Listen to RM119: Potentially A Rapidly Spreading Epidemic In Prisons

Andy 0:00
registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 119 of registry matters. Right? How are you? I’m talking to you from inside of a gas mask. Are you okay?

Larry 0:23
I couldn’t resist. Oh, you sound you sound fantastic. Yes,

Andy 0:28
that’s because I have one of those and 95 masks. I bought it years ago as I was prepping. I’ve got seven years of canned food in my cupboards. I’ve got a bathtub full of water for when they shut off the power, or excuse me off the water. I’ve got backup generators. I’ve got candles, batteries, I got everything. I’m ready to be a prepper.

Larry 0:45
Well, I tell you I was I was feeling pretty good about our state in terms of this where I’m talking about the virus look more later, but we didn’t have any cases until just a few days ago and now they they’ve tested and diagnosing From 10 cases, but we went from having plenty of everything and the stores to the stores being emptier than I’ve ever seen in my entire life. And I don’t understand it because it’s like, really, folks, this is at this point in time. This hasn’t reached anywhere near the level of where we’ve had infectious diseases spreading in the past, but yet the people are just wiping the stores out completely.

Andy 1:31
And you’re you’re at an eddy minimum, Larry, you are an above average intelligence person. And by far, you’re smarter than that. And you are great at explaining things and understanding. I think better than most people. I can’t for the life of me understand the toilet paper thing. I just don’t like I don’t need I don’t know how much paper you need. If there’s an epidemic that you couldn’t move to napkins and or paper towels or baby wipes. If things became dire. I don’t understand why I was at Sandy. yesterday and I saw like, every buggy I saw coming out of the thing had 400 rolls of toilet paper, they had 17 gallons of water and they all had Lysol wipes. And out of that the Lysol wipes are the only one that I actually understand.

Unknown Speaker 2:12
For you listeners who are not in the southern United States, the buggies is a colloquialism for the shopping cart Oh would be pushing around the store myself

Larry 2:23
for for international and global audience that we have, but but I don’t understand it either, because and I get punished by one of our patrons already because I said it will just in the normal course of living, you would think that a normal household would have a supply of tissue because you get the best economic value by buying multiple packs. Which means if you bought a 12 or 16 or 18, or these different combinations of roles depending on the brand, that unless you’re on the verge of running out, you would have enough to last you A week or two and and for us to be continuously without tissue for more than a week or two would be bizarre because I can’t imagine that that anything would drive us to that point. That’s a product that’s largely made in the US as far as I know. And I know we have it to my surprise, we actually have a plant here in Albuquerque that I didn’t know anything about. But it made the news last night because they are selling cases of 96 rolls for $35. And they had lines that you would believe because they’re not, they’re not set up for a retail customer. They, they, they they provide this to the as a wholesale operation, but they’re willing to sell to the to the public. And people were lining up and buy 96 rolls now. I don’t know much but 96 rolls regardless of the tissue count on the 96 rolls does go to last for a little while in most dating sites household but particular household for last 96 roles from last year. quite some time. I would venture to guess that’d be a year supply for, for for a household of four. If you could go through more than 96 rolls a year, I’d be very surprised.

Andy 4:08
Maybe let’s see for me, maybe, anyway, whatever I didn’t want to like,

Larry 4:14
Yeah. Why?

Andy 4:17
And we can dig into that. I just I just don’t.

Larry 4:20
I just don’t Well, it’s it’s a it’s an irrational response to emotion has said and this is kind of like the stock market gyrations of significant boom. Do you do you believe that when you take a third of the value which we’ve lost, as a before the bounce on Friday, we lost? close to a third of the value. Do you believe that all the enterprise, all the enterprise value of the basket of all the stocks are listed and traded on Wall Street? Do you think they shrunk have shrunk by one third, in a matter of less than than two weeks? Of course not. No,

Andy 4:55
of course not. And I just have always understood that to be almost like the emotional barometer of the United States or at least the companies listed for their community.

Larry 5:06
That is the emotion of the investors. And once once a slide starts that’s what we’re having here with, with these hoarding, hoarding of purchasing. The scarcity is causing people to react irrationally, because when they see the TV of lines, they figure Well, I should be in this line too. When they see the TV pictures of the shells, I mean, how often do you own average person before this happened? The average person how often did you see metal shelving when you’re in a grocery store? No, I’m very rare. And I

Andy 5:34
just uploaded a picture into chat. I went to the Kroger just a couple of days ago, and it’s a big Kroger it’s like one of the super ones that has clothing and all that other crap and just bear shells I just uploaded a chat because I was like, I know I’m not gonna be on a buy any here but I just want to check and see. And there it was.

Unknown Speaker 5:50
The only time you see what you’re seeing right now is in a store that’s closing when you write when you when you eliminate the retail or if you close a large store. The way I’ve seen it done and we’ve actually when I was in the business close to few you shrink the store and you and you close off parts of the store and you continue to merchandise it to a smaller and smaller area that way doesn’t look as empty and then you but but for what you’re seeing in the stores right now they’re not closing so not there they’re not going to they’re not going to cordon off parts of the store for this you just have these empty gaps of the of the paper aisle but the cereal aisles and the the sanitary stuff. And actually I saw this cereal aisle coming back today it was empty yesterday but I was down and apparently they got enough that they that they sprinkle some product in the box cereals. We’re back.

Andy 6:41
Huh, let’s move on before you will ruin the whole coronavirus section. I got a great little summit to play for that one too. So our first article comes from courthouse news Supreme Court takes up teens life without parole case. I just have I just have one thing to actually say Larry, if you don’t want to do the time don’t do the crime

Larry 6:59
right. That’s correct.

Andy 7:01
Okay, so we should just nuke them and doesn’t matter if they’re eight years old. I don’t know how old was the kid that, uh, he was 15 years old when he committed this crime. He killed his grandfather. That seems like he probably wanted to give him a switch or something.

Larry 7:14
Well, and the there’s been Supreme Court rulings, and we’ve heard Scalia talk in opposition to these rulings where that they held that juveniles should not be subjected to life imprisonment, so don’t be subjected to the death penalty. And he vehemently disagrees with that. But in this case, after the Supreme Court ruled that that life without parole could not just be arbitrarily imposed that it had to be for a person who was incorrigible or should be this is our argument, it should be for a person incorrigible. This, this judge rescinded step after after he was entitled to a new sentencing, and the judge imposed the same sentence. And now the Supreme Court’s agreed to determine if there should be a standard of it of the person being incorporated Before they can be given like without, without parole, and that’s a new nuanced argument that they’re putting forth that that should be a standard. But Scalia would tell you that if that’s the standard that the state of Alabama citizens want, they can they can insert that into their statutory scheme, that to death that the life of prison is only available for a juvenile who has been determined to be incorrigible, don’t come to us and ask us to advance this requires it’s not in the statute, that would be his position. So it’s going to be interesting, but more conservative leaning of the court, if they’re gonna if they’re gonna be able to find five votes to come to that conclusion, if they’re gonna do to legislating from the bench.

Andy 8:36
And let me channel my inner Scalia than in you help you grade me as the teacher would say, according to us, as I understand how Scalia would say it if Mississippi didn’t want this individual sentenced to life without parole. If they did, yeah, they didn’t want him sentenced to life without parole so that he would get parole. The Mississippi would have created a law saying that you can’t take a June June a vial as you would say, June of a juvenile and sentenced him to life without parole. Now we’re as now he’s asking that the Supreme Court step in and say because he was juvenile because he wasn’t well developed all that stuff that the black robe should step in and say, No, Mississippi, you can’t do that. And Scalia wouldn’t be doing that.

Unknown Speaker 9:15
Scalia would not be in favor of that, because he believes that the gift of the Mississippi voters and their intelligence and that they would be able, if they want to spare that penalty, except for the most heinous crimes, they can spell that out. And they can spell out this new theory of incorrigible and if they wanted that they would have said that and he believes to assume that they weren’t capable of knowing what they wanted when they enacted that building scheme and made it available as an insult and in proper role for the for the courts. And if you if you believe in that philosophy that I mean it’s a very viable I tell people skill is is very well reasoned and what he’s what his arguments that if you believe in this State rights and the intelligence of Mississippi voters. They knew what they enacted.

Andy 10:04
One piece of this layer that I do still struggle with is that we have a very unengaged electorate. Even as far back as I know, if we would only have something of like a third of the people vote in the big elections, forget the off year elections. Forget any of the local city council things that’ll happen like mid year or something like that. Just a small fraction of people even vote that give a crap about it. So now you’re being you’re not being represented by the people, you’re being represented by some people.

Larry 10:35
Well, I mean, arguably, the people who do choose to participate are probably more engaged than the ones who don’t true probably. I mean, I wish that people took the time. And maybe since we’re not having to professional sports, people can pre channel some of their time to, to that they would be watching the hoops and March Madness on the all the different things NASCAR, what have you, maybe they can actually spend some of that time becoming a more informed person. But if we had 75% participation, does that magically make the people going to be informed just because they vote? Or where they would? Where do we get the evidence that having more people vote would mean that those people would be more informed.

Andy 11:16
And on the heels of that other article, another one that comes from the Georgia recorder where the Georgia House committee Monday recommended raising the age, a teenager can be charged as an adult from 17 to 18. This would be this, this would be the inverse of what happened in Mississippi where the person was 15 and got sent to life with parole without parole. I’m assuming he then got charged an adult in that condition. So here in Georgia, they’re changing it from 17 to 18, instead of what it was in Mississippi, of being 15. Am I am I even characterizing that close to accurate?

Larry 11:50
Yes, the de facto and Georgia and it was all that when I was there, that was the way it was 40 years ago if you’re reached 17 for pretty purposes of criminality that was an adult. And now they’re looking at changing that. But there’s a significant amount of opposition propping up because of the cost. And Apple the fiscal impact report, they call it a fiscal note but and Georgia assembly, but they there’s a four page report explaining why this is going to adversely affect the state budget. Because when you when you put people in a juvenile system, there’s a lot of checks and balances and rehabilitation and Tanna. There’s social work, and there’s all these things that they don’t do in the adult system. They’re going to cost money. And if they move about, out of the, the adult prisons, and depending on how many people actually end up in, in a correctional setting, you’re going to need space that they presently don’t have, so they’re going to have to build facility. So then the number of people, when you remove people from an overpopulated adult system was Georgia is one of the top incarceration states that doesn’t magically translate to that to that facility closing down if you take 20 juveniles out of this one a 15 out of that when all you do is just leave alleviate a little bit of stress on the system. It doesn’t magically mean to George is going to be able to close some of the Delta and then that close down the adult system presence and say, Oh, well, that might have just magically moves over the Juvenile Services. So there’s, there’s, there’s opposition to this because of the cost. But

Andy 13:20
couldn’t we find study after study after study that if we intervene earlier and keep them out of the adult system, that those kids would be less likely to come back in the system later and have a better chance of becoming productive citizens, etc. That has entered into

Unknown Speaker 13:35
the debate and that’s being considered and that’s a part of the discussion. There’s that that has not gone unnoticed. But still, that doesn’t alleviate the money that we need now. Yeah. And going back to the 30 people that you pulled out of the system that just makes it so that the county jail can put 30 people into the beds that they just released from the of the junior with juveniles, or the or, or the State President that if you take it If you went to Georgia right now, and you could magically wave a wand and find everyone who was charged as a 17 year old and you could somehow extract those that would not free up enough according to this to this fiscal note that would not free up enough space to have any tangible impact on on the on the adult corrections system. So you’ve got all these new costs coming in line coming online. And and that that’s a struggle. I fight with people all the time when they say, the long run, we’re going to save money. But we’re not in the long run. We have a budget to balance for this year. And so those lawmakers who convene in Annapolis or Atlanta, or by gabri, or wherever they are, they’re trying to balance this year’s budget and

Andy 14:47
get her to take into account something that is five or 10 or 20 years out. How did how does that conversation occur?

Unknown Speaker 14:54
Well, the way it’s occurring right now, it’s coming in there long term. We’re going to save some money. But in the meantime, I need revenue to balance this budget. Sure. And and and since we can’t increase taxes, that’s a mortal sin. To do that. We’re going to need new revenue that’s going to come from somewhere, or we’re going to have to reduce outlays to some other as far as everybody is concerned, how we’re going to take the money from you, if you ask for a show of hands of all the things the state of Georgia does, and who would like to step up and say they would have be willing to have a little bit less money, there won’t be any hands go up. Got it. So that therein lies therein lies the problem of trying to try and it’s the problems that the states largely face because they have to balance their budgets. Most states, at least by appearances operate under a balanced budget. At the federal level, we get to operate as a deficit spin up and apparently in perpetuity because my life I’ve been hearing that we’re gonna reach this magic day of recommend that we won’t be able to borrow anymore. And I’ve heard it since I was quite young. And now I’ve gotten to be a little bit older, and I’m still hearing it. And we’re running massive deficits and talking about actually ballooning the deficit further about more, they’re talking about relieving the payroll tax, which is a social security assessment. And I think that the figure I heard that that’s about a $60 billion between 50 and $60 billion a month in revenue that that would be for Gollum. If they completely eliminate that for the remainder of this year. Where do we get the 50 or $60 billion monthly gap that that’s going to create on the revenue side of the ledger? Where Where do we plug that?

Andy 16:38
How do we plug that won’t the windfall of the increased economic activity? Won’t that just offset everything? Well, I think

Unknown Speaker 16:44
we’re a we’ve seen that enough times, no, it doesn’t happen.

Unknown Speaker 16:49
I’m poking it barely. They’ve been they’ve been making that argument since the days of Warren Harding. And Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, which is approaching hundred years, they’ve been saying that And it never has done the magic thing. So if you if you forego $50 billion in revenue, you are correct. There would be people since these are wage earners that are paying this, that is to pay social security taxes, you have to have a job. And you have to be earning $137,000 a year or less. So yes, those people by and large, would consume more, there would be some activity that would be generated. But would it plug that gap, and even if it did plug the gap, which I don’t believe it would, but but it wouldn’t be going into the social security trust fund, the revenue that would be generated would be would be going to other revenue streams. But But social security trust fund as a dedicated revenue stream that comes from the assessment out of your paycheck, have a combined rate of 7.65 and then another 7.65 comes from the employer.

Andy 17:51
Yep. The other part of that that’s actually kind of interesting, though, is just on that take a quick little detours. Maybe if it’s enough money that comes back in your pocket that that resolves the demand side that you have the money to do it. But that doesn’t resolve the supply side, you still can’t get toilet paper. Even if you have an extra six and a half percent in your paycheck, you still can’t get it.

Larry 18:13
I don’t believe that this is going to be a long term crisis on toilet paper, first of all the people, I don’t think that having additional toilet paper actually would would increase consumption much. And so I think the consumption is going to be largely a factor of how many people we have and and bless the United States all of a sudden doubles its population. So I think that the supply chains are going to catch up because as the manufacturer in Albuquerque said, they said we’ve got plenty where we can supply this whole city with tissue. So I just don’t think that’s gonna be a long term problem, but the panic is there because you can’t find it.

Andy 18:52
Yes. Which then inspires more panic because like, Oh my god, I’m down to three roles. I may as well go get another bundle and maybe We’ve already detoured back to toilet paper

Larry 19:03
before something else, unbelievable.

Andy 19:06
But let’s move quickly over to an article I keep hearing from people about this one. And this was written by a friend of mine named Fred. It’s over on the narsil website. And it is Michigan State Police turning away pre 2011 registrants. I keep hearing that people are going into do their Annual Registration stuff. And the police are saying, nope, don’t have to do it. Have a nice day. It you have to think that you would go in there and like, well, now what am I supposed to do? Yes. They’re not having me register now. Are they going to reenact some law that’s going to pull me back in? How do I know when that happens? It Like, if you don’t register, like, isn’t the law still on the books? I think so. The police turning you away is one thing, but you’re still not necessarily in compliance. It’s I This has got to be a nightmare for people in Michigan to navigate.

Larry 19:52
Well, I wouldn’t view it as much of a nightmare, but I tend to analyze things differently than the person If the statutes been declared unconstitutional as applied to this book, and we talked about on the on the conference call do this, these pre 2011 people. It’s been declared unconstitutional. It has not been enjoined from enforcement. The injunction hasn’t taken effect. It actually has been injunctions been issued, but yet to go into effect. It would be the strangest prosecutorial setup that would ever exist in the history of humanity. And I know that’s the craziest prosecutions, but for a prosecutor to come in. And the defense attorney says, okay, you brought a charge, which I don’t say I’m doing. And I’m going to say that the statute had been ruled unconstitutional. an injunction had been issued, and the law enforcement told them not to come now. Do you still want to proceed with this prosecution? I would be very surprised if you could find an insane prosecutor that would go forward like that.

Andy 20:55
That sounds like it’s the same prosecutor that you would find that if you were 10 minutes over you’re 40 At our one week registration be in a different state that they’d be like, just go register, don’t bother with this. So they would be they would hit you maybe not kid gloves, even less than they would just be like, okay, go do your stuff because you actually have to go do your stuff.

Unknown Speaker 21:12
But I don’t think they’re gonna do anything until until the matters are resolved in terms of where their legislature is going to create a new registry. I believe the legislature will create a new registration obligation for all those people. I hope I’m completely wrong, and that they don’t. But I don’t see them letting thousands of people just evaporate into oblivion, and saying, well, we tried, we gave up because just because your most recent iteration of registrations are unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean every iteration is unconstitutional. In fact, to the contrary, every iteration prior to where we are Adele had been held to be constitutional. So logically, if you can’t think of anything else, you would, you would say, Okay, well, it’s read and The last constitutional version. So I think that if they were to do that which is expected do something in the way of trying to re register these people, they would be notice go out. I would, I would I would take to the public service announcements that I think they’d be letters from, from law enforcement saying the new law has been enacted. As of whatever day it’s effective. You have an obligation to register come in, test what I think would happen, I don’t think there would be I gotcha moment. Oh, well, you didn’t register during the time that was declared unconstitutional while the injunction was enforced. And the law took effect on July 1 of 2020. And here it is July 2, we got you. I don’t see that happening.

Andy 22:42
Let me just I don’t remember when it was in our history, but it was relatively early in our podcast history. So maybe it’s around Episode 20, or something like that. We covered an article where it was about reciprocity laws with gun ownership and traveling across state lines from one jurisdiction to another and that the gun owner The politicians were like, well, we want to make sure that our gun owners when they end up violating this law, because they’re in a new jurisdiction that they don’t get trapped into something. So we want to notify them. And at the same time we paired it exactly up with an article that, well, we’re going to change the law on the registrants. And we’re going to say, fyp, you guys have to figure it out. You follow the law, almost as if to trip them up, but also on the other side for the gun owners to make it so that they don’t get tripped up. I say that, just to provide contrast that maybe in Michigan, they wouldn’t do that and say, hey, look, you know, you are going to be required to register. So make sure you don’t miss your date.

Larry 23:37
Well, right now, they’re telling people that they don’t have to register because if they fit in this pre 2011 group, but if they restore that obligation to register, I don’t think they’re going to play out gotcha. I think they’re going to notify people by public service announcements, and by letters to the legislature has created and the governor has signed a new obligation, and you need to get in here and register. That’s what I think they’ll do. I don’t think they’re going to do it. I got you now. Now, if if a year and a half goes by, right, and they sent out two letters and you haven’t come in and they happen to find you, I think that would change the equation. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 24:17
And it’s got to be a bit. It was a spontaneous thing for them sitting around with a stopwatch waiting to decide gotcha.

Andy 24:24
I don’t remember the specifics behind collecting evidence. But the time behind trying to establish a case with something else that we were talking about, but in the article, it says the Michigan ACLU is advising registrants to try and register anyway. And if refused, try to get something in writing that says that they do not need to register at this time. But you know, something that says, hey, I came and you guys said no. And so here’s some evidence and don’t take that home and shred it, something like that.

Larry 24:52
Well, I think the memo that the state police distributed, it would be sufficient. If I were licensed to practice law. And someone got charged in Michigan during this, this temporary period where we were we have like a clarity, I would feel quite comfortable, confident and comfortable going forward with that. With that memorandum from the state police, which is the fall practical purposes they’d not to Chief law enforcement, but they are the best funded. They are the premier agency in the state of Michigan. And they are the guiding agency in terms of registration in terms of providing know how technical expertise and oversight to the counties in the local. So if I had that memo, and someone got charged with violating the registry of Michigan, I would be I would be in Holekamp. So I mean, it would be it was a list of my priorities and things that would worry me and keep me awake at night. This wouldn’t be one of them

Andy 25:53
very well. Moving over to a channel we’ve covered I think one of this person videos once before, it’s a channel named common sense laws. And a new video is released recently, and I’ve got a clip to play from it. And it’s talking about his experience with moving into Germany. And then the story goes on to like a friend of like more than just more than just an acquaintance, but not like, Hey, this is my chummy chum, best friend. And firsthand, second and third hand, you know, it’s not like we can document and prove what he’s saying. But, you know, and do you want to give the Do you want to give a disclaimer on the information in this video before we get too far?

Larry 26:37
Sure, I would say that this is an individual who has opined that the nation of Germany the Federal Republic of Germany, is not interested in a conviction older than 10 years. Therefore, Come one, come on. We have not researched that. So this is his personal opinion. It’s not us telling you that that is the way it is.

Andy 27:01
It’s also not saying he’s lying either.

Larry 27:03
Nope. We’re just saying that we’re we’re simply providing this to our listeners to convey three individuals experience in Germany.

Andy 27:12
It’s a two minute clip, here we go.

Unknown Speaker 27:14
They also asked him about or they asked him when his sex offense occurred. They never asked him a single detail about the offense. They only cared when did it occur? And he said, Well, it was March 2000. So you know, 20 years ago, and at that both officers seemed very surprised. 20 years, okay. And he also added that he had done seven years in prison, so he had finished his prison sentence in 2007. So again, you’re talking a stretch of 13 years, up until this point. So the officers, the lead officer, the main officer, who was doing most of the talking said, then that Alright, I need to go write a report. And I’m going to go talk to my supervisor and we’ll make a decision as to whether or not we’re going to let you into Germany. The officer leaves So our guy stays in the interview room for about 20 minutes conversing, you know, comfortably with this other officer. And I need to make I’d like to mention here that our guy told me that these officers were never anything but professional and courteous. There was never any aggression. There was never any yelling or demeaning talk, nothing like that. They never strip searched him. Nothing like that, that it was it was rather comfortable interview. So 20 minutes later, this main officer, the lead officer comes back and he says, alright, you’re free to go. So our guy asked, Well, wait a minute, for clarification. What do you mean, I’m free to go? And the officers said, No, you’re free to go go you get your your luggage, go about your business, enjoy your stay in Germany. And specifically, the officer told him and I think this is a quote, The past is the past and you should be allowed to go on with your life 20 years ago. We don’t care. We’re not interested. And that was it. The officer literally escorted him back into the terminal showed him where to get his luggage. Our guy picked up his luggage, carried it out of the airport, got on a local train, went to the main train station, got out of the main train station and went to his hotel, put his stuff away, and then kind of stood there on the sidewalk, like what the hell happened?

Andy 29:19
The main thing that I really wanted to get out of this is the officer saying, Hey, this is more than 10 years like, like, why are we worried about this if it happened 10 years ago?

Larry 29:30
Well, there Europeans do tend to be a little more forgiving of people’s mistakes as time passes, and they they think some stuff has the right to be forgotten. But I don’t know the specifics of where that line is in Germany. And I would like for prefer be clear, we’re not saying jump on the next plane to Germany, you’ll be fine. We’re saying that one of our listeners has has provided this information from experience of three people and it may or may not be helpful to you.

Andy 29:58
We also don’t know anything about what any of These individuals crimes were if they were super low on the scale, or you know how far up the scale they actually went, but for Germany to not care about any of it. So anyway, I’m super intrigued by him just by the host of that channel, getting into Germany and, you know, sticking down routes and all that and making things work for himself. I’m super interested in how he progresses. Sorry, consider in such a move. I wouldn’t be opposed to it. Not at all. Not at all. I mean, my income I’m on the internet anyway, I you know, I work from home. And I telecommute as it is what does it matter whether I’m inside the same time zone inside the same state halfway across the country or in another country?

Larry 30:43
Do they have the internet in Germany?

Andy 30:45
I think so. I think it’s made it over there. But I do not I do not speak any German. That would be the one challenge but I think they they’re pretty fluent in the English is

Larry 30:54
how an awful lot of Germans speak English. I’ve learned

Andy 30:58
Yes, I believe that to be true. Well, speaking of the internet, Larry, there’s an article that just was posted in the last day or two and I just put in the show notes so I had I hope you had a chance to at least take a gander at it but the new york new york Civil Liberties Union argues bank blanket ban on internet access for sex offenders is unconstitutional. Here we go. Another another challenge saying that they can’t take away the internet’s from all of the peoples and so I’m all in favor I just in today’s world it you know, if 10 years ago 15 years ago, yeah, okay. You didn’t have to go to BK jobs calm to go apply at Burger King. But now, there’s nothing you can do without being on the internet to get a job just about

Larry 31:38
this is litigation that I think NARSOL had a communications director. I think Sandy wrote something about this, but this is litigation that’s destined to probably have success because the developed body of case law is that you just can’t do that. You can’t just I mean, look at packing ham. I mean, you you just can’t tell people to do that. Beyond the internet impacting animals more about social media, but it’s an integral part of modern life. So it’s just too broad not narrowly tailored. So I haven’t read the complaint. I don’t know the specifics of it. But if this lawsuit is halfway Well done, it’s it has a good chance of success.

Andy 32:20
And this is another example of where the state is telling you you can’t do a thing that relates to a freedom of speech. Not that Facebook is restricting you not that your local news station or cooking show is restricting it that this is the state saying you can’t go on the internet.

Larry 32:37
That is correct. And the the data and the decision and packing ham was quite clear that that, that it was about social media, but the internet is a fact of modern life. That’s how you you do everything nowadays. In fact about most if you got your census form, how did it you should have gotten it by now. Your census form tells you to do what Go to the internet. Oh,

Andy 33:02
I don’t know that I’ve actually received I haven’t at least seen it. And it’s possible that I, you know, just glanced over it, but I print does it? It’s pretty well marked. It says it’s the census on it, right?

Unknown Speaker 33:11
Yes, they were supposed to be mass distributed to starting on the 12th of March of this year. And it was supposed to be by April 1, but it doesn’t have a form for you to fill out. And really, you got to go fill us It has Oh, my God. It has, it has a code. So you would not you’d have to, you’d have to violate federal law. Because you’re compelled by law to prosecute people this law to fill out the census. But you’d have to wait for an enumerator to come out. Or for I don’t know if the next step but they’ll send you a written form and ask you to fill it out. So numerator comes out and knocks door with a handheld device, but you’d have to break federal law to comply with this law.

Andy 33:50
That almost seems like a slam dunk that that should be pretty widely accepted by pretty much everybody on all terms that you have to use the internet and there if the government is going to send you the required federally required census form that you have to go use the interwebs to fill out, huh?

Unknown Speaker 34:08
Yes. And that’s what I’m saying. I guess it’s pretty much a slam dunk. You can do a lot of things that are narrowly tailored. And that’s the problem that the law enforcement community doesn’t seem to understand. You could conceivably require Halloween signs if you’ve narrowly tailored the signs to who they applied to, and made sure that it wasn’t a blanket requirement. The government can compel speech, what do you think we would do if we have to go into mass quarantines and people, we don’t have enough quarantine facilities and they, they tell people that your house is quarantine and nobody can come in? They would put up a sign, they would say, do not cross this line, house under quarantine, that that would be compelled to speak by the government. But they really tell you that as well personally tailored because you are contagious. And we’re doing this only for public safety. And as soon as the crisis abates, This sign will come down, that would withstand all the scrutiny that the person could throw at it, because it and that’s the problem with law enforcement, they don’t understand a lot of these play toys you’d like to play with, you could actually play with them, if you would narrowly tailor that. And maybe you need to come to me because I could actually tell you how to do this stuff, so that they would be vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

Andy 35:24
You’re like Rudy Giuliani and constructing a travel ban.

Larry 35:29
But, but I don’t support this, but if someone’s gonna write a restriction, I would rather I’d be writing it then you if you’re determined to have a band of some kind kind of prefer to be the writer versus you.

Andy 35:44
Yeah, I

Unknown Speaker 35:47
would love for you this red house he did before.

Unknown Speaker 35:49
Again, the House Bill 720. That’s going to require potential Halloween signs in Georgia and also going to reinstate a GPS monitoring that was declared unconstitutional in Part B state. If they’re determined, and it sounds like they are to have these bands, would you rather me write them or they write them? Because they’re not going to be narrowly tailored anything?

Andy 36:08
Yeah, they’re gonna say if you, if you’re male, you have to do it. I mean, they’re gonna, they’re gonna paint with a very wide brush on who has to do it?

Unknown Speaker 36:17
Well, what they’re gonna probably say anybody who has a sex offense or at very minimum, they’re gonna, they’re gonna see what you would need to do on that, if you were going to have any chance of it withstand a constitutional scrutiny would be you would narrowly tailor to a to an offender, who had engaged in an offense where the person would be at risk by having people knock at their door. Now, so you have to do some thinking and I don’t have that proposal ready at the tip of my tongue here. But you would have to look at offender types where that having proximity to someone visiting their door was a fact and the offense factor that you can tangibly point to and say, well, we don’t want anybody knocking at this person’s door because of their uniqueness. characteristics, not because they’re a sex offender on the registry, but because of their unique characteristics. And then you might have a chance of getting out the gate on a constitutional challenge because you’re narrowly tailoring it. And he would only apply the most minimal restriction possible for the briefest period possible for four hours on Halloween died and the sign comes down. But they don’t think like that they they think they can put them up for a week or 10 days, and they put them on everybody’s yard. And they humiliate everybody rather than figuring out some justification that would that would tangibly relate to that person. And that’s why they lose and they’re destined to continue losing because law enforcement there’s one thing you can count on law enforcement. That is their DNA is they’re wired to push ahead with aggression and force. They don’t calculate and think very often in terms of how to get to their goals they think about if you don’t comply, I’ll tell you more times.

Unknown Speaker 37:58
Don’t tase me, bro.

Larry 38:00
That’s their thought process rather than if you don’t comply I would like to do some verbal verbal gymnastic with you to see if you can comply because I don’t want to have to use any slang tools. They don’t think like that you’re gonna comply because I’m the Polish play that little clip now.

Andy 38:21
I do love that clip that is the most he’s so sounds drunk. He sounds drunk.

Unknown Speaker 38:25
But but that is so indicative of do all cops think that way? No, of course not. Nothing’s absolute. But so many cops think that way because of the way they’re trained. They put them through the academies across the country, convincing them that everybody has hidden knives and hand grenades and all these different things. And that they’re all they’re all. They’re all on PCP drugs, and they’re all capable of having extraordinary human strength and they can bust out of any situation. And they get those guys and women so paranoid that they just believe that The only thing to do is to shoot first, or fire something first, strike first, because bad things are going to happen if they don’t. And that they need to be always in control compliance is the ultimate

Larry 39:14
badge of honor that you get the offender to comply with you no matter what you have to do. And you just keep escalating and that’s the way they’re wired. Now, some of them are smart enough and they get enough years experience and they say, gee, everything they taught me in Academy is totally BS. And if you’re gonna survive it held the streets and be successful, you have to ignore that. But they come out of the academy with a lot of brainwashing

Andy 39:38
to push the not even push back. I was at a restaurant in Atlanta last night and there were three officers eating dinner and they were I I wear a flak vest when I was in the army and like you know, you had all this crap around your waist and a flak vest. You have a Kevlar helmet on you just you know your circumference of your torso is like 10 inches 12 inches wider now because you have All this gear on and that’s how they’re sitting there because they got tear gas canisters, they got their taser, they got their pistol, they got all the things. And it’s incredibly intimidating and it is it doesn’t present something to me that would be like, I need help. I’m going there. I would think that I’m going to go ask for help. And I’m going to be the one that tase them because I disturbed the dinner.

Larry 40:19
Well, that’s the Europeans particular for from the United Kingdom, they, they get a kick out of watching American cops, because largely in the United Kingdom, the cops are not heavily armed at all. And they see they see what we do here. They just they shake their heads and total disbelief of water production we make of an officer and I’m surprised. I mean, one of the reasons I suppose they have to maintain such high physical fitness standards is because you’re carrying so much gear, that if you weren’t physically fit, you’d never be

Andy 40:50
able to make it through the day. You should probably go look at the officers in Bucks County man because they are not physically fit. There. They’re packing a few doughnuts around that midsection.

Larry 40:58
Well, that’s true. I’ve noticed that every time I Sounds like compare are relatively physically fit police force here in Albuquerque magazines don’t see for your people I don’t know if they have a max age but it’s a it’s a young force here okay that’s what you find if you if you find anybody over 40 It’s rare to their their their leadership roles I mean they’re they’re the regular patrol officers it’s a very young police force they’re physically fit very athletic when you don’t have a you when you get pulled over Albuquerque I want you guys to shoot a video to me on your What do you call it on the on the why’d you just use your camera shoot us a video when you get we want a potbelly officer pulls you over with an APD uniform. I want you to shoot that to us so we can put it on because you’re not gonna see that happen here. Got it.

Andy 41:43
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. 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis to patreon.com slash registry matters, not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies 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. All right, we got a batch of three articles that are talking about the politics of felons in in prison out of prison, but the people that are directly directly impacted by the criminal justice system. I tried to find something from rush where he was all up in arms about the amendment for in Florida where he was like, Oh my god, this is gonna open up a tidal wave of Democrats getting elected to different offices, blah, blah, blah. This art at least the first one from the Marshall project is that one One that has Yeah, there’s the the Marshall project one has expressed. There’s,

Unknown Speaker 43:03
there’s two of them that distill that. And I’ve been saying that without the data, okay, because of just just human knowledge and interacting with people in the criminal defense business, and knowing how right wing the people are, they’re in jail. They’re worse than the population as a whole. But this actually documents what I’ve been saying.

Andy 43:21
And it seems to be highly, highly correlated to race. So you have white and non White is really going to go after and whites overwhelmingly support Trump and non whites overwhelmingly not support. And that’s to me when the graph flips back and forth. That’s where I see obviously the most because the line moves the most, but just looking at the numbers and trying to just gauge what it is that so and because whites are about 75% of the population. They are disproportionately unrepresented in prison, but it’s still about give or take 5050 I think, at least as in the south, it’s about 5050 of whites to non whites in prison. So it just like anyway, it’s They, that disparity that that idea that the the prison population is going to vote blue doesn’t seem to bear on evidence, right?

Unknown Speaker 44:09
Well, like, I’ve just know this from life experience. But seeing these articles, I couldn’t help myself putting them in here because researchers have come up with the same conclusion that when they’ve gone for they’ve gone and done the data, they see that these people are I mean, Trump has amazing support in prison.

Andy 44:30
Amazing support. And to come on the heels of that there’s an article from the Washington Post setting up a actual voting booth in the Cook County Jail. I don’t know that this gets enough traction, that if you are detained during that voting time, that you may have squandered your ability to vote and I don’t see how that’s actually a legit thing. That totally seems like that’s a civil liberties violation that you are only alleged to have done something you haven’t been convicted of anything that you should still be able to vote I realized there were logistics of getting voting systems into prison and all that. But that’s that’s their cost to bear. That’s their burden to bear to keep up with your civil liberties to make it so that you can vote.

Larry 45:11
Well, I believe the article references in Supreme Court decision that says that you can vote while you’re while you’re in pretrial detention. I mean, when I clicked on it, I’m getting the diversion to get one year for $29. But I when I read this prior to last week, there’s a reference that there’s a Supreme Court case that says, in fact, you do retain the right to vote when you’re free conviction.

Andy 45:32
But that would mean that they would have to provide it for you. And I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t take any money to say that. Yeah, well, they’re not messing around.

Unknown Speaker 45:41
They’re not but that’s this is an example of Cook County, which is Chicago. For those who don’t recognize this is this is a major urban detention facility, becoming a precinct so the two people who were in pre trial status on election day can vote. I mean, what a novel concept and that’s why I put it in here because it can be done. They’re doing it

Unknown Speaker 46:03
if the will is there.

Unknown Speaker 46:05
The will isn’t there because they’re afraid they’re gonna vote. They’re gonna vote Democrat.

Andy 46:09
Democrat. Hmm. Not democratic, but your

Larry 46:11
vote for the Democrat Party.

Andy 46:14
Tell me what the Tell me what the story is behind that again, please.

Larry 46:18
George W. Bush said he used the term Democrat Party back when he was president. And it’s kind of like the drive by media. He said, Oh, wait, they did a drive by briefing and then the Russians latched on to the Democrat Party. And the drive by December 1, all the traditional mainline media’s the drive bys. And, and the Democratic Party. That’s not the name of the party. It’s not the democrat party or Democrat, but it’s the Democratic Party. So it gets under my skin when people won’t say the Democratic Party. So what I do that I retort with the Republican Party, and if you won’t pronounce if you won’t pronounce my party, I will pronounce your party correctly. And

Andy 46:57
also I nucular to

Larry 46:59
waste For that one President say that Carter was a physicist said do killer. Okay,

Andy 47:06
it sounds funny or when bush says, but maybe I’ve never heard Carter say maybe that’s it’s Carter, not quite my time but close

Larry 47:13
it and then that Reagan referred to the government is government

Andy 47:17
government. Well, I call it I call them governors.

Larry 47:21
So yeah, he said government was was typically he left out the army and people all the time refer to Washington particular the state of Washington is Washington. They put an order in, it’s not there.

Andy 47:32
Well, no, that’s colloquially, that’s a vernacular in the local area, because I grew up in Washington, and someone would pick on me relentlessly until I was like, Oh, it’s Washington, not Washington, but that’s how they pronounce it in that area.

Larry 47:45
Nope. Sorry. So you people in Washington, we believe we really appreciate you.

Andy 47:51
And then to close things out. There’s a there’s a final article also from the from the Marshall project. That’s Trump’s surprising popularity in prison. I’m sure that I could posit some ideas of why that is, but I will refrain from that because I will get yelled at, I’m sure.

Unknown Speaker 48:07
Well, I just wanted people to have the information when they, when you find yourself trembling, that the that the Democrat Party is trying to get people in prison to vote for my conversation with the people who are leadership in the Democrat Party, we don’t actually think that we’re going to get a whole bunch of votes out of it. We just think it’s the right thing to do. Yes, that people, the more participatory that we allow people who have who have records, that the better society we’re going to have. So it’s not some giant conspiracy of the Democrat Party. But if it were a giant conspiracy of the Democrat Party, the data from what I consider a reasonably reliable source suggests that the democrat party would be misguided to believe that it’s going to result in a tremendous amount of new votes for the Democratic Party, because the people don’t seem to support the democratic party that would benefit from this. That was it. I was trying to bait Yeah,

Andy 49:00
yeah. I have heard it proposed that the democrats want more inclusive voting and Team Red Republicans, conservatives want less inclusive, less widely spread. And I can just from one little incident that happened during the week, I go to a business meeting at lunch on Wednesdays, and a woman said something to the effect of that these ignorant people got and they have the right to vote. And I was like, Well, how would you make the determination of who can or can’t vote it? Like, if you just want to start there? Should it be by age? Should it be by income? Should it be by iQ? Well, the easiest answer is to just say, everybody can vote. All people can vote all the time.

Larry 49:40
Well, I’m not a spokesperson for the Republican Party. But I can tell you that that they are very terrified of people voting they continuously try to make it more difficult by they’re not big supporters of early voting. have extended periods of time. They’re not big enough. quarters of letting people vote without having a governmental entity issued ID because of this Boogeyman of fraud course nobody can find any document in case it’s a fraud, or you keep asking for it. In my State, I keep saying Would you please show us? I mean, we’ve we’ve actually, they’ve brought prove to us that dead people have voted. But the only problem is they weren’t dead when they voted. People extended early voting period. People are elderly, but some people died. They’re not elderly. But but we’ve we’ve we here’s a scary story about dead people vote Well, they do in fact vote but they vote while they’re alive. And then when the votes are tabulated, people have actually in fact died. But they say that without a government issued ID, that there’ll be this rampant fraud, but it just, they can’t substantiate the claim. And he come out of prison say your votes are automatically right to vote is automatically restored. But you haven’t got your ID together yet. Because of all the barriers of Real ID your disenfranchise But yeah, you have the right to vote. And, and and then as they’ve closed your state was a good example of the gubernatorial election. They were like hundreds of voter machines that were that were impounded for whatever reason there was some investigation going on. They had impounded voting machines. And they reduced the number of voting machines and and in the in the democrat areas where the dead people are likely to be democrats had to travel greater distances to vote, and it suppressed the democratic vote in urban Atlanta area. And Stacey Abrams lost the governor’s race to the person who was running the elections, who ultimately became governor governor Kemp was the was the elections manager because he was Secretary of State it’s

Andy 51:41
not only just in the Atlanta portion, also in the super duper out in the middle of nowhere rural areas. They, they you know, I think I’ve heard some number use that for every mile or 10 miles that you the percentage of people that vote goes down by some factor. So yeah, you have people with Very low incomes, possibly no transportation, like it makes it significantly harder for them to go vote and then they’re just like, screw it. I’m not going to vote.

Larry 52:07
But yes. And then with the technological, technological evolution we’ve had, I think I’m not a guru this but I think we could securely have people vote online. Apparently the Census Bureau’s comfortable enough that they can do something like the census online and this is Trump administration running the census. I would think that we could get enough personal information because we do have a giant database of all the vital records out there, that that’s available to the government. I would think that we could figure out people are eligible to vote by virtue of they are either a naturalized citizen or born in United States. I don’t think that the eldest paranoia about fraud, I think as a as a smokescreen for they just don’t want people to vote and I can’t speak for why they didn’t want people to vote, you’d have to ask them.

Andy 52:50
Yeah, I just, I don’t know that we the stakes would be too high to do online voting that to make a secure system that would support it without To keep the integrity up, I just I don’t. That is. There is an open source. There’s an open research project thing of how to do secure voting machines and all that stuff. And maybe we can dive into that as we get closer to the election of how that system is in play. But all of the systems that were made by these proprietary companies and they’re 20 years old, and they’re using Windows 95, or something like that, they’re complete garbage. They put them into hacker conferences, and in 75 seconds, they’re wide open for people to manipulate the vote. And that’s a on premise voting machine. Forget trying to do something online where someone’s used grandma’s using an old computer hasn’t been patched in 12 years. It that would be a nightmare. I don’t know that we can get there. I just don’t

Larry 53:42
Well, I can we can we actually get there by having mailing mailing boats? I think they did that in Washington this primary they did. They did about all by mail, if I’m not mistaken.

Andy 53:52
I believe I know California lets you do that. I don’t know that they require it. But I think I think there is a state that does everybody’s mad And vote right.

Larry 54:00
Like you just said, like in the Washington or Washington I thought she was one of those one those liberal do good states bastards, bastards got and then you don’t have to. The one thing about that though, to me is that if there’s some sort of earth shattering news that comes out the day before the like, what are you supposed to do then you’ve already cast your votes. Well, that’s the problem you have with early voting that that’s why I’m typically not an early voter you need you need to for as I’m concerned, wait as long as you possibly can to gather as much information as you can to be a better informed voter. But But if you if you vote two weeks before the election, a lot can change. At least in my mind, a lot can change. But But when you do a mail and vote when to same thing, it totally if you mail your if you mail the ballot, because you can’t go retrieve it and say I want my ballot back.

Andy 54:52
Because it’s supposed to be anonymous, so you couldn’t go find that your 12345678 that’s your voting number and you want to go pull that back. I don’t know how to solve that one man, that’s way above my paygrade. Here’s an article from rewire news that says you don’t even treat animals the way I was treated pregnant and incarcerated. This is a profile of a woman who was just treated like utter crap while she was pregnant and incarcerated. We just have no systems in place to handle that a woman has an extra little body attached to her inside, how she’s supposed to be treated with any level of compassion and empathy. And it’s just bizarre to me that we would treat people this way then knowing that they’re about to bring into the little human into the world.

Larry 55:36
Well, I was shocked when I read it. And this is actually not far from us here. This is a place called La Plata County, which is in the four corners area of Colorado into Mexico and where the four states come together, and the seat would be Durango. But apparently they did not believe this woman although they knew she was pregnant. They didn’t believe that she was on the verge of getting Giving birth and I don’t know how you’re i don’t know how i don’t know since I haven’t been pregnant I don’t know all the ins and outs. We probably we probably we probably need to put one of the women that some chat on here but I can’t imagine that it would be easy to fake that you’re in that position. I mean, I would think there would be as long as we’ve delivered children we would kind of be able to pick up on when you’re when when you’re in a condition where you date attention

Andy 56:27
seems very strange. You know and as that little clip says that your water breaks you’re in agony. How are you supposed to do anything like you’re going to grab the the scalpel or whatever would be nearby and start stabbing people to escape. And, and then further down the line, like in the next handful of minutes, there’s going to be this little entity that pops out that needs love, attention, caring. Seems it would be best for a mom, that that would be the most optimal caregiver of the child as soon He comes out or he or he comes out and but what do

Larry 57:05
you do? Well, this is this is just appalling but read it for three days and 2013 officers ignored her please as bleeding continued and abdominal pain worsen instead of being taken to hospital also was the woman’s name was brought to a medical observation sale for jail officials used a pad count and method of monitoring the number of pads a patient senators with blood to estimate how much she was bleeding. They gave me two pads and sent me to a single cell by myself. And I kept bleeding and it hurt so bad. And I was like, Oh my god, this is a I’m gonna die. And, and the guards told her she needed to get ahold of herself. Right she was reacting. Well, I mean, I’m assuming that the bulk of the of the guards are probably male, right? And how can you as a as a male tell someone is undergoing experience that you have difficulty, if not impossible to relate to how can you tell them Get a hold of themselves. Because unless you’re a medical professional I doubt you have any idea what they’re going through. I would agree. And it says it says she was rushed to the hospital where she went emergency surgery for a ruptured what is that there? A topic pregnancy whatever topic.

Andy 58:16
It’s a topic like,

Larry 58:18
Okay, what does that mean? I that part I have no idea

Andy 58:20
but let’s just say that the universe has exploded or something like that. So,

Larry 58:26
but that sounds bad. I don’t. I don’t I don’t understand how that we can. We can. It’s like, really, the worst thing that can happen is as you’d be premature that you wouldn’t be ready to have the baby that’s I think the worst thing can happen. I have been told that it is when the egg ruptures in the tubes, so the fallopian tubes that there are some eggs that go explode explode in the fallopian tubes. And we have this from a credible source and our vast chat room

Andy 58:56
with three ladies in chat and two of them have confirmed that this can kill you. So that sounds like a little polling by me.

Larry 59:03
We’re ready. So we’re ready to let a person possibly lose their life at the end and the baby. Because of what?

Andy 59:13
Because they committed some crime they still $25 from the local corner store.

Larry 59:17
I can’t take this any longer.

Andy 59:19
All right, well, then let’s move over to an article from the daily press.com. After Virginia prison strip searched and at excuse me, eight year old, almost 18, eight year old state lawmakers passed four bills to limit the practice. It took someone searching an eight year old for them to pass legislation from what people would like to refer to as something like common sense, right? It takes a law to say that you Thou shalt not search people under the age of something. And that’s unbelievable. eight year old, I Hey, honey. You got to get strip searched. You got to pull down your pants for this adult so that you can look at your junk to make sure that you’re not smuggling in anything

Larry 59:59
while I get Again, prisons are afforded broad discretion doing things and you can do almost anything with an articulable cause, I would have it would be a very high standard before I’d allow stripped sorts of an eight year old, but they don’t tend to think that way. We’ve got the power, we can do this, by golly, it’s our policy, and we’re going to do it. And nobody says, no, wait a minute, we’re not going to strip sorts of eight year old The only way I’m going to do that as if you can show me that the mob was putting something in their private areas before if we got some evidence where we needed to a strip search, but weren’t. We don’t strip search kids here. Sorry, that doesn’t happen under my watch. But nobody’s for some reason, nobody will say that. And then we have to pass a law to get you to do to not do what you have better sense to do if you had in a sense to start with.

Andy 1:00:50
Do you think that these are people that are you know, they’ve read the SRP and it says that they’re going to strip search all individuals coming into visitation. So it was like, well, chiefs I got a strip search everybody coming into this station, you are a person, right? So well take them off, you got to go.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:05
I don’t know the particulars of it. But there again, we criticize people who served in previous militaries for following orders. And even if it isn’t the SLP center operating procedures, I would say No, sir, I’m not going to strip search an eight year old with us. I have some calls. I mean, you can do it if you want to, but I’m just not going to do. So.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:27
I mean,

Larry 1:01:27
what’s the worst? The worst? Plus the worst thing that could happen? If you say no, I won’t do that the absolute worst thing happened would be what? They will fire you. That’s the worst thing that it is. Do you think that it would go? Do you think that would go? I mean, first of all, that that’s not death, that that most people that have been fired, very few that I know of have, have been had deaths resulted in their death. But that’s the worst thing happened. The good thing that could happen is if maybe you did it, perhaps maybe one of your co workers would do it next time and perhaps maybe The example of saying no, sir, we’re not going to do that. Perhaps maybe they would rethink their policies. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, um, and it would be an interesting case to go watch if you brought things to some sort of court hearing about trying to get your unemployment benefits. So you were fired. Why? Because there was an eight year old in the visitation room and I was forced to strip search when I refused. I have to think that some level of rationality would then come forward and the judge would be like,

Andy 1:02:30
yes, give the guy his unemployment insurance.

Larry 1:02:33
While they would it would vary according to the hearing officer. Now we heard in the confirmation hearing, so I’m not at all but of course, it’s that when the person abandoned their truck, would it be below zero, they’re about to freeze to death, that they Valley company policy, they could be fired and that he felt sympathy for the person but they violated company policy. So depending on who conducted the hearing, you might have officers that say, Well, I’m sorry, but you refused. According my guidelines, if a person is willfully disobedient to their employer, I have to disallow the benefits that could happen. But then you would take it up on appeal. And assuming that you have some value about your life assuming that you’re not a slug To start with, I’m guessing and this time before employment that you could possibly find another job. Maybe.

Andy 1:03:32
Larry, let’s move over to our feature segment of the night, which is going to be about prisons and coronavirus. The first article is really just like, Huh, this comes out of the mirror code at UK it’s coronavirus, six dead as prison riots sparked by emergency laws sweep Italy. Obviously this isn’t the US and I don’t know that this is happening. Obviously this just happened did parchment with a riot but this wasn’t related to the virus but you have people super close quarters, they can’t, they can’t separate like the what’s the term? I keep forgetting the term but you you keep yourself distance like three feet distance from social distancing. Social distancing, that becomes hard when you’re like enough 40 by 40 room with 100 dudes or chicks whichever way. Anyway, so a riot breaks out and people are dying and they managed to get their way up onto the roof. That looks like a lot of fun there.

Larry 1:04:27
It does. They should have just shot him off the top of the roof

Andy 1:04:30
that I that I can almost guarantee you that’s what that would have been the response in the US there. I don’t know that they would have been they wouldn’t use kid gloves to try and get them to calm down. Yeah, they would have to get some snipers and plop them off the roof.

Larry 1:04:44
Well, we can’t take a chance of them getting outside the prison walls. We have to break the riot and the uprising. We have to put it down because bad things can happen.

Andy 1:04:53
Would you envision that this scenario plays out in the United States. a riot breaking out inside the walls.

Larry 1:05:00
Read over this virus. Uh huh. I do I do have that fear of of that happening. And in fact, it’s been on my radar. And I’ve actually written a little something for the Defense Lawyers Association here about things that we can do to diminish that possibility. But yes, I think the panic can cause people to do things that that they would not do in normal circumstances that we would all agree that a prison environment a particular us prison by largest not an ideal environment for people to think rationally. Because of the stresses of being incarcerated and the harsh conditions that most of our prisons, the reality of what the conditions are. So when you’ve when you’ve got someone who’s suspected of being infected, and the way this is going to go down, if it goes down, the way I suspect it might go down, would be that the prisons will be slow to detect who’s infected because it’s not our highest priority. When you Start thinking about how we’re going to test you think that that it would be but it’s not going to be our highest priority. The the so we will end up having a prison that has several infected people before we figure it out. And then management of the president is stuck with a facility that it really isn’t designed for isolation and contained breathing of air to breathe that you wouldn’t spread it through the ventilation system. There’s so many there’s so many things about prison life that make it difficult for for the person I can even read the points I put in my writing to the defense lawyers we’ve got facilities are largely not designed for good hygiene. They’re designed to keep them from being flooded, and people using excessive amounts of water. And so the water controls are typically running for a couple of minutes. reduced pressure. Oftentimes buttons have to be held to keep The continuous flow of water, the flow of water, it’s not usually a good forceful amount of water, you got a little trickle of water coming out particularly older facilities and you’ve got you’ve got a lack of a lot of, of soap and sanitation for the inmates to you. So if you’re so desirable, I’d be so if it’s your desire to maintain good hygiene, you’ve got a little trickle of water that things are too hot or too cold. And it won’t run for very long. And you can’t really do the sustained hand washing that you need to do. And then you’ve got these people they’re infected, that are unbeknownst to you. And when the prison finds out that they’ve got a population of 963 people, in fact, they don’t have anything where to put these people. Yeah, that will contain that will contain them. They don’t have they don’t have isolation chambers that have contained oxygen supplies. So so we have we have the risk of of a rapidly spreading epidemic in prisons. As they’re doing all the while they’re doing some of the right things. I shouldn’t say all the wrong things are doing some of the right things, but they’re doing some additional things. They’re not right. They’re there. They’re doing the social distancing by cutting off visits from the outside, from family, and from attorneys, even legal professionals are being told you can’t have visits, right? And so that I could go along with, but that’s one step of the many steps that they need to take. They’re not doing things that would actually help contain the spread of the infection if it actually gets on the prism. Rather than doing a weekly laundering event. People weekly, change the sheets and change to their jumpsuit. They should probably do that three times a week now. The laundry facility should be put on 24 hour day operations, so that all the inmates clothing that they personally owned, and all the inmates clothing and linen that’s issued is is continuously being being being churned and clean. They need to increase the amount of sanitation supplies that are available to the inmates so that they can clean and require that these housing units be robustly cleaned every day. They need to provide an alternative to those visits that are that are being canceled. They need to say for example, we’re going to get with the security. And we’ll pick up the tab for the phone calls, or they’ll secure us, we’re going to ask you to turn off the charge for the phone call so that people can maintain contact with their families, as well as and try it. It’s part of a compromise of conveying to the inmates. We are inconveniencing you, we’re taking away one of your most cherished privileges. But we’re also showing you that we’re trying to keep you safe by giving you more clothing by giving you more more visitation by telephone and making making making some concessions on our parts so that this is not just how we can punish you. If you cut off family visits, and you’ve cut off attorney visits and these people could feel completely isolated. Do you think good things are going to come out of this?

Andy 1:09:53
Certainly not which was something you said just a second ago brings up something from the the appeal article Talking about pressure being put on the governor of New York. These guys gals are working. They’re going to use inmates. I think they said but they’re nearly 100 incarcerated people won’t be making hand sanitizer for just cents on the hour. But because one of the components of the hand sanitizer is alcohol, that the inmates can’t then have the sanitizer, so you can make it but you can’t have it.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:24
Oh, well, they showed us all about that before they

Andy 1:10:25
got in there. I know and for all the people that are not so informed and the hand sanitizer that you normally get kills 99.999999% of bacteria, the corona viruses and the bacteria so it doesn’t necessarily kill it. So you’re kind of screwed.

Larry 1:10:43
Well, thanks a

Andy 1:10:44
lot. I’m sorry. So, so all the people with the Lysol wipes, that’s probably a better approach. It’s not as convenient Oh, but you need the alcohol.

Larry 1:10:52
So my brother who drove all over Gatlinburg, Tennessee to get some hand sanitizer, a wet pay wasted his time in other words,

Andy 1:11:00
I’m not going to say he’s wasting his time because I think even like the action of rubbing is a very good idea, but I don’t think it’s gonna actually kill the virus. Anyway. That was that piece coming from the New York side of things.

Larry 1:11:12
Well, it disturbs me that that I haven’t seen a several of our sheriff’s departments here posted their plans in response to a public call from the ACLU and from from, from activists saying, What is your What are your plans? And all the plans are lacking in terms of the things that I just mentioned? It’s like it’s cutting off visits. That’s our first answer. Well, unless you’re your staff is all living on the compound and forget a forbidden to leave the present compound and not having any contact with anyone off the compound. You’re not making. I mean, you’re making some progress. You’re reducing the chances of exposure, but you’re still got the risk because these people are going home. They’re going out to the world they’re having contacts And they’re going to bring this virus back into the prison. So the, the thing that’s missing is how to increase the sanitation and stop the spread from within the prison. What about getting people that are their high risk out of prison temporarily Iran, which is not thought of being as one of the most forward thinking nations on Earth, they release thousands of prisoners now, what would be wrong with us taking the vulnerable elderly, and the ones who have who have health issues that make them more susceptible to, you’re not going to die? If you’re healthy, you’re likely not going to die if you get this but if you’re not so healthy, you have a compromised immune system. The complications could result in your death. What would be wrong with us taking those more vulnerable inmates? And go ahead and using this fancy technology that we talked about how wonderful it is, that’s an alternative to prison and taking these people and getting them out of prison. Until this price, it’s a bait. That would be a positive step. And these people are not going to flee the United states, they’re not going to disappear into oblivion. And we could do that. And the sanitation stuff, the laundry, running your laundry 24 hours a day, I don’t know what you’ve had run 24 hours a day. But increase the operations, you’ve got trustees, you can avoid those jobs. You can pay them nothing, or just give them privileges or pay them pennies on our team to run laundry. And it’s a stress on the machines, but you can run laundry, basically around the clock, industry pizza fresher guarantee you people will work for pizza in prison,

Unknown Speaker 1:13:30
and you can all of a sudden have a much cleaner environment. It won’t guarantee they’ll spread. But it’ll certainly help diminish it because right now those stainless steel tables where people are hacking and sneezing and everything all day long, and they’re getting I mean,

Larry 1:13:45
how often did you see those those tables being sanitized properly when you were when you were incarcerated? I

Andy 1:13:51
saw them being but I don’t know about properly and then how you know how would you even go investigate that it was done and you’re going to get some sort of like UV Like the stuff that you see in CSI where they spray something and they put on like the blue glasses and with a blue light or whatever it is, and they show you what was actually there. Nobody does that crap.

Larry 1:14:09
Well, well, no but but when when you’re when you’re talking about a correctional facility at the old indications I have is that sanitation is kind of lacks

Unknown Speaker 1:14:17
it is

Unknown Speaker 1:14:18
totally agree. They don’t, they don’t provide enough of the right stuff. Because of security concerns. You know, we can’t have mop buckets with handles and stuff like that we we can’t have what you just mentioned alcohol, but we have all these things we can’t have. And I think it’s time to to look the other way on some of the stuff I’d say in this crisis. We’re gonna have to bend the rules kind of like when the when the when the Indianapolis was after the ship was sunk. And although many hundreds of sailors were eaten up by the sharks, and they were finally discovered that there was a rescue ship on the horizon, and they turned, they turned on their lights on the captain’s orders even though they were setting target for protect themselves. But but but but the cabinet said, I’ve got to give these men hope that are the water that’s almost coming for them. So we’re making ourselves a target to give these other been in the water hope. And that’s kind of what you’re doing here. You’re you’re telling these people, we can’t guarantee you that you’re not going to be infected. But we can guarantee you that everything that can be done reasonably we’re doing because we care about your safety and that that message has not been conveyed from any correctional administrator that I’ve heard of all they’ve conveyed is we’re cutting your visits off.

Andy 1:15:33
Can we move things over? I know we have this other article that’s talking about the Bo peas readiness, but you know, we’ve kind of already swirled around it enough. I have had conversations with more than one person talking about the constitutionality side of things of locking cities down of, you know, restricting sales of different kinds of items, or the price gouging restrictions, and I like it I can see where the person is coming from that dammit, we’re a free society. If I want to sell my roll of toilet paper for $100 su, I’ve got it, you want it Give me your hundred bucks. But I’m still thinking about 80 year old grandmother that needs some toilet paper, she is not capable of going down to the store and fighting for that toilet paper that we as a society would then create some sort of bubble that keeps people from hoarding keep people from gouging. These are things that would happen within a constitutional framework from an executive order. Like these are things that exist, they’re not unknown things, and they’re not the start of anarchy. They’re not the start of you know, a dictatorship inside the United States. I’m just I’m just baffled about how we would go from our society that is at least reasonably free to having some sort of complete control. I don’t even say like Russia, but North Korea where everything is micromanaged. Have you heard of these kinds of things, quote unquote, coming down the pike.

Larry 1:17:01
I have heard the conspiracy theorists are out there about they’ll This is like a conspiracy to gain more control of the population and all this other but the only problem is we’ve had these public health epidemics or pandemics, where they’re properly referred to we’ve had these issues going back for decades and decades of my life. I tell people well, I remember in 1968, when I was quite young, we had the, the Hong Kong flu. And then the 75 we had the swine flu that affected a lot of people and the president united states rolled up the sleeve on national TV and took a swine flu vaccine and said to everybody, please do this for for preventive split spread of flu. And we’ve had we’ve had more bad avian flu, bird flu, h1 and one I mean 2008 2009 another swine flu outbreak. I mean, we’ve had all these things and If there was a giant conspiracy to get control the people, why didn’t they do it and don’t say all these previous ones? Why didn’t they do it? I mean, it’s a bit far fetched. I think public health officials are trying to make the best decisions, and they’re the ones and they’re not going to make the best decisions because there’s disagreement among professionals about what the best thing, what’s the best course of action? Dr. falchi has one opinion, and another medical expert may have another opinion, about what what what is what’s to be done. But I don’t see a giant conspiracy to deprive Americans of their liberty. Maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t see it. I mean, but you’ve

Andy 1:18:36
been around since like the frickin the Roman Empire. So you’ve seen if it’s if it’s gonna happen, it’s happened and you’ve seen it? Well, I mean, the

Unknown Speaker 1:18:46
this administration who is about all about freedom, I mean, obviously the lobby, this would be something you’d expect from Bernie and from the from the from the Democrat Party. I mean, you wouldn’t expect this freedom loving administration to be tried. To restrict people’s liberties, would you? Definitely not.

Andy 1:19:02
Um, I received one of the articles that I received was from Champaign, Illinois. And they were talking about, like restricting gun sales or ammunition sales, alcohol sales, like the alcohol when I can, like at least get my head around. And you don’t want people getting shit faced and run around and then causing riots because they’re all drunk and they want to whatever they want to show out. So I mean, like, I can at least understand that and then that could possibly lead to people buying guns and ammunition and shooting people. I could see why they would do it. But even if they did do it, it seems like it would be for a highly targeted for one week, two weeks, whatever, along with curfews until 7pm or daylight hours since like it there, they are constitutional, they are available to the executive to make these decisions to happen is that is that fair?

Larry 1:19:56
Well, ah ah, executive action will have to be Examine as it comes down to determine if there’s there’s encroachment in the Constitution. At a time of crisis, like we’re potentially in right now, it’s not an epidemic yet where there’s millions of people, in fact it. But I think from what I’m hearing, and I’m no expert, of course, but what I’m hearing it has the potential to do that to be that. And therefore, it state and federal level executives are given a lot of power and emergency situations, particularly in that public health is in jeopardy to issue orders. And, again, just like with the travel ban earlier on the Trump presidency, if people think that they have gone too far, that’s what the courts are open for. So you can file your action and tell the court why this executive action is unconstitutional. And we’ll let the courts decide, right.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:55
That’s how it seems to me there.

Larry 1:20:57
I’m not I’m not sure about the gunnery restrictions. I mean, other than if you’re worried about people going postal, and for those who are under 30 do hear that term much anymore. But for for going postal was when most of the mass shootings that occurred in modern us time were disgruntled ex, or current postal employees who went back to their, to their boss and shot up to the boss and co workers and stuff. And so that’s the term going postal. if, if, if, if situations if, if this crisis became so severe that people couldn’t get food, and they couldn’t, they couldn’t do their basic things I need to do to stay alive. I suppose that there could be some concern of people resorting to extreme measures, including the use of weapons I mean, if you’re gonna starve to death, and there’s food to be had, and I mean, anything’s possible, but I don’t know the connection of why that they order would exclude the firearms I’m not familiar with what their thinking was.

Andy 1:21:57
Just I can like I can rationalize around it a bit. Like, well, you don’t want new people running around with weapons, you know, just on the whim of some sort of zombie apocalypse, whatever it seems well, that says see number number six.

Larry 1:22:09
Number six, I’m the Executive Order. On the one that’s an article that says in bolted order discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of explosives or explosive agents, farms or ammunition or any of any character whatsoever is this is this executive order? It’s already been issued.

Andy 1:22:29
I think that one is like maybe being talked about. I mean, that’s the one that I heard about. But I think that’s just in talks. I don’t know that it’s been executed. Anywho I just wanted your policy your you know, all of your expertise and years of dealing with you know, even after 911 that would have been one of the biggest in are like our national level of tragedies. But this outbreak on a national scale is similar to a Hurricane Andrew or, you know, Hurricane Sandy in New York a few years back like it’s just A nationwide scale that you have to protect the infrastructure and people keep people from gouging prices and hoarding things and then just messing up the whole civilization as a whole.

Larry 1:23:11
Well, on that point on the on the gouging. I think that one’s really pretty simple that I mean, yes, in a free country, you’ve got to sell things for, for the going rate what a willing buyer and a willing seller would would agree upon. But those are in normal circumstances where you have no extraneous factors that play an emergency situation, whether it be a hurricane, or some natural disaster that causes those normal forces to no longer be controlling the transaction, then we try to protect people from price gouging, because that’s exploitation. Your your $7 pack of Sharman doesn’t magically become worth $150 except except for the emergency that you’re profiting from. So we’ve, we’ve long since recognized price price gouging as being something that’s problematic. And people can go to jail for price gouging. But this actually is an order that’s been issued by Mayor Debbie. Deborah. Frank feenin. Okay, champagne, this order has already been issued. The Executive Order allows the city to this was what was reported on wi nd channel 17. So apparently this is this is this is what, what’s in place right now.

Andy 1:24:29
Do you? Do you see that as like a gateway to martial law to all like some sort of complete total government takeover in the eradication of the Constitution and all of our civil liberties? yada,

Larry 1:24:41
yada, yada? No, I don’t. We were so far from that with an a democratically elected system of governance. Yes. It’s it’s always good to talk about me. As old as I am. I’ve heard I think since the Nixon administration about how he was going to declare martial law and he was gonna hang on to the presidency, and then every president since then, except for I don’t think I remember hearing about Carter, but certainly a lot of presidents were going to hang on to power. Now I’m hearing about Trump that he’s not gonna leave office. He’s going to leave office one way or the other when his time is up. And if he were to try to cling on the power, we have enough institutions left that are functional that they would be removed by force if necessary. And in the case of martial law, if if we’re not in a real emergency that justifies it, the public would never tolerate it and what’s largely free society. So to me, it would it would be dissolved by the by the people. Yeah. And, Larry, don’t you understand if the martial law people are not allowed to vote? Yes, I would understand in theory, if you had martial law that people wouldn’t be allowed to vote, but what they would be allowed to do, we wouldn’t be able to turn off the telephones. You wouldn’t be able to turn off Twitter. You wouldn’t be able to turn off Facebook, and you wouldn’t be able to turn off all the people if they decide to pour to the Street and decide that we’re going to march on City Hall. And we’re not going to take this anymore. I mean, unless you’re willing to have a complete bloodbath, which we’ve learned that some countries are not willing, when there’s an uprising to have a complete with that, but that’s how the Soviet Union collapse because the the, the powers running the Soviet Union are not willing to have a complete bloodbath, when the uprising as a people was happening back in 89 and 90. And in the United States, you would never be able to impose martial law for very long, because the people wouldn’t stand for it in my view, and I could be wrong, but I just don’t see that people would stand for having their liberties completely eradicated. And say, Well, I guess we’ll just just lay down and take

Andy 1:26:39
it. Do you want to play these? These last two clips that we have?

Larry 1:26:43
I think they would be fun to play. Yes, this is this is in terms of the relief package for for the all the shutdowns and cancellations there’s a lot of hardships going to be imposed on people by force shutdowns and cancellations of school closures. And then there’ll be a lot of economic dislocation because it’s as as business contracts as a result of cancellations people, it’s very unlikely that the sports arenas that are having all their events canceled, it’s very unlikely that they’re going to continue to pay the people now some of the sports figures have stepped forward and said, we’re gonna, we’re gonna personally donate. And some of the team organizations have said, we’re going to personally donate but what this deals with this issue of, for those generous donations haven’t materialized the issue of, of sick leave for folks. And this is senator Kamala Harris, talking about sick leave and about the posture of United States and those who oppose sick leave, and the downside of the short sightedness of that. And then there’s a second clip that talks about how the US compares with the rest of the advanced world in terms of sick leave and are we right because we think of ourselves as being number one and everything you know, we’re the greatest and this this, assuming his figures are accurate. And again, just like Like the earlier clip, I’m not gonna say I’ve researched his figures. I’m gonna say these are his figures. And we’re taking them at face value. But I will

Andy 1:28:09
say about it. We are number one on this list.

Larry 1:28:13
Well, it’s not number one in a good way.

Andy 1:28:16
All right, so here’s the Camilla Harris clip.

This is bigger than the individual who receives the paid family leave. This is literally about every other person that that they will come in contact with. Because they are not staying at home. It’s really important for people to understand it is in everyone’s best interest that all workers receive paid family leave, because otherwise they’re going to be sitting next to you on the bus. They’re going to be walking by you down the street. They may be serving your food.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:51
They may be taking care of your children.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:55
They may be your neighbor. It isn’t everyone One’s collective and best interest that we provide paid family and sick leave to people who are sick with the coronavirus. There are people in America In fact, two thirds of low income workers do not have paid sick leave. And when presented with the issue of whether they will stay at home while they’re sick, or feed their babies, or keep a roof over their head, it is logical to believe that they will go to work so that they can keep taking care of their family. So in the midst of this public health crisis, let us understand that one of the most significant and effective ways that we’re going to slow down this virus is to make sure that when people are sick, they stay at home,

Andy 1:29:44
they should stay home and it is in the interest of the public that they stay home but then that they also don’t, I don’t know for lack of a better word starve to death.

Larry 1:29:53
Well, and that’s one of those things where I was talking to a friend of mine about who’s staunchly anti socialism is You know, United States, have you ever looked at Social Security? That’s a social program. And a lot of paid into it? I say, Yeah, but most people get more out than they ever put into it. But that’s a discussion for another podcast. It’s in our collective interest, that we extend a little bit of social generosity to these people. And the question is, who pays for it? Is that a, is that a cost that the government should force on employers? Or is that something that we should, as taxpayers all collectively pitch into, but isn’t? Or is there any interest at sick people not go to work, particularly when they serve the public, but even if they don’t serve the public, you’re going to encounter the public and going back and forth to work. So it’s kind of a no brainer, as people are fond to say, this wouldn’t seems like that sick leave as is, is kind of a function of a maturing, modern, evolving society that we’d recognize that that that there should be a part of a compensation package. But then we have the second clip that tells tells about where we stand as the United States versus the world.

Andy 1:30:57
But before we hit that, I just want to bring up what about all the people that are In the quote unquote gig economy that are tennety nines or you know, they’re just working job to job job, they don’t have a quote unquote employer that could then feed them with some kind of sick leave benefit Anyway, what are they supposed to do? They’re still screwed even if this with this bill. Well, that’s, that’s,

Larry 1:31:16
that’s kind of the one of the gaps of of our society, particularly with the gig economy as you refer to it. The the people, ideally, will you be self sufficient, but the reality is that people don’t save. They don’t hoard their money they consume in this country, and they generally consumer level level higher than what they can afford to consume. They’re not prepared for even a short period of sickness, much less a protracted period of absence from work. Most people can’t withstand that.

Andy 1:31:49
Alright, here’s the second clip.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:51
simple fact as senator Harris made clear is that if an employee gets sick and has to choose between going to work and feeding their family, or risking staying home, and not doing Getting paid or worse getting fired, to show up to work, who wouldn’t. And yet that puts everyone else at risk other employees and customers and the general public. So the responsibility cannot be on the employee to choose whether or not they should provide for their family and put food on the table. Because that’s not a decision that someone should ever have to make. That decision has to be mandated by the government. Because while an employer’s job is to make money, the government’s job is to keep its citizens safe, mandating paid sick leave, would do exactly that. And yet, our government seems to be one of the only ones in the world who hasn’t figured that out. The United States has zero days of mandated sick leave, only two other industrialized nations have a similar lack of protections. And yet we’re the only one with the distinction of being the richest country on the face of the earth. Meanwhile, if you get a life threatening illness like cancer in Luxembourg or Norway, you can get up to 50 days paid sick leave. You can get 48 and Finland 45 and Austria 44 in Germany just to name a few, but it’s The United States of America, the shining city on a hill, you get zero.

Andy 1:33:04
Well, there you go. So yeah, number one at the bottom of the list is what I was referring to there.

Larry 1:33:08
Yeah. Well, that’s why I was saying, we’re number one, depending on how you invert the list. But if if people were to, don’t take this, we don’t love America. We still love America just as much as you do. But we are actually looking at how to make this lovely shining city on the hill, even better than it already is. And somehow or another, that should not translate into not loving this country. We look around the world and we managed to see that they survive and thrive. doing these things. Germany is not exactly a basket case economically. Very few people would say that about about Germany, but yeah, they managed to take care of their people. And how do they do that? Well, they make that their priority.

Andy 1:33:54
Do you want to go over this final item with the Idaho bill?

Larry 1:33:59
Sure. That’s Our lightning round for today.

Andy 1:34:01
Yeah, we’re gonna try and start doing something where I, I pepper Larry with bunches of questions or articles and he gives me like one or two line answers anyway, this next article comes from Katie VB Idaho bill would mandate mandate payouts for certain wrongful convictions. So what happens here?

Larry 1:34:20
Well, if it if it becomes law they would get between 60 and $75,000 a year. If they’re on death row, they get 75,000. For the time they were on death row and and otherwise, they get $60,000 a year. And I’m not real clear on all the nuances because I didn’t pull the bill. But Idaho is like my state. It’s one of 15 where there is no compensation on the books. And I’d like for our state to move in that direction also, but but you’ve got people who are convicted through the system, their appeals fail, and then decades later, after the prosecution stops fighting to overturn their conviction table. Somehow or another overcome that enormous hurdle and show that they didn’t commit the crime. And then they’ve been in prison for many years, sometimes decades. This guy, that’s the feature of the story was convicted in 1983 of kidnapping, raping and murdering a nine year old girl. The only problem is he didn’t do it. That’s the only problem. But it wasn’t too broad. It wasn’t into 2001 when DNA tests, which were not available when his case was first tried to, he ended up clearing a clerk his name, and he was later freed and spent 23 hours a day for 17 years in isolation. But we don’t we don’t we don’t want to give him any money. Really, what kind of society would would would object to paying? Uh, yes, we can’t be perfect. We understand that. We’re humans. We will make mistakes. So we’ll be unintentional and some will be deliberate. But we can give people some compensation for our mistakes. Well, how could you oppose it? How could you How could even the Republicans oppose that there should be something that’s totally bipartisan You’re famous bipartisanship should really kick in here. If we’ve made a mistake, we should want to compensate people for our mistake. This should be so easy.

Andy 1:36:09
All right, well, that’s a. Larry has spoken on that one.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:14
This was a lightning round for that.

Andy 1:36:18
I only have one other area of things that I would like to cover and we can skip it if you want to, but it is about the the Georgia House is in the process of voting on a bill. It’s called House Bill 720. That would authorize the state police to or excuse me, the county sheriff’s to put signs in front of people’s yards. Do you want to go over that or do you want to just skip it for now?

Larry 1:36:41
We can do a brief touch on it they House Bill 720 which, which has passed the House of Representatives and state of Georgia, and it moved over to the Senate, which is not moving in the senate because they suspended the session due to the health concerns and they’ve got 11 days for To run in their 40 day session, and they don’t know when they’re gonna reconvene. But we, we litigated on this issue of the signs and buts and Spalding County. And we’re winning both both both instances, we’re winning two different two different courts, one in the Northern District, one Middle District of Georgia, we’re winning in both. But we fully anticipated that as a result of our litigation, since we pointed out so eloquently that the sheriff didn’t have any authority, that that it would be an easier case to win. But what I guess I wasn’t as eloquent as that even if the sheriff had the authority. We still think we could win, because it’s an issue of the first amendment issue the constitution as a issue of compelled speech. And it’s an issue of not narrowly failing to narrowly tailor and therefore you just can’t do the blanket requirements putting up signs on Halloween. We believe that that this bill will ultimately when they reconvene it will ultimately pass the Senate and we believe that Governor Brian Kemp will sign it and we believe We’ll be back in court arguing the exact same thing that we’ve already won on that we’ll just extract the argument that the sheriff liked any authority. And we’d say that even though that now there is authority, that this makes it still no more constitutional than it has been. And when the court does their analysis, they’re going to conclude, yes, we’re supposed to give deference to the legislature. We presume it’s constitutional upon enactment, and they will make that presumption they’ll look at it and they’ll say it stopped. And we intend, we intend when when it’s signed, which we expect it will be we tend to go right back into court again and say, Now judge enjoined the entire state until the state of Georgia, all the shares that you can’t do this. That’s our intent that we had anticipated, this is no great surprise. There’s no brilliance out there that that thought of this that that likes to think that they that they were ahead of the curve. They knew this, we knew this was going to happen also. But if we failed to litigate if we had failed to file the lawsuits, and the two counties, we did what we had was a cascading effect of Georgia’s hundred 59 counties to share for being directed and encouraged by the Georgia Sheriffs Association, who produced the signs and the recommendation based on their legal analysis that they could do this and get away with it. We had other shares who had announced that they were going to do it. And we gave gave a cease and desist letter, for example, in Ben Hill County, as far as we know, they didn’t do the science of been Hill County, but we had, Paul is going to be a cascading effect of sheriffs. And had we stood idly by and let it go from 123 1215 1721 42 and having a whole number of shares, then the litigation would have been far more complicated. We’d have a whole lot more defendants to try to serve. We’d have had a whole lot more hesitant by the judge to intervene because it would have become established practice at that point. It’s kind of like when we went into court when when not we but when the when the challenge was filed international Megan’s Law, stuff that they had been doing as a result. Dan Walsh Act for nearly a decade was being all of a sudden called into question. And the court was hesitant to intervene because they had been sending those notices for the better part of 10 years. And so therefore, we chose not to allow that to happen. We chose to not turn a blind eye to a sheriff in bidding requirements, because we were afraid that they were going to invent additional requirements, and where would they stop? So, so we think we did the right thing. We’re confident we’re going to win. And the people out there that are negative naysayers, there’ll be negative naysayers out there no matter what you do.

Andy 1:40:34
But even still, and my county hasn’t done it. But that doesn’t mean next year, next year, next year, next year that they don’t decide to start doing it. And we we could win in court, even with the statute in place. You know, in the next round of court battles, granted, that means more funding and does that mean that means we start litigation from scratch. Granted, we have paperwork we already have like case history to go from but we still have to develop the case from scratch. That’s right.

Unknown Speaker 1:41:01
Well, if depending on depending on if this thing gets enacted, if they do it in narrow tailoring, it could be that they do such a narrow tailoring that they could conceivably come up with a Halloween sign scheme. That would be constitutional. I doubt it. But you could do it. Right. But let’s assume that they dealt, well, if it becomes state law, there would be some shares like in New Mexico, they’ll say even though it’s a state law and the red flag on the on the picking up the guns and the extreme risk corners, we’re not going to enforce them. That could be fun. Sure. So it’ll say, I’m not going to force us but more than likely they would choose to enforce the law. At that point, we would have to litigate, I guess the statute. So rather than taking a sheriff, we would we would fall against the statute say that the statute is unconstitutional, as it’s written, and to enjoy and all the sheriffs and state of Georgia from enforcing an unconstitutional statute. That’s what we would do. And and I think the odds are probably better than 5050 we’ll have to That alternative, but the alternative was far worse. The alternative is, the alternative was that we would had dozen 2030 4050 counties as it spread across the state. And then we would have a much higher mountain to climb, because the court would have been hesitant to have stopped the existing status quo. Because it would becoming grain and culture. If If we had just gone under a rock and said, Let’s hope it doesn’t get any worse. It would have been like the illustration I just gave about international Megan’s Law. The advance notice had been required since the 2006. Adam Walsh Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. And it wasn’t until a decade later in 2016, when the passports were required to be marked that all of a sudden an issue was raised about the advance notice requirements, which although it wasn’t in the statute, it was in practice So we would had the exact same situation that we had with international Megan’s Law with advance notice, we would have had 47 sheriffs in Georgia doing it. And the judge had been looking at me said, well, where were you? Well, the years this has been happening. It injunction is largely designed to protect the status quo. The status quo was that time would have been one third of George’s counties were doing this already.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:27
So we nipped it in the bud. It was

Andy 1:43:30
the right decision. It is just waiting, you know, saying, hey, let’s lay lay our heads down and hope it doesn’t get

Unknown Speaker 1:43:35
out. But how has that worked out for you people?

Andy 1:43:39
I don’t think it’s worked out very well. That’s that’s my opinion that if we just wait it doesn’t get better. There’s not any better,

Unknown Speaker 1:43:45
you would have to be mentally challenged to think that ignoring it. If you look at the original registries, and you look at the court decisions, they explain how they have evolved and encroached. If ignoring that would have worked The registration schemes wouldn’t have evolved to the level they have now to say encroach or submit if your freedom spots Thank you can already see that ignoring things don’t make it doesn’t make it go away. That you’d have to be severely challenged to believe ignoring things make it makes it makes this particular thing some things you do ignore they go away, but ignoring encroachments into civil liberties, because they will never run out of creative things to try to encroach on your liberties when you’re in a hated despise group of the population. So therefore, keep ignoring it and tell me how that works out for you because it hasn’t worked out very well for you over the last 20 years.

Andy 1:44:39
All right, man. Hey, can somebody kick that soapbox out from underneath you to to

Larry 1:44:43
call us. I’ve made some phone calls this week.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:47
So tell me what the website is Larry.

Andy 1:44:49
We can get out of here.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:51
I don’t care about the website. I want to find all seven first call 77472274477

Andy 1:44:58
and then support us on Patreon. registry Matt, excuse me patreon.com slash registry matters. And with that, Larry, I will bid you a good night. Read an hour and 40 bit 49 minutes so we can let it go. All right. All right. Thanks, everybody, for listening. Thanks for everybody hanging out in chat and we’ll talk to you soon. Good night. Good night.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Listen to RM118: Just Feed The Inmates Cockroaches and Pop-tarts

Andy 0:00
registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 118 of registry matters. Larry, Larry, Larry, Larry Larry, it’s Saturday night. What’s up, buddy?

Larry 0:23
118. That’s almost my age.

Andy 0:28
Come on, we got a long way to go. We need to we need to like use the new math to get to your age.

Larry 0:32
Well, 118 is

Andy 0:34
as close it’s close. I mean, it’s closer than 170.

Larry 0:38
I heard that it’s a beautiful sunny day in the eastern on the eastern seaboard.

Andy 0:41
It was gorgeous. Today, actually. I was having an email conversation with someone that lives downstate for me, and he he asked me, can you remind me again, what fyp stands for? And I tried to get Tim to, you know, I prod him with some clues. And here are some of the responses that he gave to me. And he said Find your protocol, fix YouTube pheasants, forget yosa might patents, f the people f the pigs fermentor peanuts, find them pink people was another one that you came up with. And can we go over what fyp stands for again,

Larry 1:18
it stands for if someone knocks at your door with a clipboard and says I’m making a list of making a list of who’s living in this residence, because the public claims when it comes to the sexual offender registry, they have a right to know. And I said we’re really where’s that right derived from? Why don’t you start going around the neighborhood and asking people who’s in who’s in a particular dwelling and find out what their reaction is. And that’s where fyp comes from.

Andy 1:44
Now, obviously, you have to use the the initials fyp. When thinking about your answer, because you could just say no, I’m not telling you that doesn’t fit fyp for sure.

