Listen to RM105: Jailhouse Snitches Are Not A Safe Way To Run An Institution
registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios east and west transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 105 of registry matters. Saturday Larry I’m back in my house I’m all comfy toasty got heat on I got a heat heating pad under my feet How are you?
doing fantastic doing fantastic but but I was afraid that you were going to be a radioactive isotope by now
it was close I saw like almost like SWAT teams like Alvin the perimeter when I was on the plane and I saw them like spooling up the the hovercraft because it was close I was about an hour away from running over the limit.
And so the craft was already in visual replaced
it was poised to attack like you see a cat like it gets, you know, like scrunches up on a touches right before it’s about to pounce on something.
So well this this is this is partially tongue in cheek cheek and partially serious because I don’t mean to make light of it but it is a little bit of on the Paranoid side to think that there they have so much interesting you that they’re tracking your every moment to that to that extreme but but yes, it could be serious business in the right circumstances so
and for clarity It is my understanding that I can go to Pennsylvania for up to one week, up to 3030 days inside of a calendar year. That is my understanding.
I have not researched that law in Pennsylvania but I would trust that you have you have done your research being that it’s important to you and and if you’re not required to register I would not register just for the sake of saying that I do more than I have to
but like let’s let’s dig into this for just a second The first time I went up there when I was first released and I was told to go to like the the state police barracks because that’s what they’re like, you know, whatever. That’s their sheriff’s offices up there. And I go in there and it’s a holiday weekend, Fourth of July, like, nobody’s worried that nobody was in the office and, you know, skeleton crew and I was like, Hey, I’m on probation. And my PO says, I gotta have this thing sign it goes, I’m not signing that. I said, Why not? Because I You don’t have to have the signed, I said, You’re really going to put me in an awkward position because those people told me I need to have it signed. You people say I don’t. And he eventually signed it for me, a travel permit for probation. But he was saying I did not need it. And he even called like their attorneys or something like that. And they said, if you’re there for less than seven days, you do not have to mess with that.
That sounds legit to me. And I tell people that that all you’re doing when you go register and clearly you’re not required to if there’s a an absolute clear obligation where it’s not even debatable if it says after describes everything that triggers registration. If they say or if you’re physically present more than X number of hours, that’s one thing. But if it has just grown up through practice that people say, Well, since you have to register within three days of establishing a residence here, because you have to register within three days of becoming a student here, or you have to register within 72 hours of becoming employed here, of course, you have to register within 72 hours of being present. It doesn’t say that, right? But what when it says it unequivocally, then I understand a little bit more of the paranoia, but again, they’re still not going to know if you’re there 49 hours, if it’s 48, they’re not tracking you to that degree, unless you’re somebody who was a whole lot more important than most everybody that’s listening to this podcast,
which actually probably is a halfway decent segue because the first couple articles are about using technology to monitor people and the first one is the faulty technology behind ankle monitors. This first one comes from Vox calm and they have a podcast called code, which is a like a technology focused podcast, and they just like, maybe you’re inside your house and you don’t have a good GPS signal because, you know, signals don’t do well bouncing around corners. Yeah, maybe you don’t know that Larry and sometimes they don’t necessarily go through solid structures such as your house. So you may have a shit signal. And now it says like you have someone in the articles that they have to go like walk around outside to get a signal. So like, now they’re not in violation anymore. So pretty awful way to have your freedom be in jeopardy at such a what like, just like on a on a thin thread that could could screw you up easily if the GPS thing fails.
Well, I come at it from less from the tech that I do from the from the appropriateness of the user. I’m no tech expert. I know they’re probably I’ve heard from enough clients who’ve had issues with the battery power not lasting a sufficient amount of time, with the signal constantly being lost in them having to lose time from their productive to date the day to go outside and reestablish communication with satellite. I’ve heard all those horror stories. And I don’t know how to remedy those. But what I do know how to remedy as the appropriate usage of GPS, and it has become so widespread. And I even take issue with the beginning of the article with where it says that, that that electronic monitoring within the criminal justice is widespread. And then they talk about how it has increased 100 and something percent and 36% in just 10 years, and then they talk about it. As of 2015. There was like 125,000 people on the thing and I’ll tell how many hour and four years later, my beef is with the inappropriate application and the cost of the device. Hey, we’re supposedly saving money. That’s what people that make these things say, we’re going to save a whole bunch of money because it’s cheaper than having the person in custody. Well, if that be the case, then why did we have to assess that cost to the person, because if those were people who were truly going to be in custody, but not for the GPS, we should be static, that we’re not having to flip the custody bill. And we should be delighted to pay for the GPS. So that debunks the theory there. So what you’ve actually done is you’ve increased the universe of people who are under correctional monitoring, with with technology, and these people by a large wouldn’t dissipate in custody anyway. They’re applied, so widespread to people who are on pre trial detention as a condition of your release for these brilliant bail reform. Movements we’re having around the country so this says, well, you’ll be subject to GPS monitoring, you’ll be subject to all these conditions. And and then the probation systems are using them. So indiscriminately, which they’re lost, its beginning to rein that in, or they’re just putting them on. Everybody has a particular type of offense. That’s my beef with it. Because I’m no tech expert. I’m just able to see that they’re overused. They’re inappropriate to use, and they could be a delightful tool if they were properly used.
I remember. So I got stationed at a little like the local county jail, and they shipped me off to some sort of private holding facility after my sentence before I got shipped off to diagnostics. And I overheard a couple of them knuckleheads talking about Oh, hey, we’re from this group, and well, how much do you guys charge and I and I swear I remember hearing them say that they were charging the county $90 a day to house the people. And the GPS stuff I think in the article says it costs about $300 a month. I’m pretty sure dollars a day is more expensive than $30 $300 a month
was that that’s my point. If if we are truly saving money then there would be no reason you should give the person a bonus for having a GPS because we’re not having to spend the diabetes. If you’re a true conservative like most of our people say they are then you would be so delighted that you’re not spending died that you would give them the GPS for free. Can you give them a $20 day bonus to have the damn thing?
I really thought you were gonna say you people. You people are predominantly conservative out there.
I get a kick out of that expression there. So well I said something like that last week about about Texas about the debate service but but if you truly are conservative and why I say this because the conservatives are the hardest ones who want to charge everybody for everything. They say well by golly them taxpayers after work and paying, paying the taxes. I don’t want to pay for these people’s fancy GPS monitors. They all have to pay for that Tim sales. Well, if you truly do believe in saving taxpayer money, you would go back tell those taxpayers, you’re wrong. Yeah, you’re wrong, we’re going to cut we’re going to cut the jail population dramatically, which is going to save a bunch of money. And I truly am a fiscal conservative. So therefore, I’m actually doing you a favor of madam taxpayer. That’s what you would say if you’re a true conservative.
I agree. That seems to be like if that were the mindset and then we would have people producing taxes working, keeping the economy moving, and all that stuff, if they were out, even if they’re on some kind of kind of monitor, then you you would keep productivity up in the economy because those people have to go buy groceries and all those things. That would be great instead of having them stuck behind the walls.
Well, I like just below the reset button where it says the tech bomb, the podcast where the where the recording is. I’ll often hear this is a quote from Xu Ba ba ba ba ba monarchic better than jail, better jail or prison? And she says that’s the wrong question. Giving people ponies is also better than being in jail, but we don’t do it because it’s it’s a useless alternative. Yes. So that’s not the question. Is it GPS better to jail? That is not the question. The question is, is GPS an appropriate technology to use for this offender based on their unique characteristics? And is it the best best option we have in terms of dealing with this person based on the position they are in the justice system if they’re still presumed innocent, we need to make the most minimal intrusion we we possibly can into their liberty and their movement, if they’re pre trial, but when they’re post trial, then we need to decide if the GPS will assist us with that particular offenders characteristics, not just because it makes us feel good to humiliate the person and strap The thing I want to tell you all $300 a month, which is made happens
and remember we talked about the one where Would beep, beep, beep and start talking to them.
Well, that was mentioned at this article here about how the person couldn’t had to got kicked out of class because the thing is so disruptive.
Well, and then, so let’s, let’s tackle this other article. It says, Why is my city monitoring me? This is from a law 360. This individual, how did he come about? being interested, he noticed that the cameras were up and he did some sort of not quite like a FOIA request, but he has to have the records to know how many how much information they had on them. And he got 80 pages of documents showing him at various locations around town and he’s like, why are you guys monitoring me? I’m not any sort of criminal. I’m not I don’t have a felony record. If feels right to we’ve talked about like traffic cameras and red light cameras before privately. It seems like that’s a decent idea to capture that if it’s not in some sort of revenue motivated thing, but I know what it is. People run red lights and people get you know, t boned or whatever. So they should only have the data long enough to evaluate whether the person ran the red light. But this is like straight up 1984 surveillance for a long period of time where they could totally track your movements across the across the city and whatnot.
Well, that therein lies the question. The problem with with this, as the technologies evolve, the laws do not evolve fast enough with the average law maker who goes to Atlanta or little rock or to Carson City or wherever. They’re not thinking about this. They’re gone. They’re going about their daily life. And the fact that their license plates been scanned 265 times that the last three months is of no concern to them. Because they don’t they don’t visualize how that could be misused. They don’t realize at the time because they’re not thinking those terms that depending on where their car was spotted at over what course period of time, what it might could be made to look like and and who’s going to have access to this information? Is it going to be sold commercially because cities like to raise revenue from every source they can. So they keep the taxes low, that makes motors happy. So they don’t know what’s going to happen with this information. And it’s only when the information is used in a way that’s detrimental when it sold to some private purveyor who misuses that rvn a paper towel public source but but this is where the laws can’t possibly keep up with, with the technology. So the license plate readers have been out for a number of years and been readily available and been in use for a number of years. So when you capture these images, what do you do with them? Do you rely on the police department to figure out what to do with them? How to use them? Who has access to them? How long they store them? No, you need laws. And there therein lies the problem. No one’s thinking about this stuff. Now. He He’s this man’s thought about it. He’s found himself on the Recorded How many times does this article say says 80 pages?
You know, I imagine it like an eight point font. I mean, that’s, that’s at least hundreds, if not a handful of thousands of entries.
So So, so again, now if you go the legislature and you say I want to pass a bill, and you find a lawmaker sponsor this, the police industrial complex is going to come in and say, oh, not so fast. We need this for legitimate law enforcement. I mean, we don’t do anything. We have the pure stuff. We’re driven. So intentions, and we store this safely and securely. And only if something happens in that area, why would we ever go and retrieve the license? And we would totally disregard? I mean, we wouldn’t try to blackmail anybody or calls anybody. I mean, that’s what they would say. And they would scare the bejesus out of the lawmakers and saying that this would hamper their crime fighting efforts. So then you’ll have to end up going to court. And then we’ll have we’ll have the sclera model have to come in and figure out what is your expectation of privacy. When your When you’re in public Well, we’ve never really had an expectation of privacy when you’re in public, because you’re presumed when you’re out public that you expect people to see you. But do you expect devices that are hundreds of feet in the air to see you? Do you expect that not only the visual but do you expect to have 80 pages of stuff recorded about you? So what but what would the interpretation of be about a your right to privacy when you’re out on a public thoroughfare be recorded through 80 pages of what what? What was the constitutional issue here? How will the courts resolve this when when cases like this go to court, but we’ll have to wait and see, but don’t
like don’t we need to keep this information? Because if if you people get into an accident, and we need to go back and see how many times you broke traffic laws, we need to prove that you have a history of unsafe driving.
Well, you of course you don’t get to do that. You don’t get to use the other.
Wouldn’t the law enforcement people get to use it? Potentially
They wouldn’t be able to use it against you for for causing that accident even if you did have a history of unsafe driving.
Maybe the maybe the city would sell the data to the insurance companies and
well that’s that’s my fear is that we’d say we don’t know where this but but but like I’m saying the lawmakers would have never thought about that when they’re thinking about funding public education K through 12 and higher education university system and public health and roads and senior citizen centers, and, and on and on all the things that the state no one’s thinking about. Well, what about these cameras in Coral Gables so we’re recording people don’t wonder what that would never enter anyone’s mind. It would never be on their radar. So therefore, no one’s ever thought about it.
Until until you got this guy who apparently he has means to bring in to you know, to do the information to get it and put together the pieces of the puzzle has some sort of level of awareness of his constitutionally protected right to some level. expectation of privacy even when you’re in the public square that he shouldn’t be surveilled? Well, that’s what the
ACLU said. We are deeply concerned about this technology because it’s feeding into absolutely gigantic databases still with billions of private details, charting out people’s moonbots associations, patterns of life, and ways that are extraordinarily revealing, said Nathan wessler, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
So what do we do, Larry?
Well, without without strong safeguards, including judicial oversight, and retention limitations and other protections, these databases threatened to give government agencies or private corporations incredible power to know many of our most sensitive secrets yet
but what do we what do we do as as the lobbyist as the concerned citizen talking to our legislators and all that stuff? What do we do?
We have to we have to we have to position this in a way they can understand it collect a Supreme Court was forced to understand about the incident to arrest doctrine, but the cell phone, they always had had granted a full search. incident to a lawful arrest of your vehicle and your person. But they drew the line at the cell phone because they realized that there was so much about you that was on your cell phone that would not have come to bear. Most people didn’t care if a file cabinets full and truck full of information ran in their cars prior to the cell phone. But so so we’re going to have to have conversations with our lawmakers and break it down to a level that they can understand an issue that they have never thought about. And would have had no reason thought about if you’re going about your normal life. The fact that that that your license plates being scanned is of no concern to the average person. I ain’t doing nothing wrong. Why would I care?
I totally understand that. I you know, I remember my mom forever ago she was like, Well, if you don’t have anything to hide, blah, blah, blah, like I don’t that’s to me. That’s a hard argument to get out of that one is
well made. You could take it to even further ridiculous extreme. So about submission. Suppose you’re happily married and you’re a family person you’re upstanding and the committed community You hold a high public office, and you have a weekly rendezvous at a hotel room and you spend a few hours and the police have surveillance cameras are reading the license plate numbers. And they have you documented at that hotel weekend week out weekend week out. Do you think that the police would have more power over you to persuade your votes are you think that have less power? If the information to you and said that, gee, we, as we’ve been researching our files, we see that you’re at this hotel on a regular basis as a married man. It there’s just so much potential for abuse with us that you could go on and on with imagine it? And yes, they are. There are people out there who would do that. I know 99.8 75% of the police are just upstanding, wonderful people. But there are people out there who misuse their powers as police officers including writing personal checks for the NCIC doing investigative, private investigative work for people for money using usually police resources. There is that sliver of a percentage of people out there
Did you? Did you hear about Uber? This is several years ago did you hear about Uber they, like they have a command center. And they can see at the time, like they could go into quote unquote, like God Mode, and they could see where all of the drivers are. And they could also see where all of their passengers were. So you could then like, target knowing that Bill Gates is riding an Uber in Phoenix or something like that. And you would know where he is. And there’s your abuse of power right there.
So, but But yeah, we’re going to have to explain it to our lawmakers in a way that they can relate to, and then we’re going to have to overcome a lot of police and the license plate manufacturer readers opposition because the sky would be falling as far as they’re concerned. Because if you if they can’t sell these things, that’s not good for their business.
Yeah. And do you? What is what is the natural organization that is protecting that? Is that the ACLU? Or is that just totally us the concerned citizens that are telling our lawmakers Hey, you guys got to be careful with this.
It’s what it’s primarily, I think the ACLU. I don’t think the average citizens This is not on their radar. Yeah, I wouldn’t think so either.
So it is getting more so because everyone’s putting cameras up bring video doorbells is a you know, I mean that’s just going to be there’s cameras everywhere all the time for all things by private and public entities.
But you’re not thinking about your license plate big, big red and stored in a searchable database. A video that’s not searchable. Is this different than these these A l p Rs. They are scanning that the scans are searchable. Yes. So they’re actually able to retrieve who the car belongs to with a lot of effort and it says that 66% of large law enforcement agencies use the the those readers by 2016 we would certainly qualifies large law enforcement agency here.
And they drive around in their cars and as there they have the cameras on Cars and as they drive around there, they’re potentially doing scans of just everyone on the road as they pass by look, you know, potentially looking for a stolen vehicle. Okay, great. You broke the law, you shouldn’t broken the law. But that doesn’t mean that I not committing any sort of crime at all should they should have any record of my whereabouts.
So, you know, they read frontwards and backwards now, correct? Yes. So,
thanks machine learning to figure out how to read letters, assholes. Hmm. Let’s move over to I guess this this is Pittsburgh, NPR News Station, Pennsylvania creates criminal offense of sexual extortion. I’m not really sure I understand how it is a crime to Where was it? Where was it? Where is it? Where it said, so I get if I say, hey, Larry, if you don’t do these sexual things for me, then I’m going to release the pictures, whatever. Where did it go? Darn it. It’s It listed like the three or four different kinds of crimes that they were says, simulating a sex act in the second last paragraph says the law defines sexual extortion as using a threat of some type of coerce of some kind of a threat to coerce a victim into a sex act, simulating a sex act. I don’t understand that one undress or making a video or image of it. I totally don’t get those final points of what would be criminal.
Well, I had some struggle with it myself with a very limited article, but always asked myself. Let me let me let me show you how I think in terms of what what I see when when I read an article like this, when I see who supported it, the legislation was signed by Governor Wolf takes effects in two months. It was had the backing of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Those are not typically groups that we ally with so that that Yes, that’s interesting. Okay, it gives, that gives me a very high degree of to be acity. What I read that because that is the industrial complex at work. So then I asked myself when I, when I see the sponsors, I asked myself, is this something where that would be adequate prosecutorial tools already in place? And usually there are. I think that already, it’s against the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, maybe not since the deskey. But I think it’s already against the law for you to have a miter do the naughty naughty, simulated so that you can capture it? So so if I if I tell a 16 year old prior to this, that I’d like to see you if I if you don’t let me see you, your junk. I’ve got to reveal the secret about you. I’ve happened to think that’s already against the wall.
Yes, I mean, blackmail is already illegal, correct? I think so. I mean, it’s all kind of a big case going on. At the federal level. There’s a big accusation. going on on blackmail or extortion anyway, that’s a completely different conversation.
But but so this new law is a third degree felony which is punishable by up to seven years in prison. If the victims under 18 hours the perpetrator has shown a pattern of engaging in sexual extortion so so they got she has a third degree felony if you have a pattern. I don’t know what constitutes the pattern because I’ve read legislation. But But if the victims under it, but the under 18 are already protected. So what comes to my mind right away was that representative Ted Nesbitt republican of Merce Mercer, probably needed to feel good and upcoming election campaign, and this
probably wasn’t necessary. So they’ve made something that was already illegal, illegal or
whatever it may be, this penalty may be harsher than what they could have already done, which is to what we had with our we already had a crime here of of enticement of a child. But they insisted about 2007 that we needed to have the crime called electronic solicitation of a child enticement of a child would have applied if you were in a car or in a in a pool or anyplace where a minor where you tried to entice them to go to private place with you. For sinister purposes, it would constitute a not lawful sex act. Well, they like Final solicitation was never needed. Because whether you were in the pool hall or whether you were on the on the internet, to entice a minor, under 16 years of age, to meet you in a secluded place for an immoral purpose was already unlawful. They could have prosecuted or that statute on a problem is that’s only a misdemeanor. So the enticement of a child is a fourth degree felony. And then if the person if you actually show up for meeting is a third degree felony, so what they’ve what they’ve done is made the do crime that’s more severe. I think that the prosecutorial tools were already there to take care of This, and I would need to have been convinced otherwise before I could have supported this, but this is the type of thing you can’t vote against. If you want your political career career to survive. If you vote against something like this, you’re going to be vilified and I just about batshit passed unanimously. It would be it would be politically disastrous to vote against the coalition rapes the victims of the district attorney’s, and protecting children. That’s a suicidal move, and very few people would do that.
This next one comes from Vox and its private prison space and uncertain future as states turn their backs on the industry. I didn’t really get the impression that that’s the like, I know that the Obama Justice Department had put forth that they were at least going to reduce like they were canceling contracts, whatever. And then Trump turns around and like, hey, let’s fire that whole engine backup on full blast that my understanding was that private prisons weren’t struggling in this current climate. Did I did I miss read something
at the federal level, they’re not But but a lot of states like my state we have, I think we still have the highest percent of our prisons on beds under under private ownership and management. At the state level, the states are having a second thought. And but I don’t understand it. I mean, the the, I’ve looked at this article, and this is just a bunch of liberals trying to destroy, they’re trying to destroy the entrepreneurship that made this country great. These companies have come in invested hundreds of millions of dollars of building facilities, and providing a service to the taxpayers to save them from having to use their capital outlay. And it You guys are just constantly trying to tear down the capitalist system. I mean, you must just hate America and everything about this country.
I let me put on the serious hat for a minute. I’m 100%. with you. I can appreciate the notion that the private sector would be interested in reducing inefficiency so that they can maximize profit. But the problem with this model is Who the product is like, where are they going to gain? any level of efficiencies and the two most expensive places are going to be human resources. So like their benefits package and their pays their employees. The second thing is the thing that they’re responsible for, and that is, how much toilet paper do you get? How are you going to do the medical for the people? What kind of food are you going to feed and how much food? I mean, they are micromanaging that stuff down to the utmost finite detail. And the inmates are the ones that suffer and I came to the conclusion why I was housed in one of those establishments, that this is the worst idea ever is to have private companies controlling the welfare of human beings, and they are driven by cost and maximizing their their costs for their shareholders. It is the worst idea it should be totally on the backs of the state and the citizenry to take care of these people within the guidelines of whatever we determine those guidelines are but it should not be done by private companies. No way.
I’m appalled. Everybody knows it’s Listen, this podcast, that private companies have the utmost concern for their customers that they are not. I mean, how long would they be in business if prisoners were going malnourished and having to be carried out on stretchers, and the problem with state prisons that we have too much fluff, there’s, I mean, you read this article, the first thing that person noticed when I went to state prison was that there would just be an abundance of staff compared to what they had. And I mean, that’s, that’s unnecessary fluff. And it’s inefficient. And I don’t understand how that you would be so opposed to the capitalist system. You’re trying to tear this country down. We need to be trying to build it up, we need more capitalism.
And everyone’s 401k plan has these these two companies in them so you know, you’re you’re you’re driving dollars into people’s 401k plans by how many people we have incarcerated. It’s a very, very false incentive system. It is a really, really misaligned incentive system.
make America great again. Yeah, that’s a great idea there might.
So on a on a serious note. This is an example of, even if you are a big believer in the private enterprise system, there are things that the private that ought not be done privately. And this is probably what we should be treading very carefully on the private incarceration, because we don’t want the perverse incentives of keeping people which we have in our state with about 4040 to 43% of our prison beds under private management. They have no incentive to work on parole plans, because what happens when they parole a person words that per diem go,
right? Well, they meet you know that their model is based on some 90 95% occupancy rate, you know, like a hotel would be trying to consider it and their model breaks down if they fall below that.
Well, of course, we guarantee them that that would have a minimal level of occupancy in our state and other states did, but But in order, if you’re at 90, if say for I think it was 90%, we guarantee but if they’re at 92%, would they rather be at 95%. So there’s an incentive not to process out people out, and to help people get out. And and this, this is really not an attractive model for privatization. And it’s, it’s, it’s one of those things where, even as strongly as I do believe in the private system, where it does generally provide a pretty good balance between we look at all the other systems and this this one works fairly well, but it doesn’t work perfectly. And somehow another if you have any criticism of where it doesn’t work so well, which is the delivery of healthcare is another example. This somehow you’re anti American, and you’re trying to destroy everything about the country and I don’t understand why people feel the need to say that you hate the country because you recognize that there are sub defects within the country that could be done better and improved upon. I just don’t get that
The other Gosh, did I lose my train of thought the Oh, this would be and I know I’m going to get to throw all the tomatoes that you want to me through the chat window if you want to. But this model could work, if there were regulations in place to guarantee some minimum level of coverage care, you know, pick your word for the amount of food to be given the amount of staff to have in place, and then it’s on them. If they can’t meet the staff, they have to then do whatever they have to do to get staff does that mean they have to raise wages by 50 or $1 per hour to get people to be willing to go into these environments? It’s the only that would be I think, if I’m sure there’s other ways that would be one of the ways to make sure that there’s some sort of standard of care that they’re not just totally driven by the dollar bill.
Well, those standards already exist. They that that was one of my liberal rags that I read about the marshal service and about the invisible with a contract with hundreds and hundreds of local jails around the country and about supposedly, it’s standards they had and they showed how the inspections rarely fail any institution. We have those standards here that you’re talking about. But the problem is we don’t have any bed space to put these people are our facilities are running right at capacity, just just shot capacity. So if you close down a 1400 person prison, because they’re not being their standards, what do you do with 1400? People? Yeah, so it’s a whole threat but yes, we have we have minimum caloric intake, we have the minimum staffing ratios. They don’t fulfill the ratios that they they said, Well, we just can’t hire enough people. And so what do you do? I mean, what would you cut is easier to cut recreation, it’s easier to cut out time it that it is there, some things are just not done? Not easy to cut. So the the program component is what goes before security. I mean, we have to have established security so you’re going to cut programs.
Making chat says that we should allow the inmates to muskets and allow them to hunt. They would save money on food.
Well, I think he might be onto something These people out of work from sunup to sundown and growing conditions. We need to we need to make all the presence like parchman, Mississippi,
right? Except for 95% of the people getting out of prison. What are they going to do when they get out? That doesn’t really provide them with a lot of actual modern day economy skill sets for them to have gainful employment. They’ll have strong backs or calluses on their hands.
I think parchment by up close I’m not sure but anyway, the ever heard Have you ever heard parchment?
No. I mean, I’ve heard parchment paper.
Yeah, there’s been picture shows made about that place. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 35:38
Nope, never heard of it. So you people must be under a rock. That’s very possible.
Over on BuzzFeed news, we have an opinion piece that says I was in jail for seven years for crime I didn’t commit I’m owed more than my freedom. It’s not enough to free the innocent, we must rebuild their lives that are shattered by a broken system. We have another article similar to the story Coming up, but this individual spent a bunch of time in prison for a crime that he was eventually acquitted or exonerated from, what’s the word I’m looking for? They’re exonerated. And the article goes through a profiles that we put people behind these gauges, and they have no resources. They have no ability to fend for themselves. And then they’re like, whoops, I messed up. Oh, hey, we’re gonna open up the doors. Hey, good luck, and they pat them on the button, send them on their way. Good game,
and why it’s not a problem.
It’s man. It’s not a problem. Let’s move right on over to the next article. But I was listening to a podcast and I was going to bring it up for the show tonight. I just ran out of time, but it’s from this podcast I listen to call today explained. And they were talking about victims advocates and you know, survivors and the child abuse stuff that’s going on in the Catholic Church. That’s pretty much where the article centered around and I think our perception And I’m pointing at myself as if anybody can see me. Our perception is that when someone has they say that they were abused, we are inclined to believe them, and I can accept that. But that also then says when they point the finger at the individual, we assume that they’re guilty, and they should be put away for the rest of the life. And if we then take the leap that they would be convicted in, in court, all of those things, if we just make those assumptions, that’s fair. But if we get it wrong, that person sits behind bars for something that they did not do. And I don’t think that we should just jump to the conclusion that they deserve to spend all that time in prison to try and figure out how to get themselves out. If they have some level of ability to prove that they didn’t do it. It’s a terrible thing.
It is and this this article illuminates that wrongful convictions are all too common. Since 1989, more than 20 515 people have been exonerated after proving their innocence, everybody Your present usually with no resources, the public systems have very little to offer you and post conviction. You end up trying to do all this stuff pro se. And you reach out to the Innocence Project and they have like one attorney trying to handle 400 requests correct people who say they’re innocent. And but it says since then and some people have lost over 22,315 years of their lives and taxpayers have spent 4.12 billion incarcerating that. Now if you are conservative and as you say you are and you want to be frugal with government spending dishing a Paul you that you’re spending all this money incarcerating people. If you if you lose to 4.212 billion for indigent defense perhaps some of these people wouldn’t have gotten convicted on the front side. And you would not have you would potentially owe them $80,000 a year like Texas pays for wrongful incarceration.
I don’t even know that. That’s enough. Money, Larry, I mean, you could potentially have have earned so much more money than that. It’s not you can’t expect them to be just minimum wage employees,
but maybe thousands harlot minimum wage, but $7 and $25 an hour. But but at least Texas to their credit, they do give you something this was talking about where people get nothing. The day, right? They they’re they’re said they’re told Good luck, and they’re talking about people who’ve been in prison for decades that who don’t have says three men will leave prison after 36 years with a paper bag of possessions from when they were 16 years old.
Yeah, and then it goes on to say they will be broke without any job prospects, technical skills, credit education, or even a job history to rely on. I it’s, it’s ridiculous.
And again, I think a true conservative would say we got it wrong. We wasted a bunch of money incarcerating these people. And now I want to try to help this person rebuild their lives. For the time they have left, because I want to get some tax money out of them, we spent 4.12 billion on them. And I’d be happy to spend a whole lot a little bit more, not a whole lot more but a little bit more, to try to get them back on their feet because I would rather than be paying taxes than consuming services. But that that’s not the mindset
where I was trying to develop a thought while you were talking. And I don’t know if I can complete it that quickly. Doesn’t I feel like when this happens, you end up like the survivor. The victim didn’t get justice. The person that incorrectly went to prison didn’t get justice, and the person that committed the crime, didn’t get justice either. But the taxpayers also got kind of railroaded to with the $4 billion spent in incarcerating the wrong people.
That is correct. And that’s the sad travesty about this because the legal system should always want to extend human possibly to never incarcerate a person. Hello I’ve got it right. Because if we incarcerate a person just to close the case, the culprit is still on the loose, which means more victimization. You should never want an innocent person to be incarcerated.
So over at pro publica 30 years of jail has snitch scandals. I, this seems also really terrible to me that we would rely that we’re going back to the incentive idea that I was just talking about with the private prisons, if there’s somebody that is in prison, and he is going to potentially receive some sort of perk some sort of benefit for snitching on someone else. The person has all kinds of incentives to make up stories to to at least embellish stories about the person that they’re they’re hanging out in their cellar, you know, somewhere in the common area. I forgot what it’s called at this point, the daver and so they they almost fabricate stories to the point where somebody gets convicted of a crime and then up sorry, this informant this This jailhouse snitch didn’t necessarily come forward with the most accurate of information. So here we are, I guess sort of similar to the previous article about people being locked up for for things that they didn’t commit and here we have jailhouse snitches being there. They’re almost on like the dole of the the prison system where the DA to, to pass along information to get people convicted.
I have this conversation with with lawmakers from time to time. Every time we have a vacancy at the corrections department for high level management, particular the secretary but even even the top the top administrators. I tell them here’s one question you want to ask them about inmate care is do you run? What’s your feeling about a snitch system? And if they can’t answer the question, they’re not fit to be in administration and running a snitch based system, which prisons all too commonly do is a very dangerous thing to do. And anybody who was going to if I were in a position to appoint a correction Secretary if you if you if you favor a snitch system, you will not you will not be on my shortlist of candidates.
Can you go back you like you You go talk to lawmakers and say, Do you believe in this model? And some say yes.
Well, it don’t lawmakers. It’s just what I’m having a free chat free freestyle chat about what’s wrong with the correctional system who would want to be leading the corrections department, certain qualities you’re looking for. And one is as how they feel about in my care, because in my care, every integration is very important. If they can’t talk about reintegration, it may care. And part of it may care it’s not running as a prison by snitch system. Law enforcement has their own snitch system where they where they bring cases against people based on stage but I was just I just drifted over to to to the jailhouse snitch themselves that I tell lawmakers every chance I get that if if the Mexico Department of Corrections is running a safe system, you’re putting everybody in danger. Yeah. There should be no rewarding of stitches by the administration. And that sounds contrary to what the average person would want to believe. Because they would say, of course, we’d want stitches because we want to know what’s going on. And you’re correct. You do want to know what’s going on when you’re running a prison. But you want to know what’s actually going on. You know,
You get a lot of Ms. It’s like torture, torture will actually get a lot of confessions. Yeah, they might not be torture. It is. Absolutely. You could torture someone today to they tell you that someone did something that they didn’t do. But they may admit something they didn’t do just to stop the torture, but they may also confess that someone else did something and you put that person in jeopardy. So a snitch system is not a safe way to run a corrections department. So if I’m ever conversing about what was a priority for me for for corrections administration that generally comes up about how do they feel about about about jailhouse niches that they have? No, they have no business, running a system. Where do you encourage snitching it’s going to happen? Even if you don’t encourage it, people are going to intuitively want to gain favors and they’re going to rat out stuff, and they’re going to approach staff members with stuff, but they should not be rewarded for doing that’s what I mean by encouraging
who’s to try to do you think drives that bus though? Is it the warden? Is it just like somebody that’s over a housing unit? Is it the DA that’s over trying to incentivize someone being a snitch,
but it’s all of the above? What the prison the prison administration if, if, if they if benefits flow. If you hand me a sliver of paper and I’m a guard and add and benefit flows to you of a sudden get some special privilege because of that what was on a piece of paper? That’s not a system. I can’t stop you from him as a piece of paper, if you do that, but what I can do is not reward you for giving it to me. Right? And that’s that’s what I’m saying. I don’t I don’t believe in reward extensions at all, because it’s a dangerous model.
Yeah, sir. Sure, sure. I’m just trying to think of who like the snitch could just be an entrepreneur, an enterprise the individual trying to collect information to then build up to to get the favor? Or is it being driven from the top down the DA calls in someone who’s you know, gets? What the guy Jeffrey Epstein like they get his cellmate come, you know, come over the office, feed them a big stakes like, Hey, we want you to give us all the dirt on Epstein.
I think. I think it’s all good. I think it’s all the above. that’s highly unethical. I think cops cops driving, I think prison ministry is driving and I think the inmates themselves drive it. But if you don’t reward it, they will stop doing it. If you had if you had one of our officers A note, three weeks in a row, and you get no special trip to the warden’s office. You get no special trip to the To Do you get no extra food on your tray, you get no extra anything. You’re going to pretty soon stop doing it.
and that’s what I mean by the presence, the presence that should not reward that. Should they investigate it? Yes. Should I try and harm if it’s credible? Yes, that’s your job to keep the presence safe. You shouldn’t just throw the trash can but you shouldn’t reward the person for forgive forget your information but yes, you would you would take the information you’d look into it and say safe was invalid to do it for further and further jail right babe plot and of course, you’d want to look into that, that be certain people you wouldn’t want to have break out of jail. There’s some people who actually do belong in there.
You put this thing in here, I’m gonna say you people. ABA journal calm and this is I’m gonna let you set this up. So what goes on in the mind of a sentencing judge? Tell me what you want to do with this one.
What It was a it was a podcast and I listened to a big part of it, not all of it but listen to a big part of it. I found it intriguing. But the federal judge was talking about sentencing and and the factors. And since I’m so dead set against mandatory minimums when the legislative branch ties the judiciary, his hands I find that appalling. And I just wanted, I wanted to particularly highlight that segment of the of the interview with what the judge what he felt when he was senate sitting people away for mandatory minimums, and then it crosses over a drug issue about about possession of child porn images.
And so we have a roughly a three minute clip that I’m going to play. Here we go.
Unknown Speaker 48:44
Also, you talk about mandatory minimums and the three strikes law and kind of how a judge is supposed to navigate those could you kind of talk about those and what you write about in the book
Unknown Speaker 48:59
and what I just told you Judges all these discretion. But there are large areas of law where we don’t have discretion. And we just message it girls and boys, and what, of course, is mandatory minimums. So Congress really has control over us. Because in respect to any given crime that establishes as a Columbia requires certainty. It can say this sentence should be a mandatory minimum has the discretion to decide how to invite somebody so they could the vacations one, where they should invite somebody that would carry mandatory minimum, they look at the solution. If they think that the case should not be a mandatory minimum case, they can charge differently. Once again, the judge is on the receiving line. What I said and somebody that has a mandatory minimum, I probably descended. I’m just the messenger boy, the government sentence you, and I’m just delivering their decision to you. Now there are times of course, when you could send somebody likes us to the day that they will, that they will continue because we may have to have minimums that could be high and really harsh Brian launch.
I have a question. You know, three co equal branches of government. And the legislators then tie the hands of the judicial branch by making them have mandatory minimums. Why don’t the legislators Why don’t they just leave it in the hands of the judges?
Well, that’s what does what we we used to do decades ago, but what what what was noticeable be present prior to the sentencing reform act of 1984 was there was such a disparity and the outcomes for for the criminal. And I’m talking about the federal system. I talked about sentencing reform act that Congress passed in 1984 President Reagan signed they you take off A convicted person in San Francisco at one of the same federal crime and and you took that same crime and and took a federal district judge in Alabama. And you had a heck of a lot more people being probated in San Francisco than you did in Alabama. And since we’re once since we’re the United States of America, it was thought that that wasn’t fair. Because we had such a disparity. And and prior to 1984, about half of the Federal defendants got probation. It’s not even, it’s probably less than 10%. Now think we covered it on the podcast one time, but it’s it’s down dramatically. But that was that was what used to happen. But the backlash from the people is why are these people they’re either getting no present time at all, or they’re getting sent to club fed. So the politicians are reflection, I keep telling people on this podcast over and over again. Our political decisions are a reflection of us. We wanted harsh sentencing. And we demanded what we got. Now, of course, when your family member gets caught up in a mandatory minimum, then it’s all of a sudden, that conservative mom who calls me and says, My poor little he thought he got 10 years and all he did was had some energy but ambitious I said that Yes, ma’am. That’s correct. That’s what he got. That’s the mandatory minimum. Well, that just ain’t right now said well, but that’s what you supported through your congressional representation. years ago. at all I did. Yes. You remember when we’re having to crack down on crime? You remember back when, when when when we were making things tougher on Campbell’s you remember how that sounded so good. You remember you were for all that until it happened to you. And they’ve sheepishly filed it bit. Yes, I was for all of this until it happened to me. I’d like to illustrate point out one other thing about this, the toward the end of it. He talked about the charging and the process. This, this is something that has changed from the previous administration to what we have now. The Obama administration had recognized that you could control the trajectory of how much time people received by not indicted with every tool that you have, and not using the toughest charging, you can charge people under under statutes that will trigger a minimum. This isn’t Larry saying, at essence, the federal judge saying, or you can charge them in an alternative way, and you don’t have to seek enhancements. This administration has said, charge people with the maximum possible charge you can come up with and seek the maximum penalties. This is not me saying that. This is the administration saying? So I’m pointing out that the federal judge has also said the same thing. And he’s probably more credible than me that but how you charge a person has a direct impact on how long they’re in prison.
And that comes down to essentially the DEA, correct?
Well, in the case of the US government of the US Attorney General the Department of Justice at all this all the assistant US Attorney’s around the country that that answer to this case, Mr. Barr, but previous to Mr. Sessions, but immediately upon this administration taking office, they issued within three months a directive to seek the maximum penalties and to charge the maximum crimes. This is not Larry saying that this is what they did. So that’s why I have a deep disagreement with this administration on criminal justice. I give them credit for pushing the first step to the finish line. It was a watered down version of first step that had to be dramatically worked down from what the bipartisan compromise had been because of the opposition of six conservative senators led by Tom Cotton from Arkansas. But nonetheless, this administration helped push it to the finish line so I give them credit for that. I also criticize them for what I don’t agree with them and seeking maximum penalties. I don’t agree with them, so I feel free to criticize them. I give credit where credit’s due. And they get credit and they get credit system because they deserve credit for one thing, and they deserve criticism for the other.
I mean, I will, I’m pretty sure like just for example, we can go back to us the little hobbit Skippy with the big ears, Jeff Sessions. He, he was like, adamant, like, drugs are just bad drugs are bad. Okay. But we have, I don’t know, does the United States have like an 80% 70% support of legalization of marijuana, and he’s still going to stand up there and go, it’s bad and we shouldn’t do it. But the United States by an overwhelming majority supports it. And I’ll just using that as one very small example of this.
And when you say state after state, taking the lead on that, because we we can’t get anything through the federal it’s a lot harder the past anything through Congress because of the of the of the procedural hurdles. The minority can stop something in the Senate. Yes. So but it’s a state level, there are more and more states that are Please do it the medical marijuana and how many states are doing recreational marijuana, then I expect our state in the team, maybe next. I think our state’s probably going to join either this year or the next year, where the 30 day session this year for we may not be able to resolve a complex issue, and a third day session, but but I think we’ll get it done before the end of this Governor’s first term.
And I’ve talked about this before, I’m pretty sure that just before I got out the the Georgia legislature was was going over this thing and I remember hearing some profile of a dad and he had to go, he had to go to Colorado, get drugs and bring them back. So he’s like actually doing, you know, distribution and transportation and all that stuff to get marijuana for his kid that has hundreds of seizures per day, and I just can’t
sell that was on the podcast. We talked about that on the podcast.
This drives me freaking bonkers, Larry, it is so unconscionable that some legislator would be like, nope, fyp sorry, your kids suffers and I’m like you are just the worst asshole You are the worst human on the planet to actually to say that to Father that parents can’t get their kid. Something that will Yeah.
But But, but just ask that guy. I just about guarantee if I remember him he was from Middle Georgia. I just got better he voted straight conservative on all this stuff because he had the bigger picture look at is what they always say they think that we don’t look at the bigger picture. They think that somehow rather we only look at a narrow picture but but I just thought that he was the conservative Law and Order Type that all of a sudden census of impacted him. He didn’t understand it. But people they they vote continues for the for the wrong, folks. And then they’re surprised about the results. I tell people I mean, you’ve been voting for this all this time. I don’t know why you’re surprised. This is what they ran on. This is what they promised you they would do.
Unknown Speaker 57:46
He said he’s like I will be the law and order president. I totally get it.
Unknown Speaker 57:51
Now that we’ve run up all of our remaining listeners,
so well be but he didn’t tell me you in a lie. He told you that. That that’s what he was going to do. He’s just kept this word in terms of taking harsh penalties. That’s what he said he was going to do. We got what we asked for, right? You voted for it with him telling you that.
I’ve said this, you know, there’s, there’s a line in Batman, like the Dark Knight series. It’s the more recent stuff Batman stuff. And he said, somewhere, I think Commissioner Gordon says, Batman isn’t the hero we want. He’s the hero we need or the one that we deserve or something like that. And that’s, I just totally feel that that’s where we are. So I do I have one. One other thing to say on that, because we created these problems by voting, whether that was consciously or unconsciously voting. I also then feel that it is it to me it makes it Wow, then we can fix it. If we can figure out how to vote better. To me. I feel it’s empowering. I’m excited to hear it this way.
Well, I’m probably a little more harsh than I should be. The issues are more complicated than most people have the bandwidth to really The dig into the understand. We operate in sound bites. And when when you’re campaigning on being tough, the average person’s not going to look into the legislation or read 30 4050 pages. They’re not all they hear is the cop say that we want to crack down on child predators, who’s gonna be who’s going to be fundamentally against that when they what was presented that way. So of course, the average person says, of course, I’m gonna go along with that. I mean, it’s the average person. There’s too many issues. If we roll back the clock for the civil war time, or even to the colonial times, the issues to national government and even the state governments were dealing with were far fewer than they are today. We live in a very complicated society where there’s so many more issues that are up and the just the problems involve complexities that didn’t exist just a few decades ago. If we were we were debating problems in 1975 The solution, we didn’t have all the considerations we have now and I’m trying to craft a solution so it’s just a different error. So the average person is just overwhelmed. Yes. That’s that’s what makes it easier just to be soundbite soundbite driven. And that’s what works to the person I ever vote sound bites.
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 or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out Big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible. Well, let’s move over to I can’t imagine that we’ve ever covered anything from a place called tech dirt because you are the opposite. Well, you are as old as dirt and you hate tech. How’s
that? That’s correct.
Oregon Supreme Court shuts down pre Trek. God, I can’t say the word pretextual traffic stops says cops can’t ask questions unrelated to the violation. The funny thing in this article that they they described and I think we you said that we covered this before, but the cop walks up to the car. I find this to be hysterical. Every time I walk up, I asked him, Hey, Officer, falkor Beaverton police department. Do my contact with them. Do you hear? Do you have anything illegal in the car? Would you consent to a search for guns, drugs, knives, bombs, illegal documents, or anything like that, that you’re not allowed to possess. The cop asks that walking up to the car for someone that’s going five miles over the speed.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:01
Why is that a problem?
I think this goes back to our some expectation of privacy that, hey, I pulled you over for your taillight being out, you didn’t signal you ran a stop sign. I want to know that you have bombs in the car. Doesn’t that extend past some kind of Fourth Amendment’s unwarranted search?
Well, in this case, I do think we talked about it before. I don’t think I had the decision. This time I’ve actually gone through and read it and highlighted made a bunch of yellow highlights the defendant was lawfully stopped for failing to signal a turn and a lane change. During the stop while defendant was searching for his registration and proof insurance. The offer or ask him about presence of drugs, guns and requested consent to search. Well, that wasn’t the reason why I pulled the person over. He didn’t have any suspicion about those things. He was investigating failure to signal and that was the extent of the investigation and sell the bunch of Darren liberal do gotta suck. Supreme Court. They have just wrecked this officer because one of the he gave the consent. He gave consent and they did find drugs. And then he moved to suppress. And the trial court said, No, when the Court of Appeals said now that the officer was doing his job and, and and he he, he he appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said no, based on our doctrine of case law here, you the traffic stop needs to be confined to the purpose for the stop, unless do probable cause arises, and probable cause had yet a result had not yet arisen. When he when he was asking about that. It’s possible that you could open a window to traffic stop, and the plume of dope smell could be so strong, that the original reason for the stop would be overshadowed by the evidence that surface when that plume of dope came out the window. And at that point, you could expand the scope but at that point, he didn’t have any basis to expand the scope of the stop. He did. So So now we’ve messed up the Beaverton police officer flocker and he’s going to be forever traumatized when he pulls somebody over because he can’t do his job. And this is just ridiculous as an example of these justices just that don’t have a clue about what’s going on in the real world out there. And they’re turning loose. Oh, God who had was writing doped on our community, so that they there’s no accountability. And that’s just ridiculous at
how how does this relate to since this came out recently with Bloomberg running How does this come out for like the stop and frisk stuff that was going on in New York 20 years ago? Isn’t this the same?
I’d say it’s a pretty doggone close parallel there
when you are a human right and you know, you are you know, can I stop and frisk you just because you’re on the street and I’m a cop, but I do what I want because I have my rights.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:50
That’s what that cop cop said.
But I’ll stop. I’ll stop and frisk is is is not constitutional. There’s there’s case law where a pat is pretty much acceptable, the exterior of the clothing. If if there’s reason to believe that there might be safety issues, but if you see a
yes, yes. But But, but this, this case hinges on the officer who had no reason at all to expand the scope of his stop, beyond the taillight, don’t get as a matter of routine and he admitted it if the evidence supported because he said that’s what I do to everybody. But we had talked about last week when does the seizure occur. So if you look at page seven, on the of the highlight there, it says For purposes of an article one section nine a seizure occurs when one a police officer intentionally significant interference with an individual liberty, freedom of movement are to a reasonable person under the totality the circumstances would believe that his or her liberty or freedom, a little bit has been significantly restricted. Remember what I said? That you don’t have to be cuffed for there to be a seizure and attention. Yeah, was it this is this the state Supreme Court of Oregon applied the constitution to what constitutes, if you’re like those guys at Nordstrom or wherever that store was, if they felt they couldn’t leave, in a reasonable person there would not believe that they could have left that parking lot. And the police officer had unintentionally and significantly interfered with their freedom of booth. But that was in fact a seizure. Right. And that’s that’s that that may end up being illegal action against the police that gets that the off duty here that we call that chiefs over time when you’re hired. But you want a police officer to provide private security. You go through the police department, you pay sub exorbitant rate of 75 bucks or something an hour, and then you have a real uniformed police officer who’s working off dvo chief so we’re talked that’s going to be a real problem for them if that guy decides that he wants those two guys decide they want to make an issue of it because clearly they were seized without at any justification. But back to this case, this guy gave the consent. But he was being detained. And he did the consent was, was the court didn’t say it, but they interpreted as big under duress and that therefore, his motion to suppress was granted, which means that this case is going to die.
And I’m going to I’m going to put you out on a ledger where I think you’re going to be somewhat uncomfortable, but I just can you give me you’re not obviously legal. You know, you’re not a lawyer. I know this, but there’s the intended paragraph in the article it says in contrast to a person on the street who may unilaterally end an officer citizen encounter at anytime the reality is is that a motor is stopped for a traffic infraction is legally obligated to stop at an officers direction. So if if you’re walking down the street in a cop says, Hey, can I talk to you minute you can be like fyp and keep walking
That would be that would be within your purview of thing unless the cop demands that you stop. And I’d like to I’d like to talk to you today Bob would like to talk to you and he Motorola and you keep motoring on
and but the cops the same situation have some with the car with a car you are legally is that going to be on a state by state basis? I assume
yes but it will what when the when the competent engages sir Burgess equipment, their overheads you’re obligated to pull over under the traffic code.
Okay. All right. So regulatory.
Yeah. Would you accept the privilege the card operated vehicle, you you agree to sort of things wants to be tested for for use of alcohol, the implied consent, I think almost all states have that. And you agree that you will abide by the rules of the road, and that you will engage with an officer upon the officer asking for an engagement but they turn all those overheads they’re requesting an engagement. They have to have a reason to turn off those but but but you’re obligated to pull over just Like when there’s emergency sirens and stuff you’re supposed to pull to the right. But those are requirements. But But when you’re walking down the street, you don’t have an obligation to talk to the police. Okay?
And unless he invokes is like, Hey, I’m the police and I can do what I want and I need to stop you. You are like, yes and comply to some degree. If
the cop says, I ordered you to stop, you’re going to be charged with willful disobey. If you don’t, but if a cop says I’d like to talk to you, do you have a moment you said no, actually don’t have a minute, Bob, and I’m going to keep going.
So we’ll ask what can a law abiding citizen do when they are stopped by an officer and they properly invoke the rights in the cop starts escalating? I think you’re screwed. You have to comply. I mean, you don’t have to but you’re gonna end up getting body slammed.
Without well, are we talking about on the street? Are we talking about in a vehicle? Yes.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:49
Yes. To which
you broke up for just a second.
That’s it. Are we talking about a stop by an officer when you’re driving your vehicle? Are we talking about a stop by an officer when you’re on foot
I think will in this case is talking about on the fetus.
So, well if if I never encouraged you to want to disobey an officer if they give you a command, but if the officer says, and here’s what I’m boarding it, I would like to talk to you. Do you have a moment? No, I don’t. If the officer says stop, I demand that I talk to you. I never suggest a person get taste insight can say adult officers command because you’re inviting big taste. If you’re told to stop it, you don’t.
Yes, possibly as you’re jumping into a lake or a pond. I’ve heard of that. Yeah. foreshadowing,
sorry. So I’ve heard of that. But But I would, I would never tell a person to risk the wrath of officer for disobeying an order. But it’s like when a person’s only cop says Can I search your vehicle now? Sorry, you can’t.
Can I search your first release?
That’s that’s different than saying I’d You out of the vehicle. I’m going to search your vehicle. That’s a whole different setup. But if the officer says Would you mind giving me consent? So yes, I do mind. No, I won’t.
I have a feeling I have a feeling that they would be like, well, if you have nothing to hide, why can I search it and you’re like, you’re going to be there sitting there on the side of the road for a while.
That that’s exactly what they would probably say. They would say, Well, I’ll tell you what we can do would get a war. And you can say yes, you possibly can if you can articulate the requisite level probable cause you could possibly get a warrant. But you know what, that’s gonna take you a bunch of time. And if you come up with empty handed you go look kind of foolish forget no more. What’s your probable cause? Officer? What are you gonna tell the magistrate for the probable cause? Because, you know, if, if you don’t have the requisite probable cause this may come back to bite you. NASS. That’s what you could tell the officer. They’re not going to like that very much. But that’s what you could tell the officer. Yeah. And at the end, I don’t mind sitting here all night cuz officer I’ve done nothing wrong. And ultimately I think I’m going to get paid for this because you’re the wrong.
Yeah. I don’t know that I don’t know that under the pressure of that situation. I could articulate that that cleanly and come across, you know, and stand my ground and all that. I would be like
Unknown Speaker 1:12:18
very few people would be able to go toe to toe the cops have the fear of the, I mean, all these weapons are attached to them. They’ve got dogs. They’ve got they’ve got helicopters that got hovercraft. They’ve got they’ve got some amazing.
They also have a doughnut belly and a beer belly to rival anybody.
Well, ours don’t here but but but that’s what you see all over your part of the country.
Definitely. Actually, there’s some donut ATMs over here.
If you were to actually come see our crickey police force, you would have a hard time finding an overweight officer on our force.
I Why is it just too many like chitlins and dumplings that they eat here or something?
Well, they start with With the they have 20 year retirement here and they recruit very young. And so the people go on the dole after 20 years here at the soul so an officer can be retired at 45. They have higher physical agility standards to join the force and they have higher physical agility to maintain your certification. So that being an arid open, climate for recreation is a lot more common here. You actually still see people out recreating here. What is the humid climate like where you live? From from about late June till about middle of September, everybody hibernates and their air conditioned quarters here Well, they don’t they’re they don’t do that here. I mean, there’s people out jogging, bicycling, doing things. So you just have a more fit. population here the South tends to be more more the obesity rates are higher. In the bay we’re catching up not say it’s all panacea. But the Colorado, New Mexico the states where a health health has been more of a conscious thing. They’ll be sitting rates are catching up, going up but but, but you don’t see the stereotypical fat but that those are hard to find here. When you when you see when you see a copier, they’re generally less than 40. And they’re generally very, very physically fit.
So over at the intercept this is a this is a really disturbing article that we picked up a black teenager Damien Martin begged police for help as he drowned his death. Death was ruled an accident. And it’s a pretty short article, but there’s a there’s an eight minute video that goes with it. And it doesn’t look like he was doing the right thing. He was fleeing from the police because he him and some buddies were hanging in a car and allegedly the car may have been stolen. No idea if that part is true, however. So he’s flying away and in the neighborhood. They’re like pawns in between the houses. I mean, it is Florida. So it’s almost underwater anyway. And he tries to flee from the police and he jumps into the water and he comes up like two or something times and saying Help, help, help, help help. And then he went down The third time so they like taste him either on his way into the water or they taste him and hit him around the water or around him in the water. And so he died. And I, why wouldn’t someone standing there on the sidelines watching someone say please help help him a drowning? Why would you jump in and try and save someone? Even if they are they are guilty of a crime or something. Why would you just say that whatever die?
That’s very troubling to me that, that at that point, once you’ve got into a to a situation, yes, we don’t need any male he did put himself in that position from play in the police. We totally understand that. But at the point you go into distress, then the duty of the police and the rescue people is to save life at that point. And he’s no longer in a fleeing capacity. He’s no longer running. He’s in a situation where he’s going up and down and water and needing help and at that point, rescue should have ensued. There will undoubtedly be a settlement of some sort of this as as this unfolds, there’s there’s no justification I can have for for not trying to save
it. They even they spoke to a forensic pathologist something like that to examine the autopsy and they even found what looks like a tiny little cut it looks You know, I’m no medical expert but it looks like it’s a fresh ish cut and about the size of a, you know, like a pinprick kind of thing that might be from the head of a taser. Obviously, nobody knows but that’s what it looks like. And so you know, did the taser hit them hit the kid. And I’m kind of skeptical that the taser would hit the water and shock you. I mean, you might get shot but I don’t know that would be enough to hurt you in the water. That’s my totally Michael my layperson opinion. So he got tased on his way into the water and then the police wouldn’t save him. That sounds like almost like murder wrongful death. like somebody’s culpable for that though. Yeah, it’ll be there. be interesting to see how it if we hear the outcome of it, but at the point he was underwater that there was a duty to try to save and
most law enforcement personnel are trained in and rescue and they would have been equipped to save most officers can swim quite well that I’ve met.
And that was actually something else that they brought up like the kid that went in there like well, he died because he couldn’t swim and they show videos of him like laughing people like swimming like you know, Michael Phelps or something that show videos of
this show the videos of the kids swimming, you know, him swimming, this little pond, Lake, whatever between the houses. And he’s, he’s an accomplished, like, not an accomplished swimmer. He’s a proficient swimmer.
Well, I would imagine that that would be rendered somewhat dubious by the tasing. If you’ve been tazed. Oh, of course. Yeah. That would that would that would have to have regular muscular responses. I don’t think you wouldn’t be an accomplished swimmer at that point.
No, no, no, no, but what I’m saying is like they would say, Well, he just couldn’t sleep. Women he drowned because he couldn’t swim. It wasn’t because of the tasing. That’s what the police are saying. I’ll show you I’ll show videos like family videos of the kids swimming with his friends in the pond or whatever. And like, no, he can swim. He totally can swim. That’s not the problem.
So yeah, he was not able to swim with that particular circumstance, but correct. Absolutely. And,
but, you know, so isn’t that could we make a somewhat parallel to, I can’t think of the guy’s name the New York guy that was selling the cigarettes, the heavy dude and he gets chokehold. He’s like, I can’t breathe, I can’t breathe, he dies. I mean, that seems at least somewhat similar.
somewhat similar, but the the case, that particular case they were actually applying the pressure to him that correct that choked him. And this particular case they applied. I’ll send me the taste for that as a text remark. They applied the taser to him which rendered him on able to swim and the diaper failed to provide any any any attempt to rescue and of course, they’re going to say that they were fearful. They’re safe to come He was fleeing the police and I’ll tell him what kind of danger. So therefore we didn’t from safety, we had to sit back and see what was going to happen. Just what they gonna say.
Yeah. Uh, so here we are at a situation where the police can administer justice and execute without any sort of due process.
All right, got it? Well, they didn’t execute I failed to preserve and protect.
Hmm. So so my statement is taking it too
far. I think a little bit too far. They certainly fail to preserve and protect. When, when you’re, when you’re fleeing a person once they’re apprehended. At that point, you become their protector. Right? Well, they, for all practical purposes, he was apprehended when he went into the canal.
Yeah, you can’t you can’t swim super fast. Like you can sort of like running unless you’re Michael Phelps.
And at that particular point, they shifted from being in pursuit to his protector and they should have protected him as best they were trying to do. And if no one there could swim, that the That will come out of the investigation. But I’m confident that some of those officers could have could have attempted to rescue.
Yeah, of course. So the final article is from NBC News hundreds of parents a kids wrongly taken from them after doctors Miss diagnosed abuse. The profile article here is a couple. And their kid has something of a certain kind of condition that ends up the kid gets a bunch of bruises from being in like the swingy seat in the house. And they take the kid to the doctor and the doctor is like this kids being abused and they take the kid away for like four months. They like like, forcibly removed the kid from the home because they think that the kid is having like Shaken Baby Syndrome and all this other garbage. This is also disturbing, Larry, this is this is most likely coming from like the lefty pointed head kind of people of the child welfare stuff. At least that’s that would be my take right off the bat. To have these policies, this is terrible that we would take kids away that we don’t have enough protections to enough checks and balances to make sure that the that people don’t just have their families ripped apart needlessly.
This is a long story. And the there’s the first one of the videos of the of the couple sitting there with the two kids. They end up they end up getting their kids back after the judge apologized and saying that they had a hearing, which they didn’t know about. They had an expert that what a contract that would have would have would have contested what Child Protective Services. This this is a personal one to me because I was in the Child Protective Services system from the time I was eight years old until aged out. And I’ve been kind of having gone through my experience I consider myself more informed than the average person and I consider that the child protective services. I think acted largely appropriate. And Mike, my case of my family’s case. So I I’ve been very dubious of these claims. But what were people saying that their kids were taken for little no reason. And I’ve used this to awaken myself to stuff that I did not know what’s happening. I know that I’m always dubious about mandatory reporting, because people are required to report things. Because it’s for the for the good of all. And sometimes they report something that may or may not be anything like what the people seeing the evidence, think it’s was caused by. So it’s causing me to rethink what I felt about child protective services because in my case, I felt like they acted appropriately, all throughout my foster career. From from the time I was eight till I was 17 when I left and, and so I’ve been one who’s been very tolerant of Child Welfare intervention, because it’s all about keeping kids ildren safe and we all want that thing we want the children to be kept safe and out of abusive environments and but when you see people losing their kids that they’ve been caring for diligently with just virtually no due process and being taken almost at gunpoint, just shotgun point but what’s the force of law and and and you see that that’s not the America that we that we that we want and if I’m going to be intellectually honest, I’ve got to say to these people are entitled due process also. And you’ve got to have overwhelming evidence to take so much gets away from
at the end of the article, the profile couple here it says every year since every year since the grams have sent the doctor, the child abuse pediatrician, a Christmas card with a photo their family along with a note reminding her that she almost broke them apart. I am 100% with you on the statements that you just made. That of course I don’t you know, you’re going to find some sort of sociopath that wants children harm but by far and People do not want children harmed, and would go to great lengths to protect children pretty much at any cost. But, and there are plenty of kids in the world that have been abused that needed protection when it wasn’t available. And here you have what appears to be a very attractive couple. And through a failure in the process, have their family ripped apart. This is a this has been like, you know, a PTSD kind of level situation to have your kid a kid taken away from the family like that. Then what are all the neighbors going to say? This is almost like being accused of a sexual offense, you know, and the cops show up and they ransack your house and all that stuff. And then everything just goes well, I’m sorry, we made a mistake. You know, where’s your daughter? Child Protective Services took my kid, like, what kind of horrible parent are you? How do you recover from that kind of scrutiny too?
Well, we’ve got a we’ve got a guy that comes to the legislature every year and he’s been coming for at least five years talking about how the the The system took his children away and this is illuminated to me that maybe how to take him more seriously but he paid he rants in committee meetings about how the the system is totally out of control. And he was denied due process and perhaps he was like say it kind of was an eye opener for me. That’s why I put it in here because I’ve been kind of insensitive to people who say my kids are taken away from me. Now I know people on the registry face these intrusive investigations by Child Protective Services. We call it see why if the children youth and families but but the people have have had been victimized by the most flimsy, just bit mere being on the registry generates an intrusive inquiry from from from child welfare. That’s not right. But I didn’t realize that the system was breaking down to where these, these people were having their kids yanked away from them without any process at all because theoretically, you’re only supposed to go to take a kid for just a short number of hours. without some evidence I didn’t They’re supposed they’re supposed to be an adversarial process take place.
Yeah, they took it. They took the kid for many months. That was 14 months later. Oh, that was a different case, not the profile. I thought they took them for just several months. I mean,
just I don’t mean just so the the interview with the judge, I think said that, you know, how sorry, was that it happened, you know, they’d known and then they got $100,000 in attorneys fees back.
Right. It’s this is then also just like someone that gets wrongly convicted, and they just say, Oh, sorry, we made a mistake and open the door let you go home and you know, you lost some amount of time of your life. You know, this, this kid ended up spending some time with some foster kids, not questioning whether they treated the kid correctly or not. I’m not really even challenging the intent of anybody in the system, just that they’re there. Like there should have been something else to slow this thing down to take the kid away from the parents. For it to be erroneous.
What that’s why we insist on due process.
The What’s this crazy system? What’s this word you’re talking about?
We have to we have to build in protections where, if a child has to be taken on an emergency basis, the evidence has to be overwhelming, that the child is in danger. And then that can only last for a short number of days before you have to be put to a burden of proving that that that child was in danger and that that that that Paul needs intervention or else that child has to be returned, if we just follow due process, if we realized that due process cost money, and we accept that and we we dedicate ourselves to giving people due process, a lot less of this will happen. The reason why this happened in the first couples cases because they they did not follow due process. They just went ahead and acted right you know, due processes and convenience folks, but it but that’s why we have it
right but it isn’t the This doesn’t Child Protective Services and whatever else you want to call it, don’t they have some sort of like, a diversionary path like they don’t they have the authority to like, go remove kids without doing any, like, they can just go do it. They’re almost like I don’t wanna say above the law, but there they have those authorities.
They do but under under very limited circumstances where the child is a danger of neglect or abuse. And then they have to go through a do private you can chop off Child Protective Services and most states can show up and take a child Yes, but this is only for a very brief amount of time before that that fan was entitled to a hearing and apparently the system broke down. They did not give them a hearing. They did not let them have the opportunity to contest what their blood the report had come in about what that doctor claimed that the skull fractures had to be had to be a direct result of an accident but but but from abuse and the doctor was wrong. You know that their their evidence was wrong, but they didn’t allow the family opportunity to be heard. Due process would have fixed this
I got nothing I really don’t I’m it’s so hard to think about a kid that is getting the crap beat out of him by a drunk dad that needs protection needs immediate intervention. I there there, there’s going to be a victim in this on one side or the other. I don’t the margin for error on this is so small of a child literally dying versus having a kid stripped away from the family. I don’t think that’s margin of error for their for this to work.
Well that’s why they’re entitled. If they come in and there’s a child bruised and bleeding and they appear to be in danger of have not been fed, or that they have have had been abuse. They can yank the child but then they have to go through due process right away. They have to put their case together and bring it before a judicial officer and say this Why we want this child out of the home. And they have to give that family opportunity to be heard. That costs money, but that’s what we have to do. We’re talking about taking families ripping them apart. I’m sorry, do processes is expensive, right? But but that’s what we have to do. If you don’t want to do that, then that, that that’s that’s what, that’s what a society that civilized does. We just don’t come in and grab people because we have bad vibes. We go through a process of showing that that child needs to protection because of a real threat. But we don’t get to decide how how we would like children to be raised. That’s up to the family, as long as they’re not being abused or neglected.
Well, let’s close it out with a listener question. And this came from a Patreon supporter named Mike he said just catching up on older episodes listening to 100 now, man, you need to get caught up. You’re like five weeks behind on Hollywood. On the Halloween sign part not sure if this was argued or if it matters in Georgia. In New Jersey, a judge has a hearing to determine what tier and so must be classified as tier three requires community notification to only two schools, daycare, etc. Tier One is law enforcement only if a sheriff requires that and so warning sign be posted on Halloween in front of the house for a tier one or two person. Wouldn’t that be violating the order of the court? And I think to explain that slightly different that the tier one and two only have limited kind of notifications, not the entire world but if you then post a sign in somebody’s house, then everybody knows.
So in a state like New Jersey, where they have that type of system, that would be that would be a very good argument to make. Now in the in the case of the two sheriff’s that Georgia they did not say that the person was a sex offender they barely just had a sign that said don’t trick or treating at this residence. This message provided by special Baldwin County Sheriff, and this message spoke of provided by the Bucks County Sheriff. So you, you could arguably say that they were not announcing that that person was a sex offender. The what made that argument fall apart for them and the court hearing was that that the the sheriff had taken great efforts to announce it to the local media that they’ll science we’re going on sex offenders paid us to social media and hate going to the media, newspaper, TV and everything. So, so that argument was not very, very strong for him that there was no correlation between the sign and the biggest sex offender. But, but if you were to do that, without announcing the person was a sex offender, then it would be a more defensible position. But in New Jersey, unlike Georgia, Georgia doesn’t have that system. Everybody who’s registered in Georgia is listed on the internet. Right. So therefore, therefore, you would not be disturbing anything. And it’s a Georgia the Georgia system doesn’t delineate in terms of of internet Publication for people that are lower moderate risk, and and they do have a leveling system. But the leveling system doesn’t get you any benefit. In terms of internet publication, it does get you the benefit of being eligible for removal if you can get yourself down to a level one in Georgia, so he’s got a great question. In New Jersey, that would probably be a very compelling argument. In Georgia, it wasn’t such a compelling argument. It’s not stop one day.
All right. And then he has a second question says consider that a listener says sorry, any one more? How can New Jersey denied bail to everyone through a recent law and still be considered constitutional? Not many are fighting about it. While it may be a better option for some bail is specifically addressed to the United States Constitution. And we had some pre show chat with the the questioner to clarify and tighten things up. What do you have to say about that question?
Well, I happen to happen to share the concerns about the The states are moving away from cash bail. And although the cash bail system is not perfect, it has it is very discriminatory. A person a person who’s charged with the exact same crime who has roughly the same criminal history, if they set roughly the same amount of cash bond, and that’s the way those that they had scales, for example, a misdemeanor, would be $500 or thousand dollars. So if you had three misdemeanors, the bond would be $3,000. And have for for three felony in our state so that we have for four degrees of felony for three felony might be a $5,000 20 $500 bond, if you had if you had three of those would be a 70 $500 bond. Well, a personal three for three felonies was the same criminal record that may not be able to raise and $750 for the bonds and and the collateral would be at an enormous disadvantage for for for their defense and they would be in a much weaker position to negotiate a plea because the not helped, and, and they’re going to want to play to get out of get out of custody. So I recognize that but on the other hand, but what you have this replaced it is as they, they use these risk models and they take into account your age, your gender, the number of times you’ve had experience with the law, if you’ve ever had a no show, they give points, and then they they rate you as a likelihood to to to appear or to be a problem to appear. And the severity of the of the of the conditions are released are tailored around that scoring card of how many charges you’ve got, how many you’ve had, and all these all these factors. It’s kind of the the Andy perfect world of the computer, deciding it. So yeah. So so the computer spits out an algorithm based on all that. And then they fashion these conditions of release that that that that you’re subjected to You may sit in jail for quite some time today find an appropriate arrangement of conditions that will ensure that you are released. So his question is, does that violate the constitution? And the answer is I don’t know. The answer is, does does the right to bail being the right to release pending trial? Or does that mean the right to pay cash to be released pending trial? We don’t know the answer to that. What did the framers mean, but they said the right to bail, did that mean the right to be released and presumed innocent? Or did it mean the right to spend money to be released from jail? What did they mean? I do not know.
You were there? How do you not know?
Well, they didn’t let me participate in that part of I was I was pretty young then. And, but but on a serious note, we don’t know whether this violates the constitution or not because this is a new trend. And the way that the pre release is being handled, I don’t like every aspect of how Because I believe the most minimal restraint possible should be imposed on a person who’s not yet convicted. And and and I find a lot of the conditions imposed to be way excessive for a person presumed innocent. But on the other hand, just because you have 70 $500 under the old system, you would get paid that walk away with virtually no conditions except show up in court. And you’d sit in jail and rotten lose your job. If you have a job. You lose your job because you didn’t have 70 $500 is that the America that you want? I mean, that’s a very compelling question Is that the kind of country you want for for for money buys justice
well yeah as I’m you know, if Bill Gates does felony jaywalking, there’s no amount of bail that he couldn’t come up with. And someone else making minimum wage delivering pizzas or whatever, you know, they, they they have an insignificant amount of bail and it would be life altering.
I keep hearing that fella J. We’re walking I’m not aware of that bidding or crime anywhere to be as a fellow Well, I’ll find it.
I’ll find it somewhere some some bullshit city somewhere some little county has it just entrapped people with it. But But
the point the point is is relevant that that, that, that those jailhouse schedules that they had those did not take into account that it would be a relatively modest imposition on some and they could they could have bail posted range within hours. And and that was that was not a fair system either. So, what, in the pre show discussion? We mentioned that the bond funding industry had challenged that in New Mexico didn’t get any traction. He said they were making the same challenge in New Jersey. I will be interested in hopeful that will be informed as to what what the courts do with it.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:48
Because I just don’t know, what did what did they mean by the right to bail?
Certainly. All right. And, you know, it always excites me, Larry, when we have new people And we had to this week. That’s what
I that’s what I heard.
You hear that? And well, who are they? Well, one of them I really don’t know his name. His name is drill sergeant. And I’m sure his first name is not drill and last name, Sergeant. But that’s what he’s listed as. And so thank you so very much. And then absolutely monsters over the top big gigantic, thank you shout out to Scott who did a pretty pretty significant contribution to our efforts here at the podcast of registry matters.
So yes, we we thank everyone who supports us, it inspires me to get out of my aching whining, complaining about feeling bad. And and and get over here, start going through all these articles we’ve been saving all week and making sure I’ve read them and try to sound reasonably intelligent, and we do appreciate the support this it’s very kind and we hope, as I said, well thanks week or the week before, we hope we’re actually helping people understand I think we got a compliment from our super patrons that that has just gone through the process of beginning to be removed from the registry of petition. And he said that he saw evidence of of some of the stuff I say being actually the way it works.
Yeah, he said, I wanted to have him on as a guest to talk about his process, but he doesn’t want to do anything that might hamper his ability, because it gets delayed a little bit. But he says, I like a really tell you as it will took place yesterday. I suppose I could do that. So it’s the way that it went down. He said a lot of what Larry has been saying for a long time I have seen in action. So so either he’s a crackpot just like you or maybe what you’re saying is actually true. One of the other not sure which,
well, it’s like, well, we had the arsenal action call and I said to the attorney that was on and I don’t think it’s relevant to name the attorney but it’s not that long ago and I said, you know, you know, having a psychosexual evaluation is a must. And he said, Well, it’s not a must. And I didn’t mean literally With a Muslim you can do it without a psychosexual evaluation. It’s not required that the statute does not require that you have a psychosexual evaluation. But I can tell you this, if you don’t have one, you’ve just stacked the deck hard against yourself because the judge needs that to justify letting you off. And it’s not required. It doesn’t say in the statute, you need to have a goal to have a go have a chat with the prosecutor and the jurisdiction. But most states that have that process, you have to file it in the county where you were convicted unless you were convicted in another state. And in which case you got to file a Georgia for example, if you’re connected outside Georgia, you can find it in whatever county you live in, which gives you the opportunity to set your own then you can move to a county where the removal, approval of petitions approvals are higher. But if you don’t go talk to the prosecutor, you’re a fool because you need to find out what their position is going to be. Before you get to court is not required. It doesn’t say in the state. attitude. But it’s the prudent thing to do. So hopefully that’s what he’s talking about these these things, I’m telling you, you’re not required to do them. You’re not required to have an attorney either. But I can tell you one thing, if you don’t have an attorney, just like the one in Clayton County that was an attorney represent himself. Remember who we’re talking about? Yeah, we see how well that worked out for him. I do when you, when you go sit down to talk to prosecutor, first of all, they’re not going to sit down with you as the person, they’re going to avoid talking to you because that’s not the way the system is designed to work. But if they were to sit down with you, when you say, what do you think of me, they’re not going to tell you what they think of you. They’re not going to say, Well, actually, I think you’re a creeper. And I didn’t think you’ve got enough time to start with. And we’re going to be fighting like hell to keep on the registry. They’re not going to say that to you. Because they have kids, they have vehicles, they don’t want their tires or their throat slashed or anything like that. So don’t tell you, but your attorney will be able to get that information and they can come back to you and say well, Andy You know, I’ve taken your money and we can go through with this. I can tell you one thing. Their temperature hasn’t dropped one bit since you were convicted 17 years ago. And they’re going to be bringing up all the dirt that they argued 17 years ago all over again, and they’re going to be fighting tooth and nail to keep you on the registry. Wouldn’t you like to know that before you go to the hearing?
We should just go in guns blazing man and say fyp
Yeah, I mean, you would probably you would want to know that. Because then you know, what do you want to keep pouring money into the sinkhole because yes, the judge still could let you off without the prosecutors acquiescence, but it certainly diminishes your chances. So you want as much information as you can get. So therefore, you want an attorney who knows how the process works and who’s willing to go and have conversations and find out what it would take to get them to at least take no position. It’s rare they’re going to endorse or removal but if they if you can get them to take no position. That’s a victory.
Well, Larry, this is by far the longest we’ve ever recorded. And if you’ve made it this far and listening, you need to sign up over on Patreon, even at $1, because half of this podcast is going to be released on Patreon. So if if you want to get all the extra content, just a buck a month, I’ll get you there. And otherwise, to speed this whole thing, just go to registry matters dot CEO, all the links are there, and you can find where to do phone numbers, emails, all that stuff. As always, Larry, you are amazing. You’re the best. And I thank you so very much, and I will talk
to you soon. Well, thanks, Andy. And thanks, everyone, for listening. We’ve got about 70 people in chat.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai