Transcript of RM126: I’m Confused MeToo, Please Explain

Transcript of RM126: I’m Confused MeToo, Please Explain

Listen to RM126: I’m Confused MeToo, Please Explain

Andy 0:00
We’d like to thank our patrons for supporting this episode of registry matters. Recording live from fyp Studios, east and west transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 126 of registry matters. How the hottest hell are you, Larry?

Larry 0:14
Fantastic. You’re looking really good on that cam. Oh, you figured it out. It’s pretty. It’s pretty nice. And trying something new. The picture of me looks pretty nice, amazingly accurate.

Andy 0:27
It’s a recent photo I promised at the last conference, I think I got a picture of you. And that’s what it’s being. That’s what’s being used for representation of you.

Larry 0:37
Well, it’s so close that I think it’s, you couldn’t have done any better. Well,

Andy 0:42
photos Don’t lie. I mean, it did it did add maybe 10 or so pounds to you. That’s a pretty pretty typical complaint about photos as they make you look bad. 10 pounds fatter. So Oh, all right. Here’s a little long though. You must have some COVID hair going on for this photo that’s being used?

Unknown Speaker 0:57
Yeah, I reckon I do.

Andy 1:00
I can remember those black markets or services or

Larry 1:03
I gotta remember not to say those type of words because the transcription is has trouble trying to figure out how to spell record. Oh,

Andy 1:10
yes, because he might spell wr etc. But wreckin like actual ranking stuff.

Larry 1:18
We’ve got to make it very simple for the transcriber.

Andy 1:21
Now tell me why are we recording like seven hours early? Well, because it’s the

Larry 1:25
heat is getting warmer and warmer in this office that I’d like to be out of here before it hits 90. It’s in the 80s. Now, do you not know how to turn on the thermostat? I’m pretty sure I know how to turn it on. It’s it’s it all promote the moment.

Andy 1:42
Are we going to cover 700 articles from COVID related things tonight?

Larry 1:47
Hopefully not. But we we’ve got a few.

Andy 1:50
Okay, we’re trying to I’ve got I really do think that there’s a certain amount of COVID fatigue with you know, all you hear is about how many people have died. all you hear is about it’s just all the problems and I’m trying I’m trying Trying I’m trying as best as I can to avoid doing COVID articles if we can. I mean, if they’re relevant, irrelevant, but if they’re not like, Can we drop them?

Larry 2:08
We dropped about 10 already?

Andy 2:10
Yes, we did. So are you are you ready to begin with this first one that I think you would classify this one as funny? I think I would. All right. Well, this first one comes from Tech dirt. Ninth Circuit says man can’t sue officers who destroyed his home to capture an unarmed homeless man. I got a question. unarmed, the guy was actually like he didn’t have his upper appendages.

Larry 2:33
Well, he was. He was not. He didn’t have a weapon, but he indicated to the police, he did have a weapon. And as the case unfolded when he finally was taken into custody, he didn’t have a weapon. But they responded as if he did have a weapon.

Andy 2:49
They responded as if he was like Osama bin Laden and he was hiding in the bunker or something. I mean, they responded with 55 vehicles, including a crisis response team a motorhome and two helicopters, an unarmed homeless guy. That seems a little above what would be necessary? What’s the word that you use? Like? Isn’t there a word that we should use the I mean, I guess appropriate response. This is an unarmed homeless guy like we need 55 vehicles.

Larry 3:17
But again, the unarmed was not discovered until after the apprehension. He he had told the police that he was armed. So there are they’re operating on that premise that that they were dealing with an armed person. Now I’m not justifying the response, I think. I think it was still probably excessive, but, but the Fresno Sheriff’s Department and the Clovis PD, they were operating under the belief that he was armed at the time and but 55 vehicles and two SWAT teams does seem a bit much.

Andy 3:47
I i know i know that we’re going to say that if we don’t want them to use these things, and we shouldn’t give them to them. I’m thinking of you probably didn’t see the movie called The Hurt Locker but it was about a bomb disposal. guy over in Baghdad, Afghanistan, somewhere over in the Middle East. And the suit that he puts on to go dispose of a bomb. He the suit is designed for him to take a bomb blow directly to the face. And I’m thinking that we could have suited somebody up in a full suit of this and he could walk in and go, I’m here to assess the situation, I could figure out that he doesn’t have a weapon. And then we could respond appropriately and just go in there with two guys or you know, five people and not tear down the place. Maybe,

Larry 4:33
probably so I’ve always believed that, that if you can contain a perimeter around crisis situation that time works in most instances in your favor, because if there’s only one person, the police agencies will have a multiple they can do shift rotations and, and and time will eventually exhaust the person which as they fatigue, they’re either more willing to talk surrender they’re more or explore likely that you can catch them off guard and do an arrest and a disable incapacitate him I think is the word I’m looking for. But you can incapacitate the suspect. But again, the question in this case was whether or not that that the police have immunity for their behavior, and they violate some some. They used a vehicle 1983 under 4042. United States Code, section 1983 civil rights, they use that section. And they have a pretty hard high standard to show that there was some willful disregarding of a person’s constitutional rights, that precedent has to be clearly established and they weren’t able to beat that higher because law enforcement has provided broad latitude and what what deployment of force they use to bring a crisis under control and they they were they they were found to be immune from the action by our people. The ninth circuit which I know it’s gotten more conservative since Trump has named several judges but it’s supposed to be one of the more liberal circuits still, and and they just they defer to the police so that we don’t know the three judges on the panel which we know who appointed them. I didn’t get that far into analyzing it, but he just didn’t know that the damage was unfortunate, but the police are not responsible for the the things that they damage when they’re performing their official duties.

Andy 6:29
And I don’t think we’ve described that the damage done was that they, they did $150,000 of damage. Five rooms were tear gassed, four doors and seven windows were destroyed along with 90 feet of fencing that was rolled over by SWAT vehicles. I don’t think vehicles come 90 feet wide, even under the worst of circumstances or best of circumstances like your car is six feet wide maybe. So how did they do 90 feet of damage to the fence couldn’t they have made their way through it? And then follow the car in front of them.

Larry 7:01
They probably wanted the they wanted that sight barrier open. I’m guessing this is all conjecture here, but I’m guessing that a lot first met tends to be officer safety’s first. And those other factors are extraneous, but officer safety, clear sight lines, and making sure that they they have a containment perimeter now, not knowing the layout of it, perhaps maybe that wall would have served as a better containment barrier than that.

Andy 7:29
Right. But yeah, you would say the guy and then he would have to, you know, unless it’s like a two foot high fence and he just steps over it, but you know, assuming that the guy would flee, and then he would have to entertain the obstacle. Like that would be a barrier for the person to go by.

Larry 7:43
Well, I I pulled up the, the decision, I was very brief, and it’s not precedential this, it’s not published. But then there was a, there was a reference to a case of the 10th circuit was similar in an inner city in Colorado, and they They did extensive damage to a home person had called the police and they were trying to apprehend the suspect. And they, the 10th circuit did a much deeper analysis and that that complaint was on the takings clause of the US Constitution. And they the 10th circuit, resoundingly said that, that, that the takings clause was not an issue, because the takings clause has to do with compensation, due process and compensation for your property that’s converted to public use. And they said that police didn’t convert the property to public use. They barely did what they needed to do to extract the value, and therefore the takings clause didn’t apply. And I thought that it bears some relevance to the present circumstances with COVID-19. Because I predict there will be and I’m not alone in my predictions, there’s been many people predict that there’s going to be a plethora of litigation. But one of the things that’s going to be the takings clause, businesses that have been shut down and shut down and losing many, many thoughts And some hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of dollars, depending on the size of the business, they’re going to come in alleged that the government took from them. And this is going to be the comparison. Because if you do the same interp, if you use the 10th circuit precedent, so if anybody were to bring this claim to me and asked me to screen it, I would say, well, the case law is not very favorable to you the 10th circuit because even though you have had your life wrecked and your business just destroyed, it’s not like the government went into the your business and took it over and started operating it. And exploiting the profits, they have just simply shut it down. So they have not in the literal sense that I know, we believe in strict interpretation that has not been converted to something for the public good. It’s just simply you’ve not been allowed to use it. And and we’re going to have this this deluge of litigation. And it’s going to be very fascinating for legal junkies like me, like me, to see how this unfolds. So what the courts say in terms of whether the government is liable for any of the damage should spend on

Andy 10:01
so that I can come back and say you’re wrong later or right later You did? Did you just semi predict that it’s not favorable for some business saying you shut me down for X amount of months and I am going to sue the government for X total dollars. And you don’t think that that would win? Because the precedent?

Larry 10:18
Well, if they were going to use the takings clause as the basis supporting their claim, if they were in the 10th circuit, because I just read that decision before we started recording. So if they if their theory, if they came to me with a theory and said, I believe the government has, has violated the takings clause of the Constitution, I would say Really? Have you looked at the 10th circuit case law? This one? No, I have not said Well, I have and I say what did the government take from you? And they would say, well, they didn’t like now print my business, I would say but the takings clause has been interpreted to be converting sometimes a public good. without compensation without due process. You still own your property so it hasn’t been taken from you. It has a was not used for the public. Without it would be it would be different if they came in and said, we’re taking this facility from you and eat it for the public good. We’re going to operate it for the next 90 days we need we need housing, your hotel has just become a hospital board. Yes, then then you would think you would have something under the takings clause. But if they just simply say your hotel can only operate at 25% capacity, that’s an order for the public good. Nothing, nothing has been taken from you. And at least in the 10th circuit’s interpretation of the takings clause, I would tell you that I think your case is not going to be very strong. If that’s your sole theory for winning, that you probably won’t get very far in this circuit. Huh?

Andy 11:39
Well, there you go. Larry has said it mark the date that we can either applaud you or condemn you.

Larry 11:46

Andy 11:48
let’s, how about over at NPR voting rights for hundreds of thousands of felons at stake in Florida trial. This is related to the amendment I believe from the 18 election where Florida voted against or to remove to repeal the fourth amendment that prevented people with convictions from voting yet then not long after that the republican controlled legislature put in barriers say you can’t vote unless you’ve paid all money. But it’s a challenge for people to figure out how much they owe and to whom and how to pay it and all that stuff. So they’re just sort of like stuck in this murky rabbit hole.

Larry 12:26
Well, they, the amendment for that passed. Overwhelmingly, I don’t remember the margin, but our super patron could probably tell us, it restored the right upon completion of all obligations, but the voters voted on language was all obligations, I believe it was the language and the the, the lawsuit is, is because the legislature and we’re not picking on republicans that just happens to be who is in control of the state of Florida, but they, they, they they have the all terms. That’s what action in the article relevant all obligations, all terms. They defined that language to mean, any, any civil levies at restitution beyond just serving your probation and parole. Now, we don’t know what that when people say, what’s the courtroom side? We don’t know. What did the voter visualize in Florida? What were they led to believe that we were voting for? Are they voting that you could have your right restored when you had paid every bit of restitution, in case related cost? Or were they voting to make you whole once you had served your prison time in any post prison supervision? What did that amendment mean to the average voter? Because the language says all terms, what does all terms mean?

Andy 13:50
How could you even that seems like post How would you even determine you could find that information out prior to but then all the waters would be muddied at this point. You couldn’t go back I can ask I don’t think I don’t think you could get honest answers. Because with all the reporting that would have been done up to this point, people would have their opinions altered pro or, you know, pro or against, just in light of all the hoopla about it.

Larry 14:15
Well, this is going to come down to a judicial interpretation. And we’re going to have the, the Scalia model, which is going to go straight to the letter of the What does the word mean? What do all terms mean? Scalia would say, well, the law makers are very smart people. And they said all terms, and I look at your j and Esther judgment sets. And one of the terms of your sentence was that you pay restitution. So to me, it’s cut and dried black and white. If I’m a Scalia, that if you go strictly by the text, if you’re a textualist. If you’re if you go to that craziness that people that believe that purposes, is what you should look at if Look at what what’s cyclical that purpose of Islam? If you look at if you look at that, well, what did the voters think they were voting on? I have no idea. Was it in Florida? That I’m sure there was a lot of advertising a lot of promotion. You have to vote in favor of me but for I don’t know what the debate was on the floor of the Senate, the house when they were pass passing this and sending out to the voters because I’m imagining it, but like, if it’s similar to our state, the amendment has to get passed the legislature that is presented to the voters, that it doesn’t have to be signed by the governor. But I’m assuming that’s very similar. Well, what did the voters intend to do? If your purpose of just and I just don’t know how this is going to play out? Because all terms if you take it literally, that was a term, wasn’t it?

Unknown Speaker 15:51

Larry 15:53
All right. Well, have you paid your fine Andy?

Andy 15:56
That would, I would think that that would be one of the terms of your sentence. Okay, well,

Unknown Speaker 16:01
then the Why are we even having this discussion? When I look at your list of terms and you had to pay $1,000 in restitution, you had to pay a victim impact fee. You had to do this or that. And I see a whole bunch of terms. You served your time you did that. But I see some jobs are incomplete. So I don’t know what we’re having this discussion for?

Andy 16:22
Could it be that you have unpaid parking tickets? And maybe that doesn’t cross the threshold? But could you you could have fines from other felonies that you’ve already served your time and all this stuff? And then this one is still those things from 10 2030 years ago are holding you up from being able to vote? Now?

Larry 16:38
That’s correct. If you have if you have any outstanding terms that are unsatisfied under this amendment for the way I understand it, you’re not going to be able to vote until the legislature said that all terms and our opinion means this. Now if the people are so righteously indignant about that because it matters The past the citizenry by a significant margin to people don’t have to accept this dis interpretation by their legislature. They could register complete resentment at them at the polls this this

Andy 17:12
November couldn’t take. I would think so. And they could hire a whole new staff of legislators to put forth that says, hey, if you’ve done your prison term or your your supervision term, then you can then go vote be damned the monies?

Larry 17:26
Well, that’s what we’re gonna do. What’s gonna come out of this case? And there’s a lot of states looking at it, according to the article.

Andy 17:33
Very well, sir. Very well. Then we should move over to an article from reason magazine, it says condemned to death by a split jury in Florida. We just talked about something about this and I thought that death sentences were all unanimous. And this confused me in them talking about not unanimous sentences in other states.

Larry 17:55
That’s how I put it in here. I knew exactly that this was going to go Because the guilt or innocence has to be determined unanimously, and then you proceed in a capital case to the sentencing phase. And in some of these particular southern states, not just Southern but particular southern states, they allow the the jury to make a recommendation that the judge is likely to follow in some cases actually allow the jury to impose but a Florida if the jury is in terms of the guilt has already been decided to take committed the act, then if 10 of 12 agree that the deathbed is appropriate that’s what’s imposed so you you get a you get a punishment that you not not unanimous but but guilty in a sense is unanimous. Unlike, unlike Louisiana, and Oregon, where they are there, the verdict itself was not unanimous in terms of your guilt or innocence.

Andy 18:47
Can word it my own stupid terms. So you could be found guilty by less than a unanimous jury but then the court imposes a death sentence on you know,

Larry 18:57
the decision on your guilty innocent guilt or innocence has to be unanimous in Florida. All right, but then we proceed to punish. Okay, the jury decides, what do we want life in prison? Or do we want the death penalty? And if 10 of the 12 jurors agree that the death penalty is appropriate, that’s enough on the punishment, but all of them had to agree that you were guilty of the murder.

Andy 19:20
Oh, so the jury gets to make two decisions about Yes, since are guilty, and then what punishment?

Unknown Speaker 19:28
Yes, in some states, the jury recommends that in some states they actually impose it. In Florida. Apparently the jury is the sentencing on these cases. Like in Arkansas, the jury recommends and the judge often almost always follows that recommendation. But But this is only on the Punnett This is only on the punishment phase. So you’re you go to death row without a unanimous decision of the jury as long as 10 or 12. Agree.

Andy 19:52
Okay, again, back to my stupid brain my uninformed brain, like innocence or guilt is less Sir, then sentencing someone to death, it would seem that we would have a higher bar for that level of finality.

Unknown Speaker 20:08
It would seem wait but you’re you’re confusing issue. The jury has to be unanimous on whether or not you committed the act.

Unknown Speaker 20:16
Right. Just as good that

Larry 20:18
the state has to prove out beyond reasonable doubt that you’re a murderer.

Andy 20:23
But but then they could be 10 of the 12 could say yes nukem and that’s enough to get nuked. That’s bizarre to me.

Larry 20:33
So well that’s what Florida decided to do after the Supreme Court declared their death penalty unconstitutional. So they came back and and they they fixed it.

Andy 20:42
Wow. Hey, go Florida. They did something right. Finally.

Larry 20:45
Well, I don’t know if they did it right. depends on if you if you believe in non unanimous verdict, I would prefer someone’s going to get the death penalty. I prefer there not be a death penalty, but I’d prefer it everybody agreed. I would bet

Andy 20:55
Yeah, that’s that’s sort of where I was going with that that like for that level of finality, to make Make sure that everybody is on board with that idea that that should be. That’s that’s that’s a heavy burden. That’s a heavy toll to impose on someone.

Larry 21:07
So but yes, that’s that’s what happens. Hmm.

Andy 21:12
Well, we should we should we should take up this article it comes from patch comm which is always our favorite publication source during the during the Halloween season because they’re the ones that are posting all the articles, the hate articles about registrants and I’m sorry p FRS, people forced to register around the Halloween holiday, which is odd. But this is a modified sex offender registration system. at first blush, this seems like one of the things that we’ve been asking for this is an automated way because of COVID that people can’t go into do the registration that this might be an avenue for you to do your registration without being physically present that you could do update your your residence, maybe update a photo and so forth. Did you read it the same way?

Larry 21:57
I did, but but what’s gonna happen is It’s gonna have a monetary component attached to it. As everything does all this great technology comes with money attached to it. And for the convenience of being able to go to the kiosk, you’re gonna have to pay just about batch.

Andy 22:13
Oh, do you get a convenient we get a convenience checkout fee?

Larry 22:16
Yes, I’m figured that all this all this is driven. This is your great capitalist system figured out a new way to extract money.

Andy 22:25
And they’ve been in business since the early 2000s. I went and looked up like their about page and their whole purpose is to monetize the registry system.

Larry 22:34
Well, absolutely. They monetize that the government’s paid up gobs of money for what they’re already doing.

Andy 22:38
They I for Do you happen to know how many states use offender watch as the like the online reporting like to go look up someone’s address in your neighborhood? Do you have a negative state? I think it’s more than the majority. I

Larry 22:49
don’t know. I think the last turn over to over 30

Andy 22:52
it’s yours. It’s not mine. So anyway, so this would allow you to I think put something of an app on your phone. Do your update which then you think might come with, hey, if you want to do your update here, you could do it pay us 2995 to update your your status instead of going into visit the Popo.

Larry 23:12
That’s what I’m predicting. I base it on vehicle registration. All the things that our state does what we call the motor vehicle division. Most people call it the DMV department motor vehicles, but we don’t have a department we have a division, which is a part of taxation revenue department. And the motor vehicle division is privatized. We have both state operated, MVD and we have private MVD Express. And if you want the convenience of being able to go and be treated with dignity and respect, and not have to wait in line and deal with those awful government bureaucrats, you can pay a transaction fee and I think last time I tried it was around $16. To do an addition to the sword, your license was gonna cost you $16 for example, you’d pay the 1695 fee to the to the private provider. Now I found it to be last time I went in, I was going to redeem my driver’s license, MVD Express for the very reasons I just said. And I went in. And they told me that I did not qualify with my visual, I just had had a visual exam. And I just had a brand new pair of glasses. And they told me at MVD express that I did qualify, because I was not able to read for both eyes, but you’re not required to. And I told him, You cannot show me anywhere in the Motor Vehicle Code that you’re required to have binocular vision. You’re not even required that to have that to have an pilot’s license, much less to drive a motor vehicle. And I said, I’ve been licensed for all these decades. And you people are telling me that I have to have an RV. That’s right. So show me the code. Well, nobody can show it to me the code. So I finally left. I went to the state operated office that I got my number and i said before i sit Wait, do you people understand whether or not I Have to help by Dr revision to get renewed by licensed they said yes we do it I said so you understand that if I only have one eyed vision you can actually issue me a license before sit here and wait and they said yes of course. And I said okay, so I waited so sometimes the private company doesn’t know best but anyway

Andy 25:20
we’ve taken that little detour I’m trying to if you have a job where your employer is not flexible maybe they have a tight schedule of some sort maybe you’re a truck driver of some sort you’re on the road maybe traveling whatever this could be, you know a saving element for you and as a convenience fee maybe it’s a you know, maybe it’s a $20 fee like you described 1617 bucks that but that could be a huge burden for someone now they have to take a day off from work without potentially miss that whole days of pay. That would be a pain in the ass.

Larry 25:50
Well, that’s what that’s for. I brought the point up if if, if I’m guessing right, this is gonna turn into something where they will agree offender watch will provide the kiosk to the state doesn’t have To invest in your money at all, we ask us that we just be compensated for our technology, which is a transactional fee. And people can decide they can go to the sheriff’s office and they can wait in line. And they can sit and get COVID-19. And they can be fingerprinted or they can come to us this nice thing and put their finger on the screen and over read their for their plumbers or fingerprint, and we could have them out in a blast, and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t pay. That’s why I think this is potentially gonna head

Andy 26:28
on with you, wow, and people and people will pay. I can see it if instead of going and being manhandled. If I can just talk to a computer like I would pick to talk to a computer or being manhandled any day of the week.

Unknown Speaker 26:40
And how much would you pay for that service? Because we know law enforcement listening so we can get some idea of what to put the fee yet. What would you be willing to pay? So talk to 95 cents.

Unknown Speaker 26:49
That’s it. So if so, if it’s 895

Unknown Speaker 26:51
You Won’t you won’t pay it. I would

Andy 26:54
probably I don’t feel it were less than 20 I would most likely just Just do that, but more than I would have to start having a question with my conversation with myself about it, and I would say self, let me ask you a question. So and but if it were like 50. Now I’d probably go get manhandled. But that also has a lot to do with that. My process here has been super stress free, in my opinion, like the individual that does it is, you know, I don’t know if the bedside manner is the right term, but he is professional. He is not, you know, he’s not like a drill sergeant telling you to get down on the floor and do push ups all the time. He’s, he’s a cordial individual. And I don’t, I don’t have a stressful situation when I do it beyond the stress of having the day to go do it.

Larry 27:39
Well, you’re fortunate there’s so many, there’s so many that that have very stressful encounters, and they are told to do things that the law doesn’t require. Right. And in fact, we were looking at your county just north of Atlanta, Northwest Cobb County that where they’re bidding a lot of requirements

Andy 27:57
and being sued on behalf of such things. Right.

Larry 28:01
Well, we’re working on that we’re trying to put together the right claims cause of action. I really don’t like losing litigation, I have this thing about you. You have to, you have to select carefully, you have to make sure you have solid case law on your side. And you pick the right plaintiffs, then you go into it with intent of winning. And of course, you can’t win them all. And no one wins them all. But except for the state, they do win most all of them when they prosecute people but but when you’re doing civil rights litigation, you’re not gonna win a while but you need to you need to win. The majority of them. You can’t stay in business because it’s very expensive. And your donors won’t support you if you continually lose litigation.

Andy 28:41
That might not always be true there. I’m not going to go into who I might be referring to, but that might not always be true.

Unknown Speaker 28:48
All right, either.

Andy 28:50
over at my news buyers of $1 million. Glendale home say they weren’t six. Wait, there’s a missing word in this title. They weren’t informed of a sex offender living next door. So here’s this Glendale couple suing because they bought a million dollar home that had, quote unquote, substantial defects and also that they RSO PFR. live next door. I have spoken at length with a friend of mine, that’s a realtor. And that person is not required to divulge anything about crime statistics in the neighborhood about any of the professions of people living nearby. And especially nothing about any pf ours living next door or within 1000 feet or in the state. It’s not on the list, it would introduce personal biases it would introduce you know, their opinion into your decision to buy a house leave, it’s on you to go do those due diligence things and finding out what the crime rate is in your neighborhood and whatnot.

Larry 29:51
I agree with you wholeheartedly and I suspect this claim is not going to go all that far if the if you’ve got an online registry, and I think California As his think all all the people that may be juvenile are on the public registry if you if you’re going to buy a home and that’s a factor for you, it would be like any other research as you described a crime statistics the schools. Now most most realtors will list the schools the attendance boundaries, they’ll tell you what your designated school would be. But, but if you want

Unknown Speaker 30:24
an opinion, but if you want to know,

Larry 30:27
well, when a PFR be a fact also. Ah,

Andy 30:30
yeah, I suppose I suppose.

Larry 30:33
But But I think that if we have a public registry, it would be behoove you if that’s a factor for you to do that research to figure that out. and whatnot, what will happen is that the lawsuit will probably get tossed, then the person will go to a lawmaker and assembly in California and say, pass a bill that requires this and everybody they put the position where they can’t vote against it. Because how could you vote against this? disclosure, I put my whole life savings window there. So come to find out what was next door,

Andy 31:07
about a million dollar home. And I don’t think that that’s their life savings. If they got that high to get a home, somebody’s making some pretty decent cash at that point.

Larry 31:15

Andy 31:16
but But yeah, it’s how do you think that because California I don’t want to use the term nanny state but more of a nanny state they may have this on their books.

Larry 31:24
Well, it didn’t say that in the article. It didn’t say that there was a requirement to disclose that.

Andy 31:30
Yeah, I was just, I was just wondering if possibly, I mean, this could be something a blindside that. Me being over in red Ville, that that’s being blue Ville that maybe they have a little bit more of a nanny situation and the realtors are required to go do it.

Larry 31:44
Well, if they if they’re not, they’re going to soon have that introduced in the California assembly.

Andy 31:49
Well then pontificate for me, Mr. lobbyists person that how would a realtor protect themselves in that situation that they did a search A week before closing and then a PFR moves in next like they’re supposed to continually update update until the second that they’re signing the piece of paper. They like they close the documents like two or three days before so like you have to have everything updated prior to that or else. Now the realtor and the realtor companies liable for it?

Larry 32:19
Well, I think you would do it kind of like you do when you when your site to a to a website when you’re doing a briefing you put last visited on the what we put the link and then we put last visited because the stories get updated. And I think you would you would say that on your disclosure that that’ll search had been done on the California sex offender registration website. And as of this date, there was nobody within this radius I think because what you would do and then the but there’s no guarantee that there won’t be anybody with that radius very shortly thereafter.

Andy 32:51
Because there’s even a delay in the reporting side of it. That new person comes out of prison and goes to move in with mom and mom and nim. All, you know, how long does it take before the website gets updated? Maybe it’s a week, maybe it’s 48 hours, maybe it’s two weeks. And in that window, you did your checks. And now you got that gap that window seems almost impossible to actually keep up with.

Larry 33:13
It would be it would be something where I would not be in favor, but it is such a piece of legislation is introduced, it’s gonna be hard to vote against it. So you have to kill it in committee. Are we back to that? That’s where we are. If it makes it out of committee, it’s going to be hard to kill this thing on the on the floor. Can you imagine the identification you would take or voting against alerting families that there was a PFR in their neighborhood? Very much so very much so.

Andy 33:40
Alright, well, I found a video from we’ve covered the individual. I think we covered a video like a year ago and it’s just this dude that, like moved to Germany. And he periodically puts out videos. He seems to be doing a little bit more and one showed up data today about Language levels and certifications. And by all means, please go watch it. It’s it’s just shy of 20 minutes long, I find the individual super interesting. And the idea of just moving away from all this registry bullshit, like just, hey, look, it happened long enough ago that perhaps they don’t care if that narrative is true. I don’t know how to validate that other than hearing his testimonial. But I have a little clip and after you give me your feedback, initial thoughts on it, I will play it and I just have about a minute or so clip of something he says at the end, that doesn’t just apply to this, but applies to anything that we are going to talk about trying to make life better for people. But before I play that, do you have any initial thoughts?

Larry 34:42
Well, you remember when we played him the last time I said that, his experience with the German police, I would not be ready to say that that’s what every foreign national would encounter with the German immigration customs or like, oh, they’re equivalent. So I would say the same thing again. Again, that this individual may not be representative of what the nation?

Andy 35:06
Yeah, your mileage may vary.

Larry 35:08
Yes, you’ve been past performance may or may not indicate future results.

Andy 35:15
That sounds like a stock tip.

Unknown Speaker 35:17
That’s what they say. Yeah.

Andy 35:19
All right. So I got this little clip, it’s a little over a minute long to play. I tell you all the time, in every video that I have, I always make it a point to say, if you’re not happy with your life, if you’re not happy with your situation, do something about it. And I mean it, but it’s on you to do it. Nobody’s going to do it for you. If you just wait for your circumstances to change, you’re going to be waiting an awfully long time. So people ask me often, what’s the first thing I should do? What’s the first step I should take? If I’m thinking about moving to Europe? This is the first step you should take. You should start thinking about where would I like to live in Europe? Where do I think I’d fit in? Let’s say that it’s France. At that point, what you need to do is you need to start learning French, but you need to start learning it like you mean it. And let’s say you have a year left on your probation, let’s say you have two years left of parole, you spend that time devoted to getting the basics of your language. Now, granted, you’re going to learn that language much, much better once you’re in country. But this is a concrete step that you can take today. This is something that you can begin to date, and you can start taking back control of your life. Because I understand that your freedom, your physical freedom, is restricted by the sex offender registry or parole officer or your conditions of probation. I understand that, but nobody’s going to stop you from studying a language. And this is something that you can do now. So stop being a victim of your circumstances, and start being a survivor. Start looking for solutions to your problems. This is a distinct step forward that you can do right now. And I highly encourage you to do If you are considering moving to Europe,

Unknown Speaker 37:03
so the

Andy 37:04
main emphasis behind this is you can transpose out of there anything about language and move into Germany. But if you want to change your situation it is on you to go figure out things that you can do to improve your situation. And, and while I know that it’s crushing all that comes down the pike with the registry, there are things that you me we can do to make things better for our own personal lives and things that we can make better for us as a community of PFR lives.

Larry 37:31
I figured that was why you’ve zeroed in on that segment, and I agree that what we we sit back and there’s a there’s an apathy of wanting to be saved. This is so wrong, that someone should save me and the someone is you, right? The someone is you each and every one of you that are listening and friends that you know they’re in a similar space. circumstance, it’s us that will convince the lawmakers, one by one, we can educate people and sway them that everybody is not the monster that they think because most lawmakers don’t even know the breadth of the registry is ever been at this. It’s something that’s out of sight out of mind. They don’t think about the register. They know that as far as they’re concerned that people are really bad. And the only way to dispel that rumor is for you to go meet with a lawmaker. And if you have the ability to say I am on the registry, and I’m on the registry for this and what watch their eyes glaze over when you tell them that what you did that was relatively many of the people who are on the registry for relatively minor incidents like the the the consensual sex with an underage partner. You say, Well, I was 19 and she was 17. And anything under 18 in this state is a felony and I’m on the register for that. But we were both in love. They go ha you’re on the registry. For that, yep. I’m only registered as a child sexual violent child sex offender and I won’t lie, right? Those are stories that they need to hear.

Andy 39:06
And you’ve also said that the stories from probably more so like on the young children that says I miss my dad would have a lot of impact as well.

Larry 39:15
They would the the, the adolescent stories, particularly because when you’re, when you’re in single digits, the the understanding of a child 10, less than 10 years old is probably minimal. But once they move past that age, and they start understanding more and relating to the circumstance, their families, then you can only hide this from your children for so long. And and then at some point, they want to know what what this means and you have to explain it to them. And the things that they’re not allowed to do because of their, of their parent being on the on the registry. You have to deal with that. And then those stories will be compelling, coming from an adolescent that I would like to be able to do these things, but I’m not allowed to. I’d like to help I’d like to have my parents both at my school play, but I’m not, they’re not allowed to be there.

Andy 40:04
There’s another another particular piece, I think it was in the clip that I played about learning something that they cannot take away. And I’ve held this philosophy for my entire professional career that instead of having an employer pay for your training, if it’s something you can afford, if you can go buy a series of books and train yourself, they can’t ever take that away. And it puts you in a negotiation position where you can say, Well, I know this thing and you’re not willing to pay for it. I’m not obligated to you because I learned it on my own, then I can go take my skills elsewhere and get compensated for it. Whether that be a bachelor’s, master’s certifications, truck driver, forklift driver, fill in however you want to, you know, improve your skill set, then they can’t take it away from you.

Larry 40:48
I agree that when when people say what, what they’re not allowed to do, there are a lot of things that they’re allowed to do that they self impose, that they’re not allowed to do. You do have some limitations. on attending a structural university or college or educational setting, but there are a lot of things where there would be no such barriers. You’re doing a self study online. And I like to go back to Apollo 13. I don’t want to hear about what this thing was designed to do. I want to hear what it can do. And I want to I want to hear people talk about what they can do, what options they have available to them. And not not I mean, yes, we we understand their lower barriers, but let’s let’s focus on what, what we can do rather than what we’re prohibited from doing.

Andy 41:34
Let’s bounce over to the Washington Post’s no one should profit off of prisoners trying to stay in touch with their families. I personally know that this is horrible that how much they charge for phone calls, which has got to be why you would find so many contraband cell phones in prison, but they’ll you will possibly end up spending 20 or something dollars to make a 15 minute phone Call, I always come back to I really, really thought that the idea of prison was rehabilitation. But a key component of rehabilitation would be contact with those friends, family, whomever. And there are so many barriers where you have to get approval for who’s on your call list before you can make those phone calls and they do minor background checks on those people. And then they hit you with this huge fee of keeping in touch. It’s so so challenging to then ask someone to say hey, I’d like to call you once a month. Can you accept a $15 $20 phone call from him? They’re like, No, no, you’re not worth all that.

Larry 42:38
Well, I think we’ve talked about this this isn’t the federal and the carrots Act, the Coronavirus relief, whatever that acronym stands for, but the feds are not charging for phone calls. And so I understand it. Now of course if you lock down that limits your ability, but but this is provoking some debate about about the unreasonable charges for telephones, but Go back to what I’ve said before, it is a revenue stream for our prisons. I’ll give you an example. That’s a much, much different example. But since I’m in a state where or the income tax and state income tax, piggybacks, federal, you can end up paying tax on your social security benefits that were only like nine or 10 states that do that. And people say, Well, why don’t you take it off? Well, there’s a revenue component that goes with that tax. We are collecting some money that funds part of the state operations from that tax. And then they’ll come back and they’ll say, Well, if we make new mexico retirement Haven, more people will come and we’ll get all that tax revenue. But see, there’s one slight flaw with that argument. If all the states are doing except for nine or 10 already, people are people already set in their old age and they may not come, but even if they do come. If that gush comes that’s off into the future I have to balance this budget now. So if I pull out 33 billion or whatever that brings in, of tax revenue, that is something that I have to replace now, because making the cuts is difficult, nobody wants to be cutting up, we’re going to be cut because of this pandemic where the states are going to be doing some significant cutting. But the same thing goes with a prison in our county jail, which county jails tend to charge more, but this is a revenue stream for the institution. And it’s difficult to take away a revenue stream and go back to taxpayers and say, well,

Unknown Speaker 44:36
the the phone contract that the MDC which is our local county jail, brought in $2.2 million. We’re turning that thing off now. Okay, well, now about our about 350 million county budget. Where are we going to plug that 2 million of revenue back from to take up for the phones like what what are we going to cut or what are we going to increase? What are we gonna do for that for that money?

Unknown Speaker 44:58
Couldn’t be just lock up fewer People? Well, we could do that. But

Larry 45:02
that still wouldn’t address the issue of the free phone calls that would there would still be a revenue stream there that would be going away. If you if you cut the population jail from 2500 to 1500, clearly, they would likely be fewer phone calls. But it’s still a revenue stream, right?

Andy 45:15
Yes, it is. Well, there a there was a change my position while I was gone about because you’ve committed a crime against the state. And it is in the state’s interest that you not commit those in the in the future, that the state should bear the burden of rehabilitating you and all that the whole private prison thing and all the private services stuff. There shouldn’t be this massive markup on it, if a private company is going to be provided is almost make it like a Georgia Power thing where it’s a private public partnership and they are regulated at to what they can charge. They have to get legislative approval before they do rate hikes and whatnot. And there’s some sort of balance set in there to keep prices as low but then the company can still make money and I don’t think This is in that layer. This is totally Hey, well, these, these people, no one gives a shit about and we can gouge them. And they’re forgotten group in society. So let’s, let’s just gouge them. They deserve it.

Larry 46:12
Well, it’s, it’s, it’s that but it’s the apathy of the population that go out and campaign try to try to try to sell this politically, that we want to turn off all the revenue streams that come from prisoners. And we want to divert a lot more money out of the general fund to rehabilitative programs to counseling and to reintegration. And tell me how that sells for you. You’re in a good county go out, do that and tell me how that works.

Andy 46:39
I’m sure it wouldn’t work. But you know, like you could easily say, just like with people that when they fall down on their luck and they lose their job, I don’t have any money and say, well, you should have thought about before bla bla bla. Well, the state should have thought about that before a global pandemic kicks in. And we implement procedures and things so that people can stay in touch Because we’ve also shut off visitation, like they should have thought about this beforehand to have a buffer in their coffers.

Larry 47:07
Well, I mean, I agree with you that, that we should not be gouging people for telephone but I’m giving you the political reality that you’ve got. You’ve got, you’ve got revenue that flows. And one thing that most Americans almost unanimously agree on is that people who are being kept up by the taxpayers should be contributing all they can and this is one way where they give back as they pay for the privilege of talking on the telephone. And for using the internet for for the they’re doing these video visitation sound they’re charging for those. And that that’s we’ve got to change the mindset of the of the public in terms of what they want and their corrections right now. I don’t see us making a massive lurch towards I mean, if you look at how, how timid we’re being on releasing people, that should tell you that we have I’ve got all of a sudden had an epiphany about being soft on people who are incarcerated, right? If you can’t get people out of out of out of death way that they’re in these institutions that are so grossly overcrowded, they have no way of providing any buffer for them whatsoever.

Unknown Speaker 48:14
I don’t like it, they do not like it.

Larry 48:17
Well, I got an idea. I got an idea rather than going rather than going out and going to some of your groups on Sunday go out and spend each Sunday trying to educate, spend your time at the Macon mall or whatever it’s it’s it’s still where there’s still people and talk about it out there and try to inform people about the misguided nature of our correctional system in United States and, and when I’m over one at a time,

Andy 48:42
I will start working on that for sure. And I will wear something of a bomb suit because I’m sure people are gonna throw things at me. We have a we have a trio of articles talking about this particular one is and this particular one is from CNS news. This is California da calls out court for us. In COVID-19, to justify releasing seven convicted high risk sex offenders, I wanted to get an audio clip that someone shared and had trouble actually getting the little bit of a clip. But even if you take just the little clip of the DA saying it and and I tried really hard to figure out how I could say I’ve taken to take it out of context, and I don’t want to, but he said sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated, and they need to be monitored. And I don’t know if he said for life after that, but he said they Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, there’s even a quote in this particular says, Yeah, I did call it the court for at least seven convicted. Ira sex offenders who are failing to report for parole. Oh, never say it does it does it? No, it doesn’t have a quote in the article than it does where he said it but he said they can’t be. They can’t be rehabilitated.

Larry 49:49
Well, he he’s better than that. He says that the district Orange County District Attorney is named Todd Spitzer. And and he was on Fox and Friends, does that tell you anything about it? He’s on a that’s a national show. So he’s applying nationwide pressure to judges in Orange County that have released some offenders for their safety. But but he could but he says that, that they that they were charged with cutting off the GPS monitors and otherwise tampering and that in all likelihood they probably weren’t cutting it, they’d love they lost signal that you know, the GPS loses. And I’m not saying that no one cut that but I’m sure that very few people have cut their those. But he he’s lambasted the judge. He’s getting public opinion. all excited. These people shouldn’t be released to the street. They should be locked up in our jail he told from fox and friends and and and he says that they can’t be rehabilitated. And this is what I was just describing previously. This is this is where the public is. Pay saying this because the Public there, they’re loving this. Who do you think has better public support right now the judge who’d like these people out in a compassionate way, or are Spitz hoodies or if you took a poll towards Chad, who do you think would be a hit?

Unknown Speaker 51:14
I would be willing to bet he is.

Larry 51:16
So that is that is the whole point.

Andy 51:19
And here is the quote says, I’m here to tell you sex offenders can not be rehabilitated. And when they’re trying to avoid detection, like they are here in Orange County, they need to be locked up. And we need to protect the public. And if you see a picture, forgive the seven individuals pictures, they are very scraggly looking individuals that you would probably be afraid of to encounter on the street. So

Larry 51:41
well, and then toward the end of the article, he says what’s happening, though, though, is that I think it’s been a roof on the American public about freeing our jails, and there’s actually been an advancement of a social policy to not incarcerate. So,

Andy 51:57
throw all the tomatoes at me. Do you think there has any question? incidents are these on Fox News same?

Larry 52:02
Don’t don’t think there’s any coincidence at all.

Andy 52:06
All right, so before I get angry about that particular one over at the appeal, while I’ll get angry about this one, Tennessee set to execute intellectually disabled black men and killing of white women, even though innocent questions persist. This happened a long time ago. And the person like his girlfriend lived across the hall. And he apparently like was going over to her house and found the door open goes into attempt to help and to see what was up maybe here to a scuffle or something like that hurts some crying maybe, and goes into help ends up with like blood on his hands and all stuff. And then they prosecuted him and got convicted. And there’s a execution coming halfway soon. But there’s a lot of questions about how the case was developed and the guilty verdict and all this stuff. These things are terrible. They’re so

Unknown Speaker 52:58
yeah, well done. The part that that puzzled me a little bit is,

Larry 53:04
I guess the pulling the knife out If a person’s dead, there’s no need to but if they’re not dead, I’ve always heard that you could do more damage but if you’re intellectually challenged, I guess I would explain why you wouldn’t where you wouldn’t necessarily comprehend that but but pulling the knife out was what he did that got the blood on him and his version of the events. Yep. Would I mean you’ve you’ve stumbled in situations like this with knives and people before What is your reaction going tonight? Yes,

Andy 53:30
all Omar demos daily Larry, do you already

Larry 53:34
are or have you ever voted if when you’ve run into this in the past,

Andy 53:38
this is one of the things in the quote unquote treatment programs that they provide that if you are encountering a single child and they are crying for help, you should probably go the other way less someone accuse you of doing something that you did not do. I find that to be incredibly inhumane. But were I to come up on someone that had a knife in them. I would certainly know not pull it out. But I do know that already because you the art the knife could be blocking the artery from them bleeding out. But if you are intellectually disabled, I don’t think the article said Is he 10 points below average is 50 points below average doesn’t say how debilitating disabled he is that and not that I have any level of expertise to make that decision, but maybe the person just doesn’t know there are all kinds of people that don’t know all kinds of quote unquote, common sense things to

Larry 54:30
absolutely add, add. And executing a person in this pandemic, makes it very difficult with the distancing orders to have the people there to witness that there’s a process an execution is a complicated thing. Yeah. And I learned that When, when, when, when we we had our last execution, I’m trying to remember what year it was a long, long time ago, a very long time ago, we had in this state of last execution. I think it was maybe about 2000. So at least 20 years ago. Maybe even a little bit for 2000 bucks somewhere in that range. And those who want to bring the death penalty back. They said that that, that they they admitted that they would have to go be trained on how to do an execution to go through all the processes of gearing up preparing the inmate preparing the families preparing the witnesses. And if you can’t do all that in middle of this pandemic, because you’re you don’t want you don’t want those people together in the execution room and the visitation room where you’re the viewing room.

Andy 55:29
Yes, I understand. So So do you think that this gains any traction? I don’t think our supreme court does a whole lot with these kinds of cases very often.

Larry 55:39
If he’s down to 2000. But the federal court his his, his chances are very slim. He’s going to need something to happen within the state of Tennessee. But the US Supreme Court has taken a hands off posture largely almost executions, the the supreme court justices that’s assigned to that circuit has The power issue is stay. But the experience is that the full court convenes and dissolves to stay. So they’re pointless to issue states anymore. So, so that’s one of the things where you call the circuit judge that presides over that circuit. They say it’s not going to be good if I gave you a stay there or dissolve it within a few days.

Andy 56:20
Gotcha. Then we have an article from the hill. Welcome back to COVID articles. 96% of inmates in four state prisons who tested positive for Coronavirus were asymptomatic. So what does asymptomatic mean

Larry 56:34
there? Well, it means it means that they weren’t displaying any of the expected symptoms that that we’ve been told to look out for. But I’m not so sure about that that number because if they’re going to isolate you put you in the hole and that’s prison jargon for not a nice place to be. They’re gonna put you in sag. I would suspect a lot of people that that have symptoms are doing everything. They can To hide those disguised symptoms, wouldn’t you?

Andy 57:03
Yes, totally. Because Yeah, you would, you would be miserable. It is miserable in isolation.

Larry 57:08
So I’m a little dubious about the numbers.

Andy 57:11
You don’t think the 96 is accurate?

Larry 57:12
It’s hard for me to believe that that that would be realistic that that, that 96,000 asymptomatic,

Andy 57:20
that would also imply that they all got tested.

Larry 57:23
But if that’s the case, so we’ve got an awful lot of people that are that are running around that are positive out in the population.

Andy 57:29
I would agree with that, too. And I mean, that’s one of the big challenges in the United States is we haven’t had anywhere near enough tests, compared to I think, I think South Korea is reporting single digit numbers of new cases, and we’ve detected it. In country as far as I know, unless the information has changed. Both both us and South Korea detected it in country on the same day, and they’re down to single digits across their country of, I think 100 million people in South Korea. Maybe it’s 80 million people in South Korea. So I realized it’s not cheap. Graphically similar and population, it’s not terribly similar. It’s kind of sort of similar. But they, they have enough tests and a different government structure that they can implement testing better or something like that. Anyway, we don’t have enough tests. So I don’t know how they would get 96% of the prisoners to be tested. That’s a puzzle because most of

Larry 58:20
what I’m hearing of institutions is that no one can get a test. Very difficult to get a test.

Andy 58:26
Yeah. And but if you’re if you’re in a room with 80 people and one person has it, you could probably just, I don’t think it would be very much of a leap, Larry to go. They all have it in that dorm. I don’t think that would be that much of a stretch.

Unknown Speaker 58:39
Very likely. Very likely.

Andy 58:43
Let’s see, where do we have to go? Next up was the hill then B. You are in Boston. We have an article that says mess. Massachusetts, I think you call it tax cheats. It’s high court urges governor to use his powers to release prisoners because of COVID-19. Why are they Release people based on COVID-19.

Larry 59:02
The reason why I put this in here is because the court, the court stood down and said we’re not, we’re not going to usurp the power. The executive has an enormous amount of power to regulate their puppet population of present, they have the levers and tools at their disposal. And those who believe that they don’t want judges legislating from the bench, they should be as happy as a lark with this decision, because this is the the Supreme Judicial Court, which is the Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts saying that we are not going to invent a law there’s already processes there’s already laws on the books to cut down on the present population. Governor Baker, you have those powers you have those levers if you if you want to reduce the prison population, do so. And we’re

Andy 59:49
gonna he’s gonna he’s gonna hold that account though. They’re gonna hold him accountable for that come next election.

Larry 59:54
Well, we’ll see if they do or not, but I mean, that is a decision. You would expect and want from a court that’s not going to be legislating from the bench, which most conservatives decried legislating from the bench.

Andy 1:00:08
We don’t want them legislating from the bench doing.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:11
Well. That’s what I’m saying. If you’re conservative, you certainly don’t. Now, the truth is we do want everybody wants the judges to legislate from the bench when it’s something therefore they can’t get through the regular process. Everybody wants to course to legislate from the bench. That’s why everybody file stuff in court. Yeah, but but that’s the big mantra, the conservatives, we don’t want what I want the president to appoint people who ain’t gonna do my legislating from the bench. I’m just to interpret the law and that’s what this court did.

Andy 1:00:36
And that’s what Gandhi is.

Larry 1:00:38
That’s exactly right. For those of you who don’t remember Gandhi, that was the US Supreme Court decision that interpreted the the Attorney General’s delegation. The Congress still delegated to the Attorney General, how to how to implement the animal check.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:53
Right, right, right, right.

Larry 1:00:54
We’re missing we’re missing an article in here. We’re going to talk about hypocrisy tonight. weren’t we?

Andy 1:01:00
And which hypocrisy were we going to talk about? We’re going to talk a particular vice presidential presidential nomination. Yes. We’re

Larry 1:01:09
gonna talk we’re gonna talk about us a little bit of hypocrisy. So we need to have Lester better shared and

Andy 1:01:14
oh, I can get that ready. But you never shared an article which one you wanted to talk to me about. Accuracy ready?

Larry 1:01:21
I did send you one on the on the normal back channels we use. Describing describing what Kavanaugh had been accused of, and then we talked about what Biden’s been accused of. And so y’all want to, but just a generalities. We don’t have to talk about an article we can just talk about the hypocrisy.

Andy 1:01:43
See, you tell me that it’s not there. But lo and behold, it is now there. The magic of the Internet has made it possible there. So tell me tell me what’s up with with comparing Brett Kavanaugh to Joe Biden.

Larry 1:01:58
Well, I’m struggling but this I remember talking about the governor of New Mexico some few episodes back being accused of sexual misconduct. And she did not resign from office. And I could have sworn we’ve had, who was the Senator from Minnesota? Well, that would be out Al Franken right. I thought that if an allegation is made, that under the standards that to me to movement have, have universally adopted as this this seriousness of the allegations, and that, to even dare to question the allegations, is to re victimize the victim who finally, after all these years and sometimes decades, has had the courage to come forward. And I’m just wondering why that Senator, former senator, former Vice President Biden is able to deflect these allegations. And just so cruel and heartless they say that they’re not true. And he says he does remember it. Now, if something didn’t happen, you would have a very difficult time remembering something that didn’t happen. So I would agree. I would agree that that if someone says I don’t remember it, if it didn’t happen, of course, you wouldn’t remember it. But I’m trying to understand the me to standards because it seems like with Cavanaugh, now we had a young man we’re talking about in high school and college, who was accused of my life made it this way describe it rather than rape. And correct. Then we have a sitting United States senator who was accused in 1993. Now, the accusation wasn’t made official with the police as it was with with a blog a forward with Kevin, but so we’re talking about a person who’s much more mature than a high school or a college student. Not to that justifies misbehavior, but we have a sitting United States Senator Who had at that time, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, who had overseen the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had heard all of the stuff with Anita Hill and this person, if these allegations are true, there’s some pretty gross legs to the staffer. And I’m just wondering why that it’s okay. And I don’t see the difference because if anything, a senator would be held to a higher standard of conduct, then a college or high school frat boy, are just not in fraternities in high school but a high school kid or a college frat boy. And I’m just I’m just puzzled at the apologist and the people who now all of a sudden, they don’t have any issue with with these allegations. And I thought that was the whole thing was about the seriousness of the allegation disqualify a person from public life

Unknown Speaker 1:04:57
and believe the woman

Larry 1:05:00
That’s what I’m trying. And I would like for someone really sincerely to come on the podcast and explain to me what I’m missing because clearly I’m missing something here. And the me to movement in if you’re listening, contact the show and we will try to get you on. But I want to know what the difference is. We had the thing with Roy Moore, we’re talking about something. Kavanagh’s was in the 80s. Roy Moore’s was in the 70s. And we’ve got a United States senator in the 90s, where there’s at least as much evidence as there was, and those allegations, particularly with with with Cavanaugh, was that so apparently there was a call from her mother to the Larry King show, saying that a prominent United States Senator had done these inappropriate things. And to

Andy 1:05:50
highlight some distinctions, though, so Roy Moore was, as I understand the story he was, I think, in his 30s he was an ADA maybe assistant, da and A consensual dating relationship with I think maybe a 15 year old but the family was in on it. They were like going out to barbecues and whatnot. But you you just introduced the quote unquote key factor, I guess. Kevin was alleged to have had sex with, I think a passed out drunk girl at the time woman now obviously Al Franken The only thing that I know that he did, there was a picture where he had his hands out like in front of, I’m not justifying that it was an okay thing to do, but it’s like he didn’t do what Cavanaugh was alleged to have done. And it still seems to be farther back than what Biden is being alleged to have done, but not to the degree that Kevin was, and everyone blew off the whole Cavanaugh thing. Not everyone, but he obviously got voted in as a Supreme Court nominee. But Franken for doing something as a prank. Stupid, inappropriate, fill in all those words, that’s fine, but forced out. Well, that’s what I’m trying with you on the confusion. I’m with you. 100%

Larry 1:06:59
at Want to get this down on slack and understand and explain it to people? Now, Franklin was supposedly a liberal. Yes. But here, we’ve got a liberal moderate candidate for president. And I don’t hear a lot from the metoo movement, and I’m just trying to figure out, there’s gotta be something that I’m missing. That makes us different. And I need someone to help us with that.

Andy 1:07:26
All right. So if you want to, hey, Larry, how could they contact the program if they wanted to reach out to us?

Larry 1:07:33
Well, they would do one of the many, many options we have. The best way of course, is to call us that way. We can play what you say. That would be 7472 to 74477. But if you don’t like speaking, you can send us an email to registry matters.

Andy 1:07:55
you know what I’m going to do there. I’m going to do this impromptu, we received a voicemail Just as we started recording, we did it. We did. I can play it. It’s not gonna be edited and I might have to cut it.

Larry 1:08:08
Well, let’s see what we have.

Andy 1:08:10
Let’s see if I can make this work on the fly.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:13
Hi, Eddie and Larry, this is Robin Pennsylvania. Keep up the good work guys doing a great job. I enjoy listening every week, and I am a supporter patron. My question is is in reference to the registries, and you hear it floating around and the numbers are almost up to a million in the country of people in the registries. But my question is, is how accurate it is that? Does that include people who aren’t actually listed publicly? Like for instance, in New York State level ones are not publicly listed on the website? Does that almost a million would that include those people or is that really based on public, public accessible information and also As I take into consideration, people that are maybe registered in two different states, like for instance, they visited in Florida for their own for life and in their own home state. So that’s a question, just wondering how accurate that number is. Thanks, guys. Keep up the great work. enjoy listening every week and fyp.

Andy 1:09:17
I think that’s an excellent question. And well done. Rob in Pennsylvania,

Larry 1:09:23
I think it was a great question as well. I do not believe the number is accurate at all. And so the first component of the question about the people who are not public, my understanding is, is that it only includes the people who are public. Now that is the overwhelming majority of registrants across the country, but he is correct or states where there’s a segment or slice. It could be juveniles, that could be juveniles only or could it be juveniles and level ones. And there is a segment and slice up the population that are that are not in that count in my in my experience. The other component of it is that that there are dual registrations. And there there are people who have deceased. And if you simply go to the register website, if that’s what the compilers are doing, you would have dual registrations. A person who’s left a state and then they’re carried in both states are they’re legitimately connected to two states because of the proximity to a border, and they’re traveling back and forth, and they’re registering in two states. And, and I believe that does a lot of duplication of that. So I’m not convinced it is, million, but I’m convinced that a significant number of people, well over well over a half million, and probably closer to just three quarters of a million easily. And then there are some who are who are actually on the list that are incarcerated. They, they’ve they’ve been in the public and they they’ve been returned to prison, or in some instances, they were put on the public list just because they were sentenced for a sexual offense. A few states do that. They go ahead and list them upon conviction on the registry and then a short list of that there. We’re gonna present it costly, but it’s a huge number of people.

Andy 1:11:04
Hey, Brian in Louisiana says since NC mec stopped counting, at least publicly who knows anymore? That’s the national National Center for next.

Larry 1:11:14
Yes. What does he say?

Andy 1:11:16
He said they stopped counting, at least publicly. I didn’t, I wasn’t aware of that. That’s the only reason I bring it up.

Larry 1:11:21
So well, the last time I looked, I still have a website that tells how many offenders are on each state’s registry as of a certain date.

Andy 1:11:30
How many people do you think are dual registered and do places like where they don’t publicly register tier ones does Nick Mac and and others would like patch in offender watch? Would they still have those numbers?

Larry 1:11:45
I don’t believe they do. I believe you’d have to do a public records request from each state of what their total number of people registered are and I don’t believe they do that. But I can’t be absolutely positive. I believe that that they just simply use the public available information. And, and like if you were to our state doesn’t have everyone on the website, it’s not a level system it’s at a particular group of offenses that are not listed. And then don’t you know, juveniles are listed. But But to get the total for Mexico you would have to contact the Department of Public Safety estimate the total number of people that are registered, and the website would have a lesser number. But but the dual registrations are the ones who are deceased. That’s where the big offsets are because you’ve got people who started the registry journey in Florida, and they went to another state and Florida says, We keep your picture and make it we keep your registration information we show you living out of state, so that creates a registered register record twice that person and you have people who dutifully go to Florida, and they don’t want to be in the state more than the what is it 72 hours or whatever it is. So this on those that go register, and then they find themselves listed on both both Florida and Their home state registry, they find themselves that the same thing happens in Nevada. So there’s there’s duplications for sure. So it’s hard to know what the accurate number is.

Andy 1:13:09
And I’ve just added an article to the show notes with a source talking about why did they delete their map of registered Essos in the United States? No idea the veracity of the article at all, but I am providing you people with a source. And I

Larry 1:13:27
just misspoke about the Center for Missing Exploited Children. I was thinking of the class foundation. They’re the ones who had a map of the United States with a with a list of each state’s total. And I have gone to that Foundation website in a long time, but they used to have a total, but it wasn’t. It wasn’t sitter for missing Exploited Children. Okay.

Andy 1:13:51
And something else to bring up that Rob in Pennsylvania as a Patreon supporter, Larry, what is the best way to support this podcast?

Larry 1:13:58
Well, if you’re a patron Go immediately login and double your patron donation.

Andy 1:14:06
We all know we know that everyone just got a 1200 dollar check. Right?

Larry 1:14:09
Right. Well, why not give us? What would be a fair all of it all? All?

Andy 1:14:15
I don’t know including your kid.

Larry 1:14:19
The $500 dependent?

Andy 1:14:21
Absolutely. All of them if you got one for your dogs and that one too.

Larry 1:14:25
So registry batters dot see Oh,

Andy 1:14:28
that’s where the website is slash registry matters is the other the place for the Patreon part.

Larry 1:14:35
So somebody did a CL well Who did that?

Andy 1:14:38
But there was me and I still don’t know why. Maybe you were smoking that wacky weed when you did that. That couldn’t possibly true, but hopefully my handlers aren’t hearing about that. That way. I don’t get in trouble for smoking the wacky weed. I would also like to add, hey, look, we have a YouTube channel. You can friend us like us, whatever. Subscribe to us there. Help us get our numbers up. We’re on Twitter. post there at least monthly, at least monthly. But you could become a follower there. And that would also be helpful. You can like and subscribe and write a review for us at all of the places where you where you subscribe to podcasts and all those things would be helpful for us to help other people find us. Larry, is there anything else that we need to cover that we’ve missed that we need to chime in on before you roast and melt?

Larry 1:15:25
Well, it has continued to climb in here. I think we’re about 82. Now, but it’s it’s it’s not that bad. No, I think we I think we’ve had a reasonably short, concise podcast tonight.

Andy 1:15:37
Yes, and we did record our lives. Brian in Louisiana, saying hey, and I was already for a six Central Time start and any catches the end? Yes. But that’s because it’s roasting hot and Larry’s recording location and wanted to get things knocked up before he melts.

Larry 1:15:53
And I just love my picture that is just so awesome.

Andy 1:15:56
I’m glad that you like it. And if you want to find that page I don’t know if I’m going to publish this to YouTube or not. But otherwise come check out the live stream. If you want to. There’s a link in the show notes and you can come in and watch my, my large teeth record the podcast and a picture of Larry at his ripe young age of 302 50. somewhere around there.

Larry 1:16:20
So well, Alrighty, Andy,

Andy 1:16:22
have a great night there and I’ll talk to you soon. Good night. Good night. Bye.

Transcribed by

Leave a Reply

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