Archives: Episode

In this episode, we analyze a recent court decision from the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri regarding a law requiring PFRs (people required to register) to post signs at their homes on Halloween stating “No candy or treats at this residence.” The plaintiff, Thomas L. Sanderson, challenged the statute, arguing that it violated the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech. Sanderson had been prosecuted for failing to post the sign, prompting the lawsuit.

The court ruled in favor of Sanderson, declaring the Halloween sign requirement unconstitutional. The discussion delves into legal concepts such as standing, compelled speech, and the implications of the ruling. The hosts also compare this case to similar challenges in other states, particularly in Georgia and California, where courts similarly ruled against signposting requirements for PFRs. The episode wraps up with speculation about potential appeals and the broader impact of this ruling on future cases.

[3:24] Larry’s General Rule: The case of Patrick Etheridge, the executive editor of the Albuquerque Journal, who was caught shoplifting despite his six-figure salary. The hosts humorously stress that someone earning that much should avoid stealing, and they highlight the irony that the newspaper had been advocating for harsher penalties for crimes like shoplifting, which Etheridge himself faced.

[6:38] A listener questions whether certain migrants with prior PFR-type convictions avoid registering. The hosts clarify that if these migrants have a conviction with proper due process, they would be required to register once detected, but unregistered individuals remain undetected until verified. They also mention that equal protection claims don’t apply to force others to register but could be used to argue that one shouldn’t have to register in certain scenarios.

[11:25] United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri

[41:27] California Corner: Chance discusses the complexities of California’s registration requirements for individuals with out-of-state convictions. The main issue is determining whether the out-of-state offense is equivalent to a California registerable offense, which the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) decides based on the specifics of each case. This process is often unpredictable, and individuals are advised to seek legal assistance to ensure compliance with California law. The conversation also highlights that individuals may receive credit for time spent on registries in other states.

RM318: Missouri’s Halloween Sign Law Falls: A Major PFR Victory!

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

In this episode, we explore various topics, starting with clips from Justice Antonin Scalia on strict interpretation and self-governance. They then tackle misleading statistics used by organizations like “Find the Children” to instill fear, highlighting the importance of critical thinking. The episode also delves into the significance of legislative elections in shaping criminal justice and registration laws, stressing voter engagement. Lastly, they address a listener’s question on the complexities of transferring probation between states, focusing on the requirements and challenges involved with the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.

[5:50] Clips from Justice Antonin Scalia on strict interpretation and limitations of self-governance

[14:40] We discuss a letter regarding the organization “Find the Children” and its use of inflated statistics to generate fear and fundraise. They explore the misleading claim that 700,000 children are abducted annually when the actual number of stranger abductions is around 100 per year. The conversation emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, pointing out how easy it is to debunk such exaggerated figures with basic math and official statistics. The hosts also criticize media and organizations for perpetuating fear-based narratives to manipulate the public.

[19:49] We discuss the significance of legislative elections and their impact on lawmaking, especially in relation to criminal justice and registration laws. They emphasize how voting plays a crucial role in shaping these laws, with 44 states holding elections for 4,712 legislative seats this year. The conversation highlights the importance of voter engagement, the role of majority control in legislative bodies, and the need for balance in government to promote compromise. The hosts encourage listeners to stay informed and active in the political process to prevent extreme policies from being enacted.

[30:00] We address a listener’s question about transferring probation from Arizona to Florida. They explain the complex process of interstate probation transfer under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, emphasizing that such transfers require a minimum of six months of supervision remaining—something the listener does not meet. Additionally, they highlight that while Florida’s stricter registration laws would apply if the transfer were approved, Arizona’s supervision terms would follow the individual. The hosts also discuss the challenges of interstate transfers and the importance of understanding state-specific registration and supervision rules.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm317-the-truth-about-probation-transfers-breaking-down-the-legal-maze

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

In this episode, we’re diving into a pivotal legal update from the Second Appellate District in California. The recent case of People v. Malbry has sparked significant debate regarding sex offender registry petitions. We’ll explore how this decision, which upholds the denial of a petition from a convicted offender, may influence the petitioning process moving forward—particularly when it comes to assessing community safety risks and interpreting “no contest” pleas.

[3:17] In this segment, the hosts discuss the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s approach to constitutional interpretation, particularly his philosophy of textualism. Scalia argues that the meaning of legal texts should remain consistent with what the words meant when they were written, rather than evolving with contemporary interpretations. The hosts explore the challenges of applying this philosophy to modern terms, like “browser,” which have shifted in meaning over time. They also debate the pros and cons of textualism, noting that while it can be useful in some cases, it can also be disadvantageous depending on the context.

[8:15] Chris seeks clarification on the Adam Walsh Act’s impact on sponsoring a noncitizen spouse for U.S. citizenship.

[11:21] We discuss a letter from a listener recently released from prison. The listener seeks advice on how to get involved in advocacy while under supervision and expresses concerns about attending meetings with convicted felons. Larry provides cautious advice on how to volunteer without risking violations, emphasizing the importance of balancing involvement with legal restrictions during supervision. The conversation also touches on the difficulties of moving public opinion and the legal system’s resistance to change.

[39:53] We discuss a voicemail from a listener seeking clarification about leaving the state while on the registry. The listener received conflicting advice from local law enforcement regarding re-registering when visiting another state. The hosts analyze the legal requirements and suggest ways to handle such situations politely, advising compliance without hostility and encouraging professional legal advice when necessary.

[52:09] People v. Malbry

[57:30] We discuss a 9th Circuit Court ruling that bans Arizona agencies from posting mugshots online to protect unconvicted individuals from harm, noting possible legislative reversal and mentioning California’s similar law, AB 1475.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm316-people-v-malbry-registry-relief-gets-tougher-in-california/
Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477
Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57
Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

[6:24] We delve into the debate over the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, focusing on originalism versus a more dynamic, evolving approach. Larry introduces a classic clip from Justice Antonin Scalia, who argues that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was written over 200 years ago. The conversation explores how this viewpoint influences judicial activism, especially around elections. Chance weighs in, advocating for a living Constitution that adapts with societal changes. They discuss the challenges of amending the Constitution and how different interpretations can influence political choices.

[12:32] We explore contrasting judicial philosophies, focusing on originalism, as championed by Justice Scalia. Scalia asserts that the Constitution’s meaning should remain consistent with the original intent of its framers, using examples like abortion and same-sex relationships to argue that no one at the time believed the Bill of Rights prohibited such laws. Larry and Chance discuss the implications of this approach on contemporary issues, emphasizing how elections influence the judiciary. They highlight the tension between a static interpretation and the need for laws to evolve with society, particularly regarding controversial issues and judicial activism.

[18:44] A listener named Richard asks if he would have to register again in New Mexico after moving back and having his felony dropped in California. Larry and Chance discuss the complexities of registration laws, particularly how New Mexico’s process involves an equivalency determination, meaning Richard’s previous conduct could still require registration. They also touch on the challenges of changing the factual basis of past convictions, and how different states handle such cases. The conversation highlights the intricacies of legal processes, how state laws vary, and the importance of understanding the nuances of registration requirements when moving across states.

[38:02] We a recent decision from the Illinois Appellate Court in the case of In Re Commitment of Johnny Butler, which offers hope for reform in civil commitment cases. Butler, committed in 2008 under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, finally obtained conditional release at age 70 in 2023. However, his release conditions, including 68 restrictive terms, were mostly copied from another case, raising legal concerns. The court ruled that Butler’s plan must be individualized and in the least restrictive manner. This decision highlights the importance of fair treatment for those in similar situations at the Rushville facility.

[48:41] In this segment, the hosts discuss key steps for selecting the right lawyer for a criminal case. Chance emphasizes the importance of evaluating an attorney’s experience, ensuring they specialize in criminal law and have extensive trial experience. Additionally, he advises researching their track record, and client satisfaction, and checking if they’ve been disciplined by the state bar. They also highlight the need for clear communication, understanding the payment model, and considering the lawyer’s familiarity with local court procedures. Larry and Chance agree that both local knowledge and experience with similar cases are critical to achieving a successful outcome.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm315-illinois-court-ruling-brings-hope-for-civil-commitment-reform/

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

In this episode, we dive into a challenging Missouri Supreme Court decision affecting the PFR community, revisit last week’s discussion on banishment, and update you on a key case in Alabama argued before the Eleventh Circuit. Chance returns with news from California on progress in parole and treatment, and we also discuss a recent press release from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers regarding Marsy’s Law.

[3:11] The discussion revolves around the originalist interpretation of “banishment,” emphasizing that current residency restrictions in North Carolina do not equate to banishment as understood in colonial times, where individuals were completely exiled. Instead, offenders today retain access to significant portions of cities, aligning with conservative judicial philosophy.

[12:39] A new report from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) criticizes Marsy’s Law for undermining due process and the rights of the accused. The discussion delves into how the law’s expansion of victims’ rights can hinder the defense’s ability to investigate, create constitutional issues, and potentially lead to wrongful convictions, highlighting the tension between victims’ advocacy and the preservation of fair trial standards.

[27:02] The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing an Alabama law that imposes a lifetime ban on certain offenders living with their children without due process. Judges on the panel expressed concerns about the law’s lack of flexibility and questioned whether it truly protects children, highlighting the absence of an “exit door” and inconsistencies in its application. The case, Henry vs. Abernathy, challenges the constitutionality of this statute, with the defense arguing that the law fails to pass strict scrutiny and should be invalidated.

[38:50] The Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state’s sex offender registry requirements, ruling that they do not violate substantive due process or the prohibition on ex post facto laws. The court determined that the registry serves a legitimate public safety purpose and does not impose punitive measures, affirming that the law is civil in nature despite its retrospective application.

[50:47] A lawsuit by the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws (ACSOL) challenges the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR) unwritten policy requiring parolees to remain in treatment for the entire parole duration. The lawsuit resulted in new regulations, expected by September 2024, allowing parolees to challenge unnecessary treatment extensions and potentially secure earlier parole discharges.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm314-civil-regulation-or-punishment-the-implications-of-mo-sora
Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477
Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57
Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters
Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

In this episode, we analyze how The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld North Carolina’s sex offender registration law, rejecting claims it violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment. Despite criticism from advocacy groups citing harsh restrictions and banishment-like effects, the court deemed the law a civil measure, affirming the trial court’s decision.

[19:27] In a discussion about judicial interpretations of “cruel and unusual punishment,” Larry clarifies that the belief that the registry is not cruel is based on court rulings, not personal opinion. He cites conservative justices, like Antonin Scalia, who argue that the Constitution’s words should be understood as they were originally intended, opposing the concept of “evolving standards of decency” introduced by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Andy references cases like Trop v. Dulles and Kennedy v. Louisiana to illustrate how the Supreme Court has incorporated societal progress into its judgments, contrasting with originalists who believe legal interpretation should remain static.

[28:02] https://www.carolinajournal.com/federal-appeals-court-upholds-nc-sex-offender-registration-law/

[50:07] In Missouri, a constitutional amendment mandates Kansas City to allocate at least 25% of its budget to police, highlighting a conflict between state Republicans, who worry about police funding cuts, and local leaders, who want autonomy over budget decisions. This situation exemplifies political hypocrisy, as state conservatives often support local control until it contradicts their preferences. Missouri previously overrode local minimum wage increases. The amendment has been criticized as a scare tactic, as Kansas City leaders deny any plans to defund the police. This tension reflects long-standing issues of state versus local control, dating back to the Civil War era.

RM313: Constitutional Challenges and the NC Sex Offender Registry

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

[5:56] Larry addressed accusations against Dan Bongino

[22:58] In the Michigan Supreme Court case People v. Lyman, the court ruled that applying the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) to non-sexual offenses violates Michigan’s constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment. The case originated from Cora Lyman’s convictions, including torture and unlawful imprisonment, without any sexual offenses. The court distinguished between Michigan’s “cruel or unusual” standard and the U.S. Constitution’s “cruel and unusual” clause, offering greater protection. The court found SORA’s requirements excessive for non-sexual offenses, imposing unwarranted social stigma. This decision could influence how registries are applied nationwide.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm312-michigans-registry-ruling-cruel-or-unusual

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

In this episode, we analyze a case from the Georgia Court of Appeals, focusing on conditions of supervision and the sufficiency of evidence. We also revisit Mississippi’s disenfranchisement of felons, highlighting its egregious nature. Additionally, we debunk a claim by a presidential candidate about rising crime rates in the U.S. through our educational segment. In our “California Corner,” we cover notable updates, and we follow up on last week’s audio question with a clarified response. Plus, we address a YouTube comment from our listeners. Tune in for a comprehensive and insightful discussion.

[4:44] Followup from John in Rhode Island

[9:48] We discuss the case of Bryan v. State, where Joe Randall Bryan’s conviction for enticing a child was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Despite Bryan’s claims of insufficient evidence and unconstitutional probation conditions, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated some probation conditions. They highlighted the deference appellate courts give to jury verdicts and discussed the unconstitutionality of certain overbroad probation conditions, such as prohibiting all contact with minors and restricting relationships with individuals with minor children. The case was remanded for resentencing.
https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2024/a24a0048.html

[26:37] In this segment, we dive into several pressing topics. First, we examine an article from Reason.com debunking claims by a presidential candidate that crime rates are rising in the U.S., highlighting how data shows a decline in violent crime since the 1990s, except for a spike in 2020. We emphasize the importance of verifying news sources for accuracy and bias, using tools like Ad Fontes Media. Next, we discuss Mississippi’s longstanding disenfranchisement of felons, rooted in the 1890 constitution, and recent legislative efforts to change this. Finally, we address listener feedback and a YouTube comment, ensuring a well-rounded and informative episode.
https://reason.com/2024/07/24/promising-to-restore-law-and-order-trump-falsely-claims-crime-is-rising/

[43:37] In this episode’s “California Corner,” the hosts discuss SB1128, a bill aimed at making unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (PC 261.5 (c) and (d)) subject to mandatory registration. Currently, these offenses are only subject to discretionary registration, but the bill proposes mandatory registration if the defendant is more than ten years older than the victim. The hosts explore the implications of this change, including potential retroactivity concerns that could impact thousands. They also discuss recommendations from the California Sex Offender Management Board to revise the tiered registry law, suggesting significant reclassifications for certain offenses based on re-offense rates and consistency. The discussion highlights the complexities and potential consequences of these legal changes, emphasizing the need for careful legislative consideration.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm311-court-of-appeals-affirms-conviction-vacates-overbroad-probation-conditions
Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477
Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com
Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters
Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57
Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

[12:38] In this episode, Andy, Larry, and Chance discuss a recent case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mississippi regarding the restoration of voting rights. Mississippi has some of the strictest disenfranchisement laws in the U.S., which bar individuals convicted of certain felonies from voting. The court’s majority upheld the state’s law, stating it is a regulatory function, not a punishment, and does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The dissent argues that permanent disenfranchisement undermines democracy and citizenship. The original lawsuit, filed by several disenfranchised citizens and supported by civil rights groups, challenges these laws as unconstitutional. The debate highlights the tension between judicial interpretation and legislative action in the restoration of voting rights.

[28:45] In Nebraska, a new law aimed at restoring voting rights for individuals who have completed felony sentences was challenged by Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who argued it violates the state constitution’s separation of powers. Hilgers emphasized that only the Board of Pardons can restore these rights. The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska contended that this opinion could prevent 7,000 residents from voting in November. Despite the official nonpartisan nature of the Nebraska legislature, the three-member Board of Pardons, all Republicans, including Hilgers, Secretary of State Bob Evnen, and Governor Jim Pillen, are in opposition, making pardons unlikely. The decision, occurring months before a significant presidential election, has drawn criticism and could face legal challenges.

[40:21] In a partial legal victory for inmates at the Will County Adult Detention Facility, a federal judge in Chicago ruled that several of the jail’s media and mail policies violate their civil rights. The challenged policies included a ban on internet printouts and media materials, as well as mail from P.O. boxes. Judge LaShonda Hunt found these restrictions unjustifiable under the First Amendment, though she upheld the jail’s ban on “sexual and inappropriate material.” The lawsuit, originating from a 2017 civil rights claim, had expanded into a class action and highlighted the unconstitutional barriers placed on inmates’ access to information and communication.

[49:22] In this episode of “California Corner,” Chance outlines the four essential steps for achieving post-conviction relief and reintegration into the community. The process begins with taking responsibility for one’s actions, which involves being transparent and sincere about past conduct. The second step is expressing genuine remorse, demonstrating deep regret for the harm caused. Developing insight, the third step, requires understanding the underlying reasons for the criminal behavior, which is crucial for preventing re-offense. The final step is creating a post-conviction prevention plan, which involves identifying triggers and establishing a support system to manage them. By following these steps, individuals can effectively reintegrate into society and lead a constructive life.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm310-mississippis-strict-voting-laws-an-archaic-stance

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.

[7:05] Robert, wrote a letter asking if a 2004 court order, which omitted mention of probation, supersedes his 2002 plea agreement that included indefinite supervised probation. The response clarified that a plea agreement is a binding contract, and the state can correct clerical errors even after many years. Therefore, Robert’s probation condition remains enforceable, and any attempt to contest it could lead to scrutiny and potential correction of the record.

[11:43] Joe Doe, representing himself and others, filed a lawsuit against Davies County Attorney John Berlou in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The case challenges Kentucky Senate Bill 249, which requires registrants who committed offenses against minors to use their full legal name on social media, retroactively applying to all registrants. Doe claims this law violates his First Amendment rights to anonymous speech and is overbroad. Doe sought a preliminary injunction and class certification, while Berlou sought summary judgment. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Doe likely to succeed on the merits and that his First Amendment rights were threatened. The case is handled by attorney Guy Hamilton Smith.

[17:40] The discussion revolves around Chevron deference, a legal principle where courts defer to government agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws if reasonable. The principle is crucial for efficient governance as agencies have expertise. Despite concerns about eroding democratic accountability and consistency, Chevron deference ensures agencies operate within legislative frameworks. The conversation also touches on the misconception that federal law alone mandates sex offender registration, clarifying that state laws are the primary drivers, with states retaining significant control over their registries.

[35:23] Sheriff Thomas Hanna of Sedgwick County, Colorado, sexually assaulted an intellectually disabled prisoner during transport. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the county could be liable since Hanna’s actions, although outside official policy, occurred during his official duties. A jury awarded $8.25 million in damages, and the case was sent back to determine the county’s responsibility for the payment.

[51:00] An individual is concerned about selling a car registered to her incarcerated husband, who is on a sex offender registry. Despite police and state registry officials indicating that the car can only be removed from the registry in person by her husband, the suggestion is to sell the car, cancel the registration with the DMV, and let her husband update his registry details upon release.

https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm309-first-amendment-rights-under-fire-the-battle-in-kentucky/

Leave voicemail: 747-227-4477

Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.com

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymatters

Join the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57

Want to support Registry Matters with some swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/registry-matters

Apple Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/registry-matters/id1305039280
Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Icuxbpzvyti7wtoredipbtiojqy
RSS: https://www.registrymatters.co/feed/podcast/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3d75P7Kc37n2l79m89F9KI
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/registrymatters

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.