registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 119 of registry matters. Right? How are you? I’m talking to you from inside of a gas mask. Are you okay?
I couldn’t resist. Oh, you sound you sound fantastic. Yes,
that’s because I have one of those and 95 masks. I bought it years ago as I was prepping. I’ve got seven years of canned food in my cupboards. I’ve got a bathtub full of water for when they shut off the power, or excuse me off the water. I’ve got backup generators. I’ve got candles, batteries, I got everything. I’m ready to be a prepper.
Well, I tell you I was I was feeling pretty good about our state in terms of this where I’m talking about the virus look more later, but we didn’t have any cases until just a few days ago and now they they’ve tested and diagnosing From 10 cases, but we went from having plenty of everything and the stores to the stores being emptier than I’ve ever seen in my entire life. And I don’t understand it because it’s like, really, folks, this is at this point in time. This hasn’t reached anywhere near the level of where we’ve had infectious diseases spreading in the past, but yet the people are just wiping the stores out completely.
And you’re you’re at an eddy minimum, Larry, you are an above average intelligence person. And by far, you’re smarter than that. And you are great at explaining things and understanding. I think better than most people. I can’t for the life of me understand the toilet paper thing. I just don’t like I don’t need I don’t know how much paper you need. If there’s an epidemic that you couldn’t move to napkins and or paper towels or baby wipes. If things became dire. I don’t understand why I was at Sandy. yesterday and I saw like, every buggy I saw coming out of the thing had 400 rolls of toilet paper, they had 17 gallons of water and they all had Lysol wipes. And out of that the Lysol wipes are the only one that I actually understand.
Unknown Speaker 2:12
For you listeners who are not in the southern United States, the buggies is a colloquialism for the shopping cart Oh would be pushing around the store myself
for for international and global audience that we have, but but I don’t understand it either, because and I get punished by one of our patrons already because I said it will just in the normal course of living, you would think that a normal household would have a supply of tissue because you get the best economic value by buying multiple packs. Which means if you bought a 12 or 16 or 18, or these different combinations of roles depending on the brand, that unless you’re on the verge of running out, you would have enough to last you A week or two and and for us to be continuously without tissue for more than a week or two would be bizarre because I can’t imagine that that anything would drive us to that point. That’s a product that’s largely made in the US as far as I know. And I know we have it to my surprise, we actually have a plant here in Albuquerque that I didn’t know anything about. But it made the news last night because they are selling cases of 96 rolls for $35. And they had lines that you would believe because they’re not, they’re not set up for a retail customer. They, they, they they provide this to the as a wholesale operation, but they’re willing to sell to the to the public. And people were lining up and buy 96 rolls now. I don’t know much but 96 rolls regardless of the tissue count on the 96 rolls does go to last for a little while in most dating sites household but particular household for last 96 roles from last year. quite some time. I would venture to guess that’d be a year supply for, for for a household of four. If you could go through more than 96 rolls a year, I’d be very surprised.
Maybe let’s see for me, maybe, anyway, whatever I didn’t want to like,
And we can dig into that. I just I just don’t.
I just don’t Well, it’s it’s a it’s an irrational response to emotion has said and this is kind of like the stock market gyrations of significant boom. Do you do you believe that when you take a third of the value which we’ve lost, as a before the bounce on Friday, we lost? close to a third of the value. Do you believe that all the enterprise, all the enterprise value of the basket of all the stocks are listed and traded on Wall Street? Do you think they shrunk have shrunk by one third, in a matter of less than than two weeks? Of course not. No,
of course not. And I just have always understood that to be almost like the emotional barometer of the United States or at least the companies listed for their community.
That is the emotion of the investors. And once once a slide starts that’s what we’re having here with, with these hoarding, hoarding of purchasing. The scarcity is causing people to react irrationally, because when they see the TV of lines, they figure Well, I should be in this line too. When they see the TV pictures of the shells, I mean, how often do you own average person before this happened? The average person how often did you see metal shelving when you’re in a grocery store? No, I’m very rare. And I
just uploaded a picture into chat. I went to the Kroger just a couple of days ago, and it’s a big Kroger it’s like one of the super ones that has clothing and all that other crap and just bear shells I just uploaded a chat because I was like, I know I’m not gonna be on a buy any here but I just want to check and see. And there it was.
Unknown Speaker 5:50
The only time you see what you’re seeing right now is in a store that’s closing when you write when you when you eliminate the retail or if you close a large store. The way I’ve seen it done and we’ve actually when I was in the business close to few you shrink the store and you and you close off parts of the store and you continue to merchandise it to a smaller and smaller area that way doesn’t look as empty and then you but but for what you’re seeing in the stores right now they’re not closing so not there they’re not going to they’re not going to cordon off parts of the store for this you just have these empty gaps of the of the paper aisle but the cereal aisles and the the sanitary stuff. And actually I saw this cereal aisle coming back today it was empty yesterday but I was down and apparently they got enough that they that they sprinkle some product in the box cereals. We’re back.
Huh, let’s move on before you will ruin the whole coronavirus section. I got a great little summit to play for that one too. So our first article comes from courthouse news Supreme Court takes up teens life without parole case. I just have I just have one thing to actually say Larry, if you don’t want to do the time don’t do the crime
right. That’s correct.
Okay, so we should just nuke them and doesn’t matter if they’re eight years old. I don’t know how old was the kid that, uh, he was 15 years old when he committed this crime. He killed his grandfather. That seems like he probably wanted to give him a switch or something.
Well, and the there’s been Supreme Court rulings, and we’ve heard Scalia talk in opposition to these rulings where that they held that juveniles should not be subjected to life imprisonment, so don’t be subjected to the death penalty. And he vehemently disagrees with that. But in this case, after the Supreme Court ruled that that life without parole could not just be arbitrarily imposed that it had to be for a person who was incorrigible or should be this is our argument, it should be for a person incorrigible. This, this judge rescinded step after after he was entitled to a new sentencing, and the judge imposed the same sentence. And now the Supreme Court’s agreed to determine if there should be a standard of it of the person being incorporated Before they can be given like without, without parole, and that’s a new nuanced argument that they’re putting forth that that should be a standard. But Scalia would tell you that if that’s the standard that the state of Alabama citizens want, they can they can insert that into their statutory scheme, that to death that the life of prison is only available for a juvenile who has been determined to be incorrigible, don’t come to us and ask us to advance this requires it’s not in the statute, that would be his position. So it’s going to be interesting, but more conservative leaning of the court, if they’re gonna if they’re gonna be able to find five votes to come to that conclusion, if they’re gonna do to legislating from the bench.
And let me channel my inner Scalia than in you help you grade me as the teacher would say, according to us, as I understand how Scalia would say it if Mississippi didn’t want this individual sentenced to life without parole. If they did, yeah, they didn’t want him sentenced to life without parole so that he would get parole. The Mississippi would have created a law saying that you can’t take a June June a vial as you would say, June of a juvenile and sentenced him to life without parole. Now we’re as now he’s asking that the Supreme Court step in and say because he was juvenile because he wasn’t well developed all that stuff that the black robe should step in and say, No, Mississippi, you can’t do that. And Scalia wouldn’t be doing that.
Unknown Speaker 9:15
Scalia would not be in favor of that, because he believes that the gift of the Mississippi voters and their intelligence and that they would be able, if they want to spare that penalty, except for the most heinous crimes, they can spell that out. And they can spell out this new theory of incorrigible and if they wanted that they would have said that and he believes to assume that they weren’t capable of knowing what they wanted when they enacted that building scheme and made it available as an insult and in proper role for the for the courts. And if you if you believe in that philosophy that I mean it’s a very viable I tell people skill is is very well reasoned and what he’s what his arguments that if you believe in this State rights and the intelligence of Mississippi voters. They knew what they enacted.
One piece of this layer that I do still struggle with is that we have a very unengaged electorate. Even as far back as I know, if we would only have something of like a third of the people vote in the big elections, forget the off year elections. Forget any of the local city council things that’ll happen like mid year or something like that. Just a small fraction of people even vote that give a crap about it. So now you’re being you’re not being represented by the people, you’re being represented by some people.
Well, I mean, arguably, the people who do choose to participate are probably more engaged than the ones who don’t true probably. I mean, I wish that people took the time. And maybe since we’re not having to professional sports, people can pre channel some of their time to, to that they would be watching the hoops and March Madness on the all the different things NASCAR, what have you, maybe they can actually spend some of that time becoming a more informed person. But if we had 75% participation, does that magically make the people going to be informed just because they vote? Or where they would? Where do we get the evidence that having more people vote would mean that those people would be more informed.
And on the heels of that other article, another one that comes from the Georgia recorder where the Georgia House committee Monday recommended raising the age, a teenager can be charged as an adult from 17 to 18. This would be this, this would be the inverse of what happened in Mississippi where the person was 15 and got sent to life with parole without parole. I’m assuming he then got charged an adult in that condition. So here in Georgia, they’re changing it from 17 to 18, instead of what it was in Mississippi, of being 15. Am I am I even characterizing that close to accurate?