Unknown Speaker 1:55
Charles says free yogurt people

Larry 2:00
So yes, we we’ve just there’s a lot of things that people assert that they have the right. That’s what right that I cannot find that there’s any, any basis to support such a right that you have. There’s no such right now who’s another way?

Andy 2:13
Can you? Can we stretch the definition of something of right? can we can we scale the word back a little bit? Like, do you deserve to know who lives next door? But

Larry 2:27
that would be a more reasonable question.

Shouldn’t we be allowed to know and of course, that the answer this should we be allowed to know would be whether it violates any right if the person or the family who is in the residence and I would say it does, because presumably there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution?

Andy 2:45
That would be the fourth amendment as I recall, correct?

Larry 2:47
I don’t know the numbers.

Andy 2:49
Do you really not know the numbers?

Larry 2:52
No, but I don’t keep track of trivial things like which remember, does what?

Andy 2:56
Okay, well, if the third one is the most important one because that says that though it’s government cannot quarter soldiers in your house without compensation or period, something like that. They can’t force you to hold soldiers, you know. So that’s the most important one.

Larry 3:09
Well, of course.

Andy 3:10
All right. And then did you know that we released a YouTube video? Wednesday morning?

Larry 3:16
I did all that and it has had splendid success, it actually has to tell us think that should tell us that to people much prefer to see that person in that YouTube video versus listening to us babble every week.

Andy 3:27
Well, I don’t know that that’s true. I mean, it was much, much shorter. I just I you know, this is a shameless plug that this is going to be something that I’m that we’re going to try and push forward with in here and do some sort of content every couple weeks.

Larry 3:39
Well, I think it’s that sexy, handsome presenter of the video that makes all the difference.

Andy 3:45
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I thought that was you know, I wouldn’t fit that category. Remember, I’ve go back to civil war times your old crusty you like that. You look Do you remember the TV show the cryptkeeper on HBO, or some star Tales from the Crypt and then that has The character the cryptkeeper

Larry 4:02
I do not.

Andy 4:03
Okay, nevermind, there was I mean old and crusty like coming out of a coffin like anyway, nevermind, nevermind, we should move on. Larry did the Supreme Court rarely steps in and and and delays or even stops an execution from occurring, but they did this in Alabama. They at least delayed it for a period of time. I think we talked about the sky, at least a week, if not two weeks ago that was accused and convicted of being present at some kind of nastiness, and then actually ended up getting convicted of it and then they and he was scheduled for execution. I think I have that right.

Larry 4:40
I don’t believe this is the case we talked about but unfortunately, the as I predicted the executive of Alabama didn’t provide any relief, nor did I expect her to attend the Supreme Court. This these days, just a death penalty is not unconstitutional, and I’ll even go a step further. It’s not unconstitutional. To execute an innocent person either. That’s bizarre. Well, you have the right to life, liberty and property and not to deprive them of those things without due process. If you’ve had due process, they can deprive you of any of those things, including,

Andy 5:13
regardless of if you’re innocent or not. If you had due process, you can take any of the aforementioned things.

Larry 5:19
That is correct. Taking take your property with due process, they can take your life with due process.

Andy 5:24
What about eminent domain, just throwing that out there? just you know, they want to move a highway through your neighborhood and they use eminent domain to move you out. That’s not due process. Sure, it is,

Larry 5:34
is it? There’s a process so they don’t they don’t just come in take a bulldozer I mean, they, they they negotiate with you for your property, and then they go through a process to take your property but you do get compensation. There’s a process to value the compensation to provide some some reasonable value to the property. You may not agree with it because it may have been in the family for hundreds of years and you may not want it to but but They do. They don’t take your property without any due process. But the greater good, Trump’s, if you like one person hold up the entire progress on what kind of society will we have all the things that would not have been built, if one recalcitrant party who didn’t want to sell was able to stand in the way.

Andy 6:17
So this individual had his life taken, though he may have been at least he didn’t commit the actual crime of killing anybody. But he was president and highly involved and ultimately they delayed it for a brief period of time, but then they eventually went forth and executed him. Last night, night night before last I forget which one Thursday night

Larry 6:39
Thursday? Well, he did. He didn’t accept a plea deal that was offered that would have spared him a death penalty because his attorney told him that they could not secure the conviction. They did his attorney misinformed. And that was the case I talked about not sort of copy and Dropbox about, about when when the attorney is wrong, that that should have spared him. But the Supreme Court didn’t didn’t see it that way. And I didn’t follow the nuances close enough why they rejected his petition. But the supreme court for last 25 years has. I mean, as it’s grown more conservative, they used to intervene in death penalty cases a lot more than they do now. But since the death penalty is, in fact constitutional, and we’ve had Justice Scalia explain it time and time again, why it’s constitutional. It’s something we’re going to have to change by policy. We can’t expect the black robes to come in and save us from something. So when Alabama gets tired of executing people, they’ll have to change their law we did Long, long number of years ago, more than a decade ago here, I think it was 2009. So that’s like 11 years ago. And Colorado just joined us, you’re probably supposed to be so much more progressive state, they just joined this year in 2020.

Andy 7:47
And as far as that goes, it would be for us the people to decide that we’re going to vote for people to represent us, that would put forth the policy that says we’re not going to execute Fill in the blank after that, a complete prohibition on it or start going down, you know, people with mental deficiencies or, you know, even people like Nathaniel woods, etc. That would be on us for people to put the people in place so that we don’t continue to perform these practices. Alabama has not done that yet.

Larry 8:19
They have not. And I don’t expect they will anytime soon because that’s not what people of Alabama support people by Alabama believe fervently in the death penalty, they believe and even in Georgia as well. Yeah, if you were take a poll, Georgia would say that the death penalty is overwhelming support and it’s boggling golly, he took a lie. And now the right thing to do is to take his life.

Andy 8:44
I don’t like it, Larry. I do not like it. Should we move over to the appeal?

Larry 8:50
I think so. But this is this is one of those things where Alabama, perhaps will join the family of civilized nations at some point.

Andy 8:59
Alabama will do In civilized nations,

Larry 9:02
that’s a fun way to build a civil, civilized. Well, I mean, the US, hopefully, but see, you can’t have the us join two civilized nations on that because the US federal government can’t set the policy for the states, they can only decide that we’re not gonna have a federal death penalty, which we do have right now. But if we were to abolish the death penalty, the federal level, all the independent sovereigns within this country can still have their own death penalty. So so that’s why I said, the family of nations because we can’t do it at a national level, could states have their right to prescribe their penalty schemes?

Andy 9:36
We would have to do a constitutional amendment to make that something that can’t be done at the states. Is that is that how that would work out?

Larry 9:42
Well, I mean, theoretically, we could amend the US Constitution. Yeah, prescribe a prohibition on the death penalty, but the constitutional member process is so Congress Oh, yeah. I don’t see that happening.

Andy 9:53
No, I don’t either. But is that the only remedy that the nation could decide to do to force Alabama to stop

Larry 10:00
thought would be the only remedy Or else what you could put a bunch of liberal activists, legislating from the bench judgments on who could interpret the constitution to invent something that the framers weren’t thinking about a prohibition or you could put people on the court who believe in it, evolving standards of decency that we’re going to hear from Scalia a little bit. I was

Andy 10:18
just gonna say we have something about that later. We haven’t decided where we’re going to play though. So So I guess we can wait till Oh, well,

Larry 10:26
this, this would be a good place to play his evolving standards of decency.

Andy 10:30
Right, then we will jump into Yes, here we go. Alright, so here is Scalia that I titled The constitution that I play is not a living, but it’s a dead philosophy or something like that. All right. If we

Larry 10:43
played this before, about six months ago,

Andy 10:45
oh, did we Oh, I just I made it. Yeah. Yeah. The constitution that I interpret and apply is not living,

Unknown Speaker 10:53
but dead. close quote. Explain that one.

Unknown Speaker 10:59
Much. of the

Unknown Speaker 11:03
harm that has been done in recent years by activist constitutional interpretation is made possible by a theory which says that unlike an ordinary law, which doesn’t change it means, what it meant when it was enacted, and what always mean that, unlike that, the Constitution changes from decade to decade to comport with, and this is a phrase we use in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence Wait, the court does, to comport with, quote, the evolving standards of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society. We have a morphing constitution. And of course, it’s up to the court to decide when it morphs and how it works.

Unknown Speaker 12:00
That’s

Unknown Speaker 12:02
generally paraded as the, quote, living constitution. And unfortunately, that philosophy has made enormous headway not only with lawyers and judges, but even with the john q public.

Andy 12:19
Still, I still have to think that there is reasonable thoughts behind both philosophies of of toeing the line and not letting anything move and then also changing the way that our vocabulary is interpreted to, to let things be interpreted the way they would be today under our standards of living.

Larry 12:41
Well, absolutely. That’s why that’s why brilliant legal minds disagree. I mean, I agree with Scalia when we played the clip last week that you know, Dad was dead then and dad is dead. Now. We have no disagree. We have no disagreement about that.

Yeah, there’s not much more Wayne’s World standards that

we would support with we will differ is that I would say that the knowledge that that I would agree with what Briar said about the constitution was an acting of value system of, of what of what decency, would look like. And as we’ve learned over the last 240 years, we didn’t know the the evolution of the brain and how well developed the mental capacity, mental capacity of a particular age group was or what diminished capacity looked like. So at the time that they that they drafted that beautiful document, they didn’t have the understanding what they have to do, but dad is certainly still dead, no doubt about that. But blood, those people having the understanding that they have today, but they have not gone ahead and done that, well, that takes a lot of predicting what they would have done had they known stuff that we know now that we don’t know that that we didn’t know them. But I tend to think that these decent human beings would have not wanted to execute people if they had had the understanding of the development of the human brain at the time they drafted it. document. So therefore I would say that it evolved with our knowledge is our knowledge evolved,

Andy 14:05
then why the standards of decency, other amendments? Whatever the process might there be to say that you can’t execute? You know, a minor you know pick pick pick whatever subject you want felony jaywalking, you can execute people for felony jaywalking. And we don’t make a notional limit to do that.

Larry 14:21
We could, but that’s an exceedingly difficult process with what has to happen to amend the Constitution. It takes a huge supermajority and it’s not an easy process,

Andy 14:31
and then ratify two thirds of the states or three quarters,

Larry 14:34
three fourths, three fourths of the states and it’s hard to get three fourths of our states to agree on things anything.

Andy 14:39
What time the sunrises? I mean, we’re not gonna be able to get them to agree. I don’t think we could get them to agree on anything practically. Ah, all right. Um, I don’t know that I can ask any more intelligent questions about what he’s talking about. All right. And you’ve left me again. I’m right here. Oh, there you go. Okay, you’re back. What are the intelligent ones? He’s going to ask you about, Mr. Scalia.

Larry 15:02
Well, he’s a brilliant man. So there’s there’s a lot to ask about him. Hey, I’ve never I’ve never, these clips are not intended to demean Scully at all. No, I these clips we play these clip clips we play a Scalia is attended for the people who out there who are fans of that type of judicial interpretation, just to let them be more enlightened about what we would have if we had a majority on the court who felt that way which I think now we have close to majority who feels that way. But, but that doesn’t diminish his brilliance. I mean, he makes completely rational arguments for all of his positions.

Andy 15:36
I definitely agree with that. But that doesn’t mean that RBG or anybody else is any less brilliant. We just have tons and tons of clips and he’s very charismatic and entertaining to listen to. He gets kind of snarky and whatnot and gets the audience to laugh and go along with him.

Larry 15:51
He does indeed he pays. He pays always. For the whole time he was on the court. He was one of the one who was most charismatic and Ruth Bader Ginsburg about as Dells, as you can find, and, and so from the progressive side, there’s really, really not anybody that I would that I would feel as as fun to play their clips because what they say just isn’t as charming. What Briar said when we played his quote last week, it made sense, but it was a lot more It was a lot less charismatic the way he presented his, how persuasive he was what his position.

Andy 16:26
So, you know, so we had 13 states, I don’t know if that’s how many it was when all of that stuff was ratified. Ultimately, it wouldn’t be nearly as hard to try and coalesce three fourths of 13 states versus three fourths of 50 states, which I know some people think it’s 52 but whatever we can talk about those another time. It is such an arduous process to try and get it done is there then something to be said on both sides of it should be arduous to get it to be done, versus maybe it’s too cumbersome and that in itself should be adjusted to Make it so that we could adjust it ever so slightly easier than what it is now.

Larry 17:05
I’m not, I’m not convinced that making it easier to be the Constitution is all that wise because the easier you make it, the more you have the potential for mob rule. And for decisions to be made based on motion. We have all the power we need right now. And I agree with Scully on this, if you don’t like the death penalty, do what they have done across the country in the states that have have eliminated you have the power, there’s nothing that requires you to execute it, anybody for any offense. The Constitution doesn’t require capital punishment. It’s your choice whether or not you want capital punishment, simply choose another course of punishment for criminality other than the death penalty. And that means getting out there and evaluating a candidate and possibly directly asking them questions about how they feel about XYZ and making an informed decision not just based on what you see on the television and watching attack ads against the opponent. That’s unfortunately how most decisions are made. We we vote based on the charisma of the candidate, and we vote against people because of the stuff we will I heard that Obama did this. I heard that Trump did that. I heard this and I heard that. And then you start asking about the policy ramifications. So I can’t even explain to you what their policies are much less the ramifications of their policies by the average person that supports the candidate. You have a difficult time getting them to explain what policies really inspire them. When I’ve talked to some close friends of mine that I’ve known for decades, that are that are strong from support. The most common thing is I like the way he talks. I like the way he talks. And I really like the way he talks. That’s it. What about his policies? Well, I don’t I’d rather I’d rather not hear Obama went around the world apologizing for us, and I don’t I didn’t like that. And, and I like to I like Trump says the United States is right. But what about his policies? Do you agree with him? And I can’t either do you go round and round? It is it’s a charisma thing. I mean, they’re attracted to Trump because of whatever, whatever characteristics that they like about him, but very few will get into a deep, deep policy discussion about what policies are appealing because if I try to guide discussion, I say, Well, do you agree with his block of up and maximum? Well, no, I don’t agree with that. Okay. You started on list no one agree with that. Do you agree with relaxing environment? Well, no, I do want to try to keep and I said well, do you agree with cutting the people also? Sure disability, one auto agree with that. And and but but yet they still said, Well, this makes no sense to me.

Andy 19:38
Well, you could equally say, Elizabeth Warren is very charismatic, and Bernie certainly has a shit ton of support behind him. And he’s got a crazy number of people that follow him. Maybe they’re I don’t know, I don’t want to say that they’re more or less involved in the policies, but both of them are very charismatic.

Larry 19:53
Oh, well, I think Bernie, I don’t know what it is but call it charismatic but Bernie Sanders Like he’s angry every time he opens his mouth to me.

Andy 20:03
He does I agree.

Larry 20:06
He sounds like he’s mad continuously. And, and, and he doesn’t have the there’s a killer instinct in politics where you have to worry, you have to pounce and he, he frequently lets his prey off the hook like he did with like you did with Hillary back about the emails and 16 he let her off the hook and, and he, I mean, this is a tough business to be and he’s, he’s, he’s, he’s destined to collapse, I think because he doesn’t he doesn’t have that and he just is not a likable person. Trump said this week and I’ve got a calculation of it because he said that a likable person asked him about Elizabeth and why her campaign collapsed. And of course, one reason she’s she’s a fiver, but so was Trump.

Andy 20:51
Put it politely to say that about Trump.

Larry 20:54
But but but but I have no problem calling out somebody on my side. I’m here. She has just difficult Don’t choose. I mean, I can’t keep track on me. I mean, the native blood and then she got fired for being pregnant I think was another one. But But Trump said that she does. She’s just not likable. And he says contrast to me I I’m very likable. Well, I’m not so sure but but

Andy 21:16
apparently is, Hey, I wonder if you’ve got a burning thing. Do you have some sort of accent bias that you don’t like that he’s doing when he talks about it?

Larry 21:26
No, it’s it’s the anger that he that he just he just oozes that he’s mad continuously.

Andy 21:33
Yes, I know. I’m just picking it up just so fun because he says where it’s kind of funny, you know, with the New England accent. He doesn’t

Larry 21:40
come across. He doesn’t come across as warm at all.

Andy 21:44
Yeah, I agree with it.

Larry 21:46
And I again, you shouldn’t vote because someone is warm and fuzzy. That shouldn’t be the only characteristic of the only standard. But if all else is equal to tell people when I was in the hiring business, if I had to make a decision Between candidates, and they were roughly equally qualified. And I liked one because they had a warmer, more, more bubbly personality. I’m certainly not going to hire the one that I don’t like if everything is roughly equal, same thing with voting, if someone is warmer, likeable, and I agree with their with with more of their policies, I’m going to vote for that when I was a person that sounds like they’re angry and mad continuously.

Andy 22:23
So all right, well, then let’s let’s move on over to the appeal that I tried to do a minute ago before we got hijacked to go over Scalia. For many serving harsh sentences, the governor becomes a last hope. These are people that get sentenced to crazy long sentences and they have no relief except for to get the governor involved. And I know that it doesn’t happen that often at least from my understanding, and they profile a woman who got a crazy amount of time it looks like I think she was just like an accomplice like almost like forced to not quite do drug deals but almost be like the driver and got a massive amount of time. For for Being involved in a in a big crime and to try and get some sort of relief trying to go to the governor to get that all get out of prison.

Larry 23:08
Well, that’s the flaw with the with the with the system they have majority of the states, your your state actually has a better system than most where they were they don’t appeal to the governor, you your appeal to the Georgia Board of pardons and parole, but just largely insulated from from the mob rule. But when you when you have the executive being the last resort, where you’ve put these mandatory sentences in place, that they that if they have a prior record of whatever the generates the mandatory if you have where a person has to has to be sentenced to a harsh period of time imposed upon them by the court without any discretion, then the only last resort would be cruel and unusual punishment. We covered that last week in terms of what cruel unusual punishment is if the electric chair is not cruel and unusual. Yeah. long sentences, probably not either. And we end up with people appealing for executive clemency. Well, that’s a political office, people that run for governor. I can’t think of any state that where they don’t like their governors. And and if you start turning too many people loose, you end up with a massive amount of blowback and that’s by Governor Blagojevich didn’t turn anyone loose. He just let them stack up on his desk or his entire term of Governor

Andy 24:27
or they do like we had presidents do it in the lame duck session.

Larry 24:31
Well, it does tend to be when when there are a plethora of them granted, it tends to be like a governor on the way out it doesn’t have liquidations, you’ll see on the rail. Governor Ryan in Illinois did quite a few he did that. He committed I think he cleared off death row in Illinois when he left office and you had Governor Haley Barbour down in Mississippi. He did a lot of people I mean, that’s that’s kind of the test when you have the greatest freedom to do something. I mean, it’s when you’re when you know running again. But if you’re going to run again, for something you may Huckabee in Arkansas governor Huckabee did that, that that hurt him in his presidential campaign? Because that was an issue made about how, how lavishly his born again Christian values, which he practiced and when he cut pay cut sentences a lot, a lot of people out of prison.

Oh, yes, he did.

Andy 25:23
And so which side would attack him? He was running under the Republican ticket. So who would attack him for espousing those views?

Unknown Speaker 25:31
The Republicans?

Andy 25:33
That doesn’t make sense to me typically, I’m not saying by any, you know, they are generally on Team Read. The Christians are so they would espouse those views. That makes no sense to me.

Larry 25:43
They didn’t attack him for beta Christian. They attacked him for letting people that had not done their time out. Yes, but it wasn’t because of his Christian, but he actually my point was not to get Christianity he actually practice his Christian values of looking at a person Seeing that they had redeemed themselves. Christians frequently espouse that but they don’t actually practice it Huckabee actually did.

Andy 26:08
Yeah, that’s what I’m getting at.

Larry 26:10
Well, but but but the conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Andy 26:14
That’s what I’m trying to like. reconcile that. That’s what doesn’t make sense to me.

Unknown Speaker 26:18
But but they do it all the time.

Andy 26:20
I understand that too. Who

Larry 26:21
do you say Who do you okay? Who do you fake try to derail the first step back? Was it the liberals from Cory Booker, or was it the conservatives led by Senator Tom Cotton in Arkansas, that that watered down who who watered down the first step back

Andy 26:37
according to somebody else? I had an email thread with recently had no idea that that’s how that went down. But yes, I totally know that the conservatives had had, you know, watered it down, like he said,

Larry 26:46
okay, but that’s who typically that’s who attacked mike huckabee. When he was running for president. That’s who attacked governor of massachusetts that ran for president Michael Dukakis when he was running again. Bush, the way he got willie horton all through that campaign in 88 because Massachusetts had a furlough program and Willie was out on furlough and did some crime I don’t know what it was but but he got really hardened it’s not the liberals that attacked for this stuff. It’s the conservatives who attack

Unknown Speaker 27:20
stuff. Yes, I do understand liberals.

Larry 27:22
I do believe the liberals will attack while attacking other things but not not for not for you. I tell people what you say a liberal this attacking a conservative for for being soft on crime. Please send that to us. So we can get that on the air, because it doesn’t happen very well.

Andy 27:38
Let’s move over to another article from the appeal. And this is about a podcast and actually there’s a transcript listed but it says justice in America Episode Number 22 probation and parole. Hey, kick ass episode. I only made it about halfway through there. But can you remind me what the stats were between like the national average and then a particular state in what their probation rate was,

Larry 28:02
well, the national average score and this was 1300 per hundred thousand people under supervision controlled it said Georgia is at 5300.

Andy 28:11
So that’s like five times four and a half times more people. And this is on probation and parole on average is 1300 per hundred thousand people. But Georgia it’s 53. That is a lot of folks under the Department of Community supervision as they renamed it here these days.

Larry 28:31
Wow. And and it would make sense if Georgia had a very low incarceration rate, but Georgia has a very high incarceration rate.

Andy 28:39
They must be a super criminal here in this state they just there’s just constant criminality all around and you know, the, the the governor that we’ve got now he is all about making an enhanced some sort of build dealing with gangs and whatnot, they’re gonna they’re almost going to make gang activity get registered as sex offenders. If And I don’t think I’m exaggerating too far in that in that description.

Larry 29:04
I don’t see a problem with more registered betters coordinate, but some people say,

Andy 29:08
well the more of us that are registered, then the less of us that are actually like registered kinda. I don’t actually see there being something wrong with that logic other than obviously everybody registered.

Larry 29:21
Well, depends on what the requirements of the registration are if the requirements impede your liberty after you paid your debt to society. It’s wrong no matter no matter what

Andy 29:30
did you did you listen to the episode?

Larry 29:32
I did not I just I just did a skim read through it because it’s such a long article that PL always goes on and on and this is a podcast but but anything they publish goes goes on and on.

Andy 29:42
Especially in this case since they have the transcription. I am going to take a quick breath. I am getting reports of the popping hopefully that fixed it I haven’t had popping in quite some time. So anyway, I would encourage you to go over and listen to it because and actually if people are new listening to New to being involved in the criminal justice system. It seems like this podcast might be a really good source just this one they up they brought up a key term. They had like a word of the week, whatever. And they were talking about the word community. And they use the word community to describe all kinds of things like the Department of Community supervision or community policing. And they use that as I guess kind of like you use the expression kid gloves. It almost seems like they they use this term to make Oh hey, the police community policing This is a good thing, right? Yeah, but it’s not quite what you think the way the term is used? It is it is. But they go through that first and then they start talking about how poopy the system is in general with the people’s. But I would recommend you go listen to it, possibly subscribe to that podcast, just the same as you should subscribe to this one. And hint wink wink nod nod. Let’s move over to an article from CNN politics. Six former wrestlers say representative Jim Jordan knew about abusive OSU. So that’s it. Ohio State University. Dr. Tell us what your problem is with this article there?

Larry 31:06
Well, my my problem is that we’ll never know what representative Jordan knew when he was a coach there and what what he was brought to his attention. But I’m wondering if there is possibly a double standard in terms of, of the reaction to these allegations. If I read the article correctly, the doctor is now dead. But these these young men are when they were young men, it’s time they’re now. Some of them are well served in the middle age, but they’re coming forward with what appears to be credible accounts of what the doctor was doing to them when they went to seek help from the team doctor from Team position. Wrestling’s kind of a competitive sport and there tends to be the potential for a lot of injuries and a lot of a lot of sprains and stretching and things of that goes that goes with the sport and the doctor was notorious for examining the genitals of the young man who went for any reason whatsoever. And supposedly, according to the wrestlers that have come forward, it said that it was well known all over campus that it was kind of a hazing ritual for the, for the incoming freshmen. And representative Jordan, who was the coach was, this was reported to the representative to the coach at the time without representative. And there was nothing doubt about it. And I’m just wondering if it’s gonna be very difficult to bring the person back from death to try him in a criminal setting. So we won’t get the outcome we got with Dr. Nasser with a gymnast. But if what is being reported by the wrestlers is the reaction of the people in authority. Well, if he did this to me, I would just punch him out, I would snap his neck I would do this and that. That’s not a proper reaction. When you send your kids off to a university environment, I don’t have any kids but I’m guessing that when you send them off particularly They’ve been recruited by the university and this is a university where people are just delighted to sign up to play sports, whatever the sport is on scholarship. I’m assuming that one of the things that you are concerned about as a parent is how well that university is going to try to protect your your, your offspring, your kids, and certainly thinks Yes. That you would say, uh, well, I don’t it’s kind of a hazing ritual around here are they did that to me on punches lights out. That just doesn’t seem like the right response to a person who’s having their crotch grabbed because they are reporting a sprained ankle or or, or thumb or whatever that they’re going in there for this

Andy 33:44
is a former wrestler I forget the name. I don’t want to say the name. It says he immediately complained to Jordan when the doctor attempted to remove his shorts during an exam for a thumb injury. I’m I mean, maybe you know not I’m not a medical professional of any sort. But You know, the knee bones connected to the ankle bone, like all that that whole thing that we learned back when we were kids. I don’t really see what the relationship would be having a short term, we’ve done a thumb injury.

Larry 34:09
Well, thank you. It’s sort of I want to start with a thumb first, I’m guessing maybe you’d have a doctor on here and find out if you would, well, you would examine outflow from there depending on the symptoms, but but I, I just this reminds me of what was going on at Penn State University with Sandusky and and the what should have been a credible coach who said he walked in and found Sandusky on a young man, and that was a high school or not out of college but found him on a young man. I reported that to Joe Paterno, who was his supervisor, who should have reported to Graham Spanier who was the president of Penn State and nothing was done. Is there a gender inequality here do we do? We don’t take these things serious because it’s boys. You probably I was actually having a conference Today that seemed to

Andy 35:03
please don’t send me any hate mail. But when we were talking about like being in the military and guys will be all rough and tough, and you know, they make crude jokes about things. And this is sort of related to the Michael Bloomberg and the NDA is about maybe off color jokes or whatever. But as soon as a woman got put into the unit, and this is nothing disparaging about women, then the culture change the character change. So I’m, I’m thinking that in the case of the male wrestlers, that what you would have is like, Oh, you should toughen up. Or don’t be such a fill in the blank for whatever words you want to use there. You could take it and just suck it up your man do it. And maybe that would be the response. Like, here’s just the, you know, here’s what you have to do to make ends meet.

Larry 35:47
So well, Ross hellicksen. I was longtime wrestling coach there and five former Ohio State assistant coaches who worked with Jordan previously issued a joint statement saying none of us saw or heard of a years of LSU wrestlers, the well being of our student athlete athletes was was all of our concern. If we had heard of any abuse, we would have spoken up. And of course,

Andy 36:12
it still goes to we have allegations. There’s even like files that the Boy Scouts have had, where, you know, like, just just report after report, but they’re they’re held like under lock and key and unsafe or something like that. We have the report coming out from the priests in Pennsylvania, you have tons and tons of evidence coming out that different organizations almost have institutionalized almost like gay mob activity, of protecting this activity that if just the lowly student makes an accusation, it is impossible for it to go anywhere. But at the same time, I absolutely want and I think everybody would want if somebody does something that is not appropriate is breaking the law for sure that they should be heard. And the criminal justice system should get involved. I really conflicted on how to square those two ends. It seems like you have such power on on either side that the me to movement may have gone too far that you just say, Oh, he made me feel squishy, and you go to prison, but then you also have these institutions that are protecting serial offenders?

Larry 37:21
Well, you know, we’ll never we’ll never know, we’ve got we’ve got the, the allegations, and I always presumed that, that that an allegation is just that until it’s proven, it’s going to be very difficult to play this out in in a legal setting because of the season but one wrestler Mike L and LSU wrestler from 88 to 92 previously tolsey and and they’re still way Jordan would have known about this and not intervene. And his his point was that, that that the doctor never came on to him that way. Well, I mean, that in and of itself, is not any conclusion because doctors are basically are humans and they find certain body types more attractive it could be. If you looked at the profile of the accused of the restaurants who are accused, it may be that he preferred smooth bodies over hairy bodies that may be a pint sized guys over large guys. We just don’t know. But we can’t say because it never happened to you does that somehow invalidates the allegation? The fact that he might have been professional and proper, it may mean he just did not find you attractive.

Andy 38:26
very bizarre, very bizarre. Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis. Head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give us 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. We got Larry this this article is absolutely amazing. This is from the hill. And it says ridiculous laws are symptom of America’s over criminalization problem. I had to subscribe to this Twitter feed, you’ll find a link in the show notes for this. And some of these laws are the funniest things I can ever imagine that we have. And I’ve heard I guess is the term blue LA. Is that is that a term you’re familiar with?

Larry 39:43
I am indeed that that would be something from from your part of the country.

Andy 39:46
Okay, so specifically to the southeast.

Larry 39:50
Well, not specifically but more.

Andy 39:52
Okay, my understanding what a blue LA is something that was put on the books when you were a child, and it’s just left there You shall not have Chicken on Wednesday nights or some stupid thing like that, and then it just never goes away, which would bring up an argument that we should have laws that automatically sunset if not renewed. But here’s a whole twitter feed that releases like daily releases stupid laws. Some of them are funny, and I have one in mind. I don’t know that I should should repeat it, but it says, I’ll do this one. It says I don’t even like us codes. 7414 it says make it a federal crime for an employee of the national honey board to reveal how a honey handler voted in a honey referendum. I don’t know how somebody came up with the word honey in that sentence that many times that on its own, it’s pretty impressive. But how do we make a law that’s like that? And how are you supposed to then as a citizen navigate your way around? All of these laws? You have to navigate this like it’s a minefield, it’s crazy.

Larry 40:53
Well, you know, fortunately, these days laws are never enforced, seldom enforced. I shouldn’t say never But it’s an example of we don’t go back in and repeal stuff where are ours? If you look at the walls that are compelled in most of our states, you’d find stuff that’s so outdated, but it’s never been repealed. No one thinks about enforcing it. But the blue walls as I recall them had to do with Sunday sales and Sunday things that what got him from being Donald Sunday. And, and the South was very common about that. But I just did a quick Google search and there are other states outside the South. But growing growing up as a youngster, and Georgia, and the small towns that I lived in, nothing was opened on Sunday back in I mean, you could get it you could, you could purchase a meal. But most things were closed on Sunday. And as as time got more liberalized more and more things are, are the laws themselves are not prohibiting businesses from opening. But you still have town pressure, like if you went to a small town that believed that of the sanctity of science. They wouldn’t, there wouldn’t be a law enforcement ramification. But if you open this, if you opened your pool hall on Sunday, you would get pressure from the town officials, you’d probably find your pool while being inspected for a code violation for any number of code violations. Because we would prefer you don’t open this pool hall on Sunday. This is not the type of business that we expect to see operating Sunday. But I remember that in the back in the day, that’d be one pharmacy in my hometown, they would alternate being open on Sunday for emergencies. All the pharmacies were closed. It’s just such a list of things that were close, you couldn’t buy a car and you couldn’t, couldn’t do much of anything on Sunday. You could you could rent a hotel room if your town had a hotel, but but practically every merchant was closed.

Andy 42:49
So you being like the policy expert that you are is there. Have you ever heard the idea presented that laws should have some sort of Sunset on them? For them to then be renewed and reinstated, you know, five years, 10 years, 20 years, whatever that whatever that Have you ever heard of that idea being presented?

Larry 43:08
I have and and that is done from time to time, particularly like the the tax cuts. Okay. Another example of that the, the the tax cuts were good for 10 years because theoretically we’re going to watch the revenue and see that that’s exactly what’s expected to happen. It was going to go through the sky, which it didn’t. But but there’s, there’s, there’s ample times where there’s a sunset on things where they have to be reauthorized, or they die. But I’m not a big believer that that that is the magic cure all. Because you could be forced at a particular time to reenact a bad law because of the political whims at the time, and you get stuck with 10 more years of something, or maybe making your permanent and the wiser public policy would have done to a tour to let it die.

Andy 43:56
Yeah. I was also I was almost thinking that you were going to go to down the path of saying, Oh my god, I’m having like an old person moment. I’ve lost my thought. Crap. Where did it go? Shit? I lost my thought, where would you do with it?

Larry 44:12
You’ve got old, you’ve got old timers.

Andy 44:14
Oh my god, I had a you were gonna bring up the specific point of you were going to say it. Damn it I Oh, I know what it was. We should so if it’s on the books, then the prosecutor could say, oh screw it you can’t eat with chicken with a fork on Wednesdays and you ate chicken with a fork, so I have to prosecute you. You have to take away the tool from the prosecutor to not have the you know, oh, they would never do it. But they could.

Larry 44:40
Well, that is that is something I believe that the potential for prosecution is there. That is a threat that you would like to remove it if that’s the law that society no longer supports. Because prosecutors are not always purists and went bears winter and snow. And if you’re looking for a reason to prosecute somebody you could actually sell them books you can put your hand on the Bible and say I’m doing what Tom was. Sorta I would do.

Andy 45:04
Yeah, I mean, you could use a scenario like a, an Al Capone kind of thing where they had to get him on tax evasion kind of things instead of the actual crimes that he was committing the, you know, not saying that they bought up bullshit charges, but they had to go a very different way. So maybe you could get Al Capone for eating chicken with a fork on Wednesday and prosecute him to felony charges and send him to clean for his chicken eating habits.

Larry 45:28
But you might not send him to clean which what you might do is get get more cooperation on what you’re really trying to find out the threat of prosecution. What would induce people to if I’ve got I might have the the authority to send you to jail for 90 days a maximum penalty for something silly is that it’s probably not a felony. But I may say well, you know, if you want to come in, let’s have a conversation about something. I think I’ll hold off on these charges But otherwise,

Unknown Speaker 45:55
it can be used as leverage.

Andy 45:57
Yep. And then moving on. We have a collection Gonna have articles talking about firing public defenders for various reasons. And the first article that we have up is from a man named Rory Fleming. And we had him as a guest. I don’t know if you remember having him on as a guest, Larry, do you remember? Like, Episode 20?

Larry 46:13
I know it’s bad fact. I don’t recall that. How about that?

Andy 46:16
Well, you put this in there probably not even intentionally grabbing the article from him. But it appears as though these individuals were fired for being in support of and please remind me what they were writing an abacus brief in support of I don’t remember reading what it was.

Larry 46:35
It was for this and that.

Andy 46:36
Oh, isn’t that sweet? Finally, an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of cash bail is considered above and beyond the acceptable level of advocacy. So they were fired for this. And should they be treated something like teachers that get tenure or that you know, other professions that end up with some kind of tenure so that they can be outspoken? They certainly have law degrees. They certainly have some level of expertise in working on the defense side. Maybe they should be protected from just being fired.

Larry 47:10
Therein lies the question. In this particular case, but as our public defense systems have evolved in different directions around the country, we have a statewide system where there’s a unified command structure and they work for either the executive branch of the governor or they work for a commission. We’ve got a county by county system, which is the way Georgia does it. And so my understanding right now each county is responsible for this. So if they have if they hire an integer, the county doesn’t necessarily have to have a public defender’s office, they can just appropriate money for contract attorneys which made available to the court to appoint people to represent folks but if they hire a public defender, you do work for someone. And in this case, it appears that the montgomery county Pennsylvania commission decided that it was no longer their pleasure to

have Chief Dean beer and public defender Keisha Hudson, on their staff, so they terminate.

And so what what do we do to preserve the independence of the public defender’s office, but yet have an employee employer relationship? I mean, would you want a public defender that answers to know what,

Andy 48:22
but shouldn’t they be? I mean, you use the word independent a minute ago, but shouldn’t they be allow military people can’t do any kind of, you know, they have to be very, very selective about being in parades or things of that nature supporting XYZ cause should public defenders being public employees be restricted from what kind of advocacy work they are in or not in support of?

Larry 48:46
Well, I mean, they have every right to have their opinion about the monetary bail system. But the county commission said that that’s inconsistent with our bail reform that we’ve done here and our pretrial release program. So therefore we find ourselves at odds with you. And therefore, you’re not you’re not our chief public defender anymore. The worst worst ally. I don’t know that that I’m struggling with this also.

Andy 49:14
And I just want to say so we had an article from filter mag and then there’s another one from the Philadelphia Inquirer. And then it looks like also from WP RC prison reform package backed by IV premises. I don’t think No, that’s a different article. Nevermind, nevermind. Ever. There’s a Washington Post article that I that we needed to mention a Pennsylvania County Fire. It’s two public defenders for doing their jobs. So those are the three articles that cover that subject. I don’t know, man. I’m trying to try to figure out which way to square that.

Larry 49:43
Well, that I say it raises an interesting question. Yeah, up until just a few years ago, four or five years ago, we, the public defender, our statewide system was under the executive branch, and each each chief executive each governor appoints The chief public defender. Therefore, if you got yourself crossways with the chief executive, you’d find yourself on the outlook outside looking in. Well, we realized that wasn’t such a great system. So now they work for a public defender commission. But the commission also has its biases. And since we’ve had to commission, the first public defender they had hired, has has gone on to do other things. And so you have accountability in every job. I mean, so what what we’re struggling with here is where does free speech and where is it? Where’s your personal belief? How much of your personal beliefs Can you put into a court pleading and expect it to have no ramifications on your job? I don’t know the answer to that.

Andy 50:48
What about the notion it was just hinted in here? What about the idea of having public defenders elected? Do you think that possibly having someone actually standing up there in front of the public saying I Support the full impact of due process and trying to vociferously defend people from accusations. does that even happen in the United States as it is?

Larry 51:09
Well, it says elections for the Office of rare according to law professor Ron All right, just for places like public defender San Francisco, California Lancaster, which is Lincoln, Nebraska, Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee. And and and it says Florida. So I didn’t know that Florida did that if it’s talking about the statewide but can you imagine going out to a relatively ill Informed Electorate and saying I’ll tell you what to do. If you like me public defender, I am going to raise your taxes so I can have more better lawyers, more lawyers, more investigators, more more budget for for expert resources, so we can so we can fight the battle forensics, and we’re gonna do everything we can to keep people from going to jail in this county. How many votes Do you think that would pick up down in a county you live in if you if a person had to run for that office,

Andy 52:04
but but the person that’s running against him would then be going, I’m going to try and throw them under the bus as hard as I can, like. So now we almost have like a double duty prosecution team. I’m just trying to come up with any idea on how to balance the scales because the prosecution has all the money in the world. The defense side has not all the money in the world and the people that are trying to defend have no idea what’s going on. They have no idea how the process works, and they’re getting public defenders because they don’t have any money. Like I lost it, how we we balanced the system out to make it more more fair.

Larry 52:44
Well, wait, we’re all struggling with that sense of Gideon versus Wainwright was decided decades ago where we’re trying to figure out how to how to make that ruling, significant and meaningful. Public Defender systems struggle for lack of funding, but I can’t Imagine many jurisdictions where you would go out and campaign to to be a better public defender or that would be very popular because the public sees the criminal as being the problem. Yes. So therefore, they would not likely vote for a person who says I’m going to do a better job defending people.

Andy 53:16
But we talk about it all the time of the number of people that get exonerated, commuted, blah, blah, blah, for DNA for the the snitch thing that we talked about where it was like a sixth of the people, maybe a quarter of the convictions were from snitch testimony that were released from DNA evidence. Like there appears to be a very large number of people that are at least not as guilty as they were convicted, if not all are completely innocent.

Larry 53:46
Oh, I’m expressing society’s view. Personally, I think that we we should do a lot more in edge indigent defense across the land, but it’s a tough sell because the public doesn’t want us Then money with all the other things that that are competing for public resources. That’s not how the average person’s probably watched a clipboard go out and make a mall. There’s anybody left to make them all these days and ask around who wants to put more money into public defender tell me which will report that back in a couple podcasts? How many people say yes,

Andy 54:19
I will do it. Actually that neighborhood might not be that might not return so bad because it’s a it’s not the affluent neighborhood so to speak.

Larry 54:28
I think it’s very much a ghost a ghost town over there make a mall nowadays

Andy 54:31
it is it is because they they made another mall up the road from it that uh, that scavenged all the patrons there. Well, alright then. So what I had said before was prison reform package backed by IV promises better rehabilitation and oversight. And this is coming from Alabama news kind of sources. Governor Kay Ivey has endorsed a package of criminal justice reform bills as a way to respond to the systemic problems within Alabama’s prison systems. And this is part two What was that? That was Alabama, Mississippi, I’m

Larry 55:02
guessing the Mississippi. Okay. Alabama was Holman okay? But now we similar, not so bad, it’s more similar. Similar. There’s been a number of deaths in Alabama prison system over the last year or so that have been a result of inadequate resources for the prisons. And again, I don’t condone prisoners killing one another and I’m not saying that they’re blameless. So people listening say, well, Larry, if you do just understand that that’s the convicts, but it’s our job when we cage you and we take your ability away to defend yourself. It’s our responsibility to see to it that we make the environment as safe as we can possibly do. Knowing that people are in there are some not very nice. That’s our job to do that. If we’re going to make you defensive, defenseless we have to defend you.

Andy 55:58
So here’s A situation that I encountered that I, I think is just a tip of the iceberg, but just exemplifies what happens when someone is released. If someone does some very short, and I’m not trying to say that, you know, hey, Wes, you didn’t serve enough time, but if you serve any length of time, your driver’s license is going to expire. And in my particular case, I was just past the window, where my record was expunged, and I had to take the driver’s test. Again, I had to actually like get in the car and do the turn signals and parallel park and all that garbage. So if you serve any length of time where that may happen, and they open the door and go, Adios, good luck. Well, what kind of documentation Do you have, your family may have abandoned you along the way or passed away, whatever you may be in a different state and you have no documentation to support and prove who you are to get the ball rolling to do the next thing. Go get a job, get a driver’s license, etc. So in the year, the proposed package would do things like Give people a non help people get a social security card, a birth certificate and a non driving photo ID prior to release. I mean, that is a super low barrier. But I mean that low barrier, a very high barrier, something pretty easy to do. But if you don’t have anything, you need one of the forms of documents to get the other one. And you end up in this whole circle jerk of trying to get your social security card or birth certificate. You know, if you’re 50 years old, how do you get your birth certificate again?

Larry 57:28
Very, very carefully. This is this is this is a quite a package of different proposals, some sponsored by Republicans sub sponsored by Democrats. And the only thing that troubles me is that they want to I mean, I like things I see in the package, but they’re going to build new prisons now. Is this going to be to retire the old, obsolete prisons? Or is this going to be to augment overcrowding because Alabama has one of the most overcrowded systems that we have. I’m not as supportive of all we’re going to do is continue to warehouse the same number. People building new prisons, because if you’re 170% of capacity, you build three new ones, and you bring yourself down to 110% of design capacity. That hasn’t accomplished what a man has accomplished something. It’s made the extreme conditions less extreme. But I would like to see a proposal to actually divert people from prison, which toward the end of the proposal, there’s, there’s looks like that there’s a few hundred it might get out early, under one of the proposals sponsored by one of the liberals.

Andy 58:27
Very strange, man, very strange that other countries have figured these things out. But we could use their examples, but it seems to always be a race to the bottom of how shitty we can treat people.

Larry 58:38
Yeah, the there’s, there’s about five to 700 sentences could be reevaluated and shortened under under one of the bills 500 to 707, and could have there could have been 700. And he said it won’t have a huge impact on wages for the population, but it’s about creating fairness in Alabama sentencing structure. Yeah.

Andy 59:01
All right, we’re back at the AP to sheriff’s sync voter okay to use inmate food money elsewhere. As I recall, 18 months ago, somewhere relatively early in our podcast history, Larry, we covered an article about a sheriff that was that had bought himself like a beach home from shaving dollars and pennies off of the food from the inmates of his county jail.

Larry 59:24
And this is very same state dispersing like we I told

Andy 59:27
ya, they just they highlight like they just touch on that particular one. And he says that he bought a beach house although auditors and ethics ethics officials have found nothing illegal about what he did. So you you feed the inmates, cockroaches and pop tarts and then you get to buy a beach house.

Larry 59:47
And that’s a problem because I

Andy 59:50
so I’m just trying to think that if you feed them halfway well you would have less chance of riots. This is the same state with no this is Alabama now. Mind, I’m thinking of Mississippi again. They’re to me, they’re interchangeable almost. But you would have people uprising because they’re pissed off because the food sucks. And you’re feeding them low amounts tonight, you’ve got people robbing the people that are able to make store because their families do support them. It seems like this causes all kinds of problems. I’m not saying they need to be fed steak dinners and lobster and all that crap. I’m just saying like, there’s probably some basic standard that they should be met. And they’re going to use this money to do other things.

Larry 1:00:30
Well, it begs the question from a policy perspective, though, when, when you look at a budget, people never understand budgeting because very few people have actually looked at a city or a county or a state, much less a federal budget. I’m one of those I can’t say that I’ve not looked at a federal budget. But if you look at if you look at even a relatively modest sized county that does a lot of line items in the budget. And what happens to the funds at the end of the budget cycle is always an interesting concoction of Whether there’s a reversion to the general fund, or whether it gets spent because of, of zero based budgeting, if you don’t, if you don’t spend it, we’re gonna cut your budget by that about next year. And so the question becomes for the sheriff who, who does provide nutritious meals, who does keep the costs low? Who does end up with money leftover in the budget? What would happen? What’s the incentive? We claim we want people in public service to treat it like a business and be efficient and run it like it would be a business. Okay, so we’ve got a sheriff who manages the department doesn’t buy brand new patrol cars every year, tries to hire deputies that don’t hot right, tries to keep the line items from going over budget and keep them under. So the food service for the county lockup is one of the items in the budget. What do we do with them? Well, that money is left over if we want to have that incentive to stay within budget or coming under budget but what would happen with the funds that are left off

Unknown Speaker 1:01:55
by better food Next go around. Maybe

Larry 1:02:00
So you if you prefer they spent the entire allocation

Andy 1:02:05
does the opposite of that seems to be that then they would intentionally shave, try and shave the cost off the food to then create extra funding to move that money elsewhere intentionally instead of it just being well, we we had more money than we you know, we fed them to the standards that we had set. And then with that money leftover, we’re intending to shave the money to buy new police cars. Well,

Larry 1:02:32
it’s backwards, though this is this is this is a request to divert it to school resource officers and this particular article, but what what would we do with the money that’s left over, if you want, and I’m just playing to our conservative audience if you want public officials to run their agencies, with intent of being frugal and not going over budget but timing within a budget or under budget. What would we do with the money that’s left over each year? If a person has done exactly what we say we would like them to do of our public servants what were those funds go their leftover? I

Andy 1:03:14
they shouldn’t buy beach houses.

Larry 1:03:16
Well, we’ll pay on them. They should but beach houses Yes,

Andy 1:03:18
but but they did they found that there was nothing wrong with what that person did. So I’m just wondering, does that money then is it allowed to be left in their bank account to handle any ups and downs? You know, we have gas prices that are fluctuating based on coronavirus based on all these different factors that would change the distribution cost of food so that they would have a buffer to handle the price variances. So while if,

Larry 1:03:45
if there’s a surplus state law permits 25% of it to go toward other law enforcement expenses, according to this article, if it’s accurate, yeah, so there there’s already the provision since they changed, correct the the abuses The flagrant abuses we talked about a year and a half ago or however long it was, they’ve now they’ve now given them the prerogative to divert 20% of money but but this this one this this amendment, but allow not 25% but 100%

Andy 1:04:14
together, correct? Yep. Well, what counted us not just 25% we could use 100%, the sheriff said. So, again, that incentive to me is incentivizes him to, you know, scrape the bottom of the barrel and and add cockroaches into the food for extra protein, etc.

Larry 1:04:32
Well, you notice Marshall Canyon or Marshall county sheriff said county has extra monies

that can’t be spent under the current state law. And he tells wh Mt. TV that he’s hired a dietitian to make sure he makes good nutritious food, and he wouldn’t pinch food costs to raise money for other purposes. Their inmates I understand, but you have to take care of them. Now if that’s the serious if that’s his true feelings. I mean, that is I made a video He put the quote goes on, say they’re still humans, and you still have to take care of them. And that, but I’m just I’m just struggling with, with the balancing of what happens to well managed public officials because some public officials are very frugal managers. I see that in my work with, with mail that comes in with, for example, an extra ounce of postage when you go for the standard one ounce first class, it’s only 15 cents, not, not 55 cents, right now put 10 you cap on it. And there’s a lot of people who have no idea they’ll put two stamps so they pay $1 10 cents about what something that would cost 50 plus five plus 15. And you can you can you can see that with the with the agencies where they actually use the correct amount, be it by meter or by putting the right amount assembly or the right amount of stamps because each additional house after the first house, it’s only 15 cents. So what do we do to encourage them to not blow through their entire budget and what do we do with leftovers if they are frugal without without dehumanizing the inmates, what would they do with those leftover funds? I don’t know. You’re way smarter than me on the subject. I don’t know how to balance all of those different sides of that like hexagon. Well, often cases that it’s a state level here both things revert back to the general fund if it’s unused. And agencies try their best not to have the money revert back to the general fund, but it does happen. It does happen work plasmid funds revert revert back and I don’t know what I don’t know what what happened. I’m guessing that the county appropriators the commissioners would probably appropriate less money for that line item. If it wasn’t needed to feed the preserves this what would happen and most people don’t want their budgets to shrink by line item.

Andy 1:06:42
Well to move over to the pandemic of the day, which isn’t. It’s not a pandemic yet. I’m not trying to create fake news and people throw stuff at me but so we have one from forbes.com it says handling coronavirus in federal prison. We have two articles back to back another one from the PA Post talking about from Pennsylvania that the coronavirus could be a big problem in Pennsylvania jails and prisons that you got people in close proximity you have varying degrees of people’s own sanitation. Also the resources available like some places don’t let you take showers every day. Obviously, people are in super close proximity. I like this is a nightmare. This is a nightmare for the for the prison system. If it does end up infecting a prison.

Larry 1:07:30
It would potentially be and you’ve covered that so well about prisons, they they are totally again at the mercy of factors and forces beyond your control. You don’t determine how fast and how hot the water runs. You don’t determine just I mean, very little, say some over the stainless steel and what type of sanitizers they gave you to keep the keep the living area and the common things clean. You Don’t control what the other inmates do in terms of their own personal sanitation practices if they practice anything at all. And they the so there are so many things beyond your control. And the nation of Iran just turned, they gave furloughs to a whole lot of people in prison.

Andy 1:08:16
Thousands of them really interesting. It was 50,000. If they were going to be released in the near future, they just said, Well, good luck, and they could make parole or bond or something like that.

Larry 1:08:26
Yes.

But, but they wanted to try to minimize the impact if there were to be a spread of it and happier people, in fact itself. rather than letting everybody loose I figured if they diminish the overcrowding and make clearly if you have a less crowded facility, you can do more containment. overcrowding as an enemy for so many things because of the lack of the ability the systems even if they’re working perfectly, when you’re when you’re running a prison 175% of design capacity. It’s that’s not optimal, because everything is stress that’s running. They didn’t design, the laundry system, the ventilation system, the sanitation system, the plumbing, the food service, all that is not designed to handle that, that that type of stress. Me and that many people.

Andy 1:09:16
Yeah, let me throw this at you. You end up with people you know supporting an underground economy in prison where Hey, I want to get my laundry cleaned. You know, I pay for someone to do my laundry separately. Well, that diminishes the resources for them to wash clothes for the general population, which I’m not saying coronavirus is spread through the laundry system. But now Your clothes are getting less soap and things cleaning materials put in on them. Perhaps now you end up with someone with something that can be transmitted through washing clothes, whatever, and it’s just not clean anymore. Or Same thing with food. Same thing with medicines. people sell medicines and stuff like Good grief. I mean, this is whatever it store but problems

Larry 1:09:58
well everything breaks down and overcrowding. I mean, the the health care you have or if you design a system, they take care of 800 prisoners and you’ve got a 1300 you can’t sprint unless you unless you bring in more healthcare workers you’ve got, you’ve got the nursing staff, the medical staff, the every every segment of a prison is under under immense stress when they go substantially above what they’re designed. And in fact, most corrections experts will tell you that you don’t want to run a system any anywhere near the design capacity. Because again, everything stresses at that level. When you’re running a prison 100% capacity ideally you want you don’t want to be running a prisoner capacity. But that’s hard to do with our lack of up mentality in this country. So we potentially going to have a problem. And that was all important putting this in here because these people are more vulnerable than the rest of us are and they are the they have nothing they can really do to help themselves very little they can do

Andy 1:10:53
to then expand on that you would also end up with the guards. You know they’re not super well paid. Maybe they only have a limited number of days of vacation and if they get sick, and they call in sick, that puts more stress on the ones that are still coming in putting them potentially at higher risk of catching whatever it is or burning out, and then the prison being understaffed, and then you end up with parchment.

Larry 1:11:16
That is correct.

All sorts of problems potential with this, and I don’t know what the Centers for Disease Control and what the what are coronavirus. I don’t know what what plans are being made for presence, but hope. Hopefully they figure out some containment measures.

Andy 1:11:34
You know, I have the ultimate solution to this problem. Would that be the solution to this problem is they should have thought about that before they did their crime.

Larry 1:11:44
I don’t know how you would think about that. No one had ever heard of this. So

Andy 1:11:48
I’m laughing just because it’s so outrageous and just so ridiculous. It’s just over the top that we like. Anyway. All right, we should move on. We should move on to an article from Crescent. News, Ohio Sex Offender Registry needs to stay. This article can’t be legit and real. Ohio Sex Offender Registry currently has 18,000, almost 1900 offenders who have been convicted of various levels of sex crimes. And this individual this author thinks that it should stay.

Larry 1:12:19
Well, I guess this author has their opinion.

Andy 1:12:22
I imagined that this almost like on the heels of the Michigan decision that this is gonna be in response to that.

Larry 1:12:29
I’ll take it that you don’t fully agree with this article.

Andy 1:12:32
I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with it. Yeah, right off right on the face just from the title. I can come up with all kinds of problems for various degrees of who’s on the registry for what, but even 19,000, that’s fewer than Georgia has. I don’t know what the average is. But that’s still a pretty big number of people that you would try to manage to then figure out who the actual, potentially who the people are, that would need to be monitored.

Larry 1:12:59
Well narsil had a reaction to that, to that article that that went out as well. And it was published as I understand

Andy 1:13:05
it. And I assumed our souls position was this is garbage and registers need to go.

Larry 1:13:11
That would be correct. That was actually the title of the article while registers need to go.

Andy 1:13:16
I didn’t see the article, where was it published?

Larry 1:13:19
I’ll leave it would be on our website. I

Andy 1:13:21
see where it is. It was published in the Portsmouth daily. I didn’t, I will add that to the show notes now.

Larry 1:13:28
So Sandy, our communications director wrote that,

Andy 1:13:32
okay. And obviously, she was of the opinion that they need to go.

Larry 1:13:37
I thought it was a I thought it was a well written reasoned response.

Andy 1:13:41
Of course, of course, of course. Hey, there’s also a response down there from one of our patrons named will. I didn’t get a chance to read that though. It’s a pretty his his response is pretty lengthy. It just starts out says the author has chosen to willingly ignore the evidence that proves several facts and then it goes on from there.

Larry 1:13:59
So that’s well for you My computer has frozen. Set good. Say that again. I said my computer has frozen. Is that a good thing?

Andy 1:14:06
No, that’s definitely not a good thing. I mean, you’ve dropped out sometimes tonight, so I would possibly call that par for the course.

Larry 1:14:16
So well, I guess. So you’ll have to read all the information if we do at the end. But once we once we hear from Scalia,

Andy 1:14:23
I can do that. Yeah, so we can do the second Scalia clip now. And

Larry 1:14:29
here we go. This is a this is really, I probably ought to set up this that this is because people are gonna say why didn’t we talk about defensive Marriage Act DOMA? And the reason why we did that is because oftentimes, the Supreme Court is vilified, and accused of doing something they didn’t do. And this is an example of what doba what the decision was that 15 or 16, whatever year that was, of what actually the court struck down, but they did create this all this fear. Is that what that was instilled into Paul, what’s gonna happen? And Scalia explains that best so that’s why I prefer to hear from him versus me.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:09
Very good. Well, here’s Scalia.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:12
How’s the recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA going to impact the church visa v mandatory performance of weddings? Oh, I technically that

Unknown Speaker 1:15:21
ruling has nothing to do with with the issue of whether the states or the churches have to honor single sex marriages. It has nothing to do with that. It just, it just deals with the what? When federal statutes refer to marriage, what does that refer to DOMA simply said that in federal statute, it refers only to marriage between a man and a woman. And DOMA said no, that’s wrong. It now refers it refers to whatever unions were lost. Under the state that concluded, it has nothing to do with whether the states must recognize same sex marriage, although, as I said in my dissent in the case, that’s the shoe that will next drop. I mean, I think it’s, it’s coming, but dama dama doesn’t do it.

Andy 1:16:22
So what he’s describing is that me and my boyfriend want to get married, and I go to my local church and say, I demand that you marry me and my boyfriend, and the federal law for DOMA now says that they have to marry us.

Larry 1:16:35
No, that’s not what not what. That’s not the case that for the issue of was the Defense of Marriage Act came about, because the president at the time was, was more liberal than what society was ready for. We had the we had a president who thought that gays should be able to serve in the military and they instituted the don’t ask, don’t tell policy and if States has started allowing same sex marriage. So the conservatives in Congress at the time said, well, by golly, we can’t have that close first thing, you know, marriages and institutions can’t be destroyed. So these states that are choosing to marry same sex people, we need to intervene with federal law. And they, they passed the Defense of Marriage Act don’t work, which is what Scott was talking about. And they said that for federal purposes of marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, which meant that states like New York and whatever is a list of states were at that time that had said that same sex marriage were okay. They met the people that had those very valid marriage licenses issued by those states could not go into the Social Security office that collect your spousal benefits because those marriages for federal purposes weren’t recognized. So anything that had a federal component, you couldn’t get it because your marriage was not legitimate, thanks to DOMA. So all this did was said, marriage belongs in the proper domain of the states. They get to regulate And decide who gets buried within a state and its way back to the States, which is what conservatives claim they believe in all along. So that’s what always puzzled me. Why did they want to usurp the state’s power? to prohibit a state that wanted to allow same sex marriage? Why did they want so desperately? And of course I know what the answer is. But Larry, you have to understand that sacred sanctimony of marriage is so important that if you go down that road, that two peoples the same sex can get married next thing you know, it’ll be multiple partners and what are we going to marry next? I mean, it’s just a slippery slope to the moral decay of society. That’s their answer, but I thought that that was up to the locals at the stage to decide that that’s what they professed I believe so strongly and as local control

Andy 1:18:48
is that at all move over to the masterpiece cake shop? Is that the right set even remotely related?

Larry 1:18:55
You talk about having to prepare the cake, correct. Yes. Well, I suppose in a way, the the the, you get into public accommodations. And the question on that case was whether or not going to have a cake made four years of public accommodation somewhere to a hotel room or to housing if there’s if there’s a if there’s a protection, right that you have under under law to be protected. And that’s a whole whole whole program components that I don’t know if we want to get into tonight about the cake. I don’t know why you’d want to have a cake Bake for four years. If somebody didn’t want to your money. I kind of like spend my money with people who want it completed, I can understand. I can understand the logic if you go in and say they say we don’t serve your kind here. And you think that if something’s open to the public, if you would find that very disheartening would be like if you call the taxicab company and they said, You sound like you have an accent. We don’t like your car. We don’t we will not dispatch to you. You would you would not find it. And I asked people when they said that they wanted people who were Against how the courts are coming down on this cake thing, when when they say it’s interfering their religious freedom, I asked him if you’re gonna be okay with this, make sure you understand what you’re what you’re promoting. Are you going to be okay? When someone from a fundamentalist mental Middle Eastern religion who believes that a female has to be escorted by a male or be married when they show up at a hotel in the United States of America, who happens to be operated by a Middle Eastern or who has that core belief? And they say no, but we do not put it to you here because you are not accompanied? Are you going to be okay with that as the protection of their religious views? And most people say no. When I said, Well, I don’t understand it. You say that? Do we have to protect the Christianity that that if it goes against their Christian beliefs, they still have to bake the cake for the same sex couples, but yet you’re willing to do a flip flop just just right on the dime. When it comes to a religious belief that you don’t agree with them? You don’t you don’t want protect everybody, just please. Why is it that you’re beliefs are so much more important to be protected. And I have not gotten an answer of that one either.

Andy 1:21:04
Hmm. All right. So there is Scalia and what was your What was your ultimate intent on that particular

Larry 1:21:11
clip? The sensationalism of what people people scare folks about that. They were the whole the hype about the clergy, we’re going to be forced, you’re not forced to marry a soul that you don’t want to marry. That rose really didn’t have anything to do with who has to marry anybody.

Andy 1:21:28
Okay. And then by extension, I can’t remember which state it was Kentucky, Tennessee, there was a woman that worked at the county clerk, and she refused to do marriage certificates for same sex. That was all correct.

Larry 1:21:42
Well, according to Scalia didn’t but but okay. And she, she, yeah, she she she was a duly elected county clerk, which is supposed to issue marriage licenses. And she refused to issue the license and then she got held in contempt and she actually got jailed for a few days. Presidential Candidate Michael Huckabee ran down to parade around him and tell her release when she was released. But that was a ceremonial thing you don’t have to agree with. There are things that you do in government that that’s a terrible requirement you have to do. And sorry, that’s the particle and with the office with with when people are legally entitled to get married, whether you appreciate their marriage or prove it or not, that’s your job to issue the license.

Andy 1:22:26
Brenda in chat says Rowan County Kentucky about that. Yep. And she just she had sold out as if it was like magic.

Larry 1:22:34
That was her own town probably

Andy 1:22:37
wasn’t I wasn’t gonna call her out for that one. We received a comment from a listener regarding Episode 117, which was one step back and this is from will, but not that well. It’s a different will. says Hey, hello, thank you for your work. I wish I could listen to more but there’s only so much time. Totally. I understand. That is the biggest problem fighting the registries. Let’s do a better job. Are the podcasts I’d like to thank you narsil and everyone else fighting, especially when no one has to do it. I know other shares in Georgia are doing exactly what Cobb County is doing that’s referencing to what we talked about with them harassing people at all hours of the night. Basically, they are operate, operating outside of the law, for example, the laws clear about what information people are forced to give to them at the point of a gun, of course, but these shares are too incompetent, arrogant, or simply to just simply follow that, excuse me, all of them request more and suggested is required. That is just not messing around that is operating outside of the law. The person on the podcast named Larry sounds great and obviously well informed. Go you Larry. I would like to suggest to him that others Excuse me, I would like to suggest to him and others that though he calls them Do not call them registrants. registrants offenders, I think you in our salon, everyone else should call them registered a person forced to register PFR much more accurate. I totally just went To get your opinion on, on how we term our people.

Larry 1:24:05
And I wish we wish we could come up with that magic, though. I hear that all the time. I mean, you’re trying to try to figure out a way to describe a person because no one chooses to register that I’m aware of that. So it’s not like a voluntary act that you’re that you’re engaging in. But it’s kind of like a prisoner. When you’re when you’re in prison. You are an inmate or a prisoner. And when you’re forced to register, and

Andy 1:24:33
you’re, you’re, you’re a registrant but I wish I wish I had the answer to to magic description. I know I know people struggle with that all the time. And then he continues, he says also psrs need to get over trying to hide. The podcast suggested that pf RS did not allow law enforcement to come onto their property and then sign their papers that they visit might visit their neighbors. People need to get over that and encourage it Personally, I’d be completely happy if law enforcement never came near me and they can harass my neighbors about me as much as they like. I’ve got no concern or issue with simply ignoring anyone. That is a problem. The registry is long ago changed me into a person who couldn’t care less what other people think. Personally, I encouraged PFS to never allow law enforcement to get near them put fencing or walls around your property and keep them out. They are a danger. Not necessarily sure I disagree with that final sentiment. They’re not sure how practical it is, though.

Larry 1:25:30
Well, putting fencing around is not an option for people who live in multifamily housing and it’s not an option for people who are economic have economic challenges, but I get I get, I get where he’s coming from. But saying you don’t care about them talking to your neighbors is is a scary thing. Because if they only spoke the truth to your neighbors, that would be one thing, but the way they cast the when they go talk to your neighbors because you’ve been insubordinate whatever. They don’t go talk to the neighbors In a neutral tone, they go talk to the neighbors and say, Have you heard from this guy? You see this picture here? We haven’t been able to get touch with him. We’re kind of concerned about it. Oh, yeah. Well, what did he do that makes you want? He’s you know, he’s on the sex offender registry, right? Well, what did he do? Well, he abused a 13 year old. Oh, really? Well, of course, that person has a house full of kids. And then there’s a house full of Kids Next Door. And and then they go on and on about giving the animal a special card and say you call us if you see this person because we hadn’t been able to make contact with them. And we’re kind of concerned, well, what is your neighbor go, how they’re going to react to that when they see you next time. They didn’t know that you were on the sex offender registry necessarily. They didn’t know that the crime involved a 13 year old necessarily. And they’ve just been suggested, it’s been suggested them that you’re trying to avoid and evade law enforcement. And the average person doesn’t understand it. Your obligations only come in once a year, generally, and in Georgia, for example, they don’t understand Know that it’s all of a sudden your neighbor has a paranoia that’s been created by law enforcement go into your dog go into the neighbor’s door. That’s what I was trying to convey to people. But if you have absolutely no fear that the law enforcement can do anything that will harm you, then more power to you, but I have great fear for what law enforcement can do. And then what they can do in terms of how the neighbors perceive you and how the neighbors react to you.

Andy 1:27:25
You know what, I think now I can actually play this clip. I wasn’t sure how I was gonna be able to use this tonight, but I’m gonna like, I think this will highlight exactly what you’re saying.

They could do whatever they want, and they got their rights.

Larry 1:27:43
So but but I really appreciate where he’s coming from on on terms. I wish people push back a little bit more, but I’m really leery of, of suggesting how much and where, because of the consequences that I can cascade that I’m not able to To help with and that that’s what that’s why I’m very hesitant to tell people don’t do this or do that. I tell them that I can only speak for myself in terms of what I would try to do under the circumstances and you don’t even know that you would be able to do that. You don’t know how, when they show up, what type of mood what what your mental state is going to be, and how you’re going to react when the Gestapo when you open the door and there’s guns. I mean, you just truly don’t know how you’re going to react. It’s it’s a situation where you wish you would be able to react, but you don’t know.

Andy 1:28:30
Let me tell you something that is super exciting. Larry’s when we get a new patron, and we have a new patron named steamy minty. And I have a special special sound for that one. How about that and then one of our patrons increase their level of support a nice, super friendly Thank you back for for doing that increase. Thank you, patrons and all of our listeners.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:54
Thank you Mack and steamy.

Andy 1:28:56
Yep. Larry. That’s all I got. Man. Is there anything you want? To cover before we get out here,

Larry 1:29:01
now, I appreciate everybody so much. It’s it’s, it’s so I want to get an email when we get an email like what someone said that so that’s very touching because we actually do put work into trying to be helpful and provide people information. And we didn’t have a lot of really, really solid stuff tonight that would relate to the earth shattering litigation. But hopefully these little tidbits are helpful all across the board in terms of understanding the courts and understanding politics and understand systems. And, and even though we didn’t have any, any any great case of importance to talk about.

Andy 1:29:37
Very good humblebrag there.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:39
Well, that’s what we hope

Larry 1:29:41
that people that people do. But when when they when they hear these things, what you mean, very few people think about budgets and leftovers.

Andy 1:29:49
I don’t think people think about budgeting their personal money, let alone with the government does with budgeting. Yeah. So So

Larry 1:29:55
understanding understanding that that that a publication is going to have somebody to report to, and that there’s gonna be accountability and that someone’s gonna ultimately be able to hire and fire a chief public defender. I mean, the average person wouldn’t think about that.

Andy 1:30:11
Never, never, never never. There. What’s the website where people can find this wonderful podcast?

Larry 1:30:16
Oh, I don’t know. I think it’s patreon.com.

Andy 1:30:19
Oh, yes.

Larry 1:30:21
Man See? The dots.co not call. registry matters.co. Yeah, no, Patreon I’m getting to the part of the budget. I know register matters. Yeah. I want I want the money all about the money. All the Federal Register matters does SEO. That’s what it is.

Andy 1:30:40
And of course, you’re going to remember the phone number because you had to announce it 45 times during the normal column Monday night.

Larry 1:30:44
Oh, you talked about the 747 that’s the one that was two to 74477

Andy 1:30:49
that’s 747-227-4477 and then our email is registry matters cast@gmail.com And lastly, Larry, how do people support us?

Larry 1:31:03
Well, they go to registry matters and they, they look at what their bank balance is and they just clean it out completely.

Andy 1:31:09
Perfect, perfect a Patreon comm slash registry matters with that yet, nobody’s done

Larry 1:31:15
that yet.

Andy 1:31:16
I think someone did do their net because they were unemployed and it was like $1 or whatever.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:22
Gross net. I always get those things backwards. Anything else, Larry, before we go, that’s it, Andy. Thanks, everyone. All right. Take care.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:29
Good night. Good night.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Listen to RM117: Another Renegade Sheriff Invents His Own Laws

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, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 117 of registry matters. It’s the weirdest thing in the world. This is actually a Saturday night where

Larry 0:24
it is and I’m glad to be here, but next week might be a different story.

Andy 0:28
Why? I don’t know about next weekend.

Unknown Speaker 0:30
It’s the state pre primary convention and I’m trying to think of a reason not to go while Dhamma delegates. Oh,

Andy 0:36
okay. You’re not going to have some sort of crazy caucus where everyone has to run to the other side of the room because that’s their guy and then when they’re guys not the guy then they have to go to the other part of the

Larry 0:44
room. We do vote on top candidates, but it’s not quite that crazy.

Andy 0:48
The Iowa caucus thing still kind of cracks me up. But today is the the South Carolina premiere, isn’t it? Do you have any ideas? Have you seen any stats of who’s winning what where?

Larry 0:59
What else? This one should be Biden soluz with with Jim Claiborne’s endorsement in the black population and that loyalty that he has from black community, the ship he has to lose.

Andy 1:11
I heard an interview with kleiber. He’s an interesting fellow.

Larry 1:14
Yes, he is. He is. And this this as far as I know, I don’t I don’t recall that Biden has ever won a primary before his in his various quest for President.

Andy 1:26
You are 100%. Right. I heard that that he has never won a primary.

Larry 1:31
I was thinking that I don’t recollect him ever been declared the winner of a primary?

Andy 1:35
Yep. Yep. Yep. All right, Larry, I have a surprise for you. And I came across this little it’s a one minute long video, and I hope that you’re you’ve maintained integrity and you have not watched this yet.

Larry 1:47
But how would I watch it? What if I haven’t, if I don’t know where it is?

Andy 1:50
Well, I put the link in there about a half hour ago. So you can click on and what I would like you to do, is I would like you to describe what you’re watching as it happens. So of course go To the show notes and find the link and you can you can see what’s going on and I would like you to describe what you’re watching it’s nothing bad nothing like that but it’s about wealth. wealth inequality.

Larry Okay, so that would be the Reddit link here correct Gregory where your cursor now was a people hear what I’m watching or what just me know and I’ve provided them with the link so I just want you to describe it so if you want to watch it at home while this one minute video goes on, you get you know, have fun with that. But no, they won’t here.

Larry 2:28
So I should I should have watched the entire minute and then described or watch

Andy 2:31
No, no as you’re watching it, and it’s going to go kind of quick, but I think you’ll be able to pull it off.

Larry 2:35
So it’s great. It doesn’t doesn’t play so I don’t have to watch it.

Unknown Speaker 2:42
It doesn’t play at all. I see how rice part two, and I see

Unknown Speaker 2:48
boys. Click on what?

Unknown Speaker 2:50
Click on the video in the Senate. There’s no color.

Unknown Speaker 2:52
There’s no video to click on.

Unknown Speaker 2:54
There is not that may close this at the top

Larry 2:57
here. I know I’m using this outdated browser.

Unknown Speaker 3:00
Yes, that may be the problem. One of these days Larry will get you fixed.

Unknown Speaker 3:06
Yeah, I can’t play it. So you’re gonna have to play it. But there’s no sound.

Andy 3:09
It’s totally like a video representation of the whole thing. Right? Well then I guess I will describe it. Alright, so I want you to follow along me, Larry. The scene starts were on a pee on a table. There is a piece of rice. And there’s a marker over in the end the rice that says that one piece of rice equals $100,000. Sitting next to it are 10 grains of rice. And it represents a million dollars. I’m pretty sure you’re with me so far, because you’re, you’re smarter than the average bear. Okay, so far, so good. Okay, good. So then we move over to, I don’t know, it looks like if you kept your two hands together, you would have $1 billion of rice. Then Okay, as the video goes on, we’re only at 10 seconds. The guy gets in his car and he goes to the local tarjay and He starts buying up some things to measure how much a million dollars of rice would cost. I’m sorry, a billion dollars of rice, or way I’m sorry, two. So it’s 215 grams is how much a billion dollars of rice would weigh. Then you see I’m going over to the dry goods section, and he buys a 50 pound or 35 pound bag of rice. And then there’s a tarp on the ground in his house, and he dumps out the rice and goes to measuring how much rice would be required to meet the net worth of Jeff Bezos. And I mean, I don’t even know how to describe it, but it is like you could probably like curl up in a fetal position and lay on I mean, it’s the size of someone like curled up in a ball. It’s gigantic to equal 120 billion dollars of worth in the in the arena of measuring comparative rice. The reason why I wanted to bring this up and the reason why I wanted you to describe this was because We have this whole disparity with some taxes and wealth inequality and all this stuff. And I wanted you to pontificate on the amount of money that that would be compared to the peons that us normal folks have. That’s all I was trying to do get out of this, from this little video.

Larry 5:13
What I did, I did switch browsers and it is playing. So I’m seeing what you’re what you’ve described, that

Andy 5:18
will do me a favor, Larry, can you start over from scratch? Even though I know that I’ve already described it, but I would I want it from your voice.

Larry 5:25
So well, I saw the same thing. You described these, these mountains surprise, and I don’t I don’t know that my comments are what would be would be what people would want to hear. I don’t I don’t have any problem with people accumulating wealth. I have the problem when they pretend like they’ve paid tax on it when they have and then they get angry at the thought that they might get taxed on on it. And and that’s that’s the problem. I have like I was hearing on a financial program. Just this past week about, about about tax tax deferment. Like when you do a 401k, you are raising the age from seven and a half where you have to start taking distributions to 72. Are you aware of that? Or you’re too young still, that doesn’t matter to you?

Andy 6:12
I mean, it’s still a ways off for me, but I understand that it’s happening.

Larry 6:17
Well, well, the issue I have with it, is that, that the program, the person doing the program, completely cast the situation erroneously, from how it really is. He said, there’s one thing that irritates me is the IRS telling me that I have to take money out of my retirement that I don’t need. And that’s really not what’s going on. What the IRS is doing is they’re saying, look, you citizen, the taxpayers have carried you for all these years, you’ve been able to shelter this money and it’s been able to grow for 3040 or 50 years. And the capital growth that you have earned on that is taxable. So therefore, The way we begin to tax it is to force withdrawals. Now, since people don’t want the IRS to force them to withdraw their money, then there’d be another way to do it. You could just say, well, you don’t have to withdraw any of it. Well, we just got back into tax it based on the present day value of the capital gains that you have. But they they completely spin a web, this completely different than the reality. And it’s like the Buffett Rule when he talks about that, that, that people who have entirely stock dividends and capital gains distributions, as in capital gains, where they where they sell a stock to type $800 a share for $1,000 a tenfold increase, that they that they pay a 15% capital gains rate, that’s the maximum rate. He’s saying that the person who derives their living doing that is paying a lower rate than the secretary who services that person because they’re paying a 7.65% Social Security rate which is exempt from it doesn’t get taxed because it’s not employment income, and then depending on their level, income, they may be at a 2025 28 29% tax bracket, where if you’re getting all your income from financials, you’re only paying a 50% rate. So you could be paying half the rate. I don’t have any problem with people having great wealth. I have a problem, but they’re pretending like that they’re paying taxes on it when they’re not.

Andy 8:18
I understand. That’s, that is 100% what I was looking for I don’t I don’t personally have any problem with him making all of the money under the sun too. But it’s it’s the other part of that that you were just describing. That is

Larry 8:30
what frustrate. They create they created they create this myth that it’s like, well, the conservatives are good at describing things with names that are offensive, like the death tax. It’s not a death tax at all. I mean, it’s levered at the time you die. But you’re you’re you’re appreciated value of those assets that have grown grown over your life, at some point get taxed minus the exemption which was gone up very high. Now, it’s not a level that I can even relate to, before there’s even any taxes. In an estate, I made this up to a couple million dollars maybe

Andy 9:03
I want to say it’s five. That’s the number they

Larry 9:06
say make it. But they they make it sound as if that the mere fact of your dying this causing you to be taxed because the IRS just can’t help getting your hands on a like the IRS is some monolithic entity that takes the money out to volcom. Somewhere, the IRS uses the money. The IRS uses no money to pay for the programs that we demand from our government, and in which we’re still not taxing ourselves nearly enough to pay for, for the services that we’re demanding from our government

Andy 9:36
taxes to pay for things like roads and schools and things.

Larry 9:40
Well, I’m saying that that the spending that we are not willing to cut, as at the last conclusion last fiscal year, just shy of a trillion dollars more than what we’re willing to impose in the way of taxes on ourselves. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not set producing a value system on whether all those things are worthwhile, but we don’t seem to be Cut.

Andy 10:00
I understand anything else. I want to move on to this next thing. These are custom and registry related.

Larry 10:07
This was trying to just trying to have me reveal my political leanings so that people can throw darts at

Andy 10:13
me that and also see if we can drive listenership all the way to zero as quickly as possible.

Unknown Speaker 10:17
But you’re doing a good job.

Andy 10:21
Oh, you’ve heard of the coronavirus. I assume?

Larry 10:23
I think I’ve heard of it. Yes.

Andy 10:25
Okay. Um, I wanted to first of all, I wanted to, like the news media. And I’m not really all into this fake news thing. But the media is pushing out there like, you know, this whole big epidemic going on. And I am not trying to discount that it isn’t an epidemic. But the number of deaths in the world is in the single digit thousands and by all means, that is a lot of people that have died. However, if you compare it to the number of people that died from just our normal flu season in 2018, and 19, which is 34,000 people yeah. 34,020 Death during the 2018 19 influenza season. So I just wanted to make that comparison just to like, just put the brakes on a little bit that we are not all of a sudden going to all die from this thing. But the bigger point is, is our government’s response to that. We’ve talked about delegation. This goes back to Gundy, and I’m just have the firm belief that our CDC and any sort of tangentially related agencies are by far the most equipped organizations to deal with this to set up triage to just, you know, just to set up like a game plan, versus having the 535 knuckleheads in Congress trying to set whatever the agenda would like trying to vote on, hey, we need to research this. I just think that the CDC would be the right organization which goes to delegation, and I was hoping that you would fill in the gaps on what I’ve just described.

Larry 11:54
I think that you’ve you’ve brought in something that’s so it’s kind of spot on for the for the analogy The Congress could not begin to have 535 members debate what needs to be done taking debate the price tag and decide if it’s a priority for the for the nation that you want to go deeper into debt to pay for it. But in terms of macro managing this potential, it has the potential according to the experts to be a significant to be a significant virus that affects a large number of Americans. Right now, it’s relatively contained here in this country were under 60 cases and something one case, one case that was not directly related to someone who had been exposed.

Unknown Speaker 12:37
That’s the spirit of

Larry 12:39
which which means it may become but it may be it may transmit itself and be way to call it beauty and health expert but but it is this delegation is that the national direction will be set by the president and and by the Congress in terms of how high we want to make this a priority. But in terms of the actual details of how they’re going to execute us, this will not be anything other than delegated over to the Public Health app apparatus, and they will figure out what to do. And that’s all the way it could work.

Andy 13:12
And and and to just to piggyback on top of that, that the the executive branch would be like, Hey, we need to do this, or he would have, I’m assuming he would have the ability to write an executive order that says this money is going to be allocated to do this thing, just like he’s doing with the wall. But I assume that that would be a correct so he could declare some kind of national emergency and start directing funding in an emergency fashion to go take care of things.

Larry 13:35
Well, the again, I’m not an expert enough to know what all he can move around with an executive agencies, but there are some always discretionary money that can be moved around within the various executive departments. And and the President can do that. But not only the President can do that. President has the bully pulpit to ask Congress for more money. And the President also has the entire government apparatus at his disposal and terms of Moving whatever personnel and equipment we need to move, and to prioritize that and breaking into a break any log jams that may be developing because sometimes agencies don’t work very well together that we learned that at 911, when we had, we had all these agencies that were responsible for various components of passenger safety, and that they couldn’t even talk to one another. In some cases,

Andy 14:21
I’m assuming that this has a similar profile to when a hurricane shows up, or 911, as you just said, I assume, you know, so that would whatever the other apparatus, the mechanisms, the tools that they have to do those things, all those would be able to be engaged anyway. All my whole point was this like, delegation, CDC, smart virus, psychologists, whatever those people are called, that are researching, trying to figure out how to keep us safe. They’re specialists in those fields. And I would think that we would want the specialist and the experts to be the ones that are driving that bus.

Unknown Speaker 14:51
Well, people who think that they don’t want any delegation but not really like the country, they would be living in it if everything had to be decided by Congress. They, they would find it a very inhospitable place to live. If that were

Andy 15:05
the case. And my closing remarks, wash your hands and cover your costs. And wearing a mask is probably not going to help anything. But that’s why

Larry 15:13
you can’t find you can’t find any anyway.

Andy 15:15
That’s true. The company I work for they happen to sell masks like that for like paint booths for automotive stuff. And yeah, they’re gone. cannot buy them. It’s not not a thing. All right, so uh, next up on the list would be I haven’t written down as Cobb County registered shenanigans. And so I will let you take it from here about some letter writing that’s going back and forth between un or not you but Arsalan, the county folks, and who is narshall. Anyway narshall would be the National Association for rational sexual offense laws if I’m not mistaken. And and registered matter has a fairly significant role there.

Larry 15:56
But registry matters is not affiliated directly with arsal That is correct. So well what to bring people up that may have not listened. Back in late January. We sent a letter to the Cobb County Sheriff Cobb County for those who don’t live in Georgia as a suburban Atlanta County, very affluent.

It’s It’s It’s a cosmopolitan melting pot. It used to be a conservative Bastion, it’s it’s a much more much more of a diverse county now. And I think the population is somewhere between seven 800,000 people it’s it’s relatively relatively large, urban County. They have they have about 600 people in the registry. And the the practices they have developed are very alarming now. We’re going to get emails telling us that they do this all over the country. And they probably do this just heck that George’s on my radar because we’re already fighting and butts county and Spalding. Kind of regarding Halloween signs. And I’m a lot more familiar with George and and some of the other counties that were were egregious things may be happening but the cop County Sheriff has decided that that they can visit anytime day or night. And we’ve heard we’ve heard rumors of the latest 11 3012 o’clock at night to do a residency verification. And we’ve we’ve we’ve been provided copies of the forms they leave on the door saying you must call within 24 hours and must implies something if you don’t make the call something has got to happen. Must is pretty straightforward. And and then they have required people to disclose their hours of employment, their exact work schedule, and and all these things that we’ve we’ve heard about are not in the Georgia statute. And we like fighting things when there’s not a statute that supports statutes can be invalid, but they’re they’re presumed valid upon enactment until they’re challenged on the constitution about but if you’re requiring someone to do something that’s not in statute your odds of winning the case go up exponentially, because that means it’s being imposed without legal authority. So you don’t have to get into the constitutional, constitutional ality of the law. You just simply have a renegade law enforcement agency that’s doing what they want to so called Chinese decided that you will verify more frequently that’s required. And it you will disclose your hours and that you will be available the Cobb County authorities anytime they feel that they would like to visit with you. So we brought him a cease and desist letter back in late January. They responded their county attorney responded, which was actually a surprise. Usually they ignore us. And I think maybe because they got TV attention. We did a press release saying if you don’t respond, the next step may be litigation. We got a response and the response was so disingenuous, they they sided, made up authority that they could do what they want to so we sent a second letter this past Friday, letting them know that what they cited and what they allege is authority, the Federal Adam Walsh Act Let’s not give them the authority that they claim that Cobb County has a separate jurisdiction can do what they want to but the only problem is Cobb County Sheriff’s Department is not a jurisdiction. Cobb County is not even a jurisdiction as far as federal SORNA Georgia jurisdictions for our federal Soren is concerned. But Cobb County is a political subdivision of the state of Georgia. So we told him that they were wrong on many counts. And they said they didn’t know what or what constitutes a reasonable hour. So we defined what we thought were reasonable hours. And we figured that if you go out and ask a person, what a reasonable hours are, you could probably get a pretty good consensus just by going asking Cobb County, if someone’s gonna knock at your door to visit, what would be the hours that you would want the knocks to stop and you probably get something in the neighborhood of between 738 nine o’clock at night, that they wouldn’t want anybody would want visitors knocking at their door unexpected, and probably not before, by the same time in the morning. I doubt most people want visitors before about eight o’clock in the morning. So I would say I’d say eight eight would be reasonable hours but so we We tried to help them understand what reasonable hours are. But we told them in the letter that we’re going to be reaching we asked them to join us in a joint letter, since they claimed that people are not threatened with prosecution if they don’t, if they don’t make the phone calls after these flyers are left, they said that that’s not a threat. That’s just simply a request, although it says must. So we asked them if they would want to join us in a letter to the offenders in Cobb County, saying that you’re not required to call and they would like to inform defenders that are not required to give their employment. They’re not going to do that in all likelihood. But then we tell them if they don’t respond to us within 10 days, we’re going to, we’re going to respond with a letter to everybody in Cobb County on the registry. And we’re going to ask people to keep diaries of their encounters with law enforcement. So that means if you’re listening Cobb County or any county for that matter, particular Cobb County, get used to the idea that you need to keep a diary of what your interaction is with law enforcement when they’re doing their so called resident verifications. You do not go to the paper shredder and take anything they leave and shred it. It may be valuable evidence that will use later in terms of demonstrating their overreach and their harassment and what they’re doing. If you shred the evidence, we will not have it available to us.

Andy 21:08
We can’t use the time machine to get back to that.

Larry 21:10
No. I’m boggled that so many people shred evidence that they say this stuff is just over the top there baliya by rights and I said well, what way was it came to my house seven times in the last two months? I said, Well, what was it? Were you not there? No, they weren’t I hope I did. They left a flyer What did you do I shredded it.

Andy 21:29
So this is not the appropriate activity to take what they leave something and you’re trying to say this is against my rights rules, whatever.

Larry 21:35
I don’t know how to I don’t know how you would be able to litigate. It seems like to me the the your memory would not be nearly as well would not serve you nearly as well as actually having that document, putting at least the time that you’ve received it to the best of your knowledge. Now some of you have cameras on your house and you’ll know exactly when they were at your house because you’ve got ring doorbell and the doorbell rang and you’d looked at your saw the uniform When you get home and you find the flyer if you didn’t chose not to talk to him through the doorbell app, you know what time they left it, but we’re going to need as much documentation as we can get in terms of how often they’re coming, how many officers are coming, what agencies they’re representing. If they’re being intimidating if they’re demanding to come in, if they’re somebody sitting out the yard with a with their hand on a weapon, if your kid starts crying because there’s seven people at the door demanding to come in to take a look around. We’re going to need to know know all that stuff. We can’t win a lawsuit if we don’t know what they’re doing.

Andy 22:32
I’m reminded I’m not really a big Judge wapner fan but you know, dumb dumb and I think the person that came to the table with the most documentation true or false one

Larry 22:44
that that would be a good analogy and and folks, you your memory is not going to serve you nearly as well as writing it down. If nothing else, get a five cents manila folder and call it registration for And if nothing else, pull off a piece of legal paper, would you have an encounter and write down? Who came to the door if you can get a name, what agency they’re from, or if there are multiple agencies that they come with the marshals, and they come with probation, parole, put all that down. And the funny thing is, technology is so good today that, that everybody has a cell phone, practically they’ll record. Everybody can record these encounters, if they choose to. There’s no log issue recording what’s going on in your house. You’ve got a camera outside, there’s so many people have cameras on their house, they can fire these things up. If they’re not already running. The documentation we can develop is far better than what we could have done 1015 years ago.

Andy 23:42
But Larry, all of this is so inconvenient. I was watching the football game or the tennis match, or I was playing dominoes, and these people came to my door. I can’t be bothered with all that. Well, if you can’t be bothered with

Unknown Speaker 23:53
it, then I guess we won’t be able to help.

Andy 23:56
But I need you to help like do something. it’s unconstitutional.

Larry 24:00
Well, in some cases it might be in Cobb County. We don’t know how far that they’re taking this. We’ve got enough antidotal complaints of people saying what’s going on. And it’s amazing the neighboring county of Gwynedd, but which is not far from Cobb. From all accounts, the same practices don’t even Gwynedd County, they take the attitude that if it’s not specifically in the registry, we don’t do it. But like people, people say, Well, I can’t go to park and I said, Well, is there anything in the registry that says you can’t do that in the statute? Well, if you’re under supervision, you don’t have any conditions on you you can go anywhere anybody else can go You just can’t live without within so many feet of the park if your conviction occurred after certain key dates, West Georgia best of date so depending on when you when your behavior occurred, and and there’s escalating levels of prohibitions of what you can do, the more recent your crime is, as far as the registry requirements, but, but Cobb County, hopefully they will negotiate with us and hopefully they’ll stop going out to people’s houses. Late at night, and hopefully they will quit threatening people with the rest if they don’t complete this registration process. I can only speak for myself. I never advise it by doing things. But I’m not going to come out of my house at nine o’clock at night and sign a form that a sheriff is holding with a flashlight. I’m not going to do it. It’s not required until you can fight in the statute that I have to sign your paperwork. I have to come outside with my PJs on a deal with you. I’m not going to I’ll do what I’m required to do, which under Georgia last visit to sex of it or office either once or twice per year. And is within 72 hours of your birthday. If you’re an annual red shirt and on this on the second time if you’re if you’re if you’re a predator, I don’t know when they went when they mandate the second visit. But but other than that you don’t have to. There’s nothing in the Georgia sex offender registration statute that requires you to sign their paper or enjoy engage them in conversation or to to invite them into your home.

Andy 25:56
That requires a certain level of I’ve got a new word for you chutzpah that you would have to just know the law inside it out and then perhaps talk to a Larry kind of person to go, Hey, not that you’re advising them legally. But you know, Hey, can you be my role model? They’re like, what would you do under these circumstances, if it were you just to get like you, you are going to encounter them and they’re not going to be friendly with you, but you are not going to be wrong. I’m not sure what a winner or not, but I mean, that’s something that someone has to be able to do to know whether they’re right or wrong and the condition, but by telling

Larry 26:29
people up front, I’m not advise them. I’m only telling you what, what I would do, but they’re going to retaliate also tell you that if you don’t take that clipboard, as that flashlight and sign that document, what they’re going to do is not going to be pretty in most cases, they they’re probably not going to put you in handcuffs because they don’t have anything to charge you with. There’s no law big vilely but what they are going to do is they’re going to sit there with a stopwatch and hope that you’re that you’re a few minutes late on your on your own. You’re 72 hours if you don’t get it within 72 hours or they’re going to come out They’re going to visit with your neighbors when you’re not home. And they’re going to go, say they’re going to imply by sitting there knocking doors that, you know, we haven’t been able to connect with. And he’s ignoring us with pretty sure he’s there. But he won’t answer it. But we haven’t heard from him. And he’s kind of come a little bit on spooky side a little bit. You know, we’re just kind of concerned. Have you seen anything that’s the least bit unusual? Yeah, here’s a special number to call it. That’s what they’re going to do. A lot of a lot of people are not going to want to go through that. So it’s easier just to open the door to sign the thing and have them be on their way.

Andy 27:32
God, it’s man, it’s so so hard that you know, just like when you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, your heart starts racing. And you either know you’re on the wrong and you’re gonna try and get out of it or you literally have no idea what’s wrong and you hope it doesn’t escalate. Obviously, we know that people are getting shot by police these days, for minimal reasons. And so you want to you know, put your heads above the stairwell you want to do everything that looks like you’re complying to keep them from pulling guns and weapons and so forth. It’s just very challenging layer like you’re describing, you know, they’re saying, hey, it’s 10 o’clock, two o’clock in the morning will knock on your door, we need you to sign this thing that verifies that you are here. And you’re going to stand your ground saying, I’m not saying that because you don’t have the authority to be here. And obviously, you have to do it in a super de escalating fashion. That would be very hard to do without training. Practice. It’s a it is a data. And

Larry 28:23
that’s a good point. Because I would start not by a study, but by data studying, I would say, Well, now, I just want to have a conversation with you about what you’ve knocked on my door and it’s 1145 at night, every dog in this neighborhood is barking. My family has been woken up by your by your intrusion. And I don’t mind you come into verify. You’re just doing your job because that’s what they’re doing. And believe it or not, people in America, follow their instructions and do what they’re told just like they do and other countries. And I appreciate that you’re just doing your job. But I would like for you to go back and tell your command staff that this is not the way to do their job because I’m being nice to this one time. But if you knock at my door again, this late at night, I’m not going to be nice to you the next time.

Andy 29:05
Are you threatening the police? Larry, I mean, that’s almost gonna be the response.

Larry 29:08
I’m telling you a reality of the situation. That knocking at my door 1145 at night is not appropriate. Every dog in the neighborhoods barking, there’s lights coming on all around us. This is spooky. The neighbors is spooky, my family. I’m telling you, if you come to the store again, 11 o’clock 12 o’clock at night. I’m not going to be nice to you. I would appreciate if you go back and tell your command staff that what you’re doing is not appropriate. And ask them if they will reconsider this because if you want me to interact with you appropriately, you’ve got to show respect for me because A, I don’t have to do this. I’m not required to interact with you at any time except in the sheriff’s office once a year or twice a year, whatever your obligations are. So I’m trying to be as nice as I can be. But I’m telling you that is a two way street. I need some respect from the Sheriff’s Department also.

Andy 29:58
Don’t you think they’re going to take that back To the mothership, and then they’re going to come back and be more as Holic. They probably will.

Larry 30:05
But that’s I’m saying I don’t want to try to start escalating. I’m trying to de escalate. Yeah, I’m trying to tell them. Look, I’ve want to be nice to you people. But I need you to show some respect from your side. Also,

Andy 30:18
Brenda says I would not have the brains to put that together at midnight. So I’m pushing back on you as hard as I can I 100% intellectually, and and rationally, agree and respect everything that you’re saying, real world that your hardest thumping, and you are in the fight or flight mode, and you’re going to actually tell somebody to fyp and you’re going to slam the door and things are going to get really bad fast from there.

Larry 30:44
Well, I’m hoping you don’t slam the door and I’m hoping that it doesn’t escalate. But escalation is coming from them if they choose to escalate. I’m trying my best to de escalate by saying here’s the problem you’ve created.

Andy 30:55
Yes, I agree. Understand. And yeah, I think I’m pretty sure that so they haven’t written you bad. The letter they wrote you back was to say Ill informed to put it mildly. It was a very

Larry 31:09
odd took it is a very condescending letter from from an attorney who knows way less about SORNA than what narshall would know. And, and the reason that this attorney knows anything about it, it’s because this letter was handed off by the sheriff’s department saying is there anything here and for them to cite stuff is just simply not the way it is and tell us that we’re not informed about sort of really irritated me I found it to be to be quite offensive. And I took a week to write the letter just so I could try to write it without being as irritated as rotationally wants. And but it was it was to be a letter feel with this a genuine either the person doesn’t understand it, or they were trying to blow smoke and mirrors against an organization that’s well equipped and it’s not going to take their smoke and mirrors and go away. In fact, we’re going to do just the opposite. We’re going to come back at them like we did, and we’re going to go to the next level if they don’t work with us, of contacting all the offenders in Cobb County, and seeing if we can get them to keep diaries and work with us. Now if it turns out, we can’t predict what 600 people are going to do, what does one thing I can’t predict? There will be some offenders who will take our letters to the sheriff’s office right away, and say, You’re not gonna believe this. Have you ever heard of these people that I know it’s going to happen? But in terms of how many keep how many people will keep diaries, I don’t know that. All I can tell you is if this behavior bothers you, and which we get enough complaints that we, we hear that it bothers you immensely, then you’re going to have to do a little bit of work because we can’t keep the diary for you. We will not know when they knock at your door. Therefore, if it bothers you, as much as you say it does, then we’re going to need a percentage of people a credible percentage of people in Cobb County to keep the diaries so that we can measure the magnitude of the problem. So we can figure out what the strength of our cause of action what our causes of action might be, and what the strengthen likelihood of succeeding might be. We won’t know that till we gather the information.

Andy 33:01
And your reply was a Did you have any help being restrained on snark?

Larry 33:05
Well, we were everything and parcels of team collaboration so we don’t we don’t ever have a person correspond by themselves to that’s one of the things we try to guard against as as as as an ill thought out piece of correspondence. So yes, I do but every that’s just a corporate culture at Arsenal. We do that with every piece that will take takes a bit longer. But yes, I can’t help but that’s what that’s the way we do things. I mean, it’s not anything unusual, you’re making it sound like that, but that that I had to be political restraint. We do everything and I think collaboration.

Andy 33:36
Now I get that I just referred to like she got under your skin with this letter. And so I’m just sort of trying to hint around that that you had not that was the not the collaboration part but you had helped keeping the tone a certain way.

Larry 33:51
I think the tone was pretty good when my first product I think that was that it was well restrained To start with, but we we organized it better through the revisions and communicated more more coherent message but but it takes us longer to do things because we do have a team collaboration rather than individual.

Andy 34:08
Sure. Anything else? I mean, we’ve been on this for like a half hour almost.

Unknown Speaker 34:12
I think we’ve covered this pretty well.

Andy 34:15
And you had something else. It was the 11th circuit decision.

Larry 34:19
The the Halloween case with our butts County, which is on appeal at the 11th. Circuit Court of Appeals. briefing is moving along with that the the brief by the sheriff was filed initially their their their their party taking the appeal undertaking the appeal. We filed our attorney filed our response and then narshall and Axel, the associate Alliance for constitutional sex offense laws. We filed a joint amicus brief last week on that on that case, so that that case hopefully will be decided by Halloween, the appeal of the judges injunction. So that’s what’s going on with the 11th circuit was Halloween

Andy 34:56
and you are still firmly in the camp that This is just a slam dunk. They don’t have they don’t have a chance of winning. This is butts county sheriff. Never

Larry 35:05
Never slam dunk, but it’s going to be hard for for turn around the the ruling that was one because the law is so much again. Georgia is not the only place where Halloween restrictions happen. The only differences in Georgia is that there are no requirements in the statute. We would like to go down our throat down the throats of the people in Missouri but they have the statute that provides for them. So we have a higher legal standard for there’s a statute in Georgia This was two Renegade sheriff’s who decided on their own that they were going to impose a requirement that that offenders on the registry all offenders and their counties put the signs up. That’s what makes it so different. So with with the the circuit appeal, they do not have to analyze a statute to determine If what level of deference whether it’s a rational basis, or whether it’s intermediate scrutiny, or whether it’s strict scrutiny, they don’t have to do any of that. And that’s what makes it difficult to imagine how we could lose the case. But since courts are unpredictable, the unpredictable could happen. But it’s very difficult for me to conceive how we can lose the case because the sheriff us acted without any lawful authority.

Andy 36:20
I am constantly reminded, Larry, that in this particular situation in the one with Cobb County, this is this is one of those cases where, and I don’t want to inflate your head so big that you can’t walk through a door. You just know this stuff. So well, the backside of your hand, the front side, whichever way you want to look at it, that when you see these things, you don’t even I’m sure you have to like engage some brainpower, but you’re just like, that’s wrong. That’s wrong. That’s wrong. It’s just instinctive and you can just pop these things out that you know, that they’re wrong. And then you can, you know, get the team is in place, the apparatus is in place to formulate a strategy to push back. And it’s just it’s just overwhelmingly me Amazing and inspirational that you’re able to put these things together this way.

Larry 37:03
Well, it would appreciate that and a good example. But the letter from the cop county attorney, she said that jurisdictions can exceed the the law. And she was talking about the federal law. And she’s absolutely correct a jurisdiction and can exceed federal law. If the jurisdiction passes tell us enhanced requirements, the federal law, as it pertains to the SORNA, for example, those are just minimums. That’s what the federal government would like you to do. If you want your free federal money, have a registry that does at least these things, you can do more than that list of things. You can register people for longer than what’s required. And you can register more offenders than what’s required. And, and when I looked at that, at first blush, I thought, well, gee, she’s on the right direction. And she’s done a little bit of research here. But she doesn’t quite understand what a jurisdiction is. A jurisdiction is as a as a State or Territory are certain or certain or certain Indian tribes are there recognize the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office is not a jurisdiction. That was so weird to me.

Andy 38:11
I still feel that it is a jurisdiction because you have county police running around doing things.

Larry 38:16
But the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office is not a jurisdiction itself. Okay. It is an entity. It is an agency of a subdivision. That is a jurisdiction, but for federal SORNA purposes, it’s not a jurisdiction. Cobb County is a jurisdiction. Right, but not for federal SORNA purposes. But But Cobb County didn’t impose these requirements. The Cobb County Sheriff’s Office did. The Cobb County Board of County Commissioners did not vote on an ordinance that says that we want our deputies out, collecting these verifications on a more regular basis than the state law requires. That would be a different challenge if they had but they have there is no jurisdictional authority, but for them to cite to the federal law said jurisdiction, if Georgia had passed a requirement that that rather than you coming in once a year, 72 hours before your birthday, say that you’ll come in 12 times a year, that Georgia could do that. And they’re absolutely correct. They could do that. And they could exceed the federal, the most identifies required to come in to meet federal requirements is four times per year. They say that once a year for a tier one twice a year for tier two and four times a year for tier three. And there’s no such thing, anything more than for federal purposes, anything more than a tier three. But but the state of Georgia, they are a jurisdiction for several federal SORNA purposes. They could say that you’re going to come in 12 times a year, Georgia could enact that to the legislature and that would be

Andy 39:44
a jurisdiction. Right, but that has to be in the legislature has to be part of the statute.

Larry 39:49
That’s correct. In Cobb County Sheriff is not it is not a jurisdiction. So that was like, for me it was a no brainer. It’s like she’s trying to she’s either healing from I’m the attorney, or she’s trying to obfuscate and Bs. But don’t I scott county sheriff’s departments not have jurisdiction.

Andy 40:07
Very, very interesting. I it’s just it’s just funny how you put those together. Just it’s just it’s like, you know, I could see something on computer and be like, no, that’s not right. I just I just know, because I’ve been doing it for 100 years, like you’ve been doing this stuff for 100 years. It’s just I would instinctively know that something is or isn’t right. And, well, you know, I did the rest of us mortals don’t have any idea. How well I didn’t know the section of federal

Larry 40:29
law. I knew it was there. But I had to look it up. I had to look at your federal law that defines what a jurisdiction is. But we put that in letter and we hopefully informing the county authority of what constitutes the jurisdiction of the cop Can I share psaltis is not what absolutely

Andy 40:43
ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message. 274722744771 to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies 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. We should move on. Let’s do it. As an individual in chat goes by the name of Nate dumped in this gave me this link to this bill that is going through his area and it is talking about where to go where to go where to go with Iowa legislature. Legislators consider criminalizing here’s the key word Larry. Creepy, adult relationships with teens. I can see right off the bat. I don’t Understand what the word creepy like we would know, the Supreme Court says, Well, I don’t know what porn is, but I would know when I see it. And this would be the same thing like you could kind of guess what creepy means. But how do you define that in the statute of what creepy is? And I wanted to get your your expert opinion on how this would, how you might combat this? Well, I would combine it by

Larry 42:19
by saying that what you’re what you’re trying to do, is you’re trying to micromanage people’s personal lives. And conservatives claim that they are post that and if I’m not mistaken, this is being led by conservatives, not not liberals. But this will be something where you’ll end up having a lot of your famous bipartisan support, because it’s it’s for protecting young from older predators. And there are people who find that the age of consent which permits a 16 year old, to have relations with someone of any age is creepy. And as they’re more valid, more values, and and and that’s not for us to do to impose our moral moral values on on on everyone else. an Iowa if I were there trying to fight that I would say, Well, this is it. This is an indirect way of trying to race age consensus what this really is

Unknown Speaker 43:09
that please,

Larry 43:10
that’s, well, if you’re trying to call a relationship creepy, because of the age of the person, what you’re really trying to do is reach the age of consent, you’re trying to say that a person does does not, should not be able to consent to have sexual relations with a person more than a certain number of years older than them, or else that’s creepy. Therefore, they should be allowed to do it, which is effectively raising the age of consent. I see.

Andy 43:31
It’s maybe worded differently. It’s an extension of the Romeo and Juliet thing just inverted, maybe, because Romeo Juliet says, you know, like a 21, and a 17 year old can still have a relationship. But if you extend that out to 60 year old enough, I don’t know 1720 year olds does that. Does that constitute creepy?

Larry 43:51
Well, that’s what this whole legislation’s about. This is this is what it’s about. But again, it’s trying to reach the age of consent. Oh, the the sponsors of that one I was quoted saying that he would have a shotgun. He was my shotgun will be out. Oh, yes

Andy 44:11
yes I see a 16 said if a 22 year old starts dating his soon to be 16 year old daughter my shot gun will be out.

Larry 44:20
But yeah, the age of consent is 16 in many states, right and this is this is trying to raise indirectly raised under the bill of person who engage in sexual activity, the person who is 16 or 17 would be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor if they are not cohabitating with the consent of the teens parents, and the person is 27 years of age or older. So it so under this proposal, it becomes very creepy. If you’re more than 27 do you think that this has any legs on it to move anywhere? I sure I do. I believe it will absolutely the it’s hard to vote against protecting young people. This is this is one of those things why say your famous bipartisan support that you yearn for?

Andy 45:05
Yeah, they’ll be somehow

Larry 45:08
this is being led by republicans but yes, it’s gonna be hard for Democrats to vote against it because what’s going to happen is they’re gonna be vilified if they do vote against it and say, you know that Senator Solon sell voted against the bill that would have protected that that would have protected our young from old perverts. I mean that they would be that blatant what the campaign hit pieces. And if you’re if according to this bill, if you’re over 27, you’re an old pervert, that is kind of a bizarre number right there, man. But these are the people who claim that they believe in personal freedom. Now, I get it that the person’s not reached the age of majority. And I get that one might have reached the age of majority we got to have a little more input and influence and decision making about their personal freedom. So I understand that don’t make a whole bunch of email. But the These are people who claim that they want to keep government out of our personal lives.

Andy 46:06
That’s what they say doesn’t seem to be how they’re acting is a theme. You know what that sounds like? That sounds like hypocrisy.

Unknown Speaker 46:14
Well, I think we did hear Lester say that

Unknown Speaker 46:16
for you to come back and call bagless. Mind Mars is a farce. It’s an act of hypocrisy. It’s

Unknown Speaker 46:23
a terrible way to treat a guest on your show. And you know,

Andy 46:29
why don’t you introduce the Scalia clip force please? What are we talking about this time?

Larry 46:34
We’re gonna have we’re gonna have two clips of of Supreme Court tonight is going to be spread out. So hopefully people will listen to the entire podcast to hear the other half of this. It’s gonna be it’s gonna be played later. But this one is, is about. I think one of the toughest things I have to tell people is that not liking something doesn’t make it unconstitutional. And that’s not a part of the constitutional analysis. So we’re going to hit them with two clips tonight about about things that may not seem desirable that are done. And this one’s about the death penalty as it applies to young people. And and what Scalia thinks about the death penalty. And then we’re going to come back with a follow up in terms of what Justice Breyer thinks about, Justice Scalia, his judicial philosophy on the notion of evolving standards of decency. So roll this first clip.

Unknown Speaker 47:26
Well, let’s talk about a specific here to see how your philosophies actually work. The court divided four years ago when it ruled that the death penalty for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional. This is for people who commit crimes before the age of 18. Justice Scalia, why do you think it was wrong for the court to conclude that that practice violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Because I think what the ban meant in 1791 when it was adopted, it means today and For example, your why not say the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to everybody, not just people under 18? What stops you from saying that? And indeed, I’ve sat with four colleagues who said that, what stops you from and that would just be applying your own your own sense of what what the law ought to be rather than what the law is. What stops you from saying that is in 1791, when the Eighth Amendment was adopted? the death penalty was the only penalty for a felony. David, there’s no argument possible that it was unconstitutional. And it was the same for executing people under 18. There was a common law rule that you that you you would not execute. Execute someone for crimes committed before the age of reason. I think the age was 12. But after that, there was no prohibition it was rarely done, but it was left up to the jury Where the sentencing authority usually the jury so you know, it may be a very bad idea and nothing forces the American people to execute people who committed the most horrible crimes before they’re 18 year old nothing nothing requires them to do that if they if they think it’s a bad idea they can pass a law in their state which says no one will be executed for anything Don’t under 18 but for this court to my court to just say it doesn’t seem it was a good idea and therefore it’s unconstitutional I just don’t understand it.

Andy 49:35
I still continue with these clips that you provide I I don’t find wrong in his methodology and we can the people choose to not execute or choose to execute you know felony jaywalking as my The example I always bring up but you know, if we chose to do it, we could, we could make a law that says felony jaywalking, and you get nuked. So why don’t Why don’t we the people become more engaged to construct the laws that we that we want them to be constructed?

Larry 50:06
Well, and we did that just there’s an article somewhere which we can cover and clear it out here from Colorado, their legislature just passed a bill abolishing capital punishment in the state of Colorado. Now, the governor has announced that the bill will be signed, and they’re doing just exactly that. And that that says precisely, it. Have you heard some of Scalia’s language? It’s very similar to what I say about not liking something that doesn’t make it unconstitutional because you disagree with it. Bad public policy, does that somehow become unconstitutional? Because it’s bad from a policy perspective, it’s probably bad to do a lot of things that we do. And we’re the other clip will reveal some additional stuff about how bad it how how many laws we have that are bad, but they’re not unconstitutional.

Andy 50:53
Right? Because we the stupid people can make stupid laws.

Larry 50:57
So yes, so. So Colorado has about the death penalty. And if you think that the death penalty is a bad thing, then become active in your state. And let’s get rid of the death penalty. Let’s not ask the people who wear black robes to do for us what we can do for ourselves because it’s not really their role to be the super legislature that decides what’s the best public policy, they decide where the Constitution is being violated. And if we have five or more people like Scalia, on the court, which I think we do right now, that’s why the death penalty has not been declared unconstitutional. The court is not going to save us from ourselves. We’re gonna have to save ourselves if we object to the despot.

Andy 51:40
So the article that you just alluded to us from courthouse news, Colorado, lawmakers vote to repeal the death and that’s def Just kidding. Death penalty. They voted 3038 to 27 which still means a decent number of people up there. were in favor of nuking people for various reasons. I assume that you know, felony jaywalking is On their agenda, but like heinous murders and things of that nature, are still up on the docket for being executed.

Larry 52:07
Well, I don’t know what all we get you the death penalty would have gotten you the death penalty in Colorado, but but the death the death penalty, but if you believe and that original interpretation and this was no evolving standards of decency as society progresses, then since the death penalty was a part of colonial times the death penalty is not unconstitutional because it was widely used in colonial times, and they could not have been thinking about abolishing something that they were using as a punishment at the time they enacted the Constitution. That’s Scalia’s reasoning that could not have been cruel and unusual. But the reason I like to get on this cold unusual punishment because we get a lot of grief well area if you guys would just use your brainpower. Everybody knows that cruel, unusual punishment that being able to register is cruel, unusual punishment. I said Well, the problem is we haven’t even proved very many instances is the registers pm to much less that very high standard of Cruel, unusual punishment. If putting people in an electric chair and in a guillotine and at a gas chamber and on a gurney if that is a cruel, unusual punishment where you die It’s hard to imagine that any type of supervision or registration or anything short of that would be cruel, unusual punishment. I mean, I just can’t I just can’t see how that you can come up with but it’s such a high standard of what would constitute cold unusual punishment if the electric chair as what would be

Andy 53:29
and didn’t we talk about at some point that you being like locked in the stockade and have pulling poo thrown at your face like that wasn’t considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Unknown Speaker 53:36
I think that might be that might have been in colonial times I don’t think they did that and call your time so I don’t think they they did that where they use like that type of punishment back in those days. That was a little bit but but there was about 70 years before I was born.

Andy 53:49
That’s like the Salem Witch trial kind of 1500 1600s I guess. But if I’m if you’ll indulge me like if that were the standard, then just having your picture and name on there. History, then that certainly wouldn’t be considered unconstitutional?

Larry 54:02
Well, again, I’ll put the name in the picture on the registry is merely a dissemination of a public record. If that were all there was to being registered, nothing more. And I’m not advocating for anything like this. But since it has long been established, or 200 years of our history, that your criminal record, and since we’ve been taking photographs, the last hundred years that your mug shot is, as public is putting your picture and the fact you’re convicted. If I put that on the website and said, Go away, have a great life. Wouldn’t that be equivalent to putting it on the wall of the courthouse, which has always been permissible?

Andy 54:42
But there’s certainly you know, for that example, though, I mean, it’s you know, just just walking into your computer into your computer room or pulling up on your phone while you’re in your in your Speedo. That’s not hard for you to pull up and find the information about the people that live around you. Go into the courthouse, you know, you probably gonna have to cover up the speedo to walk into the courthouse or else they’re gonna get indecent exposure, there’s at least some barrier, you know, to not just have some passing interest to get to the information,

Larry 55:07
well, then we have to argue that the evolving technology was not something that we should allow to be used for in a modern society. So we would have to say that the founders intended that information that was public, but always require a journey to the courthouse, and that they never envisioned that anybody would get beyond the horse and buggy. Because I guess that’s what they were largely using in colonial times for transportation. So we would have to argue that and see if that if the courts would buy that that’s what they intended that, that access to public information, what all it you’d have to always go in and get it in person. I don’t know that. I don’t know that you could successfully make that claim.

Andy 55:42
There. I’m losing. I’m completely drawing a blank on the name of the company. But there’s a company currently running around scraping up images of everybody that they can find on all the social media platforms, and they’re building this huge database of it. And they just had a massive security breach. So I’m going to hypothesize us area where they have then gone around to all of the 50 states registry sites and snagged all the pictures. Now they have a collection of that. So now it’s left the hands of just law enforcement. And we you know, that the control of the government’s website, not that they have control over necessarily anybody can scrape it. But now it’s in a mass database, doing analysis and comparing and seeing who is with whom, and building associations and that data is then being sold. But now that data has been lost to hackers or whomever, you know, stole it. They had a data breach now now everything’s just out there. And even if you get yourself off the registry, even if you get your picture removed, it’s over. It’s done. You know, remember that

Unknown Speaker 56:39
I remember I think I’ll sent that to you in a link of a of a another data breach, but I don’t know what I don’t know what the I don’t know what the answer is all that stuff is above my pay grade in terms of securing data and what the consequences should be for breaches. I know one thing we can interfere with business because business always does the right time. But yeah, right. Okay.

Andy 56:59
We the People are going to have to decide to do some level of self regulating that it is okay, that all information isn’t available to all people at all times, sort of like the right to be forgotten that they’ve adopted in the Europe’s, so to speak, right? Yes. I mean, we’re going to have to decide,

Larry 57:17
as a people were going to have to decide at what point we can intervene and say information is no longer available. We’re going to have to have that discussion. It’s going to be a hard discussion to have, just like other discussions we have. We’re having a discussion, we just had a very painful gun discussion here. I think we’re like the 17th state of the 20 something state to adopt the red flag early warning, or the people can have their weapons taken under certain circumstances for a period of time to evaluate if if they are a threat. And those are painful discussions because it provokes an emotion. Big old bad governments don’t take my going, that I hadn’t committed a crime yet, as as the same things going When we start restricting access to information requiring that it be expunged, and companies can’t conduct their free enterprise, I mean, it’s gonna be it’s gonna be painful. There’s gonna be a lot of pushback. Hmm. All right. We are already

Andy 58:13
at an hour late and we got so much more to go so we could cut it whatever we need to cut it to finish out things. But so let’s move to the M d. j maryada. daily journal, Halloween warning signs for Georgia sex offenders trip up lifetime ankle monitoring bill. This doesn’t really seem related to me, but so I’m assuming this is the Butts County Halloween signs. And then we have talked recently about them trying to do something with the GPS monitoring for for offenders. Somehow those two collided and they’re not going to vote on the bill in Georgia. No,

Larry 58:47
not yet. I understand how that goes. No, not yet. Well, but they they the bill was in a subcommittee and of course I don’t understand why. It sends a judicial non non civil because the registry is a civil regulatory scheme. So therefore, I don’t understand why the non civil Judicial Committee would be assigned to bill. It shouldn’t be in the civil, because it’s several regulatory scheme. But that’s a discussion for another podcast. But what’s happening is that the the attorney who helped us with the Bucks County that and the Spalding county case, which is also pending in Georgia, he won a case challenging lifetime GPS monitoring for for the sexual predators in Georgia, which is a designation bestowed upon people by the sex offender assessment board, which is like 10 1215 years behind on on their assessments of people. And the cost and the inconvenience of having that search and seizure was declared unconstitutional and Georgia as most states are not going to just willingly give up on their laws are unconstitutional. So they’re trying to re impose some version of GPS monitoring on the what they say is the worst of Worst a sexually dangerous predator says the lawmaker refers to them. Well, while that lawsuit is pending, where we are likely, in my view to win the appeal, Georgia says, well, gee, maybe an arsenal has a point that since there is no law, okay, but we need to make a law. So they amended the bill. They wanted to throw in that that was science would be required for people who had multiple sex offenses. And those damn Liberal Democrats are pushing back which they’re irrelevant in Georgia because Georgia majority under republican control, but there’s enough democrats on this subcommittee that they push back and they were able to keep that amendment from from from going through. So right now, the bill, the bills and Limbo, my prediction is that they will get it out of limbo, and they will move it through the process because we just can’t have those sex offenders on supervised by GPS and we can’t have these trick or treaters go into people’s doors. So they’re going to try their best to pass a law that says certain sex offenders Can’t have signs and I can’t have trigger trading, they must have signs of their yards. That’s my prediction. That’s not what people want to hear. But that’s what I expect they’ll do.

Andy 1:01:08
Hmm. So then we need people in Georgia, to be at the legislator, and legislature watching for this to try and figure out all of the cool Larry techniques to gum it up to wreck the drain when it comes back around next year.

Larry 1:01:22
And we also need to be there which we will be there to we have been there to tell them that if you pass it, we’re going to come back to you again, because just because you pass it doesn’t make it constitutional and enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be constitutional. You could conceivably narrowly tailor Halloween. conceivably, I haven’t, I haven’t done it. But I think you could conceivably Taylor assign and apply to such a small sliver of people that it might be constitutional, but they’re not ever willing to do anything that so narrowly tailored, because that’s the part of the Kabuki show is to go out and take the cameras and go out To the community, and show that the sirens are everywhere. If you took the people who actually might pose a threat to a child on Halloween on the registry, it would be such an infinitesimally small number of people because nothing’s ever happened from a sex offender or Halloween that I’m aware of. So since nothing’s ever happened, that can tell that tells you in itself that the that the risk is very slim. But you could conceivably craft something that would apply in such a narrow way that it might be constitutional, but they’re not going to do they’re not going to be able to help themselves to do that, because it would not give them the glory that they need is we’re protecting the community. If you analyze a bill, then it’s only going to apply to seven people across the whole state with 38,000 registrants that does that’s not going to be very appealing to them.

Andy 1:02:43
But it still seemed to be so then we could go hit the conservative mindset like you’re going to spend XYZ money for seven people.

Larry 1:02:49
Well, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of money span if you just if you if you had if you had signs in seven people’s yards, but what would what would be accomplished nothing has ever happened on Halloween. We’re fighting imaginary Boogeyman.

Andy 1:03:02
Why do we Why are we so hell bent on blaming the boogeyman for all of the problems that we have in this world?

Larry 1:03:07
I don’t know what was Let’s start by asking these sponsors this legislation, why they’re trying. The courts have spoke at the Georgia High Court has spoken that said, You can’t do this to people. Why are you coming back? You, you live in a government people who believe in being fiscally responsible stewards of persons of the people of the People’s resources. So representative. I don’t know how to pronounce that. sains. Si. nz, you’d have to ask representative Steven sayings of Woodbine why he’s carrying this legislation. Of course, he’s carrying it because he was asked to by the law enforcement industrial complex, but why is he carrying this

Andy 1:03:46
election year political like points to stick it to the sex offenders right.

Larry 1:03:51
And the committed it move it to the chairman ed. stettner. Republican of Acworth said he wants to see some to Bill, but he expects us to eventually had the full committee. So So I’d like to say I tend, I tend to take him at his word, they’re going to get down the committee.

Andy 1:04:07
fairly good. All right.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:09
And with everyone, super.

Larry 1:04:14
No one will be.

Andy 1:04:19
We got to move over to an AP news story of Kansas legislation, rethink public offender registry rules. I didn’t put this in there. This all you man. It’s also short.

Larry 1:04:30
It’s very short. And it’s just that finally they’ve reached a tipping point where they’ve got so many different registries and so many people on them, and they’re realizing they’re realizing that they just might have a problem.

Andy 1:04:40
Oh, so the expression that there was a movie. You may have heard of the movie I know you haven’t seen It’s called The Incredibles. It’s a really awesome movie. But there’s this superhero. He’s a super villain runner, and it’s like, if everyone is super, then no one is super. So if everyone’s on the registry that no one’s on the registry. That makes perfect sense to me. They’re

Unknown Speaker 1:04:59
done. Yes.

Larry 1:05:01
So that’s it. So they have decided that they have too many registries, whether that be domestic abuse, animal abuse, sex, offender, all that stuff. And then the drug drug point of all this. The other third rate thinking that because Kansas has been been in financial they, they tried to tax cut model with Governor Sam brown brown back. And like cut taxes and a thriving blooming economy that was going to ensue, of course, didn’t do it in Louisiana when gendell did the same, same thing. And of course, it never does. But they keep selling us that snake oil. But but they, they they’re so strapped for cash, that their Supreme Court declared them to be a violation of the Kansas constitution in terms of not adequate funding education. So they’ve had to go back and increase some taxes. I mean, that’s hard to imagine that they would do that they’ve had to go back and raise some of the taxes i cut under Brownback, but it’s just a fiscal reality that, that they’re dealing with it that they they’re having to rethink some of their ridiculous policies. But if you cut taxes enough to economy will boot you gotta remember that ain’t

Unknown Speaker 1:06:00
cut taxes slimy. Whoops,

Andy 1:06:03
couldn’t we cut it far enough? You know, and then actually surpass zero and then actually start making over the government pays us for everything and then it would be on fire?

Unknown Speaker 1:06:13
Yes, yes. Let’s try that. Okay, let’s try.

Andy 1:06:16
Wait a minute, hang on a sec, I just had a thought. Are those the same people that rail against the people that are getting some sort of stipend from and I know everybody’s getting one, but I’m talking about the people that are getting like extra extra and the very poor that are getting, shouldn’t their economy be like, off the charts?

Unknown Speaker 1:06:34
I’m not understanding that question.

Andy 1:06:35
Well, I’m like so if the rich people are paying taxes, and that’s what is siphoning growth, and the poor people are getting, you know, earned income tax credit and etc, etc, etc. Then shouldn’t their economy be frickin just gangbusters and then they would not be poor anymore?

Larry 1:06:52
Well, the people will tell you right now that the poor people are doing quite well. I don’t I don’t see

Andy 1:06:59
us now. Am I better than?

Larry 1:07:01
I don’t I don’t see it that way. But but they, they, they will tell you that.

Andy 1:07:06
But we saw in Houston at the conference that that didn’t look very appealing to me, not even one little bit.

Larry 1:07:13
Well, you’ve heard me rant about homelessness, we we have eradicated homelessness by 1970. And here we are 50 years later. And we have a chronic homeless problem in this country. So I don’t understand how we were able to come out of the Great Depression, in primitive times and by 1970, provide everyone who wanted to be housed housing, and we can’t figure out how to do it 50 years later, but anyway, let’s move on to the next article.

Andy 1:07:35
Yes, yes. So from the appeal, Alabama prepares to execute a man whose case is haunted by claims of police misconduct. Why am I not surprised right off the bat that this is Alabama, and also a young black man. And I bet you if we go through the article, it’s going to be like a an 11 person like 11 white people on the jury, I betcha. multiple people say That the one that they’re being is being executed, didn’t do it, and so forth. And but Alabama still wants to take him down.

Larry 1:08:08
Well, the reason why I zeroed in on is because he turned down a plea offer, based on his advice of his attorney, which set told him that that Alabama could not gain a conviction of a sufficient sufficient severity that would expose him to the death penalty. And he said no, and the lawyer was wrong. and subsequent to that, in 2012, the US Supreme Court decide and the left for case which I have put in the end, the show notes for those legal Google’s who want to read it. They’ve, the Supreme Court decided that I went on attorney gives you advice. That’s wrong. that constitutes ineffective. It’s one of the narrow slivers of this left of ineffective assistance of counsel. So this This guy has the potential for getting a reversal. If the courts will pay an intention if they actually believe in what the Supreme Court decided and left or back in 2012. He’s got a clemency case. Some sort of executive clemency will be by releasing him but some sort of stay. He’s got a petition for governor Riley. Well, being that she signs castration bills, I would not expect her to do anything that would, that would that would be helpful to this to this man. But he was sentenced to death before lafleur. And he refused a plea deal because its attorneys told him this is an article that the state had to prove that he pulled the trigger for him to be convicted of capital murder. This was not true under Alabama law, but what’s trusted his attorneys word, according to his 2017 habeas petition, so if they if they if they follow lafleur, the habeas court should be able to grant him relief, but the problem is, it’s like random relief that they started silence conviction. Can they can they convict him again? And if they can’t convict him again? Does a cop killer go part person who was a part of a cop killing team? Does he go free? It’s a tough case. I I’m reticent to say I don’t expect good things to happen. I’m sorry to say but but a laughter appears to give him some hope.

Andy 1:10:20
Okay, I’m just like, I don’t even know that even in a Jeffrey Dahmer case, I’m pro capital punishment. 911 I’m just I don’t think that I’m able to get there. But certainly not for for something less than that. Just my personal my personal opinion on where we are. And I think the Alabamians I don’t know if that’s the right word to pronounce that the population of Alabama they’ve got they’ve got work to do.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:46
Well, I sat on spec the governor grant him a relief. I would be delighted to come back and say that she did but I don’t see her doing anything to it or be

Andy 1:10:53
fair enough. Let’s move over to the crime. report.org can tomorrow’s prisons look Like this Larry, there’s an ottoman in this guy, his prison cell, he’s got like something that looks like a couch. Maybe that’s also his bunk, but it’s sort of like a, you know, just a very low back couch and there’s a coffee table. This is never ever in a billion kajillion bajillion years going to happen in the United States.

Larry 1:11:17
I tend to have that kind of pessimism. But me we can always, we can always have hope that our country will realize that the freedom loss of freedom is what the punishment is not trying to see what kind of horrible conditions we can subject people to to to destroy their health, which I think there’s an article in here about what what prison life does to people how it takes such a toll on the psychological and the physical health.

Andy 1:11:44
Here, here’s one for you not that I’m a big fan of vitamins but not the nutrition level and the prison food is not all that great either. So, you have to prove the silly, you have to prove that you have some level of deficiency before you can get a prescription. So that you Got a pill call to get your either a pill pack whatever, of just some sort of basic, you know, Centrum kind of vitamin. It’s it’s just unconscionable to me that the way that we treat the people in prison. This isn’t just you know, parchment is certainly the worst of the worst of the worst that we could expect to have in the American prison system. But it is so atrocious how we treat people and and as you just described that the loss of liberty and freedom, the loss of access to your family and going to movies and eating pizza and all of that stuff. That’s the punishment. You’re not supposed to be put under some auspices that you’re going to have your life threatened every day. But I know the people that were harmed, why is this person being treated so well they should go to the be buried under the prison they should have that threat every day of being sliced by a dagger, whatever. We are not a very humane society here in the United States.

Larry 1:12:53
American people are the most compassionate, gentle people on earth. I am appalled that you would say something like that.

Andy 1:12:59
We are accepted. Larry,

Unknown Speaker 1:13:00
that is correct. So that was my long dress we were running.

Andy 1:13:06
Let’s go over to the new york times and it will be really quick here but full coverage Harvey Weinstein is found guilty of rape. The piece of this that I just find so overwhelmingly bizarre is and I certainly can’t speak for the women that are in the position that that then take on these acts, but after the the act of rape, the alleged act of rape, that they then continue a relationship with the person and then to have consensual sex, that one just blows my mind that that’s how the situation some of them came down.

Larry 1:13:37
Well, it doesn’t blow my mind quite as much as it blows yours because the and I’m trying to think of a gentle way it’s never there’s never a gentle way to say what, what what I’m trying to trying to communicate, but people who have immense amount of power can persuade people to do things that they would not want to do, given given normal circumstances. Well, Harvey Weinstein had an enormous amount, amount of power in terms of people’s career. So then the question for me becomes, we we trade our entire life, trying to jockey for position and trying to align ourselves with people that can help us. Very few people align themselves with people that are going to harm them harm them normally. I mean, if you’re trying to get ahead and try and advance your career, you generally don’t look to the telephone book, if you could find one and say, Gee, I wonder who could stall my career? Let me call them and align myself with them. So you’re you’re making a calculation of who to align yourself with, alter your life trying to achieve your goals. So then the question becomes, if if part of achieving your goals is to volunteer to do sex, is that a decision that you got to have buyer’s remorse about later if you don’t achieve your goals? Now that is not the same thing as somebody Who has grabbed and groped and as forcibly engaged has someone forced themselves on them. But there is a lot of sex that happens because people are trying to work themselves into better positions. And I’m not so sure that we can turn around after and call that rape. We can call it inappropriate behavior. We can call it abuse of power, but I’m not so sure what’s right. If you’ve got consenting adults, I’m just struggling with that. Hmm.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:33
I agree and understand.

Andy 1:15:34
Alright, so we weren’t going to stick on that for very lot. But he is getting 25

Larry 1:15:39
Well, he hasn’t been sent us yet. But he’s exposed I think either 25 or 29 years. to point out put it in and it was a useful for be witnesses, meaning people who say that he did similar things to them as a part of the trial. They weren’t they were not the victims of this case and they got to testify. If you can get that type of evidence, Sam. You can have someone come in who has not been who their case is not before the court and they can say that that person has a pattern of gross behavior you can convict anybody practically anything so the four or four be the propensity evidence is is dangerous and it’s like a ship that they didn’t convict him on the predatory the monsters yes oh chances but they’ve got enough that he’ll die in prison. Certainly that and the four four B thing that you’re talking about that is the The Cosby issue for all the Cosby he has a propensity evidence where a person they can use a testimony of other accusers who were not charged who he was not charged with a sexual crime against them, they were able to testify against him because of the similarity and the allegations. And with any other high profile cases that have come up recently like that, that’s the only one that I can think of a hand. I want it all for be as a as a as a as a common thing particular and Sex cases, but I’m not thinking of any other high profile cases, but it might have come up in NASA or it might have come up in some of these where there’s been serial accusations. It’s It’s It’s dangerous stuff. Yep. That is why I am Yeah.

Andy 1:17:14
But then over the hill, why prosecutorial discretion must be less discreet. For criminal justice. Larry, I’ll be honest, I read it and still kind of went over my head. That’s why you’re here. I think I need that clip. That’s why are

Larry 1:17:29
the reason I played it in here. And it doesn’t require a lot of time. It says another case where I like to harp about where the conservatives say that they’re in favor of local control. But this is this is a case of, of legislators say, wait a minute, we don’t like the fact that you’re not prosecuting these things. And we want a second guess you’re playing this game out of Indiana. So it’s just it’s just a little bit that hypocrisy that we talked about cracy

Andy 1:17:53
again, we need to get more new people’s. That’s what we really need.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:56
I don’t I’ve done you people tonight.

Andy 1:18:00
have heard it and then the check goes crazy with all the subsequent new peoples are just this echo reverberating around a chat. Hey, thank you everyone for showing up in chat. We have a monster Full House by the way there.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:10
Oh, really? I haven’t even looked.

Andy 1:18:12
Yeah, I’m over there chatting constantly.

Larry 1:18:14
Well, I’m not I’m not capable of doing what you’re able to do as I can’t participate leader. So, I completely I completely turn that screen off when I’m doing this.

Andy 1:18:25
I don’t blame you. Um, let’s move over to the appeal. And we got a quick little snarky little article. It says in a Florida courtroom, people charged with probation violations face humiliation from the judge. The case that they the story that they profiled was a woman who had she I guess she had started maybe beating up her husband a little bit, but maybe she was having some sort of mental issue breakdown, something like that. And I don’t I don’t want to. I don’t want to be insensitive to the actual like the terms to be used. But so she has a probation violation based on Having an episode and the judge says well you know even considering all that you’ll be sentenced according to the guidelines, which is 24.9 months and Florida State Prison for probation violation as I understand it, which is and he says once that is over, hopefully you can live your life and be crime free. Have a good day. And the judge banged his gavel that seems really harsh man

Larry 1:19:21
well that this woman does appear that she has some significant mental issues with the drug Celeste, I don’t understand what all these are but she she or victim was there pulling for her not to be set to the president and of course, that’s the other side of that coin. You know, when when people say the victims, they like to give them they like to give them credibility and they like to when they when they want harshness, but when they want lenient say it’s amazing. It’s amazing. That didn’t carry any weight on the sentence like the judge say okay, but this is a bigger story of Hillsborough County, Florida Tampa area to the digital Apparently has some real issues with being polite, courteous and considerate, and following due process and is not just known for being for being very, very obnoxious. And so, of Hillsborough 7900 violations 69% did not allege in a condition of any new criminal offense. And despite the lack of new offense, 40% of those technical violations resulted in jail or prison time. In addition, according to Florida’s office for economic demographic research imprisonment rates for technical violation statewide fail from 33% and 2014 15 to 31.9% 2018. But the 13th circuit which is Hillsborough County, constitutes a disproportionate number of those people that get sent to prison for for for technical violations. So there it is, again, you know, the state is so much smarter because they have, they have all the conservative leanings to know how to decipher government waste, they’re able to send people to prison for long periods of time and have what the high incarceration rates in the nation because of people like this judge.

Andy 1:21:04
Gotta love it. Gotta love it. How about back over the crime report says prison life or numbers now exceed 1970 incarcerated population? So, I mean, should we just look at this, Larry, that, obviously the population is increased? I think so in, you know, we had 200 million people roughly in 1970. And now we’re in the 330s. This isn’t just a scaling thing that eventually the number of people with life sentences would be over the the prison population from a previous time

Larry 1:21:34
now, because the prison populations increased about seven fold since 1970. And then fold and we’ve only had about a 50 ish percent, a little bit more than that. So that population total.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:46
Yeah, that’s, that’s that’s the point I was making is that the rate of incarceration in 1970, we would, I don’t think that we would say that the crime was so rampant that you were so that you were having to scurry for cover and most parts of the country So 1970 we incarcerated at one cell at the rate we do today. And somehow another we managed to make it through 1970 Okay, and and now we have the 700% increase in our conservation rate and more people incarcerated for life than the entire incarcerated population in 1970 that that’s quite remarkable

Andy 1:22:20
doesn’t it? Say one in seven so the number of people serving no no where’s it says one of every seven people in US prisons is serving a life sentence that is a disgusting number.

Larry 1:22:30
Well, states that have done that have decided that in some cases that they’ve gone too far they’re trying to back away from it but it’s hard to undo these things when when you got people sentenced to life because trying to figure out who you can win when you say they were sounds to live your present the reaction to the to the to the average person would be slimmer to a level three sex offender use the term level three sex offender that sounds bad. Well, life are sounds bad to itself. They might have had three relatively minor felonies that might have

Andy 1:22:58
been have been Those three strikes or outlaws, right?

Larry 1:23:01
Right. And so that doesn’t necessarily apply for doesn’t necessarily translate to a really bad person. But it does translate to is that if you actually keep the pro life, you’re going to have a very expensive invite as the years go by, and you’re going to have a decreasing threat to society if ever was a threat to society. Because once I get past a certain age, the propensity for criminality drops so precipitously that you could turn most of those people loose after they’re 35 and probably wouldn’t have any more problems. But so that’s what you that’s what we learn from that but we haven’t learned that we know it but we haven’t learned it and implemented the, the changes we need to do to stop at warehousing these people for their for their entire lives.

Andy 1:23:42
What is the disconnect in understanding what how am I how do I want to work this? The population just wants them off the street I think and but what is the disconnect and then rehabilitation to not recidivate so now we just make sentences longer and longer and longer. We just get them out of sight out of mind for forever, essentially, like, what’s the disconnect there of don’t? Why don’t we understand that? We do want these people back in society, I would think that we want them back because it is somebody’s loved one. And we would want them living some kind of productive, prosperous life and so forth. Where’s the disconnect? I still don’t quite get that.

Larry 1:24:20
Well, I think that people do want folks back in society. But But once you’ve been labeled a lifer, the point I was making is that, that the perception is that’s a very bad person. That would be someone pro President Trump would refer to as our bad home race.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:37
Bad hungries

Unknown Speaker 1:24:39
no problem.

Andy 1:24:41
Not always said embrace once Larry, but we have some bad embrace here

Larry 1:24:45
and we’re going to get them out. No, so that but the people it’s a lack of understanding who’s in prison who constitutes an order to understand some of these complex issues you actually I have to give up Afternoon, have something that you would enjoy. And, and most people don’t want to want to do the study to figure out, the average citizen knows that we’ve got lifers in prison. And they know that that as far as their hear on the news, that they’re not saying that crime is running rampant, although it isn’t. And they want to feel safe. That’s what the average person knows you have to be above average in terms of your taking the time to understand the criminal justice system to no more than 10 the average person All they know is they

Andy 1:25:30
say they feel unsafe. And we have a companion article that goes with that one from the appeal that says life sentences lock away too many people in too much potential, just just covering the same thing but from their point of view, and it is a massive amount of human capital wasted to do all sorts of things, whatever those are two, you know, super high end computer programmers to whatever job you know, even down to like your local grocery store bagger and you know, there’s just just a lot of wasted potential just sitting behind the walls. tragic, but

Unknown Speaker 1:26:01
hopefully that’ll change in my lifetime. We are we are making progress towards the there’s a lot of lot of support for, for for what does it call the massacre in mass incarceration. sure that that’s, that’s a movement that is actually gaining traction.

Andy 1:26:18
So I have a lot of

Unknown Speaker 1:26:20
it. I do. I do have hope that, that we will recognize that we’re lighting up too many people in your lifetime. I think I think in my lifetime, we could see that. Okay.

Andy 1:26:31
And second to last year, we have a California bill that would seal 2 million criminal records. This is from AP news. I gotta think that this is a good thing, but someone’s not going to be happy about like, damn it. I need to know that this person did a bad thing so many years ago, because I need to know all the things about people.

Larry 1:26:49
Well, it’s gonna, it’s gonna face a tough process to get through but the pro proposal would automatically for records dating back to 1973, but I’m not clear the nuances of the Who all will be clear, I’m fairly certain the sex offenses would be excluded. I mean, they always do manage to exclude that from everything. So, but at least it’s a positive. I always tell people if we, if we can’t get everything we want, we take the steps to get as much as we can. And if Armageddon doesn’t happen, we can come back later and say, See, and 2020 we sell 2 million records. And the crime rates in California have not gone through the roof. All life is we know it didn’t end. So let’s go back and look at the remainder of people who have records that talk about who else’s we can see if we can get it all why not get as much as we can. And the other side of that people say, well, you’re throwing everybody under the bus, Larry, you’re just throwing people under the bus. And now I’m, if a criminal record is as bad as it is, I think it is. And if it hampers your productivity, and does as much damage. I want to save all I can If I can’t save everybody, I want to save as many as I can if we can, if we can make 2 million people’s life better. Isn’t that a good thing? Brenda wants to know, why do you list when you’re quoting people?

Unknown Speaker 1:28:14
I learned it from rush.

Andy 1:28:16
Oh, is that right? Your he’s your idol. Right?

Larry 1:28:18
Well, I wouldn’t say that. But he has 30 million listeners a week. We were just slightly under that number.

Andy 1:28:24
We’re slightly under that I got. I didn’t total I totally didn’t mean to skip this article. But the Did you see all the rage about this little six year old girl that got cut handcuffed?

Unknown Speaker 1:28:38
I did and I

Larry 1:28:41
think that it’s it’s remarkable that an adult individual that wears a badge of any law enforcement agency cannot figure out a way.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:51
That’s not traumatizing to restrain a six year old even if restraint is even needed. I don’t know that. That’s what the six year old was doing. It’s a six year old school. Crazy. But if a six year olds going crazy, and adult has enough strength to hold a six year old to the six year old completely runs out of energy, and then and then if the six year old restores the energy and most of fights, the more you would use the softest restraint you could find, you would pull off your bandana your headscarf or something. And you would tell the six year old now I’m going to have to do this because you’re, you’re you’re wailing and you’re going to hurt yourself with somebody and I’m gonna have to, I’m gonna have to tie your hands until you run out of energy. And when you agree to quit being combative, we’re going to take we’re going to take the scarf off your hands, that’s all you would do. You would never take the plastic wraps that you’d put on when you run out of handcuffs. When you’re when you’re doing a drug raid. You would never put twist ties on a six year old for heaven’s sakes.

Andy 1:29:46
This is so bizarre so the video you’ll find it you’ll find it probably all over the internet these like almost like I almost feel bad for the police officers because they’re probably getting their houses are probably being tomatoes and whatnot. But the Girls like what are those like? Well, those are some costs and like, well, who were there for there for you and she starts wailing. She’s like, just crying, right? And they walk around, they put her in the back of a police car. She’s six years old. Someone also told me that she has some sort of disability of some sort. So she’s not a what’s the right word to normal? I forgot what what did what did Nick Dublin, Dublin say about? I think he called us cognitive normals or something like that. I forgot the term he used. But this girl has some sort of disability

Larry 1:30:29
or clearly, but I don’t know why we did we were going to end up having a mega law, because the agencies that that the command staff of these agencies can’t just simply say, Don’t handcuff don’t put any type of restraint of on a child below a certain age. And if you do have to use the Salafis restraint that you can find,

Andy 1:30:51
this is like the pregnancy handcuff thingamajigger the restraining restraints for the pregnant ladies.

Larry 1:30:57
Yes, I probably will have to pass a law because Thank you. Not use their, their brain to do that. You should you shouldn’t ever find the need to handcuff a six year old.

Andy 1:31:08
It could couldn’t the cop like you know, he’s got the radio there on the shoulder like a dispatch, can I speak to the captain? Do I really? Do you really, really want me to put cuffs on the six year old and he’s like, damn it. I said put cuffs on anybody that’s acting disorderly and, okay. And this is a media shitstorm for him.

Larry 1:31:25
Well, if I were the officer, if I got that command, I would refuse to follow it. Todd say sorry, Captain. I’m not gonna do that. I’ve got a child that I’m not gonna I’m not going to put restraints on child. Sorry. Yeah, I’ll save her and hold her if I have to, but I’m not going to do that.

Andy 1:31:39
Yes, there. Are you ready to move over to part two of the scalli eclipse?

Unknown Speaker 1:31:43
Scalia,

Andy 1:31:44
Scalia? Is that how you call it?

Larry 1:31:46
Well, I do that off the air but not on the air.

Andy 1:31:50
I think you told me that it was being being super disrespectful to a Supreme Court justice, correct.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:55
Well, a friend of mine when he got appointed, he asked me that he’s said what do you know about this Scalia? Oh, real I had no idea what he was who he was talking about.

Larry 1:32:07
He said, this is appointed this guy named Scalia. He said, Do you know anything about it must have noticed what they’re saying. And to me was and I said, but I didn’t hear it pronounced that way. I thought it was Scalia. Oh, okay. That’s what that’s all that it goes back to like a friend of mine from the 1980s. I think he got appointed 86. If I remember,

Andy 1:32:26
and this is part two, this is a conversation. This is a moderator, I guess, having a conversation between Scalia and then Brian, is that correct?

Larry 1:32:35
Yeah, this is justice Briar. And this is this is going to enlighten us again on whether or not the constitution evolves. And also whether or not if you don’t like something that magically transforms it to be unconstitutional. That’s the point of this of this clip is is to contrast the rigid ideology of a Scalia versus what what Brian This is a 57 minute clip program. So we’ve only played a few minutes between these two clips. So you guys want to watch it go watch the entire 57 minutes. It’s a it’s a great, it’s a great clip as a great exchange between the two at etiology.

Andy 1:33:16
And this is about three minutes long. So here

Unknown Speaker 1:33:18
we go. I don’t know the exact details of what everybody in the 18th century thought was cruel and unusual. But they didn’t enact that. They enacted into law, cruel and unusual punishment, which man, a set of values, not a specific set of 18th century circumstances. So for me, the question would be how do those values that they enacted, then apply to our circumstances today? Now, I think most people, don’t forget everybody. But I think you get a pretty broad consensus that you should not execute people for robbery today, or for them, or for old felonies you’re doing I think everybody today would say it’s fine to execute a 13 year old. So when we look around the world and look around the United States, and we see, there’s hardly anybody that executes a child, even one over 12, the question becomes where do we draw the line today? Not where they drew the line in the 18th century. But where do we draw the line today in terms of the values, but they enacted into that constitution in the 18th century? And I’ll tell you, that becomes a difficult question. Should it be 1817 1615? I don’t think anybody’s gonna go down to 12. But how to do that and figure it out and try to do it in a way that has some objective appeal, and not just what I subjectively feel. That’s why the job is a difficult job is a job. This is difficult job for judges. But that’s the point of disagreement. I say, how you do that in a particular case.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:56
What circumstances have changed Death was

Unknown Speaker 1:35:00
death and death is death now.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:03
He was 18, mid 18 is 18. Now, you’re talking about applying different values. I agree with you that they were enacting a value judgment. But it was a value judgment of that time. You do not have to adhere to that value judgment if indeed you think you shouldn’t execute people under 18 fine pass a law. But once you abandon what they meant, by cruel, unusual punishment, and say, Oh, yeah, even though they didn’t think it covered that pebble, we think it does. You are at sea and it is as you say, a difficult job. I Steve, I don’t know how you do it. I’m just glad that I don’t play that game.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:47
I would lie awake at night.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:51
What are you going to get

Unknown Speaker 1:35:53
to do people for embezzlement? Are you going to execute them? I mean, you won’t parking tickets.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:02
What about sure you make the example the less likely it is to occur here

Unknown Speaker 1:36:08
Oh, I would like to kill people for embezzlement but but but it’s but it’s not unconstitutional What about practices that were followed at the time of the founding year notching the pillory? If what if cases like that arose? Would you find likely that their constant I find their constitutional and stupid listen a lot of stuff that is constitutional and enormous amount of stuff that’s constitutional is stupid that that cannot be the test no they’re really stupid

Unknown Speaker 1:36:35
constitutional but stupid right

Larry 1:36:37
and we’ve played a similar level before and I I use that for helping people understand not liking something does it transform it to be unconstitutional that’s not a test it’s it’s seldom a test and it really shouldn’t be a test because the courts do not exist they did not create the that branch of government To be a super referee of what we impose on ourselves through our elected officials. It’s a super referee. to, to, to stand guard for when we do things that do violate, clearly what’s in the Constitution. And we don’t have a lot of things that we think are in the constitution or not in the Constitution, people argue all the time they have the right to free speech. Well, you do to the extent that the government is interfering with that, right, but you don’t have a right to commandeer someone else’s platform to use it to convey your message. And I say, Well, why don’t you go to church on Sunday and tell them, Hey, I kind of don’t really agree with what comes out his pulpit every Sunday. And I’d like to have your microphone this week because I have a counter message. Find out how much free speech you have. You have you have absolutely. You have absolutely no constitutional right to their microphone. But now on the other hand, if government comes in and says you cannot be in that facility on Sunday morning, because the government doesn’t want you there. Then you have a constitution. Why? Because government doesn’t have any, any business interfering in your exercise of religion, or how you choose to speak if the church chooses to let you speak, or whether that’s up to them. But some things that we think are constitutional rights are not constitutional rights. It’s the way what he said in the first clip about where the way it should be versus the way it is. And that’s where I get should be versus is be. Blessing should be a certain way. But they’re not because we haven’t made them that way.

Andy 1:38:29
I know you don’t know inside the brain of Mr. Scalia. But it could be construed that he’s actually trying to go about it like, Hey, man, I want to just go about this the easiest, laziest way possible. And I don’t want to if it doesn’t fit inside of this mold of what is or isn’t constitutional. I don’t have to think about it.

Larry 1:38:48
That’d be one way to imagine him. I think that I wouldn’t be quite as sinister. I think that he believes he’s protecting the Constitution. He believes that it can evolve both ways. He believes that they have Loving standard of decency can’t become an evolving standard of tyranny. And he cites he cites to the erosion of the Confrontation Clause which he is credit, helped restore the Confrontation Clause during his term on the court. But he believes that if the constitution can evolve, it can evolve in a dangerous way. So I believe that lazy may not be his entire motivation. I believe that he he paced he’s fearful of evolution. I braugher says that he’s he’s not seeing evidence of evolving in a negative way. But theoretically, if the constitution can evolve, what would stop it? It certainly way if you have a strong enough, if you have the victims advocates, who if they gain sufficient power, why can’t we evolve out a bunch of constitutional rights? That’s what the people want in large numbers. Why wouldn’t why wouldn’t Scalia be right to be afraid?

Andy 1:39:50
It seems that Briar would probably sit there and have the same sort of argument that he’s just protecting what he believes is the purpose of the Constitution just the same huskily is Absolutely. And that’s the whole point that

Larry 1:40:01
these clips make is that legal minds can disagree. And that appeal that’s going on in Georgia 11th circuit right now. We’re both arguing the mootness doctrine. And we’re both right. Both sides are arguing the mootness doctrine, saying the cases boot for different that we’re saying it’s boot for our reasons, because we don’t want a decision that reverses the injunction. And the sheriff is saying that Islam, this is an exception to the mootness doctrine. And here’s why. And their arguments for what they have properly cited, what the exceptions are going to start, right. And that’s an issue that’s capable of reputation, but there wasn’t sufficient time for it to be reviewed because of the compact time. Well, they had a very compact time to respond. We filed a lawsuit in October. It was it was decided, in a very short turnaround time. There were so time for an appeal. The injunction was issued on the 29th they’re absolutely correct the head Two days I could not possibly perfect an appeal. So they’re saying that they should be able to have their blatant appeal down there. They’re accurately and correctly arguing the exception to the mootness doctrine. We’re citing the damn things moved the judge granted, it was good for 2019 Halloweens over, the injunction is now dissolved. And the cases over it should be dismissed where you can you can be looking at the exact same situation, and you can completely rationally disagree in terms of what the how the law should be applied.

Andy 1:41:29
One final question that I have for you here is, why is it that only the right leaning folks are considered like constitutionalist originalist pick your term there and the lefties are trying to destroy the constitution? Isn’t there some sort of ground to say that I’m trying to protect these things like the Confrontation Clause, but I have left leaning politics, but I still respect all of the principles that are there secondment, why doesn’t that exist, it doesn’t seem that it does. Does that exist?

Larry 1:42:01
Well, I resent that when people say that it’s kind of like when they say that they vote for a candidate because they look at the bigger picture, to say that the people that come from from a from a more liberal ideology somehow don’t love this constitution a cherished values and love this great country is so absurd and offensive. It is so absurd. I mean, the right wingers love to say that that Obama was trying to destroy the country. He was doing no such thing. He was a very patriotic even though all the rest of the list hit it. Senator McCain said that to one of his supporters that came up to him when he was running against Obama. And she said, I’m afraid of this man. And he thought a patriotic something to that effect. And he said, No, ma’am. He’s a very patriotic that people who say that, that the left is to try and restore the Constitution, that it’s ridiculous. We cherish the Constitution. We cherish the constitution as much as you did. We just happen to believe that the Constitution does different things and different ways than what you believe.

Andy 1:43:00
Finally, Larry, we are almost ready to get out of here. I have a voicemail from Super patron Mike in Florida again, and has another question for you. Are you ready to go? Let’s do it.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:10
Hey, guys, it’s Mike again this week down in Central Florida. I had a question in a in a request. My question is in the state in the near future when some of these laws or these restrictions that we have are overturned and deemed unconstitutional, the things change, such as stuff that we’ve been talking about Michigan for some of the registrants who were from pre 2000, you know, six and way back, if any of those people get released, and it’s in there, you know, dropped from the registry. Here’s my question. If they had any technical violations during those years that they were on the registry. Well, those technical violations stand or will they have grounds to go back and have those sealed or removed I’m not sure how that works. I’m sure I’m using the wrong terminology. Anyway, I was just thinking about that this week. And would they have a leg to stand on a table and say, Hey, listen, this was never legal in the first place. Could we go back and, you know, get something like that baby expunged, or whatever the case may be. But anyway, that was my question. And my statement is for the other 50,000 listeners that listen to this podcast every week, I need you guys to call in and let’s get some voicemails on here and save the voicemail. You know, Larry likes the voicemails. And he’s a big part of what we’re doing here. So we need you guys to step up and help me call in with some good questions. Other than that, I appreciate what you guys do and a big ol fyp to anybody who don’t listen to this podcast.

Larry 1:44:47
How about that from Mike? That is actually a fantastic question. And it is going to be on the list of questions that that will come up on the nozzle and action. National litigation review by denied. And, to my chagrin, I was not the thinker of the question. It has been one. It’s been raised several times through through the ACLU, to the ACLU, to our contact that works with the ACLU there in Michigan. And he submitted to me as a proposed question, and I love it. So it’s going to be asked, I don’t know the answer to it. It stands to reason that, that they would be able to if the greater question within that, what he’s wanting to know, what about the people that are serving prison time right now for violating that because Michigan, Michigan may not have the the many states work count that as a habitual felony, we don’t exempt because it’s simple regulatory scheme. So it’s not a felony that’s eligible for for enhancement in my state. But what about the people who that may have been their third, second, third, fourth, felony conviction? What about those people who are either still in prison or still in supervisory control? What happens to their conviction? We should when they Would they be able to be released? What would they? I don’t know the answer to that it seems like they would but and on the other hand, what about when, in the case of Gennaro Wilson and Georgia where they were they a young man who had sex with a with the he was 17. She was 15. And it was consensual. That was a felony. And he got the Georgia Supreme Court declared that to be a cruel unusual punishment under the under the state constitution. It only applied to him all the hundreds of young men that were in prison. The State of Georgia have fought vigorously to keep them incarcerated and Attorney General Baker at the time. Old Thurber, his name was Thurber it said that that’s what exactly where they belong. So if Michigan would follow that model of Georgia, they would try as hard as I can to keep to secure those convictions they have. And they would fight tooth and nail not to let anybody have the abunda that would be my expectation.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:56
All right, then. What about

Andy 1:46:57
a second part the statement of God sorry.

Larry 1:46:59
Yeah. It’ll be it’ll be on the podcast and on the on the dorsal action. And we’ll ask that to the attorney. And what the second part of the question I’ve got old timers?

Andy 1:47:06
Well, he had just said that I think the statement was basically we need to keep the voicemail system going because you’re all about some voicemails and fyp to all those that don’t listen to the podcast.

Larry 1:47:16
Well, I agree with the voicemails. They’re there. They’re great. particular one there well thought out questions. And that was that was a great question.

Andy 1:47:23
Mike’s a pretty sharp cat. Larry, I’m going to tease this that I have something pretty exciting that I’m going to release very soon on the YouTubes. It may happen this week. I don’t know if I will, if I will finally make it through. But I’m going to try and kick it over the the goalpost. You’ve seen it. What do you think? Should I do it?

Larry 1:47:41
I think so. I think it’s a stellar job that you’ve done on that video. And I wish I could speak as stutter proof as you did in there.

Andy 1:47:50
A lot of practicing. So yeah, I might be able to, I might be able to release that and then maybe with your assistance to try and come up with something on a, I don’t know, weekly every other week, once a month, something like That to try and release something so there’s your teaser and I think that can close out the show Larry How do people find us on the internet?

Unknown Speaker 1:48:08
Very carefully. Of course always carefully very very carefully though. It was very gotcha

Larry 1:48:16
so isn’t it registered matters dot CEO

Andy 1:48:18
it is it is registering matters dot CEO and again Don’t ask me why is the CEO not I mean why it’s a CEO not a.com I have no idea what I was thinking when I did that. But it is a dot CEO not a cop. How about your favorite thing a phone number? How do people reach us by the old school stringing two cans together with a with a

Larry 1:48:35
string. If you still have a working phone call 7472 to 74477 I started to say dial but no one dials habits anymore.

Andy 1:48:46
even know how to dial anymore. So yeah, we are standing by 24 seven. And for the low low low of 1995. You can have your But anyway, and then you can send us an email If you’d like to register your matters cast@gmail.com fantastic. And of course we love all of our patrons but if you would like to, and we would love it if you would get together put together $1 $2 $100 a million dollars and you can support the podcast and the efforts and all the brainy Agnes that Larry is. People go where Larry?

Larry 1:49:20
Oh, that would be patreon.com slash registry matters.

Andy 1:49:25
Fan freaking fantastic. You know what, though, we also get a ton of people listening to the show on YouTube, go over there and subscribe. And that would be amazing. And you could find us on Twitter. And these are all registry matters at these different places. I think other than registering matters cast because I was a dumb, dumb and forgot the password when I created the email account. That’s another story entirely as well.

Unknown Speaker 1:49:44
So you can’t you can’t check the

Andy 1:49:46
email. I can check this one but I had an original one and I forgot the password. But that’s two and a half years ago.

Larry 1:49:51
So well. What about Spotify? Can they find us there?

Unknown Speaker 1:49:57
Yes, you can find us on Spotify, iTunes, Google. Play, Spotify, Pandora everywhere.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:03
All there.

Andy 1:50:04
I hope you have a splendid Saturday night.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:07
Well, while I’m in the chat room now it’s packed to the gills

Andy 1:50:10
it is we had a bunch of people and I so very much appreciate chat. You can find a link in the show notes if you want to come join us over on discord and you can harass me and talk to all the other people’s. And yes, and somebody in chat is saying the okay and then the G word play registry matters. I’m not going to say that because all my stuff would fire up in here. So but you can do that. Yes. And the a word to it is on all of those platforms. Larry, I hope you have a splendid night and I will talk to you soon. Good night. Night.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Listen to RM116: Hypocrisy: Rod Blagojevich Becomes Enlightened

Andy 0:00
Recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 116 of registry matters. Saturday night again, Larry, how are you? I don’t know how your weather was but it’s awfully bright outside for my for being Saturday night.

Larry 0:29
It’s very bright outside and I’m thinking maybe it might not even be Saturday, but I’m not sure.

Andy 0:34
Wait a minute. What day is it?

Unknown Speaker 0:37
I’m thinking it might be thinking it may be Sunday.

Andy 0:40
Oh, crap. You’re right. Sunday afternoon. Well, we’re a day late and $1 short, I think is how that expression goes.

Larry 0:46
How are you? Fantastic. I’m ready for a spectacular episode of registry matters.

Andy 0:52
I really like doing the podcast, just saying. I think we should do it every day. You You want to start doing a Daily podcast. Let’s do it. Wow. Hey, you know we have a gigantic amount of content to cover. It’s all over the map. And I would like to begin with a voicemail. It’s a two parter. Our super patron Mike at a Florida has got a comment. And then he’s also got a question for you. So put your ears on Larry and let me know what you think.

Unknown Speaker 1:21
Hey guys, this is Mike from down in Central Florida, one of your long term patrons want to take a minute, leave a message and tell you guys how much I really appreciate the podcast. production value of it has gone up exponentially. It sounds amazing these days. appreciate the work that you put into it organization of the whole thing that really sounds professional and adds a lot of credibility to this movement. And also had a little comment for Larry. I really appreciate the way that you put the real life expectations of these things that that are happening in the different circuit courts, and none of us need any false hope. And I like the way you give it to us exactly the way it is and no fluff. And that’s what we need. We need to know what’s going on in a language that we can understand. So I really appreciate that about how Larry, you know, break it down for us, and explain it to us. And it’s not something that’s given anybody false hope we exactly know what’s going on and can set a real expectation for that. So I appreciate that. And lastly, I do have a question for Larry. I’m wondering that with the changes that are going on in the future, and I know you can’t predict the future, but the things like what’s happening in Michigan and some of the lawsuits that are going on and other places like New Mexico and I know there’s a big one in Florida once these things started to change, for example, if things loosen up and lacks on certain register, so Michigan, for example, do you think if the senate legislate some new registry, they will make a provision to keep people from other states, you know, from flooding into that area to try to, you know, avoid the registry, which I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same thing if I was close enough to it. But anyway, do you think they’ll do something like that? Or do you think they’ll just, you know, let it go. I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t try to make some sort of provision. But that’s my question. Great podcast. You guys are awesome. Keep up the good work.

Andy 3:34
Thank you for that, Mike. And hey, I appreciate those comments about or compliments about the production quality because I’m all about making it sound

Larry 3:42
awesome. You are. I try. We appreciate that. That was very, very nice comment. I will be sending a check to Mike.

Andy 3:54
What about them about doing something along the way? Well, let’s first address the the part about like I mean, you know, Larry, you you do have a tendency to not really sugarcoat it and tell us from your from all of your hundreds of years of experience with legislators, including all the way back to Greece. But like you don’t you look at it from just not from a legal point of view, but also from a political point of view.

Unknown Speaker 4:18
I do indeed. And I think that, that he’s really understanding what’s going on here that there is a trend and like, for example, we’re going to, we’re going to have a column from syndicated columnist Diane diamond pop up here later. And for her to take the position that she took that it’s time to reduce the bloated registries. I do see a trend from all this litigation where lawmakers are beginning to have the opportunity to feel some protection, which is what they need. They need protection from the angry mob. They need judge Persky, you remember that? You remember the angry mob? That’s right. Yes. They Court rulings, the cumulative effect of the court rulings will be able to lawmakers will be able to say, I wish I could, but we can’t. Now whether or not they truly wish they could, that’s only something you will know from a personal relationship from them. But they feel the need to say that they wish they could because they’ve got the angry mob staring at them saying, why don’t you and that that’s the position that they’re in. And as I try to say over and over again, it’s kind of like his be versus the way it should be. I don’t, I don’t the people that hold offices, by and large, do not, do not decide public opinion. They can contribute to public opinion. In some ways. If you have a really charismatic leader who’s really persuasive. They can possibly move public opinion. But public opinion usually is the other way around. The people we elect are responding to public opinion. They’re not creating public opinion. I know we’re going to get some comments that disagree with that. But, but when they go out and grandstand and they give a press conference, that something ought to be done about something, it’s because public opinion, they’re sensing, but their finger in the wind as for public opinion is, and they’re not making that public opinion. they’ve they’ve learned this public opinion from door knocking, from community functions, from emails from phone calls, and they’ve heard this from the people that they’re representing that have communicated with them. This is what they believe their constituents want. And what are they supposed to do in a representative Republic? Are they supposed to flip the middle finger and say, well, don’t really care what you want?

Andy 6:38
We did vote them to represent us and if we want something that makes no sense is ineffective. That that’s irrelevant, isn’t it?

Larry 6:47
Well, if they’re radically if we don’t like what we’re getting, we would change who we’re electing.

Andy 6:52
Well, I know what I mean it from from from the side of like, like the angry mob, so to speak the angry mob. Once these registrations Regardless of whether they’re effective or not, it makes them feel better. And the representative has done what they’ve requested that person to do him or her. So it’s what we got. Right?

Larry 7:10
That is correct. That’s what we says what we’ve got. And the public opinion, in my view, and I have a lot of years of experience. I believe that public opinion drives, they don’t believe this other way around. I do not believe that lawmakers make public opinion. The fact of the matter is, if you look at it, the major issues of the day, what changed, same sex marriage was it was the lawmakers or was that public opinion,

Andy 7:36
is just a groundswell of support in a reasonably short period of time that changed and forced the hand.

Larry 7:43
And that and in fact, some of the people that held political office particular on the conservative side did everything they could to keep public opinion from running today. They they went to court, and they fought all the way to the US Supreme Court on that issue, but public opinion ultimately prevailed public opinion will prevail over Every single issue and a representative Republic, if that public opinion is heard loud enough, where we no longer want to be the incarceration capital of the world, we will no longer be the incarceration of capital of the world, because public opinion will demand that we stopped doing it. And the representatives and senators will respond accordingly. It will take some time, it will be painful that people will not want to give up their cushy jobs that work in the prison corrections industrial complex, but we could move in another direction. But to the second component of his question, I would I would be very surprised if Michigan didn’t try to figure out a way to close the flood gate because the way it looks to me and this is a good chance to plug the normal and action which is a week from Monday night, March 2. We’re going to have a segment on a three hour narshall and Action Program on segments going to be devoted to Michigan and we’re going to have Miriam outcome and who’s the ACLU attorney, one of the primary movers of this case, we’re going to have We’re going to have her on. But But I would be very surprised if they didn’t try to close the floodgate. Because the way I read the decision, there’s nothing that would prevent a person who has a conviction, a conduct that occurred prior to 2011. from going to Michigan, and saying I don’t have to register anymore, assuming that they don’t enact a new modified version of registration. And they’re not going to want that. They’re just not going to be able to tolerate that politically. They get the border and states will be the first of a few few left at a border state, that’d be the first place you’d want to go to. So the people Michigan are not going to want sex offenders from other states got me there, I I don’t make that rule. I’m just telling you, that’s the way that the population of Michigan is going to look at that. And they’re going to put enormous pressure on their representatives to not let that happen.

Andy 9:49
And so they could put some sort of wording in there. If you’ve been convicted of a crime in another state, then you’re going to register here.

Larry 9:56
Well, then they probably be a little more creative than that. They would probably, they would probably come up with something along the lines of if, if you’re disappointed this ruling, that would probably try to put in statute, this ruling will will apply to anyone who was residing in Michigan and had an obligation to register at Michigan at that time, because then they could, or they could credibly credibly argued that it’s not ex post facto, because you don’t benefit from the ruling you weren’t here. And now, that would that doesn’t mean that you couldn’t bring another case and say, well, there’s an equal protection issue here. And I’m not saying that you couldn’t bring another viable cause of action. But that doesn’t close the door to the lawmakers trying to do what they can to keep the floodgate from opening. And that’s what I would expect that they would do to try to come up with something that would that would, that would close what they could see as a potential floodgate. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s 10s of thousands or the solder in 60. It doesn’t matter because that the people I think we’ve gone back to the Nebraska case. situation where where that they passed a law a decade ago where you could drop off a kid, if you didn’t want to take care of that. And if you’re a prosecution that they were become a safe haven, because they love kids so much that they wanted to provide people an opportunity to, to get that child to help so you could drop a kid off at a hospital or at at a safe haven. No questions asked him when the kids started being dropped off. There were some a little bit older than important, so cute and cuddly. They were like problem problem kids that were teenage adolescent

Unknown Speaker 11:37
like little cute puppies.

Larry 11:39
And when they when they when they had a handful of kids that were dropped off his adolescence. All of a sudden they did a quick repeal of that because Nebraska didn’t feel like they could become the haven for everybody who had a problem child that they couldn’t care for. Oh, well, we’ll just drive across them. drop them off over here in Omaha that’s a good place to get rid of them and We don’t have any potential liability for the kid anymore. And they repealed that. If you’re not going to let cuddly kids be dropped off in your state, who, most by most accounts, most people like children. If you’re going to close that floodgate, it only stands to reason if I applied my political experience looking back on history, that you’re not going to let people on the sex offender registry come cascading into your state. That’s why the way I would expect it to go down.

Unknown Speaker 12:31
And even,

Andy 12:33
you know, this all went over my head, because I’m not quite so smart. But Larry is under the impression and nothing against Larry, Larry is under the opinion that, like there’s not going to be a way for the legislature to finagle their way around this and try and enact something new. I that’s my interpretation of the conversation that went down over the last couple weeks.

Larry 12:55
I don’t I don’t share his

Andy 12:58
Yeah, no, I get isn’t that Sort of like, you know, super short characterization characterization of what he was saying.

Larry 13:04
But it did it did sound like that, but says you, but if

Andy 13:08
you don’t share that, and I don’t and I don’t, I don’t question either one of you because you both are incredibly, incredibly smart. And I just I don’t know where I can even stand I certainly side with you from the logic and rationale side, but I can’t really contest is because he’s wickedly smart too.

Larry 13:24
Well, it would seem like to me that if you looked at Smith versus Doe, and you had a registry like that, that passed constitutional muster, that’s not what Michigan has currently. But Michigan, all previous challenges to Michigan’s registry had had had failed because until 2006 and 2011, when they added those provisions, it was viewed as a civil regulatory scheme. So I don’t know why the world what would make it impossible to peel off, you would have to, you would have to draft a new registry and you would have to, you would have to do some work at it because apparently, if you just struct the words of the 2006 11. Members, you would have nothing but jibberish. He would have to you’d have to draft a new law. But I don’t know what would preclude them from doing that. I can’t figure out what would preclude them from passing a new law and making a very benign registry which would would, which would make the constitutional challenge. The all registries are not a constitution. I don’t know how many times I’ve said that on the podcast, to two plus years. The mere act of registering someone in and of itself is not unconstitutional.

Andy 14:30
We could conceivably, you know, maybe word for word I don’t know if that works today, but the 2003 Alaska registry like somebody could put that in place and it has I Your words are, I believe disabilities and restraints, it doesn’t impose anything significant. by just having to go visit the Popo annually and and do whatever they were doing. Like, that’s not that big a deal if they don’t add all the restrictions and all the other garbage on top of it like it would be moderately inconvenient, but I don’t think it would be much More than that. Well,

Larry 15:02
I would say that if you look at New York, I know we’ve got listening on right now that there was an immense amount of resources few years ago put into challenging New York’s registry where you have to go in like every three years, right to have have a picture made and you get mail in the mail and forms and the the, the case was, was being was being appealed. And Professor Carpenter from California, I forget which law school she’s at, but she contacted marcil. And we jointly looked at the case and Professor Carpenter saw the same thing I did, is that that appeal was not likely to succeed because there wasn’t enough disabilities or restraints. The mere fact that you have to mail in a form is not punishment. and and the the, the appeal was unsuccessful. The challenge was unsuccessful. And in fact, New York went back after I think they’ve extended their registry at least once, maybe twice, because After the first 10 years originally you were going to get off after 10 years. And they went back and said, Well, we want you to be on another 10 years. What as long as it was a civil regulatory scheme, they were able to extend the period, an additional 10 years, it’s quite obvious that you can have a registry that is unconstitutional. I do not advocate for them, nor does marcil. But you could do it. The question to what we’re having the discussion about is whether or not it can constitutionally be done. The question we’re not discussing is whether it should be done. Yeah. If you want to discuss that it shouldn’t be done. There’s no there’s there’s no debate about that. When people pay their debt to society, they should be free to go on with their life and they shouldn’t have any accountability until they break the law. Again, I can’t make it any clearer than that. But that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing why the Michigan could enact a constitutional registry. Yes, they could.

Andy 16:55
But it wouldn’t be popular by the people.

Larry 16:57
Well, it would be more popular than having nothing at all. they’re faced with having to enact a less draconian registry or let these people go. Then they have the political coverage. They can say, you know, the one for that damn federal judiciary, you know, thank God we got President Trump putting good law and order justices on. But if it weren’t for these lifetime appointees are accountable to nobody, we would have a tougher registry, but this is the best we can do. And we wish we could do more. That’s what they will likely do, is they’ll blame the courts and say, This is all we can do. And then they’ll probably test the boundaries and try to do more than what they should do. And there could be additional challenges forthcoming.

Andy 17:37
I do understand now that we beat that dead horse. We should move on to cover some articles of the day.

Larry 17:43
But we only got 2020 we’ve only got 27 articles in here.

Andy 17:46
Sorry, sorry, sorry. Sorry, I miscounted. So this first one comes from the New York Times opinion section let Bernie Madoff and many more out of prison. Bernie Madoff is a pretty poopy person in my personal opinion he actually started his little his, his whole situation came down like right when I was first entering into the system, and being of similar religious heritage and culture and all that stuff, it was really crappy the way that he embezzled Ponzi scheme, just unhold kajillions of dollars and not really a very popular person, in my opinion. But he is now ancient, he’s almost your age, and he’s got like stage 75 kidney failure, and we are going to spend a bunch of money trying to keep him alive so we can serve as much of a prison sentence as we can possibly muster while he continues to deteriorate in prison, and he has petitioned, I think, under the first step act to have some level of compassionate release, and I don’t think it’s going to go through

Larry 18:50
those, those petitions rarely do the provision exist to let people out and both states March. It’s a most I don’t know, that’d be a fact. I know many states have such a provision and their law. But it becomes very difficult to actually. Can you imagine the uproar that would happen? This, this individual was responsible for bilking a lot of investors out of an awful lot of money. And I know it’s only money, but money that that could play an important role in their, their financial security for health care for their children. And he, he was, he was a sad character. And the anger has not subsided even after all these years in prison because the very little restitution was had by the people who were victimized, and they want him to suffer. And they want him to die in prison. And that’s difficult to overcome. It really is. So I would expect I would agree with you i would not expect him to be released.

Andy 19:53
The they say that he has he’s entering the final stages of kidney disease and has less than 18 months to live He milked 17 billion from investors. And the part that bothered me the most, I suppose, is that there were philanthropies that had money invested through his funding efforts, whatever investment strategies, and he was reporting like 20% kind of things per year and these things then just like evaporated, they were crushed, because the money was never really there. Anyway, I know that we’re not talking about the crime that he did. I just wanted to highlight those things. And but yeah, he will, if you were going to spend for this guy to to be in prison versus the damage done. I mean, never accounts for it. But like our only purpose for leaving him there is to just like, stick the screws in him and say, You’re being punished more and more and more.

Larry 20:46
That is That is correct. But if you look at the article, the bureau presidents denied his petition as it does 94% of those, yeah, filed by incarcerated people under that provision. And, again, I wish it wasn’t 94% but the reality is That the mob won’t tolerate the releases and the political pressure is applied to a few issue. Dare release on one. And we’re going to get into some pardons and commutations later but there’s usually a lot of political pressure applied and and i would imagine that the old presidents and there’s just no way that they can let this guy out. It would require executive it would require executive intervention, someone who actually has the, the, the cover, the President could could intervene and and and it would be okay but for a bureaucrat to do this. I just don’t see it happen.

Andy 21:36
coming over from lex 18, and that we have a couple like collateral articles that go with it to about Marcy’s law. This is a measure that passing almost all across the country. These are either bills being introduced or these are actual constitutional amendments that are giving victims more rights to know about the person that committed their crime against them. To that they know when they’re being released, I think they even have a stake at the table of whether the person is released or not. And it took me a very long time to even like digest this, Larry and understand this that as far as when you see the docket, whatever the term is, it says the state versus john smith, whatever that person’s name is, but it is not the victim versus the person that perpetrated the alleged perpetrator of the crime. So the victim is a cog in the wheel, their piece of evidence, their testimony, they are physical evidence, why would you then bring them to the forefront to be like a, what’s the word and advisor in the whole process of letting someone out of prison after they’ve done their 510 20 years, whatever that time is?

Larry 22:46
Well, you wouldn’t if you were, if you were reacting rationally, but what’s happening is an irrational debate that’s being driven by the victim industrial complex, and it is had has become a complex a very, very Lots of money. A lot of a lot of effort has been put into creating these advocates for victims rights. And we’ve kind of lost sight of the crime is against the people. It’s not against the person. And I think people I think I got ugly email about this when I said about this the people who made the rules of an organized society, and it’s us, we the people who decided for those boundaries are and an order so that we don’t have people’s eyeballs being extracted, and we don’t have we don’t have vigilante justice being administered. We we developed an orderly system that’s supposed to be somewhat neutral and objective in terms of widest proportional punishment, and what is proper for balancing the needs of an early society. While the victims are not happy with that, they feel like that when you come home and property crime or if it’s a if it’s a violent crime against you as a person Your emotion takes over which is what the system is designed to keep from entering into it. Because you’re angry at the person and rightfully so. But the victims should not be anything more than a witness at the table. They should not decide whether you get harsh sentence or not. I don’t think that I agree with with with asking the victim, what’s that appropriate sentence? It cuts both ways. I know sometimes the victim wants a lesser sentence than what the state would be. That’s a rarity, but it does happen. But I do not believe that that is proper for if the state’s want to offer a plea agreement that is probation and the victim says no. When a prosecutor says Well, I would have offered probation but but the victim wouldn’t have any part of it. probation may be the appropriate remedy for that. So I’m I’m greatly concentrated over all this stuff, or we’re trying in the Constitution. requirements that victim speed given a role that’s not properly theirs, and they’re not properly equipped. nor should they be making these decisions.

Andy 25:03
I suppose if you went to your local Applebee’s and you demanded to be part of the cooking process, we should just elect you to be Master Chef over your dinner at Applebee’s because you said you wanted to be because you’re an eater at the restaurant, therefore, you’re an expert on the cooking of it.

Larry 25:21
While I guess that’s a, that’s a somewhat of an example.

Andy 25:25
may not be the bestest one, but it’s the bestest one that I could come up with. As we are speaking. We had a couple of articles from courthouse news and the courier journal all talking about the measure. And you know, it’s funny when I was reading one of the articles I want to say that North Carolina already has victims rights in their constitution. So this gives them rights are in their constitution.

Larry 25:48
Well, it’s scary to me, but I’m on the defense side of this so it worries me When, when, when, when we when we did the careful balance. It was created. our justice system is being continuously eroded where there is no balance. And we’re going to hear we’re going to hear a former governor and a clip here shortly say that, that he didn’t realize that surprised. He didn’t realize it, but he didn’t realize how bad the system and we’re, we’re still headed in the wrong direction these things are moving us in the wrong direction, not the right direction.

Andy 26:23
And some of the other articles were talking about how this breaks down due process. Can you delve into what the problem on the due process side is of this?

Larry 26:32
Well, the particulars are Marcy’s log varies according to what they’re proposing and each each situation but But due due process, due process is being continuously eroded by by victims because what the one thing that bothers me the most is that they are demanding to be entitled to be believed, as if something that they say is magically so and they’re entitled. And they are demanding not to be confronted by By strict and aggressive questioning, about their motives about why they’re making the accusations, all that erodes due process. And then when when when you look at it on the backside of it, after you’ve paid your debt to society, and you’re ready to be released. Well, guess what? We have to notify the victims. We have to ask them what what they would think about if you were to be released, you’ve been in prison for seven and a half years now you’ve been a model prisoner, but the victim state to be at the table really.

Andy 27:34
They’re a bunch of like video clips where they show some dudes talking some woman you know, here, here’s the the person that spent 10 years in prison for you know, assaulting you whatever, and the woman’s like, freaking out scared to death, which is totally legit. But I’m assuming we could make some kind of law that after the, I know you’re gonna say after the person has finished their sentence, they shouldn’t have any disability restraints. But while they’re under some kind of supervision, I’m assuming the judge could say You can’t be in proximity of this person, person which is immediately breaking some kind of rule, regulation, whatever, that they are in the wrong place, and they could then go back inside the box.

Larry 28:13
But people, people that are imprisoned magically don’t become nice people just by mere fact of being in prison. If they did, we would have the safest country that could be ever be imagined. Because we incarcerate so many of our people, they would magically become nice, of course, people in prison who have been put there for doing bad things sometimes continue to succeed in doing bad things while they’re in prison. Is that that’s, that’s obvious, but we have laws against that. So if the person serves their debt to society, and they really are released from prison, and they, they commence a pattern of stalking, or harassing a prior victim, we can do what we do with other people. We can intervene again, right?

Andy 28:55
Yeah, yeah, even post if the person says hey, this person is stalking I saw him watching me here, there’s cars parked outside there, then you’ve then broken another law, you go in front of the judge and you have some prior history, then they’re going to put the hammer down on you harder, I would assume.

Larry 29:13
Well, of course, there’s the extreme case where a person who had not been rehabilitated what come out of prison and not only stop, but actually do an act of violence. And then the person, the person who said, Well, if I had they not been early released, they would not have been able to do and you’re absolutely correct. If we never release a person, we will keep their recidivism rate down to absolute zero, we can I can assure you that their their free world recidivism rate would be zero. I can’t tell you about the recidivism rate inside behind the walls but there, we could do that. But the question for society is, is that the wisest use of our resources to incarcerate a person at definitely, who might do something at some point in the future, after they’ve been punished appropriately. And that is just not the country I want to live and where we incarcerate people for what they might do. we incarcerate people for what they do do,

Andy 30:08
I do understand, we are going to move over to an article that you put in here like 10 minutes ago always throw me curveballs Larry, but is from the Albuquerque journal. And this is a column by a syndicated column by Diane diamond. And she is all about our bloated sex offender registry and shutting that whole thing down and saying it’s time to reform them and, like reduce their, the number of people that they have on them and so forth.

Larry 30:39
I thought it was a great column. I put it in because the she really piggybacked off of the the Michigan decision. And she talked about the Judge Robert Cleveland, which we spent a lot of time on last week and the week before, and she she indicates that the registries have become blood And she points out many of the problems of the current versions of registration and achieve them points out some of the people down the registry that you wouldn’t imagine like she said in 2002, a woman in Georgia was convicted of a sexual offense for allowing her 15 year old daughter to have sex on their home. You know that she’s when you hear the sex offender registry you the average citizen thinks of something very vile, a person who’s done something very, very hands. So she illuminates that the registry, teenage boys caught up with high school girls, she’s got that on there. And and it’s, it’s, it’s an illumination. Again, this helps the politician have cover because Diane diamonds is carried in a whole lot of newspapers across the country. And a lot of elected officials are reading this so that didn’t even know anything about the Michigan case. They don’t know about the Michigan case. They know about the existence of the registry. And they can say well, you know, everybody knows this because I mean, it was an was the journal yesterday. And she did use some terms that we don’t like thrown around predator, a pedophile, but all it all is a fantastic column. So I would encourage people to read it if they haven’t already seen it in their local newspaper.

Andy 32:13
You can certainly find that in our show notes.

Unknown Speaker 32:15
You imagine being shackled to a gurney during delivery because they’re concerned about you escaping. That’s a barbaric practice that should be banned.

Andy 32:23
So this next article comes from Palmetto politics, the post and career and this is from Charleston, South Carolina. South Carolina lawmakers considered measure to end shackling pregnant inmates. This one bothers me. So very bad. I can’t imagine a woman who’s eleventy five months pregnant with this frickin arrow hanging a bowling ball hanging out from her tummy. And she’s like broken or water and screaming in agony and they’re gonna be like, Nope, sorry, we got to put the irons on you so you don’t run away or don’t hurt anybody why you’re popping out the baby. I’m baffled by this. Practice. It really bothers me.

Larry 33:02
It bothers me indeed, and laws are being passed have been passed and are being passed to prohibit this. And it’s sad that we have to pass a law because up to inhumane officers, they would order such a thing. And I know they say I’ve just followed my department’s policy, all prisoners, if I take a prisoner of the hospital, I have to, I mean, the department requires that. So they get to pass the buck and say, Well, if it weren’t department policy, I wouldn’t be doing it. But this is what I’m obligated to do. But South Carolina’s credit, apparently, the State Department of Corrections has long since abandoned this. They’ve got a policy against that it says that this is just something that’s being done because of local correctional facilities are not under state control. But why would you need a law? I mean, really, why would you have To have a law to encourage you not to do this, isn’t it the humane thing to do?

Andy 34:07
Isn’t that almost where this all falls down is that when left to the discretion of the individual, that they don’t know what is appropriate, necessarily. So now you have to give them further guidance. This seems almost like the nanny state that everyone rails against where we would like local control over these things. Oh, wait, somebody has f that up beyond all measure. So we need to put in a law so that there’s no confusion about them having their own local discretion?

Larry 34:33
Well, I guess that’s the way I would look at it, that local discretion is not always the best, but I just don’t understand what kind of human being would want to do that. I know, right?

Andy 34:45
I’m sure there was some psycho woman doing this and forgive me, I’m not trying to attack women, but there’s some crazy woman out there. Whether she is intense, like she is actually born bad, or in the fit of all of the stress and trauma of having a baby That she got some violent and scratch someone or actually tried to escape. I don’t know and I’m sure that there is an example out there of someone doing something terrible while dropping a kid off, but doesn’t seem like anywhere near any level of majority any level of like a statistically significant number of people would be trying to do heinous things while they’re dropping it off. Well,

Larry 35:24
again, I’m of course there’s always that saber toothed Tiger that were or someone there’s a phenomenal superhuman, since I have not been pregnant I can’t attest to what it does the body what it does the energy level, you know that stuff. But I’m guessing from what i’ve little, I do know that that all the coordination of all your muscles would be necessary to help deliver that baby and having a person shackled and chained and it was seemed like that would interfere with the movements that you would need to exert maximum participation in the delivery. But I just don’t see the face that

Andy 36:02
you have such political words, always cracks me.

Larry 36:05
I don’t, I don’t know how a human being could sit there and watch a woman shackled, trying to give birth and be proud of themselves. At the very minimum, you’d go back to your Sheriff and say, boss, I’m telling you, I did this today, I’m not going to do this. Again, this is a ridiculous policy, you need to abolish it. Every inmate that we take to hospital setting doesn’t need to be shackled. And we need to have officer discretion on this weight needs to be you know, grow a little bit to it between your legs, and go ahead and tell them this is wrong.

Andy 36:40
But then then the share says, hey, you’re going to shackle everyone when you go to go do your job. And that like when you take someone to the hospital, you’re going to shackle them, I don’t care if they’re missing limbs shackle the missing limbs together.

Larry 36:55
And and you say well, that’s nice one that’s appreciate your input, but I’m going to My way and then have the courage if you’re a good officer, as far as I know, there’s a great officer shortages around the country. I hear departments are begging for officers for lateral transfers. So tell your sheriff, I’m not going to do it, and that I will be glad for you to terminate me because I just can’t do an inhumane thing like this. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Andy 37:22
very bizarre to me. Let’s move over to a quickie from the Dallas news, Larry, Look, man, the prison system or the jail system in Dallas County is going to lose 3 million in revenue because the commissioner approved a new contract on Tuesday with security and they’re going to drop the cost of a phone call from 360 for a 15 minute call. It will only cost 18 cents. And this has got to be like making everyone’s hackles go up because like, well, we’re going to lose 3 million bucks a year. Where are we now going to get the money to run you know, to offset the expenses of having a jail? Ice like so. If this is jail, I believe, then these people have a presumption of innocence. So why are we putting the screws to them to keep in touch with family talk to their employers, I, I don’t get this. This seems to be something that the city and the county and the state should bear the burden of providing a modicum of normalcy while you’re being detained.

Larry 38:22
But you’re missing an important part of the equation. The companies that provide these phone systems are wanting to make as much money as they can. And one of the temptations that they’ve offered for for being allowed access to provide the phone service is a cut of the action. And it’s very tempting for jail administrators and for prison administrators to turn down you’re looking for ways. Again, as I’ve said on this podcast many times when you run for public office, when you find a person says I’ll tell you what, I’m old Do y’all liked me? I’ma see if I can get a whole lot more money pump. Our correctional system. When you find when you could play me a clip like that somebody sent me one, we’ll put it on the podcast as quickly as possible because it doesn’t sell with all the competing competing things that the government’s need to fund that people won’t find it, although they hate the government, but they want these things funded. And so this is a this is a two and a half million dollar buddy revenue stream that’s going to evaporate. And the county is going to have to look for another source of that revenue, or they’re going to have to divert fighting for something else. But the article identifies their 70% of the people are pre trial in Dallas County Jail. It is that’s typical of what you’d expect. And the rest of them are serving sentences that are either waiting transport to jail state facility or they’re serving a misdemeanor level sentence or they’re never going to be transferred. But they’re gonna serve it out in the county jail. But regardless of whether they’re serving time or whether they’re pre trial, I don’t think we should exploit them for how much did it say per phone call?

Andy 39:58
It was three, six Which to me is like super affordable down to 18 cents. I you know, I I’ve experienced that with I guess, you know, we could say that these are in state calls, but I don’t know if that’s true or not, but my experience was 25 bucks for 15 minutes. So 360 would be a huge like, wow, that’s cheap but 18 cents I was down the phone all frickin day.

Larry 40:21
So, but But yeah, this is this is this is good news for the inmates. So Dallas County Jail.

Andy 40:28
Definitely that. Um, so yeah, I just wanted to bounce there real quick. The next article that we have is from w f. y. i, Indianapolis growing number of people question electronic monitoring system. I think, Larry, because we have all this amazing technology that we could almost shut down prison and jail and put some sort of digital device around someone and send them all home, and we’re just done with it.

Larry 40:55
Well, if we could do that, that would be fantastic. But that’s not the real Lt. electronic monitoring tends to be electronic monitoring tends to expand the universe of people who are under correctional control. And it tends to be an augmentation of standard probation supervision, which is largely taken the relic of the past because there’s what you’ve learned to supervise people start taking a tally of who’s under electronic monitoring, you’ll find a significant number of people that are under probation supervision are being electronically monitored. So but we’re not diverting very many people for prison with the use of electronic technology. It’s It’s It’s addition, an additional group of offenders that were breaking in particular with the pre trial side. Everybody pre trial is now under electronic monitoring, really, they’re presumed innocent, but

Andy 41:46
doesn’t the technology do a better job than your own recognizance?

Larry 41:51
Well, it depends on what a better job means. If it if it means prying into the person’s life and knowing every detail of what they’re doing. And restricting their mobility, yes, it would absolutely do better than that. But if the pre trial is merely for the purpose of assuring the participation and the process, then it does a horrible job because it puts so many barriers around the person that they shouldn’t be. They’re still innocent. Remember?

Andy 42:17
I thought we were guilty until proven innocent in this country. Well,

Larry 42:20
we’re moving that direction. But why shouldn’t you be able to leave Houghton county when your free trial? Why would you why why would that Barry avail you? You’re innocent. Remember, why would you have a curfew? Why would you have a drinking restriction that you can’t go to bars and stuff, your free trial, remember?

Andy 42:38
Do you think that this impacts different classes of people, be it race, ethnicities, economic backgrounds, does it does it impact them in a disproportionate way?

Larry 42:49
It does, it does because in most instances of the cost associated with it, and the people who are least able to afford it end up with some sort of violation, or they don’t have the option for pretrial release because I can’t pay for that fancy monitor.

Andy 43:02
So it does you can go home if you can pay us the hundred dollars a month for you to have the ankle monitor on.

Larry 43:08
Yeah which is usually more than that but if you can pay the fee for this thing you could you could you could be out of jail free trial.

Andy 43:14
And as we experienced at the at the meeting in Georgia several months ago there was a guy there I totally didn’t even realize he was on an ankle monitor so he had to sit near he had to sit near an outlet so he charges a little ankle bracelet. And what does it what do you think that that does for you having your to continue your employment if you have to sit there and outlet to charge your little box?

Larry 43:38
Well, it does. It does that it limits people’s mobility for employment because they have so many hours before they have to get to a charger and if you’re doing field work you you don’t really have a charger really available. And so it creates all sorts of issues with employment and and and it certainly interferes with your personal life. Perfect people feel that liberty to go the gym and workout and right to take a take a dip in the pool or anything like that with a with a smug result. Definitely that definitely

Andy 44:40
Let’s see what Are we here we have an article from the intercept. This is a couple articles that we have bound together says will Tennessee kill a man who saved lives on death row. my reading of this is this guy, his name Nicholas Sutton. And regardless of the crime that he committed, I’m not even trying to go down that path. He if he was sentenced to death row, then I’m going to assume he did something pretty severe. But his time in prison, it looks like he had decided to turn his life around. He was helping other people like almost being like a ward. Is that the right word? I’m looking for someone that helps people with medical challenges. There’s a guy with cerebral palsy he would like carry him to visitation so he could see his family. And anyway, so what did we decide to do with this guy?

Unknown Speaker 45:43
Well, unfortunately, he was executed.

Andy 45:46
Alright, and this is coming out of what state this is Nashville. So this is Tennessee is where this happened. Yeah. Apparently ran on a platform of prisoner form.

Larry 45:57
That is correct. And he’s a born again, Christian.

Andy 45:59
Oh, Alright then and born again Christian, I’m thinking that we would have some sort of idea of forgiveness and so forth.

Larry 46:09
Well, I can’t speak much for born again Christians, but I can tell you that that when I’ve tried to have them square that those but discussed it with, they go to the eye for eye tooth for tooth they tell me that somewhere in the Bible there’s the eye for an eye that he did his thing so therefore this is his eye, an eye for tooth for tooth, and and they square that up with with the forgiveness. But this governor Billy did deny clemency bid the Supreme Court which the Supreme Court never, hardly ever intervenes on a death penalty case anymore. So he was he was in fact executed but it says he saved a life or a prison guard. So suddens Sutton is credited with saving the lives of multiple correctional officers according to the clemency application. The defense lawyer Kevin sharp said to the governor in January, one of these officers, Tony Eden says sudden say saved his life during the present right 1985 group of inmates, five inmates armed with knives and other weapons surrounded me and attempted to take me hostage, Nick and another inmate confronted them physically remove me from the situation and escorted me to safety of the of the trap gate and other building. So, it it seems like that those things would have been considered.

Unknown Speaker 47:21
He had been in prison for like almost 40 years.

Larry 47:24
Yes. And I would dare say that his age and he would say was 58. So he was probably on the criminality. And nobody was talking about let him loose. That wasn’t right there. We’re talking about a computation from death by lethal injection, I think is the way they did it. Or whatever method I think he chose. Maybe he chose another method that better that he he It was about commuting him so he would die in prison. Those were the options. No one was talking about letting him go teach Sunday school in the free world.

Andy 47:58
So America has the best And most compassionate judicial system on the planet. So

Larry 48:05
yes we do but apparently at the toward the bottom of the article and CNN it says some of his victims wanted one his life spared. Charles Mater remembers going camping with a while it’s too much to read but the people can read the article. But but apparently the paycheck is the electric chair. But there were some victims who want this life spare. And I’m

Andy 48:26
wondering, just to take the Marcy’s lawn, the that that approach, do you think that they would then consider someone trying to be compassionate to the person that committed their crime? You look for those,

Unknown Speaker 48:41
oddly enough, it doesn’t work that way.

Andy 48:44
as often. So it only works in the negative?

Larry 48:47
Yes, it’s oddly enough when when when when the when the victim comes in wanting extreme leniency. They said well, they have to send a message to deterrence to deter others and this is you know, we appreciate your bye But seldom does does the does the lineage shake come down?

Unknown Speaker 49:04
If that sounds like five paccar sealer? It does indeed.

Andy 49:10
So from the Marshall project, Mississippi prisons, no one’s safe, not even the guards. I gotta think that this is a on the heels of the parchment thing where the riot broke out. I don’t think prisoners guards are safe pretty much at any prison to be honest with you. The it is incredibly plausible that when a girl guard walks in, that the 80 people in the room would just jump on. And that’s the end of that story. Then they’d have keys and so forth and potentially other things that they could then gain access to it and you could have a riot and do pretty big damage Quickly, quickly. You’re correct. The former secretary of corrections for our state, reg Mark Intel was fond of testifying

Larry 50:01
white, white was asked to testify, but when he was asked to testify and legislative hearings, he was fond of reminding legislators that, that the inmates consent to being controlled. And one the one way, one way that you keep order is you treat them with with fairness, and with consistency. And they have to believe that that that they’re receiving fair treatment. And at any given time, it makes can take over the asylum if they want to. how long they would be in control of it depends on number of factors that that the oxycodone institution can respond, and what what their what what their internal processes are in terms of retaking the present but at any given time. It makes can take control of a house a unit or Yes, a part of a facility they chose to.

Andy 50:51
Right and then you just sort of wait them out and that’s why they’re like vents in the ceiling to where they can drop in tear gas canisters, etc. It seems like you know, I don’t think any Nobody’s gonna like mass, open up the doors and let 3000 people out of a big prison at that seems that that would be a hard test to achieve.

Larry 51:08
So, but in Mississippi that’s a predictor acute because of the number of 10 prisoners that have been murdered or died by suicide since Christmas, which is not that long ago. And you know that there’s their system is in chaos. If you look at the chart on the staffing, they

Andy 51:26
I was just about to go there.

Larry 51:27
Now the Miss Mississippi vacancy rate is alarmingly high. But of course, if you don’t pay anybody anything, it’s not the type of job that has has a lot of attraction to it, particularly strong economy.

Andy 51:39
Should these people want to go and donate their time to prisons to try and mentor these young individuals and potentially not so young and try and have them come out of there? better equipped individually, they should go there on their own time and be compassionate that way.

Unknown Speaker 51:55
Well, wouldn’t that be great? Wouldn’t that be fantastic.

Larry 52:01
Well, let’s, let’s let’s look at look at the salaries on this of the admits, you know, the starting salary for guards and Mississippi is $25,000 and offices and the profit run presence or 23,000 other states that don’t have the acute problems pay more as much as 58,000 in Massachusetts. And so if you if you’ve got if you got Mississippi paying half, I mean, what are you going to get for $23,000? Not a whole lot.

Andy 52:34
Yeah, that’s like 12 or 13 bucks an hour. So, okay,

Larry 52:37
but but yes, the Mississippi presidents are going to explode at some point.

Unknown Speaker 52:43
So long r n.

Andy 52:45
Oh, yeah. Yeah, certainly. But Miss, they have 50% vacancy. That’s insane.

Larry 52:51
So, which which would mean that you would have a lot of officers pulling double shifts. Yes. Which would, which would, which would also which would also Break down their, their, their performance level if you’re working, if you’re working double shifts repeatedly, you can’t be at your best because you’re exhausted.

Andy 53:08
Also seems like that would be a ripe opportunity for guards to make a few extra bucks by bringing contraband

Unknown Speaker 53:15
but that’s exactly what they’re having that spiral those phones and all the Contra bands getting in this ticket presence. But if you look on that chart, Alabama has an even higher vacancy rate.

Andy 53:23
Yes. Doesn’t really surprise me that almost everything is in the south. Just doesn’t really surprise me. Well, yeah, look at the states but highest vacancy rate Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and they were right up there number 520 4% vacancy. Mm hmm. Do you think there could be I always point this out you always like thumped me for saying it. Is there a Team Red Team Blue issue here against the the the state controlled level? You know, not federal but first state control Team Red Team Blue. It looks like Team Red has the high vacancies. Generally

Larry 53:56
well? Well, I don’t see the team’s the way you see I must say more in terms of conservative versus liberal. Now that that properly translates mostly these days to Team Red Team Blue, but there was a time my age. I remember when there wasn’t, there wasn’t such a polarization between the parties, you had liberal republicans and you had Democrats, the South tends to be very conservative. So therefore, I’m looking at the conservative ADL etiology. That’s the problem when it comes to this particular issue to conservatives do not want to spend any money on prisons, and they want to extort as much as I can from the inmates to help offset the cost of incarceration and they they want to incarcerate as many people as I can, because they’re big on punishment. I don’t see it as a Team Red Team Blue, I see it as conservative versus liberal. Now the conservatives eventually sometimes come to their senses when they finally drop the cost of corrections so high that it begins to offset and consume projects. They would rather be spending money, they will eventually say, Well, I guess we’re just we’re gonna have to get somebody to continue Control prison cost. But it that comes usually after they reach these alarming situations like you have in Mississippi, what you have an Alabama and you have all over the South.

Andy 55:11
I do see Team Red Team Blue, just a shorthand for conservative versus progressive policies.

Larry 55:17
So well, I’m dreaming for the day when will actually won’t have so much polarization that that that conservatives will be welcoming the Democratic Party, which are not right now. And liberals will be welcome in the Republican Party, as they are not currently. But they used to be. Back in the Civil Rights state. We have a lot of moderate liberal republicans I could I could just rattle off a plethora of them of people who were who were liberal and still like to this very day, you’ll be talking to someone like Sandy up in Connecticut, and she’ll say the republicans did this. I said, Remember, you guys, the republican party in Connecticut was a lot more liberal. You had governor Lowell weicker, Senator Lowell weicker, Senator Lowell weicker was a very liberal Republican, you would senator Lowell weicker would never get elected as a Polycom today that’s how much the parties have changed.

Andy 56:03
I do understand Yeah, there’s and then there’s nobody in the middle there’s no like you were just describing left leaning right people in right leaning left people. There’s nobody in the middle. Everyone is so far stuck against the walls on both sides. It’s it’s a very disturbing place that we are.

Larry 56:18
So in fact, Ronald Reagan picked a liberal republican named Richard Schleicher to be his vice presidential nominee 1976 when he was trying to unseat president forward for the nomination. And so but but contrast trying to find a liberal republican today, they’re very hard to find.

Andy 56:37
Definitely that, shall we go talk about did he get did he get a sentence actually, did he get he got exonerated, correct, or just released? How did that go down? I got commuted. So I believe this is President Trump commuted Mr. Burgoyne which was an amazing name that is by the way,

Unknown Speaker 56:55
that is a fantastic name. It is

Unknown Speaker 56:58
for you to come back and call Mars is a farce.

Unknown Speaker 57:05
It’s a terrible way to treat a guest on your show.

Andy 57:08
And you sent me a clip from anderson cooper from CNN and I know everyone’s going to hate me, you know, hate us for playing something from CNN because that’s like the king of fake news. But here’s Anderson Cooper challenging Mr. Blagojevich. Rod Blagojevich on his exoneration track record, I guess it’s the best way to put that

Unknown Speaker 57:26
maybe you’ll join me in the fight to reform our criminal justice system.

Unknown Speaker 57:32
Over sentencing blacks and Latinos, right. I learned that when I was there, okay. What what sad is that you hadn’t actually learned that when you mattered when you actually were the governor, you work. You talked about working for the criminal justice reform. There’s a lot of people in Chicago, there’s a lot of people in Illinois, who actually like spit up when you say that, because when you were actually in power, and when you were actually governor and you could have helped thousands of people with clemency cases, you blew it off. The governor after you inherited a huge backlog, nearly Thousand clemency petitions that you failed to review. In fact, you were sued by by you were sued as governor by Cabrini green legal aid to try and pressure you to actually pay attention to clemency cases, instead of extorting people for money and campaign contributions. So it’s a little ironic and frankly a little sad and pathetic and hypocritical. You talking about, you know, commuting, getting you get a commutation of a sentence, which is within the President’s right. But you would know what a whole hell of a lot of other people who are hoping you might give them clemency when you actually matter.

Unknown Speaker 58:35
So actually,

Unknown Speaker 58:37
I’m there wasn’t a margin. It was a statement. I’d be happy to work with people on criminal justice reform,

Unknown Speaker 58:42
but I wouldn’t work with you.

Unknown Speaker 58:44
Okay, can I answer that question? Okay. I like to dress that. Look, when you’ve been put where I was, and you have all the time that I was given to think and look back on some of the things you might have done different. That’s certainly an area that you talked about that I certainly will wish I would have done more. And there’s no question about that. Fair enough. My biggest regret. I didn’t know how corrupt the criminal justice system was until it did it to me. And that was a wake up call.

Andy 59:11
I have to think that a person that is vying for the executive position, the top office of a state would have people advising him on how shitty prison actually is that he would go, oh my god, I didn’t realize how bad it was until I was in there. Yet he had all the power in the world to make them less shitty. The governor of Georgia, I believe it was the 80s or 90s. He took out all of the recreational facilities pretty much out of prison and just said, Hey, you guys are just going to hang out here and cold warehouses. They have an immense amount of control over how the system would be. And these would be the enlightened folks over how that system is and here he is. Gonna then go, Oh, whoops, I didn’t know until I was there that is really bothersome.

Larry 1:00:06
I’m not quite as harsh as you are. I think it’s very plausible that he could corrections again is not high priority for, for executives around the country. When you’re running for governor, you. Anybody can send a clip that says, If you like my governor, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. We’re going to have the best corrections facilities, it just it just isn’t. There’s so many things that state governments do, that actually are very appealing to voters. But making life better for prisoners is not very appealing to voters, making prisons, but anything that we talked about doing to reform presence is going to cost money. And people like to talk about it’s going to save money. Ultimately it might save money if we reduce the cost of the population in prisons by half. If we if we if we bought bottles facilities. But if we start giving people more training and education that cost money to run those programs while they’re in prison, if we start mentor-ship programs, those things cost money, if we start providing more reentry services and and and and financial aid to help people reintegrate that costs money, money with all this stuff is not free. And you’re, again, you’re competing with all the other things that are popular with government. So a candidate running for governor is not going to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what’s wrong with the prison system. That candidate is going to deal with presidents as minimal as they have to, to get by, which is what Rod did during his tenure. He put it out of sight out of mind and hope that there weren’t any any large scale riots and and we do the minimum we have to do. But I think I think the bigger question that I would like to see here is the president. As Anderson pointed out, the President has the right to do that. That is every challenge on presidents pardons have been turned back on tell people that’s an absolute. The president can pardon and commute. The question is, is the President serious about criminal justice reform? I think that’s a legitimate question. We look at the track record of his of his his executive clemency. There certainly has been a lot of high profile people of his hundred 17 or so that we’ve heard a lot about including Arpaio. And we hear possibilities that he might pardon stone or do something on that case,

Andy:
Manafort or Flynn.

Larry: But we what we what we don’t hear from the press and i and i find it extremely disappointing. He did sign the water down first step back and Jared Kushner helped push that to the finish line over conservative opposition led by Senator Tom Cotton and Arkansas and and so we end up with a much neutered first step back. Hey did sign that to his credit, but Mr. President, what Are you going to do about the directives that your department of justice gave out to seek the maximum level of criminal charges against people to charge for the maximum possible crime? Are you going to resend that, Mr. President? Are you going to resend the policy that says to seek all the habitual enhancements that you can? Are you going to resend those policies? Are you going to really be serious about criminal justice reform? Or is this window dressing? I think those are legitimate questions about this. And then in terms of your executive clemency, President Carter used his executive clemency to, to to, to over 200,000 people. Now 200,000 were draft evades who had left the United States to go to Canada. And then he did thousands more. I don’t know the exact totals, but he but he took an immense amount of political heat and criticism, which that could have been a factor in his not being reelected. So Mr. President, you’re very popular right now. Mr. President. Let’s open up these gates and let’s get a lot of these people. Pull out of prison who have served more than enough time. And let’s start using that executive clemency while you still have the popularity to do it. Don’t do like governor Blagojevich did don’t ignore everybody, unless reverse somebody’s misguided policies that your attorney general has ordered the Department of Justice to seek. That’s what I’d like to see.

Andy 1:04:20
I hear you and I’m getting comments in the chat that you need to tweet at him. Larry. need to step up on Twitter and go have a battle with the president who has we almost have the same number of Twitter followers as he does? He has 50 something million so we’re like, right there in second place?

Unknown Speaker 1:04:38
Where 48 million right?

Andy 1:04:40
It’s somewhere it’s just shy of that actually just shy. Okay. Um, you could actually audibly hear Mr. Cooper in that whole clip. He was like getting worked up to where he was not able to communicate in a very smooth fashion. He was starting to stutter and stammer he was totally getting worked up while he was talking to Mr. Blue boy that he was

Larry 1:04:59
indeed And I think that’s the ultimate of hypocrisy for, for the governor to former governor to benefit from executive action. And then the article points out above the article that we were not to spend a lot of time on, but he was totally tone deaf to anybody who was suffering until it became him. And that’s often the problem in this entire movement that we’re facing is most of us we’re all in favor of all this stuff that we’re now against because it impacted us correct?

Andy 1:05:31
Well, I you know, I’m not gonna sit there and say that it wasn’t me. I was certainly that way too. I do recall me specifically I was driving when I was in the military we were driving across the country and I we passed by something It must have been in Texas but it could have been in like some one of those neighboring states and I saw a literal chain gang going on with people like shackled and they were like, like holding crops or something like that. I was like, right on man. bread and water, make them work. That was me 15 years ago, I guess, 20 years, 20 years or 25 years ago.

Larry 1:06:04
Well, and then when I put you on the chain, how did you feel about it?

Andy 1:06:08
I had a little bit different of an opinion of it at that point, because Georgia is a little bit warm, and summer times are uncomfortable.

Larry 1:06:17
I see. All right. Well, I can’t wait. I can’t wait for what’s coming next that we have that we have not done Justice Scalia in a long time for several episodes. And I just want people to know that, that we pick clips from from him that we think will help understand the role of the federal government, the state government separation of powers what the constitution can do for us. And we get so many questions about something particular in terms of the Facebook and the social media about why isn’t an unconstitutional so I’m hoping that this clip after I dissect it will help explain that beautiful,

Andy 1:06:59
beautiful setup here. Go.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:00
But does equal protection mean that you have to have unisex toilets? I mean that no question you have to get a this is your quote, Mr. Justice in

Unknown Speaker 1:07:13
California. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue was whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlawed discrimination by sex, hey, we have things called legislators and they enact things called laws. So why doesn’t the 14th amendment then cover women, the the 14th amendment

Unknown Speaker 1:07:44
senator does does not apply to private discrimination. It applies. I was speaking of title seven and laws that prohibit private discrimination. The 14th Amendment says nothing about private discrimination Only discrimination by government.

Andy 1:08:03
This goes to questions that we’ve received all of the time. That’s like, why can’t I be on Facebook? And I thought like we could go talk about packing him for a brief moment that said that some someone so can. North Carolina had a prohibition on all people being on social media. And that is the example that he is describing it that is the state restricting you from using the platform, not the platform restricting you from the platform.

Larry 1:08:28
That is That is correct. And that’s why I thought this clip was ideal for helping. Perfect explain that we have. We have question after question about discrimination and what the Constitution protects. And the constitution wasn’t thinking, the founding framers weren’t thinking so much in terms of discrimination, and abuses by individuals against other individuals. They were thinking about limitations on the power of what government could do. And so when when you look at Brown versus Board of Education, that was the government But there was running two separate school systems. And it was the government who was giving the African American children an inferior education and calling it equal. Therefore, the government was stopped from doing that, and Brown versus Board of Education. But when you have when you have private discrimination, then you need statutory law. And you have, like there was a time when people could discriminate in terms of housing before we had the Fair Housing Act. But as Scalia said, we have legislators and they pass things called laws. So if you find a discrimination objectionable, and it’s not the government doing it, then you need to pass something called a law. You did too. We we have fair housing. We have the Americans with Disabilities Act as a statute. That’s not in the constitution anywhere. You don’t have an ADA clause in the US Constitution. You have Americans with Disabilities Act. You have the Voting Rights Act, but you don’t If you if you adhere to the conservative doctrine about the limitations of government, you would not want the constitution to provide a broader interpretation of the protections there. If you don’t like what Facebook is doing or not doing, then we need to pass a statutory law that says that social media as defined by whatever and I’m not an expert on social media shall not prohibit users from using this. This mechanism of communication, if they reach a certain segment of the population, which would be defined, and then we would have something that would protect people. But it seems like a lot of our people want to invent a right that’s not in the Constitution, to prohibit discrimination, to say that they have the right to use a platform that they don’t own, which would be the same as going into the doctor today. Sunday morning. I should have gone into local synagogue knocked and said you cannot have a message Like to deliver and I have a right to do that. I have something to say, give me your microphone. Let me speak by PC, I have no right to their microphone is their microphone. It’s their platform.

Andy 1:11:11
I would point out that if you were there on Sunday, there probably wasn’t anybody there.

Larry 1:11:14
There probably wouldn’t be in that particular but but in terms of the process, there would be a whole lot of people there this morning, but you have no right to go in and demand to use their communications, their platform, you have the right to speak, but you don’t have the right to be hurt. You can speak all you want to and in the arena that you control, but you can’t demand to have someone else provide you their platform for your message.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:40
Absolutely.

Andy 1:11:42
Absolutely. Um, I don’t think I have anything else that I can say about that one. He’s pretty hope. I hope that helps. Yeah, I just wonder, let’s see what how do I how do I want to work this. I he seems incredibly rational in the way that he was. Words these things that if we want to change, and I think we were talking about this pre show, if we wanted to change to mandate, I guess that that Facebook etc would allow our people, then we can enact laws with our representatives that says Facebook you can’t discriminate. And so my question to you by extension is, I know that we have places that have presence restrictions, but generally speaking, you are allowed to go to a McDonald’s, I think McDonald’s can prevent you from going into their establishment for for their own personal reasons. What do we we don’t have a guarantee that you go to Walmart or any of these things because they’re they’re public. It’s there. They’re privately held companies using the the public space. But could they say that you can’t go visit the the Washington Monument DC because that’s public property. And there’s where it gets is that I said, a comparison?

Larry 1:12:55
That’s where it gets a little dicey here. And that’s an area of case law that needs to develop In terms of the government, prohibiting people who have paid taxes to support the services from accessing the services is a different question than what McDonald’s does. But say McDonald’s falls out of the public accommodations. We’ve passed laws, statutory laws, in terms of public accommodations to stop the discrimination and housing, hotel rooms reading. And people like Lester Maddox, who used to at one time would not serve blacks in his restaurant in the pic Rick in Atlanta. But wait. What’s so funny about the tick, Rick?

Unknown Speaker 1:13:33
Hang on, man, I gotta play this right now.

Andy 1:13:40
hypocrisy. So what was the name of this restaurant? To pick Rick? All right, go on. Sorry.

Larry 1:13:48
Well, in response to people like less romantics, there’s been statutes put on the books that when you are when you’re accommodating the public, that you cannot discriminate on the base of The prohibitive factor is that I can’t recite all of them. But you could possibly do that with with social media, you’d have to define what the limitations are in terms of the discrimination that could be employed. But even even with those combinations, restaurants are allowed to have standards in terms of attire, and who they will serve. If you’re intoxicated, I can still tell people, we won’t serve you. But it’s not on the basis of race. You can’t tell somebody but we won’t serve you because we don’t serve your path. But you can tell a person you’re intoxicated, and we do not serve your kind. And you’re right. Ah,

Andy 1:14:34
yeah, that so we could make similar parallels to a McDonald’s using the roads that were built by taxpayer dollars. Obviously, people aren’t going to go to McDonald’s. If it’s in the middle of the desert, somewhere there were there’s no road access. So the internet itself would be the public access infrastructure for you to get to Facebook. I think I mean, they do call it the internet superhighway, whatever the digital superhighway so that seems To make a fair comparison, so then how does Facebook get away with discriminating against a certain class of people? Not in the same way, in contrast to how McDonald’s cannot do it?

Larry 1:15:11
Well, but a few reasons. One is there hasn’t been a law passed that says they can’t like there has for McDonald’s. And today, there hasn’t been a legal challenge, we first have to pass the statutory law that says, you cannot deny this accommodation to everybody, like we did with to keep people like less dramatics from saying, I won’t serve blacks. So we have to pass the law. And then we have to do some litigation. And even if we don’t pass a law, we have to do some litigation and put forth some creative theories about how this this is publicly. I’m not anywhere near sophisticated enough to explain how much internet is publicly paid for. I don’t know enough about how we got to where we are with the internet to know how much of it was was paid for by the public. But there could be arguments made it’s just litigation that hasn’t happened.

Andy 1:16:00
Yeah, I think a lot of it is privately paid for, but I think a ton of it is publicly at least designed and paid for as well. But still you have just don’t know even if it were public, if it if privately paid for. It’s a conglomeration of a bunch of companies that have built it. And are you saying, are we then saying that all of them agreed to block these people from that place?

Larry 1:16:22
Well, they were put under pressure from the government. So let’s be clear, the Facebook initially wanted to have open access to everyone. But the the public outcry resulted in government pressure to close the network to to, to these individuals. So we in a sense, we do have government interference already.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:41
I can agree with that. I can understand where you’re going with that.

Larry 1:16:44
Yes. Well, it’s it’s an undeveloped area of litigation. I would like to see more litigation. Again, it gets back to what I said last week, when we lost half our listeners when I said, funding is the biggest thing that stands in the way of more litigation. Yeah. When when I said hey, you know, rather than just giving up Boys, we’ve got to give out of dollars. And our dollars will allow allow more litigation to ensue. It’s very, very expensive. And it takes a long time. Look at this Michigan case, it’s been dragging on for how many years now?

Unknown Speaker 1:17:13
Four ish or something in two and a half or something million dollars.

Larry 1:17:17
So it’s, it’s, it’s the absence of money that causes lots of things that should be challenged not to be challenged. So everyone go donate money to your nearest whatever, ACLU darcel, affiliate, whatever that is, go donate all of the money. That way we can make all of the challenges because attorneys generally don’t work for free. Last I checked, but maybe some of them do. Maybe some of them are willing to do something that’s a pro bono ish thing. They do a lot of pro bono work for free. But these are long drawn out things. It’s one thing to help on a on an issue that’s going to be able to be resolved quickly. You can draft a letter, you can make a call to someone at a governmental agency, you can try to break a log jam. But you’re talking about litigation that drags on for years and devours your private That’s a whole different. It’s a whole different equation. I guess it would be example to rebuilding a fleet of vehicles for somebody versus helping a lady who’s who’s, who’s got a broken fan belt or what he called it the serpentine belt. It did not to do many mechanics would object to given the older lady the serpentine belt if she couldn’t pay for it and putting it on for but they wouldn’t want to do a fleet of vehicles that would take them for the next five years to rehab all those vehicles. That’s the that’s the analogy.

Andy 1:18:28
Did you see the movie? Erin Brockovich? I did Yes. Oh, whoa, whoa, hang on. Wait a minute. I need to take a minute. You have seen a movie?

Unknown Speaker 1:18:38
I saw that movie. Yes.

Andy 1:18:40
Wow. Okay, well, I’m just bringing this up because it was a super small law firm that then eventually went to bat and took on the big company. And how much of that time and energy of that little firm was devoured by trying to sue the big company, because it was a it was a great movie regardless, but that’s a Anyway, I’ve just wanted to bring up That comparison, so go watch that movie to get something along those lines of the comparison. Good. Good movie. Yes. Wow, you’ve seen a movie. I’m stunned. You know, a person in chat from New York who has a very British accent sent me this article is from the Daily Mail at the co.uk and a married mother of two teacher 33. avoid jail time after pleading guilty to having sex with two students age 16 and 18. Don’t want to cover the crime. I want to cover the punishment. She is receiving five years of probation and a 20 $500 fine for each crime. So she’s getting 10 probation and $5,000 in fines. Oh, she’s also going to give up her teaching license Larry. I’m pretty sure if we would have reversed the roles make it a 30 something year old male teacher and some later teen and middle teen females. For students. This person would be going to jail for for ever. And this would be shunned and admonished and all That for all of the days to come. But somehow I don’t think that’s fair. Not that she’s getting a arsons but just not a fair since compared to reversing the genders

Larry 1:20:10
i would i would agree there there does tend to be more tolerance for if it’s the other way around I think you’re seeing some prosecutors take a different view and and that and they’re going after a more significant sentences against the women. I don’t think going after more harsh sentences I guess the weapon is the answer. I think probably coming to our senses on the guys is the answer. You know, if if these people were old enough, like one of these one of these boys as a team Well, that’s the age of consent and every state in this country and us and and there are a few exceptions where actually if they have an authoritative role over them that is still unlawful, but I struggle with with with these things where were we losing a teaching licenses? Yes. They clearly can’t resist the temptation of being around the young students, but putting them in a correctional setting or a criminal conviction. I think it’s just a little too much. Yeah.

Andy 1:21:15
Yeah, a certain certainly. And, you know, the I can come up with all kinds of like, unethical, you know, poor decision, but I’m not I still struggle with like the criminal part. So if she was 33, and the student was 18, I understand the the, the hierarchy there, the authority thing being immoral, unethical, but still, deeply, deeply struggle with it. That is actually criminal. Maybe like even the 16 year old probably is past the age of consent, depending on the state and most states

Larry 1:21:47
except for the authority relationship. Theoretically, when

Andy 1:21:52
it’s already criminal, like I really like that’s so hard for me to swallow that it’s criminal.

Larry 1:21:58
Well, it adds a dimension to it. And again, I don’t know that we should throw the book at these people. But clearly, if you misuse your authority that when I was in property management, I had an awful lot of authority that I could misuse if I chose to, but that reflects who you are in terms of if you don’t respect your tenants enough to give them notice that you’re going to come in, that doesn’t translate into a crime per se. It translates to a creepy person who shouldn’t be in property management. On the other hand, if you put stinky when the apartments bacon if you put sneaky cameras and observe the person that does translate to criminality, so so I don’t know that everything that just because something’s creepy should be a big criminal. That’s that’s the point I’m trying to make is that, that maybe this this teacher, all she’s losing her license might have been sufficient punishment.

Andy 1:22:48
Certainly, you certainly have eliminated the challenge of you know, the temptation, mostly of the temptation of her being in a room full of fresh young men that she can quote unquote prey upon. I mean, it certainly removes that. from that situation, I mean, that’s all that they’re really trying to do, I guess.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:04
So, but we just have to punish, we have to send this message.

Andy 1:23:09
Right. All right, then we’re going to move over quickly to an article that is actually sourced from narcis. org narshall condemns Southern Baptist Convention as a Christian. And here’s my little quick synopsis here that’s going on. So there’s a there’s a church in Texas, that has hired a pastor who is one of our people, and the Southern Baptist Convention has voted to expel the church, the ranch land heights Baptist Church of Midland, employing  Reverend Philip Rutledge as its pastor. Why is this such a big deal? Can’t they pick and choose who they want in their convention?

Larry 1:23:50
Well, I’m never professed to be an expert on the governor. So Southern Baptist Convention but what I do understand about it is they proclaim that they are That they are about. They have they have their doctrinal teachings that if you’re a Southern Baptists, you, you believe in this, but then they delegate everything in terms of in terms of the administration of the congregation to the local control. And unlike the Methodist Church, United Methodist Church, where the the Bishop of the conference with assign your pastor, the Southern Baptist Convention, the congregation issues a song called for its pastor and for its personnel. And I find it odd that, that that, although they proclaim they believe in local autonomy, that they’re going to expel this church from the convention for doing exactly what they proclaim, that they believe in, which is autonomy. They, they called a person to be their minister who has fallen short of the glory of God. And they have forgiven him which is part of their doctrinal teachings. And this person is, is apparently by all accounts doing a decent job or good job and the Southern Baptist can be And has all of a sudden done about face and decided that they will just since I can’t exert any control over the local congregations decision to call him they’ll just kick kick them out of that they won’t be a Southern Baptist affiliated church anymore isn’t that is that that that fits into that hypocrisy doesn’t it?

Andy 1:25:17
I think that this with the hypocrisy these they say that the all the church the congregation they all know about it and they support him being the the dude in charge of things I don’t I don’t quite understand why they would then try to kick the person kick the whole church out that doesn’t that does seem like hypocrisy in the biggest of ways.

Larry 1:25:37
It does indeed it’s gotten it’s gotten quite a few comments on an arsenal website from people I haven’t read them all but it’s only 46 well that’s a high for for articles that we post when I get that many comments that’s that’s on the high side.

Andy 1:25:51
So I’m I’m looking through some of them and like somebody says they were kicked out. It’s not just Baptist churches that are problem. You know, the list goes on where people are saying things about them being kicked out of their church as well. But that’s another that’s another subject. That’s

Larry 1:26:06
not the point we’re making with this. Of course, we’re we’re making the point of the Southern Baptist bake proclaim their belief in independent local control. It’s like a person who goes out and campaigns about big, big about preventing sexual exploitation of children then come to find out that their phone is loaded with child porn. That’s the point we’re making. We’re not we’re not making the point that there’s that the churches don’t do bad things to people who fallen short. But the Southern Baptists claim that they believe in autonomy. That’s the point we’re making.

Andy 1:26:41
Absolutely. Well, there you go more than hypocrisy. Ha and how let’s see, how did we decide we’re going to spell it? So hypocrisy is hypo Krissy. So how do we spell hash power? cracy

Unknown Speaker 1:26:51
I don’t know how to spell that. We’d have to ask somebody from Georgia. How about we start with h i i i ha pop See? So there you go Hi policy

Unknown Speaker 1:27:04
people or something

Andy 1:27:05
right, it’s right up your alley. Larry, the final article that we have tonight is Indiana bill could result in kids being sent to jail. to jail younger and for more crimes. This from the South Bend Tribune. I guess it is the state of Indiana, I believe.

Something isn’t that were booted users from that is correct.

Hey, how about that I actually know a thing or two. This is a how like, when they were 12, I think is it did we get any lower than 12? It’s It’s disgusting. We’re gonna put 12 year olds in like adult people prison. Is that what this is?

Larry 1:27:43
I didn’t read the bill. I was I found it so revolting. Just a story. But senator Aaron Hutchison republican of Salem, but allow Of course to send his children as young as 12 to the Department of correction, and expands a list of crimes that could could send a child to jail to include attempt to commit murder rape, kidnapping, armed robbery The bill also increases maximum sentence to juveniles. And I’m just wondering what’s going on in Indiana? Where where’s the public opposition this past overwhelmingly at least one house of the legislature according to the story of what we’re trying to find the count but they had the vote told and there was it was an overwhelming This is some of your famous bipartisanship at work.

Andy 1:28:25
My favorite my famous bipartisanship was blamed me for bipartisanship

Larry 1:28:30
when you always tout the benefits of bipartisanship Can I get a new people? Yep, you people do that?

Andy 1:28:38
We people hang out. I got one for you here to learn you people.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:45
Who said that again?

Andy 1:28:46
That’s Eisenhower.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:49
Oh, yeah. You people this already give.

Andy 1:28:51
I can do that. I can play it again.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:54
You people.

Andy 1:28:56
That’s the earliest clip that we can find. So we need to get that attributed to the First person to use the expression you people.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:02
Yeah, that was

Unknown Speaker 1:29:03
1967. Okay.

Andy 1:29:06
You barely barely time to actually have recordings of things.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:10
Yeah, that’s amazing that they have a recording device at 1967.

Andy 1:29:14
So we got people that are going to be like playing doctor with their neighbor and whatnot, and we’re gonna like go put them in prison and the registry at the age of 12 ish or something like that.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:24
Well, apparently, if you’re a hooser, yes.

Andy 1:29:26
Wow. That is that’s that’s pretty impressive. Is this a race to the bottom line? Is this a race to see which can be the shittiest state?

Unknown Speaker 1:29:34
I remember that was said during the Obama administration. And nobody liked that terminology. But yes, this is definitely a race to the bottom.

Andy 1:29:42
And so then the next state over to Indiana is going to then go Uh huh. Well, they’ve got 12 year olds. We’re going to go for elevens.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:49
Well, I can’t even I can’t.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:54
All right, then.

Andy 1:29:55
Well, with that, Larry, I think we should. We should shut this mF down.

Larry 1:29:59
Well, not only That back to that Scalia clip that we played before we shut down. What the for those who who will not actually watch it. That was senator dianne feinstein from California. That was speaking and and the late Justice Scalia, but the quote that that Feinstein read have was one we’ve actually played on this podcast. Was that right? That Yeah, the that have legislators and people, people, they like things called law laws. We’ve actually played that on this podcast. But for just putting context that was that was Scalia educating Feinstein about the constitution doesn’t protect and prevent private discrimination. We need laws to do that. The founders were protected from government action, not private action.

Andy 1:30:45
I do understand and that, Larry, seriously that is. It’s not hard to separate out but it’s hard to separate out. It’s hard to make the distinction between what the state is doing versus what a local individual business owner whatever doing?

Unknown Speaker 1:31:01
Well, we’re gonna have to try harder.

Andy 1:31:03
Larry, what is the way to find the podcast? If someone is interested in finding, listening, subscribing, all that stuff, where do they go?

Larry 1:31:11
Well, there’s a number of ways, but the best way to do it is to go to registry matters.co. You can find all kinds of good stuff about us.

Andy 1:31:20
All the navigation links are there for you to to find phone numbers, email links, etc. How about if someone wants to send a phone call message? And just like our super patron Mike did, where do they go for that?

Larry 1:31:31
Yeah, say save the phone line for another couple of weeks 7472 to 74477? And how about sending us an email message? Where would they go for that? That would go to registry matters cast@gmail.com

Andy 1:31:48
and we love all of our patrons very much. But if you would like to become a patron and support all of our efforts in doing this podcast every week and all of the super incredible knowledge that Larry bestows upon us with the Great generosity, where do they go to do that?

Larry 1:32:02
That would be patreon.com slash registry matters. And if you don’t remember the slash, just search on Patreon and you’ll see a look for registry matters. And it’ll take you right to us.

Andy 1:32:12
That is perfect. You can find us on Twitter at registry matters. Also, you can find us at YouTube. You can search for our podcast on all of the platforms, whether that’s pocket casts, or iTunes or Google podcasts, all the places search for registry matters and you will find us there. Larry, I don’t have anything else. Do you have anything else before we go?

Larry 1:32:33
I think we’ve done a great job.

Listen to RM115: Michigan Explained Part Deux w/ Josh B Hoe

Andy 0:12
recording live from fyp Studios transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 115 of registry matters. Larry, it is a Saturday night we have a guest. Again, it’s as if this person is going to join us on a regular basis. But he’s Mr. Michigan. So Larry, meet Josh. Josh, meet Larry. I don’t think you guys have ever spoken before.

Josh 0:34
Hey, Larry, welcome aboard, Josh. Looking forward to talking to you, but I didn’t expect it to be the

following week. I know. Right. I told Andy he should apologize to everyone advanced for me being your guest again.

Andy 0:47
To which I replied, I have to apologize to them every week for Larry so it’s not that big a deal. How was your Saturday Larry? He went did more party stuff, right?

Larry 0:57
Yeah, that’s gonna be the thing for the next few weeks. I’ll be doing I’ll be doing party stuff next weekend and then two weekends later, then again, some point after that. So I’ll just I’ll just

Andy 1:08
tell everybody now that we’re going to record next Sunday, I believe it is in the afternoon. So we won’t time next week.

Josh 1:15
Well, there’s a possibility we might if the if the meetings go, and if they’re well managed, and we don’t go too long, but you never know today it went for it went pretty well.

Andy 1:25
And I guess we can dive right into this. So the big news came out yesterday that the federal judge, I hope I’m going to read this right. The federal judge announced that everything should be shut down in Michigan, something like that. Somebody give me some better pointers on what that what happened yesterday in Michigan,

Josh 1:43
Josh, that’s pretty much it. There were you know, he basically decided on our side on every issue with the exception that the Michigan court, I mean that the decision doesn’t actually go into effect until more or less nine days from now, if the legislature doesn’t act to make the current statute into a new statute that’s constitutionally permissible, that’s probably the easiest way I can.

Unknown Speaker 2:12
Okay. And, Larry, do you have anything to counter with that?

Josh 2:15
That’s essentially what the judge said the timing is a little bit different than the 90 days, it’ll be 60 days from the entry of judgment. And the parties are going to be negotiating to word the judgment, the final judgment of the court, and then the legislature will have again have an opportunity to legislate. And their incentive has just gone up exponentially from where it was. So we’re going to dig into that a little bit later, but as it existed the status quo with all the previous litigation on this, there had been no change to the Michigan registry except for the for the five original doe was that that one, they were the only ones who had gotten a relief. And this class action suit that was filed subsequently

This has been dangling for some time. And now, the judge has forced the issue and I will explain to her why because the reason why the there was no incentive because if the status quo was being maintain, there’s very little incentive to legislate. So the opportunity that they that they were given previously, they declined that opportunity, because the political risk and their view was too great. Now, the political risk has shifted there too great for them not to legislate. So now, they may, they may be able to legislate something in the timeframe that they have.

Yeah, I mean, the tricky. The tricky part of it is that there’s essentially two different parts of the the issue at hand. There’s the pre, all the people who are ex post facto, which at the time would have been pre I believe it’s April of 2011. You know, it’s going to be much harder to create a constitutionally permissible registry that that isn’t exploit facto for all the different groups of people who are prior to who were under different statutes, prior to that, that date that’s consistent with all the people after the date. So it gets kind of confusing as to how they would actually. I mean, one way they could do it is just to go back to, in essence, like a dose versus Alaska style registry where whatever the original version of the registry was, is really what the registry becomes. I don’t know what you think about that, Larry. But what a constitutionally permissible, permissible registry that encompass both groups would be,

oh, it’s very easy, don’t impose any disabilities or restraints. And you’ve got a constitutional registry until we till we fully developed the fact that that being on the internet itself is is is abolishing the constitution which we’re moving in that direction. But, but if you want a constitutional registry, do not try to impose any disabilities or restraints let people live where they want Let them work where they want. Let them be where they want, and minimize the inconvenience and intrusion their life as minimal as we possibly can, which may be mail reporting, online reporting, and then you would have a constitutional registry until we prove that merely listing people’s likeness online is is is punishment, but they haven’t asked me to help them draft the constitutional registry, but I’d be delighted to do that. But but most people on the law enforcement side would not like to registry that I would draft because it would be permissible we would we would register people just like we are meant for the draft. You know,

I’ve heard over and over again that at least in the stakeholder meetings, the Michigan State Police are not a huge are actually not fans at all really of the registry, but you know, we’ll see what happens.

Andy 5:45
Alright, well, let’s let’s cover some stuff before we get into that whole thing in Michigan, and with with your upper peninsula and all that. We got. I’m introducing a new segment here and it’s called Larry’s general rules of criminality. This is developed over a long period of time Larry calls me on the phone. And he tells me these stories about a, you know, hey, don’t drive 95 miles an hour down the interstate with bags with drugs in it that says drugs are here. So we have another article that we can cover talking about what you shouldn’t do as a criminal if you’re going to commit crimes, not that we’re advocating for committing crimes. Larry, please tell us what is the latest rules of criminality that you want to you want to what what what am I trying to say to like aspire to our people,

Josh 6:29
you know, where does where does this one come from? I didn’t catch the jurisdiction was

Andy 6:33
well, this is a convicted killers. Jimmy Ray Rogers. Let’s see where are they from filter from Missouri. The article comes from CBS News but the individuals originated in Missouri for their trek down to Florida.

Josh 6:45
Okay, so we’ve got Florida, Missouri and what what I’m stressing is don’t commit crimes, but people in everywhere got to commit crimes, and then they’re going to be defense attorneys. And you make our job a lot harder when you do things like this. You’re going to pick out a person and target them for death and you need to travel across the country from Missouri to Florida. Please don’t use the GPS device in the rental car to the final destination of the person you’re going to kill Bob would prefer you don’t kill them. But if you do find it necessary that you bust for whatever your reasons are, we’re going to have a lot harder time if you’ve done that because that’s what these people did.

Andy 7:29
And then they end up on camera in a Walmart picking up supplies for said

Josh 7:36
for the cleanup, for the for the which most states I get you for tampering with evidence and trying to conceal the crime but just that’s another FYI as a side point for this every public place now has video. When you use your little debit card because you’re so proud you don’t carry the cash with you. It makes it it makes it very easy to identify you because most of those pretty plastic cards The banks and financial institutions have taken great pains to make sure they belong to you. Now, there are exceptions for pre prepaid cards but usually your fancy card that makes you feel so happy that you’re not carrying cash because you don’t want to be vulnerable. It actually makes you quite vulnerable.

Unknown Speaker 8:15
I can like happily attest that I have no cash in my house. Oh, I understand it. That’s the

Josh 8:21
way the society is only about a quarter to last on stats I saw of transactions in America are being done by cash anymore.

Andy 8:29
Even a quarter 25% of transactions by cash. Yes,

Josh 8:33
but but it varies from location but in a place like where I live it would be even higher because there’s a lot of unbanked people here, but other places more affluent and where there’s less of a diverse population. You probably see even lower than 25% of people that are conducted their business with with cash but but yes, when you’re at the at your local market, wherever it is, if you take notice, there’s cameras everywhere, their screens everywhere. Where, and when you slide your card, it links the card to you. So when you buy the cleanup stuff to destroy the evidence of the crime, you’ve just recorded yourself buying the cleanup stuff. So just keep that in mind.

Andy 9:14
Larry, I just had an idea because we were talking pre show about how did they attribute these two individuals to the crime. Maybe they left something at the crime scene of, you know, a Clorox wipe or whatever the hell and then they looked at recent transactions, and they’re like, Oh, hey, look, these people bought these things at the local Walmart. Like maybe, maybe that’s how they put it together.

Josh 9:33
Not real clear on that, but but you can just you can just take some steps in advance to try to try to minimize it this high tech era. That’s one reason the crime rate in this country has dropped so much, is because the solvability of criminality. If you go back 150 years, they they solve problems by eyewitnesses someone had what you had jack the Ripper on the loose, you had to go out and actually catch him doing the crime because you couldn’t go back after the fact. Figure out what happened. But as as forensics have evolved, and technology has evolved, and social media has evolved, there’s so much that solves crimes now that we couldn’t even fathom 2530 years ago. It’s just unbelievable.

Yeah, I mean, Larry’s right, the crime rate is down for a lot of reasons. That’s certainly one of them is that it’s much harder to get away with crime now, and you know, these does a great demonstration of why every single data point, every place you go, everything you do, you’re leaving a digital trail behind. And, you know, I mean, it just takes the right person to put the parts together and then you’re pretty much cooked and that’s what happened here.

Andy 10:40
So a, don’t go around killing people, but be, don’t put the address in the GPS and probably, maybe buy supplies, maybe in route and not at the destination. I don’t know, man, two weeks before,

Larry 10:55
and maybe use cash

Andy 10:57
and use cash Of course, and like put a had on and some sunglasses when you walk into these stores, really that easily identify because then

Josh 11:04
they’ve got the still they even if you use cash that’s not foolproof because facial recognition, it will get you so they would run your your, your video of you they would freeze it. And they would run that through facial recognition. And if you’re in the driver’s license and state ID database, it would throw out a number of potential hits

Andy 11:23
and they would still get yourself so it’s really, it’s really difficult these days, you you killing people is not as easy as it once was. I have a potential solution to the facial recognition thing considering it sort of invoke to wear a mask across your face because of the corona virus that has killed you know, 1400 or something people. Just Just as a side note in 2017, there were like 60,000 people that died from our normal annual flu season. So the corona virus probably isn’t as significant and ordeal But anyway, so wear a face mask and it would be sort of culturally accepted at the moment throw on some sunglasses. Facial recognition will never work.

Josh 11:58
So but but but preferably just talking about the crime. That would be the best best solution. Don’t don’t go around committing crimes, but if you’re going to commit crimes, you’re going to need people to defend you because otherwise the system will just railroad you in July.

In this case, they wouldn’t have been railroaded. They they pretty much sort

Andy 12:17
of handed the case to them on a silver platter, right.

Unknown Speaker 12:19
Well, they and they committed the crime.

Andy 12:24
It’s not like well, really the segue to our next article, go ahead and finish the point there

Josh 12:28
was question is so there may not be any doubt about about the crime. But there’s the question of culpability, in terms of wars are more than one person was there more than one person involved? How comfortable was the second third person compared to the person who actually did the dirty deed? Some states don’t apply equal an accessory in some states is just as culpable and responsible but in other states are not. And then the question is, is it a Is it a premeditated first degree murders at eligible for life in prison without parole is their mitigation that would that would diminished the possibility of getting a life without parole make it life with option for I mean, there’s a lot of things defense attorneys could do just because they’ve got you for the crime doesn’t mean that there’s no defenses that would help mitigate the outcome. Oh, I agree with that.

Andy 13:22
Which I think is a fairly decent segue into the second article that we’re going to cover is from the Baltimore Sun. It’s when innocent people go to prison jailhouse informants are often to blame. Some Maryland lawmakers want to change that system. And if I remember right, looking through these stats, something of Was it a sixth or seventh of the so nearly one in five of the 367 DNA based exoneration cases nationally have occurred because they’ve been let go because of false testimony from jailhouse informants, which goes to I mean, that’s a to me that’s so that’s like 70 something people that been like, go after false testimony from jealous and former.

Unknown Speaker 14:06
Yeah, boy, that’s shocking that the jailhouse informants are telling the truth I’ve heard I know, right?

Andy 14:13
Well, I’m surprised about it, but it’s like but but the system encourages it. And Larry, you can speak much more, more informatively on this than I can, but like, you know, they’re, they’re rewarded for it. They’re incentivized for doing it. And that would obviously, give them a reason to not tell the truth if they’re going to get some curry favor.

Josh 14:33
Therein lies the problem, Andy and I try to I try not to deliberately straddle the fence because I do have my opinions. I also try to give credit for difficult positions that people find themselves on the other side. a prosecutor isn’t a difficult position particular when crimes of a heinous nature are not solved. There’s a demand from the community so the prosecutor’s office is under me to do something. So they’re looking for solutions and convictions and and ways to close the case. The problem rest with the trade off of what happens. You’re not generally as a prosecutor, you’re not going to build your case around people, you wouldn’t go to the local to the local law parsonage and you’re not going to find the people they’re going to be able to help you solve that crime likely in the kind the congregation the people that that are going to have more information are probably going to be a little bit on the shady side. So so that relegates you to having to deal with those kind of people. The question becomes, what you give those kind of people in return that is a very awkward position to be in because if you if you if you evaluate their their their the snitches information, it seems credible. The snitch of course was something they’ve got 14 years to do in prison and and and they’d like to reduce that down. So solve it well. help you. If you help me the prosecutor it ends up having to deal with these kind of people. By objection is that a system that’s built around snitching and rewards? were quiet that is what’s encouraged versus it just happening. if if if a guy can if a person in prison can’t tolerate cellmate or what he call it with a unit where the whole, you know, the housing if there are some gross individual has done a bunch of awful things, and they just want it to be known in the interest of justice, because that that’s, that’s who they are, even though they’re in prison, and they want to help the administration of justice. That’s one thing. But if they come and say, Hey, I got this magic evidence for you, and I want something in exchange. That is a perverse incentive. That’s kind of like policing for profit. I mean, it’s not the same thing, but it’s kind of like policing for profit, the profit for them as they get they get released. Early. And that encourages, in my view, untrue accusations and testimony and that’s what worries me.

I wouldn’t say I mean, it’s for me, it’s it’s not just worrisome, and I appreciate Larry’s kindness to prosecutors, but, you know, I think in many of these cases that they’re outright willing to manufacture in for evidence, or, you know, at least plausibly, it was some plausible deniability, manufacturer evidence in order to ensure conviction. And a lot of times they don’t really care if the conviction is legitimate or not, you know, I mean, I think probably the most famous case of this right now is the Amy Klobuchar incident. Where was back when she was the prosecutor of Hennepin County. She put someone who was a juvenile away for a case where a young girl had been shot. And it turns out that the two pieces of evidence that convicted this kid were a jailhouse, were paid and jailhouse informants And when you know later when she’s asked about all these years later, she says, Well, of course you should put new evidence out, if there’s new evidence, they should put it out and get, you know, get this person out. But the question isn’t a question of new evidence. It’s a question of new reporting about old evidence. So that’s the evidence her office used to convict, you know, it’s so this I mean, this plays out in real life all the time and in very disturbing ways. And, you know, I mean, there’s a really good book by Emily bazelon, about kind of all the ways in which prosecutors are incentivized in a lot of ways in a lot of poor ways, and ends up in a lot of miscarriages of justice. And sometimes I would say bad faith, miscarriages of justice.

I don’t agree with you. I don’t disagree with you. I may disagree with you. It would be ideal if all prosecutors carried the highest level of ethical conduct and adhere to that, but they don’t. They’re wanting convictions because as the pressure they’re under, how do we change the system? that we have now where, what, without fail, almost all prosecutors in the country at the state level have to be elected by the people. And the people are being constantly told that crime is out of control, and this person is not doing anything about it. And they could be, they could be putting more people away if they weren’t. So pro defendant. And course prosecutors are generally not pro defendant. But they they’re under enormous pressure to close close cases. So a third of the prosecutor is not unethical, but they’re still faced these pressures. How do we alleviate and take some of this pressure off to gang convictions? The ethical ones will have to deal with it another way but but how do we relieve the pressure that they feel it from from the public?

It sure would be nice if the media would stop reporting that crimes out of control all the time, when it’s actually arguably the lowest it’s been since like 1967. But aside from that, you know it.

Andy 19:58
Did I bump I bumped an article Next week, you’re talking from the New York Times that I’m sorry, it was from the appeal challenging that the New York Times was saying that they the crime is running rampant based on like some of the bond changes. But then the appeals like, no, it’s actually down. Here’s the actual numbers, stop reporting BS.

Unknown Speaker 20:16
The appeals, right?

Josh 20:18
Well, well, and I’ve maintained on the history of this podcast, I’ve been saying that that cry by said it that when I had extra and I made a national conference in Atlanta making 2016.

Andy 20:28
You had somebody that wanted to perform an exorcism on you on the spot. It was almost like the I don’t remember who it was who stood up in the State of the Union address where he said, You lie when Obama said something, I forgot what it was.

Josh 20:39
Yeah, that was about the Affordable Care Act. Yes. But you lie. That was the course there was no, there was no retribution. There was no reprisal. There was no punishment. There was nothing really insignificant that happened on that. But But crime, crime has been trending down for a very long time across the country with pockets of exceptions. And cause I’d love to have that debate about what we do about the media because every proposal I come up with is not acceptable. It’s kind of kind of like okay, well do we do we reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? No. Do we? Do we break up these media? Goliath, where they have so much ownership and their their, their primary obligation, and rightfully so in a capitalist system is to return dollars to their shareholders and to enhance the value of their shares. How do we deal with this because nobody wants to fund public broadcasting. That’s communist and socialist. No one wants to limit what can be aired. No one wants to require equal time. And no one wants to break up the monopolies that controls the bulk of what we hear. So I’m all ears for suggestions. What do we do about the media because they’re doing what they do? They’re trying to make profits for their shareholders. That’s the capitalist system.

Andy 21:58
I mean, there was the thing We covered recently with a prosecutors I think that was in New York where they didn’t want to have a independent review capital.

Josh 22:06
independent review panels are usually run by other attorneys, which means, of course, to a particularly great job at punishing attorneys. They’re usually not independent. But it’s still something you know, I mean, we’ve seen that with Brady. Brady evidence and other things, but I don’t know I, you know, I mean, that’s the question of media that that Larry was asking just a second ago, I feel like, you know, have spent a good deal the last couple years in essence trying to get people to join in, in calling out the media every time they make bad arguments about crime about you know, you about sex crimes about all kinds of stuff. And sometimes that’s been pretty effective. You know, I mean, especially last year when we were I think I got a group of like 85 formerly incarcerated people to organize around the stake and prison narrative during the federal shutdown. But in other times it hasn’t been I think very recently there was a decent number of people who struck back against that one news outlet that was talking about. Geez, I can’t remember what the story was, but it was a sex crime thing. Or us registration. Oh, it was people who were rounded up for registration or something like that. I mean, I just think we have to, you know, use the tools we have to talk back to the media and to bring attention to the fact that they aren’t being factually correct or even close to factually correct most of the time.

Okay, but why are they obligated to be factually correct other than morally, they don’t they they’re, they’re in a business and they’re they’re selling a product fly a less way less. We’re going to have the the government come in and say that you have to be accurate your stories fly. What obligates them to be factually accurate or even balanced and show both sides of an issue. Why why why do they have to do that?

I don’t think they do have to do that, I think that we can ask them to do that and say when they don’t do that, that you know and call attention to when they don’t do that. It’s ultimately up to the consumers what, you know, they decide to do with the media, but you know, we have to use the tools at our disposal to try to, to counter the bad narratives that they put out there. You know, I didn’t I don’t think I called for any any legislation or anything like that.

Well, that’s what I’m saying. But without legislation without I’m sorry, but guts and sensationalism cells. If you put all fluffy news that doesn’t sell we are in this predicament because this is what the public wants to consume.

I don’t know. I mean, I hate to get into too much of an argument here. But so we probably lost this battle about two months ago, or maybe a month and a half ago. I it all runs together. I was really involved in pushing back against the bail reform. backlash in New York City. I got called into Help. I wrote some talking points, I did a bunch of pushback on social. And while you know, they were much better organized than we were to start out with, we still you know, I was still getting, you know, hundreds of thousands of people reading that the pushback every single day. And you know, I mean that maybe it maybe a million people go the other way. But I mean, I still feel like it can be very effective. If you learn how to do messaging and you work with other people who share the same goals to push back against the media, at least you get a lot of people who become better informed, which I think is hopefully the goal of a lot of this stuff.

Well, I agree with you on that. I agree with I agree with you on that, that that the media is a part of the problem, but I don’t know how we solve it.

Andy 25:45
This next article comes from the appeal that’s talks about new data suggests risk assessment tools have little impact on pre trial incarceration. What jumped out at me in this and I’ll give you my own little personal spin on it is I’ve written some thing of like a machine learning algorithm to detect for fraudulent orders. But one of the things that I do with it is I feed new data into it to validate whether the like, Hey, this is what I told you might be fraudulent. So can you tell me whether it actually was fraudulent, so that way it keeps learning and modifying the system as it goes. But these people, these new people, as it were, they created some system to evaluate people up front whether they could be released pre trial, but then they don’t feed any data back into it, whether they were right, whether the people that they released or not released, whether they committed obviously, if they were still detained, they weren’t committing much for crimes, but if they were released, whether they whether the prediction was accurate or not, that bothers me.

Unknown Speaker 26:39
Well, okay, it bothers you.

Andy 26:43
I can’t do anything about it. But I just want that was the point that jumped out at me and I know that you’re going to have all kinds of if you’re not guilty of anything, why are you having all these disabilities and restraints? Why are you having all those things put on you if you’re innocent until proven guilty?

Josh 26:57
Well, that is where I’m going to go with this and then Josh Gonna counter with with the pre pre show always reached out banter that we that we had, but I have, I have a lot of trepidation I totally, totally understand and agree with those who have money under the cash bail system. If you have if you have structured preset bail for a list of offenses, and that’s the way it was largely done, up until recently, in most jurisdictions is you got charged with a fourth degree felony, well, it’s a it’s a 1500 dollar bond for fourth degree felony. Well, if you if you have 1500 dollars, that doesn’t magically make you a better person, as far as moral character, and do the likelihood of appearing in court. And depending on how many 1500 dollar collections you have, it might be very easily that you could absorb the loss of 1500 dollars and still not show up in court. So I understand all of those arguments don’t want these to regurgitate them to me Before I break with those people is although that system has many flaws, it was fast and expedient. And those who did have the resources, like with everything else in a capitalist system, those who have the resources can have the nice car, the nice colleges, all these things, the person who had the resources would be able to exit the jail faster. And but since you are presumed innocent, that’s exactly what should be happening is you should be exiting the jail as quickly as possible after you’ve been blocked. And after there has been some reasonable assurance that you will participate in the process, because that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re accused is participate in the process. So the question becomes, how do we make sure that people will participate in the process? I’m still on board with bail reform, if that’s all it’s for, but that’s not what the reform is to have done. Dave not only wanted to assure that you’ll participate in the process and continue You to go about your life. Under the presumption of innocence, they’ve decided that this is a chance for we can rehab you. Of course you have you’re not guilty of anything yet, you may be charged with a DWI, but you have not been convicted, you may very well not be guilty of whatever that charges. So therefore I don’t feel we’re in the rehabilitation business or the restraint business until there’s either a plea or an adjudication of some sort of guilt, which there’s why break with them, because they come in with all these conditions. I said, we’ll let you out of jail. You ain’t gonna have to post no money. But we got this. The little thing here is a GPS monitor. And it has a supercharger in it, and you get to blow in it all night long when it goes off. And you have to go to DWI, you have to go to alcohol counseling every week, you still might be guilty of a very problem. You have to all these conditions you have to do and you have to even in some jurisdictions pay for the privilege of a monitor pre trial. It’s sub level, and there’s where I’m break with no, I don’t like that system and also the delay of the tool. How long it takes A tool to be to evaluate and whatever it is it’s evaluating you on. Well, right now decide your propensity commit another crime. Well, you haven’t been found guilty

of this one. Yeah, I mean, I guess the difference is, first of all that with most of the tools that you know that it’s a the point isn’t necessary rehabilitation, it’s a question of dangerousness and and the algorithm basically uses a bunch of depending on which algorithm you use, uses a bunch of hopefully dynamic data instead of static data to try to determine your level of dangerousness of committing a new crime while you’re on bond or whatever. And you know, those some of those things may seem rehabilitative, but they’re justified under dangerousness. You know, I mean, traditionally, the two big problems with risk assessments are one that they tend to, in a lot of cases, create, particularly racially discriminatory outcomes. And the second one is is as you know, Larry was just mentioning that a lot of times there’s a risk that actually more people get detained under a system with risk assessment than without risk assessment and with cash bail. Now personally, I’m for a system that tends to err on the side of release on recognizance. You know, we’ve had bail reform in a bunch of different jurisdictions we’ve had bail reform in in DC is kind of where a lot of this started. You’ve got New Jersey, you’ve got Philadelphia, you’ve got Cook County, Illinois, you’ve got Kentucky and you’ve got I’m probably leaving someone out, but that’s a lot of them. And in all of those places. The big fears of bail reform are that crime will increase that’s actually not been true crimes decreased and recidivism is decreased and failure to appear is the other thing that people get really freaked out about. And and all those places fail it up here. It’s rates have been about the same and so The kind of terror stories about bail reform, I don’t really believe are true, I tend to believe that you always should err on the side of liberty. And so I believe people are innocent until proven guilty. And so when people you know, I was out, when I was arrested, I was I got bailed out, I was lucky enough to have the money to do that. And despite the, you know, the charges that I faced, I seem to have made it to trial. Okay, and went to prison. You know, I think that’s the way it works for most people. And I think that that there’s a reason for that. And I think everybody should be afforded the right to, you know, there’s a lot of bad outcomes from from from pre trial detention, you, you’re more likely to be found guilty, you’re more likely to commit future crimes. It’s just not a very good public safety policy, and it hasn’t had very good outcomes and bail reform on the whole has had pretty good outcomes. Now I also think that we should err on the side of liberty and so I’m not a huge fan, necessarily. risk assessment tools unless they can be proven to not be racially discriminatory and to allow for more not less release.

Andy 33:09
How about Charles rates? Maybe they should look at other countries instead of being trapped in the American bubble in England. No cash bail and crime is not crazy.

Josh 33:17
We can’t look at other countries. We’re smarter than all the other countries. Charles, I don’t know why you don’t understand that American exceptionalism. Right? That’s correct. I agree with I agree with practically everything Josh just settled, err on the side of liberty. If we mean what we say about the presumption of innocence, then there’s no need for prediction of dangerousness because the person is presumed innocent, so therefore, they couldn’t be dangerous.

Andy 33:48
It actually almost makes your head explode. But when you say it for real, because you’re just like, Oh, that’s right. You’re innocent until proven guilty. So the presumption of innocence would be you know, handover your path, not passport, but you know, gives Your booking information name, address, telephone number, all that stuff. And then you go,

Josh 34:04
Well, it could, but I believe the primary purpose of of conditions of release is to show participation. So I think it is relevant to look at the participation rate, if that person has seven benchmarks over the last five years, for failing to appear, that is a factor that’s worthy of consideration, because we need you to show up, but we can give this presumption of innocence, but you need to show up. So that’s a factor. But what you might have done, what you might have done in the past, if you showed up for trial, you went to prison and you paid your debt to society. I thought we were about not holding that against you. And using that as a progress as a predictor. We seem to be talking out for both sides of our mouth. We’re claiming that a person who commits a sexual offense magically is not going to come in another sexual offense, and that the recidivism rate is so strikingly low, then how can we turn around and say, Oh, well, you’ve done this, and therefore, we predict you’re dangerous because you’ve done this once or twice already. Your last 30 years? Well,

Andy 35:02
we’ll forgive me for throwing this one out there then because you the three of us with normal human beings, you know, it wouldn’t be easy for us to amass the fortunes to go to another country and go through the system. But you know, we had articles on Harvey Weinstein, they got all bump because of Michigan, but somebody with that level of resources could just, Hey, I’m just going to go buy the yacht or take the out I already have and off I go and fyp to you and your system. So what that forces the person with those kinds of resources to participate?

Josh 35:34
Well, we’ll never have a will never have a flawless system where people what what what happened in a case like that is that depending on where they went, they would probably be traced down and and brought back these are legally or illegally, depending on the severity of the accusation was it was made against them. Dog bounty hunter. We, we we can’t, we can’t tell people that you’ve made a mistake in your life in 1984 Therefore, we decide you’re dangerous. Because what they did in 1984 is ancient history. Now it sentencing. And most jurisdictions, your past convictions, with, with very few exceptions do get taken into consideration. But this is a new crime. And if you listen to the overnight, the read I read, read Iran radio, each case is supposed to be according to those guys that evaluated on its merits. So what I’m interested in doing is when you’re charged with a crime is building up enough of an assurance that you’re going to participate. That’s my primary concern. Now, I know that I don’t speak for the whole system, but I want to make sure that you’re going to show up for court and impose this little restraint as possible on your liberties, except for this, make sure that you’re going to participate with us and that made me to regular check in to make sure you haven’t left the jurisdiction. And of course, if you leave the jurisdiction, and they’re attacking it daily, you could be long gone by the time they miss you understand all that but there’s no perfect system

and I just want to reiterate this You know, most of the research that’s been done around this says that failure drop here rates are about the same with or without bail reform.

Well, the Bella Anderson will argue for you to you that, that that might be true. But they say that they do a vast public service because I have an economic incentive to go out and track these people down because they’re on the hook for that money. So therefore, they’re freeing up precious law enforcement resources for the bench war, because they will go out and break the person and you have to you have to that that does carry some weight, because if they’ve got $20,000 at stake, that’s going to be forfeited 90 days, they’ll put a bounty hunter out looking for that person and they’ll pay that Bounty Hunter $2,000 to bring that person in.

The insurance covers all that. It’s my understanding. Well, they don’t have their own money. It’s not a risk.

Right, but but they they would be liable for the buddy that that’s just what they testify to at our legislature on a regular basis. But

yeah, I’ve had many runs many, many rounds and rounds with the bail industry union We’re not friends.

But that’s their argument. And they’re not very happy with bail reform. No.

Andy 38:13
I think that we are ready to move over to like round two of Michigan. And because yeah, here we go again. So the judge announced that the the whole thing needs to be shot down and the constitutional problems with the registry in Michigan, and all right, round two Ding, ding, ding, go at it.

Larry 38:34
Well, well, you could go first. I’ll go first. But but the fifth, this is an extremely complicated case. I had to read this thing twice, Judge  Cleland’s opinion that was released yesterday. And I think I largely understand it, but but I’ll do the once over gloss over and then we’ll get into the nuances of why I have trepidation. What’s happening here now is that the judge has enjoined the state from enforcing SORNA in its totality against large group of people. And those people who have convictions date predating 2011. I mean, a contract. I keep saying, Josh, and I keep saying, it’s our contract predated now what’s unclear to be as because he said that the 2006 and they put in post approach proximity restrictions, that the tests include it, but then he said it was boots. I’m a little confused. We’re gonna need we’re gonna need some further clarify the proximity is part of the vagueness decision that he did prior to the Sixth Circuit decision that we were talking about last week, and switch different grounds. I’m pretty sure.

So and then and then the the the judge issued a, an injunction against enforcement of several provisions of the people who have been convicted subsequent that are under the the enhanced version, pay issued an injunction I guess, enforcing a whole litany of things to deal with With the with the current registrants. So basically, anybody who’s required to register in Michigan is getting some level of relief from this because after the after the judgment is entered with this case, if the legislature doesn’t legislate within 60 days from that date, then sorta is going to be completely abolished for a large group of people and it’s going to be neutered for for the rest of the people. So this is this is this is going to be a major panic for for Michigan legislators to fix. Okay, Josh, tell tell me what what the court

said. No, I think, you know, that’s largely largely correct. I hate to be agreeable. But what he said is this pretty pretty, pretty much what happened. You know, I mean, there’s a number of ways that this could play out. The state could obviously appeal that has a you know, I talked to Miriam Aukerman. The other day and I asked this what she thought and she said she really isn’t sure what the state’s going to do at this point. Which makes sense because they kind of it didn’t seem like their heart was fully in fighting this in the first plays in a lot of ways, you know, another thing that could happen is that the legislature could try to pass to write a registry that would be constitutional for everybody before or an after 20 2011, which would be a pretty basic registry. And, you know, like, I think Larry has suggested it would have no, it wouldn’t create the conditions that put, you know, that put people out, etc. The third option, so they could, you know, essentially let the everyone 2011 go away, because that’s going to be the hardest one for them to write the kind of registry that they support, and still remain constitutional, and then try to just do some modifications, and keep everyone post 2011 on the registry and as constrained as possible. You know, there’s all kinds of things that they could try to do and then they could just fail to get the legislature could just fail to get the job done in time. And then like Larry just said, the whole thing would go away for people who were pre April of 2011. And it would be a much different registry for everyone after, there’s all kinds of things that could happen. We’ll see what does happen.

Andy 43:03
What do you think, Larry? What are the political ramifications? here’s, here’s one of the questions that I’m one of the many. If so they’ve invalidated and they have 60 days to get their act together. And certain people on day 60 or day 61 whichever they fall off the registry, a what? They go purge the records. And then on day 61, they enact new legislation or those people all brought back in, and now they’re under a registration scheme, again, where they have to go report in again, and it’s equally unconstitutional.

Josh 43:35
Well, that would be one conceivable remember, since any law that’s passed is presumed constitutional. There’s no prejudging by the court. So although although Cleveland would probably find it problematic, if they passed a sort of it looked a lot like what they have enforced today. They could conceivably do that. Just look, look at Pennsylvania. That’s almost what they did. They could do that. But I would say yes, that that that is one of the possibilities, what I think would be more likely a possibility. And and, folks, please don’t send me over emails because I only tell you what I think possible these are. And I’ll wait. I don’t have a crystal ball. I don’t have a direct connection to the office of Michigan. I don’t know what they’re going to do. I just know how to do political analysis. I’m assuming that in this year 2020, that a portion or all of the Michigan legislature is up for reelection? I’m assuming that without having done the research, if that’s the case, that is great. If that’s the case, that they are not going to have any political incentive to unravel, sorta, they’re just not going to have politically This is not a winner for them to figure out how, unless they could put a spin on it that we’re that we’re we’re we’re somehow protecting the community, but just to make the registry For the people who would like not to have to comply with it, that’s just not a political winning hand. So I don’t think that I don’t think that they’re going to be looking to come up with a real easy constitutional registry. I think that’s a long shot. It’s certainly within the rebel possibilities. But I think that the more likely scenario is that since the Attorney General is charged with enforcing and defending the laws of state of Michigan, this court what they have done has actually opened up a lot of potential new litigation that hasn’t been done yet. Because Cleveland went beyond what the Sixth Circuit did. With he took he took the liberty to declare unconstitutional again, what he had declared unconstitutional, which was largely ignored by the Sixth Circuit, and those number one, and they, they they only focused on the ex post facto violation of the 2006 and 2011 amendments. Cleveland had found other constitutional deficiency, so he’s reincorporated that into this new class. Action case that was filed after that that case. And so those have not been tested on appeal yet. So if I were the Attorney General, and I was looking for a way to do my job, and I’m not the Attorney General, but I would be looking at, okay, well, I’ve got this as an appeal, I can appeal Cleveland on this. I can appeal Cleveland on granting to determining that it’s not separable. And that would buy a bunch of time to get people beyond the election, because in that appeal, you would ask for a state of the injunction that’s going to take effect in 60 days, and you would hope that you could get to have two or three judges on the Federal Court of Appeals panel to agree with you that that that until until these issues that he decided beyond those verses, Snyder had been litigated on appeal. And the fact that the state Supreme Court wasn’t given a certified question that would buy them time. You would possibly get a better outcome politically if that were to happen if you will remove the election, the threat of the politics From this because once the election cycles past, then there is if you remember Obama said, Let me get reelected, and then I’ll have more flexibility. That is just the reality of the situation. The lawmakers in Lansing will have a little more flexibility if they can get past the election right now is the worst time at all to try to legislate to improve SORNA from the registrants perspective, and the only thing that I’ll say there, although I think that certainly is, well, the two things I’ll say there, the first one is is that, you know, our attorney general has multiple times, made arguments against the registry now, so I don’t think that, you know, she’s, you know, she could be forced by her situation as being the chief law enforcement officer, the state’s defend this, but like I said before, I’m not entirely sure her heart is 100% behind this in the first place. The second thing that is interesting is that the Sixth Circuit didn’t decide on those grounds, but they also very clearly said, you know, we weren’t hostile to those grounds the case just we just reached on different grounds. And you should bring those to us again. So they go in and more likely to rule in your favor, they more or less said it was at the very end of the Sixth Circuit decision, which was pretty surprising that they went that far. And so I think the tea leaves to some extent have been written on this end, you know, I mean, they were the ones who originally found it unconstitutional in the first place. Now, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t buy them time. So they might be, you know, there might be a reason to do it, even though they know they’re probably going to lose. So I don’t disagree with what Larry’s saying. But I do think that there is at least some chance I’m better than zero chance that, you know, that, that this, this, that this that the the ag doesn’t bail them out, but maybe they maybe she will.

But it’s supposed to be their job to defend the laws of the state. And the way we would like for them to do what we’d like to do when we do disagree with something. But since it’s presumed constitutional, and that hasn’t been ruled on yet. That would be the Attorney General’s job is to say to people and acted this and until it’s thoroughly exhausted on appeal, my position our position is state of Michigan that this is valid. This is valid law technically been ruled on before, just what was it two grounds The Sixth Circuit reached? Right. But wasn’t that no law by Cleveland with the previous?

That’s correct. And the state’s entitled to what appeal? That means they can also follow the cert petition, which I doubt they would do, but they’re entitled to have this. They are they’re piled up to Cleveland. And I’m just saying what I think is a better than 5050 chance that they would do that. But But right now, politically, this is a bad time, but a time this is going to be 90 days before before so we add 90 days to the benefit. We’re middle of February, March, April, May. I don’t know when Michigan’s primaries, don’t keep track of all that. But if candidates haven’t had their primary election, yet, they don’t. Want to be knocked out in a primary? If they have had their primary by then they don’t want to be knocked out in November general. And this is the worst time of the world to be to be tried to do a positive reform. This is a great time to be doing a crack down reform. So so the inclination would be to want to be tough in the eyes of the voters, because that’s what the voters are clamoring for. on sex, the registration if you go out Oh, I mean, she was just advocate, just to play devil’s advocate and sorry, this, but I think that they have an argument to make, that whatever they do, could be tougher than the alternative, which is to let it lapse.

Unknown Speaker 50:41
You have to essentially let the judgment stand,

Andy 50:44
which then ends in 90 days the entire thing. Everybody prior to 2011 it’s just they’re off the roster.

Larry 50:51
They cannot do that. Take like politically cannot. I mean that’s wishful thinking Josh to say that. They’re just gonna say, well, we give up.

Oh, no, that’s what I’m saying is that because they can’t say we give up, the legislator can say whatever they do pass is tougher than the alternative. Like not that we did this, we did this because to save Michigan from the alternative, which was judge Cleveland’s ruling, now, the article cover,

I agree with you all that they have political cover to say that we’re forced to do something. But you also have an opponent in November is going to say, if you elect me, I will do this rather than that soft stuff that they’re doing. And that’s the part you’re not analyzing.

Andy 51:34
Let me interject this there’s a someone who sent me a comment that someone posted on one of the news websites. So I’m going to read what this person wrote. So bear with me, these are not my words. These are not Larry’s words. These are not Joshua’s words, but this person said and his name is Norbert, which says that’s right To hell with the child victims when the constitutional rights of miscreants perverts are at risk. What a world we’re living in the crypt No, again is getting privileged treatment while his victims are treated merely as so many ciphers. First of all, child molesters should never breathe free air again, but instead be in prison for the rest of their natural or unnatural lives. Secondly, anyone convicted of murdering a child should definitely face execution. as I’ve stated many times before, in response to these measures to protect and enable these scum, they are a malignancy that has no cure except prison and or execution, just as a cancer, they should face total and complete removal from our society. I only say that on the heels of the politics out of this discussion that the public at large, pretty in favor of these kind of loss.

Unknown Speaker 52:37
Sure. I mean,

Andy 52:39
yeah, and that, but I say it and that’s, that’s, you know, that to Larry’s point of the political risk of, of the legislature, like letting it all lapse and saying, well, we lost and we’ll just go home and, you know, we’ll go work on driver’s license issues or something like that.

Josh 52:53
Yeah. My argument wasn’t that they would ever let it lapse. My argument was that they were putting a sit that they would say, if they were asked if they were in trouble Stop. And someone said, Why did you do this? And they’d say, well, the alternative was to let it lapse. So I the only thing we could do is make a constitutional version, or it would have lapsed entirely. And I

Larry 53:11
agree with that Josh, that

Josh 53:14
I write their opponent would say, Well, I would do something harsher. The problem with that is the court already said you can’t do something harsher. So you know I mean, we don’t change an election but I mean the politicians in a terrible situation it’s not you know, they didn’t create it. I’m not sure there is a good answer for them in this situation except the way which you were right is a possibility.

Well, I got a I got an email from from somebody last week that was confused that that I was so I tried to come up with an analogy about about the situation because they were confused about hardest our discussion. What what I was trying to make as a point is that when you when you when you when litigation, you’re not you’re not entitled to anything more than what you want. And what you What what the best analysis I came up with would be in a boundary dispute between a couple property owners. We’ve got Smith and the Joneses. And the Smiths have encroached on the Jones property and built a structure. And the structure could be anything they probably knew, for example barn to an outbuilding to a fence or whatever, but the dismissive have encroached beyond the boundary there properly. So the Joneses hotel dismiss, we’d like you to back off and I said, Sorry if that’s our property. And the remedy is to go to court. That’s what our systems based on to solve disputes if they can’t be resolved amicably between parties, and if so does the declaratory judgment filed and the surveyors come in and the experts testified the court finds that dismissed have encroached on the Joneses, which is what happened in this law, the lawsuit was filed. And the and the that the trial court found that there were encroachments in that the registry had encroached and areas that were not upheld on appeal, the appeals court decided that they had it coached by violating the Ex Post Facto Clause in 2006 and 2011 by imposing the proximity restrictions and by imposing this three tiered 333 different terms of registration and the enhanced version to comply with AWS. Well, then at that point that the Court declared that they had been on approachment in the Constitution, this is same as a property when the court declares that you’ve been crushed on the property, then the question becomes what is the remedy? You can let the specific Joneses try to work out a remedy which might include replanting the property and selling them part of it, maybe include renting it, it may include paying for an easement for 10 years. I mean, there’s any number of things. So the Michigan ACLU and the attorneys preferred, that, that there be an agreed upon settlement, because it would include a rewrite of SORNA. That was what they hoped for, and that that’s an admirable, it’s a great admirable wish, but you didn’t win a rewrite of sorta What you won was that 2006 and 2011 members tip or regulatory scheme to become punitive. So therefore, that’s what you’re entitled to if you force the court to gratitude relief that you’ve won, but they ask and if you read the opinion of Judge Cleveland on page six, he says a July 2018 platers woofer partial summary judgment of ex post facto claim on behalf of the subclasses member that’s a year and a half ago, plaintiffs requested declaratory injunctive relief but deferred for later the briefing on question of saurez amendments, whether there are several different means a dead motor ruling. While this motion was pending, the parties agreed to focus our resources on legislative reform breads and litigating severability. So the people who are cussing out the court for all this delay. The court was holding off because that’s what the parties asked the court to do. The court was asked not to rule until the legislature had a chance to legislate it would be equivalent to the Jones Smith property to spirit Judge, you’ve given us our declaration that there’s been an encroachment. Let us now try to work it out. And the judge will say, great. I don’t want to decide what the remedy is I don’t want to have to order that structure to be torn down if you guys can come up with remedy, fine. But what the political analysis that I applied was based on 30 years of political experience, there was not a lot of incentive for the state to legislate for the legislature legislature because the missing link is what just came to tax came down this week with there’s a date certain when the red shoe would not be enforceable. Up until then, there was 44,000 reasons not to enforce, to legislate because the enforcement was still taking place. Now, there is a shift in the dynamics because the court has given them a date certain when you can no longer force this. That’s what I was trying to explain. The the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they’re one they’re not entitled to Have a rewrite to their liking. If you’re going to force the court to solve this, you get what you want, and nothing more.

Unknown Speaker 58:07
I don’t think I was disputing any of that. So it was

Josh 58:13
a listener comment. Why does the court weigh all this on? The court waited because the court was asked to wait.

Larry 58:21
What about just as simple?

Josh 58:23
Well, I mean, just a little behind the scenes kind of thing. I do think that there had been some pressure from I think it was clear that the judge, as you just mentioned, preferred that that was the way that it worked out. So I mean, I’m sure it was a little more. Everyone was kind of working behind the scenes together to get that result, but you’re right, it didn’t work out pretty well.

And that’s what the court mentions and the opinion that the the court deferred ruling, but for that, tell us how they put it, say the the parties were unable to reach a resolution and that’s that’s, that’s what I expect. it. That’s not what I wished for, folks. That’s what I expected. Because politically, it’s a lot riskier to do anything, it’s now the court has forced their hand and roughly about 90 days, they’re going to have thousands of people no longer on the registry, and they’re going to have thousands more who have restrictions set, we’re in effect, they’re not gonna be in effect. That’s a powerful incentive start legislating

Unknown Speaker 59:26
about any funny side note real quick, was actually,

Josh 59:31
again, behind the scenes kind of stuff. But, you know, my understanding throughout the whole process was that they actually made a lot of progress on writing a new form a new SORNA and that all the people acted in good faith. And at least the story I’ve heard is that pretty close to the end, the governor’s office just decided there was no political capital in it and pulled out their support for it, which is what Larry’s talking about, but many of the people actually did negotiate in good faith. Almost against their own, probably best interest for for a fairly long time. And I think a lot of progress actually was made, which might end up being helpful down the road. Let’s

Andy 1:00:10
just for clarification, I forgive me, you keep saying 90, is there a 90 day provision in here versus the 60?

Josh 1:00:17
It’s 90 because the there’s a 30 day notification period. Well, and then it

wasn’t the 60 starts running from when final judgments entered. This is not fair. This is this is an opinion. But the parties the judge decent, the issue of final judgment, and that is going to be negotiated like the previous laws, what’s parties if you if you people can’t come up with a with with

a bachelor, my understanding, Larry, I think it’s 30 days notification period, then they have 60 days to pass legislation or final judgment is entered. It’s my understanding.

Andy 1:00:54
Brenda and chat said what I keep saying is that I sure hope the advocates of various sorts are showing up and working with legislators ticket a good rewrite.

Josh 1:01:03
I will say that, you know, the the people on the ground in Michigan have been amazing. The little group Michigan citizens for justice, which is, uh, has about probably 30 total 3040 total members across the state has touched every single legislative office in Michigan has met with the lieutenant governor has met with the governor with with the office of the governor. And you know, so I mean, they’ve been working their butts off to be present all over the legislature with a very small numbers. And it’s, it’s pretty impressive, really what a small group of people can do when they put their mind to it.

Andy 1:01:41
What was it just going to escalate? Oh, okay. How, how hard is it to take a comparison of a super benign registry and maybe like the 2003 Alaska registry like kind of blend those together to make the quote unquote, the perfect constitutional registry, and introduce that and does that give Enough political cover?

Josh 1:02:01
I don’t I don’t think it does. Because people are going to look at the proposal. Those who would like to be at office, we’re going to say, representative and Senator so and so is sponsoring a bill that would no longer require those on the registry to do these things here. This is totally dangerous. And this is going to put a big gap in our community of safety. And I don’t think you I don’t think you can propose a ban on registry and not be attacked.

Andy 1:02:28
So it has to include all of the thousand foot restriction things and internet notification.

Josh 1:02:35
I don’t say it has to be us man about a benign registry.

Andy 1:02:38
Yeah. But I mean for them to propose one then the the opponents would then attack it as not being strong enough on these horrible people that have committed these terrible crimes.

Josh 1:02:47
I don’t know where their magic line is where that they’re going to get attack. But a totally non registered like, I’d propose I can guarantee you would be attacked. Of course, I

mean, they’re in a I mean, they’re between a rock and a hard place. Sure, in a lot of ways, and whenever they propose it’s going to get attacked by the people running against that, because it’s just it’s like free money, you know? Yeah. It’s, you know, it doesn’t make, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have to do something because the alternative is to let it lapse and then they, then their opponent will attack them. So I’m letting it laughs You know, I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s zero. So,

I would like to get back to the question that was asked that I was cut off one to finish, I’m going to read from the opinion, defenders will be permanently joined from enforcing any provision of this or I guess, members of the ex post facto subclasses that will be permanently injured from enforcing the provisions described a part three, be of this opinion against any rhetoric, the parties will immediately begin efforts to formulate a joint proposed form of judgment, which is what I was trying to explain, which will become effective 60 days after entry. So the court has to enter a judgment, which it hasn’t done yet. And the parties are going to propose a judgment to the court. And then once that judgment is entered The 60 day window will begin to count. There is a provision but Josh is right in there. But this case, our judgment hasn’t been entered yet. This is an opinion, this is not a judgment. And that’s on Page PAGE 20 out of the order.

Yeah, I, I’d have to go back through and look again, but my, you know, I talked to a few people, I’m pretty sure that at some level, the legislator has a certain set amount of time before the opinion becomes,

Unknown Speaker 1:04:32
essentially goes into effect.

Josh 1:04:36
So be a separate thing, which is talking about how the parties can work together. And so I’ll have to reread that to make sure I’ve got that right. Well,

I just read it. It’s 60 days from when the judgments that are I’m guessing that the judgment can be finalized in 30 days, I couldn’t be I could take 60 days to agree on the judge.

I think the judgment is supposed to be entered in the 30 days. I think that’s part of they’ve noted for But again, I could be I’d have to reread it

30 days, I’m thinking within 30 days that judgment can can be agreed upon. And what the judge is going to do is if the parties can agree on what the judge what the judge is gonna set, tell each party, present your proposed judgment, and I will decide what the judge wants. That’s, that’s what’s going to happen. So I mean, the judge is not gonna let this drag out too long.

Andy 1:05:21
He made a clear little splinter on what the difference is, like, to me, it seems almost obvious with the differences, but can you give us with the difference between opinion and the judgment is,

Josh 1:05:30
this is the underlying explanation of how the judgment came to be. The judgment is actual order, the court will be very short. it’ll it’ll, it’ll it’ll proclaim who won, and it will proclaim what the relief is, but but it won’t be anything like this 32 pages where we’re reading now.

Yeah, I would say something like, Hey, everyone, before April 2011, you can’t have the registry enforced on you anymore, everyone. After

Nobody, he’s made it clear that they don’t have a lot of time. And he made it clear previously that the delay is not he’s not interested in further delay. He’s interested in the in the constitutional violation ending, because the Sixth Circuit said that the that the in their opinion that that it should cease and desist immediately and it hasn’t ceased nor has assisted. And the judge is ready. I don’t know who appointed to the bench. I haven’t done any research on that. But clearly, he’s fed up with it. And he respects the Sixth Circuit opinion. And he’s not going to let the state manipulate him any longer.

The craziest thing? It’s, you know, I mean, I don’t know if the politics matters this much as he’s actually one of the more conservative justices in Michigan and the Sixth Circuit. The person who wrote the Sixth Circuit opinion is actually a very conservative judge, too. So it’s, it’s not as Larry would say an example of my liberal do gooders doing their due gutting.

You can always kind of liberals to do the right thing on this day, actually. You’re are dead wrong. Sorry, issues on this. They’re there. They’re there. They’re big on the metoo movement they’re making they’re big on lot of things I disagree with.

Andy 1:07:10
Yeah, so he was appointed by bush in 1990. There. Okay, thank you. Um, how about if we can move on and like zoom out a little bit? What does this do for other states specifically in the US in that same circuit? So this is from will and it goes, if the thousand foot rule is part of the constitutional issues with the Michigan registry, would that also apply to Tennessee if the restriction was found to be unconstitutional, not solely based on retroactive application that dose addressed with this apply to all of the Sixth Circuit?

Josh 1:07:44
What it is we’ve had this conversation before and for the benefit of new listeners who haven’t heard it, nothing automatically just a starts. The way the law enforcement works is the laws in Tennessee are presumed constitution. So nobody in Tennessee is going to say, Oh, well, they can’t do the submission and more, so we better cease and desist, they’re not gonna do that. But what this does do is it gives a person in the Sixth Circuit, I believe, Tennessee is it on six circuit, it gives, it gives them a controlling precedential decision to work crop to file a claim in Tennessee. Now, unfortunately, only the 2006 and 11 amendments, all the stuff that Cleveland found his most recent order were not a part of tooth out of the of the Sixth Circuit censorship. So the proximity restrictions were, but it would give you a good strong basis to litigate because the state of Tennessee would be put in a very defensive position because they would have to somehow distinguish how there’s, the analysis would be different. So as I’ve said many times before, Tennessee, you need to actually put together a legal team. You need to actually put together a plan to class, you need to actually put together a pool of money and you need to actually litigate rather than wishing you need to do some litigation. Or having

Andy 1:09:04
having this as a feather in your in your head as part of as part of your documentation that you’re pushing forth. I mean, like this would carry a pretty large amount of weight, not as if it were from another circuit where it be just like, hey, they said this over there. But this would be like, we said this, and we’re part of the same area.

Josh 1:09:21
It would be it would be binding, if if there was no way to distinguish if they couldn’t distinguish their way out of it, you’re first going to try to distinguish your way out of it. And you’re going to try to show us different if I find the Attorney General Tennessee, I’m going to say, Well, yeah, we do have proximity restrictions here in Tennessee, but we only apply to the level three offenders who have had to do a process and they’ve been, they’ve been a judge to be more dangerous. Therefore, what Michigan was doing, they were applying these restrictions to everybody. So therefore it’s distinguished, distinguished Well, we got a separate analysis. But if there’s no way to distinguish their way out of it, the outcome is likely to be the same because the district court in Tennessee is going to have to find that without distinguishable factors that this that that that they’re bound by the Dallas vs. cider decision.

Andy 1:10:09
Interesting.

Josh 1:10:10
Okay. Yeah, that’s a long period of speaking where I agree with everything Larry said.

Andy 1:10:17
How about how about moving forward and zoom out things even further and go out to the rest of the United States where you have pretty horrendous registries and I want to probably put Michigan in one of those categories. But you know, most of the southern states are pretty crappy. What about I guess, the same thing that you just said about Tennessee is you got to put together legal team then you can throw this document in there as this is like a piece of the puzzle and funding and attorneys and all that crap and start running things up the flagpole in that regard.

Josh 1:10:45
That is correct. And this is a enormously expensive. The State of Michigan agreed prior to the second round of litigation. Because of those two case. They agreed to pay the University of Michigan School of Law And the ACLU of Michigan $1.8 million in legal fees. And I can absolutely guarantee you that they did not pay 30 bless. So this has cost the state millions of dollars on Michigan’s a relatively wealthy state. So if it costs $5 million, that’s really a drop in the bucket to the state of Michigan. But the point of making is not so much about it being of drain on the state of Michigan. It’s a drain on the law firms that would try to do this for you course, of course a need money because this is going to devour their practice on the Georgia case, which we’re working on, but there’s an appeal pending because the butts can have Sheriff has the bunny, unlimited resource to file an appeal, the legal team. I’ve got the brief that’s going to be filed Thursday to be editing. They’ve got about 100 hours in doing that brief, just that brief alone. About 100 hours worth of work between the two lawyers on our team,

Andy 1:11:56
and they get paid $25 an hour.

Josh 1:11:58
Well, they’re not getting paid today. I’m saying until until they win. They’re not getting paid anything until they went.

Andy 1:12:05
I was being facetious about what the attorneys rates probably are. And it’s not $25 an hour,

Josh 1:12:10
well no longer touches a $250 an hour, there was a there was a bleep out. But But narshall, the National Association for rational sex offense laws, they put a little bit about into the escape case up front to be a buffer against the total loss. But these lawyers are in this for well over $100,000. And this is just beginning because when the 11th circuit won’t, but I’ve predicted and I still predict we’re going to win the 11th circuit is going to flush this appeal. And then we’re gonna have to go try this case with the merits. And then they’re going to appeal again after we lose. I mean, after they lose on the merits, because we’ve already got an advanced opinion from the district judge that tells us that we’re going to win with the case ultimately goes to trial. I think they’re going to appeal again, because they’ve only appeal to preliminary injunction. So they’re forcing us to do a whole bunch of work. Point is folks, get over your entitlement mentality. start contributing to the cause financially, because that’s what it’s going to take to move litigation. It’s going to take resources, it’s going to take lots of them.

Andy 1:13:09
I was going to go on a little rant about a sale you about something that you’ve said a bajillion times about, you know, how people vilify them for the various causes that they support. And here the same organization is potentially creating a pathway for 800,000 900,000 of us to have significant levels of relief, and they’re in the hole for a couple of million dollars, whatever. And every one of us needs to pony up some money to to offset that and relieve that stress.

Josh 1:13:42
Well, now in that case, that’s not the case because the state agreed to pay them as the prevailing party and that was what and I’m assuming and all the time has had passed, they’ve been they’ve collected that money. So so but but suppose they had not prevailed. Suppose it had been the Fifth Circuit like we just talked about with SDS how towers cases case out of Texas suppose they had lost after they invested all their members resources into this, I suppose that had gone against them.

Andy 1:14:08
They would definitely not be interested in funding and other challenge until you know if if our people weren’t supporting them.

Josh 1:14:13
Well, and most of our most of our people don’t support it, most of our people are anti sell you to the max. But go ahead, Josh.

I was gonna say I do think that, you know, if nothing else, everyone who is on our side of the street, you know, should take the time to find a way to thank Marissa mocker Minh and Paul Rheingold, who’s the guy at the University of Michigan Law Clinic who’ve been working on this case pretty much non stop for years and years and years and years. You know, I mean, Marian works on other cases too, but you know, she’s taken this from the beginning and done incredible work and so you know, we owe her a, you know, a great debt. This is one of the biggest cases that’s ever happened to reform the registry.

It’s a fantastic when I have nothing but praise For them, I have no criticism or second guessing. If they had asked me at the time, I would not have been as willing to wait for the legislative process to work because I did not have great faith that that that it would work. But they had very, very rational reasons for doing what they did. And the practice of law is you have opinions about the best course of action. I think I was talking to Brenda this morning or late yesterday evening about the Georgia case. The appeal that’s disappearing on the on the Halloween case, both sides were arguing that the the mootness doctrine, and both of us are right about to witness mootness doctrine, because it all depends on the interpretation. And we’re arguing one direction on the mootness doctrine, and they’re arguing that this case should be overturned on appeal, that injunction should be dissolved, and they’re arguing the mootness doctrine from another direction. So I don’t have any criticism. Nobody should take anything that I’ve said about criticism. I just say that politically When you’re expecting the political process to deliver for you, you’re going to likely be disappointed because until public opinion shifts, it’s not practical to take a posture to start dismantling the registry. This just not.

Well, I think, you know, I mean, just to play a little bit of devil’s advocate, and I was around for some of those discussions when they were happening. You know, I think that the, in the back of their mind was always that the best way to get judge Cleveland to actually for something was to go through this process. You know, I mean, I think they were hopeful that the legislature would do something. I don’t know how much they really believed necessarily would happen. They were hopeful.

Well, and I have nothing but admiration for what they’ve done. And right now, I think that if I’m wrong, I’ll be delighted. If they, if they come up with a but I registered within within the timeframe. I’ll be delighted, but I just think the odds are not We look around the country, that’s just not likely the way it’s going to go. But I hope that I’m wrong and come back say, gee, they surprised me.

Well, what do you think that? I mean, I, you know, if I personally, I think if they don’t do anything that that works out pretty well for a lot of folks too. But you think they’re going to do something, you just think it’s going to be worse? I’m kind of confused. Like,

if, if I don’t think it’s gonna be worse, I don’t I think they’re gonna be just like Pennsylvania. They’re gonna try to reinstate as much as what the Court declared unconstitutional as they possibly can.

Yeah, I think they’re gonna have a hard time finding courts that will enforce that, because it’s pretty explosive.

Right, right. But it’s presumed constitutional. So you have to wind this thing up all over again.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:39
I don’t know. I mean,

Josh 1:17:41
that you can’t presume it unconstitutional. Just because you don’t like it is presumed the same thing? No, I didn’t say the same thing I said, as close to what they would like to reinstate as much as they can. So what would be what would be the difference? If they said, Judge, you’re right. You know, the way We we have a great deal of sympathy for the proxy restrictions, say they peel off part of them, and not all of them and say they take this street address off the registry, they just put 400 block of Eastern South East Grand Rapids. That is an improvement because it’s a lot harder to know which house in the 400 block to put the project out through what if they did that, then you have to go litigate all over again?

Well, I mean, they would have to do it in a way that answered the argument that that was made about proximity.

Okay, well, part of the problems with proximity restrictions as I understood them, and we’re going to go long along if we keep going through through this but let’s say the beginning the unclear unclear how to measure what if they define exactly how to do the measurements, and it certainly helped

Unknown Speaker 1:18:45
it definitely make a difference.

Josh 1:18:47
And they end up property has to be used for the purposes intended like say if you have 100 acre parcel, and the other main property aligned to property line, what if they say it’s from it’s from the outermost property line of Sex Offenders or residents are where they reside to is a structure that rather than to the boundary. Yeah, I think you’ve got a brand

new law. I think that there is certainly a chance that with proximity, they could do something like that where they actually decided to apply the line of the find an objective line, I think they could probably do that. And they can do that with all the things that have been with certain, you know, I think, you know, it depends on who you’re talking about in this white said, one of the options is that they can essentially let the thing lapse for people before 2011 and then try to rejigger as much as they could, you know, and keep it like what you’re talking about, for all these other restrictions. Now, another option is they could try to do that for everybody. And I think that you know, that they get into a lot more trouble there would be a lot harder to pull that off with, you know, ensuring that there was an enforcement given all the stuff Cleveland said about the problems with enforcement. of multiple different, you know, where police, you know, the vagueness problems that are created by the multiple levels of enforcement, pre 2011. I think you get into it’s a lot harder for them to create something they may do it anyway. I just don’t think that be enforceable.

Well, but But again, it’s presumed constitutional upon an act. So they pass a bill and then it gets, it gets challenged, but it’s still presumed constitutional, you’d have to ask for an injunction, you have to wind up litigation all over again.

I don’t think it would take long to get that injunctive relief in this instance, because it’s been it’s one of those things where it’s been tried and retried to the point where all the judges are probably, I just I don’t know, maybe you’re right. I could be just being naive. I don’t know.

Well, we’ll We’ll soon find out. But but they, the presumption is that anything they come up with would be constitution, and it would be a new complaint would have to be drafted. And there would have to be litigation all over again. And if you want a doctor for You would have to meet that burden of showing that you’re likely to succeed on the merits, which, if it’s enough, like this version, they would probably be able to do that. But what if there’s dramatic differences? But it’s still a registry that we don’t like?

Well, I think that’s probably going to be the case. You know, I mean, that that’s probably likely there’s not gonna be as long as there is a registry, there’s probably not going to be a registry that we like, I, I don’t know about everyone in here, but I’m kind of opposed to the idea of registry experience. So

Unknown Speaker 1:21:27
I’m all for it, man. Bring it so so.

Josh 1:21:31
But well, it It got so bad that all you had to do is as as male and a form every year, I doubt you would be fine. And there was no picture of you. And there was no requirement to do anything else. I mean, that would be a minimal inconvenience in your life.

Sure, it would be much better for sure.

So and that would be a constitutional register. But see, they’re not gonna do that because that was that doesn’t satiate the thirst for vengeance that the population has to based on that email that or that post that that person made. So that kind of registered with but but They tough to sell?

Well, that’s a pretty good example of that post that you did have. One of the things that I think that people in our community been doing better, which is banding together respond to posts like that. And I think you’ll notice in the comment sections of a lot of things like that where people have banded together, that a lot more and more people are becoming educated. And a lot more and more people are realizing that there are problems with these things. Now, you’re not going to reach all the people, you know, you’re not going to overwhelm all of that. But I think we’re doing a much better job as a movement of not letting those things just stand. We are indeed.

Andy 1:22:35
All right. final final tally is anything else anybody wants to throw out there before we close all this down?

Unknown Speaker 1:22:41
I think we’ve done a good job, Andy.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:43
I think so.

Andy 1:22:45
I do want to announce that we have two new patrons, Larry, I’ve been forgetting a friend of mine, and he’s going by no soy Nadia, which for those Spanish Lee inclined, you know what that means. And then we also had a new one Brent, those are Two new patrons that we have. So I want to thank those individuals and also thank you to all of our patrons who generously support this podcast every month. Fantastic. So we’re closing out of the hundred we’re only two away. Only two plus maybe a little bit more than that. Josh, thank you as always for joining who said some pleasures there.

Josh 1:23:20
I said we’re gonna do that hundred before the years out.

Andy 1:23:23
I think we probably could get there. Josh, how do people find you and what do you have coming up? You have a new episode coming up. What is it going to drop on Monday?

Josh 1:23:32
Yeah, the episode on Monday is about Kermit Kermit gration, you know, the intersection between incarceration and immigration.

Andy 1:23:40
And I guarantee you that the the transcription services not going to know that word.

Josh 1:23:45
Probably not. I don’t know. One of the saddest thing about the transit says transcription services that every single time it gets it can’t. It can’t do my name at all.

Andy 1:23:58
All right, then it also had a tear. Time with dough was the yes being referred to in the case that kept coming up with all kinds of crazy formats for DOS.

Josh 1:24:06
You can find us at decarceration Nation com or on any of the services, iTunes, you know, Google all that stuff all the places you look for podcasts were there.

Andy 1:24:18
And you’re probably not like trying to compete for space with the word decarceration Nation either.

Josh 1:24:23
There is one other podcasts that has the word decarceration in it only it’s D carcere. Rated. Okay, but you know, it’s a fairly small neighborhood for sure. And

Andy 1:24:34
you do a little bit of some Twitter and LinkedIn too so people can find you there as well. Right?

Josh 1:24:38
Yeah. At Joshua be Joshua be Whoa, on Twitter. That’s the best place to find me pretty much anytime.

Andy 1:24:44
Out frickin standing. Larry, anything else before we roll out?

Josh 1:24:49
That’s it and and thanks, everyone for the generous comments that we received last week.

Andy 1:24:55
Yep. And I hope everybody has a fantastic night and fantastic weekend and love y’all and that’s all I got. Have a great night guys.

Unknown Speaker 1:25:02
Yeah, thanks, Andy

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Listen to the episode RM114: Michigan Explained w Josh B Hoe

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, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 114 of registering matters. Good evening, Larry. Happy Saturday. How are you?

Larry 0:23
Fantastic. I just got finished doing some political business.

Andy 0:27
I was going to ask you, did you did you fly? Are your arms tired? Or did you? Were you driving? Were you all over the state? What’s up?

Larry 0:36
Just some three primary stuff that we have to do that for those who were active in their Ward level politics and I got some training on how to conduct the elections that we’re doing next week and the following two weeks later. Did you guys have an app? We’re probably not gonna follow. Probably not gonna follow that model.

Andy 1:00
I did want to ask you about that. What? Do you have a take on what happened in Iowa?

Larry 1:04
I do not. I don’t understand it. I noticed that the national party chair was expressing that it can never happen again. But I don’t I don’t understand what happened.

Andy 1:15
I all I know is that the app what’s which seems to be to be something like it’s not. It doesn’t seem complicated to me to say, Okay, here’s the precinct, you fill out your precinct number and you write in who had what votes. It doesn’t seem like that would be that very, like complicated. It’s not even like you’ve got a Can you imagine conducting an election and you have a very small window and you have to bring in 100 million something votes hundred 20 million people’s votes, your system would be very seriously stressed. But there’s not that much going on in in Iowa that they would need some big Google sized system to handle an election of so many delegates. It doesn’t seem like it’d be that hard. But anyway, the system failed, apparently. Anyway. Did you hear a chuckle in the background?

Unknown Speaker 2:00
Did I heard I heard a chuckle Do we have ghosts in the room?

Andy 2:04
No we have we have a guest we have a guest it is it is Josh whoa from the decarceration nation podcast joining us Josh How are you?

Unknown Speaker 2:12
I’m good Andy are you doing man?

Andy 2:14
I’m very well thank you so much so much so much for coming. Oh no problem. You are like mister mister Twitter that’s what I refer to you as

Josh 2:23
I was just thinking when you were talking about Iowa is that uh you know, there was this great kind of all the experts on breaking the people who do the hardcore number crunching for all the for all the different newspapers and, and all the different media outlets were getting together and pointing out all the all the mistakes in the tabulations and I was refusing to correct them. They were all increasingly frustrated throughout the entire process because they they were clearly mistakes of the Iowa Democratic Party was refusing to acknowledge any of them. I just remember watching this in real time. It was pretty Pretty interesting to watch.

Andy 3:02
The other thing that happens to me like in my day job, I can only test something so far before I have to like, I’m just gonna throw this out there into the wild and let the chips fall where they may and either I have to pull it back and not use it or but these are not like it’s not life or death certainly and it’s not life or death for the for an election but they’re kind of important that you wouldn’t want to have anything get messed up like this and maybe you would run the old system in parallel with the new system to make sure that everything is like exactly copacetic kosher pick your word there

Josh 3:37
are there’s some some candidates in some campaign spent, you know, six, seven months on the ground. They’re spending millions of dollars to have to have everyone

Andy 3:47
Yeah, it’s everyone just be like, don’t really know who tell me tell me what your most recent interview was on the on the end

Josh 4:00
That’s a good question. I guess I had the kind of famous activist who participated in you everything from occupy the CIA to occupy wall street to Standing Rock. You know, she wrote a pretty relatively famous activist named Lisa Fithian who wrote a book called I think it’s a light it up or tearing down or something like that I forgotten the name of the book, which is terrible, but it was really into it was a really interesting interview. And she’s, she’s really, you know, one of those people who’s been on the ground and all of the big actions that have happened over the last, you know, two or three decades So, it’s pretty, pretty fascinating to talk weather.

Andy 4:39
Awesome. Um, and where do people find that just before we move on,

Josh 4:44
you know, you can find it at decarceration nation at, you know, essentially on iTunes, Google Play. All the normal places really anywhere you find podcasts,

Larry 4:56
sweet, drugs or by you shouldn’t do drugs. If you do them, you’re

Unknown Speaker 5:04
good. It’s a bad thing to do drugs. And

Andy 5:12
Larry, we are going to dive in. And I totally just wanted to leave this in there. This has nothing to do with the register or anything like that. But this leads me down the path of you have a certain set of rules like just sort of like generalized rules that you live by. So this first article comes from the Associated Press, it says package labeled bag full of drugs leads to Florida ress. And I’m pretty sure that you put this one in there. What was this article about?

Larry 5:36
Oh, well, I do have that since I’m a criminal defense. I always like to learn from what I see as very unwise choices. criminality is is unwise to begin with, but if you’re going to engage in it, you ought not to make such stupid mistakes. But it’s all I have. I have general general rules that I’ll tell people if you’re going to do certain things, you know, don’t do this. Don’t do that did this just learning from from what others have done but as a general rule, I would recommend this comes out of Florida. This two guys run super under supervision, and they were driving 95 miles per hour on it. Now anybody who was driven on Interstate 10, and Florida realizes that it’s a congested thoroughfare with lots of traffic and you’re gonna count if you’re lucky enough to run 95 you’re probably going to be spotted anyway. And, and themselves when they when they pulled over then when their NCIC check comes back down under supervision, then they were asked does they mind if they search the car and of course they say we’d rather you not so they bring the dogs in and the dogs alert and they find a package that says, drug package, and it just had a list of drugs you believe of what they said they recovered. I don’t even know the names of some of them. But but so I would recommend that if you’re going to run drugs, and I would prefer that you don’t but he You are going to don’t drive 95 miles an hour. If you that would, that would be my first advice to you. And it and if you if you if you are going to drive 95 miles an hour with drugs, don’t label the package drug package

Andy 7:23
might as well just put like, I don’t know paint your car orange and say drug runner right here on the side of it perhaps. I can’t, I can’t really this one’s just really too funny for me. And I just want to move on in there for the comedic though I

Larry 7:37
agree that what it was about like the well, it’s not the same scale but the guy who who killed a person and put them in the barrel under his house and left a bunch left the person over there 30 years and forgot about it and sold the house that whoops, at least, you

Josh 7:53
know, time frame. You had some time between the

Larry 7:57
CIO and the role that I would rather A mental that if you have put a person in a barrel, and I don’t recommend this either, but if you do kill a person, and you do put them in a barrel, and you do keep them under your house for 30 years, when you have sell the house, take the barrel with you. All right,

Andy 8:17
I honestly think that we could talk about this for a really long time, but I’m just going to end up like, I’m gonna end up with a bellyache from laughing for so long. But I think we should move on, we kicked this article back to we just didn’t have enough time last week. And there isn’t much to go over with this, but it comes from propublica. And the title of it is about it. They’ve compiled a list of quote unquote, credibly accused clergy. And I’m pretty sure that this go flies in the entire face of anything that would be due process, and I just wanted to cover it from and get a more elaborate sense of terminology and what is so deeply wrong with this, that propublica which I really respect, I like what they do a great great deal, but This one seems highly misguided.

Larry 9:02
Well, this is clergy abuse. And and it does it does cause me great consternation. And this will be interpreted as that I want to sweep abuse under the rug. No, I don’t. But this is the church to Catholic Church released a list of credibly accused of misconduct and some of them are dead, and some around the ministry, but they released this list. And I’ve always grown to believe that until recently that personnel records are largely private. So if a person has an issue of some sort of misconduct on the job that’s normally not broadcast to the world. And since these people have not been accused of a crime and a formal setting, we normally don’t even really release the names of people who haven’t been formally charged, which means that I believe that the Catholic Church has capitulated to all the pressure They’ve been under as a result of all these crushing numbers of lawsuits, and multi millions of dollars that they’ve paid out in settlements and attorneys fees to try to do something to, to satiate the mob, the angry mob out there. And there’s a justification for being angry. For years and years, the Catholic Church just moved these abusers around and they sent them off to glorietta, New Mexico or robot servants and apparently it’s rehabilitation center was and then they put them in another Parish, and they started up the same thing they had done before. But you don’t fix a problem by blowing up our whole system. And that’s what I think that this this list is. That’s why I wanted it in here is to say, I find this list very disturbing.

Unknown Speaker 10:45
Josh, I’m sure you have something to add.

Josh 10:48
You know, I mean, all of these things. You know, I mean, there’s such a mean, you know, for me, the big one is the the what’s the victims rights law that they’re passing all over the country. Murphy’s Law Murphy’s Law. I mean, that’s the one that always just drives me absolutely batty. Because, you know, I mean, the, the parties in a in the victim is not a party in the case, you know. And so I mean, there’s all these things about due process that, you know, and just the whole notion of what’s private, what’s public and how you deal with the courts and all these things that just seem to get ignored in kind of the rush to, you know, these kind of sex panic moments, and in the case of the Catholic Church is not, you know, it’s been a long it’s been a long unfolding crisis. And so it’s not, I wouldn’t say it’s a panic in the same way, but it’s certainly you know, I mean, yeah, things should be done about the, you know, the horrible things that happened, but like, like Larry said, I don’t think the way you go about it is by burning down the system.

Larry 11:52
So we agree on one thing tonight.

Andy 11:54
Watch out. Okay. I’m going to keep a tally on this side. So we have on the side of agree versus two screaming of one for agree

Larry 12:07
that the ponies staged crime

Andy 12:11
went up like, Hey, we can’t trust the cops. And then over it reason calm. We have an article, it’s undercover cops hired 118 handyman than the rest of them all for not having licenses. And I’m pretty sure See, I’m going to say that this is a what’s the word entrapment? And Larry’s gonna say no, it’s not. But it seems this is very, very much like bait and switch. This is I mean, isn’t this the equivalent of almost like the sexting stuff where

Larry 12:33
this is actually getting a lot closer to entrap, but the things we’ve talked about previously, the dividing line is going to be and this goes to my basic belief that law enforcement has too many resources. And I keep saying this over and over again, and people get so angry with me that I, I have to duck the rotten tomatoes that are hurled at me when I say this, but this is hilarious. Rowan County I believe that’s Tampa, Florida, where this where this happened where they read the state. But the word you gotta have entrapment potential. Is there things that handy handy men can do and this is their title not mine because I know this is you’re supposed to be gender neutral so you are a handy person. There are a lot of things that handy person can do that doesn’t require license. But then what often happens and it’s it has eliminated the article is that while you’ve got the the person there, then you start asking them if they’ll do additional things. Okay. And often the handy personal segue Yeah, I know how to do that. Well by dead you’ve got a rapport with them because you’ve done a good job on picking up the weeds outside or cutting off the branches on the pirate canta tree and you’ve you’ve done the basic stuff and and there’s a report developed in the person says oh, by the way, I’ve got this faucet here the bathroom and I will It’s dripping. Can you put maybe you don’t need a license for, but it’s some jurisdictions, the most basic plumbing you need you need, you need a license if you’re gonna do it for someone other than yourself. So that person is all of a sudden put in a position. Well, this thing’s grip and hit that hit the toilet turn off. Can you replace this for me? Well, yeah, I don’t know how to do that. I’ve done several of them. And they end up doing those things. And then they say, I got you. Right. Okay, well, well, there’s there’s for the entrapment is that person, depending on what ad they answered, to show up, which I don’t see those details here in the story, but depending on what ad they answered, if they answered an ad to do drywall repair, for example, and then they were confronted with a plumbing issue that required a license, and they had no intention to go out and do plumbing work without a license. They might have been entrapped. If they, on the other hand, if the ads if the ad was less clear that there’s jobs to be done, and the person calls if anybody actually makes a phone call anymore and said I can help you And they say, by the way, I’ve got some plumbing work. And don’t you supposed to have a license for that? Yeah, yeah, that’s probably saying I’ll have time to watch this kind of thing. I’ll come over there, put a couple of pictures hold it up, but I’ll put a new bikes ring and then it that that’s where it’s not in trap. But if the person had the, the mindset to break the rules, knowing what they were, and they go out with the intent of breaking the law. I have a question for you.

Andy 15:26
Are you ready for this question?

Larry 15:28
I’ll try

Andy 15:29
to you have a plumbing license to change out the the showerhead.

Larry 15:33
Bill and I’m doing that for myself.

Andy 15:37
Okay, Josh, you had a question? I heard I heard it coming.

Josh 15:41
Yeah, I mean, isn’t the problem also that in a lot of cases, you know, in the kind of last several decades of all the kind of rolling back the protections on this stuff that the lot of a lot of entrapment is actually legal anyway, like the notion that you’re, you know, but the fact that something’s in trapping is problematic. I think to us all about You know, we probably think that’s true, but I don’t think legally it’s always the case. Am I wrong about that? Larry?

Larry 16:05
You’re absolutely right. They, it’s the legal test is whether the person had was predisposed to break the law. If you go out looking and trying to keep this a family program, you’re going out looking to have sexual favors, and you’re willing to pay for it. And you make an offer to someone who happens to be a cop. Your predisposition was to break the law because you know that you’re not supposed to pay for sex. On the other hand, if the cop comes up to you, and you have no inclination to have sex, and they say I can make you have a fun evening. Oh, yeah. What could you do? Well, you know, what fun is your, your your healthy your man, Archie? You know, for $20 we can have a lot of fun. What if you had no predisposition to break the law? And the COP is the instigator of breaking the law. Did you have a defense of interest but that just might work. But but most of the times A person’s predisposed to break the law and that’s why they’re trapped by defense breaks down because they were already predisposed to do something that was unlawful.

Josh 17:07
Well, there’s a fairly famous case where the FBI convinced a bunch of people when they were basically doing this they were going around to mosques and they eventually found some people that they convinced us in essence to commit a crime provided them all the weapons for it. And then when they went to go pick them up to go commit the crime, they arrested them all. There’s a documentary about it I forget the name of the exact case but where it seemed pretty clear that they didn’t necessarily even have the intent ever committed crime. But still because of the nature of the crime though the trapping wasn’t. I’m sure you’re right about that. I just remember reading about cases where even that wasn’t necessarily held to be enough to to throw the case out or whatever is that Does that ring a bell for you at all or it doesn’t it

Larry 17:55
doesn’t ring a bell but you can’t let them trap I get to a jury If you’ve left the crowd by get to a jury, if you can’t, if you can’t get the judge to find it on some some preliminary emotion that that this, that this even if you stipulate everything, it’s true that this was entrapment, because the person wasn’t predisposed to commit the crime and to hold the law enforcement initiated the idea and participate in the planning and the motivation. If it gets to a jury, a jury is normally not sympathetic. They should be because these are the resources being wasted. I mean, this is Hillsborough County, which I think is Tampa. And I’m sure Tampa probably has other things to do other than chasing handyman. There, they’re doing things without a license. But on the other side of that coin, there are people elderly in Hillsborough County that are being victimized by folks who don’t have the proper licenses that are going out charging people to do things that are not qualified to do they’re either not doing the job or they’re doing a botched up job. And so that does that does necessitate some level of intervention. Why? the right level of intervention is as always a judgment call by the people who decide how to allocate those resources. But this seems like a significant intervention. They must have a big problem with unlicensed people in Hillsborough County. They got a whole hundred 18 of them

Andy 19:15
who knows how many didn’t get caught? You know, because they didn’t respond to that particular Craigslist ad or whatever that was.

Larry 19:22
What that what are the defense attorney said that the smarter ones don’t respond to this kind of stuff days for the rookies. Oh, so there were so many

Josh 19:30
of them that 118 of them

Andy 19:33
got swept. And those are the stupid ones are less sophisticated. I don’t mean to call them stupid per se, but less sophist.

Josh 19:43
It is the people who drove down the thing in the street with the drugs in the

Andy 19:47
definitely definitely not that needed. And then they put their bags the drugs in a bag that says drugs here.

Larry 19:54
That one makes me giggle. Well, I made I made a joke. I wonder if I took my vehicle. That I currently drive and either had it wrapped by a professional or if I just had some signage made that said drug writing machine and started driving it around here. I wonder if I would get any attention.

Andy 20:11
I’m sure you should get a vanity plate that says drug rNr or something like that drug runner. So I think

Unknown Speaker 20:17
they would let that like you should try and get that vanity plate layer. That’d be

Unknown Speaker 20:21
funny. I don’t think they would give you that one.

Unknown Speaker 20:25
I’m gonna figure out a way to to obfuscate that so that they don’t pick up on it.

Larry 20:30
So but but yes, I I am sympathetic to people who are big, who are being taken advantage of by unscrupulous but I’m not sure that that this rose to that level, I’d have to know why I have to be able to defense team on this to see what what the real facts are but it it to run a state like that where you bring in 100 plus people. That’s an enormous amount of of personnel takes to put that together.

Andy 20:54
But Larry, you don’t want these people out there in the civilian sector. You don’t want people that are calling to have faucet replaced or a socket put in. You don’t want them to have some shoddy work and that makes their house burned down from a short and electrical socket. That’s why we need strong regulations.

Larry 21:10
Well, there’s some truth in that

Andy 21:12
is you don’t want the big bad government stifling that small entrepreneur from rising up to be successful and picking himself up by his bootstraps all by himself.

Larry 21:20
Well, that that is the careful balance. Absolutely. We do want people to be able to be creative and go out and offer services and and work with their hands and do things. Absolutely we won’t. But we don’t want people to go out and do complex stuff in a shoddy fashion that are not qualified to do and charge people for it and leave them with shoddy work or either dangerous. I mean, it’s it’s regulation is always a careful balancing. People think that this is simple. It’s not everybody who agrees that raika sub regulation is necessary. Almost everybody agrees some regulations necessary, trying to figure out where to start. The balance is always the tough thing of how far do we go with regulation before we are intruding, I find it frustrating myself with some things, what I deal with. We go in the whole podcast and some of the bureaucracies I have to deal with here in terms of complying and I say, wow, that no wonder businesses are so frustrated. But this stuff comes about because self regulation has proven not to be successful. When when you allow what you allow people do what they want to do.

Andy 22:28
I guess on the other extreme of that, I mean, you do like I mean, to pose as a handyman, you may have taken classes while you’re in prison, and you know how to do these things or you’ve got taught by your dad, whatever. And not to make a gender thing maybe your mom taught you, but you could have somebody that’s actually saying Sure, I can install a socket and they’ve never done it before and literally just walk in there trying to steal people’s money. Like I mean, that’s the the the far extreme of some do for showing up that doesn’t even know which way the larger

Josh 22:57
there’s a larger issue here too, which is that a lot A very large amount of all construction work, and plumbing work and electrical work all gets done under the table. And so a lot of this may be actually in good faith, and it’s just not, you know, these people actually know what they’re doing, they just tend to work under the, you know, you know, not an official capacity in the way that the law would like for them to so they might not be, they might do good work. They’re just not doing they’re just not officially licensed or whatever that have that especially in construction areas that happens a great deal. Doesn’t mean that they have mal intent, per se, but there’s still an interest for the state to regulate that stuff, at least theoretically.

Larry 23:43
Well, and and Josh has a fantastic point because I living in a border state. There are a lot of folks here who provide those type of services and they do some fantastic work, but they can’t get licensure, but for various reasons. They may have a criminal record. They may be here illegally, but they may be they may be A very good skill, their their skills may be second to not. But they’re not able to operate legally. It’s kind of the debate we had about driver’s licenses for three illegals in it, it wind up losing a debate with one of the few states that actually gave illegals driver’s licenses what made the argument that since there’s a regulatory scheme for licensed people, and and in order to have your vehicle insured, you have to have a valid driver’s license, it’s very difficult to find an insurance carrier, they’ll ensure a non licensed driver, I mean, try one day find out how far you get with that. And so we we made the argument that that that to bring more people into the insurance structure that we needed to give them licenses to make them authorized to drive while the other sides as well if you do that, they’ll come in by the 10s of thousands and they’ll they’ll they’ll they’ll devastate all of our social service infrastructure, and that all those costs will outweigh they bringing down the the rate of uninsured. Well, actually, we lost that debate. And we no longer issue we will we will issue a permit that this different license But, but that’s kind of the whole whole idea behind that was to bring these people into the system. I feel the same thing. People who are working illegally, I want their tax money. I want them in the system. I want them to be participating in the system and paying for the benefits and privilege of being in this country.

Josh 25:18
There’s actually another reason why that stuff happens, which is that people don’t want to pay full price for their for their repairs. It’s not just that they’re being taken advantage of. Correct.

Andy 25:29
Is there a Do you think there’s any angle for the homeowner or the person that’s hiring the unauthorized unlicensed work? Is there any culpability on their side?

Larry 25:39
It’s just fine. It’s a good point that I’m comfortable of that when I call her and get estimates I like the one from the unlicensed generally a whole lot better. It’s a more attractive, it’s a more attractive proposal. It I did about I did about $15,000 worth of work on my own house it actually yours the licensed everything. And I assure you that that 15,000 water, probably drop to at least two thirds of that if I if I use somebody who didn’t have a license a couple years ago.

Andy 26:06
So does that mean you have to go to jail because you hire you would have hired, not you somebody else didn’t Since you didn’t hire somebody that wasn’t licensed. Do you think the homeowners have any culpability there?

Larry 26:16
Well, that’s hard to say in terms of whether you should insist on a license or whether you should be prosecuted if you don’t. I don’t know what to think about that.

Andy 26:24
All right. Well, I’ll ask you next week

Unknown Speaker 26:26
for reforming our criminal justice system.

Andy 26:29
Too many people are locked up in American. Let’s talk about an article from the New York Times with a jailed woman in need of cancer surgery, moved to state prison. She got sentence for like some 10 months in jail for Larry she got sentenced to 10 months in jail for $109. I will say that she does have a history of theft convictions in the in the past several years. So but like, do we not have any compassion for someone to stay with their They’re there. The doctors that know the case that are actually, you know, they’ve worked through the process of treating and so forth, the diagnosis and all that stuff that they would be the most experienced persons to handle the cancer treatment. But now she’s in jail in prison.

Larry 27:16
Like you did lay the story out correctly. It’s a very short story, but but from what we have here, this was 10 months sentence for a theft of a person who has a history of previous convictions. But I always, always like to apply an economic analysis to this, if I’m a jail administrator, if I’m a corrections administrator, I do not want to take care of people’s medical unless I have to. So if I’m looking at this roster of inmates and I’ve got a person who has got a relatively modest fence, and they they even though they repeated it, I would rather not spend our resources on them. So I’m going to be looking for a way to get them out of custody, which is sounds like Exactly what they did. They got them shipped off to state prison.

Andy 28:05
So the county just kicked the can down the road to the state

Josh 28:08
just explained how most problem most funding issues work out in the state in most states between the counties and the states.

Larry 28:16
But But if if it would have had both states, it would have been a felony level offense, because in most states, they don’t send misdemeanors to the state creation system. Those are usually served in local jails, as well.

Josh 28:30
Yeah, I mean, it because since fallone, generally means a year. Yeah. Yeah, but there are certainly misdemeanors that can get you in prison. I think in most places, Is that wrong?

Larry 28:42
Well, they get you incarcerated. But normally, in most states, you serve you serve misdemeanor time, if that’s your highest level offense,

Josh 28:50
you’re likely to serve decimeters under a year, you’re right.

Larry 28:52
Right now she only got 10 bucks, but 10 months doesn’t mean that’s all. it it’s it’s the it’s whether it’s a felony of fence, if you have a felony, and they sent it to you to less than that than a year, you can still go off to prison and my state for for that conviction because you’ve been convicted of felony your you belong to the Department of Corrections. But but it sounds like that the jail administrator there locally got it Lebanon county got rid of her and got her off to state prison. But whatever I’d be interested in, though if she was a person who legitimately should have been a State President, because if that was a misdemeanor, hundred $9 is a pretty low level for a felony.

Josh 29:31
Well just think about the cost, the relative cost between the time for that hundred $9 to protect people from her stealing that hundred $9 you’re probably a year in most state facilities is like 30 K, and then you’ve got the medical treatment on top of that which in theory could have been handled, I think in some states would would become a Medicaid thing outside but maybe not when you’re in so cost benefit analysis doesn’t work very well for the state on any either. No,

Larry 30:03
I that’s what I’m saying is that as a corrections administrator, I would be wanting to get this person off of our books in every way possible. Now, Larry, don’t you understand if we had a system like that, that everybody would magically become sick, and everybody would fake that there, we have these medical needs, and we’d be having the floodgates open of people who’d be released from prison, and they would all flooded and try to use the same I mean, Larry, don’t you understand that? That’s what the people out there would say, is counter to my position, they would say that it would open the floodgates.

Josh 30:35
Except, you know, we have Medicaid expansion, for instance, in Michigan and everyone, pretty much everyone I know who comes out of prison applies for Medicaid expansion when they come out of prison or jail here in Michigan. And the economic analysis of it done afterwards says it actually is generated a lot more income than its cost, but you know,

Larry 30:56
well, yeah. Particularly since the fans are paying for the bulk of it. Of course it does. Yeah.

Josh 31:01
Sure, but we are talking about state, how states to Aspen for analysis. So,

Larry 31:07
Yep, absolutely. But they Yeah, this is a bizarre thing.

Andy 31:12
I am still kind of conflicted on the side of it that, you know, you know, you would have somebody say, well, you should have thought about that before you stole the hundred bucks. But I’m going to assume that she wasn’t so well off that she did the hundred dollar theft just because it was fun. She probably needed it. And I’m not saying that justifies the crime, but that puts into perspective that that hundred bucks could be some sort of life changing monetary situation for her at that point, like, you know, for food or diapers or, you know, whatever else is going on in that person’s life at the time.

Josh 31:45
What if she was a kleptomaniac, you know, I mean, that we have, I mean, what if there were, I mean, there are other things that and, you know, obviously, being incarcerated didn’t fix it. So, my guess is, you know, there’s probably another solution that might work better. mean, you might say that? Well, you should have thought of that before. But that doesn’t mean that either putting someone in jail or prison is the correct move from an economic perspective, or from a deterrence perspective or from a solving the actual root problem perspective.

Andy 32:14
I thought prison solved all problems. Come on,

Larry 32:19
it absolutely does for a temporary period of time.

Josh 32:22
But it actually that’s not necessarily true, you know, that though she could

Andy 32:26
be in prison, she can be still in soups from all kinds of people at other boxes.

Josh 32:30
That’s very true is one thing that doesn’t get counted as the violence and crime that occurs in prison that definitely intends to be under counted because people think that that’s justified. But in addition to that, the long term studies suggest that the longer periods of time you spend in prison, the more likely you are to commit crimes when you come out that they’re criminogenic. In fact, I’m trying to remember the where the study is from, I can probably find it and put it in your notes or something later, but one of the longest running studies says that, that even accounting for incapacitation, which is what Larry just said that prison actually generates more crime than it solves.

Larry 33:10
Oh, now that’s a different discussion. But if you take a person who is who’s doing things that that are not acceptable to society as as as a whole now, the prisoners don’t count in this analysis just for the purpose of whether it be making obscene telephone calls, whether it be whether it be embezzling from your employer, whatever you do, wherever you cry, home burglaries for the period of time that they are incarcerated, doing hard time. They’re not burglary, rising. They’re not making obscene telephone calls. It does provide

Unknown Speaker 33:44
it’ll do all those things.

Larry 33:46
But but I’m saying to society as a whole to the people who are out working paying the taxes and playing by the rules. There it is stopping and providing a level of protection for the period of time but doesn’t fix the long term problem if you got a person’s making obscene phone calls, they need problems worse. It can do absolutely can do that. I’m not advocating the policy. I’m just saying it does work for the time the person is incapacitated. They’re not doing those things to society as a whole. But, but it depends. It depends on how it depends on how you define work, whether it’s working, it is working in terms of stopping society from being victimized, but society is going to be victimized again when it come out because Dodger lying issues haven’t been dealt with and that’s what we don’t do very well in this country is figuring out there are a lot of people who would not be committing crimes but for there are some people who commit crimes regardless. I’m not naive enough to believe that they’re just being people out there they there they are. But there but but but but the whole criminal population is not just mean people.

Josh 34:55
Oh, that’s definitely true. But there’s also like this thing that I think people miss a lot of times which is that People don’t necessarily stay me and people, you know, like one of the, you know, most common things that all studies show is that people tend to age out of crime. And so right I personally, for example, know, people who committed pretty brutal murders, who ended up doing a lot of really good in the world, you know, I mean, it’s to say that someone is always one thing is probably an accurate, you know, and so, yeah, you know, I might meet someone when I was in prison, and I was in prison, I would meet some people that scared the hell out of me, you know, but, you know, that doesn’t mean they’re ever always going to be that person or that they that they’re beyond redemption, or that they can’t change. It also means it doesn’t mean that they can’t get worse. You know, I mean, that prison, you know, there was a lot of pressure for, you know, on people in prison in a lot of different ways. And it can make you, you know, I know a lot of people, for instance, get extorted into being parts of gangs and stuff like that, and they end up becoming much more violent than when they get out there much worse.

Larry 35:56
Absolutely. And we’ve talked about on this podcast about the ages. out. That’s why I don’t believe in Long, long periods of time of incarceration. I believe that for whatever benefit that prison can be can can be had from prison. That benefit can be had in a much shorter period of time than what we impose in this country.

Josh 36:16
Hillary and I agree again, put down on the on the board.

Andy 36:19
Oh, gosh, man, I stopped kept keeping track because there’s a lot of disagreements in there.

Unknown Speaker 36:24
I definitely agree with that last one.

Andy 36:26
Let’s move over to an article from what looks like 92.7 w OBM. Ocean country’s best variety. This is this goes with the next article to that Megan’s Law initiative introduced, that they’re trying to expand it this particular article there, they’re increasing the the advance notification that someone in your area is going to be moving in. So they’re going to notify people by email when someone gets a new address or they change their zip code. I this registry has been shown To not increase public safety, it increases certainly people’s anxiety of it increases violence against those that are listed on those websites. But yet here we are getting more and more registry notifications and like further entrenching this whole thing in our culture and it seems that a bad plan to me

Larry 37:19
this is a jersey isn’t it?

Andy 37:21
I have absolutely no doubt if it is where the the the schmuck that created the whole thing started, then that would be but this is a this is Ocean County Senator Chris Connors. It could be could be jersey. I don’t know where it is.

Unknown Speaker 37:36
What do you

Larry 37:37
have a look?

Andy 37:38
I know how many days there aren’t a week. How did these things keep happening there, Larry, that they? You know, how would the government have the resources and the the sort of looking for the mechanisms to employ getting email notifications out to the citizenry, that someone has changed their address in their neighborhood

Larry 38:00
Well, you’ve probably better qualified than me to answer that. But on the technological thing, I’m assuming that when you, when you do your updates with the technology we have today, either clerk at the registry office that they require in person notification, or in the rare instance, where you might be able to go online and update your information yourself. I’m guessing what the person would do would be like they do in state prison systems where you sign up for alerts when the person is going to be eligible for parole hearing or when they’ve been released or when their institution assignments been changed, I’m guessing what would happen would be that that you would, that you would you would sign up for an alert notification, as as a person whose interest that particular offender and then up supposing what would happen would be when a change was either manually input input by law enforcement or by the registrant that would trigger an alert to the people that signed up for the met with the one bad visualize it would work.

Josh 38:52
Yeah, I was just gonna say most places, it’s an opt in system. So right.

Andy 38:56
So Ocean County is in the south east. corner ish of the state of Jersey, New Jersey?

Larry 39:04
I thought so. But yeah, I would, I would say would be an opt in thing where people would sign up for it. And then as the changes were made, they would just go out in a form of a blast. Anybody who solved that offenders watch list.

Andy 39:15
I have an idea then so the citizenry should boycott this system, the registrant should go door to door knocking Say hi, I think that you should oppose the system and you should opt out, and then they wouldn’t have any blast go out.

Larry 39:27
Once you never opted in, I guess you would officially be

Andy 39:29
opted out, would you? Oh, that’s totally true. But I’m assuming that people will be running to go opt into this because they have to be notified of the impending doom of having a registrant move into their neighborhood.

Larry 39:42
Well, play devil’s advocate which gets me in trouble of the, of the of the people who have been victimized and I don’t consider a lot of things on the registry to I consider them to be victimless crimes. I don’t consider a decent exposure to have a true victim. I don’t consider Consider sex where they’re close in age and what happens to be a few days under 18. And one is a few days over 19. I don’t consider that. But where there’s actually been a brutal attack and there’s been a victimization. And the person has done their time and they’ve been rightfully released into community. Is it possible that the person who was the victim of that offense would feel some at ease, knowing where the person is and proximity to them? I mean, is it remotely possible that that would be helpful to them? I think

Andy 40:34
that the person may feel better, but that’s just a, you know, it’s just the warm and fuzzy, but it doesn’t mean they could just actively go check the quote, unquote, the website looking for that information to find them, but where they could hire a private investigator so that they know their whereabouts at all times.

Larry 40:52
But wouldn’t it be would it be far less expensive if the person is a great distance away from them, say a state that has like 58,000 square miles that you live in. and 159 counties if they were living down in the southern part of the state, and the victim was living up in the northern part of the state in tusa. County, and all of a sudden that person moved into katusa. And it wouldn’t have to be an adult with an adult victim. It could be it could be a word that was a child victim, where that was actually a forceful I mean, there are forcible sex acts that do occur on children. They’re not as as rampant as we would like as Libya would like for us to believe. But would it not possibly provide some reassurance to that family if they knew when that person was getting closer to them? I’m not advocating this. I’m just saying is that not possible?

Andy 41:46
We know that you are the the stealth supporter of these laws. Wouldn’t it be possible then for the judge to couldn’t even be the judge could banish a person From a county or a handful of ones. So we’re,

Josh 42:04
we’re getting into some tricky places here. Because, you know, I’m not sure that the point. I mean, this is like one of the and, Larry, I know you probably do a lot to since you, you know, you work with the legislature a lot. But there’s a certain things that become like magic words and start seeping in and everyone starts believing them like, essentially that whatever the victims advocates group say, is the way they it should be, you know, and I’m not entirely sure that someone’s Liberty should be constrained, based on the idea that it might make someone else more or less comfortable once they’ve already served their time. I’m kind of have the belief that once you’ve paid your debt and move on, you know that that’s, and so at least to take your hypothetical situation, it seems to me. I’m not so sure that I mean, well. It is nice to make people more comfortable. I’m not so sure that you know, you should constrained people’s liberty and privacy and, you know, maybe you should I’m just I’m playing devil’s advocate.

Andy 43:10
Well, not to devil’s advocate each other.

Larry 43:12
I agree with you all deliberately, the person should be able to move right across the street from the person. In America, if you’ve paid your debt to society, you should be live wherever you want to. But then the question becomes, we’ve we’ve we’ve accepted this that people have the right to know, I mean, I disagree with that also, but since that’s ingrained in every sex that everyone asks, Does they have a right to know? They’ll inevitably say yes, but but it to the extent that that there’s no intrusion in terms of not being allowed to move there, if they’re just simply the person who signed up to be alerted that you’re going to be there just simply gets simply gets the information. Then the other issue implicate would be your right to privacy, which is a significant right. That was a significant right of privacy, but the

Unknown Speaker 43:58
party Liberty

Larry 44:00
Well, that’s the whole day. But the Supreme Court has said that a person who has been convicted of a crime doesn’t have the right to privacy.

Josh 44:11
Well, that’s the thing so you don’t have any break.

Larry 44:14
Well, they said if you’ve been convicted of a sex crime, but just Connecticut Department public safety versus Doe, they said that if you didn’t have the right to privacy in terms of in terms of that connection, and they said that criminal records in general were public, unless I unless they’ve been suppressed or expunged or one of those things so so the fact of the matter is what what I agree that we’ve gone down a slippery slope but devil’s advocate, it might help the victim if that’s what we’re in this for, which just seems to be that that’s a big part. Even people on our side say that I’m all for the victims. Wouldn’t this help can save me some victims?

Josh 44:52
Oh, I definitely agree would probably help. I’m not sure that I guess what my devil’s advocate be all For the victims that we should be, you know, cope and we definitely should be trying to, you know, make the world as good as it can be for victims but not at the necessarily at the expense of personal liberty. Great Again, Josh. That’s three or four, right? Oh my gosh,

Andy 45:15
it’s going to be a tie before the end of the night. Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 747-227-4477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support For those on the registry, keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed, you make it possible. I want to bounce over to this other one because we’re starting to run a little bit long and I want to get to this thing with Michigan. But this article comes from patch calm, which we all know is our favorite publication for being honest and fair. But I specifically wanted to highlight in this article that like the way that they are coloring the effectiveness of the International Megan’s Law, from the previously mentioned schmuck named representative Chris Smith from New Jersey, that he’s the one that introduced international Megan’s Law. But what they said is that the law is working. And in just about two years, 10,500 covered sex offenders had been noticed by the had been noticed by the US government to foreign countries, and 3600 individuals as of July who were convicted of sex crimes against children were denied entry into those nations. But the false piece of information like the information that isn’t said there’s were they traveling just to go on vacation? Or were they traveling actually to commit some sort of sex crime, sex trafficking, whatever. And it doesn’t say that and I have another paragraph there to

Josh 47:10
what, what, what the heck does working mean?

Andy 47:12
Right? Yes, exactly. Yeah. So you know, you had some number quote unquote some number of sex trafficking that this law was introduced to stop. So, that would be a number that I assume you could quantify. And then this law is enacted and now this number is appreciably reduced to quantify that, yes, it is working. This whole thing is bullshit to me and, and really, really irritates me because there’s just like, Hey, we’re gonna throw out these numbers to you. But they don’t mean anything.

Josh 47:42
This might be another one that that we all agree on. But Dan it just there’s very few things that make me more angry that will make and in particular, it makes me very angry because the whole purpose of The government’s existence is essentially you enter into the social contract with the government, and they’re supposed part of what they’re supposed to do is protect you when you travel abroad. The whole the whole point of international Megan’s Law is the government is working against your safety, which just this totally ridiculous to me. It’s just like an ascetical to everything that why would I ever joined in a contract? As you know, with the government that’s that’s working against my safety? You know, I’ll be it’s just, I mean, we it’s just hard for me to explain how much international Megan’s Law makes me angry.

Andy 48:40
Do you love it, don’t you there?

Larry 48:41
Well, I think that the key point what he said is how you define working. And the way they’re defining working, it’s working exactly the way I intended it to work, that they will your life while you want to. But what they intended to do was to provide the nation for the nations of the world to provide each other noticed when people who had certain types of, of convictions were traveling, it’s not a pronouncement that you’re going to commit another crime. It’s a pronouncement that this person is traveling, you can decide whether to admit them, you can decide whether to reject them. It’s an information empowering thing. And it works both ways the US gets information from countries where people have been convicted of sex offenses are going to travel to the red states. And we choose not to admit them. Now, I’m not a big fan of marking passports and all this stuff. But if you want to say, is it working, what what it was intended to do was to give notice to foreign nations to share notice about a particular type of person who was traveling? Well, if this many notices had been set, by de facto it is working because that’s what they intended it to do.

Josh 49:50
Yeah, I guess my point is, is that that sharing of that information is antithetical to In my opinion, the purpose of the government in terms of Israel relationship with its citizens, or at least its citizens that it’s, it’s identifying.

Andy 50:06
There’s another paragraph in there that is completely pointless says For example, at least 4500 us passports were issued to registered sex offenders in 2008. alone. Also passports last for 10 years. Like, okay, who cares?

Unknown Speaker 50:20
What does it What does that mean? What does it tell us?

Larry 50:24
Well, what, what on the 4500 passports what he’s telling you, he’s trying to the rider that’s trying to tell you that if there’s 40 501 year that you can extrapolate, and the years it’s passed, how many how many sex offenders have got passports, and what they’re trying to convey is that these people would be traveling now was, was more information available to to the nations to the host nations are traveling to about what things they’ve done in the past. That’s all they’re conveying to you. I don’t support this. I was dead set against their member of the Republican Congress that passed this. for eight years. He tried to get this passed. Could, but he got it passed in 2000 and 2016. And, and and it’s if you defined working as far as what he intended to do, is working exactly as he intended it.

Andy 51:12
We’re just you’re setting the bar stupid low for working as being that they just are announcing our arrival to a foreign nation.

Larry 51:21
Well, but you’re you’re overlooking the part that a foreign nations are announcing arrivals to us. That’s the part that all Americans seem to overlook. It’s not just the US isn’t the only country that’s participating in this. The US is on the receiving end of notices. Also, not as many because yeah, countries.

Josh 51:39
What you’re saying, Larry, I think my point is just that we don’t have a contractual relationship, social, contractual relationship with people from other countries, we may benefit from getting that information. But in order to get that information, we’ve essentially made us citizens hostage in a sense to get that information and I know you don’t necessarily disagree. I’m just Clear.

Larry 52:00
Yeah, well, well, well, arguably, if we’re keeping out bad folks that would do bad things in America, good things are happening for our population as well. Right?

Josh 52:10
Sure. I don’t I don’t necessarily disagree with that. My point is that we have obligations, the government should have obligations to its citizens regardless of the other consequences or whatever.

Larry 52:22
Will Smith would argue that he’s making that obligation. He’s protecting Americans from bad people that would be coming here by entering into agreement to share information about bad people he would tell you he’s doing exactly that.

Josh 52:34
Oh, I know. That’s what he would say I just disagree pretty vociferous Lee that that’s a appropriate use of the government powers. At least using that bargain.

Unknown Speaker 52:44
It’s a fate worse than death to put kids on the registry

Andy 52:48
and it never ends. Let’s bounce over to an article from Fox 17 calm at a national Tennessee teen rapist to be charged as adult added to sex offenders. Industry under bills, pretty short article, but I figured it was right up your alley as far as certain states do nothing to charge minors as adults and other states. In this particular case, this is a 13 year old boy being convicted of something and they’re going to be charged as adults. thoughts, Larry,

Larry 53:21
what is their response to a to a situation where that the judge sentenced him under the juvenile code. So it’s one of those things to do a carve out to make sure that that doesn’t happen. Again. It’s correcting a non existent problem. And and because of a young person committed a heinous crime, does that mean that you should scrap the juvenile code as it applies to people under under 14, but that’s what they’re likely to do in Tennessee. It’s going to be tough to stop this because you’ve got the sensational sensationalization of the victims of the family member of the high profile. I can’t believe this whole decade. I can’t believe that got such a life sentence and this is this is an overreaction, but I’d be surprised that they’re able to stop it is a 213 year old boys were convicted of holding down a Clarksville girl raping her and filming it. Just when the girls family thought they would get justice I judge handed down I sit on some home a six months of juvenile detention for one boy and six months probation at home on the other. The other boy was added to the sex, sex sex sex iteration. Well, that’s exactly what should happen to a 13 year old you shouldn’t be added to the sex offender registry Hello. Nobody should be added to a particular 13 year old.

Andy 54:34
Josh, let me ask you this question. How much in your experience? Do you think that the public as a whole does not understand what the impact of the registry is?

Josh 54:48
You know, I mean, it’s I think, I think there’s two I think there’s a lot of people who don’t care what the impact of the registry is. They think every single every single person on it is convicted of the absolute worst thing which I personally, I don’t know, whatever people are convicted for, I think the registry is a bad idea. But, you know, a lot of people think that that’s the case of them. I think there’s a lot of people who have no idea, you know, I, anecdotally, given speeches all over Michigan, not all over, but quite a few of them where I talked to people about the registry, and I’d say, you know, well, over 50% of the people at every event have, are surprised by something I say, I give a training for social workers pretty regularly, where I go through all the things that people just the, the the amount of things that people have to register and unregister so that they understand how to work better with their clients who are on the registry, and they’re always shocked. So, you know, I think there’s a large amount of ignorance and then there I think there’s also a percentage of the population who, you know, no matter how harsh it was, they they wouldn’t really care.

Unknown Speaker 55:53
Yeah, they like it’s not harsh enough. We need more.

Larry 55:56
I agree with I agree with Josh. I don’t think that I think the biggest What percentage people do not understand? But I think the people who do not understand there’s a significant segment who could care less. It’s like, Don’t tell me your problems. I’ve had people tell me when I start talking about conditions on jail, and I start describing horrendous conditions. Well, I don’t care if they have to sleep standing up. But it tells me we’ve got three people in a cell that was designed for one. They said, Well, like I don’t care if I sleep setting up well, that’s kind of the attitude about the registry. Well, maybe it is a bad in some regards. Don’t tell me their problems. I should have thought about that. A 13 year old can’t think about such things that is not going to be going through their analysis.

Josh 56:36
There’s also so much evidence that suggests I mean, especially with the juvenile life without parole cases before the Supreme Court, just all the evidence of how juvenile brains develop. And you know, that there’s a huge difference when you’re that age is to your ability and your ability to process information correctly, etc.

Larry 56:54
Thankfully, we’ve learned that it keeps going up page 25 or before person of particular male brain fully develops

Unknown Speaker 57:03
for present company?

Larry 57:05
Well, you know, of course.

Andy 57:13
Josh, give it give me the synopsis of what happened. What was it Wednesday this week?

Josh 57:17
Well, it’s I mean, hopefully everybody has some idea who listens to this show that there’s been a very long period of dealing with the those vs. Snyder case here in Michigan, which was a victory for folks on the registry. And unfortunately, you know, the legislature didn’t follow up after that was found unconstitutional and kind of make the changes that need to be made. So the ACLU went back through and did a class action suit. So I mean, basically anyone who was on the registry was impacted by those, if they were arrested, could probably use those as precedent to you know, get any of the chain you know, if they were arrested for instance, for you know, any like, like a technical violation that was covered underdose or something like that, then you you could use that as, you know, a reason to for the court to let you out. But you still have to go through that process. So the ACLU went back through and decide to do a class action so that the original dose case, which I think only applied to six people, would be, you know, kind of universally applicable and kind of hopefully force more change or at least, invalidate a large portion of the currently existing Michigan registry. And so that process has been winding its way through and it’s finally gotten to the district court. And the district court had its hearing on that case on Wednesday, and judge Cleveland heard the state’s arguments and the ACLU arguments and that’s where we’re at.

Andy 58:47
And I think that like immediately goes to Larry, I have a question for you what in the heck is severability like cuz Josh just brought up about like, you know, if a certain part could we just like shut down the whole thing. Can you can you give me the rundown of what severability would mean?

Larry 59:04
Well, it’s the doctrine of of whether, when you look at a statute, very few statutes just have one section. So if you were look at the Michigan Registration Act, there would be a number of sections and the act, and they have their number. And they have there may be they may be subsection so it’ll be Section A one I or whatever. So the question becomes when when you talking severability in the dose versus Snyder’s The Sixth Circuit decision, all previous challenges against Michigan’s registry had been found to be without merit, and the Michigan’s registry was a civil about punitive regulatory scheme. But as in most states, they could not help themselves. So they kept adding so in 1999, for example, the legislature added the requirement to have sex offenders register in person, which it previously had not been in person, much like the Alaska escape, and then in 2006 They amended their registration, to prohibit registrants from living without working with or lording within 1000 feet of a school. And then they couldn’t stop themselves there. Then they had the Adam Walsh Act, which Congress passed in 2006, that same year, and they decided to seek substantial compliance on 2011. They went, they went and changed the registry in dramatic fashion. And they added the tears and which resulted in a lot of people that were near the end of the registration, having their terms extended. And, and they they did the tears based on the offense. And the inference to the population is that if you’re a tier three, you’re dangerous, but but there’s been no determination to that. It’s just merely that the offense of conviction. So the 2006 add on the 2011 ad, almost what was so troubling to the 11th circuit? because those were made retroactive. I’ve been to the Sixth Circuit Excuse me. The those those two atoms were What trouble the Sixth Circuit panel when they said no You can’t do that, at least retroactively. But then the question becomes if you take those two sections out, do you have a surviving statute? Well, well, I say you would, because you had a surviving statute before those were put in. So it only stands to reason unless you repeal the complete statute, which I don’t know what they did in Michigan, 2006 11. But I’m assuming that they just added these requirements, and they didn’t repeal, but unless you repealed the complete registry act, and implemented a new one. I would argue that if you simply strike those, you go back to what the registry looked like previously, without those two, Adams. Well, my understanding is from my conversations with the lead attorneys out of Michigan, was that they were hoping for something better in the way of improvement. Simply rolling those two things out and striking those still leaves a pretty bad registry of Michigan. And they were hoping for a grand improves but that wants does wants to their Syria. Thank was that was the legislature. Here’s how bad this registry is. And it gets stricken on constitutional grounds that they’re going to want to rise up to the challenge. And they’re going to want to develop much more streamline a constitutional registry and make better public policy choice. I never had great optimism that was going to happen. So we get back to this question about severability. Can this registration scheme survive legally, if the court prohibits enforcement of those two provisions, that’s where this case is headed? That’s where it’s ultimately going to be resolved, as what to do with the things that that the court has found unconstitutional. What the remedy is I’m going to talk a little bit more about remedies after I give a chance for Josh to jump in here.

Josh 1:02:47
It was gonna say we have a few I mean, we were talking about courting we have disagreements kind of about what’s going on. But most of the stuff we probably are in the some of the same places. I don’t think my understanding is that the legend The court strategy by the ACLU is actually to try to force the legislature to, to change the statute, because the alternative would be that it would be mostly found, you know, struggling, it would basically not exist functionally for people who were sentenced before 2011, which is when the Adam Walsh Act went into effect here. I also there’s another set of requirements that were in an earlier decision by the same judge that just heard the case on Wednesday, that found that there were other reasons why that the the registration was constitutionally problematic, mostly based and void for vagueness. So my understanding of what happened Wednesdays at the ACLU made the argument, they literally took the statute and went through everything the Sixth Circuit said and went through everything Cleveland said and essentially showed how much would be marked out of the document and what was left was nonsensical. And so their argument is that There is no more. I mean that the seven severability doctrine, the idea is that you’re only supposed to get rid of what you can what’s unconstitutional, and leave the rest of the will of the legislator. And in this case, there would be nothing left there that was functional. And so the idea is that, you know, rather than have the judge, try to write something in there to make it work. You would leave it to the legislature to fix or invalidate it and give people or injunctive relief until that point which the legislator acts, that’s kind of my understanding of what happened.

Andy 1:04:36
Is this something Larry where the legislature just wants to have the judge make a decision so they can be lazy?

Larry 1:04:44
Not really, although this that’s the cynics view. It first of all, it’s not the judiciary. The judiciary is not supposed to be making public policy for us. And I challenge people think about this, if we could just Pick the size of the court, whether it be five, seven or nine if we could just put robes on people, and they could decide important public policy decisions without any input from the people. And they would decide what the level of income taxes, what it levels fuel tax what the Clean Air standards would be, what public education would look like what university standards would be? I mean, would that be a great country if we just delegated all that to people who were ropes and who were probably the least prepared, which I agree with Scalia, one of the clips we played on him, the judiciary is not prepared, not equipped, not qualified to make these public policy decisions in terms of significant so it’s not the courts role. It’s not a question of being lazy. It’s not their role to do that. Now, from a political perspective, since we do live in a political system, that anybody who’s holding public office, unless they’re at the end of their political career, they don’t seek to be an office anymore. And I give an example like alan simpson from center from Alembic, but he found I got began to say And he started talking about the knotch babies who were claiming that they got beat out of Social Security money. And he called a greedy something and other I forget what his term was. But he said that there was nobody got cheated, that they were just simply greedy because they had to they It was a formula that will screw up in social security that paid those people way more than what they should have. And they corrected it. And it was a group of people that were born a certain years where they made the correction, and they didn’t do it and all one fell swoop. So the knotch babies were complaining that they that they, and he called, he called him greedy. Well, the politicians are looking at this, okay, I care about my schools in my state I care about, I care about the environment. I care about seniors, I care about so many things I’d like to do to make for a better future for and I am not going to put my political future on the line by wanting to make things better for sex offender so I can be vilified for doing that. That’s just not in their DNA. They’re not wanting to take that risk. So the comfortable position from a from a from an elected position of potentials perspective is to have it forced down their throat by the courts. That’s the most comfortable position for them because they can say, Well, you know, saurez they call it Michigan is has been weakened, but we didn’t do it. The courts did it. And they have they have plausible deniability that they didn’t do the weakening,

Josh 1:07:24
or even better, they could say that, you know, if it hadn’t been for their act, there would be no registry.

Larry 1:07:31
That’s correct. And that’s when they’re going to act and people keep wanting to know when the alleged national legislature is going to act. I’ll tell you what they’re going to act, when when the courts finally decide that they can no longer enforce the status quo. If you’ve got the status quo still being enforced or 44,000 people from a political analysis, there’s absolutely no reason. There’s nothing to gain from legislating and there’s everything to lose from legislate. The only way you can safely legislate would be you would have to make music Sora tougher. But if you do anything to relax the standards of Sora, you’re going to be potentially vilified. So until they’re faced with non enforceability of the of the registry and the thing going dark, they have virtually no incentive to legislate. And I’ve said that from the beginning, and I had a lot of Rotten Tomatoes thrown at me when I said that, but that’s the reality of the political situation.

Andy 1:08:22
Josh, is there an angle for the the DA in there? Or the excuse me, the AG, Miss Nestle?

Josh 1:08:29
Well, I mean, essentially, she’s representing the state side of things. And at the same time, there’s a separate case. It’s called bets that’s working its way through Michigan that’s similar and has some of the same kinds of questions. And I think, you know, what they’ve really the state, oddly enough, has been an agreement on a large amount of the issues of dough. Those I’m sorry. And so I think we’re going to win a pretty substantial victory in some sense. It’s just how how much of a victory and Really the only thing the state’s really pushing back on are things like their ability, they’d like to just be able to remove the unconstitutional parts and leave the statute the way it is. And they’d also like to have the Michigan State Supreme Court resolve the issue instead of Judge Cleveland. And those are kind of the main issues. There’s also an issue about the tier system having to be risk based or not be risk based. But for the most part, those are the main issues that the state is pushing back on a great deal of the other stuff. They’re not really contesting which is unique because our previous attorney general who was basically pushing it even past the point where it made sense to push it.

Andy 1:09:39
Well, I guess what I’m asking is about Dana Nestle is I have at least read at least two there was one like when she was elected, roughly, that she came out against that this, this whole situation is stupid. And then there was one even more recently, I guess it was an amicus brief, maybe it was just last week. Yeah. Those are all in the basket and working been going so yeah, she they’re on separate tracks. And so she is definitely

Josh 1:10:07
it’s not it’s very rare that you see the top

law enforcement official in the state come out against the registry kind of standing in the face of everything that Larry just said about elected officials. But she’s done it not once, not twice, but now three times, and I definitely will always appreciate her for that. But it’s odd that she’s also that has to represent the state in this in this dose versus Snyder two case.

Andy 1:10:34
What what I want to ask I want I want there. I want you to chime in on this one is that as I recall in the previous administration, that Obama directed his attorney general I don’t remember who it was was that Eric Holder perhaps that said, Can you hit these guys and gals with like drug offenses? Can you hit them with kid gloves like shoot for minor stuff, shoot for diversion, whatever, and you know, then so can can the ag tell her Da so then not go after the, you know, try to reduce sentencing reduce the conviction kind of the what is being convicted being charged? Couldn’t they kind of diminish everything just from that level without doing anything with the law? So Good question. But the analysis doesn’t flow the same way because the US Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. The state attorney general serves at the pleasure of the people because it’s an elected position.

Larry 1:11:26
It’s an elected position and the prosecutors in the state of Michigan they’re all elected and in their own right, so they don’t take direction.

Andy 1:11:33
There’s no hierarchy. Hmm,

Larry 1:11:35
yeah, yeah, there’s not the say the US and the US. President Trump decides that we have the Attorney General that we have but your current is bar. Previously you know who it was from Alabama sessions

Josh 1:11:47
would advise and gets into the senate

Larry 1:11:49
with advisor consent which you’re almost always going to get the consent of the other set. And then the the assistant US Attorney General’s you have You have a US Attorney for each each district who asks are theoretically to the Department of Justice in DC and then their assistance work under them. But you have you have a command structure where things come flow from Washington in terms of directive policies, you don’t have that and state. The Kent County prosecutor’s office doesn’t answer to Lansing to turn gentle Nestle, whatever she wants to can’t kind of prosecutor comes out. That’s really nice. Appreciate your advice. But I estrogen senses here in Kent County.

Josh 1:12:28
Yeah, that causes that definitely causes a lot of problems. You know, for instance, one of the problem that’s happened over the last several years is that the attorney general’s office definitely right now is not prosecuting people, for instance, for distance violations or whatever, but a local prosecutor could. And so when you get what you’ll get is a lot of times in the county, you’ll get county prosecutors who are you know, have their own kind of view on what should be done and usually much more punitive on this issue. And so you do We have a lot of inconsistency across the state

Larry 1:13:03
does does the ag office in Michigan have concurrent jurisdiction on prosecution of some sort? Because in some states they don’t like in Ohio. He has very limited prosecutorial powers. So does he break those prosecution? I don’t think so.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:21
Okay. Could you could you delve into that? I’ve never heard those terms before.

Larry 1:13:25
Well, the, the the Attorney General, oftentimes has very limited prosecutorial powers. If you look at a state what the duties of DHS I don’t even know how George’s as organized and what their, what their responsibilities are. But what day G is consistent, typically they are responsible for defending the states do enacted laws, and they do consumer protection almost in all states I’ve ever lived in or been close to. They have they protect consumers from from abuse and fraud and adults but in terms of being able to do prosecutions they Agee’s offices are generally very limited. They don’t have concurrent jurisdiction. If you think back a few episodes will wait to talk to about crasner. But crasner said I won’t prosecute these things at Philadelphia, and then the conservative legislature who says that they believe so much in local control and how much that they respect and admire the decision maker at the local level, they gave the the Attorney General power to do the prosecution’s that they previously did hope didn’t have. So that’s what I’m talking about.

Andy 1:14:30
And in Michigan, that hypocrisy clip right now.

Larry 1:14:32
Yeah, yeah, we need that we need that hypocrisy, because they they certainly I filled with it. But But we I don’t know what what jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction of the Michigan ag may have, in terms of prosecutions.

Andy 1:14:47
Maybe we can travel down the path of, you know, rolling back to when the decision was made by the judge saying, these particular pieces were unconstitutional. Then what Shouldn’t that engage a mechanism to force the legislators to go legislate since they said it was unconstitutional? What is there any sort of mechanism that does that?

Josh 1:15:10
You know, not really not in the sense that you’re talking about the The point is, is that a court, you know, you’re operating on separate tracks. So, you know, so for instance, if I had been under the under before this, this new case, those two women were back under dose after dose one was decided, like I said, if I got picked up for like, one of the things that have been found unconstitutional, the courts when it came, you know, a local prosecutor might prosecute me for that. But the courts would then say, Well, those found this unconstitutional. That doesn’t require the legislature to do anything. You know, that process happens independent of the legislature for the most part unless they pass a new law. And as one of the legislators here in in our legislators said, when they heard that the course were, you know, hoping that they would do something as unless they start You know, driving tanks down to the Capitol. There’s not much that’s going to happen on sorne or on Sora. And that’s really what’s played out. And so you know what? The real risk I think what Larry said is true. The real risk is that judge Cleveland basically invalidates the statute. A large swath of the people on it and then the legislature be have a lot of pressure on them to act not because of the way it’s going to play out in the courts. It’s because the public would now see that they were allowing there to be no SORNA and no sora

Larry 1:16:35
and then that incentive would bait to legislate and they would they would do, likely they would follow the model and Pennsylvania, they would likely come in and try to recreate as much of it as they possibly could, knowing that you that they have the presumption of constitutionality, and they would try to reenact what had been put what the judge has to halted force, but he has to not just declare it as our Constitution. that’s already been done. But the judge has to give a date certain with the lights will go out. And when that happens that the judge says you’ve got 180 days and I’m turning out the lights on this, then all of a sudden there will be an incentive to legislate. And then they will try to reenact and recreate as much as they can. Now, we can wish that they would have this epiphany that they saw us hoping for, and that they would like to believe that they’re somehow going to come to believe that it’s a bad public policy, and they’re going to streamline the registry and remove a bunch of offenses from the registry, and they’re going to do all these great things. I don’t have much evidence to inspire me to believe that that’s going to be the likely outcome. Although I always hope I’m bra when I make such a prediction, but I tell people I don’t say these things because I want to be cantankerous I say these things because I want to tell you as best as I can, all my life experienced from a political analysis, what they’re likely to do, and what they’re likely to do is to try to reenact as much of it as they possibly can, so that they can be tough on on people who’ve done evil things. That’s what they’re likely to do.

Josh 1:18:06
I mean, I know we both talked to Miriam, I don’t, you know, I mean, the only thing I’ll disagree with, I think most everything you said I agree with their, with one exception, which is I don’t think the ACL use strategy was that they’ll just have an epiphany and this is good public policy. I think that a they thought the original says decision, at least in the immediate point could serve as political cover and be if the judge were to invalidate the statute, do what you just said in terms of a date certain, although making it unconstitutional for the for the entire class would be a little bit of a different thing. But you’re right, that they’d have to he’d have to probably have to do both. I don’t know. I think that the hope was that, that that would I know that one of those two things would force the legislators to access the first one failed. This is the second you know, because there was a working group and it was involved. The legislators The state police, the attorney general’s office, the governor’s office and that went on for quite a while and there was some progress made but it didn’t end up doing much for the results you’ve already elucidate.

Larry 1:19:10
Well that’s that’s insane when you when you when you legislators are good people by and large and when you go to them and say the courts have found a problem with with with something, the initial reaction is more likely gonna be vocal, what do we need to do? And so they’re going to be very receptive to but then when when you start getting into the nitty gritty of what you need to do, then they start putting a political analysis oh my gosh, I can’t do that. Oh, they want us to not can’t do that either. And it’s kind of like giving an example the California with the with the with the tiered registry that that California has lifetime registration for everybody. And then they decided they wanted because the balloon registry everybody agreed even the law enforcement people agreed that the registry got too large in California, surpassed 100 210,000 whatever the number is, and they wanted to find a removal process. Then they brought in Everybody the table the victims advocates and everybody the table, and they created the most awful process that could ever be imagined. And not a soul will ever get off the registry under that process that they did. But they all agreed that there was a problem. So that’s what you’ve got a Michigan all these lawmakers. Oh, yeah, we’ve got a problem. But I can’t help you with it. Cuz you’re asking me to do something that’s far too risky for me. I’ve got to help. I’ve got to have I’m sorry, I’ve got to have to have the course do this. I can’t do what

Josh 1:20:29
promises actually was moving pretty far along and a lot of progress has been made. My understanding of what it up happening is what you know, part of what you’re saying is correct, which is I believe I you know, obviously wasn’t in the room, but from what I’ve heard, the the it was actually the governor’s office that got cold feet and decided to basically let the courts deal with

Unknown Speaker 1:20:49
it. That’s the safest posture to take.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:52
Yeah, from a political standpoint, it’s the correct

Andy 1:20:55
let me let me toss this out there. It seems that let me try and make this comparison. That we continue to learn more about all things about the world science moves forward, new formulas are made, etc, etc. population increases. So there’s always this like creeping forward. Is there ever a chance that laws roll backwards? I mean, it seems that every state in this case in every state in the United States is continuing to push forward and make it more make it more where does does it ever stop? Does ever ever someone go, Hey, this is good. It’s got good enough. We don’t have to do anything. It doesn’t seem like that ever seems to happen.

Josh 1:21:33
In this particular instance, and Larry can certainly correct me. We’re pretty much guaranteed I think more or less guaranteed that there’s going to be a pretty drastic change for everyone who was sentenced before 2011 or was found whose crime happened before 2011. I always keep saying sentencing was actually the crime date. And, and I think that if there is a new constitution of the registry of Larry said, it’s mostly going to apply to people who were suddenly post the animal shack implementation, and only within the boundaries of this new kind of constitutional agreement, because the one thing that that that that those court did find is that that all these elements that were ex post facto are also, you know, invalid. And, you know, I imagine that the injunctive relief will have something to do with everyone who’s been says for 2011. And so if you made a bunch of new stuff, that would also be it seems to me ex post facto, I could be wrong about that, but suspect of

Larry 1:22:33
my my expectation is it’s going to go beyond 2011. And I believe that the disability is imposed in 2006. With the restrictions on where people can live and work and be present and mortar. I think that those are going to going to be included in the belief and could turn out to be wrong. But I think the 2011 damage where they link to the registration terms, to me was was devastating, but what they did 2000 sex was was equally devastated when you can’t live and work and be present places. So I think I think that the really, ultimately will will go beyond what they did 2011. But as Josh says, if your crime was committed after these, what are these dates, whichever one if they if they focus on the 2006 with a focus on 2011, whichever whichever data is to cut off, or that tipped it to be unconstitutional, you’re screwed until there’s new litigation, do litigation that proves that, that that the register is unconstitutional as applied to people give other crimes after one of those states?

Josh 1:23:34
Yeah, it’s gonna be real, it’s not going to be a great. I mean, they’re going to be things that get better for people post. I just use 2011 because it’s the later date but both 2006 2011. But for everyone posts, that big spike it mildly better, but it’s, you know, not going to be it’s not gonna be the same kind of substantial under this decision most likely.

Larry 1:23:55
Well, I think Andy was asking one question, I don’t know if it was specific to the registry to things ever Turn backwards. Yes, people, legislators all over the country are recognizing that they’ve gone too far on criminal penalties. And they’re pulling back and they’re looking for alternatives. But in terms of the registry, I don’t know that there’s a lot of pulling back yet. I don’t I don’t see that I don’t see the lawmakers pulling back down the courts forcing courts have forced, I should say to have enforced a change by by judicial order. But as far as legislation is coming together and say, well, gee, we’re going to make it easier, better registry i’d none of those are coming to the top of my list of where the where the states have said we need to make this registry more more relaxed California, you bike a site that’s an example because of the theoretically you, you can get off. But the flop process is so flawed that very few people are going to get off until they change that process. Missouri improved, there’s where they were they made it 2018 where people can get off, but the process is so flawed that very few Will. So I guess there is some indication that that is largely getting better, but not much. It’s coming from legislative improvement as mostly coming from judicial, from courts.

Josh 1:25:11
I agree with that. I mean, I think we’re in a situation where,

really over the last couple years, I mean, I think about three years ago, we had a thing. And, you know, I still think you’ve got the, you know, essentially the sex offender version of the Morton problem, which is what we’ve been talking about all night, but there was a lot of momentum. And I think over the last, you know, probably year and a half, I feel like a lot. There’s, it seems like it’s dissipating a little bit in the least. I don’t feel like there’s the same momentum as there was a couple years ago. Outside of the courts. I hope I’m wrong. But I

Andy 1:25:48
don’t want to rehash this whole thing. I think we already covered but I wanted to Larry and Larry and I we talked about it earlier, as I recall in some of the gerrymandering cases that have been going through the various levels of Supreme Court’s and then that sometimes the Court has said, No, this is an unconstitutional districting map gerrymandering set up. And they just said, you guys fix it. And then they give him sort of some sort of amount of time. But other judges have then said no. And they actually kick back a redistricting map. They say, hey, this one works might not be what you want. But this is this one does work and accomplishes the goal of giving you districts that aren’t gerrymandered. Could we not end up with a situation like that, where the judge says, Well, here’s a constitutional registry that you guys could have to live with?

Josh 1:26:39
Well, I mean, I think that’s what the Alaska case was, in a way. But on your gerrymandering point, I feel like the problem with that analysis is that the Supreme Court ultimately kind of decided that, that Yeah, they could you know, that that none of that, that that they didn’t care about the maps period, but you know, back to your kind You’re you’re kind of example. I think we’re, you know, yeah, I just I think that the best we had and I think one of the things that’s helped us is that they set sort of parameters. They said that the Alaska case was essentially, the Alaska registry was essentially was constitutional. And the reason we’ve had success since then is because like Larry said, People kept adding and adding and adding and let alone and those are the things that have ultimately been found unconstitutional. When they’ve been found on institutional. Am I wrong about that? Larry,

Larry 1:27:36
you’re absolutely correct. And, and I, I would not want to see the day where the court starts writing the laws that would be very frightening to me, in our in our democratic system to have have the courts writing the laws. What I would like to see the courts do is tell the state, well, you know, we’ve given you a lot of time, and there’s been no progress. So we’re giving you one final deadline and the lights will turn out At that point, and you can figure out what you’re going to do after that.

Andy 1:28:04
And when you say lights turn out, like the website goes down with nobody listed and no violations for perhaps proximity violations go into a vault.

Larry 1:28:14
Well, therein lies that’s where the nuance comes. Because my position is that the Michigan Supreme Court should accept the certified question because this is a state law. It’s not a federal law, Michigan Sora is a state law. And whether or not state laws can be severed and survive in pieces that is for the state if it’s not into statutory scheme, and apparently it is I haven’t spotted no one’s told me that it says that. This should any section of this be declared unconstitutional. remainings shall be enforced. That as for the state of Michigan’s highest tribunal to tell to guide the Federal Court, which is a court of limited jurisdiction to tell them that we believe that essence that it can or cannot survive, what separates but if they sever the surviving portion of the cost is your portion, then that would mean that the people who had offenses that occurred before 2006, they could live and be present where they wanted to. That means that people were under the previous scheme where they were going to get off in 20 years, they would be back in that 20 year track. If they finish it, they would be done. So people who had been finished, who would have typed out of the old system, their their registry light would go dark. The people who had not timed out, but had an obligation to report once a year or whatever the frequency was prior to AWS, they would go back to what it was the law was like before the 2011 enhancements came in. So some people would go dark, some people would still have a registration obligation, but it would be far less onerous because it would look like it did in 2000, prior to 2006. That’s what I think the court should do. And that’s what I think the court ultimately will do.

Josh 1:29:55
Yeah, I think the courts going to go farther than that. And I also think that they’re probably this is One thing we were kind of arguing about before the show is at least from what I understand from the hearing on Wednesday, one of the big discussions is over if it should be remanded. I mean, if the Michigan Supreme Court should ultimately decided or judge Cleveland should, at least from the observers of the room, and the lawyers in the that I’ve talked to, they seem to feel like that decision was probably going to remain with judge Cleveland that he was probably going to go ahead and decide that himself. You know, if I’m wrong about that, you know, that’s just that’s just hearsay. Obviously, I’m just getting information from people who were there so

Larry 1:30:38
well, well, people like to read judges and they like to interpret. And I do believe the judge Cleveland would be capable. He’s got it. federal judges have very competent law clerks and I think they could research Michigan’s case law. And I think they can figure out whether it’s whether it’s several will based on existing case law. Being that I like to be concerned But not have if I were a judge, I wouldn’t want myself subject to being overturned. I would want to give the Attorney General of Michigan, something to appeal. I don’t know if Nestle would appeal, but I wouldn’t want to give them that. I would want to go through the most careful thought process to make sure that there’s not an appeal to a Sixth Circuit. And I would I want to get the court a chance to take the certified question.

Josh 1:31:22
Although you have to remember that I think all the parties understand that the Sixth Circuit is extremely sympathetic to the to the ACLU case in fact, at the end of the Sixth Circuit decision they said we also think a lot more of this is unconstitutional but you haven’t brought beat that case yet. So if you want to keep bringing stuff will listen. Like they’re a hostile audience. So that was one of them. One of the more conservative judges on the on the court, I

Larry 1:31:51
I’m just telling you from a search head strength strategy standpoint, Nestle could die in a plane crash tomorrow, and the agency’s office demeanor could change company pletely overnight. And and if I’m sitting as a US District Judge, I don’t ever will be. But if I, if I were sitting as a district judge, I wouldn’t want to give every deference to the state to tell me before I make because I may be turning thousands of people off the registry and taking them outside the zone of public scrutiny. And before I do that, I want a little bit of cover also, though, I don’t need it. But I want to make sure that that every T is crossed, every eyes been dotted. And the thing about it is that the judges waited so long, given the state all this opportunity to legislate which they never got to legislate. He’s probably going to feel pressure now to not wait longer because while the certified questions going up, that would cause another delay and if our day so you got to be arguing judgment. We’ve waited since what was it may of 2019. Oh, they’re making that argument. That’s what I would be saying that, you know, we’ve waited long enough. We don’t have time for a certified question.

Josh 1:32:59
They said wait. too much damage has been done already. You know, we needed to relief all that. Definitely right about that.

Andy 1:33:06
So have we missed anything? We haven’t missed a thing. I didn’t think so. Josh, is there anything else that you think that we should dive into on this before we call it quits?

Josh 1:33:17
No, just everyone should keep their fingers crossed. This is a pretty big, pretty big decision. So if we go

Andy 1:33:23
well, let me ask you this. Larry, I obviously this has no impact on any other state, but at the same time, it has a huge impact on other states, what would be the impact of them rolling things back on another state?

Larry 1:33:36
Well, I think I would say that this actually does have impact this case is cited probably more than if you did a search climate briefs this I decided to have that Sixth Circuit case those verses Snyder it cited repeatedly. And it’s it’s only binding in that territory, the Sixth Circuit, but it’s very persuasive.

Andy 1:33:54
And if that’s what it means, so it doesn’t have any direct impact on states outside of those but like you said, it’s persuade So this could affect a Georgia could affect New Mexico whatever in push it rolling things back to some 2006 ish level of situation.

Larry 1:34:11
it very well could if if if if the Michigan legislature chooses not to legislate. And the courts just simply say you can enforce if there’s enough of a SORNA left a SORNA, as they call it, there are sore, I think they call it there. But if there was enough left, that that they simply say you’re going back to where it was in 2006, then that that would be monumental, because I’d like to roll ours back to where we were prior to 2005.

Andy 1:34:37
And does that set some sort of standard for what it would be and then all of the states could file lawsuits to roll them back to some level like that?

Larry 1:34:46
Well, it doesn’t set a standard because it’s not binding but it gives a framework of legal analysis for for judges who are skittish to look at civil Wow, this was thoroughly analyzed by this panel and the Sixth Circuit and it seems pretty good job.

Andy 1:35:00
Yeah, I just it’s so hard. It’s so hard to conceive of. And I use this expression all the time. But we are 50, quote unquote, individual little countries. And then we have the the appeals courts, and then the district courts, whatever. And then the Supreme Court, so like, everybody is their own little operating entity. And it’s so hard because we can just travel so freely, that it’s just fluid and we just bounce around, get on a plane and you’re in a different time zone in a different state. It’s no big deal, that these things are isolated and encapsulated in their own little regions. And they do and they don’t have influence on others. It’s really hard to conceive of really,

Josh 1:35:40
it really, that all of us know that when you get on a plane and you go to another state, you have to learn the rules of the other state. No kidding.

Andy 1:35:45
No kidding. That’s very true. And watch out for the Geiger counters. Larry, we had a conversation about some Geiger counters, didn’t we?

Larry 1:35:51
We’ve had that conversation before that. Josh, do you know what the Geiger counter detects?

Josh 1:35:59
You’ve lost wheeled Geiger counters I know what a Geiger

Larry 1:36:02
well if if if a state has a particular number of hours that you can be physically present before you have to register the Geiger counter goes off when you when you go one minute past that

Andy 1:36:13
and then and then it has to be and I know you haven’t seen this movie later but Monsters Inc that they had the little the little detector thing that if you had any of the the the humans on you know on user they had like a detector to detect the human stuff anyway, just kind of silliness. I’m sure you’ve seen Monsters Inc. Josh.

Josh 1:36:30
I do know what you’re talking about.

Larry 1:36:32
And then after after the Geiger counter reacts, then a hovercraft appears. Yes. And the hovercraft hovers over you until they apprehend you.

Andy 1:36:42
Now and I look to

Josh 1:36:44
go ahead, Jessica, is it kind of like a what was it a one of those alien movies where they suck you into the machine or

Larry 1:36:51
short? And I was

Andy 1:36:54
we make these the we play light on the situation that if you go to a state Let’s just say you go to Florida where they had like the stupid 14 hour requirement and your one minute over. Yes, you are violating the law. And yes, there’s a huge penalty for it. But does anybody know if you drove into the state? Like, how do they know when you actually cross the line? Like, anyway, with playing fair with it?

Josh 1:37:16
I was just gonna say, I also really hate these laws, that we’re, you know, strict liability laws in general, no harm done to anybody. But they’re still strict and harsh penalties. That’s just very problematic to me.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:31
Yes.

Andy 1:37:32
And then, and we’re poking fun at the extreme nature of what you’ve just described, and we’re poking fun at and somewhat kind of give us some crap about it, I guess.

Larry 1:37:39
Well, and and it’s a serious thing, because the, the law is on the blocks in some states that that bear, being physically present does trigger a registration obligation. The point we’re trying to make is you assign yourself a far level higher level of importance than that, first of all, they’re not following you with a hovercraft. They don’t know It would be rare that we come into contact with you. And if they did, I have never seen a case where a person’s been prosecuted for being on the 49th hour of a 48 hour limit, if they’re visiting. Now I have seen cases where people have been prosecuted for big over the three days where you have to register if you if you become a resident, or if you become a student become whatever the triggers a finite you become attached to a state. But of all the horrible out there and being of the national defense lawyers list big on the state defense lawyers list. And all the attorney contact I have, I have not been able to Earth a case of a person having been prosecuted for being slightly over the amount of time they can be physically present. Now I don’t law enforcement has too many resources, and they prosecute frivolous stuff, I get that. But I would think that I would have heard about such a case. What I do hear about is I tell people you got to get registered, but I’ve never heard of a prosecution of a person. You’re 49 hours and that’s 60 minutes to Long I haven’t heard of that.

Josh 1:39:02
Yeah, well, I’d hate to be the first case. Yeah.

Andy 1:39:06
You’re the dummy test. But you know, we cover that article with the the guys and the handyman is going to change a light bulb and they get they got arrested. So, but well, we should shut it down. Josh, who do you have that you are interviewing in the near future?

Josh 1:39:21
Well, I’ve done quite a few interviews in advance, I guess I’m pretty excited that I have an interview with Wayne Kramer, the people might know, but was the guitarist for a band called The MC five who was pretty much one of the foundational bands in kind of what became garage rock. And then punk rock influenced a very wide range of artists, including the clash. In fact, they wrote a song about him. And then later he went to he went to prison. And then when he came back out, he kind of had a really good reclamation story. So it’s fun to talk to him about to do a big episode. On the crisis in Mississippi were 15 people have died in the last like month and a half. And I’m having a bunch of the activists who have been really working on the ground and some folks from the reform Alliance I’m sure everyone’s heard Jay Z and some some other rapper sued the state of Mississippi over this. And so we’re gonna have someone from reform Alliance, which JC is one of the owners of that.

Andy 1:40:23
That’s where the governor said that the cell phones are what caused all that?

Josh 1:40:26
Yeah, and I’ve been pretty much one of my least favorite arguments in the world is Department of Corrections argument that cell phones where the violence it really bothers my soul. They make that argument to the point where I usually explode on Twitter if anyone follows me on twitter you’ve probably seen that I think I even have graphics on it now that my one of my people made or something like that. I think Graham has a

Larry 1:40:53
weight we categorically rejected that just last episode of the episode before it’s the silliest, silliest thing I’ve ever heard.

Andy 1:41:00
I have a clip of it it’s really quite funny. It’s very humorous to me that he says the gangs are using the cell phones to do these things like okay all right.

Josh 1:41:08
Anyone who’s been in prison knows you can use the regular phones

Andy 1:41:12
yeah No kidding. It’s just a lot more expensive to do it that way.

Unknown Speaker 1:41:15
Sure, but they don’t care

Josh 1:41:20
they’ve been doing they’ve been doing bad things the gang is getting robbed all the presence of the entire state pretty much as long as there’s big presence. Yeah, you’re

Andy 1:41:27
not allowed to have weapons either but somehow that works out to have a quick little story when I when I first got to this particular place in Georgia and it was a it was like a war zone there was no staff oversight going on and I’m doing some detail cutting grass, whatever and we’re walking down the whatever the heck they call the grinder, but that I don’t remember what they call anyway. And passed by somebody on a yard and he’s just he’s just filing down some piece like, does not anybody see the guy making the shake on the garden? A man. I was like, I was baffled baffled method. All right, we got to get out of here. I know right, Josh, thank

Josh 1:42:05
you so much. Tell us again where we can find your programs and follow you on the Twitter’s and stuff. Sure. decarceration Nation com or iTunes, Google Play or any of those places and then my Twitter is at Joshua

Andy 1:42:18
HRV. Very good. Larry, as always, you are the man the myth, the legend. You have all the informations and I greatly appreciate you hanging out with us on a Saturday night again.

Larry 1:42:29
It’s my pleasure to be here and and I appreciate all the listeners that are stacked up in discord now, of all those who are going to be listening to coming week that for some reason another they just keep coming back. I don’t know why they do.

Andy 1:42:44
I always thank them and appreciate that they’re there because they feed questions and make my job easier. Go hit the show notes at registry matters dot CEO and you can find where to contact us on Twitter, watch us on YouTube, download the podcast, all of that handy dandy stuff. And with that, Josh thanks You can appreciate it and Larry as well. Thanks guys. Have a great night.

Larry 1:43:04
Good night. You too.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

RM113: Looking Back 40 Years To See The Future

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, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 113 of registering matters. Larry, Saturday night here we are again and look at my clock says 7:01pm. What time does your clock say? It says five all three. Three, we have super duper awesome special guest Welcome back. Ashley. How are you this evening?

Ashley 0:34
I’m doing wonderful. How are you guys doing?

Andy: Awesome. Awesome. Thank you for coming back. Thanks for having me again. It’s an exciting week. How did Larry entice you to come back?

Ashley: I begged him to come back. Right Larry.

Larry 0:46
Wow. I would recollect it differently.

Andy 0:53
So what do we have going on tonight we have some big decisions. We have bunch of news articles. We have a remembrance of To highlight what also happened like in some southern states, where do you want to start? Larry?

Larry 1:06
Well, it’s a tough agenda. I think I think we could touch on the decision our out of Illinois, which is we have such sketchy information and solely to say that we we have a decision that we weren’t excited about, recorded the wayside cross ministry. That was an injunction sought after and apparently to the judge, the state court judge and Illinois denied the request for injunctive relief. So those men are going to have to going to have to leave the the shelter there that’s been there I think. Talk to our communications director today and I think she said that that thing has been in existence for like 100 years. And they’re there particular programs that that does matter and has been existence for like 50 years. And

Andy 1:54
at this is on the cover this topic. I don’t remember which episode how far back it was just a handful of weeks. So a park Park was set up semi nearby, and then they said they had 30 days to get out. I think that’s what,

Larry 2:07
that’s what I remember. But it’s so sketchy. The link doesn’t take us to a decision. I texted one of the attorneys and asked if she could send it and I haven’t gotten it back yet. So it’s certainly not an in depth dive, deep dive. But what we can always say with injunctive relief is it’s very difficult to obtain injunctive relief because this is even stumps our communications director, if you have the status quo, and you’re seeking to preserve the status quo, you have to show that irreparable harm will result and that you’re likely to prevail on the merits when the case goes to trial because the court is ruling in advance of the case being tested for sufficiency. So therefore, the expectations of what you show are very hot and since the case hasn’t been tried the the defenses that will be asserted at trial are presumed valid, and that really discombobulated. So everybody, you know, it’s like, well, whatever they’re saying now is presumed true is kind of like the standard in summary judgment. When people say, Well, this decision in the Supreme Court Smith versus doe. Clearly, the recidivism was not astronomically high and frightening. But those were facts that were determined in summary judgment, because the assertions that were made in the motion for summary judgment, the non moving party that didn’t want the summary judgment, is entitled to have everything that that party would have put forth as a defense, presumed true. Well, assembler standard existed injunctive relief, we haven’t had a chance to put on our full case. So therefore, we tell the court what we would allege is our defense if the case were being tried right now, and the court presumes that untested defense That’s true.

Andy 4:00
Wow, what status these these are people that are on supervision? Or is there a combination of both? I’m wondering about the, you know, the public interest, the public safety interest, where these men being afforded any due process as far as assuming that they’re dangerous to child safety?

Larry 4:19
I’m not sure it’s clear what the status of the 18 are, whether anybody wants to revision or not. I don’t believe it will make a dramatic difference in the analysis because they they don’t think delineates between supervised and unsupervised, it’s, it’s that anybody on the registry can’t be there. So I don’t think I don’t think that would be material to the termination.

Andy 4:40
Okay. I mean, you it, it seems reasonable to I could see arguing both sides that you could, the person did the crime, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily going to do another crime. But I could see that getting argued both ways. You’ve obviously shown that you are capable of doing the crime. Therefore you’re you have a higher propensity to commit a crime similar I could see it going both ways.

Larry 5:00
But But that wasn’t the basis of the statute. The statute doesn’t say that you’re forbidden to live within 500 feet. If you have a propensity to commit a crime, it says you’re not permitted. You’re you’re not permitted, you’re forbidden to live there period. Right? So the courts not analyzing whether or not your where do you have a propensity to commit a crime? That’s not what is analyzed, and of course, analyzing whether or not you can have a statute that’s constitutional. The list is old enough where a person can live, whether or not that sound public policy is not for the court to decide.

Andy 5:29
Right? And but there are there are other places where they have ruled those kinds of restrictions unconstitutional.

Larry 5:35
There has been but this this judge at this legacy, this is this is a local judge. This was not a federal judge. And this is also confusing, because apparently they filed a federal lawsuit. But the Federal Court has required them to go through this exercise with the state court to see where they get before they move to the next level federal. So this is a big great thing to have Adele and mark and to talk about on a future episode, which I’m working on right now. But There’s so much we don’t know about this but in a junction is very difficult to get. That’s why when one is achieved we just celebrate so much because it’s it’s a it’s an almost insurmountable task to get injunctive really, which is what we achieved in the Georgia thing with the Halloween signs.

Andy 6:19
Well, alright then so and that that came from the the Daily Herald is where that first article came from. And since we have our super duper awesome former prosecutor Ashley on we do have an article where we’re talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Here we have from LA calm and the New York law journal that I know we talked about this three ish months ago where we brought it up that it was going to be an independent panel brought up to go through an audit the the prosecutors across New York and obviously there was pushback from the prosecutors and the judge struck it down. I’m still baffled. If you guys not you. I’m not saying you if those guys and gals are so they’re like, We want justice. Why wouldn’t they want To be to some degree, they would want to have their own selves be impartial evaluated for their integrity and all that. I’m just baffled by that concept.

Ashley 7:09
So I think what we’re running into is the same issue that raised whenever we do a law enforcement Oversight Committee on like law enforcement shootings and things like that. Because the fear is by prosecutors is the people on those types of conditions do not understand all the facts in a decision on whether to prosecute something, not prosecute something. It isn’t just prosecutorial misconduct. What they’re also worried about is that the watchdog group might say, Oh, you didn’t prosecute enough of these but then you prosecuted too many of these when there could be a million factors. So I think that plays a lot into it whenever you’re talking about a watchdog type of commission.

Andy 7:52
So are you saying just, you know, car theft versus just whatever you’re just talking about the whole batch so a prosecutor could have, you know, a wild hair that he just wants to prosecute burglaries and doesn’t care about carjacking. Are you thinking something like that too?

Ashley 8:09
Well, a little bit. It’s I mean, in certain communities because of public outcry, there’s going to be certain focuses on crime. We know this. We know the hysteria that inflames types of prosecutions. So they may focus on that because the public demands it, and then not give as much weight to top liftings and things like that. And then if, if they get questioned on that, then they’re gonna have to backtrack and say, Well, it’s because the public demands and then they’re going to be told, well, no, you’re supposed to do your job regardless, and it’s just going to turn into a big old thing. I think that feeds some of the fear. The other fear is lawyers, by nature don’t want to be watched. I mean, that’s, I think there’s some of that going on, too.

Unknown Speaker 8:53
I see, Larry, what do you have,

Larry 8:55
it’s hard for me to have much more to add on onto that. I do believe that they that they do have some legitimate fears depending on how the watchdog what they’re actually watching for. prosecutorial decisions are tough to make in terms of evidence and whether you have a strong case or not. A sensational case doesn’t necessarily translate to a strong case, nor does any egregious case necessarily translate to a strong case from a prosecutors point of view. Which means I would I would understand their their concern about if if if we’re going to go back and second guess their actual decisions on what to prosecute what not to prosecute. But when they’ve made a decision of what to prosecute, when there’s questions about whether they withheld evidence, whether they violated Brady, whether they whether they whether there were there’s unethical conduct, if we can narrow down the scope of the of the oversight. I think that that fear should be be, it would be misplaced. It seems like to me if you’re an ethical prosecutor, and Alex hunter and Peter Hoffman Both are very much both were you would want to not have an ethical people amongst us the same thing I say about police officers, if 99.8 75% of you are good and solid and moral. Why would you want that small fraction around in the club? You would want them out? I would think.

Ashley 10:20
And I totally agree with that. But I think that there are other ways to do it shorter the commission, and I’m with you, we don’t know exactly what the structure would be on the commission, if it’s actually questioning the decisions they make or providing some guidance and in the decisions they should be making or how they actually prosecute crimes. We don’t know we don’t know enough about it. But there’s, you can file a complaint with a bar, you can allege malicious prosecution, there’s ethical considerations, and the judicial badge actually goes after unethical prosecutors in some of the jurisdictions as well. So I think there are alternative methods to doing it this way. And I would kind of need to know more about what their struggle Your intent was,

Andy 11:01
I have an idea. So to make the analogy, why don’t we have registrants monitor registrants to make sure that they’re being compliant with the rules?

Unknown Speaker 11:10
Come again. If we had the registrants

Andy 11:12
monitoring the registrants, then I’m pretty sure that we would allow each other to curry favor with each other, like, Hey, you can go to this website. Hey, that’s fine. Hey, I get to go to my

Larry 11:22
website. He’s making a point that that that the attorneys monitor themselves may not be the most effective way to do that because self monitoring but but you know, I tell people I can’t speak for other states but what I there’s one state I can’t speak for. And that’s our chief disciplinary council Mr. sleaze here in this state. I can tell you this, I haven’t met a very more honorable man than in terms of holding lawyers feet to the fire. If you get crossways with Mr. sleaze about something that’s unethical. Your your you’re likely to pay with a significant sanction or you’re possibly a loser. your license. So So here, they take misconduct very seriously both in terms of handling client funds. And in terms of how a lawyer ethically represents their clients or what they violate the rules of professional conduct. You can get anything from a letter of caution, to a formal reprimand to a suspension to an outright disbar, but I don’t think actually, you could say you’ve seen them all, including a recent friend of yours.

Ashley 12:24
Yes, I have. I’ve seen it all the way across the board. So they do and, and the good thing about I don’t know how other states handle it, but here in New Mexico, you can give the ethics office a call and say, hey, look, I have this issue. Can you advise me and I’ll advise you, they won’t, oh, that’s unethical. They won’t act that way. They’ll be like, Well, here’s how you should handle it. And I’ll do that all day long. Everybody over there will. So I think that we have a really good system in place here. But like Murray said, we can’t speak for other states.

Larry 12:57
Well, but the point he’s making is that it said it’s The prosecutors are market themselves entity in a complaint, it’s going to the to the judges or to the lawyers and but but that we have a lot of professionals that self that self monitor, you know we do we do that in medicine. We do that in in a number of professions where the where there’s where those boards of discipline that takes it. The theory I think, Andy is that the that the the expertise required to know whether something’s crossed the line and the rules of professional conduct. Some are very simple, some are pretty complicated. In terms of what you can do I find myself setting up. We just sent some letters to prison in Mexico and I kind of jumped the gun without consulting with ash and I said, Ashley, I hope I haven’t broken the rules, the rules of Professional Conduct here in terms of because this was kind of a lorry solicitation, and we stamped it as attorney client confidential. There’s a rule that right you can’t you can’t do that. You can’t do that. But we were, we were we were we were we were five

Andy 13:57
I would also make the comparison to like the scientific community. They put forth their paper and then they let their peers go beat on it to prove whether it’s valid or not. Not this doesn’t necessarily work the exact same way. And I know we can move on but I’m just It seems that maybe you would have an other state who has a similar process evaluate you know, state a versus state be just to have some level of oversight because the the fox watching the henhouse this does seem to be a bad idea. Like always. I can understand that. What do you guys want to cover this? this tragedy out of New Mexico that is literally 40 years old tonight. Wait, do Andy so this is a I think you you’ve reported Larry, you said that this was the worst death of riot in US prison history.

Larry 14:46
I think something along those lines. It remains to be the database prison right and US history to this very day. It eclipse the I think Attica held the record and I believe Attica with 71. That’s a New York princess. And this eclipse data and it’s To this day I don’t think anything comes close to Mississippi, Alabama. They’re there they’re competing to see if they can match it but but right now I think this is the devil it still remains the Dallas right and US history.

Andy 15:15
And that was 33 people sorry

Larry 15:18
33 inmates on this very weekend 1980. The the the one and only penitentiary of New Mexico went into a full fledged riot. Two o’clock in the morning. 132 o’clock in the morning, the the inmates took control was relatively easy. I mean, it’s a long story long read in the Albuquerque journal, the leaks that we’ve put on there, but it was it was relatively easy. There was a skeleton crew on duty to prison, very young guard that was in a key position that had left a door gate, a grill open and they overpowered him quickly and they took control of the various sections of the prison. Then one housing unit was down for major renovation for the where the maximum security would have been in the head to put those people in into the lower security facilities because we only had one penitentiary in those days. And and so there was a lot of work with torches saws, all sorts of tools that were in the prison. And they were able to take control of that stuff. But we ended up with 33.

Andy 16:19
And I know we’re going to tie it together to the recent Mississippi situations is do you think that there’s a parallel between the conditions then versus the conditions in Mississippi that brought up the situation a couple weeks back? There’s absolutely

Larry 16:33
a parallel and it says so disingenuous for the governor of Mississippi to blame the situation on cell phones.

Andy 16:40
I have a clip of that when we when we get to it, it kind of cracks me up.

Larry 16:44
The situation in Mississippi is very comparable lack of funding, lack of professional staff, lack of programming, degraded facilities, outdated facilities, and the same thing that that that he he minimizes it tries to paint the cast a problem on gangs and present Yes, there are gangs in prisons and Mississippi presence in every every prison system, there’s gang activity. But the cell phones are largely a reaction to the exploitation of the overcharging for phone calls. And if you can end up paying 1012 $15 for 30 minute 1530 minutes done alongside but 10 for a 10 to 15 minute phone call. And the cell phones are cheaper because the lowly paid guards will smuggle in the cell phones so that they can bypass this exorbitant extortion that’s taking place by the state of Mississippi. Now here at our state we have we have the intrastate calls, our public regulation Commission has limited the cost of those so they’re relatively cheap. They’re only a couple of dollars each, which adds up over over a period of a month but our our our commission regulators have been tough on that, but you can’t regulate the cost of out of state calls because that’s those are federal, and those were those Some controls put it by the FCC under previous president obama, which have been challenged in the court and the Trump administration has scrapped those, those limits so now, if it’s an interstate call us whatever the market will bear, but I wanted to read the names of the Dan.

Ashley 18:15
Michael brioni 22 Lauren secret cardones 24 Nick Kocha 30 Richard JP arrow 26 jamesy, fully 19 Donald J Dawson’s 23 Philip C. Hernandez 30. Valentino eat out a meal. 35 Kelly Johnson 26 Steven Lou Sarah 25. Joe Madrid 38. Ramon, Madrid 40 Archie m Martinez. 25 Joseph a middle ball 24 then g No 20 Gilbert. Oh, what No. 25 Thomas O’Meara 25 Filiberto m Ortega 25 Frank J. Ortega 20 Paulina Paul 36 James Perrin 34 Robert F. Quintanilla. 29 Robert L. Rivera 28 Vincent E. Romero 34 perman D. Russell 26 one m Sanchez 22 Frankie Jason deal 31 Larry W. Smith 31 Leo j Tenorio. 25 thomassie Tenorio 28 Mario Ross day 28 Danny D. Waller 20 Sex and Russell and warmer 22

Larry 20:04
you look at Danny socially serving one to five years for credit card fraud

Unknown Speaker 20:08
and he was at a penitentiary for that. Well

Larry 20:11
there’s there’s a number of there was a number of them that were in for relatively minor offenses now. New Mexico’s come a long way since then. But the gruesome way these people were killed.

Andy 20:21
Yes, I watched a little bit of a video clip. There. There were there’s like almost like a chalk outline almost. It’s a there’s an outline of where a body laid and they said they tried all kinds of different ways to get the stuff off but they couldn’t get it off. Someone’s capitated that’s, you know, that was a little really horrific.

Larry 20:39
polino know that. The one had a armbar driven through his from ear to ear. And that was for a sexual offense. He was in serving time for a sexual offense. These were people who had been targeted as snitches or who had sexual offenses, or for just whatever savage reason they could come up with but This is what happens, can can be a result of running a snitch system. They were going straight to the PC unit to get these people and some of them managed to barricade themselves and not be not be apprehended by the mob. But these people, these people were Savage. And they administered such horrible, unthinkable. I mean, it’s just hard to even talk about it. But But these people were, some of them were serving just such minor short sentences, but their families saw them off to prison. They never expected anything like this to happen and we let them down.

Andy 21:36
we endure it was and we’re making a comparison of harsh treatment back then to what has happened at parchment and Mississippi in the last I don’t remember the date but just a couple three weeks ago, and yet 13 people go down and somebody just died in the last couple days. Do

Larry 21:52
you know the lessons are there for Mississippi and Alabama for any state to learn? Wait, we already know what we DePaul, we know, categorically what where we failed. And what what was the I mean, did the inmates have a right to do this? No, they did. So I’m not justifying the Savitri. But they had tried for years to get attention to what had been going on in the penitentiary of New Mexico. And it was not a high priority because I’ve said on the podcast before the government, Mississippi, Alabama, they’re not going to stand up and say, Okay, what I want to do, how I want to funnel more money and our prisons, I’ll tell you what, because that’s what we need to do. It’s the moral thing to do that that’s just not a vote getter. So prison stay on the back burner by and large and told there’s two there’s an incident. And then the governor has a beautiful opportunity to say, Well, folks, we’ve neglected our prisons for a while and we’re going to have to, we’re gonna have to make some investments in prisons, and we’re going to keep locking up this many people, but instead, the governor says it’s because of self Folks, it’s rather pathetic governor rather pathetic.

Unknown Speaker 23:03
Let me let me play the clip where

Unknown Speaker 23:05
we’re cracking down on criminal coordination by using the managed access system to prevent contra ban cell phones from being used in all apartments housing units. These phones have been illegal for years, but they’ve been snuck in. And they’re being used to coordinate gang activity throughout the Mississippi system. And even throughout the country. That was a large part of what caused the recent series of killings to escalate as much as it did. It’s a real problem. And it’s got to be taken seriously to save lives.

Andy 23:39
So the way that I’m looking at this is there were pictures sent to news outlets of the completely horrible conditions that these men and I guess just these men were living in, and because of that, it brought light to the problem which is What really caused the riot but the governor’s blaming it on the cell phones, as that’s what caused the riot. But really, they were just I’m sure the people were writing home to mom and dad and two different organizations saying the conditions here are atrocious. And then maybe investigators come out and they can’t even make it through the door or the administration only takes them to the best unit so that they don’t see all these terrible conditions. They just were sweeping it under the rug and they just had a powder keg and then eventually it exploded. That

Larry 24:29
is exactly what happened. And that’s what happened here. And, and like I say, it was a combination of all those things coming together of no programming, inadequate level of staffing, and adequate training of staff. It was it was the perfect storm. And and that’s what’s going to happen in Alabama, Mississippi and any prison system. If you’re going to lock people up. You have a responsibility to keep them safe. There. sentences a loss of their freedom, not of their life unless they’re sent us in the states where they have a death penalty, but their sentence to a loss of their freedom. We have a duty to keep them safe while they’re losing their freedom. I’m sorry, that may cost money. But that’s our job to do that as a society.

Andy 25:19
Another piece of this is Jen in chat. So why do they think our excuse me, Who do they think is sneaking in the phones, and I’m sure that inmates have their ways of doing them. But it seems that would be significantly easier for an officer to bring one in and then do a wink wink, nod nod quid pro quo, with a guard that’s doing the check in and the shift change stuff and then the phone makes it in and they drop it off. They make two 400 bucks, whatever that number is. And now there’s a phone on the inside. I’m pretty sure that’s the more likely Avenue than someone putting a phone somewhere somewhere for you then

Larry 25:53
well, of course the most of the contraband is introduced into prison by staff. There’s there’s no disputing that. And you would never eliminate all contraband from country prisons all the way you’d eliminate all contraband would be to not have humans coming in and out of prisons. And that’s not possible. So you’re going to have contraband entered into prisons. But it is enhanced in terms of when you take the salary structure of the EU. They’re paying these people 12 $13 an hour to be responsible. It’s when you ride home to bomb when you’re in college. Very few people that I’ve met in my life and I’ve got a few decades behind me have said, Well, I can tell you, when I get out of this, get my get my degree. I can’t wait to go work in a jailhouse.

Andy 26:41
Yeah, I’ve never heard of anybody that tries to come up and that’s what they aspire to. I want to go to the moon but my second choice is to be a prison guard. Ashley, do you have anything to add?

Ashley 26:52
First of all, I’m going to be a little less diplomatic than what Larry is being the whole thing about somebody hiding the cell phones and there is a Bunch of BS cases across the US. And you can open any news page and on any given month there is a guard somewhere that is bringing in contraband drugs and cell phones because they make more money off the cell phones than they do even off the drugs. The thing is that the whole whole thing about Oh, it’s being used to coordinate gang activity, b. s, I’m waving the BS flag. Most of the reason and Larry has already pointed this out that people have cell phones in prisons and what they’re using them for is to talk to their families because their families don’t have money to put on the books so that they can afford phone calls, and commissary and everything else because it’s become such a racket and a money making activity until you’re cutting off people that are stuck in a hotbed of activity from any outside family support system, anything like that. And then you add to that the guards coming in And if they’re being abusive or or being bullies or anything else, you’re just pouring gasoline on a raging fire. So it’s a whole bunch of stuff. And I get it. That’s a hard job. And I think we’ve established that none of us woke up in the morning and what you know what that is my first career choice. I don’t spend the rest of my life going to college and everything else to be there. And I tell the guards, when I go visit my clients at jail, I couldn’t do that job. I don’t have the I don’t have the patience for somebody screaming obscenities at me and banging on the wall because they’re really upset. But it is a two way street and there needs to be more training, there needs to be more resources. And Larry’s absolutely right. Nobody ever wants to put money into a prison system or into anything else to make these conditions better. And then we see this stuff happen and we pay the price. So it isn’t because there’s cell phones coming in. There has been a cell phone problem in prisons for years and years, Georgia has had no cell phone policy for ever and ever. So no They can’t blame it on that they need to be looking internally and solve the issue.

Larry 29:05
And that’s gonna cost that’s gonna cost some money. Ashley?

Andy 29:08
Yeah, let me let me throw this back at you from the like the policy side. I understand that we aren’t willing to throw with them in the money to do it. But that comes from the voters voting for who would be the executive who then appoints the Department of Corrections head. And I mean that and then the legislature not putting forth the money. I mean, this this false what I’m getting at is if this falls on us, that we the people,

Larry 29:32
yes, I don’t know. I have no problem saying that. But we the people do not like taxes. We have so vilified taxes since the 70s with proposition 13 was was the was the beginning of the heyday of anti taxation in this country. And we’ve convinced ourselves that our taxes are so high in the United States, which they’re really not compared to the countries that we’d like to compare, as we like to pretend were more similar to but taxing Americans. Any level, when you start talking about giving an example, we just raised a vehicle excise tax here from three to 4%, where it’s been had been stuck for four decades, decades. So when you buy a vehicle, there’s a we don’t charge the sales tax. I think Georgia just level levies the regular state sales tax on a vehicle, but we don’t do that they’re exempt from sales tax. We raised it from 3% of the sales price to 4%. After it haven’t been there for decades, and they complained about that and that they raised the gasoline tax, a few payments that had been stuck at the same level since 1993. And the last time the gasoline tax had been adjusted was in 1993. So what we’re approaching right at 30 years of inflation and the per gallon assessment being eroded by inflation and plus the decline in consumption had rendered the revenue coming into the road fun that you have you have declining consumption because of the increased fuel efficiency and you have the years almost of inflation, and people just pitch to fit, you know, there they go again those liberal tax and spent point is Alabama needs to spend money Mississippi needs to spend money, but nobody wants to pay that money. And when you go out and say, Look, our corrections department in this article says about these about $900 billion, and Alabama, they’ve got they’ve got almost double 170% but it’s not quite double of what the capacity of the system was designed for it being held in custody, and nobody wants to pay their taxes. So it’s like it we can wring our hands. And if we don’t want to spend any money ready to cut some people loose a lot of people not just some people but an awful lot of people need to be cut loose. And that’s that’s that’s where it is.

Andy 31:46
We have an opinion article that is talking about granting. clemency is one possible solution put together some sort of panel figure out who may or may not deserve clemency and then let the the governor say you get to go home early.

Larry 32:01
Well, that’s turning loose a tidal wave of crime on us, Andy, we can’t have

Andy 32:05
that. Is that is a fair alternative to have 13 people. And you know, and 3040 years ago 33 people like, I mean, you know, this is like a road warrior with Mad Max, whatever. I mean, this is this is about as raw, brutal humanity that you could come up with.

Larry 32:22
It is the story of about Alabama moving 16 600 inmates from from home and I think that’s why they pronounce it.

Andy 32:31
Yes, I believe

Larry 32:32
it. That’s that’s what we remember. Last week, we talked about decades old prison that that was a 51 year old facility. And what what I was trying to make a point last week, I don’t know how eloquently I succeeded. But society has changed. The people that designed an institution 50 years ago. They weren’t dealing with the issues we’re dealing with today. 50 years ago, the the profile of an inmate was completely different because who were incarcerated was different. Wait Presence had not become the de facto mental health facilities that they are today. We didn’t have the opioid crisis today. We didn’t have. So managing a prison 50 years ago is different than managing a prison today. But since the facility, there’s always so much a deputation, you can do to an old facility. Yes, you can put in some high tech, you can you can go in to constrict wires and put cameras in. But in terms of if you’ve got a lead your supervision system versus versus a direct supervision, and the old days, they didn’t built for direct it Nowadays, most modern facilities that have been built in the last 2530 years, there is a person inside the housing unit, or if they’re not inside the housing unit, they’re overlooking the housing unit from a control panel or they have direct line of sight. We didn’t have direct line of sight prisons 50 years ago, if you go into home and you’d probably be fine, very little of that, because that’s not the way they were designed that long ago. So prisons have not changed as as who there is the population has changed. The needs of the prisons have changed. You’ve got these decades old institutions that just are not designed for what they’re trying to do with them today. And it makes it very difficult to keep people safe.

Andy 34:11
Yeah, I’m thinking of Jackson State Prison in Georgia. And it’s I I’m picturing, even like, if you’ve seen the movie, The Green Mile, where it’s just a long hallway, with cells in you know, stacked next to next to next and a parallel, I guess that would be serious, in a serious fashion versus what you were just describing were more like an open dorm. And from one central place, they have line of sight, the walls are low, there, no high walls in the shower, like it would be incredibly difficult for you to hide anywhere in there. And they have pretty much full line of sight from all of the units from a central from a central place where somebody can watch them.

Larry 34:44
And Jackson, I think was built in the 1960s. So it’s a it’s a very old institution on how much they’ve added to it, renovated it but but, but the prisons that built that many decades are just not suitable for today. But again, these are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure. And if you look around what state legislators are grappling with, they’re grappling with no taxes, because that’s horrible to think about raising taxes. And they’re grappling with schools that need new infrastructure, colleges and universities, that new infrastructure, transportation facilities, bridges, the roads that need infrastructure. So your citizen centers are needing infrastructure, all these things that are the capital outlay. And when you look at how many votes you get out of prison, having a good corrections policy, everything I just mentioned, above the prison list, turns out more votes for you in prisons,

Andy 35:35
Louis, and I’d like to get yours in a second. Also, while I was gone, as I recall, in a county nearby where I am, they went to a four day school week to to save money. So they they chose to not spend, how do I want to wear this they chose to reduce the school days to save money versus putting any more money into the prison system. And I was like that doesn’t even make any sense to me because probably more education would keep people out of prison. Obviously, that’s a generation from now most likely, but I just couldn’t. Anyway, they decided that didn’t work. So they went back to the normal school week. But anyway.

Larry 36:15
Well, it’s it’s it’s tough. It’s tough on the elected officials. And I’ll let I should jump in here. But yes, it’s very tough because you’re competing against an anti tax mentality of the voter, and you’re needing capital. And prisons are just not a high priority. Sorry.

Ashley 36:32
And the funny part of that being because Larry’s in an expert in an old handed being up at the legislate jury. So he sees this like every single session, I got to view it firsthand, even though I was peripherally aware of it where everybody’s coming in and trying to do these let’s get tough on crime bills. Let’s add this crime. Let’s do this and everything. And then it comes down to how are we going to fund the additional lawyers, the additional judges If we’re going to increase and make mandatory times on stuff, how are we going to fund the prison? And nobody, nobody says a word about it. They ask about it. And they they claim, oh, well, this could, this could be bad. And then it’s so sexy to pass these new crimes. And these new bills that make it look like they’re being tough on crime, but they don’t think it through where we’re just going to keep throwing people into prisons like Jackson. Jackson is a really good example, Georgia, where you do you keep funneling people in, and then every time somebody violates probation or parole for testing positive and you send them off to prison, you’re just increasing the amount of people in there and not increasing any of the resources or capacity. So, no, it’s it’s not good for legislators to come back and say, Hey, we need more money for the prisons too, because everybody goes, Oh, no, you don’t. What do they need, they don’t need anything else. And that’s just not true. They don’t, they don’t see it as a as an entire system and echo swear that they’re nothing more

Andy 38:00
And one other point to make is if you didn’t if you couldn’t do the time, then you shouldn’t have done the crime.

Ashley 38:07
How about we start right back to what you were talking about decreasing the school days, so that we don’t have to put any more money into prisons? How about we find other things, more resources to help people initially maybe drug treatment services, mental health services, economic stuff, a whole bunch of other stuff. Why don’t we start at the root of the problem, and giving kids less time get in trouble might be one of them as well. So I’m a little bit baffled as you are. But it’s, I I used to feel that way. I don’t feel that way about if you can’t do the crime, or you can’t do the time don’t do the crime because I think that there are so many other factors at play. It’s just not a simple explanation like that.

Larry 38:53
So I just, I just did Wikipedia on Georgia diagnostic classification system. It was opened in 1968, which was Consistent with my memory and renovated last 1998, which is a quite some time back in 1998. I don’t know what extent the renovation is. But Andy, if you’ve been there you might use describe it as I thought it existed it it’s a it’s not a it’s not a direct supervision facility. It’s

Andy 39:18
an eight, it was not a club paradise either that I promise. And so and also it had very poor climate control.

Larry 39:26
Well, the first of all, when they were building that in 1968, they wouldn’t have been trying to maximize comfort. And then there was a check systems and all those systems would be very, very old, in terms of about non existent compared to how they would help how if you were trying to design one today in terms of energy management and how you would be able to present built today, unless they have the Texas and Florida model where you try to roast them out and kill them from health

Andy 39:56
where the RPO model where you rest in that right

Larry 39:59
but But But if you if you if you build a prison today, theoretically, the climate control is far better. And that’s not a complaint we get a lot in our about our prisons, although it’s pretty hot here in parts of the state. But we don’t get a lot of complaining about about the climate about. We don’t try to roast the prisoners. That’s not one of the things that we fail that here but but there are plenty of other failures we have that’s not one of them.

Ashley 40:22
Now we freeze them out here.

Andy 40:25
I’ve experienced that too. I don’t want to diminish the impact of this event. Is there anything else before we continue on?

Larry 40:32
Well, I hope that if there’s any chance of a family member out there that might have listened to this, or find out about this, that at least we haven’t forgotten,

Ashley 40:43
and that we care

Larry 40:44
that this happened. And we and we will never know what some of these young men could have grown up to be. When I say young men, they’re in their 20s which means that they had 4050 years of life ahead of them. And those that were serving small, relatively minor crimes. We don’t know if they would have turned their life around. We don’t know customer they never got the chance.

Unknown Speaker 41:04
Exactly.

Andy 41:06
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast@gmail.com you can call or text a ransom message to 74722744771 to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies 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.

Larry 41:53
You make it possible for reforming our criminal justice system. Too many people are locked up and American

Andy 41:59
the next Articles are related to an individual named rafail ruis, who served 35 years and then was exonerated because of DNA evidence that was finally tested. And so I think, Larry, that this goes near and dear to your heart about the whole due process process. And I, in reading the information that the DNA testing that we are able to do now, like on a whim that you see all glitzy on TV shows these days was just coming into being used. But the way that they described that the police sort of pressured the victim to like point at a door like that’s where the guy lived, and they got a guy who looked vaguely similar, and they almost like coerced her into accusing this guy of doing it, and he’s denying it, obviously and the internet denies it denies it dies, it gets out of prison. And then in the end, he exonerate him for for the DNA evidence.

Larry 43:00
I think that’s more of a of an ashy one. But I, I know that as a general rule that wants a conviction has been had the burden shifts in terms of who has to prove what and doing convictions is extremely difficult. Only those who have gone to trial actually really have a have a prayer of a chance those have done please have virtually no chance. And I said virtually not absolutely. But But convictions are defended by every state, whether it be Arkansas, whether it be Florida, whether it be to Mexico, and oftentimes they will do everything they can to thwart the entry of evidence that would exonerate them. And since I’ve never been a prosecutor, I can’t speak to why they do that. I’m guessing that it’s because of fidelity. They don’t want to constantly be spending their time on old cases. But we’ve got a federal prosecutor, former prosecutor here so we can hear their perspective on why they strive so hard burn the midnight oil to keep a conviction. And and whether or not it was whether it was the right conviction or the right person. Because again, I make the same analogy I make to the police about the police wanting the bad one. If we’ve got a conviction, that’s doubtful that that person did it. If the prosecutor has the remotest amount of, of ethics, it seems like to me you would want the guilty person to come in, and you’d want the innocent person to go out because is the guilty person is still out there roaming the streets, you haven’t given that victim justice, because that that perpetrator is potentially going to repeat or has been repeating, so I don’t understand it at all. Anyway, let’s hear the prosecutors explanation.

Ashley 44:44
So I think it actually goes more along the lines of I don’t want to simplify it and say ego but let’s start with that. So you have prosecutors who, when they pick on a case, in theory or not, so post to try it or do anything else unless they believe that justice is being done. Now let’s break that that that down because what it really means in your average prosecutors, not all prosecutors just like law enforcement and everything else. There’s good ones, there’s bad ones. But in your average prosecutor when they go to try a case, the only way that they’re viewing the evidence is as if the person is guilty. So everything that they’re looking at, they see it as supporting the guilt, to trying to go back and appeal something and point out how it didn’t support the guilt is counterintuitive to most prosecutors, they look at it and go, No, that shows they were guilty and they don’t look at it from any other direction. The other thing is that once they actually convict someone, instead of wanting to get the person off on an appeal or cooperate with it, a lot of them take it personally that they did something possibly unethical by convicting somebody If in fact the appeal is overturned on various grounds, and they take it very, very personally, judges take it personally when they’re overturned on appeals, instead of going, Okay, this is an opportunity for me to learn an opportunity for me to look at this from a different light. They, they go all the way down in flames, if they have to maintaining the person was guilty, and the courts got it wrong. And I viewed that firsthand from both sides of the law.

Andy 46:27
It seems that they should lose sleep over putting an innocent person behind bars, more so than lose sleep over Oh crap, I got it wrong, they’re going to overturn me and make me look foolish.

Ashley 46:39
see most of the prosecutors that I know and not all of them again and me in particular, believe that as you’re going through the evidence before you ever get to trial, you’re not going to hit a stage where you’re going to put somebody on trial for something they didn’t do, unless you believe it strongly, and there’s evidence to support it. So once you get the trial stage, everything in your brain is going towards their guilty. And there’s no more I believe they’re innocent at all, because that should have gone off the table by the time you charge the case. And I think that’s the way most of them view it, what they’re not taking into consideration and you see this time in and time again, where there’s political pressure to prosecute somebody that maybe didn’t do it, or like you see a mysteries case where they’re like, Oh, we got to get a conviction at any cost. That is just bad prosecution. It is not upholding justice. It is not upholding the constitution and prosecutors have a duty, as I’ve said before, to do justice, not get convictions. They represent the community. They also represent the rights of the accused and that is what the prosecutor is supposed to do if they’re doing their job ethically.

Andy 47:48
Let me play a quick clip real quick that I that I pulled something

Unknown Speaker 47:51
I saw a quote that I loved a lot. A judge Blackstone from way back said I would rather 10 guilty people escape than one Some persons suffer.

Andy 48:01
Yeah. That seems to fly in the face of that.

Ashley 48:05
Right. I mean, there’s the entire system of due process and the Constitution, surrounding trial provisions and the rights of the accused are all centered around that belief better than many go free than one single innocent person get locked up for something they didn’t do. So this

Andy 48:22
is Mr. ruis. The The, the just the outlier out of all this, I think we can have I think we have fairly decent stats that maybe 10% of the people are actually I don’t want to say necessarily fully innocent, but we can go and say fully innocent, but they’re at least not as guilty as they were charged

Ashley 48:42
that the crime that they were charged with.

Andy 48:45
Right, right, right, right. And so is this just the complete outlier that this is the one that slipped through Meanwhile, the other 2 million people that are locked up they actually did it, but this has got slipped through the cracks somehow.

Ashley 48:57
I’m not sure what the percentage Is I’m trying to think if 10% is is around the range, but that the Innocence Project has uncovered a pretty decent amount through that DNA project. So we know that it’s not an outlier. We know this happens. And what I would hope is that the jurisdictions that this is happening in take a look at how they prosecute and their their training, and I don’t know that that’s what’s going to happen, given politics and human egos, but I would hope that they go you know, what, before we put somebody on trial for something, we better make sure we have DNA, we better make sure we have this we better make sure there’s no question in in the witness statements or anything else and maybe we wouldn’t arrive at a situation like Mr. Ruiz’s?

Larry 49:45
Well, I don’t I don’t know that I can add much to it. I I feel like that, that everything he says is correct, but there’s no mechanism to to to enforce that. It would be ideal if everybody operated the office. The way that my admired the ace of Boulder did, but they don’t. And and the reason why they don’t is because that’s not popular with the people, for Alex got hounded from office because he went to indict the ramseys. For the for the death of job today. He said we just don’t have the evidence. We just don’t have the evidence for it. You know, is that that so called ransom don’t ask him for $111,000 whatever his bonus was that year was not sufficient. And and and there are prosecutors who will indict and hope that the evidence materializes later. Because it satisfies the thirst for for I mean, we we have sensational recording, and there’s a mob mentality said soon someone’s going to be held accountable, and the DA are under enormous pressure. And I’m not I’m not being dismissive of that pressure. I mean, you look at the Atlanta child murders back in the 19 1881, Wayne Williams got prosecuted was at 29 3031 boys young man who had who had shown turned up dad and mostly the Chattahoochee rivers and surrounding areas. There was a little slight was under that’s the the A in Atlanta he was under enormous pressure to do something about that. But it takes a really principled person to say, No, sir. I am not going to charge this person until I have evidence sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and I’m the first person has to be convinced I have to be convinced that this is beyond a reasonable doubt. How do we how do we instill that value? Because it’s obviously not happening across the land.

Andy 51:40
Let me throw this at you from a different tackler. I believe there was a component of Obamacare that was not about physicians, scheduling tests and just prescribing stuff. There was something to be said for like a performance based outcome and that would be the reward for the doctors to like, hey, We’ve identified this most accurately and we’ve identified the most efficient form of treatment. That was a component of their if I recall correctly, couldn’t we try to figure out a framework to its to put this on the prosecutors like, it is not about I had a 50% increase in prosecutions from last term from that that other guy on the other side of the aisle. So you should vote for me again? Could we figure out a way to actually, I don’t know, maybe we can have a prosecutor oversight committee that could evaluate the effectiveness of our prosecutor.

Larry 52:29
Well, how would you How would you determine effectiveness? One way we measure? I

Andy 52:32
don’t know. I totally don’t know. That’s a but I’m just so if we had an independent council that could like go back through and evaluate whether they did their job effectively, then you would have a scorecard.

Larry 52:44
But what determines what’s a fact? It’s,

Unknown Speaker 52:47
I don’t know. It’s just a hypothetical.

Larry 52:49
Yeah. Well, if if we could figure out what constitutes an effective prosecutor, I think securing convictions that’s what we will actually consider effective today. Prosecutor goes out and tells you that that they, they’d like to throw around their statistics. But I took the job, though, was a backlog of 472 unindicted felony cases. And I’ve whittled it down. And we’ve taken care of this backlog, and blah, blah, blah. That’s what they run off. So would you also separate the people from the decision making? What would we would we conclude that the people that vote for da XORed are sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of a day’s job or prosecutors job is to seek justice and protect the rights of the accused? The average person doesn’t understand that they don’t understand that special rule for professional conduct that a prosecutor has it’s above and beyond a normal attorney. So how would we how would we deal with the with with with the, with the people component?

Andy 53:47
I don’t know. And I was and as you were saying, all of that, I’m thinking over to the progressive prosecutors that we have now like the lyric brazzers and they are getting tomatoes thrown at them left and right for going back and finding people that that wrongly convicted and letting them go. I mean, they’re getting beat down for doing what we are describing here. Now.

Ashley 54:07
They are unless that another nuance to that too, because Sorry, can tell you I’m living this firsthand to where the the elected da is the elected Attorney General’s. When a case gets a lot of media attention, and it’s sensationalize. They’re under tremendous pressure to show that they’re being tough on crime and everything else. And they will indict things or press things forward, knowing that they’re going to lose it at some point. But then they can point the finger at the judges and say, well, we did what we were supposed to do, but the judges failed you and the judges who are elected officials are like, well, the prosecutor didn’t break the charges, right? Or there’s this, this and this and there’s all this finger pointing when at the end of the day, if everybody would just take a look in the mirror and do what’s right. Without any type of oversight. Maybe we could conduct problem but That’s, that’s just ideal utopic vision.

Larry 55:06
And I don’t have huddle. I don’t have the answers either. You know, I brought a boy Williamson, somewhere listeners will have no idea doubtless a series of murders in Atlanta in the early 1980s. The the federal debt, the national attention and even the federal government was breathing down Lewis lightens neck and flattens credit. He was stood that pressure did not charge just for the sake of charging when they finally did charge white Williams who was ultimately convicted, and he sits in the state prison at Jackson to this very day proclaiming his innocence. But when they charge slight when the site did charge Williams, he was reluctant about doing it because they were relying on what they call fiber evidence and those days we didn’t have DNA we had. We had we had, we would, we had some carpet fiber, and the five Baphomet carpet had been analyzed. Of course it’s no telling how many thousands of homes that same barber was in but the the fiber that was that one of the kids had been wrapped up in that that carpet fiber match what had been taken out of Williams his home in a search warrant. So they had they had that as one link the puzzle that but but he was he he maintained his innocence that was convicted he still maintains his innocence that he will die Jackson maintaining his innocence because his peels are exhausted. And barring some miracle, I mean, whether he’s guilty or not, he’ll die pretty tragic. I don’t like it.

Andy 56:38
I almost the only other one thing that I wanted to bring up so this guy was exonerated from finally getting some DNA evidence tested. I hear programs all the time about the bajillions pick, pick whatever number that is very large of all the rape kit, rape kits that continue to go untested, that everyone is all like man, we Need to get these things tested so we can find the guy that did it. But it could also potentially exonerate people at the same time. I hadn’t thought about that until this particular article came up.

Ashley 57:10
I didn’t actually think about it that way either because everybody is pressing and there’s a lot of fuss being made here in New Mexico as well about the backlog of rape kits that go years and years and years. And I didn’t think about the exoneration factor. I thought about it from the other perspective, because that’s the way that the public is, too. So that’s, that’s actually interesting, that, that it could it could be exonerating people. However, the only thing I would say in terms of that, as the more recent cases probably didn’t press forward without the DNA back in the wind Gilbert days and, and the days of Mr. Ruiz and everything, they didn’t have the DNA testing that we do now. Now. It’s kind of the norm not to proceed unless you have DNA.

Andy 57:58
We too, I felt They’re like in Chicago, there’s some, like 20,000 rape kits that just sit in a vault. Are you saying that you believe that those are from decades old that they’re not current ish?

Ashley 58:10
Oh, yes, the ones here. They’re some of the rate backlog is. I think they’re also like 20 or 40,000. And Larry may have the number off the top of his head because it’s come up at the

Unknown Speaker 58:21
legislature.

Ashley 58:22
But those are 10 to 20 years old as well.

Unknown Speaker 58:26
There’s not more recent ish, or Well,

Larry 58:30
yeah, there can be recent at the batch. But what happened was that we, the science developed quicker or faster than the funding developed to carry it out. When you’re when you’re building budgets. This is a complicated thing that people don’t understand. So when you’re when you’re building budgets for law enforcement, when something new comes along, that’s not in your existing budget, which is the blueprint that you start from you have X number of personnel, you have X, X amount for offices, X amount for blah, blah, blah. But these rape kits This was relatively They knew in terms of what all they can do with the with the testing, and the forensics are not cheap. So a police agency of a small police agency may not even have any option of turning it over to the state. Well, the state has hasn’t funded because again, we hate taxes so much. So the state of the state, the state had not built in the funding for the testing for these kids. So you sent them up to the state lab, say here’s a, here’s a Clovis PD and you don’t have it, you don’t have a lab, you can’t do all that. So you, you, you send your stuff up to the department, public safety and Santa Fe, and all the other agencies are sending out all these gobs of forensic evidence, and you have to forensic technicians because that’s all you had funded your budget, and you’ve got more than what to do over the next 20 years. And that’s how that’s how the backlog builds up. And it’s one of those things it’s not glitzy to talk about it until it because you have to say again, where do we find the Funds we’ve got to, we’ve got to find funding and everybody’s got their Paul that I wish people would understand in a budgetary cycle. It’s a state legislature, just like in the National Congress, there’s all these paws out saying, I need, I need, I need, I need I need. You’ve got these people that are having to make these priority choices to give funding and funding just didn’t keep up. And that’s how we ended up having this backlog. And there’ll be the cynics out there that will say, Yeah, because they were taken too many trips to Hawaii and and all these political jackets, and they should have spent the money on that. And that’s fine. You’re entitled that opinion. But the reality is that the funding just didn’t keep pace. So now we’re going back and having to backfill, and particularly last 10 years after we went into recession away Do not New Mexico’s funding stayed relatively flat for about 10, almost 10 years, until we’ve had the resurgent center and an oil and gas production. 10 we’ve we’ve we’ve gotten some revenue now the last couple of years. So we can actually go back and fill in some of these holes, but funding has been a problem. Gotcha.

Andy 1:01:05
Gotcha. Well, let’s uh, let’s let’s circle back because I accidentally skipped something. What is HP 43 and Hb 237. What kind of crazy hieroglyphics code are you sending me?

Larry 1:01:18
Well, House Bill 43. That was a piece of legislation that was introduced into the session pre filed in our state legislature here to close the out of state loophole for those who we don’t have a catch all provision and in Mexico law, so everybody who wants to pack up, come to New Mexico, come while you can because in order to be required to register, you have to have an equivalent offense to one of those offenses on our list. And our list is not as long as some states lists. We we have longer list and I’d like to go to hell but it’s not nearly as long as a lot of other states are finance has our list of things. This has 12 enumerated offense, fences, or their attempts to commit those offenses. You can look at other states where they have 2030. Sometimes more offenses, but but in order to be required to register, you have to have an offense that’s equivalent. Well, how would you figure out if it’s equivalent? Well, there has to be some sort of determination made. And that’s an expensive process. And the state just hasn’t bothered to make those determinations. So we finally filed a lawsuit. That was our first Liberty justice state lawsuit against registration was to challenge that. We’ve got hundreds of people here who have not undergone any type of process that are trying to throw equipment, and probably most of them are, but they haven’t received a due process. So we’re trying to establish due process, well, this was the answer. Health Bill 43 was the answer. We’ll just we’ll just gut that and just say that they have to register it in Mexico, if they have to register for it any other state? Well, that is an option that we considered that they would do with When we filed a lawsuit, we were smart enough to figure that out to that would be an answer. We were confident enough that we thought we could work the legislative process and keep that from becoming a law because that’s a misguided policy. So that was what House Bill 43 was it it was in its first committee to estate. And Ashley and I went out. And we both testified and spoke. And Ashley will tell you is her first experience in the Capitol and how much how thrilled she wants to be there and how and how enlightening it was. But at the end of the debate about health Bill 43. Unlike most of the states to go into the deep bowels somewhere and hold a hearing, a cloaked in secrecy in the middle of the night, we actually have a vote after the after they’ve taken public comment and after they’ve actually the lawmakers have debated amongst themselves. And after all, the debate was had on House Bill 43, which was designed to build our lawsuit and they use the Jeffrey Epstein hoopla that Jeffrey on the ranch here in New Mexico and he was told he didn’t Register because his prostitution offense in Florida is not equivalent anything into Mexico. So they tried to sensationalize that. We kept their bill from moving forward. We kept their bill from getting a do pass recommendation. And I’m very proud of that. And even though I’m proud of it, and we patted ourselves on the back, and we sent out an email blast to our supporters, we received a critical email back saying, Oh, really? Did you people do that? Why don’t you be more transparent? Why don’t you tell us how you did it? Let’s see exactly what you did. I found that email very troubling because we can’t even tell everybody everything we did. Because we wouldn’t be able to do what we do. If everybody knew how, how we do what we do. So we kind of like Rumsfeld said that. There’s the What was it that own unknowns and other things? We don’t know. We don’t know. Yeah, there’s four of them. Yeah, some of the things we do. We cannot publicly tell people what we do. Because if we did, we would not be able to do them. But the proof of the pudding should be in the tasting. Tell me how many states, I responded back in an email to tell the guy said, Well, let me just tell you this. We had a sensational bill promoted by the boogeyman of Jeffrey Epstein. And pretty high profile, just very few people have heard of Jeffrey Epstein. And we stopped their Epstein boogie man from carrying the day and you name it the other state. I said, Tell me about Pennsylvania. What Sandusky did you stop anything and Pennsylvania. And I went through a litany of states I said, Tell me did you stop Dennis haftar from from eradicated the statue of limitations after all the sensationalism. Did you stop the changes that happened in Michigan after Dr. Larry Nasser? No, you did. So rather than being so critical, important to know, how did we do it and prove that you did it? Why wouldn’t you just say thank you. Congratulations. That’s enough ranting. Go ahead, Ashley.

Ashley 1:06:04
Now that was pretty close to my ranting. So we went up there. It was super, super exciting for me, Larry, like I said, as an old had that that but I had never actually been up to the Capitol and not Cassidy and we did. And we watched them table it. We watched the debate, despite the fact that there was a disingenuous behavior to quote leiria ism from one of the members of the committee, minimizing the equivalency portion of that bill and it, it was really good. It did not make it out of committee, however, dumped dumped on. What they did was now built to 37, which Larry and I are actively working on in which we’ve spent the better part of the weekend working on right, Larry?

Larry 1:06:47
That’s correct. We got more to go. we’re analyzing it and putting it analysis for the committee, upon request of the committee analyst, by the way, and I won’t say which committee but we were requested to provide Analysis they’re they’re very impressed with the work that we’ve done. Correct riddle

Andy 1:07:04
riddle me this, sir, if you would. I’m trying to think it was three ish episodes where you said if you are going to support bills, you are in the train boosting business. But if you’re going there to stop something here in the train wrecking business, which side of the equation were you on here?

Larry 1:07:20
Where the wrecking business? We’re in the restaurant business.

Andy 1:07:23
Right? And again, I know that you’re not going to divulge a bunch of details but you You gave me some details. Can you like how many votes and how did you get like headed like the train know how to Pacific sky

Larry 1:07:40
is getting getting getting very, very specific. But the bottom line was they needed three votes and they could not get to the magic number they needed to pass that’s that’s what I wanted to say.

Andy 1:07:51
I didn’t I didn’t want I didn’t want to get to Pacific.

Larry 1:07:55
It’s It’s It’s a numbers game. And like I say being the We actually, unlike all the other states I’ve traveled to, we actually vote at the end of the bill. And I emphasize this because none of the rest of them do that. They actually have a hearing, sometimes they’re open, but they’re two weeks later, and you’ve already forgotten about it. And the emotions are not there. And they’re not facing the people that just spoke to them. And they they do it as far as I’m concerned, it’s a cowardly way to do it. But we actually have the debate after the public has spoken. The lawmakers debate amongst themselves, and then there’s a motion bait, and they could not get the three votes to put two or five member committee they could not round up three votes. And and they would have had three votes that said one of the republicans who would normally would have been in favor of it, she ducked out, because she had a she had a disagreement in terms of how they were conducted the process and I actually agree with her about her disagreement. She was right, that they they should not have heard that bill because it had not been. It had not been on the calendar for a full 24 hours in its amended fashion. Because I had substituted what for what had been introduced to two committee substitutes. And that did give us time we were not able in the public to actually see what they were voting on. Because that wasn’t to build that we had analyzed, they had been changes of a significant nature. And this republican was irritated because they weren’t following the rules. And she was correct about that. So she ducked out, and that kept him from getting she never would have been a do pass, but she ducked out, they couldn’t get to their five. There’s three of five.

Andy 1:09:26
Someone in chat who shall remain nameless, remain nameless, has said you called her state cowardly.

Larry 1:09:32
I did it do. I did do that. Yes, that’s, that’s. That’s the way they do it in Nebraska. That’s the way they do it in Maryland. They do it that way all over the country. I have not met a state where they actually had the courage to vote while the people are there.

Andy 1:09:47
And is that written into your constitution, or is that Oh, no, no, like,

Larry 1:09:51
No, it’s just or whatever. It’s just the way they do it. They move a bill. It kind of seems it seems like a no brainer. You schedule a bill. To be heard, and you hear the bill, and the people have traveled great distances now in Maryland, you it’s not quite as great a distance. But here, it’s a great distance. I mean, Maryland, so much smaller geographic state, but you travel a great distance and you take time off work, and you put your energy and your soul into it. And you want to know what they’re going to do, but they don’t do anything. Right. They say thank you for coming, folks. Stay tuned, we’ll decide something at some point. And we’ll put it on the website.

Andy 1:10:27
Interesting. And and, and new. Mexico’s the only one that you know, that does it that way so far

Larry 1:10:32
now. Otherwise, all the listeners, we’ve got someone who’s post, bit on the capital, if they vote on a piece of legislation and committee after the committee has debated it, please let me know. So I can add you to the states that are not powerful. But But I don’t know if a state we can ask Georgia just had a hearing on the GPS bill last week. As far as I know, they didn’t vote on it during the committee with the people watching them.

Andy 1:10:58
And that next session, could they just vote to change the rules. And then they would do it at a later date to do the vote, or was it enshrined somewhere more more permanent?

Larry 1:11:07
I think ours is mostly just tradition. committees, just it’s part of how they’ve always done it. You’re here bill and you make a decision.

Andy 1:11:16
And I’m not I’m not trying to bring up the impeachment stuff. But all through this, they were like, okay, so they’re going to they’re going to have a hearing about whether they’re going to have witnesses. And that was them establishing the rules for how the whole process was going to go through there on the spot. They could have had different rules. So it’s not it’s not a constitutional thing at the state level that they’ve made these things, no place. These are just your house and senate rules at your at the at the House or Senate leaders discretion to change the rules, or the members

Larry 1:11:47
Next, I’m not sure I did. It’s always been that way since I’ve been here. Even the two years that the two years since I’ve been in the state, the Republicans control the house for two years from 15 years 1516. They didn’t even attempt to change that now. They’re reading named some of the committee’s, and they changed, having four sessions twice a day versus once a day, they did some changes, which was their prerogative as a majority party to do that, because they had the numbers, but they didn’t change this long standing tradition of making a decision after a bill. I’m so spoiled. I find it totally discombobulated to go travel and sit and wait in a hot room, fanning yourself and waiting for 37 people to testify. And at the end of the day, not knowing a damn thing that you’re gonna have to stay tuned and watch the website and they’ll be reported someday they’ll be a committee report and if you’re lucky enough to find that you’ll get to know what they did. I find that so objectionable.

Andy 1:12:35
Now, is there an advantage on the other side, though, that if they decide to not vote that they could could just sort of disappear or are they required to then vote in these other

Larry 1:12:45
state? No, it there’s, there’s some advantages. It’s some things disappeared, disappeared. They they’re forgotten about. But I would rather I would rather have the vote that there’s disadvantages advantages I can see, but I’d rather have to vote. I know what I’m going to do next. If this bill is going to move, I need to know it because I’ve got work today.

Andy 1:13:02
You sound a little bit passionate about that particular subject, by the way,

Larry 1:13:06
yeah, I’ve got work to do, I need to know what where this thing is going. And if I it takes me two weeks to figure out where it’s going, I don’t know where to where to start applying pressure, and where to put the resources if I don’t know what’s happening. So I have to watch website to the middle of the night until they find the decide to have their meeting in their cloakroom and vote on it. And by the way, I’ve lost a lot of valuable time that I could have been doing work sabotage, because most of the time you’re going to be in the sabotage business, you’re not going to be in the passing business, where you’re going to be in the blocking business.

Andy 1:13:36
It was that just 43 or that also, what what

Larry 1:13:39
foot through 37 we’re still analyzing at it. So there’s really not much to report is scheduled for hearing in the same committee, and our hope is that we can rack it again, I’m not going to be overly confident there are factors that I can’t talk about. That will make it more difficult to wreck but that doesn’t mean that we I believe will be successful and keeping it from making it to the finish line but But it may not be is as easy as it was on 43 alrighty then I got my right

Andy 1:14:09
well let’s move over to God I don’t even know what the mascot of this state is to be honest with you that’s where I’m from Prince George’s County Maryland police shooting. I love it when when the when the police gun people down for no apparent reason for not for not a justified reason. I’m being very facetious with that a police corporal in Maryland was charged with second degree murder on Tuesday and the fatal shooting with suspect who had been handcuffed in the front passenger seat of patrol car the previous night. Why Why do we let cops kill people when they’re handcuffed? I still am baffled by this whole thing all the time.

Larry 1:14:43
Well, I don’t think we’re letting them do it. I think you read the article he’s been charged

Andy 1:14:47
the questions in so that would be the sort of like the weird part of this is that somebody is actually getting charged with something.

Larry 1:14:52
Well, that’s the point it’s gonna make whether be convicted, convicted, a police officer is very, very difficult. Actually can remember very Well, that when, when john Boyd was shot off the side of the mountain when he was trying to surrender a few years back, and he was coming down peacefully, when what the offer sort of blew him to death at Paul on camera that our district, former district attorney Kerry Brandenburg decided that she was going to try to cop so you could take the story from there. How did that work out from his Brandenburg?

Ashley 1:15:21
It was horrible for her career. And the officer stopped reporting crimes to her there. It turned into utter chaos. I was still in Georgia when that actually happened. And there were people calling me from here asking me if I would come out here. Yeah, that’s how bad it got.

Larry 1:15:38
Shame, shame and fear for her safety. She said that she was afraid for her safety.

Ashley 1:15:42
Yes, they they harassed her to no end because she went after law enforcement and having been in that position before for excessive force cases or anything else like that I can legally understand the I don’t think you can explain what happened. When the lawmakers turn against you like not, but that goes right back, that’s actually one of the turning points for law enforcement oversight committees. And that may be along the same lines is what we’ve been talking about.

Andy 1:16:11
I’m just pulling up a killings by the police by country. The the second country on the list, What year is this from? I don’t see what year this is from, but we have 120.5 per 100 residents. The country of Yemen has 52.8 Montenegro, Serbia, it’s like there’s a lot of killings in the set of states by the factor of almost three before you get to second place position.

Larry 1:16:36
Well, I’ve said that I didn’t have the statistics and I think you met about 400,000 per hundred but but yeah, yeah, but but the the the statistics on officer deaths have been have been dropping. It was far more dangerous to be a police officer in the 1970s and is today, more police were killed it killed on a smaller population base by triple compared to what get killed. Today, the opposite trend has been in place for police killings. Now this is despite the fact that we have so many non lethal means that we didn’t have in the 1970s when you looked at a police officer and the weaponry they were carrying in the 1970s they had that people call the various pejorative terms but they had the nightstick and they had their service revolve and that was pretty much about yet so you either going to use your fist you’re gonna use that stick that club Are you going to use your revolver

Andy 1:17:29
that I’ve had is the one little bullet in his pocket. Nowadays the

Larry 1:17:33
the average police officers loaded with options you know from from from from gaseous things that they can discharge it today and carry and those days with a taser to two beanbag rounds, two different Donnelly, they have all these non lethal options available to them. But yet the lethality of police conduct has gone through the roof since the 1970s. Now, explain that one to me. How is it? That is we’ve introduced more and more non lethal Options into their arsenal, that more and more people are getting killed at the hands of the police.

Andy 1:18:06
I’m going to lay out one that I think is going to be a very radical idea. They’re, they’re not using those methods, da.

Larry 1:18:13
I never considered that. And why are they Why are they using those methods? What are our standard operating procedures? Why are we not requiring the use of those methods? Because they seem to be quite happy you see us tasers employed all the time. You see tasers be used on people or questionable circumstances. So why are they not usually the non lethal means more often? Why did they not use Ashley? Why did they use the non lethal means on john Boyd? Why the man who was walking down to surrender? Why did they need to fire it? He’ll tell me that. Of course you can’t tell me because it’s a rhetorical question but why?

Ashley 1:18:51
Because they’re trained to shoot to kill.

Andy 1:18:56
I don’t I don’t even remember reading with this individual was even charged. With at the time, it just but it doesn’t seem that if he was being just detained, His hands were cuffed behind his back. Yeah, if your hands are cuffed behind your back, you really have very limited means of assaulting the officer to make him feel like his life is in danger unless you’re some sort of Superman and you can just like Spread your arms apart and break the cuff.

Larry 1:19:21
Well, there you go again, Andy, you know, there are people who have very flexible joints, and they can slip those cuffs under their feet, and they can take them off at will and then they can we, you it’s your people have your mindset that’s causing this country to be in peril that it said right now, putting these officers in jeopardy, of course they could they could get out of those handcuffs. And I being a smart aleck here, but the average person’s handcuffed behind their back is variable threat. So what he did to justify that I would be I’d be curious to know as well because if he was truly in handcuffs, and was Shot fatally. I can’t imagine what you’d be doing that would justify a discharge of a fatal round.

Andy 1:20:06
And just to fill in the gap there if you have anything else, actually, but he’s the father of two. And so they just just took away the dead. Gotta love it. It’s awful.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:17
It’s awful. It’s called a perp walk.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:20
It’s one of the most offensive parts of the criminal justice system.

Andy 1:20:25
We have an article that comes from Forbes magazine talking about perp walks that the problem, one of the initial steps that we should take in criminal justice reform needs to be fair media coverage. And you can certainly find all kinds of clips of Jeffrey Epstein of Bill Cosby of Harvey Weinstein and the list just goes on and on. And it it already colors, the the the minds of the citizenry of what these who these people are, and obviously if they’re on TV being charged with a crime that they are guilty.

Larry 1:20:57
Well, I think I would start by saying Forbes It’s not known to be a liberal magazine. Everybody knows origin of Forbes. It’s not, it’s not one of those liberal leaning magazines. So if Forbes has recognize that there’s a problem with the purple box, that’s a step in the right direction. But where this thing always breaks down, is the same discussion we have about the bias media forums will never draw connect the dots to the next part of it is that the reason why this is done is because it’s allowed. It is permitted in a free society and no way we could stop these perk box would be if the big old bad government came in and said, as a matter of protection of the accused, you can’t do that. And then the press would holler and hell that this is a violation of their first amendment rights. And I would be curious if we were trying to because the obviously the press cannot suppress The urges to be the first with a story and to respond to a tipster to a hot tip from from from law enforcement. So since they can’t stop on their own volition, the only way to stop them but but be with some type of governmental intervention. So I wonder if Forbes would be willing to say that as a member of the press. And although we do believe in the press, we would encourage governmental intervention to stop us from doing what we can’t stop ourselves from doing I wonder if they would take that next step in this, because that would be their most admirable story that they could possibly run is to say, we were wrong. We can’t contain ourselves, and we need the big, bad government to stop us would be delighted to see Forbes move to that level of recognition that there’s a problem. And I bet I’ll be waiting a long time to hear that call for government intervention.

Andy 1:22:55
And I’m thinking to the 911 stuff, were just like repeatedly all day. CNN Fox everybody was was constantly replaying the towers falling and eventually they said, Hey, this is too traumatic. Maybe we should stop showing it. I realized it’s not a terribly great comparison but they at least decided to stop showing it so this would be along the same lines of if you want someone to get something of a fair trial, you don’t have their their picture plastered all over the newspapers and the television, showing them walking out looking all disheveled, like a you know, they kept like a coat over their wrist because they don’t want people to see them in handcuffs. They’re trying to save face somehow. But this seems that it would go directly contrary to innocent until proven guilty.

Larry 1:23:36
Well, it does. But But the point I’m making is the press what how, if anybody dared to propose such a prohibition, they would hell that it’s violates their first amendment right. To inform the public. These people have been charged and the public has a right to know who they are, and everything about them that we can dig up and Forbes with all the sudden, all dead. They recognize they in the story, they said that that people who have been cleared, can never clear what’s out there about them. They can’t do that they recognize that, but I promise you they will. It’s like the people who How about. We’ve got folks who constantly say the system’s not fair because people who don’t have money, don’t get representation. I say, Okay, well, let’s work through this. Let’s look for a solution. Do you want to put more money into indigent defense, which may be a collection of additional assessments on someone? Because we need the pot of money that’s available for me too fast to grow? They say no. I said, Well, do you want to limit what people who have money can spend on their own defense? Because that would be a way of equalizing and of course, I’m not spouting either of those options. I’m just asking them because they’re the ones moaning about how bad it is. And they say no, I say okay, well, we’ve just gone through a couple of options and So says the things that come to my mind that we could do. What is your solution? Do you want to commandeer the services of private attorneys and say that we will confiscate and require you to represent them and not become one? Oh, we can’t do that. I say, Okay, well, then what can we do? And I never get an answer. I get crickets. Mr. Forbes, what can we do to cure this? Because we agree with you. What can we do?

Andy 1:25:33
Absolutely. Ashley, anything, dad?

Ashley 1:25:36
No, everything that Larry just said is right on point in terms of every time there’s something passed or whatever. We talked about that small budget, and it’s like, well, are we going to put more research sources into indigent defense? Some states actually require lawyers contribute their time. It’s mandatory that they do indigent defense. I don’t know how they’re compensated. I don’t know. The state pays them per case or whatever or if they have to do it is like pro bono time. But I think most lawyers balk at that because they have to earn a living because they have to eat. But it does not solve the problem. I agree with Larry, there is no good answer. There. There needs to be a way to provide defenses for people but I’m not sure how we do it.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:22
At the end of the day, we’re about public safety. But when it comes to kids, public safety and rehabilitation are kind of inextricably linked.

Andy 1:26:30
Let’s move on to this article from the LA Times that California, the bastion of liberalism, this their offenders under 21 would automatically be tried as juveniles under California bill. Why? I mean, if they’re 18, man, I mean, even if they’re 15 and they do something heinous, shouldn’t we put them through the wringer and throw the entire book the entire bookshelf at them, instead of trying to hit them with kid gloves?

Larry 1:26:56
No, we should not and thankfully, our state doesn’t do that. We would not we would not be able to match this if this passes in California, I don’t think this will pass. But raising the age we’ve we’ve all recognized that the brain development hasn’t stopped it it even at 21. So this is coming out of a legislator from Berkeley, I have by Dubey acid is going to pass. California has made tremendous strides already, in terms of improving the juvenile justice system and cutting down the number dramatically. People are in custody. And, and I’m, I’m doubtful that this is going to pass but at least someone had the courage to introduce it in it. And it’s To me, it’s recognizing that we should, we should look at rather, putting more and more younger people in front of adult courts, which is hard to do as a prosecutor Asher tell tell people how hard it is to put a juvenile and adult court in this state compared compared to a state like Georgia that you’re somewhat familiar with. Describe what you have to do if you want to try a juvenile. Listen on Here,

Ashley 1:28:01
you have to the burden of proof for trying to juvenile as an adult here is in measurable, it is very, very rarely done. good reason. Like I’m in total agreement that we shouldn’t be putting juveniles into prison, we shouldn’t be putting juveniles into even custody, we should try everything else. But to get a juvenile, even if they’ve committed, or they’re accused of murder, or even if they’re convicted of murder, and doing them as a serious youthful offender here is a high burden of proof as well as it should be. And I think it’s interesting because the age that they’re trying to raise it to is 21, which I believe there’s a bill here, I’m not sure where it’s at, in the legislature it of trying to raise the age to buy cigarettes to 21, because the age to buy alcohol is also 21. And it’s all based on the same premise that your brain like Larry says, has not stopped developing and we recognize that there isn’t some magic age at 18. So why is it that we’re concerned About not providing cigarettes and alcohol to somebody whose brain is developing, but we have no problem throwing them in prison when they can’t even formulate good concepts at that age either. So I think we should kind of line them all up. But I’m with Larry, I don’t think this bill is going to pass. I think it’s, it’s a great Dult I don’t think it’s going to pass.

Andy 1:29:20
Is there this there’s something to be said, Larry of introducing it just to sort of like, you know, Blaze the trail, and then it will maybe get tweaked or maybe you’ll just get introduced in a session or two from now and that you’re planting the seed and that will eventually grow to fruition?

Larry 1:29:36
Yes, there is something to be said about that. Normally, major reforms don’t occur on first attempt, it takes it takes years of work. This is going to generate some good discussion, hopefully, and hopefully within a period of time, says California does tend to lead the way on many things that they will successfully get this into statute and California and then we can We can say, Look, they’re doing a California, it would it would set the path for us. But we’ve we’ve already done a pretty decent job. I mean, I tell the Cody posted store over and over again. Because that’s an example of a 14 year old who all he did was kill three people, there’s families, but his mother and father and sister, and they could not they could not put him in adult court. He was sentenced to our juvenile system, and he was released at age 21. Now, we had a failure of our juvenile system with DMR Griego, who was sentenced, and I can’t even begin to comprehend how they’ve managed to undo his juvenile sentence. Because it was so appalling to me that when he went out with him, some number of days of reaching his 21st birthday when he should have been released, they filed an extraordinary motion and actually, if you can do a better job explaining it, but they kept nearby in custody, and they sentenced him as an adult after he had been waiting to get out of prison sentence a big center started under under the under the juvenile code. How did they do that?

Ashley 1:30:57
So essentially what they did is they went back on his behavior was exhibited while he was in custody. And when he hit the age of majority when they should release him, they actually found a way to keep him in and state that he was not amenable to treatment and that if release, he was not amenable to anything that they could do after he was 21. And so it was a sleight of hand is what it really was. You rarely see it happened but they worked night and day to keep that kid in based on his behavior while he was in custody. And I’ve seen that happen where what they do is a juvenile goes in on a relatively minor offense and they just keep them in until they reach age of either the age of majority which normally happens at 21. Or they do something like what they did with me and my Greg and Laurie and I were both shaking our heads at the way they did that because legally I’ve never seen that done in 25 years.

Larry 1:31:54
Well, I have not seen it done it and he I don’t think that when your sales on a juice Code there’s Is there a clause in there? And I’m truly not in my league here? Because I don’t I’ve never worked in this area. But is there a clause in there that allows you to reach back if the person they’re supposed to be I know the findings that you have to be amenable to that the status show they’re not amenable to any treatment anywhere in the state. But is there a respect clause, that if they were found to beatable, and they did not respond to treatment? Or they can, or they can undo that decision? Is that is that what they did with the event?

Ashley 1:32:25
That is what they did. It’s not technically in the juvenile code. What they did is they relied on the fact that they could show that he had been successful, successful that treatment and what they were actually going to do is bring him up on charges on stuff that occurred in the jail and instead they use that that as a kickstand to do the amenability thing, but technically amenability is supposed to happen when they’re first going into the system, or you can do it at the at the end of when they turn 18 to see if you can keep them until they’re 21 but courts lose jurisdiction. Pursuant to the genetic code when they hit 21 and that’s

Larry 1:33:03
what I thought he should have walked free when he turned 21. But he didn’t know

Unknown Speaker 1:33:07
they just shifted over to the adult system.

Larry 1:33:10
But But anyway, we have a pretty good system all in all here in the state. Some other states out there that the try very young people as adults, it’s it’s tragic because they’re nowhere near ready for that they can’t even assist their their attorneys in any meaningful way. But when you put them in an adult court, the process is different energy of a record. Actually, I’m sure you’ve been in juvenile court. But the process in terms of how a proceeding goes toward is completely different.

Ashley 1:33:39
It is dedication, it isn’t technically a prosecution, it’s a petition. The parents are actually parties to the petition. There’s there’s a lot of things, and it’s designed that way for a reason. It’s designed to keep juveniles out of the system needlessly. So yeah, normally, the judges that I’ve been in front of do everything they can to keep a juvenile but out of the system. But having seen it juvenile court, both in in District Court, and also their parole hearings and everything. It’s, it’s stunning to see some of the stuff that they do.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:13
But it’s an excellent question.

Andy 1:34:15
So patron David asked for Larry’s opinion. And actually since you are here, obviously, we will get your take on it too. And this is a What can you at least like what is this thing called?

Larry 1:34:28
This is the plaintiffs response to defendants motion to dismiss. And every time you file a lawsuit challenging any aspect of state behavior, there’s going to be a plethora of motions to dismiss. And this this is standard procedure. They say that, that there’s not a justiciable controversy that there’s no that you’re outside the statue of limitations, anything that can think of to say that why the case should go forward because it Can’t can’t go forward, you can’t win if the case is tossed on technical grounds. So this is a standard motion to dismiss. And this is the response to the state’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit that was filed in Florida, which I’m not familiar with. It’s a nicely done document. I went through it and highlighted some things I thought were relevant. Ashley, you can feel free to highlight more things. Will you should make this available in the show notes. But my reaction to it was that the attorneys did a great job. very thorough, and the judge could still dismiss it. But I would be I would be very surprised if all these claims go down on this motion, because they say we’re very thorough in their response. And they really, they really called out some hypocrisy and the state on behalf of the State. They What was that about the bricks of you and I both noticed that what about the bricks?

Ashley 1:35:54
That’s my favorite quote where they start out they equate the registry as to a backpack and The backpack started out relatively empty in light and you’re walking across the road. And with each step, you take the out of brick to it so that by the time you get to the other side of the road, the backpack is completely too heavy to carry. And that’s what the way that they’re analogizing. The registry and the way that it has just evolved since the 90s, where they just keep adding requirements and everything else. It is really, really well written. I love that, quote, I’m going to find a way to use that.

Larry 1:36:29
And we we noted some similarities between the defense’s that they’re asserting that they’re using the same similar defenses that are case which these are common tactics. It’s like I tell people when they’re waiting trial, and they get so upset, they say, I just can’t stand the stress of this anymore. And I said, Well, if they can ever bring you to trial, I can promise you one thing, you’ll never be convicted. Well, the same operates at our side, if they can keep us from ever getting to trial will never win. So that Their strategy is to make sure we don’t get our day in court.

Ashley 1:37:03
And the famous thing about that is the finger pointing that goes on in this and you see it anytime you have multiple agencies involved, we see it in the Illinois to where everybody’s like, Oh, it’s not my job to let people out after they’ve done their sentence. It’s not my job to come up with a plan. And they just point fingers and they’re doing it in this one, they’re doing it in ours. It is so common, like Larry said,

Andy 1:37:24
and this is this is in reference to like the Smith v Doe. That the registry now is just so much very different than what was established as being the standard back then that all of these various different things have been being challenged being questioned as as the efficacy of it all and the constitutionality. Isn’t that what this sort of is a hinting around?

Larry 1:37:48
That’s the one thing I slightly disagree with these attorneys all but but it’s only a slight disagreement. the efficacy of my view is not important. It’s important to us because we know the registry is not effective. We know that. But public policy doesn’t depend on something being effective. It depends on public supporting it in and not violating the Constitution. So therefore, they were just a little more on the efficacy of registration I would be if I were writing the brief myself, but what they did do is they pointed out the constant evolution and how many fundamental rights that infringes on they have the right to travel and so many so many things here that they’ve that they’ve thrown into this. And they’ve done a very good job of citing two cases around the country where the Spanish versus doe no longer applies because registries like what existed at the time, Smith versus doe was decided virtually don’t exist anywhere in the country anymore, with a couple of exceptions. And Smith versus doe actually didn’t say you can do anything you want to and there’s a quote in here. They said that That says versus doe doesn’t say that anything you can imagine that you want to do it be constitutional. In fact, it said just the opposite. It said, you can do this limited registry because it does not impose any disabilities or restraints. It does not impair your ability to travel and work where you want to. And that that’s so many courts have just said, Oh, the state says dismissed versus done was controlled and we’re not going to work. We say Smith versus doe was controlling the Supreme Court said registers, okay, the Supreme Court said a limited registry, that Alaska had it back in the 90s was okay. They did say all registers would be okay. And people people lose sight of that. I could design a constitutional registry if I wanted to, if someone asked me to, but it would be so benign that partly no one would appreciate having it all the people who’ve taught their defective since the registry, because for three constitutional you really could require anything of anybody. But just For the listeners out there on footnote number 10, the National Association for rational sex offense, sexual offense laws got cited and footnote 10. And the brief

Andy 1:40:11
and what did you What did they say what did those crackpot say

Larry 1:40:14
but there it is. It’s a case decided that the the the National Association for rational sex offenses of sex offense laws at L versus Stein. And that’s a case that they’re citing, but but it’s, it’s a well done document. So those of you out there who like to read, well done stuff, this would certainly be worth your read if you can concentrate for 27 pages.

Andy 1:40:39
And there’s there’s an expression you use and you use it all the freakin time and I can never like then regurgitate it back it’s disabilities and restraints is a very concise way of wording, all of the garbage that the registry brings on you.

Larry 1:40:55
That is correct. And that’s where you were the the distance vs Doh actually helps you because you can say, actually the Smith court didn’t say you can do anything. They said you could do what Alaska was doing, precisely because it didn’t impose disabilities or restraints. And there’s so many disabilities the restraints on this for escape. Florida thinks it’s the worst in the country. Alabama sixers is the worst in the country. Louisiana sixers is the worst in the country. Illinois thinks there’s worse in the country. But they’re all bad. That baby there. They’re all bad.

Andy 1:41:30
Well, cool. So I’m glad that someone pointed this out, like so this was from patron David not using last names on purpose. But thank you for bringing it to my and bringing to our attention first to give a cover.

Larry 1:41:43
It’s a great it’s a great document and we’ll see what now the state will be able to reply they will be able to reply to this because they’ve made a motion. The the plaintiffs have responded to the motion and then they get to reply and support and they’ll Delphi Brief and then the judge will rule on the motion to dismiss some or all the claims. That then that’s one will move forward. Excellent.

Andy 1:42:10
Ashley. So now that we’re going to wrap things up, do you have any final words, comments, complaints, concerns, anything that you would like to say before we head out of here?

Ashley 1:42:21
Larry, is there any other news? I mean, we had a busy, successful exciting week, I think, is there anything else we want to share?

Larry 1:42:29
Well, we’re gonna we got a busy week coming up this week. We got we got to 37 through 37. And you’re not gonna be at my side on Tuesday.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:39
You’re gonna have to carry the torch without me.

Larry 1:42:41
What can you do that Larry? I won’t be able to.

Andy 1:42:48
All right, well, thank you. As always, Ashley, it is always a delight and a pleasure to have you you make it a whole lot of fun when you are here and I greatly appreciate it.

Ashley 1:42:56
Well, thank you. This was a really good we had so much to Discuss and I’m looking forward to future discussions.

Andy 1:43:03
Cool. And Larry, as always, you are spectacular as well. And I’m going to run through the contact stuff. Follow us on Twitter, YouTube. All those places. The website is registering matters dot CEO, Larry, I know you love some voicemail messages and I still haven’t shut off the phone but it’s 747-227-4477. And the email address is registry matters cast at gmail. com and the best and our favorite way to support the podcast is https://patreon.com/registrymatters. Anything else there before we go?

Larry 1:43:36
And how many more weeks are we’re going to before we disconnect the phone?

Unknown Speaker 1:43:40
Probably infinity, infinity.

Larry 1:43:43
All right.

Andy 1:43:45
And with that, I say goodnight to everybody. And I hope you have a great weekend and I’ll talk to you soon. Good night

Unknown Speaker 1:43:50
night everybody. Night bye

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Listen to RM112: Sheriff Gary Long Files Doomed Appeal

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 112 of registry matters. Saturday night, Larry, we are like on time recording. This is something kind of new.

Larry 0:24
Well, it’s not that new we’ve been doing here for 100 plus episodes.

Andy 0:28
Yeah, but for the last, like almost since Thanksgiving, it’s been kind of like a crapshoot of whether would be Saturday, Friday, Sunday in the afternoon, evening Mondays, you know, it’s been all over the place with traveling and all the other complications of everything.

Larry 0:40
That is true. We’ve had some variation. Did we do it on time last week, or we’re off schedule last week?

Andy 0:46
I think we were on time, but that was like the first time and no one knew and we were still sort of rusty from being on time. But so since we were all out of whack and traveling and whatnot. I need you to tell me a story like the Larry philosophy of travel of Why you need to get a rental car with the license plate from the state that you’re going to be in predominantly, I guess is the way to word that.

Larry 1:07
Well, it’s a it’s long since known but not only that people who were out of state had I been qualified that people who are from other states, unless you live with that conglomeration of states that are very tiny, where it’s more common to be out of state. If you live in Texas, you have to travel a great distance to get out of Texas unless you happen to live on the border, but you have to travel a great distance. So these large geographical states they love, they love to raise revenue from people who from other states, because they don’t have a political voice per se. They don’t have connections they don’t have anybody to call. And so therefore, it by life experience has led me to understand that you have a greater chance of encountering law enforcement when you have an out of state license plate. So therefore, when I rent a car I try to get, if possible, get a car that has a place in the state, or I’m renting.

Andy 2:07
I see. So you expect that if you’re in, you know, Delaware, like, I mean, if you sneeze, you’re going to end up outside of Delaware. So it wouldn’t be that big of a deal to have a Maryland or jersey tag. If you were in Delaware.

Larry 2:19
That is correct.

Andy 2:20
Gotcha. But if you’re in pretty much all of the southern states, and then all the way through like west of Kansas, those are big enough states that you wouldn’t have. Generally you wouldn’t have people crossing through the state unless they were from out of town.

Larry 2:34
That is correct. If you’re a Georgia and the county of Houston and a new mexico plate with the land of enchantment rolls through that officers kind of say, Wow, don’t reckon I’ve seen one of them before.

Andy 2:47
Now when you said how often do you actually mean Houston?

Larry 2:49
Well, if you were in Texas, but not in Georgia,

Andy 2:52
that sounds so strange to me.

Larry 2:54
But, but that officer is going to go on as an actor on a quota system which law enforcement westernized society such thing. But talents are under great pressure to raise revenue to pay for public safety. And one of the ways they raise revenues through their Municipal Court functions, which are traffic citations, I mean, it’s full ordinances, the fines associated with Operation Municipal Court. So therefore, if I’m driving in a town and I’ve got an out of state plate, and I’m going 40, in a 25, there’s a lot greater chance that I’m going to draw the attention of the officer, and I’m not going to be able to talk my way out of it. Therefore, it’s nice to not draw the attention to start with.

Andy 3:36
Yeah, I totally agree with that. I hadn’t really considered that avenue but that makes a lot of sense. Plus, I don’t really ever rent a car, but that’s just me. All right, let’s hear it. Here’s how this is going to go tonight. We have breaking news for the first time in quite a while. Tell me what these three like hot button items are going to be for the evening before we go on a cover some news items

Larry 3:58
was a breaking news. So really only two of them what qualifies do is I’m one of the one only be breaking news. The the Butts County Sheriff which is Sheriff Gary Long, which we that NARSOL found a legal team put together and sued regarding Halloween signs that that case is on appeal to the 11th circuit and the the butts county legal team filed their appeal which we’re going to try to dive into a little bit later on. So that’s that’s the new story number one out of out of butts county which the county seat for those of you have who are not familiar with but is Jackson. Jackson is a familiar city you like that’d be the capital of Mississippi.

Andy 4:46
That but this is a different Jackson.

Larry 4:49
This is Jackson, Georgia. Right County, a county about 20,000 people and then central Georgia. Yes. The the next Item is going to be the, the notice that’s going to be soon delivered to Cobb County, which is like metro Atlanta suburban Northwest County, formerly represented by Congressman newt Gingrich and us house representatives. That says they are going to be put on notice about some other indented requirements, which we’ll get into what the requirements are inventing, to impose on people who are required to register. And then the third one we’re going to get into is the case out of Illinois. Murphy versus Russell. And we’ve talked about that some months back when the decision came down is where people who have served the totality of their prison sentence are not being released because the supervising authorities who have the responsibility to supervise their period of mandatory it’s called MSR mandatory supervised release, they don’t like where the person would be going. So therefore, they can tell you to hold them in prison. So a federal judge who had already Found the statute to be unconstitutional has has issued a permanent injunction and the case so we’ll be able to go into that a little bit. So that’s going to be our deep dives tonight.

Unknown Speaker 6:09
Man. That’s a lot of stuff to worry about. Larry, you’re loading this up tonight. That is why I am here.

Andy 6:16
Oh, I think that is my cue, isn’t it? That is totally my view. We could we could do that later. I got I got it. It’s right here.

Larry 6:26
That is why I am here.

Andy 6:30
That is why I am here. So then, I guess we should dive into some news articles before we go into those deep dives. I also then have a news clip that I need a little sound clip from an article the first article comes out of the washington post that talks about why innocent people take a plea and I just grabbed a little piece of it. And because you’ve talked about this whole bunch of times, but let me play this clip and we can talk about it for a minute.

Unknown Speaker 6:56
Does either council know of any reason that I should not accept the defendants guilty plea. You want to shout? Yes, Your Honor. This please the product of an exploitive system of devastating mandatory minimums and lopsided access to evidence. My client faced an impossible choice. He is saying what is necessary to avoid the possibility of losing his life to prison? Instead, you reply,

Andy 7:21
No, Your Honor. So you is have you have you ever been in the courtroom defending somebody even like as a helper person to counsel or is that you would you’ve just been on the office side of the defense? No, I’ve been I’ve been in a courtroom enough time sorting guilty place accepted. Yes. Okay. Why for real, how the process counts? We I figured that part but I you know, you were you were handed like would you rather have the your Achilles tendon chopped off? Or would you rather have, you know, like, you know, like, you’re given an impossible choice and you have a disturbingly minimal amount of information that you are trying to make the best decision possible out of that whole exchange. And that seems to be when you are all sort of plea deal from the prosecution, that it just everything is stacked against you. And there’s almost like no right answer, and you don’t have a lot of time to make a decision and you certainly don’t have enough information to make a decision.

Larry 8:17
I guess I would take some, some disagreement with the issue of the time. You should have all the time you need I said should because oftentimes people are in custody, and they haven’t had regular communication with their attorney. The case may have been pending for 910 12 months, maybe even more, but they’ve had such minimal contact with their attorney, that that it’s been difficult for them to go through the options and to have but but time I would take some some disagreement that you’ve got a lot of time but what happens his reality. The attorney shows up, you’ve been in custody. They holiday You over in shackles, and the plea is offered to you right there. The prosecutor makes it sound like it’s a really fantastic plea offer. And it really often is considering the alternatives that could flow to you if you were to go on trial. And if you were to be convicted, it often isn’t attractive, please. But it’s based on a stacked deck. And they gave you a limited amount of time. Sometimes they want you to decide right then or sometimes you’re given a matter of a few days. It’s it’s set for a pre trial conference that you’re there on pre trial and they say this, this offers on the table for 10 days because they have to make the trial date set. 45 days later, they have to have fake witness preparations to get people there particular from out of town. And they they do they do have all the all the cards, but thanks to our victims advocates, and the the desire to make it impossible for a person to actually have any presumptions anymore of innocence and Ada presumptions that due process. You go into this with, if you if you don’t play guilty, you’re not accepting responsibility. So particular in the federal system, you get hammered for avoidance of responsibility if you don’t plead guilty. So if that if that was a response to a federal plea, you don’t plead if you don’t plead guilty if you if you go to trial, you get jacked up on sentencing, because that was not acceptance of responsibility. Isn’t that a great thing? It’s,

Andy 10:26
it’s amazing. But I was just going to ask you, well, if you didn’t do anything wrong, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about you. You shouldn’t have to worry about a plea deal. You shouldn’t have to worry about taking it to trial that you’re not going to be found guilty, even if you do take it to trial because you didn’t do anything wrong. Right.

Larry 10:42
But wouldn’t it be nice if it were that simple, but it’s not a question. This is what what defendants get very upset about. It’s not a question of what whether you did or didn’t do anything wrong. It’s a question of what can they convict you off, and they look at you and they roll their eyes and they put practically tip They’re chairs over backwards when you tell them that it is not a question of whether or not you did anything wrong. It’s a question of whether they can convict you of what they’ve accused you of. So you’re rolling, you’re rolling your eyes also?

Andy 11:17
Absolutely. I’m just I’m thinking about in the context of one of the stories that we dropped about the person that’s getting out after 43 years. And he’s probably going to get nothing. And I guess that the story got dropped, but he was going to get out after he got out after 43 years. And he’s, like, quote, unquote, suing I guess that’s the right term. And he would be awarded $50,000 a year for every year for a wrongful conviction. But they passed that law in 2008. He obviously got locked up before that, so he doesn’t qualify for it. So he’s just going to get a pat on the button, say, Good game. Good luck. That’s correct.

Larry 11:46
But I thought it was because he had a prior conviction also that he wasn’t eligible under the under the criteria of that. of that law. A person who had another felony conviction couldn’t be compensated. But But when you when you go to trial, It’s not a question of what you did. It’s a question I can a secure conviction. Now, you’ve heard me talk about strict liability crimes. For example, many sex offenses are strict liability. But it’s not the only thing. It’s not the only thing. Drug Possession, particularly in state of Florida is as a strict liability offense.

Andy 12:21
So and quickly explain what that is. Is that where if even if you know even if you don’t know about the drugs in the car, you’re still guilty of them being in your car?

Larry 12:28
Yes, sir. There’s there’s no criminal intent, there’s no knowledge. So and state of Florida you have you have possession of drugs. So if the officer pulls you over, and all the hovercraft that’s focused on the car illuminates and then the dogs come in to sniff and they found by find drugs, they do, you are guilty of it because you had possession of that. And it could very well be that you didn’t know that you had possession of drugs and I can think of some scenarios where You might not know, for example, if it’s a family vehicle, another member of the family may have stashed drugs at the car. It could be that it could be that you bought the car and they were stashed because of the drug runners card and you had no reason to suspect that of a drugs in the car. It could be any number of reasons or it could be that you have you have something that you think is legal, that turns out that isn’t, but you weren’t intended to, to commit a crime. And but but that if if you go to trial on that, and a strict liability offense in Florida, and you can assert an affirmative defense where you have you have the burden of showing that you that that that you were not criminally responsible, there was no criminal intent. they’ve they’ve just shifted the burden to the accused. Well, you’re going to be convicted even though you didn’t do anything wrong because the people in the jury box unless they decide to do a nullification if they like you for some reason and decided they’re gonna be Renegade jury. They’re gonna be instructed to find you guilty unless you meet the burden of difference. Defense is to show that you did that you had no reason to believe that there were drugs, that and oftentimes they from your defenses beyond your reach, you can’t you can’t meet the burden for good offense is one of those offenses where you where you acknowledge it a drug for the car, but you put forth a theory of why you should not be held criminally, criminally responsible would be like it’d be like self defense. Yeah, I smashed him over the head, I sure as hell did. But I did it to defend myself was a burden is on you at that point. So you’ve acknowledged the state’s accusation that you took the crowbar and you Bash him over the head. So that’s no longer in contention. So you’ve affirm the state’s allegation. But you’re saying, Please absolve me of criminal responsibility. Because I was doing this. If I didn’t do this. He was coming on pretty fast was a blight. And I happened to Atlanta lucky blow, but a jury has to believe you and the bird nest your burden to carry. Wouldn’t it be great if you could just say that anything you did was selfless. Fans, we’d have a whole lot of people who’d get away with a lot of things. So therefore, an affirmative defense, it’s like not guilty by insanity. The burden is on on the person to carry that defense to its conclusion when they assert that and of course, it never works seldom ever works. But, but so you’re going to be convicted. So back to the point is not a question of what you did. A good Lori tells you, and I believe you. You’ve convinced me you didn’t do this. But if we put this on trial and Helston County, the jury is going to convict you. There’s a 95% certainty that they will convict you. And here’s why. Now, if you want to roll those dice, you can’t. Because you have every right to do that. You have every right to do that. But here we have a jury pool that’s not very sophisticated. And we’ve got all these constraints on terms of what we’re allowed to do. In terms of putting all the defense we’re not going to be able to we’re not gonna be allowed to go after The accused or the way you’d like to see us do it, the judge is going to shut that down. And so at the end of the testimony, when we rask, us, we’re not going to put you on they’re going to be, they’re going to be able to impeach you because of these inconsistencies. And the fact that you have a prior record, or whatever it is, they’re going to be able, they’re going to be able to, you’re not going to be a credible witness. So there you’re going to be convicted. And under the arrangements that we’ve gotten offered, they’re going to give you no more than three years in prison. And seven more years under supervision. If you goes up to go to trial, all options are off except the maximum penalties. And if you get convicted of the two offenses, which I believe you probably will, you’re going to be subject to 18 years of incarceration and based on the sentencing practices here in Houston County, there’s a very good chance you’re going to get most if not all of that. So that’s that’s my duty to tell you that but at the end of the day, if you want to go on trial you can but the point the commentators making their assess Exactly. Why the person pleads guilty? The person says, well, under that scenario, I’m going to be convicted. And I’m going to get three four times a harsher sentence. Even though in my heart I know I didn’t have any criminal intent. I have no choice.

Unknown Speaker 17:16
That’s a position you

Andy 17:17
circle back. What in the world is this hovercraft? What is that Kabuki stuff you’re talking about?

Larry 17:23
The hovercraft is the craft that watches two people in the registry. Every person has a hovercraft assigned to them.

Andy 17:30
Wait, we have individual there’s a million ish, whatever. 900,000 hovercraft flying around watching every one of us.

Larry 17:36
Yes.

Unknown Speaker 17:37
Oh, holy crap. I didn’t know that. That’s amazing.

Larry 17:41
Yes. Well, that’s what I have learned because the people that are on the registry, believe that and in all seriousness, they are being watched a lot more closely than any other offender category. There’s absolutely no challenge your question to that. But there

Andy 17:58
that says it’s easy to watch everyone Since they’re emitting radiation,

Larry 18:02
but, but they’re not being watched quite as closely as sobered up to fear they’re being watched. What they are having done to them is very, very, very naughty. I mean, there be people putting a law enforcement putting transmitters GPS trackers on people’s cars surreptitiously doing that. And that’s not right. They’re putting cameras on public right away on the neighbors yards. That’s not right. They’re doing a number of things that are not right. That they shouldn’t do and they are they are gathering an awful lot of information. And they’re monitoring all the social media. They’ve got detectives are sitting there if you have social media they figure out they think they want they watch your social media so I’m not implying that there’s no watching but I just don’t believe they know that managed to cross the state line

Andy 18:50
yet. Let’s move over to an article from non doc no n d OC. I don’t know what that would be non doc. I don’t I can’t quite come up with that would be off at Anyway, Oklahoma pays $1 45 per hour for prison telemarketing, from a prison point of view that is probably eight times higher than, you know, if you’re in a institution that actually does pay in Georgia, they don’t pay. But that would be pretty kick ass money for a buck 45 an hour to and you know, some of the jobs in prison are kinda on the crappy side. And so I’m assuming telemarketing, you’d be sitting behind a desk. And you would have a headset on and you would just be answering phone calls or in this case, a marketing for someone. That would be sweet work. And I and I say that with quotes around it just to kind of diminish the my intent there. But you know, in comparison, why is this a bad idea?

Larry 19:42
Well, at first blush, that’s was my reaction. See, the governors of the governor of Oklahoma is looking into it, and he didn’t know anything about these contracts with these marketing companies, but they apparently run the game. There’s there’s k synergy partners as green wave concepts pro calm, and they have contracts that range from the dollar 45 to looks like 325 and our strong oh actually 375 and now that they’re paying, though the federal minimum wage is 725 where it’s been stuck since 2009. But the the some leadership, some lawmakers thought leadership, some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have questioned if this is exploitation,

Andy 20:34
because that is my question to you, as

Larry 20:36
well, I don’t know, because prisoners are not even covered by most protections of labor, that they are carve out for, for for practically everything when they’re when they’re in custody. So I guess the question would be, the state of Oklahoma is has to determine if they Want to make a labor pool available to these private businesses, which in essence would be a form of a subsidy to the businesses? And if they are receiving benefits for that subsidy that outweigh the cost of the subsidy. But the lawmakers are saying what GDS is depriving them of the opportunity to pay fines or restitution. And this is just horrible. And I’m not sure. I’m not sure it is horrible. If they didn’t have this job. I don’t know what Obama president pay if they have jobs across the board for everyone. I don’t I don’t know the nuances of the pay scale. But this is on the high side of the states who do pay. If you’re getting $1 45 to 375 an hour. This is some pretty good prison paid.

Andy 21:44
Let me let me throw this at you just I don’t know. I’m just thinking about this offhand. Our government has been criticizing other nations, let’s call them China for like currency manipulation where the government is almost like propping up the businesses in there, I want to say like the solar companies and then even like the steel manufacturers, so that they can bring a product to market that is significantly cheaper than anything that we can bring in, bring out there. So that makes us less competitive. Doesn’t this make those companies that are hiring the prisoners, doesn’t that make them have a better rate that they can offer to provide their product because they’re getting labor at a quarter, maybe even, you know, fifth or sixth of the rate that the public sector would be able to provide?

Larry 22:30
Well, if I’m understanding the article, they’re paying the state that minimum wage that just status just siphoning my account of blood, so when I use that term siphon, but states just siphoning off the difference,

Andy 22:42
and so that they can pay for room and board, essentially?

Larry 22:46
Well, it’s I’m guessing it’s being used to offset the corrections department was hesitant to make anyone available for comment for the story, but I’m guessing that they’re rolling this into the general fund always, never assume that it’s going straight to the we’ve got listeners who believe that the corruption, it’s going straight to some executive who made the contracts pocket. I don’t assume that without any evidence, I’m assuming that this was mine, it’s going back to the state general fund is being used somehow in the present budget. But that wasn’t the state of Oklahoma be benefiting from that? Because if they’re getting at least the federal minimum wage of 725, what wouldn’t they be getting money for these labor hours that are these people? Would they would not be recouping any money at all? Isn’t this offset to the state’s budget?

Andy 23:31
It seems like it might be then I was totally looking at it from a respect that they then the company was only paying the 370 $5 45 an hour and so then they would be able to bring their product to market saying, you know, we only have to charge these much dollars less because we have these employees that are getting paid and grossly below the minimum wage number but if they’re using that, so I don’t know. Tell me what your your your liberal pointy head idea of this this this batter, would you vote for this if you were if they were coming up in your your legislative scheme?

Larry 24:08
Well if you if you look at the first paragraph of story and second line, it says the companies pay do say 725 per hour minimum wage for each of the more than 200 incarcerated individuals. But the prison telemarketing programmatically pays the workers at 145 an hour plus whatever bonuses. So which tells me that from a public policy perspective, you’ve got 200 inmates who are generating $7 and 25 cents an hour. Isn’t that more than what most inmates are generating for the state?

Andy 24:38
Perhaps Yes. I don’t know the difference there. Isn’t that great there, Larry. The difference there is let’s call it five bucks an hour ish or you know, $6 or 600. So that’s $12,000 a year. That’s not what it costs you to be incarcerated.

Larry 24:51
No, but but this is the question I’m racing is how many of your inbox sale Oh has 12,000 inmates incarcerated? Would it be great If all 12,000 we’re bringing in $7 and 25 cents an hour, to conservatives would be would normally be eating that up because that would be offsetting the cost of their whatever, to whatever extent to 725 races, if you’ve got 14,000 inmates and the other 13,800 are not raising anything, which is the better class, so it makes the half.

Andy 25:19
Oh, totally, I totally understand that. And those would certainly be like the cream of the crop with the better communication skills and not messing with the authority. I assume that these would be the cream of the crop. These would be like the quote unquote, good inmates?

Larry 25:31
Well, I would assume, I would assume they would not put the troublemakers in. I would also assume that they did. They would put people in who can speak clearly who have matters who who have patience. I probably wouldn’t make a very good person for this job for that job. But,

Andy 25:46
but don’t tell me why would you not make a good person for this job?

Larry 25:52
But I suspect there for but this seems to be a win win. And it’s always good. they’d ask questions and actually is it is the Republican leader asking one of the Democratic Leader ask a question. So just leaders, it says House Majority Floor Leader, john Eccles, and then Senator George, on who’s on democrats and such a minority and Oklahoma that you’d have a hard time finding more than one. But, but this, this seems to be a win win. Very well. So how would I how would I vote for it? Yes. Well, I would probably look at the totality of was, is this a policy that improve this proves the chance of an inmate reintegrating successfully? And if I can answer that in the affirmative, and if I could answer in the affirmative, is this is the revenue from this because revenue is a part of everything. It shouldn’t be in some people’s mind, but it is any type of expansion of program or opportunity behind the walls is going to have a cost tag. So I would look at this as an expansion programming that seems to have a positive income stream for the present. This is not one where we’re having to invest money. This is where we’re getting a check back. So it would seem to pass most of my idealism of getting people better prepared for release, because these are jobs that exist in the national economy. And you remember, I have a pontificate that people should be provided training and skills that would translate to the free world. These are jobs that existed the free world. So I would tend to want to I would tend to want to be deferential to such a program. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to hear the concerns, but I would tend to want to give this program a chance. And

Andy 27:36
one other thing before we move on to the next article is do you think then that this could create some kind of perverse incentive to keep people locked up past whatever their time would be to fill some sort of quota of, hey, look, you know, we’re short staffed now because these people got released. Can you hold on to these people? Can you put their paperwork Can you lose it for a week or whatever? So that we You can hold on to certain employee number you know XYZ because they do a great job or these employees that we need these numbers.

Larry 28:07
I mean, anything’s possible. I would be surprised if that being that there’s only 200 of people in the program and there are thousands of inmates something tells you that there’ll be qualified people I’ve I’ve been in communication with enough with enough prison and jail type administrators through my life and they never seem to have problems filling the the trustee roles particularly attractive ones now they have some right if you if you run like your power and you put them into dogpound you may have you may already know if he has trouble feeling down I just pulled out of my head, but there’s probably a proper kitchen duty would be one of the harder ones to fill because it’s hot and it’s early in the morning and yet you have terrible but laundry might be you’re not hungry, though. You’re not. But But my hunch is that there would not be any problem filling these I don’t think there would be a perverse incentive to hang on to people

Andy 28:59
and Since I said we were going to move on, I can’t go without Jen has now also said Isn’t that like Kamala Harris and the firefighters were the firefighters were fighting the California wildfires like a year ago, but then they weren’t eligible for these jobs upon release. So these guys and gals might be doing these telemarketing jobs and then they don’t hire convicted felons, but they were perfectly happy to hire them while they were actually locked up.

Larry 29:19
Well, I don’t know that that’s the case and that particular job. I would, I would like to, I’d like to get more information I know that telemarketing is a job that from from all that I’ve been told is more to the to do with your people skills and your dependability. And, and they don’t care so much what you look like they care what you sound like.

Andy 29:40
I was gonna say, you know, you always talk about having bolts and screws in your face and tattoos, these jobs, you can have all that stuff all over you.

Larry 29:47
Well, that’s exactly that. That’s the reason why when I was in broadcasting, it was radio because they told me that my face work best for radio.

Andy 29:55
I would agree that you have a face for radio

Larry 30:00
Right, you’re right, you and Gracie, you know,

Andy 30:04
be broken physically and mentally. And then over at the hill calm Michael avenatti should not be in solitary confinement. Isn’t he the attorney for? God, I can’t stormy Daniels and I don’t remember her real

Larry 30:19
high powered lawyers. I think he was connected to the Trump administration. wasn’t he? Or not?

Andy 30:26
i? I thought Michael avenatti was the one that was representing stormy Daniels. Okay,

Larry 30:31
maybe? Way wrong. So okay.

Andy 30:34
Yes. Jen says that, too. So Michael avenatti is like, I’ve heard many, many things about, I don’t know much more beyond that. But this is as far as I know, then he’s apparently gotten in trouble for maybe making some false things. And anyway, so why are you so against a solitary confinement?

Larry 30:51
Well, the evidence shows us on solitary confinement what, what it does to the individual and I am with avenatti Free Trial, that that makes it even more egregious. I’m not a big fan of solitary confinement, I believe that we ought to be able to manage our prisons in a way that we can keep most of our or population safe without having to put them in isolation. Of course, there will be exceptions, there will be people who have a need for isolation for medical reasons for contagious we have to do that. Because we can’t have an epidemic through the president, we have to do that. And we would have people who, who have committed a disciplinary infraction. And it might be that, that AIDS is I need long term segregation, or short term segregate segregation to modify their behavior. And we do we do that and those conditions where it’s really warranted. I have less objection. But what we have is, most prisons are, are overcrowded and when you when you design an institution, you design an institution for a lifespan of decades. You don’t design a prototype, I mean when you sign the When you look at correctional facilities, they have a very long lifespan. Okay, you get what I’m saying. You don’t design a prison for it to be here today and gone tomorrow. Yeah, when you when you design it, societal needs and the type of inmate housing is, is constantly evolving. So the population of what you designed it for a vault is hard to design a facility with the exact number of types of cells and housing units that you would need over the course of decades. And so you have to adapt your prison management to the facility that you’re stuck with. Because most of the administrators didn’t design the facilities. That’s the rare exception. Where is it whereas the people who administer it actually designed it. So you have to design you have to administer with the design you’re given. So therefore, if you have a prison that was designed was 100 isolation cells, and you’re desperate for space. The temptation is to put people in those isolation cells for the most trivial reasons because you’ve got a popular elation of a design capacity of 900. And you’ve got 100 isolation cells that was at the time that designed it, they thought that was the right number, and you’ve got excess people, and you need to put them somewhere. So it’s easy to plop a personality isolation cell. And and that that’s there therein lies the problem. So we end up putting people in isolation for not just the things I indicated that are well justified. But just because we don’t have any other place to put them. And we put them in there. And we forget that we haven’t been for a different reason. If we put you in there, because we can’t keep you safe. You’re such a hot commodity that you’re going to be harmed and exploited and possibly hurt physically, then you shouldn’t be punished like the person who threw feces at the guard, who should justifiably lose some privileges during a period of time to you don’t want them throwing feces and exposing themselves to the guards or whatever that got them put in isolation. You’re trying Modify that behavior. But when you put a person in because you don’t have a facility that is designed, and you don’t have the staffing to keep that person safe, you don’t strip them off all their privileges because of your failure, which is what we do. We put them in, we say, well, you’re in isolation, so you don’t get, you don’t get into reading material. You don’t get visitation when you’re in isolation. You don’t get to use the phone because you’re in, you’re in isolation. Well, that would be fine if I were in isolation for an infraction, but I’m in isolation because your system failed, and you can’t keep me safe. And you’re putting me here for my own safety. So therefore, I should be able to use the phone, actually be able to talk to my attorney, I should be able to read books, I should be able to have my legal materials, I should be able prepare for trial. And it can’t prepare for trial. Because you’re also

Andy 34:46
missing you’d like you’ve glossed over one like I mean, obviously you’re in solitary, but you also can’t interact with other humans, which is a critical component of us being a social species.

Larry 34:56
Well, that goes without saying but I’ll say it, yes, it It’s it’s very hard on the human being when they’re put in isolation and it’s not. And on all fairness, there’s there’s very few institutions for you’re not within earshot of a human being, you may have to yell. But But have you been on an institution where no one could hear you? No one at all? No, not being here. You

Andy 35:18
know, that’s a significant challenge in that world is trying to find a place where you don’t have to hear anybody to.

Larry 35:25
So So, but it can be a struggle to have a conversation. But But I’m more worried about this person who’s presumed innocent, who’s being punished is if he’s been convicted, and who cannot be involved in his defense can’t have access to the reams of documents. And he’s not he’s not being treated like an innocent person.

Andy 35:46
They say repeatedly in the article that he’s not El Chapo.

Larry 35:50
Yeah, like that.

Andy 35:52
He’s not for those who don’t know, El Chapo El Chapo is the biggest drug dealer of our time he’s killed witnesses and competitors and he’s he escaped. Oh, that’s right. He’s the one was roughly a year ago that actually escaped. It’s not like it’s not like he’s a you know Spry young dude that can go you know running the hundred yard dash quickly so he had some help I suppose he didn’t escape from a

Larry 36:12
US president It was a Mexico prison, wasn’t it?

Andy 36:15
Yes, I believe so. And then then they extradited him here, I believe I’m pretty sure that stride and follow that closely, I’m just sort of like, you know, on the fringes of my memory is what I’m remembering. Very good. So narshall has put Cobb County on notice. And as you described it to me, they are randomly harassing folks knocking on doors at two o’clock in the afternoon, two o’clock in the morning, and they’re going to visit somewhere between a few times to a very large number of times. So deal with it. We’re going to put

Larry 36:51
Cobb County on notice we’re composing the draft, which is for those who may be new to the podcast. We did the same thing to ourselves. The same thing with with the buds County, Georgia and the Spalding county Georgia Sheriff when they did their Halloween signs in 2018. And we just just followed it up in 2019 with the county have been Hill, that that, that that we put one notice this doesn’t come as a surprise. So we’ve learned from reliable sources in Cobb County, which is a North Metro county that that the sheriff has invented some requirements. And those requirements that the sheriff’s have invented are very troubling. Because they they the policy of articulated to the offenders who who are registered and calm is that after you present the address and that the department deputies will come to your house at all hours of the day, and the night and as late as 1130 at night and as early as like 5am in the morning and pound at your door and the band to see you to verify that you’re there. And that is Georgia statute doesn’t require that. And it’s very annoying to have someone pounding on your door at 11 o’clock at night. And in fact, in most jurisdictions I think Georgia as well. They don’t even allow warrants to be served a search warrant unless you have a have an exception for the hours they require the search warrants be served or reasonable hours to keep from disturbing the neighborhood and every every dog barking and having that kind of run. And they saw a search warrant will be served at three o’clock in the morning unless you get a no doc. special exception. So the sheriff’s knocking at three o’clock in the morning is dangerous. People’s dogs start barking and people that are there sound asleep, I’d be what would stop a sex offender. I know sex offenders are convicted felons in most instances. But what would stop someone who lives at the residence who’s not a convicted felon from having a weapon and pulling it and that can be a shooter. So it’s dangerous. So the Cobb County Sheriff is is is engaging in that we’d like to verify things from more than one source which we’ve done. And, and then they’re requiring the offender to provide the hours and schedule of their jobs. Again, that’s not required by the statute that we have to have to provide the location and the name of their employer, but not their hours that they’re working on what they’re doing. So we’re gonna let the sheriff know Go ahead.

Andy 39:28
And this is not a supervision thing. This is the the registry side the the the civil regulatory scheme side of the equation, where all you have to do is tell them this is the address they approve the address and that is potentially the end of that interaction. Maybe they actually come out and physically verify it, but after that, that’s the end of it.

Larry 39:48
That is correct. And this is for the registry. This is not for the Super fit for the supervised offender population. But but we’ve we verified their be required to write down two hours of their work on the registration form. And other details. And And again, that’s not required by statute. Have you did put your hand on the Bible Sheriff? Warren, I believe the same is and you said you were going to uphold the law, you didn’t say you’re going to invent the law. And as, as I believe that you have a duty, you have a duty to uphold the law, not to make the law. If you would like to make the law, you should surrender that badge. And you should run for the General Assembly in the state of Georgia. And you can have a seat in the legislature. And you can be a part of the law making process. But it’s not for you to invent your requirements just like it wasn’t for sure if Longton Ben has Halloween sign requirement, which we’re going to talk about in a little bit. But But this this here is very troubling. It’s It’s where do they stop when one day where they’re allowed unchecked, to invent their own rules, and put and put requirements on people and threatened them was incarceration, which, what they would incarcerate him for? He said, Look, I’m not gonna tell you what I was working on. Your business, if they can’t sign anything and the statute that that, that compels a disclosure that information, then there’s nothing legal that can be done. But the average offender does know that the average offender lays the deputies at the door to have guns on their side and arrest powers. And they say a paddy wagon parked up the street a little bit that they might find themselves sitting, if they don’t cooperate. And when the spouse opens the door at 1130. And I’m here to verify, I need to say, I need to say whoever right now, the spouse wants to end the encounter as quickly as possible before the kids start scraping before the neighbors start calling say what the hell is going on over here next door.

Andy 41:44
And I’m going to throw you a softball question there. Why are they doing this? Well, the

Larry 41:50
simple answer is because they can

Andy 41:54
and what would make them stop?

Larry 41:57
Well as we as we found out in Bucks County What What am Spalding county Spalding county and stopped because they were started the lawsuit and they decided that it would it would behoove them stop. butts county only stopped when the federal judge said you can’t do it and they have filed their ensuing appeal that we’re going to talk about later. But but that without being challenged without any pushback, they’re going to do it because it sells to the constituents. And if so, if so, if Sheriff mill Warren tells the citizens the cop can let me tell you what I do, what I got, I got 915 offenders registered in here in Cobb County. And we go out and visit with them 810 12 times and we don’t pay no attention to what time we go up. We make sure these people before they say they are cause we go keep you safe. Do you think they take the average Cobb County citizen is going to be more likely to vote for him or less likely when they tell him that?

Andy 42:50
Certainly certainly. It wouldn’t be okay for me to like break in and tell you a quick little story about a friend of mine in the northeast part of the state that dealt with not this issue. But something along these lines. Sure. Alright, so I get a call and he says that he is trying to get a new job. And he has conviction, the way Georgia works is your conviction, depending on when it was then you have varying degrees of your restrictions, you know, residency work restrictions, and what would be included. His actually happened at a time when there weren’t any. So he goes and says, Hey, I’m getting a job at this particular place. And they said, Well, you can’t work there, because it’s 1000 feet from, you know, Park School, daycare, whatever it was. And he says, that’s not part of the statute. And he goes, doesn’t matter. I’m telling you, you can’t work there. So he so he has to take them to court, which I think is, you know, forgive me bullshit, because he’s not obligated to follow those rules. But because they said you can’t work there. And, you know, I know you said he should have just said a few take the job and then deal with it afterwards. But he went out and spent 20 $500 got an attorney and the judges like, you guys have misread the law and So now he’s going to go get this job. My point behind all of this is to go along with what you’ve just described is, we have to go step up and and, and throw tomatoes at them, and say, you guys have to stop doing this because otherwise, so many of us that already beat down, are going to let them do what they want to do.

Larry 44:18
That is That is correct. Now, I don’t know that I’ve done intend to direct a band that he could have done that that was an option. No, no, I don’t know that way. Yeah, that is an option he out on the table to consider if you’ve done your research, and particularly if you’ve, if you’ve had a competent attorney, validate your research. And you know, in Georgia, you’re correct, that, that the occurrence of your crime, not what you got sent us, but when your crime occurred, the the actual event that triggers are due to register. There’s there, there are progressive restrictions that are added based on what year so if you were convicted prior to 2003, I may feel your crime occurred prior to 2003. I don’t think I have any. And then as you go through those years succeeding, you have more more restrictions where you might not Be able to close to a school that it might expand to include additional things, school daycare and YMCA in places where children congregate. And it’s a more expensive list, the more recent your your event incident occurred. But he could have said, I know I’m right. And what I’m going to do is tell you people, that if you cause me any problems, I’m putting you on notice and you should have done in writing. I’m putting you on notice that these provisions these restrictions do not apply to me. I’ve accepted the job and I will be getting it getting work tomorrow morning. And if you do anything to hinder my ability to work in Cobb County is on notice or whatever county that was, is on notice that this, that this that there may be ramifications of a financial nature. And again, I don’t know if Georgia requires you to prove your ex with the actual damages. But say for example, he he was arrested and he lost the job because they paraded in there to take him away to teach him a lesson for being defiant and it put in shackles and paraded in front of cameras, and he lost the job. And it was a good job he might have been able to set himself up for for for some significant civil recovery.

Andy 46:11
Totally. Totally. So he

Larry 46:13
could and he could have considered that as an option as well but there’s nothing wrong with what he did. I agree

Andy 46:19
Yeah. And the path of least resistance might have been the path that he took just to try and rock the boat as little as possible to move forward to get the new job get the pay raise whatever is all going on with that. And I might have details of the story wrong. I was expecting from you

Larry 46:34
how many jobs how many jobs will wait for you to litigate? Correct Okay, can you imagine I don’t think these restrictions apply to me I’m quite certain they don’t. But I’ll get back to you after I go to court now it’s gonna take me probably three four months correct. But But will you hold a job for me cuz I know I’m the right candidate, how well would that work out and most of the way to get the job where it would work out? The way to be say? It’s like the church When people say they can’t go to church, I said, well, you wouldn’t never stop be if I want to go to church or go to church, I call them upset then hurt at First Baptist Church about middle road. And I dare you to come arrest me, which is exactly what they would do. They would come and arrest you, if you dare to do that. And then you would set up a constitutional challenge based on the facts, they would oblige you come arrest you, it would be very unlikely that they wouldn’t come arrest you. But we would find that answer to whether the government can intrude in a religious establishment and tell them that they can’t have someone in their pews that they’re okay with that I’ve made sure that the church was okay with me being in that Pew before I before sat there, because I wouldn’t want the church to be on the opposite side of the argument was from me, but if I could get the church on my side, I would do exactly that. Say it’s none of your business who’s a discuss sanctuary and affect the constitution prevents you from having any say so about what goes on in the sanctuary. But But I should say it really you can’t you can’t. You can’t break the law in the sanctuary but in terms of who is in the sanctuary, that’s the church’s business.

Andy 48:00
To say the layer that you must have some really big bonus. And I and I’ve been sitting here for like three or four minutes trying to think of the most politically correct way I can say this without sounding sexist or crude or anything like that. But I can’t think of any other way to word this.

Larry 48:12
You can’t say that you

Andy 48:12
are brave, you are brave, brave individual.

Larry 48:15
You need to strike that from the record.

Andy 48:19
family oriented program,

Larry 48:21
it is and somebody might translate that know what it means.

Andy 48:24
Yes, I’m sure the transcription and the transcription as well. Anything else about the Cobb County thing that you want to go over?

Larry 48:33
I’m hoping that the that they will actually considered the letter. based on our experience with the other counties, they’re not likely to do anything other than continue what they’re doing, which means that we’ll probably have to file another lawsuit.

Andy 48:47
Let me just just one other point. So there’s an organization that I tend to leave to follow and I Oh, and I hear about that organization having their staff attorneys and they file challenges against constitutional things. All the time and very often just by having a sternly worded letter from an attorney saying, These are the reasons why you are violating these statutes, laws, constitutional principles, etc. And almost always, the institution backs down.

Larry 49:15
Well, I don’t have enough experience to know if it’s almost always but instances I do. I know in some instances, I don’t I know that the city of bolian has told the freedom from religious Foundation. The city of Berlin is located in New Mexico, they told him they can pound sand about their nativity scene that they put. And I tell him that I got something to file the pilot and they can’t find a single person in Berlin to give them the standing so let’s see them from From Religion Foundation has not been persuasive at all, but a sternly worded letter that is backed up by previous action, and the previous action has been successful. It very much can be effective absolutely can be effective, but that’s where our hope is. And we’re hoping that we will, we will convey to them that we are the culprits on death on the Spalding and county and Bucks County case you might want to take us seriously because we told them in advance that we’re we’re coming for them and and now we’re we’re focused on you. Yeah.

Andy 50:10
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies 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.

Well, then the, you know, I saw I have the main segment here and we’re going to talk about the butts county appeal. And then I had the double main double main segment. So this is the single main segment about butts county appeal. This rolls back to where in Georgia, I guess it was last Halloween that we learned of them posting science. And so then over the previous year, through 2019, a lawsuit was developed an attorney was was brought on board. What’s the word I’m looking for the individuals in Bucks County with standing, they were brought in and it went to federal court. I guess it would have been like the second or third week of October, just like a week before Halloween even just days before Halloween. And the judge ruled in our favor saying that they couldn’t post the signs. The signs didn’t say sex offender. But we had a Facebook post from the from the sheriff, where he was like, Hey, I’m letting new people know that the sex offenders, these are going to have the signs in their yard. And so we want and so now they filed would you say 100? Something page appeal?

Larry 52:08
Only 71

Andy 52:09
Oh, sorry. 71. Is this like double spaced was seven inch margins or something or is this like dense? copy?

Larry 52:16
It’s double spaced with an inch margin. So it’s it’s it’s it’s not as bad as it seems. But it’s a lot. It’s a lot of briefing. The the number of words is always in the end the certification at the end, how many words that the brief, it’s a lengthy brief.

Andy 52:31
So they are doubling down that a federal judge said that they couldn’t put the signs out, and they’re doubling down and didn’t long say he would carry it all the way to the Supreme Court if he had to.

Larry 52:42
That’s what Sheriff long butts county said. He said, I’ll take us to the Supreme Court if I have to.

Andy 52:50
Did he say it just like that,

Larry 52:51
pretty much like that. He said call it

Andy 52:55
call it um I kind of struggle with the idea. Yes. So it seemed that the judge because I was sitting there in court, it seemed like the judge was hyper rational to me. And he seemed to be asking to me some really excellent questions to both sides about, you know, to sharpen the various points, that they didn’t have the justification, the jurisdiction to post the signs that their intent was to humiliate to call out not just for the interest of public safety because they could have accomplished the thing in different ways other than posting the signs in the people’s yards. And they they went back to the positioning of the signs and what authority they have to to post the signs there, but they’re doubling down on on those points to then have their appeal.

Larry 53:46
That is correct. And just to bring the new listeners up to speed and some of the older ones who may still be confused. The hallway one was a was an injunction. The case has still not been tried. on merit injunction. Just means there’s like stop, don’t do that. We’re not saying you’re right or wrong, but don’t do that for now. Well, what in Georgia is a slight bit stronger than that the standard is that you have to prove to get an injunction that you’re going to likely prevail on the merits, and that irreparable horrible and Sue without the injunction. And there’s two other components that are less significant, but the two primary components are likelihood of success on the merit merits and the irreparable harm. And so you’re, you’re you’re you’re having relief given to you that you haven’t won yet. So you’re getting a preliminary order that says before this case goes to trial. I’m going to give you this really. So the relief that was given was the sheriff was told he cannot put the signs up for the plaintiffs and the lawsuit, and he interpreted it. As far as we can tell. They didn’t put them up anywhere. But It was really specific to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. And that’s what’s under appeal. And so the case is still hasn’t gone to trial, the parties had actually agreed that they would stay anybody, any any further proceedings toward trial until this granting of the injunction was appealed. And normally you have, you have the mootness doctrine that we kick you. But the mootness this is an exception to the boot mootness doctrine. And these lawyers that are representing the county of butts, if you look at the the page numbers are going to be walking depending on how you look at page numbers, because at the top of the pleading, the court gives everything a page number based on just simply when the computer stands it if it’s the first page, it’s page one, but then, since there’s table of authorities under table of contents, all the stuff does count. But if you start at page one of the more they’re numbered numerically, which is actually page 13 About the court, by the by the, by the way, the court number, they explain about the exception to to to to a Buddhist. And it says the enjoyed caught the enjoy and conduct relates to Halloween holiday and the 2019 celebration of the holiday has passed. Nevertheless, this case falls within a special category of disputes that are capable of repetition Polly baited review. And that’s one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine. The first condition is met and this goes on to the next page because Halloween 2019 occurred before a pillar of you could be had. And we agree with that and Halloween 2020 is approximately 10 months away. These time frames are too short for full litigation to produce the final judgment by the trial court and decision. So therefore, as a second condition is plainly met because Halloween is certain to recur every year so unless we declare Halloween not to be recognized no longer Halloween will occur again So this is one of those disputes that falls with AMD exceptions. It’s not vote because it’s going to repeat, repeat the same disputes going to be alive and well. So we get to the point of so they they’re saying, We want you to decide to send an appellate level and lift the injunction so we can do our thing. And death. They get it. They go pages and pages and pages of just spacious and total crappy arguments. I mean, I give them credit. They have put a lot of work into putting together arguments that really are

I mean, you’re you’re stretching. But if you look at the statement of issue is they’ve they’ve thrown everything at the statement of issues that there’s nine there’s nine they have nine contentions of where the trial judge got wrong. That’s bad when you have that many issues. It’s kind of like the way we talked about the case in Texas where we’re SD Todd tower threw everything up its kitchen sink, hoping something will stick okay. That’s kind of what they’ve done on their appeal here. They’ve challenged the court on everything. So they’ve made they’ve made nine contentions. And I’m not gonna try to focus on all nine, I’m gonna try to focus on just a couple of three of them in our analysis here, because they’re really big on, on what compels speeches. And they’re arguing that this that that that compelled speech is not that the defender is not being required to speak that this is this is government speaks. So therefore it’s not compel speech. And then they’re claiming this is the double specious argument. They’re saying that they as the defendants, that their first amendment rights is big, big trampled on, and which is totally, totally specious and bogus. For the the sheriff does have some first amendment rights but not in this context of the way he’s tried to frame it. So they sort of focus on that and then the standard Review words, which they’re saying it should be. It should be just a low level of rational basis where the where the district judge balanced strict scrutiny, it was the proper level. I happen to blaze a strict scrutiny, it may not be the proper level. I think intermediate scrutiny may be the proper level, but we won’t get a lot into that either because most people don’t have legal training are going to be their heads gonna be spinning. But but but the sheriff is arguing that the sides are being placed on public property and the sheriff was claiming that the signs are for 50 or 60 feet depending on which parcel he they analyzed each each plaintiff and deed and they say that either 50 or 60 feet belongs to the government, as the government can put whatever they want to on that 50 or 60 feet.

Andy 59:44
Wouldn’t the government owe me money for maintaining that particular part of the land if they owned it?

Larry 59:51
Well, that’s that’s what’s that’s what’s so troubling for me to the right of way and I profess no expertise in property law. Right away. And my knowledge is very basic. But my understanding of right away was that it was still the property owners property. But certain usages were authorized by, by the right of way, whatever that period, whatever that’s that that number of feet would be that, that that’s allowed for specific use, they may need to run a line to service somebody, and they have right away to run that line. Whether it be a telephone line or whether it be a water line or whatever, they have the right to run a utility line through through that area. They would have the right theoretically supposed to put speed control and traffic control devices on the right of way. But but the the the sheriff has taken the position that not only does he have the right to put utility, use it for utility access, that he can put His signs to carry his message and that that you as the owner of that property have been I’ll say so about what goes on the property. And it looks like from the admissions and stipulations that they they use the mailbox or people have mailboxes the stopping point. And of course in older neighborhoods, some people have mailboxes right by their front door, you know, they put they put, they put back in the old days, they put them on people’s homes. So if you look at a neighborhood that was built, probably before the 1970s, you’ll see those black mailboxes hanging outside their, their front door. You saw, I don’t know what he would do if you had your mailbox by the door.

Andy 1:01:30
Right. Um, and so what so when what is sort of like the timeline for it, so this has just been filed, how long does this then take to go through and you know, what’s the next step?

Larry 1:01:43
Well, the next step would be that the the, the party that took the Pl files the opening brief, so the winning Party, which would be all day Georgia, this is only a show under appeals injunction The case has not been tried yet. So the prevailing party will follow follow a response or request response brief I’ll get it right in a second here. they’ll follow response and they’re given X number of days. And since I’m not regular in federal court, I believe it’s 30 days, but that would be given a period between 2030 days to follow responsive brief. And then the the the party that followed the opening brief, Kim, Kim, Kim follow reply response to that brief. So then at the end of that, of that process, then the court will decide what it needs to do next. Now, they’ve asked for all argument. And I suspect, I expect our sides going to want all argument as well. But But they’ve in all likelihood with something this complicated form argument will be granted the chordal de minute this, that it’s helpful. So in terms of the timeline, I’m predicting, at least a year, maybe maybe a couple of years before this thing plays itself out. In court. I’m always hoping it’s faster, but but there’s a lot of briefing that has to be done before But like I say, we’ve got the brave to file that they have a reply to file the court. has to decide if it needs to develop anything else if the brief are not sufficient, they might order some special briefing in addition of what’s already been done. And then the oral argument scheduled, they don’t just sit those night, they don’t just schedule those and set them up for next week. I there’s a time lag for that. So they’re going to have to schedule oral arguments, get people to Atlanta to hold the arguments. And then after that, they may order depending on what happens on oral argument, they’ll order additional briefing. If something complicated comes out an oral argument that is confusing, they may and then the case will await a decision and there’s no timeline on when they can issue a decision.

Andy 1:03:38
They can take as long as it was right where I was going that so the injunction stays in place until this next leg of the court process goes through

Larry 1:03:46
the junction will remain until it’s dissolved. And and until until until until the court that issued an injunction dissolves it or to the appellate court says you got it wrong the junctions in place.

Andy 1:03:57
So if this took two years, as you just described, Then 2020 Halloween may already just be safe that we don’t have to worry about it at least in that county. Yeah.

Larry 1:04:07
Not necessarily the injunction only applied to the night. So if, if I’m sure if long, and I’m trying to make parts of my constituents, I’m all say, Well, I’ll tell you what I’m old do. I got a bunch of I got a bunch of liberals up there trying to keep me from doing my job keeping y’all safe down here. But I wish I could protect all of you. But the ones that sued me, I can’t do nothing about them. But I will put the signs up on everybody else’s house. And I would keep doing what I was doing because there was nothing in that order that precluded him from doing that. Now, the judge expressed and the District Judge expressed consternation, that even though it was limited, that the same that the same legal analysis would apply to everybody. But what what if I were the sheriff now sheriff, I know you, you’re listening to our podcasts, strategy, the strategy for you to do because You’re going to end up losing this at the end. But to maximize your political it, again was just what you’re after. What you would do is wait until the last possible moment, and then announce you’re going to do this in 2020. And don’t give us chance to give to gear up and come to get an injunction against a blanket injunction like stopping you for going to everybody. But now since I’ve already thought about that, I’m going to be encouraging our legal team to see if we can go ahead and seek seek an injunction to stop you from doing it to anybody but technically right now, he’s only restrained from doing it for the name planets. So he’s

Andy 1:05:35
just got to ask you, whose team are you on man?

Larry 1:05:38
Well, I’m on the team of of the offenders, but if I can think of it always, I have never seen myself to be more brilliant than the people that they are and paid big bucks. If I can think of this sitting here. I’m quite certain that they can think of this.

Andy 1:05:53
I was actually just like trying to channel that quote that you’ve given me about the I’m just trying to win the game. Why did you make that play coach? Well, that’s the fair, simple, we’re trying to

Unknown Speaker 1:06:02
win the game. We’re gonna have to put that one on two.

Andy 1:06:04
I know, I know. So I was like, why would you think of these things, Larry?

Larry 1:06:09
Because I’m trying to win the game. Gotcha. And and and if I can imagine it, Sheriff long would do it. I’m very comfortable and confident saying that I believe that Sheriff law in his mind is at least as creative as mine. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be in this position. What these high dollar lawyers are spending a lot of Bucks County money to fight what I view is going to be a frivolous appeal is frivolous, and for so many reasons. Hey, Steven, put forth a theory that, that that that is totally bogus about free speech. As a defendant, he says that he has the right to free speech and he does. He absolutely has the right to speak freely, but he doesn’t have the right to come under another person’s platform and feel afraid to play point. show up at a church and tell them that you have account Message you’d like to deliver. And you demand equal time from the pulpit to deliver that message and see what they tell you show up at rush limbaugh’s studios in sunny South Florida. And tell him that you have a counter message to what he’s doing, and that you would like to have equal time to deliver that message and see what they tell you. You do not have the right to a platform that you do not own what you have a right to the First Amendment as for the government not to interfere by either restraining your speech or compelling you to speak. And the sheriff is not being restrained from speaking. He can speak all he wants to about vile sex offenders. So that’s what he wants to say. He can say that he’s only being limited and using private property, and he’s arguing that it’s government property, but he’s only being limited in conveying a message on property that he doesn’t own does. It’s not pulpit, but he has the right to say anything he wants to say about sex offenders and that’s for the voters.

Andy 1:08:06
The judge told, like, couldn’t you put you know, if you had the staff Couldn’t you put an officer in front of everybody’s house to achieve the same thing? But that’s Yeah, that could

Larry 1:08:16
that’s addressed in the break. He said he’s got 57 hours of Bucks County that would cost him $10,000. And then it would divert all of his manpower from from legitimate law enforcement functions. That’s what he said in the brief. But this

Andy 1:08:29
is literally a funny thing to say also, because there’s literally there’s literally no not no threat. There hasn’t been any reported problem on Halloween by any of our people to begin with that he has invented a threat.

Larry 1:08:42
Well, he addressed that brief he says that’s because his policies are working.

Andy 1:08:47
So there were so his policies are working nationwide then

Larry 1:08:50
well, I guess they would they would not worry about that but he says his policies are working. But But back to this to this speech thing. Cuz he’s, he’s hungry. Lot of his argument on his his speech rights he doesn’t have. He went out to the Ninth Circuit, which is the liberal do gooders based in California. And he cited a case out of the Ninth Circuit, the liberal runaways, ninth circuit that has no, no relevance in this dispute. And this is why this is complicated work, because if you look at it, this brief of the table of authorities, there’s page after page after page of table of authorities where they use federal US Supreme Court, federal district court, federal appellate cases, States Supreme Court cases, they’ve got all these cases and they all need to be read. I have only read one of them. I read the case he cited from the Ninth Circuit of Mulligan vs. vs. who’d had was the other It was a it’s in the show notes, but but he he sided he sided nickels. Yeah, but he he he cited a case where there was it doesn’t support him. position at all. When you’re a government employee, where the courts have protected speakers as when the government retaliates if you say, our meat Inspection Services not good, they sped the lines up too much. And it’s compromising food safety inspections, and then the person that gets fired, they have the right to speak that and they’ve been upheld on that. They have the right to that they have the right to speak. And you don’t you don’t lose. You don’t lose your rights to speak just because you’ve worked for the government. The government can’t suppress all your private speech. But But Sheriff long, you are the government of this case. Yeah, you are the government. You’re the one who’s trying to force the offender to carry your message. Although he makes great he takes great pains with pages and pages of arguments that this isn’t. This isn’t a message. This is a neutral message. It’s not about it’s not about a sex race. We don’t say their sexual matters and and, and aside, we just say no trick or treating here public service announcements from butts county sheriff. And he says therefore, there’s no endorsement by the by the the sex offender. He’s saying that can smell compel speech is only problematic if if a reasonable person believes that the person is endorsing the message. And he says it’s clear that the sector doesn’t endorse the message. So therefore, it’s it doesn’t qualify as compel speech. And that’s a bogus argument. If you put if you put a sign up if they put a sign up, which the sheriff has the right to endorse candidates, what if you put a sign up in front of your house that said he endorsed a candidate say what was that guy’s name that ran for governor of Louisiana? That was the clan David Duke. If they were david david duke and I’m trying to think of a Georgia equivalent that we could localize it someone JB stoner would be the Georgia well let’s go to JB google google JB stoner while I’m while I’m while I’m while I’m talking about this but but if You put a stoner we’re still alive and he’s thought but if you put a sheriff long said, Well, I got the right to boss three spades too. So I will put a sign up and dorsen jP stoner is on the gun but right away so therefore that would be everybody would logically conclude that you were for JP stoner so with with Sheriff long be entitled to put a sign up endorsing JB starter because he has free speech right? Of course not.

Andy 1:12:30
I understand and that is why you are here.

Larry 1:12:35
Oh, really? Well, there’s 71 pages here. There are a lot of highlights throughout the document for for folks to enjoy, who love to read. Hank, I know you’ll love to go through it. And there are others out there similar to Hank. We would have to spend far more time than we have on this but but the the the argument sit to the sheriff was put forward I think will largely File, I’m hopefully they largely will fail. I believe they’ll fail. But we still have to go through all this. We have to go through all this. And it’s gonna require a lot of work on the legal team. If they ask me for help, I will be glad to provide what help I can. But they’ve got a mammoth brief to respond to. And whether it’s 20 or 30 days. And, Dave, it’s a short duration of time because they also have another practice of law. They’re both they both have other clients. This is not their only case.

Andy 1:13:28
So see, and it’s the same attorney that was representing our side to follow through to the next step.

Larry 1:13:34
That is correct. That would be the same team but would be that would be honest appeal.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:38
Very good. Anything else? Are we moving on? Or we’re a move at all? We’re,

Larry 1:13:43
we’re, we’re having fun tonight.

Andy 1:13:46
Should we be like the Jeffersons and we’re moving on up? I think so.

Larry 1:13:55
Bob, finally, we are going to this is the double main segment. So that’s like the strawberry ice cream or something like that double main segment, federal judge in Illinois parole case issues, permanent injunction. And I know nothing about this case. So it’s all human. Well, we’ve talked about this case, this is the case of Murphy versus roll. And Adele, Nicholas and Mark Weinberg out of Illinois that won this case that the district court level in March 31 2019, there was a short term injunction order, which will be attached to the show notes with some highlights that what’s going on in Illinois and into Mexico, and possibly other states that we’re not aware of, but but clearly those two states as you serve your prison sentence, and those of you have federal convictions can relate to this. In the federal system, you have a finite sentence imposed on you, and you serve it less the 15% or the 54 days or the 48 days. And I think there was some dispute about what it was 52 days, 54 days or 48 days, but you serve that time, and then you go into a period of time. supervised release that can be a relatively short lifetime supervised release. But that supervised release period is outside the walls. So when you serve your time in the federal system, you will be released. When you when that when that when that 85% has been served, then that floodgate will open and you will go out and they usually go out a little bit earlier, because they start they start your transition to a halfway house release process before but on that 85% when you when you when you’ve served your time you You’re late. Well in Illinois, they have a very similar system they call the MSR mandatory supervised release. And when you serve your time, less your goodtime credits, and you’ve maxed out your sentence and then you you go into this period of post prison supervision and you’re under the prisoner Review Board. And to serve the MSR while the prisoner Review Board imposes conditions on you that you can’t meet because you can’t live within within distances. That makes so many things off limit. So as a consequence, the person sits in prison. And those who have more financial resources have been able to find have more options available to them. So this has turned out to be something that contains people that have have no resources at a higher rate, but it contains a whole lot of people. And so the judge found that unconstitutional, that they can’t do that. And that’s what inspired us to do similar litigation in Mexico. We’re going to litigate against our parole board, or they call it a prisoner Review Board. And we call it a period of parole where they call it a period of mandatory supervised release we have we have it artificially, called I call it parole, but it’s not parole in the literal sense because at Arkansas after you serve one sixth or one fifth or some arbitrary amount of your time, you’re eligible to be released on parole if you can meet the conditions of good behavior and acceptable homeland and people in Arkansas right to us damn well, he people don’t understand and it makes it How we’re sitting in prison to an architect because they won’t release as well. But see, the difference is you haven’t sorted all your time. Theoretically, when you serve all your time and Arkansas, you will be released in Mexico now, although you serve all your time, and you will not be released. Well, this judge has said, says March since his opinion finding that the that the the people’s constitutional rights were being violated their eighth and 14th amendments were being violated, that the state of Illinois has not been able to come up with a solution. So therefore, his different timelines on on what to do and what’s going to happen. So basically, he’s going to open the floodgates, which is what I said is all a judge could do the judge, the judge can’t force the state to appropriate money to create alternative housing. Judge can’t do that. All the judge can do is say, Well, I tell you, what I am going to do is that if you don’t do that, which I can’t compel you to do that, what you will do is you will release these people custody on this date, so that so the judges telegraphed to them that they have until January 2 2021, which is roughly a year to do what they need to do to get these people out of prison. And at that point, the court will consider releasing them, and I believe the court will release them. And the exception that they’ve telegraphed that they’re going to make is for the people who prefer not to because you’re are under mandatory supervised release conditions. And if you prefer to stay in prison, if you if you run those rare persons who says, Well, I’m not going to comply with all your crap, I’m not going to do polygraph, I’m not going to do this. I’m not gonna do that. And you can take your MSR and shove it, then you can they do have an alternate program for you. And the judges recognize that that if you fit in the category of you prefer to stay and present rather than comply with a mess, or you could do that, but otherwise, the floodgates are gonna open in about a year.

Andy 1:18:51
And how many people would be affected by that?

Larry 1:18:52
Well, according to this document, there’s there’s about 290 I believe, it said it’s But despite two parts good faith effort, more than 290 class members remain in prison beyond their completion of their present terms due to inability to satisfy the host site requirement. The class has continued to grow larger as additional individuals complete their prison sentences have become eligible for mandatory supervised release and are unable to secure and approved host site. So it’s gonna get worse. Right. And I think we probably have well over 100 here, that is certainly approaching 100. I’d be very surprised. We don’t have 100 they’re in prison simply because they want to prove their, their where they want to live. But they’ve done their time.

Andy 1:19:35
Yeah, so they’re being held past their their time of their original sentence. That is correct. And as far as I know, how like to, can we scale the degree of constitutional violation like this, this seems like this would be false imprisonment, this would be a pretty high thing of violating the Constitution.

Larry 1:19:56
I would I would take so my opinion and in fact, I would, I would be delighted to see that legal team in Illinois seek economic damages ABAP these people because they’ve been harmed, their productive potential has been stifled. Some of these people have been sitting in prison for years, not days or weeks. But years. As I read that complaint and the judge, the judges ordered it back last year, March, that those people have been sitting in prison for years.

Andy 1:20:24
That would really suck that, you know, like, Hey, I’m getting out of prison tomorrow. Oh, no, not, not today. Not tomorrow, not next week. I’m just you’re just in permanent Limbo, you’re like in Groundhog Day, for some sort of indefinite period of time. So and this

Larry 1:20:39
is this is tragic, because happening here and we’re hoping to ride the coattails that that case is not binding, but analysis that that was done by the court there in Illinois, the Northern District is so good, that we feel like that that that we will be able to benefit from the work that courts done and laying the foundation For our last

Andy 1:21:01
I’m fill me in on something and hopefully I can reclaim this thought, Oh, we we cover I want to it was like the first episode of The New Year of building a body of case law to support these things. I assume this goes into the mix of building a body of case law to support all of these, like, you know, obviously these people, these attorneys aren’t representing people in Oregon or Washington or other places where people are are being held past their time. But someone could use their arguments and expand on them and tailor them to their specifics and to help pave the way that their their their, their road has been plowed, so to speak.

Larry 1:21:37
That is correct, as long as you understand the difference between persuasive and binding authority. This District Court in Northern Illinois, it is not binding anywhere outside of Northern Illinois. And if it goes up on appeal, which it has, but if it went up on appeal, then it would only be the appellate would only be bonding and that jurisdiction, but we could cite to a district court level decision as personally If authority and us what sold the body of case law every time there’s a well written opinion, that is cited as persuasive authority, but but you disclose to the court you say this case is from the Northern District of Illinois. And it parallels our circumstances here in New Mexico that we don’t we don’t call it MSR we call it parole. You’ve actually served all your time before and then we do same parallel, there’s only one halfway house except sex offenders. They have a three year waiting list and it costs thousands of dollars to get in, which means that people without resources are not even able to get on the waiting list. And we we we draw the analogy to essentially what they did in Illinois at that was a debtors prison for the people who don’t have money because the people who have money can put forth to the to the prison Review Board other options that a person without without any funding can put forward. So we would we would side to that and say, of course, you’re not bound by this, but it certainly is persuasive. And that that’s what I mean by the body of case law.

Andy 1:22:59
Yeah. Well, that that covers it. I guess I don’t I can’t think of any other questions I’m you know, these people are being held in prison past their time just because there isn’t some place that they can be housed. It’s not much more complicated than that.

Larry 1:23:13
Well in theoretically, this is where as conservatives and liberals would come together, it doesn’t seem to happen. But the conservatives who are the guardians hold, are they the guardians of the financial purse? They

Andy 1:23:26
say that with such contempt, Larry?

Larry 1:23:28
Well, because it’s such hotpot hot policy, that they are the guardians, they’re actually they’re actually the ones who go on spending sprees every chance they can, but they claim to be such guardians of the purse. They would not want this money to be spent, because they would recognize being fiscal stewards and such wise managers, that keeping people incarcerated is more costly than community options. Well, the liberal do gooders should also say, gee, we’re all about rehabilitation, and reintegration and family rehabilitation only feel good things. So you should be able to To get some sort of consensus but that all falls apart when it comes to sex offenders for some reason they all agree that we won’t touch that class of people and and and all that stuff just doesn’t doesn’t come. In fact they’re carved out for exceptions for everything that that’s supposed to be moving. criminal justice reform forward. There’s always a carve out which causes great consternation for our affiliate up in in Connecticut.

Andy 1:24:22
I do understand.

Larry 1:24:25
Yeah, she’s, she’s on the warpath, she’s on the warpath about the about carve outs.

Andy 1:24:30
And yes, be talking about Cindy

Larry 1:24:32
Shamim. I don’t know if we need to, but yes, our Connecticut Connecticut affiliate is on the warpath about cartels and I agree with her. I agree with Cindy.

Andy 1:24:41
She cracks me up.

Larry 1:24:43
But see that you’re, you’re in a political dilemma. You’ve got legislation that that can’t make it to the finish line without the carve outs and so you end up helping no one if you if you stand on your principle belief that that Well, okay, I could get relief for some people or don’t know people Which

Andy 1:25:00
is better? I do understand that. I personally think that we should try it. Like, of course, we’re trying to save everybody. But if we could save one, wouldn’t that be better than saving? None?

Larry 1:25:10
Well, I thought you should use the Titanic. You know, I tell people Well, according you’re not there. For some reason there weren’t enough lifeboats, I think, because they believe that the vessel was not sinkable. But they weren’t enough life of boats. And then they did deploy them correctly at the time. But it would make no sense to say, well, we got enough boats to save about half of us I guess we’ll all go down together. Now the difficulty was figuring out which half but it makes no sense for everyone to die because you can’t save everyone. To me that was that would make no sense for everybody. Well, the same thing. If prisons are as bad as we say they are, and I do believe they are absolutely as bad as we say they are. And I do believe that people should be out of prisons and if I can’t get everyone out of prison, I believe should be out what I want to be able to get as many Nowadays I can

Andy 1:26:01
completely agree. completely, completely agree. So

Larry 1:26:05
well put that in your pipe for this week.

Andy 1:26:08
And then I will smoke it. Larry, we record this show live usually Saturday nights around 7pm. Eastern. You can join the discord server and listen live. But if you can’t listen live, you can always do it 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 do me a favor and subscribe. This is doing yourself a favor to subscribe in your favorite podcast app, Google, Apple, Stitcher, slacker pocket casts overcast whatever. Even we have a YouTube channel. By subscribing you do two things. One, you make sure that you’ll get the episode The minute we post it, it’ll come right down to you on your device. So you can have it plenty of time for your Tuesday drive to work. But you can also you’ll send a signal to those apps that certain people like this program, and then that’ll help other people find it. And we need some questions, Larry, how could they dial in and ask you a question but

Larry 1:27:00
747-227-4477 and I think I know what’s happened. I think that since we’ve done 111 previous episodes, we’ve answered every question that people have had been thinking about.

Andy 1:27:13
That is quite quite possible. It is also possible that we answer anything in anticipation of any question they could have that they can’t even ask a question that Larry has already answered this question for me, so there’s nothing for them to even say.

Larry 1:27:26
But as we pick up new listeners, as we do, there will be new questions from people. If you started Episode 111 you haven’t heard some people go back and listen to previous episodes, but some people just start from today. That is very true.

Andy 1:27:40
And then ultimately, since it’s tax season coming up, what is the best way to support the program?

Larry 1:27:44
That would be to become a subscriber and wait, we have to meet that hundred goal by 2020 by Christmas 2020. Because hundred is such a magic number of supporters and even if it’s the dollar level, it’ll explain The rubric but the more people support it, the more popular we are in the more search people. The search engines pick us up and all these good things happen if we have more supporters So, so absolutely Patreon go to patreon.com slash registry matters. And, and and it’s tax season. And did we talk about what they could do? Since they could have a refund coming? Yeah, they could they could drag

Andy 1:28:24
a sign that they could send their return over to us that would be amazing kinds of support.

Larry 1:28:28
Do we have a special account number that they can deposit that check into? No, I don’t think I suppose

Andy 1:28:35
if someone wanted reach out and give them my personal paypal account, but you know, short of that, just just send send a check. You can send a check.

Larry 1:28:43
And on a serious note, yes, there. There’s there’s no expectation that you do that. But any level of support would be appreciated. And we do appreciate the supporters we have. You’re also awesome.

Andy 1:28:55
And follow us on Twitter, follow us on YouTube and That’s all I got Larry, and anything else you got?

Larry 1:29:03
Well, if you want to send Andy a naughty message, send it to register matters. cast@gmail.com Yes, registry matters cast@gmail.com

Andy 1:29:14
that is all I got. And I hope you have a great night, Larry and I’ll talk to you soon. Good night. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Listen to RM110: Disturbing Living Conditions in Mississippi

Listen to RM110: Disturbing Living Conditions in Mississippi
Andy 0:00
Recording live from FYP Studios transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 110 of registering matters. Larry, Larry, Larry, how are you?

Larry 0:21
Oh, I’m all tired out.

Andy 0:24
Wait, are you tired? Did you like, why are you tired?

Larry 0:27
Because I was on the road for the last three days away from my humble abode.

Andy 0:33
“Humble abode.” Did you drive or fly?

Larry 0:35
I flew.

Andy 0:37
Are your arms tired? I couldn’t resist.

Larry 0:38
I flew with my shower head.

Andy 0:42
I was just going to ask you so even for just a couple day trip, do you still pack like the plunger and the pillows and the fan and the air mattress? Do you still carry all that shit?

Larry 0:51
Well, you’d never carry a plunger on the airplane. They would probably say that shape is being a little strange. So, I don’t hear that, but do I do carry the showerhead and the wrench to remove it that that’s just a standard standing item at the luggage. So yes, I carry that and the pillow standard very soft towels because you know for me my skin is very thin on my hands and fingers and usually what’s in hotel would be about the same as sandpaper. Number 40 grit sandpaper would feel to say to my skin it would.

Andy 1:30
Yeah well, they like you know you’re staying in like the motel six they’re not known for having a you know like the most precious of toiletries and things.

Larry 1:40
We were staying at the Marriott and it was, it still feels like sandpaper to my fingers and my hands.

Andy 1:45
So, you have like your full-length terry cloth robe and do you have a handler that carries all your stuff for you?

Larry 1:51
No, we do it ourselves.

Andy 1:56
Would y’all do it? So where were you traveling to? You went to Houston for…?

Larry 2:00
So well, the National Association for Rational Sexual Fffense Laws and the nonprofit foundation, Vivante, we have a joint board meeting since the foundation is the arm that does the work, that’s the nonprofit arm where we channel the legal efforts and legislative efforts directly through the foundation. So, we bring the boards together to try to do a year’s worth of planning over basically a day and a half. We start Friday afternoon and work through Sunday at noon. So, we did a pretty intense, we like go like 12 hours on Saturday with breaks of course but yeah, it’s jam packed with a lot of work, a lot of slides to look at, a lot of discussion. And then we make decisions that sometimes they don’t get fully executed because a lack of human resources, but we try to come up with an annual plan.

Andy 3:00
Okay, and can you I’ve actually always personally wondered this. When I started following things. NARSOL was just a 501(c)(3), and then Vivante showed up, and why are there two things? And what’s the difference?

Larry 3:14
Well, the (c) is like an educational without tax deductibility that the entity itself doesn’t pay taxes, but the donor, the donor does pay the taxes on the money they donate. So, the more attractive vehicle is the (c)(3) designation under the Internal Revenue Code. And then they’re limitations on what (c)(3)s can do. And particularly in the area of lobbying, there’s a lot of discussion and disagreement about what constitutes as lobbying. But what we do doesn’t even come close ‘cause we don’t do any real direct lobbying at NARSOL. We do education and we do litigation, much like the ACLU Foundation. We just named it differently because at the time we created the foundation, their name was Reform Sex Offender Laws not NARSOL. The RSOL was a name that caused a lot of consternation in political circles.

Andy 4:16
Fair enough. Yeah. I mean, you know, having something that just, you know, takes you away from that, that you don’t mind having some sort of letterhead come up to your house that says Vivante. “Alicia, I know you’re supporting us people.”

Larry 4:29
Yeah that way no one has a clue what it is. And they’d have to at least Google to figure out what the Vivante foundation is and we just recently are in the process of launching a Vivante website. I don’t know if it’s up and running yet, but it’d be easier to find out about Vivante once the website goes live if it has not.

Andy 4:47
It’s been there, like for all of time, but I don’t know that anybody has spent any time focusing on it.

Larry 4:53
Well, it’s being built out now with a professional.

Andy 4:57
Outstanding, you gotta love some professionals Do you have any important takeaways from your little retreat? Anything worth sharing that you can share?

Larry 5:05
Well, the takeaway is always very similar as we were overly ambitious about what we hope to be able to achieve, and we don’t find the human resources, the financial resources are improving, but maybe they’re not anywhere near where they need to be. But there’s only so much you can do without human resources. So, we don’t have enough financial resources to hire people. If we did start hiring people, we would, we would go broke very quickly. So, we used the financial resources for other reasons, including seed money for litigation. So, we don’t have people that you can hold us accountable volunteers or, or just that they’re volunteers and it’s hard to hold volunteers accountable for what they commit to doing. They don’t do it.

Andy 5:48
Well, hang on, I got to bring this up, then. If you would take less salary than they would have more money to focus on other things. That’s just true.

Larry 5:56
Well, if anybody drew salary, that would be true, but no one does

Andy 6:00
No one does? No one in NARSOL draws a salary?

Larry 6:02
No one draws a salary. The only person that draws the salary is the person who, who, who does the data entry. The most consistent job that we need done is processing of transactions if you don’t process transactions for newsletter subscriptions and donations, there’s hardly any reason to ask people to donate so that that one person works part time 12 hours a week or so. That’s the only person that gets paid

Andy 6:28
And not to like, you know, release all that but he’s like minimum wage-ish. I mean, it’s just clerical.

Larry 6:34
Little above minimum wage, but yeah, very low. Our minimum wage is a little higher, he works here in my office, but that person, that person earns very low wages for going to work.

Andy 6:44
Do you manage him with what is the name of that whip that Sally, what’s the name of the whip that they use in Mississippi?

Larry 6:53
I don’t remember that one.

Andy 6:54
Oh, come on. We just talked about it.

Larry 6:56
I know but I don’t remember. I don’t remember.

Andy 6:58
Well, man, we’re gonna cover it in a minute, just remember this. So, tag this in your brain when we come back to this segment. And so, Larry manages the person doing the data entry stuff with the whip that we’re going to talk about in a few minutes.

Andy 7:12
You ready to move on and cover some articles real quick?

Larry 7:14
Yeah, looks like they’re over in Mississippi.

Andy 7:16
It’s just about we got three articles to talk about some really, I mean, deplorable. These are atrocious, horrible conditions in Mississippi at this one particular place, and I can’t imagine that any of them are all that great. Go find the articles in the show notes. And you can see pictures that you know, obviously, these are from contraband cell phones, but because of these conditions, there have been the staff is quitting left and right because you can’t pay people 10 bucks an hour to go into a war zone. And the inmates, it’s like complete gang warfare and they’re controlling pretty much everything in the prison. They’re controlling all the contraband that controlling the drugs. They’re controlling bed mats, and there’s mold in the showers is even a picture somewhere along the way of some rats hanging out on a rat trapper. Maybe they’re eating the lunch tray or something. How do we get our people? And I mean, our people as in our humans are residents of the United States. How do we get them into these conditions?

Larry 8:16
Well, this is very tragic to me. I had not lived in New Mexico at the time with the infamous 1980 riot. But I’ve came shortly after what the what the Attorney General’s that they held investigative reports for and the things that contributed to that riot are exactly what you see, in this, this series of stories here. If you look at the pictures of the people sleeping on floor mats, the gross overcrowding and you look at the deteriorated infrastructure, and you look at the lack of programming, just too much idle time and you look at inadequate food and adequate security to keep to the inmates safe. And you, you see exactly what the Attorney General’s report identified as the powder keg that kicked off the most violent uprising in U.S. prison history where 33 inmates were killed, I believe it was February 29th, 1980. and that’s what it’s already there’s already been deaths Mississippi, but this is what’s going to happen in their prison system. If they don’t take their responsibilities seriously to fund these prisons adequately. Folks in Mississippi, if you can’t afford the number of people you got locked up, there’s a solution. Don’t lock up so many people.

Andy 9:38
So, it was five, but we were trying to find the number earlier it’s five people and the whip is named Black Annie.

Larry 9:43
Black Annie, yes. But if you can’t afford to run your presence in a safe, humane manner, then you need to let some people out. Stop putting so many people in. But when you put a person in the care of the state, and you deprive them of anything means of doing anything for themselves. it’s incumbent upon us as a society to keep these people adequately fed to keep these people adequate medical needs attended to, and to keep them safe. And if we can’t do that, we need to let them go. I mean, it’s really that simple. If we can’t afford to do those basic things, we need to turn these people loose. Because they were no longer responsible.

Andy 10:26
There’s some threshold in there, though, that has to be met, like, you know, you start obviously cutting off from the bottom of who gets locked up. But, you know, if you if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I mean, doesn’t isn’t that where this goes also?

Larry 10:40
Well, it’s not a question of doing the time it is. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have to do time. I’m saying if we’re going to have people do time, we have to provide basics of human decency. We are incarcerating human beings and we’re depriving them of the opportunity to do anything. We’ve decided that they cannot be in society for very reasons and I’m not standing in judgment of how those decisions are made. But once we make that decision through our processes, then it’s incumbent upon us to do the things that we will no longer allow them to do for themselves.

Andy 11:13
And one of those is keeping them safe.

Larry 11:16
That is correct. And keeping them close and keeping them fed at a minimal standard. We can’t let people starve to death in prisons and we can’t let people be shanked to death in prison, because we can’t afford security. And we can’t afford to have people will we, if we can’t afford to stop people from being eaten up by rodents, we have to do what we have to let the people go. Running a prison system keeping people’s medical needs, basic medical needs, a basic human need cared for cost money. And those are values and judgments we have to make as a society. Is that worth whatever Mississippi spends, which will be on the low side they run they run a lot of labor in prisons of Mississippi, they try to keep their costs down. But if it’s not worth $28,000 a year to keep that person in prison. Don’t send them to prison. Find an alternate that’s less expensive. But if you’re going to lock them up and deprive them of any ability to take care of themselves, both their medical care and their food and their safety, then you have to do it.

Andy 12:16
Something that, that I was reading just before it-

Larry 12:18
Doesn’t seem that complicated, does it?

Andy 12:19
No, it doesn’t sound that complicated at all. Something that I was thinking about just before, before you returned from your, from your gallivanting across the globe, is the comparison of prison and just locking people up for everything. Versus that we have the emergency room system that like, Oh my god, you have a really traumatic injury, a car accident, whatever, like that’s why you go to the emergency room, but people go to the emergency room for all sorts of other things like hangnail, or you know, just they get sick on Sunday night, and so they go to the emergency room, even though they may just need to get some Milk of Magnesia or Tums or something. It’s the most inefficient method of handling things because they’re there they’re scaled up to handle a bus crash, for example. And this is not the way to handle all of the people. But that’s what we’ve decided to do is all of these other things besides just people being in prison for committing crimes, but we’ve made so many other things like, I’m sure there’s diversion tactics. There are other things that we could do with people instead of sending them to these really terrible places.

Larry 13:23
Well, well, you’re correct. I mean, the level of crimes when I say level the severity of crime, so we’ll put you in a in an American president, particular Southern American president in the southern part of the United States. It takes a lot less to put you in prison in Mississippi or Louisiana than it does in Vermont, because they look at alternatives. And if you look at the incarceration rates, you’ll see that they’re that they’re significantly lower, and Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and the more Progressive Alliance states, but not only do they take a different approach to that the Southern states tend to be very harsh on vagrancy and the things that the minor crimes that people who are without financial resources commit and so you end up with a repeat offender who’s done minor level shoplifting are pulled out there. You go in public because they couldn’t, they couldn’t find a public restroom. I mean, it may come as a surprise to people who are who are who are not in the homeless or unsheltered population, as they call it. Now, that finding public restroom facilities can be extremely difficult. Most businesses do not want their facilities open. You could go to go to go to business here that are in an area where there’s a lot of unsheltered and they won’t release a key they have the restrooms locked and they won’t release the key unless you’re a customer. I mean, I look reasonably normal. And there’s a taco bell not too far from here. And they walked in and said Can I have the restaurant key before order, and they said you have to buy something first. So, I’m a regular here. And they said, we’ll have to buy something first. And I said, Well, you’re not understanding. I’m not going to buy something and take it to the bathroom. Can I get the key please? And I’m going to come back and buy something and finally they relented and gave me the key. But those type of things will end you have you end up in prison, because you can’t find a place to go the bathroom.

Andy 15:21
So, then you just gotta let it go, man right there on the floor. They would appreciate that.

Larry 15:25
Well, it you but there’s also there’s also minor crimes associated with big homeless things. You’ll trespass as a homeless person because you’re looking for a place to go. “This looks really cool, I think I’ll go here”, and you’re told to go away and then you come back again, because it looks pretty cool. That’s the safest place you found. And you come back again. And you get arrested for trespassing because the police have given you a warning.

Andy 15:53
But Larry displays just had gone out and gotten a job and pulled yourself up by your bootstraps you wouldn’t be homeless.

Larry 15:58
Well, that’s one way of looking at it, but you have these minor offenses in particular in the south, you’ll they’ll have they’ll have laws in addition to that they’ll have laws about panhandling. Now our ACLU in this state is very aggressive about challenges those is a violation of free speech. And they’ve been quite successful. So, the city here has had very, very little success with panhandling, but you go to a lot of places, they’ll get you for panhandling, you they’ll say that you’re too close to the flow of traffic. And that you’re creating a public safety hazard. And they’ll cite you or arrest you for panhandling. So, you have that segment of the correctional population. Then you have the segment of people who were once institutionalized who, for various degrees of mental illness can’t conform to society’s expectations and they’ll do some minor crime and they’ll be taken to a jail setting or in years past that have been taken to an institutional setting. So, the jails have become a dumping ground of, of problems for the management of jails. What I mean, I don’t envy their position I think I could do a better job of it. But it’s tough managing a correctional facility it really is because of so much that you’re dealing with that you didn’t deal with 30 years ago.

Andy 17:10
Right and of course also that you are severely tied on how much resources you I have mean, you can’t you’re not in control of what the pay is. And then your whole staff quits because they’re getting paid minimum wage and they’re not going to go into a war zone for minimum wage.

Larry 17:23
It’s tough but Mississippi particular parts but just what one of these articles was the institution One of these was about a previous shot they’ll take close, but it is not that that prison is apparently a powder keg waiting to explode.

Andy 17:38
Alright, then let’s move over to you know, like this is our, I don’t even have a word for this tonight.

Andy 17:45
This article is out of the Washington Post. It says ex officer accused of shoving prisoner faces federal charges. And what appears to have happened is the person that was getting booked was being very disrespectful. And that caused the officer to lose his temper. And he assaulted the person being booked. I guess he was he was past being booked. But so, so he was being he’s being charged. And there’s a there’s a particularly interesting thing there at the end that I wanted you wanted to get your opinion about where he says his attorney says that he hopes that the officers put this behind him and focus on a new career and his family. And now that sounds like a very stark contrast to how they how people talk about our people or just criminal justice folks in general.

Larry 18:35
Well, I mean, that’s exactly what an attorney would say about their client, even if it was one of our people. But the reality is, they don’t allow our people to put anything behind him. And I only wish that this officer prior to him being on the wrong side of the law. I only wish this officer when he arrested people, he would have said, and we hope that this person if they’re found guilty because they are presumed innocent. But once this person goes through the justice system, that they will be able to put this behind them, whatever this is, something tells me that I doubt that, that, that this officer, former officer, was whole lot worried about people being able to put anything behind them. And that’s what troubles me a lot.

Andy 19:20
We don’t run into that very often

Larry 19:23
about the hypocrisy of police officers. You know, I think I was on the soapbox a week or two ago about the about the hypocrisy of when an officer gets arrested, they are they’re very adamantly about saying, Well, you’ve just heard a little sliver of the story. And we went, what you just wait to the whole story comes out, you know, don’t jump to any conclusions. They’re quick to say that, and that’s fine. That’s exactly what they should say. And that’s what I would second them saying, but they never say that when it’s the other way around. When they’ve put the handcuffs on someone and done the perp walk, they don’t say, and we’ve put them watch them into custody, but they are presumed innocent. And that presumption should follow them through the duration of these proceedings. I have yet to hear and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that said. And then the other thing that they will never do is I think I said this an episode or two back as well, what they’ll never do. On the officer side, they will say, when we have a bad when there’s a bad officer that does something, they say well don’t judge us by one officer. That is just one officer who messed up and 99 plus percent of us are doing a great job. And I agree with that. I don’t know what the percentages, but I agree that the officers are doing a lot of them are doing very fine work. But I wish they would apply that same principle to when they’re guarding people in a correctional facility. I can guarantee you that 90% of the inmates are not putting stuff up their records. Trying to smuggle contraband in the present, I’ll guarantee that 90% of the people are not trying to fake sick call to get high. And I wish that they would treat those who do put stuff up direct, they would actually violate them for breaking prison rules. And I wish they would still let people have their holiday greeting cards. And I wish they would not treat everybody as if they were all the same. Because I’m in on their doctrine, I believe that you shouldn’t treat all people the same. And assume the worst just because there are one or two bad ones. But I wish you’d flip that over and do it the same way in the other direction.

Andy 21:37
I assume that that is something to the effect of just like, you don’t have people trained, like you just it keeps scaling itself down to lower common denominator where everyone like we just can’t trust anybody. No one can do anything. Lock everybody down, and then we don’t have to think about it anymore. And now it’s easy. I think that’s what that has to be.

Larry 21:58
but that would be the same thing for us we can’t figure out who the bad officers are. So, we just have to treat them all as bad officers, right?

Andy 22:03
I agree with you yet again. So yeah, so I don’t trust anybody with the little cop car lights on their cars. I don’t trust any of them

Larry 22:09
because they have demonstrated that they are quick to deploy tasers. They’re quick to, to just stick people with things that they shouldn’t. And therefore, if you’re wearing the badge, we should assume the worst. Of course not. But people get arrested and put in correctional facilities. Sometimes it’s the wrong identity. Sometimes it’s for nothing more than failure to make a payment on something that the person intended to pay but didn’t and there’s a bench warrant and they got taken into custody. I promise you they’re not running around with a baggy up their rectum! They weren’t planning on getting arrested.

Andy 22:49
All right. Have you come off your soapbox yet?

Larry 22:52
so, but I wished I wish the cops would merely extend that same courtesy, that they’re asking for themselves and say that No, they’re not all doing this. And let’s try to find the ones who are. And let’s not destroy the whole house for every for everyone because there’s a few bad apples here in the prison. Let’s put those people in isolation. Let’s strip search them. Let’s restrict their privileges. And let’s treat them like bad inmates. And let’s continue to let other people have contact visits. And let’s continue to let the people who are not doing these things. Let’s treat them like human beings.

Andy 23:28
A quick little detour. I posted something on Twitter this week about hypocrisy and

Larry 23:33
HYpocrisy I like that.

Andy 23:35
And someone fired back at me it was something to the effect of, Oh, I see. You’re doing something about the registry. Well, if you didn’t commit your crime, blah, blah. I was like, okay, but I was really mostly referring to this kind of conversation about hypocrisy, just kind of in general that I try super hard. To not be it is impossible to not be hypocritical about something. But I try super hard because it’s a check on me if I’m going to say we shouldn’t judge all of our people this way then we shouldn’t judge all of those people that way. But at least in that context, I don’t want to get shot. So, I think I’m remotely justified in not trusting the people with the guns because it’s easier to get shot with a gun than without one. It’s really hard if there’s no gun present to get shot by one.

Larry 24:20
That would be true. And I guess I would say, didn’t respond to a long well written email from a listener from South Georgia that he, he responded to. I didn’t think that the punishment fit the crime for the officer. And he’s entitled to his opinion that that the punishment should have been more severe. But that’s the part of the intellectual honesty that I tried to try to adhere to, is that if we want individualize sentencing and if we want people to be punished proportionate to their life, and their one mistake, he’s he makes a valid point that that that officers wearing the badge are held to a higher standard. And that is absolutely true, but they’re not held to such a super high standard that they get life in prison when someone else would get probation. And that was a pretty harsh sentence. And I don’t remember the details of what it was.

Andy 25:06
But that was the one that made the girls walk around naked.

Larry 25:10
Yeah. So, it was like a it was like a 10-year sentence or something. It was it was it was not exactly a slap on the wrist. And I thought it was on the harsh side. And so yes, I do believe that. But holding them accountable doesn’t necessarily mean the harshest punishment you could possibly imagine.

Andy 25:29
max sentences for everybody. Just

Larry 25:32
that’s the Trump administration. But I don’t agree with that.

Andy 25:37
Hey, Larry, can you tell me about five cases or at least the ones that you know about the cases that are going on that could significantly reform Pennsylvania Sex Offender Registry, this article comes from the appeal and is written by Joshua Vaughn. He is actually a friend of the movement in general and he actually attended the Ohio conference. So, if you have the opportunity to follow the individual on the social medias, it would be he’s a worthwhile person to follow with criminal justice topics. What’s going on in Pennsylvania?

Larry 26:05
Well, the Pennsylvania comes up regular on the podcast, we talked about the attempt of the legislature to we roll back the clock 2011 they passed their version of the Adam Walsh Act to come into federal compliance. They don’t want to lose that precious federal funding. And, and they went beyond what was required to be compliant. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately decided that, that they couldn’t do what they’re doing retroactively. At. So therefore, the question arose, what do they do to respond to the Munez decision, that was the name of the case. They reenacted largely the registry the court had held to be unconstitutional. So that that’s, that’s one of the cases and then there’s another one on civil commitment and I don’t know how to explain all five of them. But this this revolves around bribery, the biggest segment of the people that are going to be the ones who would have gotten relief from the Munez decision except the legislature reenacted what they considered a scaled-down version, but they still put the internet notification, the internet publication now that that component of the registry is back for the state’s highest court again, in terms of whether that violates the Constitution, and the Attorney General was crying. This is law enforcement apparatus you hear me speak about the Attorney General’s is crying the blues about how this is going to compromise public safety. But when push came to shove, they weren’t able to cite anything that supported that position.

Andy 27:48
This seems to be pretty common that the other than one example from Michigan which is cited in this article, where I think all of the time I guess not the but he’s Philadelphia, Larry Krasner and a handful of other progressive DAs, but they always make carve outs for us peoples. And they say that it is in the interest of public safety. Yet, there’s a pretty big mountain of evidence that says that this doesn’t change anything. So, what is the point

Larry 28:19
That it satisfies the public? That’s the point

Andy 28:23
is, how is it that the public is so misinformed about how bad us people are?

Larry 28:31
Well, you know, I think I’ll probably offend people. If I said, What I truly feel I think, are our wireless are not a part of that public service. They’re listening to be better informed, and I think, to even to know about the podcast, they’re better informed than the average person but they, the average citizen, in my opinion, that doesn’t do a lot of doesn’t exert a lot of effort to be informed on current events. To be informed about. The information is more accessible now. You and I had a conversation last week about what we would have had to have done to research something

Andy 29:05
I was just gonna bring that up, actually,

Larry 29:06
yeah, yeah. And now you just clicked your mouse and your keys that you’ve got the information that I would have had to drive into the library for 25, 30 years ago, not even 30 years ago, 20 years ago, when Al Gore invented the internet, if you unless you’re one of those lucky ones that had AOL for 10 hours a month for. Ha ha

Larry 29:24
whatever it was, 1999

Andy 29:28
That’s awesome. Yes. I hadn’t thought about that in decades.

Larry 29:33
But this is, this is a this is a battle that I don’t see ending anytime soon because the court has not halted the enforcement of the registry even having declared it to be invalid. They gave the legislature an opportunity to come up with a registration scheme that would fit within the contours of the Constitution and the legislator went out of their way to reenact as much as they could. And it looks like by all accounts, that they went beyond what’s going to fall within the contours of the Constitution. So, but the legislature is not going to stop legislating the courts can’t require them to stop legislation legislating. It wouldn’t surprise me. If they try it one more time. If the Supreme Court says, Well, your, your second version still violates the Constitution. I don’t think they’re going to throw up their hands and say, Well, I guess that’s it, folks. I don’t think they’re going to do that. I think they’re going to come back. And I think they’re going to try again; they may come closer getting it right the third time. But I think that, that they will legislate a new version of registration. And they may have to turn the lights out on it to meet the requirements for it to be constitutional. They may and this would be a major step if they were to say that the mirror publication is punishment, if they were to affirm that, that that that One challenge of the five because then we’ll have something we can hang our hats on and say, See, we told you that the internet had evolved to the point to merely listing a person’s address and their information is punitive. So, I’m hoping that’s what they decide.

Andy 31:16
I really do stand by you know, it is a pain in the ass and it is a stressful situation to go to the, the place annually or quarterly, whatever your situation is, and go get booked, fingerprinted, and you know all of that it is a very stressful day. But that compared to the internet piece where someone can just type in your name and roughly your location and you pop up. I personally feel that that is significantly worse. And that is the biggest barrier that we people have to living some modicum of normal life.

Larry 31:51
So, well. I know that I know that your safety factor would go up if you weren’t on the internet because then you wouldn’t have the people out, the vigilantes out, or that are looking to do you harm physically or to do you harm in terms of reputation, to create problems because they wouldn’t be able to pay for your neighborhood plaster your neighborhood with flyers. And go door-to-door

Andy 32:13
there would be that barrier, you know, your employers are still going to do some background check, but they’re paying for that there’s some sort of barrier that they have to just go randomly. do a background check on somebody, your neighbors are most likely not going to do it unless you have some, you know, busybody yenta, that wants to pay all the money to get a background check done. One other thing, if you don’t mind. Do we need to cover that this is a democratic Attorney General?

Larry 32:39
I don’t see any harm in mentioning it.

Andy 32:42
That made bashing team red on these things, aren’t we?

Larry 32:46
So yes, this. This is this is an attorney general who’s doing what Attorney General’s do which is defend the laws of the state, or the nation chase the US Attorney General, but that’s what they do. Very seldom, one in Michigan admitted that, what was her name Dana Nestle, she admitted right now the registry had evolved to no longer serve non punitive purpose and intent. But that is a rarity. That is definitely rare.

Andy 33:16
interesting

Larry 33:18
To quote here simply put Nestle said “in a state with the state sex offender registration Act has gone far beyond its purpose and now poses burdens that are so punitive in their effect that they negate the state’s public safety justification.” End of quote.

Andy 33:32
Perfect. All right, and here you go again, with some tech dirt mumbo jumbo Fourth Amendment Fifth Amendment compelled speech stuff. Why do you want to keep peppering me with these articles and taunt me with them?

Larry 33:44
Because I love this. I love this developing case law this is this is just so fantastic that this issue is being examined by courts across the land that is so illustrates how rational minds can disagree.

Andy 33:59
This is an Another case where someone in this particular case someone was drunk driving and when law enforcement sought to compel the suspect to unlock his phone so they could search for evidence. The person declined saying Fifth Amendment and so can you can you state your case as to why you think that this should be open to a search warrant?

Larry 34:20
No state my position why ’cause I’m not sure my position is clear about what is it you’re asking?

Andy 34:27
So, you know, we were talking about a pre-show, like why do you think that? Well, why do you think either way, take your pick? Why should you be forced open your phone if asked to testify to give up your password or why do you think that it should be a sanctuary?

Larry 34:44
The phone is not you. And therefore, the Constitution protects in terms of the Fifth Amendment, that’s the against self-incrimination. So therefore, therefore, we merely opening your phone does not provide any testimony. It’s not able to provide testimony. I mean, it could provide evidence, but it doesn’t testify. It may be a source of incriminating evidence that’s on your phone. But it is not a person. And therefore, the Constitution. If you look at it literally and which I know our audience is all in favor of that strict interpretation, Constitution, the phone would not enjoy the protection of because opening that phone and punch it in four digits is not testifying. It would be the same as the cops come in with a warrant and say we’re going to search your house would you like to give us the key or would you like to us to use the battering ram. I mean, they’re going to come in and they may find incriminating stuff in your house. But merely opening the phone is not testimonial, but then you have the issue of when they can the court are pretty solidly saying in order to require, to gain access to the content of the phone, you need a warrant to search the phone. So, so wait. So we have two issues that play regarding phones, we’ve got to get in the phone, by virtue of a call sufficient to justify a warrant, because barely the incident to a lawful arrest doctrine when you when you get arrested your car they that they the incident to arrest they can search the car in your purse. But the phone, the U.S. Supreme Court held a few years ago that that your phone in order to be searched was an exception to the incident to a lawful arrest. So therefore, they needed they needed a warrant to search the phone. But this about providing passwords is centered on the argument of whether it’s testimonial or not and I don’t see how you can say that providing your password is testimonial.

Andy 36:55
how about so let’s say that they do get a warrant to search your house doesn’t that have to be tailored around a specific thing so they’re looking for, they’re looking for something to support some evidence behind you committing a crime against a minor, you know, something that is related to our people. But while they’re searching your house, they find, you know, some, like they find an arsenal of weapons, like that wasn’t part of the search warrant and not related to the case. Not necessarily legal that you have them or illegal. I’m not trying to go down that path, but they find something illegal, you know, maybe even like drugs, but that wasn’t part of the search warrant. So correct. Doesn’t that get tied into the phone thing? Okay, so I’ve given your past giving you my password to get into my phone. But now you start trolling through all of my other things, bank records, and all these things are not related to all this other stuff. So, doesn’t that tie into the same thing like the search warrant should be tailored to the evidence needed to you know, to develop the case?

Larry 37:54
You’re absolutely correct. When you when you when you see what a search warrant is a sort of valid search warrants identifies with specificity, the premises to be searched. So, they’ll describe the address. And if it’s a, if it’s a multi-family dwelling, they’ll describe the unit in the multifamily dwelling it at the specificity and then the probable cause that supports the search, and they’ll describe what it is they’re looking for. They’ll say, based on officers’ years of training and experience, that people who do this are likely to have this. So, they’re looking for that for those items. Well, now, when you’re looking for items, you may when you’re coming into porn would be an example that people are on our list would be on our podcast will be able to relate to, well, if they come in the house and they find weapons and they find drugs. Those are not exempt from there. They can’t close their eyes and say we don’t see this. So, the probable cause That that supported the search warrant was the porn because the internet crimes against children Task Force through the what is that organization that reports everything, everybody to the text transmission of images that they that the reports are?

Andy 39:23
Yes, yes. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children?

Larry 39:24
and what else they got it they tipped that they based on that tip, they got the IP address, and they did the search warrant, and they come looking for porn. But if they find three weapons in your house, and they already know that you’re a convicted felon, that you’re not allowed to possess weapons, well, they’ve already found a violation of the law. And if they find what appears to be drugs, you don’t get to have a free field day on that what they would do is that they would secure those items and they would go get another warrant.

Andy 39:54
Yeah but they found them with like, you know, as part of not the premise of the original warrant.

Larry 39:59
That is correct.

Andy 40:01
Doesn’t that make it not admissible in court for because you found it unlawfully?

Larry 40:05
No because they were on lawful business, personal search. And they what they would do is they would secure; they would secure you anyway if they were doing a search warrant so they’d make sure you couldn’t interfere. But if they found the dope, they saw what it looked like dope, they would go back and they would write up another statement of probable cause they would say, that when entering the back bedroom, we found three baggies that were plastic, and there was a white substance in it, and there was a scale sitting beside it. And based on our training and experience, we believe that that that is contraband, they would go back and they would be given another search warrant to seize that and they would seize that they would test it and they would come back and they would have another charge on you is what they would do. So.

Andy 40:52
Ah, all right. I’m also intrigued though, because I use fingerprint unlock for a lot of things like The bank stuff I use or even the password manager I use so now they would have to you know, I guess they could always do the override to get it to the things to use the password but God they would cost me like hey can you unlock this thing and like constantly getting my fingerprint to unlock this there that the next thing the next thing. Charles says never cook on a hot plate in the back bedroom. That sounds like that’s a decent idea.

Larry 41:21
Well, why would you not want to cook on a hot plate in the back bedroom?

Andy 41:25
Because I think maybe you could be cooking up dope.

Larry 41:29
Or you could be cooking up something good too.

Andy 41:30
Yeah, I guess you could be cooking up a pocket or something. You know, you get your ramen soups and all the Cheetos and stuff to go in it right? Well, I’m very disappointed that you didn’t use your little expression, but I won’t force you to.

Larry 41:42
This is a family program.

Andy 41:45
Okay. I did post it in chat and nobody. Nobody took the bait. Alright, well, alright, so I guess that was the other thing we have to cover about voters being stripped of their voting rights from the Star Tribune. You sent this to me earlier today. Minnesota voters being stripped of their voting rights. Do you want to skip it Since you didn’t read it either?

Larry 42:06
Well, I glanced at it. I did. I did a Larry read.

Unknown Speaker 42:09
Oh, a Larry read all right.

Andy 42:12
Why is it that we take people it seems like we would want more people to vote we have a very problem, big problem in the United States with civic engagement. The presidential election, as far as I know, gets something of one third of the People’s vote. And that seems to be pretty dismal that we are supposed to be representative democracy that we would want as many people involved in the voting process as possible.

Larry 42:33
That’s one philosophy. But that’s not a universal philosophy. There are people who believe strongly that people are already voting that are not competent enough to vote, that they should own property to vote. Neil Bortz, who was a famous talk show host, I think he’s largely retired now he believed that you should be a net taxpayer before you’d be able to vote. He said a net tax consumer would have every interest to vote adverse to the public interest. So that’s one way of looking at it. But, but it’s not a universal viewpoint that we would want more and more people about. We would want more and more people to vote that are going to vote the way we would like them to vote. And that’s like less like, when you’re picking a jury. Passion, I get a kick out of this. We all say we want a fair jury. Nobody wants a fair jury.

Andy 43:25
You want one that’s going to acquit you.

Larry 43:27
That’s well, either side. If you’re a prosecutor, yes, you’re looking for a jury that’s going to see it your way. And you’re trying to get rid of people who might be an impediment to that. And if you’re a defense attorney, we’re looking to exclude people that that are not going to see it our way because we have a theory of the case that we’re trying to find the best possible jurors that might buy into our case theory. So, nobody wants a fair jury. Well, that’s the same thing about voting people, people. People want to expand the voter the pool of voters that will help their side of the election. The republican conservatives, they want to shrink the number of voters who they feel would be detrimental, and some of them will be honest enough to say it. And, and they, they, they want to shrink the voting. And there are people on the Democratic side who they zero in on what they believe would be a majority democratic constituency. And I said we need to get these people registered to vote. And so, it’s, it’s, it’s kind of normal.

Andy 44:26
Hmm, Okay, because, you know, it has come up here. So, there’s only like, there’s it’s in the single digits of states that have, like some long term if not permanent, is it permanent still?

Larry 44:39
Yeah, yeah, there’s a few that have, but says, Minnesota is one of 18 states where felons may not vote until they complete post incarceration supervision, such as probation and parole. Others like Michigan, Indiana automatically restore the rights upon release from prison. And that’s where I’d like to see our state go, but we’re not going to be able to get there in the next year or two.

Andy 44:58
I think it’s only like a Single digit if not maybe like 12 that you are just forever barred that everyone can get back.

Larry 45:07
Yeah you there’s either an automatic restoration when you complete all obligation or you can file some minimal something there’s there are a few states where you have to get an executive clemency and there are some where I don’t think you can do it period. But it’s the movement it’s towards getting people re-enfranchised. So that’s a good thing. Because I don’t have that fear. I have been around enough people with criminal records, and they don’t automatically vote one way or the other. They, so, so I think it’s gonna be a wash. I think I think if anything, it’s going to lean toward the conservative side. But it is going to be a wash either people are going to vote conservative, you’ll have some offset from the minority community, we have black people tend to vote to vote, more democratic, but that’s going to be offset by the white votes, which they make up the majority of felons. So, I’m not so sure that we’re going to have this mass massive number of people New Democrat voters as Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to.

Andy 46:04
tell me why that bothers you so bad?

Larry 46:06
Cause it’s not for the the party.

Andy
It’s not Democrat?

Larry 46:09
not Democrat.

Andy 46:11
democratic, right?

Larry 46:12
Democratic Party

Andy 46:14
and he does it just to ruffle your feathers. Right?

Larry 46:16
Well, well it doesn’t do it to bind it was it was it was George W. Bush was the first one to use that. And it was like the drive-by heat coined drive-by media phrase and the democrat party and then Russia’s adopted it and has done it for and a lot of talk show hosts the conservative side to it but rush rush is the bigot because he has the largest audience and that he’ll never say Democratic Party. So, if I if I ever had the luck of getting on his show, I would do the same thing to the Republican Party. I’d mispronounce it, I call it the Republican Party.

Andy 46:54
Okay, now before we lose all of our listeners, we should probably move on. Are you ready for…?

Larry 46:59
Well if they can’t pronounce the party correctly, why should I?

Andy 47:02
I don’t disagree with other than the fact that he has 15 million weekly listeners maybe and we have less than, slightly.

Larry 47:10
Well we have definitely less but we’re catching up.

Andy 47:14
We are catching up. If he if he keeps getting on the pain pills, then maybe we can catch up for sure. 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/registry matters. Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible. Okay, I had a conversation with someone near and dear to me this week and they are interested about getting involved in advocacy work, and I couldn’t really think of anybody better on the planet than to ask you. Now I need you to, for my sake, I need you to dumb this way down to where what would I do? steps one, two and three Can I don’t know. And can we make this super easy and super dumbed-down again for me? Because what would we do first? Do we run to the legislature and say you need to abolish the registry right off the bat?

Larry 48:44
Well, when you say advocacy, it’d be helpful to know what level because we’re doing it at city and county levels a little different doing it at state and particular federal level where I have very little experience at the federal level.

Andy 48:56
I don’t but we often say here there is no federal registry. So, we’re not going to strike down the federal registry because that doesn’t exist. Perhaps striking down AWA and Megan’s Law would improve things. But that wouldn’t abolish the 50 state registries, and then you just brought up about little local ordinances. So, I think most of us have to deal with state level things. So, can you drive it from the state level?

Larry 49:26
Well, if we were serious about this advocacy, we’d probably do a segment for the next year each episode about building advocacy.

Andy 49:36
Yep, that’s my plan.

Larry 49:38
Because it’s not something that’s like those. It’s like those people who do those rings on the on the gymnastic. And what they call the pommel horse, all the stuff, they don’t just do it. They don’t just do a 10-minute training on a podcast and learn how to do all that. So, I will not be able to put decades of experience into a five- or 10-minute answer here about some basic stuff but to Really make it basic. It’s relationships and getting to know the people who represent, and you got you got you got to have a relationship. If you’re really going to be influential you got to have. Now that doesn’t mean that you don’t count at all as a constituent. If you just simply pick up the phone and call your state legislator or senator or representative and express your opinion. But most people when they do that, they have no idea what they’re calling about. And they have no idea that, that they’ll say well make things make things better on criminal justice, and they’re looking for a bill number. So, they said, well, there’s a piece of legislation you want me to support or oppose. And of course, I have no idea. And I said, well, they’ll say just make things better. So, you, you’re going to have to spend some time studying what it is you’re wanting to do and set some goals for yourself. Do you want to it’s hard to tell you were to start, but I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish? What the mission is.

Andy 50:58
but what about Is it Is it good to know who your local person is? Is that important?

Larry 51:04
Absolutely it’s important if you if you have any idea that your that your state allows for local, there’s some states where that’s not a real big problem, because either the courts have said that that’s a state registry preempts all local control. Therefore, you wouldn’t have to worry so much about registration or proximity of those type of restrictions. Or in my state state were, my state law, we, we’ve said that they’re preempted. But there are a lot of states where there is no preemption. So, you have to be thinking about not only what the state might do, but what the city or county might do. If you live in Texas, or Florida, or I could go on and on, Louisiana, places where they… does Georgia have any locally imposed restrictions?

Andy 51:49
not as far as I’m aware.

Larry 51:51
But a lot of these states do so. So, if you’re, if you’re living in a city or county, you’ve got most commonly city councils, but they’re not always called councils they’re called Board of selectmen, they’re called Board of Aldermen. They’re, they’re called Board of Supervisors. You’ve got you’ve got whatever your local governing structure is, and you usually have a county except in the case of Louisiana, you have Parish, parish level ordinances. So, you’ve got, you’ve got the potential for things to come at you from several directions. And awareness is the first step. You can’t do anything if you’re not aware.

Andy 52:26
Okay, and so awareness of so someone’s going to go to the legislature and say, Hey, you big piece of poop? I need you to fix these things, because you schmuck-heads didn’t make things better for my people before? Is that the right approach to talk to your local legislator?

Larry 52:44
Probably won’t be very successful if you use that approach.

Andy 52:49
So, I realized that the thing that you’re saying about relationships is being respectful and dressed appropriately you know, and but what about committees and I think this will be like the last thing that we cover before we move on. How do you know what committee is in charge of What thing?

Larry 53:09
Well, how you how you know is by using the legislative website, which we wouldn’t have had 25 years ago. We would have had to drive to the Capitol and would have got a printed-up bill-finder to see they printed a daily document the bill locator overnight, and it was ready for pickup each day. And you would look to see where each bill was in committee. Well now you click your mouse from the comfort of your home, and you watch your watch the legislation and see, but there’s no point to do that if you don’t have a plan. I mean, I’ve always I get a chuckle when people say we’re tracking it and I say okay, you’re tracking legislation. And what is your plan if the legislation starts moving a direction you don’t like tracking it is a prelude it’s a necessary step. You can’t react if you’re not tracking. But do you have a plan of what you’re going to do if the legislation is moving, ‘cause one, legislation never moves, it gets introduced And it just sits there, because there’s too many things and too short of time and bills don’t get hearings and they die. But if a bill begins to move, what’s your plan? And they look at me and say, “well, we’re tracking.” but what is your plan, “well, we’re tracking.” That’s not a plan. I mean It’s a plan to watch it make it well, if you’re going to track it, watch it go the finish line. But if that bill gets set for hearing committee, and it gets heard, and has due-pass favorable recommendation. It’s well on its way to pass in that chamber. And then if it’s if it passes that chamber, that’s a leg up towards getting it introduced past the other chamber and getting to the governor. So, what is your plan? Well, the plan, the plan is what we need to be to focus on is when you approach a legislator, you need to have a wish list of what you’d like them to do. making things better is not a wish list. I’d like you to vote no against House Bill 60 when it comes before your committee, and here’s why, I’m going to give you three good reasons to vote no. Don’t give them my mind full research. Don’t tell them your life story. Give them three sound bites of why they should vote no more than three you can give them less if it’s a really good but no more than three sound bites of why they should vote no.

Andy 55:16
And one of the things that I think you are a master of Larry is the sound bites This is why I like you are perfect for this podcast because you can you can get your thought down to a very concise 30-ish something second kinda like, here’s this that why done I’m out. And it’s you’ve rehearsed these things; I assume that you already have more or less pre-determined answers to a lot of these things. When you’re when you’re going to go talk to somebody you have your elevator pitch, I guess is a to word it.

Larry 55:43
That is correct. Now, if I were if I were in, for example, like in Pennsylvania, and assume that I happened to be right. If it does go the way I expect it to go, the court rules in our favor and says that this is unconstitutional, and they start a third version. Then you need a couple soundbites. Well, I don’t know, the committee, I’m assuming if it’s a house bill sponsored by House members going to be House bill is going to be assigned to at least the House Judiciary Committee, possibly another committee or, you know, it may just it may just be one, or it may be two. But when it gets to the committee, you’re going to have to have some sound bites that’s going to appeal to those Pennsylvania still under republican control. So, you’re going to have to have something that that resonates with them. So, I would my sound bite would be, well, we spent an inordinate amount of money to defend that unconstitutional law twice. Why are we going to do this again?

Andy 56:40
So, kind of hit it from that point from Team Red, so to speak, that that we would hit them from on their side of things.

Larry 56:44
Well they claim to be guardians of the perps,

Andy 56:48
of course

Larry 56:50
and they claim to be stewards of good and careful spending, and say, Look, we spent on these two cases, or there’s five right now, but on these two main challenges against the ex post facto imposition of these enhanced requirements. We’ve spent over a million dollars and legal fees now to a large prosperous state like Pennsylvania that’s not a gob of money, but it’s significant. And, and you certainly

Andy 57:16
I’m sure they could use it somewhere else.

Larry 57:19
I’m sure they could and say, Look, we don’t want to go down this rabbit hole again, let us work with you to come up with a constitutional registry. Because when you tell that person, those talking points about wasting money, they’re going to say, and so you want me to throw up my hands and quit? I’m not going to do that. They’re not going to do that. So, you say, Well, okay, well, then let’s work together to come up with something that the courts will accept, and that we will accept. Okay. Well, what will you accept when I come back? Well, well, therein lies the problems the problem. You just gave me if I were a lawmaker, you just told me that you would accept me and registered, and that you would Like it if they didn’t publish you. So, you get your precious registry. And you don’t do you don’t do the worldwide publication. It will stand down If you do that. That would be a position to take. Does that abolish the registry? No, no. But you’re not going to abolish the registry through court action. Because it would be possible to have a registry that could pass constitutional muster. Sorry.

Andy 58:24
I had to double-take. I was like, wait a minute, if we were going to that would be a place to get it done. But it is not going to get done because we register everything else. A registry is not the unconstitutional piece.

Larry 58:35
In and of itself isn’t. So therefore, for the court to say you can never have a registry, there would have to be no registry, that could ever be constitutional. And they can’t say that because registries are eminently constitutional. But they might say that you can never humiliate people with putting their address and their picture on the internet because It’s too devastating in a modern society to do that. So therefore, you could register all you want to, but you can’t list these people, we may get to that point. And that would be a fantastic victory, because then people would not be subject to vigilante justice, they wouldn’t be so easily discriminated against. And that would be a dramatic improvement from the status quo. But back to the talking points. Don’t go in with a life story. That’s what people are tempted to do. They know that if they go in and tell their story, that it’s going to be a tear-jerking episode, and that the lawmaker is going to want to do all they can, he or she, to help them. And it doesn’t work like that.

Andy 59:38
Can we can we sharpen that though, if it is me, going into the legislature saying these things, that is one avenue, but what about a family member, a spouse, a child, someone along those lines, what about them going and telling their tear-jerking story?

Larry 59:54
That is far more powerful. That is that is far more powerful. They won’t do it. But that would be far more Powerful if they did do it.

Andy 1:00:01
Can you can you imagine like a 10-year-old son or daughter going to the legislature saying look, I want my daddy to live with me but because of these stupid residency restrictions he can’t live at home where we’ve had a house for 40 years in the family. But because of this, we can’t live there.

Larry 1:00:17
That would be fantastic. An end to vigilantism would be even more fantastic.

Andy 1:00:21
we certainly don’t want people gunning getting gunned down just because they have their picture posted on the internet or mistakenly, because we’ve covered that too.

Larry 1:00:28
When I said vigilantism that’s what I was meaning to say. But that is as good point. Yeah, I fear vigilantism. But, but what I was what I was intended to say, was the ostracization that they feel when they can’t participate. Because families, their kids, peers won’t let them hang out because his dad is on the registry. And the soccer mom has looked up that person, you can’t go there. You can’t be near that person. And that would be very powerful that they would do that.

Andy 1:01:00
Right, because there’s that whole side of it. I was Yeah, I was thinking vigilantism is the case where we have people’s houses getting shot because their picture is on the internet, but because of all of the other restrictions where you know, you can’t be involved in your kid’s life. And that would be, I think that would be a place where the evidence comes into backup. Here’s the testimony saying that this is a really shitty way to have a child grow up without a parent because of these restrictions. Here’s the evidence to also confirm why it’s also a stupid thing to do, because it doesn’t make any sense and it doesn’t protect anybody.

Larry 1:01:31
They should have chosen different parents.

Andy 1:01:36
Okay, well, I will try to keep coming up with new angles to poke at you in this lobbying. I don’t know what the right word is being an advocate being a person that tries to push legislation in different directions. I will keep trying to come up with different topics to cover with you.

Larry 1:01:55
It would be a good series to do it.

Andy 1:01:57
All right, then to close the last little bit out, I wanted to ask you, because this comes up all the time too. So if, if, if not NARSOL, and whatever advocacy group this is, you know, if you want to if you want to fund your local animal shelter, and they’re trying to push some sort of legislation through, they have a very finite amount of resources, and they have to pick and choose what they’re going to go after and all that and I wanted to have a conversation with you about how do we pick the right avenue to go? How do we determine whether it’s good or bad? How do we pick which area to focus on and I mean physical areas like north south east west, which part of the country you know, and what are the consequences of us actually, then even trying to go after and change some of these laws?

Larry 1:02:47
Well, are you talking about in terms of legal challenges, because that that’s, that’s where I have the biggest role is in terms of our legal efforts?

Andy 1:02:56
Yes, absolutely. And so, I wrote down as a note so example, one of my first interactions with you was about the Georgia bill thingamabob, or the law were after two years of probation, you get unsupervised. And while we were interviewing attorneys, you were making trips over here and all the stuff that we’re going to visit people, then, you know, a bill gets introduced and an they ultimately swept the rug out from underneath us, and they changed the law.

Larry 1:03:21
So well, and we were looking at a legal challenge against that, to compel them to follow the law as it existed before it was changed. But when you have the very limited resources NARSOL has, which is a fraction of what the ACLU has a fraction of what these alphabet organizations you hear of.

Andy 1:03:45
the Southern Poverty Law Center is another one

Larry 1:03:48
or the NRA. I mean, we couldn’t even. But so, we have such a small pie compared to that. We’re all the organizations whether they Be the ACLU or the southern poverty law center there in what’s called impact litigation. And they’re looking for, for, for, for some cause that’s going to impact more than just an individual. You could have the greatest injustice in the world being done to you. But if it doesn’t have impact beyond you, you’re probably not going to have any interest whatsoever from an organization. If it’s the Freedom from Religion Foundation, they’re looking at having impact beyond you. They want the nativity scene that’s paid for by the taxpayers to come down off the town square. They’re not trying to get you your dispute with an individual church congregation where they told you not to come back. They’re not trying to resolve that. That’s about you. You see what I’m trying to say?

Andy 1:04:50
What about something like the Yeah, I do and what about something like the Georgia challenge what was, can you walk me through part of the decision process with the with the Halloween side and you I mean, we didn’t have any plaintiffs originally, you know. So, it was just sort of something that Larry pulled out of his hiney to go challenge in federal court.

Larry 1:05:12
Well, what we look out, there is probably be the best to lay out the types of cases, how we could get involved, we could get involved as the initiator of cases, which is what we did in Georgia, we initiated that case through finding attorneys, and finding plaintiffs. But that’s, that’s not always going to be the case and probably more often not going to be the case. what’s going to be more likely the case is going to be where there’s something already happening. And it’s up in an appellate level for review. And in those cases, where there’s an appeal, then we might come in as a friend of the court as an amicus party and try to affect the outcome because an amicus party, a friend of the court can get information and a brief that the parties to the action cannot. We’re given a little more leeway to give opinions and to bring to bring information to the court that the court might not have developed below. So, we might come in as an amicus party, but what we’re always looking for is impact. Is this going to impact a significant number of our constituency, if a favorable decision should ensue? And so, if we if we come in on a case that’s already underway, we didn’t get to pick any of the stuff. We didn’t get to pick the parties. We didn’t get to pick the attorneys, the trial court level, we didn’t get to have anything to do with how the case was set up, what evidence that should have been brought in. That wasn’t. All we know is that either we’re on the losing side. And we’re trying to reverse that or in the case of Millard v. Rankin in the tenth circuit We’re on the winning side, we joined and put an amicus brief because we want to preserve the victory that was awarded by the trial court below. So in those cases, Millard v. Rankin, and if that is upheld, that is going to have impact far and wide, because if the registry is unconstitutional because it violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause and that becomes the law in the 10th circuit, we’re talking about a number of states whose registries would have to be dramatically altered to remove the punitive nature of the cruel, unusual nature of those of those registration schemes.

Andy 1:07:37
That’s Colorado. Is that right?

Larry 1:07:39
Yeah, that’s Millard vs. Rankin, Allah, Colorado, which is before the tenth circuit still sitting there. So, so we didn’t, we didn’t have anything to do with the initiation of that case. I mean, that was Allison Rotberg, and that was that was her clients.

Andy 1:07:54
We just made sure it recently passed.

Larry 1:07:57
That is correct. So, but the common denominator is impact. And if it’s a case, we’re going to initiate, we’re going to try to look at the win-ability factor of it. In an ideal world where you just had unlimited resources, you wouldn’t have to take that into consideration. But our donor base is not going to be excited about us if we constantly initiate losing. I mean, there, there are a few people that would say, “Atta boy, I mean, she tried, and she really did her best.” But if you if you if you don’t win any cases, and particularly if you take those losing decisions up on appeal, those become precedential decisions. So, we’re looking at the win-ability of the case. So to determine win-ability, you’ve got to determine if there’s adverse precedent already in the challenge you want to make or if they’re supporting precedent already, and that requires a little bit of work to figure out if, like in the Fifth Circuit, you’d be foolish to continue to fight residence restrictions after the Fifth Circuit said of this and Lewisville, the case of Lewisville versus Duarte, that Richard Gladden took all the way to the Fifth Circuit. The law, that circuit is not very good in terms of all the challenges that have gone up in the Fifth Circuit. So, you so you’d look at the Fifth Circuit and say, gee, this is not a good place to be, because of the body of case law is not good here. And so therefore, although there’s some crappy stuff going on, and Louisiana is in the Fifth Circuit. If we were looking at anything in the Fifth Circuit, we would automatically we would automatically at NARSOL say if it’s residency or proximity restrictions, we’re going to be very skittish about it because the body of case law already is against us now. For example, Louisiana has a master debtors’ prison where you have to pay for the notification within that zone, or radius I forget how much it is, how many feet around you, you have to pay for that out of your own pocket. And if you don’t pay it within a specified amount of time, they put you in prison. Well that the body of case law is not adverse that the body case laws is actually in our favor on that, because that’s the US Supreme Court and, and Bert Bearden versus Georgia. So that would be a cause of action we’d like to see undertaken in Louisiana. But we haven’t put together the right mix yet. So, we’re looking for win-ability, we think we could win that challenge. We’re looking for the right legal team, which we haven’t assembled. And we’re looking for the right set of plaintiffs which we have assembled.

Andy 1:10:24
I was just about to ask you about that is that you also have to have somebody with standing you have to someone that has skin in the game that can be the quote unquote, plaintiff, Right?

Larry 1:10:31
That is That’s correct. you need you need someone with legal standing. And in Georgia, what we did, and you were a part of that we sent out hundreds of letters to people who were in the counties that were in contention and Butts and Spalding County, and we sent letters saying, “Hey, this is going to happen to you. It happened to you last year. And if you don’t contact us, it’s going to happen to you again this year. And would you like to try to put a stop to it?”

Andy 1:10:56
And the response was overwhelming. So over 200 letters were sent, and 150 people responded, right?

Larry 1:11:01
wasn’t quite that good. But there was a good dozen 20 responses there was there were enough that we that we came up with attractive plaintiffs. And that that’s what that’s what it takes what it takes. But NARSOL doesn’t litigate just to feel good. We litigate when we feel like we’ve got the cause of action that will affect a significant number of people, and that there is a reasonable probability of success. And there’s no adverse case law against us. There’s no point to go back in Texas and file another residency restriction against another city, because the panel that decided Lewisville is not going to be overruled by another panel in the Fifth Circuit. So until the US Supreme Court rules, which would be a superior court to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, until the US Supreme Court rules that residence restrictions violate the US Constitution or until we can find some component of the Texas constitution that they violate, were done on that issue, or a total residence restriction. It’s so much more exclusive to Lewisville, they’ll come along that we can distinguish ourselves from that and say, “Well, yes, you did say that in Lewisville, but this one is different.” Well, they had over 90% of Lewisville off-limits, so it’d be hard to conceive of a residency restriction that would be more restrictive than that. I mean, I guess you could have theoretically 100% off limits.

Andy 1:12:29
Yes. Right.

Larry 1:12:31
But it would be, it would be foolish to expend a bunch. I mean, our donors would really think we’re great people. If we expended $30,000 to $40,000 to go back and challenge another city in Texas, only to be flushed again into this circuit. I would think our donations would start to dry up if we did that. So, we’re looking at the win-ability of the case, and we’re looking at how many people it’s going to help. And then you always have to decide among that criteria of who’s more important. Are the people in prison more important? For example, there are people in states like Illinois, which that case is in federal court and has been won that that are being held in prison after they’ve served their time. In New Mexico, we’ve got the same situation. Well, if you’ve got limited amount of resources to people who have served their debt to society have paid it in full, and they won’t release them simply because they don’t have a provable address. Does that? How does that rate on the priority against someone who can’t live within 1,500 feet of something, but they’re at least in the free world, which is more important? If you have to pick and choose.

Andy 1:13:32
Sounds reasonable to me.

Larry 1:13:33
Well, that’s a tough that’s a tough dilemma we’re in so we’re like for like in a position where we have a small amount of a pie a small pie to work with. And there’s a tremendous amount of injustice around the country of things that are wrong, and things that should be challenged.

Andy 1:13:49
But Larry, these injustices are so great that shouldn’t the legislature just be barking up you know, calling NARSOL off the hook saying we want to fix these things can How can we help you?

Larry 1:14:01
Sure, that would have happened.

Andy 1:14:04
Why are you so negative all the time?

Larry 1:14:07
Now what should happen is these attorneys ought to just give their time away. And they should fund expenses related to litigation out of their pocket in addition to giving their time away. That’s what they should do.

Andy 1:14:18
your role as, like the legal genius behind all of this. That’s again, the reason why I’m asking you these kinds of questions is to try and figure out how we go about what is the idea? How do we go about figuring out what we’re going to challenge where there seems to be more activity in certain places like North Carolina, and there seems to be zero activity in other places, you know, I can’t even think of what it would be because it doesn’t even come to mind, because we don’t talk about it ever. You know, but we have, you know, we talk about the southern states on a pretty regular basis, and, you know, some other places where there’s just constant constant turmoil, but anyway, so that’s why I’m asking you these questions.

Larry 1:14:59
Well, they come to us through a variety of ways, I mean, we, we have affiliates who report things to us where they become aware of a court case. I mean, there’s no magic pipeline where all court cases are, are easily available to everybody, particularly when they’re in the trial court level. And when they go when they go up on appeal, it still may not be detected. So, people report things to us that they’re aware of. And, and that’s one way. We’re on various listservs. I’m on the national and the state criminal defense lawyers listservs. I learn some things through that way. And the law, the law itself, like in Georgia, for example, the Halloween there was no law that supported the sheriff’s in those two counties doing that. So that made that all the more appealing. It’s difficult for me to imagine how you would craft a successful defense for a law that doesn’t exist. There’s no law that allows the sheriff or directs the sheriff to place signage on people’s property on Halloween, nor does that require the offenders to comply with those directives. So therefore, that seemed like an easy win. Well, so far, we’ve been right. One county folded their tent decided not to do it, the other county lost. And now they want they want to appeal.

Andy 1:16:16
How much do you think that costs them?

Larry 1:16:18
It’s certainly 10s of thousands easily. I’d say easily close to $100,000. We’ll put up what they’ve expended.

Andy 1:16:25
And thanks Butts County Sheriff for keeping us safe.

Larry 1:16:30
But it doesn’t come out of his personal budget though the county has to cover it. Now if it came directly out of his sheriff’s department’s budget, he might think more about it, but he just has to bill the county and they pay it.

Andy 1:16:43
Yeah, I get that. It’s just funny to me.

Larry 1:16:45
I mean, we would we would welcome just because we can’t do all the challenges. If someone says succinctly sends me a challenge, don’t send me 37 different pleadings about a case. There again, time is of the essence. And I don’t have time to read all this stuff. So, if you send me, if you send me a thick ream of stuff, I’m not gonna read it. If you think there’s a good cause of action out there, that will affect a significant number of registrants. And you care enough about it to write up what that constitutional issue is, and why you think we can win it not just this is wrong it should not be happening. But we can win this because of like what I just said, I just told you why I thought I could win the Butts County case. I could win it because there was no authority underlying the actions they were taking. Therefore, they could not compel a person to do something that the law doesn’t require. That’s succinct, to the point. So if you if you if there’s a cause of action out there that you’re aware of, that you think that we could undertake, then give us give us that idea because we are looking at I hate to say we’re like the Supreme Court because we’re not but they’re looking for of the 9000 cert petitions they’re sifting through and picking 80-90 which is 1% that they would like to hear. And they’re looking for something unique and novel that they haven’t done already. And I’ll almost say they’re looking for a little entertainment. We’re not looking for entertainment, because this is serious business. But we’re looking for something that we can put our very limited resources to work at, and impact people’s lives. I believe when it’s all said and done, when this Georgia case plays itself out on appeal, I believe that we will be able to impact people’s lives. Because although it’s only Halloween, it’s only one day a year, I get that. But it’s also expanded in Tennessee to be a whole zone of holidays around Halloween, and that it’s expanded to be Christmas season. And it is the steppingstone towards greater victories. When we when we nailed them, like on something that we’re going to nail them. Butt’s County Sheriff. We’re going to win. You can’t turn your ship around. I mean, he’s gasping on life support trying to turn his losing ship around, and he’s not gonna be able to do it, because he never had the authority to do what he was doing.

Andy 1:19:13
So, his two options are to fold the tent and lose or keep losing-er more.

Larry 1:19:20
Well, what his options are, and I’ve been encouraged him to do exactly what he’s doing and I’m hoping he’s listening. His options are to help us get an appellate level decision, so that we will be able to shut this down through the entire southeast coast. ‘Cause the 11th circuit is Georgia, Florida and Alabama. So, what he’s doing is exactly what we need him to do is to help us get an appellate level decision out of the 11th circuit. Now, the lawyers are not as arrogant as I am. They think that the 11th circuit is dangerous, and we could actually lose this. I’m not worrying about that at the level that we’re at, but you never can count your chickens before they hatch. Is it possible we could lose? Yes, we could draw the worst panel on the 11th. And we could lose. But this is such a no brainer that I believe that even a rookie judge could get this right, because without authority to do something, you can’t compel a person to act. Now, we’re not even having a fight about the constitutionality of a statute that requires signage, because there is no statute.

Andy 1:20:24
I was just gonna, like, put that icing on that cake, though, because there is the constitutional piece in the First Amendment side of it, and you’ve never even brought that up in this conversation.

Larry 1:20:32
Yeah. Well, so without a statute, he doesn’t enjoy any presumption here of constitutionality. So, he is a such a precelled position, that he’s gasping for something that will never happen. He can’t win this case. But no one has either been able to tell him that or convince him of that? And he may know that he can’t win it, but he’s going to play it through the 2020 election. I don’t know what the man is up to. But I know that the that we went either way, if he folds his tent, we win. And if he if he appeals and doesn’t drop his appeal, which he’d be well advised to do, but if he doesn’t do that, we’re going to win there as well. So, and we will build from that body of case law, we will have a good favorable decision in the 11th circuit. And there’s still that case of McGuire’s out of Alabama that’s still pending in the 11th circuit. And who knows, this might help impact the McGuire decision since they haven’t rendered it

Andy 1:21:29
McGuire was what? I don’t remember that name.

Larry 1:21:31
That’s the case where the attorney named Mitch McGuire had a brother who had been convicted in Colorado in ‘88, who had never had to register. And he moved to Alabama and he went straight to the sex offender office and said, “Now I just want to know I got this old conviction from ‘89 in Colorado. Do I have to register here, and they said, “Well, boy, you hang out here. Let us do a little checking.” And they said, “Yep, you sure do and if you don’t register today, we gonna lock you up. Thank you for coming on in.” And Mitch has spent I think at last count, the last conversation I had with him, he had expended over $200,000 of his personal funds, fighting his brother’s case. And he had he had like a million dollars’ worth of billable time in it between him and the other organization, Equal Justice under, what is it called in DC, Equal Justice Under the Law?

Andy 1:22:26
I don’t know. I don’t know

Larry 1:22:27
Phil, Phil [unknown]’s group.

Andy 1:22:30
Okay. I know who you’re talking about there, but I don’t know the name of the group, but okay.

Larry 1:22:33
Between them they had a million dollars’ worth of billable hours fighting this case. Well, whatever is keeping them from rendering their decision, and I have no idea what it is. It could be if we get a favorable decision on something like this with the sheriff. It may help. I don’t think it can hurt. It may help because it’s another nail in the coffin of excesses of the registry. Which is what we’re arguing with the whole thing is constitutionally over the top, it’s nothing approximating a civil regulatory scheme.

Andy 1:23:09
I understand and we are much longer than I wanted to go. So, we are going to wrap things up. Is there anything else that you want to have a 32nd sound bite to go over?

Larry 1:23:18
I do not.

Andy 1:23:19
Excellent. All right, well, visit registrymatters.co. That’s the website. You can leave voicemail or calling questions. Or you could just harass Larry, if you would like to add (747)227-4477. Email address is registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Larry, and what is our favorite way when people support us? Where do they go?

Larry 1:23:39
They go to patreon.com/registrymatters

Andy 1:23:45
Outstanding, and then you can follow us on Twitter. You could subscribe to the YouTube channel. That’s how you, I have somebody in chat that says that they’re totally going to call and harass you. Follow us on Twitter, follow us on YouTube and I think that’s all we got Larry. And I think I’ll see you next week.

Larry 1:24:04
All right. Thank you. Good night.

1:24:06
Andy
Take care. Bye