Listen to RM104: I Got My Rights Because I’m A Police Officer
registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts
Unknown Speaker 0:09
recording live from fyp Studios Parts Unknown and fyp Studios West transmedia across the internet. This is Episode 104 of registering matters. Happy Saturday a little bit early Larry, I’m disoriented cuz I’m I don’t even know where I am. How are you tonight?
Good. I thought it was Episode 104. But it’s what all right. Did I say? 123. Now he said what all four but I were having resurrecting the discussion about one oh vs. 104.
Okay, it could be 104 but I just you know, that’s what I was asking you about. Like for that kind of number. I will say 123
Unknown Speaker 0:45
or one or four,
not 104 and you shouldn’t say 104 because that would mean 100.4.
Now it’d be 104.
Okay, good. I wasn’t sure. I’m reading 104 and The show notes and I wasn’t sure if I said something different.
So you said it correctly. We have been snowed under here in the land of enchantment we had a blizzard come through on Thanksgiving Day so depending on your elevation of where you live you had anywhere from six inches on the lower elevations of the city all the way up till flatter so and higher elevation so the city so yes, we’ve had some nice weather. Did you did you have to shovel snow? I just ignored it and stayed stayed on Thanksgiving and usually the moderating temperatures take care of that problem within 2436 hours.
Right? Right. And plus, I mean, how much was it like inches?
Unknown Speaker 1:38
I had about six or eight inches. Did you really
that’s that’s a pretty hefty amount of snow.
So well. I’ve had more than a foot here before. This is actually a this is actually a steel belt where we live. I
had no idea I don’t know. I mean, I’ve driven through New Mexico before I can’t say I know the geography that well. I’ve been to Alma Gordo handful of times.
They wouldn’t get as much done in that part of the status we would here but but yes. Remember we’re a mile high.
You are a Mile High City like Cali or
a mile. A mile high like Denver. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Well, there you go. You ready to go on? And and parts of the city or even higher than a mile depending on where you are the elevation of the city?
Certainly, certainly. Hey, if you hear any, like chair creaking or anything like that, like, hey, look, you’re just gonna have to suffer through it. And that’s to you podcast listeners, new people.
All right. I haven’t. I haven’t. I haven’t heard it yet.
I just heard it as I as I moved a little bit. All right, Larry, we I guess you. There’s a question that came in, says, Larry, I understand you people have been sending a plethora of cease and desist letters in New Mexico. Can you tell us about the last policy that forbids cameras on supervised offenders homes. I don’t even understand what this is about.
Well, we’ve been sending cease and desist letters now that we have our staff at Attorney here, we’ve been sending cease and desist letters, primarily to sheriff’s departments because they were the registrar’s for the state. And we’ve decided that we’re sending the next one to the Department of Corrections. Because that’s they have that within the umbrella of department corrections. There’s the probation, parole division, and they have a number of things that they’re doing that we think are unconstitutional. But the one that really triggered it was the one where a person who just got placed on supervision about two weeks ago, contacted us and they have this one, let me just read it for it’s not too long. It says you will not be allowed to have external video cameras, or any types of recording devices installed outside your home. If you’re unwilling to take them down. You will move.
Yikes. So okay, so these are these are our people putting up cameras to watch those people from messing with them and they are being told to take them down.
But we don’t know that. That’s why I put I make cameras provided for security of the dwelling. I mean, we are at a very high comparatively crime, state, particular property crimes, the home burglaries. I wouldn’t say that people put it up to watch them, they may have put it up just so that they could secure their home.
Yeah, I mean, that’s why I did it and not to quote unquote, secure my home but to, you know, to be mindful of vandals or anything that sort and the other one, I’m sure I’ve said this before, is I put one on my front door to prove when I come and go, because I got accused of being out past a certain time one night. So
well, we have we have composed a letter which will go out next week to the Department of Corrections probation parole, will receive a copy but the secretary of corrections will be put on notice that and I’m going to borrow from George HW Bush, those who don’t remember, when when, when saddam invaded Kuwait. He said this will not stand. I make it commit commit, but this will not stand
Sorry. So now are you like Larry hw last name?
I mean, we we are what we evaluate litigation since we have such limited resources we look at when ability, and we look at preference to be in federal court where we can receive our attorneys fees. But this one doesn’t have to be in federal court. It This one is just so obnoxious. And so over the top that, that, that whether or not we can recover fees or not, if the if the most prudent place to go is to state court, that’s where we’re going to go but I’m sorry boys and girls, you cannot tell people that they cannot secure their dwellings. You can’t have that blanket policy.
That’s really bizarre that they would tell them they can’t do that. And obviously that’s why you’re challenging it but again, what is their like, their reasoning has to be but like, we don’t want to be recorded by our people. You people. Not Those people you people
that has been behind Well, that’s that would be likely what happened, there’s probably a recording of them doing things that they shouldn’t be doing. Now, of course, when you get caught doing things you shouldn’t be doing. You have two choices. You can try to attack the whatever caught you and go after the whistle blower or you could you can actually try to fix what you shouldn’t have been doing. Now a pair if our speculation is correct, because we haven’t heard their reasons. We won’t hear the reasons until they respond to our letter, or if they don’t respond or are there to respond to our lawsuit because they will respond to the letter or the lawsuit, which are what it takes. But but we haven’t heard the reason. But I can’t imagine a reason other than that. That I mean, is it possible that someone may have used a security type camera to stare into someone’s yard? I don’t know the limitations of cameras. Is that possible? I suppose it’s possible. But then you apply that sanction to that person. you require them to take their cameras down. If you find someone misusing, I can’t.
Yeah, sure. It just like, you know, in this has been something that’s been going on for, I don’t know what decade where, you know, the citizenry has had cameras on the police to a much, much greater digit, or much greater degree than what has happened in the past. And that’s obviously because of smartphones and people just always having a camera on them. Now there’s a much higher degree of scrutiny against those people.
And it should be welcomed. If we were operating in a rational world, the people who are providing fine probation supervision and doing nothing wrong, as we’ve heard so many times that you ain’t got nothing to hide. If you’re doing exemplary probation work and you’re following sound principles of super vision and you’re not being over the top you wouldn’t mind a camera rolling as you come up onto the property you wouldn’t mind being recorded as you interact with the offender or their family
a Larry Charles and chat Just as I thought law enforcement always wanted these cameras like the ring doorbell cameras as these cameras have helped solve recent crimes. So aren’t they almost like splitting the fence there that they want them in certain circumstances not in others?
Well, that we’re talking about the cops versus probation we’re talking about sure and thanks but but but blacks I don’t know what the reason is. All I know is offset made it one of our top priority is to find out what what what their motivation is. And it’s it’s a it’s it’s way over the top along with where we’re, we’re, we’re going to be asking them about their prohibition of all romantic relationships without prior approval. We’re going to ask them about their overly broad definition of sexually stimulating material. You can’t have anything the sexual stimulate stimulating and they decide what stimulating, we’re going to ask them about their possession of a prohibition of possessing a smartphone, which, which they tell you gotta, you gotta gouge the camera element. We’re gonna we’re gonna find out what their position I was on the blanket prohibition on social media access in view of the of the developing case law. And then we’re going to ask them about the prohibition from living with 1000 feet of whatever happens to annoy the Pl because that seems to be such a subjective thousand foot measurement and what they and based on their answers, we will decide which things and plus the the overly broad use of GPS monitor, because because they have a field day with GPS monitoring, so we’re going to probably be end up filing lawsuits. I can’t imagine that they’re going to capitulate to our wishes without lawsuits. So unfortunately, we’re going to be at the litigation business in 2020.
And and I don’t want to drag this on too much longer, but I Know that this only applies to New Mexico. But can Paul in North Carolina pick it up and run with it? Can Janice and California pick it up and use these as scaffolding as frameworks of questions to start digging into these people? Well, in terms of
asking them, their their their rationale behind these policies?
Well, I actually like filing
the lawsuits. Well, absolutely. The GPS case was already developed quite a bit on GPS after after the Supreme Court ruled and packing ham, there’s been a number. I mean, we’ve talked about a number of ruling. So I’m sorry. We have a statute here that says that people will be monitored in real time while they’re on parole, but unfortunately, the statute doesn’t supersede the Constitution. You just you just can’t arbitrarily do that search and seizure on everybody. So we’re we’re gonna we’re going to ask them if they want to pair it back. And of course, they’re going to say no on the people on parole, but on the people on probation, they put they use it to to broadband people on probation as well. So we’re going to end up having a civil The GPS for sure. And we’re gonna have to sue them. Somebody likes to social media, they’re not gonna back off on that. beavers surprising, but you always give people a chance to do the right thing before you engage them litigation.
But, I mean, like laws are presumed constitutional when they’re made. Larry, shouldn’t you guys back off and let them do their thing?
Well, absolutely not the only thing that’s the last GPS monitoring for people on parole, none of this other stuff is as in statute, all this other stuff is policy. So there’s no such presumption there. But in terms of GPS, this presumed constitutional until it is done, the Supreme Court of the United States has already said that GPS as a search and seizure, and that the Constitution protects you against that unreasonable search and seizure, that passing a statute doesn’t magically make it reasonable. So we no longer presume it’s constitutional because the Supreme Court has said it is. Yeah.
Alright, well, let’s move on to a question that we received from last week’s episode from rich system problem and this is related to we’ve talked about a case where there was a 15 year limit. And can you can you give me the the brief rundown of what we talked about on that case?
expect me to be able remember what I talked about last week?
Let me ask the question and then you can backfill. The problem is when does the 15 year clock start to be removed from community supervision for life? The clock starts 15 from the time of your jfc
what is jfc? Like gases, your judgment of commitment, but Okay,
and then removal from the registration is 15 years after from your release. I had questions Larry about this on a call a few months ago, every lawyer in New Jersey’s interpretation is different. All right, Larry, what do you say? judgment of conviction is what it is.
What What did we talk specifically about that we talked about this case last week or a case on a New Jersey. Okay, let’s let’s refresh and see what we did. We we have a case That we were looking at, because I’ve done some research for in preparation for this episode. But what did we talk about last week? You remember, I’m old?
I am aware of this. Let’s see if I pull up the episode and try and look at the says register forever New Jersey offenders fight for proof. That was the the title of the article. Yeah. Did I pull a case with it? Or did we talk about? No, you pulled a case. And the title of it is the New Jersey why you pulled the code that talked about when?
Unknown Speaker 13:31
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Unknown Speaker 13:33
Yeah. Okay. Yes.
Yes. Well, that I’ve done more research after the question came in. So So now the, we have an appellate level decision from from New Jersey from December 7 to 2018. So so this is this is, as far as I can tell, still good case law, but they answered those questions. So I’m surprised that the lawyer, or all the lawyers in New Jersey can’t answer that because all they have to do is to do a quick case in the matter of registrant HD. And in the matter of registrant JM this case was decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division almost one year ago, just just shy of a year ago. And they answer the question specifically about about the statue. Now the statute as we talked about last week is poorly constructed. And and their their arguments for exactly either either interpretation, but the but the appellate level court has interpreted it in this particular case that I’ve made a plethora of notes here on the case, but they the 15 years, you’ve got two different issues in New Jersey you have the being removed from registration, and you have being removed from community supervision for life. They have CSL and then they have PSL, which is parole. supervision for life. And so you have you have you have two different removal, you have two different potential barriers. You can get off the registration, theoretically or one without the other. But but they answer these these these cases dealt with both. And they answered both in terms of what went to 15 years counts. So, the 15 years counts for release from community supervision from your last offense.
All right, so 15 years from your last defense, and does that mean conviction or does that even mean just being charged with something and then dropped?
No, it’s within 15 years following convictions are released from our correctional facility for a new term of imprisonment. And post whichever is late, late later. So it’s it’s 15 years from your from your last offense. I judge my granted petition for released from special sentence a Canadian supervision for life upon Proof of cleared convincing evidence that the person has committed a crime for 15 years since the last conviction or released from incarceration, whichever is later, and that the person is not locked with a threat to the safety of others a police or community supervision. So these people they got convicted in the 90s. But then they got convicted of additional offenses. Each one got convicted of another offense after that. And the state took the position that that that they weren’t eligible to be revoked because they had been convicted of predictive for registration. The state took the argued that, that that if you were convicted within 15 years of release from from confinement, or whichever occurred last day argued that that that you would never be eligible. That’s what they’re arguing. And the Court of Appeals, which is exactly what this is. The Court of Appeals said though, that’s not the case. They said that’s absurd, because you would have a person who could go forward years for 364 days and then commit a binder offense and then they would be banned for life and they could go maybe 15 year periods after that and never be able to be released from the registration. So they said that that that would yield an absurd result. And so therefore, they interpreted it to be in 15 years from from the lat from the last infraction. So, so if I read this correctly, he’s eligible to file his petition for for termination from CSL obligations 15 years after his last offense, which he was convicted of it. It doesn’t have to be the sex offense, it has to be his last offense for which he was released from from his he’s got to go 15 years, free of free of a family. And then he’s got to prove that he did it by clear and convincing evidence that he does pose a threat to safety of others or for lease or community supervision. That’s what he’s got to do. That’s what for jaywalking,
you get a 25 year sentence and sort of 15 years after that offense,
after released from that offense, will probably get 25 years for jaywalking. I know I’m being silly.
Unknown Speaker 18:10
So are you? Are you ready to tackle some articles? so well? Well,
I, I highlighted some good stuff in here because the court, the court recognizes the danger of legislating from the bench. And, and they, they were trying to avoid doing that. So for those who, who, who, who want strict construction as judges, they did do a little bit of legislating from the bench here. And they they they justified it by saying they were reading the legislative intent for what limited intent they could discern, and they were trying to harmonize the two removal processes from CSL to from registration. And, and, but but they did do a little bit of legislating from the bench. But it says on page seven, the overriding goal of all statutory interpretation is to Determine as best we can in attendance of legislature and give effect to that intent. We do not view statutory words and phrases in isolation but rather and the proper context and relationship to other parts of the statute so that meaning can be given meaning can be given to the whole enact. But if the legislature’s intent is clear on the face of the statue that the interpretive process is over, we also consider extrinsic evidence of legislative intent. It’s a literal reading of the statute would yield an absurd result particular one at odds with the overall statutory scheme. So that’s how they got to where they wanted to go with with the registration because clearly, it does say if you’re convicted with a with a 15 years, we went over that last episode, but they decided that that would that would override the purpose of SORNA, which was you could go for the rest of your life and have one minor offense within the first 15 years and you can never get off and they said that would yield a certain result. Okay. Yeah, but uh, this will be in the show notes for the listener for the review. But But this, this should answer the question and I don’t know why the Lord, if I can find this in New Mexico, the Lord’s there in New Jersey, I’ll be able to find this decision. We certainly
love You’re smarter than they are.
I love it is as we presume that the legislature knows how to express this intention. And a court may not rewrite a statute or add language to the legislature omitted and then I cited a case from 2015. So it says here to the legislature could have clearly stated that 15 year period began only after the offender complete the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction for the underlying sex offense and I was there but again, it chose not to do so. So so but yeah, this was a good read.
All right, then. So let’s move on over to an article at of reason magazine, and I’m pretty sure this is gonna This is gonna be the coming down the pike in a bad way. Kevin Gorsuch and fight to revive non Guillen con delegation non almost mispronounced that non delegation doctrine. This is something that we’ve been covering lately. It’s from the Gundy case. And this is about the the entity that is in charge of administering that they would make their own rules. And so then there’s a whole faction of people that think that this is a bad idea that everything like this should be legislated today, sort of make a decent synopsis of that.
Yeah, we discussed this in great detail. And I just encourage people to be very careful what you ask for because without delegation, government will come to a complete halt. And, and the sort of was was a gunda case was so ridiculous because you had 50 registration schemes operating before that I’m all check past and that did not create the obligation to register. All it did was gave the feds tools to prosecute people who didn’t register And it encouraged the states to bring the registries up in terms of the requirements and coverage of offenders on the duration of the registration. But it did not create didn’t create a thing in terms of an obligation register people that were. So anybody who had been convicted prior Masek, they already had a registration obligation. But But if if, if, if if the government can’t delegate, if Congress has to write all the rules for everything government does, just be very happy. You’ll never get your Veterans Disability benefits. You’ll never get your Social Security disability benefits, because Congress can never move fast enough with the changing needs of society, to, to, to defined every disabling condition with such specificity and have a listing of what if you don’t allow any subjective judgment for what constitutes a substantial impairment. Then, like I say, just be careful what you ask for because it sounds like that There. There. There is a great push Get rid of delegation. And and although I recognize that there are some dangerous there are some overreach, it seems like we would try to find out how to deal with the overreach. The big thing is the environmental the people that are subject to environmental regulations. They they do not like that EPA, EPA can say, you can’t do this. You can’t dump that you can’t you can’t. They want Congress to spell out everything that the EPA can do,
Unknown Speaker 23:29
rather than the rule making process.
Yeah, I personally like the CDC example better. I can’t imagine the legislative bodies trying to figure out what active viruses and whatnot agents that the CDC should hold on to I think the CDC would probably be a better agency to handle their specific daily details than our legislature that is so anti science as it is.
Well, that would be a good example. I will show a bit another example of what they’re trying to what they’re trying to write in the occupational safety net. administration that like say we would we would have a we would have a complete grind to a halt of all things that government does. It would be so restricted. But but if that’s what people want, like tell people if you want to live in a country like Somalia, I mean, if you want to live in a and a primitive country, I mean, that’s fine. I don’t.
So this, this article points to that they declined cert to whatever case this that they’re referencing here, and but it’ll it’ll come back around again when I guess there’s enough meat in there for them to go after it.
Well, well, cert petitions are filed eight or 9000 of them a year. So they will, they will they will keep following cert petitions and hopefully that will catch the court’s attention. And they’re looking for that pivotal fifth vote that they didn’t have on Gandhi.
And then moving over to an article from the hill, Pennsylvania and x law, ending time limits for criminal charges in child sex abuse cases as this another statute of limitations. Tear down
it is It is and I’m surprised it took as long as it did with what’s his name the coach there that Santa Sandusky Sandusky surprised it took this long.
Yeah because that happened around 13 or so.
Yeah that was the most bizarre thing and my my entire life to some of the stuff I heard that was going on there. What? You don’t they don’t have showers in State College Pennsylvania. Did you know that coaches 1516 years old take showers 1414 year old boys I I never do that i
and multiple people knew about it not just not just like, I mean, obviously the kids knew that that was happening but apparently other staff members know about it too.
Well, it would seem like that. Okay, if you suddenly they have showers everywhere except in State College. It would seem like if you go to that particular account, and this 55 year old hairy man gets in the shower with 40 teenage boys, it would seem like that the 14 teenage teenage boys with all tell their parents, you know that this gross looking guy jumped in the shower with us, kind of creeped me out. And it’s just that boggles my mind that that could go on for so long.
What are they extending the statute of limitations to some like, didn’t York make it something to where it was 55 years until the victim is age 55? I guess. How long did they push this out? I don’t see it in here.
Well, the criminal on the criminal side of that looks like they just abolish the statute limitations, there is no grief. Okay. So So, you know, like
Becca did, I think and another article that we’re going to cover tonight, I think it’s about people just being detained for a lot not and not the one that we dropped, but another one, just just people being detained and in jail, and they’re saying, you know, memories, fade evidence, you know, becomes less viable and so forth. And they’re talking about that for people just being detained. for, you know, days, weeks, months, a reasonably short period of time, and here we’re talking about things that are going to go on for, you know, indefinitely, that you would have any way to have evidence and to be able to defend yourself.
Well, we’re going to have a lot of people to be convicted. We don’t know how it’s gonna play out in terms of I’m assuming that if the statute of limitations previously in place that expired, not knowing the specifics, that that those people will still be beyond prosecution. That’s the way it generally has worked one day if your previous time has expired, but say you had a previously you had a five year statute limitation. So this takes effect. And there was 32 days left to rot on the previous statue limitations. Generally, they consider that this this new law supersedes the old law. So you what you’re going to have is people who be convicted, forced to plead guilty because they will be defenseless on something that happened decades ago. And the pendulum at some point, probably not in my lifetime. Hopefully, we’ll see Winning again and people realize that that that we’ve we’ve we’ve made it impossible for anybody to defend themselves when you bring in charges decades and decades later and we’re gonna hold on to that
yeah this is all seems to be on the heels of that thousand page report whatever it was that the the diocese put out or was put up by the diocese or on the diocese with all the abuse cases from the from the Catholic Church.
So yeah, it seems like that of course I on the civil side I feel you’re not risking your freedom I mean, if they take everything you’ve got away from you I mean that that’s damaging but but on the civil side, at least your freedom is spared but on the criminal side if you can convict someone and put them in a cage for something happened 3040 years ago, they were they are in an impossible position to defend themselves I find that very problematic. I find the whole thing problematic that that we’ve gone this far but predictable, the criminal side.
All right then so so yeah, and it does saying the fourth paragraph says the new laws will abolish the state’s criminal statute of limitations on childhood sexual abuse and extend the civil statute of limitations. So yeah, for criminal stuff, it’s forever.
So yep. And that’s the sloper all across the country. And they the people who advocate for survivors, they, they’re not going to give up until until they until they erode the statute limitations. And
that will extend out to just like every crime known demand, including shoplifting something something kind of silly and not I don’t say the night but benign.
Well, I think that already has a Maryland they don’t have a statute limitations for any felony. For anything. Any felony.
Yeah, so jaywalking doesn’t count my often. Jay
Jay walk inside a felony, but yes, ready felony offense, there’s no statute limitations.
Okay. But wait a minute, like I mean, if you’re driving 40 miles an hour over the speed limit, you now have a felony charge or something. Sometimes push past misdemeanor. I don’t think so. I don’t I don’t think it’s ever a felony to drive 40 miles an hour with the speed limit. Okay, you could get like, you know, reckless driving. Is that still?
Yeah, but generally all traffic stuff is dismissed misdemeanor so you don’t see a felony coming out of anything right here my sister I got all my side. I can
just see you like you know you’re 70 years old like when you were 20 years old we have video of you driving like a crazy person and they go prosecute you.
So well like sadly the pendulum will swing but I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime. I think a lot of people a lot of people will be convicted of a lot of suffering. And eventually when enough people in high places are put into prison for something that has happened decades ago. People like Roy Moore in Alabama. You know when when people like that enough of those are incarcerated then I think the pendulum will swing
and then you put it This article that is about I don’t know, this is probably a 5000 8000 word article from propublica. And these judges can have less training than barbers but still decide thousands of cases each year. I personally find this to be troubling. I don’t know that I would necessarily think that they have to be lawyers to be magistrate judges. But it would think that they would have some level of constitutional training behind besides some sort of correspondence course. The way that the article profiles a particular person that gets dragged into the system is she has a fight with her roommate, and she gets brought in and then sees the magistrate judge and the judge is interrupting her. And the ACLU says that her constitutional rights were suppressed at least, and she was then she ended up with a criminal conviction and $1,000 fine when she couldn’t pay. She was later thrown in jail, ultimately losing her job and her home on a magistrate judge that doesn’t necessary. I know all the policies and procedures that are required.
While it sounds troubling to me, of course, the big thing that came out this article this, this is complete systemic failure in South Carolina. This, this, this Magistrate Judge system, we have a similar system here in my state. The only county that doesn’t have that is the largest county that I live in. We don’t have magistrate judges. And we have we have what’s called a metropolitan Court, which has essentially the same powers as the magistrate court but the other 3332 counties have have magistrate courts, and they handle the preliminary appearances first appearances on a felony they do the probable cause determinations. They handle civil lawsuits less than a certain amount, which is that number cited by my grasp at the moment but they handle they handle landlord tenant disputes. They handle misdemeanors, they handle all the misdemeanors The traffic violations. So you put your potentially have the jurisdiction to put somebody in jail for 364 days on a misdemeanor. Well, if they have multiple misdemeanors, you could potentially put them in a stack them for quite some time at jail. That person made multiple, obscene phone calls. If you stack 12 times 364, that’s 12 years incarceration last all days. So so you have it what what appears to have happened in South Carolina is you have magistrate judges who do not respect that people are entitled to attorneys. It’s I can’t afford one. It doesn’t seem like that they they routinely offer legal services. So the person the person is standing there and a proceeding that they don’t know anything about how the rules work, without representation, facing or criminal conviction up to a year in jail and $1,000 fine and a blemish on the record. And in the system itself, it looks like it’s broken down because the people the magistrate judges have escaped any scrutiny for their misconduct. Yes. And they’ve they’ve escaped any reappointment process. If they if they if they’re holding over and nobody makes a nomination. It looks like though it looks like that they’ve got a little fire going for the where the center act puts this is a political payoff for for someone who supported a sinner, sinner draaga $72,000 year Magistrate Judge job and, and, and and that if no one else gets appointed. You don’t have to go through the process again, you just you’re just a holdover. And I think that’s that one and the article that had been holding over since 1998.
Unknown Speaker 34:42
Yes, and like for four year term or whatever it was.
And so so you’ve got a complete systemic failure in South Carolina.
Unknown Speaker 34:54
she goes, Yeah, and the woman that goes before the court, she She doesn’t know the rules. I mean, none of us know the rules besides the people like you, Larry, I mean, we don’t know these rules. So we need the judge to help us. We need a court appointed lawyer if we can’t afford our own, and this in this particular instance, this judge even denied the person to have a court appointed counsel. So
well, that’s that’s why this is a court of litigation and hopefully that ACLU God I hate that. I hate that group. But hopefully that this lawsuit is successful, and they bring some semblance of order, but ours is not that much different here. The the 32 counties don’t require any any legal degree, and they run for office so that they run for the position or magistrate judge. And they have to go through a certain limited amount of training at magistrate judges school that I forget how many days it is, but they have to go through training. And then there are they are subject to the The canons of professional conduct, which means that this state Supreme Court ultimately can discipline them under the process under under how they could remove and sanction judges for misconduct. But but here we we probably have similar problems that if a if a close scrutiny was looked, we probably have very similar problems. What’s going on South Carolina.
there’s a there’s a funny picture maybe a third of the way down in the article and it says that this particular magistrate judges being sworn in as magistrate while seeking reappointment, the individual didn’t disclose her suspension from the bench from handling for handling cases involving the sheriff’s office run by her husband. That sounds like the straight of corruption there. I don’t see a problem that
No, of course, you see the one from Dorchester County. The former magistrate Arthur, I can’t pronounce
that word. Wrong Google son. Yeah, it’s I shouldn’t laugh at people’s names. It’s not their fault. So
what did you say about Brian Wilson? Oh, well, he didn’t know he was committing anything wrong either when he was a legal experience, Robertson handled an estimated 3000 civil and criminal cases for almost three years that he already wasn’t cut out for the job while attending a class, would you just add six last ragosa realize he’d already validated these cannons of previous cases he had known it was wrong to lower defenders by bail to $10 and then paid himself.
Hey, well, he was doing good things there.
So that he discovered he had Miss Apple basic elements of several other trials. He rejected request for a restraining order against a police officer saying it would have serious effect on Alex’s career. So
all right, well, then let’s move over to this is Bloomberg law. I didn’t realize it Bloomberg. Is this the same outfit that does like the Bloomberg News stuff? I didn’t realize I had a lot I don’t know who whoever Bloomberg laws California cops can’t search vehicles for ID without a warrant. So pretty quick, short read, but it looks like a person gets pulled over. And the driver refused to produce a license and registration on demand. And the officer then started searching her purse on the driver’s side. And
I don’t think you’re allowed to do that, are you? It was a 64 page decision. So I decided not to read it. But the the what what I think is great about it is that that the incident, to a lawful arrest, they can search your vehicle, they have to do that. Because if your vehicle is got to be impounded as if you’re arrested, we have to make sure that we know what’s in the vehicle. But see, that didn’t work out for him in this case, because there was apparently no basis for arresting the person so therefore, all they were trying to find out was who the person was and I don’t have any ID. Well, that does not create a scenario where the constitution evaporates the fact they don’t have any ID, the then the question is well, is that a citation offense to drive without a license in California probably is probably not arrestable fit. So they started to arrest the person for so the California Supreme Court reversed themselves and said that we previously granted this is the exception, but we’ve changed our mind.
So you’re saying that the constitution doesn’t evaporate just because you can’t produce ID? I’m appalled by this thought.
Well, that’s it’s an amazing thing. But I think that if you can’t produce ID, that that doesn’t, that doesn’t mean that the constitution no longer applies to you. So you basically just have to be a human to have the constitution applied. That’s my thinking is I think you just have to be inside the country. I think once you’re in our country, even if you’re here illegally. I think that the rule of law applies to you I think you’re due process. I just have this strange notion that the founders believed that if you’re in our country, however you got here, we have to treat you with certain fundamental rights. Now, that may include a process that the porch you but we still have to go through a new process.
That sounds like a liberal do gooder position you have there there. It’s
kind of sick, isn’t it?
All right, then. Let’s move over to the appeal not nearly as long as the propublica article but still long. This is in Missouri public defenders push to put poor defendants on waitlist and an attempt to improve their legal representation. That title even doesn’t quite describe it terribly well to me, but it seems that they It seems to me that if you have money then they want to they want to push your case through so they have a better case load average instead of having just the stuff stacked up 4000 people deep that it says that they do and in St. Louis County and there are only 21 public defenders have 4000 people applying for the Public Defender Service. Did I did I capture that? Right?
I don’t understand the part about if they have money if they have money, they wouldn’t be using the public defender. So Well, that’s true.
Well, yeah, I guess but I was just looking at it from the point of view of just being able to push cases through. But yeah, you’re right about that. Then what would be the point of building a waitlist wouldn’t they have me wouldn’t be sort of first come first serve, or at least as far as being able to develop the case to bring it forward?
Well, well, as I’ve said many times, we don’t get to decide on the defense side, when cases come, they come. The dots decide about law enforcement and the prosecution side. So what what what you’re fighting against when you’re when you when you have crushing case loads as a public defender, what you’re trying to figure out how to do is try not to find a to provide constitutionally deficient representation. Because in order in a modern society where things are as complicated as they are, if you’re going to defend a person with all the friends that And all the experts we have to fight against. Now there’s an expert for everything for sound recordings for for DNA identification, I mean for for alcohol I be related back to how many hours since you drank that, but there’s experts for everything, of course. So what what they’re what they’re fighting against as a crushing caseload and trying to figure out how not to dip below. So if you’re representing, and you can only handle 50 and you’ve got 125 on your caseload, what they’re trying to say is we’re gonna we’re gonna have you waitlisted until we can get to you, which sounds really good except for if you’re sitting in jail while you’re waitlist. Yeah, there’s there lies the problem,
Unknown Speaker 42:44
Yeah, yeah, yeah. says that they have the majority of the attorneys have had have approximately 1.7 to 2.5 the number of cases that they should have under the recommended caseload standards. Is that a? Is that like a national No standard of how many cases an attorney should have.
Yeah, for there’s there’s these recommended, and it’s all about the complexity of the type of cases you’re defending. But in felony cases, you can’t you can’t do justice. We’ve gone through the numbers, about how many working days are in a year. And what did we come up with?
Well, there’s there’s 2000 working hours, give or take.
So so well, let’s get it down to working days. If you if you have, if you have five times 50 weeks, so person gets two weeks vacation, you got 250 working days that you’ve got vacation, and sick and stuff. So So let’s say that the average person has to earn 25 working days. If you have, if you have a caseload of 125 felony cases you would have to play you’d have to play that one every other day. Yeah.
And I’m sure that some cases take longer than that.
Well, I tell people it just the basics. Okay in order to represent a person that is facing the public A built in felony conviction at a period of incarceration, which most felonies have carry a maximum of substantial amount of incarceration. There’s a lot of work to do to figure out before before you can even recommend a plea. So you can’t you can’t handle this question case loads that the reason why we keep bringing this up I mean, this is we bring it up state after state about the efficient public debate we’ve we’ve we’ve harped on Montana we’ve harped on Louisiana Tech we’ve harped on I mean, you name it. We’ve we’ve we’ve harped about this, because it’s a fundamental flaw. I mean, the Supreme Court has said you have the right to representation and Gideon versus right white, white right some 650 plus years ago, and we have not we have not fully funded the apparatuses to take care and to fully implement Gideon versus Wainwright we still don’t want to defend people and this is this is a People who are in the trenches trying to figure out a way to not do a sloppy job. And one way is to put people on a waitlist. If you’re on that waitlist, you’re not gonna like it very much. Yeah, I wouldn’t think so.
Mike in chat says, Stop plea bargains and grind the system to a halt. I think we’ve covered that idea before.
Well, if that’s never going to happen, and everybody says that, but you would have to assume that if you if you could get every single attorney to go disregard what’s in the interest of their clients, which is your job as an attorney has to fit your you’re looking for an outcome that’s in the best interest of your client. So you’d have to assume that that everybody charged with a crime is completely innocent, and that nobody would want to plead to anything. And it’s in your interest, to plead class to stuff when they’ve got overwhelming evidence and they’ve charged them correctly, or they’re willing to reduce the charges to the correct charges where they’ve overcharged them. Is that your interest to please your clients? You’re not, that would be totally unethical to go out and say, despite my my ethical obligation to do to get the best outcome for my client, I’m going to go on this wild goose thing to try to break down the system. That would that would be that would not be an unethical course of action and it’s not going to ever happen. Yeah.
But then another article that you you provided from the appeal is there’s a pattern of police unions attacking people who call for criminal justice reform, especially when they are black. This is I don’t know who these people are. I don’t know football players but this is a Philadelphia Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins wrote an opinion piece urging the city’s recently reelected Mayor to pick a new police commissioner. And then the police union goes on the attack against this individual saying how like stick to playing football you don’t know what you’re talking about. And I it feels to me like not reading these the opinion piece and reading the the reply that I mean like you’re allowed to have an opinion, of course they’re allowed to respond, but they are just defending so that they can do their status quo, like the clip that will have up later. Like, I’m a police officer, I can do what I want.
Unknown Speaker 47:10
keep put this in here because we’re those of us who are trying to effectuate reform. We are scaring people, because the status quo is what people want to maintain. And whether you build cars on the assembly line at Ford Motor Company, or whether you work for the police, or whether you work for the probation system, or whether you work in the prison system, or wherever you work, you may work at Kroger, you do not want your job eliminated. I mean, can you think of your decades on earth that can you think of someone who was who was really trying striving hard to see their job go away?
I mean, that’s technically what my job is, but hopefully it never happens.
So you’re trying your best to make your job go away.
I mean, if I could code every Java, then I wouldn’t have any more code. Right.
Right. But uh, but but is that your goal to eliminate the need for what you did?
No, absolutely not?
Well, I don’t think anybody. So the police, the police tend to feel threatened by these reforms because you’re looking at upsetting the status quo. And they do all that they know how to do, which is to attack and attack and attack. And this is this is what they’re doing here at my city. They’re doing the same thing here. The the, there, they’re constantly saying untrue things about those who are leading reform efforts. And for what little reach we have, I just want people to be aware it just goes the police say it doesn’t make it so when the police try to scare you to death, about Armageddon coming about how if these things if if if the reformists get their way, all these bad things. You don’t need to believe everything the police tell you because Armageddon is coming Maybe if we make some changes.
Of course, there is a there’s in one of the paragraphs that says in 2016, the National Fraternal Order of the police endorse the current administration, who has championed federal prison and sentencing reform but has also advocated for nationwide expansion of stop and frisk policing. The tactic lead to disproportionate stops and arrest of black and Latin x. That’s a whole conversation on the zone, that Latin x word people in Trump’s hometown in New York City.
Well as an informal Mayor Bloomberg has apologized for stop and frisk and said he was wrong.
You’ve heard that, haven’t you? I did. I heard that he backtracked and said, You know, he didn’t realize that it was doing to the black and brown communities.
Unknown Speaker 49:41
So yes, he has said that he was wrong.
Then over in the New York Daily News exclusive New York prisoner in solitary for nearly 200 days over false positive on drug test lawsuit. Oh my God, this guy. He he was in a drug rehab class and program and he was within weeks of being released. And he gets it. We covered it maybe two months ago where they had these, like $5 drug tests. And it sounds like it was one of those, and it comes up that he’s positive. So he gets booted and goes off to like a higher security detention facility. And he’s there for several weeks, and then they drug test him again, and he comes up positive again. So then they move them off to like the real prison where he’s in solitary confinement. And then they like, Oh, these drug tests are all bad. So hey, they let them go immediately. But it’s like, the guy spent, you know, nine months in prison, basically for your bunk drug test. That’s
really terrible. I put this in here because I know how much you love junk science. so terrible that you don’t you’d love to talk about. And of course, you know, I have a recommendation for anybody to do their own drug testing if you could possibly afford it. Some can’t afford it. So Don’t have the fear present, I doubt you could probably you wouldn’t be able to make that option. I don’t have that option available. But this is the reason why people are under supervision here I tell them if your number comes up on the hotline if they’ve got you calling the hotline, you make sure you stop by the independent dope house and get your drug test before you go to their drug test.
Yes, um, can you talk about the story of the individual that you know that you recommended or was doing that? Is that okay to talk about?
Sure. But we had we had more than one person but but but one particular person I really paid off for because he was on our state supervision here for from from Texas and he would have been in a never Neverland of problems that if he had been arrested for, for anything, because of the interstate compact, you don’t have a right to be released, you know, pending, pending all the steps that go back and forth between the sending and receiving state. So we tell this person being That we know that you’re that you have had drug issues and your past. You need to be tested by reputable lab every time they test you. And somebody says, well, what’s that going to cost? At the time? I think it was like 35 bucks a test or whatever we paid. So we had set up through our account. So every time his hotline came up, he had a drug test, and he paced up the independent lab and get that as good as drug test. And sure enough, he failed one of these quick tests, and they they either had handcuffed him or about handcuff him, so we’re gonna put you in jail. Hey, so you got to think real carefully about this. Because I just took a drug test before I got here today. And he said, so you’re going to have to put forth the theory that I use drugs after I left that drug test on my way here.
Right, right, right. Yeah, that’s the five minutes that it took me to drive across town. I decided to smoke some doper, whatever.
So I said Why are you doing that? And he said because my attorney and they supplied your turn to tell you that he’s up for situation just like this in case this arose and he’s a so I think you want to think very carefully about arrested me they decided not to arrest.
How funny is that?
Unknown Speaker 53:16
Well, did they change? Did
they change their policy any after that or Duckie Brown says
we’re just not messing with that dude. They just didn’t mess with him anymore. But But now they did. They didn’t change. Their policies are still locking people up all these on these dipsticks on these all these quick tests, they’re still doing it.
So in the end of this article, it says yet by mid September, following nearly 200 days in solitary and four and a half months after scheduled release, officials realize they’ve made a grave error. Come on, man. It’s not that I don’t think it’s that hard, but to have some level of integrity in this unless there i mean, i i’d like to think that people are generally good people and they’re trying to do the best job but this doesn’t feel Anything like that, that they’re just almost going through the motions and this came up positive, maybe run another test, maybe it’s a bad batch, maybe get a different one, like you’re about to take away this guy’s freedom for some length of time, that there should be a much higher degree of resistance to do that.
You would think so just our own moral compass would say, look, you know, we want to make sure we have this right. And, and he may be now contrary to what I told Charles earlier, he may actually have damages because in a lawsuit, it may come to light, that they knew that these tests were not reliable. And if that were to be able to be brought out in the discovery process, then the fact that they continue to use an unreliable mechanism to deprive a person not only their freedom but but hundreds of days in solitary confinement. He might actually have damages that you can quantify because salt solitary confinement is tough and I think they would, that you would, you would you would be hard pressed to be able to show that some damage was suffered from for extended period of solitary.
I do think that the so it says in that same paragraph says the drug tests have been false positives. Excuse me, the drug test had been false positives, according to a new $5 million lawsuit expected to be filed Tuesday. I also believe that later in the article, they said something the effect of like, Hey, everyone that had been locked up for these reasons, let them go something like that. I recall reading towards the end of the article.
So yeah, but did they get damages? I’m hoping they do. I hope so too. Because, again, the only thing that changes behavior as in a capitalist system is expenditure of money. And if if the system has to pay out a bunch of money, perhaps maybe someone up the food chain next time will say well, we can’t do that we’ve got to make sure that we don’t find ourselves and it’s just like this thing on the on the security cameras and, and and my letter it says You’re setting the state up for liability because of someone else’s ransacked. And you wouldn’t allow them to have at least a lead on who did it, or maybe a notification while they’re at work, because that’s kind of what these cameras do is you you, you can get alerts when somebody is ringing your bell and when somebody, somebody sort of probably read your yard. So I’m hoping the stage is ready for the liability that may may befall them. Do you think that goes into any of their calculations of doing things like, Hey, we could do this. But wait a minute, there could be some multi million dollar lawsuit that comes in hits us in the ass later? I don’t think so. I’m not very often not very well, fair enough. I don’t think so. I think what goes through that calculation is we can do it, because we’re the police. And we’re going to do it until we’re told not to and we may still keep doing what we’re told not to. Can I can I play a clip for you real quick?
Unknown Speaker 56:48
Sure. I can’t I can’t resist doing this one. So this is what I think about when when you say that
Unknown Speaker 56:54
I got my ride.
that’s a that’s a teaser for what’s coming last. Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts for stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment glass 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. Alright, let’s move over to the Hill Kentucky Governor pardons a man serving life sentence for sexually abusing six years. Apparently this guy got convicted in 2001 for abusing a six year old stepdaughter, but then saying the man was wrongly convicted and commuting his life since, um, it’s not a really long article and not a lot of details, but it just, yeah, so apparently they got it wrong. And I assume this guy went to trial over the whole thing. And here he is. They said, oops, and they let him go. Doesn’t look like there’s any sort of settlement coming out of it either. At least it’s not stated.
Well, what looks like happens is the child has recanted. And Governor Bevin who was on his way out, he lost the election just a few weeks ago. Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky lost to Steve Bashir, by just a very small margin, but Bevin is on his way out. And maybe his conscience is leading him to do but very rarely happens which is a pardon for anyone with a sexual conviction. But this would potentially be used against him if he were to run from for a future office that he he lot of job, Lester go. That’s the way it would be framed in a political arena. But it may be that his political career career he’s decided there’s nothing else for him in the world of politics and he doesn’t care. But but a girl apparently recanted
that’s it but then you know, you’ve said when someone read cancer testimony just like Michael Cohen like you know, you know, you know that they’ve lied about something you’re not necessarily sure which side of the story they lied about, but you know that they’ve lied. So how do you trust either side of the story?
Well, that’s why you generally you know, work with recanted test when LS there’s corroborating evidence, which this article doesn’t give anything in terms of the other corroborating evidence, but apparently the governor felt it was enough. Whatever that corroborating evidence was to go along with the recantation but double recantation ended of itself doesn’t do much because at that point, the person is a liar. Now we’ve got a child here. Child witnesses do not appreciate the gravity of lying adult witnesses do it anyway. Understanding that, that that that they are doing something wrong. But it’s hard for a child to fully appreciate the gravity of a six year old to expect that six year old to understand telling a false hood, the lifetime ramifications of someone being away never to return and what they’d be treated like a six year old when they get older. They could they could rationalize and say, well, mommy told me to do it or whoever told me to do it. And I was afraid. And now I realized what I’ve done. But but but there had to likely have been some additional evidence other than just the recantation that would point towards his innocence, because the governor’s office apparently proclaimed him innocent. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
All right. Hey, Larry. Is it expensive to hold old people in prison?
Unknown Speaker 1:00:49
Yeah, I think we talked about that last episode.
So here’s an article from the appeal the cost of not releasing people from prison. Yeah, I do believe that we had like two or three articles on the subject. And so here’s another follow One that talks about the aging population of people in Texas prisons, that it just it’s an exorbitant amount of money. And we certainly know that people age out of criminality, especially if they committed something of a violent crime as a youngster. And then now they’re 50 or 60 years old, the likelihood that they’re going to go run and be gangbangers is probably pretty low. Anyway, so what else did you want to talk about here since we covered it so recently?
Well, I it’s just piling on what I was doing, but I’ve threw this in here. Because I am a firm believer that life, the three strikes you’re in for life, or just a life sentence, even a thought frustrate three strikes a life sentence, it doesn’t afford anybody an opportunity to be released. Is is a very, very serious undertaking. And this helps illustrate that now. This is a conservative state, where they pride themselves on being so much smarter This is out of Texas have we know how to evaluate poor use of public resources down here? Taxes. We don’t, we don’t throw money away, needlessly here cause we appreciate the people at work and paying these taxes by golly. Well, here’s an example of just show us how much you appreciate these people because even as the total number in prison has followed this decade, although by only 3% the number of people in prison in Texas 55 or older has gone up by 65%. States called state cost for health care for incarcerated people have gone up by more than 50% in the past seven years. The main reasons for the ballooning health care cost of an older sick, sick or prison population. So if you are as conservative as you say you are, and if you believe in prudent use of the public’s resources, as you say you do, then then practice that conservatism. And go look at what you’re doing in Texas and show us how smart you really are in terms of getting these people are out of prison. So you don’t have to spend all this money on health care. And you could use that money for other things, including maybe some reentry programs, maybe some rehabilitation programs, get these old people out of prison
rehabilitation reentry programs there that’s like heresy for you to say those things.
Well, that that’s that’s but but even if you don’t want to bet that it just saves the money and don’t spend it on anything else. But like I say, this is me pointing out that the that the conservative crowd that says that they’re such guardians of the purse, here’s an opportunity for you to guard the purse and stop spinning all this money. All these old people that pose very little threat to the public, if they were to be released on some form or community supervision, get them out of your presence.
But these people committed a crime, Larry, they should they should be willing to accept their time for the crime that they committed.
Well, and they have accepted they’ve been in for decades, but But why? There’s if you get them out and get them on community supervision, you can put them on Obamacare, you can put them onto the federal dole, and you can get your state tax resources diverted to something else. So put them on that. Put them on that federal dole. But you can’t do you can’t do that in the prison. They’re not entitled those benefits.
And I’m thinking that the alternative that you just described would be cheaper than prison. And also better.
Well, I would hope that community supervision is less expensive than 1010 of what they’re spending on keeping a person in car. So if it’s not, then we were doing community supervision. All right, all
right. All right, let’s move over to a Washington Post article that is titled ice set up a fake University then the rest of 250 people granted student thesis. This one seems to be a little confusing about who did what, where, when, and how and why. But it does sound like when we’ve talked about maybe it was a year ago that we talked about that the government was running half of the child porn sites. That’s what this sounds very much like that the government setup Bogost college to entice foreigners to apply to enroll in STEM kinds of classes. And it was a complete bogus University. And then they’re using that to ferret out people that are in the country past their visa dates, and then using that to identify them so they can kick them out.
That’s what it sounded like to me that that’s funny. Well, you have a strange idea of what constitutes fine.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:29
Usually, usually you charge me for thinking things we’re finding. But But the reason what I thought was intriguing about it was, I constantly harp about giving resources and when we created this department of homeland security, under the conservative administration of George W. Bush, back about 2003, wherever it was early 2000s, and the first bush term, of course, George W. Bush term. Wait, we’ve got agency that’s ballooned a balloon. And then I think ISIS under the Homeland Security, I might be wrong but but I believe that we’ve got an example of two bit of resources allocated. And they’re looking for something creative to do.
But it is also it does seem to be confusing in the article because there were recruiters and to the recruiters not know that they were working for a bogus organization. And can you can you then describe entrapment that there’s there’s an element there that is often hard to overcome. Like, you know, speeding isn’t entrapment because you’re the police are just there waiting for you to do it. They didn’t encourage you to go do it.
That is That is correct. The The mere fact that a person happens to be a law enforcement officer, and they happen to if you if you go out all day long and you’re looking, asking somebody will you help me do XYZ You happen to ask a cop the cop doesn’t have to tell you well, I’m a police officer, you probably shouldn’t talk to me like that. The cop can say, Now tell me more. Now you want to do, and you want to do this. And then the cop can lock you up. Because the cop did not encourage you provide you the incentive to do that crime. You already had predisposition. So that’s why the prostitution stings. The defense of entrapment falls apart because the person shows up wanting to have sex. They show up with condoms and they show up with whatever types of tools that they bring along but but they show up with with with alcohol and they show up intending to have sex. The fact that that the officer happened to be law, and you thought that that was a hot girl on Craigslist. As it does, it does save you what here this is just as the same thing these recruiters that We’re working for the university. On what little information we have in this article. I’m not sure they would have known that they were doing anything wrong, I would have to read their criminal complaints would have to dig a lot deeper. But if you get a job with the university, I doubt universities gonna say and by the way, we’re running a sting operation here. And, you know, this is all bogus. They probably worked all to recruit kids, students and get them enrolled.
And let me let me plan a scenario for you that I was just thinking about just now. call it 2005. I had subscribed to a military email newsletter and there was a Blinky, Blinky Blinky as we used to see back in those days of the Internet, and it said you only have 10 years from the time of leaving service to use your GI Bill. And I was like 1230 crap. I only have like a couple years left. So I called around I found a couple of like the online universities, and one of them it was called American intercontinental University and I talked Talk to a recruiter. And now that I think about I’m pretty sure she worked at home. So these recruiters could have just been hired by the feds to do the work of filtering out and trying to find the people working from home whether that be Starbucks or actually out of their apartment or whatever. And not knowing adopting any other wiser didn’t have to go to like the campus and I’m seeing air quotes as if everyone can see me. They would never have known that they were working for a punk organization.
That’s that’s what I’m what I’m saying but it looks like that many of them I’ve already entered please to the charges. Seven and eight recruiters all in our 20s have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced to present time. According to expert spokesperson, Colleen walls. Interesting. So
legal theory we’re going to move over to my super fun article actually, you shared this with me but I think this is absolutely amazing. So we’re going to I want you to stop me as we go through this through this clip. If you feel the need. I already He’s that a minute ago. But here’s the short synopsis is apparently these two guys had gone shopping at a kind of a hoity toity shopping center. And they get not quite pulled over but a cop an off duty cop tells them that they need to stop and show some ID and I will play it and let me know if you want me to stop so we can talk about particular segments of the of the interaction. You ready? Yep. What?
Unknown Speaker 1:10:30
Because I don’t you
are we off to a bad start?
Oh, this is sounding good. Let’s keep going.
Hey, does the cop sound at all like intoxicated to you?
Hey, sounds like like like he’s really got an anger management problem seriously.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:55
supervisor supervisor You
Unknown Speaker 1:11:02
get your driver’s license.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:05
Id call your supervisor What do
Unknown Speaker 1:11:09
you want to run your mouth?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:11
Because he was looking at my license
Unknown Speaker 1:11:14
you don’t have the right to
do police officers have the right to do anything that they
want. I think that they do they it’s called a contempt of cop So you and I don’t understand and the problem with you liberal pointy heads is you’re always trying to obstruct the good guys they’re out there just trying to protect the public and and you guys are finding fault and trying to micromanage them and this is it this is just just over the top on your part.
So what you’re saying is that these two individuals should have just complied.
Absolutely. I mean, if you’re shopping at Nordstrom and and you’re walking out and the off duty cop comes up to you and said, I want an accounting of what you’ve been doing and see your license and run you. Why would you bind a person in a row Your day to run your driver’s license and see if there’s any warrants for you and asked you about what you’ve been doing and what’s what’s the problem? What’s the harm in that, Andy?
I think they should have just said fyp.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:17
Unknown Speaker 1:12:23
He’s not getting a supervisor we requested. I don’t mind showing you my drivers.
What is your reason that you’re asking? Because why is because an actual, like a police term like a technical term?
I think it is whatever the police says do you do you just think you’re told?
About what Tell me Tell me why he can stop them for being suspicious.
I wish I could explain that. I guess I guess you would have to ask the officer what was the that’s what the gentleman were doing. They were trying to find out what they had done that, that that was suspicious and he wouldn’t tell him
Unknown Speaker 1:13:00
What you shopping
I said Show me your drivers what is it what is this is what is this is us especially sorry truck driver. You can’t
Unknown Speaker 1:13:11
explain it to me you didn’t pull him over to jump at your car
Unknown Speaker 1:13:17
what’s the event? What do you miss again?
Unknown Speaker 1:13:22
Everything that I bought your driver’s license out,
Unknown Speaker 1:13:25
sir your driver’s license. If you if you don’t got no warrants or nothing, you’re gone.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:30
I don’t have no run or what is the reason that you’re stopping me? I’m not gonna argue with you no more. I’m not arguing I’m trying to understand. What’s your name officer. That’s how long
Unknown Speaker 1:13:42
ago we asked what supervisor you did not understand. I’m not gonna get a supervisor for your employment. You’re off duty, exactly off duty employment. If you’re off duty Then why are you stopping people not stopping you because
Unknown Speaker 1:13:56
you know what appears to be the case.
I know what appears I’m going to case but I’m not ready to jump to that conclusion without a little bit more evidence, but it certainly appears that way.
It appears as though that these are two black guys who went shopping at a sort of hoity toity store, walk out with a bunch of bags, they must have stolen it.
You know, that’s that that’s the appearance. But I’m one of those guys that believes in evidence. So I like to not jump to conclusions just don’t appear. It says hello.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:30
You jumped out of the car.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:32
We looked at you because I don’t know what you guys are doing. You don’t know what we’re doing. You just say? license. You don’t let you see all these bags in the back of the car. We just came out of the stores and you saw you
Unknown Speaker 1:14:46
know what was going on? Yeah, because I know he was he couldn’t really articulate what he was trying to
Unknown Speaker 1:14:52
say. Yes, as far as as far as I know, based on what happened. I don’t think either of us have any reasonable suspicion of fraud taking place. It says there’s no reason for a traffic stop at this point, right? So there’s no legal requirement for you to identify yourself to an officer. You don’t want to give them IDs and you know, you don’t have to give them ideas.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:09
And that’s and we tried to, we tried to be calm and talk. So like that. And he just had to tell you, is he leaning in the car spitting all in the car? He’s just, he’s having a bad day.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:25
And you guys are good to go.
Tell me about that. There’s no legal requirement. Identify yourself to an officer. I thought you did.
Well, I guess I various with jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but he was he was not on the road. He was in the parking lot of the store look like?
Yes, that is that I would agree with you there. So they just left the place. And here’s an off duty cop protecting the mall, which I understand is a pretty common thing. And he doesn’t like the way that they look. So he was trying to run a background check on them to see if there were any warrants but like that’s a fourth amendment violation, yes or no.
While I’m going to do myself in the too deep here but but he he was certainly in dangerous territory that’s why the the the the on duty officer one of the supervisor but but that’s why they de escalate the situation but you can’t just you can’t just stop people and demand to see ID without anything and he didn’t have anything he could not articulate anything. Now the standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction about what what you can stop a person for clearly on the roadways operating a vehicle you can stop anybody and if you if you got some reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, they are suspected that crime you can ask for identification. But how far you can go when they’ve you’ve got nothing. He had nothing. He just he just felt like he wanted to run somebody ID
right. Um, yeah. So when when do you cross the line of identifying yourself? Can you could you say my name is john smith and your name is not john smith.
I really don’t want to I don’t want to give that Advice. I don’t want to give that advice about what would you because it varies so much from from jurisdiction. If you’re driving, you need to be prepared, identify yourself. If you’re if you’re operating a vehicle on the public highways if you’re driving, but again, they should have some reason some articulable reason for pulling you over. If that’s make it up, you’re still open center line. You tell I was out. You didn’t say, you know, they need to come up with something. He couldn’t come up with anything. He was given several minutes to come up with something. And just because I’m a police, just because I told you to, I’m not going to argue with you. Do what I tell you. Now what I don’t understand, I think I heard he was fired. But what I don’t understand is all the police are doing good work out there. Why you would tolerate this man amongst you, because you would bought this not to represent you. You would say I respect the rule of law. I follow the Constitution, I do my best to provide good service and I do my best to follow what the guidelines are. And I don’t want a person wearing the uniform of by police department interacting with citizens this way. That’s what I would be saying now, probably I’d have my tires jacked up and knife to probably guess. I probably get some blowback, but it would seem to be you wouldn’t want that type of officer working for you. I’m missing something here.
No, I’m with you on that one for sure. I wouldn’t you would think that you would want to have the best that you can get in your ranks to represent you as much as you possibly can.
Well, that’s that’s that’s my thinking and you would want to if you’re proud of the work you do and your audit integrity, you wouldn’t want a person who lacks that that to be that’d be like if I was working at the grocery store. I knew that an employer particular employee was still in the place blind every day. already know that that company spends more energy trying to track employee thousand eight Outside that I wouldn’t want to be associated with someone who steals the place blind every day would you
know, because then that might fall back on you as being someone that’s a complicit.
Right. So I would say, I’d say, Look, I don’t come around me, I don’t want anything to do with you. Your your morality does not reflect mine. I don’t share your views that you can do this. And his co fellow workers, I’ll be telling him, No, you can’t do this. This is not what a good police officer does. That could have been having a bad day. Maybe this is not what he does. But apparently he got fired.
That’s what the title of the article says, or the YouTube clip. Anyway, you can find all of that and everything else in the show notes. And before we close out the show, I do want to say think happy thanksgiving for everybody. And thank you to the half dozen people that joined us in chat. I think that was amazing for you guys to hang out. And Larry, we got two new patrons this week, and I’m really excited about that.
I’m very excited and that’s one of the things that that we can’t give. Thanks for To the fact that we’re in a country that, despite its problems, it’s one of the better places to be to be born. You want a lottery about being born in the United States of America. And it’s not perfect, but it’s but it’s damn good. And you call that the lottery? Well, if you want the ovarian lottery,
I love that dirt. But so if you don’t know, so we’ve had Joshua on a number of times, and his podcast became a patron of the show this week. And I think that was really awesome. And thank you them for that. And we also got a new subscription from a person named Roddy. And I can’t thank both of you enough. I really appreciate all of that.
Well, and and I even I even say to everyone who’s not a patron hope you become someday if you can, but we appreciate that you share your time with us and listen, and and I’m hoping that was all what we do, and all the fun that we have that each time you YouTube and one of these and conclude it, you’ve learned something about some aspect of how the system works, and how we can make it better because that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying. We’re trying to make people’s lives better. We’re trying to educate one at a time, if that’s what it takes. So that that that person can be empowered, and they can go out and make a difference. And these lawsuits we just talked about, for example, I’m hoping that someone heard that discussion and says, gee, I think I’m going to talk to some attorneys here in my state and see if we can do the same thing here. Those people are doing a New Mexico. Absolutely.
Absolutely. So Larry, where can people find the website? What do how do they How do they go find the website to get the show notes to listen to the podcast to find a places to subscribe? Where can they do that? Oh, that would be registry. matters.co. And not that anybody uses the phone? It’s getting old dusty over there in the corner, but how do they leave voicemail messages? Yeah, we’re going to disconnect that phone
7472 to 74477.
How can they email me? Not you because you don’t check it. But how can they email me? For the podcast? registry matters cast? That’s registry matters cast at gmail. com. And how about supporting the podcast? What would be the best absolute, bestest, bestest way that they could support the podcast? Go to
patreon.com slash registry matters and sign up for as little as $1 a month, it comes out to $2 a month as little as $1 seems like everybody could do it.
So as little as $1 and as much as you is your heart leads you which we’ve got some people whose heart has led them very generously. Thank you. Mike in and chat has said just a few more donors and they can afford the M at the end of the website. For now. We can only afford the CEO, not the CEO. Oh, I’m gonna have to think really hard about how I ended Doing a CEO and not a CEO and I have no idea how I did that. I’ve no idea. Anyway, Larry, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving, in spite of all the snow, and I will be returning home on Tuesday. And with that, I will talk to you soon.
Okay. Thanks, Andy and have a good remainder of your trip.
All right. Take care. Bye.