Yes, the de facto and Georgia and it was all that when I was there, that was the way it was 40 years ago if you’re reached 17 for pretty purposes of criminality that was an adult. And now they’re looking at changing that. But there’s a significant amount of opposition propping up because of the cost. And Apple the fiscal impact report, they call it a fiscal note but and Georgia assembly, but they there’s a four page report explaining why this is going to adversely affect the state budget. Because when you when you put people in a juvenile system, there’s a lot of checks and balances and rehabilitation and Tanna. There’s social work, and there’s all these things that they don’t do in the adult system. They’re going to cost money. And if they move about, out of the, the adult prisons, and depending on how many people actually end up in, in a correctional setting, you’re going to need space that they presently don’t have, so they’re going to have to build facility. So then the number of people, when you remove people from an overpopulated adult system was Georgia is one of the top incarceration states that doesn’t magically translate to that to that facility closing down if you take 20 juveniles out of this one a 15 out of that when all you do is just leave alleviate a little bit of stress on the system. It doesn’t magically mean to George is going to be able to close some of the Delta and then that close down the adult system presence and say, Oh, well, that might have just magically moves over the Juvenile Services. So there’s, there’s, there’s opposition to this because of the cost. But
couldn’t we find study after study after study that if we intervene earlier and keep them out of the adult system, that those kids would be less likely to come back in the system later and have a better chance of becoming productive citizens, etc. That has entered into
Unknown Speaker 13:35
the debate and that’s being considered and that’s a part of the discussion. There’s that that has not gone unnoticed. But still, that doesn’t alleviate the money that we need now. Yeah. And going back to the 30 people that you pulled out of the system that just makes it so that the county jail can put 30 people into the beds that they just released from the of the junior with juveniles, or the or, or the State President that if you take it If you went to Georgia right now, and you could magically wave a wand and find everyone who was charged as a 17 year old and you could somehow extract those that would not free up enough according to this to this fiscal note that would not free up enough space to have any tangible impact on on the on the adult corrections system. So you’ve got all these new costs coming in line coming online. And and that that’s a struggle. I fight with people all the time when they say, the long run, we’re going to save money. But we’re not in the long run. We have a budget to balance for this year. And so those lawmakers who convene in Annapolis or Atlanta, or by gabri, or wherever they are, they’re trying to balance this year’s budget and
get her to take into account something that is five or 10 or 20 years out. How did how does that conversation occur?
Unknown Speaker 14:54
Well, the way it’s occurring right now, it’s coming in there long term. We’re going to save some money. But in the meantime, I need revenue to balance this budget. Sure. And and and since we can’t increase taxes, that’s a mortal sin. To do that. We’re going to need new revenue that’s going to come from somewhere, or we’re going to have to reduce outlays to some other as far as everybody is concerned, how we’re going to take the money from you, if you ask for a show of hands of all the things the state of Georgia does, and who would like to step up and say they would have be willing to have a little bit less money, there won’t be any hands go up. Got it. So that therein lies therein lies the problem of trying to try and it’s the problems that the states largely face because they have to balance their budgets. Most states, at least by appearances operate under a balanced budget. At the federal level, we get to operate as a deficit spin up and apparently in perpetuity because my life I’ve been hearing that we’re gonna reach this magic day of recommend that we won’t be able to borrow anymore. And I’ve heard it since I was quite young. And now I’ve gotten to be a little bit older, and I’m still hearing it. And we’re running massive deficits and talking about actually ballooning the deficit further about more, they’re talking about relieving the payroll tax, which is a social security assessment. And I think that the figure I heard that that’s about a $60 billion between 50 and $60 billion a month in revenue that that would be for Gollum. If they completely eliminate that for the remainder of this year. Where do we get the 50 or $60 billion monthly gap that that’s going to create on the revenue side of the ledger? Where Where do we plug that?
How do we plug that won’t the windfall of the increased economic activity? Won’t that just offset everything? Well, I think
Unknown Speaker 16:44
we’re a we’ve seen that enough times, no, it doesn’t happen.
Unknown Speaker 16:49
I’m poking it barely. They’ve been they’ve been making that argument since the days of Warren Harding. And Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, which is approaching hundred years, they’ve been saying that And it never has done the magic thing. So if you if you forego $50 billion in revenue, you are correct. There would be people since these are wage earners that are paying this, that is to pay social security taxes, you have to have a job. And you have to be earning $137,000 a year or less. So yes, those people by and large, would consume more, there would be some activity that would be generated. But would it plug that gap, and even if it did plug the gap, which I don’t believe it would, but but it wouldn’t be going into the social security trust fund, the revenue that would be generated would be would be going to other revenue streams. But But social security trust fund as a dedicated revenue stream that comes from the assessment out of your paycheck, have a combined rate of 7.65 and then another 7.65 comes from the employer.
Yep. The other part of that that’s actually kind of interesting, though, is just on that take a quick little detours. Maybe if it’s enough money that comes back in your pocket that that resolves the demand side that you have the money to do it. But that doesn’t resolve the supply side, you still can’t get toilet paper. Even if you have an extra six and a half percent in your paycheck, you still can’t get it.
I don’t believe that this is going to be a long term crisis on toilet paper, first of all the people, I don’t think that having additional toilet paper actually would would increase consumption much. And so I think the consumption is going to be largely a factor of how many people we have and and bless the United States all of a sudden doubles its population. So I think that the supply chains are going to catch up because as the manufacturer in Albuquerque said, they said we’ve got plenty where we can supply this whole city with tissue. So I just don’t think that’s gonna be a long term problem, but the panic is there because you can’t find it.
Yes. Which then inspires more panic because like, Oh my god, I’m down to three roles. I may as well go get another bundle and maybe We’ve already detoured back to toilet paper
before something else, unbelievable.
But let’s move quickly over to an article I keep hearing from people about this one. And this was written by a friend of mine named Fred. It’s over on the narsil website. And it is Michigan State Police turning away pre 2011 registrants. I keep hearing that people are going into do their Annual Registration stuff. And the police are saying, nope, don’t have to do it. Have a nice day. It you have to think that you would go in there and like, well, now what am I supposed to do? Yes. They’re not having me register now. Are they going to reenact some law that’s going to pull me back in? How do I know when that happens? It Like, if you don’t register, like, isn’t the law still on the books? I think so. The police turning you away is one thing, but you’re still not necessarily in compliance. It’s I This has got to be a nightmare for people in Michigan to navigate.
Well, I wouldn’t view it as much of a nightmare, but I tend to analyze things differently than the person If the statutes been declared unconstitutional as applied to this book, and we talked about on the on the conference call do this, these pre 2011 people. It’s been declared unconstitutional. It has not been enjoined from enforcement. The injunction hasn’t taken effect. It actually has been injunctions been issued, but yet to go into effect. It would be the strangest prosecutorial setup that would ever exist in the history of humanity. And I know that’s the craziest prosecutions, but for a prosecutor to come in. And the defense attorney says, okay, you brought a charge, which I don’t say I’m doing. And I’m going to say that the statute had been ruled unconstitutional. an injunction had been issued, and the law enforcement told them not to come now. Do you still want to proceed with this prosecution? I would be very surprised if you could find an insane prosecutor that would go forward like that.
That sounds like it’s the same prosecutor that you would find that if you were 10 minutes over you’re 40 At our one week registration be in a different state that they’d be like, just go register, don’t bother with this. So they would be they would hit you maybe not kid gloves, even less than they would just be like, okay, go do your stuff because you actually have to go do your stuff.
Unknown Speaker 21:12
But I don’t think they’re gonna do anything until until the matters are resolved in terms of where their legislature is going to create a new registry. I believe the legislature will create a new registration obligation for all those people. I hope I’m completely wrong, and that they don’t. But I don’t see them letting thousands of people just evaporate into oblivion, and saying, well, we tried, we gave up because just because your most recent iteration of registrations are unconstitutional, that doesn’t mean every iteration is unconstitutional. In fact, to the contrary, every iteration prior to where we are Adele had been held to be constitutional. So logically, if you can’t think of anything else, you would, you would say, Okay, well, it’s read and The last constitutional version. So I think that if they were to do that which is expected do something in the way of trying to re register these people, they would be notice go out. I would, I would I would take to the public service announcements that I think they’d be letters from, from law enforcement saying the new law has been enacted. As of whatever day it’s effective. You have an obligation to register come in, test what I think would happen, I don’t think there would be I gotcha moment. Oh, well, you didn’t register during the time that was declared unconstitutional while the injunction was enforced. And the law took effect on July 1 of 2020. And here it is July 2, we got you. I don’t see that happening.
Let me just I don’t remember when it was in our history, but it was relatively early in our podcast history. So maybe it’s around Episode 20, or something like that. We covered an article where it was about reciprocity laws with gun ownership and traveling across state lines from one jurisdiction to another and that the gun owner The politicians were like, well, we want to make sure that our gun owners when they end up violating this law, because they’re in a new jurisdiction that they don’t get trapped into something. So we want to notify them. And at the same time we paired it exactly up with an article that, well, we’re going to change the law on the registrants. And we’re going to say, fyp, you guys have to figure it out. You follow the law, almost as if to trip them up, but also on the other side for the gun owners to make it so that they don’t get tripped up. I say that, just to provide contrast that maybe in Michigan, they wouldn’t do that and say, hey, look, you know, you are going to be required to register. So make sure you don’t miss your date.
Well, right now, they’re telling people that they don’t have to register because if they fit in this pre 2011 group, but if they restore that obligation to register, I don’t think they’re going to play out gotcha. I think they’re going to notify people by public service announcements, and by letters to the legislature has created and the governor has signed a new obligation, and you need to get in here and register. That’s what I think they’ll do. I don’t think they’re going to do it. I got you now. Now, if if a year and a half goes by, right, and they sent out two letters and you haven’t come in and they happen to find you, I think that would change the equation. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 24:17
And it’s got to be a bit. It was a spontaneous thing for them sitting around with a stopwatch waiting to decide gotcha.
I don’t remember the specifics behind collecting evidence. But the time behind trying to establish a case with something else that we were talking about, but in the article, it says the Michigan ACLU is advising registrants to try and register anyway. And if refused, try to get something in writing that says that they do not need to register at this time. But you know, something that says, hey, I came and you guys said no. And so here’s some evidence and don’t take that home and shred it, something like that.
Well, I think the memo that the state police distributed, it would be sufficient. If I were licensed to practice law. And someone got charged in Michigan during this, this temporary period where we were we have like a clarity, I would feel quite comfortable, confident and comfortable going forward with that. With that memorandum from the state police, which is the fall practical purposes they’d not to Chief law enforcement, but they are the best funded. They are the premier agency in the state of Michigan. And they are the guiding agency in terms of registration in terms of providing know how technical expertise and oversight to the counties in the local. So if I had that memo, and someone got charged with violating the registry of Michigan, I would be I would be in Holekamp. So I mean, it would be it was a list of my priorities and things that would worry me and keep me awake at night. This wouldn’t be one of them
very well. Moving over to a channel we’ve covered I think one of this person videos once before, it’s a channel named common sense laws. And a new video is released recently, and I’ve got a clip to play from it. And it’s talking about his experience with moving into Germany. And then the story goes on to like a friend of like more than just more than just an acquaintance, but not like, Hey, this is my chummy chum, best friend. And firsthand, second and third hand, you know, it’s not like we can document and prove what he’s saying. But, you know, and do you want to give the Do you want to give a disclaimer on the information in this video before we get too far?
Sure, I would say that this is an individual who has opined that the nation of Germany the Federal Republic of Germany, is not interested in a conviction older than 10 years. Therefore, Come one, come on. We have not researched that. So this is his personal opinion. It’s not us telling you that that is the way it is.
It’s also not saying he’s lying either.
Nope. We’re just saying that we’re we’re simply providing this to our listeners to convey three individuals experience in Germany.
It’s a two minute clip, here we go.
Unknown Speaker 27:14
They also asked him about or they asked him when his sex offense occurred. They never asked him a single detail about the offense. They only cared when did it occur? And he said, Well, it was March 2000. So you know, 20 years ago, and at that both officers seemed very surprised. 20 years, okay. And he also added that he had done seven years in prison, so he had finished his prison sentence in 2007. So again, you’re talking a stretch of 13 years, up until this point. So the officers, the lead officer, the main officer, who was doing most of the talking said, then that Alright, I need to go write a report. And I’m going to go talk to my supervisor and we’ll make a decision as to whether or not we’re going to let you into Germany. The officer leaves So our guy stays in the interview room for about 20 minutes conversing, you know, comfortably with this other officer. And I need to make I’d like to mention here that our guy told me that these officers were never anything but professional and courteous. There was never any aggression. There was never any yelling or demeaning talk, nothing like that. They never strip searched him. Nothing like that, that it was it was rather comfortable interview. So 20 minutes later, this main officer, the lead officer comes back and he says, alright, you’re free to go. So our guy asked, Well, wait a minute, for clarification. What do you mean, I’m free to go? And the officers said, No, you’re free to go go you get your your luggage, go about your business, enjoy your stay in Germany. And specifically, the officer told him and I think this is a quote, The past is the past and you should be allowed to go on with your life 20 years ago. We don’t care. We’re not interested. And that was it. The officer literally escorted him back into the terminal showed him where to get his luggage. Our guy picked up his luggage, carried it out of the airport, got on a local train, went to the main train station, got out of the main train station and went to his hotel, put his stuff away, and then kind of stood there on the sidewalk, like what the hell happened?
The main thing that I really wanted to get out of this is the officer saying, Hey, this is more than 10 years like, like, why are we worried about this if it happened 10 years ago?
Well, there Europeans do tend to be a little more forgiving of people’s mistakes as time passes, and they they think some stuff has the right to be forgotten. But I don’t know the specifics of where that line is in Germany. And I would like for prefer be clear, we’re not saying jump on the next plane to Germany, you’ll be fine. We’re saying that one of our listeners has has provided this information from experience of three people and it may or may not be helpful to you.
We also don’t know anything about what any of These individuals crimes were if they were super low on the scale, or you know how far up the scale they actually went, but for Germany to not care about any of it. So anyway, I’m super intrigued by him just by the host of that channel, getting into Germany and, you know, sticking down routes and all that and making things work for himself. I’m super interested in how he progresses. Sorry, consider in such a move. I wouldn’t be opposed to it. Not at all. Not at all. I mean, my income I’m on the internet anyway, I you know, I work from home. And I telecommute as it is what does it matter whether I’m inside the same time zone inside the same state halfway across the country or in another country?
Do they have the internet in Germany?
I think so. I think it’s made it over there. But I do not I do not speak any German. That would be the one challenge but I think they they’re pretty fluent in the English is
how an awful lot of Germans speak English. I’ve learned
Yes, I believe that to be true. Well, speaking of the internet, Larry, there’s an article that just was posted in the last day or two and I just put in the show notes so I had I hope you had a chance to at least take a gander at it but the new york new york Civil Liberties Union argues bank blanket ban on internet access for sex offenders is unconstitutional. Here we go. Another another challenge saying that they can’t take away the internet’s from all of the peoples and so I’m all in favor I just in today’s world it you know, if 10 years ago 15 years ago, yeah, okay. You didn’t have to go to BK jobs calm to go apply at Burger King. But now, there’s nothing you can do without being on the internet to get a job just about
this is litigation that I think NARSOL had a communications director. I think Sandy wrote something about this, but this is litigation that’s destined to probably have success because the developed body of case law is that you just can’t do that. You can’t just I mean, look at packing ham. I mean, you you just can’t tell people to do that. Beyond the internet impacting animals more about social media, but it’s an integral part of modern life. So it’s just too broad not narrowly tailored. So I haven’t read the complaint. I don’t know the specifics of it. But if this lawsuit is halfway Well done, it’s it has a good chance of success.
And this is another example of where the state is telling you you can’t do a thing that relates to a freedom of speech. Not that Facebook is restricting you not that your local news station or cooking show is restricting it that this is the state saying you can’t go on the internet.
That is correct. And the the data and the decision and packing ham was quite clear that that, that it was about social media, but the internet is a fact of modern life. That’s how you you do everything nowadays. In fact about most if you got your census form, how did it you should have gotten it by now. Your census form tells you to do what Go to the internet. Oh,
I don’t know that I’ve actually received I haven’t at least seen it. And it’s possible that I, you know, just glanced over it, but I print does it? It’s pretty well marked. It says it’s the census on it, right?
Unknown Speaker 33:11
Yes, they were supposed to be mass distributed to starting on the 12th of March of this year. And it was supposed to be by April 1, but it doesn’t have a form for you to fill out. And really, you got to go fill us It has Oh, my God. It has, it has a code. So you would not you’d have to, you’d have to violate federal law. Because you’re compelled by law to prosecute people this law to fill out the census. But you’d have to wait for an enumerator to come out. Or for I don’t know if the next step but they’ll send you a written form and ask you to fill it out. So numerator comes out and knocks door with a handheld device, but you’d have to break federal law to comply with this law.
That almost seems like a slam dunk that that should be pretty widely accepted by pretty much everybody on all terms that you have to use the internet and there if the government is going to send you the required federally required census form that you have to go use the interwebs to fill out, huh?
Unknown Speaker 34:08
Yes. And that’s what I’m saying. I guess it’s pretty much a slam dunk. You can do a lot of things that are narrowly tailored. And that’s the problem that the law enforcement community doesn’t seem to understand. You could conceivably require Halloween signs if you’ve narrowly tailored the signs to who they applied to, and made sure that it wasn’t a blanket requirement. The government can compel speech, what do you think we would do if we have to go into mass quarantines and people, we don’t have enough quarantine facilities and they, they tell people that your house is quarantine and nobody can come in? They would put up a sign, they would say, do not cross this line, house under quarantine, that that would be compelled to speak by the government. But they really tell you that as well personally tailored because you are contagious. And we’re doing this only for public safety. And as soon as the crisis abates, This sign will come down, that would withstand all the scrutiny that the person could throw at it, because it and that’s the problem with law enforcement, they don’t understand a lot of these play toys you’d like to play with, you could actually play with them, if you would narrowly tailor that. And maybe you need to come to me because I could actually tell you how to do this stuff, so that they would be vulnerable to constitutional challenges.
You’re like Rudy Giuliani and constructing a travel ban.
But, but I don’t support this, but if someone’s gonna write a restriction, I would rather I’d be writing it then you if you’re determined to have a band of some kind kind of prefer to be the writer versus you.
Unknown Speaker 35:47
would love for you this red house he did before.
Unknown Speaker 35:49
Again, the House Bill 720. That’s going to require potential Halloween signs in Georgia and also going to reinstate a GPS monitoring that was declared unconstitutional in Part B state. If they’re determined, and it sounds like they are to have these bands, would you rather me write them or they write them? Because they’re not going to be narrowly tailored anything?
Yeah, they’re gonna say if you, if you’re male, you have to do it. I mean, they’re gonna, they’re gonna paint with a very wide brush on who has to do it?
Unknown Speaker 36:17
Well, what they’re gonna probably say anybody who has a sex offense or at very minimum, they’re gonna, they’re gonna see what you would need to do on that, if you were going to have any chance of it withstand a constitutional scrutiny would be you would narrowly tailor to a to an offender, who had engaged in an offense where the person would be at risk by having people knock at their door. Now, so you have to do some thinking and I don’t have that proposal ready at the tip of my tongue here. But you would have to look at offender types where that having proximity to someone visiting their door was a fact and the offense factor that you can tangibly point to and say, well, we don’t want anybody knocking at this person’s door because of their uniqueness. characteristics, not because they’re a sex offender on the registry, but because of their unique characteristics. And then you might have a chance of getting out the gate on a constitutional challenge because you’re narrowly tailoring it. And he would only apply the most minimal restriction possible for the briefest period possible for four hours on Halloween died and the sign comes down. But they don’t think like that they they think they can put them up for a week or 10 days, and they put them on everybody’s yard. And they humiliate everybody rather than figuring out some justification that would that would tangibly relate to that person. And that’s why they lose and they’re destined to continue losing because law enforcement there’s one thing you can count on law enforcement. That is their DNA is they’re wired to push ahead with aggression and force. They don’t calculate and think very often in terms of how to get to their goals they think about if you don’t comply, I’ll tell you more times.
Unknown Speaker 37:58
Don’t tase me, bro.
That’s their thought process rather than if you don’t comply I would like to do some verbal verbal gymnastic with you to see if you can comply because I don’t want to have to use any slang tools. They don’t think like that you’re gonna comply because I’m the Polish play that little clip now.
I do love that clip that is the most he’s so sounds drunk. He sounds drunk.
Unknown Speaker 38:25
But but that is so indicative of do all cops think that way? No, of course not. Nothing’s absolute. But so many cops think that way because of the way they’re trained. They put them through the academies across the country, convincing them that everybody has hidden knives and hand grenades and all these different things. And that they’re all they’re all. They’re all on PCP drugs, and they’re all capable of having extraordinary human strength and they can bust out of any situation. And they get those guys and women so paranoid that they just believe that The only thing to do is to shoot first, or fire something first, strike first, because bad things are going to happen if they don’t. And that they need to be always in control compliance is the ultimate
badge of honor that you get the offender to comply with you no matter what you have to do. And you just keep escalating and that’s the way they’re wired. Now, some of them are smart enough and they get enough years experience and they say, gee, everything they taught me in Academy is totally BS. And if you’re gonna survive it held the streets and be successful, you have to ignore that. But they come out of the academy with a lot of brainwashing
to push the not even push back. I was at a restaurant in Atlanta last night and there were three officers eating dinner and they were I I wear a flak vest when I was in the army and like you know, you had all this crap around your waist and a flak vest. You have a Kevlar helmet on you just you know your circumference of your torso is like 10 inches 12 inches wider now because you have All this gear on and that’s how they’re sitting there because they got tear gas canisters, they got their taser, they got their pistol, they got all the things. And it’s incredibly intimidating and it is it doesn’t present something to me that would be like, I need help. I’m going there. I would think that I’m going to go ask for help. And I’m going to be the one that tase them because I disturbed the dinner.
Well, that’s the Europeans particular for from the United Kingdom, they, they get a kick out of watching American cops, because largely in the United Kingdom, the cops are not heavily armed at all. And they see they see what we do here. They just they shake their heads and total disbelief of water production we make of an officer and I’m surprised. I mean, one of the reasons I suppose they have to maintain such high physical fitness standards is because you’re carrying so much gear, that if you weren’t physically fit, you’d never be
able to make it through the day. You should probably go look at the officers in Bucks County man because they are not physically fit. There. They’re packing a few doughnuts around that midsection.
Well, that’s true. I’ve noticed that every time I Sounds like compare are relatively physically fit police force here in Albuquerque magazines don’t see for your people I don’t know if they have a max age but it’s a it’s a young force here okay that’s what you find if you if you find anybody over 40 It’s rare to their their their leadership roles I mean they’re they’re the regular patrol officers it’s a very young police force they’re physically fit very athletic when you don’t have a you when you get pulled over Albuquerque I want you guys to shoot a video to me on your What do you call it on the on the why’d you just use your camera shoot us a video when you get we want a potbelly officer pulls you over with an APD uniform. I want you to shoot that to us so we can put it on because you’re not gonna see that happen here. Got it.
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters email@example.com you can call or text or ransom message. 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis to patreon.com slash registry matters, not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies 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. All right, we got a batch of three articles that are talking about the politics of felons in in prison out of prison, but the people that are directly directly impacted by the criminal justice system. I tried to find something from rush where he was all up in arms about the amendment for in Florida where he was like, Oh my god, this is gonna open up a tidal wave of Democrats getting elected to different offices, blah, blah, blah. This art at least the first one from the Marshall project is that one One that has Yeah, there’s the the Marshall project one has expressed. There’s,
Unknown Speaker 43:03
there’s two of them that distill that. And I’ve been saying that without the data, okay, because of just just human knowledge and interacting with people in the criminal defense business, and knowing how right wing the people are, they’re in jail. They’re worse than the population as a whole. But this actually documents what I’ve been saying.
And it seems to be highly, highly correlated to race. So you have white and non White is really going to go after and whites overwhelmingly support Trump and non whites overwhelmingly not support. And that’s to me when the graph flips back and forth. That’s where I see obviously the most because the line moves the most, but just looking at the numbers and trying to just gauge what it is that so and because whites are about 75% of the population. They are disproportionately unrepresented in prison, but it’s still about give or take 5050 I think, at least as in the south, it’s about 5050 of whites to non whites in prison. So it just like anyway, it’s They, that disparity that that idea that the the prison population is going to vote blue doesn’t seem to bear on evidence, right?
Unknown Speaker 44:09
Well, like, I’ve just know this from life experience. But seeing these articles, I couldn’t help myself putting them in here because researchers have come up with the same conclusion that when they’ve gone for they’ve gone and done the data, they see that these people are I mean, Trump has amazing support in prison.
Amazing support. And to come on the heels of that there’s an article from the Washington Post setting up a actual voting booth in the Cook County Jail. I don’t know that this gets enough traction, that if you are detained during that voting time, that you may have squandered your ability to vote and I don’t see how that’s actually a legit thing. That totally seems like that’s a civil liberties violation that you are only alleged to have done something you haven’t been convicted of anything that you should still be able to vote I realized there were logistics of getting voting systems into prison and all that. But that’s that’s their cost to bear. That’s their burden to bear to keep up with your civil liberties to make it so that you can vote.
Well, I believe the article references in Supreme Court decision that says that you can vote while you’re while you’re in pretrial detention. I mean, when I clicked on it, I’m getting the diversion to get one year for $29. But I when I read this prior to last week, there’s a reference that there’s a Supreme Court case that says, in fact, you do retain the right to vote when you’re free conviction.
But that would mean that they would have to provide it for you. And I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t take any money to say that. Yeah, well, they’re not messing around.
Unknown Speaker 45:41
They’re not but that’s this is an example of Cook County, which is Chicago. For those who don’t recognize this is this is a major urban detention facility, becoming a precinct so the two people who were in pre trial status on election day can vote. I mean, what a novel concept and that’s why I put it in here because it can be done. They’re doing it
Unknown Speaker 46:03
if the will is there.
Unknown Speaker 46:05
The will isn’t there because they’re afraid they’re gonna vote. They’re gonna vote Democrat.
Democrat. Hmm. Not democratic, but your
vote for the Democrat Party.
Tell me what the Tell me what the story is behind that again, please.
George W. Bush said he used the term Democrat Party back when he was president. And it’s kind of like the drive by media. He said, Oh, wait, they did a drive by briefing and then the Russians latched on to the Democrat Party. And the drive by December 1, all the traditional mainline media’s the drive bys. And, and the Democratic Party. That’s not the name of the party. It’s not the democrat party or Democrat, but it’s the Democratic Party. So it gets under my skin when people won’t say the Democratic Party. So what I do that I retort with the Republican Party, and if you won’t pronounce if you won’t pronounce my party, I will pronounce your party correctly. And
also I nucular to
waste For that one President say that Carter was a physicist said do killer. Okay,
it sounds funny or when bush says, but maybe I’ve never heard Carter say maybe that’s it’s Carter, not quite my time but close
it and then that Reagan referred to the government is government
government. Well, I call it I call them governors.
So yeah, he said government was was typically he left out the army and people all the time refer to Washington particular the state of Washington is Washington. They put an order in, it’s not there.
Well, no, that’s colloquially, that’s a vernacular in the local area, because I grew up in Washington, and someone would pick on me relentlessly until I was like, Oh, it’s Washington, not Washington, but that’s how they pronounce it in that area.
Nope. Sorry. So you people in Washington, we believe we really appreciate you.
And then to close things out. There’s a there’s a final article also from the from the Marshall project. That’s Trump’s surprising popularity in prison. I’m sure that I could posit some ideas of why that is, but I will refrain from that because I will get yelled at, I’m sure.
Unknown Speaker 48:07
Well, I just wanted people to have the information when they, when you find yourself trembling, that the that the Democrat Party is trying to get people in prison to vote for my conversation with the people who are leadership in the Democrat Party, we don’t actually think that we’re going to get a whole bunch of votes out of it. We just think it’s the right thing to do. Yes, that people, the more participatory that we allow people who have who have records, that the better society we’re going to have. So it’s not some giant conspiracy of the Democrat Party. But if it were a giant conspiracy of the Democrat Party, the data from what I consider a reasonably reliable source suggests that the democrat party would be misguided to believe that it’s going to result in a tremendous amount of new votes for the Democratic Party, because the people don’t seem to support the democratic party that would benefit from this. That was it. I was trying to bait Yeah,
yeah. I have heard it proposed that the democrats want more inclusive voting and Team Red Republicans, conservatives want less inclusive, less widely spread. And I can just from one little incident that happened during the week, I go to a business meeting at lunch on Wednesdays, and a woman said something to the effect of that these ignorant people got and they have the right to vote. And I was like, Well, how would you make the determination of who can or can’t vote it? Like, if you just want to start there? Should it be by age? Should it be by income? Should it be by iQ? Well, the easiest answer is to just say, everybody can vote. All people can vote all the time.
Well, I’m not a spokesperson for the Republican Party. But I can tell you that that they are very terrified of people voting they continuously try to make it more difficult by they’re not big supporters of early voting. have extended periods of time. They’re not big enough. quarters of letting people vote without having a governmental entity issued ID because of this Boogeyman of fraud course nobody can find any document in case it’s a fraud, or you keep asking for it. In my State, I keep saying Would you please show us? I mean, we’ve we’ve actually, they’ve brought prove to us that dead people have voted. But the only problem is they weren’t dead when they voted. People extended early voting period. People are elderly, but some people died. They’re not elderly. But but we’ve we’ve we here’s a scary story about dead people vote Well, they do in fact vote but they vote while they’re alive. And then when the votes are tabulated, people have actually in fact died. But they say that without a government issued ID, that there’ll be this rampant fraud, but it just, they can’t substantiate the claim. And he come out of prison say your votes are automatically right to vote is automatically restored. But you haven’t got your ID together yet. Because of all the barriers of Real ID your disenfranchise But yeah, you have the right to vote. And, and and then as they’ve closed your state was a good example of the gubernatorial election. They were like hundreds of voter machines that were that were impounded for whatever reason there was some investigation going on. They had impounded voting machines. And they reduced the number of voting machines and and in the in the democrat areas where the dead people are likely to be democrats had to travel greater distances to vote, and it suppressed the democratic vote in urban Atlanta area. And Stacey Abrams lost the governor’s race to the person who was running the elections, who ultimately became governor governor Kemp was the was the elections manager because he was Secretary of State it’s
not only just in the Atlanta portion, also in the super duper out in the middle of nowhere rural areas. They, they you know, I think I’ve heard some number use that for every mile or 10 miles that you the percentage of people that vote goes down by some factor. So yeah, you have people with Very low incomes, possibly no transportation, like it makes it significantly harder for them to go vote and then they’re just like, screw it. I’m not going to vote.
But yes. And then with the technological, technological evolution we’ve had, I think I’m not a guru this but I think we could securely have people vote online. Apparently the Census Bureau’s comfortable enough that they can do something like the census online and this is Trump administration running the census. I would think that we could get enough personal information because we do have a giant database of all the vital records out there, that that’s available to the government. I would think that we could figure out people are eligible to vote by virtue of they are either a naturalized citizen or born in United States. I don’t think that the eldest paranoia about fraud, I think as a as a smokescreen for they just don’t want people to vote and I can’t speak for why they didn’t want people to vote, you’d have to ask them.
Yeah, I just, I don’t know that we the stakes would be too high to do online voting that to make a secure system that would support it without To keep the integrity up, I just I don’t. That is. There is an open source. There’s an open research project thing of how to do secure voting machines and all that stuff. And maybe we can dive into that as we get closer to the election of how that system is in play. But all of the systems that were made by these proprietary companies and they’re 20 years old, and they’re using Windows 95, or something like that, they’re complete garbage. They put them into hacker conferences, and in 75 seconds, they’re wide open for people to manipulate the vote. And that’s a on premise voting machine. Forget trying to do something online where someone’s used grandma’s using an old computer hasn’t been patched in 12 years. It that would be a nightmare. I don’t know that we can get there. I just don’t
Well, I can we can we actually get there by having mailing mailing boats? I think they did that in Washington this primary they did. They did about all by mail, if I’m not mistaken.
I believe I know California lets you do that. I don’t know that they require it. But I think I think there is a state that does everybody’s mad And vote right.
Like you just said, like in the Washington or Washington I thought she was one of those one those liberal do good states bastards, bastards got and then you don’t have to. The one thing about that though, to me is that if there’s some sort of earth shattering news that comes out the day before the like, what are you supposed to do then you’ve already cast your votes. Well, that’s the problem you have with early voting that that’s why I’m typically not an early voter you need you need to for as I’m concerned, wait as long as you possibly can to gather as much information as you can to be a better informed voter. But But if you if you vote two weeks before the election, a lot can change. At least in my mind, a lot can change. But But when you do a mail and vote when to same thing, it totally if you mail your if you mail the ballot, because you can’t go retrieve it and say I want my ballot back.
Because it’s supposed to be anonymous, so you couldn’t go find that your 12345678 that’s your voting number and you want to go pull that back. I don’t know how to solve that one man, that’s way above my paygrade. Here’s an article from rewire news that says you don’t even treat animals the way I was treated pregnant and incarcerated. This is a profile of a woman who was just treated like utter crap while she was pregnant and incarcerated. We just have no systems in place to handle that a woman has an extra little body attached to her inside, how she’s supposed to be treated with any level of compassion and empathy. And it’s just bizarre to me that we would treat people this way then knowing that they’re about to bring into the little human into the world.
Well, I was shocked when I read it. And this is actually not far from us here. This is a place called La Plata County, which is in the four corners area of Colorado into Mexico and where the four states come together, and the seat would be Durango. But apparently they did not believe this woman although they knew she was pregnant. They didn’t believe that she was on the verge of getting Giving birth and I don’t know how you’re i don’t know how i don’t know since I haven’t been pregnant I don’t know all the ins and outs. We probably we probably we probably need to put one of the women that some chat on here but I can’t imagine that it would be easy to fake that you’re in that position. I mean, I would think there would be as long as we’ve delivered children we would kind of be able to pick up on when you’re when when you’re in a condition where you date attention
seems very strange. You know and as that little clip says that your water breaks you’re in agony. How are you supposed to do anything like you’re going to grab the the scalpel or whatever would be nearby and start stabbing people to escape. And, and then further down the line, like in the next handful of minutes, there’s going to be this little entity that pops out that needs love, attention, caring. Seems it would be best for a mom, that that would be the most optimal caregiver of the child as soon He comes out or he or he comes out and but what do
you do? Well, this is this is just appalling but read it for three days and 2013 officers ignored her please as bleeding continued and abdominal pain worsen instead of being taken to hospital also was the woman’s name was brought to a medical observation sale for jail officials used a pad count and method of monitoring the number of pads a patient senators with blood to estimate how much she was bleeding. They gave me two pads and sent me to a single cell by myself. And I kept bleeding and it hurt so bad. And I was like, Oh my god, this is a I’m gonna die. And, and the guards told her she needed to get ahold of herself. Right she was reacting. Well, I mean, I’m assuming that the bulk of the of the guards are probably male, right? And how can you as a as a male tell someone is undergoing experience that you have difficulty, if not impossible to relate to how can you tell them Get a hold of themselves. Because unless you’re a medical professional I doubt you have any idea what they’re going through. I would agree. And it says it says she was rushed to the hospital where she went emergency surgery for a ruptured what is that there? A topic pregnancy whatever topic.
It’s a topic like,
Okay, what does that mean? I that part I have no idea
but let’s just say that the universe has exploded or something like that. So,
but that sounds bad. I don’t. I don’t I don’t understand how that we can. We can. It’s like, really, the worst thing that can happen is as you’d be premature that you wouldn’t be ready to have the baby that’s I think the worst thing can happen. I have been told that it is when the egg ruptures in the tubes, so the fallopian tubes that there are some eggs that go explode explode in the fallopian tubes. And we have this from a credible source and our vast chat room
with three ladies in chat and two of them have confirmed that this can kill you. So that sounds like a little polling by me.
We’re ready. So we’re ready to let a person possibly lose their life at the end and the baby. Because of what?
Because they committed some crime they still $25 from the local corner store.
I can’t take this any longer.
All right, well, then let’s move over to an article from the daily press.com. After Virginia prison strip searched and at excuse me, eight year old, almost 18, eight year old state lawmakers passed four bills to limit the practice. It took someone searching an eight year old for them to pass legislation from what people would like to refer to as something like common sense, right? It takes a law to say that you Thou shalt not search people under the age of something. And that’s unbelievable. eight year old, I Hey, honey. You got to get strip searched. You got to pull down your pants for this adult so that you can look at your junk to make sure that you’re not smuggling in anything
while I get Again, prisons are afforded broad discretion doing things and you can do almost anything with an articulable cause, I would have it would be a very high standard before I’d allow stripped sorts of an eight year old, but they don’t tend to think that way. We’ve got the power, we can do this, by golly, it’s our policy, and we’re going to do it. And nobody says, no, wait a minute, we’re not going to strip sorts of eight year old The only way I’m going to do that as if you can show me that the mob was putting something in their private areas before if we got some evidence where we needed to a strip search, but weren’t. We don’t strip search kids here. Sorry, that doesn’t happen under my watch. But nobody’s for some reason, nobody will say that. And then we have to pass a law to get you to do to not do what you have better sense to do if you had in a sense to start with.
Do you think that these are people that are you know, they’ve read the SRP and it says that they’re going to strip search all individuals coming into visitation. So it was like, well, chiefs I got a strip search everybody coming into this station, you are a person, right? So well take them off, you got to go.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:05
I don’t know the particulars of it. But there again, we criticize people who served in previous militaries for following orders. And even if it isn’t the SLP center operating procedures, I would say No, sir, I’m not going to strip search an eight year old with us. I have some calls. I mean, you can do it if you want to, but I’m just not going to do. So.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:27
what’s the worst? The worst? Plus the worst thing that could happen? If you say no, I won’t do that the absolute worst thing happened would be what? They will fire you. That’s the worst thing that it is. Do you think that it would go? Do you think that would go? I mean, first of all, that that’s not death, that that most people that have been fired, very few that I know of have, have been had deaths resulted in their death. But that’s the worst thing happened. The good thing that could happen is if maybe you did it, perhaps maybe one of your co workers would do it next time and perhaps maybe The example of saying no, sir, we’re not going to do that. Perhaps maybe they would rethink their policies. Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, um, and it would be an interesting case to go watch if you brought things to some sort of court hearing about trying to get your unemployment benefits. So you were fired. Why? Because there was an eight year old in the visitation room and I was forced to strip search when I refused. I have to think that some level of rationality would then come forward and the judge would be like,
yes, give the guy his unemployment insurance.
While they would it would vary according to the hearing officer. Now we heard in the confirmation hearing, so I’m not at all but of course, it’s that when the person abandoned their truck, would it be below zero, they’re about to freeze to death, that they Valley company policy, they could be fired and that he felt sympathy for the person but they violated company policy. So depending on who conducted the hearing, you might have officers that say, Well, I’m sorry, but you refused. According my guidelines, if a person is willfully disobedient to their employer, I have to disallow the benefits that could happen. But then you would take it up on appeal. And assuming that you have some value about your life assuming that you’re not a slug To start with, I’m guessing and this time before employment that you could possibly find another job. Maybe.
Larry, let’s move over to our feature segment of the night, which is going to be about prisons and coronavirus. The first article is really just like, Huh, this comes out of the mirror code at UK it’s coronavirus, six dead as prison riots sparked by emergency laws sweep Italy. Obviously this isn’t the US and I don’t know that this is happening. Obviously this just happened did parchment with a riot but this wasn’t related to the virus but you have people super close quarters, they can’t, they can’t separate like the what’s the term? I keep forgetting the term but you you keep yourself distance like three feet distance from social distancing. Social distancing, that becomes hard when you’re like enough 40 by 40 room with 100 dudes or chicks whichever way. Anyway, so a riot breaks out and people are dying and they managed to get their way up onto the roof. That looks like a lot of fun there.
It does. They should have just shot him off the top of the roof
that I that I can almost guarantee you that’s what that would have been the response in the US there. I don’t know that they would have been they wouldn’t use kid gloves to try and get them to calm down. Yeah, they would have to get some snipers and plop them off the roof.
Well, we can’t take a chance of them getting outside the prison walls. We have to break the riot and the uprising. We have to put it down because bad things can happen.
Would you envision that this scenario plays out in the United States. a riot breaking out inside the walls.
Read over this virus. Uh huh. I do I do have that fear of of that happening. And in fact, it’s been on my radar. And I’ve actually written a little something for the Defense Lawyers Association here about things that we can do to diminish that possibility. But yes, I think the panic can cause people to do things that that they would not do in normal circumstances that we would all agree that a prison environment a particular us prison by largest not an ideal environment for people to think rationally. Because of the stresses of being incarcerated and the harsh conditions that most of our prisons, the reality of what the conditions are. So when you’ve when you’ve got someone who’s suspected of being infected, and the way this is going to go down, if it goes down, the way I suspect it might go down, would be that the prisons will be slow to detect who’s infected because it’s not our highest priority. When you Start thinking about how we’re going to test you think that that it would be but it’s not going to be our highest priority. The the so we will end up having a prison that has several infected people before we figure it out. And then management of the president is stuck with a facility that it really isn’t designed for isolation and contained breathing of air to breathe that you wouldn’t spread it through the ventilation system. There’s so many there’s so many things about prison life that make it difficult for for the person I can even read the points I put in my writing to the defense lawyers we’ve got facilities are largely not designed for good hygiene. They’re designed to keep them from being flooded, and people using excessive amounts of water. And so the water controls are typically running for a couple of minutes. reduced pressure. Oftentimes buttons have to be held to keep The continuous flow of water, the flow of water, it’s not usually a good forceful amount of water, you got a little trickle of water coming out particularly older facilities and you’ve got you’ve got a lack of a lot of, of soap and sanitation for the inmates to you. So if you’re so desirable, I’d be so if it’s your desire to maintain good hygiene, you’ve got a little trickle of water that things are too hot or too cold. And it won’t run for very long. And you can’t really do the sustained hand washing that you need to do. And then you’ve got these people they’re infected, that are unbeknownst to you. And when the prison finds out that they’ve got a population of 963 people, in fact, they don’t have anything where to put these people. Yeah, that will contain that will contain them. They don’t have they don’t have isolation chambers that have contained oxygen supplies. So so we have we have the risk of of a rapidly spreading epidemic in prisons. As they’re doing all the while they’re doing some of the right things. I shouldn’t say all the wrong things are doing some of the right things, but they’re doing some additional things. They’re not right. They’re there. They’re doing the social distancing by cutting off visits from the outside, from family, and from attorneys, even legal professionals are being told you can’t have visits, right? And so that I could go along with, but that’s one step of the many steps that they need to take. They’re not doing things that would actually help contain the spread of the infection if it actually gets on the prism. Rather than doing a weekly laundering event. People weekly, change the sheets and change to their jumpsuit. They should probably do that three times a week now. The laundry facility should be put on 24 hour day operations, so that all the inmates clothing that they personally owned, and all the inmates clothing and linen that’s issued is is continuously being being being churned and clean. They need to increase the amount of sanitation supplies that are available to the inmates so that they can clean and require that these housing units be robustly cleaned every day. They need to provide an alternative to those visits that are that are being canceled. They need to say for example, we’re going to get with the security. And we’ll pick up the tab for the phone calls, or they’ll secure us, we’re going to ask you to turn off the charge for the phone call so that people can maintain contact with their families, as well as and try it. It’s part of a compromise of conveying to the inmates. We are inconveniencing you, we’re taking away one of your most cherished privileges. But we’re also showing you that we’re trying to keep you safe by giving you more clothing by giving you more more visitation by telephone and making making making some concessions on our parts so that this is not just how we can punish you. If you cut off family visits, and you’ve cut off attorney visits and these people could feel completely isolated. Do you think good things are going to come out of this?
Certainly not which was something you said just a second ago brings up something from the the appeal article Talking about pressure being put on the governor of New York. These guys gals are working. They’re going to use inmates. I think they said but they’re nearly 100 incarcerated people won’t be making hand sanitizer for just cents on the hour. But because one of the components of the hand sanitizer is alcohol, that the inmates can’t then have the sanitizer, so you can make it but you can’t have it.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:24
Oh, well, they showed us all about that before they
got in there. I know and for all the people that are not so informed and the hand sanitizer that you normally get kills 99.999999% of bacteria, the corona viruses and the bacteria so it doesn’t necessarily kill it. So you’re kind of screwed.
Well, thanks a
lot. I’m sorry. So, so all the people with the Lysol wipes, that’s probably a better approach. It’s not as convenient Oh, but you need the alcohol.
So my brother who drove all over Gatlinburg, Tennessee to get some hand sanitizer, a wet pay wasted his time in other words,
I’m not going to say he’s wasting his time because I think even like the action of rubbing is a very good idea, but I don’t think it’s gonna actually kill the virus. Anyway. That was that piece coming from the New York side of things.
Well, it disturbs me that that I haven’t seen a several of our sheriff’s departments here posted their plans in response to a public call from the ACLU and from from, from activists saying, What is your What are your plans? And all the plans are lacking in terms of the things that I just mentioned? It’s like it’s cutting off visits. That’s our first answer. Well, unless you’re your staff is all living on the compound and forget a forbidden to leave the present compound and not having any contact with anyone off the compound. You’re not making. I mean, you’re making some progress. You’re reducing the chances of exposure, but you’re still got the risk because these people are going home. They’re going out to the world they’re having contacts And they’re going to bring this virus back into the prison. So the, the thing that’s missing is how to increase the sanitation and stop the spread from within the prison. What about getting people that are their high risk out of prison temporarily Iran, which is not thought of being as one of the most forward thinking nations on Earth, they release thousands of prisoners now, what would be wrong with us taking the vulnerable elderly, and the ones who have who have health issues that make them more susceptible to, you’re not going to die? If you’re healthy, you’re likely not going to die if you get this but if you’re not so healthy, you have a compromised immune system. The complications could result in your death. What would be wrong with us taking those more vulnerable inmates? And go ahead and using this fancy technology that we talked about how wonderful it is, that’s an alternative to prison and taking these people and getting them out of prison. Until this price, it’s a bait. That would be a positive step. And these people are not going to flee the United states, they’re not going to disappear into oblivion. And we could do that. And the sanitation stuff, the laundry, running your laundry 24 hours a day, I don’t know what you’ve had run 24 hours a day. But increase the operations, you’ve got trustees, you can avoid those jobs. You can pay them nothing, or just give them privileges or pay them pennies on our team to run laundry. And it’s a stress on the machines, but you can run laundry, basically around the clock, industry pizza fresher guarantee you people will work for pizza in prison,
Unknown Speaker 1:13:30
and you can all of a sudden have a much cleaner environment. It won’t guarantee they’ll spread. But it’ll certainly help diminish it because right now those stainless steel tables where people are hacking and sneezing and everything all day long, and they’re getting I mean,
how often did you see those those tables being sanitized properly when you were when you were incarcerated? I
saw them being but I don’t know about properly and then how you know how would you even go investigate that it was done and you’re going to get some sort of like UV Like the stuff that you see in CSI where they spray something and they put on like the blue glasses and with a blue light or whatever it is, and they show you what was actually there. Nobody does that crap.
Well, well, no but but when when you’re when you’re talking about a correctional facility at the old indications I have is that sanitation is kind of lacks
Unknown Speaker 1:14:17
Unknown Speaker 1:14:18
totally agree. They don’t, they don’t provide enough of the right stuff. Because of security concerns. You know, we can’t have mop buckets with handles and stuff like that we we can’t have what you just mentioned alcohol, but we have all these things we can’t have. And I think it’s time to to look the other way on some of the stuff I’d say in this crisis. We’re gonna have to bend the rules kind of like when the when the when the Indianapolis was after the ship was sunk. And although many hundreds of sailors were eaten up by the sharks, and they were finally discovered that there was a rescue ship on the horizon, and they turned, they turned on their lights on the captain’s orders even though they were setting target for protect themselves. But but but but the cabinet said, I’ve got to give these men hope that are the water that’s almost coming for them. So we’re making ourselves a target to give these other been in the water hope. And that’s kind of what you’re doing here. You’re you’re telling these people, we can’t guarantee you that you’re not going to be infected. But we can guarantee you that everything that can be done reasonably we’re doing because we care about your safety and that that message has not been conveyed from any correctional administrator that I’ve heard of all they’ve conveyed is we’re cutting your visits off.
Can we move things over? I know we have this other article that’s talking about the Bo peas readiness, but you know, we’ve kind of already swirled around it enough. I have had conversations with more than one person talking about the constitutionality side of things of locking cities down of, you know, restricting sales of different kinds of items, or the price gouging restrictions, and I like it I can see where the person is coming from that dammit, we’re a free society. If I want to sell my roll of toilet paper for $100 su, I’ve got it, you want it Give me your hundred bucks. But I’m still thinking about 80 year old grandmother that needs some toilet paper, she is not capable of going down to the store and fighting for that toilet paper that we as a society would then create some sort of bubble that keeps people from hoarding keep people from gouging. These are things that would happen within a constitutional framework from an executive order. Like these are things that exist, they’re not unknown things, and they’re not the start of anarchy. They’re not the start of you know, a dictatorship inside the United States. I’m just I’m just baffled about how we would go from our society that is at least reasonably free to having some sort of complete control. I don’t even say like Russia, but North Korea where everything is micromanaged. Have you heard of these kinds of things, quote unquote, coming down the pike.
I have heard the conspiracy theorists are out there about they’ll This is like a conspiracy to gain more control of the population and all this other but the only problem is we’ve had these public health epidemics or pandemics, where they’re properly referred to we’ve had these issues going back for decades and decades of my life. I tell people well, I remember in 1968, when I was quite young, we had the, the Hong Kong flu. And then the 75 we had the swine flu that affected a lot of people and the president united states rolled up the sleeve on national TV and took a swine flu vaccine and said to everybody, please do this for for preventive split spread of flu. And we’ve had we’ve had more bad avian flu, bird flu, h1 and one I mean 2008 2009 another swine flu outbreak. I mean, we’ve had all these things and If there was a giant conspiracy to get control the people, why didn’t they do it and don’t say all these previous ones? Why didn’t they do it? I mean, it’s a bit far fetched. I think public health officials are trying to make the best decisions, and they’re the ones and they’re not going to make the best decisions because there’s disagreement among professionals about what the best thing, what’s the best course of action? Dr. falchi has one opinion, and another medical expert may have another opinion, about what what what is what’s to be done. But I don’t see a giant conspiracy to deprive Americans of their liberty. Maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t see it. I mean, but you’ve
been around since like the frickin the Roman Empire. So you’ve seen if it’s if it’s gonna happen, it’s happened and you’ve seen it? Well, I mean, the
Unknown Speaker 1:18:46
this administration who is about all about freedom, I mean, obviously the lobby, this would be something you’d expect from Bernie and from the from the from the Democrat Party. I mean, you wouldn’t expect this freedom loving administration to be tried. To restrict people’s liberties, would you? Definitely not.
Um, I received one of the articles that I received was from Champaign, Illinois. And they were talking about, like restricting gun sales or ammunition sales, alcohol sales, like the alcohol when I can, like at least get my head around. And you don’t want people getting shit faced and run around and then causing riots because they’re all drunk and they want to whatever they want to show out. So I mean, like, I can at least understand that and then that could possibly lead to people buying guns and ammunition and shooting people. I could see why they would do it. But even if they did do it, it seems like it would be for a highly targeted for one week, two weeks, whatever, along with curfews until 7pm or daylight hours since like it there, they are constitutional, they are available to the executive to make these decisions to happen is that is that fair?
Well, ah ah, executive action will have to be Examine as it comes down to determine if there’s there’s encroachment in the Constitution. At a time of crisis, like we’re potentially in right now, it’s not an epidemic yet where there’s millions of people, in fact it. But I think from what I’m hearing, and I’m no expert, of course, but what I’m hearing it has the potential to do that to be that. And therefore, it state and federal level executives are given a lot of power and emergency situations, particularly in that public health is in jeopardy to issue orders. And, again, just like with the travel ban earlier on the Trump presidency, if people think that they have gone too far, that’s what the courts are open for. So you can file your action and tell the court why this executive action is unconstitutional. And we’ll let the courts decide, right.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:55
That’s how it seems to me there.
I’m not I’m not sure about the gunnery restrictions. I mean, other than if you’re worried about people going postal, and for those who are under 30 do hear that term much anymore. But for for going postal was when most of the mass shootings that occurred in modern us time were disgruntled ex, or current postal employees who went back to their, to their boss and shot up to the boss and co workers and stuff. And so that’s the term going postal. if, if, if, if situations if, if this crisis became so severe that people couldn’t get food, and they couldn’t, they couldn’t do their basic things I need to do to stay alive. I suppose that there could be some concern of people resorting to extreme measures, including the use of weapons I mean, if you’re gonna starve to death, and there’s food to be had, and I mean, anything’s possible, but I don’t know the connection of why that they order would exclude the firearms I’m not familiar with what their thinking was.
Just I can like I can rationalize around it a bit. Like, well, you don’t want new people running around with weapons, you know, just on the whim of some sort of zombie apocalypse, whatever it seems well, that says see number number six.
Number six, I’m the Executive Order. On the one that’s an article that says in bolted order discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of explosives or explosive agents, farms or ammunition or any of any character whatsoever is this is this executive order? It’s already been issued.
I think that one is like maybe being talked about. I mean, that’s the one that I heard about. But I think that’s just in talks. I don’t know that it’s been executed. Anywho I just wanted your policy your you know, all of your expertise and years of dealing with you know, even after 911 that would have been one of the biggest in are like our national level of tragedies. But this outbreak on a national scale is similar to a Hurricane Andrew or, you know, Hurricane Sandy in New York a few years back like it’s just A nationwide scale that you have to protect the infrastructure and people keep people from gouging prices and hoarding things and then just messing up the whole civilization as a whole.
Well, on that point on the on the gouging. I think that one’s really pretty simple that I mean, yes, in a free country, you’ve got to sell things for, for the going rate what a willing buyer and a willing seller would would agree upon. But those are in normal circumstances where you have no extraneous factors that play an emergency situation, whether it be a hurricane, or some natural disaster that causes those normal forces to no longer be controlling the transaction, then we try to protect people from price gouging, because that’s exploitation. Your your $7 pack of Sharman doesn’t magically become worth $150 except except for the emergency that you’re profiting from. So we’ve, we’ve long since recognized price price gouging as being something that’s problematic. And people can go to jail for price gouging. But this actually is an order that’s been issued by Mayor Debbie. Deborah. Frank feenin. Okay, champagne, this order has already been issued. The Executive Order allows the city to this was what was reported on wi nd channel 17. So apparently this is this is this is what, what’s in place right now.
Do you? Do you see that as like a gateway to martial law to all like some sort of complete total government takeover in the eradication of the Constitution and all of our civil liberties? yada,
yada, yada? No, I don’t. We were so far from that with an a democratically elected system of governance. Yes. It’s it’s always good to talk about me. As old as I am. I’ve heard I think since the Nixon administration about how he was going to declare martial law and he was gonna hang on to the presidency, and then every president since then, except for I don’t think I remember hearing about Carter, but certainly a lot of presidents were going to hang on to power. Now I’m hearing about Trump that he’s not gonna leave office. He’s going to leave office one way or the other when his time is up. And if he were to try to cling on the power, we have enough institutions left that are functional that they would be removed by force if necessary. And in the case of martial law, if if we’re not in a real emergency that justifies it, the public would never tolerate it and what’s largely free society. So to me, it would it would be dissolved by the by the people. Yeah. And, Larry, don’t you understand if the martial law people are not allowed to vote? Yes, I would understand in theory, if you had martial law that people wouldn’t be allowed to vote, but what they would be allowed to do, we wouldn’t be able to turn off the telephones. You wouldn’t be able to turn off Twitter. You wouldn’t be able to turn off Facebook, and you wouldn’t be able to turn off all the people if they decide to pour to the Street and decide that we’re going to march on City Hall. And we’re not going to take this anymore. I mean, unless you’re willing to have a complete bloodbath, which we’ve learned that some countries are not willing, when there’s an uprising to have a complete with that, but that’s how the Soviet Union collapse because the the, the powers running the Soviet Union are not willing to have a complete bloodbath, when the uprising as a people was happening back in 89 and 90. And in the United States, you would never be able to impose martial law for very long, because the people wouldn’t stand for it in my view, and I could be wrong, but I just don’t see that people would stand for having their liberties completely eradicated. And say, Well, I guess we’ll just just lay down and take
it. Do you want to play these? These last two clips that we have?
I think they would be fun to play. Yes, this is this is in terms of the relief package for for the all the shutdowns and cancellations there’s a lot of hardships going to be imposed on people by force shutdowns and cancellations of school closures. And then there’ll be a lot of economic dislocation because it’s as as business contracts as a result of cancellations people, it’s very unlikely that the sports arenas that are having all their events canceled, it’s very unlikely that they’re going to continue to pay the people now some of the sports figures have stepped forward and said, we’re gonna, we’re gonna personally donate. And some of the team organizations have said, we’re going to personally donate but what this deals with this issue of, for those generous donations haven’t materialized the issue of, of sick leave for folks. And this is senator Kamala Harris, talking about sick leave and about the posture of United States and those who oppose sick leave, and the downside of the short sightedness of that. And then there’s a second clip that talks about how the US compares with the rest of the advanced world in terms of sick leave and are we right because we think of ourselves as being number one and everything you know, we’re the greatest and this this, assuming his figures are accurate. And again, just like Like the earlier clip, I’m not gonna say I’ve researched his figures. I’m gonna say these are his figures. And we’re taking them at face value. But I will
say about it. We are number one on this list.
Well, it’s not number one in a good way.
All right, so here’s the Camilla Harris clip.
This is bigger than the individual who receives the paid family leave. This is literally about every other person that that they will come in contact with. Because they are not staying at home. It’s really important for people to understand it is in everyone’s best interest that all workers receive paid family leave, because otherwise they’re going to be sitting next to you on the bus. They’re going to be walking by you down the street. They may be serving your food.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:51
They may be taking care of your children.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:55
They may be your neighbor. It isn’t everyone One’s collective and best interest that we provide paid family and sick leave to people who are sick with the coronavirus. There are people in America In fact, two thirds of low income workers do not have paid sick leave. And when presented with the issue of whether they will stay at home while they’re sick, or feed their babies, or keep a roof over their head, it is logical to believe that they will go to work so that they can keep taking care of their family. So in the midst of this public health crisis, let us understand that one of the most significant and effective ways that we’re going to slow down this virus is to make sure that when people are sick, they stay at home,
they should stay home and it is in the interest of the public that they stay home but then that they also don’t, I don’t know for lack of a better word starve to death.
Well, and that’s one of those things where I was talking to a friend of mine about who’s staunchly anti socialism is You know, United States, have you ever looked at Social Security? That’s a social program. And a lot of paid into it? I say, Yeah, but most people get more out than they ever put into it. But that’s a discussion for another podcast. It’s in our collective interest, that we extend a little bit of social generosity to these people. And the question is, who pays for it? Is that a, is that a cost that the government should force on employers? Or is that something that we should, as taxpayers all collectively pitch into, but isn’t? Or is there any interest at sick people not go to work, particularly when they serve the public, but even if they don’t serve the public, you’re going to encounter the public and going back and forth to work. So it’s kind of a no brainer, as people are fond to say, this wouldn’t seems like that sick leave as is, is kind of a function of a maturing, modern, evolving society that we’d recognize that that that there should be a part of a compensation package. But then we have the second clip that tells tells about where we stand as the United States versus the world.
But before we hit that, I just want to bring up what about all the people that are In the quote unquote gig economy that are tennety nines or you know, they’re just working job to job job, they don’t have a quote unquote employer that could then feed them with some kind of sick leave benefit Anyway, what are they supposed to do? They’re still screwed even if this with this bill. Well, that’s, that’s,
that’s kind of the one of the gaps of of our society, particularly with the gig economy as you refer to it. The the people, ideally, will you be self sufficient, but the reality is that people don’t save. They don’t hoard their money they consume in this country, and they generally consumer level level higher than what they can afford to consume. They’re not prepared for even a short period of sickness, much less a protracted period of absence from work. Most people can’t withstand that.
Alright, here’s the second clip.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:51
simple fact as senator Harris made clear is that if an employee gets sick and has to choose between going to work and feeding their family, or risking staying home, and not doing Getting paid or worse getting fired, to show up to work, who wouldn’t. And yet that puts everyone else at risk other employees and customers and the general public. So the responsibility cannot be on the employee to choose whether or not they should provide for their family and put food on the table. Because that’s not a decision that someone should ever have to make. That decision has to be mandated by the government. Because while an employer’s job is to make money, the government’s job is to keep its citizens safe, mandating paid sick leave, would do exactly that. And yet, our government seems to be one of the only ones in the world who hasn’t figured that out. The United States has zero days of mandated sick leave, only two other industrialized nations have a similar lack of protections. And yet we’re the only one with the distinction of being the richest country on the face of the earth. Meanwhile, if you get a life threatening illness like cancer in Luxembourg or Norway, you can get up to 50 days paid sick leave. You can get 48 and Finland 45 and Austria 44 in Germany just to name a few, but it’s The United States of America, the shining city on a hill, you get zero.
Well, there you go. So yeah, number one at the bottom of the list is what I was referring to there.
Yeah. Well, that’s why I was saying, we’re number one, depending on how you invert the list. But if if people were to, don’t take this, we don’t love America. We still love America just as much as you do. But we are actually looking at how to make this lovely shining city on the hill, even better than it already is. And somehow or another, that should not translate into not loving this country. We look around the world and we managed to see that they survive and thrive. doing these things. Germany is not exactly a basket case economically. Very few people would say that about about Germany, but yeah, they managed to take care of their people. And how do they do that? Well, they make that their priority.
Do you want to go over this final item with the Idaho bill?
Sure. That’s Our lightning round for today.
Yeah, we’re gonna try and start doing something where I, I pepper Larry with bunches of questions or articles and he gives me like one or two line answers anyway, this next article comes from Katie VB Idaho bill would mandate mandate payouts for certain wrongful convictions. So what happens here?
Well, if it if it becomes law they would get between 60 and $75,000 a year. If they’re on death row, they get 75,000. For the time they were on death row and and otherwise, they get $60,000 a year. And I’m not real clear on all the nuances because I didn’t pull the bill. But Idaho is like my state. It’s one of 15 where there is no compensation on the books. And I’d like for our state to move in that direction also, but but you’ve got people who are convicted through the system, their appeals fail, and then decades later, after the prosecution stops fighting to overturn their conviction table. Somehow or another overcome that enormous hurdle and show that they didn’t commit the crime. And then they’ve been in prison for many years, sometimes decades. This guy, that’s the feature of the story was convicted in 1983 of kidnapping, raping and murdering a nine year old girl. The only problem is he didn’t do it. That’s the only problem. But it wasn’t too broad. It wasn’t into 2001 when DNA tests, which were not available when his case was first tried to, he ended up clearing a clerk his name, and he was later freed and spent 23 hours a day for 17 years in isolation. But we don’t we don’t we don’t want to give him any money. Really, what kind of society would would would object to paying? Uh, yes, we can’t be perfect. We understand that. We’re humans. We will make mistakes. So we’ll be unintentional and some will be deliberate. But we can give people some compensation for our mistakes. Well, how could you oppose it? How could you How could even the Republicans oppose that there should be something that’s totally bipartisan You’re famous bipartisanship should really kick in here. If we’ve made a mistake, we should want to compensate people for our mistake. This should be so easy.
All right, well, that’s a. Larry has spoken on that one.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:14
This was a lightning round for that.
I only have one other area of things that I would like to cover and we can skip it if you want to, but it is about the the Georgia House is in the process of voting on a bill. It’s called House Bill 720. That would authorize the state police to or excuse me, the county sheriff’s to put signs in front of people’s yards. Do you want to go over that or do you want to just skip it for now?
We can do a brief touch on it they House Bill 720 which, which has passed the House of Representatives and state of Georgia, and it moved over to the Senate, which is not moving in the senate because they suspended the session due to the health concerns and they’ve got 11 days for To run in their 40 day session, and they don’t know when they’re gonna reconvene. But we, we litigated on this issue of the signs and buts and Spalding County. And we’re winning both both both instances, we’re winning two different two different courts, one in the Northern District, one Middle District of Georgia, we’re winning in both. But we fully anticipated that as a result of our litigation, since we pointed out so eloquently that the sheriff didn’t have any authority, that that it would be an easier case to win. But what I guess I wasn’t as eloquent as that even if the sheriff had the authority. We still think we could win, because it’s an issue of the first amendment issue the constitution as a issue of compelled speech. And it’s an issue of not narrowly failing to narrowly tailor and therefore you just can’t do the blanket requirements putting up signs on Halloween. We believe that that this bill will ultimately when they reconvene it will ultimately pass the Senate and we believe that Governor Brian Kemp will sign it and we believe We’ll be back in court arguing the exact same thing that we’ve already won on that we’ll just extract the argument that the sheriff liked any authority. And we’d say that even though that now there is authority, that this makes it still no more constitutional than it has been. And when the court does their analysis, they’re going to conclude, yes, we’re supposed to give deference to the legislature. We presume it’s constitutional upon enactment, and they will make that presumption they’ll look at it and they’ll say it stopped. And we intend, we intend when when it’s signed, which we expect it will be we tend to go right back into court again and say, Now judge enjoined the entire state until the state of Georgia, all the shares that you can’t do this. That’s our intent that we had anticipated, this is no great surprise. There’s no brilliance out there that that thought of this that that likes to think that they that they were ahead of the curve. They knew this, we knew this was going to happen also. But if we failed to litigate if we had failed to file the lawsuits, and the two counties, we did what we had was a cascading effect of Georgia’s hundred 59 counties to share for being directed and encouraged by the Georgia Sheriffs Association, who produced the signs and the recommendation based on their legal analysis that they could do this and get away with it. We had other shares who had announced that they were going to do it. And we gave gave a cease and desist letter, for example, in Ben Hill County, as far as we know, they didn’t do the science of been Hill County, but we had, Paul is going to be a cascading effect of sheriffs. And had we stood idly by and let it go from 123 1215 1721 42 and having a whole number of shares, then the litigation would have been far more complicated. We’d have a whole lot more defendants to try to serve. We’d have had a whole lot more hesitant by the judge to intervene because it would have become established practice at that point. It’s kind of like when we went into court when when not we but when the when the challenge was filed international Megan’s Law, stuff that they had been doing as a result. Dan Walsh Act for nearly a decade was being all of a sudden called into question. And the court was hesitant to intervene because they had been sending those notices for the better part of 10 years. And so therefore, we chose not to allow that to happen. We chose to not turn a blind eye to a sheriff in bidding requirements, because we were afraid that they were going to invent additional requirements, and where would they stop? So, so we think we did the right thing. We’re confident we’re going to win. And the people out there that are negative naysayers, there’ll be negative naysayers out there no matter what you do.
But even still, and my county hasn’t done it. But that doesn’t mean next year, next year, next year, next year that they don’t decide to start doing it. And we we could win in court, even with the statute in place. You know, in the next round of court battles, granted, that means more funding and does that mean that means we start litigation from scratch. Granted, we have paperwork we already have like case history to go from but we still have to develop the case from scratch. That’s right.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:01
Well, if depending on depending on if this thing gets enacted, if they do it in narrow tailoring, it could be that they do such a narrow tailoring that they could conceivably come up with a Halloween sign scheme. That would be constitutional. I doubt it. But you could do it. Right. But let’s assume that they dealt, well, if it becomes state law, there would be some shares like in New Mexico, they’ll say even though it’s a state law and the red flag on the on the picking up the guns and the extreme risk corners, we’re not going to enforce them. That could be fun. Sure. So it’ll say, I’m not going to force us but more than likely they would choose to enforce the law. At that point, we would have to litigate, I guess the statute. So rather than taking a sheriff, we would we would fall against the statute say that the statute is unconstitutional, as it’s written, and to enjoy and all the sheriffs and state of Georgia from enforcing an unconstitutional statute. That’s what we would do. And and I think the odds are probably better than 5050 we’ll have to That alternative, but the alternative was far worse. The alternative is, the alternative was that we would had dozen 2030 4050 counties as it spread across the state. And then we would have a much higher mountain to climb, because the court would have been hesitant to have stopped the existing status quo. Because it would becoming grain and culture. If If we had just gone under a rock and said, Let’s hope it doesn’t get any worse. It would have been like the illustration I just gave about international Megan’s Law. The advance notice had been required since the 2006. Adam Walsh Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. And it wasn’t until a decade later in 2016, when the passports were required to be marked that all of a sudden an issue was raised about the advance notice requirements, which although it wasn’t in the statute, it was in practice So we would had the exact same situation that we had with international Megan’s Law with advance notice, we would have had 47 sheriffs in Georgia doing it. And the judge had been looking at me said, well, where were you? Well, the years this has been happening. It injunction is largely designed to protect the status quo. The status quo was that time would have been one third of George’s counties were doing this already.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:27
So we nipped it in the bud. It was
the right decision. It is just waiting, you know, saying, hey, let’s lay lay our heads down and hope it doesn’t get
Unknown Speaker 1:43:35
out. But how has that worked out for you people?
I don’t think it’s worked out very well. That’s that’s my opinion that if we just wait it doesn’t get better. There’s not any better,
Unknown Speaker 1:43:45
you would have to be mentally challenged to think that ignoring it. If you look at the original registries, and you look at the court decisions, they explain how they have evolved and encroached. If ignoring that would have worked The registration schemes wouldn’t have evolved to the level they have now to say encroach or submit if your freedom spots Thank you can already see that ignoring things don’t make it doesn’t make it go away. That you’d have to be severely challenged to believe ignoring things make it makes it makes this particular thing some things you do ignore they go away, but ignoring encroachments into civil liberties, because they will never run out of creative things to try to encroach on your liberties when you’re in a hated despise group of the population. So therefore, keep ignoring it and tell me how that works out for you because it hasn’t worked out very well for you over the last 20 years.
All right, man. Hey, can somebody kick that soapbox out from underneath you to to
call us. I’ve made some phone calls this week.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:47
So tell me what the website is Larry.
We can get out of here.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:51
I don’t care about the website. I want to find all seven first call 77472274477
and then support us on Patreon. registry Matt, excuse me patreon.com slash registry matters. And with that, Larry, I will bid you a good night. Read an hour and 40 bit 49 minutes so we can let it go. All right. All right. Thanks, everybody, for listening. Thanks for everybody hanging out in chat and we’ll talk to you soon. Good night. Good night.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai