Listen to RM135: Petition for Removal from the Registry
Andy 0:00
You know, I always ask you about the weather and I don’t really ever want to ask you about the weather just to make small talk, but it’s frickin’ hot in Albuquerque.
Larry 0:30
What is the official reading as we record?
Andy 0:34
Let me go back it was 107 or something like that. it’s 109 now, so it’s gone up like two degrees in like the last half hour or so. And it’s humid.
Larry 0:45
Well thankfully not but but I’ll tell you you go out there and lay yourself out on some asphalt at 109 and tell me what happens.
Andy 0:53
You will probably roast like cooked like a much, much watchamajooky, an egg or something. You’d be a scrambled egg.
Larry 1:00
It’s pretty warm and the airport is the official reading station I’m guessing it would be at a couple degrees cooler at the airport unless it is an airport reading but but still it’s it’s it’s steamy, but this is the hot time of the year for us. The the latter part of June and the first half of July is the hot weather and then we go into a monsoonal pattern where the afternoon showers roll in over the Sandias and then we have we have the effect of the monsoons and it keeps the temperatures down for the remainder of the summer. The only problem is sometimes we don’t have a monsoon season and the prolonged hot goes on and on. But this year, I’m thinking we might have the regular pattern develop later this month.
Andy 1:44
I’m wondering if you have something along the lines of a Uh Oh, I had a thought and then I lost it.
Larry 1:53
It’s called Alzheimer’s.
Andy 1:55
Holy crap. It was like I was I had something super snarky and awesome to say to you and then Like poof, gone. Well, great. We’re off to a good start. Maybe I should take notes. I should write down things as we start. Like if I have a thought I should write it down that way I Don’t forget about it.
Larry 2:11
That sounds like a great idea.
Andy 2:14
Do we have a look through the show notes for the for the night Larry I think we have a pretty neat little rundown of articles and things to talk about. I think that we should dive right in. You ready?
Larry 2:26
I’m ready.
Andy 2:34
All right. Now, what is this a late breaking news, crap, silliness that you’ve put in here that you want to talk about?
Larry 2:40
What we’re going to touch on briefly is the President of the United States used his executive powers to commute the sentence of Roger Stone. And I had so little knowledge about what Roger Stone had done. I asked you this afternoon to please tell me what he what he was convicted of doing because he had been sentenced to 14 months in federal prison. And the President commuted that sentence. And he was just released yesterday evening. Late Friday, which is a great time to, to release news that may be unpopular. But I did… Go ahead.
Andy 3:14
Go ahead. Well, he came under whatever the purview of the Mueller investigation and appeared before Congress and they say he lied and he was convicted of lying.
Larry 3:28
I don’t really like that that type of conviction. I don’t I don’t believe that people would. When you’re when you’re given information about something happened in the past, it’s difficult not to lie because perceptions can differ about what what happened, and a person may have a recollection that is, is as far as they’re concerned, that’s what they remember. And I just, I just I’m not a fan of that charge. I wasn’t a fan of it when Martha Stewart was convicted. I’m not a fan of that charge. But that wasn’t why I put it in here, I’m not here to even get into the debate about whether he helped with, something that seemed like he was in the WikiLeaks in the fray of that, when I glanced over the article you put in, but I’m not here to opine about that. I wanted to talk merely about the the commutation. I disagree vehemently with the Democrat Party. So those listeners out there who who say we never criticized the Democratic Party, I do it repeatedly, including tonight. I don’t believe that, that Leader Pelosi or leader Schumer are correct, and I think Pelosi has been the most vocal. I don’t I don’t think that if anything we’ve learned is that the criminal justice system has a component of overzealousness, particularly at the federal level. So rather, if Leader Pelosi had done what I would have preferred, she would have said Mr. President, you’ve used her powers to commute the sentence of this person. And the Democrat Party has long since long since been concerned about overzealous prosecution and overreach of the federal prosecutors offices, which you are, in fact, the head of. And what we would like to do is work in a bipartisan fashion with you, Mr. President, to deal with the systemic abuse of over prosecution. I would preferred that as a comment from Leader Pelosi than just saying that he was abusing the powers and he was doing all these awful things and making it a major political thing. Why not, Let’s try to reform the system and see if we can get the president and Schumer on board with… Trump has acknowledged from time to time that prosecutions are over the top Okay, Mr. Trump, if you’re really really serious about that, let’s see if we can do something about it systemically.
Andy 5:44
You don’t think that there’s something to be said for him commuting the sentence of his close personal buddy-buddy for like forever?
Larry 5:57
Well, you could get into the nuances of why he did it. But But the point of matter is he’s allowed to do it. (Andy: Yeah.) that’s that’s a power that’s enshrined to the president to commute and to pardon, and as far as I’m concerned, until someone can show me where there’s limitations, there’s no limitations contained in the Constitution.
Andy 6:16
I wonder, I would just like to think back, let’s go back four years and had Obama done something similar and commuted some personal friend, longtime, whatever. You can imagine a, a certain kind of uproar of saying that oh, my God, this is the most corrupt president something you know, they would have just you know, there would’ve been fires and torches in the street running around about it.
Larry 6:40
Well, I mean, I don’t disagree with you on that. There’s there’s a double standard. We have to accept that. The the double standard, there are double standards, on many things, and this is one of them. This president is not going to be run from office for anything that we think he should be of those of us. I don’t think it should be run from office. I think we’ve got an election coming up. And I think that that’s the way to if we if we disagree with how he’s administrating the United States as the chief executive then we can say we can communicate that at the polls in November but but he’s he’s he’s discharging the office in terms of his his his his executive clemency powers in accordance with the Constitution. Now, if he sold that pardon, or that commutation in this case, if he’s, if he’s selling that that’s a crime in of itself. That’s what got blood Blagojevich put in prison before Trump commuted his sentence to time serve to let him out and Blagojevich is now a big fan of Trump and he’s also a member of the Democrat Party. But I do believe you’re right if Obama I mean, look at the heat he took for any type, any type of thing that put people, that let people out of prison.
Andy 7:48
Chelsea Manning, he commuted that sentence that was like a 30-year sentence and he commuted her sentence down to some number like almost like time served and she went home and she had As far as I know, and it’s some time that she’s actually in jail now in Virginia or something for different kinds of charges, similar in nature, as far as I understand it, but he commuted her sentence and I’m pretty sure there was a big uproar about it.
Larry 8:14
I don’t I don’t recall the specifics of that. But what we can say unequivocally is if you have a democrat letting people out of prisons, there’s is vilification, there’s less scrutiny less less vilification. If it’s if it’s a republican because a republican would never turn loose dangerous people in America, a Democrat would because democrats are trying to get more voters on the rolls. They’re trying to create a permanent underclass; these are right wing talking points. These are things that I hear all day long. They’re trying to create a dependent underclass, and they’re doing things they don’t care about the safety of Americans, that all they care about is votes. And that’s their talking points. So democrats are going to get vilified when they do anything that lets people out of prison. Republicans are not I can’t change that rule. That’s the rule. That’s the rule.
Andy 9:02
Did you hear that Michael Cohen had made his way back into prison?
Larry 9:07
I did not hear that. Tell us about it.
Andy 9:09
As far as I understand it where he was, I don’t really remember the details. Whether he was at a food court or a shopping mall, but that doesn’t sound right. Anyway, my understanding is so he got furloughed because of COVID. And the terms, you know, you could explain this way better than me. So they say house arrest. I’m pretty sure that means house? Maybe if you’re under house arrest, can you like go to the grocery store? Or can you not you have to have someone bring you food, assuming you go to the grocery store.
Larry 9:34
And and it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and house arrest program from house arrest program, but in the local program here, there’s a very limited amount of out time that you can have for going to treatment and going to approve things but I don’t imagine that what he was doing was approved and that’s probably what got him in trouble.
Andy 9:53
No, totally, totally. So yeah, he was at some kind of restaurant, like having a family outing or something like that and whomever it would be probation Whatever handlers would be responsible for that, I guess maybe that’s the federal marshals somehow spotted and they got a tip, whatever anyway, so they said, hey, you’re not following the program and they up they sent him back. And I only wanted to bring that up just because you know, a month two months ago, you were like, we can actually furlough people and then recall them when the conditions change. I only wanted to bring it up for that reason that, hey, they furloughed this dude. And they said, Hey, come back.
Larry 10:29
Well, and I’m surprised they didn’t have him on electronic monitoring. Maybe they furloughed enough people that they ran short of monitors, but you’re correct. They can spot you people that you don’t know, know you also recognize you because of their involvement in the criminal justice system, particularly when you’re high profile. And he he could have he could have been reported. And and then there’s so much surveillance tape everywhere. So much, not tape I should say there’s so much surveillance footage these days that it wouldn’t be hard to go back and ask the entity The business to let us see your surveillance and prove that he was there. But I don’t have a much sympathy for him. I’m glad they furloughed him. But when they had him sign the furlough agreement, I’m fairly confident that it was clear of what the limitations of the furlough were in terms of where he could go where he could be. And if he didn’t value being in his own soft bed, preparing his own meals, being with whatever family members he had, and being able to select his times on when he gets up if he didn’t value that enough that he decided that he needed just a tad bit more freedom. They also have an alternative program for people like you that will not live within the confines of the of the greater freedom he had. I don’t know about you…
Andy 11:44
what is this alternate plan? What is this alternate plan you’re talking about? Hang on, I didn’t realize there was an alternate plan.
Larry 11:52
Well, I think he’s he’s experiencing that alternate program now. But But when they presented him that paperwork and it said you can only be out one One hour a week if that’s what it said. He could have said No, sir. I will not accept release, it only gives me one hour a week out. And they would have said, okay, you won’t accept it. Well, we have an alternate program for you. You can stay here with us. And you can you can, you can. But to me any chance you can be at home in the confines of your own domain. I don’t care what how strict The rules are. I don’t care how strict they are. It’s better than being in a correctional facility. And when I say my home, I guess you could visualize someone’s home that may be so horrible that a correctional facility might be better. But of all the homes that I’ve lived in in my life, I would prefer all of them. Even the mobile homes. I lived there when I was when I was a poor young fellow. I would prefer them over a correctional facility.
Andy 12:54
And I would imagine Michael Cohen has a, you know, it’s certainly not a ghetto, it might not be 100 hundred million dollar mansion but I bet you he’s living in a pretty nice place. Just a guess I have no idea just guessing.
Larry 13:06
So Well, according to the reports the president offered him, not Cohen, we’re jumping back on the previous story he was offered a pardon but that would be an admission of guilt on the case. So he took the commutation rather than the pardon.
Andy 13:24
We’ll just run back through there. You don’t have a tattoo of like Lincoln, you served in the Lincoln administration. You don’t have a tattoo of Lincoln on your back do you?
Larry 13:32
No but I have many portraits that were that were painted when he was in the Whitehouse.
Andy 13:40
Do you have anything akin to like a selfie where you and him have a photo together? Well Roger Stone has has Nixon tattooed on his back, which seems just so weird to me to have like Nixon. I can’t think of a president that I can’t think of anything that I would get a tattoo on. That’s another conversation but not Nixon.
Larry 14:00
Well, it amazes me because I looked at the wiki page and he’s not that old. I mean, Nixon was elected in 1968. He was born in 1952. If I read the wiki, right, that is the Nixon administration, he would have been a very young man. So that is that is strange, because he would it would be an early part of his professional career. When Nixon got reelected in ‘72 he would have been 20.
Andy 14:25
Yeah, yeah. So somehow he was influential. And he, you know, maybe it was some sort of drunk barfighter, he lost a poker game and had to get a get a tattoo because of the poker game.
Larry 14:37
Well Nixon was a pretty good President all in all.
Andy 14:41
So until until he wasn’t?
Larry 14:45
well, no, he was actually a good president, all throughout his administration. I mean, he had deep, deep personal flaws, as an individual in terms of his paranoia, his drinking and his foul mouth and things but, but in terms of what he did for the country, Nixon was not a bad president at all. You compare him with some of the other presidents we we got a lot of things out of Nixon. He was he was a liberal Republican, by comparison of the standards of today.
Andy 15:15
Gotcha. Well, then let’s start tackling some of these articles that we have the first one coming from the Clarion ledger. And the title here is that Mississippi governor Tate Reeves vetoes criminal justice bill, there seems to be this whole push about some kind of criminal justice stuff too many people are locked up COVID all these other things are happening, and somehow it just surprises me so deeply that Governor Tate Reeves would veto this. This is where we covered the whole Riot thing and the cell phones were the cause maybe I should play that clip.
Larry 15:51
Well, if you’ve got it handy that that is kind of funny.
Andy 15:56
No, I don’t think I have it handy like that. Um, how did this How did this Go down was this, like super bipartisan like right down the line? Like how did they…? Here’s how I was explaining it to a friend of mine. I realize the governor’s also elected, but the individual representatives, the ones that would write the law, they went through their whole thing and negotiated back and forth, and they put something on the governor’s desk that their people had said that they wanted to have done. And what did the governor do?
Larry 16:27
Well, he vetoed the measure and it had bipartisan support, but it was it was very weak bipartisan support, it had enough to get it to the finish line. But it wasn’t hugely bipartisan. now And so let’s be as fair as we can be. The Democrat Party of Mississippi is so weak it can’t pass anything without Republican support.
Andy 16:51
I’m surprised they even have one.
Larry 16:53
So the the numbers are extremely lopsided in the Mississippi legislature, but it was able to I’m guessing without doing the research, I looked at the vote count, but it didn’t break it down by party. But based on what the governor said in the statement that we’ve attached to the show notes, he said that two thirds of the republicans voted against it in the Senate. We did the arithmetic pre show, and there would still be enough Republicans to get it to the finish line, if all the democrats voted for it. But what my guess is at this at this governor has political ambitions. He’s only been in office since January 14. So at the very minimum, he would like to be in office for more than one term. And since he’s a relatively young fellow, I would assume that he has ambitions beyond possibly being governor. Maybe he wants to be in the US Senate. Maybe he wants to be a president who knows. But in his relatively young age, this is the beginning of his political career. I mean, as far as as a higher office, he has served in the lieutenant governor’s office and State Treasurer but at his young age, he is 40 He’s gonna say I’ve been the governor, I guess I’ll hang it up my cleats and be done with it. So my guess is that he he did the analysis of the potential fallout and he decided to veto it because hate it what Willie Horton coming back to haunt him in the future. And Willie Horton is the is what happened to former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis when he ran for president and George HW Bush saddled him with the with the with the Massachusetts prison furlough program that they had in effect which he had no idea. I’m sure he’d never heard of it until, you know, till Willie did something bad. But But I suspect that played a part in his veto.
Andy 18:41
Do you think that the way the the bill was written and then signed, do you think that there was anything like particularly egregious in the whole thing?
Larry 18:52
I didn’t really analyze that. But I don’t think so. I mean, if if you can do something bipartisan, it’s usually been pretty well vetted. If you look at the legislative history, You know, there was there were four amendments I mean, this was pretty well vetted legislation. And I’m guessing Mississippi listeners to this podcast. If you know more, please let us know. And we’ll we’ll either report it or we’ll have you come on. But my guess is he just got cold feet. He didn’t want to be. He didn’t want to be tarred and feathered with this thing, letting too many people out of prison. And he expressed if you read the veto message, he expressed it that he was okay with one felony being forgiven, but he doesn’t he doesn’t like the idea of three felonies. If you see that in here. He says for example, it says criminals can get parole if they’re convicted of crimes that could get them the death penalty. he objected to that. And another example, he says you can get out of prison at age 60. Unless you’re a trafficker or a habitual offender or violent criminal. This totally eliminates those protections. And he said I got countless calls from law enforcement, prosecutors, and you hear us talk about the What do we call it, Andy?
Andy 20:00
The Law enforcement apparatus?
Larry 20:01
Okay, so the law enforcement apparatus put a lot of pressure on him. And then he mentioned that 2/3 of the Senate Republicans voted against it. So he’s he’s pointing out that it wasn’t all that bipartisan. But I’m telling you, nothing gets passed in Mississippi without Republican support, because the democrat party doesn’t have enough numbers to do anything.
Andy 20:23
So the Senate voted the final version was 25-17. I mean, that’s a What is it? Like a 60 ish 40 split, give or take, and then 79-29. That is a huge majority voted for it in the house. Like there was there was a decent amount of support for it.
Larry 20:39
There was but but as I keep telling you, he is not looking just at those numbers. He’s looking at Willie Horton.
Andy 20:50
Okay. The other part of that is in the article, it says that the way that this thing is laid out says thereby reducing prison overcrowding. It was this would allow Mississippi prisons to seek parole and saving taxpayers 45 million bucks. Mississippi is not exactly a wealthy state that could actually like double their bottom line there that 45 million bucks, they probably have a budget of like, I don’t know, 500 million bucks or something.
Larry 21:16
Well I doubt it’s that high. But, again, these savings come in the future. And and people like this if we’re going off on a tangent here, but people act as if the savings materialize.They don’t materialize right away because of the prison industrial complex. When you reduce an overcrowded prison, say let’s do hypotheticals, you’ve got a prison designed for 1100 and it’s got 1500 in it. If you bring it down to its design capacity, which you really don’t want to run a system even at design capacity, but you bring it down to design capacity. You haven’t saved a lot of money. Yes, you’re going to cut back on food, your your, your, the amount of calories your going to put put out, but your basic operations stay the same. You’re going to air condition to the extent You do, you’re going to heat it to the same extent, every post in the prison is going to still be covered. same person, they’re going to have people in in central master control, you’re going to have all these people in these positions. So you don’t really save a lot of money. It’s a hypothetical savings. So you what people do. And it’s totally disingenuous. They say, well, it cost us $42,000 per inmate, or 36, or 29, or whatever. And then they multiply it times the hundreds of people or get out and they somehow say that this will save No, it won’t save us that let’s be intellectually honest, because there’s no direct correlation in that reduction because the prisons fixed costs continue to operate. The personnel, you know, the positions still have to be covered. So the savings are negligible. The way you save money in a prison is you close it.
Andy 22:48
So you would have to reduce the population by a facility which could be you know, 500 or 1000 people or 3000 people and then you close that facility down that would save you all of the moneys.
Larry 23:00
Save, it saves you that money. But then you get into new problems because first of all the people in that rural community where most prisons are located. these are these are these are delivered, driven to local communities because it’s the only economic development they have. So you’ve got people who hate the government, they say it, they did this all themselves, and the only job they have is working at a government facility. And I’ve always found that ironic, but but you’re going to take away the lifeblood of that community If you close that facility. And then as a compromise, you offer them to be transferred to another facility so you can keep their job protected. So then you take the 360 staffers, they worked at that 500 unit prison and you disperse them around the correction system to extent that they want to be dispersed. And you end up reducing that staffing by 42. So So, so it’s a little disingenuous, but I get your point, that money would have been saved. Because even if you don’t close a single facility, you have fewer medical calls, your outpatient treatments where you have to take people out, you reduce the prison population is going to save some food, it is going to save some money. So you would you would save some funds, but it’s not as pronounced as what people that are on our side who advocate, we’re going to save all this money. They just do a simple mathematical formula, as they say, Well, if we reduce it by 400, that’s 400 times 32,000. doesn’t work like that.
Andy 24:27
Gotcha. Oh, then over at the State Bar of Wisconsin, with Wisconsin Supreme Court, police traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment reading through this article. Larry, I don’t know how they came to that conclusion. That just because he had prior history that that gave them the ability, the reasoning the probable cause to like search the car. I didn’t see how that was. So this guy, he gets pulled over. And like when the cop comes back with the ticket, he sees that he has some sort of, you know, prior record, whatever it is. They so he says he wants to search the car and he does. So Brown says he did not put the offers requested consent to search him reveal about four grams of crack cocaine and 500 bucks. He says he didn’t consent to the search.
Larry 25:16
But if you look on page, this is a long decision. I did not read it, but I did. I did do a cursory glance. But this is the educational part of this is to listen very carefully to what the officer says. And be having your recording devices running if you possibly can. Because the party’s dispute they’ll look at footnote 2 the party’s dispute where the brown gave consent officer Dearing testified that he asked Brown Mind if I search you to double check because it asked him if you had any weapons anything. And brown he says that Brown said no. Now Brown testified that, that that he asked could he search him, and he said no. Now There’s a whole lot of difference. In that question. You don’t mind If I searched to double check? And if that’s what the officer said, he said, No, if that’s truly what he said then he gave consent, if he says, may I search you? And he says no. Officers are very skilled at asking a question in the moment that you don’t hear it the same way that they’re you’re not you’re not picking up on the nuance of the question. Without a without a see how far back technology would go where they called the dicta belt before we had the the the fancy digital recorders and then the body cams everything. Without having that we don’t know specifically what the officer said. But I would give the officer some benefit of the doubt because they’re trained in how to ask a question to elicit the answer that they’re looking for. So if he said, if he said it the way he said he said it, the guy did give him consent.
Andy 26:54
I believe I’m looking for really quick. So there is a an app. I don’t know if this fits under the purview of the podcast. But so I have it in the show notes and it’s up on the screen on the YouTube side of thing. There is ACLU apps to record police conduct. So they have like, quick, quick response apps that you can click on your phone. That will get you in there. It gets you recording the police, as you know, just quickly and easily so that you can, you know, obviously record what is going on and have your own personal record. So you can say whether the cop did what they said they did or not.
Larry 27:29
Well, we’ll just just for basics if the, if the cop pulls you over as an incident to a lawful arrest, they can do a full search of your person and of your vehicle. Now the Supreme Court stopped them from searching your cell phone a few years ago, they said that that’s that requires a warrant. But prior to the to the point of being arrested, they have the right to do a safety check. And so they can, they can pat you down. And anything that feels unexplainable they can ask you and it Look at that because like, you could tell them it’s anything you could say that they don’t say it’s a box cutter from the grocery store. It may not be a box cutter. It may be something else. But, but it gets a little dicey here because I have not, I have not tracked it and I’ve not done a lot of dope in my time. I don’t know exactly. I don’t know exactly what it would feel like, but I don’t think it would feel like a weapon would it?
Andy 28:31
So no, certainly not.
Larry 28:34
Okay. So I’m assuming that the officer felt something that based on his training, that would have led him to believe that it was unlawful because he had $500. I think it said in cash, any and he had he had some substance, but that’s not something that so that’s not a safety issue. So I would have been on to the side of the dissent, the dissenting judge here that, that that anything that he uncovered that It wasn’t a safety issue for him would have been the fruits of an unlawful search. He was allowed to do a pat down search. But he he did that for a safety and he had reasonably I’m against If a person’s been convicted of what he been convicted of, I mean, it is not beyond conceivable that he could be armed, particularly running drugs, you might be even more likely to be armed but but I don’t think I would have gone this way. But I don’t know that we could blame this all on the on the republican judges because wasn’t it four to one. So it looks like maybe, maybe some of the democrat judges might have might have come down the same way on it. The lib tarts? Yep, the lip tarts.
Andy 29:39
All right, then I’m gonna let you have that one.
Larry 29:41
Well, just be careful when you’re in Wisconsin, knowing that God’s this decision has come down, you will be searched this that the city judge painted a correct picture of this that’s going to embolden officers to do more searching because they have been vindicated. So as long as, This is Larry’s general rule of criminality. If you are carrying anything illegal in Wisconsin, get rid of it. Don’t encounter the cops, because they are going to be able to search you now, without with a far lower threshold of what had previously existed. And this is the law of the state. Now, it is possible that during could ask for a Supreme Court cert review, because this is a federal constitutional right. And this is where I wanted to launch off of what we talked about last week, when you talked about going into federal court. As a general rule, I state Supreme Court decision is final. And you cannot do anything else with it unless there’s a federal constitutional right in play. And then you don’t go to you don’t go to the to the trial court at the federal level. What you can do off of this decision is you can file a petition for cert with US Supreme Court, you can say that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is wrong. There’s a fundamental constitutional right and you can ask The Supreme Court to grant review. And don’t you don’t start out at the lower court again on the federal system. You don’t when you lose at the state Supreme Court, you don’t follow US district court case. And I think that’s where you were struggling last week or the week before we were talking about going to the district court. This would go straight to the US Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. And I hope I hope our transcriber could spell that one when it gets to be transcribed next week.
Andy 31:26
probably not. Because it’s hard to even like right figure out how to Yeah, even to pronounce the word like cer-tior-ari
Larry 31:37
Well, there are all sorts of ways so. Yeah, sure, yeah.
Andy 31:45
There’s the other word that’s Amicus or Amicus?
Larry 31:47
Yep, that is, but but this could go up on a cert petition and I would be if it were to go up, this would be something that NARSOL I can just about guarantee you will be interested in it at some level. Maybe it wouldn’t be a top priority but, but how much privacy you have when you’re stopped on the road that would be an issue that would be concerned about.
Andy 32:09
All righty then. Well the next article is from the Associated Press, Maxwell moved to New York for Epstein related sex abuse charges. So this is Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime confidant. I cannot What is this Ghislaine Maxwell was transferred Monday to New York City jail plagued by Coronavirus concerns and other problems as she faces that she recruited girls one as young as 14 for him to sexually abuse. Why is this here?
Larry 32:37
Well, I’m just hoping that she doesn’t meet the same fate and this is not the same facility that Epstein died in. But it gives me pause for thought that that that something bad may happen to her and again, just like I said about the police officer last week that was granted bail in Atlanta. This woman is presumed innocent. And that presumption follows her to the conclusion of the proceedings. And until such time as she’s either found guilty, or enters a plea of guilty, the presumption is she hasn’t broken any laws, and she should be entitled to be released. And I wish the police officer would come on the podcast and save what I just said about him about her. Right.
Andy 33:24
She’s assumed innocent, but you know, we all know that this is not how this goes as soon as you end up with all the press coverage, and everyone’s like, Oh, we should roast this woman. She’s done these terrible things, but she’s afforded her day in court,
Larry 33:36
right. And the presumption should be innocent and particularly in view of this pandemic and her age, we should be doing everything we can to get her out of jail, if there’s gonna be some reasonable accommodations made sure that her participation and that that’s the same thing I said about the officer. It’s the same thing I’m saying today. The only problem is he won’t say it. And I just did.
Andy 34:03
There’s an article that we have from JGTC.com, which is the journal Gazette in times, courier commentary, lawyers can’t visit clients in prison. So quit monitoring their emails. I imagine this is about the people that have their email stuff in prison and all that stuff is monitored. But since the lawyers can’t go in there, they have to do it by email. So shouldn’t there be some sort of exception rule in the email software that says, hey, if something comes from this specific address that it doesn’t go through their filtering stuff? That seems like that wouldn’t be that hard to do there, at least the loan like a systems person.
Larry 34:38
That’s why I put it in here because I know with Laura calls, we we try to make sure that we’re not monitored and if they use the regular telephone system and call us they would be subject to the regular monitoring. But in most instances, they don’t use the regular telephone system. They call by making an appointment with a case manager or case worker and then they’re taken to a station line and we assume by all accounts, it’s not supposed to be monitored, you know, not being on the inside. We don’t know for sure, but, but it seems like that they could figure out something. If if the telephone calls are not possible to be made, because of the lockdown and lack of personnel or whatever, and then the only thing they can do is communicate by email. It seems like to me that they ought to be able, and if I were an enterprising lawyer, I would be arguing this in court that that, that there should be some sort of order issued for the prisons to figure out how to exempt these emails. And I don’t begin to have any knowledge of how you would do it from a managerial and from a technical point of view, but it should be able to be done I would think,
Andy 35:41
and I get that so don’t don’t touch on those points, because technically, it wouldn’t be hard to do. But what would lawyers what would the resolution be now that the prison has potentially filtered seen whatever those things have gone through? Somebody else’s hands what is The resolution once that cat, you know, the horse has already left the barn?
Larry 36:04
I’m not following the question.
Andy 36:06
It’s just that the damage is already done. You can’t undo the damage that the prison has potentially already looked at the emails coming from the lawyers. So yeah, you’re arguing in court that this shouldn’t happen. But what is the resolution? Especially since it’s already been done, and they don’t have any? I mean, think about it. In my mind, I’m thinking about it similar to the Coronavirus thing. We don’t have a process in place. So what are you supposed to do? Do something but here is they don’t necessarily have a way to not filter the emails. But the damage is already done.
Larry 36:37
Well, maybe if if, if anything that was used, if anything that was communicated an email was used, you would move for suppression and he would, he would ask the court to not allow that to be used. So if you communicate to your lawyer, for example, that through an email that that you had committed the offense, you would end the states as well. We got you right here. Are you Know you have recordings that they play where they communicate to a loved one on the telephone and they will what you would do in the case of this was an attorney client email, you would say that that’s not admissible. And you would move to you would move to have that disallowed from evidence. But your point is well taken that you can’t unknow what you know, as a result of that screening, you can’t unknow that.
Larry 37:24
Hmm, so what do we do? What do we do?
Andy 37:28
I think I think an answer Larry is to have fewer people behind bars that these things would apply to.
Larry 37:35
We can’t do that.
Andy 37:36
Okay, all right. I tried. That was my suggestion. I think you put this in here is like the funny article of the night this is from the appeal. Prisoners face undue punishment as their IRS claws back as the IRS calls back their stimulus checks. Hey, you remember, everyone got $1200 bucks a couple months ago.
Larry 37:54
I do indeed. I I got my 1200 and not everyone, people, people who were Let’s be clear. If you were if you were wealthy and you earned more than 75,000, there was a phase out when you reached 99,000, you didn’t get any. And the same phase out if you were a couple hundred 50,000. And then you there was the phase out it phased out. So you didn’t, you didn’t get it beyond a certain point. And then people over 16, and between 16 and 20 to 23. So the college age kids didn’t get it. So there were some exemptions, but almost almost everyone got it. I would agree to that.
Andy 38:29
and to your knowledge, and I’m sure there’s an exception to this rule to, to your knowledge to people in prison earn somewhere in that range, like less than?
Larry 38:39
a, as a general rule, I’m thinking that most prison jobs pay less than $75,000. Yes.
Andy 38:45
Those people technically would qualify for this money?
Larry 38:49
Well, I don’t know that that’s the focus of the article. This is more focused on people who actually had free world jobs, because it could be that since this money was given to you in 2020 it was based on your 2018, 2019 returns. And these people, the prisons can be filled with a turnover prison, these prisons can be full of people that were in the free world in 2018, either interference, some form of supervision. So they could that they could be entitled to the money. And this is an example of our, our constant hatred for people in prison that we just the IRS issued a regulation. And I hate to tell the people who believe that this is a friendly government that we have in Washington DC, the IRS issued a regulation that said that we should treat this like Social Security benefits. And social security benefits are not paid to people while they’re incarcerated. So you’re entitled, technically you’re entitled to the benefits. But back in the 90s, when Clinton was president, and the Republicans had control of Congress, they passed that, that law and Clinton signed it where during the time you’re incarcerated, you forfeit your benefits and they get They incentivize the prisoners to intercept the money. So how quickly the prisoner reports it determines how much reward money they get for the interception. And I don’t know if there’s a reward attached to this or not, I would imagine there is, but since I don’t know that I’m saying, I’m guessing I’m imagining, but if they if they bothered after the Social Security intercepts, thus, what’s happening here is the prison is being rewarded for intercepting these payments. And I would like to see legal challenges because it’s not in the law. According to the article, there was nothing expressed in intent by Congress, because a person happened to be an incarcerated time that they would be prohibited from receiving these payments, same kind of thing that they did with the with the felon own businesses, the SBA, the Small Business Administration, who’s handling the payroll Protection Program. They’re not giving those to some small business owners who have who have felony convictions. Of course, that’s denying the employees of the felon on bill is from being able to have a job. I mean, it’s detrimental to families that may have nothing to do with a felony. But it wasn’t in the statute, but these are administrative impositions that are coming from the administration. So I don’t like it when people say we shouldn’t criticize the administration. This is an administrative action that’s being implemented by this administration. So this administration is fairly criticized for doing this. They issued the guidelines.
Andy 41:31
Can you describe what is happening with the checks that are coming in to the inmates?
Larry 41:38
Well, the prison is of course, they don’t let you receive checks, but they’re holding the checks. And apparently, the IRS is demanding the return under that regulation that they issued that rule they issued, saying they’re not entitled to it and that’s what needs to be challenged. But as a general rule, again, for all the prisoners are listening if you’re going to be asking for money from something, Don’t use the prison address. As a general rule, you do not want money sent to prisons, because there are prison systems who have it in the statute and they even say they were not going to intercept it return to the IRS, but they will confiscate a portion of that for fines and fees and costs related to your conviction. I think Nevada has a fixed percent by statute that they will take so therefore you do not want a $1200 dollar check coming through the prison because they’re going to take their cut even in the best of times without this intercept there will take a cut you want a $30 check come into the prison you want as little money come in as a prison as you possibly can. Unless you don’t mind giving the prison a cut.
Andy 42:44
Right. Yeah, you’re gonna pay you’re gonna be certainly big fees. There’s a I don’t know if it’s JPay I don’t know which service it is that you most of them have moved to for having your money sent in like there’s a handling company now and then they distribute the money to your To your books,
Larry 43:01
you know that that’s that’s the good old private sector being creative, but I was talking about the state in Nevada they collect it as to apply toward your fees. It’s it’s a statutory requirement that they may they may have JPay that gets their cut but but as in the books of Nevada law, there’s there’s a provision that towards your fees that were imposed. While you’re in prison, we will collect a portion of all incoming funds to your account and that goes to retire those those obligations. So that’s why I’m telling you don’t have money Central Prison.
Andy 43:34
Certainly not. So there’s so there’s so it would be kind of like wishy washy of if you technically qualify for it since you’re under the ward of the state. But so here’s a guy that’s detained at Coalinga State Hospital in California, who has one leg and uses a wheelchair because of his disability. He says the hospital has rejected his application for a paid job so he wants to work in the prison. He says, a hospital gives him $12 and six 60 cents per month, which has to cover toothpaste shampoo, soap and other hygiene products. And they confiscated as money.
Larry 44:06
So, but now, again, I believe this is terrorists. I don’t believe the hospitals keeping the money. I believe the under the guidelines that money has to be returned to the treasure. It’s like the people, the dead people that received it. The IRS says they’re not entitled to as the IRS said, You’re not entitled to this money. Because of a proclamation that they’ve made. It’s not at the prison and the hospital. I don’t believe it’s benefiting from this. I believe litigation should ensued. Now, this is easy to say outside, because I’m not the one in the prison who has $14 on my books and has no access to a lawyer. But there should be litigation because Congress did not prohibit you. There’s nothing other than a regulatory intervention by the Trump administration by the Internal Revenue Service that says we’re going to withhold these funds for prisoners. Congress did not express that.
Andy 44:58
So Cuz like if we are going to be textualist since they didn’t write it, then why are we inventing regulations?
Larry 45:05
That’s my whole point. I am actually for this purpose the text is not, does not textualism is really good at times. It’s not so good at other times.
Andy 45:18
Yeah, I was about to call you a hypocrite. Hypocrite That’s what it is.
Larry 45:19
But But I’ll admit that when textualism suits my purpose, I’m for it. But but but in this case, if it’s not in the text of the law, and it isn’t according to this research that produced this article, if it’s not in the text of the law, then it’s an invention. And I do not believe in inventing things. If I’m going to be a textualist then I need to be consistently a textualist. Therefore, this not in the law, you shouldn’t be inventing this.
Andy 45:48
Gotcha. And then an article from Bakersfield.com. Attorney, Now sick with COVID-19 says judge ordered her to court against her better judgment. I gotta think that going to court When you’re testing positive for COVID, like you would unnecessarily potentially infect people that are visiting the courtroom the people in working in the courtroom potentially the judge, potentially your client and or if you’re a prosecutor, the defendant, like all that, like, so that sounds like a bad idea. I mean, like even the Supreme Court’s doing these things over phone or zoom or something like that.
Larry 46:20
Well, I hate to put on my rose-colored glasses, I’m in a consternated condition. if that’s a word. You when you’re a judge, you have you have extreme obligations to try to give people justice timely justice. So you’ve got you’ve got rules bearing down on your for for speedy this and speedy that. And you’ve got you’ve got the pressures of trying to keep the document moving. And you’ve got a lawyer saying I’ve got the sniffles today and I’m minimizing it because that’s not what she apparently said. But you but but but the but the lawyer is saying she’s not feeling well at a job. I just said, well, you better get yourself here to court. And then she says, Well, I’ve been tested for COVID-19. But the test results have come back. Well, looking at through the rearview mirror, probably we would have said, well, should you’ve been tested for it? You must think you might have it therefore don’t say side abundance of caution. I’m going to I’m going to say you don’t have to come to court. But the part that’s missing that we don’t know, would be would there been any adverse consequences on the on the on the case that was that where she was representing the person? Was there a deadline about to pass was she willing to sign a waiver of that defendants rights, for that speedy for that for that, for whatever process was bearing down to take place? There are so many unknowns in this, but a judge should if an attorney says particularly an attorney is not notorious for lying, to people that they’re listening, several attorneys are always on tours for lying, but that’s not true. But an attorney who has a reasonably good reputation for telling the truth and being being straight up with the court. He probably should have shown To cancel the proceeding, but there are circumstances where you’re up against deadlines, if a person’s being held on a charge, and there’s a 10 day rule that you have to indict them, or release them. And you don’t, you don’t get that, that hearing is for the purpose of determining if they’re gonna be indicted. And you know, hold the hearing, and that person has to be cut loose. Is that a decision you’d like to see made?
Andy 48:22
Yeah, I do wonder what’s going to happen in hindsight of how many people have not had their due process and their their speedy trial and stuff like that, how much of that stuff has just been? Oh, sorry, you’re gonna be like six months delayed now because of like, wow, I wonder how much stuff is gonna get get started, how much it’s gonna get started from that.
Larry 48:44
So I wondered that myself, because it seems like it’s gonna cause cause of convictions to be questioned in the future because of this pandemic of what it’s done in terms of the process, to accessibility to lawyers confrontation of witnesses, that In person, you know, you have you have certain rights, and those as my parents is fond of saying those constitutional rights Don’t go away just because of a pandemic.
Andy 49:13
Right. Okay. So doesn’t that apply to the whole criminal justice system as well?
Larry 49:17
That’s what I’m trying to call pets out on. You know, he’s he’s fond of say that Americans don’t fall for Constitutional Rights. So I think that would be universal across the board that people charged for crimes don’t forfeit their rights, either.
Andy 49:28
You don’t think that there would be some hypocrisy, if you were to then ask him directly? Hey, does this apply to the criminal justice system?
Larry 49:35
I I think there would be because all through the 2016 campaign, they were so adamant that that that Obama had never called out. He’s supposed to call them terrorists terrorists. And they said, because he wouldn’t use that name. He wouldn’t call them names, you know, and Obama said that’s not an effective policy, just to call someone names. But then, when this administration took power, and the protests To Charlottesville, very hesitant to call them out, very hesitant to call them out. And I thought they call it names calling people thugs and stuff. I thought that’s what you were supposed to do. So, I think there’s a little bit of hotpot cracy there.
Andy 50:16
Ready to be a part of Registry Matters, get links at registrymatters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email at registrymatterscast@gmail.com or you can call or text a ransom message to (747)227-4477. Want to support Registry Matters on a monthly basis, head to Patreon.com/registrymatters. Not ready to become a patron? Give a five-star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies at your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible. And then over from I guess this will be Time magazine want to reform the criminal justice system focus on prosecutors. Hey over at the Incarceration Nation podcast with Joshua, who’s a fairly frequent guest, he interviewed a conservative former prosecutor from the CPAC convention, and that he was like all over that saying that if you want, like the prosecutor has so much control over how things are pushed down the pipeline for the criminal justice system. So here’s another here’s an article that describes this.
Larry 51:39
Well, I think we covered that last podcast about the the DC Circuit Court of Appeals or the Flynn dismissal, but the judge has appealed on that. Okay, so so it’s kind of going off topic here, but on the The the the three judge panel voted two to one, to tell the prosecution to tell the judge that the prosecution has the final say. And I think that was correct decision. And I said that last week. And now, Judge Sullivan has asked for review on blank. And he’s got to get the whole DC circuit to try to overturn the panel.
Andy 52:24
How about that? Well, I mentioned in this article, Larry Crasner, in Philadelphia and another public defenders that are that are just totally in favor of focusing on the prosecutors for criminal justice reform efforts. Well,
Larry 52:39
they’re not they’re not the only player. But they are an important player because you can pass all the laws you want to. But if a prosecutor doesn’t make it a high priority, nothing’s going to happen. But but but the flip side of that is if you give them powers You give them resources, they are going to prosecute things, usually, if it’s there, because they’re gonna say that’s the duty that they swore to, but they put the hand on the Bible. And they’re going to do that. So So prosecutors have enormous power. But ultimately, criminal justice reform is going to require us to make some decisions to limit the powers that they have. If we don’t want as many prosecutions, we’re gonna have to limit their resources. And I’m not saying defund them completely. The funding is as as a concoction of the right wing to try to scare people, which if you’re watching, I meant to put together one of the Trump ads he’s running about when you call 911. And it says press one, and we’ll get back to you in five days if it’s a murder, you know. And I told people weeks ago that that’s exactly what they’re going to do. But but we have to limit their ability to bring prosecutions if we don’t want so many of them and we do that two ways. We do that by not having so many laws, not having so many felonies by them not having as many people on their payroll. If you if you take a prosecution office that has 100 prosecutors and you reduce it to 64, they’re radically, only two thirds as much work can come out of the office. If you were able to produce the same amount of work, what that would tell us is that a third of the people weren’t doing anything to start with. But but that that’s the part of it. So you didn’t defund the office, you reduced funding to the office. The same thing with the police, we’re not going to defund the police completely. Nobody is advocating, totally abolishing the police. We’re talking about directing some of the resources that are going to law enforcement, to people who might be able to handle non police matters to the police get stuck with handling the police get stuck with handling things that they’ve just assumed not handled. We’re talking about redirecting some of those resources towards alternative intervention other than law enforcement, and maybe we won’t have so many Cases probably cause the police when they come out on things they really don’t like to come out. Finally, their parting words are. If we have to come out here again, someone’s going to go to jail.
Larry 55:10
You’ve heard that right.
Andy 55:12
I’ve not heard it, not me personally, but I’ve heard the expression.
Larry 55:15
And somebody’s going to jail.
Andy 55:18
Whether anybody’s guilty of anything or not.
Larry 55:21
They made that so if we have people who are, if their powers are not, if I have to come out here again, someone’s going to jail if they have different cafeteria options, I say if I if we have to come out here again, we’re going to seek familiar counseling for this family because clearly, you guys are having some difficulty relating to one another. That that doesn’t introduce that person to the criminal justice system. And it doesn’t bog down the jail processing somebody and take a police officer off the street to deal with that. So that’s what we’re talking about. You can buy into all the scare tactics you want to but nobody is talking about abolishing law enforcement.
Andy 56:02
Well Okay. Over at the BBCNews.com website, US Supreme Court rules half. Oklahoma’s not a small state, half of Oklahoma is a Native American land. Now this, I can see everyone’s eyes rolling in the back of their heads, like, why are we covering this? but turns out that the person that like got this whole case pushed up to the Supreme Court happened to be convicted of a sexual offense. And I guess he said that, hey, this is a federal land and you can’t try me at the state level. And I think that’s the how the process ended up going to the Supreme Court.
Larry 56:35
There. Again, I didn’t read the entire decision, I did a less than skim read, but that’s what it appears to be that, that Oklahoma that half Oklahoma is not is not state land. Therefore, the state court verdict is invalid.
Andy 56:52
That’s really quite humorous in the whole grand scheme of things. But so so now and then hey, look There’s this tiny little sliver on the map in the top right corner that wouldn’t be considered a the Indian nation. Like, forgive me, I don’t know what the right word is Native Americans Forgive me that that wouldn’t be Native American territory up there in the corner. That’s kind of funny that there’s this tiny little spot there in the northeast corner, that wouldn’t be Native American land. Well, but it’s what’s interesting to me is so the person that wrote the decision is Neil Gorsuch. And he kind of comes up in our radar fairly often. But he, he is superduper textualist, and said that the United States signed these treaties with these organizations umpteen hundred years ago, and they are not honoring them. And it’s what it says. So we have to do it. It’s
Larry 57:41
well, I, again, sometimes sexual Islam is a good thing. And if, if we don’t like it, we could go back and negotiate with the Native American tribes, whoever whoever they would be. I think it’s what it was talking about the Seminoles about whoever we would have to negotiate with, and we can try to figure out how to remedy this. That But our highest court has spoken. This is Indian Territory.
Andy 58:04
Yes. And it says so because Congress has not said otherwise. We hold the government to its word. And it’s only a five four decision which I do sort of find interesting in the grand scheme of things also.
Larry 58:14
Well, what’s the split? Who’s who’s on the five and what who are the four?
Andy 58:18
Ah, you had to ask that? I don’t know.
Larry 58:24
Bunch of darn liberal damn do gooders is all it is here, mumbo jumbo?
Andy 58:29
Well, okay. So justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by US President Donald Trump sided with the courts for liberals and also wrote the opinion so that’s a There you go.
Larry 58:39
That is that it’s really disgusting that these liberal pointy heads would align themselves with our eyes put it the other way that the conservative is concerned with align himself with these liberal Obama and Clinton appointees. That’s that’s really, really disgusting.
Andy 58:57
All right, well, we’re done with all that. And Larry, you have to start To treat us with your, you’ve concocted some plan to teach people how they can get off the registry to navigate their registry obligations to be removed. So you have five minutes before we go to the voicemail messages, begin.
Larry 59:15
I thought we were going to make this a major segment.
Andy 59:19
No, I’m just kidding. You have all the time in the world. And I’ve put together some questions. I’m sure you have some things that you could throw around. So what what are we talking about here? As far as a like, what is this? What does this mean removal from the registry?
Larry 59:34
Well, we’re talking about and those states where there is a process that exists to petition to be removed from the registry. Now, we’re not talking about the states where there are no process. I can’t give you what there isn’t. And, and we don’t want to confuse this with if you don’t think you’re covered by the registry. That is not the same petition process. You might move from state a to state B You’ve looked at the laws of state B, you don’t believe that, that kind of that state B encompasses your conviction from state a? Well, the process you would file then would be a declaratory action asking the court in state B to declare that you’re not covered by state B’s registry. We’re talking about a process where a state has said after you’ve meet these requirements, you can ask to have your registration obligation terminated. So that’s what we’re going to be talking about it we’re going to be talking about in generalities mostly in terms of what you should do and what you shouldn’t do and what the considerations are. And we’re going to take the questions that came from the from the patrons to the listeners and and from you and I intended to write up some but I think we’re going to have a good good day we should keep coming back to this because this comes up I I must have gotten three dozen emails last week about getting off the registry after after the podcast about from people want to know how do I get off
Andy 1:00:58
well, you You constantly say so while you’re under supervision, you have limited blah, blah, blah. And most of the people that would potentially be listening to this or that, you know, just on the register in general, you know, hey, it’s not a forever thing that you’re well for. Sorry, Mike in Florida, yes, it is a forever thing, but you’re not under supervision for forever. So you do probably come up at some point that you could get removed from the registry. That’s where this that’s that’s the timeline that we’re talking about that this would begin as when you are eligible, what should you do? Is that what we’re talking about,
Larry 1:01:34
that’s what we’re talking about in states like Georgia, Arkansas, where they have many states, several states have but California will soon have a process. And I’m going to be getting my facts together in terms of what’s so bad about the process. And we’re going to be talking about California in more detail. But tonight we’re going to focus on the states are more familiar with what you’re Arkansas and Georgia and I put the removal process Georgia in the Dropbox. So, so what we’ve we’ve we’ve talked about it on narsil and action programs. But we always have new listeners and we have new questions and and, and there’s basics that you should always do. And basics you should always not do. And and then specifically for your case, I’m not gonna be able to tell anybody about what I would do in your case unless I’m on your legal team, but I can tell you these general things that you should do to get prepared.
Andy 1:02:29
All right, well, then let me let me throw the first one out there, should you DO IT pro se.
Larry 1:02:34
I never recommend anything as serious as this being done pro se. And it’s not because I work in the law business. It’s because I understand how the law to adversarial system works adversarial, adversarial system is based on having an advocate for each party. And as a party to an action you don’t want to be trying to be your own advocate because the opposing party is not going to want to deal with you. Right, I don’t make that rule. All I do is communicate to you the reality of what the rule is, you’re going to have to deal with an adversarial side of this process. And they do not want to deal with you. They want to deal with the person who represents you. They came, they can’t talk freely to you. They can’t tell you what a creep you are if they think you are because it’s probably not going to end well for the for the conversation. They can’t tell you things that you need to have done that you shouldn’t have done and things that you ought to do that would enhance your odds. So I’d never recommend you do this. Is that allowable? Yes. In most instances, everything is it’s allowable to go pro se. I never advise it. Because if you go pro se and you botch it, and the referee doesn’t call foul on some things, and the referees are supposed to call foul your advocate supposed to call a foul. If the referee doesn’t call foul, you may set yourself up For a long time of before you ever get a chance to come off again, or you may not ever get off because of something that’s led into evidence that shouldn’t have been that that judge is always going to remember. Because there was no objection bait till go pro se.
Andy 1:04:17
Where Where do you does this? Does this Captain happen in the county of conviction? Or could it be anywhere else? And you know, Louisiana’s parishes? So translate that if that’s relevant to you, or does that vary by state? Or do you always go back to Hey, I’m from, you know, pioneer no County. So I go back to pioneer in accounting,
Larry 1:04:37
the schemes that I’ve looked at, that’s the way they do it. I don’t agree with the way they do it. I think that this is a little off point. But I think that the process of getting off the registry should be more professionalized that you shouldn’t have the haphazard approach. If you have a county that has 14,000 population and everybody knows everybody, and then you have the county. Let’s play Pull Fulton out of a hat in Georgia, which has over a million people where nobody knows anybody. And and it just creates a whole different paradigm. So I would prefer, if I got to design a system, I would prefer that there be a specialty court in each state that deals with this among other specializations. But the reality is that in most of the schemes I’ve looked at, you file in the court, you were convicted, and you’ll be before the judge, if that judge, he or she is still sitting, that judge will determine if your petition is granted. If you happen to move to another state, you file generally in the county where you are residing, which gives you an opportunity to do a little bit of forum shopping, because since you’re not forbidden to both, Georgia has 159 counties. You could do a little bit of research and decide statistically where you would have a better chance of being removed. And you could plant yourself in that county in Georgia, if you had an out of state conviction. But if you’re convicted in Georgia, you can move to 159 counties and your petition is going to go back to the county you’re convicted to the very same judge. And if that judges stay out or retired, the judge who has has succeeded in that bench who’s sitting in that division, that judge is going to make the decision.
Andy 1:06:16
Do you think super broad stroke? Do you think that in that type of situation that moving to a population of 10 County or population of 10,000 County would be a better idea or you know, fit picker, you know, hundred thousand something like that? Super rural or super populated? Which one would be more favorite, but do you think,
Larry 1:06:34
well, it runs, it runs the gamut. There’s no, absolutely no absolute rule. The more important factor is going to be how oppositional the prosecution is going to be because if you read these processes, the petition always gets served on the prosecutor, among others, so in Georgia referred to as a district attorney in Florida they’re referred to as the state’s attorney and Michigan They’re referred to as the prosecuting attorney. But you’re going to file it on the people’s attorney, which is generally the that they are elected. So the more important consideration is, what is that prosecution’s office posture going to be? All these petitions?
Larry 1:07:20
All right.
Andy 1:07:22
Someone asked on Twitter. And I this may fall slightly outside of the scope says, let’s say someone was put on the registry in a state for 10 years, the 10 years is up and they’re removed. But obligations remain when traveling to other states or internationally.
Larry 1:07:40
Well, I’m going to try to duck the international the, but on the state, the obligation on the state is to determine if your crime is covered, and that state. Now again, we’re going to talk about hovercraft. If you have been terminated in state a Edu Move to state B, barring the hovercraft, state B is not going to be getting a handoff, notice from state a, if you’re a registered person, you’re going to have to be handed off because most states before you leave, you have to tell them that you’re moving to state B, they send state via notice to be expected you. And then if you don’t check in with state B, they’re going to put out a fugitive warrant for you, the federal marshals are going to be notified that you didn’t check in with state B and they’re gonna start looking for you in the socket to be good because they’re gonna find you. But if you were to hypothetically both to state aid from state a to state B, having been discharged in Georgia and state vs. Alabama, let’s just take keep it really close together. So you Georgia discharge issue. They have absolutely no power over Alabama. So the minute you become a resident Alabama, your duty to register is absolute because Alabama law says specifically that that regardless of the date of conviction, regardless of anything, so Alabama has defined you as a Georgia Your Georgia conviction as a covered offense, and you have a duty to register. So the question will be for Alabama, how quick are they going to figure out you’re there? Well, if you do like Maguire did and you go knock at the sheriff store, you tell him, I don’t think I have to register. They’re gonna know fairly quickly. If you don’t go knock at the door, and don’t go say, I’m just curious, I got also registered in Georgia to have to register if you don’t do that, you could live the rest of your life and never have a problem. Depending on how often you encounter cops remainder and how old you are. If you’re 72 you don’t encounter cops, and you live to be 81. You might go nine years and never have any more problems the rest of your life. So, but what what what you would do if you were discharged, and Alabama and Georgia and you went to Alabama, you would let your conscious be your guy. If you want to go register, you would go register because your research. If you do it diligently, you’ll see that each state defines a sex offender differently and who they cover differently. And if you if you don’t want to have any possibility of hovercraft, then you would check in with a state in South they got I’m just learning if I have to register, and more than likely they’re going to tell you yes, even though you’ve been discharged because Georgia’s discharge has no no bearing in Alabama
Andy 1:10:21
because we have 50 individual little countries and their sovereign places.
Larry 1:10:25
That is correct. An Alabama chooses to require a lifetime registration, but they’ll removal process that I’m that I’m aware of.
Andy 1:10:32
Gotcha. Well, so that would that would take care of the another question that came from Twitter says What about states that puts you on the registry for life and there is no way or browses to be removed? Or you just f like, just close up shop go home?
Larry 1:10:47
Well, not necessarily. I mean, you are in that particular state. You’re you’re screwed, and to the point you can get the state to have a removal process. But there’s nothing as far as I know, we don’t have any states that have walls around The Dewey,
Andy 1:11:05
you could probably answer that better. Do you have any walls? it at least on the southern border of Well,
Larry 1:11:10
yeah, but that’s not a state to state wall that’s a nation today. No I know I know. But But as far as I know that you’re free to navigate this, these United States without any interference, you
Andy 1:11:19
could you could pick up shop, you’re not on supervision. So you just say yeah, I’m still going to be on the registry here. And so I can move from Alabama to whatever Wyoming Wisconsin pick a W state.
Larry 1:11:29
but you can reverse the process we just talked about, you could be registered an Alabama for life or Florida for life, and you could move to Georgia, and you could petition to be removed if you meet the Georgia criteria, and Georgia can relieve you of their elevation register. Now, I know you’re gonna tell me that Florida keeps you on the registry for the rest of your life. And I don’t need to hear that I’ve already heard 1000 times. But that doesn’t impose any obligations upon you. You don’t face prosecution for going to pick your kids up. from school, you’re not prohibited, go to a public swimming pool. You’re not you’re not restricted in where you can work because you’re listed on the Florida registry. If you’re a Georgia, all the things that put because you potential harm are not there other than the fact that somebody who does a Google search may find that you at one time were listed on the Florida Sex Offender Registry. But you tell them Well, that was a long time ago. Yes. I did have a sex offense of my past. And yes, they’ve cared that that lives in perpetuity, but I’m not registered today. I’ve got that. That’s a chapter of my life that’s closed. And I wish Florida didn’t keep you on the list. I I wish they did. But that’s what they do in Florida. So you Floridians either changed that law through the legislative process, or find some constitutional challenge. I don’t think your constitutional challenge is all that good. And I’ve told the Floridians that although I don’t agree with them keeping you listed. As long as it’s a truthful statement. You You were registered in Florida, and you were convicted of that offense. Is that correct? That is historically true. Yeah. Okay. So So if they suppressed the address that they’re putting in address that still is no longer current. But if they put living out of state, and they put whatever Florida conviction you have on the website that is historically true, that is not a constitutional violation. until until either our statutory laws evolve to make that information no longer public, or do we have some evolution in the courts where they decide to legislate from the bench and create a right to privacy that says that after a certain period of time, that your past is no longer your past? And therefore, it can’t be disclosed to the public but until then, there’s not a constitutional violation. Okay,
Larry 1:13:49
that should be that should give me plenty of hate mail this week shouldn’t it?
Andy 1:13:53
Yes, so crackpot at registrymatters.co. Do you do you think that it’s wise to get a second psychosexual evaluation before trying to do your removal process.
Larry 1:14:06
It is it is critically important to do that. Again, it’s not required by law. And in most instances, it’s not required by law. But we’re not talking about just what’s required by law. There’s a lot of things that I would tell you if I walked you through it that not required by law, but but you should do a psychosexual evaluation gives you something to present to both the prosecution and to the judge for the judge to hang his or her hat on to justify your removal. And I mean, I know that that that that the state evaluators are just splendid, and they’re just the most objective people you could ever find. But I prefer to have my own. I prefer to have a doctor that I have employed that I can call and I can ask questions so I can send the patient the client back. If something if if a test is unclear to me I prefer to be able to say, Dr. Galvin, I would like you to take another look at this because in view of what I know about this person, I think that you could dig a little deeper for us. And this would be more helpful. We don’t ask the doctor to render the opinion that we’re looking for, we ask the doctor to look at things that the doctor may have looked at. And then sometimes the doctor comes up with a different with a different answer. And I prefer to have a psychosexual evaluation to counter what they may have. Because as we as we go through the process that I’m going to walk through it, once we get to these questions of what I would do, that is something that you would want to do, and if you can’t afford it, I understand that that may be an option. It’s not available to everybody, but if it’s something you can do, you should do it.
Andy 1:15:45
How much do you think they cost?
Larry 1:15:48
Thousands anywhere from two to $5,000? Yeah, you could be spending a couple thousand to $5,000 on a psychosexual there. Well is the red is the registry as bad as you say it is.
Andy 1:15:58
Well, I’m just going to say your Probably like in cahoots with someone that does them in your pocket, some referral fees or something?
Larry 1:16:05
Oh, no, not at all. I think I should be But see, we don’t have a process here. So there’s no Cahoots to be in. But it’s just, it’s just up your odds of success.
Andy 1:16:18
I was talking to Paul Dubbeling, and I guess it was the Houston conference and asking him and he’s like, Look, all I’m trying to do is throw this you know, binder of 100 200 pages on the judge’s desk to provide him with cover so that he can say, hey, look, here’s the reason why I made this decision. He had all this he had this in his favorite he’s active in the community goes to this church. He’s, you know, all this stuff. He’s walked puppies across the street. So as far as I know, he was a good human being and my conscious was relieved by letting him off.
Larry 1:16:49
I agree with Paul and Paul do not fare seller disagree. And I agree with that completely. You want to empower the judge, but there are steps before you get to that. A judge but yes, you want to you want to give the judge as much as possible.
Andy 1:17:04
How about how do you find someone because you know, this is sort of an esoteric space, how do you find an attorney that is competent to represent you?
Larry 1:17:14
That is difficult, but you employ me to help you. That is, that is how you do that someone, someone that will tell you, things you don’t like to hear. And you, you pay me to help you. And, and it actually Actually, I don’t charge for that unless I have to make a special trip. But I have on occasion, I think you remember the case in Georgia where I worked on an appeal where we got a guy’s conviction set aside and I actually traveled to Georgia for him with him and
Andy 1:17:44
The on in Texas now I believe?
Larry 1:17:46
Yes, yes. that that person. Yes. Well, you have to know the right questions. This process, as law is open to anybody. If you’re licensed. You can do anything that the law allows you to do. So if you’re a licensed attorney, you can practice it in an area. But just because you can doesn’t mean it’s wise nor should you. And when you get when you get a drunk driving when you get a DWI or DUI, whatever they refer to it as your jurisdiction, you may find that there are attorneys who do DDP wise for $800 or $1,000. But that doesn’t mean that that’s who you should go with. You need to find if they’re competent enough or not, and and so that means asking the right questions. So the first thing you want to find out from the attorney as how many of these petitions they’ve done. So when when when you call them up and say, I want to talk to you about being removed from the sex offender registry, they say the what? You probably you probably walked away, probably don’t have the right attorney, even if it’s a family friend again. When I say when you say, Well, I’d like to petition to be removed from sex. To register, they say you want to do what?
Andy 1:19:06
But so I already asked you about the what kind of price range would you expect to pay for an attorney to do this. So you already said something like three grand for a psycho.
Larry 1:19:16
I would be surprised if a competent attorney but with charging in less than 2500 to $5,000. Because of the work that’s involved. I would be very, I will guarantee you this if we had the process and it’s the gatekeeper this office. I wouldn’t quote anything less than $5,000. But I would actually do the work. I mean, we could call it a $200 fee and do nothing and get get people pays 250 dollars all day long and say you lost but but in order to do the proper work, that that would be a justifiable fee. So I would expect it on the low side, you might get a fee quote of 20 $500 to $5,000. And then there’s our variables of your unique circumstances. If you’re in, let’s see Valdosta, which is right on the state line. And your conviction is for size, which is the county north of Atlanta, rather than the city of four sides, and you want and you your your attorney that you’d like to Valdosta is going to have to travel up there. So you’ve got, you’ve got traveled lady calls, but assuming this semi local within a 50 mile radius, that travel is not going to be a big factor. But you’ve got a lot of steps are involved. The first thing that I’m going to do if we had such a process, as I’m going to collect as much information from you as I can about you, and people people were very reluctant to tell you their their, their dark secrets about what they did. And in some cases that’s decades ago and they may not remember everything but people are reluctant, but I’m going to find out as much as I can about this offense that about you and what you’ve done Over the last few decades, and I’m going to find out how much the prosecution hated you at the time. If you know about it, I’m going to try to find out how that office felt about you and how they treated you. And where you high profile. Because, believe it or not prosecution offices keep files. It may come as a surprise to some people but but even though the very person handled your case may not be there, they still likely have a digitized file or maybe even a paper file on you. And so this is going back to their I want to find out as much as I can. And then I’m going to make a journey to the prosecution’s office. And I’m going to say, This guy has been a seller character for the last 32 years and I’m going to be bringing a petition potentially to get him off the registry. What is his office position going to be? Because I don’t need your $5,000 if they say we fight like hell on every one of them. And we’ve every one that we have opposed has been denied. I kind of dough right there. That that I’m not in good, good, good, good position. If I if I said not to mention the fact that this guy was a pain in the, you know what, and we hate him as much now as we did 25 years ago, that I’m going to come back to you and say, Well, you know, I did my luminaries, and they oppose everything in that particular jurisdiction. And there’s only been one out of 72 petitions granted, you can actually get those statistics from the Administrative Office of the Courts, you can actually find out every different cause cause of action, they code it with a type of petition that was filed, and you should be able to get those statistics but even if you can’t get it from from an Administrative Office of the Courts, as a practitioner, you should be able to query your defense listserv and ask people practice in that area. What the ratio is you need to know that information about who’s getting off, what judges are doing what with these petitions, and and what today’s office position is going to be on your client. You don’t care about anybody else but your client, but there was session is going to be and depending on their position that tells you how much work you’ve got to do. Because if you have any chance of winning, you better come in there with what Paul Dubin described. If they’re if their postures to be opposition and everything you better come in with a very good psychosexual evaluation, you better come in with a very strong candidate for removal, because the judge is going to be hesitant if the prosecution is tight and to sit down.
Andy 1:23:26
And the last one that I have is how long do you think it takes to put this together from, you know, even roughly like from the time that the initial contact with the lawyer, getting your counsel on the finding the right one to then submitting the packet to get in the judges calendar, and how long is that a two month process? Six months, five years?
Larry 1:23:47
I would, I would say six months to a year. And again, it’s going to vary according to jurisdiction. If you go to a small jurisdiction where the dockets not particularly heavy, they can probably schedule a hearing faster, but how fast it is not important. But it’s important if you if you’re never going to get off if something’s never going to be decided that doesn’t do you much good, but you don’t want a 60 day turnaround. Experience is not the issue. What you want here is thorough preparation to go to this hearing, and you want to be as prepared as you possibly can be. And if the judge takes some time, that’s generally a better thing for you because if a judge is going to die, it doesn’t take a lot of time because most of the cases let’s just take a look at what the Georgia statute says. A judge doesn’t have to decide much to deny you let’s let’s read verbatim I think I might put a copy at our folder deny for the for the Georgia removal process.
Larry 1:24:39
You did you put a copy in? (Andy: Yes, I did.) So. Okay. So okay. So the judge after after the hearing, it says it says a considered the petition. The court may consider and listen to this any evidence introduced by the petitioner. Now listen, that word it says may consider Doesn’t say shall consider the the the court may consider any evidence they respond, petitioner, any evidence introduced by the district attorney or sheriff, so the sheriff is also a part of this in Georgia, and any relevant evidence but the key word there is may consider. There’s no shoulder and it says the court shall hold a hearing on the petition of requested that’s pretty clear. You will get a hearing if you want one. And it says then the court may issue an order releasing the individual from registration requirements or residency or employment restrictions in whole or in part. If the court files by preponderance of evidence, that individual does not pose a substantial risk of perpetuating any future dangerous sexual offense. Now, again, listen very carefully. what that says is that despite everything you presented, it says the court may issue an order. Now if I had my druthers, I would like for that to say if you put preponderance of evidence which I don’t like the offender having to prove it, but I think that if you have shown by preponderance of evidence, I think that this should say, rather May, it should be shall issue an order. But this is what it says it says, may issue an order. So therefore, when you have this hearing, you want the judge to have as much time as he or she needs to make that decision. And often really back when you’d be a property management, when I used to make decisions on who was coming, and I had a weak applicant and almost thinking about whether I should rent to that person or not. And they would put pressure on me to make a decision. That’s I’ve got to know something and I say, well, you don’t if you really have to know something, I can give you an answer. It’s not gonna be what you’d like. Because I am contemplating your case, your circumstances. I’m still trying to reach out to your 14th cousin or whoever that preference was. It hasn’t called me back yet, and I’m still cogitating how I feel about you and you don’t meet our criteria. Are you asking me to make an exception? And I’m going to make an exception when I read, if I make it at all. And if you tell me you have to make a decision, I can give you a decision today, I have a feeling that the judges are going to feel the same way. If they’re, if they’re, if they’re in a, in a conundrum about what they’re going to do, whether they may release you or not, I don’t believe putting pressure on them produce for decision is going to be a good thing to do. It’s going to increase your odds because of the word made. Now if it said shell, I would feel differently, but I’m only going by what the law says in Georgia. And we are textualist here hold registry matters, aren’t we?
Andy 1:27:39
No, we’re not only that. Just to just to sharpen the question that I’m asking, though, about the timeline. I’m not trying to say hey, we’re gonna try and push the judge to come up with I’m just trying to set up some realistic expectations six,
Larry 1:27:51
six months to a year, six months to a year.
Andy 1:27:53
All right. Yeah. So I’d like to give the attorney time to protect prepare the things to get on the docket to get the judge time. do all those things? Well, we’ll answer
Larry 1:28:01
it. But guess what research I’ve got to find out about you. I’ve got to find out if you’re eligible, meaning that statutorily if you’re eligible, sometimes you’d like to be rebooted, you’re not eligible by the statute. So we’ve got to figure out, if you’re eligible, if you’ve got any integrity, you got to tell the person I’m sorry, you’re not eligible. This, you haven’t met the requirements to be removed. But if you if you’re statutorily eligible, then the journey to the prosecution office has to has to take place. It’s not required. I’m only telling you, this is what we would do. Because we need to know what they’re going to say. And the best way to find out what they’re going to say is to go talk to them and find out what they’re going to say, rather than speculating on what they might say. Now you can get a pretty good clue what they might say based on what they are saying but the other politicians have a similar nature. But that doesn’t tell me what they’re going to say about you about how much they don’t like you, I can only ask them and trust me if you’re pro se they will not tell you and I’ll likely They think about you. So, so that’s the big disadvantage of being precise. You’re not going to find out really where they were, where they where your opponent stands on this. We need to know where our opposition is and what buttons and levers are going to be pulling. We need to know if the sheriff has been as has got a dossier on you saying things that has concerned them during your period of registration, we need to know that before we get to the court hearing. That’s not a good thing to spring. That’s not a good thing to spring at the last minute we need to know all this stuff.
Andy 1:29:37
Well, those are all the questions that I could come up with my little pea-sized brain.
Larry 1:29:41
I think those are really great questions. I think those are great questions. But if you if you if you can go pro se i mean if you have to go pro se it’s hard for me to say do that than the alternative because if you don’t file we can be fairly certain you won’t get off if a petition is required. And if you could only do it pro se The worst thing you could have happen is you’ll end up in a position you’re in now, which is still registered. So I guess it you can do minimal harm. But what if you have this hearing pro se, and stuff comes out that shouldn’t have been allowed to come out? I don’t know how we undo that. If you do it pro se.
Andy 1:30:18
I do understand.
Larry 1:30:22
So, but but I hope that that people who who were contemplating the removal will prioritize it in terms of economically Yes, it’s expensive, but being on the registry is expensive. Not because of the fees. I mean, the fees are 50-hundred bucks or whatever
Andy 1:30:36
It’s the disabilities and restraints is your favorite expression.
Larry 1:30:38
Right, right the economic hardship. There are employers who will not hire you, if you’re on the registry because the insurance company will not condone that practice. And the same employer would have hired you with that same felony If you weren’t required to register, that may be the difference between a $7.25 cents At our job at a $19.50 cents an hour job, so therefore it might be worth it.
Andy 1:31:07
I think an economist would call it an opportunity cost.
Larry 1:31:10
Yes, that now of course, if you don’t have the money, again, I don’t have a solution for that that’s a downfall in the process that we have. Our processes are not designed for indigent people. This is this is one of the pitfalls we have in this country. We don’t do a lot this. This is a quasi-criminal proceeding. It goes back to the criminal judge in most instances. And yet it’s a civil proceeding. The registry is a civil regulatory scheme. It could be it could be argued that it’s a criminal proceeding, therefore since you’re going before the criminal judge, the judge has said what puts they will ask that as a civil judge in this matter, I’m sitting This is a civil matter that’s related to your criminal conviction, but I can understand if you don’t have access to any funds, it would take a lot of plasma donations to raise $6000-$8,000 they If I don’t know what it pays these days, but
Andy 1:32:03
Let’s call it 50 bucks.
Larry 1:32:06
Well, it would take a while to raise the thousands of dollars at 50 bucks. How often can you do plasma donations anyway?
Andy 1:32:12
I don’t know I’ve always considered that if somebody is doing that then you would have probably made some poor decisions leading up to that point and because you’ve got you’ve got problems. That’s how You’re gonna make money is selling biological fluids.
Larry 1:32:25
I think it’s a couple times a week, but you know, I know that when I when I managed over near the university, they would run ads on the student newspaper that say like you could earn like 180 bucks a month or something with extra spending cash and that was a long time ago, but I have no idea what any of that stuff does. I haven’t had to resort to doing that but people do it. And and thankfully people do do that because it’s needed.
Andy 1:32:49
Yes, yes. Yes. All right. I don’t have anything else on that. So are we ready to hit these two voicemails and get out of here?
Larry 1:32:56
Yeah, we are cuz we’re over time already.
Andy 1:32:59
We are way over Time. All right, so here’s the first one. And let me just let me just put this book and this is that if you’re gonna send us a voicemail, please don’t ramble around the subject and try and be concise and clear. Maybe type it out and read it. Somebody left voicemail and they were kind of all over the map. He had to call back. Oh, I forgot this. I’m not I’m not I can’t put all that together. So with that said, Here is voicemail number one.
Voicemail 1:33:25
Hey Registry Matters. Hey, what’s up everyone? I forgot to leave my name in the last two message. This is Brian from New York. My next question is, along those same lines, too. I’ve been offered jobs over the past few years. Most of them are for traveling to different states to like build fixtures, you know, fiber optic technician going state to state. My question also would be, would it be a heavy burden that I have to in order to go to the states do these job, I would have to register. And then with these registrations in different states comes restrictions, which might interfere with my job, which might interfere with me, you know, doing commerce, because I have to work around these things. So like I said, I know I’m not going to go to the state and get into any trouble. So I don’t expect to have any police contact. But or however, you never know with certain things. So I would like to know, would that be any grounds for a legal standing? Thank you, fyp.
Andy 1:34:37
different states have different requirements of once your boots are on the ground in there before you would have to register like Georgia? I think Georgia is kind of vague. It’s either seven or 14 days, depending on how you want to read it. And Florida’s 48 hours so everybody’s got their own rules. Is that what he’s asking?
Larry 1:34:55
I was thinking he was going a little deeper than that in terms of what if He registers while he’s working in a state are the restrictions that are imposed on registrants applicable to him? Yes, the answer is unless they’re exempt unless there’s an exemption for a temporary resident, everything that’s applied to, to someone who’s only going to be there as a resident for for a briefer period of time, the same restrictions apply. That was the way I took the question. And he his point was, that is that does those disabilities and restraints constitute grounds for a lawsuit? Because if, say, for example, he has a job. And I pulled this out of air because I didn’t talk to the person to say for example, he has a job. And the job is an exclusion zone. And he got offered that job, but the registry won’t let him do that job. He’s asking if that’s grounds for for a legal action. And yes, it is grounds but the likelihood of success, you’d have to evaluate carefully in terms of the body of the case law in that state you know, what has the state Supreme Court ruled on similar challenges? Have there been any? And then is there a federal constitutional claim? Would you be would you We better have to take it to the federal court to begin with? And so so we don’t know, we’d have to dig into the particular type of restrictions and how disabling they were to him in terms of his job. And the state would have plenty of defenses, they would say, well, we didn’t ask him to come here. And he could do other jobs other than this job. I mean, it would be it would be as all litigation is when you’re making constitutional challenges, it would be difficult because the presumption is in favor of constitutionality but yes, it that that would be that would be something where there would be, it would not be so laughable that you would get you would not get admonished for bringing the complaint, but can’t say your likelihood of success though I don’t know. I love the accent though. When you compare that with was my was my suit smooth southern drawl. Did you have one like that. So he’s got…
Andy 1:36:50
I’m from New York. Hey this is Brian from the New York, Forget about it. and I do a terrible rendition.
Larry 1:36:57
he probably gets a kick out of our southern drawl as much as I did out of his.
Andy 1:37:01
probably and he’s probably like what accent?
Andy 1:37:05
Alright then one from Jeff.
Jeff (Voicemail) 1:37:09
Hello, Larry. I’m Andy. This is Jeff from Kentucky and July 15, 2020. A new law goes into effect that is affecting registrants around here. It says, well, it is called Kentucky House Bill 204. And it says that they, that registrants may no longer live within 1000 feet of publicly leased playgrounds. And that’s something different than publicly owned playgrounds. The interesting thing about this law is it’s not being applied retroactively. And it even says that if you already live somewhere, you don’t have to move. And as far as public playgrounds are concerned, if one of those pops up or a school or daycare, you do have to move and I’m interested in that because normally The interesting thing about this bill is that they’re not applying it retroactively. And you don’t have to move if you already live somewhere, if one of these things pops up. I guess my question is, why do you think they worded the bill that way? As in Why are they not applying it retroactively? Because when they passed the law, saying that registrants could not could no longer be in parks in 2016. They did apply that retroactively, as in like, I was convicted in 2015. So I thought one day I would be able to go to parks again. But they passed a law saying that I could not go to parks and applied it retroactively. What is a publicly leased playground? And why did they not apply this retroactively? And as always, fyp.
Andy 1:38:46
Both callers tonight said fyp. I love it.
Larry 1:38:49
I have no idea what a private playground is. I would guess it would be something like an apartment complex but without more information, I don’t know. But the answer why did they not apply it retroactively. I guess They were being cautious about constitutional challenges, because more and more constitutional challenges are rendering retroactive application of various things unconstitutional. All you have to do is take a look at Does versus Snyder and on and on and on. So, and they are in the Sixth Circuit in Kentucky. I think. So I think that probably would be the answer to that. would be that out of constitutional concerns that they didn’t apply retroactively, but then I thought he said something in there that they were applying part of it retroactively. So I was a little confused. Because he said if…
Andy 1:39:29
I think he said he was talking about a previous law, though,
Larry 1:39:30
yeah, but if you’re if you play that again, I think at the very beginning he said that that part of it was applied retrospectively but but my my speculation would be because of concerns of constitutionality.
Andy 1:39:44
Okay. All right. And how about that accent?
Larry 1:39:47
That’s, that’s more to my liking.
Andy 1:39:52
Well, there you go. So that wraps up a another marathon show Larry.
Larry 1:39:56
That’s right. We’ve got we’ve had we’ve had a good one. I hope hopefully, we’ll get to A dozen new patrons next week. We haven’t had any new ones to report for a while.
Andy 1:40:04
So, so quickly Hey, you could go to registrymatters.co and you can find all of the show notes and every and all of the information from there. And that’s all I got.
Larry 1:40:14
Good night, Andy.
Andy 1:40:17
Goodnight Larry, have a great night. Talk to you soon. Bye.