Transcript of RM109: Is There A Double Standard In Allegations

Transcript of RM109: Is There A Double Standard In Allegations

Listen to RM109: Is There A Double Standard In Allegations here

Andy 0:00
Recording live from fyp Studios transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 109 of registering matters. It’s seven o’clock outside, Larry, it’s the sun’s out. It’s a great afternoon to be recording a podcast and how are you?

Larry 0:18
Seven o’clock? What? What city are you? And again,

Andy 0:21
I’m I’m in Hawaii. I see. All right, so that’s about quarter to 11. My time we are we are way we are almost four hours past our normal time.

Larry 0:30
Well, it’s had one positive effect or the chat rooms empty.

Unknown Speaker 0:35
You don’t like all the distractions do

Larry 0:38
so. So we’re wishing down to business really quickly,

Andy 0:42
and will will has announced himself that he is here. He is the only dedicated loyal podcast listener fan who is contributing wildly to the success of the podcast here.

Larry 0:53
How did he know that we’re going to be here at this hour,

Andy 0:56
because actually he was already in chat and I made a little announced In chat that we were going to start soon so he popped in my See, I bought myself a little Christmas present and I upgraded my podcast gear so I’m excited I’m using a new microphone for the first time. It sounds stellar else did you actually hear a difference?

Larry 1:16
It’s not perceptible to obama but I’ll let you know as we go through.

Andy 1:20
So I spent $18 million to upgrade my gear and you don’t notice difference Alright, that’s cool.

Larry 1:26
Well, we’ll be able to tell better as we go through the podcast if we don’t crack certain we’re excellence stockpile Papa was a snap, crackle pop Rice Krispies.

Andy 1:37
Yeah, snap crackle pop Yeah, I’m not this won’t fix that. That’s something else that happens and no you listeners out there you won’t hear it because I do a different kind of recording anyway. We should get moving along. Did

Unknown Speaker 1:48
you have a good New Year by the way? While I was in the Peach State, so we we watched Was it a peachy New Year.

Larry 1:54
We watched the pitch. They dropped lower.

Andy 1:58
You Wait, where did they do up a peach.

Larry 2:01
Somewhere in downtown Atlanta.

Andy 2:03
Okay, because they do they do in my town they do. Wait, I can’t Nevermind. I’m gonna say it because then people know where I live. I’m not gonna say it, but I’ll tell you about it later. Oh, you know what somebody brought up from the previous episode. I said, Larry, we needed to talk about the hovercraft. And we never came back to it.

Larry 2:19
I remember that. You said that men were so long on that one. I didn’t bring it up again. But yes, the hovercraft is it’s always important to talk about hovercraft.

Andy 2:27
Yeah, so I but I, you know, I wasn’t really anywhere in the window when I was traveling. At a Thanksgiving I was like, within an hour or so. So like I could see over the horizon, the hovercraft was poised. But I left the state way long before it so there was no there was no threat of hovercraft.

Larry 2:42
So so it’s within an hour, that’s when the hovercraft emerges.

Andy 2:47
You would think I mean, they have to know that you are approaching you know, all the states have the different kind of timelines of when, why you’re allowed to be in there. So they know from the moment you arrived from the moment that you are leaving, they’re going to be poised with their hovercraft and their GPS plotters and trackers and you can like see it on their little video screens with a red box like a hot box going into getting ready to shoot some sort of drone missile at you. Yes, that’s happening. I thought it would just be you up like an alien abduction,

Larry 3:15
you know, put you in custody and say we we’ve got you. Well, let’s move on on this show we, we have an outstanding, exciting episode for you, as we always do here at registry matters. And the first thing someone wrote in a handful of days ago, Stephen wrote in from Pennsylvania, said he recently reviewed the case out of Pennsylvania and he listens to the podcast, which is most helpful. I believe one important aspect that is most often overlooked in pa is the reputation effect. This makes pa a very unique state which comes to internet broadcasting of registrants past convictions. I don’t recall you mentioning this very important finding in this and other pa cases and he did an analysis and I think we can For the case, though, back around October, whatever, but did we cover this aspect of it? The case we’re talking about is is Commonwealth vs. More, which is before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court now, but for those who don’t live in Pennsylvania, they adopted their version to comply with Adam Walsh and 2011. It became effective December 2012. Yeah, subsequent 2017 and Commonwealth vs. But as the Supreme Court of the state said that you can apply disruptor actively? Well, to a lot of consternation to folks when they asked me what they were, what would be the result of that? And I said, Well, first of all, they will ask for reconsideration. they’ll follow cert petition, but the Supreme Court United States, they did those things and the Supreme Court refused to hear with the case. But they said they will try to legislate a remedy that will restore as much as SORNA of the previous is they can because every legislative enactment is preserved constitutional was asked in fact, what they did they adopted four and a two. And they have two sub chapters, they have the chapter that applies to the people that were convicted after 2012. And then they have the sub chapter that applies to before 2012. And they conveniently in, in the reenactment, they put the internet, the internet restrictions, they put the the internet notification, the website part, they reacted, and essentially the way it was when it was decided, is in a boon as that that was one of the components that rendered it to be punitive. So this was nothing more than if you look through all my highlights. The the the appellate level court continuously refers to what they feel that they were obligated to do based on the decision and come with what persons going to ask that they said that they could not discern any difference in what was done, and what they reinstated. What had the previous have been declared unconstitutional. Therefore, they feel felt bound to find that this applying reinstituting this was unconstitutional will ultimately find out from the from the state Supreme Court when they rule. But, but this is this is something where I don’t I don’t see any reference to the reputational clause that he says this in the Constitution. They do talk about rep reputation, but they don’t they don’t refer to a constitutional provision at where that off spotted in this 22 page opinion, but they do several times over and over again, say that, that their hands were tied, that that, that the Supreme Court had already ruled on this issue, and the legislature just simply put back into place what had been declared unconstitutional, so therefore, that they’re declaring our constitutional Yeah.

Andy 6:47
Can I? So we’ve, I know that we’ve talked about because this isn’t like new information. I mean, we’ve talked about this reputation thing before being a unique property to Pennsylvania, similar to the enhanced disabilities, what’s the word that they use for the Maryland constitution? that’s unique to Maryland? disadvantages? disadvantages, alright. So no other state has this like, quote unquote reputation thing in their constitutional

Larry 7:12
Well, I haven’t seen it in the Pennsylvania constitution either, but but assuming that it’s there, that will take his word for it. It has analysis that, that there is such provision on the Constitution. But but like said, I haven’t seen it,

Andy 7:25
wouldn’t having your your you know, your business presented on a website that tells you says that, you know, 30 years ago, you did something naughty? And I mean, doesn’t that create a reputation? Whatever, like some some sort of Mark against your reputation?

Larry 7:43
Well, it does. But but that that conflicts with hundreds of years of tradition that criminal records are already public, so the Supreme Court had Smith, Smith versus doe and the Connecticut Department of Public Safety versus don’t. The two cases today looked at said that, that that harm is in fact that And it could be significant, but it flows from the conviction, which is already public. Now, the Supreme Court Pennsylvania gets around that by saying, Well, that was early a generation before before the internet became as pronounced as it is today. And therefore we’re we’re deviating from that, but but that doesn’t mean that every, every other state Supreme Court is going to follow suit.

Andy 8:20
Certainly, I, I can totally get from 2003 five people were in the internet at the time. And now there are only five people that aren’t allowed on the internet and there are people that aren’t on the Internet at this point. That it’s like that’s where it’s a very big challenge. It’s It’s It’s a pretty big hurdle to get someone to go to the courthouse and look somebody up who I want to go look up the 10 people that live in my neighborhood that are near me to see if they have a sexual conviction in their history.

Larry 8:49
That is correct.

Andy 8:50
And so but the internet just makes it you know, people are sending you email blast saying Whoa, somebody moved into your neighbor and 7000 feet away, you should be concerned about this.

Larry 8:58
But but but that is alone. And I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. Yeah. What will be a colonial times when, when one way information built around the country moved by what it was by? What was the town crier and it moved by the horse and that was it called the Pony Express. And then we then we had the Telegraph, telegraph. I mean, it is a means of moving information as advanced that hasn’t rendered all the internet came along. We got to where we’re both things by by it by a teletype we moved it by fax machine. I mean, does does the fact that information is more readily available does that somehow does that somehow in and of itself change the fact that the information was always tended to be readily available? The courthouses always intended to be open to the public does opening the courthouse to the public through technology, but you’re usually so fond of all the time. Does that somehow make that information? a non public because it’s a more easily accessible

Andy 9:59
well As we find with most things, and the famous person named Hippocrates that it’s all fine and dandy until it affects you in a negative fashion, then you’re like, Whoa, well, we need to we need to slow this train down. And while Yeah, I’m totally in favor of all the technology all the time doing all the things, until my name is upon some website somewhere that someone then harasses me as I walk down the street one day.

Larry 10:23
So well, that’s that’s that’s the point on the court. So struggling with that, because conviction information has always been public. And the harm from being on the registry. See, I don’t take I don’t argue from that point. I argue from a different point. Yes, you’re right. The fact of the conviction is is readily available should be readily available unless we decide to go the European route, which that would be kind of liberal, do good. But if we were to go the European route, or people have the right to be forgotten, but your conviction information does not include all the stuff that we put on the registry now. Your conviction information does not exist. Five where you work. That’s not a part of the conviction. So therefore, so we strike that your conviction information doesn’t identify where you live. So therefore we strike that the conviction information does not identify what you drive. So therefore, we strike that. So we start striking everything we get down to just today was a finish, you were convicted of data conviction, and your buckshot, the data conviction, your conviction information does not include up to date photos of what you look like today. So we strike all the photographs that have been accumulated through the years. So if we just want to go literally by conviction information, that’s always been public, then we’ve got a different argument here. But requiring a person to come into a polie setting and provide information that’s not a part was not a part of the conviction, and do that repetitively over and over again, and to be detained while they’re fingerprinted, and then to have tremendous restrictions put on them in terms of where they can live and work. That’s an entire different discussion. Gosh, this is simply making the conviction, I maintain under present law if you just simply said, okay, congratulations, you’re registered, let me step a picture of you. This lives on the internet for the rest of your life, going to have a great life. I think that would be a constitutional registry. Although I don’t advocate for that. But I think from a constitutional perspective, unless we change what the expectations of privacy are under our Constitution, I think that could constitutionally be done.

Andy 12:33
And, yeah, but then, you know, mom down the street gets her panties in a wad because she doesn’t know all of the details about the person that lives next door.

Larry 12:45
She has no such right.

Unknown Speaker 12:47
And that and that’s where fyp comes from.

Larry 12:49
That’s exactly right. She has no such right to know that. And for to my dismay, most people in the register when they ask, they are asked, don’t they have a right to know Almost overwhelmingly say yes or no, you don’t have any right to know that you have no right to know who lives next to you. Where does that right derived from? Tell me site that right. There’s no such right.

Andy 13:11
I Yeah, I agree I understand it’s just interesting because because that that that reputation thing and I we have talked about it before because I didn’t invent this idea in my head that Pennsylvania has this reputation thing in it. So I’m going to like you said, just take him at his word that it’s there. All of this stuff then makes a very severe mark on your reputation by having all your junk posted that you did a thing you know, two weeks ago and your picture address and Pennsylvania list your work address to that makes life very challenging. Well,

Larry 13:44
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is entitled to interpret their constitution, any way they see fit. So if they if they see that the Constitution is like the US Supreme Court where they invaded the right to abortion, there’s also tried for abortion. I’m not saying that we should We should not have abortions, but that was invented. Right? That, that that that I forget what the count was in 73 when they decided Roe vs. Wade, but that was that was an a right that was stretched from within the right to privacy. So if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stretched and said, Gee, the right to privacy or some some aspect of the Constitution includes the right to reputation, that’s fine. They can do that. But we can’t go to we can’t go to Alabama Supreme Court say oh, well, now I learned to tell you this. Go boys don’t hurt Alabama. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has says there’s a there’s a right to reputation. And they would laugh and I’d say where is that in the constitution?

Andy 14:42
Certainly.

Larry 14:43
So fantastic for Pennsylvania. But But in terms of this decision now highlighted, I don’t remember doing all these highlights last time. But but but I went through and I did the Kennedy Mendoza factors of what determines for the regulatory scheme is it Based punitive despite it being labeled regulatory those seven factors were there on page eight. And I highlighted stuff about the presumption is that the statute is constitutional, all legislative enactments. And then I highlighted some stuff about the Supreme Court decision and bananas where they said that yesterday’s face to face Shame, shame and punishment can now be accomplished online. And individuals presence in cyberspace is is omnipresent. how you pronounce that? It’s not I’m the president. Yeah, the pub, the pub, the public Internet website utilized by the Pennsylvania State Police broadcast worldwide for an extended period of time, the personal identification information of individuals who have served their sentences. This exposes registrants to ostracism, harassment, without any mechanism to prove rehabilitation, even though even through the clearance approved so that I’ve got all the references they have to they made their decision based on their superior court a debt that supervises them They felt their hands were tied. They said we were bound by this precedent. So that that’s that’s what I took from from the opinion. But it’s all going to be decided by the Supreme Court very shortly, the state Supreme Court that is,

Andy 16:12
and if I recall, right, unless that creates some sort of federal constitutional challenge, the state Supreme Court for Pennsylvania, that would be the end of that road,

Larry 16:23
it would be there. If they, if they interpret this under their state constitution, US Supreme Court doesn’t get to vote on the state constitution. Only if it’s providing protections beneath the Federal Constitution. But states are free to provide protections greater than US Constitution, you just can’t go beneath that. So So if Pennsylvania wants to have to invent rights and say our constitution provides for this, we we find this that our Constitution, as long as it’s a greater protection, there’s nothing supreme court could do about it of the United States. That’s their their prerogative to to provide greater protections to their citizens. Some of us does. Because it really doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what this Court said, because the Supreme Court has already heard oral arguments and it’s waiting. It’s waiting. It’s submitted. It’s waiting for their decision.

Andy 17:10
Alright, so then we will hit that sometime in the near future. Very good. And All right. Well, Larry, can we move like why did you put this Kabuki stuff in here about some governor sexual assault allegations?

Unknown Speaker 17:23
Kabuki was Kabuki about it.

Andy 17:27
You have some sort of axe to grind about allegations and people stepping down from office based on allegations versus actual, like convictions or hard evidence and all this stuff. So there’s something going on in New Mexico with with accusations against Is it like the running mate of the governor?

Larry 17:45
was the governor, the governor herself? Okay? The governor herself has been accused of sexual impropriety.

Unknown Speaker 17:51
Right.

Larry 17:52
Okay. Well, this has this has completely confused me in terms of what the expectations Are when there was an accusation? Because heretofore I’ve been told by the on the progressive side that if, if, if a person’s accused, we immediately call for their resignations. And if we look at all the damage has been done, and the in Hollywood and coaching and people that have been accused of stuff where they’ve lost their career based on allegations almost to the point the Supreme Court Justice not being confirmed, based on allegations that were decades Oh,

Andy 18:34
decades only more in whatever, Alabama, Mississippi, whatever that was.

Larry 18:38
Well, I’m talking about the US Supreme Court with the confirmation. Yeah,

Andy 18:40
I was just bringing up another example.

Larry 18:42
Yeah. But but but so so here we have the governor sitting governor of New Mexico has been accused of dumping water on a man’s crotch who worked on her campaign and the laughing about it, grabbing his crotch and I’m in bed. A little bit upset and she said there wasn’t much there. But I can’t find that she actually said that. But, but she has, she has vigorously denied this allegation. And she’s proceeded to go and attack of the guy now. I generally support discover. I had great hopes for this governor. I think it was a refreshing change, refreshing change from the previous governor who was a former prosecutor and who didn’t know anything other than lock about throw away the key. That’s Gary puff Johnson isn’t no that was Susanna Martino. puff has been out of office for a long time. Okay, well, what I’m confused about is this governor when she was seeking the Democratic nomination to be governor, she was afraid that she was going to have to run on the ticket with Senator Michael petty, who would announce for lieutenant governor and most systems for governor. They don’t select their running mate. They run independently and then the person who runs prevails in the camp and the campaign for lieutenant governor nomination runs with the person who prevailed in the campaign for governor. So this governor was governor top she was our congress person from the first district. She called those that are patea to step down for allegations that he had sexually harassed a Walmart when he was running the Albuquerque 911 911 excuse me, 2311 system that we have here. He set that up because he said the call center business and those allegations go back more than a decade.

Andy 20:30
Oh, I okay. You explained this to me earlier, and I was very confused. I thought I had heard about allegations on the governor herself. But so so the governor has been accused of something. She didn’t step down. But now this other person has been accused of something and she’s saying he should step No,

Larry 20:48
no, no, no, no, that’s not the way it goes. He was running for lieutenant governor in 2000. Same time she was running. She was fearful that she would have to run with him on the same team. And he had been accused of sexual harassment a decade ago when he worked for the city of Albuquerque. Right. So she demanded that he withdraw his candidate for lieutenant governor. And he did. She went on to secure the Democratic nomination for governor. She went on to win the nomination, and she serves in the office of Governor now. So, as recently as 2017, she was accused. I mean, she was demanding that a person who had a decade old have allegations that were not substantiated step aside and not run for public office. Now, he’s still in the State Senate. He was in the state senate then and he’s in the state senate now, but she was demanding that he stepped aside. So what confuses me is that now she’s been accused of sexual impropriety. And she hasn’t offered up her resignation. Not only has she not offered her resignation, she has attacked this man. She said he’s not credible and I have always been to That when you attack the accuser, the jury victimizing them. This man is out of the state now because he fears for his safety. And I’ve always been under the impression, according to the victims advocates that we’re supposed to protect the accused, because they’ve been traumatized. And so what I don’t understand is, where does this break down at because now the accuser is being attacked, and the accusers left the state. And the accuser says that he fears for his safety. So I’m wondering if there’s a gender difference when the accuser happens to be male? I’m wondering, how do we determine if allegations are credible, and when they’re just assumed to be true and when we actually require evidence, because we haven’t really required evidence for a whole bunch of people. We didn’t require the evidence for for for the senator and Minnesota for Al Franken. We haven’t required any evidence for a whole lot of people that have just been taught aside because accusations have been made, so I’m deeply confused. And I want to play the game by the rules, as I understand them. So I want to know, those that are listening, they can understand and explain these, either email or call in. And we’ll have you on the podcast if you can explain to me when you get to attack the accuser. When is evidence needed? When do we get to declare that there’s that the person is not credible? Therefore they shouldn’t be believed? And when is it? When are you victimizing somebody? I always thought that anybody who made an accusation should be confronted and I’ve always said that on the podcast that that that that you bear the burden of proving out your allegations, but apparently I was wrong. So I’m trying to get this straight.

Andy 23:43
So right into old curmudgeon at registry matters dot CEO is that your email address?

Larry 23:50
I thought it was quite hot. So So yeah, that that

Andy 23:53
that would be easier crackpot with BS.

Larry 23:55
That’s why I put this in here because I’m I’m really confused. I’m not calling for the customer to resolve I’m just trying to figure out where the dividing line is on all this stuff when when someone’s accused, if the gender of the accuser is male, and the accused is female, does that mean that that, that we automatically disbelieve the guy or guys so that we are all women fragile, are only women, because if he’s afraid for his safety, that’s what a lot of women say that they’re afraid for their safety. They don’t come forward for 1020 3040 years.

Andy 24:32
And I thought it was okay to grab people’s crutch. I thought that that’s what they

Larry 24:35
wanted. Well, we don’t have any evidence other than his accusation. But now when it comes to sexual offenses, we are told that the accuser is all the evidence is needed. He said that that she did that. So I’m hoping what really comes out of this is I’m hoping the governor and the people of that persuasion who believe that we should automatically believe people, I’m hoping they have a moment event light but and they decided to We need evidence when accusations are made across the board. And we don’t automatically assume anything. And we get people the benefit of the presumption of innocence, which is what this country is supposed to be built upon. That’s what our hope comes out of this, but I’m not so sure it will,

Andy 25:14
because they’ll figure out a way to rationalize and say that they’re This is different because, well, of course they will. But But I mean, from from your take of this, this is a very hypocritical position of an individual.

Larry 25:30
I can’t see anything of this being hypocritical because this governor, she’s senator Martinez to step out, he got convicted of DWI. Now that’s different because there has been a conviction he was tried not by jury chels the way this is absurd is right to jury. But he she’s called for his resignation. Again, he serves on the legislative branch. He directly answers his constituents and his constituents want to return him to office with a DWI conviction that is empowered prerogative. But if I were to do a little bit of research club, you’ll find that she’s called for other people’s reservation, just about guarantee that she don’t want capital confirmed based on the allegations that were decades. decades old. It’s not, I’m just trying to I’m trying to be intellectually honest here. And I’m trying to figure out what the standards are.

Andy 26:20
And it’s not like the the So, one of the articles that you posted is from 2017. So like exactly two years ago from November of 2017 says, Is it lusion? Or how do you pronounce the first name? Which were I even that’s the middle name. What’s the governor’s name? Lu Han? Lu Han, okay. Lujan Grisham tells senate leader to leave race. So that’s just two years ago.

Larry 26:44
That wasn’t the campaign for governor. She was afraid she was going to be stuck with him as her running mate. He had allegations a decade old he had a rest of woman when he worked for the city of Albuquerque. Yeah. So she had No hesitation to say, center to get out of this race. Yeah. So I’m trying to understand his allegations were not substantiated. He didn’t get convicted of anything. Yeah.

Andy 27:13
And I guess the question that I’m trying to get at and we can move on here after just another brief moment, she has been accused of something so by that, shouldn’t she just say, hey, I’ve been accused I should step down.

Larry 27:25
That apparently was her belief on video. And I’m trying to get clarification if someone from the governor’s office is listening, I’d be happy for them to write into us register matter. What does it register batters dot CEO? How do you get

Andy 27:40
this cast at gmail? episode, you still don’t have it. Right? Jesus?

Larry 27:46
Well, it’s two o’clock in the morning, but I’d be happy. I’d be happy to hear their rational excuse for why this is different.

Andy 27:57
Interesting question. I do I one of my friends. most favorite subjects is people being hypocritical about things like it’s okay. If we talk about this all the time about, hey, if the benefits flow in my direction, it’s okay. But if they flow in that direction, that’s not okay.

Larry 28:11
Well, and I strive to be a little bit more intellectually honest, and that’s why I’m right. Question. I don’t understand, based on the standards that have been set. I don’t understand why resignation wouldn’t be in order. But I’m not calling for it because like, say I prefer her over the crackpot we had for eight years. But she’s the one who set the standard. She’s the one who asked for resignations,

Andy 28:32
right? I’m with you. Interesting.

Larry 28:34
You know, it’s kind of like what what we criticize people who thump the Bible, and then they get caught up in something. It’s not because we expect them to be perfect. That’s not reason why. It’s because when you are thumping the Bible and telling us we should live our lives, and you have the moral high ground and you get caught doing something you shouldn’t be doing. That’s why where you get the criticism we know that that everybody is a flawed born But when you’re going to preach to me and tell me how I should live my life You damn sure to be living years by that preaching.

Andy 29:06
Absolutely. Well there are three links in there if anybody wants to go check out the show notes and and tell us where Larry is smoking a crackpot or whatever it is. And yeah, feel free. There is a The next thing that we’re going to talk about is Archons. From the Arkansas democrat Gazette, Arkansas online, Arkansas sex offender housing law raise laws raise hitch with doors close to them, many become homeless and difficult for states check that last part, we’ve talked about a bajillion times So wouldn’t it be easier to track them if you knew their address instead of like, the 17th bridge at Mile Marker 12 on highway 101, or something like that. I also still can’t figure out why it How is it better for anybody to live outdoors somewhere I you know, so Arkansas probably gets cold enough that you would want some sort of coverage in the wintertime but we are insistent that we need to make rules for people that they can’t live within so many thousands of feet from school church, daycare library, public park, private Park, or anywhere the children go to congregate we make it impossible for them to find housing.

Larry 30:17
Well I was very impressed with this article is what we typically well not really compared to the appeal and some of those but it’s a it’s a long article and it’s in as well done balanced and they they cover it from all angles and they have people from the sex offender registry they have they have sheriff’s been quoted, and they have people from the assessment board that do the rest. Arkansas has a risk based system that puts people in four different categories. And, and the the categories determine what restrictions you might have in terms of housing. It’s not a perfect system by any means. I don’t think human content of positive perfect system, but at least it does afford some due process. So those who are subject to resonance restrictions have had to process stuff. What’s the question? I don’t have answers for there’s two people from Arkansas affricates Robert combs and Carlos wants to record an article. I don’t know if if in spite of their of their leveling system, if they if they have restrictions to in order to release a person on parole, if they apply those restrictions on level ones and twos. I don’t know the answer to that. But if they’re if they only apply that to level three and four, theoretically, you’ve had some due process, but to answer your question, is it better? No, of course, it’s not better. And that’s my parent, by the people in the article that are in law enforcement saying, you know, it’d be a lot better if we, if we had stability in these people’s lives. And it’s, it’s it’s sad that that despite all the evidence that they continue to enact and expand residency restrictions all over the country.

Andy 32:00
And, you know, we always talk about people going to the legislator and that the law enforcement is so well represented. I know you I’m sure you don’t know the answers but speculate, don’t you think law enforcement would have been there saying it would be better for us to be able to track these people?

Larry 32:17
Some may have thought it but it’s difficult. You find the rare law enforcement officer that will say that publicly. They’ll say a privately. But once in a while you have a renegade adult that will say that I think there was one from Oklahoma few years ago, a decade or so ago, that was when they change their laws have to be to be more in line with the with the offense based system rather than risk based and they criticize that but I doubt there’s for many of Milan Forsman officers speaking in hearings about in opposition to this stuff,

Unknown Speaker 32:53
they just they just let it go as

Andy 32:57
they say nothing in response to something going through even though they know it would be horrendous. And they have, you know, like, do they have the bat phone? Do they have the red phone that goes right to the lawmakers offices to tell them something is bad if they do it? Well,

Larry 33:12
you got to remember that the registry is largely managed across the country by local law enforcement primarily elected shares. And if the sheriff himself or the chief deputy or the command structure, they may be enlightened, but if 75 80% of the residents in your county believe this makes them safer, and you start talking against residents, terrific, yes. That’s not going to bode well for you big reelected sheriff. So that so that that’s a that’s a major inhibiting factor and having having honest discussion in public, they don’t want to find themselves on the news saying that Sheriff so and so from critten County said that the registry restrictions are bogus and not based on anything other than Rob There they don’t want to be able to do is saying that

Andy 34:03
I have heard completely anecdotal from from miscellaneous people that they are able to have various degrees of candid conversations with their handlers and the local Popo folks that are doing the registration stuff that they hate it they they This is a crazy burden for them they know that it doesn’t, doesn’t do any good. And I shared with you, I don’t know, it’s maybe six weeks ago, two months ago, I got a knock on my door. Pretty sure was a Saturday morning could have been a Sunday morning. And a big frickin you know, Smokey the Bear hat kind of thing. He’s like, hey, I need to give you this so that you know, it’s an updated procedure for your Annual Registration. And I don’t even know how we got on the subject dude was super friendly is one point. He happened to actually knock on my neighbor’s door first by accident. And he’s, you know, there’s 300 or something people where I live on the registry and he says yeah, and all them. Maybe two of them would actually need to be watched in some maybe, you know, just a handful of these people out of the 300% would actually need to be watched. We are there’s an exorbitant amount of resources being wasted in this kind of monitoring. That doesn’t seem to do anything. But the public still wants it.

Larry 35:17
Well in and there was a quote from the governor, in response to an email the Gazette asked for, for a quote from the governor, which isn’t aisa Hutchinson and quote I do believe that says this is this is an email response to the newspapers questions. I do believe the public needs to be aware of the location of of high level sex offenders in order to assure that children are adequately protected. And statement attributed to Hutchison. So the governor himself is saying that he believes that that that it serves some benefit,

Andy 35:51
but it isn’t, isn’t that even specify and I don’t want to get into the conversation about the different levels but high level sex offenders, so not not statutory rape not the not the Romeo and Juliet ones, but like the actual evil people. And I’m not trying to go down that path really. But there there is a distinction there between the people that are and aren’t on those high level risk assessments.

Larry 36:15
Well, but say there again, that’s where for people have people out there, just assume because and their bond, their offense was very benign, that they’re going to be on a risk based system come in low. That is not the experience that we have with the states. You can have non contact defenses and you can be rated level three and four. Right? Yeah. is so so this presumption as well, all I did was like to chop or they’re going to have me level but no, they’re not going to have you. The person quoted in the story, Robert combs. He’s a level he’s on level three. Last time I checked, okay. And so you it’s a misnomer to think that just because you’re a high level, it could be that you have have more than one offense that could put you a high level that you’ve that you’ve not shown a propensity to control yourself you might have had 500 700,000 images you know by but but but we can’t conclude just because you’re a high level like the governor said that makes you a stocking mad rapist that went out and grabbed people off the streets because there’s so many there’s so few of those actually out there that if we truly went way if we truly went to that level of registration, the registers would shrink so much because there are very few people like that on the streets to begin with.

Andy 37:33
Yeah, so it’s two or three or 4% some some ridiculously low single digit percentage number of the the the uncontrollable kind of people

Unknown Speaker 37:42
yeah, most of them are in prison. Yeah most Yeah.

Andy 37:46
But But yeah, if they’re not in prison, then they’re controlling

Larry 37:52
so the the the the person to a CIC Arkansas crime information because Apollo states, she said the offender is Mad doesn’t have a home and is blaming the world. That’s not a good mental state. And so she’s even recognizing that they need to need to have to be house.

Andy 38:10
Yeah, I mean, it makes no sense to me that that with the vast resources of the United States that we can’t create housing for all people, including those that we deem highly undesirable.

Larry 38:21
Well, in this case, it’s not even. I mean, I agree with you, mostly on that, but in this case, it’s not. In this cases, it’s that they’re not allowed to live in places. This is where capitalism breaks down because people have the body in many cases, they’re not allowed only 5% according this article of North Little Rock is available. There’s some slivers of land and North Little Rock. Yes, available for sex fitters, so it’s not a question. I mean, it that that is a factor for people who don’t have money because they can’t they can’t get a job. But there are people who have resources who cannot live in a place because of the management

Andy 38:56
intuitively, and what is the solution? I mean,

Larry 39:00
The solution. The solution is really simple. And the land of the United States of America, people should be able to live any place they want to live that they can afford to live. That’s the solution. It’s so simple that even even a third grader could do it. What does that show? Are You Smarter Than a fifth grader?

Andy 39:17
I believe so.

Larry 39:18
Yeah. So even a fifth grader can figure this out,

Andy 39:20
ironically, hosted by Bill Cosby.

Larry 39:23
So yes, I don’t know what that he’s he was already out of business before that show was there. I he was the host of that show. No, he wasn’t. I’m almost positive now.

Andy 39:33
Oh, somebody says Jeff Foxworthy. Nevermind. You know, what is the show that I’m thinking it was the kids say the darndest things. Whatever. Yes. Got it. Nevermind. All right. I’ve been corrected by chat and by you

Larry 39:43
know, yeah. So but but that’s the solution. It’s like when people say what do we do? it all turns to the registry. We do absolutely nothing. We do what we do to everybody else who commits a crime, whether they’re paid or that till society, they’re renewed. If they break the law again, we’d like The above again, that’s what we do is

Andy 40:02
by that time people have been harmed Larry,

Larry 40:05
that is the price for free society. We don’t do preventative measures. We do the preventative while they’re being punished. But once you see the movie Minority Report, Larry, no, but but once they get once their punishment is complete, they start with a slate again, and they get the opportunity to offend again.

Andy 40:24
I have a Patreon goal for us then, when we hit some number, we can talk about it later when we hit some number. We will watch a minority report and we will discuss the principles outlined in that movie. Alrighty, well, let’s move over to Wisconsin State Public Defender requiring internet identifiers and sex offender registrants does not violate First Amendment. Why would this even possibly violate the First Amendment?

Larry 40:55
Why would it possibly

Andy 40:57
well, but how would it work?

Larry 41:00
Because it could have a chilling effect on, on those who wish to speak.

Andy 41:05
Do you have a right to speak anonymously in the United States?

Larry 41:09
That’s what I’ve always believed that you You do have to kind of it’s one of those things that kind of goes without saying, if they if if the government can chill you from speaking them, that we have less of a representative Republic. If you if you if you’re able, if the government’s able to identify its critics and stifled the critics, then we would we would have it’s kind of like when a news media vanishes, which is doing very rapidly these days. We don’t have leather on the ground, walk into city council chambers, and listen to what set big said and asking tough questions and asking for documents so they can so they can report to the public. When that goes away. Then part of our democracy dies. So you could let’s try it. Can we make a real world analog Could you go visit your local town hall Meeting with a mask on and speak, in a way I mean, I guess using like the telephone you could call from a payphone or you know if you could figure out where a payphone was, and you could call your representative and speak your mind and remain anonymous. And that does not exist if you have to give up all of your identifiers to your local handlers. Well, that’s that’s the theory this decision that we’re going to talk about makes makes makes a counterpoint but but that’s that’s the that’s the theory. That’s why we have case law coming from different directions on this issue. So sometimes it’s found to have a chilling effect and sometimes not in this case, it was found that that having to read to produce or identifiers is is not doesn’t violate the constitution and essence a court of appeals for Wisconsin so there’s still another level to go yet. It can you give me your opinion on this. I know you’re not like the biggest of internet users. But what would be your opinion on if this does have a chilling effect on your freedom of speech, as well? Again, this this, this decision has, I’ve got a lot of highlights I went through and this this person, he, he makes he makes a good case. But he might have strategic error early all that, that that foreclosed him from being able to make the proper challenge. he pled no contest to, to, to, to, to to an offense. And then he filed a post conviction motion arguing that that the section of the law that requires him to give up these identifiers is unconstitutional as applied to him. And that is facially overbroad. So, those are two separate constitutional claims. That that that an as applied challenge is different than a facial challenge and we talked about that all the time. A facial challenge means there’s no set of circumstances Which something can be done. And that’s why the registry will never be found to be unconstitutional because there is a set of circumstances when you could have a registry, that would be constitutional. Therefore, the courts will never say that the mere act of itself is back to this point of this case. He waved his as applied challenge by pleading, no contest, which is essence guilty. Because when you do a plea, you waive almost everything. And he waved and as applied challenge now, what is it as applied challenge? That means that, that something could be constitutional, but it might not be constitutional as applied to you. So that’d be that would be an example be something that was imposed, imposed retroactively. You could make something unlawful. And if the police said, well, we’re going to prosecute you on to this you would say your first would be a constitutional challenge that this is our country. tissue has applied to you.

So hee hee hee hee hee hee for closed himself off the as applied challenge by by pleading. And then he he argued over breath, which is one that’s really tough to prove, but over breath exist when something it sweeps too broadly into into an area where you could be you couldn’t pass a law that says you can’t touch a minor under but because people do touch monitors on the but for very legitimate reasons right. So therefore, such a law would be on what would be would be over overbroad. A generally take about over broad is big in the area of speech which you could when you pass a law that sweeps into and infringes upon what’s what’s what’s, what is his lawful behavior? Did you have an over breath argument so he he argued that this was over overly broad. Well, this court doesn’t see it that way. Because they see it they see it as big airway Taylor. And and and they they found that it deserved intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny because it’s not a content based restriction. They’re not telling you that you can’t say something which is, which is those those are presumed invalid when the government restricts content of speech. Yeah, but intermediate scrutiny scrutiny in order to survive intermediate scrutiny. This is a page three alaba speed narrowly tailored to serve significant government but governmental interest and other words to law but stop burden substantially more speech than necessary to further government’s legitimate interest. Well, the court found in this case that it doesn’t, but it doesn’t do that it does not burden anymore because they contrast it with packing ham which he argued well, or into packing how much they said no packing ham for big to be on the internet doesn’t for big, big on internet at all. This simply says you need to provide the identifier far so you can To the internet, all you want to add, they compared it to a Georgia case that said that was in the federal court in Georgia. They said what he argued that did it violated because? Well, they said no doesn’t compare there because the Georgia and Georgia you had to give up your passwords. And you had to report much faster in Wisconsin, you have 10 days to report these these identifiers. I think we talked about in Virginia, somebody said it’s a half an hour. Yeah. But in this in this instance, you’ve got 10 days, so you can speak it out, obviously, for 10 days.

Andy 47:31
You could presumably make an account, do all your nasties, and then purge the account.

Larry 47:36
Well, but you could also speak anonymously, I guess, I guess, against Obama for 10 days. Yeah. So it doesn’t stay. So so. Okay. So the court found in this case, that that the that it doesn’t burden that you’ve got 10 days, so you can speak all you want to you can use internet all you want and then they found that statute since it restricts specifically it says in the statutory language, that that the that the internet is does these are not made available to the public. These are available for law enforcement. And so they, they, they they cited that difference. I said, since this is these, these identifiers are only for law enforcement purposes and they’re not made available to the public. That that that does not that that does not significantly impair the person’s ability to speak. So, so this court at the appellate level says that this is just fine.

Andy 48:36
Alright, so, Wisconsin, you guys have to give up your identifier?

Larry 48:41
Well, I don’t know if it’s under appeal this decision just has come out so so so it will likely be appealed up guessing not by the state. That’s very happy with it. But but but yeah,

Andy 48:51
of course, so the individual would have to which you know, means more court court costs and all that fun stuff.

Larry 48:56
They even tried to cite the Nebraska case where in Nebraska data District Court found problems with the braska requires you to consent to internet monitoring, monitoring by soft software just for being on the registry, not as a condition of your supervision by just simply being on the registry that you had that you had to have have and that you that you had to to notify them. I got this highlighted on page eight. It says Jackson points to those verses of braska. Arguments the internet site maintained by the sex offender registry like a blog post is no conceivable threat to the public, and the braska. The District Court for the conservative statutes that require sex offenders to register electronic communication data fires, addresses domain names the Internet, and blog sites use the core determine that the statutes were insufficiently narrow as it clearly chills offenders from engaging and expressive activity that is otherwise perfectly proper and more importantly the statutory requirement to disclose their and identifiers was intertwined with a requirement that registrants consent search of their computers Allah was forced to install hardware or software to monitor the person’s internet usage on all computers electronic communication devices possessed by the person, thereby forcing the offender to choose between his or her first amendment rights or his fourth amendment rights. That abrasca statute also required the offender therefore the state about all blogs, internet sites maintained by the person or to which the person has uploaded any contact content or posted in messages. The court took issue with that requirement specifically noting that requirement or notifiers that addresses including designations for purposes of routing or self identification, as permitted by the Federal Attorney General’s guidelines is one thing required a sec sitters to consent to constantly update the government about when at where they post content on era sites and blogs is entirely a different thing. So So as I said, we don’t require that here Wisconsin, so therefore, doesn’t work if it doesn’t work for you. Now that would be a pain in the behind to go do a you know you go to your local TV station website, which is effectively a blog And go post comments. And now you have to tell them every time that you would go post that. And I know you’re talking about that’s from Nebraska, good grief, that would be a pain in the behind bad. So but my side it all down on page 11 they decided that 10th circuit case I decided state Texas statute that that that doesn’t impair the offenders. This is one of those things where there’s going to be conflicting decisions around around the country. And we’re not going to get a clear answer, unless the Supreme Court of the US weighs in on on this particular issue. What,

Andy 51:35
like, sorry, it’s sorry to cross post over back to this Nebraska thing that you were just describing. And so you tell them that you’ve posted this stuff, like they’re going to now go monitor like they have now checked that your political speech is appropriate. I mean, I realized that they’re just looking to make sure that you’re not trying to post naughty pictures somewhere, but like, why would you tell them that you’ve posted naughty pictures Anyway, you would just purposely hide that information from them?

Larry 52:00
Well, they know that Africa off the ground. That was a joy before it ever, ever. The federal judge granted injunction. And then then ultimately, upon trying the case, he decided that they couldn’t do that. But I think it’s still in the statute. I don’t think they’ve ever removed that from the statute. So if you look at Nebraska sex offender registration statute, you’ll see you know, that, that those those revisions are still in existence. Last time I looked. That’s crazy. But on paragraph 26, we conclude that Wisconsin statute I’m not gonna read the number survives that are made intermediate scrutiny and assault of a rod. In addition to the above, we further note that the statute neither unnecessarily children on the speech, nor does it operate as a prior restraint on speech, as it does not require the registered to update the registry information prior to engaging and protected speech or disclose law enforce to law enforcement every time he or she updates content or website. So there you have it.

Andy 52:51
Very well. All right. Shall we move over to Tennessee and they’re crazy, craziness? Sure. Alright, so this is just in the Like this came out yesterday, Tennessee legislation requires certain sex offenders to undergo chemical castration. Uh, this is not cool man that they would make you for a condition of parole, I guess it is that you will you will take a pill that has a multitude of terrible, terrible terrible side effects that you would take something that would make you not be interested in the naughty things.

Larry 53:27
Well, that’s up for debate at the citizens assembly Tennessee, isn’t it?

Andy 53:32
Yes. And I’ve already been corrected as there’s no such thing as parole for those who commit crimes against those under 12. I guess I yeah. And I guess this would be so you get to pick either, I guess you get to choose right. So you can refuse this if you want to. Right? Absolutely. All right, and what are the consequences of you,

Unknown Speaker 53:53
refusing

Larry 53:54
to serve out the totality of your sentence.

Andy 53:57
I don’t care what see so most many, many People say that I would do anything to get out, you know, pick your day. So even like a day early, or a year earlier 10 years early, to what degree would you go? And does it wouldn’t this violate a constitutional challenge of I mean, I realized that you’re volunteering to take it, you can opt to not take it, but like to be forced to take some kind of medicine either by shot or by pill to maintain some kind of level of freedom.

Larry 54:27
Well, we’re gonna have to wait here from the courts, but I don’t see how something is voluntary. I don’t see how that would violate the constitution.

Andy 54:36
Your be cause because you can refuse to take it. the parole board comes

Larry 54:41
to you and they hand you a litany of things that they say we will grant you early release from prison, if you will agree to this list of things. And there are oftentimes people find things on the list objectionable, and they say, I won’t agree to that. They say okay, sure, that’s fine. But can you

Andy 55:00
Yes, you can stay at the Holiday Inn here. Um, I mean, I guess, is it is it fair to say, okay, you won’t drink alcohol? Is that a fair comparison here, you have to take this pill. And you also don’t drink alcohol. And if you can’t agree to these two terms, then you get to stay here at the Holiday Inn.

Larry 55:16
Well, I mean, this is this is relatively new. So we’re going to have to, we’re going to have to have litigation, we’re going to have to develop some parameters with with the average person that that’s given this option is choosing under a great deal of duress. So we’re going to have to we’re going to have to deal with that we’re gonna have to deal with or the medical side effects from this particular medication. I don’t know anything about this medication. And I doubt the person who’s going to take it knows a whole lot about it. So we’re going to have to we’re going to have to have, courts decide if they can present this as an option to people. It if it’s if it’s if the side effects of the adverse effects are going to be a disaster, then this may should be removed from the option for a list of options from put on the table. But if the This law passes the assembly in Tennessee, which it did an Alabama signed by the governor, it is presumed to be constitutional, because the people’s representatives and the people’s executive are presumed to care about the constitution because they put their hand on the Bible, and they said they were going to uphold it. So therefore it gets a great deal of deference. So only the clearest of proof is going to knock this down because it has been enacted in Alabama, and it’s now in consideration under consideration and Tennessee.

Andy 56:30
We have covered this drug before, maybe not this specific one. But this particular process and the number of side effects, I seem to recall something along the lines of cancer kind of things, was a much greater degree of risk of having cancer kind of side effects to go along with this. And I want to say that this is borderline like junk science that this sort of kind of works that has the desired outcome, but Not necessarily exactly what you were intending? Well, the side effects the unintended consequences are huge.

Larry 57:07
Absolutely, like say we’re going to have to have litigation. But right now in Alabama, the law, the governor signed it. And it will be a burden to prove very high burden to meet. This is not presumed unconstitutional, it’s presumed constitutional and absent declares to prove this will stand and people will be putting that choice of position of making a choice if they would like to be released from prison early. If they do, they will have to agree to this if they have if they have a victim under that under that age range. So

Andy 57:40
this is draconian there. It is true. But

Larry 57:43
but there’s other things. I mean, what about these things that are strapping on people? I mean, I don’t know a great deal about radiation. And I know we joke about a lot but I don’t know what type of stuff is being beamed into your body and if there’s if people are going to be developing any side effects from having to wear these devices for you. years and years and years. I don’t know that Do you like a GPS monitor? Yeah, like all these electronic device? Yeah, we don’t. We don’t have long term harbor that do we?

Andy 58:07
We do not there. There are reports that like people using cell phones for hours and hours and hours a day, but and those all all those reports come back and say it’s complete bunk. Nothing happens. Oh, well,

Larry 58:18
but this doesn’t have to go through the courts. But you see, it’s time for you to speak up, because now it’s on the table. Right.

Andy 58:26
Yeah. All right. And then I guess to close out the show, we have a little bit of a listener question that you get to do your leiria analysis on. And this is from from, I’m not going to read the whole email address, but Rick says, Have you heard of the very recent 10th circuit decision us versus Michael Blair? It seems to greatly contradict the Eighth Circuit decision and us versus Kevin Carson, regarding internet use and other blanket probation restrictions. I would love to hear about it on registry matters podcast and thank you for all you do. Thank you very much. For the question, excuse me. Um, so it would seem that in one of the circuits, one person had all kinds of junk piled on them, and then another circuit, another one didn’t have all those restrictions piled on. And then we have a huge amount of controversy conflict between the two circuits. And wouldn’t that almost like initiate a challenge that would go to the Supreme Court?

Larry 59:22
Well, it certainly would be something you could put in your cert petition is your one of the 9000 each year who’s who submits those petitions stalling about 80 to 90 of them liked it, you could certainly put that in there. And that’s a factor that’s known to to encourage them to select your case for review. It’s no guarantee.

Andy 59:43
What happens if So, which one which one was which, who had more and who had less restrictions?

Larry 59:50
The 10th circuit is the more favorable and the less Garcia and I really, I think I saw the 10th circuit, so I’m intense or I think I’ve glanced at this one. So I glanced at it again. And I made some, some, some some markings that not all through the whole 31 pages, but I thought I made some appropriate Mark early on and in it, some highlights and supervised release. I think people have heard me say this before, that the statutory provisions providing relevant part that our trial court may or special conditions supervise really so long as one, the conditions are reasonably related to the nature and circumstance of the offense and history characteristics of the defendant. The data for adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant and the need to provide the defendant with needed educational vocational training, medical care and other correctional treatment and the most effective manner. Then it cites the United States Code section. And then the condition that the other component that the other part of that as the conditions evolved no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for deterring criminal activity, protecting the public and promoting a defendants rehabilitation. So that gives them an awful lot of latitude and posing conditions. When you when you when you when you have a special condition, the district court judges has a lot of latitude. But in the 10th circuit, the condition that that was was vacated was a condition that that allowed no internet that access throughout the period of supervised release, unless approved by the probation officer. The court found that that that potentially that the person would never have access to the Internet, and that was too much power to afford a probation officer. The Eighth Circuit found just the opposite. So he’s correct. They circuit found that that based on their body of case law, they had developed a circuit that they that that that they would provide the probation officer the the ability Totally banned someone from the internet and intense circuit. They cited three cases where they hit down the opposite. And they cited United States versus white, or they overturned a condition to prove the defendant from possessing a computer with internet access. through a period of supervised release, that was a 2001 decision. Now, we talked about body of case law we were talking about over a period of time. So they felt they cited that they cited United States versus wall sir, which they which came out later, not saying the year on debt, but then further down. They cited United States versus all been, which came out in 2015 in the 10th circuit, and so they cited their body of case law that said just the opposite. So they, they typically don’t undo a previous panels work. So there’s three cases on point. And this panel, this three judge panel said, Yep, that’s what circuit that’s what the law of the circuit is. That probation officer cannot have the authority to blanketly restricts on One from from without ever having access to the internet that is necessary for modern life. So we do a split duty

Andy 1:03:09
didn’t something similar happen with the same sex marriage stuff? What was that like? 2013 where you had different areas saying that it’s okay others saying it’s not okay. Then the hand got forced and it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled saying hey, you know if they smash their gavels and said okay, same sex marriage is legal, they forced their hand and they I was assumed that the the opponents to it they didn’t get exactly what they wanted,

Larry 1:03:34
that is corrected. They the reason why they the same sex marriage proliferated to the entire country was because the issue was taken up by the conservatives. They wanted, they wanted to, to have their day in the supreme court because they knew that they could win it. Or so they thought, what they didn’t, they didn’t calculate that Justice Kennedy was not with them. So when they counted their votes, they were wrong. But sometimes you don’t want the answer to a question. If you’re in a 10th circuit right now, and you fear the Supreme Court, which I would tend to have my trepidation about that, but I think packing ham does not carry the day. You know, the, as much as you want to read into packing, I don’t think packing ham carries the day necessarily, it certainly is a good step in the right direction. But if you’re in a 10th circuit, and you’ve got the law of the circuit big that people can’t do that. You don’t want to have that risk of the Supreme Court reversing and because if they were to undo that, and so actually, the people can do that, with the right with with on the right circumstances, they count them, you’ve gone backwards on the 10th circuit,

Andy 1:04:39
but the Eighth Circuit, they have nothing to lose,

Larry 1:04:42
they have nothing to lose, so that’d be chomping at the bit. So if you if you if you’re if you’re on If you ain’t where they circuit, you’re going to file your cert petition and you’re going to cite this, this conflict you’re gonna say look, I mean, this is a matter of great publican work. This This is such a significant split. And this is so important. Cuz it’s the first event but and by golly, ladies a clear concise direction is exactly what you’re going to do.

Andy 1:05:06
And then the 10th circuit people now get dragged on this train ride that they don’t want to be on.

Larry 1:05:11
That’s that’s always what’s potentially happen. So it’s like was the Sixth Circuit with Windows vs. Snyder, when, okay, when people were wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on Supreme Court declined to take that invitation to people that handled the case for the ACLU and the law school, the clinical law program. They were they were nervous as well as they could be about the possibility of the Supreme Court might undo their victory. They’re happy with the law, the circuit of the sixth day of the way it is,

Andy 1:05:42
I am inclined to then think that the natural progression then is that we need to organize and have some kind of legal strategy department so that we can figure out a way to, as much as possible appease both parties in this to make the 10th happy or somehow happy that you know, they should have an improved condition, or excuse me not have a reduced condition. And then the Eighth Circuit, people can somehow find a different way to challenge something to improve their condition. But we need some sort of larger hierarchy of legal strategy.

Larry 1:06:15
There’s really no way they can challenge it. The last avenue of appeal would be from the circuit to the US Supreme Court. So there’s nothing else left to do. That’s

Andy 1:06:24
right. I mean, I guess what I’m saying then is to even create some kind of new challenge to just start a whole new a whole new process, but so their hand is forced than that they have to then go to the Supreme Court and the 10th circuit, people don’t want them to do

Larry 1:06:39
it. Well, the 10th circuit and any other circuit where there’s where there’s similar case law. On this three judge panel on the 10th circuit, I noticed I just flipped down to the set. I I didn’t get time to read it in time for the show prep. But a judge Bobby ball Doc, which he said was a district judge in New Mexico, he’s he’s about the most conservative judge, you could ever imagine, and he descended in part and conquered all it only in part. So I’m going to try to read that we’ll get back to it on a future episode about what ball doc had to say. But ball Doc, when he was a district judge, he believed in maxing everybody out. And he had two speeches he would give at one was, if you’re a first time offender, he needed to send a message to you to not to break the law. So he would impose a very harsh sentence that if you were a repeat offender, his speech was slightly very imposing a very harsh and oftentimes the backs was that you’ve had a previous chance that you didn’t learn your lesson. So either way you’re going to get banged up, but but ball doc

Andy 1:07:35
Wow, that sounds awesome to me. We should make longer maximums then that way he would get either he’d be even happier about

Larry 1:07:42
maxing people out. Well, of course, he’s at the circuit level. So he doesn’t impose that. Yeah, or but but what he was a district judge, he was pretty tough.

Andy 1:07:50
I don’t really understand it. I do not understand this philosophy, Larry, that we have other countries that we would, you know, compare ourselves to as far as economics and Happiness and all that. And we we we trash people in prison for very long periods of time. I do not understand

Larry 1:08:09
why continue to have a higher crime rate. So apparently we’re not able to grasp that our approach isn’t working.

Andy 1:08:15
I understand. I think that we can we can close out the show, Larry, is there anything else that we didn’t do before we get out here?

Larry 1:08:22
Something one of our shorter ones, we’ve only done three hours tonight. That is correct.

Andy 1:08:28
Well, you can find the show notes over at registry matters.co. You can call in 7472 to 74477. I said that really fast. If you want to hear it again. Go find the show notes or press rewind. And we record the show usually on Saturday nights at seven o’clock, but that won’t be the case next weekend either. But the best thing you could do force Larry, do you know what the best thing you can do forces. Of course it’s it’s either your gross or net pay, though, share the podcast shirt, shirt, shirt, shirt shirt with all the people you don’t. And yes, if you want to support the podcast, go over to Patreon comm slash registry matters. And that’s all I got. Larry, I hope you have a super splendid evening and I will talk to you soon.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:13
And follow us on Twitter. Yep, follow us on Twitter. You’re starting to do some tweets, aren’t you?

Andy 1:09:18
I have been doing tweets it but I’m trying to do more of them.

Larry 1:09:21
All right. Well, have a good night. I’ll talk to you soon. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *