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 super secret underground bunker transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 108 of registry matters. And what is it? It’s two days before New Year’s Eve, Larry, is at two days before
Today, Sunday. It’s the 29th
Yeah, like I said, would be two days before, two days
before, like a whole new decade. Do you remember all the controversy over changing into the year 2000. That 2000 wasn’t actually when the decade would start, but it would be 2001. And there was all this hoopla going back and forth about whether it was 2000 or 2001. For the actual, quote unquote, decade.
We have that every decade and and it’s obvious it would be 2001.
I agree because we count one to 10 and then we can start at 11. So that would be 2021 would be the next decade but it’s not a significant number because it’s not like the changing Going from the one to the two for that third digit.
Right, right for the so so we’re in the year of the zeros but 2000. But unless we, unless people want to put forth the theory that we started your zero on the calendar, then clearly you’re one will be the first year right? What year zero would have been the first year? Right there. We start at 00. I,
I wasn’t there when they started this whole thing.
did start at 02 they started.
So I believe we started at one if I remember. I thought
Unknown Speaker 1:37
you were only like 300 years old. Like 2000 2020
to be precise. Have you changed your underwear since then? No. We didn’t have underwear back then.
Unknown Speaker 1:51
Oh, okay. So you just wore like, leaves. Thanks.
Oh my god. Okay. We’re all to a bad start, Larry, can we take a quick little detour take a little, like make like the little, like you see on the TV shows? And can we do a little history of the year? 2019? And maybe they’re like, where do you see things going case law developing themes. What’s going on? Do you think for for our movement from the previous year,
was your year 2019 was was significant. And I tell people regards we, we’ve, we’ve made strides and, and GPS monitoring. The blanket GPS monitoring, has been challenged significantly around the country, based on the US Supreme Court ruling and in the Grady case, saying that clearly it’s a search and seizure and has to be has to be some reasonable relationship and some some level of reasoning for the for the search and seizure. So so that, that is that is going to continue in my view. We’re going to be challenging that in my state because our statute requires that for a certain list of sex offenses wants to people leave prison they have to be monitored in real time. And by statute that’s that’s a blanket imposition so we’re we’re seeing we’re seeing the body of case law developed there and and then we’re seeing the body of case law on social media the outright ban that body of case law was building based on packing ham and and and how for packing ham is going to extend is yet to be determined it may be at some point okay, so go back before the US Supreme Court, where they’ll clarify if there is a delineation in terms of what social media restrictions can be imposed on a supervised versus unsupervised offender but that’s a big, big developing area of case law. And, and then we’re we’re in the process of developing chase law on the on the First Amendment on compels speech with the Halloween signage in Georgia which that case is on appeal to the 11th circuit right now. So will will will likely have an appellate decision unless the appellate court decides the case isn’t right for review and they don’t they don’t hear the appeal, which is one of the contentions that the judges asserting the trial judges saying I don’t think this case is ready for appellate review yet. But but we’re we’re going to we’re going to continue to push back on on the on the compel speech with driver’s license markings and with forcing people to have signage and refrain from their freedom of expression and decorating and expressing themselves the way they would like to on the holidays because there’s there are limits to where we’re supervising authorities can go and they have to be uniquely and individually Taylor they just can’t, they just can’t impose willy nilly anything they want to do. So we’re going to We’re going to continue to see I think the case all develop in those three areas. Unfortunately, we didn’t see the golden What is it the the case are people looking forward to break down registration, the silver bullet so
yes we did was that the one at a Michigan or is that a Colorado?
Well the there is no silver bullet but but our people hope for the day that there will be a declaration that registration in and of itself is not constitutional that they is not gonna come. But we will continue to, to to retard them and their progress and ever encroaching more and more requirements and hopefully peel back when they go too far like in the case of Michigan where they couldn’t stop while they were ahead. And they just kept adding and adding requirements but but a registry and of itself is not unconstitutional, and I’ll probably have hate mail coming after This episode but merely registering a person is not unconstitutional. You have dozens if not hundreds of registry schemes that we’ve took our time that where you could where you could say people are valid, they cooperating with registration, and there’s not not anything unconstitutional. There could be a registration scheme that could be devised, that would not inflict any punishment would not run afoul of any aspect of the Constitution. It would be a very benign registry, but clearly you could have a requirement that people put their name on a list and that they, that they keep their address current with authorities. If you remove the public dissemination, and you remove data disabilities restraints in terms of employment, living proximity, that in of itself would not raise any constitutional issues that would, that would, you could have a constitutional registry. So therefore the silver bullet that people are looking for is not out there because you can’t declare that registries are unconstitutional. You can only declare each scheme as unconstitutional when you analyze that requirement, what it’s imposing and whether it’s imposing punishment. Therefore, registration and of itself does not rise to the level of something that’s facially unconstitutional. And I think we’ve talked about facial unconstitutional before, which means that there’s no set of circumstances that would be permissible to do that. For example, today, Sunday, they said you couldn’t leave your house on Sunday morning, between nine and noon. That would be unconstitutional. There’d be no set of circumstances that I can conceive of where banning people from leaving their homes between nine and noon on Sunday would be constitutional.
If we, if we take a quick step back to the social media ban, a podcast that I was listening to they were talking about the amount of how do I WEAR This the amount of community forums that are created on places like Facebook, where you create a community, a small group of people, 10 2100 people that have a like minded idea that, you know, Facebook restricts our people from being there. And I’m all in favor of the idea that they can restrict who goes on to their platform that they are a private company, but to excludes so many people from being included in any sort of discourse against with politicians that may use Facebook as a platform, being involved in your neighborhood watch program or some other you know, neighborhood community kind of things that people would want to get involved in. Where do you think things like is there any grounds for for legal action for people using those arguments?
I do believe that, that the case law is going to develop as time goes along with with we’re going to come to recognize that these platforms although they’re in the hands of private only Yep. That, that there I can tell public utility when when you the differences on a public utility that when you when you’re like, since we’re sitting on South we can look at the Southern Company which owns a number of power companies including Georgia Power, Georgia Power in exchange for being guaranteed a rate of return to, to their investors, they are giving exclusive rights to this to distribute power. And the only private partnership they operated free of competition. And, and, and, and the obligation they made to the citizens of Georgia is that they would serve everyone. And that doesn’t mean that they would extend lines hundreds of miles to your to your isolated location. But what it did mean is that if you were on their distribution, if you were then their distribution zone are close enough to take a brazenly extend service that they would they would have A fee, and they would extend you service. Well, the social media didn’t spring up exactly the same way. And I’m not really sophisticated enough to explain how much that that the taxpayer, but in terms of how social media works, what what we contribute it through our satellite infrastructure, and how much this was publicly supported. But brains are far more sophisticated than I can probably explain how, how the taxpayers were involved in creating the internet and creating the opportunity for social media. But it’s gonna it’s kind of like, the way I equated in my simple mind is that the the Civic clubs at one time excluded minorities when they excluded women. And the courts have said sorry, you can’t do that because it is it is where businesses done that’s right networking takes place, and it puts those who are excluded based on race or Gender, an extreme disadvantage, because they can’t compete if they’re not allowed in the door. And I think that that the case law is going to develop at the arguments of put forth correctly, that although Facebook is owned by private investors, that them excluding a significant number of people is is unfair, and it prohibits them from being able to fully integrate participate in the American experiment.
Very interesting. Yeah, I wanted to try and get like a recap of what had gone on in the previous year. And as always, Larry, you do a pretty impeccable job.
We’re still waiting on the on on the 10th circuit and the 11th circuit to ruin an important case the 10th circuit based in the Rocky Mountain region and Denver in the 11th circuit spaced in Atlanta, which covers Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. There was a case out of Alabama, the 11th circuit has been there for some time, and there was a case in the 10th circuit. That’s been there for some Time on the issue of registration. And as those cases come down, for example, if Alabama were to come down, similar to the those vs. Snyder case on the Alabama registry is every bit as punitive as Michigan’s if not more, then we would have we would have another circuit decision. If they allow us to dance organization dilemma circuit if the Miller persons ranking case where would it be upheld by the 10th? Then we’ve got we would have three of our of our 11 circuits, saying that registration, at least since existed those states that registration is, in fact punitive. And that might set up a case for everybody’s dream to come true that the US Supreme Court might review, again, because you’d have a significant split up on the circuit at that point. You just recently had the Fifth Circuit flush the case I think we talked about last week, right? That was that was filed challenging Texas registration. So at some point the Supreme Court might decide to weigh in because you would have the three circuit court split and you would have All the states supreme courts around the country that have said, pardon me, but this is not the same thing you were looking at when you looked at Smith versus doe back in 2003.
And if it did get to the Supreme Court, let’s just say hypothetically, they would own but they would they would they super legislate. Would they legislate from the bench? Or were they just say, would they say this one is okay, this one is not okay. This one is okay. Or would they just say these aren’t okay. And that would be the end of the story?
Well, this predicting the Supreme Court is difficult, but but I don’t think this Court’s gonna legislate much from the bench. I think they’re going to answer the question that’s polls, they’ll they’ll, they’ll carefully accept the case for a limited purpose of answering one or two questions and I’ll answer those questions and if they say that the Alabama registry is unconstitutional because of X y&z that Alabama legislature will simply do what other every other lead Fletcher does, they’ll go back and try to fix that.
And they will then will they have to rewrite the whole thing? Or do they just get to amend and fix the thing that’s go to sit bad?
Well, it depends on what Alabama law is Charlie and about Johnny. But if it’s a has a severability clause, but they will not give up on having a registry in Alabama. So regardless of what the Supreme Court would say, they’re going to try to have a registry the U haul businesses I said with get very brisk for any state that said, Well, we throw up our hands, we’re not gonna register people anymore. They’re not going to do that.
Right? No, and I get on that I understand just trying to foresee how that would play out. That is not a 2020 event either is it? That’s a 2024 event or 25 or something like that, isn’t
it? It’s a couple years out because if they both of those circuit courts were to rule in 2020. There’s there’s various maneuvers that but keep it at the circuit level for a while the the states could ask for the full, you know, we’re talking about on bike review, they could ask for for review by the full court. And and then if they were a grant full court review, that would be another year that would be tied up before. And then after, after if they don’t, if they don’t grant full court review, then there’s a process, I think 90 days they can file a petition for cert. And then if the supreme court where grants or you’re looking at this going to be decided a year after that graphs are, so we’re not talking about any quick answers. This is this stuff is painfully slow. And even victory doesn’t assure a victory because the states are not going to give up. If if they say that reporting every 90 days is akin to probation, therefore, it’s punitive. What would they do? They’d say, well, we’ll just collapse the registry will have one over they just go back and make it where they reported once every year or two. Which would they do, or would they or they substitute in person reporting for mailing forms and say well, what we got the cords concerned that they’re having reported to police station is too much like probation. Well, we’ll try having them send in a form. But just wishing that they would somehow say we give up. That’s not going to happen.
And I wish I could tell you that that’s what they’re going to do, but they’re not going to do that. And I and I appreciate your point that it’s not you know, you’re not just going to cave and see what people want you to say. And give the realistic opinion, which is certainly why you’re paid the big bucks to be here.
That is, that is correct. The big box, the big box. But but but if if it’s all a victory, if they come down and say that, that frequent reporting makes it to where it’s like probation, so therefore, person who served and paid their debt and Fulton society can’t be compelled to report in person. I know that person would prefer not to be registered. But I just about guarantee everybody would prefer to bail in a form versus going and sitting in a in a law enforcement facility and waiting to be fingerprinted, mug shots like that would be an improvement. If they were to say that Is that putting the physical addresses of people violate the right to privacy? If they were coming out, say yes, you can register them, but you can’t have their home address. I just about guarantee that people would see that as an improvement when they didn’t have to sit down and worried where the next project was going to land in their living room. So it would, it would, it would certainly be an improvement to continue to chip away at what they can do.
A question just came over chat, if someone is removed from the registry, could lawmakers changed a lot of bring that person back into register? Or once they’re removed? They’re removed? And the answer is yes, they can certainly change a lot of bringing them back in.
They absolutely can change or bring them back. Yeah, the only way they would not be able to change the laws. If the court were to say that there’s no set of circumstances where a registry would be permissible, they’re not going to be able to say that because they can’t proclaim that registering people is somehow going to be facially unconstitutional. They have to allow them to create the registry and then that, that that registry and a challenge so there, I can’t imagine now they could possibly say that the internet that we’ve grown to realize that the debilitating consequences on the internet that that can’t be done any longer, or at least certainly after you’ve paid your debt to society, but the legislators are gonna they’re gonna have an answer for that they’re going to say, well, we appreciate that we can’t do that after people are pay their debt to society. So we’re going to have to make their debt to society longer. So those going forward, but rather than getting a five year sentence, they’ll get a 25 year sentence. And they’ll get 20 years of it in the community and five years in prison or whatever, but they will do everything they can to keep, as long as the public believes that the registry keeps them safer until we debunk that myth with the public. The public is going to want this as a safety tool. And the public. If you got to take a poll, I don’t care what city you’re in. Does the registry keep people safer? I’m convinced that you’re going to get a winning hand that the majority of the people you polled were going to say yes, it’s a valuable tool that keeps keeps us safer.
Do you know how hard the NRA tries to keep Any sort of government, any of the states from from keeping electronic records of who owns or weapons so that mass dissemination can be used by the government to then go find where all the guns are and go round them all up? Isn’t this the same thing? Shouldn’t those people be our natural allies that we don’t want any sort of publicly available registry like that? I mean, law enforcement can have it if they need to know who like where, where this firearm originated from. I’m sure people oppose it. But that doesn’t sound unreasonable. But to just have a who owns this weapon, and then you have an internet address that shows you the name, address and telephone number of a person that owns such and such weapon. This this is akin to that so shouldn’t the NRA people be our natural allies?
Well, you’re missing one part and I should be as Doppel word the essay should be but they are a would immediately lose a significant support. If they if they said oh, well, this translates very well. We could switch keep the state on sex offenders. The NRA would would have a bolt of members out the door they would say well What the hell’s wrong with you, Mr. Last year?
Oh, so there are political calculations that go into these into these decisions that people make.
Every organization that raises money has political considerations, whether it be the ACLU, whether it be narshall. If you can’t alienate your donors and trying to equate the sacred constitutional amendment to all weapons was what the sex offender registry would be a failed experiment. In my view, I think you would have a major run off of nra members if they took that if they took that position.
I feel that that is a natural segue that to Can we just talk about impeachment for just a few minutes.
I guess if we’re trying to run off the remainder of our listeners,
I’m not trying to be partisan about it. I want because we were talking earlier before the show about the political calculations and I have brought up to you in phone calls and whatnot that isn’t it. So isn’t it Congress’s job to and all branches. It’s not just Congress’s job, but they put their hand on that Bible as you Say and they say they just they, you know, they’re going to defend the constitution and all that. And they believe that our president has violated that. So they are they are executing their duty to do the impeachment. And then you always throw back What about the political consequences?
I do and and in the world the way it should be? You’re correct. If the if the president what whoever the President might be, and this is for Kevin Borrego, this is the third process that I’ve witnessed in my life. And, and if you the, the Johnson one, I was just that was just a few years before I was born, but the remainder of my career my lifetime. They they believing that the President has has has broken and the law and done something detrimental to the nation, the high crimes and misdemeanors that’s not really clearly defined. That’s fair game for for investigation. But but but what what makes that so horrible for for impeachment is that that the the founding fathers put it in a political process they didn’t put it in. And they didn’t put it in something that’s supposed to be insulated from politics they put the process right square in the middle of the people’s house and the people there’s been no one ever appointed to the House of Representatives by knowledge, every single person who served in the house has been elected by the people. They put this in the people’s house, which means a subject to politics before it ever makes it to the Senate chamber for trial. And, and this is a political analysis that has to take place. When you start trying to remove a president from office. You’re running into a political analysis. That’s not the way necessarily should be but that’s the way it is. And and I have said from the get go where they started this process that does support is just not there. We look at what in 73, when, when the 74, when the patron process that gained the most traction was underway. The support for the president, there was very little tolerance deployment happened in 73. Was was was that was shocking. The President being involved in a cover up. It is on board saying what he said in the smoking gun tape was not acceptable to the American people. What we’ve got today as we don’t have the smoking gun, we have a transcript. And we have a transcript where arguably it means one thing and arguably it means another, and we don’t have the smoking gun and there is no overwhelming desire to remove this president from office. So therefore, in a political process, you can’t win. And that’s what I said from the from the beginning.
So if that’s the case, then why would Nancy Pelosi then initiate the whole thing of going down with Adam Schiff and doing the best And moving over to Grassley. Is that right? who was in charge of the judiciary to actually bring up the Articles of Impeachment? Chuck Grassley? Is that right?
Well, he’s on the Senate,
then that’s not the right person. I can’t remember who the person in the house is that actually drafted the Articles of Impeachment?
Yes. Yes. And so, you know, and then the issue of the two articles of impeachment. So that’s why would she then make that political calculation if then not to? She has a whole bunch of freshmen Congress, peoples, that one in 18 that are potentially in very red districts that are, you know, on shaky ground? Why, why do you think then she made that political calculation to go down that route?
Well, she has a different set of considerations. She’s, she’s elected to be the Speaker of the House and you can rest assured that it takes explain for those to be the Speaker of the House, the only main speaker of the house, if you get a majority of the four and 35 and you’re going to get the majority of the four and 35 from your caucus. I can just about guarantee you from liking who voted for there wouldn’t be a whole lot of Republicans, if at all. Vote for Nancy to be speaker of the house. So therefore, she’s got the couple of gather a majority. Well, if you’ve got a significant class being led by AOC, Alexandria liceo federal courthouse, whatever name is pressuring her for impeachment, her speakership is in jeopardy. Because if the if those, if that wing of the party bolts from her She don’t want her house and support to be speaker. And so she so she had to decide whether she wanted her speakership to tumble before the end of her term. Or if she wanted to try to prolong her speakership and hope that something would come out of this that would resonate with the American people. Clearly she has calculated incorrectly. Her speakership has survived. So she did that calculation correctly, but the American people have not latched on in massive numbers to support this removal of the President. And therefore, it could be very well that the Democratic Party pays and at the polls in November 2024, what people see as a person which I don’t think it’s a part of which and I think that there’s some significant issues that have been brought out in terms of the impeachment, but it has not resonated with the American people they could understand in 73, the president directing a cover up of, of the of the breaking, breaking in of the Democratic Party headquarters, and using the powers of the FBI to thwart the investigation. They can understand the Saturday that massacre and the firing of Attorney General the Deputy Attorney General and finally the Solicitor General agreed to care about the prevalence or they could understand that when people revolting against the president, that there was something bad going on the presidency, they do not connect things with this president as being bad going on. On a large enough significant number to make this impeachment viable is going to go around in the Senate. If it ever if it ever starts is gonna end the way the Clinton and page my data as the votes are just got to be there.
And one final question on that. Do you think that has anything to do with how we are consuming media these days where
Unknown Speaker 27:13
to call it code to call blue versus red one side is hearing a completely different conversation than the other one?
Really? I don’t know if I think they’re hearing a different conversation. I think that that would agree that the the President has an ability that President Nixon didn’t have it in 73 and 74. We had if President Nixon was going to get anything out, he had to go through Walter Cronkite and he had to go through the three networks. President Trump doesn’t need to go through the three networks he’s got 6070 million people that he can he can push a button that are listening to him right away. Correct. And, and so in that regard, I agree with you. But if you actually dig below the surface, that the information is there, I’ve been handed the articles a peach moto friend of mine, I said, You know, I don’t What’s so confusing about this? It’s clearly what the evidence shows the allegations are. He hasn’t been. He hasn’t been tried in the Senate, which is the way the founder setup the trial take place. But clearly, they make it clear. There’s no doubt about what the allegations are. If you read the end, what is it nine pages? You just pulled it this morning? Yeah. Yeah. So the allegations are clear, but I don’t think I think we’re desensitized. I don’t think it’s team ready with the blue. I think I think that the volume of information out there is just so much noise that people are just desensitized. They’ve heard enough, and they’ve made their mind up and they don’t. It’s hard to get people to go back once they’ve made their mind up and be open minded. The American people decided, just like they did in Clinton, the republicans went on to switch up make it 1998. And they failed. And and some people say it’s payback. I don’t think it’s paid back. But I think it’s going to end up the same way that that one did it.
Did they pay a cost in the next election? They did not.
They did. They did not they maintain their majority in 98. And they’ve maintained their resort majority through 2004. Before before the republicans lost their majority of the Congress. So now they did not pay a price.
Well, alright then. Do you? Are you ready to go over some some amazing articles that we collected over the last couple weeks?
Sure, you’re going to be you’re going to be explaining some of things that are above me.
Unknown Speaker 29:27
I would say they’re above you. They’re just different than you.
Well, the first one that we have is from propublica. And, Larry, I don’t know how you could put somebody in a cage and prevent them from like they they obviously can’t earn a living wage of any sort for them to profit get health insurance that they could provide for themselves, but the article here is how some chefs for forced their inmates into medical debt that as they have any sort of injuries, maybe they have a tooth that has to be dealt with. So they have dental costs and they have all these things that they rack up massive medical bills, and they just add it to their tax. And I guess then on the other side that they then they say that even upon release that they have to pay these bills back. Do they? Do they end up in debtors prison that if they don’t pay, they get locked back up or just that they have this tab and they send bill collectors after them?
Well, I think it’s just a civil matter. But but this is this is interesting because this comes from state of Alabama, which is not one of our most forward thinking states. But you’ve got sheriff’s that are joining counties that take a completely different view. If you read the article, one sheriff says I see it this way. And the other sheriff says I see it this way, in terms of what I do with with people who who who need medical care whether in custody of our jail, and arguably, the sheriff who says that I don’t pay for it. Our department doesn’t pay for it if it was a pre existing condition. I mean, that’s not a totally rational view, except for the point that you’ve already made is that the person Some is not able to generate income to pay for that because they’re in a cage. So how do we overcome? What may be a valid concern is that you may have already had this condition you’ve been treated for this for five years. How do you overcome that? Yes, it’s a pre existing condition, but I can’t do for myself, because I’m not able to earn any money. I mean, I get paid nothing while I’m here. So what’s the balance on that?
I’m thinking about somebody with diabetes. I mean, they could come in and they have diabetes. What do you do you withhold their insulin from the mother gone?
That’s some expensive stuff. It is
expensive stuff. But if they don’t get it, then they die and they weren’t sentenced to death.
Well, they made an apparent county jail or may not have even been sentenced at all. I mean, very, very often, people in county jail are in pre trial detention, because they haven’t had that liberal do good bail reform that that does take it cash component out of it. And so that’s, that’s quite common. There. But in Baldwin County known for its flight, the Gulf beaches According to Article, the sheriff’s office ensures that inmates in the county jail do not have to pay anything more than a $50 copay which can be a lot if you don’t have any money. And he says a bites are not bill for the full cost of any medical care either inside or outside the jail. That’s what Sheriff Hoss Mac not Can you imagine somebody’s name hos
yes I am Sheriff hos Mac and you should vote for me for Sheriff
but just across the bay emobile County home to one of the business ports that you asked to thousand people sir Sure, Sam Cochran takes a different tack so him and mates are personally on the hook for the full cost of medical care they receive from outside doctors while incarcerated even if they are awaiting trial. It seems like to me that that that you need some clarity from the state of Alabama and terms of that because he shares should not be able to have their own fiefdom board. I can decide that that’s what I think is needed as either state or judicial direction.
But even even at a $15 copay it depending on how healthy or not so healthy you are, you could rack up, you know, 15 bucks in prison is a is a good chunk of change. I mean, that’s a lot of soups and stamps.
All right, can I recognize that but it shows a lot better than thousands of dollars. It certainly
is that and then the argument comes, shouldn’t you force people to have some skin in the game so that they’re not just trying to go to medical to go hit on the nurses up there, like you know that you have to put some sort of barrier, some resistance there to keep them from abusing it?
Well, that’s the argument that law enforcement is made work for these co pays, but I think it’d be important to clarify that. It’s one thing to leave a correctional facility owing a governmental entity in most cases, the accumulation of CO pays of three 510 $15 times whatever number of CO pays you Oh, it’s another thing to have been in a hospital setting where you were taken to the hospital tour emergency room, and you’ve got a $2,900 bill for an afternoon visit, and then have the private debt collector coming after you and racking up on your credit. And all likelihood the government is not going to sue you for $90 in unpaid co pays, that when you leave, that’s just going to be an unpaid debt to the facility.
At the end of the article, it says Alabama law states that necessary clothing and bedding must be furnished by the sheriff or jailer at the expense of the county to those prisoners who are unable to provide them for themselves and also necessary medicines and medical attention to those who are sick or injured. When they are unable to provide them for themselves. I guess they’re not withholding it. They’re just charging you for it. Yep. So now we’re not withholding anything. Oh, so and I’m is the answer here. You don’t have a problem with it?
Well, I think we need some clarity from from from either the legislature or from the court. Someone’s gonna have to sue Of course, nobody can sue because they don’t have any
money. And that would be The same as like the Public Defender’s Office of it’s just underfunded and who’s going to go represent those that don’t have the money to go represent themselves.
Well, I’m not sure the public defender could even do this because it’s not it’s a civil action.
We are we are a basket case of bad things, man.
Well, you either love this country get out.
Oh, that’s right. Well, I can’t get anywhere. I can’t get anywhere I want to go because I have this little black cloud over me.
Well, that’s your problem. Find a way to get out.
All right, this next article comes from the Washington Post. Police slammed a man’s head into a car that they thought he had stolen video shows. And then he died. The person whose car was stolen, later said oh, by the way, my car had been recovered. So the cops I think, recovered the wrong car. Is that right?
I thought they recovered the right car and the he had not reported that it had been recovered.
Yet it says Ward however, did not tell law enforcement That he had recovered the car. So I’m inclined to think that they had actually found the wrong car. Regardless of I don’t think that carjacking in our country has been elevated to a death sentence upon captured by the police.
Well, he ought to have not tried to evade the police. We have this over and over again. Just comply.
So when the police come knocking on the door, and they say, put your hands in the air, get naked dance on one foot, you’re just supposed to do whatever they ask you to do
you do it if I tell you that they want to come in and search your house. You let them because you have nothing to hide. And I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand. If you’re out driving on a Sunday afternoon, and you’ve taken your family to picnic and I pull up to you and ask you what you got in the trunk. Just open the trunk comply.
What’s the first Fourth Amendment for exactly
what it does? That’s all mumbo jumbo. If you don’t, if you don’t have anything to hide, just make the officers job. Don’t give the officer hard time, open your truck. Let him run the dog through it. Let the dog climb in your car and scratch up with a nails. Don’t worry about all this stuff. You guys are just too uptight in this country. Police are out there trying to do a hard job and all you guys are trying to do is interfere with police and if you would just comply this guy let’s see. It seems like to me if he to just a few to just complied he would have got his head bashed, of course that that aren’t even sure about that because they said that they that they used a pit maneuver to stop the guy.
And that’s where they put the front end of the police car against the rear end of the other car and they spin it out. I forget what the pit stands for but it’s an acronym for something and it has disastrous effects sometimes.
Well, it said please try to stop or but but what’s not clear is that they engage their overheads that he refused to stop because you don’t normally do the pit maneuver unless a person refuses to stop
but they did say in there that they had police chase stuff. going on at speeds up to 70 miles an hour. That’s not even like a high speed chase. It’s almost like a OJ Simpson, sort of high speed chase.
Right. But if you’d been the victim of a car theft, why would you not stop when the police try to pull you over that? I mean you’re just making excuses for misbehavior.
So when they did finally get the guy to stop his name’s Blount, they, I’m sorry when Blount pulled Ward’s head out so blunts the police officer pulled words out of the window by his hair and slammed it into the car frame. A crunching noise rang out as Ward moaned, and then they chased him. And then he died.
Oh, he’s got himself to blame.
He’s got himself to blame. All right, then. We should just move on. I know that you’re in favor and you say you don’t see a problem with this stuff.
Well, I Why was he running from the police? He had to have done something.
Unknown Speaker 38:51
Maybe he was late to get his girlfriend from work.
Well, but But why didn’t he just pull over?
That is Clear, but maybe he had an agenda. Maybe he wanted the car. So maybe he was doing something wrong. But I still come back to and ask the question of, was it a death sentence?
Well, I don’t think I’m a good police officer didn’t intend that when you bash a person’s head against the car, you don’t intend or bad things to happen. He was trying to follow his trading to make sure that the person did not pose any threat to either himself or to the other officers, and that he was trying to mobilize and he did that.
And isn’t there’s something in there about them doing the sleepy maneuver on him with the carotid artery thing?
I think there was Yeah.
Or two artery I’m looking at the article.
Now it’s not in this one.
Yeah, it is. It says a little then fired. a taser award has worked continue to move block tried to put him in a carotid restraint, which police sometimes used to block a person’s carotid artery and cause them to become unconscious. You would know this, Larry, if you had watch like WWF or WWE is it’s called and they grabbed the guy and they put his arm up and They put his arm up and all this. And then the ref comes over and starts lifting up his arm, because then they put him to sleep. Yeah, I’ve seen those. It’s complete bullshit fake, but in this case, I don’t think it’s actually a fake fake maneuver. And anyway, so they He appeared to hold him for like 30 seconds. And this. So then they said, is he unconscious? And then the other officer said, Nah, man, we need medical, get medical. There you go steal or die.
So, oh, well, I think that a serious note that that stealing our car when you’re trying to pull over a person if the car he had not reported as being recovered, the officer would have been on higher alert for for possibly a bad things to happen. But I don’t think being on high alert for bad things to happen would merit the reaction that what we saw here, and there’s always stuff that we don’t see you’re here. But it seems like that this was a really extreme reaction to, to pulling over a person who might be in possession of a stolen vehicle. Yeah. And so so I would, I would say that we is the example of the need for for police oversight and better training that of course the officer wants to be safe. I don’t I don’t have any quarrel with that. But being safe is one thing. And engaging in maneuvers that’s going to be life threatening. So another that that’s that’s not being safe.
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 744771 to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast we want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry keep fighting without you we can’t succeed you make it possible and then over at news dot Bloomberg law com accused job pornographer can’t ask a jury to ignore law. Under what circumstances would you ask a jury to ignore the law? Larry, I don’t even understand how that would be a thing you’ve been brought into court because you broke a law. So how would you say don’t don’t pay attention that law don’t look at the man behind the curtain.
Well, this is this is what you do. If you get generally don’t ask directly you you suggested through the way you present your defense to the jury nullification would be, would be ideal. And if you think back to I think two episodes back, we had the we had the clip from the judge who said merely the bassinger Congress gave you this stuff. Yeah. So so these are these are cases where there were this this large sentenced 15 years. It looks like what he’s facing is a mandatory sentence. The the defense strategy has to say that since that are such a significant mandatory minimum that is disproportionate to the crime. So therefore, the jury should in order to save him, because the only way they can save him is just not convicted. That that’s what they were going to directly argue for. And although I wasn’t able to get into the full article, the it’s it’s clear that a writ of mandamus was issued, preventing the trial judge from allowing that to be put forth as a as an argument to the jury and a mandamus is one of those legal vehicles that used to compel the performance or prevent the performance? It’s normally used for an administrative rip or for an agency, that’s that’s not doing something that are required to do, or they’re over there doing something that’s above and beyond your scope of authority, but it looks like the appellate court issued a mandamus tell a judge, you cannot allow that. So the state, the prosecution, said, though, that that’s not appropriate, because I guess they’re afraid that actually won’t get the nullification. So So, but that’s what’s going on there that the mandatory minimum is so horrendous. It’s disproportionate to the to the crime. So they’re saying just nullify this. They’re not being allowed to make that argument.
We don’t even know how old the person accused is. It says he had consensual naughtiness with a 15 year old and she knew the video was being made and he never showed it. Anybody? That’s all kinds of weird facts, then how did anybody find out about it?
Well, I guess I guess it wasn’t as benign as we’re hearing there. If someone found out about it.
Maybe she told somebody about it that she was knockin boots with. Well, we don’t even know how old he is. But maybe he’s like, 80 years old. Maybe he’s like your age.
No, I actually I’m the oldest person still alive in this country.
Alright, well, then let’s move on since we can’t dig into that one anymore. Oh, this is the this is the article about the the police shootings in California, which we seem to keep having a question. articles about in one California city police kill with near impunity. This sounds so familiar from an article that we just covered about this. Maybe we drop this from last week. But this is the cop that killed two people in less than a year. I think.
I think he’s killed more than that. This isn’t the VA Oh, yeah.
Why? Why do we have police that that can actually you know, I can I can understand a circumstance where like the bank robbers are running out and they’re like laying down fire and you’re huddled behind your police car and you shoot back I can, like that seems, you know, hey, you can respond with force if they bring force to you. But I don’t think that this guy ends up like they’re police officers that go their entire careers and never draw their weapon. And this guy’s killed two people within a year. And I still just always wonder how do we end up in the situation where we have police killing citizens?
Well, in this particular city of 100,031 people have been shot since the past decade 17 of them fatally and people talk about what a dangerous job the police have. It seems like to me that if you’re living in that city that there’s some danger coming back to you from the police.
Yeah, no doubt. I wonder what the statistic like what what’s the population of your like your actual town? Are you actually in like the metropolis of the big city?
I’m in the city. So we have somewhere between five and 600,000 people. And we have we’ve had nowhere near that number of what’s my question? Yeah. So it is that we did have a spate of fuel shootings that brought the bed under the Obama department justice, probably the feds. And we’re under a consent agreement with with with the US Department of Justice, to retrain our police. And there has been a dramatic decline since the retraining says to consent decree. But our police department has been notorious. through the decades I’ve been in Albuquerque that they’ve they’ve had a disproportionate number of fatal police encounters. And some of them are very benign circumstances kind of like what we showed in the hotel with the guy with just his boxer briefs on sure or the lady in Dallas like three months ago where she was just there at her house and the cops come up to the door and shooter shot through the window. So you know that the way the training is really a problem. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not professing to be a police training expert. But what I do know from from what I’ve read is that they, that they tell, the officer said anybody can kill you and they have them on hair trigger alert to fire, the slightest thing. And they do these simulated trainings where they tell them over and over, you would be dead, you did fire in time, you would be dead. This person can kill you so so so a lot of people don’t make it through the police academy. Because they don’t they don’t have the impulse to fire quick enough. And I think we’re gonna have to revisit that because when people are being shot with a soft drink can somewhat with no weapons at all, or in slow moving vehicle where you could just sidestep the vehicle and let it go by this, this is really a problem. And these in this particular city, somebody shooting sat down very, very question.
So I so the officers named Kenny and it says, Kenny said Barrett pulled his hand partially out of the pocket exposed. A dark object. Kenny open fire striking buried in the chest on the arms Barrett spawn and subsequent shots struck him in the back end. But before he fell onto his stomach, because he exposed a dark object from his pocket, which could have been I don’t know, maybe his wallet. Well, and then another
one that said that the police statement was it that the suspect had wrestled away the flashlight. But when they recovered the flashlight, there was no DNA. There was no fingerprints. There was nothing tying that flashlight to the suspect.
So you just point this at
training? I do. The significant problem was was was training. I mean, they we got to teach the police to react the way that we want them to react. And we get to tell the police how to deploy their weapons. wasted down and let the police decide how to train and help to allow weapons to be deployed. Now in California, they’ve just they’ve recently started to push back. And I think we talked about a statewide statewide policy in terms of the use of deadly force.
Yeah, they’ve pulled back on it. And the way the thing reads To me, it seems like they’ve actually made it easier, but it’s actually anyway, they can’t use deadly force as easily as they could in the past.
Well, that’s, that’s what we have to do, because clearly the police have not been able, on their own volition to restrain themselves. And that’s normal. I mean, can you imagine any group of employees you’ve been around if you were allowed to write your own rules for engagement? Can you imagine how you would write the rules?
I would give myself a very large pay raise. What would you
I mean, suppose you worked in a soccer crew overnight in a grocery store. And you got to dust hours, the rules of what equipment us on how many Many hours you work how you deploy the equipment, you probably you probably have some pretty easy work conditions.
Yeah, I mean, it’d be like a three hour workday with two hour long breaks in between and gold plated seats.
And somehow another we’ve we’ve got to overcome this notion that the police are somehow able and should be able to determine how they police. Clearly, you’re not gonna you’re not going to micromanage the command staff. But you are going to provide the basic framework of how if we decide you don’t get deployed with certain equipment, the reason why the British cops are not armed with weapons because they’re not allowed to be. Yeah. The public doesn’t tolerate that. And we would we would be in the best position to draw the parameters around what the police are allowed to do, who they’re allowed to handcuff when they’re allowed to use restraint when they’re allowed to use tasers when they’re allowed to turn dogs loose. We can’t just leave those important decisions up to the police officer, him or herself. Because clearly, we’ve got sufficient evidence to, to to recognize that they cannot make those distinguishing decisions. And there may be some people who will will not want to be a police officer with the, with the constraints we impose on them. That’s the same thing we deal with what all professions some people don’t want to be astronauts when they find out what they’re required of that.
I think that’s a case where you would say something to the effect of, they can’t self regulate.
That is what I’m saying. But But, but when we make we make the conditions for employment, some people will find them objectionable. And some people will not be able to meet those standards. They’ll say, Well, if I’m don’t have to do all that, I don’t be a polies. And we say yes, we understand that. And then we if we, if we make this, the work conditions too harsh and we can’t attract anybody to do the work, we’ll have to rethink that. But I don’t believe that that would be the outcome. I believe if we actually make the police departments or agencies of law enforcement more inclusive, and more available to, to to a broader spectrum of society, I think we’d actually have more candidates to be able to be in law enforcement. I think people turned down police work because they don’t want to act the way that we require of them. But I believe people actually are shut out of it because this is this is more than they can handle. They don’t they don’t want to do what’s required under the current way that we do business.
And this also reflective of of how almost like bifurcated the the society is that we want people to run around and be tough and protect us and then there’s another class of people that would like, I just want to be left alone. And I don’t know if this is a reflection of who we are.
Yes, it is.
Alright, then let’s move over to a New York Times article stamping out online sex trafficking may have pushed it underground. We so this is from foster and sesto which is I always like fight online sex trafficking and I forgot what the c’est is. I don’t ever remember the They’re they’re very silly acronyms to me. But you have you had, pays places like Craigslist. And then there’s another one called back page. And just other miscellaneous places where, hey, if you’re, if you’re a person and you want to make a few extra bucks and perform acts for people that you could advertise, and I mean, not that it would be legal. But anyway, they made it illegal for the platforms to host the pages of someone offering companionship of some sort. And in doing so, they then moved all this stuff very, very far underground, making, it seems that would be easier if they knew where it was, instead of having it on perhaps the dark web, perhaps on unknown private forums and whatnot. But so by taking away by introducing these laws and signing them, they, they made it much harder for police to even do any investigative work in tracking these things down including child sex trafficking.
That is what we’re learning from that sometimes we don’t think like just feels good. And it’s difficult to oppose. And and now one of the lawmakers that was involved in this is quoted in the article saying, Representative roll. Connor, you see that paragraph there starts with a representative bro. a democrat from California was one of the few votes against the bill last year as that he believed Congress should have heard more about these concerns. He helped write the new legislation to study the law after hearing from more sex worker advocates. They didn’t hear the perspective of the impact of have having sex workers. He said of his colleagues and and and now there’s there’s talk of repeal. But but the supporters are saying it’s having the desired effect that it’s that it’s curbing sex trafficking?
Unknown Speaker 55:49
Well, you could say it’s curbing it because you don’t know about it.
Unknown Speaker 55:53
While you could.
If you are unaware that there are places where people are advertising and soliciting and things of that nature, you don’t necessarily know that a person that has gone missing has been moved into the black market to be sold.
Unknown Speaker 56:09
What agree with that?
And aren’t that here’s, here’s my big question for you. Aren’t we all uppity, uppity about not having the government get up in our business and tell us what we can and can’t do?
Well, yes, I’ll have to agree with that as
well. So why do we want the big old bad government to use your terms? Why would we want them saying what we can and can’t do on the internet? Aren’t we adults and shouldn’t we be able to self regulate?
Well, now that’s a different question. Was bread exception? sex workers or, or that’s not a legal profession. I made us the oldest professional supposedly, but it’s not legal.
Unknown Speaker 56:50
but and so so then you should, like you should prosecute the person doing the act. If you you can pay Someone to be a quote unquote escort to accompany you to a function of some sort and just be arm candy. And what happens after that as your business, but if someone is actually advertising that they’re performing services, that would be the illegal part. But this has all been shut down as far as I understand it.
Well, they the personals on Craigslist and some of those other sites that I’m not familiar with was it’s a back page.
Unknown Speaker 57:23
Right back page.
Yeah, Back Page was the place. Yeah, those those
those have gone away. But I guess what we’re learning all over again. Is that what you really think we’ve learned this from probation? But But banning something that there’s a demand for? Does it make it magically go away? Right. So these people who want to engage in hiring for the services, they’re going to look for alternative means to find them and the people that are providing the services are going to try to find a way to market their Good so as long as there’s there’s a demand for
it, would this then also be a situation where I know somebody’s going to get their their their morals offended by what I’m going to say, if someone wants to sell their body, and that’s how they’re going to make their living? Wouldn’t this be a decent idea to have some level of regulation so that you can make sure that people remain some level of safe and that they’re doing it without having to spread diseases about and you know, they get regular health care checkups so that we keep the population safe as a whole. If you clamp down and say, No, you’re not going to do the naughty with anybody. Like, I don’t think that’s necessarily the right answer either.
Well, that’s the age old question. Very well now people who profess that they’re such big believers in civil liberties, they are the first to come in and and and and they usually use the biblical perspective of why this they they They say that, that that’s an abomination. And that sex should be between a married man and a married woman, not Adam and Eve. I mean intimacy, you say all this kind of stuff. So it’s usually user driven from a religious point of view. But if you’re truly about government intrusion and not having government intrusion, you would exactly do what you said you would say, well, for my personal belief, I don’t believe that, that, that, that this glorifies God, and I’m not going to be engaging in it, but whatever that person is doing, that goes against God, they’re gonna have to pay for that. And as long as they’re not doing anything, that that that’s a violation of another human individual’s rights. If they want to go out and hire a sex worker, that’s up to them. I mean, you’re not going to go to hell for someone hiring a sex worker.
That’s right. So I think that we should let people act on their own volition in this regard, and if that’s how they want to make money, and that’s how they want to get their jollies often. Like I don’t know why this isn’t like thing that we need.
Well, but but magically people do not believe that’s where they insert their, their, their Christian or religious values into other people’s lives. They would tell you that, that God wants me to go out and try to save as many as I can’t have one way I save you is by by delivering the message to you. And by taking temptation away from you and making it where that you can’t do these evil things that will prevent you from having a relationship with God. That’s what they would say something along that line.
Okay, we will be this sir. If we would equate this to a sugar tax if we were if we taxed the crap out of sugary beverages. Do you do you think that that would have an impact on getting people to drink less soda?
I think we’ve got a significant evidence that shows us the price of something goes up the consumption goes down those the lasticity of demand We’ve seen that in the smoking population robbing from something approximating 50% in 1960s. Down to the, to the teens today, the price of cigarettes is going up and up and up. And yes, I think that if we if we taxed sugar enough, I think people would probably use less of it. Yes.
Do you think if we made an outright ban on it, let’s call it I don’t know, prohibition? Do you think that that would stop all consumption of it?
No, it would not. Hmm.
Did we try that in the I don’t know your teenage years or so like that in the early 1900s?
Yes, we did. That’s I’m saying it would it would not be there would be people who would pay. We’ve learned that from smoking, people still pay $10 a pack on the west coast. And they still smoke at a lower rate than they do in North Carolina. But they still smoke. So I guess they would still smoke or they would still drink the sugary water at I don’t know where we’re going with this because it’s in society’s interest that fewer people drink the sugary carbs or sugar water because of We have less public health costs to endure. And we have more produce less ad first impact on productivity. I hate to break it to you, but a person who has all sorts of health ailments related to obesity and diabetes, they are not as productive of a human being as a person who does. I mean, that’s just the reality of life.
No, certainly that and where I was going with, just like the public policy side of it, that if you prohibit something from being done, somehow that makes people want to do it more. If you just say, hey, make the drinking age 15. I don’t think the European countries have nearly the drinking problems that we do in the United States, and we keep making it harder and harder for people to drink. I’m no fan of people drinking either. But hey, man, like, enjoy and don’t make it such a taboo thing making people like Hey, man, you want to go get drunk tonight because that seems like that should be the thing to do because it’s been prohibited.
Well, we’re gonna get we’re gonna get a real life test to that now because the Trump administration has just raised the Dave arbitrarily decided that Anyone under 21 can no longer buy vaping or cigarette products. Now that has traditionally been a decision left to the States. And this is the people who believe so fervently that the decisions made locally or better that they’ve decided to use the powers of the federal government to impose a mandatory age of 21. I’m not sure when it takes effect, but I think it’s very soon. So we’re going to find out if that if that curbs if making it harder to do curves, the young people’s appetite for vaping and for for tobacco products will soon will soon start to get data with the next couple years while we
Yes, certainly states rights, federal government age 21. Interesting. Doesn’t that create a SCOTUS challenge?
Well, maybe. But I think the hypocrisy of the whole thing because these are the people who run on the platform off state right, the states rights. And then they go they go and totally obliterate the states rights by say, well, we’re going to have use of powers of the Big Bad federal government. Come in here and tell you that your your your vaping and your smoking and your tobacco products age is going to 21 across the country
that on the heels of half dozen dozen people dying from inhaling like wacky weed inside of their their vaping products. As I understand it, I could have that wrong.
Well, there’s been there’s been some issues with vaping. But I haven’t done enough research to understand what they are. But yes, this is like they just came out in the last week or so. This is a railroad. I’m 100%
with you. I hadn’t really thought about that one until just now. Are you ready to move on to a liberal do gooder governor making voting rights available to 80,000 people? Are we there?
Oh my god. And this is totally just like as a follow up to the Kentucky Governor doing it.
Yes, this is the this was actually done by lawful. In New Jersey there. They’ve opened up voting voting for people on under supervision. Celtic of the governor signed it
and was Kentucky, only Former so they’re off of paper and all that stuff
he said was one of those states that made the majority of the states, Reem franchise you after you paid your debt to society. But now more and more states are letting people vote. What’s the outside the walls? There’s a couple states up and liberal New England the leg you vote while you’re beyond the walls? Yes. And I think it’s a Vermont and Maine or Vermont and New Hampshire one of those two, it’s Bernie state is one of them. from
Vermont. Yeah. And so this is 80,000 people while on probation and parole are allowed to fully participate in the democracy and does it say in there whether they have to do anything? Or does it just happen?
Apparently just happens.
Because I believe here in Georgia, I have to go ask for it back.
So that wasn’t my understanding. that once you complete your sentence, you’re just have to re register to vote. I didn’t get to file anything. I thought I had to ask
for the permission. Maybe that’s just for the gun side of things to try and get gun rights back.
Yeah. And you’ll never get those back from the federal government now. Whatever. I that doesn’t bother me for but but you know, but you know, this is a this is a left wing strategy cuz I know that these people they’re they’re looking for votes and and they’re trying to get more and more people to vote for lefties and this is just all about about trying to win elections is what this is about. It’s got nothing to do with morality at all.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:23
Do you actually believe that? I do not.
I think the evidence overwhelmingly shows that these people do not vote democratic. No, but
I know but do you think that it is? Do you think that the states are doing it because it’s the right thing to do? Or because it’s politically expedient? Because
I think I think in this case we’re doing because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a part of the re rehabilitation process and people can’t vote. They’re not fully participating. Of course, if we, if we take this down and all life is we don’t as we know, it doesn’t end then we can, we can move other barriers like possibly making the record go away from public view after so many years. So this was a stepping stone towards Fully reintegrating people who have made mistakes. And I think I don’t think it’s, I don’t think there’s any sinister motivation. I think we’re just realizing that it’s a part of the rehabilitation process to have people participate.
And since I, since I like to call things red or blue, I know the Cory Booker is like, this is one of his big, big, big platforms is about criminal justice reform things. Are there any red folks that support these kinds of ideas? Yes. Do they come out numbers?
I think, I think unlimited ways. Yes. I mean, like, so what was it we had the first step it was, it was pretty bold to start with before before it got watered down in the Senate by the the core of six led by Tom Cotton from Arkansas. But yes, I think there’s I think there’s significant bipartisan support for this. I don’t see this as a red or blue issue. They have different motivations. The Republicans finally realized that they’re spending way too much money on so
this is from from their side, it’s from an economics point of view.
But but it doesn’t matter when you’re when you’re trying to build coalition of support for something. For whatever reason someone is supporting you. That’s all you care about, because the goal is to get people back in functioning society. And I think the best quote on the first step back was when lindsey graham I think we played it on this podcast. They said those people need to be working paying taxes, rather than rather than consuming. He didn’t say rather than consuming but but that’s by inference that these people need to be out working and pay in taxes.
And that’s something you Trump it Oh, boy.
Well, yes. But even more running a trillion dollar deficit at the federal level. Yes, we need more people pay taxes. I don’t know why you don’t see that. That’s okay. Well, it is okay. nobody’s saying anything about it. Only a few only a few renegades are saying something about it as acceptable only become an issue or Gail most we have democratic administration and then don’t become an issue again.
You know, I’m trying to like goad you into getting all of our listeners to go away. Right.
Well, I wish all of our listeners would actually look at that issue because it was so important until until this President got elected. And then we were going to have this massive windfall of money that’s going to come in and balance the budget with the tax cuts. And of course, that never happens. So I would like for our listeners to look at, well, we’ve heard the song a dance so many times about the windfall revenue that we’re gonna have gushing revenue, and we’re going to have a surplus and we have not had that we’ve had that may be the result of this failed experiment. But we keep talking ahead and
doing it again. Didn’t I always forget if it was Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Didn’t one of them like, shut down the government based on some budget shortfall crap in 2010 or 2012? Somewhere in that ballpark?
That’s been so many shut down. So I can’t I can’t remember. But
number one of them two knuckleheads actually, like stop like, shut everything down and filibustered forever. To on the whole budget concept. Yes.
When Obama was president, Yes, they were. So that was that was important then, but like I say, it will be important again, until we have a democratic administration.
So So can we mark the words that in 2021 when the The new president is inaugurated that all of a sudden becomes an issue.
If I were to be a Democrat, what would be a become an issue? Again, all of a sudden these people that have been letting spending go through the stratosphere, what all of a sudden be concerned about spinning? I get? I got you.
So all right over at the New York Times, coaching legends were accused of abuse Will someone finally pay? This is an article related to statute of limitation things where they’re they’re pushing them out, either for a very long period of time, or indefinitely to where you can sue, I guess, only for civil damages. Is that correct? These aren’t criminal damages.
That’s what I was reading on this. It’s still it’s still sad to me. I mean,
I am really totally baffled. But so I, I believe that the problem that people as soon as someone says, I was the victim of something, you go, Oh, I’m sorry. The person has to pay. Well, who’s the person Okay, father Johnson is the person that has to pay for this. And like father Johnson is just naturally guilty of this thing, even though like he could be A perfect person and hasn’t done anything but we just now assume that this person is an evil vile person, and we should then persecute him till the ends of the earth. And the person has no ability to defend themselves, never giving them their due process rights.
Well, the civil case, you gotta remember that the standard of proof is far lower. That’s how low Jake Simpson was found civilly liable for the death of Nicole and Ron Goldman. And criminal, he was not found liable because of the burden of proof was far higher beyond a reasonable doubt. And in a civil case, you’re not entitled to representation to be provided for you that in most cases, if they’re going after you civilly, you probably either have assets or you’ve been a part of an entity that they see that has pockets because if you were living on Skid Row, and you had no money, and you didn’t, you had not worked for an entity that still in business that has money or had insurance at the time. They’re not going to go after you. But there’s no way for a person to really get justice because this is a civil proceeding. The proof is far lower that’s required. And the entities find themselves in a position where they have to make settlements as far as it all the Archdiocese across the country are facing extreme fiscal financial pressure because of the never endless lawsuits. If you say that you can come back as long as you’re alive and breathing, and allege that something happened to you, and you have this extraordinarily low burden of proof for a civil case, and in particular, when you muzzle don’t allow the person making the accusation to be in any way, confronted about to accusation, it’s a certain recipe for disaster.
And can you remind me the term so when you go to a criminal case, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s where you have to have something close? Is that just guaranteed to be unanimous? Is that what that term also means? Well, well,
well, it’s it’s guaranteed to be unanimous except for in Oregon, okay. But but it’s also a sad or proof or if there’s if there’s Reasonable Doubt which no one can define. They’re supposed to Return guilty, not guilty.
Okay. And then what is the threshold that you’re talking about? This is just 50 plus one
preponderance of the evidence and evidence of the evidence
that you’re always going to probably have to remind me of these terms. I always remember the reasonable doubt one, but the preponderance one throws me
that’s the well, it’s it’s a it’s a far lower standard. And that was with OJ Simpson. He was found civilly guilty of causing the deaths but picot could not be criminally convicted because the evidence wasn’t strong enough.
There’s a podcast or they recently listened to that was talking about something along with these the clergy stuff and one of the altar boys like he was an adult of adult age and you know, he had the youngins, whatever. And he got accused of and other people came forward and accused him and it had passed the statute of limitations and they were interviewing the victim person and he was just all like, I can’t believe this person is going to go away free scot free and clear and all that stuff for All these terrible atrocities that he’s committed. And I appreciate that he, he may have had these things happen to them. And I will take him at his word that he is. Right. But what are you supposed to do with the guy being accused, the person being accused? How do you then just throw them under the bus for the accusation without the whole angle of due process that sounds like almost like a, like a third world country that we talked about, you know, like a shithole country where you’re just guilty because someone says you’re guilty.
Well, that’s what’s troubling about it. We are the guardians of the trust, of making sure that people who face the power of our governmental apparatus, that we make sure that the process is fair. It’s not fair. I don’t care who says what, it’s not fair to bring in allegations decades old. And for a person to be put on trial for those a civil or criminal it’s not fair. And we’re, we’re, we’re advocating Our responsibility to make sure that the powers of our of our establishment are not used against a person in an unfair manner. That’s our job to make sure we created the systems. We ask people to trust the systems to say that we that we do what’s right. And it’s not right to bring people to trial decades after something was alleged. I’m sorry. Some things just go unpunished.
And and also the prosecution side, the state side has an unbelievable amount of resources versus what you have available to you. Well, you you’ve
got that easily the there’s very few people that can match the resources of a government regardless of state or county or, or the federal government, but you don’t have the capacity to recreate what might have been relevant and sculpt Ettore evidence that happened back all those decades ago. We’ve gone through this many times about what why how would the judge an Alabama how how Would he have brought back the Old Hickory house that was alleged to have done all these evil things to the, for the teenage girls that worked in the 70s, though hickory house doesn’t exist anymore.
So how is it possible for him to defend him? I will tell you that it’s still a struggle for me to get all the way there. There’s just like instinctively say, it’s not fair. But it is certainly something that since we’ve gone over it for two years that I can at least go Wait, we need to think about this a little bit more clearly. Instead of Hey, we need to throw all the tomatoes and bring all the pitchforks and torches to that person’s house because they were accused of doing a thing.
Well, I don’t have any problems that it’s not fair.
I don’t know. I know that. I’m telling you about the evolution of my thought process in this whole
Yeah, I have no problem because I consider that to be a sacred trust. We created the systems of justice in this country. And we asked people please don’t go out and do your own vigilante. So we will do this right. We will do this subjectively. We will do it in a fair way. protects everybody. You’re not protecting everybody. When you allow a person to be put on trial for something that was alleged to have happened decades ago. That is not a fair fight. And therefore, we as a society, if we want people have faith in our system of justice, we have to make sure that it’s fair for the accused, the person who got victimized, they’re not going to be boxed up in a cage. Now, they might be in some kind of virtual cage where that they’ve suffered for four years, the desk was kept under the dark rug so far, and I understand that, but they’re not going to be putting a physical cage for years or decades. And I’m sorry, I’m going to come down on the side of keeping people cage free, until we prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that they belong in the cage,
because of the cage because you’re taking away their civil liberties to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, blah, blah, blah. But because of that, We need to make sure that the standard is stupid high. Before we do that,
that is the way I believe that I believe that’s what the founders intended.
That sounds like originalism.
It does, but I think they intended. They feared that that that they that they government, without proper restraints, would be able to become powerful enough to take people’s liberties away. And that that would be misused.
And they have that they have the power with, you know, scaling of weapons from just multiple people to weapons to guns to handcuffs to tanks to artillery, that they are going to be able to impose a high degree of force against you to put you in that cage. That you you can’t you can’t resist.
That is That is correct. And I think that that we’ve gotten so soft on due process, that what we accept as due process, particularly in this area of law that we’re talking about on this podcast, It doesn’t resemble due process.
All right over it. The New York Times many facial recognition systems are biased says us study. The subtitle is algorithms falsely identified African American and Asian faces tend to 100 times more than Caucasian faces researchers for the National Institute for Standards and Technology found and I’ve also heard from other reports that women are also very often misclassified. And something else I was listening to this weekend when I was driving home Oh, by the way, we need to cover the hovercraft that I was driving home. And so but they I was witness to someone receiving a ring video doorbell as a Christmas present. Are you familiar with what a ring video doorbell is? Which,
Unknown Speaker 1:19:47
Larry, I am.
Okay. So yeah, you hang the thing on the door. And now when someone comes your door, they press the button and you from your phone, you can actually have a conversation with the person. And one of the other things that you can actually opt into is called neighbors by ring. So now all of your neighbors are like all in the same sort of pool kind of like a neighborhood watch. And police then only have to subpoena ring for the surveillance of all of the ring doorbells. And now they have all of the time logs and you didn’t necessarily consent to them getting your video. And that just sets up that you could be in proximity you could look similar. And now you’re being hauled in because of a whole lot of like speculation that you’re the person that committed the naughty things of stealing packages off people’s doorsteps or something along those lines. Because you’re not a dark color person, Larry, but you but these many, many people are there they’re getting misidentified from these these technologies. Obviously that would be a violation of their civil liberties to just get hauled in all the time because they look similar because the computer said you have a 60% match to the other guy.
that’s troubling to me. And I think that the, again, the case law is going to have to develop around the biases and figuring out how how the police are allowed to use this technology because they’re not gonna they’re not going to stop using this technology. Sorry, that’s not gonna happen.
There was a there was a big segment that was covered related to this, and not from the facial recognition side, but I don’t I don’t know what was happening. But there was it was either like a fire in a in a Chicago district or some sort of animal killing something along those lines. And the police asked Google for their location data for this maybe eight hour window of this, like 30,000 square foot area, something like that. It was a pretty big area and they got something like 15,000 hits of people that were in that proximity during that time window. Then they narrow that down to like two suspects that could have been tie that in with these camera things. You are being surveilled all All the time, we already have a 1984 scenario where you cannot hide, throw and facial recognition, throw in mismatches throw in, you’re doomed. We’re doomed player it’s over.
Well, this is this is your technology, not mine.
This is my technology. But I think we need to like put. So I think California as a whole voted to not allow any government entities to use facial recognition software. I believe that’s what happened recently. Which is kind of funny because you know, Silicon Valley being a California kind of thing. These are very troubling things. And the technology can be used for good. Obviously, it can also be used for bad.
And it’s going to require legislative and judicial restraint on the police because if they have the technology, they’re going to use it in every way they can imagine.
Which is why also if you’re paying attention to the Chinese protests in Hong Kong, people are running around with masks on and then they’re being prohibited from a mess because they want to be able to see who all the people are that are protesting Which is then a First Amendment challenge, at least from our perspective of you should have the right to the for your movement and your assembly into lawfully and peacefully protest and all that.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:12
Yeah, but they don’t have they don’t have that right over there.
Now I get it. But that’s that’s where this goes if you if you are afraid of being surveilled, and then you put on a mask, do you think? Well, there has been challenges in certain places where for religious reasons people want to wear a covering over the face, and I’m not trying to go down that path. But if you’re, you know, if you’re religious thing says, you have to wear a burka. And you want to get your driver’s license, and it’s against your religion to show your face and you have a picture on your driver’s license of your face that’s violating your religious freedom. And I know it’s a civil regulatory scheme, and I noticed not exactly the same thing. But it still presents the same sort of argument that if you have to go out in public and wear eyeglasses, shed shades and hat so that you don’t expose your face so you’re not picked up by the facial recognition stuff. You’ve lost a certain element of your first amendment rights
arguably but again, Right, you have to privacy when you’re in public?
Do you have the right to not be surveilled by the government to know your whereabouts at all time?
Well, we’re going to find out where you as, as they as more and more litigation as this technology is used, and people come more aware of how it’s being used, like the guy that we talked about a few episodes back that didn’t realize that he was on thousands of video. What was that in Florida? I think so. Yeah. Where he didn’t realize, as people become aware of this, there’s going to be more and more litigation. And that’s how that will build the boundaries in terms of, but right now, this was quietly being done, but else people don’t have any idea. I don’t have any idea. What else being done that I don’t know about?
Yeah, well, I I know that I can take my phone and look and I can see every place I’ve been since I was released at pretty much any time of day, any day of the week. I can see where I’ve been. But that’s disgusting. It is unless you’re like, man, where was where did we record that podcast? Where was that place? The underground bunker. Oh, that’s where it was. That’s why I found this address.
It was it was in your phone?
Unknown Speaker 1:25:06
Uh huh. I looked at my history on the goog the googly moogly.
All right. For the final article, we have an article from the Brennan Center takeaway from 2019 Prime data in major American cities. Larry, this seems like some Kabuki stuff that you got here from this group called the FBI. And it’s like, it looks like the crime numbers have gone down since 1990. Was it 10 per whatever, per hundred thousand and now it’s down I don’t know about 50%. Since 1990, give or take.
That’s that’s where I draw this from. But I tell people, this is the safest time to be alive. The homicide rate in this country has dropped so much that you haven’t been safer. You have to be pretty old to be safer than what you are today. And with the exception of cities that have had a spike in violent crime, like like Baltimore, and Chicago, but in New York and many American large cities, this is the best time to be alive.
Do you think this is an artifact folks? Because it says between 1960 and 80. So that would be like the you people growing up, that says the murder rate roughly doubled. Do you think that that’s like just sort of like, burned into you people’s memory that the crime rate, the murder rate is just so high that we need to do something to reduce it. And we’re still just like living in that afterglow?
I think I think that’s could be a part but I think it’s more part of this sensational 24 hour news cycle. There’s so much that you did used to hear about that you hear about now. And people will I mean, I know my family when I’m here they’ll say, I mean, Monticello is a small town in Jasper County, crime data controlled by us tell us what do you mean out of control? Well, last week, they had such and such happen they all know that that was that was a store robbed and a guy got beat up and I said well, you know, people Rob stores and the guys got beat up in the 1960s and 70s. Also, and and but you just didn’t hear about it now and i think i think the the access to their formation keeping it on the on people’s mind causes the perception of crime to be different than the reality of crime. Our country does have more crime than most nations, we like to compare ourselves to what we we do have a higher crime rate than most western countries. But the crime rate, as we experienced today, and the average city is far lower than it has been in relatively recent times. 1990 is not that long ago. We’re talking about 30 years ago. Yeah.
And also the crime. So I recall hearing that Chicago was like a war zone. And even that is down to almost the historic low of 400 per whatever, I guess it’s just the overall number of 400 murders at the low in 2014. And it jumped up to almost double that in 2016. And it’s down back to just shy of 501 is too many not saying that but the number is Way down Also, I’m just going along with the narrative that you’re not likely to get murdered in the United States at this point in time, compared to other times in our history.
That is, that is correct and another violent crime as well. You’re You’re, you’re safer and technology has made you safer. We just talked about the ring doorbell we just talked about. We’ve talked about on this podcast about the average person. We are running around being surveilled with your phone with your GPS. And it’s hard to do stuff today because you’re not out of us. The streets are filled with surveillance cameras
after 911 it is stupid cheap to put in cameras there it is stupid cheap, you can get a really really high quality 4k camera for for 20 bucks to put up at your house if you want to keep an eye on your property.
And and the solvability of crimes has gone up as a result of all this surveillance and therefore criminals have had to resort to more ingenious ways of, of making their livelihood and that you’re seeing a lot more of internet based crime. A lot more things to street crime is going down. Now there’s areas of problem that we didn’t think too much about. If you talked about internet crime in 1985, we wouldn’t have got a whole lot of traction. But now the banks are spending enormous MasterCard visa. And your financial institutions are spending an enormous amount of money loss prevention and and retailing, of fake orders. You know that? that would that would have been such a big deal. Back in Sears Roebuck days. I’m sure there was some there were some false orders. Big, big, big, big done. But all the type of crime we’re having is not as violent, but it’s more economic driven because of the of the way we do business today.
Very interesting. Larry, before we get out of here, do you have a I’m springing this on you without even asking you in advance. What do you think we should try and accomplish in the podcast over the next 12 months? Because we’re, this is the last episode of the year, obviously.
Well, clearly, we’re gonna try to grow our numbers. But I think I think a goal would be to try to figure out how to better serve the audience we have, making sure that that we’re, we’re, we’re running an hour half every episode, if that’s what people really want. If they want fewer articles and more, more in depth dive, we can we can do that. So I’d like to I’d like to try to sharp on the podcast in the coming year to make sure that that is truly providing the product that people are looking for. And looking forward to cuz we don’t just get together because we enjoy it. We’re trying to actually help folks out there that are that are in need of explanations that in need of information, and a need of hope.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:54
Brandeis told me you needed something to do on Saturday nights. Course. We do.
I am looking forward to it. I’m going to try and get our our numbers up by reaching out to more people through the social medias and things of that nature. And it would help me out greatly if the you people, not the Ulay, but the people that are listening, if you would share the podcast with all the people, you know, if you could share it out, that would be a huge boon to our success if we could get our numbers to grow. Could be people inside the movement could be people on the on some sort of tangentially related area. And But otherwise, Larry, it’s always a pleasure to see you and hang out when you are in town in the super secret underground bunker that has really crappy internet. I mean, it is really bad. But I hope you have a safe rest of your trip and I will talk to you soon.
Thank you and Hello, how do people leave messages for me cuz I haven’t had any lately.
Go visit the website registry? matters.co. And all of the links are there. All the all of them. All right. Take care. I’ll talk to you soon.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:58
Transcribed by https://otter.ai