registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp. Recording live from litigation Conference Central or fyp Studios, east and west, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 154 of registry matters. Happy Saturday, Larry, how are you tonight?
doing fantastic. I am so glad that you were able to make it despite all the vast responsibilities that have fallen on you in the last two or three days.
It Uh, yeah, I was incredibly busy with the conference, the litigation summit held by Marcel, I guess I kind of turned into sort of like CNN. And I was I, I don’t I didn’t run the conference. But I was the guy pressing buttons making the whole stream happened.
Well, for what I heard through my sources it went off was very few glitches. It was a fantastic. The transitions were great. The speakers were great. And I heard it was a wonderful event.
I think it went off pretty well. I practiced really hard and trained in whatever, you know, I was like Mr. Miyagi, and doing wax on wax off, you may or may not get that a movie reference.
I do not the last movie I watched was in 1987.
I think now Come on, The Karate Kid came up before. crack me up. So bad. What do we have going on tonight on the show?
We have listener questions. We have a cases before the state Supreme Court in New Mexico. We have a case that’s in federal court in New York RealTruck trial court has issued a preliminary ruling. We have several articles that we may or may not get to all of them. And we have just general General, General banter about all the things that have happened in the last week since we’ve been here.
All right, where are we gonna kick things off? We’re gonna start with some we’re going to start with the New Mexico. thing that you put in here, the Supreme Court. So we’re going to start? Oh, let’s
do let’s do some questions. I know these these inmates that sent these questions. They’re just salivating for the answers. And Eric, thank you for sending your letter. He didn’t have a question. He just had a compliment for the podcast about how he appreciates it. And we he sometimes doesn’t get the front end back because they scan mail that many institutions these days and outlet you have the actual papers. And he’s not receiving the front end back, which I think he might want to consider a grievance about that. But But anyway, thank you, Erica. It’s always nice to have your support.
Very good. Thank you very much for that. Alright, so here is the first letter it says, Dear nagarsol, I’m not sure if this question will cover more than those impacted in the new North Carolina prisons but hope to get some advice from you. In this system, individuals with sexual offenses are not permitted to participate in various programs such as barbershop school dog training, or inmate construction programs at minimum, minimum custody. These are the ones I’m aware of. Additionally, while inmates may participate in work release programs, once they are 36 months from release, sex offenders aren’t permitted until 24 months. And that’s if we can even get in finally at the camp I’m at currently, sex offenders will not be permitted, promote promoted to minimum custody unless they have they’ve attended the store, which is sex offender something treatment program. And with an extremely high waitlist and low admittance rate, Would any of these be considered discrimination? Could I file a class action suit? And if so, how? Thank you very much for your help. We’ve talked about class actions before and those are really hard to get. And would that even be the right vehicle to try and pick for this kind of operation?
It might would be but again, the complexity of a class action, you have to you have to get certified. There’s too many people who think you just have a red stamp that says class action. Of course, you can go to most any any office supply store that provides rubber stamping, you could you could get such a rubber stamp printed. But that doesn’t make your act cause of action, a class action. It’s a certified processing or where you have to appeal to the court to certify the class and there’s commonality of claims, deficiency of judicial economy. And the likelihood that those those claims can be handled by the law firm. There’s some standards to get a class certification. And they’re exceedingly difficult to be certified this the states that governments always oppose certification of a class because they would rather have you fighting individually, because your resources are limited as individual. But but in his clicker case, I don’t see a hate to be the best. In your bad news here it is, in fact discrimination. But the only problem is all forms of discrimination are illegal. There are discrimination, there’s discrimination that’s very much legal, and can be done. There’s no law that says you can’t discriminate.
And we have to start talking about what is a protected class.
in prisons, there are very few things that that put everything in prison. It’s the, I shouldn’t say everything, let me back up. Most things that apply the free world do not imply do not apply in prison. That’s a controlled environment where people are being punished. And prison administrators are afforded a huge amount of latitude in terms of what they do. And those programs are considered privileges. Security levels are considered a privilege that you are not he’s right, that you can do the exact same behavior. And because of your offense, you will not be awarded that custody level, which would allow for you to participate in more programming. But the prisons argument is that they are under intense community pressure for those for those particular offenses, not to have it possible for people to walk away. And the last thing, the last thing that prison commissioners, corrections commissioners for states, or wardens want is a microphone in front of their face, saying can you please explain to the good citizens of this community? How this sex offender walked away from custody and just disappeared? Like a you know what in the wind? And they’re not? there?
I’m sorry, what was that in the wind? I didn’t catch the word. Maybe you broke up for a second.
We can’t say that a little family program. But but but yes, that. I would, I would say that. I sympathize with him. The likelihood that finding legal representation, it’s going to be a long shot, and even a longer shot to prevail on the litigation for those things. Although I would endorse and support it and cheerlead for it. I don’t see those those cases score, the better thing to do. What you can’t do from prison walls is to try to make policy changes, or that the elected people of the state recognize that reintegration is important thing and that make it possible for for for more inmates to be allowed to prepare for reintegration and the community which includes some of those things like like he has on the list. I would guess if you learned to be a barber in prison, you might have a better chance to pass him the barbers exam board when you get out. Maybe I mean, maybe not. But But I’m thinking that would be one thing, that’s a skill that translates to the community. Right?
I was just, I was just about to redirect back up there about the different schools that they may have and training programs, dog training, dog training and construction program. Um, these are these are places that you could potentially get jobs, can you can you help rationalize why they would then push our people back 12 months before they’re even eligible to go into these programs? I can’t see why a PFR can’t go do haircut stuff.
That one doesn’t, I can’t opine. Because if if it’s community sensitivity, wouldn’t you be just as sensitive and the 24 month ranges you were in the 36 month range? I don’t know. Unless it’s unless it’s that they want to make sure you’ve done the treatment program they so AR or whatever he called it. Right. But
I’ve often wondered that too, Larry, why don’t they? So I don’t mean to take like the second detour. But why don’t they put people in the programs to help them get treatment as soon as possible? Why do they get front loaded instead of back loaded? at cost money? I see. Well, all right, then. Well, that answers all of those questions. All right.
That’s a short answer that all these things that particular treatment, cost money. And when I don’t want me to sound crass about this, but it’s kind of like a case when people tell me that I don’t like my case, pending. And I say what’s the good thing if your case pending, because as long as it’s pending, you’re not convicted. And the good things can happen when your case is pending, the accusers can die. The the personal witness can be transferred to Afghanistan, and not be available to testify against you. Well, the same thing in prison. If you got someone that 10 year sentence and you frontload treatment, you’ve got all these people, we do have a certain mortality rate in prisons. Would you agree where we have a certain mortality rates rates in prison? people pick up additional charges while they’re in prison for both ends for conduct behind the walls and for previously on charge conduct. So so why would you want to spend all that money?
I can see that but then you end up with someone that may have some sort of good time or, you know, they’re going to get out early for on parole or whatever. And so maybe that kicks in A time back from that 10 year sentence, maybe that kicks it back eight to eight years. So then you would like by the time you then get in that program, well, you’re not eligible for it until you’re like two months out. 24 months out, you’re already at the edge of you going home to begin with. So by the time they even let you become eligible for the program, then you could be getting out of parole anyway, it just, it’s crappy Larry,
it is. prisons, prisons are not great places.
That is definitely like an underlying theme of the show. Okay, so we’re just going to title it prisons are not great places, and we’ll move on.
I’m sorry that there’s just so a class action is not going to to help out? And therefore, if so how? So that would be because that’s going to be because of resources, and you kind of find an attorney to take it from prison?
Well, they’re the one they don’t see a good, reasonable probability of recovery, they’re not going to take this on a contingency, because all they’re doing is spinning their wheels, and they’re not likely to gain any traction with this type of litigation. So the next question, we’re going to concentrate on paragraph two.
Okay. Yes, yes. And this is this is a potential question for your podcast. I have been getting the RM podcast transcripts since August, and have been reading the narsad digest since early 2018. One thing that I have noticed is that you haven’t discussed s. VP, what is SVP?
So I was on a different question. Are you on question two
or three on a different question? I’m on question two.
Okay, I got it. I got it.
Oh, you got it. Now? We’re on the same page.
We’re on the same page. All right, hold tight. Hold timer. Oh, yeah, there
you go. You’ve got that covered, man. Look at your picture. SVP is sexually violent predator, civil commitment process very much during that time. I have an SVP trial coming up in three months and would love to get your insight on how to come out of an SBB trial successfully. Because according to my public defender, SVP civil commitment is much like a life sentence is representing myself out of the question. Last but not least, what does fyp stand for?
Unknown Speaker 12:18
Thank you. So
should we start with the easy one first?
I don’t do that we should answer that. What else does fyp mean?
So like the quick story is, so you’re there at home and you’re sitting in your jammies and someone comes up and knocks on your door? and says, I demand to know who lives here. Now it is your task at home the listener to figure out and say your response should be something that revolves around the letters fyp. Is that enough of a clue?
I think that is civil commitment. Now, in terms of the list, let’s sharpen a little bit. We’re talking about sex offender civil commitment. Because purportedly only 20 states have civil commandment, because that’s when people look at the sex offender specific civil commandment. But I hate to tell you, I do believe all 50 states have civil commitment. I haven’t researched the statues. But there is a process by which people can be civilly committed that are dangerous to themselves or to others.
by standing up on top of the water tower and you threatened to jump, they’re going to put you somewhere for a few days against your will and you’re not being locked up. You’re just you’re somewhere being civilly committed.
And they may seek a longer term commitment based on what that short term commitment yields in terms of your evaluation for the year may deploy to a medication and it can’t be stabilized, it could turn into a longer term commitment. But with what that standard, the standard is very clear that the person has to be use an imminent danger to themselves or to others. And the goal of that commitment is to bring that person to a level which they can be released. We do not desire to hold people in this country, in civil commitment. With the sexual offender specific civil commitment. The standard is atrociously bad for the person whose commitment assault, it’s rather than having the imminent danger, to do harm to themselves or others. It’s much more innocuous, they have to have a mental abnormality is the boilerplate language that the states have used that have this process that makes them more likely to commit a sexual offense. And it is not exact around the 50 states. I didn’t research California, so I can’t opine specifically about California. But the the mental abnormality is to catch and then you end up in a process of which you have little control over because you’ve been locked up as he has been. He probably doesn’t have any financial resources. And the state has virtually unlimited resources to seek his commitment. And the standard of proof they have to meet is a very low one, a mental abnormality that makes them that makes them have a higher propensity to do whatever the statute says. And when you are committed, the goal is not clear that that that it’s it’s tended to release the person. So therefore, you end up like in Moose Lake Minnesota, the end up with people that have been there for a very, very long time. And only a handful last time I did any literature reading literature have gotten out a very small number have been released. And that, that that process was challenged. And the the trial court found that it was unconstitutional, but it was appealed by the state of Minnesota, of course, and the Eighth Circuit said that no, you have no right to get out, you have a right to a process that might let you out if you beat the standards. So So this, this person, Theodore, he doesn’t want to go in, obviously, because he’s already served his time. And he’s got a train coming at him. With him having limited resources to fight with, he has apparently been assigned to a public defender, which I don’t understand this is a civil proceeding. So I don’t understand why it was assigned to a public defender. That’s something I cannot answer that deal. This is not a criminal commitment. This is a simple command, but he’s finishing his criminal commitment. Right. Okay. So this is a civil commitment. That’s what it’s called civil commitment.
Okay, and that’s why I put that together. But I see how simple it would be to go with civil and then civil, I’m with you. Okay. So put it together that way.
So but the downside to a civil process is you’re not entitled to to free counsel, unless the statute gives it to you. But constitutionally, you’re entitled to free counsel with what you’re going to be put in the clique for criminal I mean, that that’s that’s that has not been expanded universally, to include civil proceedings. And it may be that California has either put it in statute, or there’s a court ruling that says that the public defender shall represent those who are indigent. But there’s another part of the component that goes unaddressed is that you need funding. Because if they’re going to assert a mental abnormality, you may need your own expert to say that you don’t have that are abnormality. And that expert is going to cost money. And and I’d like to the state of Virginia, they do provide they have they have a civil matter process, and they do follow up, they do provide a modest amount of money. I think it was in the one to $3,000 range for experts for those whose commitment has been salt that are indigent. But that’s another that’s another significant deficiency on our system is that we don’t have the resources for these people whose commitment assault. And then in the regular civil commitment, there’s statutory built, that they build in the statute that reviews will take place. at intervals like like here, I think we have a three day commitment where you go back before the court, maybe five days, but there’s a limited number of days. And then the person goes back before a judge with additional information from the mental health from from from our state hospital or whatever, like your case, reward is evaluated the person and they they give the quarter report. And the court is looking for a way to release that person in some kind of capacity, whether it be with required treatment of the community or whatever. We have made that clear that the intent of this so called civil commitment, is to restore these people to help so they can be released. And first of all, we don’t even prove that they have anything unhealthy about their mental state because abnormality is not a criminal. It’s not a clinical diagnosis. So he’s in a bad situation.
Yeah, that sounds like an awful situation. And can we briefly circle back to a roughly a year ago with Galen, I’ve lost his last name. He went through civil commitment. Everyone was coming out of the woodwork to try and support him and help him and how did that go for him?
Well, it didn’t go so well. He It was his second attempt and what narsil we we took a position that the CC had not committed additional sex offense and that was in Virginia, there is a requirement that to be eligible for the commitment to be sought. You have to have a predicate sexual offense and he did have a predicate sexual offense. He went through the process and he was not committed. And then while under community supervision, he picked up some technical violations of probation, no additional predicate offense, and they violated his probation at the end of the of the sanction period, which I think was 12 parts and they sought his commitment civilly. Again, without a predicate offense. We stepped down and tried to argue that if if there hasn’t been another predator offense, you do not get multiple bites of the apple. But hey, they they went forward that They they secured his civil commitment. And he I think he’s just recently been conditionally released from me. But yeah, I think I heard something through the grapevine that he has been conditionally released. We we could follow up on that maybe the next podcast, but but he was he was found eligible and committed again.
Oh, I only bring him up because he didn’t commit another crime to get him committed. And I’m not trying to paint a nasty picture for the question here. I’m just trying to, it’s an awful system that doesn’t give you your favorite terms are about due process. And this doesn’t provide you with a robust level of due process to defend yourself.
Well, it’s legal due process in the beginning, and it’s weakened with due process. Why Sure there. if if if, if the EU had their say, robust reviews, with the intention of getting these people out, that’s what’s lacking here, a robust review process that’s geared toward getting these people out. And then back to what you said in an earlier segment. Why didn’t we, if they really needed this treatment? Why didn’t we seek it in prison, this is actually a disguised attempt. And successful my dad for the states that have it, which I think are 20 of them, to extend people’s period of incarceration after they’ve given them all the incarceration they can and the punishment system, as a result, their conviction, this, all it does is extend their confinement, and in many cases to confinement, closely resembles prison. Now, some cases it does, they’re clearly in a psychiatric unit, and it’s a much softer place in prison, but some of the civil command, but it’s nothing more than a prison that’s been that they put a sign in front calls it a civil commitment center, and they’re in the same type of facility as it when they were serving their time.
Anything else before we bounced number three,
and wearing the same clothing and suffering the same deprivation? If you’re a patient, what rights you’re supposed to be afforded as a psychiatric patient are different than when you visit someone in a psychiatric hospital, the depravations? Or what’s to keep them safe? Yeah, but you generally get to wear your own clothing, you generally get to have a whole lot of things in the way of makeup and personal care items and things that they would never allow to present because you’re being treated, you got to have more access to communications. And that’s what’s supposed to be because you’re not being punished. You’re being helped.
Unknown Speaker 22:28
Unknown Speaker 22:29
Well, then question number three comes to us. It’s for the the darsan legal corner. And his did you want me to skip anything here? Just run it.
Just go and run. It’s not that long.
Okay. Hello, I have just learned of your publication today and hope that you may have some information that may help in my situation. I am serving a life sentence in Kentucky and have been litigating my actual innocence for 12 years. Under Kentucky law a person under a life sentence is eligible for parole after serving 20 years and other Kentucky law sex offenders are not eligible to see the parole board unless or until they complete sex offender treatment. SMTP earned goodtime credits also require SMTP completion. A requirement of this program is that you must admit guilt I hate that, Larry, I absolutely despise it. Failure to admit guilt renders you ineligible to take the class or pass the class. All statements made in the class are a matter of record for courts to access and have been used to counter actual innocence claims. Here is my question. Is there any litigation in place or being done to fight this requirement to admit guilt? false allegations and wrongful convictions happen? Yet this requirement of to admit guilt is forcing these people to choose a lesser sentence and chance for parole by admitting guilt or face longer sentences and no chance of parole by maintaining innocence. Without goodtime credits, you serve 100% of the sentence day for day, it is wrong and coercive? Can’t they do counseling without requirement that you must admit guilt? What are the effects of taking SMTP? If not guilty? Thank you for your time and consideration.
There are so many good questions here. I’m going to I’m going to start toward the bottom Can’t they do counseling without the requirements? You must admit guilt. I believe they could. Now I’m not a therapist, I’m not an expert in so this is just a lay opinion. But I think you could do counseling for a person. But if the person is actually innocent, I’m not sure how they would benefit from that from that therapeutic relationship. I mean, unless you’re just doing general general insight therapy into a person’s life. But if you’re doing specifics about sexual offending and about impulse control, and and, and thinking errors, I don’t know how you I don’t know how you would deal with thinking errors if the person doesn’t have any and I don’t think I don’t know how you deal with income impulse control. They don’t have any impulse control issues, so I’m not sure it would be effective. So what are the effects of taking SMTP if not guilty, I don’t know. No, because I haven’t taken taken the SMTP program. So I don’t know what the effects of that would be. I can’t imagine that any treatment would harm you. But again, that’s the lay opinion of the country can treatment harm a person if if they didn’t do anything, and you think of any treatment, if you go, if you go to see a marriage counselor, or your marriage is perfectly healthy, does that counseling harm you? I guess it could, you could you could create problems that don’t exist.
We have a treatment level person in chat, and they’re saying, yes, it could hurt you.
Well, we did it Mike, that person up because like I said, I don’t feel qualified to answer that. And but in terms of the, the this in terms of litigation, I am not aware of a name. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t any, because he’s raises valid points. But again, getting out of the way, you’re actually being paroled early, which is what he’s talking about. He’s got a life sentence. And when they when he serves his entire sentence, they will let him out. Okay, I will assure you that
Well, I mean, life being when he dies,
yes, yeah, they will let him but but everybody doesn’t have a life sentence. So would you serve the entirety of your service, whether or not you admit, they will let you out. And I need to qualify that, unless unless they have a post period, mandatory period of supervision that follows your sentence, then they may not let you out in some states like Illinois, or New Mexico, because even if you serve all your time in those two states, they still won’t let you out. But in terms of in terms of being early released on parole, that is a privilege. And to get that privilege, there are requirements for that privilege to be bestowed upon a person, and you have every right to maintain your innocence, and you have every right to keep pursuing your appellate review of your case. But I would just about bet that they’re going to continue to pass you up for any type of early release, because as far as the way they would look at is you’re in denial, and therefore you can’t be safely released early. And you need to stay in prison until you take responsibility for the acts, which you’ve been convicted of doing.
Unknown Speaker 27:12
I just I’ve just spoken to our resident treatment expert, and we are going to set up an episode in the future to go over how treatment could be bad.
Let’s do that. Because like I say, I don’t feel qualified them. And if it can harm you, then we need to know about that. And we’ll we can circle back on this as soon as our expert is ready.
And maybe I should hold this, but I will just me going to treatment Personally, I, I didn’t feel that I needed the treatment that they were providing I made a thinking error and the person that I went to discuss those kinds of things like cognitive behavioral therapy, CBT. And just trying to help you go through those things. There was never really my treatment never covered anything from like a you you did the naughty things with people that you shouldn’t have done them with. He almost never went over any of that it was about thinking errors and an impulse control, like you just described, that, look, you could sit there and you’d be like, Man, I’m perfect. But you could probably always improve your decision making process. Everybody can agree. So that that was how I approached it. Just look, man, I’ve got to go. I can sit here and cry and moan about it. And that probably would come back and bite me in the tuckus. Or I can participate and try and look at it from a positive way. And then they’ll report back to your handlers that you’re doing great. And at the end of the day, everybody gets happy at the end, and somebody gets paid out of your pocket. Hey, what could go wrong there?
We’re on a roll the next day. I do it. I do it. The next thing that I have up is the New Mexico. Are we ready to go there?
Unknown Speaker 28:53
Let’s Let’s do it. This is fun.
All right. All right. I have no I like I said, Let me see, is there something I can quickly read that would give a description let me Okay, I have section 31 dash 21 dash 10 dot one c requires the parole board to conduct a hearing where the state bears the burden of providing a clear and convincing evidence that the sex offender should remain on parole there that probably concisely states at that they’re trying to figure out who has the burden of proving.
So if you just read if you just read the questions I gave you, it’ll go full medical flawless. Yeah.
Okay, perfect. Perfect. So the questions are you people put an answer brief in the folder of a case in New Mexico called New York, excuse me, New Mexico versus Ryan Allen James Thompson. What is this about and why is it important enough to be discussed on this podcast?
Well, the reason why it’s important is because it actually relates a little bit back to what we’re just talking about. It’s an appeal on an important part of law regarding what we call parole in New Mexico, in Mexico, requires an indeterminate period of supervision that begins only at the conclusion of a person’s sentence, you do not get early released here. And so you serve your sentence less any goodtime credits, which can be 15%, or 50%, depending on whether it’s a serious, violent felony. And then after you’ve maxed out, and I think killed your numbers, they refer to it in prison jargon, you go into a period of mandatory supervision for a list of sexual offenses that can be from five to 20, or a couple of them actually, or five to life. And the statute says, After five years have passed, that the person shall receive a hearing, to see if they shall, shall remain on parole, and at the same time bears the burden of showing by a bike clear and convincing evidence they should. So Mr. Thompson was not afforded his hearing after five years, and that’s what this case is about, is whether or not he should get to hear it.
Unknown Speaker 30:58
And the problem is, what
was the problem? The problem is he’s he’s he’s been on parole since 2013. But he’s been serving segments of it in prison, because you can end up in prison at the front side of that period, because they may not the the statute place the the responsibility just like they did in Illinois, of approving your residence on the parole board. So the parole board may say, Nope, can’t live there. So you’ve maxed out your time, and you’ve got no words that will prove. So you’re on parole, because you’ve killed your number. And you’re serving your sentence behind the walls, you’re doing what they refer to as in house parole. So he, he, he, he made his parole by killing his number, but he had nowhere to go. So then when you finally get a place to go, then they’re aiming and gunning for you. And the slightest technical violation will put you back in prison. So the parole board takes the position here, that you have to have five years continuous in the community. And the statute doesn’t say that the statute says after five years of being on parole. So Thompson has argued that he doesn’t care where he was on parole at. He was in fact on parole for more than five years. And they did not grant him a hearing. Therefore, there have lost jurisdiction to Canadian supervise him. That’s what that’s what this case is about.
Did you work with the attorney that was going over this case?
I have actually worked with Kim Java’s cook on a number of things. She is an appellate attorney with the State Public Defender. And she’s also there, she represents the public defender’s office in the legislature, when when they’re in session. And we strategize a lot of things, including this case. And and we’ve really strategized on both how to fix the statute and in terms of what’s wrong with with the arguments that have been put forward previously by people and put the judges sight back to old case law from 1971. Actually parole bet being released early. Before we had that, before we had determinate sentences, New Mexico switched in the 70s. I don’t know the year because I wasn’t here, but we went from, we went from the indeterminate to determinate sentencing. And when we had indeterminate sentence, a person would be granted parole early with good behavior and all the different criteria that went in there. So it was a privilege. As of right now, the argument is, it’s a matter of law, you’ve served your time, as a matter of law. This is a period of community supervision as a matter of law, they should release you if they’re going to release you. It definitely counts toward the five years. And this is one of those situations where the step that those who liked textual interpretation. This is a body fine case for textual interpretation, because the statute is very clear. It says you shall receive a hearing after five years. It doesn’t say it doesn’t say five years of successful supervision in the communities. So their first position was it had to be five years continuous without violation. Then they backed off, they backed off of that position. And they said it had to be a cumulative of five years because that was still knockout people that served it in prison. They had that you had to have a cumulative of five years in the community. And the thing that’s funny is that, you know, the trial judge by what I was told is a conservative judge, but he said that he couldn’t think of a place where you got more strict supervision than in prison.
Unknown Speaker 34:34
Okay. He said, he said that, that he couldn’t think of any place where a person’s more closely supervised and in prison, the district court found this is on page died, the district court found that no other form of parole was more greatly supervised, then parole that has served in prison.
Can we back up for just a second the way that you described That that is worded. That sounds similar to the Georgia statute with the two years shall be placed on unsupervised probation sounds like similar language.
Unknown Speaker 35:09
It does. Okay,
I just want so this like the word shall has a specific definition that says Like, it’s not kind of a might acota it’s not a like ama, if you want to, it means you will do it.
It does mean that and this is an example of when you have part time legislatures, that don’t have a lot of time to spend on something. And the community is clamoring for something to crack down because of some imaginary Boogeyman that’s out there could be a boogie woman, but some imaginary event that causes them that they need to act and need to act now. And and they they put this statute together without a lot of thought about the wording. And, but, but I’m amazingly a textualist when it suits the agenda. And had they wanted it to be five years in the community. They were quite capable of saying that and they did.
Do I never played the hypocrisy clip.
I have never claimed to be a rigid ideology when it comes to one or the other. textualism can be fatal in cases and textualism can be your best friend. That’s why you should never religiously be one or the other. textualism can be very bad for when we’ve done by at least a half dozen cases on this podcast. We’re textualism what was led to a bad outcome. But textualism here is the as your strongest argument, if they had wanted it to be in the community, they would have said that if they have wanted it to be violation free, they would have said that if they would have wanted it to have been because the parole board takes the position that that clearly the intent of the legislation was that you’d be able to evaluate how they responded to community supervision. But they didn’t say that. Now, that is probably what they intended. There’s there’s no distinction. That is probably what they intended, but they did not say that. Right. So therefore, why not? Why not be a textualist?
Right, right. Remember, I want to ask you in the answer that you wrote of the question that one says now that the case law is no longer relevant, because this case is distinguishable. Can you help me understand how you use the word distinguishable here?
Well, when you’re a trial level court there, you’re arguing, but you’re arguing interpretation of law, you’re arguing what the trial court is going to guide him or her in making their decision. So the state will always refer to a case. And Edwards back in the 70s. For this, or the Supreme Court said that you had no right to parole that distinctly said that in Edwards, you have no right to parole. It’s a privilege. And it was as parole existed in the 70s. Because it was something that you were granted in advance of your termination of your sentence date. But Edwards is no longer relevant in this case. In this case, it’s clearly distinguishable. Because what we have now is a person who served all their time. It’s not, it’s no longer it’s no longer a right to be real and no longer a privilege to be released. Arguably, it’s a right to be released because they’ve extinguished their debt to society. There’s just this period of post prison supervision that we label parole only comes into play after you’ve served your time. That wasn’t the case. When the Supreme Court decided like I believe it was Edwards, we were sitting in the meeting of Santa Fe talking about this. That was the case that we looked at the most closely. I believe it was Edwards. But that’s that’s so your distinguish yourself. You say, trial judge. There’s a state is arguing Edwards. That’s great. Except it doesn’t apply here. Because this case, it’s distinguishable. And it’s a trial judge doesn’t bite which this one did. But then the state of course appeal. We’re at the state Supreme Court, not because of Ryan Thompson. We’re at the state supreme court because the state does not want this to be decided the way the trial judge decided they do not want to hold these hearings. They do not want to acknowledge that people have the right to be released. If they’re not going to be released, at least they have the right to have that time counted toward their computation of five years for the review hearing.
All right now, my limited ability to read these things. It It seems that the legislature needs to clean it up. And you I think you’re saying that you agree that they need to clean it up.
Are you are you the one that they should? Like you’ve said, if somebody is going to write a bill that hurts us, it would be better that you write it, then they write it? Well, it wouldn’t be better now the public defenders they’ve got a lot of energy invested in this. And we’re working collaboratively like which we don’t see exactly I tie because right now it says clear and convincing. This person should remain on parole. I want to not stop there. I want to say clear and convincing evidence that the person poses an elevated risk could admit a sexual offense if released from parole. So that gives the board something that they must cite to, that this person presents an elevated risk of committing a sexual offense if they are not continued under supervision. Because we need specificity, because otherwise they’re gonna say, Well, I’m sure you could benefit from that. Actually, they have said that they have kept people on parole, they’ve done exceedingly well with no violations. And they said, we think you could benefit from more supervision.
All right, then. Anything else on this before we
cut and run, I think we’d beat this one to death
to death. Deaf, deaf, deaf, ready to be a part of registry matters, get linkset registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters firstname.lastname@example.org. You can call or text a ransom message to 74722744771 a support registry matters on a monthly basis to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible. We we have some listener questions if you some like stuff that came from the website and then and also our discord chat. Ready for that?
let’s fire those up.
All right, Brian in Louisiana says Louisiana liquor licenses. It’s been four weeks since the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the identifier box unconstitutional. The state said they would have a plan in place in two weeks, I called the Office of Motor Vehicles today asking what the plan is the representative said they received an email on 11. Five, saying there is no change for now branded licenses are still being issued and that any changes on hold for a possible appeal. What is the status? What’s the deal with that? I mean, if they were told to do something, shouldn’t they go do it?
Well, that’s where people don’t understand the process. And there’s nothing sinister going on here. When the when the when the when an appellate court rules on something, the case has to be sent back to the trial court for implementation, because it’s the trial court that has the jurisdiction to hold the party in contempt for failure to comply. So there’ll be there’ll be a mandate delay issue, they’ll come down. First of all the the one that would the appellate decisions come down, they clean up for grammar for errors, then they get that the initial initial release may hit contain errors, they get cleaned up. But eventually after that process takes place. So there’s a mandate that will come down, it’ll be sent back to the law court. And then and then they there’s a time period where the state has the right to notify of its intent to appeal, which almost always they do. And it would be my guess they probably would have this case as well, because that’s just what they do. And and so therefore, since this case is not final, it is not final, the Supreme Court has ruled on it. But there’s the possibility of asking for reconsideration. There’s the possibility of what not only reconsideration, that’s really the one thing there’s also the possibility of following a cert petition with the US Supreme Court. And therefore this case isn’t final. And if the state is going to take an appeal, they’re going to ask for a state, they’re going to ask the state Supreme Court to instruct the trial court to stay any further any further move on on implementation of this until until it feels like exhausted. I’m not the least bit surprised. I know I got tarred and feathered when I said that I expected there to be no immediate change. But this is just the reality of what happens. And I would like to think that Louisiana would have an epiphany. And they would say, gee, we probably shouldn’t have been doing that, that we’ve got something to hang our head on, we’re not going to do that. But that’s not likely what they’re going to do. What they’re likely going to do is to try to figure out the minimum they can do to change the status quo. And while they’re figuring they might need to be using their appellate options to keep the case pending, they can figure out to come up with some legislation not over when their legislature convenes. I don’t know if Kobe is going to impact what the scope of what they’re going to consider. But they’ve got all these considerations, trying to figure out how they can preserve as much of the status quo. And one of the things that can preserve status quo is to is to file appeals and to seek status to stay the implementation. And that would be what I would expect them to do.
is a stain similar to an injunction?
Similar? Yes. It’s holding, it’s holding off on the on the on the implementation until until the appeals decided. So they did similar to an injunction. And we preserve the status quo. And it is just not logical to think that the state that has, arguably, according to that Supreme Court’s analysis, the most onerous license marking in the country would appear that is to the point, they wouldn’t want to mark licenses at all. I mean, what would cause them to do that?
Unknown Speaker 45:34
To then decide to not do it to not Mark licenses at all? What would
make them want to go from having the most extreme to having no barking?
punish them, thump them over the forehead, and somebody can’t do this? I
mean, they did that the court didn’t say that the court said that they could do a less onerous marking, but I’m saying for them to, to devise a plan, which is what this listener is hoping for that they’ll have a plan or that they want more licenses. Why would they go from having the most onerous marking in the country to not having a marking at all? Why would you do that? Tell me what would keep moving from that point to that point?
Right. Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, they’re going to have to whatever degree they can is just fine. Whatever the line is what they can get away with. And they’re going to take one tiny little inch step back from whatever that line is of what they can do.
That is slightly what they will do unless the people of Louisiana register complete resentment to their lawmakers that these licenses are being marked. And I don’t see that happening. I do not believe the phones are ringing off the hook and legislators offices, saying How dare you mark these driver’s licenses? I don’t believe that to be the case. Do you
right? No, probably not.
Unknown Speaker 46:52
very bright picked on Louisiana. And I couldn’t think of his name. Last time I did it though. Senator Vitter, who was what was the architect of the US Senator Vitter, who who ran for governor as well, I think but he he was the architect of the further reduction of people eligible for nutrition assistance. And he got great accolades in Oklahoma, Oklahoma and Louisiana for for for that for that position. And he would
not have paid people less nutrition
for restricting further restricting the eligibility for nutrition assistance based on felony and sexual offense convictions.
And sounds like a really great plan. Well, my
position is if the citizens of Louisiana had registered resentment was bitter, saying How dare you not want to feed a person because of a mistake they’ve made in their life? You’re going to deprive nutritional assistance because of mistake. How Christian is that? But that’s not that’s not what the people of Louisiana did. He got great accolades from his phones ringing off the hook, but they were in favor of it. Sure. Sure, sure.
Yeah, it’s a very inhumane position to hold. But that’s that’s what we do here, Larry. That’s the American way right there.
So all right, so that was that one?
Yes. And then we did receive a comment from what Episode 154 so this is from the last week’s episode it says petition for mine. Oh, this is all related to the the removal from probation terminating the sentence stuff so petition for mine after 65% completed, denied, da Asst. Oppose, it said a lot of negative things, even untrue things. Excuse me, saying I had thousands of pictures when it was only 300. According to the discovery we saw, said I was the worst case in the history of the country, which was untrue and just da flare. My lawyer did everything you said probation rules here is they aren’t allowed to recommend any so for relief. However, he told the judge I was a model probation person and that I was violation free and have completed all my court ordered mandates. He was very kind I tried. But hey, I made it this far. I’m just happy not to be sitting in prison. And I’m with my daughter and my wife, both the podcast By the way, and hey, you forgot to say fyp. But I’ll, I’ll hold off on that part. So I am I Larry, I almost have some level of like, like survivor’s guilt to a certain degree because if this person did all of the things and like it’s it’s very person specific. It is very probation officer specific its probation office specific. Your County, your da the judge this like so many things for whether you will be successful or not at having modifications done to any degree. And you know, it’s it’s unfair is really like the best words that I could use to describe it that two people could have the exact same case so to speak, and one of those pieces of the of the chain, derail the whole thing?
Well, what I would like to zero in on a smile or you did everything you said, I would like to to question that because if the lawyer did everything that I say you would have Know that they were going to say these things, because your lawyer would have had the conversation, the lawyer would come back to me and say, they would have said, Look, this is what they’re going to say this is going to be their position. And I can go forward with your petition. But I’m telling you, if they say these things, Judge Smith is not likely to grant your petition. That’s why I encourage this conversation. Most lawyers have their pull out from money, and they want the full fee. And I’m sorry, I have to criticize lawyers. But I do and what I would like a lawyer to do that wants to do these removal petitions for the bee from the registry, or whether it be from early termination, as to don’t collect the entire fee. Tell the person look, these things particularly determine from termination from probation or rights, their privileges. And I’m going to need to do some homework to find out if it’s even doable. And if that Laurie had had that conversation, and they came back and told you, and if that lawyer told you that this is what they’re gonna say, and you went forward, then this one’s on you. Because you should have known if they come and save you the worst case in the county, and that you had thousands of images. And this is another reason why you can’t go in to this pro se, because they’re not going to tell you these things in advance of the hearing. You can’t go in today’s office there, first of all, and second of all, they’re gonna tell you, the big your big script ever lived. And you need to know that before you go for these petitions, because in some cases, you’re barred for a period of time from presenting another one particular in a removal or reclassification in Arkansas, you have a certain amount of time frame, you have to wait before you can file another one, indeed, to do your homework and get me as many barriers out of the place as possible as you possibly can. What if that da that that did this was in the bitter reelection campaign? I don’t know any of this? I’m just speculate. But suppose the timing of this could have been altered, or it would have been decided after there was no, no judicial election that could have been a factor or da election, it could have been a factor and the DA by not have been as as adamant. All those things are considerations. Yep.
Yeah, I would say that. While I was still even like interviewing the lawyer, the first time he called over to the DA, and I don’t remember which level he didn’t talk to the head honcho, I don’t believe, but started just taking the temperature while still there to see if it was something that could be accomplished or not, before I put a penny down.
And that’s the correct way to do it. If you if you have integrity, you’ll tell the person you know these things. Oh, you’re in this county? Well, I’m telling you, they have literally terminated a sexual offense for entire years I’ve been practicing here. Now you could be the anomaly. But they don’t do it here. And then you can go down, you can go down the street, and you can tell another story, the story, who is honest. And you can buy into the hoopla that that was just what people do. They accuse all lawyers, if they go find someone,
they’ll tell you what
is being crooks. And they go look for the one that will give them the message that they’re wanting to hear it they heard that one because one who wants to hear that I can’t get off early. Nobody wants to hear that.
No, nobody wants to hear and I certainly went into it with that mindset. I don’t want I don’t want someone to lie to me and tell me that Oh, man Piece of cake and then obviously fails. But I also don’t want someone to say like, no, never never does this work. And maybe it does work. I was like, how do you how do you get past that cruft of figuring out where the actual, where does the barometer lay on this actually being a plausible thing? It’s hard to do. And it’s, you know, we’re lay people, we don’t have the expertise that someone like you has, and we’re trying to fly by the seat of our pants, we barely know how our car works. And we’re asking a mechanic to help us, you know, tell us whether we need to get our car fixed. And it could be a $10 part or it could be a $10,000 job.
Well, if I could give this piece of advice, be willing to pay the lawyer for the time that for the time it takes them to figure out what you’re what you have, what your potential is. That’s all they’ve got is their time and their expertise, be willing to pay for that they shouldn’t have to go talk to the DA for you, on the off chance that you might hire them. But if they’re if they absolutely cannot win a removal petition, they shouldn’t charge you for the full price for one because they should be honest enough to tell you that I will do your petition for you, Andy, but not a secret once I’ve been granted. I feel bad about taking a bet about taking your money, but I will give it my best shot. But I’m telling you, this is what they’re going to say that cost you $1,000 to find out. How would you rather pay $1,000 to find out that you’re suck or would you rather pay $5,000 to a person who tells you that I do these all the time. Don’t worry about a thing. I’ll handle it and then you get suck and then you may be Suck for a period of time, statutorily you can’t come back, which is more, which is more preferable to you.
Nick brings it up exactly the way I think you should play this one, it says for petition, the key is to have a lawyer who can make calls and get a good read of the room who actually spends the time in that particular court and knows all the players. Yes, yes. For something like this, you would want somebody that knows your local jurisdiction, you don’t want some out of town, when that’s going to burn bridges. You want someone that plays golf with these people and hangs out. And since Christmas cards and whatnot,
you’re absolutely right. The exception would be if you know, it’s an extreme long shot. And if you think you can break down a key witness, and you need a person who is not afraid to do that, because if someone’s gunning for you, and you think you can break them on the stand, and get them, get them, get them to be tripped up, and to give conflicting testimony, you might break you might win the case was an outsider. But generally speaking, that is exactly correct. You would want to basically what you want to do is talk to me every time you have one of these and pay me to tell you, I’m just kidding on the page, because I couldn’t begin to talk to everybody who has legal questions, but but you’ve got to find some way to talk this through with a person who’s not just out to get paid. If there’s virtually no chance of you prevailing.
You should provide a service of where we hire you to interview our attorneys for us.
That’s when there were crickets. That’s what that’s a good idea. We’ll shut that price be $1,000 in interview
containers of fudge. So I’ve still got
I still got fudge fudge leftover,
Unknown Speaker 56:40
Thank you, Justin for that. He then turned around and offered me and I was like, No, no, no, no, it’s totally okay. I was just I was totally just picking on him about, I don’t need a whole lot of sweets, it’s totally fine. I was just totally playing fun that you got something and I didn’t I was just playing. So alright. Somehow we missed this one later. But this one came up on the radar of different advocacy groups. So this one comes from Florida Action Committee. It says New York Federal District Court grants injunction against the state blocking social media. But this is like a two month old decision or something like that. And so as a group of people forced to register as pfrs in New York have been granted a preliminary injunction by a federal district court in New York against the New York State Department of Corrections and community supervision, which sought to ban these individuals access to social media. What’s going on here?
Well, it started my web passed by a elaborate detection systems here at fyp. So we have we have a vast apparatus of detection, but this one got past me. But this is a statutory requirement for people under supervision. And it includes three categories. The victim of the registry offense was under the age of 18. At the time, or the registrant has been designated as a level three sexual offender, or the internet was used to facilitate the commission of the crime. And those people are restricted subset difficulty from accessing the internet and social media. And the the trial judge, this is an a trial court. It is not an appellate case yet. And I for kicks and giggles, I looked up the district judge just because everybody wants to know is it red or Team Red or Team Blue? Right. Right. And this is a judge that was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Probably makes them Team Read.
And judge judge dearie think that’s why that would prepare announced and just like in Colorado that the judge Bache was appointed by President Nixon. Now, in in the days of Nixon, they were they were not very elaborate at doing. They didn’t analyze philosophy that much in those days at the trial level they did at the supreme court level. But at the trial level, if the senators from that state recommended a judge, the President was someone for a federal judge up to present was going to point them, but this case is similar to what we had happened in Bucks County, Georgia, where a preliminary Grant has been given to enjoin the state but he only had joined them for the for the group of the internet which used to facilitate their crime. He decided that they are likely to prevail on the merits of this of this case and but I wanted to talk about the exceedingly high requirements for getting an injunction because it’s like the stamping class action. That doesn’t make it a class action. Applying for an injunction doesn’t get an effect most are not granted because of the exceedingly high Standard and the party seeking or play marriage auction on, on anything has to establish that they’re going to suffer irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits when the case goes to trial, and that the preliminary injunction is in the public interest. And and then there’s another component when they’re government when there’s a state government action that the moving party seeks to stay government action has to must establish that they represent energy and like injury and likelihood of success on the merits of the claim. And that’s a tough thing. That’s a real tough standard to meet. And, and then I really zeroed in on page 17, because it It made me reflect back on international Megan’s Law when the injunction was sought, and people threw darts and arrows at me when I said we can’t meet the standard. And I couldn’t find the standard, but I knew it because I had researched it before but I couldn’t find it. But thankfully this this district judge has has a law clerk that could find what I couldn’t find. And they say, Judge deary says irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, quote, the moving movement must demonstrate an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but but actual, but actual and imminent. And that cannot be remedied by monetary damages. That is the reason why the injunction for international bagans law was doomed from the get go. Because everything that was being salt was based on speculation. We did not know what the market was going to be. Therefore, all we could do was speculate. And therefore, it failed. And I got mad people got mad at me, I didn’t get mad. But I just felt like that I was doing the best I could explain people the odds of prevailing, but this one here is a good case study for those who want to know about how difficult it is to get an injunction and why they are granted and why they’re denied. And this case is still unfolding. hasn’t gone to trial yet. We do not know how it’s going to come out when it finally does go to trial.
Can you back up? We you You gave us the three different positions that people could be in for this for these conditions to be held true? And I just want to be clear, is it the people that use the internet to facilitate their crime? They are the only ones that didn’t get this relief? Or they’re the only ones that did get this relief, the way
I read it, they’re the ones who did get the relief.
That seems backwards?
Well, let’s go back and make sure I misread it. Let’s make sure I read that correctly. So let’s go down to the end of it, you know, do and do a skim of the read. Read it. Because it could be that I have a ballot of old timers?
Well, because I you know, to me, the people that you would seem to want to keep off the internet would be the ones that use the internet to commit their crime. The first one that says the victim of the registrants offense was under the age of 18. Well, they could have gone to a park to to do their to pick up the whatever, that doesn’t have anything to do with the internet. Why would you restrict them from the internet? That’s the only reason I’m asking this because that just seems backwards to me.
Yeah, it looks like I’ve got it backwards. They’re the ones who didn’t get it. You’re fired? Yes. Yeah, that that’s about double time last year.
Okay, I didn’t think that that made sense. But hey, look, you know, we’re editing on the fly. And that’s what happens when you do a live podcast. So cool. Okay, so the people that use the internet to commit their crime, those are the people that did not get this relief. The other people were the victim was under the age of 18, or the registrant has been designated as a level three offender. Those people are relieved from this where they can still potentially use in social media.
That is correct. And the the another neat thing, and this is the the overreach of packing ham Where were the it was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. But the conservatives were very reluctant because of the overreaching dicta that they said that would be used to drive wages. And they, they were cautionary about that. And that’s this, this, this came up in this decision here, where, where the packing ham case was about people who had completed their sentence, they were not subject to any form of supervision or punishment. They were being banned by North Carolina. And the court had some dicta that, that they were particularly concerned as how how the internet ban was affecting people that paid their debt to society, which suggests that they were concerned about people who were still paying their debt as well because of the use of the word particular particularly and so the deck that came up in here as well, but this case is still unfolding folks.
Okay, but as We learned as we learned with the butts County, one in Georgia with the signs, it is a very high bar to receive the injunction. But that does not mean that you can just tip your hat and say, Hey, man, we we’ve got this, it’s over. We don’t have to do anything else we’ve won, it could still come back and bite you.
They could come up with it, because the Court made it clear that they hadn’t shown the evidence to justify what they’re doing. It could be when this goes to trial, they have more evidence, like the head and buts County. Well, of course, it wasn’t a trial of summary judgment. But if this was resolved by a trial, and they actually hear evidence, it could be that they present evidence, we don’t know that because everybody moves for summary judgment.
Okay. We have some articles to cover if you want to fill in some extra time. And we’re gonna have to prioritize these because we have maybe 10 or so minutes to go and we have like 45 articles to go.
All right. So let’s do some articles. Let’s start at the top. And the ones that are at the top of the list are more of a priority for me. And the first one doesn’t take any time at all.
No man freed from five. I can’t 505 year federal prison term, Larry, his release date. I just I stopped when I was reading this and left. His release date was July 8 2419. Who do you think’s gonna be running for president in 2419? Well, but they will,
they will. They would have released him after he did his time.
I don’t mean to be fake, because that’s that’s an obscene amount of money. I mean, time, I was just reading. He was a money launder. Like, he he made phony money later. And he received a 505 year prison term, but he’s been released early. Because so that’s good news for the guy.
Because because of the pandemic.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:48
Oh, well, I
mean, okay, but it’s not like he’s not he’s not somebody that’s violent. He’s not Charles Manson as an example of somebody that would be a threat to society, so to speak. This guy just put some money in the laundry mat, and then took it out and spread it around. That’s all he did.
Well, not quite literally.
I know. That’s a long time. 2419. Larry, come on, you may still be alive.
Well, like I say, whatever. Least event 2419.
Anything else before we before? It’s just a long time. They’re
like, I like the next one about the wedding.
Okay, let’s see here. So this is from courthouse news, Nebraska inmates fight Eighth Circuit for prison. He wedding. That’s fun. I didn’t really get enough information out of it. Is it just two people that were pen pals, and they want to get married. So I didn’t really quite catch what the actual situation was
something to that effect. They want to get married. And but the the marriage statute for 1866 I guess, in Nebraska, a contemplated that to get married you had to be present. And the state of Nebraska saying that you have a virtual wedding doesn’t count. And the it the court apparently the judges were like, discombobulated but but why do you need that? Why are you trying to keep these people from getting married? And we we’ve had case law since 1966. You have the right to get married. But the question is, do you have the right to force prison administration to provide a platform and a portal for you to get married? virtually? What right with the right to get married? Is? Is that? Does that include a right for someone to facilitate your marriage for you?
Let me let me just it seems like it would be easier to put in a computer to let them have a Skype wedding or a zoom wedding than it would be to go through the security precautions of bringing a human body inside the walls.
Well, but they’re not going to either. I mean, that’s that’s the question I’m raising and I don’t have the answer. I’m saying you have the right to marry who you want to. Where is it at that you have the right to force prison administrators to provide you transportation or security physical presence is required? Where is it? What right can you cite that you have the right that they must force that that you can force them to provide a platform for you to get married virtually, if we want to be textualist? like can you cite to that says while you’re being punished that they must provide you the avenue to get married
and remind me Eighth Circuit that is the appeals court that’s one step below the Supreme Court.
That’s correct. And that runs down the midsection it would be it would be Nebraska Arkansas, Minnesota that midsection of the country. Okay, but but I’m wondering what right can you cite? Do you get married all you want to since you’re out you go get married? Okay.
Okay. And that would have been put the burden on you to find somebody to marry you just to the piece or a minister of some sort to marry you, you go to some sort of establishment to do it. But the prison doesn’t have to do that for you.
I don’t know that that’s where, right? If you are a textualist, and a literalist, then this would be legislating from the bench for the people wearing the robes to put in the the issue an edict from the bench, saying that the legislators should have done this. And they didn’t, therefore, we’re doing this, that’s a little bit of legislating from the bench. So I’m just wondering what, right you have to force the prison, you can’t force them to provide you access to your doctors. They provide you access to the doctrines they want to provide you access to right.
You can’t Yeah, you don’t get to go, hey, look, my special doctor over here. That’s what I’d like to go see you fyp. No,
you don’t get to force them to provide you access to visitors of your choice. I mean, you you do have some limited visitation rights that you can forfeit, depending on discipline, but you have severely curtailed rights and prison. So I’m just anxious to see what right that they are going to be able to assert. And if the eight circuit events are right, because I think they’d be inventing it, what they hang their hat on, if they say that the prison has to do this stuff, and I’m not taking a position on it. I’m just raising the question. Yeah, if I were present administrator, I don’t think I would probably try to create without a court telling me to I would probably try to create something. But the prison would take the position doesn’t what administrative would say, Well, if we start providing these virtual weddings, they’re going to be they’re going to become commonplace. And, and that’s all we’re going to be doing. And they’re gonna be Sham wedding,
we’re not the Yeah. And we are not the Department of marriage,
what they’re gonna they’re gonna say that there’ll be Sham weddings that people will have met through through writer presidents.com and friends beyond the walls and all these websites that they’re going to say that, that people are getting married, to try to get benefits. What happens if a person’s that 72 years old? Well, you gotta be 60 something to bail, Social Security. But what happens if a person’s in their 70s and there are benefits to Social Security have been curtailed because they’re incarcerated, which happens whether you’re on disability, whatever form so secured, what happens if a sham wedding happens for someone who is in a financial condition that they can collect spousal benefits by being married now, I don’t know all social security law, and I don’t know how long you’d have to be married. But what happens if people use it to scam that? Would we be happy that our prisons are accommodating Sham weddings?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:42
What if only you would think of that I shouldn’t say only you somebody else would too. But you were the one that would think of these things.
What would happen about people who who want to sponsor folks to come and suppose they’re in prison for something other than a sexual offense? And and and they could receive an a monetary consideration for a virtual wedding for someone that they’ve never laid eyes on before. With that, would that make you happiest in society? They’re downsized all these things that I’m just curious how this space is going to come out. It’s going to be fascinating to me. That’s why I said here
you have, yes, of course. And then we have a pair of articles. At least they’re tangentially related as from the New York Times sex abuse claims against the Boy Scouts now surpass 82,000. And the other one is a $73 million settlement is reached in sex abuse suit involving UCLA gynecologist. I don’t know why you put these in here.
Well, we do tend to talk about stuff related to sexual offending and what I put it in here for us because I’m totally confused. And I don’t understand. We’ve talked about former House Speaker Hastert who was molesting the wrestlers apparently for a long time and he admitted it’s not my speculation. He admitted when they charged him for money laundering and all the stuff they charged him to do. He admitted that he had done that. But he coached wrestling. We had jerry sandusky. We had Dr. Nasser, we’ve had on and on what these high profile cases of people that that I don’t understand what happens how this stuff goes undetected, and undisciplined, and unprosecuted for years and decades. I don’t get it. I don’t want to believe just because someone comes forward that they’re automatically guilty of every accusation it’s made. But on the other hand, at some point, it becomes a pattern. And if you’re paying out $73 million at UCLA, I would say that there are a lot of this case it was women it wasn’t like with Sandusky and Hastert it was it was boys, but there are a lot of people who have been victims that who have been reporting things as we found out in Penn State University that That, that the administration was aware of this and they took no action. How does that happen? Andy? How?
i? I don’t know.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:13
I don’t know.
I mean, but 80 to eight so to is are some portion of those 82,000 claims? some portion of those are probably not true, but some of them are probably true.
I would guess in any situation where there’s money to be had people will put forth dubious claims. I mean, that’s, that’s just human nature. Hopefully they have a process of ferreting out that the people were a member of the scouts, I’m sure they do because money is at stake, and they have some process of validate, you’ll never be able to know what happened. All you’d be able to know is the person was a scout on that particular scout master that particular error when that when those allegations were made. But but but again, you would have a pattern. If you only have one Scout, that comes forward. And that’s all. That’s not to negate that that could be true. But if 27 scouts come forward from one scout Master, and report something at some point, you ought to take it seriously. I would think
Unknown Speaker 1:16:13
you would think
you would think anything else here before we go on and we could probably do one more if you want to like pick one.
Pick one. All righty. So well, you know, during the war on drugs,
the war on drugs from the hill 50 years after the start of the war on drugs, Americans have a chance to fix the harm it created. Richard Nixon is the one that is credited with starting the war on drugs public enemy number one, how can you imitate how next would St. Paul Brock annamaria.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:48
I don’t know I can’t do Mixon
you did a pretty good job actually. And
I have heard people like bashing president vice president like Kamala Harris for her position as da back in California whenever that was as being incredibly harsh on people coming before for drug crimes. That’s what I’ve heard. And they’re wondering, Is this all going to change when she steps into the office and all that stuff?
Well, I think you heard me basher, because I’ve asked that post that question when she was running, you know, is she truly different now. But this this is, clearly these two articles indicate that we spent a lot of money and not achieved a whole lot. The deaths from drug overdose have have gone up. As the public has voted. In this recent cycle of election, this general election, the conservative and liberal states have voted to relax I mean, it’s a it’s it’s bipartisan. There There are states that you would not think of they’re voting to decriminalize and legalize the use of drugs. And I think we’re finally turning the corner and we’re but it’s going to take some time to unwind because a lot of people make a lot of money and they they don’t want to give that money up.
You think that this is base like so we’ll call this the the war on drugs industrial complex, perhaps?
Absolutely. It is, is a big industrial complex. And a lot of money’s made it and the cops are one of the biggest opponents to legalizing drugs. I’m sorry to tell you that I know that we have an audience that ends to love the police, but they fight tooth and nail and they use scare tactics. Because it if in some of their scare tactics are legit. I mean, but but they they overdramatize the complications of smoking a little bit of weed. It’s not a gateway. So it certainly for that one. Yeah, it’s not a gateway drug in my opinion. And that’s what they say how this is just the beginning of what’s coming. If we legalize this, what’s next?
Except for we still have alcohol, which is from my understanding as a lay person is far more harmful and leads to alterations of personality where people get drunk and they turn into completely violent crazy people. That’s not your gateway drug. Okay. All right then. But that one’s legal.
So well, we only skip in three articles. So we did fairly well.
Not too shabby.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:26
let’s see. What do we have to do close this thing out? We can I don’t think we got any patrons. If we did. I am sorry. It was a really crazy busy day and I didn’t even have a chance to look. But Larry, how do people find the podcast?
They search online.
search online awesome smoke signals. Yeah, I think I keep using that. And let’s see what can we come up with teletype? You were probably around when the teletype was invented, did it it did.
So registry matters.co will get you to our site and you will find every every episode, we ever done right?
I think so. Yeah, I’m pretty sure if not, it may have started like around Episode Five, but I’m pretty sure you can go back to episode one. You can go back to episode one. Yes, yes, yes, yes. And what about your favorite way of phone calls if somebody wants to call in the old fashioned way with the rotary or the touchdowns,
that would be 747-227-4477.
Email is registry matters email@example.com. And we love all of our listeners, but our patrons are, make this so much more fun. And you can find that firstname.lastname@example.org slash registry matters. And you can support the podcast for as little as $1 a month, and they get the fabulous transcription service that pretty much Larry runs. Jonah. quickly talk about that just for a brief moment.
I do. I’m hoping that sometime early in 2021, we’re going to have our entity created. I’ve been cool. I’ve been hesitant to do all the work that’s involved. But we’ll have a business entity will seek our 501 c three status. And we’re hoping to be able to drop the cost of the transports, which I’m hoping that even if before we may be able to drop it because we had anticipated that they were going to be using large envelopes, and that the postage was going to be running higher because we didn’t have the formula to keeping it concise, to the number of pages that we can get into the to the process we’re using now. So we may be cutting the cost of the podcast transcripts a little bit and then hopefully as we get donors onto the 501 c three, we can reduce it to free for people who are in a jet and we can reduce it even further. We’ll wait while we have more financial support.
groovy man, that’s awesome. Larry, as always, I appreciate your time that you spend here on the podcast. And I know that the listeners do too. You are an immense amount of knowledge and I look forward to next week. It’ll be right after Thanksgiving next week. I hope everybody has a good Thanksgiving holiday too. And if you’re traveling please be safe and wear your damn masks. Right.
Great. Have a great night, Larry, talk to you soon. Bye.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:05
Unknown Speaker 1:22:09
You’ve been listening to F YP