemency any type of sentence reduction, it’s a long shot, particularly one that’s going to potential vilifying the executive is that that he’s letting a career criminal goal is committing the sentence of a career criminal. But But I’m all for So don’t misunderstand my position.

Andy 46:02
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 274722744771 a 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. Well let’s move over to an article from the Marshall project federal prison factories kept running as Coronavirus spread. First off, I want to make a comment about this, I think it might be towards the end. Like if you’re going to be stuck in a dorm with a bunch of sick people may as well be stuck making stuck making uniforms and whatnot. I don’t, I don’t frankly see that there would be a difference between the two until you start showing symptoms and perhaps getting sick and you need further medical attention. But whether they’re in the dorm or make to go into work doesn’t seem like there’s actually a much difference, because it’s not like they’re going to be separated in the dorm. They’re just going to be all piled on top of each other like Josh was describing a minute ago.

Larry 47:29
Well, that was why I put the article in here because I wanted to raise that question from people who have been in prison. If you were trying to the both of you try to imagine that COVID-19 existed when you were in prison. And they asked you do you want to be continuing to go to your job at the factory? Or do you want to be sheltering in place here, which would you choose? Because I don’t even know how to begin to evaluate this.

Andy 47:54
I’m from my experience the beds if you’re in an open dorm, the beds if If you’re a very broad shouldered individual, you’re not even gonna be able to walk down between the bunks without turning sideways. And so I mean, they’re that close together, maybe they’re three ish feet apart. So you’re stacked on top of that. Some places will even have three three storey bunks. I mean, you’re just stacked in there like sardines. It’s literally insanity of how close everybody is together, you have 000 less than zero privacy.

Josh 48:26
I mean, obviously, it changes a little bit depending on your security level if you’re a very high security, but the vast majority of prisoners are at or people in prison or in a low security situation. They’re going to be warehouse like what Andy and I’ve talked about, you know, if you’re in a high security level, you’re probably going to be in a, you know, in a two person cell, but there’s very few people relative to the, you know, most people are in the hundred and 60 in the big warehouse situation that we were talking about. And so, yeah, I mean, when you’re in a warehouse situation, you know, I mean, being at work is probably much better than being in here. Yeah, I suppose depending on what your job is, I mean, so a lot of people’s job is to work in the unit. So there’s not really necessarily a break there.

Unknown Speaker 49:08
Well, this was specific about unit Corps. So I guess we should come in a barrel prisons for keeping your unit corps up and running. Because actually they’re keeping people possibly safer, perhaps, but

Andy 49:19
they’re not being the guards are coming into work. I think this is the one that says that they’re coming into work with face masks and gloves and whatnot that the workers are still be, you know, unprotected, so to speak.

Josh 49:30
We can’t afford to be buying those ridiculous expensive masks for people in prison for God’s sakes.

Andy 49:35
We have real people that need them, right.

Josh 49:38
Well, luckily, we have people like reforming Meek Mill who’ve been buying tons of masks for people in prison.

Unknown Speaker 49:46
Well, I you know, I just I just agree that space is what they need. We Louisiana’s got the highest incarceration rate in the world because it’s a first again among the states in the United States in the world. Yeah, yeah, very briefly, after some parole reforms and time counting reforms that we had in 2017, Louisiana dipped down below two third, actually, Oklahoma became first in Mississippi. Second, we were right behind, but now we’re back on top, and I didn’t get a lot of press. And so it’s no exception here. You know, Louisiana encourages sheriffs to build sheriff’s prisons rather than allocating funds centrally to build state prisons as other places do. And this was the subject of a very good, Cynthia Chang while she’s at the LA Times. Last I knew, but when she was at the New Orleans times Picayune, she did an eight part series on that called Louisiana incarcerated. And I was curious about what are the reasons why we have so much incarceration and it’s all the kind of social demographic reasons and so on and regional attitudes toward a lot of So on. But their, their ultimate conclusion was that it was a sheriff’s presence. You have the same people who have it’s like in the old days you had a cowboy who had a horse and a lasso and a corral and he ha round him up. You have the same thing now only it’s it’s the deputies and the handcuffs and the units and the same people who are making arrests on the street are also the one the sheriff who is trying to meet the bond indebtedness that he incurred to build this thing in the first place. And some of them are getting in trouble with that and the legislature is getting tired of of hearing about it really not not that much sympathy in the legislature anymore. That’s interesting. So they’ve got this perverse incentive to fill their beds and if they can fill keep them filled at the state right? Well, that’s the highest money they get as a February there’s a different bed rate for federal and then there’s a one for state and then the parishes below that and the city is the lowest so Once someone is actually sentenced, then that’s that’s the last time the local sheriff wants to see him get away because now they’re getting a higher rate for that bag because they’ve got to do so.

Andy 52:10
Let me let me throw this out there. There’s a there’s a sentence in there it says it’s a factory, social distancing is almost impossible in there as well. It’s no different than inmates working on the rec yard, or the dining hall, the rec yard, in my experience is where you could at least find some level of solitude, you could go find a corner on the fence or something like that you could find a place to be, quote unquote, alone.

Unknown Speaker 52:31
Absolutely. what’s our excuse for not giving them any PP,

Andy 52:35
a wallet, like Larry just said, we’re not going to spend I mean, we can’t get it for the people that are on the frontline working. We’re not going to get it to the quote unquote, civilians, we’re certainly not going to send it into prisons.

Josh 52:46
I mean, to be to be fair, hold on for a second. The feds have been there have been at least that I know for a fact that at FCI Elton, the people there did have masks at the very At least the incarcerated people that have masks, so I don’t think it’s universal that they don’t have at least masks.

Andy 53:07
I bet you everyone’s running around with a towel wrapped around their head.

Josh 53:09
Yeah, for sure. Yeah, they’ll do. I mean, one thing we do know is that, you know, people will come up with solutions on their own in prison. That’s which actually,

Andy 53:19
Larry, I wanted somebody emailed in a he may have copied you on it that I think there’s something in the Georgia code that says that, and I totally didn’t understand it, but you can’t wear a mask if you have some kind of conviction.

Josh 53:32
I think that was, I think that was in Louisiana, that code, but you can’t, but again, if the health authorities were telling you cover your face when you’re on in public, I would love to be on the defense end of one of those charges. I hope that no prosecutor would bring one but if they did, I would like to bring in a copy of the order and say well, or the recommendation because it’s not an order in most places yet, but, but I’d like to I’d like to say well, you don’t What are you? What do you want? These people are Doing what they’re being asked to do by governmental officials, officials,

Andy 54:03
you’re putting them in an impossible choice. I forget what the expression is, but you know, you’re being faced with, okay, I can keep my face uncovered and die or I can not comply and go to jail.

Josh 54:14
Well, you wouldn’t want to cast it that way. You’d say I’m trying to protect the public because they claim that it does more protection for the other sent does for you. Sure. But so you would not want a sex offender out recklessly jeopardizing the public health, but like so I would. I would. I would. If one of those cases ever comes here. I will sign up pro bono to help with the defense team on that because I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere.

Larry 54:38
I think you were looking for Hobson’s choice.

Josh 54:42
Your choice? Yep.

Unknown Speaker 54:44
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Andy 54:48
Blair, you put in another article from the appeal proposal inside Angola prison paints a troubling picture as Coronavirus scripts Louisiana, Louisiana. This is your your

Josh 54:59
wait. I spend a lot of time I’m just at this prison is that totally out of control in terms of what what they’re doing in every regard? Oh, Angola is a recipe for to outdo New Mexico with an IT data, right. That’s how bad it is and Angola.

Andy 55:14
And back to the thing that Josh was bringing up about the transparency side of things. I, I really think that there should be some way to protect the integrity, the security, the prison, but there has to be some sort of independent auditing that protects the human beings that are still in there. And I know that Americans generally don’t think of people that are inside the walls as human beings, but they probably still are considered human beings by most standards. And they should be protected from all of the abuse of treatment, including the over the top that the Coronavirus is.

Josh 55:44
Yeah, fam foundation and, you know, there’s something I suggested several years ago, but they’ve been suggesting that you know, that there’s independent you know, people who work in the prisons are independent of the DRC. And I’ve always thought that was a pretty Good idea that there should be almost like an ombuds that, you know, not just one, but a system of people who go in and are there throughout the day of the night to, you know, kind of walk through, you know, there are lots of ways that you could handle it. I personally, when I was in prison, I wanted more cameras, because cameras were our friends. They, you know, it was a lot of trouble for anyone to have to try to block the camera or stop the camera or whatever. But I just think the more transparency the better when you’re in a place where some people have absolute power and, and a dark corner can really mean death. And in the case of COVID-19, you know, I mean, transparency is really important because, you know, you really want to know what the situation people are facing is and you know, when we like I said in Michigan, we have over 200 cases in prisons right now, of people who’ve tested positive in about five or six facilities. I can only Imagine what it’s like in facilities like, you know, in a lot of the southern states like Angola or South Carolina or Mississippi where we had 28 deaths in the since December, in Mississippi in Mississippi prisons prior to COVID breaking out, you know, so these are some pretty just dire Florida’s another great example of places where we just some really dire conditions and really terrible place for a pandemic to happen. And I suspect, you know, a lot of people are really suffering as a result.

Larry 57:35
Hi.

Andy 57:37
Always good news. Larry, over at NBC News, Kentucky man released from prison by ex Governor Matt Bevin arrested on federal child porn charges. My only question to cover on this particular thing, isn’t it double jeopardy if someone gets charged twice for the same crime?

Unknown Speaker 57:56
Well, if the same entity charges them, yes, if they’re charged by different sovereign now, it would only be double jeopardy if that sovereign had a law that says that, that if if the same conduct is prosecuted by a separate sovereign, we won’t allow to be prosecuted. But as far as constitution, I saw deficient to prosecute someone for the same conduct as long as as a separate sovereign who’s prosecuting them. And I know kings chomping at the bit to clarify my answer.

Unknown Speaker 58:24
Oh, well, yeah, there there are, you know, double jeopardy isn’t as broad as I wish it were. A lot of really similar laws have different elements. And the jurisprudence, at least in Louisiana, is that if it has different elements, that it’s not double jeopardy to charge over this other thing. And, you know, we saw that in the the police riots where Rodney King got beat up, remember the police in Simi Valley or they the feds went after him after they were acquitted in the state court system and People thought, you know what, why is it that? Why isn’t that double jeopardy? And the reason was because it was a different offense. It was a federal civil rights offense, which is how they took jurisdiction. But I agree that that kind of thing is subject to abuse. I wish there were more respect for constitutional protections for individuals.

Josh 59:21
So this this guy is he benefited from from Bevins generosity after he lost the election. But he was too high profile and he generated too much attention and the feds he came on their radar, they decided to bring bring charges and it’s unfortunate, but from a constitutional perspective, I don’t see him having any remedy. I mean, he could certainly reach out to President Trump and he could take care of it because he has the power.

Andy 59:50
That’s an interesting point. So I would say anything for anybody

Unknown Speaker 59:53
for that. Yeah, you know, but I don’t know. I was surprised that he pardoned our Pio before they could even do Anything doing?

Unknown Speaker 1:00:00
Well, I was able to find something. Yeah, guys,

Josh 1:00:05
I just want to make sure I understand something since we got multiple lawyers here. In this case, and I may be totally wrong about this. But if I understand correctly, they’re charging and they’ll say there were like 10 different things they could have charged him for in the original incident, the originating incident, and they charged him for a set of them, and then he got pardoned for those sets. And I think, as I understood it, they’re now charging and for the other set from that same period. And so even in the case where it was the same sovereign, it wouldn’t be the same crime right. I’m confused with your question. Your question but but in this case, it’s a different sovereign. It’s, it’s the feds come in, but so, so try to try to specifically because I didn’t quite get the king. Did you understand what he was asking?

Unknown Speaker 1:00:52
Not completely. I think it’s because I don’t really know the facts. I’ve been kind of looking I’m scanning this in a CDL aggregate to see if I can Find the link to the article that you’re talking about.

Josh 1:01:02
This is easy to explain. So say I committed a bank robbery. And you could charge me with robbing the bank, you can charge me with having a deadly weapon, you can charge me with threatening people with a deadly weapon. And you choose to discharge me with robbing the bank and then I get pardon for robbing the bank. And then the prosecutor because we’ll say there’s no statute of limitation or whatever decides to charge me for the other behavior that wasn’t pardoned. Isn’t I think that’s what happened here.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:30
That is really weird, because I can tell you that in Louisiana that if they charge you with one thing out of a set of circumstances, and you if you plead guilty to it, you have double jeopardy protection, was this person pardon before he was convicted?

Josh 1:01:53
Well, no, he wasn’t pardoned at all he had is not talking about

Unknown Speaker 1:01:57
our Pio was you know, Okay, go ahead.

Josh 1:02:00
That’s not what I was saying. I was saying that there. He what I’m saying he was pardoned on a crime and then they charged him with other elements of the set of crimes that could have been charged but weren’t.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:10
I know, but what the extra fact I was looking for was he convicted before he was pardoned. Yes, because I don’t.

Josh 1:02:18
Yeah. Well,

Unknown Speaker 1:02:20
that to me double jeopardy should apply. And I don’t know.

Josh 1:02:26
It doesn’t apply because they went defense decided to charge him they had not previously charged him for the content.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:32
Okay. See, that’s the thing. It’s the whole Federal Way. federalism is turned into a gotcha. And that’s how they got those Simi Valley police.

Josh 1:02:40
Yeah. Yeah, like I said, he was too high profile and he came on the feds radar and they decided, well, if the Bevin is going to let him go long time served, he didn’t Park them, he committed him. If Ben is gonna let him go in a state, that’s nice, but we’re going to come and use our sovereign power so we’re going to prosecute him for the federal court. Which was the exact same conduct and they could do that.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:03
Yeah. And that’s that’s what happened with those police in California.

Josh 1:03:07
Now, my problem with this story wasn’t necessarily any of that. It was the way that a lot of the news media reported it because they tried to make it sound like, you know, after Bevin had pardoned him that he had committed a new crime and was getting arrested for it, which is not accurate. He was being charged again for the same crime set from I think was what was it? What was the year? 2014? Yeah, several years max. And that’s the unfortunate reality of the press seldom gets their reporting. Right. And it’s unfortunate, but there’s too often sloppy, worked out and and it’s, it’s, it’s the reality of the business. Yeah. Yeah. But it’s really unfortunate in this instance, because we’re at a time right now where we’re pushing across the country, for people to increase computations. And increase pardons. And so in these instances when the press tries to make previous pardons and commutations look bad by suggesting that they lead to recidivism when actually they didn’t. That’s, that can be really damaging to the move to try to push for more commutations, for instance, because of Cova. I agree with you, Josh, I agree with you completely. I wish I had more of a solution for the press. But unfortunately, like a capitalist system, there is no solution unless you want more governmental intervention.

Andy 1:04:27
Hang on, let me ask Mike, Mike in chat if he would like more governmental intervention. That’s an inside joke. He said.

Josh 1:04:37
Well, I think the other alternative is for people to you know, essentially vote with their pocketbook for which press sources they think are most reliable. You know, I mean, we do have some influence on the press because we’re the were the people who purchased their product, but no one knows that this was an inaccurate story. And that press outlet is not good until I mean, I would be welcome. If you could reach out to them and say you people got it all wrong. But they’re not likely to go back and say, whoops, we got this all wrong. And we presented. We We are the public that saw this as far as they’re concerned, the guy committed another offense. Yeah, but there’s hundreds of examples. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. They do that they do this all the time. They ruin people’s lives all the time. No, what I’m saying is there’s hundreds of examples of times where we have raised tackles and gotten people educated about what the issues were. I mean, there was that time, fairly recently. There was I care Oh, sorry. I forgot that the nature of the story, I think was one of those Halloween panic stories where a whole bunch of people jumped on someone for making that case, and then a lot more people in the public got educated as a result, you know, I mean, by bringing attention to something we do educate folks. And and I’m in agreement with that, but it’s, it’s gonna be a very slow process, because most people when they watch the news, or even if they use alternative means, they assume that what they’re watching is true. If you went out took a poll said, you watch the evening news tonight. How much of that did you consider to be untrue and unreliable? Most people don’t watch the news to say, Oh, I just got a bunch of unreliable information. I spent a half hour of my time watching junk. They consider it to be reliable information. That’s why they tune in.

Andy 1:06:15
That’s totally why they tune into that one. I happen to be behind somebody the other day and they said cnn is fake news. And, you know, I, I’m just baffled by those statements just baffled by it.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:28
I fired off an email to the online editor of our local NBC affiliate, the same one that that article was on. And the cat the heading is why have trials and I say when k PLC can simply declare the headline that a quote man beat his father to death and quote, we’re so far he’s only arrested for a second degree murder on suspicion of having done it with some pretty incriminating details and so on. But really, they shouldn’t say that he beat his father that They know that jurors break the rules about looking at media on the cases that they sit on. And you know, and other Western countries France, for example, which is a free speech country, that kind of conclusory reporting just isn’t done lots of times they don’t even name a person who is merely arrested or investigated for something because of the presumption of innocence. You know, our press enjoys first amendment speech rights, but they’ve become very complacent about it. When they do this kind of thing. They shouldn’t do it. They should strictly here to it’s alleged or they say what a person was arrested for. But they shouldn’t just declare the headline that the man beat his father to death. It’s a circumstantial case, I had everything in a confession. So I do that and they don’t ever answer, you know,

Josh 1:07:49
but I try. God. Since we’re starting to run up against the clock. Did you have a chance to review those two cases? The Supreme Court stuff because if you do We’re gonna drop the other articles that just and talk about the the death row case that’s gotten the attention and the and then sort of Ayers about their individualized articulable suspicion. And that’ll be about Yes. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:08:15
well, yeah, I read those and wrote some notes about them.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:19
Well, then then, Andy unless you have a particular liking to the other articles wicked wicked skipped, so we’ll have enough time. Perfect.

Andy 1:08:25
Yeah. So so the article is The Statesman is a second death row inmate. Excuse me, second tech, Texas death row case gets extra tension from the supreme court justice.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:37
Yeah, and I’m not really sure what’s going on here. So King filson.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:42
Okay, well, that’s the one Halperin versus de Davis and this is just I guess, the the warden because it’s a post conviction relief. This is a death penalty case the guy had that the robbery that was fatal. These are some guys who had escaped from prison and it’s in Texas, where They actually do succeeded executing people but this fellow’s issues are not done and I think that he will not be Halper will not be executed anytime soon while this plays out. This is the what about the comments by the judge with the Jewish fellow on Halperin on death row, right. This is a mimic that Okay, yeah, well, it was just really crazy. I wrote that I wrote just Wow, did they ever have the goods on this? former judge Vickers Cunningham. I mean, it’s it’s crazy. I mean, the thing ought to be read. It’s far more egregious than I thought it was going to be until I got into it. The things that this guy said on a regular basis that I guess that became known, and that’s why he maybe isn’t a judge anymore. I it’s got the Supreme Court did not grant cert. And it was interesting that Justice Sotomayor didn’t call What she wrote a dissent, she just called it a statement. And some of the things she said gave me possibly some comfort that this has some further channels to go through in the Texas State courts and I think probably to the US Supreme Court again and again I predicted predicted won’t be executed anytime soon. He’s got some due process to be gone through, which is part of the reason why they denied search Harare, they they look for things like that. And if something isn’t all the way done lots of times they just won’t take it until it’s in the right procedural posture. So, but I don’t know if you waited for the for your listeners to an example of some of the things this judge had said.

Josh 1:10:44
Well, we do But wait, wait, would you when you said Didn’t we weren’t careful? Did grant cert so just for the people who have not heard the term before that means that a petition is filed wanting Supreme Court review and it requires at least for justice. SR GRI that’s worthy of their time that there’s some territories it doesn’t meritorious that’s not the right word. There’s something compelling that they would like to hear that they grant cert. And then when you said it isn’t right, try to expand on that. Because what I interpret from that was that, that they might be interested in it. But the KC to further develop a four day the pre cert petition was pre material. Did you did you interpret it that way?

Unknown Speaker 1:11:26
Yeah, I interpret it that from what she said, I didn’t read what the other judges said. They may not have said anything but but search

Unknown Speaker 1:11:35
anything out of the cert denied?

Unknown Speaker 1:11:37
Yeah, search denied. Well, what what she said she pointed out that there were some state court proceedings that had not been completed in which he would be able to address these issues in before the judges in which the thing was originally tried. I mean, this is a judge that tried the case in which the man was convicted and condemned to death. And it was just as racially egregious and sectarian Lee egregious as you could ever imagine. So the idea that it won’t make any difference for this man at all, I’m not ready to say that they’re there yet. And I don’t think she says she’s pointing out that this can be taken up. And then that would be a reason for the Supreme Court not to. So first of all, they only they only grow they don’t grant cert just to keep someone from being executed unfairly. And if it were only about that, then it might not matter what they said. But then how can how can they say that there wouldn’t be prejudice in a proceeding in which these kinds of things were regularly done. These are things that that were openly racially and sectarian, the bias that he would say to political groups he addressed and so on, and to his campaign teams and so on the different things that he was in. But if the Supreme Court They don’t want to grant certiorari on cases that they ultimately wouldn’t need to hear. And if there’s something else that hasn’t happened yet, that may handle the case another way, then that’s a reason for them not to grant cert. And they also look for reasons why they should grant cert and I don’t think on the list. Well, they they always have a catch all that to, you know, to prevent a manifest and justice. But, you know, that would swallow up the rule. They’re really looking for times when they have to weigh in on something in order to settle the law on a particular point that will have a wide impact on other cases, and it’s hard for me to think that this case will be that I don’t think they’ll get very many examples that go as far as what this guy did.

Josh 1:13:49
This is just just horrendous judicial bias. But But yeah, you explain that very well, at least to be is something’s not right if there’s a remedy below the Supreme Court. It’s not your option, because you’d like a faster remedy.

Unknown Speaker 1:14:04
Yeah, no, not at all. No, they’re slow, slow, slow. And this guy, you know, is playing the long game? I would say he was. I think he was sentenced in 2003. The offense happened in 2000.

Josh 1:14:17
So well, that that was a point. I’ll put it in here for so. So this is this is a case of judicial bias. And the supreme court may give us some guidance after he, after he exhaust all this state remedies in terms of what constitutes judicial bias because people think, mistakenly, that if the judge gets angry with them, but that’s a bias, well, it isn’t necessarily biased. Judges are human so they can be angry and frustrated with a with a person but that doesn’t, that doesn’t translate to a bias, but this is pretty egregious bias with his judge hat, or at least final appearance.

Unknown Speaker 1:14:53
And I will say it’s not unusual for a death penalty case in particular to be before the The US Supreme Court repeatedly. And the one of the last things that Sotomayor says that if if Mr. Halperin is unhappy with the way that Texas courts ultimately rule, then he can still bring his claims back to the United States Supreme Court.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:16
so fantastic. Josh, did you have any doubt on that one? I don’t. I didn’t mean to cut you out.

Larry 1:15:24
Oh, no, it seemed like more y’all. So you’re all sweet spots.

Josh 1:15:29
Well, then y’all go do your legal thing there.

Andy 1:15:31
Yeah. Then let’s move over to reason calm with Sotomayor upgrades SCOTUS for a decision that destroys Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that requires individualized suspicion. The Justice filed a lone dissent in Kansas vs. Glover. I got nothing. So far above my paygrade I can’t even like make it through the title without like, no, I got nothing.

Josh 1:15:55
If I it’s a real surprise that the Supreme Court decided the Fourth Amendment doesn’t matter. cover something

Unknown Speaker 1:16:02
truly shocked.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:05
It’s sad if the Fourth Amendment, no Fourth Amendment violation to stop a vehicle because it’s registered owner is under suspension, regardless of who is actually driving the car when it is stopped by police. Therefore a car registered to a suspended driver or any unlicensed driver is a no Fourth Amendment zone until the registered owners license is restored there there’s I almost have nothing to say it’s incomprehensible that mere registration to an unlicensed or suspended person is sufficient for a stop without when they could easily look a little further to see Well, does that person behind the wheel look like this suspended person, you know, and they’re and it’s a pretty record is new, they don’t care they’re not willing to impose a duty on the officer to try to get an idea whether the person driving is actually the one who’s on the registration. It just blows a big unnecessary hole in the fourth amendment protection in my view, and I’m shocked not that that didn’t prevail but that what shocks me the most is that there’s only one dissent myself and I was I was I was

Josh 1:17:28
gonna get their cake this is this is supposed to be for the liberals I would expect it more decisions so I mean, I don’t have a lot of hope for though for for the conservative side to do the right thing.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:40
Because this kind of thing does matter to him.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:46
But But I’m just I’m disappointed that the liberals didn’t do anything about this either.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:50
Yeah, yeah. Where Boyce ginsburg on this. So

Andy 1:17:55
Larry, we covered

Josh 1:17:56
the Fourth Amendment is so long and so deep And it’s been going on for so many years, that it’s even eroded what’s left of the of the liberals on the court? It’s just, I mean, it’s like a hollow show, in my opinion.

Andy 1:18:10
But last weekend, we covered an article about Sotomayor. She’s like, she threw her hands up saying, I’m not going to descend on these cases anymore, because no one’s going to stick with me. So yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:18:19
I remember that. And that’s sad. You know, I was heartened to when Kevin Ah, and Gorsuch and Thomas, we got all of them in Tim’s versus Indiana, all that excessive fines clause thing and which was in the criminal setting. Even though the state of Indiana pretended it wasn’t criminal, it was just a civil thing. They cut right through that. And so that that was heartening. But then you know, what we see happening now is not so hard. I mean, now I wish we’re still waiting for unanimous verdicts in Louisiana. It’s been put out that’s Ramos versus Louise. It’s been put off and it’s been put off but that could come down maybe on April. The two 29th and if not, then then June 29 is the latest. It could be I preserve the issue, the constitutional issues in every case that I have to take to trial. And so I kind of welcome this hiatus that we have in criminal jury trials right now, because I don’t want any of my client anymore to be subjected to non unanimous convictions.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:22
So well, I’m disheartened about, about the whole whole thing. I mean, I can see how they got to that decision, if you want to be totally closed minded, but but it I would, I don’t know what to say.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:37
Yeah, you

Unknown Speaker 1:19:38
know, if an officer can’t really get a good look at the driver, but if they could, but I mean, there was just no effort at all to impose any duty on them to ascertain that before pulling over the car, that the person driving it is the registered owner. It’s just an excuse to do something that they shouldn’t be doing. They did it for a completely different reason, most likely.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:03
Go ahead and do you’re trying to fire a question in here.

Andy 1:20:06
I actually I figured that we had a beat this one to death already as well. And we can we can go to a voicemail message if

Unknown Speaker 1:20:14
let’s do it.

Andy 1:20:16
But we before we get to that one, Larry, did you see that a link was posted about for the people that who’s eligible for the 1200 bucks. Can we can we cover that real quick?

Unknown Speaker 1:20:28
Sure, as far as I understand, we will have a link in the show notes. But there’s no there’s no prohibition on the of the direct payment on the on the 1200 dollars related to convictions for any type including sexual offenses, and then they’re supposed to be already launched. I think TurboTax is already launched where you can register if you don’t normally file a return, you can register your bank account. And I think the IRS, I’m not clear if they have launched or about to launch their website where you could go register your bank account information so you can get your stimulus payments. Esther, and I

Josh 1:21:03
don’t think the federal

Unknown Speaker 1:21:04
one is up yet. I’m glad to know TurboTax has it? I’m sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Josh.

Josh 1:21:08
Just to be clear, the small business loan part, however, does have requirements. There’s two parts. There’s one set of loans where if you’ve been convicted within five years or on parole and probation within five years you’re excluded. And the other section, I can’t remember what which what the names of the different sections are. You have to register if you’ve ever even have to essentially check the box. If you’ve ever been convicted, it’s not entirely certain. They haven’t explained if that means you’re excluded or not. So in theory, on one side, it’s a five year exclusion on the other side, it could be for every single person

Andy 1:21:44
Well, I guess it comes on the heels of a conversation that we had after the show last week with a very, very loyal listener who was he hasn’t earned enough income to file taxes in the last several years and he was worried or wondering and Larry being the know what all of all things and I mean that in a very positive way, I don’t mean that as a majority of at all, that you were explaining to him that, as far as we know, and here’s the evidence to support it that all of our people get the 1200 bucks.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:09
Now, here’s

Josh 1:22:10
what I mean, there is an exclusion there, what did they get rid of? I think you get 600 bucks if you’re if you didn’t pay 10 Oh, no, no, you still get the 1200. But here’s the hypothetical. I’d like to propose. Social Security recipients are supposed to be included in this as well. With that are 2.3 million people incarcerated. If they’re serving a sentence, they lose their right to Social Security until they’re released until you can take your to your you can show social security as you didn’t escape that you were actually released. You’re reinstated to your benefits. So hypothetically, since you’re not receiving your Social Security benefits while you’re in prison, they’ve been suspended. But yet, you’re entitled to this because social security is going to give them the information. If you receive benefits in the previous year. They’re going to give up your 1099 and your banking information was the people in prison and I just shut the door. They won’t now, because of our millions of listeners, they’re going to pick up on this. What was the people in prison get a direct deposit of 1200 dollars while they’re suspended from receiving their social security benefits?

Andy 1:23:18
So there you go. So we all get it. Well,

Josh 1:23:21
I just a hypothetical. I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to it. But say you were sentenced in October of 2019. So you would be receiving a social security 1099 statement that you receive benefits through through October. They have that system where they reward correctional facilities for reporting numbers. So everybody reports social security numbers dutifully so they can get their intercept money. For for reporting, the person who’s incarcerated for understand that you don’t get it in pretrial detention on Social Security, you do lose on SSI, but on Social Security, so you get your 1099 so Social Security turns retention. 99 over to the IRS say that you collected umpteen thousand dollars of social security benefits. Well, clearly, until they suspended you you had a bank account, and you’re getting the 1099. So is the IRS got to also know that you’re in prison? And is there any preclusion even if they do know that you’re prevented from getting the 1200 dollars, that’s one that I just have to think about while we’re doing the program. You are

Andy 1:24:24
always in you are always looking for the how systems work and trying to see if there aren’t, I don’t want to say the loopholes. But you just want to see how the stress tests I guess

Josh 1:24:32
I cannot help myself.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:36
I had not heard of any such disability, but it wouldn’t surprise me because usually, you know, the people who are most in need are always excluded. You know, I get any reform that’s enacted in Louisiana always excludes violent offenders and sex offenders, even those that are non violent like the carnal knowledge. Well,

Josh 1:24:55
well, Social Security has already suppressed their monthly payment if they’ve been notified So they’ve already suppressed their their their their their monthly payment. But if this legislation didn’t create such a disability, it was saying like if they get the 1099 that says, this person received benefits out, suppose they’ve been in prison for eight years. Well, they won’t be getting a 1099 because they’ve been suppressed for the eight years. So they would be getting a 1099. And so I understand that that’s how they’re going to get the information for the benefits. But what about the people who who drew benefits in 2019? And who were in prison now?

Unknown Speaker 1:25:30
Yeah, I do not know the answer. One issue came to my mind as soon as they said they were going to do it this way. And I thought it was very slick on the part of the federal government, but they’re, they’re messing up by being so slow to get to provide a way for people to give their routing number and their account numbers. It looks like TurboTax that private sector again is beat them to it. But I have actually gone to great lengths if I owe the IRS $1. I would go And buy a money order for $1 and send it by snail mail. Because I did not want them to have my routing number and my account number I knew an attorney who apparently he owed him a lot of money as a partner law firm where I worked and he sent them a check for less than they thought he owed him and they just suck the rest of it right out of his account. So I have avoided I haven’t wanted them to have that information. But now they’ve created a situation where even holdouts like me would want them to have that information. I’ve been looking for a way to apply it, I’m still waiting for them create the portal. So

Josh 1:26:38
I think it’s very closer it has been created, but certainly TurboTax has created the option. And as far as as far as we know, everybody is going to get that unless they’re dependent. And then they’ll get the person claiming as a dependent against $600 for the dependent But otherwise, if you’re if you have a social security number that authorizes work, It’s not just a student something Friday purposes if you’re if you’re a citizen or resident you’re going to get your 1200 dollars

Unknown Speaker 1:27:07
right and even if you don’t you know provide the means for direct deposit then they eventually mail you a check.

Andy 1:27:16
Well, there you go. So that’s in the show notes for anybody that might come across this that anyway you’re getting your 1200 bucks almost almost assuredly.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:24
Okay, well, let’s let’s wrap this thing up. We are we’re long as usual. You got it.

Josh 1:27:29
You got a voicemail. I have to hear that.

Andy 1:27:32
Yes, and I haven’t edited at all but I listen to part of it and send it Okay, so I let it go and here we go. And I can guarantee you it’s not going to play the first time I do this. I can almost guarantee you. Nope, it is not give me one second to switch. So one sec.

Josh 1:27:47
Well, I can I can do a shout. You had one job.

Andy 1:27:51
I know. Right? I know.

Josh 1:27:53
I can. I can do a shout out to two very fine people that listen to registry myself. After commenting about not having face masks last week, I have received a homemade face mask from a listener. And I’ve received two face mask from another listener

Andy 1:28:15
and apparently they love you because I didn’t get a damn thing.

So I write

Josh 1:28:21
I appreciate I appreciate very much the facemask and I have been utilizing. I haven’t utilized I just got the ones in the mail today, but I got the homemade one. And I’ve been utilizing it already.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:33
I found that three in 95 among my tools, they totally astounded me did not expect it to be that but there was so I don’t have to use a red bandana anymore.

Andy 1:28:47
Alright, so hopefully this will work this time. Here is a voicemail from Charles.

Larry 1:28:52
Hi Andy and Larry with the corona virus restricting everyone’s movements and making life Very difficult. I’m putting people into the circumstance of virtual religious services, studying online and working remotely on the internet. Is there a argument a very important argument to the authorities to say registrants need access to the internet without restrictions and reporting their identifiers? And that social media networks like Facebook should lift the restrictions against registrants because this global pandemic has proven that life is not just in the physical realm, but also is on the online realm and being on the internet is very important, especially in times like these

things So great question.

Unknown Speaker 1:30:02
Thank you, Charles.

Unknown Speaker 1:30:03
Think I’m gonna let let the brighter people than me. So

Unknown Speaker 1:30:11
here’s where you can help Larry. What’s the name of the North Carolina case?

Unknown Speaker 1:30:16
I am

Unknown Speaker 1:30:17
backing him. Yeah, that’s it. Packing him already said and it’s interesting it was it was. Even the dissenting judges agreed that the public squares the public square, they thought that the the majority of five, the conservatives didn’t dissent, but they didn’t subscribe to this part of the opinion that said that the internet is like the public square of today. Well, I I like it that even the conservatives acknowledge that you have to allow free speech and discourse and the right peaceably to assemble and all this to take place in the actual public street. In Louisiana, we’ve got Exclusion Zones in the criminal code that actually criminalize being on the street in quite a few places. So at least that, but five members of the court in packing ham said that the internet is the new public square. So yes, there is an argument. If they don’t immediately, you know, the powers that be don’t immediately succumb to rational arguments. They have to be hammered and sued usually and state legislatures, I find the only way that we can bring them to the table on any issue affecting registrants is to defeat them in a court and in this state that would have to be federal. Josh?

Josh 1:31:47
Yeah, you know, I mean, to me, the interesting thing is always the has nothing to do with this part of the story, but is that you know, yes, the digital The internet has become the Digital Public Square or whatever, but Most of the places you can gather in the Digital Public Square are actually corporately owned. And to me, that’s the interesting thing, because we usually think of free speech in terms of protection from government intrusion and into free speech, but like, for instance, with Twitter, or Facebook or Instagram, I mean, a lot of us who listen to this podcast are, you know, excluded by the company that owns Facebook and Instagram from being having accounts on Facebook and Instagram. And, you know, there’s that’s a whole different thing when you know that there’s no protection theoretically, against that. And it’s one of the real problems with the idea of moving to a Digital Public Square, because, you know, it’s not the same as an actual public square that’s owned by the city or whatever.

Unknown Speaker 1:32:50
Yeah, and that’s right. That’s an important point that I didn’t address it all that as far as the companies that provide these formats, they are not state actors. So There is no 1983 action that can be brought against them. We should try to win their hearts and minds. There is a little bit of precedent for making privately owned forums have the rights for public square. airports and malls have been there. There’s older precedent saying that these rights apply to those places. It’s still a problem, how do they make them be state actors? The matter might address itself to legislation and things other than just legal action that you can force somebody to stop doing something. But it is, I think that they they have become so pervasive it is reasonable to look at regulating these four men This is not the libertarian view, okay. But they are in some respects like public utilities except with a public utility. It’s heavily regulated, but they’ve got a got a built in profit and A captive set of customers, the internet companies, you’ve got some huge, huge actors that are about on avoidable. They’re not necessarily true monopolies. But I think that antitrust legislation that just doesn’t seem to be enforced anymore. But I think the if the government were of a mind to get these big providers to fall in line on things like this, they could certainly make it happen. But they have government for the most part doesn’t want to make these things happen. And so there they’ve got a good excuse not to require private actors like these platforms to to lighten up and let more people participate. Now, one of the things that the caller said was without restriction. Now that’s the part that I don’t think is ever going to fly for registrants.

Andy 1:34:58
He actually is now Doing follow up, could ISP exclude registrants since they are privately owned? I don’t, I can’t imagine that an ISP would exclude you. Like, I don’t. They don’t care if you pay your 50 bucks a month for your internet, they’re going to turn your lights on.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:14
Yeah.

Larry 1:35:15
But I do think they could be just like any private company could. Oh, choices. I mean, you could say it’s public accommodation. I think maybe, but I don’t know. What do you think Larry?

Josh 1:35:27
Well, depends on if you if you believe in that crazy notion of evolving standards of decency. Yeah, if you if you believe in that liberal mumbo jumbo, you would say yes, that for the founders would never have anticipated such a situation and of course, the Constitution would would cover private actors. But if you take a well, by golly, those words, they mean what they say and they may know more than what they say. Then then clearly, as a constitutional claim, you don’t have one But we can we can by statute make this a public accommodation, that that’s how we’ve got the public accommodations. We have now the laws that were put into statute back in the liberal era. In the 60s. We and

Unknown Speaker 1:36:12
it’s stretched a little bit out of shape for what it originally was public accommodation initially was limited to

Unknown Speaker 1:36:21
hotels, motels, and eating place.

Josh 1:36:24
But but we’ve actually been going backwards to the people that have argued from the religious side, they’ve argued that well, by golly, I shouldn’t have to make no cake for somebody I don’t want to not agree with what they do at spy right by religious freedom. And I asked him I said, Well, okay, I’m in that your religious freedom, how are you going to feel when you walk into a Middle Eastern old hotel and they say, but we do come to you because you do not have a male escort? Are you going to defend that person’s religious freedom and they magically do it a complete about face when you pose that question to them, they say, Well, this is a Christian. country so

Unknown Speaker 1:37:04
pissed off ever like heaven? I can

Josh 1:37:08
just see. Why would it pop? I hope you don’t have a very big listenership in New York. Why would that piss anyone off?

Unknown Speaker 1:37:16
The same reason?

Unknown Speaker 1:37:23
Exactly. I

Josh 1:37:24
did that to illustrate the point. When you go into an establishment, this owned by someone who doesn’t look and talk exactly like you, and they have a religious freedom, now they express it in their dialect that they speak from. I want to know what your reaction is going to be. That’s a good one. Yeah. Yeah. Your point was a good one. I think what people would have checked to was the the stereotypical accent probably

Unknown Speaker 1:37:53
that senator from New York who did the judge Lance Ito imitation

Josh 1:38:00
Japanese Americans test the realistic picture of who owns the hotels of this country. I can’t help the reality but but most rodenticide hotels, the majority are saying that accent was a realistic accent. But you’re likely you’re very likely to encounter someone from India or somewhere in the Middle East that has a very different view of religious freedom than what you have. And if you are homeless,

with a great point,

if you’re all about if you’re all about religious freedom, then you would turn around and you would say yes, he should be able to say I will rent to you but magically you would not say that. And that’s why your argument is so flawed about religious freedom.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:45
And I think having a storefront is what makes those places more vulnerable. If it was a you know, wedding cakes made in my home by appointment or whatever, he probably have a stronger deposition.

Andy 1:39:01
All right, we got to shut it down. We’re done. We’ve killed it off. Josh. As always, you are a great friend and I truly appreciate you you coming on board. And please tell everybody you’re on the Twitter everywhere you are like 10,000 a day do you post how many times a day on Twitter do those? Same number stop. It’s an insane number. And where can they find you?

Josh 1:39:24
My Twitter is at Joshua B. Whoa. And my podcast is decarceration nation. We just have a new episode with strangely enough when we were talking about fake news and CNN. CNN commentator Abdul el Sayed was on this week’s does he speak with an accent like Larry just described? No, no, he does. Okay. But he does probably believe in religious freedom. So we’re real good there.

Andy 1:39:47
And King Alexander. How can people reach out to you and Do you have anything that you would like to plug or share any big cases that you’re working on that you could even divulge anything exciting, he doesn’t. He doesn’t want anybody to reach out

Unknown Speaker 1:39:59
to him. As a public

Unknown Speaker 1:40:00
defender,

Unknown Speaker 1:40:03
but but I do answer mail if people sent me they can email me at ek Alexander at PDO law.org.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:13
Very good.

Andy 1:40:14
And Larry, as always, you are the master and I greatly appreciate and enjoy the time we spend. And that’s all I got. Thanks, everyone for joining tonight. Have a great night.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:24
Thanks. Thanks, Andy. Good night.

Transcript of RM122: Please Show Your Felon ID Card

Posted on April 6, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM122: Please Show Your Felon ID Card

Andy 0:11
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 122 of registry matters. Larry, do you have your mascot?

Larry 0:35
I do not have anything other than a few dust masks.

Andy 0:39
I was thinking about this and I was like okay, so you know they’re suggesting that you wear one at all times now. Okay, great. Whatever. I don’t have anything I don’t have a bandana. I don’t have any masks to cut the grass. I don’t have anything that I could put on my face other than like tie a T shirt around my head.

Larry 0:55
That’s probably about all I have the dust mask probably no more effective than that. But I think it’s interesting, I was struggling with the weather advice the whole time because they were saying don’t wear a face mask unless you’re caring for someone who has the virus or unless you’re have the virus to protect others. And that caring for a person really troubled me. Because if the person is able to excrete droplets that you would pick up with a matte mask would protect you. If you’re caring for a person, obviously, you wouldn’t be trying to protect them from getting it if they already have it. And I couldn’t understand how it would protect you from their droplets, but it wouldn’t protect you from droplets that would be greeted by people who maybe had not been diagnosed. yet. It seems like to me if it’ll protect from droplets that would protect from profits no matter who’s, who’s who the person was. I can’t think of a nice way to say that that was a screening the droplets.

Unknown Speaker 1:52
The infected plague caring person.

Larry 1:54
Yeah, it’s still I was troubled and then those have been listening for a long, long time. Now. I’ve, I’ve questioned how the things that we’ve been able to do a long time ago we’ve, we somehow can’t do now. And no example was ending homelessness and in 1970, by the 1970s, we didn’t have homelessness, getting to the moon by 1969. And then there was an effort underway in the 90s. To get back to the moon, they discovered it would take longer to get back to the moon, if we were to go, didn’t took in original effort to get to the moon. And I’m thinking, well, where did the knowledge go? If we could figure out how to get there? We figured out at 1918 the US was on the cutting edge of several cities and local locations around the country required mass as the evidence or articles I’ve been reading unless they are to suggest that it was very effective. And then the US that knowledge would have gone down to the evaporation. So we we knew 100 years ago, that people should be wearing masks, and there was a benefit from wearing masks, and then the whole continent of Asia. Every time they have an infection. You practically everyone wearing a mask, at least the people who make it on TV, they’re in public. But yeah, we drop the idea of of covering our faces. And it seems like that was basic knowledge we learned 100 years ago.

Andy 3:10
I wonder I’ve been thinking a lot about this since you brought this up to me a couple of days ago, that I wonder if a lot of this doesn’t come from a completely disjointed message from the top down of how serious this is. When this all started, we knew about it in China, and it being called the Chinese virus. And so it’s like it’s not going to hit America because we’re exceptional. What like, no worries. We knew in December that it was it was happening, and then we saw things escalate. And both us and South Korea detected in country on the same day, South Korea ramped up their entire infrastructure to deal with it and social distancing and masks and all that stuff. What do we do?

Larry 3:53
Well, I don’t know. I’m going to probably let my liberal progressive listeners if they have any doubt But I’m not going to be quite that that bizarre, you know, the United States is a vast, vast nation compared to South Korea in terms of territory. And we have we have we have vastly different different governmental structures. There’s the federal government, this country was designed to be a very weak government and the listeners out there don’t say, well, gee, he, He’s nuts, cuz we have a very strong central government. But that’s not the design. The design is for the states and local governments to do the most of the government, except for those powers are specifically reserved for the federal government. So I’m going to let my my progressives down to think to what I’m saying that I don’t think the state local people did nearly enough. I don’t think that there was enough planning between hospital administrators, I don’t think there was enough local preparedness done. I don’t think that there was given giving thought to an epidemic. I think that most of the state and locals wash their hands on it’s kind of like the federal disaster relief. Before we had the FEMA that we We had very little federal we had a previous predecessor called the Office of Emergency Preparedness, which was mostly dealing with civil defense but with with the threat of a nuclear attack, but, but, but but responding to disasters has morphed into a federal responsibility. And, again, not so sure that that’s what the founders intended. And I think I think that I hear so much criticism of President of the administration. And I wish that locals and the state governors are going to be so critical of the of the President, I wish they would be a little bit more self examination, examine it, do some self examination of themselves in terms of what they could have done better, and what they will be definitely doing better going forward. And so I’ve been a little, I’ve been a little bit disturbed by the constant constant barrage of criticism. I mean, it’s difficult to look ahead and say we’re gonna have a pandemic in 2020. And we want to buy millions and millions of ventilator so we’re talking about millions, hundreds of millions to take hundreds and hundreds of millions of masks to have to To have the have to be able to ever ever American. And we want to stockpile these and we want to put them in. Can you imagine the political sell that that would be? Okay now, Mr. Mr. President, you want to spend $17 billion for emergency preparedness for a pandemic? And now, what evidence do you have, there’s going to be a panic. But while we know there will be some time, well, I mean, politically, that’s just not an easy sell. It really is.

Andy 6:24
I won’t disagree with you there, especially you know, capitalistic nation, we want to spend money on something that maybe is going to happen. But we, we did see this coming for people to potentially go out and buy their toilet paper a month in advance, not just wait till all of a sudden, the day flipped. And Trump went from being very dismissive of it, and you can find clips of him for a month long. Oh, man, there’s only eight cases in the country. Oh, that was this is gonna blow us right by and then all of a sudden getting on television, his hands clasps on the desk saying oh my god, we now have something that’s a serious threat to our country. It was a one day flip. I think that was in the middle of March when he gave that US National address.

Larry 7:05
Well, I’m thinking that we can have March 12 13th in that room because when I had my own epiphany I had largely been not because Trump said it was. I had largely thought that since I had lived through so many health scares in my lifetime, I was under the same notion that was overreaction and I was very dismissive myself until a particular weekend or what I read all the information I could get. And again, it’s constantly changing, for example, the mask recommendations, but I read all the information I forget. And I said, Wow, this is this is very serious because it’s, it has the potential to be a pandemic, and it has the potential to hurt a lot of people. And it has when there’s no vaccine, there’s no treatment. I quickly Brenda can attest to how I went from being dismissive to saying, gee, I was wrong. This is this is serious stuff. We don’t know who was advising the president. We don’t know. We don’t know. We know that the President tends to be a dismissive person. Everything is in his vocabulary is the greatest thing he tends to, to over state and like the greatest economy ever destroyed, not the greatest economy ever. It’s a good economy. He inherited that economy. That was a good, good economy at the time he went, he was sworn in. But But he hates he tends, I mean, he’s just he’s just not a person who his persona doesn’t allow him to be to be this. This is doom and gloom. I mean, he’s, that’s just not who he is. And I’m not magically becoming a Trump fan. But But I would like to be fair to the President. Tell

Andy 8:45
us that you actually have like a Trump plushie at home and you sleep right?

Unknown Speaker 8:51
Well, it’s I’ve been home bound more i’ve i’ve seen more and more stuff that just, if I were in Trump’s position, I would be reacting the way he’s really reacting to some of it. I mean, I saw a cost. I didn’t put it in. But I saw Acosta with just just constantly, just constantly from CNN for those who don’t know who he is because our audience probably watches Fox more than CNN, but, but Acosta just, he won’t even let the president finish the question. He asked him. Yeah, he starts biting Finally, the Trump has to say, Well, excuse me, let me finish. You know, if you don’t like the answer, you need to at least let the person finish it. He he just so rude. And he hates he wanted to he was asking him about a czar who’s the health Health and Human Services Secretary who said the biggest thing that scares him is that there might be might be a pandemic. Well, if you’re the Secretary of Health and Human Services, that would be something that you would spend a lot of time thinking about, you know, are we prepared for this. But again, putting forth a plan to get prepared for something that may or may not ever happen, is tough to sell in a political environment. It may be easier to sell going forward. Now that we We’ve gone through this shutdown, it might be easier to sell the notion of stockpiling stuff, but but prior to this, looking, looking ahead, prior to this, it would be very tough to go in and get those type of appropriations.

Andy 10:13
Tell me this, knowing that we had 3 million unemployment claims and then 6 million. Do you think that kind of sorta in a handful of months, we quote unquote, give the all clear and we click a switch and 20 million people go back to work in two weeks or something like that.

Larry 10:29
Since we’re in such uncharted territory, I don’t know how they’re going to it’s easy, easier to shut things down that is to restart things. You know, the hell, how you reopen, significantly shut down economy now the economy’s completely shut down. I mean, people that’s a misnomer. There’s, there’s, there’s a tremendous amount segments of the economy still working. I mean, factories are still running, churning out product. People still buy groceries. The trucks are still Along the road moving stuff, emergency services, hospitals and police and fire. I mean, there’s there’s a tremendous amount of they called him up and running. But the parts that are down like putting an airline industry when you’ve parked, I think some airlines have grounded over half of their fleet. I’m sure it isn’t and sent their workers home and bring bring in these people back to work, what the psychological damage has been done to scare of, of being being in public again, people are not going to magically, we’re telling people now that they need to wear a mask when they’re on public. Can we produce enough face masks to satiate the desire without a vaccine assuming that you can’t get a shot in the arm that makes you immune from this? Can we produce enough protective equipment where the population will be ready to return to work when the all clear sound is

Andy 11:50
a wonder if it’s not just so it’s probably at least six months away from a vaccine that somewhere in the in that range when we get a vaccine and like we can inoculate the planet Like everything then goes back to normal.

Larry 12:02
I’m hearing a whole lot longer than six months. I mean, I’m hearing I’ve just

Andy 12:05
heard on the short side at six months, but it’s somewhere between, you know, 812 to 18 months, but we’re months into it now and in the virus’s structure is very similar to ours. So they already have like working models. This is way outside of my my zone of expertise. I just hear I’m basically regurgitating what someone else has said. But we’re not starting from scratch and working, how it how it works.

Larry 12:26
Hey, well, we should Well, it’s going it’s going to be a learning curve for us to figure out how you shut down a significant part of a vibrant economy. And then you have you’re doing in a democratic society, it’s a lot easier and in a society where people have less democratic when when you can’t vote to change things. It’s a lot easier to issue orders. But but we’re we’re in a country where if we tighten the noose too much, politically Assad to go there, there’s got to be a repudiation. We’re going to have a lot of discussion about these decisions where they were necessary after after this after this does pass. And so in terms of in terms of Trump, first of all, there’s the separation of state and federal responsibility. And I’m not I’m not clear that the Federal I’m not sure that federal government can’t shut down all the states and issue an order. I’m not sure that that authorities there, but these governors who are in the states that are that are holding out, they’re holding out because they feel that they don’t have the people support. I mean, that’s, that’s what’s what’s causing them to hold out. If you have the people support, it’s difficult. This is a voluntary system of self containment. There’s no way to police you have to want to contain and you have to want to stay home, you have to want to contribute this as a small contribution based on what we know now, that if you can possibly stay out of public and out of contact, you help yourself and your fellow humans to not be infected. And you have to want to make that contribution because there’s no point 30 cops can’t guard everybody’s door, make sure they don’t go anywhere.

Andy 14:03
That’s something I wanted to throw at you is just, to me, you being the explainer of things and how language works. Me being, let’s just say above average intelligence, the order came out to lock down Georgia six o’clock last night. And I read through the order. And my main concern for me is can I go outside my door and go for a walk in the morning at 5am? I normally don’t run into anybody, but I sure as hell don’t want to run into a cop and go put the cuffs on because you’re outside of your house. And the first line says, You’re only going to work to or from work. If you’re in one of those critical fields. You’re only going to the grocery store, and you’re only going to the doctor or getting meds. And I’m like, well, that’s pretty simple. And then it goes on it says you can go to a state park. Well, the first order says don’t go outside, unless you go into work, you know, groceries, whatever. So how am I supposed to go to a state park and then also it says you can exercise outside As long as you’re not really near anybody, so that means we could drive any flippin where we want to and just say, I’m going to the State Park. It’s confusing in the way that it’s worded. I understand the intent, but just those that first order says only go to these four places. Oh, by the way, you can go to state parks?

Larry 15:16
Well, I think I think that, again, is something the salesman has to want to do. There’s enough there’s enough leeway in every, every, every order that I’ve even glanced at that, that they’re really not enforceable. You. I mean, if you have a group of people, yes, because in our state, more than five can’t get together simultaneously. But if you’re just simply out navigating someplace, there’s really very little they can do if you’re navigating by bicycle or on foot or in a vehicle, there’s really very little they can do. It has to be I think we had this conversation. It has to be a contribution you’re willing to do yourself. Like in World War Two when people were willing to be rational. they tolerate rationing because they knew that the sacrifice would lead to more supplies to the troops and more supplies to our allies. They tolerated keeping their lights out and fear of bombing raids, because if any group of people decided that our personal needs are greater than the computers they were living in, the fear was that the bombers would fly overhead and start and start targeting towns. So there were there were people who were didn’t, the whole country didn’t go lights out but but based on intelligence and intercepts, they think they, they would figure out where enemies enemy were trying to strike. And they would call for lights out back in World War Two. And people did that because they wanted to contribute to their own safety and everybody else. That’s what happens if you have to want to make a contribution. That’s non monetary, basically, non monetary. You have to make a war. You have to want to make that contribution for the better of society if we can keep people further distance apart until this crisis. abates is a small contribution to make. That’s but there’s there’s really no enforcement, you’re not gonna find people going to jail for this it hardly anywhere. It’s not gonna happen.

Andy 17:09
I certainly agree with you, which is an amazingly good segue there. If you’re ready to go, ready, we’ll have this great breaking news. I’m not sure if it’s like breaking news, but the executive director of the Georgia group, which is called restore Georgia, is he’s got reports that people are being arrested for not going to register, you know, it’s their birthday month or whatever. And so he’s getting reports of people are getting registered. Excuse me, he’s getting getting reports that they’re being arrested for not registering during the shutdown.

Larry 17:41
I saw that report and I did speak with him before before the recording earlier today and and I asked him to try to do some more research to figure out what’s going on because being that we do have listeners that that value some of what we say I want to be as concise and accurate we can be. The fact that a person got arrested for failure failing to register does not mean that that the facts that underlies that arrest occurred during the blackout period when you when you’re told to social distance and not do but these essential things are on the order. So for example, if a person has a warrant outstanding where they haven’t been in compliance for three months, and they happen to get pulled over, and the warrant was in the system, the COP is going to take them into custody unless there’s an order that our jail is the jail was closed, but they’re going to take them into custody. So I asked you to try to figure out, the first clue would be the dates of the booking to find out if they if they’ve been booked during this blackout period. And then if they were booked, if we could get the actual affidavit for the arrest, or the criminal complaint if once been filed to see what what the underlying facts are, be as they’re being alleged by that by the by the state and if if they are if it isn’t That they have failed to come in during this period, I think they’ve got a very, very good case that the case will totally collapse. If the violation was for something that occurred prior to this period, their cases significantly weaker. I mean, still, I wish we wouldn’t put people in jail for regulatory affair, but their case is a lot weaker if if the facts arose prior to this crisis.

Andy 19:26
And on that list, I don’t think it said anything about going to the registration office as part of one of the quote unquote, exceptions to this shutdown order.

Larry 19:34
Well, it it it did not seem to say that in any any state that I’ve read there, they have not said that, that that would constitute an exception. So I would read that literally, I would assume. I mean, Scalia has taught me this. I would assume that that the executive knows what what they want to exempt and if they wanted to exempt people, and say you must continue to register, just like they wanted to Free bagel able to go to pharmacists that go to medical care, they would have put that in there, they would have put that in there. So I would assume since it’s not in there, just as non exempt behavior that you’re allowed to engage in, during during the curfew, but between the between the sales

Andy 20:15
point. I mean, they thought about putting state parks in there. So you would think that if they wanted to, they would have put the registration office in there.

Larry 20:23
Yes. So I would and like I say, I think that, that if any of these cases where he’s uncovered that people been arrested, if they did arise during this period, if the facts are underlying that, I think those cases are going to largely vanished. Now that that doesn’t make it. Right. They got arrested to begin with. But I think the case is not gonna result in a conviction. Because first thing I’m going to do is call the prosecutor and say, you really want to go over to this because you know, my defense is going to be I’m going to say they want our quarantine to work. And I’m going to say Ladies and gentlemen, the jury, of course, as far as it’s under quarantine order, and And the Gwinnett County prosecutors bringing a charge here when they will forbid to go. And not only that, I would not think that we would want our deputies to be in this type of danger. So I’m going to say jury nullification. That’s what I’m going to do.

Andy 21:14
And I think I’ll get it. Interesting. Well, let’s move on to how many can you count assign us how many articles we have?

Larry 21:21
No, this is beyond. I think any other episode.

Andy 21:25
We have a crap ton of articles related to Corona and I’m going to leave them in there for if you want to peruse them, but we’re only going to cover a handful of the highlights of them. But this first one, before we go down that whole path is Larry, I’ve never heard of this one. This is called from the crime report and it says don’t have your felon card in Alabama. That’s a crime. This is I’ve never heard of somebody having a felon card if you get convicted of three felonies in any state. Then when you’re in Alabama, you have to get this felon card and if a cop asks you to present your felon card Then you go to prison for jail for not having your prison card or your filling card what in the crap

Larry 22:06
is this? There’s not that it’s not that odd they were more states that had felon registration laws before sex offender registration and I think Nevada so there’s another state or two out there that still require maybe even California but yeah this is this is it this is one of those things where it’s on the books but seldom enforced the this would be what they would enforce that they wanted to have something on you they didn’t have anything else.

Andy 22:31
It seems sort of like just you know fishing for something that would say entrapment because I know you’ll thump me for saying entrapment but I mean even even like the one of the feature people in the article, he’s he’s a black guy living in an affluent white neighborhood will live you know, dating a white girl. So then the police pull him over and like we knew we’d get you for something. Give me your felon cards like what?

Larry 22:54
Well, that sounds like they have to want to get you now. Alabama was population 5 million, I’m guessing. I know. It’s not as large as Georgia’s, but it’s millions. But more than 300 people have been charged since 2014. Now, I don’t know where they ran the data through, but they say they ran it through 2019. We can see it’s not actually a deluge. And we can assume that there’s a whole lot of felons in Alabama. And there’s probably a whole lot of people they’re not gonna comply with. So I’m not condoning the law, but I don’t think that it’s it’s, it’s widely from 2014 2018 there were 235 arrests in Alabama charges of not having a felon ID and 53 separate charges failure registered with local sheriff so it’s thought it’s not like that it’s it’s, it’s something that’s happening day and night all around the clock.

Andy 23:45
Your estimation of Alabama’s population is 4.888. So you’re right on top of that one, and that’s roughly the average IQ of Alabama to 4.88

Larry 23:58
Can we move on to this lf Alabama is, is a state where there’s massive amounts of problems. Well, I mean, that deep south Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, they tend to have an underrated, educated population kind of like us, my state and then they have health. They have health crisis galore in the south. For some reason, obesity is just so rampant. And I think it has a lot to do with air conditioning. When everybody can sit on their sofa and drink Kool Aid or whatever they drink and not get any physical exercise, sweetie, yeah, I forgot that. But but the obesity rates and, and Alabama, Mississippi, those southern states are just off the charts.

Andy 24:43
And Alabama is also where they do the licensed marketing. Right. Well, that was where it was challenged. And yes,

Larry 24:49
that’s a lot of states where they do that. Yes.

Andy 24:54
Let’s move over to la.com governor gives California Chief Justice unprecedented authority to address ress pandemic isn’t this some of some of our people are kinda kind of worried about this turning into something of a power grab by the by the nations in the states to control all the peoples and Institute martial law and all that silliness. This seems something along those lines.

Larry 25:18
Well, it was something we talked about on an Arsalan action Sunday call that I planned this article out to Janice pallucci that the governor Newsome issued an unprecedented executive order, freeing Chief Justice and I can’t pronounce out of statutory restrictions on her authority to issue statewide court orders addressing kovat 19. So the three page order I wonder if we should put that in the in the show notes. But But apparently, there’s extraordinary powers vested in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and some people find find that very scary. Do you see anything? I realized like the scary part, but like one of them it suspends that limit by telephone. On depositions, this allows them to do telephone depositions in the interest of keeping people safe. So what which which B of the 8565? Which one of these are your first so to speak, but which which paragraph? Are you reading in the order?

Andy 26:14
It would actually be the second one. It says the three page order, which cites the governor wide ranging power under state emergency also suspends laws that limit by telephone depositions and the service of process by electronic means to changes sought by the plaintiffs bar and defense counsel.

Larry 26:29
So I was actually on the order itself, which is, which if you click on that link there, so I’ll go back to the article.

Andy 26:38
So is that does that mean that they can do depositions by phone were in the past that was somehow limited?

Larry 26:43
I think that’s

Andy 26:44
what it means. Doesn’t that make them more efficient at being able to do it because having a telephone call would be quicker as far as traveling and so forth?

Larry 26:52
It would make it more efficient, but it’s we can make that argument about what the Constitution says you have the right to confront your accuser. Would it be more efficient if we left your accuser in Maryland and we did the trial in California and you and you had a telephonic hookup or or zoom hookup? Would that be more efficient?

Unknown Speaker 27:08
It seems like it would be yes,

Larry 27:10
yes. But that’s not what Scalia says that that was meant by the confrontation, he says that the framers at the time they weren’t thinking about zoom, they were thinking about, you had the right to force the person to come in and say, yes, there says the person who did that, and say it publicly in your presence, or you could cross examine them. And, and that’s, that’s the fear of this as there are a lot more efficient ways to do things. But efficiency is as a as a goal in our in our system.

Andy 27:40
So this is something that is on the radar to be watching out for that is a bad bad thing overall or just pieces of it what

Larry 27:48
well, but anytime you expand the careful balance of powers between the branches of government and you give extraordinary powers to to any particular whether it be the Executive, the judicial branch, it’s always scary because very few like to relinquish power once they have it. So if you look at our nation’s history there’s a constant power struggle between the executive and the legislative and the judicial branch of, of trying to absorb more power. So I think that whatever powers there that are seated to various branches of government are gonna have to come under under scrutiny after this crisis abates because I’m not sure we’re ready to give up I’ll we’re ready to concede all those new powers. I don’t think people who fear a power grab are totally being unreasonable.

Andy 28:36
Understand, yeah, no, I’m with you on that. It’s Yeah, when people get power, they generally don’t want to give it away, that’s for sure. So, well, let’s move over to an article where it’s the title is, third federal inmate dies from Kovac. This comes from NPR. And this is coming out of Oakdale, la se, LA. I’m sorry. And that’s like another hotbed of A flare up of this virus is specifically in Louisiana. So here we have, the third federal inmate has died. Nicholas Rodriguez became ill on March 25, and had a high temperature. Being inside of these boxes, these prisons and jails and having this virus spreading it. There’s so many movies that make this reference, Larry, and I’m sure you haven’t seen them, but one of them that I think about is called Resident Evil and you know, one person gets it and then five minutes later, the whole frickin the whole Ward is contaminated and people are running around trying to kill everybody. It’s obviously this isn’t that bad, other than the death part, but it’s just horrible. What we,

Larry 29:35
we we all knew this was coming and the brand I think pointed out last week that it’s almost too little too late. I may not say we shouldn’t continue to try to reduce the population. But say hypothetically, if we had been able and willing to cut the population of our presence by half, would you be able to put enough distance between you would have less stress on the systems that are exist in present, you’d Be able to do more laundry, you’d be able to hand out more sanitized hand sanitizers and cleansers, you’d be able to do a lot of things. If you had the population, a lot of stress would go off of the correctional facility if it had we moved quickly cut the population in half and not been so terrified of laying people out on alternative means of supervision, would we have been able to have a different result? It’ll take a lot of studying, like self introspection to figure out if, if we, if we could have done more once once. Once this is all done, and we see how many people in presence die, but it’s, it’s likely to be a substantial number. Certainly,

Andy 30:33
certainly. But even if we dropped it by half later, I’m thinking about the the different units that I was in other than being in a sell house where you are already, maybe at a two man selling you drop it by half, you at least now have your own cell. But if you’re in one of these big open dormitories, and you’ve got the last open dorm that I was in, had capacity for, call it 50 people and they stack 70 in there, so even if you dropped by half, you’re still practically sitting on top of each other already. wouldn’t really change the equation all that much?

Larry 31:03
Well, well, but but let’s say that you did say that you did what’s recommended, assuming the bunks are not connected to the floor, but say you move the bunks at least six feet apart. And then say you took the person off the top block, and they will still person on the top. And you got the capacity down to that level. And let’s say you actually put a whole bunch of sanitizers and you change their laundry out every day. So you did all these things. And of course, that doesn’t take into account who’s going to be coming in and out from the outside. But say you did all those things. Would that make any difference? I don’t know. I’m not a medical expert. I’m wondering though it poses the question. What we do know is that we take half the people out, they wouldn’t have caught it in prison, we can say unequivocally that would we be able to conclude that if we take the river river, we reduce the population by half? We can unequivocally say that if you leave the prison without being affected, you will not catch it in prison.

Andy 31:53
Oh, totally. I mean, yeah, you weren’t there to catch it and you certainly didn’t catch it there you come down the street.

Larry 31:59
So We that that would be that would be one of the Nolan’s so that we would know we would save the risk of prison spread to those people that we that we let out.

Andy 32:08
Doesn’t that kind of segue into the next article from the crime report it says after the Cova 19 release of prisoners who will help them I know that in Georgia when you get out you get 25 bucks on a bus ticket. I don’t think that they’re handing you any more resources just because they released you because of the coven crisis. I don’t think they would be either but do you still got to pay for suit that they used to give you in Georgia? What paper suit like they used to give you like a really, really really cheap set of clothes they do they do they still give you a set of clothing. Depending on if you’re at state or private prisons if your private prisons you get scrubs, just like you know scrunchie pants, whatever and just a pullover. But if you’re at a state once you get like a almost like a suit. People call it the monkey suit. I want a monkey suit. This is that white outfit with a blue stripe down the side and then

Larry 32:59
oh yeah. Yeah, actually those are not the worst uniforms at all. But the Clippers first. I would rather wear that than the arch jumpsuits.

Andy 33:07
Yes, definitely that big giant ones as

Larry 33:10
well. But in terms of the article, this this test does pose someone who’s been in prison for any reasonable period of time, any long period of time. If you just start if you went on this massive empty prisons that I was talking about, how would we help these people, but we just say Europe, you’re free to go and take your chances and hope for the best because we’re not going to we don’t want you to be affected here. But where would they go and who would help them? If you’ve been locked up for 12 years, you don’t have anything to connect to if they just simply open the gate and say, Good luck to you.

Andy 33:46
Yeah, that that almost doesn’t sound any different than what you know the normal release of someone that doesn’t have anywhere to go would be

Larry 33:52
so but I wonder, I wonder if presidents have suspended the the charges for say medical you know that For last couple of decades they’ve been particular in the south they’ve been on this kick of of suppressing people’s use of the medical facilities to charge them a copay I wonder if they’re if you say I’m feeling sick I’ve got a fever if you go to the to the sick call if they’re if they’re suspending the CO pays now in view of the health crisis

Andy 34:17
I’m inclined to say no being that they charge for everything I’m certain that they didn’t like post out some order says if you if you’ve got symptoms of this and you don’t have to pay them

Larry 34:28
well what when that discouraged people or what not? I don’t know.

Andy 34:32
That’s the whole intent is to discourage people from just needlessly going there just to get out of the dorm and go see you know, civilians. That’s totally the intent on that part of it.

Larry 34:41
Well, I thought that i thought that i thought that unless you needed to see see the doctor that that the sick call came to you I thought they had roving nurses that push these carts around and they had the basic medical equipment of the monitors and blood pressure cuffs and stuff like that and and Tylenol and ibuprofen as Stuff like that that they could dispense it and that they brought the medical to us I thought the way they do

Andy 35:03
it not not what I saw in the you know, and this is this is now a good number of years ago kind of seems weird that I would say that now but no if for that they would do a pill call and then you would go march up to the central dispensary for you to go get your pills and you’d wait in line to get your your Thorazine and then come back to the dorm and then go to shower. You did it on your way back whichever way that works. But no, there wasn’t somebody roaming around with a pill cart because that would get knocked over and all the pills stolen.

Larry 35:29
Well, how would it do that they would roam around by themselves I would run around under supervision of guards. I wouldn’t just start pushing a cart around. But that’s what I

Andy 35:39
can tell you a story about the last place I was at like almost like on the day that I arrived. They had the camp locked down and I just happened to have like a window view. There was a dude running around on the roof. The way that the doors were there almost like a frame kind of dorms like you know, just a high top roof looking thing. And somebody had found an area where they could get up on the roof and he was having a standard Because he said, Nah, screw this. I’m not I’m not complying with whatever he was supposed to fly with. But he was on the roof walking around.

Larry 36:06
Well, did I shoot him off the roof?

Andy 36:08
No, they I assumed they just waited him out because eventually was like, Well, I guess I’m gonna get cold or I’m gonna get hungry or you know something. So I guess they eventually talked him down, but that’s a Georgia doesn’t really have a very good control over their prisons. I’ll tell you that.

Unknown Speaker 36:21
While I’m surprised.

Andy 36:24
Sure, sure. There’s some sarcasm there.

Larry 36:26
I thought I thought Georgia had the most progressive forward thinking, well managed correctional system in the whole United States.

Andy 36:34
That is certainly the Georgia certainly certainly the Georgia. Was there any other article that we wanted to cover about the covert crisis?

Larry 36:43
Well, I think that the one or the rethinking their rules about supervision. It was so important there and this makes

Andy 36:50
my circles moving it moving it right now moving it right now.

Larry 36:53
I’m hoping this is the beginning of, of, of a trip and I say Just now saying that I hope it’s the beginning of a trend and I’ll end up having to regret it later because they’ll abuse it. But, but it seems like the adjustments that they were making now to meet with people with what do you call it FaceTime and Skype or all these different things are that they that they’re using would be would be a positive direction. Because as as a supervisor individually, particularly if they visit with you on your job, people lose their jobs because of the commotion that takes people cause I mean, you’re running a workplace you don’t want a Gestapo unit to cut me out with with people carrying guns on and debated to see the supervisor and demanding to interrupt the workplace. And I’m hoping that this, this less intrusive supervision is something that doesn’t go away after after the virus, you can still do your random UAS, your analysis, you can still do those things. Just because you’re not requiring face to face I mean that you can You can do a random euro analysis that I don’t know enough about flushing your system. But I think that if you’ve got drugs in your system, and they give you four hours to get to the drug, is that enough time for you to purge your system?

Andy 38:12
I, I think you can take stuff but I don’t know if it purges your system. I think it’s something that you have to do on some kind of regular basis. But I will tell you this from personal experience, I knew that I hadn’t had my second visit of the month, and then all this stuff started happening. And I had my visit like early in the month before all the crap started happening. And randomly like on the second to last third of the last day of March, my phone rings Hey, how you doing? Fine. Anything any, any interaction with law enforcement anything like nope, cool. So they did my visit by phone? Where I why is that different all of a sudden, like they could have been doing that the whole time. No, they want to come out and knock on my door and come in and check out and see if I’ve got any booze in the fridge. Just for the record. I don’t ever drink ever but that’s what they come look for.

Larry 39:00
So when you can have a relapse, but this is from the Marshall project, and it says 50 reform minded probation parole officer chiefs, called last week now 50 is a significant number. It’s not like some outlier when you’ve got 50 chiefs call for states and counties to suspend or severely limit jailing people for supervision violations that aren’t crimes. I mean, I love that, because we shouldn’t be jelly, so many people anyway, that haven’t committed a new crime. The technical arrests are just over the top. And I’ll listen to a program of an organization on the on the talk radio before I came in to do this recording today. In an organization I’ll leave nameless that the professor’s to to help offenders re render reintegrate, and they were bragging about their 4% recidivism rate and then they said the nationwide average stat on recidivism is 83%. And I just barked when I heard that because that’s taken into account technical violations, I haven’t even seen 83% But, but even if it is that high, it’s all violations. So if if an interviewer asked me that, what is the recidivism rate of your program? I would first I will define recidivism. Do you mean being arrested for a new crime? Yes. Do you mean being convicted of a new crime? Or do you mean, having to go back into custody for something that was not totally compliant with the conditions and supervision, which can be very easily violate. So what let’s define recidivism, and then I’ll give you a rate. But I was distressed to hear this organization talking about this fantastic 4% recidivism and then talking about the national average is 83%. But back to this article, this is this is phenomenal that you’ve got this many chiefs urging caution because after this crisis ends, hopefully this will spill over and they’ll say the world didn’t come to an end. People actually read law enforcement entities are reporting lower crime rates. Have you have you been following that?

Unknown Speaker 40:54
I see that the reason that people aren’t going out

Larry 40:58
there, the crime rate is down. mean the the the scam type crimes are going up and off the charts people trying to convince you they get your your stables payment now and people trying to hack. I mean this is a hackers paradise I’m told because I guess the overload of everybody being on the internet is causing stresses that I can’t even begin to talk about. But but but in terms of overall street crime and things that happen in the way of property crimes, those rates are plummeting.

Andy 41:25
Yeah. So the answer to our crime problem is to keep everybody locked up at home.

Unknown Speaker 41:31
Well, I don’t know if that if I would have liked it somewhere. But I think I think that that just simply letting people out of custody, and we haven’t laid out nearly enough in my opinion, but relaxing the enforcement and doing the token things that they’ve done so far, in view of this crisis has not resulted in the tidal wave of crime, that people would normally say what happened if you do these things, and there was a sensational story on the local news last night of a person who was released from jail pursuant to abortion. Because he says he has a health situation that makes him vulnerable. And the judge agreed. And the local station decided to vilify the judge who did that because, you know, he’s he’s, he’s re victimized the victim.

Andy 42:15
So very bizarre, Larry, so very bizarre. I have provided by my sensational co host a clip of the late great Antonin Scalia, and I will be happy to play it. If you listen. Let’s set it up first.

Larry 42:30
Please do not set it up. I found this accidentally and I listen to a lot. So I find things and then I’m too lazy to write down where I found it out novels had to had to give up on finding it again for today. But I found this as I was, as I was thinking about the stimulus package in the 2.2 to 6 trillion. Nobody seems to know what this thing’s gonna cost and it’s stigmas. Package number three. Now they’re working on number four and it really Hit me that of all the stimulus efforts that we’re hearing. I haven’t heard much that really addresses to poor people. You know, all of this is designed if you if you study it, and you do it with an open mind, the conservatives, primarily republicans are really stressing to save business because business is important and we can’t lose our great companies. And I don’t fundamentally disagree with that. The companies are important. We don’t want to lose basic industry. We don’t want to, but then the democrats have been talking about saving the middle class. You know, these are people who’ve been working and up until the shutdown orders. And they have, they have really focused on business and the middle class. But I’ve heard so little about the poor people who are even more vulnerable because they the conditions that you describe the jail as what shelters are generally like, if you if you’ve ever Been in a shelter that does homeless people, if you’re lucky enough to be able to be in a shelter, they’re usually rows and rows of books. And they’re very crowded, and they and then people who don’t stay at shelters, they’re on the streets living in the elements and and not able to sanitize themselves regularly. And I’ve heard not even the progressives talking too much about helping the poor people. But they’ve gone to great lengths to make these things quick way we got to get to money to people Quick, quick. We’ve got to get the businesses quick. We’ve got to get the payroll Protection Plan money to keep people on the payrolls quick we’ve got to get the stimulus checks to people quick and the Treasury Secretary has been chastised for for saying that people that are on disability and retirement benefits should even have to dare to follow return to get their money. We want to remove all barriers to getting the extra $600 a week of unemployment. And we’ve got it we’ve got to just take people’s word and give them the money and we’ll straighten this out later. That’s such a contrast to how we treat the poor people who rely on the real poverty programs, which are snap food stamps, or 10. If temporary, a different needy families, we build every barrier we can around those programs. And many of the southern states require drug testing. And they require that you engage in all these work requirements that you’d be enrolled in these unemployment training programs. And I’m not pronouncing whether they’re good or bad. But we seem to fall to people that are in this position at a predictable rate. And we found we it’s it’s a whole different attitude when we’re giving money to the middle class. And so Scalia validated what I think about what we’re most of our money that we shovel to people in this country goes to the middle class. So that’s the backdrop for for this for this clip. He’s He’s giving a lecture, and this is just a little over a minute of of like a 30 minute lecture, talk that he had. Yes,

Unknown Speaker 45:59
fine. Finally, I may mention that even

Unknown Speaker 46:03
even the seeming Christian virtue of socialism, that it means well, and seeks to help the poor. Even that seeming Christian virtue may be greatly exaggerated. It is true in the United States and I believe it is true in all of the Western democracies, that the vast bulk of social spending does not go to the poor, but rather to the middle class, which also happens to be the class most numerous at the polls. The most expensive entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, for example, overwhelmingly benefit those who are not in dire financial straits. So one may plausibly argue that welfare state democracy does not really have even the Christian virtue of altruism. The majority does not say to the rich, give your money to the poor, but rather give your money to us. Just as I believe the left is not necessarily endowed with Christian virtue. So also I believe the right is not necessarily bereft of it, let’s say fair capitalism, like socialism speaks to the degree of involvement of the state in the economic life of society, like socialism, also, it does not speak to the nature of the human soul.

Andy 47:24
Can you translate that to English?

Larry 47:28
Oh, well, you’d have to, you’d have to listen to more of the presentation. But he, he’s, he’s not really he’s not really saying one way or the other. He’s speaking to religious group and he’s, he’s talking about how the government at the the evaporation of private charity and more and more being done by the government, and, and, and the pitfalls of what, you know, there was a time when when, when the government giving any money to a private person was deemed was very as unconstitutional, but then the general welfare clause was interpreted more broadly to allow the federal government and governments in general to give gift money. But he’s, he’s, he’s making the point that I’m trying to make here about, about the welfare state. We do have a welfare state this country, but it’s largely for the middle class. And the people, the middle class, they don’t like to think of themselves as me I had a visitor from from Omaha, Nebraska, they just almost disowned the relationship with me because the person said, I’m receiving Social Security. And I’ve resent that being entitled a couple of times. And I said, Well, why do you resent being called an entitlement? I said, that’s exactly what it is.

Andy 48:39
I said, You paid there’s anything that’s going to be one that is the true definition of entitlement

Larry 48:43
is that you you contribute it to it at the rate that you that you were asked to contribute, for the years that you were in the workforce. And in exchange for that those contributions. You were promised a commitment by the people that are working today that they will They would pay you. And you’re entitled to it by virtue of reaching a certain age or being disabled or the various things that are qualified on Social Security, you’re entitled to it by law. It doesn’t have to be appropriated. We don’t have to vote each year for the defined Social Security, you are as a matter of rights, entitled to receive those benefits. I said, I don’t know why you don’t think you’re on time. But of course, you’re on an entitlement. That’s exactly what your ad, Scalia is making the point about what I’m trying to make about the stimulus, we have created this gigantic unfunded stimulus. And the overwhelming majority that will never get anywhere near a poor person. Now, they technically are eligible for this $500. If they have a social security number, if they have a social security number, they’re not receiving Social Security benefits, then they’re going to have to file a return according to the latest Gods from the Treasury and they’re entitled to 1200 dollars. But the things that we could be doing if we were really as you generous of society as we think we are. We would be trying to figure out how to get these people more adequate shelter now because there’s so much more vulnerable while this pandemic is running rampant with but there’s barely a twerp out there about about the homeless population I have you heard anything Georgia about almost I have. No but I’m just wondering Did you just call me at work? Has it has been barely a tour about I had heard her I think in Florida I think I sent you something before they put up 100 pup tips for current for homeless and they booted the registrants anybody? The pf RS are not allowed and attempts. Correct. But but we’ve we are our country. We just need to take a good look at ourselves and realize that yes, we all depend on one another. This system that we have that where we think we do it all ourselves. No, we actually don’t. We all depend on one another and and It is it’s it’s important, it should be important to all of us to see to it that every person is function at their at their optimal capability so that they can make a contribution to society. And, and we’ve just written off hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people as being just worthless, and we’ve turned our backs on them. But it’s amazing that this that this big, multi trillion dollar stimulus no tell how much more to come all borrowed money. Let me add that we’re certainly taking good care of the middle class.

Andy 51:30
But as he said in there, the middle classes, the largest voting group,

Larry 51:34
that’s correct.

Andy 51:35
That that why, but I mean, the middle class, is this a correct statement? And I’ve heard it, I hope I regurgitate it right. The middle class is what drives the economy?

Larry 51:44
Well, I would, I would, I would agree. It’s, it’s the it’s the it’s the driver of the economy. But let’s let’s try to make sure that we don’t write people off. I’ve, I’ve got this strange notion that out of the million or whatever number of total homeless out there There’s an immense amount of wasted talent that could be could be channeled to for the betterment of society. And I don’t believe that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps once you’re down to nothing. whether or not you’ve made a bad decision does not change the fact that once you’re in that predicament to people who now are, by no fault of their own, they’re finding themselves in a bad situation. And they didn’t control the fact that this virus resulted in me getting laid off. But they did control the decisions on what they did, in terms of how they manage their money that they didn’t hold on to it up until this this crisis hit. You don’t have to have the best of everything you could do some savings, right? Most people have a little bit of capacity to say

Andy 52:43
most people do but I don’t know that most people exercise even if they have that capacity.

Unknown Speaker 52:48
right but but but under the under the pure. I hear from the libertarians that constantly say, I don’t like paying for that could just be just as harsh right now say with God. I can ride this out. And I actually think I can, depending on if it gets I don’t, was what they’re predicting in terms of length of if it’s 18 months, I think I can ride it out, should not be able to say I don’t want to pay for you. Isn’t that what they say about these poor people? I don’t want to pay for these people.

Andy 53:18
You just jogged my memory about something that I was listening to a program from w NYC. It’s called the Brian there show and a woman called in. She is she owns I think 30 something units in New York City. And she says, Well, I don’t want my tenants not paying rent. I have a $22,000 property tax bill. I’ve got to pay in, you know, the coming days, weeks, months, whatever. And I’m like, you should have thought about that before. Why don’t you have that money saved already? So I was like, well, we can flip that table around all day long and like you should have prepared for it. Oh, you should have prepared for it. We can’t all be Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and have 100 billion dollars in the bank.

Unknown Speaker 53:55
That’s correct. And we are all in this. All of a sudden we’re hearing this. You listen to Governor, it’s what we can do together. And I’m saying the same thing. It’s what we can do together to separate ourselves from one another. And it’s what we can do together to try to put this crisis behind us. But what I hear taxpayer buddy, folks, don’t delude yourself. This is not taxpayer money. We are borrowing this money. This is not taxpayer money. And although I do support it, and amazingly, I sent you an article about how conservatives have magically done it about face on this stimulus. Did you get the one I sent you earlier today that about how the conservatives magically are for the stimulus that have been against all previous demos? progress? Yeah. Well, it’s amazing that they’ve done such an about face, but but it is not taxpayer money. Had we balanced the budget and been running a surplus we would have some cushion right now if we hadn’t done the gigantic tax cut the blow a hole in revenues and if we had to increase spending particularly in the area of military and national security. If spending had been going up at such a rapid clip of almost 10%, we would have more of a cushion to work with right now, but we’re going to borrow so much money. And who knows where the national debt is going to end up after this subsides when when this is over? I believe they’ll be another stimulus coming very shortly because this is an election here. when when when people when people are going to be facing the electorate, they’re going to make sure that they’re shelving as much money as they can to the voters is what Scalia said.

Andy 55:35
And there’s a difference in the mentality of if the money is flowing towards me, that’s really frickin awesome. But if it’s flowing towards you, and you fill in whoever you is, then No, I don’t want to pay for it.

Larry 55:48
That is correct. That’s the selfishness about this. But the people I doubt very many people are going to review your statement of payments. And I’m not I don’t have any intention of doing So either,

Andy 56:00
but isn’t that so but shouldn’t I be able to like, I mean, I’m going to, I’m not going to save it, it probably, you know, it’s not going to be immediately used to pay my rent either because Fortunately, I happen to have a job that’s secure, it would seem. And you know, and I know that can change on a dime. But I’m just going to go turn around us, particularly when things open back up, and I’m going to start going back to restaurants and I’m going to start to buy more stuff. I mean, it’s going to get used in the economy as soon as things open back up. I can’t do anything right now. Well, of course, you can’t. I mean, I can but so I mean, I don’t go to movies, but I can’t go to the movies. I can’t go sit at a restaurant hanging out with my friends. I can’t do any of that. Because we we had we had created a Discord server for my, my Meetup group so that we could have some sort of video conference. We didn’t go to the local pizza joint, hang out and eat wings and stuff.

Larry 56:49
So well, one more one more point before I beat this horse to death. It’s It’s good that we have recognize that when the economy is in a contraction, we know To provide stimulus. I just wish we had recognized that back in 2009, when they refer to it as the poor keyless, and very few, if any, very few, if any republicans voted for the 780 $7 billion. Oculus, as they called it, and it was it was largely a partisan affair trying to get stimulus. And they complained about the anemic recovery of the economy, which it did not boom, like previous recoveries have we ultimately did recover. But they kept a very tight control over federal spending. Has that chart that I put in the in the articles below shows if you look at the the fourth one, it says the balance.com US government spending, it shows the chart during the Obama years and then it shows the the chart during the Trump years and it shows the chart of two years before Obama the the rapid increases in spending. And that’s part of what what Helps an economy rebound is stimulus. And so amazingly therefore stimulus now, they were against it there. And and that that did that did hinder our economic recovery rebound from the from the great recession of 2009.

Andy 58:17
Other than that chart, is there anything in these three, four or five articles that you put in here about the standard stuff and the deficit budget? Well, I think that this is the the registry matters. tack. Yes. Budget podcast,

Larry 58:31
I was. I wanted to show what a pittance we spend on food stamps or SNAP benefits compared to the overall budget. And and what I thought was going to be a 50 year chart and open for me once but it’s not opening again as behind the paywall, but it showed the spending and actual spending on snap has been going down. And it should have been going down because of the recovery but also have tightened eligibility and work requirements. But we’re spending some Between 70 to $90 billion, with a B, a year out of a multi trillion dollar deficit. The bulk of our money, as Justice Scalia said, is spent on things that don’t provide relief to the poor. And it’s a myth. It’s a sad myth that we focus so much on the really small amount that this Western democracy spends on direct aid to the poor. And it would do nothing to plug our budget deficit if we totally eliminated that and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, which is the largest program that helps families with children, if we eliminate both of those will still have a massive budget hole.

Andy 59:40
Yeah, that’s a disturbingly small amount of money that is spent there. And that is that that’s considered discretionary. Correct? Yes. And I’m pretty sure if we wiped out 100% of discretionary spending, it would not come anywhere close to filling the budget.

Unknown Speaker 59:56
Well, it would go a long way because the military is also discretionary. Right? But But, but but the military is almost a trillion dollar. So when you when you add in the direct defense budget, and then all the things that support the military establishment and national security apparatuses, and and stuff here you’re talking about, you’re talking about approaching a trillion dollars, but you can’t eliminate those things. I mean, if we were to cut the military by one dime, saddam would be here tomorrow. I mean, you do understand that, don’t you?

Andy 1:00:27
I believe that I’ve heard that before.

Larry 1:00:28
Yes. I mean, just disregard the fact that we spend more than the next seven wealthiest nations all combined. Nevermind that, that that true reality. And never mind that we have what the President refers to is the strongest military on Earth. But if we were to cut anything the military budget all life as we know it would

Andy 1:00:53
you always paint such rosy picture is where you are the doom and gloom version of this podcast.

Larry 1:01:00
So yeah, there’s just a lot of numbers in those those articles about the about the budget, people want to get into the nuances. But we’re not we’re not the budget podcast here kind of has become self aware.

Andy 1:01:12
Can we talk about this being like a total technology power grab for our citizenry, from our governments? We can.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:20
I love that. Sorry.

Andy 1:01:21
Yeah. This article comes from the washington post the coronavirus is expanding the surveillance state How will this play out? I frankly have been thinking about just that. Generally, people have GPS stuff turned on their phone, Google generally and others know generally where you are, if not down to, you know, like the intersection and like the house number. So it seems like they would have an idea of of where people are building heat maps, and figure out roughly who may have been infected and you know, put those pieces together and we could isolate the people and inform them, you know, if you’re in the middle of Nebraska, and you haven’t been near anybody that has tested positive Then you’re probably pretty safe in general. So anyway, this is all of the technology that’s coming down the pike. This article is talking about how all the cameras have certain states some countries have apps that they require you have on your phone. It’s a it’s it’s disturbing to a large degree apps that you’re required to have on

Larry 1:02:19
your phone.

Andy 1:02:20
Yes, some some countries not not, not the United States. Okay. But China, Singapore, Israel has done some pretty shady stuff lately, that are all about some surveillance state stuff so they can keep an eye on the population. I’m sure you’ve heard of the China social credit. I think that’s what it’s called. Have you heard of that? The what it’s called the, I want to say it’s called the social credit. I’m sure Brenda can can fine tune that one if I have it wrong, but they’re tracking your credit, your criminal history, how you pay your bills, and so many things and you could be denied getting tickets onto the train. If your social your social credit score, I think is what it’s called, goes below a certain mark. Don’t believe I’ve heard that one. Oh, it’s it’s very bizarre and their population from what I hear is generally on board with it because who wants to sit on the train with the UI person that doesn’t pay the bills? sounds just like something else that we have in the United States to me, so they can post your sign up on like the New York Times. New York Times The Times Square, big billboard, they’ll post people’s pictures up there to publicly shame them.

Larry 1:03:24
If you haven’t heard of this, I’m having trouble getting to CNBC when to open I thought I thought it opened earlier. I got the wall. I never could get the Washington Post open because of the paywall, but I was having trouble getting the CNBC to open

Andy 1:03:37
some someday, Larry, we are going to get you to stop using Internet Explorer. And I’m not cutting that from the podcast. But the CNBC article is useful surveillance to fight coronavirus, raises concerns about government power after pandemic ends. China mobilized its mass mass surveillance tools from drones to CCTV cameras to monitor quarantine people and track the spread of coronavirus. I think we have an article that talks about g GPS monitoring the plague stricken people. Are we doing that? I have heard it. I saw a picture somewhere that talked about it, but I don’t remember where I saw it, in actuality, maybe that’s from another country to just just, you know, employing the myriad of tools that could be available to to deal with this until we get a vaccine. So

Larry 1:04:25
while I did read the Snowden article, and I thought that was fascinating from Business Insider, yep. The Israel and granted its spy services, emergency powers to hack citizens phones without a warrant. South Korea have been sending text alerts to warn people when they have been in contact with a grown virus page.

Andy 1:04:47
But, you know, where’s that balance? If I’m not saying it’s the government’s responsibility, but you know, we get amber alerts shouldn’t Shouldn’t we be welcoming of having information That could potentially help us avoid, particularly in this case, the corona virus.

Larry 1:05:07
I mean, well, that’s

Andy 1:05:08
that’s our government is not to absolutely protect us from anything, but at the same time it is one of their primary functions is to protect us.

Larry 1:05:17
Well, South Korea has been sending text alerts to warn people when they’ve been in contact with a Karatbars patient, including personal details like age and gender, that doesn’t that kind of sprang from the sex offender registry when people say, don’t have a right to know. If you’re if you’re encountering a person that the government is tracking, that they know that they have this infection, wouldn’t illogical. She would offer that be that you have the right to know I mean, you have to set the big bad government you know this, why don’t I have the right to know this? You know, it

Andy 1:05:47
the similarities between this whole lockdown and certain curfews and just the various restrictions, Harkins so that the irony is so unbelievably crazy to me of how I don’t want to be locked down. I mean, I need to go out and do my stuff. But I mean, that’s what our people do every day of their lives just about as have to worry about who’s going to see them and recognize them. chastise them for being out. It’s like, it’s just all of the simulators are just so funny to me.

Larry 1:06:13
We are going to have a massive discussion in this country after this as a baby Halford has abated, we’re gonna have a massive discussion about how much of this we’re willing to, to give up of our privacy and what rights we do have, because I’m not sure you do have the right to know a person’s medical condition. I’m not

Andy 1:06:32
sure a whole HIPAA regulation thing exists, right?

Larry 1:06:35
Yeah, but I’m not sure you don’t either. If they’re a hazard, like us, I’m not sure if we’re gonna have to have an intense discussion about about where that balancing act comes because, as the libertarians are so fond of saying they don’t want hardly any regulation. They don’t want the government telling anything. Well, I think that’s absurd. But how was that balance?

Andy 1:06:57
It I was at a conference That I was having. This is similar to smoking, in that I’m completely repulsed by being in the presence of someone that is smoking because a it’s disgusting in general. But when they exhale, there’s this horrible smell that comes about. And if you Harken that smell to being having the Black Death put upon you by them exhaling or sneezing in your proximity, like, you know, it’s just it’s very, it changes it from being something that’s very invisible to something that is very visible, but it’s the same thing like while you’re outside. I can smoke when I’m outside, right? Well, no, because I still have to breathe the air that you’ve just contaminated with carcinogens and poisons, as opposed to the person that is infected with this deadly disease, this deadly virus that if you breathe, and I contract it, I could then potentially die. Like, that’s a tough balancing act. It’s not like somebody walking around with cancer. Cancer is not contagious. This is highly, highly, highly contagious.

Larry 1:07:58
Well, the Crime report delves into, to even further about, will prophecy be a casualty of the pandemic?

Andy 1:08:07
Yep. What do you think? Do you think that that you as a policy wonk can? Is it is it in your forte to even navigate these kinds of conversations?

Larry 1:08:20
It’s hard for me to navigate these conversations until we till we know what the outcome is what we can actually have the conversation about. We’ve we’ve had a lot of conversation about 911. And we’ve, we’ve concluded that a lot of what we’ve given up, I mean, you can’t see your loved one to the gate of an airplane anymore. That’s no big deal. We’re willing to give that up. You have to be imaged, which goes down to every new detail of your body shapes and sizes, and it results in a pretty thorough hand hand pat down if they see any, any shape that doesn’t, doesn’t look right. We’ve had that discussion. And we’ve been Decided to be safe. It’s worth it. So at this point since we don’t know what we’re being safe from and we don’t know the magnitude, if it turns out that that the 250,000 number dead is the right number, the conversations going to take on one course of the people say well, Clinton was worth it it would have been two and a half million ahead we’ve not done this. But if the if if there’s some magic solution that comes about or the warming weather and this goes away the discussion is gonna take another course in terms of of the of the policy ramifications of ordered businesses Shut up. We have decimated businesses that despite I think our best efforts to save them, we won’t be able to to resurrect some businesses that depending on how long the shutdowns go, so so there’s going to be an intense discussion about about what’s happened after this is after this is past us.

Andy 1:09:52
Yeah, I’m sure they’re even subjects that no one has even thoroughly contemplated yet too.

Larry 1:09:56
And, and I think that some of those discussions are gonna be Very good because emergency preparedness for one, as there would have been a tough sell, to, to convince appropriators to appropriate large sums of money for equipment and supplies. I think for the next few years, that won’t be such a tough sell. Now, as our memories are fresh, we’re gonna be willing. I mean, we’ve since since 911, there has been nothing. If you look at every national security appropriation, whether it be direct military spending, or whether it be the NSA, or whether it be Department of Homeland Security, whether it be the transportation, security administration, you pick your alphabet, all of those have gone consistently up. Our desire spend more and more money has not gone down for what is it almost 20 years now. So 2001, we’re in 2020. So we’re approaching two decades. So I think I think that we’re we’re are going to be willing to spend a little bit more on public And probably for the future. But I guess I don’t always have when I say we’re built, willing to spend more, I always like the coupling that well, are we willing to tax ourselves to pay for that? Because you can’t you can’t call it taxpayer funds, when you’re not paying the taxes to fund the spending. And I’ve reserved that because we’re, we’re, we’re spending a fourth more than what we’re taxing before this calamity hit. So you can’t call it taxpayer spending. It isn’t taxpayer spin.

Andy 1:11:29
Let me just share this with you is that I was talking to someone and so she’s been furloughed. And then she says, well, am I gonna get the 1200 dollar check? I said, as far as I know, I mean, it’s, you know, if you’ve been filing your taxes, it should be here. Probably by the end of April, give or take. She goes, Well, am I gonna have to pay it back? And I’m like, it’s weird question. Like, I mean, we’re going to have to pay it back eventually. It’s just not gonna come off your actual like tax bill next year. They’re not going to add 1200 dollars to it next year. But I mean, we I presume we’re gonna have to pay it back.

Larry 1:12:02
No, we don’t. We don’t pay back the national debt.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:05
We should at some point, right?

Larry 1:12:07
Well, should but but since the since World War Two, we ran some surpluses during the the Truman, I think we might have had a surplus for two dies now administration. But then we went on, we went on deficit spending at a much smaller scale for the better part of four decades, until the late 90s. When we actually balanced the budget ran some surfaces. And then since the 90s, we haven’t run a surplus. So the accumulated national debt, it’s seldom dropped, it continues to go up. And that’s why they have these discussions about raising the debt limit raising the debt limit. But if we were being responsible, we would in fact want to pay off the debt, because it is has to be serviced and interest on the national debt even at these low rates that we’re paying today. The interest on the national debt is hundreds of billions of dollars, where we’re paying three, four hundred billion dollars in interest. If we weren’t paying that service costs on the debt, that would be three to $400 billion of money we could be spending on a recurring basis.

Andy 1:13:10
Right. We ready to move past all this?

Larry 1:13:13
Yeah, I’m sick of this about about finance.

Andy 1:13:17
This article comes from blog.com and is Sotomayor vowing to futility. I will cease noting my dissent in sentencing dispute. She’s thrown in the towel, Larry about I think people I think the way that I read this, and you’re gonna have to clarify, I think people have been sentenced under a law that has been been changed and ruled unconstitutional, yet, the Supreme Court will not grant cert to hear their case to have the change applied to them. I think that’s what I understood from this article.

Larry 1:13:49
I think you’re right. I I put it in there for a different I had a more sinister motivation. I had someone say that I was being remiss for not reading the sentence. And I said, Well, I definitely don’t spend a lot of energy on limited supreme court level because they really don’t mean a whole lot. And I was trying to illustrate the point when a justice who’s sitting when minority on a particular issue over and over again, when she says, I’m driving a bother. That’s the whole point I was making is that the dissent at our supreme court, it makes a difference when it’s like in the Maryland case that we were going to talk about today, the Maryland case, it makes a difference because the court is almost evenly divided. So when you have a five, four split, the dissent is more relevant when it’s six to three, seven to eight, or nine to zero, or we wouldn’t have a dissenter 908 to one if you got to the sitting anything short, it doesn’t matter because that’s great that they don’t agree but they can’t do anything about it. And and so that was the point I put this in here for she’s she’s like a waste yarn anymore because she realized that she’s that she’s hopeless. They’re going to be talking to the walls until there’s a change in the makeup of Supreme Court on this particular issue. You is not going to be worth dissenting anymore because nobody cares.

Andy 1:15:04
I mean, shouldn’t she still dissent even if it’s like boilerplate just copy and paste because you’re not going to do anything but unless she’s making her position

Larry 1:15:12
known, while she says it is not worth the effort. So she’s

Andy 1:15:18
not going to waste her energy and move on to dealing with issues of higher order, and I can’t get past

Larry 1:15:23
the paywall on this so so we’ve had our three articles, I think,

Andy 1:15:28
yes, we have, we might want to pay for law Comm. Let’s move over to the New York Times. Tell me tell me what is rush called this one. Oh, The New York

Larry 1:15:35
Times. Yes. Well, he I think he calls it to slimes but I’m not sure that’s what I thought.

Andy 1:15:43
I just wanted to hear you channel. You’re in a rush. This is a the Iowa republican governor Kim Reynolds 20 years ago got caught up in some DUI kind of things and she was granted some leniency. She wants to have a change of heart for the legislature to let people Have some criminal justice reform out in that part of the country,

Larry 1:16:04
restore the right to vote up like this is about as she takes too long, she should have the right to vote. And I think I think I was one of those states where you’re permanently disenfranchised.

Andy 1:16:16
Let’s see. Do you think that people should be like, where do you fall down on this one? So we have two states where you can vote while in prison? Do you think that we should go that far?

Larry 1:16:26
I haven’t really, from a policy point of view. I don’t see a problem with it. But there’s the practicality of doing elections and prisons being that we go through this Kabuki registering voters. So you’ve got to you’ve got to you’ve got to have a whole separate registration process persons are present 24 years, and you say, okay, you’re you can vote you got you got lifetime in prison. You gotta vote. Well, we’ve got we’ve got to create a precinct to present we’ve got to we got to a lot of stuff from practical point of view, it seems like it would be cumbersome, but I don’t really have a problem with people voting. They’re all gonna vote conservative anyway. So Don’t say, yes. We’ve proven that over and over again with research that’s been done. So the concern is all we get with a plan, they can pick up a whole bunch of votes to tell open up letting people be convicted of crimes folk, they’ll find out that their margins will be a whole lot stronger. Interesting.

Andy 1:17:18
Yeah, I, you know, they run store call, and it this wouldn’t be too too different than running store call, you know, they let you out in some sort of organized fashion to go to someplace where you have turned in your slip and you pick up your goods and so forth. I mean, the operation wouldn’t be too too different. Obviously. There are other logistics things involved with it. Well, if they wanted to, they could,

Larry 1:17:41
oh, I don’t they click because states are doing it. But But states that that do it are known to be more willing to spend money. If you look at what those states spend on prisoners, it’s probably a little bit more than Alabama, Georgia. interest. Yeah,

Andy 1:17:57
we already know that for sure. Probably like to the order. twofold.

Larry 1:18:01
But so but you but you do have logistical problems because guards are not trained and B, you have to be certified to be a voter registrar you have to go through a training and most states to register votes. So we’ve got to train our staff. We’ve got to set up a polling process. And and so on Election Day, do you let do you let everybody go to the gymnasium and vote at the polls like they would if they win the free world? It is a logistical problem. I’m not saying it can’t be overcome. And I don’t have any problems pushing for that off the top. I don’t I don’t think there was anything. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with it. But you’ve got to set up infrastructure trying to change the way things are done in prison and do anything different. That’s gonna cost money and require a different way of thinking it’s gotta be hard. No kidding.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:52
That’s why things stay the way they are. Change is difficult. But I like this this article that

Larry 1:19:00
She’s She’s She’s She’s kind of fighting uphill because the GOP controls the legislature, and she wants to the status is now the only state that permanently bars, felons from voting. I’m a firm believer, quote, I’m a firm believer that that, that you can make a mistake, but that shouldn’t define you. She said, an interview Gee, that’s kind of what we say. So. So

Andy 1:19:22
Porsche, I dropped an article in there. And then you actually told me about one of the affiliates list about part of the stimulus bill, and then some of the exclusions that are out there. And so finally, we’re going to talk about something related to the registry. And here it is that if you are convicted of a whole slew of different crimes that are sex of sexual offenses, that the stimulus money for small businesses will not be something that you can receive. And then some people in these comments, if I don’t know if you’ve read them, but if, if you have, maybe like your spouse, be the owner Have the business even though that person never does anything with the business somehow that’s fraudulent. Or if you put the business in somebody else’s name that that’s fraudulent even though they have nothing to do with it, like, it seems like you could figure out an easy way around this, but maybe not.

Larry 1:20:16
Well, this is this is so tragic because I see this in everything the we take a lot of grief. For, for apparently, people don’t think we’re aggressive enough. But everything that comes down the pike, even the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in terms of early release for for the for the crisis, they exempted practically everything that has to do with sexual offending. You know, how do we how do we turn this around? If it has something to do with how we vote right? But if we’re about saving business, and people that pf ours are employing people, I thought that’s what we stood for. I thought we wanted this keep business alive. I don’t think How why we would like

Andy 1:21:01
I can understand some of the I can at least like conceptually understand why certain restrictions are in place. This one doesn’t really jive with me that if you’re a small trucking company, if you got five rigs, and you’re now shut down, because the product that you were delivering isn’t really in demand anymore, maybe you’re doing like haircare products or something, and the salons are all shut down at the moment. Why should you be restricted from receiving the money so you can stay in business? I don’t see how that’s related to this at all. Unless someone did a copy and paste. Oh, we don’t want these people getting anything. So we’ll just gonna paste it into the document.

Larry 1:21:35
That must be what they do. But But I can’t understand it because it goes contrary to we want the economy running. Right? I thought that’s what this was all about. And we want to save businesses, right? I thought that’s what it was all about.

Andy 1:21:50
I just can’t conceive of why this is there, other than for some sinister motivation, motive, but other than even like, of just copying and pasting it just just because you’re the asshole. So no one’s gonna oppose it.

Larry 1:22:05
I can’t explain it, but it’s tragic.

Andy 1:22:14
Well, fine, then we’ll just move on. So here we are pretty much with like, what would be the feature segment after 90 minutes later, we’re just shy of 90 minutes. This is a from legal news, State High Court rules. sex offender registration qualifies as punishment. And, Larry, I’m telling you even just like from the title, and then the subtitle, I’m confused right out of the gate, and I hope hope hope hope hope that you can explain it so that I understand. But before you go into it, we’re going to be joined by Brenda Jones, who is the executive director of fare, which is the Maryland affiliate of arsal.

Larry 1:22:46
Hi, Brenda. Hi there. This guy. This guy in Maryland, this comes out in Maryland. We have the case at the registry matters podcast show notes. It’s it’s Rogers versus Maryland. And there was a ton of Yellow highlighting in the in the opinion. And I did not do anything in the dissent. So I don’t need any emails. I know I didn’t do anything in the dissent because this is Maryland’s highest court, although it’s called the Court of Appeals. There’s nowhere else to take this to. So the only reason that assent is relevant, because it’s so closely divided would be if there was a change of one justice if if one and the majority were to leave the court, and then one that thinks like the three in the minority will be on the court, we could get a different outcome. But this case is really very simple. To person pled out a five count indictment. And they pled to a section of Maryland law that does not require that they register unless the offenses against a minor. So So are there criminal law article 11 303. A it’s a misdemeanor, and that’s what he pled to And registrations aren’t required Unless Unless the trafficking unless that crime was directly directed at a minor, and 11 303. b is a felony, not in Maryland, a misdemeanor can carry up to 10 years. So don’t make it sound don’t want to be mean to make it sound. Like we’ve got felonies that don’t carry 10 years in New Mexico and you get to 10 years in Maryland for a Mr. misdemeanor, what the hell’s wrong with you people up there. But anyway, they they, the Section B is is enumerated as something that requires registration. So when Roger status please, the court did not apprise him of a duty to register, because there there isn’t one on the face of the statute. But the Department of Public Safety Correctional Services, the registry people, they decided that he would have to register. So they told him when he got out of prison that you need to register and he did agree. And he did what we can’t get one of our listeners to do is to file a declaratory judgment. Take it a lot of our listeners here. But he he filed a petition for declaratory judgment, which is exactly what you should do, rather than going back and reopening the criminal case, and going back before the judge, he went to a civil court and said, declare, under Maryland law whether or not have to register. And the trial judge said, No, you’re right. The judge concerned the declaratory judgment most about both sides. As for summary, judgment, summary judgment was granted. And the trial court said you don’t have to register. And a state of course appealed and then their their middle level court, the Court of special appeals reversed the trial judge and said, don’t have to read the the individual Rogers he filed a cert petition and the Supreme Court which is actually they call it the Court of Appeals, but their highest court granted cert, and they agreed to decide the issue. And the essence is very simple. The legislature did not define obligation to register unless the crime involved a minor. And since there was no representation during the play process, there was no factual determination made by the trial court. There was nothing where the state proved that there was a minor involved, although we all know from reading through the steps exactly, but there was no proof. The the agency was not allowed to make that determination. It was really that simple, that the agency doesn’t have the power to decide absent any due process had to make a factual determination that wasn’t decided in court. So therefore, he doesn’t have to register. Now. I believe that the legislature will come back and fix this. And I know I’m not supposed to say stuff like this, but I believe that they will come back, and they will just say that anyone who’s convicted under either section 1111 303 that as a registerable offense, and they’ll be done with this, and then he’ll get another notice it says By the way, couple back in here registered. But as the law currently stands, the agency is not allowed to find that the crime involved a minor, and therefore he’s directed to register. So that’s how he won the case. Okay, so what have I missed in this discussion here?

Unknown Speaker 1:27:15
Well, I think you did a pretty decent summary of it. I was trying to read it this morning, the thing that caught my eye in the first place, I mean, you you summarized what it really does. But the thing that was catching my eye was was the, the headline of the article was, was about how the law was, was declared punitive. And, and then the second paragraph was, this is the first time in the state of Maryland that the law that Maryland’s registry was declared punitive and I thought, there’s something wrong here because Maryland law got declared punitive was it in 2012 2013 when we had the first Yeah. And I’m like, Did did something wrong? So

Unknown Speaker 1:28:03
I read the I

Unknown Speaker 1:28:05
pulled out the dang decision and I read all 24 almost all 24 pages of it I do because of the primary decision. And sure enough, they do, in fact say that the law is punitive, but they were doing it to prove that, that the the separation of powers needed to be there. And they were not. The Department of Public Safety did not have the authority to go around saying that this person had to register, because he had not that they had established that the fact of the being victim, the victim was a minor during the court proceedings, and so it’s a separation of powers issue, Department of Public Safety could come along and say, well, we happen to know that he got charged in this other thing at that it was about a minor. So we’re going to go ahead and put them on a registry. They weren’t allowed Do that it wasn’t it wasn’t established as a, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt or one of those levels. Oh, that was the big the big focus really of the of the decision as I was reading it. But the headlines made it sound like, woohoo. Maryland’s register has been declared punitive for the first time, like, Say what? That was what caught my, my attention?

Larry 1:29:26
Well, I think what, what, there’s a lot of highlighted text in here, but there’s one that that when I tell people about the registry of benefits and enhancements, they, the people, the legislators just can’t help themselves that they believe that they can have a perpetual increase in requirements. So starting on page 14, where I have it highlighted since 2009, the amendments that list all the things that you have to do that tip the analysis and we’ve had discussion about Michigan that Michigan couldn’t stop, they added stuff in 2006 and 2011. And there’s something About lawmakers, where no one says, look, you people just can’t do this. If you do this, you’re going to crash the damn thing that you’re trying to protect. Because those liberal pointy head, people are going to come in and sue us if we’re going to lose because we cannot inflict punishment through a civil regulatory scheme and of discussion. We can’t impose all these things on people as a part of the regulations. We can do that and you can do more things when you’re punishing them. And in the end, the actual penalty, but you can’t come back and keep stacking and that’s what they keep doing.

Unknown Speaker 1:30:34
But why can’t they Why can’t they pull back later? Why can’t they go? Well, space with a good enough?

Larry 1:30:40
I wish I could figure out the answer to that because they have this fear. And I’ve had I have deep intimate conversations with people and they have with lawmakers, people, and they have this fear that they’re going to be vilified. And they think that, that there’s just this massive amount of people. That’s got to delis filled with anti incumbency, that it’s just going to be a career breaker. And I can’t say that I disagree with them, but they are going to their opponents are going to hit them with their cell phone sex offenders. But I just don’t think the average person who’s out there thinking about it, the average citizen knows there’s no such thing as a registry. The average citizen knows that, as far as they that what they think they know what’s Why don’t have that sticker says, Don’t believe everything you think what they think they know is that it’s got a really, it’s got a really creepy individual be on there. But the average person doesn’t get immersed in the nuances of the registry. And if you just tell the average voter, the courts won’t let us do this. We can’t. most intelligent voters will understand that we do have a constitution that constrains us in terms of what we can do, and we just can’t do all these things you’d like us to do. You know, we can’t do that in a society that has a has a constitution that we’re bound to follow. You do believe in the constitution W. But I’m saying that’s what I would say that that was what I was Say the voters. I mean, you do support the US Constitution, right? Yeah, we can’t, we can’t, we can’t just dump on these people anything that we want to, after they’ve paid their debt to society. But the judge Harrell who was part of the decision that declared Maryland punitive state of the dissemination of non public and sensitive information about registries presented the risk of big stigma. I noted that registers are required to inform the state of every change of location. And I’ve I’ve harped on this, your conviction is public. But all the stuff that you’re required to provide for the public is not a part of your conviction. If they just simply said, Andy, you’re convicted. This is public. We’ve put you on a list. Congratulations, you’re on. You’re on a bad list of people go on about life. That’s not unconstitutional. Open they say, Andy, tell us what you drive. Tell us where you work. Tell us who you’re living with. Tell us where you’re planning to travel to if you’re going to be gone more than three days, tell us where you go into school that tell us all this stuff so we can put it online. That isn’t a part of the conviction. That is not public information. And that’s where the line is drawn, in terms of how far they can disseminate information, that was not a part of the conviction, the conviction itself is public.

Andy 1:33:22
Let me throw this at you. And I don’t mean to exclude you, Brenda, not at all. There. I remember when the ACA was passed, that there was a lot of talk about we don’t know what’s in it. And I recall it being like, one of the mantras of it was we will, if it doesn’t work, we will amend it, we will fix it and we will continue to evolve it to where it gets closer to working. Why can’t this, you know, like, we constantly amend this thing, but we couldn’t amend that. So I’m trying to bring up like a split brain thing here where that was the bad thing and we can’t amend it. But this thing is just constantly constantly, constantly getting He changed and the screws tightened deeper and deeper. But what’s the question?

Larry 1:34:04
Could we have meant it? Yes. What’s the question

Andy 1:34:06
short? Well, I mean, we weren’t willing to even entertain the thought of amending the ACA. We’re obviously this thing gets amended constantly. I know that the state law versus federal law but that there’s there’s a, the idea of amending it obviously exists, but we couldn’t amend that thing. And I’m not trying to pick on that the ACA is the best thing ever. I’m just trying to bring up that as being like a super duper big example of a thing that we weren’t willing to amend. And it’s just constantly being squashed. But the registry stuff just constantly keeps getting amended, and the screws tightened. Well, no, I haven’t really asked you a question. But I’m still just like, why do we have the split brain personality that some things we can change, but some things we cannot?

Larry 1:34:47
Well, the there’s generally broad support for the registry. There was there was very little bipartisan support for the Affordable Care Act that was largely democratic, or as they call a democrat proposal. The registry enjoys almost universal support. If you dare express the opposition to the registry, you do so at your own peril politically. The the Affordable Care Act was was easy to vilify because it was a government takeover of one fifth or one six Don’t forget what they said it was like one fifth or one sixth of the economy, like government takeover of health care care, and it was gonna cause death penalty and rationing of care and all these horrible things that were there that weren’t true, but that’s that was the scare tactics that were used.

Andy 1:35:35
Speaking of death panels, we are we may be approaching those kind of ideals coming down the pike where they have to triage and pick this person over that person.

Larry 1:35:43
Well, we are very definitely if if the doctors falchi on the forget that word. Her name is Dr. Burke was at birth Brenda, but anyway, if they’re accurate, and if the projections are accurate, we’re going to soon be at the point or fourth Talking about enough care and capacity for, for the people who need to care. So yes, we are going to have to have some disabled space.

Andy 1:36:07
There, we’re about ready to close it down. If you aren’t, we have a voicemail message that I just want to throw out there. It’s not terribly long and I had to kind of piece it together to make it work. It’s mostly just comments from one of our listeners. We’re ready to hit that. Let’s do it.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:22
Hey, Brian, how are you? Just want to stop Say hello. Make sure everyone’s okay. Also, I also want to let you know how I answered the call. I was assigned frontline work taking temperatures of people, so nurses and other health care professionals can be free to treat other people who might have symptoms. I did this without a bath. All without a glove or without gloves. I put myself in harm’s way to help other people to make sure that Nobody would come look ability that would be exposed. So just want to let you know, and I was doing volunteer work at certain locations, and someone noticed me from law enforcement area, gave a call to my supervisor. And they tell me that due to the fact that I was on the ranch, nothing else about a little background check that I got again. I already let him know that I hadn’t checked background and everything.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:36
But I was

Unknown Speaker 1:37:54
fired from doing medical work helping people with covert crisis because he’s on the register

Larry 1:38:01
I was having trouble following it. But I thought that’s what I was getting from it at the end. So

Andy 1:38:07
I just wanted to throw that out there as a person that, by his his testimony there that he, he was trying to help out the medical community and volunteering to help with the temperature checks and stuff to screen patients walking in the door. And somehow he was noticed, which I’m not really sure how but he was noticed and they terminated him because of,

Larry 1:38:27
well, you know, that there’s a spew of radiation that comes out of

Unknown Speaker 1:38:32
that overdrafts were following and that’s how they knew. That’s how they do.

Larry 1:38:35
And I don’t mean to make a joke of it. But if you’re if you’re in a smaller community, I mean, you can you can make almost any large community you haven’t run across your registry officer. But but the smaller the places, you know, more likely you’re going to be noticed because if you’re in a town of 3000, it’s just hard to vanish if you’re in a in a city of 750,000. So, or 8 million or whatever in New York City is

Andy 1:39:01
Larry, I think we can wrap this whole thing up. And I’m going to flip the script on you about closing out the podcast tonight, just a little bit. Like, if you want to find all the ways to contact us, you can certainly go to the show notes, all the things are there. However, because of the times, I don’t want to like push the whole Patreon thing. But please, please, please, if you can go to any of the places where you listen to podcasts, iTunes, Google podcasts, any of those platforms that you get your podcasts from, please give us a rating, preferably a five star one and give us a comment. It would help us out immensely in reaching more people. And that’s certainly what we’re trying to do most of all is to reach more of our people. And I hope everybody stay safe. And wash your hands of course, and someone on another podcast said wash your damn hands. So wash your hands. And that’s all I got there. And I hope you stay safe and I will talk to you very very, very soon.

Unknown Speaker 1:39:51
Thanks. Have a great night. Have a good night.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Transcript of RM121: 12 pack of Corona w/ Theresa Robertson Ph.D., LCPC

Posted on March 30, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM121: 12 pack of Corona w/ Theresa Robertson Ph.D., LCPC

Andy 0:00
Recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 121 of registry matters layer. We’ve made it yet another week. How are you tonight?

Larry 0:10
Well, we did make it another week. I don’t I don’t know how many more we’re gonna make it with this epidemic, but hopefully a few more.

Andy 0:16
Well, I will I will bring something up on that. But before I do that I want to introduce so we do have a guest joining us tonight we have Theresa Robertson from Pennsylvania. She is a PhD and I don’t know what an L CPC is. Teresa, can you tell me what that is real quick,

Theresa 0:30
a licensed clinical professional counselor.

Andy 0:33
Hmm. And so you’re, yeah, yeah. How about that. So you’re a licensed psychotherapist and practice private practice. You’ve been involved in advocating for rational sexual offense law since 2016. And you are active at both the national and state levels. You’re a founding member of parcel which is the Pennsylvania affiliate for Nassau, and you currently serve as the executive director, and you are a member of the Pennsylvania reentry Council and co chair of the park Subcommittee on those who have sexually offended and you are engaged in research related to addressing psychological consequences of public registration and you have presented these results nationally and internationally, you’re super passionate and working hard towards solutions to both prevent sexual abuse and honors the inherent worthy worth and dignity of all human beings. Holy cow. I like it.

Theresa 1:25
Yeah, I like it too.

Theresa 1:28
I like it too. We’re all doing a lot.

Andy 1:30
And how are you in the great state of Pennsylvania tonight

Theresa 1:33
in the great state of Pennsylvania all as well. I’ll buy it out. I forget now they keep adding different counties. To the stay at home order. My my county was added last night at 8pm. So

Andy 1:49
then what does that mean? Does that mean like no movement except for to the grocery store or a restaurant still serving food just only take out?

Theresa 1:57
Yeah, restaurants are closed. In house but you can get curbside service. You can go out to get food, you can go out for medical things you can go to work if you work at a lot what the governor calls a life sustaining industry. So the liquor stores are closed.

Theresa 2:20
But could be life sustaining for certain people.

Theresa 2:22
Well, yeah, and that’s that was a big concern at first but you can still buy beer and wine in the convenience stores and supermarkets because there are people who love literal it’s it’s life threatening if they could not get get that so Wow, it just can’t get hard liquor but the alcohol content and the beer and wine do so.

Andy 2:42
Well, half. And Larry, before the show, I was having a chat with one of our listeners and he he wanted to know how old you really are and I’m not gonna divulge this information. But he wanted to make sure that you were in like, not in one of the risks zones and you know, do you have an under under light conditions, not just for the podcast, but because he likes you.

Larry 3:04
Ah, so well I’m I’m anxious that I am in the one of the elevated bands but they get more elevated as you get older but I’m over 60 so they’re cautioning those people particularly if they have any respiratory are any any any challenges which I don’t have? Actually for a person this age I’m in relatively spectacular health other than a little arthritis. In fact, I enjoyed last time I was in Georgia with my lifetime friend that that is his health is not as stellar has to take his blood pressure and his pulse and everything I said, put that damn thing, Omar, and let’s just see what he could. He couldn’t believe how low my pulse rate was. So how low my blood pressure was. And that’s what the.bc is

Andy 3:51
low because you’re actually dead.

Larry 3:54
The doctrines have told me that my heart will not be what takes me out because of what a low heart rate and how strong my heart Against course, that means it probably will be what takes me out. But today, they tell me that we’ll have to worry about a heart attack anytime soon.

Andy 4:07
And not to turn this into the Larry. What’s your daily routine is but you do exercise I’ve caught you either somewhere near a treadmill or something like that before you exercise halfway regularly, don’t you?

Larry 4:17
I do. I’ll do a daily brisk walk on a treadmill. And I do a little bit of flexibility stuff, which I should do more than the little bit that I do. Because as we get older, our bodies are stiff. And I tried to overcome some of that, but it’s not nearly enough.

Andy 4:32
Probably all of us could say that. It’s not enough except for the Ironman triathlete, kind of whatever, marathon runners. We have a jam packed show full all kinds of stuff, Larry, and we’re trying to keep the coronavirus stuff to a minimum but like there’s no more oxygen in the room pretty much of anything else going on in the news even though there’s still stuff going on around. It’s kind of it’s hard to not focus on anything Corona cuz it’s all Corona all the time. Don’t you think?

Larry 4:58
It is. It’s really devouring it definitely just don’t have anything that that compares to this. And my lifetime, I think many lifetimes before mine, we don’t have anything. And one of the things that we have different now is, as we just didn’t say this had been, we’d had the capacity to transmit information the way we do today in 1918. And the and the what was called the Spanish flu, which actually probably should have been called the American flu since it started in Kansas. But what we just didn’t have the information remember radio hadn’t even the first stations hadn’t signed on the air till 1922. And we had primarily your distribution would have been newspapers. And then the newspapers in the major cities will was when you went outside of major city, you have weekly newspapers, and you just didn’t have the information if we’d have known what we knew medically and we’d had the ability to transmit information around, we probably would have acted in a similar way at 1918, if not worse, but we just didn’t know any better. And that’s where you had the contrast in cities between Philadelphia St. Louis or St. Louis. Apparently practice social distancing and Philadelphia blew it off and they had many times to fatality and infection rate in in Philadelphia.

Andy 6:10
What’s interesting about the social distancing thing is I went to Sam’s Club this morning and I have a buggy and the buggy with buggies at Sam’s are very big. And it kind of keeps you the right distance away from the people that would be in front of you. But the people behind me were like, almost touching my tush. And I’m like, have we not heard about this yet? And I almost like maybe I should just turn the card around. And you know, just make a whole circumference for to mark my territory, like, get away. I’m sure for those of you who are not in the south buggy is a colloquial term for a shopping cart. Oh, I see. I’m not from the south. So I learned Huggy somewhere else.

Larry 6:50
Well, it’s very common in the south, but I never hear that term anywhere else on the south that people refer to it as a as a shopping cart. So what is your from up.

Theresa 7:01
I’m sorry, Andy, but that was a first for me, I think because you were at Sam’s Club so I kind of figured out what you’re talking about, but I’ve never heard anyone use that.

Theresa 7:15
Maybe it isn’t maybe it’s a western Pennsylvania thing I don’t know.

Theresa 7:19
So it’s up.

Larry 7:21
Oh, the well when when I was in the south Wait, that’s what we thought when someone was sent out to do to get into buggies. I mean, that was what it is still commonly used. But other if you if you didn’t, if you weren’t familiar with that colloquial term, you think of a dune buggy made are but but it’s just not about as common outside the south, but we don’t want to spend a bunch of time on it. Just remember that our global audience they would not know what a buggy is. Interesting.

Andy 7:49
Well, Larry, here’s my question for you. And Teresa, feel free to chime in on this. Have you read the 800 page 2 trillion plus bill that just got signed?

Theresa 7:59
Absolutely not. Larry,

Larry 8:02
I thought you were directing that to Teresa.

Andy 8:04
No, I was directing. It’s both. He was like, No, just chime in whichever Have either of you read at all?

Larry 8:08
I wasn’t even aware that it had been released yet. I know that it’s rumored to be between eight, nine or maybe 1000 pages, but I have not read it. No, I haven’t.

Andy 8:19
And is it common Do you think for you know, and when we talk about decisions here on a pretty regular basis, or you know, laws, and there are a dozen pages, maybe something like that. Here’s 800 pages. And I recall in a massive legislation thing that happened maybe a decade a little bit more ago, and we don’t know what’s in this thing. And so do you think it’s pretty common that the legislators would not have read something of this magnitude upfront?

Larry 8:46
It is very common, and in fact, the process that they used on this statement as Bill was was, it did not afford itself too much time to read it. Because, remember, it started in the Senate. And then when it finally passed the Senate after, after lots of negotiations, the house was told you really need to pass it the way it is. And the all the negotiations meant changes were being made continuously up until the senate actually passed it. And then the house basically passed it the next day. So therefore, it would be almost virtually impossible for anyone who wanted to read 900 or 1000 pages. But it’s not uncommon at all. That was an unfair criticism that was leveled about the Affordable Care Act that no one had read it. No one reads any of this stuff in its entirety. You glance at the summary you grant glance at key parts of it that interest you, but federal legislation is extremely

Theresa 9:45
complex when

Larry 9:48
nobody reads it.

Theresa 9:49
Right. So it was the same with the the tax that the tax legislation, the tax cuts last year,

Andy 9:57
thousands of pages was that was it okay? Yeah. And then that is a comment will always come out of like, well, we’ll know what it does when it happens or, you know, something like that.

Larry 10:07
Well, that was a comment that was taken out of context with what, what was what Leader Pelosi said at the time. I think she was Speaker Pelosi at the time. But she said that, that Americans, once they found out what was in it, which what she was, what she was acknowledging is that most Americans, such a comprehensive piece of legislation would have no idea what was in it. But once they found out about the good points that were in it, like the precondition prohibition against not insuring, and the big aim to keep the student the household member to age 26. And there was many provisions in there that Americans and even Trump administration have decided that they support all of a sudden, but that was the context that was taken out of it. And when you when you’re politically opposing someone, it’s really fun to take something out of context and play it. Over and over again and that’s what they did that was that the opponents of that a federal takeover of health care and they did focus groups on that and that sounded really really good because I don’t want no federal takeover my health care and then they came up with that in the death panels and that that was all it was all a politically motivated thing about that people don’t read it and intellectually honest seldom does a piece of legislation get read by any member of Congress in its entirety they just can’t

Theresa 11:36
anything else to add Teresa?

Theresa 11:38
Nope. Sorry.

Theresa 11:41
This is Larry’s territory.

Andy 11:43
Oh, I totally know that but maybe you have something going on and I just want to make sure that you feel free to chime in anytime I don’t want you to feel left out what we’ll get to definitely stuff that’s in your in your neck of the woods here in just a minute.

Theresa 11:55
Yeah, good.

Larry 11:56
Well, let’s let’s let’s do a little bit more on the on the stainless bill because that wasn’t all I wanted? That wasn’t all I wanted to say. I, I, I think I support the stimulus bill. I don’t really know, because I don’t know what all is in it. I do know that we have an unprecedented crisis, and the government has exacerbated it with the lockdown. So not and again, I’m not saying that I’m criticizing any of the government decisions. But it’s one thing when the economy shuts down because of lack of demand or the credit crisis, and because of the bubbles that mean different bubbles that burst back in 2008 2009. It’s another thing when the economy is relatively firing on all cylinders. Doing performing quite well is when when a pandemic comes along, and you’re ordered to shut down and so I’m not going to criticize the stimulus per se. But what I would like to use this as a moment to educate people about how the process works, because one thing has driven me crazy through the years is that they All those who are the PFR. So for those listening for the first time this person is forced forced to register. There’s this constant criticism about how the various things like the the Adam Walsh Act in 2006, was passed without any debate in the middle of the die, and all these sinister things. And then they said the same thing when the international Vegas law passed in 2016. None of that was true. Just as if it is everything that happened with this, everything went exactly according to how the system was designed to work. They, for whatever reasons, Speaker Pelosi in the house decided that they weren’t going to be in DC and I don’t know what their reasons were. But since they weren’t in DC, and this crisis was unfolding, the leadership at the behest of the president wanted to put together an economics an economic package. And they started with talking about taking off social security taxes off payrolls for employers, that’s off to the individuals Then they move towards this broader package. And it was put together by the Republican leadership. And they put it forward and they couldn’t get it to the finish line to the Senate because of the rules of what we call cloture. Meaning you have to have 60 votes, which is a super majority of Republicans only have 53 votes. So therefore, they could not move. They’re originally designed Republican proposal to the finish line to the Senate without negotiating so therefore, when the democrats refused to join and closure on something that they had not had any input on. That was low, intense negotiations, the republicans wanted to have a less accountability for businesses and democrats did about the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the democrats wanted more to flow directly to workers like the extra $600 a week of unemployment on top of your state benefits that you’re going to be receiving. And so we ended up with a negotiated package that passed the Senate 96 to nothing there since the house wasn’t in session. The question becomes how to pass it because it has to pass the House. And there’s a process called unanimous consent. And that means that of the four and 35 members of the House, if a single member disagrees with it, then they can’t, they can’t pass it by unanimous consent. And that’s a normal standard, appropriate parliamentary procedure, you can do that. When you’re having a meeting, you can say I move that we passed this by unanimous consent. And if one person on the board of directors or one person in that group raises their hand, then you get to have debate. Well, I anticipated and so did the talking heads at that base. Some people have opposition to that. So they weren’t able to pass it by unanimous consent. But unanimous consent is a process that exists to move things quickly, or there’s unanimous agreement. That’s why they call it unanimous consent. Why do you need to have a debate if everyone agrees that this is in the best interest of the nation? Well, there was a there was a representative from Northern Kentucky. That did not agree. That decided he wanted to stick his hand out and say I don’t agree with it. But spending this much borrowed money without having some discussions. So therefore they had to achieve a quorum in the house. They had to override his objections have the minimum amount of debate. And then they took a vote and they passed it. And now it has been signed by the President. There was nothing sinister about how this was done. There was nothing sinister about how they were ball shack was passed, there was nothing sinister about how international Megan’s Law passed with when it went or when it went to the process. And then it went back for concurrence to the house after the senate amended it they put the passport marker on as an amendment isn’t nothing sinister at all happened. That is the way the process was designed to work and it worked exactly the way it was designed.

Theresa 16:46
What about

Andy 16:49
from his point of view, or from the point of view of all the other people that had to then come back to, you know, a potentially infected area because there are people in Congress that are being tested positive and whatnot. You know, Mitt Romney was false. But Rand Paul tested positive. You know, now you’re putting these people directly in the path of having this done. Couldn’t they do it remotely? Couldn’t something like that go in place?

Larry 17:13
Well, the technologically Yes, it could be. But institutional rules change very slowly, because we have these long traditions of Halloween that they’re so certain about the decor of the house and the columns that are followed and the hair, you hear you and all this stuff. And so even though the technology exists, the house I mean, the television existed for a good I think about close to 40 years before we had cameras before, before we allowed cameras on the House of Representatives. I think television started in the 40s and it went to the late 70s before Steve spent at least 30 years. So so their rules don’t permit that apparently, to do the debate remotely, so they have to achieve a Physical quorum, so therefore enough members had to return. But this representatives named Thomas Massie, he was elected in 2012. And he promised that when he ran that he was going to be fiscally conservative. And he was not going to be signing off on deficit spending. And citizens of his district elected him. And he’s trying to keep true to his word. Now, make it clear, I could just about guarantee you without knowing anything about the guy, that I wouldn’t support much of anything that he stands for. Because I think it’s silly to think we can downsize the federal government to the size it would take to balance our budget. I’ve said that on this podcast. Therefore, I doubt that I would be in favor of hardly anything this man stands for. But I do favor that a person who runs for office and who gets elected on a platform that they be allowed to do what his conscience dictate. I think the President was wrong to tweet out about him being a third rate, Congressman, and he should be stripped of his membership in the Republican Party. And I think the democrats like john kerry, who was the candidate for president Secretary of State. I think Senator Kerry, Secretary Kerry was also wrong. The citizens of this district that he represents they will decide, and it’s not his fault that Congress decided to go home, the House of Representatives decided to go home. They didn’t have to go home. They could have stayed in DC and dealt with this crisis. The Senate stayed there. So we have to find out why they went home. And who actually caused the risk. It wasn’t it wasn’t it wasn’t representative Massey, Massey. He did make the decision to adjourn to recess the house.

Andy 19:32
I understand. I understand. Now, can we move on? Sure.

Larry 19:37
Thanks.

Theresa 19:40
Alright, so here’s a break like it’s always an educational opportunity. I hate to pass it up.

Andy 19:45
Oh, I know. I get it. That’s totally fine. Here is late breaking news.

You You drop this in on me just a few moments before the show and this is a may versus Ryan. And do you want to over what’s going on here.

Larry 20:03
We’re not going to spend a lot of time we’ve talked about it on previous podcasts for those long term listeners. And we just got this yesterday. So it truly is late breaking news. But it’s the case that narshall did an amicus submitted an amicus brief on some time back a couple years back maybe more than two years, but it’s been some time back. And the issues at the time were that, that the the sexual battery in Arizona did not require that the person that the state proved that they that they intended to commit that you’ve you can touch the person and commit the battery without having a sexual intent. And the person had to has to prove under Arizona law that they didn’t have a sexual intent to touch him was for a legitimate reason, reason. And so we felt that the burden shifting was unconstitutional. So we opined because the district judge on his heaviest claim had said that that statute was unconstitutional. We weighed in and said yes, the District Judge got it right. Well, unfortunately, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn’t see it that way. This is this is a very tragic outcome because he was convicted of five counts, sentenced to 15 years consecutive on each one. He was one of the rare people that got released from prison upon his habeas was pending because the judge issued immediate release forthwith. When he granted habeas relief. Back in 2017, the district judge did an unusual thing and said, release this man immediately. He’s been out for three plus years now. No problems. And the Ninth Circuit said nope.

Theresa 21:39
We extinguish your claim about the the burden shift and big constitutional because it was for close procedurally abandoned. And then they said, Your ineffective assistance of counsel is doesn’t fly because your counsel was very effective. He went to trial he was convicted. And the issue was the jury had deadlocked and then the They wish to reconvene and start deliberating after they had been dismissed. And neither party objected at the time and the two of the three judges on the appellate panel said, well, that’s an ineffective assistance. I mean, brilliant minds can disagree about whether you could let a jury continue to liberate and some people think it’d be in the best interest of the defendant to have the jury go on because they might be permanently deadlocked and he might get a mistrial and walk away, and a state may not retry him. So So ineffective assistance of counsel is a very tough thing to prove. And if any of our legal beagles read this opinion, it’ll be very helpful you to learn that it’s just almost impossible if your attorney is breathing, and then do anything that resembles defending you. They there’s broad latitude allowed for them to make decisions on terms of strategy. And you don’t get the benefit of hindsight to look back and say, Well, if he had if he clearly we know now that letting the jury Continued deliberating was not such a brilliant idea because they convicted him. Well, we didn’t know that at the time and the appellate review discourages looking back to see, because you didn’t know that information at the time. He thought it was a wise decision at the time. And he didn’t object.

Andy 23:16
That’s very complicated. Larian very nuanced.

Larry 23:18
It’s very sad. Also, we’ve gotten to know this, this person, and he’s been a thriving productive member of both the state chapter and Arizona, the National chapter. And he’s also been productively employed and doing quite well. And as the dissent dissenting judge pointed out, this probably means the rest of his life in prison because he’s not a spring chicken to begin with. And he’s got to finish on a 75 years and he’s only served 10. So whatever good time reductions they would be under Arizona law, which I don’t know. But if you’re already 4550 years old, and you’ve got 75 years to do, even if they give you a day for a good time, there’s a good chance that you might not survive prison and get out again.

Theresa 23:59
Yeah, too. He’s a good deal. I know him as well.

Theresa 24:03
Well, the only the only question is what do you do from here and as we’ve described as you, as you continue to appeal cases, the funnel, the spout gets narrower and narrower because doctrines continue to decline. He’s only got a couple more options now take him take him ask for full court review by the entire night circuit, which has over 20 judges more than 20 judges, they seldom grant that because everybody would want it. Or he can file a cert petition with US Supreme Court which they like grant about 1% of them. And those are all long shots or he can ask the governor of Arizona for clemency if they have that power, which we know that for a sexual offense, it would be a long shot even if the governor has that power. So so his options are very, very, very limited and very sad that this has come to this.

Andy 24:52
Very, very sad. Huh? Well, Teresa, if you would be so very kind you this got brought up just before we We started recording as well. And this is you guys had a press release that got published in relation to tell us about what’s going on here.

Theresa 25:08
Yeah, just found out about it. Wow. Yeah, just before we started this evening, so that the press release was picked up. So last week actually on this, we’re waiting. We have been waiting for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to issue opinions on five different cases. One that was heard in October for that were heard November argued, and the one that was argued in November was commonwealth of the butler. And that was the superior and that’s the one the press release was related to that. So the Pennsylvania Supreme Court released their decision last week, and we were very unhappy about it. Because they did not rule in the appellants favor, basically the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. This the this person had argued that the SDP designation in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional using arguments from mew knees to and the Superior Court agreed with him. So that was a great win. However, it was appealed and went to the Supreme Court and there and, and they’ve, they’ve reversed that decision so the Superior Court applied meanies the the Supreme Court says that the Superior Court applied munities incorrectly because s VPS are a separate class. And the Supreme Court said in their opinion incorrectly, that because studies show that s VPS are much more likely to recidivate that they are a significant danger to society. And so it’s not punitive, it’s a collateral consequence. So that that ruling just came out last week. And we were very excited. We sent a press release out. And just before this, this podcast, we found learn that at least one of the outlets has picked it up. So that’s good. Getting a voice. And they were they I read it quickly before, before we started and it looks like they did a good job in terms of presenting what we put out there. So. So that’s the butler case, nonetheless, my understanding so some of the folks that parcel have talked with two attorneys in the state who are allies. And they agree that the language that was in this particular opinion is pretty favorable in terms of how the Supreme Court might be leaning in these other four cases that are coming up. That they’re they’re thinking That these, these next opinions that are released, hopefully within the next month or so, all the well, three of them challenge the constitutionality of SORNA to in Pennsylvania one of them is challenging civil commitment for minors in Pennsylvania. But the three that are looking at SORNA to it appears that the language in the butler opinion might be a little bit of a hint that it that those three will come out in our favor.

Andy 28:37
Do you want to chime in anything that

Larry 28:39
I didn’t get the opportunity to read it so I probably wouldn’t be able to add anything to what Theresa said. And congratulations to getting your press release. That’s one of the cover. That’s once one thing that we really strive is to get the media to discussing and contacting us to ask us for our viewpoint rather than just go into the prosecution. First go to the law enforcement apparatus. So congrats on that.

Theresa 29:04
Yeah, thanks. Getting a voice.

Andy 29:06
Yeah, just a quick roll back. What is an SVP again?

Theresa 29:10
Yeah, so sexually violent predator. So in the state of Pennsylvania the sob sex sex sex offense assessment board has a process by which they determine whether or not anyone who has been convicted of a sexual crime is a sexually violent predator. We have serious problems with that process and and don’t believe that, that the way risk is determined in this state is indicative of whether or not someone actually is a sexually violent predator or not. But that’s another story all together. So that’s what the term is.

Andy 29:54
Okay. And is that a standard there is that a standard that applies equally across All of our 75 states,

Larry 30:02
which senator has added and

Andy 30:05
determining who is or isn’t an SVP?

Larry 30:07
Well, every state doesn’t have a sexually violent predator. We don’t have such a creature here.

Andy 30:13
So right out of the gate, the answer is no,

Larry 30:15
because the answer is no. And then some some state Some states have a process by which it’s determined through the court, which Pennsylvania does not show the court. The the they have to have a hearing against them due process that I’m sure it’s flawed, but but it doesn’t just automatically do so a B doesn’t have the final say. So according to my understanding that it has to be it has to be determined by the court after they’ve had a hearing. Is that correct?

Theresa 30:39
Yes, it’s but but basically, they rely heavily on the

Larry 30:43
well, they’re not experts on the subject matter, but there is a due process adversarial proceeding where they where they have judicial review.

Theresa 30:51
There, there is a due process but the actual of the actually Butler originally in the Superior Court challenge Due processes as being flawed, and it was after Butler after the superior court’s decision, it was determined that they they should have that this should be determined beyond a reasonable doubt which which it is not.

Larry 31:20
So. Well, I agree with you on the due processes. It’s kind of like the the risk system in Arkansas that exists to give someone the level one through four. It’s not it’s not a perfect process. They go through an assessment process at Pine Bluff. And then there is there is a due process. It’s always flawed because the offenders never provided the resources that they need. The standards are usually too murky in terms of who bears the burden, and it leaves it leaves the court in an alert if they if they find if it’s a decision by a judge. And if the judge has to be elected like they are in Arkansas, It’s better to to err on the side of caution.

Theresa 32:03
It’s not the assessor process.

Larry 32:06
The processes are are not going to be, they’re not going to be perfect. But But what due process doesn’t mean a perfect process.

Theresa 32:17
I agreed the one of the reasons it’s a I think a big issue here in Pennsylvania is because there isn’t consistency number one, in terms of, of the assessment processes. And the other thing is the restrictions on people with that designation, are pretty horrendous people in Pennsylvania who have an SDP designation, are required to go to mandated counseling for the rest of their lives.

Theresa 32:46
I assume that they pay for it too, right?

Theresa 32:48
Yeah, yeah, they pay for it too. Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, as a therapist, I can tell you that there’s a saturation. You know, when ethically we should not be providing services, someone who’s not benefiting. And if there’s a saturation point, you would Yeah, but you’re there. you’re required to be there. Even though you can no law, you’ve already reap all the benefits you can from this process. Nonetheless, for the rest of your life, you’re in treatment.

Andy 33:17
I don’t want to go, I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole. But can we go there for a minute about like the treatment providers and getting paid and releasing them? And the what’s the word that conflict of interest in letting someone go from your revenue stream?

Theresa 33:31
I’m sure I mean, I’ve I don’t, I am not. Actually, I’m not even licensed. I’m licensed in another state. And I don’t provide mandated treatment. So I’m not in that in that realm. I am a member of that. But that is focused mainly on therapy that I provide to maps minor attracted persons who have not offended as well as research that I’ve done. for dealing with people who are on the registry, so I’m not in a position I’m kind of hemming and hawing. Because I don’t I don’t have real specifics in term and what I know about what goes on in terms of this, you know, treatment. And the revenue stream is from the, you know, from my work it with parcel and what I hear from people in the states who are on the registry and the fact that magically, people can successfully complete treatment when their probation ends, or in the case of an SVP, they die. It and that’s just not individualized treatment. So I can’t help but think that, you know, one person might be in treatment for six months and somebody else for seven years. You know if that person was in treatment for seven years and then with the paperwork is all signed off, the treatment plan is completed this person completed successfully. And it happened to be the week before they were released from probation or parole. However, my if that person had been released from probation or parole after two years, they would have completed after two years. So I mean, that’s, that makes me go, huh, you know, kind of things that make it go Hmm. So I mean, I don’t have any, any inside knowledge but, and I will say this, though, I have heard from folks in the community too, who have that there are some some people out there who are really happy with their providers, and one in particular, who’s actually a partial board member who was in a very, I would say sketchy treatment program and was kicked out He this particular person is a designated SVP. And he is not on paper. So he’s not on parole or probation, but he is because he has an SVP required to go to therapy for the rest of his life. Our our state law says that you must go to therapy at least once a month, and his provider insisted that he go every week for the rest of his life. And he, part of the treatment agreement was that no one is allowed to be on any social media. And this particular person had a Facebook account, and the treatment provider found out about it and kicked him out of the program. He lives in a relatively rural part of the state and that provider was the only provider available. If he had not found another provider, he would have had to go back to jail even though his he was not a pro probation, but because he was a an SVP, he would have had to continue or continue therapy, if and he didn’t, he would, he would that he would go back to jail. So he ended up finding a provider that was quite a distance away, he had to, he still does have to travel to get to that provider, but he’s quite happy. Because that particular provider provides services that are pretty state of the art. He focuses on good lives model and the whole person as opposed to the relapse prevention model that is so popular in this country. And so, uh, you know, I don’t want to, but what I’m saying is like, just like anything else, there’s a continuum, you know, in terms of quality of provision, and, and I’m sure that there are some providing services in a way that has nothing to do with when somebody happens to not be in parole probation anymore. And when they’ve actually, you know, reaped all the benefits they can possibly reap. Nonetheless, it doesn’t make it. Okay. That the other end of the spectrum,

Andy 38:06
I think we can move on to our normal content. I think I think I think, and one of the main reasons why I wanted to have Teresa on is because so many of our people are even extra impacted, while at the same time better prepared for this whole lockdown for everybody. But I wanted to get the specific insight from Theresa on dealing with the different levels of stress for registrants in general, but now also with Cova 19. And maybe some of these things can apply to quote unquote, normal people, as you know.

Theresa 38:41
Yes, absolutely.

Larry 38:44
The first article,

Andy 38:46
I happen to be listening to a tech podcast where I found this and the title is is how a futurist copes with uncertainty. And I hear this woman speaking quite often and she’s pretty stellar. She does advisement Work for large companies. And she put together a very Beginner’s Guide to dealing with trying to figure out like pros and cons of things or pit this idea against another idea, Larry, I think you do this naturally, when you’re trying to analyze the strategy behind looking at bill like we’ve talked a bajillion times about the the Georgia case with the with the signs, and what is their next move going to be just always trying to plan out your next chess, move your next chess, move your next chess move, so that you can you can see what’s coming down the pike and nothing ever then surprises you? Well, of course they were going to do this. And I was really intrigued by this article, in that it described how just different ideas, different scenarios that you could use for pitting the different elements of things against each other.

Larry 39:49
Are you are you wanting my comments are Teresa’s because she’s the expert on this. So

Andy 39:54
all of the above I want to because because you Larry are certainly adept at planning ahead. You know, we’ve talked about why weren’t the hospital administrators prepared for all of these things? And it seems like you could build a matrix of knowing what’s coming down the pike. And of course, Teresa being the expert in the field and dealing with people as as clients that you have specific examples of dealing with the various stresses that are related to the registry.

Theresa 40:18
Right, with uncertainty. Yeah, I mean, why don’t you begin? Well, I will tell you like one of the things when I looked at that article that struck me was this, there’s a focus on the preparation. And I can’t talk about you know, preparing for the pandemic, but in terms of people preparing for dealing with the uncertainty, uncertainty that’s related in this pandemic. I mean, that’s a very skillful thing for any of us to do to kind of look ahead, think about what might happen and what we need to be prepared for that just makes common sense and in terms of our own well being mental health as well as health, health. Ever, I think that it’s equally important as important for folks to kind of do that. And then move on, not move on. But move back, move back into the present moment. A lot of the folks that I’m have worked with this past week, who are having difficulty are having difficulty because they’re trying to prepare for the unknown. And they want all the answers and we’re not going to have the answers and we can’t do it. And that just increases our stress. So being able to reasonably Kind of, yeah, I need a couple weeks of food in the house. I need to make sure that I’m I have a the ability to contact my mother on a regular basis to check in and make sure she’s okay with it. Whatever it is, like we think about that stuff. We have our little plan. And we’re not going to cover all the bases. But in order for us to be able to feel as calm as possible under these really trying situations. really be in this present moment. Right? So I think we need to find a balance between preparation and living our lives in this moment.

Andy 42:10
Very interesting, Larry, describe, if you would, how you look at things like from policy point of view from a politics point of view and start pitting that against how you strategize out and try and reduce uncertainty in dealing with legislature or even in your own life personally.

Larry 42:29
Well, my my by nature, my DNA is to imagine, always imagine what can happen and then I’ll assign it a probability factor. If I had been asked to imagine a global pandemic, since I’m not an expert by any means this I wouldn’t have been able to have imagined something that’s that’s locked down the society the normal way we have, it has to us both what I would have been able to imagine and I’m disappointed that it Wasn’t imagined would have been in terms of preparation for the basics, we were not going to be able to justify having millions of respirators and ventilators available because they’re just too expensive. And when we have so many competing things for, for our limited public financing, we’re not going to be able to justify that, nor can we expect the hospital to have that. But what what, what does stress me a little bit is that, that basic things are not that expensive. They don’t have to don’t have the degradation of quality would be like, I’m wondering when, when hospitals simulate reasonably expectations of what could happen, you would think that they would model out if all the staff walked off the job one day that they would model that out, they would model out what would happen if the primary source of power went down? What would happen if the water got contaminated in their city because you still need to keep treating patients if the water gets contaminated for terrorists but something in the reservoir so you think They would model out that and you think they would model out things like, like surgical gowns and face mask and basic stuff. Again, how far do you take that? And where do you take your models and what could happen versus the cost? that that that would be required to prepare for that? surgical mask? facemask and surgical gowns are not that expensive, and they last quite some time. So you think that we wouldn’t be having this shortage because you think hospital administrators would have thought about having backup supplies, it’s the most basic stuff. And that’s what I think a job of a hospital administrator is and then we’ve been told that locals are so much more brilliant than those bureaucrats up in Washington DC. And therefore, I’m a little disappointed that I hear so much criticism of the administration. And I hear so little self critique and criticism of the local officials about what they should have done because my hometown over in Newton County, Georgia, they have they have a nice General Hospital about 100 beds. They have a Board of County Commissioners and a city administration. And they could have provided for provisions. And I’m sure the town would have been more than happy to count, it would have been more than happy to help them store up provisions that would have been needed in the event, our just in time inventory system of America, if the supply chain just got broken. So I’m a little disappointed in that stuff. But what I try to do is to try to imagine from a political point of view, or from an adversary point of view, if I’m in litigation, I tried to look at what I would do if I were representing the other side. If I were arguing the other side, and I try to imagine everything that they could come up with because I assume I’d have never assumed I’m smarter than the rest of the world. I assume that anything I can think of so can they, if I can think of it, it’s a concern, because if I thought of it, they’re probably going to be able to think of it. So that’s what I do is I go through all these, all these scenarios. If I were trying to pose this legislation, what would I do to kill it if it’s something we’re for and the other way around? If I’m trying to pass something on their side, what would they what would their logical moves be to try to do to us and get past our opposition. And I do a lot of imagining of what could happen and to consternation a lot of our listeners, because I end up making comments about in case of Pennsylvania when the when the when the decision came down, and munez, I had one of the loyal supporters up there really irate saying the hell out and I raised a little straw but very, very distressed, that I would say that they would do everything they could to protect the registration, including appealing it, including pass a new statute, that’s exactly what I would do. If I were in their position. If I had their job to do that’s exactly what I would do. It doesn’t require genius to figure this stuff out. If you’ve got a mob mentality out there that wants to keep the registry alive, and your existence depends on you also have a family to feed and you have a job to do. You would try to figure out a way to keep the registry alive because that’s where the people are. So it didn’t take a genius to figure that out. It’s like Ted Turner said when they asked him how he knew there was demand for news outside the standard network news cycles. He said, because everybody can’t make those. Those times he said, it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. So I don’t consider anything I figure out to be to be anywhere near approaching genius level. It’s just to me a basic knowledge of putting yourself in the other, the other other side’s position, and knowing what their concerns are. And when you do that, it’s really not that hard.

Andy 47:28
Teresa, and you have some tools that you wanted to talk about in helping people get prepared for different levels of uncertainty, not just registrants. But normal folks.

Theresa 47:39
Yeah, I’m not sure about being prepared for different levels of uncertainty. It’s just kind of being able to deal with to lean into the uncertainty that we have. Right now to take. You know, we’re all in this together, but it’s a lot tougher for some others. You know where we have this in Jeff and it’s social isolation, Panic of scarce resources, panic over information overload folks who are on the registry, some this they’ve been dealing with all along anyway. And now it’s exaggerated for for many, especially the social isolation piece and you know if, if I read this to you earlier, Andy if it’s okay, do you mind if I read this statement that I got, guys, so, so one of the one of the folks in Pennsylvania who’s on the registry, sent me an email in the chat. And he had this to say, which I thought was really interesting and very insightful. Brilliant actually is the word I used when I first came to me when I first read it. So he says, As a side note, I’m curious how the average Joe citizen likes living the way most of us have to live all the time. can’t work. must stay at home unless you have a valid reason to go out, do not associate with others, and people constantly afraid you will somehow infect them, which I just thought was just dead on. So on some levels, people who are on the registry are more prepared already to deal with this because we’ve had to, had to deal with it anyway, on on some level, but at the same time, it just, it also adds an extra layer for some people and their social isolation. So we crave social contact the same way we crave food. Our brains neurologically are designed to crave social connection as well. And that’s something people on the registry and many people have had to deal with. That, that isolation and not getting what they need is and then now there’s an even an extra life. On that some, it’s harder for some folks than for others. So even so, so moving forward and trying to be as intentional as we possibly can be, to get that social connection that we need in these uncertain times. And then terms of preparation, again, I’m going back to, there’s only so much we can prepare for as individuals. And we, you know, I don’t know about you, but I know at my house, we’re all every day or two, we’re kind of backing up and regrouping because there’s some new news or some new direction and some way that that we’ve got to as a group kind of get together and figure out okay, how are we going to deal with this? So so we do that as it arises. We have not like Larry said, I mean, I never would have imagined that I’d be in this position in this moment and was not prepared. What happened. Matter of fact, I got off I went to Brazil, I went to Brazil and, and five days into my 10 day trip, I found out my flight home was canceled. I didn’t, I didn’t dissipate that, and had to rush to the airport at three, three hours to get a flight back. And I was lucky enough to get it I, I got I got home five days after I left and was like in shock, like What in the world happened while I was gone? You know, everything was different in five days when I got back and I didn’t anticipate and wasn’t prepared for any of that. Nonetheless, I you know, had to deal with it. So it’s it rather than thinking that we can be prepared for this unknown, thinking, coming up with what we can but also continuing to bring ourselves in the moment like okay, this is it. I’m not prepared for this. I didn’t see this coming but here I am. In this moment, what can I do? That’s going to accommodate what I need, or what the people around me need as much as possible. So, um, so that’s, you know, in preparation, I see I do what we can, but mostly we need to be prepared to deal with the present moment with what comes up.

Theresa 52:21
So, how do you,

Andy 52:23
how do you? Yeah, but how do you know the questions to ask? And like my neighbor, he unloaded on me just a handful of days ago, he is, you know, just barely above minimum wage. He’s just a pizza delivery person, which is got to be just about the worst job you could have. Because you are forced to go to random people’s houses and hand them stuff and they’re gonna touch your equipment. You know, you have a pen or whatever. And he’s, like, unloading on me. And he’s telling me that I’m the problem because I’m not sympathetic. And I’m like, dude, I’m asking if you need food or money or toilet paper if you need anything, and I’m the one that’s unsympathetic, and even him. He knows myself. Situation all this stuff but he doesn’t have the tool set available to him to figure out what is overboard like going like maybe I don’t think you’re going to catch coronavirus by someone touching your pen for them to sign the check. And you take it back and if you then carefully and you sanitize it, I personally no medical expert, but I don’t think that puts you at risk.

Theresa 53:19
Yeah, well, actually it does. Um, the corona virus can live. I would be I would be uptight about handing a pen back to someone all day. So, but But anyway, to your question, what’s important is so is is to is to let people feel whatever it is they’re feeling and and be in this place where there is there’s no right or wrong way to feel in all this. So, basically validating what someone feels. So if someone is like, you know, I’m really uptight. You know, I have to talk to these people every day. I’m passing my pen back and forth. It’s simply not asking a question, but simply, but simply connecting with them. And by saying something like, that must be really hard for you, I can tell that you’re really feeling anxious about that. So basically validating one another. We’re all going through different things. I go through different things at different times during every day. And, and, and I think most of the people most of us do, we kind of go back and forth, depending on what thoughts and emotions are rising in any given moment. But what’s important is that we’re able to, to validate not only our own feelings, it’s okay to be afraid in this mode. You know, it’s okay to feel. I mean, there are people I’ve talked with who also were offended people because they were making you know, Cova 19th jokes. Well, you know, it’s okay to make jokes. Just Be careful who you make them with and make sure they’re there. Their jokes that are funny and not at anyone’s expense. As a 65 year old, I’ve heard a few that are at the expense of, of senior citizens. And while there some, many of them are clever, they’re not. They are a little unsettling as well. So

Theresa 55:22
you’re not ready to just sacrifice yourself for the

Theresa 55:25
same. Why not quite

Andy 55:28
know you’re old as Methuselah, are you ready to sacrifice yourself for the economy?

Larry 55:32
Well, I’m not sure. I’m not sure that I want to at this point. And it’s, it’s the thing, that from what we’re hearing those who have complications, the complications are significant in terms of the discomfort of being on the ventilator and that, you know, death is a certainty for all of us. But the, the the fear, most at least for me, I know the fear is not the death but the fear is how the death will come about. Dr Kevorkian so learner with us, so we don’t, we don’t get to check out on our own terms right now.

Andy 56:06
That’s true. That’s true. Um, anything else that you wanted to dive in there, Teresa before we move on to some of these other articles?

Theresa 56:13
Um, so I mean, in terms of cover, I mean, I really want to make sure that people are taking care of themselves, you know. So we know that people on the registry many can access internet right now. The general population is using social media and all kinds of resources on the internet to stay connected with others. And it would encourage me to watch Broadway plays online for free. There’s Netflix party going on now. Free Online classes, at universities, all kinds of things that we can do online to stay connected and to do it with other people. But there are other people on the registry who don’t have access to the internet. Either. Because of a restriction because of probation or parole, or because they don’t have the resources to be able to afford the internet or a device that will help them do that. So, you know, just encouraging people to do what they can, in terms of maintaining their normal routine as normal as possible, getting up at a decent hour getting dressed, not laying around in your pajamas, minimizing news consumption. So if we take in too much of this stuff, it’s just going to take us down. So staying informed, again, finding the balance, stay informed, but just enough to stay informed, not continually reading the news, about about the virus, organizing our living space. So when our external environment is all kind of chaotic and messy, it makes our in insights chaotic and messy to starting new rituals, learning, you know, I talked with somebody who’s decided he’s going to learn to speak speak Japanese so every day he you know, part of his daily ritual is he, he takes takes an hour and, and is starting to learn to speak Japanese, we’re doing art, you know, let your soul speak. There is a lot going on in terms of emotions that there that language just fall short. But we can if we use creative mediums like watercolors or messing around with some clay or just creating something, it really the process kind of opens up some of the emotional stuff that’s stuck inside of us. So those kinds of things. Um, I think most people are going to make it through here these days but these tough days we have coming but some aren’t. And I if it’s okay with you. I wanted to like just provide some information about crisis where people could reach out for crisis. If If this is too tough. For them, there is a disaster helpline that’s specifically related to Kovac 19. On the samsa site, um, and I believe I’m gonna just pass that information on to you or I can say it now it’s up to you, Larry, or, Andy. No, that’s it.

Andy 59:18
Okay, so numbers and websites.

Theresa 59:19
Yep, you can call the disaster helpline for Cova 19. The samsa line is 800-985-5990. Or you can text the words we’ll all all together, no spaces, talk with us to the number 66746. Talk with us. 266746. And then there’s the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Their number is 800-273-8255. They have an online chat chat. And you can get there at by going to suicide prevention lifeline.org backslash chat, backslash, and you can contact them by texting ta lk talk to 741741. I also, you know I mentioned about being in the moment, a bunch of times. I think it’s really important. And there are meditation apps and apps, mindful apps, mindfulness apps that are free. Insight timer is one calm is another ca lm they’re both excellent. They have thousands of, of practices on there anywhere from five minutes to 25 minutes if, if you’re interested. They’re also to two websites. Self compassion.org meditations we need, this is a time we need To be very pro social, not just with ourselves but with everyone else. There’s, you know, kindness and compassion, the sensitivity to our suffering with a desire to alleviate and prevent it goes a long, long way, in terms of our being able to tolerate the difficult, so there’s compassionate mind foundation in the United Kingdom. I didn’t write that website down. I’ll send it to you, Andy. But you can go to self compassion.org and they have self compassion, meditations.

Theresa 1:01:36
guided meditations.

Andy 1:01:39
Yeah, antastic that all sounds really great.

Theresa 1:01:41
It is good stuff.

Andy 1:01:43
Well, we will move on and cover our normal battery of articles. And the first one is going to come from law 360 federal prisons can send more inmates home, but will they? Larry, I think that you’ve said that the other nations are sending their folks on and I think we have some article are talking about it but the US never quite seems to figure out how to do this.

Larry 1:02:04
Not in a number set, other nations are doing it. And what I would encourage the Attorney General actually directed to the Attorney General The United States is oil bar directed the bureau presence, which is, which is within the Department of Justice. So he DLP director reports to the attorney general has directed them to to be more aggressive and who they who they released, they’ve had these powers always for a long time. Not always but for a long time. But we have the timidity factor. And this administration doesn’t have to be as concerned about the timidity factor because this administration has the ARB before their name, and they’re not going to get vilified as much as you are. If you have a D. and you make a mistake. And you can look back at Willie Horton and when the when hw ran against governor Dukakis in 88. How he got Willie was it He got vilified for Willie Horton. Horton having a furlough in the state of Massachusetts and committed a crime. But I would encourage this administration, you’re not going to get vilified. If you send 10s of thousands of people home. It’s inevitable, statistically, someone is going to mess up. Go ahead and be honest and accept that that someone will mess up. But then let’s adopt a law enforcement. What they say, Don’t judge 23,000 that you sent home by the 17th that mess up? Yeah, let’s deal with the 17. That’s what the cops say don’t judge the 10s of thousands of good officers, by the few does of it screw up and I agree with them. But let’s apply that across the board. Let’s go ahead and be aggressive and be on the safe side and put these people in an early release on electronic control. halfway houses writing such thing left out there because they’re probably also in the same position. But let’s get these people out of these confined institutions, which we’re going to talk about later. We got some pictures coming up from California. But go ahead and do it. You’re not going to get vilified for it. Take some change, you’re

Andy 1:04:16
nuts. But you’re not talking about somebody that gets, you know, convicted of murder yesterday to say, Oh, we got this virus you go home tomorrow. You’re talking about people that are they’ve been there a while they’ve proven some kind of track record. Maybe they’re at that front end of where they’re, they could be released on parole, maybe like, hey, extend that out to more people. You just mentioned like electronic monitoring. Like there there are tools in place that could be used to figure out what people could be sent home. They’re just not doing

Larry 1:04:46
well. I will I would, I would probably not be as selective as you’re talking about. If it’s the right circumstances or present, I would even consider people that were recently I would consider sending Harvey Weinstein out because he’s medically fragile I know that the victims advocates are going to probably burn my house down tonight when they hear this. But But he has probably a death sentence now and that wasn’t his sentence. his sentence was confinement. And we can terrify him without having him in the danger zone that he’s in that

Theresa 1:05:21
there’s an article. This is not not confirmed. There’s a couple Harvey Weinstein’s stuff Weinstein has tested positive for kovat 19.

Larry 1:05:32
Yes, we have that event listed as one of the articles. We have that, but I would I would be. What I’m trying to get across is this administration has political capital, because a won’t be vilified by the democratic side. If some people mess up. And if they do mess up, we will say, well, we did it on the side of humanity being compassionate trying to keep an epidemic from spreading, but then all killing thousands of people. As I present, we made the best decision we thought we could at the time. And we knew at the time we made the decision that some people were going to mess up. But those subs, that small number that messed up, we’re dealing with them. Just exactly what the police say that you should do. When they mess up. You deal with that police officer. You don’t you don’t vilify the entire police force because of the bad one bad apple.

Andy 1:06:26
I’m constantly intrigued by that idea. I my whole notion of what I think of police officers Now I know that when when someone is knocking on my door telling me that they’re going to perform bodily harm to me, I’m going to dial 911 and expect the police to show up and I would thank them and kiss their feet as they show up. But at the same time, I see them driving around, I see them turn on their lights and drive through red light or they they speed down a road. You know, I’ve just they do that because they can and I’m not saying they all do it but you could just see it on a very regular basis that there’s a certain amount of scope creep of them. The abuse of power and I’m kind of off the topic a little bit, but I just constantly see that go by.

Larry 1:07:06
So well of this on this federal prison. They go ahead and act aggressively, take some chances. Do what we have to be at least as smart as Iran is.

Theresa 1:07:19
And they’ve they’ve sent 10s of thousands of pounds,

Andy 1:07:22
wasn’t it? 50 I saw a bozo. jailers ad

Theresa 1:07:26
wasn’t at 80,000 and they’re sending more. I mean, their particular hard hit, but

Andy 1:07:31
solder keg of having people like locked inside of a box and they’re like, they will all just I don’t know if they’ll all die, but I mean, that’s it. I keep thinking of horror movies where something gets spread around and just mass pandemonium and we have you know, people are dying and riots breaking out. It’s just horrible.

Larry 1:07:47
So, but I’m hoping that there’ll be more aggressive than so far I’ve seen the indication that they’ve got, we’ve got a county jail here with 15 to 1700 people and they were all proud of themselves. They released 12 people Know that least a dozen inmates really you think that’s gonna make a difference that will make a difference for those 12? If they’re vulnerable they are. They’re the happy lucky ones who got out of the power kick. So it makes all the difference in the world with them and their families. But in terms of 1700 they’re still there. They did

Theresa 1:08:15
not. Yeah, I heard from a mother of someone who’s prison today. she, her son has been approved to be paroled in August. And she’s wondering why it is. He can’t get out now, given the threat and the risk of being imprisoned. Now with this virus spreading what would stand in the way of folks moving forward with something like that, Larry?

Theresa 1:08:46
Well, I don’t know that I don’t know the system and PA well enough, but what what I’ve what I’ve given as advice is that even though you don’t have the power to do something, you can do it anyway in a health crisis and Unless there’s a challenge mounted and like, for example, we’ve got a primary coming up here. There’s there’s all this talk about what to do about the primary. And I said, Well, to me, it’s not a complicated thing at all. Have the governor asked the Secretary of State to issue a proclamation saying that based on the powers that that that she believes he has based on a public health crisis, that that we’re going to postpone the primary. And unless there’s a challenge asserted in court, then it would stand even though they don’t technically have the power. And I’m not asking for people to go out and just invent their own law. And in fact, we’re filing lawsuits in Georgia for that very reason. But this requires, legislators are not in session so we can’t have the legislature of New Mexico run to Santa Fe. And make a law saying that the primary can be postponed, just do it. Do what the captain did. That was saving the Indianapolis one All those men were in the shark infested waters. And he turned on the lights on his vessel and said, until we can get these men out of the water, we’re going to be a sitting target for all the German subs that are out there ready to fire on us. And he took a chance, he would have been court martialed, and he would have been vilified if his ship had been suck, but he just did it. And that’s what we need to do here. Just do it. So Theresa, I don’t know if they have the power to move up his release date. But just do it.

Theresa 1:10:33
Simple and if nobody challenges it, you had the power.

Andy 1:10:36
Isn’t this then like the the representative in Northern Kentucky that we talked about a few minutes ago? You know, if if these people start releasing all you know, the torrent of all the prisoners, whatever, then they’re going to pay the price, you know, come the next election cycle and they don’t want to face that risk.

Theresa 1:10:54
That’s exactly what the timidity is. So they simply say, well, we don’t have the power Well, in extraordinary situations, I mean, we have a lot of case law, including when the US Supreme Court said the internment of Japanese was okay. In a national emergency. We’ve got we’ve, since we don’t have a lot of case law in terms of pandemics in terms of what powers I can’t imagine a court saying, You can’t release these people put them back in jail. I don’t see that happening. So just have courage and do it. Do it responsibly. But do it quickly.

Andy 1:11:34
Because one of the articles that we have is from WP war and it’s mostly just a little five minute audio clip and there’s more than 50 inmates in New York, Rikers Island, the jail complex there. What did we determine last week late is it 15,000 people are there

Larry 1:11:49
originally constructed in the 1930s

Andy 1:11:51
right and so they have 50 inmates and if this explodes if this you know if one person can transmit it easily to 20 or 30 or 50 people 50 people expands exponentially at a very fast rate, you end up with 15,000 people have it probably in a matter of two days or something like that.

Larry 1:12:09
And then the question becomes of those we know that everybody doesn’t die. We know that from from from the global experience. But what we don’t know is how many people will die that didn’t have to that’s that we’ll find out later at the end of this, if we don’t take any action. And I would rather be on the side of taking precautions and trying to keep people from dying, they were not sentenced to death. We need to always remember that.

Andy 1:12:32
And so Brenda just said, I spent suspect it’s too late most jails and prisons to stop the spread, which I would completely 100% agree with you. And then the next logical step would be that the prison medical system doesn’t have the capacity at all to handle this kind of thing. So and I wouldn’t say that the civilian sector is able to do with it, but they probably can do better than what the prison has. So we’re back to the same thing of letting people go on a more aggressive posture than not letting them go.

Larry 1:13:00
So well. Yeah. And when you mentioned parole, just we were talking about the federal what the Attorney General bar hit. We don’t have parole, the federal system, they abolished at 1984. So what we have is you serve all your time, less than 50% good time that you can earn in any year. And then the

Andy 1:13:18
file is gone slightly outside of his control to even say, hey, look, I’m issuing an executive.

Theresa 1:13:24
They have they have four they have provisions for frail inmates and for medically infirm today compassionate release, I have various things that he’s asking them to look more liberally. But I’m saying, Mr. Attorney General, even if you go a step further than what you think you have the authority for, no one on our side is going to vilify you. You only have to look,

Larry 1:13:46
just look at this.

Theresa 1:13:49
We’re not going to file anything because you’ll let too many people out. We’re not going to claim you’re turning loose a tidal wave of crime on the United States like they did President Obama when he tried to get some people out of prison. We’re not going to do that, just do it, and you’ll be fine. Some people will mess up, go ahead and announce that that you expect of these 26,000 that you released that there will be some people who mess up. And we’ll do what we do to the cops that mess up. And the cops will support us because they believe that you should judge each individual and not the whole group. So we let 23,000 prisoners out of the federal system, and 17 mess up. The cops would of course say we’ll deal with those 17 messed up, we don’t paint the whole 23,000 but that brush, I would be very confident they would say that because that’s what they tell us to say about them. That that’s the way we’re supposed to look at them when they mess up.

Andy 1:14:40
You don’t think the victims advocates would rise up and challenge any of the state problems

Theresa 1:14:43
they probably would win a debate forum with the victims advocates were say we need to say what I just said they were not sentenced to die.

Andy 1:14:51
And they weren’t sentenced to be treated cruelly either they were sentenced to be confined and have lots of liberties and stuff like that.

Larry 1:14:58
And then they They can have severe restrictions on their liberty outside the walls of the prison. that’s a that’s a misnomer that you can’t have, that you can’t people can be punished horrendously and not be behind prison walls.

Andy 1:15:10
Moving up to the NBC article, the one thing that says in there in the subtitle of it, it says that they would release temporarily 70,000 people would, would the provisions in the federal statute be like, hey, you can go home for a month, two months, whatever, while we resolve these issues, but you’re gonna report back to this institution, you know, come June 1, or something like that. What’s your

Larry 1:15:33
which article are you looking

Andy 1:15:34
at? I’m looking at the NBC News one, it says Corona virus prompts prisoner releases around the world. You’re smoking some funny weed again?

Larry 1:15:42
Oh, yeah. Nope, nope. Nope. I see. That NBC. So yeah, that that was the one where it talks about countries that are releasing people far more aggressively than than we are here in the US.

Andy 1:15:55
Yeah, totally. But so there in the subtitle, it says that they’re temporarily freed, do you think that we would send our people home and then say, hey, come back to prison at some point, you would

Theresa 1:16:07
want to play a bit better? It would depend on the posture of their sentence. Since we have in the federal system now, we’re focusing exclusively on the federal system at the moment. Since we already have that for the final component of your federal prison. You’re supposed to get some halfway house time as a community release time anyway. If they weren’t within that zone, of course, they wouldn’t go back to prison. I don’t think if they if they stayed out long enough that they were that they would have been released anyway. But someone who was serving a much longer period of time when this crisis goes by, unless the president decides to commit their sentences. Yes, they would go by to prison. It’d be unfortunate, but that’s what would happen.

Andy 1:16:42
Yeah. Because it’s just such a hostile environment for this kind of situation. Being in prison. It’s just so hostile for humans to be around this virus.

Larry 1:16:51
Well, I would I would say that that that if we let 10,000 out for this emergency And the emergency abates within a year. And only 24 of those people have messed up that perhaps we could look at going ahead and shorten their sentences, because I think they would have proven themselves to some degree. Now, that would be a really aggressive posture. But again, this administration can do things because of that they would never jeopardize the US citizens security. It’s kind of like we’ve had this discussion before. Republicans, conservatives can do things that that that liberals can’t do. And then vice versa, it works the other way. Also, no republican president could have ever signed the welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton signed in 1996. Because if a republican had dare sign that they would have vilified him to know when they held their nose and let Clinton sign it because he was a Democrat. So they withheld a lot of the criticism that a republican would have gotten. So it’s a two way street. I’m not just dumping on the conservatives.

Andy 1:17:54
Yeah, no, yeah, I mean, the team, Team Blue would be able to sign things that are In their camp and Team Red consigned for things that are in their camp, and I totally I totally get what you’re saying. Teresa, what do you think the the psychological impact is of being inside the powder keg, you know, actually like being in the pot that we’re calling black, while the corona virus is spreading around and you don’t know if your bunkmate your neighbor or somebody in the dorm has it? That’s got a Yeah, it’s getting around people psychologically.

Theresa 1:18:24
Yeah, no, absolutely and completely and it’s funny, I was talking to my, my own son or when he was in prison, there he the prison he was in went on a lockdown for two weeks. He was he was 19 years old at the time. He’d never been in prison before. But there was a virus that was had spread through the prison and they locked the prison down. And he was terrified. He was telling me today, you know how grateful he is that he is not you know, that, that he’s not in right now. And I’ve gotten emails and contacts from parents who have people you know, it’s not just the people on the inside, although that is awful, completely and totally powerless. And to have this thing that, you know, I think, I think on the chat, you know, there was the acknowledgment is that this thing is spreading through the prisons, it’s like too late to put this back in the box and it’s happening and there you are, you’re trapped. So psychologically, it is devastating for the folks that are in there and it’s also devastating for their family, because they’re so powerless and there’s nothing they can do. You know, I liked Larry saying, just do it, just do it. But the people that have the power to just do it aren’t and, and, and it is harming people, not just physically but also from a psychological perspective. They’re completely and totally, they’re, they’re in threat. So you know, we have three primary emotion regulations, some Our threat system, which is great, because we’re always kind of looking for what’s going to take us out our drive system, we accomplish things and move forward, get excited about stuff in our suiting system, where we can become and contented and just be. And the folks that are in prisons right now, and to a lesser extent, their families are pretty much firmly planted in their threat systems. And in that place, the only emotions that arise are anger, anxiety and disgust. And that’s a really painful place to be.

Andy 1:20:35
which kind of makes an interesting segue over to an article that I found today over at Vox and its governors are starting to close their borders. The implications are staggering. You know, a prison is something that we can sort of visualize as being an enclosed container, a self contained container, and, you know, just expand that out to either like your city or your county, but eventually you move up to the state level. It seems kind of crazy to me that you would be denied Entry if you’re on a plane that’s landing, and you’re, you know, you’re, you’re coming from New York City, and like, sorry, you got to go hang out somewhere for 14 days. I mean, that’s almost, you know, it’s a similar situation, hey, we’re clean here. We don’t want you people here.

Theresa 1:21:15
Right? So everyone, we have this, this threat going on on a macro level, as well as the individual level, like entire states, entire countries. I mean, China doesn’t want is not letting Americans in anymore because we’re bringing the fires back. And

Andy 1:21:33
you think they can actually do this layer? Can they like shut down the state borders isn’t something there’s something in that article that talks about the constitutionality of being able to move around the states freely?

Larry 1:21:42
Well, there again, we’re in uncharted territory, because in normal circumstances, yes, but we’re not in normal circumstances. And I think the courts are going to be a little bit hesitant to stop. I mean, you have said in a minute of our private conversations about how we should defer to the medical experts. This is something that medical experts are strongly recommending as to stop the movement of people and stop the social connections and to distance one another. And I think that, that, in normal circumstances, it would be very problematic. And I would I would not support at all, but in these situations that we’ll find ourselves in right now. I think the courts if such a challenge is asserted, I think the courts are going to be relatively deferential to the health authorities and to the executives that were elected that are that are implementing these restrictions. So I think there’s a good chance that they’ll withstand additional scrutiny and and and they’ll they’ll probably be coming back and visited in a short period of time. As the situation unfolds, if this subsides substantial I think that they can’t become permanent fixture in American life but I think that probably within the initial challenge

Theresa 1:22:49
very very it’s it’s you know, it’s it’s just harkens to a different time where you actually had

Andy 1:22:57
you know, you had Scots against the Irish again, I mean, pitch to me it sounds just like oh, you’re from the New York. So you can’t come to me. It just reminds me of something like that.

Larry 1:23:05
Well, it does. I mean, it’s absolutely

Andy 1:23:08
no something we’ve never, ever had any sort of notion to even conceive of that we would be like, no, we’re just Americans dammit. Not, not from this region or that region. It’s just so weird to me.

Larry 1:23:18
But we’ve accepted quarantine as a law app for a long, long, long time. And it’s effectively a quarantine from the hotspots. And and so I think, yes, we want to think I think they would probably the courts would be very hesitant, and I hope no one jumps off of a bridge because I said that, but I think that the court actions would be turned aside or brushed away until this until this a Bates. And I think again, like if the Ohio be the example, Governor dewine decided to postpone the primary. And somebody did go to court said you can’t do that. And he said, Oh, but I can’t. And the judge said Oh, but you can’t and he says but watch me And he did. And there was no way they could force an election when the governor said, I’ve shut it down. I mean, how’s the court gonna step in and conduct an election?

Andy 1:24:07
Certainly. And then also, since it’s such a time based thing like, well, the dates already passed. So a few we’ve moved on, and we’ll have it at a later date. What are you going to do now? It’s already

Larry 1:24:16
well, that’s, that’s the thing with this, that these, these orders, I hope that this doesn’t become American way of life. I hope that they are that this is as as temporary and as temporary as it could possibly be. But we’re constantly bouncing between what the health health experts are being very, very, very cautious about everything. And if we defer to everything, health experts, I don’t think we would ever unlock the country again. So at some point, you got to balance we’re going to have to balance between letting the country fall apart from being locked out, or we’re going to have to find out what the appropriate risk is and how we can mitigate the risk within a higher risk of members of our population. We know that that that that it doesn’t affect all age groups are the same way we know that everybody can catch it now we first thought early on that that that was that teenagers and kids could get it we’ve since learned that they’re, they’re being diagnosed with it. But But we still we still the statistics still seems to suggest that it ravages older people more than it does younger people so so we may have to people my age and up may have to suffer more inconvenience to try to stay safer. Right.

Andy 1:25:29
Let’s move over to an article from the crime report that says prison, jail data show incarceration myths. Uh, what about six or so myths down there that we should kind of go over briefly talking about how people perceive how prisons are, but actually what they actually are. What did you want to cover here, there.

Larry 1:25:49
That’s what I wanted to talk about is that we we have, we have this myth about rear releasing, and if we just scroll through very quickly nonviolent drug offenders within mass incarceration well The problem is that wouldn’t a percent of the prisoners are not non violent drug offenders so we would still have a record amount of people incarcerated so that won’t do it and made it so step. And then we hear the people on my side, private prisons are the corrupt heart of mass incarceration, but actually for the 9% of all inmates, incarcerate the United States are private so if you totally totally disbanded private prisons, we’re still the the incarceration capital of the world. So so then the other the other points are people in prison for violent sex crimes are too dangerous to be released really there as soon as the recidivism data doesn’t show that and and then Then what about prisons or factories behind fences to provide companies with huge slave labor? And in fact, that’s also debunked. I mean, there are there there is are some people working for for very low wages, but that’s not what prisons exist for. Just provide company slaves and slave labor. And then there’s the part about community supervision as the best way to reduce incarceration. But this study, this toolkit contends that the conditions imposed on people under supervision, which is one of my pet peeves are often so restrictive that they end up failing and the Becket prison. 168,000 people in 2016 were incarcerated for technical violations.

Andy 1:27:21
Wow. 160,000 people, and the feds have something of 200,000 people, right?

Larry 1:27:28
Right, a little less, but

Andy 1:27:30
so and the 200,000. Okay, so somehow we can we can fudge some numbers. So the people that were really locked up for some kind of technical violation almost matches the federal prison population, just in 2016. And that would happen again, probably in 2017 18. And 19.

Larry 1:27:47
I would, I would, I would speculate so and for just

Andy 1:27:50
missing your curfew for for, for drinking some alcohol or something like that while you’re on supervision, and that violated the rules.

Larry 1:27:58
And that’s, that’s the next Have your famous technology that you’re so fond of having, the more we’ve deployed that technology, the more stuff we can detect that we wouldn’t have detected in yesteryear. We didn’t know if you made curfew late and yesteryear cuz we didn’t have any way of figuring out unless we sit on an office or your house. We didn’t know if you were drinking in yesteryear unless we happen to stumble upon it. We didn’t know if you traveled to an exclusion zone in yesteryear where they said don’t go within so many feet we didn’t know all that. And technology has allowed us to know a lot of stuff that we didn’t know about people that are under supervision which leads to a lot more violations of a technical nature.

Andy 1:28:34
There we got a backpedal I derpy me here. I missed a an article that showing some photos from prisons in California where they’re like, just inches their feet apart of each other.

Larry 1:28:46
Oh, yeah, I looked over that myself.

Andy 1:28:48
Yeah. Teresa, what do you think about people living in such close proximity to each other?

Theresa 1:28:55
Well, it’s, there’s those those images were just horrifying. And certainly the cabinet wasn’t just that they were in such close proximity when an vironment self said, what’s going on in our outside environment has a whole lot to do with what goes on in our insides. And they’re the conditions are were just pretty horrific and chaotic and and filthy, the ones shot of the restroom was was, there was a broken sink and it was dirty. And these are people who are sick, and they’re now they’re sick. And there is a deadly virus going around particularly deadly people who are already compromised health wise and older. And so No, I mean, we’re just right back into this living in this system and the threat and the threat system and being consumed with anxiety and stress, hopelessness, all kinds of just really bad ways to be. I mean, it’s Just this is, you know, we put people in cages a period. And it’s inhumane all the way around. I mean, not even if you’re sick, but but when you’re sick, it makes it all that much worse. And it’s it’s just unspeakable and unacceptable. But it’s what we do.

Andy 1:30:18
When I when I look at these, these images, I’m just like, oh, that’s that’s exactly how it looked. That’s exactly how it looked when I was there. Wow. Yeah, no, it just doesn’t seem that foreign. It’s like, Oh, that’s how it just it was for six years for me. Ah, ah, it is really crazy.

Theresa 1:30:38
Oh, Andy, what was it like for you cycle?

Andy 1:30:41
I just, I don’t I don’t, I don’t I don’t know how to how to word it. And I don’t want to, like end up, classify myself as some. I just a chameleon. And it’s like, this is just what it is. And I can compartmentalize things and just, like accept it for the time and when things change. I’ll just, I’ll just change my spots when it comes time that I need to change my spots.

Theresa 1:31:03
Yeah. Yeah. And, and that is, you know that acceptance is is a is a pretty skillful thing to do. And you don’t really go there. Yeah.

Andy 1:31:13
I just I grew up in an incredibly hostile environment where, and I don’t want to go into this but I, my parents were alcoholics. It was a very hostile, but so I learned from my entire upbringing that I do not know which parents are coming home. So I had to be a chameleon, just my entire life. And then two branches of service, basic training and all that stuff and dealing with military so it’s like, it wasn’t that weird to me to be doing it.

Larry 1:31:39
Well, Larry, what do you want to cut? Go ahead.

Theresa 1:31:42
Oh, surely unpleasant. Yeah, of course.

Andy 1:31:44
But But you can’t you can’t do anything about it’s like, I can’t make them open up the door. I can’t make them serve better food. I can’t make somebody put money on my books so I can get some store call. I you know, I can’t make the dude down the way like hey, you’re a wimpy looking white dude. I’m going to come beat your ass. I can’t do anything about those things. So I just have to take them as they come.

Theresa 1:32:04
Right. And and you had that ability to do accept them as they come, then they’re the folk but the folks that don’t have that they can’t, can’t accept it. It takes that real, unpleasant pain and turns it into a whole new level.

Andy 1:32:21
Unbelievable. Larry, let’s look through the remodeling. I would

Larry 1:32:24
like to cover the lawsuits. The two articles that the Guardian that the not the Guardian, that’s the wrong one, but about San Diego. The actual lawsuits because we are going to be having a conference call tomorrow that only the people who are patrons will possibly get this and high and by the time it makes it everyone else the call will have already occurred. But at four o’clock eastern time tomorrow we have a conference call talking about these lawsuits and the potential for more of them, but it relates to the Forced continuation of check ins for people who are required to register for the P f Rs. Theresa when you’re talking about a registrant we’ve come up with a term that a list and provided an SPF or PFR what’s that person forced to read persons forced to register? Uh huh. So, so we, but the Alliance for constitutional sexual offense laws has filed three. And I think the fourth one is going to be filed by the end of Friday and I don’t know if it did get filed about the continuation. So you have you have conflicting requirements, you have the requirements that that you that you self quarantine that you’re that you shelter in place, and then you have the requirement that law says if you don’t come see us, we’re going to lock you up. And you have the shelter in place if you if you’re going out for any reason other than food, or medicine. We’re gonna lock you up. As a deaf, that’s a difficult position to be put into narshall called for.

Theresa 1:34:06
I forgot how many days ago we released a press release, and we did get some attention around the country. On on the press release, we call for all agencies to suspend in person requirements for checking in. We understand that said your statute, we understand that in many cases, it’s in your statutes. In the case of California, it actually is in the statute, but we understand it narshall did it said many state statutes, again, just do it. Nothing is going to happen to you. Nobody’s going to file a lawsuit. I don’t think the sex offenders that are on the registry are going to file a lawsuit and say we want to be in your office, and we want to do our check ins so so the people the PF ours, we’re not going to file a lawsuit. The people who fund your local law enforcement if it’s a county agency, in the case of a case of most of our states, it’s done by county local law enforcement, the county commissioners or the city can counsels are not going to try to impeach their officials for trying to protect their staff. So again, just do it. Nothing bad is gonna happen. No, no but well, well that’s right. You don’t have to advertise it widespread you can you can communicate what the offender population. But in order for something to be, as we said you can do it until you’re stopped. Whether or not you have the authority you could do anything until your stop. No one is going to try to stop you from doing this. The offenders are not going to try to stop you. And the county commissioners are not going to try to stop you. They want their deputies and their police officers to be safe. And no one is going to think anything about it. If you just do it. Don’t wait for a law to be changed. Don’t wait for someone else. Do what the captain did. I wish I knew that or can remember the name of that vessel but it was only in Indianapolis was suck and all those bands were in the water and I Almost about 80% of them either drowned or eaten up by sharks. But there was there was a couple hundred 300 men being in the water, dog paddling. And he said, we’re not going to sit here in the darkness and let these men not know that we’re here. And so he fired up all the lights on the ship and said we’re going to, we’re going to give them pulp until we can get them out of the water. Give these people hope. If you don’t care about them, which probably some of you don’t, there are some good. There are some good sheriff’s departments out there. They’re good leaders and law enforcement. But even if you don’t care about the offenders, keep your staff safe, do the right thing. Stop the interaction, follow the social distancing, and stay recommended. And we’ll pick this nonsense up later, when the crisis when the governors and the local health officials lift the quarantine and the restrict and the social distancing requirements. Just do it.

Andy 1:36:51
To that though. Last week, we have the article from Minnesota. I think Nebraska, Nebraska is where it was where the sheriff’s was just like, no, you’re coming in here, don’t care. Come in here register.

Larry 1:37:04
That was Douglas County, which would be Omaha would be the seat that was sorry, that was wrong. Okay.

Andy 1:37:09
So it’s certainly going out there and somebody in chat says now that the lawsuit has brought attention to it, they’ll dig in their heels and they’re like, Damn right, you’re going to come in here register.

Larry 1:37:18
I don’t know that they will. The The, the one against San Diego was dismissed because of procedural because it didn’t qualify for the type of relief, as I tell. People hear me say from time to time, you have to file the right cause of action. And you have to seek the relief within the vehicle that’s appropriate for the relief you’re seeking. And they the Court refused to let it go forward because they said it didn’t meet the criteria for the type of action. But that doesn’t mean that she can’t refile it, and she will refile it quite competent. She’ll refile it using the correct vehicle. But I believe that these that these cases will gain some traction and I believe that some judges will take the risk of Bay Persky, these are all in California, but I think some of the judges will Take the risk of being persecuted, they’ll do the right thing. And they’ll say, No, we’re going to suspend this for the health crisis. And then we can resume later. But in California, they have all the cover they need because it is in the statute to begin with. This is an invented requirement that law enforcement is put into place because they don’t want to do anything other than what what they’ve always done which is have people come down and see them in person, but it’s not required that they come in in person.

Theresa 1:38:24
They could do it by email or by phone or some other method.

Theresa 1:38:29
They could

Andy 1:38:31
and that’s what the lawsuit that’s what the last week or the week give you like a personal anecdotal story about that. I come home from you know, being out whatever dinner, this is, sometime last month, and there’s a business card, and I was like, I’ve guess it was like a UPS sticker and I and I look at it, it’s from the sheriff in the area that does the lieutenant whatever, that does the address verification. And I was like, you know, Larry tells me he’s not calling anybody Not required to call not going to do it. And so I waited on it for a day a call the next day and I said, Hey, you know, you left a card. He goes, Oh, just verifying addresses. Thanks. Bye. So I’m assuming because the thing was on my door unless someone passed it to me, because now I’m living at somebody else’s house, but I wouldn’t have known about it, unless I went to my house to get it. So he figured that that was good enough to have me registered. He didn’t see me at my door. He just left a card. So it seems you know, they could do other things if they wanted to. They just don’t. That is That is correct.

Larry 1:39:31
And And beyond that, the obligation is on the offender to report if they have any changes. There’s Yeah, very, very few states have an obligation that they go out check on you continuously. Now. Maryland tried that in their in their, their regulatory framework after they passed their their ramp up in 2009. That took effect to 2010. If I recall, they the regulations are republished with said that they shall continue to continuously verify the the residence address the registrants have And we would make comments about that. Well, what does What does the word continuous mean? I mean continuously, not from a statistics

Andy 1:40:06
point, from a calculus point of view. It’s infinity.

Larry 1:40:10
Right? But But if they’re radically, that would mean that as soon as you walk to our front door, you turn around, come back and read. And if you if you did, if you did not if you had that regulatory framework, which is why we scared them into not going through with that regulatory framework, whatever you did if the person offended, and some will I mean, there is that that small fraction of people that will offend again, then it would obviously be a little bit less than what should have been done, because the victim of that offense would say, well, when’s the last time you verified? Check that well, we checked up on him 37 days ago, what maybe should have been doing it every week, because then you have the benefit of hindsight?

Theresa 1:40:46
Absolutely.

Andy 1:40:47
Yeah. With it

Theresa 1:40:49
in Pennsylvania. Right now they’ve suspended registration, and folks have to report any changes with a paper If they’re unable to access the paper form, which is only available online, they can call. And, you know, to Larry’s point, we’re talking to me what we want is for the registry to go away, of course, but

Theresa 1:41:14
just an arbitrary nature of what’s going on. It’s like, oh, if we could do this now, why can’t we? Yeah,

Andy 1:41:23
I’ve been wondering that if all these measures that we do letting people go or suspending registration. If all these things go without the world entirely exploding, then why can’t they become the norm when all this goes away?

Larry 1:41:34
Absolutely. So Well, let me find it and how much of it will stay you know, I mean, some of this, some, some things are likely to change for once and for all for good. Um, that would be interesting. That is, that is my hope that we’ll see that some of this stuff was unnecessary. But the point makes that less likely source funding there and this administration has been very good about funding. They office and making sure that the law enforcement gets everything they need. That’s one of the that a military spending they have just lavished on but so I’m not I’m not as optimistic that that will go away. But again, they have the political capital, they could make it go away. If they were serious about cutting the budget, they could say well, gee, all the world as we know it demand we release 10s of thousands of prisoners. And we we stopped all this harassment of the people forced to register in all the words, but I don’t see it happening. And I know I’m not supposed to say that because it causes anxiety for folks, but I can’t help myself. And I wanted to correct myself on the barrel that actually passed the 2010. It was Nebraska who passed in 2009. So Maryland, Maryland did their their AWS bill in 2010.

Andy 1:42:43
And you wanted to cover something else, Larry, is this the the normal article,

Larry 1:42:48
Adela was good with just the the lawsuits and the covering the the there’s there’s more suits to come. And we’re hoping that that the threat of lawsuits that other states have California will get more law enforcement to suspend this in person contexts until this crisis has passed, or subside,

Andy 1:43:08
typically. But one of the statements that you just made was about defunding things somehow miraculously feeds right into a voicemail message that we got. I really think that you’re gonna have fun with this one there. Here we go. A voicemail message.

Larry 1:43:21
Hey, guys, hope everybody is doing okay. In these crazy weird times here. Obviously, we’ve never experienced anything like this. So I know my money doesn’t really matter to politicians, because they’ll just print more like this trillion dollar bailout package. So where are they going to get it? Well, it doesn’t matter they just printed anyway. But my point is, is be a good time now to write your politicians and tell them to defund the registry defund Angel IML defund this whole mess, but again, they don’t care where the money’s come from. So anyway, thanks guys, and F IP, he’d say, well, only the federal federal government can do that the states are not so privileged. But the I don’t think that that’s likely to happen. I wish it would support his his viewpoint. But I don’t see that we’ve become desensitized. I mean, we’re, we’re talking about a two and a half to possibly $6 trillion bailout here. And, you know, they were so upset about the 787 billion that we did back in the depths of the recession when when Obama came to office. Just remember folks, remember, we had unemployment that have been rising for months, we had hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of millions of jobs lost by the time he set foot into the Oval Office. And, and now we have the threat of that, and it’s a very real threat because of the 3 million unemployment claims that was submitted across the nation, which was about the same ratio that our state remember we had about a tenfold increase elimination the nation About about a tenfold increase in terms. So we’ve got, we’ve got a crisis coming. But I don’t think we’ve become so desensitized to deficit spending. And as long as the world is willing to fund our deficit spending, I think that the people have become so disconnected from it. And it’s become so irrelevant. No one’s talked by me. We haven’t really had a lot of discussion. On a serious note since ross perot ran for President 1992. I mean, the republicans went ahead when they had Obama and Clinton, they did they did magically, we’re very concerned about the deficit under both of those administrations. But it but it’s been a long time since we’ve heard anything about the deficit several years now. And I don’t think we’re likely to hear anything about the deficit because right now they’re saying, Just do whatever it takes. And I tend to lean towards agree with that. I mean, we’ve got a we’ve got a significant problem. And a lot of these people couldn’t help themselves. They were told you can’t come to work. They were told you won’t get a paycheck. their employers were told to shut down, but I’m hoping I’m hoping this works. Spirits finally sensitizes us, we as Americans, as whatever it is, I hope we become a little more sensitive to those who get in situations where they have not been able to function at a level that that would give them basic sustenance, because, arguably, you could say that all these companies should have had a rainy day fund, you could arguably say that all Americans should have had a rainy day fund. I don’t say that. But you could do that. If you believed in survival of the fittest, and that people are their own keeper, and they’re responsible. I believe we’re all in it together. And I believe that that this is probably the prudent course of action. Probably there’s some stuff in those and in that massive 800 page bill that that we would be very shocked about if we knew, but this is probably the right course of action. But we’re in this together. Hopefully, we’ll realize after this crisis, that those hundreds of thousands and maybe over a million people that are homeless on any given day, that may be We need to be just a little more compassionate to them as well.

Andy 1:47:04
I very much agree with you, Teresa, do you agree or do you not agree? You want to be a hard nosed person and say, No, you people should have the funding and stand up on your two feet.

Theresa 1:47:12
I told you, I’m not compassion. very

Larry 1:47:18
compassionate. What if they broke up their

Theresa 1:47:21
compassion Queen, compassion queen?

Larry 1:47:24
Well, well, I agree that there’s probably things in there that, you know, heard the debate. And the Republicans had their problems with the $600 heaping on the state benefit is one of the things they were concerned about. And they said it would disincentivize work, they’re probably right. But on the other hand, the democrats had their issues with the lack of accountability and oversight of the hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate bailout. And, and those are genuine, both sides are right, there’s going to be abuse. There’s going to be people who will benefit there’ll be some who will take advantage of this. It’s human nature. You can design something that people can’t take advantage of. The reason why they did the $600 is because even though the republicans do have a good point about it, it’s going to be more lucrative for some people not to work. And that’s going to possibly disincentivize. The employment, unemployment administrators tell them we can’t, we don’t have the systems in place that would easily identify what the person’s ending wages were, what their average wages were for the last leading up to where they got separated, because they look back over a 52 week base period that runs usually about two cores behind where we are right now. they would they would be looking at at a base period for your unemployment computation that may not even reflect what you’re earning on your recent job. Because if your wages for your most recent job may not be even in the base period. And so, so those debates were genuine, there was nothing wrong with having the debates, and that’s the way our system is supposed to work. Yeah, you have disagreement between the ideologies, you come to a compromise and we got this thing and it probably there’s some bad stuff in it.

Andy 1:49:00
I understand, Larry, we need to shut this all down. We do. Are you ready to shut it down?

Larry 1:49:04
I am. So if you want to be in contact with us 747-227-4477 and we call off the phone number first. Of course I do and if you want to write, and then that is another way to get ahold of us. Registered matters cast@gmail.com and the best thing to do of course, is to be a patron supporter@patreon.com slash register matters. And if you want to find out more about registered matters, you can find us out find us on the web at register matters.ca Oh,

Andy 1:49:43
man, dude, you did that all on your own. That’s amazing. That’s that’s sick, bro. That’s sick, bro. Teresa. You are an amazing guest. I can’t thank you enough for coming along and sharing all of your your Teresa knowledge with us.

Theresa 1:49:57
You guys are so much fun and It’s nice to be able to talk about such heavy things and see a little bit of lightness around it.

Andy 1:50:07
I try I try I try I don’t want this is such a serious and depressing subject. I try and make light of it whenever I can. Larry yells at me for laughing at things too much. How can people find you all your websites or your Twitter’s and yeah, that’s you want to tell people

Theresa 1:50:22
but anyway, yes it’s doc stocks 86

Theresa 1:50:26
yeah and my email is you can use the Teresa dot robertson@yahoo.com. Also, I’d encourage anyone who’s in the Pennsylvania area in the state of Pennsylvania to check out parcel.org and we are in dire need of help from folks who might be interested in helping us move forward. We have some great people working. Heading we will try to get up in Harrison burger we did until two weeks ago every Tuesday to talk with folks and we are doing everything we possibly can we really need tech people. If anyone’s out there in Pennsylvania that can help us with technology. You can check us out on a parcel.org and send an email, Twitter. We’d love to hear from you.

Andy 1:51:27
Thank you again so very much, Larry. Is that it? Are we done?

Larry 1:51:31
We’re done. Good night, everybody. And thank you for what you used to say back. Good night chat. Good night, David. Good night from NBC News. I thought it was interesting. Good night, john boy. Now after the new sign out from NBC, NBC from way back, I totally know what you’re talking about the hurry. huddling safely to Huntley Brinkley report. Oh, okay. Tourists again.

Andy 1:51:53
Thank you. Thank you all everybody. Thank you In chat. I will talk to you soon. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Transcript RM120: Nebraska Sheriff Still Requires In Person Check-Ins

Posted on March 23, 2020 by andy

Listen to RM120: Nebraska Sheriff Still Requires In Person Check-Ins

Andy 0:00
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 120 of registry matters there I think we should set up some sort of plan where we should record from the super secret underground bunker so that we could like sit across the table from each other. And I don’t know we could like pass the virus back and forth to each other.

Larry 0:33
Well, it’s not easy to get there to the super secret bunker because transportation has been curtailed and requests for less movement have been made so it’s going to be difficult isn’t it?

Andy 0:45
Are we practicing social distancing properly then?

Larry 0:48
I’m doing my best but I was forced to get out today cuz I’m not wanted to record the podcast and he didn’t want to use the telephone.

Andy 0:56
Never. I never ever want to tell Actually, you know on that since you bring that up, many, many, many podcasts that I do listen to where they do have some kind of studio where they have, you know, table setup and they have multiple microphones on the table. They’re all recording from home. NPR is doing it. Vox is doing it all kinds of different places there. I’m recording from my closet. And you know, because they have all kinds of clothes in there to help deaden the sound and whatnot. There is a massive disruption of our of our world going on right now. It is unprecedented is crazy. It is indeed. You know, I’ve been around for well over 100 years now and I’ve not I’ve not seen anything that compares. And not only that, I was just entering into the criminal justice system when the last one happened in around you know, around oh eight. And it’s like that was happening fast, you know, 600,300 400 500,000 jobs per month. This is happening at an astonishing rate that even like a daily podcast is not fast enough. For you to get any sort of updates jobs Friday that comes out a month late, that data is going to be blown out of proportion by the time we actually get the numbers. You’re correct.

Larry 2:09
This is this is a fast moving exceptionally fast moving situation that’s unfolding faster than I’m a tad bit on the inside in terms of the governor being worked with a senator the the governor is communicating daily by various means to the to the state legislators and there’s an update daily of what was put out yesterday is no longer no longer relevant.

Andy 2:35
Yeah, it’s unbelievable. And you you can can you share with me what you you follow like something of some unemployment claims and it was in like the hundreds and it’s not in the hundreds that’s going around.

Larry 2:48
That would be a shared state. It’s a state level here that was released on the news and weekly unemployment claims for our state had gone down to less than 1000 a week. So the previous week Where there was a full week of unemployment data, there was around 800 claims on so far through yesterday, there’s been 11,000 claims in this state alone. So if you extrapolate on the national average where we’ve been in the 250 $300,000 weekly claims for unemployed initial claims for unemployment not ongoing, but initial claims being filed, that if you if you do do a 1012 fold increase on that, you’re going to see a couple million to 3 million claims on the next weekly data that assembles the entire nation’s unemployment claims. Initial claims together. I think I saw something posted on Twitter. It’s the it’s around 200,000 nationwide, I think is some sort of rough average for the run up to 250 to 250 to 300,000.

Andy 3:47
So it’s going to be something of 3 million in the next go round. And that’s that’s even a lagging indicator because that’s probably 10 inch or two weeks old. 10 days old. Something like that

Larry 3:57
would be people who have been told that you’re being furloughed and And the previous week, and so it’s gonna, I would say it’s going to probably escalate from there because more and more people being furloughed, as more and more businesses are being asked or required to shut down, or to severely restrict or their operations. I don’t know many businesses that have deep enough pockets that that take a 50% reduction in sales that are going to be able to keep the same staffing for an indefinite period of time, you might do it for a week or two, to be generous, be socially responsible, but very few businesses have the additional staying power to do that for a long period of time. So these people once they get their final paycheck, are they going to severely reduce hours they’re going to they’re going to put in claims thrown up initial claims for unemployment.

Andy 4:43
What about the government’s role in this is important to be in regards to the registrant population in general that we are already a struggling group of people to get jobs, etc, etc. Excuse me, Brenda, I needed to say etc, not me. etc.

Larry 5:02
And this is obviously gonna put a ton of pressure on the entire population of all of the people that call themselves humans, let alone anybody that has these extra little markers against them, trying to get a job, this is going to be huge. What do you think about? There’s like this trillion dollar package going through at the federal level to try and start dumping Pac cash into people’s pockets to pay rent car notes, like, this is insane. Well, the trillion dollars is just a drop in the bucket. If you’re talking about our economy, something on the 23 to $26 trillion I made, I don’t keep track of the exact numbers but the national economy. So if you if you if you shrink the economy by the experts are saying at least 10 to 12% in the second quarter. If so, you see if they take that much economic activity out, you’re talking about two to three times the stimulus that they’re talking about. So that my opinion as if the experts are right, this is just the beginning of many, many stimulus packages that will have to be done. And last, we believe in la-z a fair that that the system will correct itself and the strong will survive and that that will weed out excesses in the economy and and everything will just work itself out and and some people fervently believe that there were people in the last major downturn who stood in the way of stimulus because they said that the government was picking winners and losers and the economy would self correct

Andy 6:31
there is probably truth in that Larry, but I don’t know that it’s the the humane way like we would want let’s let’s just say tomorrow this thing’s over a vaccine comes out we can just blanket carpet bomb the entire United States with with vaccines tomorrow and it goes away instantly. We would want the economy to go back to normal immediately. But if the local subway has shut down well then how long does it take for the next subway to to rise back up? What does it take for the next attorney’s office or The local car repair shop, it would take an incredible amount of time to rebuild all of that infrastructure to be able to support all the claims. And all this demand is I don’t mean claims, but all of the demand from the from the consumers.

Unknown Speaker 7:13
Well, that was the point I was gonna make is that if you’re allowed this, to seek its own resolution, you would have an enormous destruction of wealth. And we’re having that now. But I’m talking about the enormous destruction of wealth that we go beyond right now. The people that are suffering the biggest losses that occur on Wall Street, and the population although more people invest in equities now than what they were known past decades, there’s still a lot of resentment for for those people can afford it. So if they’ve lost a third of their market value, who cares? But, but the cascading effect from the economic shutdown is going to be that people won’t be able to pay their basic expenses like their car payments and their mortgages. Basic expensive. So then you have the cascading effect of the foreclosures, that the boarded up houses in the blighted communities and a yard for repossessed vehicles that no one wants. And, and the economy would continue to shrink. And that’s kind of like if you go into a nosedive in airplanes hard to pull out up, as the economy is shrinking, and there’s no stimulus, nothing that’s generating demand, the economy, the economy will continue to shrink until who knows what point that that things will begin to rebound? But yes, if you’re totally indifferent, to having millions of people’s homes foreclosed, millions of people’s for cars repossessed if that means nothing to you as as a society, then you could just sit back and watch it fix itself. You probably have a lot of people that will suffer untold hardship, medical hardship, and when you put people on the street, their health goes down dramatically. Wouldn’t you agree with that? I would think so. So if we if we all sudden have millions of homeless people, rather than hundreds Thousands we already have a public health is going to decline, our life expectancy is going to decline. It’s not going to be a country that you’re going to be very impressed to live in living. And so what we have to do in this country, is we have to do something that we claim that we’re against, we have to rely on big government. And this is the time to play the clip.

Andy 9:20
I will play the clip this is from well, you’ll you’ll know who it is,

Larry 9:24
in this present crisis. Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.

Andy 9:32
And who is that? For those that don’t know?

Unknown Speaker 9:35
The I don’t remember exactly what day in time he made that. But I believe it was in the campaign of 1980. But it could have been in the campaign to 76. That was Ronald Reagan, that government is was always portrayed as the villain and the problem. But the government is all of us collectively, what few of us can do it. Almost I’d say no one can do individually. I don’t even think Warren Buffett could provide his own national security. apparatus in his own Centers for Disease Control. I don’t think he can do all the things that government does. Government is nothing more than what we have democratic society agree that we’re going to do for one another. That’s all government is, is what we want it to be. And government has the power to borrow against future prosperity in this country. We we can go into debt. This is the reason why you should balance your budget and you should run surpluses, like we should have been doing the last three years when we were digging ourselves even deeper into debt. Because we had the frivolous tax cut, that we had that little hole and we also increase spending. Now we justifiably need to increase spending, we need to run a deficit. And we’re starting out at a trillion dollar baseline deficit already.

Andy 10:46
And the Fed Can you explain this to me? I don’t quite understand necessarily. I sort I sort of like just scratching the surface about him reducing the the rate to something close to zero. Can you explain that a little bit.

Larry 10:58
Explain what about you talk about the interest rate Cut? Correct? And

Andy 11:01
what does that mean? And why? Like, you know, there’s no more tools that they have necessarily like they’re out of options. So now we have to go to legislative measures to try and fix this, that the Fed can’t do anything to manipulate the economy.

Unknown Speaker 11:13
But it’s the is the is the rate that the banks borrow from the Fed and, and, and banks need liquidity. I mean, people don’t understand that. If a bank merely hoarded the cash that you put in, they wouldn’t be able to pay for their bricks and mortar, for their personnel for the health cost. And they wouldn’t be able to have profits for their shareholders. So so they have to invest the money. And and in, in a financial institutions, profits are a difference between the cost of funds

Larry 11:44
because cost of funds, there’s definitely cost funds are not free. There’s a cost of funds. For example, if you’re if you have a if you have deposit accounts, if you look at a bank’s balance sheet, you’ll see the average cost of funds and cost of funds will be staggered between

Unknown Speaker 12:00
No interest counts all the way to certificates of deposits that you’ll difference about but the average cost of funds. And then there’s also what they borrow from from the Fed. And the Fed has the ability to manipulate that funds rate and bring it all the way down to zero, which they’ve done, which will help the banks expand, there’s the cost of funds will be lower. But then where the average yield on earning assets, that’s the money that they land. If If you look at at lending, lending, of course, it’s going to contract that all except for mortgage reifies. If people are lucky enough to hold on to their jobs, they’re going to be in a wonderful position to go out if you’ve, if you’ve either initiated a loan in the last three years, or done a refi and last two or three years, but rates are creeping up. You may want to consider a refi. Now if you’re struggling to financially do that, it’s going to be a benefit but that that that that that is all the Fed has to do. I don’t know We can take rates below zero, I don’t know that the Fed is going to start paying banks to borrow from them. But I mean, that would be the next step, if you want if you want to inject more liquidity, but when when when the Fed takes that rate to zero, they’re trying to make sure that there’s plenty of liquidity available for for redemption of deposits and for for lending, you’re hoping that the low interest rates will generate this activity that we don’t need. Because if people can’t borrow, like when the system seized up in 2008, you could borrow no house, no matter how well, your your your credit history was paying. I mean, the system completely seized up, there was no liquidity. And that’s when these these unprecedented steps were initiated. And they’re barely replayed the 2008 2009 playbook that happened under Secretary Paulson, and then under under Secretary Geithner, who followed after after after the Bush administration left unbelievable.

Andy 13:59
Let’s see here. That Pretty much my questions that I had to you talking about the economy and shutting down. I want to throw something at you that some terms have been flying around. But I want to specifically like focus on the on how people use terms to identify people that could lead to like violence. And the term has been running around lately of the Chinese virus. And there’s an uptick in violence towards the the people that may look like they hail from that part of the world. And really, what I’m trying to do is make a comparison to using a term like sex offender, and that spawns people to just go eat. We hate you, even though your crime almost didn’t even involve anything that was like a sex crime to begin with. Anyway. So I posted some articles in there, then that there’s an increase in violence against the Chinese looking folks, versus the idea that when you use the term sex offender Well, we know we’ve covered articles where people have violence towards them just because the term sex offender

Larry 14:58
the articles that I didn’t Catch the statistics of the increased violence on the on the articles. But it would be tragic if someone if someone is holding individually, a person of Chinese descent responsible, first of all this, this reference to Chinese and to move on flew and this has been around for a long time and I haven’t heard all the criticism till I heard Donald Trump say it and then all of a sudden it’s become, it’s become very racist. Now, granted, he has a slightly bigger microphone, and slightly more exposure than if if someone of a lesser standing says it. But I don’t think that he should be saddled with inventing the term being the first to use it. But if someone’s going to I just don’t know what the average Chinese would have to do with with with with how this was handled, and maybe we should refer to the Spanish Flu of 1918 as the American flu with my research. Yeah, since my research indicates that it probably originated on military facility in Kansas, I got spread around the rest of the world. So we should call that the American flu and people should be mad at the Americans and they should have. They should have been committing violent acts against us. I think the sad, if terribly sad,

Andy 16:14
and what my understanding is, that’s why they’re calling it coronavirus. We’re kovat 19 is to keep it from being located to a group of people like we have with so many other things like the Spanish flu and all that. But anywho I just thought I wanted your take on on the idea of how words matter how terms matter. And in this particular case, it seems I agree, I

Larry 16:36
agree with you. I agree with you. I mean, if we didn’t have the label sex offender, prior to having a sex offender registry you didn’t ever hear violence against them as a group. Now, prior to the registry, I hate to break it to you, people who did find the accusations of sexual offences against a particular individual. They did what they do now, to those of the registry. People got beat up because of jails didn’t just start becoming sensitive to sexual offenders. If you go back decades and decades and decades, to people who before we had a registry, who had that jacket on them as as convicts referred to it, they were not very well approved of it. And so this is this is not new, but the widespread stuff that happens to people on the register in terms of discrimination. And in terms of random violence, clearly wouldn’t happen if we didn’t have the label and we didn’t have to register. There’s no doubt about it.

Andy 17:31
Gotcha. Got you. Let’s start covering some articles. The first one comes from the intercept. Now this is on the heels. I guess maybe it was last week or a couple weeks ago that we were talking about the number of people that vote that are either felons or even the notion that you can vote while you are being detained. And this comes from Arizona jails. It says only eight people voted from Arizona jails in 2018. Well, this election be different. And we had talked about that. If you are detained So you’re speeding, whatever you get arrested day of that you’re supposed to be elected, that they’re supposed to be accommodations for you while you’re there possibly change your address to get a ballot, but maybe the ballot can’t make it the mailroom. But like, this is apparently not really very many people when they go to jail or all that concerned about voting, they don’t care that or they can’t it’s a couple of different layers of things in there. I just wanted to cover it to kind of follow up on something we’ve covered recently.

Unknown Speaker 18:27
Well, the

Larry 18:30
the person who, who tried to vote I mean, it would be it would be if you if you asked to vote in jail, they’d look at you like you think there was something wrong with

Unknown Speaker 18:40
you third, third eyeball in the center of your head.

Larry 18:43
Yeah, no. But way back in 1974, the US Supreme Court said if you haven’t been convicted, you have the right to vote. They affirm that right. So it’s been decades and decades that you you have the right to vote and pre trial, but as long as those rights that how do you enforce You’re in custody, and you tell jail or jail or bring me a ballot. Ha, yeah. Uh, what? Bring, bring me a ballot? For what? Today’s election date, I’d like to vote for you, you’re in prison. That’s exactly what they would tell you. And you would say, well, based on the US Supreme Court 74, I have the right to vote. They say, huh, yeah, they say the US Supreme Court. And so this will only change when we as a society decide that people who are pre trial in custody deserve to be treated differently because they’re not being punished. They’re only being held on suspicion of a crime, unproven allegations, and that we need to treat them differently, which I have preached for years. I think that that to the extent all possible. We should have different housing for people who are pre trial, different privileges for people who are pre trial because they are only they’re awaiting an adjudication of the allegations they’re not there as a convicted person, and we don’t get to deprive you of all your rights when you’re on convicted.

Andy 20:06
Obviously, this isn’t anything that happens. As far as people trying to vote. It doesn’t mean eight people Arizona is not the biggest of states, but it’s not a nothing state either. Well, it’s

Unknown Speaker 20:17
just I mean, that’s how many people succeeded. We don’t know how many people tried do with art

Andy 20:21
exhibit? No, no, I totally agree with you this. So if we if out of Arizona, which I’m just going to throw out there population of five ish million, maybe something like that, and eight people pulled it off. There’s probably a lot of people that aren’t that aren’t able to do it across the United States, if they’re if they’re even trying.

Larry 20:41
I would say the overwhelming majority jails range in size from very, very small lockups to some very large urban high rise facilities. You got the sprawling Los Angeles County jail system. You got the sprawling system in Cook County in Chicago, but but Post, they’re not set up for it.

Andy 21:03
Sir, though, I mean, we do elections every two years, and then with some additional lines,

Unknown Speaker 21:08
I know but when you’re running a sheriff’s office, and you’re trying to keep your county covered with deputies, and you’re trying to provide court security, and you’re trying to run a jail, and you’re trying to do it staff, three type three shifts a day, and you’re trying to buy supplies through jail and all the things that a sheriff is responsible for, trying to figure out how to figure out if anybody said your jail has to vote it might be their own on Election Day, and tried to set up a provision for that it’s just not the highest of priorities that you can go out and run for Sheriff and try that as a campaign. I’ll tell you what I’m Oh, do you like me, I will make sure anybody’s in my custody is gone, be able to vote when there’s election comes onto my command and find out how well that plays out with the constituents.

Andy 21:50
Perhaps we shouldn’t lock nearly as many people up so they could focus on some other things that are related to your civil liberties to your actual constitutional rights maybe

Unknown Speaker 21:57
now before i get any hate mail, Believe that you should be able to vote I just say the practicality for the average Sheriff is just not in that’s not in their daily routine to think about preparing for elections. They’re prepared for a whole lot of things on elections. It’s not one up.

Andy 22:15
All right, then, well, let’s move over to medium. I don’t know that we’ve ever covered medium medium is a platform for people to write. It’s sort of like a unified place for authors to post articles I guess you could say. But this article is titled judges can protect vulnerable prisoners by rethinking jail sentences, but only during the coronavirus pandemic I guess the the sentence we were just covering on the last article we could reduce the number of people in prison so they could possibly vote but this one is don’t put people in vulnerable populations that could bring the virus in. God can you imagine? It would there are plenty of movies out there Larry, I’m sure you haven’t seen any of the movies. Oh, what do they call it was a Resident Evil is almost like this. You have some sort of crazy outbreak and everybody turns into a monster of some sort and then they’re just confined in a small space, and then obviously everything goes to crap. And everybody’s infected with the virus, we should not put everybody in prison or jail this this go round.

Unknown Speaker 23:09
Well, this would be, I mean, this would be a good opportunity for us to rethink our, our correctional systems when we have something like a pandemic, because I have no doubt that we’re going to start hearing reports of facilities. And when it spreads, this is going to teach us that you just really can’t. I mean, just to try to think about it, pretend you’ve got 1000 bed slots, and you’ve got 24 housing units, and you’re trying to do the best you can. And you don’t you have one person get infected. Well, okay, you’ve got you got three isolation cells, that sick bay that are dead, but the second person gets infected and your three sick base cells then you have to turn a housing unit into it. So then all of a sudden, 24% or 48 person house a unit. It could only house the three people that are sick. You just took 4440 something beds out of out of out of service. It is a logistical nightmare for these people to try to figure out how to manage and of course, that even when you do that, it’s still gonna spread because those people have to eat, they have to be have some basic human care. And unless you release them and sequester them at home, there’s people in the facility, they’re going to come into contact with it. So it’s it’s a logistical nightmare. And I don’t know how they’re going to deal with it, because it just seems like a matter of time that we’re going to have to have outbreaks.

Andy 24:32
Jen in chat says 21 inmates at Riker Rikers Island has been tested. 21 have tested positive for it. And

Unknown Speaker 24:40
I have no way to confirm that. And we know that that’s coming.

Unknown Speaker 24:43
And what’s the capacity? I mean, Rikers is huge, but what kind of what kind of population are we talking about in Rikers, you get to keep talking. I’ll find it. Okay, so but but yes, this article is is judges can do their part there is no silver bullet. If we if we cut the jail population by 50%, we’re still gonna have problems. They’re more manageable because if you have more living units available, it’s more easily able to isolate the people in that unit. And then you put in the most strict protocols in terms of contact with the people in those units. But if you have them jam packed, like sardines, you don’t have the flexibility to put people in isolated and then housing units where they’re at least with infected people while they’re being warrantied. it like it’s a logistical nightmare for jail administrators. I’d hate to be running a facility right now.

Andy 25:35
It looks like it has a has a daily population of 10,000 inmates. Holy crap, that’s a lot of people.

Larry 25:44
So that’s, that’s the city of Covington. That is Georgia, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky.

Andy 25:51
I can’t I can’t even comprehend like that many people and they’re all you know, they’re in housing units that you know, probably have something of 5080 people in them and Certainly not practicing the six foot minimum distance and they’re not washing their hands that often.

Larry 26:05
Well, I’m talking. We’re also talking about extremely old facility. Right?

Andy 26:09
Yeah, sure. Sure. Sure, sure. When was it built? I’m looking at the Wikipedia page. I know I can’t use Wikipedia for any sort of reliable source of information. I established 1932. We’re talking about old old stuff, not state of the art. It means so there’s still officers walk around with like keys and they’re like pulling big long levers to open doors like you would see in the movie The Green Mile.

Larry 26:31
The that was that would still be happening. I’m sure. I don’t know how much retrofitting. I’ve never I’ve never had the pleasure of being at Rikers. But I’ve had the pleasure of encountering people that have in it that it’s not a fun place to be.

Andy 26:42
I can’t imagine. I can’t even imagine. Well over at the appeal coronavirus, leaves defense attorneys torn between visiting their jail clients and spreading the illness. In the article, they’re talking kind of like an abstract about an attorney who’s got a client who needs to be ready presented, and he needs to go see the guy for some level of emotional support to show Hey, like we’re working on this and we’re fighting for you. But at the same time, hey, we need details. We talked about the various elements of the of the crime of the trial. And he’s like, I don’t want to go and infect him, potentially, if I’ve got it, I don’t want to be infected. I don’t want to infect the whole population in general. So the attorney goes, I should probably not go visit my client.

Unknown Speaker 27:27
Well, and I have the answer for it. But a lot of attorneys are going to be too weak need to do it. What’s that? The answer is very simple. And usually they’re not simple answers. But when you bring your client to court, you’re supposed to represent to the court, that you have thoroughly evaluated all the available defenses. You’ve thoroughly looked at the discovery. You’ve examined the elements of the crime and what the burden of proof would be. And you’ve discussed all of these with your client, and they understand the elements that need to be proven the burden of proof And they’ve looked at all the evidence that the state would be or the prosecution, it could be the federal government, but all what the prosecution is going to be against a lining against them. And it’s in the best interest of this individual to take this plea. And if you haven’t been able to convert your client, it’s very simple. Your Honor, I don’t think this case is ready for plea, I have not been able to adequately confer enterprise, evaluate this with my client. So therefore, this case cannot be played out. That would be that that’s your answer.

Andy 28:28
But that means your clients stays inside.

Unknown Speaker 28:32
That’s the unfortunate reality of that where we have to decide if some of these people who are awaiting disposition or their cases, maybe we need to examine, as others have called for letting people out right now pre trial, we have a variety of technological tools which you should make your heart palpitate. And we could use these tools rather than put them on everybody willy nilly. Because we have the baby we could use some of these monitoring apparatuses we have for people who are just simply Unable to post their bond pre trial. And we could use that technology in a more positive way. Possibly.

Andy 29:05
Now You’ve spoiled it for us go into the next article, actually, the next article is actually from the appeal of talking about prosecutors across the US call for action to mitigate spread of coronavirus in jails and prisons, one of which is if Larry crasner, our favorite da from Philadelphia is talking about if you have anything of a misdemeanor and at least nonviolent felonies, just send them home, charge them later drop charges, something along those lines because you don’t want to infect the entire prison population with you people. Yes, I said, You people.

Unknown Speaker 29:35
We can’t have that.

Andy 29:37
We only have a handful of these Larry cruisers in the country. What about like, why does it take a pandemic for people to get on board with going, oh, maybe having a virus spreading across the jail like somehow that’s crossed the line. Again, I said this last week, I don’t want to minimize the three ish percent, you know, well, I’m sure we’re going to get different numbers on how fatal that this thing is. And when is more than zero and that’s too many. I’m not trying to go down that path. But if, if that is going to be the threshold that of having this virus and infecting the people and that’s just some tragedy. Why could we have done this before? Not using this as the catalyst that gets us there?

Larry 30:17
That’s another easy answer because we didn’t need to.

Andy 30:20
So we have the boogeyman. So we put the boogeyman behind the walls, but now we have a bigger Boogeyman. So now it’s inhumane to keep the people the other Boogeyman behind the walls.

Larry 30:29
But one of the articles says it’s not inhumane but but in this case, I believe that putting people in I’ve done a complete about face just in the last week myself on this I was carrying on life as usual. Through last weekend, I spent some time Sunday morning watching the programs listening to Dr. falchi. Listening to the local expert, we have a doctor whose name is escaping me with my weak memory. But we but I started paying attention And what’s being said and I said, my goodness, I’m also putting people at risk and I’m at risk myself. And so so it’s it’s this these are unprecedented times and putting people in lockup. They really can’t even take any precautions. There’s really very little you can do. You’re totally at the mercy of others. What control do you have in a correctional setting?

Andy 31:25
slightly above zero.

Larry 31:27
That is all you I mean many people were incarcerated even have difficulty I spoke about last week in terms of adequate running water, enhanced 10 cent sanitizer, and of course they don’t control their laundry. They all control the access to cleaning supplies for the housing unit. And, and this this is a disaster a recipe for disaster and and your Senate. If you’re not even supposed to be being held pretrial. You’re being held pre trial because in most cases you your cash bond is higher than what you can afford to pay.

Andy 31:58
So We should potentially consider this as a way to I don’t even want to say it that way. This is a mechanism to get an idea of not putting these people into a hot zone. What’s the right word here? I mean, like putting putting people into the locker putting people into the prisons where this could run rampant, and then they have no control to help themselves. It does this finally bring to light an idea that our criminal justice system is just over the top. Is this what it took to get us there? And does it sustain after this goes away? Do we go back to law and everybody up for felony jaywalking?

Larry 32:37
What is your course there’s no felony jaywalking, but I know your your point is this this week, we typically have a brief epiphany and whether it has staying power is as yet to be seen. If, if we if we take these dramatic measures, and there’s not a huge spike in crime. Now there will be some incident that will be traced directly to someone who’s released. It’s only a given. If you release thousands and thousands of people, someone cuz we’re human is going to mess up. I mean that there’s no way around that. And I always get tickled when they say, Well, someone on parole that they screwed up? Well, yes, they are on parole, they’re being test driven to see if they can make it in the regular world. And of course, we won’t have 100% success rate somewhat. But if we if we don’t parole anyone will never know what the success rate whether it can be 60 or 70, or 80, or 90, or whatever the success rate can be if we don’t really want. Well, if we take no measures to mitigate this looming disaster, we’re gonna have people either sick or die as a result of our inaction. If we take these actions, there will be sub, saber tooth tiger that will arise and the conservatives will jump all over it particular If it happens in a liberal city like Philadelphia, they will say, See, this is your catch and release. This is what happens when you turn people out of prison. And there’s no accountability. That’s what’s I mean, you might as well we’ll, we’ll put this down to cover before before the next six weeks are up, there’ll be somebody who will mess up.

Unknown Speaker 34:18
It seems inevitable. seems inevitable.

Unknown Speaker 34:21
Statistically, of course it is. Of course it is.

Andy 34:23
I know. Over at the info forum in forum, I don’t know what this one is called informed calm. This article is the opposite of something we covered recently where the sheriff was saying that we need to get the folks educated on on the actual laws of how the registry stuff works. And this one says do sex offender boundary laws work? And I want to say it’s the sheriff of this town is saying that he almost like doesn’t care what the evidence says he wants. The residency presence restrictions stuff in place regardless and he does be damned with the science and evidence says

Larry 35:00
Well, I’m going to have a little fun with this one because believe it or not, I read it. I did too. And and what what I found is as telling in here is that the the person that they quoted the sex offender, I forget his name. I’m having trouble getting this to open for me now. But he’s a he’s a tier three and in North Dakota believe it is. This is Fargo, North Dakota, right? Yeah, we’re talking about the same article. I believe so. So, yeah, so he’s a tier three. Now, this is an educational bowl, but for our thousands of listeners. He’s a tier three lifetime only because he has more than one conviction. And his border blood conviction is for indecent exposure. And indecent exposure is showing your junk. Right? And, and he’s a he’s a tier three But now the irony of this is indecent exposure is not required by those tough federal standards to even be a sex offense. that triggers a duty to register. Which means we’ve got a person who’s on the registry in North Dakota for life that North Dakota has decided he needs to have this label as a tier three the federal the big old bad federal government didn’t do this to him because the big old bad federal government doesn’t even require that disappears trigger a duty to register but yet he’s a level three sex offender and and he’s he’s potentially facing this restriction. Now I get it looks like they’re grandfathering the people that are there on the 1200 feet within Fargo schools and parks but but everybody who blames the federal government database data motion I did do this data Walsh Act doesn’t require indecent exposure even be

Andy 36:57
a sex offense. I’m trying to find the section in the ocean article where he talks about outside organizations trying to create problems with their local setup. I can’t remember where it was I just had it a minute ago. Did you see that?

Larry 37:10
I don’t recall that part. Are you are you smoking at Waikiki wheat again?

Andy 37:14
I think it’s this one says pipe corn is maybe the guy’s name says he thinks that some research have an agenda to support REITs for sex offenders and he said he’s been getting most of his negative feedback from out of state groups that’s got to be you people there

Larry 37:29
that’s probably he’s he’s talking about these like war and Arsalan axle days outside agitators and that’s what they do when they don’t have anything else to argue with. They can’t argue with the facts. They aren’t they they scare people about outsiders. We don’t have any problems but here except for the outside agitators coming in and stirring up problems. I have to play a quick little clip. I don’t have to tell you who gets hurt first when this sort of thing happens to you, your people. Your people date. I know that

Unknown Speaker 38:00
You know that someone in chat asked if I could figure out a way to get ross perot into the podcast tonight?

Unknown Speaker 38:07
While you did, I did but

Andy 38:09
yeah, that was one of the things that I was looking for was that particular thing and that has to be the nozzles and the wars and the axles and so forth.

Larry 38:15
So that was who it would be. And that’s the same thing that’s going on in Georgia. these outside groups are coming in and interfering with we didn’t have no complaints in Blitz, Canada Not a single sex offender complaint about the science until these agitators came in. Maybe you people should stop. Well, there are some who say we should leave it on our side.

Andy 38:36
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 or ransom message to 74722744771 a support registry matters on a monthly basis, tied 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. How about I’ve seen this going around to the next thing is coming from the bass can’t even speak Nebraska unafraid. I did skip an article so you clicking around earlier, sheriff says registered people should disregard Cova 19 advice. I have heard of going both ways. figuring out ways I think I have this like towards the end of the podcast. Maybe I did move this article back there. Anyway, so this one says that the sheriff says that, uh, no be damned. Like you need to come in and do your registration, come into the office. But other places are saying maybe you should maybe they’re suspending all of the registers. stuff, things like that.

Larry 40:02
Well, this will give me a chance to do a little pontification, we can do a little question and answer back and forth with it and maybe some people in chat. I understand the fear of registry violations. The penalties are very significant in some states, and there’s mandatory. Some states like Oklahoma, there’s a mandatory, you will go to prison because the legislature has mandated that there’s no suspended sentence in my state, there is no mandatory jail time, there’s a potential for a four three felony which carries a maximum of 18 months. But most of the time probation is what a person is going to get here. So I understand completely understand your fear because they’re sitting down with stopwatches and some of these law enforcement agencies. And I gotta clarify they don’t sit with a stop watch in the eastern shore of Maryland. And they don’t do it in house and County, Georgia. But in other places around the country, they actually set will stop watch waiting for the person’s 90 day 30 day intervals, or in the case of a homeless, it may be a weekly interval to pass so that they can write up a complaint and and seek an arrest warrant. So your fear is completely reasonable, rational and justified. But then we have to balance that with the reality of what it takes in most states to convict a person. In order to secure a conviction, you have to have a willing prosecutor. I grant you, you might find a willing law enforcement agent. I’m not saying that there’s going to be thousands of them, but you might find a willing law enforcement agency, but the law enforcement that the deputy or the police officers model out the brain, the prosecution, they’re not attorneys, so they need the Office of the State prosecutor, the state district attorney, the county attorney some some prosecutorial authority, and it’s very unlikely that you’re going to get a prosecuting agency who’s going to jump on board with that prosecution, knowing that the defense attorney if they’re allowed to say their client, of course, is going to say, well, it was in the middle of a public pandemic with a public health proclamation of stay home. Don’t go out unless you have to. And there would be hundreds and maybe thousands of articles, certainly doesn’t say your state locale where your local officials have told you to stay home Unless Unless it’s an emergency, unless you really need to go out. I just don’t see a prosecution as being a viable option, a conviction, then you’d have to overcome citizens, even the citizens are going to be hesitant to convict a person who’s otherwise been compliant. And they’ve been registering for seven years, and they’ve never missed anything. And if I’m defense attorney, I’m going to say my closing arguments, I must say, Well, here we are, unfortunately, this case has been brought before and I consider it to be a great waste of the taxpayers resources and it’s a waste of your time and I’m sorry, you had to take the day off work to be here, and to sit through this. And I hope that this will be a quick deliberation because clearly my client has been compliant has never sought to evade compliance. And they simply took the action of not coming in because of public health concerns. My client is 62 years old. He has a compromised immune system. He did report and because of the advice of the health authorities, and ladies, gentlemen, the jury, I would ask you to return a very quick not guilty verdict is what you’d be likely to get.

Andy 43:21
Yeah, I feel you on that one, the part I try to find situations in the world where you have to essentially impossible choices and this would be one of them, where you are told by law to go do your registration thing. The police say yes, you have to come in and register, you are then imposing upon yourself willfully that you could get infected with something that would kill you, or choice B, stay home, violate the law, and potentially get convicted and go back to prison for some undetermined amount of time. That is literally to impossible choices.

Unknown Speaker 43:57
That is a difficult choice. I don’t think as being quite that dire, I would I would not ever advise anyone at the Douglas County Sheriff and saying come in or else. I’m not going to countermand that, since I can’t save you if you were to be arrested, but I’m telling you, the likelihood of a conviction would be very, very low. In view of all the closing law, go ahead. And and, and But see, this is something that hasn’t been prepared. This would be where you would have the difference between Gorsuch and Scalia, and you would have the intent of the law versus the black letter law. If you put this before Of course it Joe Scalia. They’d say, well, you’re a person, aren’t you? Yes. You are required to register every 90 days. Yes. You did go over the 90 days. Did you know is there is there an exigent circumstances and some statutory schemes they are they say if there’s a natural disaster, or something, there’s some there was There’s an excusable for any ability to comply with the legislature did not put in in this case, maybe they did in Nebraska. Maybe they didn’t have a link to the statute. But if they didn’t put anything in there, the Gorsuch or the Scalia would say, Well, if they had wanted that they would have said that. And the best way for me to get them to put that in there is for me to find the person guilty, because if they want an exception, they should put that in there. We’re not here at our black robes to write in those exceptions. And then you would have the, the Siva Brier, who looks at the intent of the law with the intent of law, of course, is to have people comply, and a person who’s complying all throughout their their required compliance period, and they willfully don’t cover their non compliance. It’s not willful, you’d have say, well, that’s not the intent of law course. We wouldn’t want to find this person guilty, they would overturn the conviction. So I guess it but you’d have to decide whether you’re textualist or would you believe in intent, and it’s what Scalia refers to as purpose of Islam?

Andy 45:56
Yeah, that’s a we need to actually like put a pushpin, in this particular situation of the intent versus because I’m, you know, of course it said that the dude should have stayed with the truck and potentially die freezing to death that like, hey, that’s that’s what this means. I yeah I would be more inclined like who was going to think of in 2019 we’re going to have this literally it’s the third pandemic in our recorded history that we know of like this and under the circumstances that you were forced to register or forced to catch the you know, catch the disease all that stuff like somebody should you couldn’t plan that ahead. As

Unknown Speaker 46:33
I was saying that you wouldn’t you wouldn’t even draft not even the most detailed bill drafter was not saying well wait a minute now pandemics What can we do? Okay, well, let’s see what that last 119 18 Oh, well. Okay, let’s plan for the next pandemic. That would not go just like the visitations. So your sex offenders are convinced the people required to register was like I said, we pay or what do they call it P r. What was the term we’re supposed to use for those of Most

Andy 47:00
people forced to register is what I thought it was.

Unknown Speaker 47:03
To PFR. Right? The the people were there crafting the laws. They’re not sitting around saying, Oh, well now what do we do with the PF ours? They might want to disarm me that never comes out on it. This guy, Larry, that’s why

Andy 47:16
he has, you know, 7000 pages and did you read it? No, I didn’t read all 7000 pages because we’re some bullshit section on some pandemic, when is there going to ever be a pandemic?

Unknown Speaker 47:25
So, all right, so there’s there’s there’s no there’s no discussion about pf Rs, when when when they wrote their law and Nebraska, no one raised the issue apparently, about what to do in an emergency Nebraska doesn’t typically have a lot of hurricanes and and the weather related events would be tornadic and probably snow that you would have that would disrupt people’s lives and they’re they’re pretty well equipped for dealing with snow and tornadoes. You have to adjust as they come. But But

Andy 47:54
no one ever thought of closing paragraph of this particular says our advice to register people is you must buy a book I must abide by the stupid law for the duration of this pandemic take a large quantity of disinfecting with you when you go check in and use it liberally in your surrounding to keep yourself from getting affected at the sheriff’s office.

Unknown Speaker 48:12
Well, I’m I’m not going to say I disagree with that advice if the sheriff’s office has said that, but what I would be doing if I were Nebraskan center afraid I would be going to the prosecutor’s office or be going to the Douglas County District Attorney or Douglas County prosecutor, whatever they call it, and I’d be asking them to proclaim they will not prosecute anyone who has otherwise been compliant. I’m not talking about a person who’s been off the grid, like the guy who moved from Colorado and got himself into a barroom brawl, and he had registered, I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about people who have been willingly compliant and who are non compliant for this duration of this pandemic. That’s the only people I’m talking about. And if you could get to Douglas County prosecutor to say they’re not going to prosecute, it makes no difference what the sheriff says. The sheriff can can say you come in or else and you can do anything you want to but the prosecutors not gonna move forward. He can’t do Without the prosecutor’s office.

Andy 49:01
Moving over to an article from the hill, this one was submitted by one of our super patron type folks, and it’s from the hill and DOJ appeals to Congress for new emergency powers amid pandemic just got put in super late in our show prep stuff, and you had to do a speed read on it. And you you had some kind of horrifying ideas of these different provisions that they’re trying to ask for.

Larry 49:25
Well, what I’m going to take a political tone, which I guess is my prerogative. And I’m going to draw some analogies here, which we did in pre show banter. If this is accurate, and we’re given when we put an article in here, sometimes we we have to go with the the source of the hill is saying that the Department of Justice now the US Department of Justice is under the direct control of the President. The Attorney General runs the department justice and Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. So anytime the Department of Justice asks for something, we’re assuming that the President is okay. Without request, because the President would simply say, we’re asking for what did you say we want? I don’t I don’t think so. Oh, you withdraw that request. So I’m assuming that this has been blessed by the President or released by the Vice President, or by high level administration officials. What scares me as what is as big salt and and the request that some of it does does seems relatively benign, about judges being able to stop proceedings during a national emergency. But in addition to the of Jay has asked the ability to ask chief judges to permanently detain an individual without trial during emergencies. That’s scary. Okay, who would we detain an individual which individuals accused of what what would the standard of detention be? And would there be an appeal process for those people? Or would we just lock them up?

Andy 50:55
A Bay kind of

Unknown Speaker 50:56
scares me. That’s that’s kind of a difference. Guantanamo Bay and another proposal but reportedly waives the statue of limitations for criminal investigations as well as civil trials during an emergency, and could last up to an additional year following the end of the national emergency. Now, that’s scary. And I don’t know that you could do that for the states, the states that still have statutes of limitations which there evaporating in view of all me to both but but, but that is certainly at the federal level, you could you could tell the statue of limitations and that’s, that’s very scary to be now, as I said, a pre show. This is the small government people. This administration, just in power, said, as previous conservative administrations have said, that they’re about reducing the size of government and the power of government. And, as they did in 2001, when they created the past the Patriot Act, which requires every financial institution to spy on you and do all these massive amounts of reports and tracking of your transactions, to creating the transportation Security Administration which gropes and fondles, even eight, nine year old kids, and 70 and 80 year old women, and runs you through an X ray machine that shows your junk, although they do block it out, and I have to go credit, but but they run you through a scanning machine that shows your junk, you know, this is a charge you $5 and 60 cents, when the when they used to be in private hands. This is also the small government mentality that created the Department of Homeland Security, which does all these poor investigations and provides massive amounts of resources to help local law enforcement to do what really should be local law enforcement. So this is coming from a small government side of the of the political spectrum. And it seems to be a dramatic expansion of government, potentially, if it passes, and I would say that since it’s being solved by the administration, assuming this is true, that it likely will not have significant opposition in the Senate. It may encounter some in the house but there again, if you oppose These type of things, then they hold up the Patriot card. And they say you’re not a patriotic American. They question your patriotism like they did the people who opposed some of the measures after 911 know, the the Pfizer chord and all the things that we had, that we’ve that we’ve given up, you have our privacy, those who who oppose that were labeled as unpatriotic. And it was politically almost impossible to fight against that. That’s what worries me about this crisis. This crisis may lead to further erosion of our basic due process rights, which is nothing more fundamentalist and know what you’re charged with, and have the right to to be released and not be held indefinitely. And that’s

Andy 53:43
scary. This is also the people that are all about some originalism and the text and being constitutional and you have a right to know your charges and all that stuff, don’t you?

Larry 53:53
Well, you would think so. But, like say it but but there’s, I think it’s time for you to play Lester here because this isn’t Before

Andy 54:00
he says that he says ha cracy Here we go

Unknown Speaker 54:02
for you to come back and call mine Mars is a farce it’s an act of hypocrisy is is a terrible way to treat a guest on your show and

Andy 54:12
you know it there you go there’s some hypocrisy from Lester records record like an actual vinyl record but by the time we finished this podcast that that thing would be worn out and be all grainy sounding. You remember those days? you’d wear out a record?

Larry 54:30
I sure do. I played the new kid in town Fred have an album I couldn’t find it on single and I like like that song so much by the Eagles. Well, I gave it back to him. He said Why did you screw up my my track? I said which one he taught me exactly what you want us

Andy 54:45
because you you lifted up the needle that many times and played that one track enough that many times to wear it out? Well,

Unknown Speaker 54:52
he had he had a much better he was in the sound system. So he had a much better stereo system that I had. But apparently I played it enough times that he To detect the scratching on his when he played it on his back in

Andy 55:04
the day Larry I had like I had a little like a little almost like a shoe shine brush but it was specifically for records and in some spray and you’d like spray the vinyl and then you’d wipe off all the dust and you put it back in the sleeve and you know, put it on the shelf like back in the day.

Larry 55:20
Yeah, well, the records are coming back pay for buying vinyl again. I don’t understand why but

Andy 55:25
they always say there’s, they say there’s some sort of special sound to it. And I’ve never ever been able to figure that one out. Never ever, ever. Well, let’s move over to an article from a girl.com alabama.com Alabama judge orders jail inmates released then leaves it up to the sheriff. So first he said they were going to release everybody that had you know, lower end charges but then said oh, well, I guess we’ll leave it up to the local sheriff to this is something you know, we’ve been kind of hitting on throughout the show tonight. That if you have minor charges, you know, I’m going to go back to felony again. Walking Larry. And, you know, so maybe you shouldn’t be held in detention just like okay, fine, you’re getting charged, you’re getting booked and then go home.

Larry 56:08
Well, unfortunately, Elmore County Sheriff bill Franklin doesn’t agree. And he said that it would be poor policy public policy to release some inmates with bonds as low as $5,000. He said examples would be sex offenders who do not have an approved residents and people waiting on a probate court hearing for mental health issues. And and Okay, so I’ve got a substitute it would be pf ours rather than sex offender so it’s so let’s change that it would be pf ours who don’t have an approved presence. And what I’m struggling with on that is is does it mean if a PFR in Alabama doesn’t have a proof of residence did they get locked up like when their prison sentence and so your your your time is ended in the state in the state, you’re through it at the state level for your for your conviction, do they lock you up in a local jail if you if you don’t have an approved residence or i’m not i’m not clear on what that means and why would you have a bond anyway but but this this this year is grandstanding and using PFR for

Unknown Speaker 57:12
people that have mental health issues

Larry 57:15
and most of the time most of the time all those holes you really don’t have a bond solve with with when when we’re when we have a mental health hold you generally can’t bond out the reason why they have that hold on is because you’re deemed too risky to help you’re either gonna hurt yourself or you’re gonna hurt somebody

Andy 57:31
very bizarre Euler very bizarre that we would have just I don’t get the idea of putting someone inside that enclosed container with all the with potentially all the other sick people you could be the sick person that is now infecting the population. I know you should have thought about that. Blah, blah, blah, whatever bullshit. Like I this seems like, Okay, can we change the rules just for a little while? Probably like six weeks, two months, maybe three months? Can we just change the way we think for a little while?

Larry 57:59
Well, apparently circuit judge my door they should or did but but he didn’t. And Alabama he’s probably a little gun shy but of being too aggressive because judges are like that

Andy 58:10
an elephant Persky situation, perhaps.

Unknown Speaker 58:13
Yeah, you you got it you got it. You got to be careful when you’re usurping the sheriff’s are elected. Yeah, as well. And you don’t want to Sheriff running against a judge not running for the judge’s office but but campaigning against the judge that I’m trying to protect you. And that liberal judge upper in in Birmingham issued this old and I will have to let people out and you ain’t gonna be safe, and it ain’t my fault. So I won’t I’m encouraging you to vote against him. Come November.

Unknown Speaker 58:48
How’s that for? How’s that for a

Andy 58:51
girl there man? deep deep Southern. Perhaps we should then move over to an article from the Shreveport times chief Raman announces changes in police complex operations in response to Cova 19. And this is some other place that is making it so that they are not going to lock up people. I’m sorry, this is going to be like registration. The detective Bureau is open on a limited basis. sex offender registration is suspended for about three weeks from now, I guess. Don’t Don’t just show up at the office call in for appointments, if you need help, obviously call them and so forth. But like people are shutting down and they are at least like considering the people forced to register in their their, their scheduling.

Larry 59:40
Well, you know, nozzle nozzle did put out a press release later last week, this week, or we’re looking at we put out a press release a few days ago. And we’re hoping that more and more law enforcement will follow behind an urn out similar similar changes. But even if they don’t And think about the PFR. They they have to care about their personnel and their families. And since we don’t know who’s carrying this, unless you’re going to put all your people in protective gear, you really need to just be selfish and shut down for your own reason for your own selfish purposes. But, but I would like to think that there’s some good people law enforcement out there, and that everybody doesn’t have such you know, such a Calvin or attitude toward those forced to register. In fact, I know there’s some good people out there because I hear the stories. I hear stories on a regular basis about how professionally sub departments process things now, there are a whole lot of don’t, but they’re all they’re all some good people out there. This may be one of the good ones. Hopefully it is thinking back to when I was first released, and I lived in a hotel for a period of time. And

Andy 1:00:53
I want to say it was because the officer was lazy, but you know, maybe he had different reasons he would not come upstairs so he would call me from his car and I would like poked my head out. And we were just talking over the phone for, you know, 10 or 30 seconds, whatever, like everything, okay? interaction with law enforcement, alcohol, anything like that, and then you move on, ah, you could totally handle all of your if you’re if your statutes provide for that, I guess I guess certain states could be, hey, you are required to go into the office, whereas mine, they happen to say that they’re going to come to me, but they could do it from their car, and they could call me and even if we’re standing, just, you know, from my door to their car, we could conduct the quote unquote, interview through glass, essentially.

Larry 1:01:31
Well, well, let’s say there again, your state doesn’t require to my knowledge last time I looked at the statute that they go out. They don’t require that you come

Andy 1:01:38
in, they changed that a handful of years ago. This is something you don’t go to the office anymore. They come out.

Larry 1:01:44
Yes. Is that right? So so they they break their fingerprinting? No.

Andy 1:01:50
I always I always like I always blend the two together. I always blend the two. I’m talking about handlers coming out and doing their monthly checks for supervision. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:01:58
yeah. Well, we’re trying to register I

Andy 1:02:01
always blend them together. I know that they’re separate, but I just always do.

Larry 1:02:04
So okay, well in terms of the registration, they This is their their suspending in person registration. And and that’s that’s what narshall called on to do. We’re assuming that the probation people are going to protect themselves, because there’s no law that generally there’s no law that requires that you visit a PEO on a certain schedule, they set their own schedule, so they’re free to change their own schedules. But there are statutory requirements, that that that require as frequently as weekly that people go into a physical location. And that that’s what chief Raymond has suspended and he’s put in protocols that that that make it clear that not only is he suspending the in person visits for sex offender registration, but also almost all in person visits to the law enforce, but they’re running a skeletal operation encourage him but he’s the phone. The old fashioned phone. Imagine a man

Andy 1:02:57
I don’t ever pick up the phone and dial anybody. Ever Send me a text message.

Larry 1:03:03
And he called me one time back in I think it was in 2017.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:07
I called you. I called you back this morning.

Larry 1:03:12
Yeah, but it was in response, but you’ve initiated one call since we’ve known each other.

Andy 1:03:16
I did skip the nurse article talking about that press release. Is there anything else about the press release? I just want to make sure that we have it because it’s in the show notes for anybody that wants to cover it.

Larry 1:03:26
Well, I’m very, I’m very, very pleased that we got that out there. I don’t think that people are going to tremble in their boots and all of a sudden, but what we do hope it does is it provokes thought. And we’re hoping that enterprising reporters even if they don’t call us that they call the law enforcement and say really, are you still requiring these people come? Are you not concerned about the health and well being of your of your deputies and their families? We’re hoping that it provokes more people to do what what what chief Raymond has done that will alleviate and ameliorate the concern On on our constituents, because there are people out there who are just terrified that, that if they don’t go in there, something bad’s gonna happen. And there’s no way that we can guarantee them. Absolutely. That it won’t

Andy 1:04:10
you tell me what kind of impact these press releases and communications? Do. I was having a conversation with one of our listeners earlier about, I don’t know if it was about this. But if something similar about, you know, what’s it going to do? If you just throw this thing out there, we oppose this thing, like, Who’s going to listen, does anybody give a flip? And my point back was, so we should do nothing in return? What would you suggest we do instead of can you elaborate on that part of that?

Unknown Speaker 1:04:40
Well, if you don’t do a press release, thinking you’re going to change the world. You do a press release, trying to get information on when General Motors releases their quarterly earnings and their announcement their dividend. They don’t think it’s going to change the world but they think it’s going to empower people in particular, they announced a very good quarter. If they announced an increase in the quarterly dividend. Well, we put out a press release We don’t think that the world is going to magically change. But what we do think is going to happen is that more and more journalists are going to become familiar because as more and more of our press releases hit newsrooms, they, they say, well, gee, this has become a regular, we’ve seen more and more of this outfit and somebody in some of their downtime, they go and do a little googling and figure out what narshall is all about. And then, as they say, more and more of our press releases, hopefully some of these people call they’re, that they’re there. They’re having a slack day, and they need something to work on. And they call the sheriff or they call the police chief police chief and say, what’s your reaction to this to figure out if they can get a story to run with? So you never know, it’s hard to measure the impact of this? We don’t know how many people have been called that that for the press release went out. Now. We don’t know. We know there’s a tremendous amount of activity in newsrooms right now. So we know that there’s a lot of background chatter. So our stuff, since we’re not as well known, probably would not get the same urgency that something came from the CDC but Hold the other hand, the way it was you, you try to draw attention by by the subject line, and hopefully, someone, it has benefited from this, but we can’t tell you who we can tell you that’s the purpose of a news release is to get more information out, get more public discourse, and hopefully get a change of attitudes.

Andy 1:06:19
I do understand I do want to point out that we had a couple other articles describing the same thing. One of them is from, I guess, Sioux county Daily News. I don’t even know where did that end up coming from but Sioux County Sheriff’s Office in Orange City, they have closed the business office all in person sex offender registry and related issues are suspended indefinitely. That’s a long time, Larry.

Larry 1:06:40
Well, and And somehow, I looked over this one, but this is this is also good news. That that that until further notice, you don’t have to go and now we’re going to have people that are going to still try to go in. They either won’t know about this, or they won’t trust it. And if you feel like you must go Do something that that PFR is have have traditionally been hesitant to do, document everything. document the date, either by old fashioned hand, pencil and paper, or with your camera phone, document that they’ve got a padlock on the door, document that any signage that they have, and do everything you can to make that risk of going to this office worth your while. And if you do go in and successfully register them, we’d actually like to hear about that who’s still conducting register because we’d like to bless the public for conducting tests witnesses thought an essential function. So document document

Andy 1:07:42
document, another one from Dallas plates, police department they are where does it say they will be asked to confirm their information but then instructed to call and make an appointment to come back at a later date. So they’re essentially it would seem that they’re essentially shut it down as well in Dallas.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:58
So but hopefully The positive change that comes out of this, again, if nothing bad happens, hopefully some of the elected public officials, particularly with our suggestion, look, we went on our three month hiatus, and we didn’t have any in person verifications, and nothing bad happened. That would be

Andy 1:08:17
to send that stick like we have this window, we have a, we have a natural experiment where this stuff was put on hold in these specific places, and the world didn’t explode. So can’t that just become the norm for the rest of the world for policy? It’s like,

Unknown Speaker 1:08:36
but See, the problem is there is going to be when you have anywhere from 750,000 to more out there roaming the streets and the PFR population. Someone on any given day is committing a sex offense. If you were to look at the nationwide I would be surprised if a PFR didn’t commit a sex offense daily because the recidivism rate is somewhere in the one to 3% range. So if you take 2% I have three quarters of a million. and extrapolate that down mathematician. How many sex offenses Is that a lot? All right, well, then there’s probably a sex offense occurring daily. So someone is going during this hiatus, someone is going to commit a sex offense this required to register, and that’s going to be vilified and sensationalized? Well, if they had been coming in, this wouldn’t have happened. This is what happens when you don’t monitor those kind of people.

Andy 1:09:24
I do understand what you’re saying. I just yeah, so someone’s gonna use it for some sort of political points or the news media is going to use it to get ratings. But the truth be have no flipping difference.

Larry 1:09:37
It makes no difference. They would have committed the offense anyway. Had they not gone in or had they gone and it wouldn’t make any difference? There. There will be reference by people forced to register. They don’t magically all never offend again. That’s why people have that’s why people have more than one conviction in some cases.

Andy 1:09:56
Yes, of course. Of course, of course, because they couldn’t hold them. back. Are you ready to close out the show? I have a little special treat if you are. Well let’s see

Larry 1:10:05
that we have anything we didn’t cover as far

Andy 1:10:07
as I know we do not. Alrighty,

Larry 1:10:09
well then what about the hundred and 60 people that are in chat?

Andy 1:10:11
There are a bunch of questions. I don’t no one has asked any questions. I do want to absolutely thank all of you because there’s a whole slew I know you are at home tonight too. So don’t give me any crap. Oh, I was busy. I was out partying with all my friends. No, you were not you were at home because we’re all on lockdown. Like all of us are locked out. But I do want to thank each and every one of you for coming and joining us in chat. But I have something special that I came across on my show prep stuff. There. Have you heard of a actor comedian musician named Steve Martin? Who is that? I just I just can’t, I can’t even fathom

Larry 1:10:44
Have you heard of a movie called the jerk? The one

Andy 1:10:48
I give up. So there’s this guy been around since the 70s I believe. And his name is Steve Martin and he has kind of moved off of this comedian career. And he’s a musician. He’s a pretty strong banjo player. He just posted on something on Twitter of just 60 seconds of banjo just to make you happy. So here is Steve Barton and some banjo

Unknown Speaker 1:11:16
we can close out the show on this place

Andy 1:11:20
I don’t know that anybody wants to hear some banjo because I actually like this. I have a Pandora station that is based on Steve Martin and his banjo.

Larry 1:11:28
I like I like my I like my good night’s sleep tight a lot better.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:31
I know this is significantly better. Larry, come on now.

Larry 1:11:37
Well, let two people be the judge of that. All

Andy 1:11:40
right. Well, where can people find the podcast? What’s the website?

Larry 1:11:46
registry matters dot c.

Andy 1:11:51
And our phone our phone bill is probably going to become due and we don’t have the income to pay for it. So that’s gonna get shut off but if you use it, it’s a phone number.

Larry 1:12:01
Oh, that would be 747274477.

Andy 1:12:08
And how about emailing?

Larry 1:12:11
And we were we haven’t had enough email recently either registry matters cast@gmail.com.

Andy 1:12:19
And of course, the best way for you to support the podcast keep us going here is to go whether patreon.com slash registry matters. I so very much appreciate your time. I appreciate everybody in chat. I appreciate everybody that’s out there listening. I deeply hope that you practice everything that you can to be safe and that you stay safe. And I hope we all get through this just fine and everything comes out great on the other side.

Larry 1:12:45
Thank you. Good night, Andy.

Andy 1:12:47
Take care guys. Bye bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Registry Matters

A legal and policy podcast about the sex offender registry

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Transcript of RM130: “I can’t breathe!” Will it matter this time?

Transcript of RM128: Grabarczyk in NC and T.S. in PA

Transcript of RM127: Internet Ban Ruled Unconstitutional In New Jersey

Transcript of RM126: I’m Confused MeToo, Please Explain

Transcript of RM125: Preservation of Our Constitutionally Promised Liberties

Transcript of RM124: Bashing Liberals

Transcript of RM123: Registry Enforcement Blocked by Federal Judge Until COVID-19 Is Over

Transcript of RM122: Please Show Your Felon ID Card

Transcript of RM121: 12 pack of Corona w/ Theresa Robertson Ph.D., LCPC

Transcript RM120: Nebraska Sheriff Still Requires In Person Check-Ins