Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts, fyp. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. And this is the second time I’m doing this. I’m confused, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 136 of Registry Matters. Larry, I feel this is deja vu that we did this like I don’t know, an hour, hour and a half ago.
We did and we we started and then thanks to your unreliable source of power in the Peach State, we have to start all over.
Yeah, it just like we were like two minutes into it. I asked you a question. And then poof, power just dead. Dead.
I was giving an answer. And then I thought it was odd that there was no feedback. I guess you weren’t hearing me.
I was definitely not hearing you. But I did ask you a question that did you know that the internet had gone out? We did start with that.
and I had not heard that.
it was interesting, like alarms and email started firing off it was about five o’clock yesterday. And I don’t even know what the details were but some massive provider on the internet system called CloudFlare got, I don’t know, somebody pressed the wrong button, or did they get attacked or whatever. But anyway, the internet went out for about 30 or 40 minutes yesterday, which is kind of neat.
When you say the internet did that affect every user, on the globe, or in certain segments of the country, or did it Tell me what you mean by the internet went out.
the internet would mean in this context, it would have meant that only a portion of people would have impacted so CloudFlare they would have stuff spread across the world, but probably pretty much just in the United States was impacted.
But so there’s that. Alright, so we received a crap ton of feedback from the episode we did last week on petitioning for removal from the registry. And so we have some follow up from that. And one in particular was a question from someone in Georgia named Gerald. And he just had his little birthday party fun where you had to go visit the Popo and get his fingerprints and different kinds of pictures taken. And he had a question about the the information that you are obligated to follow, the regulations, the rules, part of this civil regulatory scheme that tells you, you know, you can live within 1000 feet or can’t live within 1000 feet, can’t have photos of certain kinds and so forth. There’s like, there’s probably 30 things per each bracket. And Georgia does things where there’s like a before a date, then there’s in between these two dates, and then there’s another one between some other dates anyway. And but so his question is if you get off the registry, what of those things do you still have to follow? It is my understanding that when you get removed from the registry that all of that would just like you’d go back to a normal person but you would still have the felony but otherwise I thought you would just go back to kind of like normal.
That would generally be true if those prohibitions come about within the registry scheme itself. And they’re not a separate section of law that says for, for example, if there would be a statute that says anyone who’s ever been convicted of this type of offense, they’re forbidden to do the following things may be a job debarment, occupational debarment, or it may be a debarment like I think in Illinois, the park restrictions I believe, apply even after the person’s off the registry because its worded has has ever been convicted, and as we can discern has ever would include even when you’re beyond your registration period. But as a general rule, it would be that those things are triggered those those prohibitions are triggered by a duty to register it it’ll say anyone subject to OCGA, the section covering registration, will have have will have this as a prohibition. And then if you’re no longer subject to that it doesn’t sound like you would have that as a prohibition, because that’s the trigger mechanism is being required to register
Right. So my understanding is different states, if you have one of these crimes, you can’t be a nurse. So those things would carry you or a particular individual couldn’t go take the BAR, a guest speaker at the conference in Houston. Is that, does that follow kind of along those lines?
Yes, those things that are not specifically tied to the registry, if they’re standalone statutes, so they have occupational prohibitions that, that that don’t apply just on the, text language of the text that says this is an obligation on anyone required to register if it says this is an obligation or debarment, for anyone who’s ever been convicted, ever would include the time beyond the registry.
ever is one of those like absolute words?
Ever is one of those Absolute words and then the only exception would be possibly if you got a pardon. And then that would possibly remove that barrier. But as a general rule, all the registration obligations would go away. But any separate provisions that are not in the registry scheme could very well continue. So we would have to have a more specific question about whether or not that particular prohibition would would linger beyond registration.
Well, for for many, many people, one would be the living and work restrictions the thousand foot but you know, there’s a whole multitude of them that you’re just initialing that you again, the living restrictions, so the thousand foot thing, and I think there’s one he brought up of having photos of minors, so you have pictures of your nieces and nephews. And I’m like, at that point, I don’t even I was just trying to think about it from a logical standpoint of well who’s going to enforce it, like, I don’t see like they’re not going to come around and do some kind of compliance check because that’s not their role anymore.
Well on the on the possession of photos I believe it’s actually the collection of them the actual snapping the photos if you’re in a park I don’t believe a registrant, not I could not be correct because I can’t know the nuances of all 50 registration schemes but I believe in Georgia it’s the actual collecting of the photos if you’re in a public location, you cannot take a picture of a minor at a park I don’t believe it’s a prohibition against possession of the of the photo. But again, any of those things that are tied to the duty to register specifically those things would go away. But if it’s a standalone “has ever” then you’re gonna have to live with that for a while longer.
Because it was kind of in this the the course of the conversation was mostly about getting Second Amendment rights back, which to me within the for I don’t particularly care about owning a gun but about voting there to me, they’re sort of parallel to each other in that regard of getting your voting rights back.
Well, in most states, you get your your voting rights back by completing your sentence. And in case of Florida which we’ll talk about later, it’s when you complete all obligations as a result of your conviction. And, and but the second amendment is is a little more nuanced because the state cannot, the State of Georgia could say you have the Second Amendment right. And the feds could say sorry, you’re you’re perpetually barred. (Andy: Right). And then we get into the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and since the gun ownership, the feds have claimed that claim an interstate commerce connection that because of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, the feds that still prosecute you, we have that dichotomy here in our state. After 10 years beyond your sentence, you can own a weapon in this state. You can possess a weapon, it’s completely within state law, the state, the state doesn’t have any problem with it after a 10 year sit out period, but the feds can still prosecute you. They seldom do.
It’s a supremacy thing that we’re going to talk about sort of along those lines, also.
they seldom do prosecute people for that. But if they do not like you, and they’re looking for something to put you in prison for, and you have been a nuisance to them, it is quite possible that the State of New Mexico would refer you to the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico, they would say, this person got off supervision 10 years and 13 hours ago, and we caught them in possession but our hands are tied, would you like to take a look at this? And it would be very likely.
they’re not connected like that are they, Larry?
Oh, no, what would give you that idea? And we’re gonna we’re gonna talk about that when we go into the people that follow the discussion, because I’m going to talk about that vindictiveness, and one of the persons who contacted us about about the episode and had some questions that so we’re going to follow up on that and we’ll talk about vindictiveness.
we could do that now. That was Next on the agenda was to talk about the, a couple people that reached out. Um, one was saying, I need Andy to get in touch with me like immediately to help me get off the registry. I was like, man, you’ve got the wrong guy. Hey, let me forward your information over to the other guy. I was like oh, I’m sorry. But let me bring this one piece of this puzzle up Larry. He he learned of the podcast through someone else that is a listener. He had never heard of us before. So I beg I plead I implore anybody that listens to the podcast, can you please go share it with someone who doesn’t listen to it possibly someone that doesn’t know because I personally feel that we are we are pumping out some very valuable, worthwhile information for people to navigate this whole Kabuki show. And there are probably people in your circle that don’t know about it. And I think it would benefit them if, you know we can’t reach everybody and we’re trying as hard as we can. But from the several hundred of you that do listen to it, please share it with someone.
Well, thank you and I will say that I spoke to both of those people personally and the purpose of the speaking to them was really not to resolve their individual case, per se their individual issues. But to figure out if what they had raised as issues would be something that there would be commonality that the listeners would want to hear. And I think that in both cases, they are. And, and therefore, I’m going to talk about both of them in the abstract, no names, hopefully not enough details that anybody would be able to figure out anything but but I think both situations would be interesting to the listeners. One, talk about vindictive. He was charged in our state in state court for possession, a number of counts, I forget. I think it was somewhere in that neighborhood of 20 counts of possession of porn. And he pled out in state court, ended up with a splendid outcome in state court because we have that conditional discharge provision. First time offenders, no felony convictions are eligible to argue the court for a conditional discharge which, which with that outcome, you don’t have to register. And he got a conditional discharge, which meant that he didn’t have to register. And he got off probation early because he was very well behaved under supervision, which in this state to finish sex offender supervision, without any violations is an amazing accomplishment in and of itself. But while he was doing such a great job with the state system here, the feds decided that it was so good that they couldn’t stand it. So they charged him because they’re dual separate sovereign, not a dual but a separate sovereign. And the feds charged him and he ended up getting a 40-month sentence. He pled out as everyone does in the federal system, and he ended up with a 40-month sentence. And there’s no conditional discharge option there and possession of child porn In this state is a lifetime registration offense, even though the Adam Walsh Act, which everyone hates so much, doesn’t require it to be designated as such, we have that as a lifetime offense. So he has a lifetime every 90 day obligation to register. And he wanted know, In addition, he has supervised release for life. And his issue was wasn’t really clear because we don’t have a lifetime supervision in state law. And I’m, I’m just predisposed to be wired in terms of the state system and I’m thinking, well, this guy must have a screw loose. We don’t have lifetime probation here. Well, he’s not in the state system. He’s done with the state system. He’s discharged honorably. And he has lifetime supervision at the federal level. Now, although I don’t know if I’ll be able to help him. What I told him that I would do is to figure out what his odds are of getting off that lifetime supervision and What I need to do, and I told him I would do it in the coming days is I’ll figure out what judge sentenced him in the federal court. He gave me that judges name. I’ll find out what that judge typically does with requests for early termination. And I’ll find out what the US attorney to the extent that I can, he has to be honest with me and tell me how much US Attorney hated him and if he received any publicity, but how much angst the US Attorney’s Office has with him. And I’ll assign him a probability of being terminated early from from supervision from Lifetime supervision, based on the nuances of the judge, based on the nuances of his fact pattern. I don’t know what the images were, I don’t know what ages they were, I don’t know what was depicted. I don’t know what his standing was in the community. I know he wouldn’t have been eligible for conditional discharge if he had any prior criminal history. So I know, I know that, but there’s a whole lot that I would need to know to figure out whether we can help him. If I figure out that we can help him There’s a reasonable chance that he might shorten that lifetime supervision, then I would partner up with a licensed attorney, and we would file to see if we can get him off. But, but I would tell him up front, if this judge has never been known to let anybody off. I would say, it is possible you could be the exception, but probably not. So you’re going to be wasting money. And I explained to him, we have to do the same work. whether it works or not, we have to draft the petition. We have to incorporate all the underlying facts. We can, probably a psychosexual evaluation would be in order for him. And we have to plan for a hearing. It would be prudent to go visit the US Attorney’s Office at least talk to someone because they have all their records from his case and find out what their temperature levels gonna be. And then you have to show up for a hearing and you have to put on a good argument. And if it works, it works. If it doesn’t, it’s the same amount of work. The surgeon charges you whether the surgery works or not. Right? I mean they have staff to pay. Andy: No I understand this.) And I told him that, that but at least we will tell you that we think your odds are good, moderate, or not likely. And then you make the decision as the paying customer if you want to go forward.
Do all attorneys come up with you honestly and tell you whether they think that you’ll have success or not?
I think more do than what people give them credit for, but I think too many don’t. I think a lot of attorneys tell people that and and the the client casted aside is just being negative, and being lazy. And and and they go down and do some more shopping. They knock on enough doors till they hear what they want to hear. But I think a fair number of attorneys tell them that but I think there are some who give them the smoke and mirrors about that. Yeah, they went to law school and he was the best man at my and all this and They raise their hopes and it’s better for you to have a successful outcome thinking that your odds were low, than it is for you to think it’s a slam dunk, and then be be disappointed that you don’t even get out the gate when the judge turns their chair around backwards and doesn’t even look at you when you’re making your arguments and says, denied at the end of the hearing. I mean, that’s not that’s not helpful to anybody when that happens to you.
Yeah, and that would actually tell what someone else told me was that picking the attorneys is challenging that if you try and pick one, and they’re not promising that like that is just a whole nightmare of trying to figure out what attorney is going to be honest and do the work that you’re trying to get them to do if they have experience with it. Are they lying to you? No, I don’t mean like lying like, I’ve never done this, I’m going to try and just get his money, but they are seriously inexperienced at the work.
Well, what most of these people told me in one fashion or another is that that the attorneys want a bunch of money just just just to talk to them. They want Huge amount of money and and that’s not necessary. Time is money. Which means that if they’re going to sit down and spend a couple hours with you going through your through your your case or whatever amount of time it takes to get familiar, there would need to be some compensation for that. But they don’t need $10,000 to tell you, if your petition to be removed from Lifetime supervision has a chance of working a reasonable chance and there’s always a chance of anything, I guess there’s a chance to Earth could split in half and go in opposite directions around the solar system. But we don’t have a lot of record we don’t have anything showing that that’s happened on a regular basis. But but you don’t need to charge the entire fee to you can find out enough about the client. If they’ve been violating their supervised release, which this person hasn’t he’s had one very benign violation, but if they’ve been violating supervised release, and the judge has never been known to grant anybody. You don’t need $10,000 to say, well, Andy I’m telling you, I can see at least three violations here in the last year and a half. And this judge, as far as I can tell by querying the listserv has never let anybody off. And the US Attorney’s office I talked to one of the AUSAs and they said that they hate you just as much now as they did five years ago. And looking at the these facts, I just don’t believe it’s going to be the best investment of your money but now I’m willing to give it my best. Because I know you need hope. And I know that there’s always a chance that this could be an anomaly but understand that we’re we’ve got a terrible hill to climb here to make this work.
And that was the the second person is in Florida and he told me that I want to say he hired at least two attorneys and spent a bunch of money and neither worked and he was just desperate for anything. And I personally, just from what I know certainly from a massive lay person point of view like, dude, you’re in Florida, move, it would be easier.
Not just yet on him, he’s still on his his supervision and that would that would invoke the interstate comment, [not] comment, compact. There’s a compact for adult offender supervision in his case. And what he’s got going is he’s filed a petition, his attorney has filed a petition to be terminated because he’s had a he’s had a long stretch of successful supervision. And that, that hasn’t been decided yet. And what I did is I asked him, What did you did you want to share the petition with me, I’ll take a look at it. And I would like to see the State Attorney’s response to the petition, and see what they said. Because what they said in their response is going to be significant in terms of which which direction this goes. And if they were, if they were tepid in their response, if they weren’t just rabidly opposed to the to the to the petition, then what I would tell you is that probably be good to have a psychosexual evaluation, make sure you meet all the statutory requirements. Because as we learn from our previous guest just recently, if you don’t meet the statutory requirements, it doesn’t matter how good of a boy you’ve been. The judge is not going to like is not likely to let you off, and it’s probably very likely that the state’s attorney in Florida, but would would argue that in their response, they would say this person isn’t eligible. But if you are eligible, then what you would want to do is look at their response in pleading, spend some money, get a psychosexual evaluation, and you would probably want to talk to the probation officer, not you. But the attorney would want to talk to the probation officer and consider subpoenaing that officer as a witness. You generally do not want to subpoena a hostile witness. But if the probation officer is going to be neutral, and say that and be just factual without taking a hostile position on the stand, you might could benefit by having your probation officer subpoenaed. But those are judgment calls that a competent legal professional need to make after they’ve talked to the attorney after they’ve looked at everything, after they’ve talked to the probation officer. And they make those decisions. But the thing is, if your attorney can’t tell you a plan of at least what steps they would take, they don’t have to give you a graphic play by play that’s 30 pages book, a book of what they’re going to do. But if they can’t describe the process of what they would do after they spend some time getting to know you, they’re probably not the right attorney. I can tell you that. Because at the end of the interview, I can tell you what I think we ought to do. And then I take you into the big office, and I give my notes to the big office and the big office interviews you and looks at what I’ve come up with. And the big office says yes, I could concur with that, or no, I think I’ve got some more ideas that I would like to throw on the table here. But if they don’t have any ideas, you’ve got the wrong attorney.
Right. Okay. Are we done with that? Are we ready to move on?
I think so. But I enjoyed speaking to both of them. They were both very polite and and I feel bad that that they’re both the one here particularly got screwed because of the of the dual prosecution and the one in Florida, he just wants to move on with his life. He’s got a family he’s got, He wants to he wants to be free of all this and he’s just terrified that even if he gets off supervision, since some things are less than clear, in terms of what his obligations are he wants to be able to consult with a competent professional to make sure he’s not screwing up because the fear of prison is just really genuine to him.
Well, it is certainly not something to just scoff at. Some people are like I can do another dime like, No, no, no, I’m not I’m not interested in going back Larry. It’s not cool. It is not a fun place to be.
Well, being the social guy that you are you think you would have a very fine social life. There’s a lot of company around when you’re in prison.
Well there’s certainly a lot of company, but there’s not a lot of activity.
I see. What, what about the What about the intellectual capacity? Let’s talk about that.
Wow, you you you threw that in there didn’t you? See, and here’s like, to be honest, like, I will accept Larry that I am above average, but I won’t go any further. So I think the average IQ in the United States is somewhere around 90 maybe it’s 100. The average IQ in prison is 10 points below so I will accept that I am one point higher than average. And, like, there are there’s one or two people in a dorm of 50 or 100 People that like can carry on, you know, they can string these things called words together and it’s really challenging. All people want to do is they just want to watch like Just watch some videos if they’ve got those on the TV, they just want to watch some sports ball and watch cars go left turns for four hours. Like I’m just there’s just more more going on for me than that. And it’s very frustrating. It’s not a cool place to be for having the talkies.
So I understand in brief time I’ve been in county incarceration, there was the same ratio there, you would have 20 guys in a housing unit and you could talk to one or two maybe.
Yep. And and then you have to figure out if you like the person, like great, they can string the words together, but God, he’s an asshole. Like, I don’t want to talk to those people either. That which then limits that possibility to. Alright, do you want me to play the Scalia clip?
Well, let’s set it up. We’re going to talk about the constitutional amendment in Florida that restored the rights to vote for for convicted felons. And it’s it’s big news because the matter has worked it’s up to the United States Supreme Court, a lower court decision was appealed where the the judge said that the language of the statute was not really appropriate because the language of the the amendment said all obligations. And then the republican controlled legislature and governor made sure that that they that they enacted a statute that required that before a person could vote, federal judge struck struck that down. And now we’re at the United States Supreme Court. And we haven’t played any Scalia, and this clip has been on the podcast at least twice. I think maybe more but but about the textual interpretation. And a lot of our listeners think of themselves as textualists. And that textual viewpoint is going to play heavy in this case because of the wording, all obligations. So let’s hear what Scalia says about text versus purpose.
(Audio Clip) 25:57
In your new book, you explain your approach to judging which is called textualism, or originalism, what exactly is that?
Judge Scalia (Audio Clip) 26:08
Originalism is sort of a subspecies of textualism. Textualism means you’re governed by the text. That’s the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that, but the text of the statute. Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not not some later modern meaning.
(Audio Clip) 26:40
So, so if it was the Constitution, written in the 18th century, you’d try to find what those words meant in the 18th century.
Judge Scalia (Audio Clip) 26:44
Exactly the best example being the death penalty. I’ve sat with three colleagues who thought it was unconstitutional, but it’s absolutely clear that the American people never voted to proscribe the death penalty. They they adopted a cruel and unusual punishments clause at the time, when every state had the death penalty, and every state continued to have it, nobody thought that the Eighth Amendment prohibited it.
(Audio Clip) 27:10
Alright, you criticize and this gets to you as you say some of your colleagues and another approach using a word I have to admit that I did not know existed prior to reading your book purposivism. Did I pronounce that correctly?
Judge Scalia (Audio Clip) 27:22
Yeah You did. It’s a nice long word.
(Audio Clip) 27:25
All right, well I didn’t make it up. What does it mean?
Judge Scalia (Audio Clip) 27:27
What it means is, and it’s probably the most popular form of interpretation in recent times. It means consulting the purpose of the statute and deciding the case on the basis of what will further the purpose. Now, textualist consult purposes well, but only the purpose that is apparent in the very text.
Now we have a clip from the governor of Florida, explaining his appeal. The reason why and he believes that that that the text is very clear. Do we have that one queued up?
I do here we go.
News Reporter (Audio Clip) 28:16
Just over 100 days now until Election Day and this year thousands of convicted convicted felons in Florida who’ve served their time were set to get their voting rights back. But now the Supreme Court dealing them a major blow and BC’s Kerry Sanders explains.
Kerry Sanders (Audio Clip) 28:33
For the first time critical battleground Florida, with more than a million potential new voters, convicted felons, like 54-year-old Judy Bolden, who lost her voting rights after she was convicted for drug trafficking. Now free she plans to vote for the first time in her life.
Judy Bolden (Audio Clip) 28:51
It made me feel worthless. Like I wasn’t even a citizen of the United States.
Kerry Sanders (Audio Clip) 28:55
Because you could not vote?
Judy Bolden (Audio Clip) 28:57
Because I couldn’t vote. My voice couldn’t be heard.
Kerry Sanders (Audio Clip) 29:03
Judy Bolden (Audio Clip) 29:04
And now I feel vindicated.
Kerry Sanders (Audio Clip) 29:03
But not so fast says Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
Ron DeSantis (Audio Clip) 29:09
So those are the things that are being litigated.
Kerry Sanders (Audio Clip) 29:09
He challenged a state constitutional amendment approved by Florida voters two years ago that restored voting rights to felons who complete all terms of their sentence, except for felons who committed murder or sexual battery. The governor says all terms means just that.
Ron DeSantis (Audio Clip) 29:28
if you were robbed and someone’s convicted of taking, you know, $3,000 out of your house, and they were ordered to pay you $3,000 of restitution, and they didn’t do it did they complete the sentence?
Kerry Sanders (Audio Clip) 29:39
On Thursday, the US Supreme Court sided with Governor DeSantis, effectively preventing felons from voting in November unless they pay off what they owe. But critics fighting for the right to vote say requiring payments is just a twist on old Jim Crow laws.
Can we dig into that for just a minute? (Larry: Sure) Well, because I’m just always, we’ve you’ve said at least and I and I’m inclined to agree with you that most crimes are economic in nature, like someone goes and Robs somebody of the $3,000 that schmuck Florida Governor said, and he, you know, 3000 bucks gets stolen, and now you’re required to pay that back. But the reason the guy wasn’t driving around in a Ferrari saying, oh, I need three grand just because it looks pretty. They they needed the stuff because it was an economic crime to begin with, that just happened to be the method that they use to execute. And to then make them pay all of those fines, fees, restitutions and all those things back. It is sort of a poll tax, because it’s not like they’re running around with $100,000 a year job. You know, they’re flipping burgers at Wendy’s and whatnot for 8, 9, 10 dollars an hour. They don’t have extra cash to pay all the things back.
I agree with most of what you said. But the the point that I’m trying to illustrate here is that we have a lot of listeners who think that they’re textualist. And we’ve gone over decision after decision after decision around the country where there have been straight textual interpretations. And a lot of our people have said, well gee, they should have taken a look like in Maryland, for example, where the or the, there was no exception for teenagers exchanging images of themselves. They said clearly, that wasn’t the intent of the law. But that was the text of the law. And, and the guy in Nebraska when the judge said, Well, yeah, but you’re a person, aren’t you? You did come here, didn’t you? I mean, you are convicted in Colorado, aren’t you? I mean, that’s what the text says. All of a sudden the people who think they’re textualist began to think, Hmm, maybe I’m not a strict textualist. This if if there are at least five Scalias on the Supreme Court, what I think they did, I couldn’t find anything in show prep quickly, but I think they stayed the lower court’s order pending their further review, which means that These people will not be able to vote in this coming election. So I don’t think the Supreme Court has had their final say they just said that until this matter’s resolved, that that the the issue will remain dormant. But, but beyond that, I want to talk about the importance of carefully drafting. We have to assume, we have to assume that the people that are in the legislature know what they’re doing, if they had wanted it to be merely just your prison and your post-prison supervision. They were capable of saying that, why didn’t they? Well, I can I can ponder a couple of theories of why they wouldn’t do that. A) they got hoodwinked, or B), they rushed this. And they were trying to get something out to the voters and they weren’t up against a time crunch. And they didn’t have a real policy wonk. They’re saying, Wait a minute. This is not clear What we’re talking about here when we say, when we word it this way, but sometimes the people pretend they’re for something, and they hoodwink you. And I’ll give you an example in 2013, we passed a law here, modified registration obligations, and we allowed them to put an offense on the list that had been on the books since 2007. But for reasons that will take too long to explain, it was not a registerable offense, even though the law makers when they created the offense of electronic solicitation, They intended it to be on the list, but there was a snafu of chaptering. And two sections of law, two measures passing dealing with the same section of law, and the final one chapter Trump, and there was no obligation. Well, they were going to make that offense registerable in ‘13, and they put they put language in the state’s proposal for convictions. Registration would be required for electronic solicitation As of July one 2013. And I told a key representative, I said, Nope, that doesn’t work. Because that just means as of this date, we’ve now reconciled the two irreconcilable chapters 68 and 69 in 2007. That controversy, you’re just merely reconciling those those those conflicts. What we need to say is for convictions occurring on or after July one, 2013. Make it crystal clear that you know that there’s a group of people that weren’t required to register for those years in that gap period there. And that’s exactly what you intended to do. And there’s no ambiguity and the court will interpret that way. Well, that’s exactly the language we ended up with the language that I authored. And then when it went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said, Well, we would have reconciled those two conflicts from 2007. But the legislature made it clear that they were aware that there was a gap, and they were deliberately making it for convictions, on or after July 1, ‘13, well, when when there’s someone not like me there, giving alternative language and explaining to key lawmakers why it has to be this way. This is an idea I have about how this happened. I don’t think there was anybody there that said, we can’t say all obligations. Because that’s too That’s too broad. And I think they ended up either being hoodwinked or they were rushed, and no one thought about it.
So but so then that would go to purposivism that the the amendment that like two thirds or something of the population voted to give voting rights back. They intended to give them their voting right back voting rights back. And then the the people opposed with Ron DeSantis and the legislature are pushing to, like fill in the gap and make it so these people cannot vote.
well to those 64.5% that voted for that amendment, did they want to give it back merely because they had completed their prison and probation? Or do they intend to give it back after they had completed all obligations? What is if we were to ask the average person what does all mean? I think that it would include those things. I think that that they do have a colorable argument. Now, I do not agree with what the result is of their argument. But this is not a specious argument. This is actually a good legal argument that they’ve come up with because of the horrible drafting.
Right. Yeah. And I, I would be willing to posit that the people in Florida if you were to ask them without leading them down the path that you just did, if you just said, Hey, are you in favor of this amendment to give people with the felonies their voting rights back? They’d be like, yeah, we should give them back. And then when you actually explain to them like all terms, and then you explained it to them, if you just, at a cursory glance I think people would be struggling to like contemplate, you owe these different fines, fees, extra things, that that’s what it would take to get it all back.
Well, well, we we are going to find out. If I were, if I were the the entity that was largely pushing this, I would kind of right off the Supreme Court and figure that there’s going to be five Scalias on the Supreme Court. And they’re going to say the text is the text. And I would go ahead and set about sending out a new amendment or either trying to do a statutory, whichever you think you have the political clout to do it. And I don’t know the constitutional amendment process in Florida. I don’t know what it takes to get something out to the people. But I would try to go ahead and fix this, because it’s not likely in my opinion that the Supreme Court is going to affirm the trial judge, I think about them quashing the trial judge’s order that they’ve telegraphed that this is not going to look good. I think DeSantis is going to win this.
Oh, yeah, I would agree with He’s going to win with it because the text isn’t terribly ambiguous, but I think it’s a shame because I think the voters they spoke and they’re having their their vote circumvented with this extra process.
Well, well, then. So you’re a purposivist are you?
I, I think that not everything is always black and white, as clear as it could be. But at the same time, then we should make sure that the politicians and the and the laws that they’re writing, fit all of these things the way that we need them to be, but I don’t like the casual person, in the United States, probably most of the world, they don’t give a crap about it. They’re like, I just want to vote Team Red Team Blue and move on with it and be damned the details. Which is unfortunate.
that is unfortunate. But most people as life has become more sophisticated. We have so many distractions in our lives, that very few people can devote the time it takes to be informed and I devote a lot of time and there’s many issues I’m not informed on. I mean, I couldn’t begin to deal with all the issues that comes before our legislature, hundreds of pieces of legislation go through every session. You can’t be an expert on all that stuff.
Nope. Are you ready for some hypocrisy?
I like this hypocrisy this comes from the Peach State.
Yay. Do you want to play the clip?
Yeah, let’s let’s let’s hear some hypocrisy.
News Reporter (Audio Clip) 39:22
Today Georgia governor Brian Kemp is defending his lawsuit against Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms suing to block her city’s mask requirement.
(Audio Clip) 39:31
Georgians don’t need a mandate to do the right thing.
News Reporter (Audio Clip) 39:35
In the lawsuit Kemp calls the mandate unenforceable and is also moving to stop Atlanta from rolling back reopening measures. Bottoms who tested positive for covid herself calls the lawsuit bizarre.
Bottoms (Audio Clip) 39:52
It is an absolute waste of resources.
So if we were to let people like be responsible for themselves, we wouldn’t need speed limit signs just just as a example.
Well, the reason why we put this in the hypocrisy section is because usually the conservatives pride themselves in how much they defer to the knowledge and brilliance of the local governance because it’s closer to the people. (Andy: Sure.) And but you let the locals do something that they don’t agree with, and watch how fast they believe in state preemption. And it doesn’t matter if it’s this issue or other issues, I bring up minimum wage. They’re they’re they’re conservative control legislatures where the city or county within the state will put in a higher minimum wage. And they’ll go in and say we need to preempt this, but I thought you believed in local control. They’re closer to the people. And and they magically, they abandoned that principle. This was governor Kemp, who doesn’t have a lot of political experience. I don’t think I don’t remember his entire bio, but I don’t think he had a lot of experience.
He was the secretary of state.
Well, well, yeah. He was but in terms of I don’t think he ever served in the Georgia assembly. I don’t think you ever served in local government. But, but usually That’s the mantra of the conservatives that we believe in local control. And, okay, this is a deviation. I’d like to hear why this why this deviation is there because Atlanta has, as we keep hearing from the president. We have areas where there are huge infections, large rates of infection. And the national administration says, rather than having this having a total shutdown, we should go according to what what the circumstances are in that area. Okay, well, why doesn’t it work? the circumstances in Atlanta and Fulton County in much of the metro area, they’re having more difficult time with a concentrated population with a higher rate of infection so they’re needing more controls than what you need in outlying parts of Georgia. Why is it that the governor who believes in local control is willing to stop the elected officials who are closest to the scene in Atlanta from being able to make decisions that are in the best interest of Atlantans.
It would seem to me that they would want to base it on the circumstances of the area. If you’re out there in the middle of nowhere Georgia, and your nearest neighbor is the the cow farm next door, like you probably don’t need to wear a mask. But if you’re running around trying to ride MARTA, which is the the subway system thing in Georgia, in the Atlanta area, you you A) probably shouldn’t be riding that. But that would be where you would need a mask. Is in that kind of region. Why wouldn’t you want to base it on city slash county individual scenarios?
that’s the whole point. That’s what they say they’re for. The President has articulated his administration has articulated that we don’t need a nationwide shutdown. We’ll put out fires and we’ll go to hotspots and we’ll deal with it. Okay, I’m in. I’m in with you, Mr. President. That’s what we Okay, then why don’t you call out your governor of your party and ask him to defer to the wisdom and the expertise of the Atlanta health officials. I can tell you, being a Georgian that Atlanta has a very fine local government system. You may not agree with everything. But they are well equipped with a public health infrastructure. Grady Memorial Hospital, I don’t know if they’ve renamed the hospital but they have they have a massive health structure in Atlanta, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. And they’re well equipped to analyze what’s going on in the city of Atlanta.
My understanding is there’s even a normalized nationwide green, red, yellow. I haven’t seen it. I just remember hearing about it maybe a week or two weeks ago, that you could look up, you know, Podunk County, Georgia and see what kind of status you’re in to give you some kind of normalized guidance that’s not using the state is providing this information. The State’s providing different information, it’s it’s normalized that you can, you know, red, yellow, green, that kind of gives you an indicator of how safe you should or shouldn’t be. Have you seen that?
I think I’ve, I’ve heard of it anyway. So, but, but But yeah, I’m I’m disappointed in the lawsuit. I agree with a mayor. It’s a waste of money.
Yeah. Isn’t this the same thing as like the feds don’t have control over the state of Georgia or New Mexico or any of the other 17 states that we do have. So, Kemp, the governor of the state is quote, unquote, President, the supreme leader of that state, doesn’t he have the authority to go No, you can’t do this, I’m in charge here?
Well, I don’t know if he does or doesn’t. that’s a question the court will answer, but I’m just talking about from a philosophical point of view, I’m calling out the hypocrisy of his of his intervention. He claims that his party claims that they believe that the locals are best equipped To make decisions, and of all the cities in Georgia, Atlanta would be the best equipped to make decisions because of all the infrastructure that they have in Atlanta, in terms of the health system that they have. So I just don’t understand.
I’m just trying to ask to see to see, like, I, I’m under the impression that he does have the authority to do it, and she is stepping out of bounds. Not, and I agree with her position, like, we need to mandate masks like it is constantly coming up on the news. It’s like, the thing we can do is wear masks and wash hands and we will be better off down the line, but we are being very stupid and arrogant and selfish and not wearing them. But that’s an entirely different conversation. So maybe we do need a little coaxing from the leader of that area to go, You need to be wearing a mask. It’s like mandated.
Well, I agree that that in most states, the executive can impose restrictions, but I don’t know. I guess the courts will tell us If they can extinguish restrictions that are locally imposed, that’ll be something for the courts to decide. But But clearly the the governor generally manages the state, day to day affairs, particularly in states that have part time legislatures. And that’s causing a lot of consternation here because our legislature is very part time. And people are irritated that our governor has caused a lot of things and businesses are dying. And they’re, they’re questioning whether the governor has that power, but the governor is the only one that’s on the job every day. So therefore, the governors have been empowered with an enormous amount of control in pandemics and public health emergencies. So I don’t know, I don’t know if the governor can preclude an extra protection. I think the governor could probably order protection, but I just don’t know how this is gonna play out. I think they’re kind of evenly matched the resources of the city of Atlanta should be should be comparable to the resources that the governor has to fight. So we’ll just see how this plays out in the court system.
One final thing I want to ask you can you relate this to the it’s at the Home Rule thing in Texas that when I first started following these events 2014, ‘16 about local counties or cities imposing greater registry restrictions versus what the state had. Is this comparable?
I don’t really think so because it’s coming about as a result of a public health emergency. I don’t I don’t think so.
isn’t having a bunch of sex offenders running around a public health emergency?
I don’t think so.
All right. And before we go, I can’t I can’t not play our favorite clip.
Lester Maddox (Audio Clip) 47:35
For you to come back and call bigots my admirers is a farce and an act of hypocrisy. It’s a terrible way to treat a guest on your show. And you know it.
Alright. I couldn’t, I couldn’t leave without playing that clip Larry.
And for those who don’t recognize the voice, that’s the late Georgia governor Lester Maddox from way back in the. Let’s see, his his reign of terror, I think was ‘67 through ‘70 and then he got elected as Lieutenant Governor when Jimmy Carter got elected governor he stepped down because he wasn’t allowed to succeed himself. And he served of ‘71 to ‘74 as Lieutenant governor, and then he tried to make a comeback in the election of ‘74 and he got beat in ‘74 in the primary by a relatively unknown name George Busby.
Yeah, got me on that one.
Now People people say How does he know all that stuff?
Cuz you spend all day reading foreign affairs magazine and public official whatever, because you were there. You’ve been in every state legislature. You’ve been a political advisor for every state legislature since the 1850s.
Well, I just can’t imagine that you wouldn’t know the history of the governors of your state, would you would you not?
This is not my state. Not trying to be here. I’m not trying to stay here.
but I’m talking about a person of their state. I mean, I I would think that you at least know the relatively recent history. 1966 is fairly recent Right?
I mean by your standards Sure. Not by anybody else. Ready to be a part of Registry Matters? Get links at registrymatters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email firstname.lastname@example.org 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. All right, tell me about this next thing with a with some fear mongering.
Well, we had talked about on the podcast that that the reducing funds reallocating and reapportioning police that the police would fight back with every tool in their arsenal. And and they’d use scare tactics and even as vivid an imagination that I have, and it’s pretty vivid when it comes to scare tactics, I didn’t visualize this one. And this is a this is a campaign ad. I’ll let it speak for itself go ahead and play the play the spot. (Andy: Very good.)
(Aduio Clip) 50:35
You have reached the 911 Police emergency line. Due to defunding of the police department, we’re sorry, but no one is here to take your call. If you’re calling to report a rape, please press one, to report a murder Press two, to report a home invasion Press three, for all other crimes Leave your name and number and someone will get back to you. Our estimated wait time is currently five days. Goodbye.
Donald Trump (Audio Clip) 50:59
I’m Donald J. Trump and I approve this message.
Now, now that is really a sad to put together something like that it’s just fear mongering at its worst. And if the Democrat Party runs something, that’s fear mongering, If you guys listening will submit it to us, We’ll be happy to run it. And I’ll say the same thing about the democrat ad. But this is scare tactics at its very finest to imply, I even resent the term defund the police. There’s no one talking about abolishing law enforcement. What’s being discussed as the proper role and the size of law enforcement and whether some of the functions that law enforcement are doing, could be better handled by by creating maybe another resource other than uniformed heavily armed police officers, but they use the term defunding. And I always like to buy into the other side’s arguments. And I want to join with the other side. And I’m willing to use the term defund the police, if you’ll join me hand in hand, and everything that the conservatives want to cut. And I can go down a litany of things that they like to cut that they don’t like, SNAP benefits, food stamps, they’ve been cutting those since Trump has been elected. Now, since the pandemic. They’ve restored some of the cuts, but but let’s call it defunding SNAP. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, they have been trying for years, and they’ve been cutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. So let’s call that defunding. They don’t like aspects of Medicare and Medicaid. So let’s call that D funding. And if you already, Yes, but but let’s just be honest, and if you’re going to use that term defunding, then don’t get mad when we hit you back and say you’re wanting to defund Medicare, you’re wanting to defund Headstart, you’re wanting to defund SNAP, you’re wanting to… now they get really upset because they say that we’re accusing trying to scare people and saying that they’re trying to push granny off the cliff. Because when Medicare and Medicaid cuts are talked about, then there’s criticism that bad things will happen. But but let’s just use their terminology. Because I’m in, if you’re going to call it defunding the police, then let’s call the things you want to cut defunding. And if you’ll join me hand in hand, I’ll use your term and we’ll use it universally but everything you want to cut, we’re going to call it defunding.
Yeah, it is terribly unrepresentative of the saying defund the police of like, like no police anywhere, like there’s actually a legit role for the police. But not all things. I really don’t think that all traffic stops require all the tasers and the tactic like I just don’t think that that’s necessarily where the police resort like for that kind of event. There’s there’s I think there’s a different model.
I think so as well. And it’s sad, because I actually agree with with conservatives, if they would apply this principle across the board, if something’s not working, go take a look at it and try to figure out how to do it better. Well, normally (Andy: Let’s do more.), well, normally the conservatives do want that. They claim that’s what they believe in. But when it comes to prisons and law enforcement, they always want to throw more money at it. But if we want to throw more money at something be it Headstart be in Americore or be it whatever it is. They always tell us, those are failed experiments. Your public education is failing. Why do you just want to put more money into a sinkhole? Well, okay, I’m in with you on that. Why do you want to put more money into prisons? Why do you want to put more money into the police department, the police departments have not kept us safe by your rhetoric. You claim that crime is rampant, and we’re in danger any time we get near a window, even before we go out our door, you claim that so by your standards, police have failed. Prisons have failed. So why do you want to keep dumping more money into something that’s failed? I don’t understand it by your values, we would look at reallocating those funds, just as we would do with Headstart, just as we would do with SNAP. Just as all the things that you hate. Why do you not hold the same standard to things that you like?
I don’t know what to tell you. I just don’t have an answer for that one. I just don’t.
Well, they don’t either. When you ask them that they roll their eyes and then they try to come up with something that makes it different. But there is no difference. If if we are supposed to examine programs that are failing, and bureaucracies are failing. Let’s examine the police and prisons also, let’s examine the Department of Defense and find out if we can provide national security cheaper than what we’re doing today. Since we spend, I think it’s either seven the next seven or eight combined nations when you put their military appropriations, you combine the next seven or eight nations, we spend more than those combined.
You’re very unpatriotic to say that we should spend less money on our military.
I said we should try to do it more efficiently. I am in with the conservatives. As the late speaker, no he wasn’t speaker he was the Senate President ProTem in Texas, Ray Ferriby said about 30 years ago, If conservatism means anything fiscally, we need to apply that principle across the board.
Sure. But most most jurisdictions, like 50 ish percent of their budget is law enforcement.
That is correct.
That is a truckload of money. That is a truckload of money. So like Georg-, like, so does the Atlanta budget fall into the Georgia budget of those two separate things?
two separate things.
Oh my god. So Georgia has a $10 billion dollar or maybe 11 or 12 By now budget. So Atlanta is a completely separate entity. I can’t even fathom what their budget is. Several billion dollars?
I haven’t even any notion we could probably find it out during the podcast, but, but (Andy: sure.) but but Atlanta has taken some positive steps they’ve closed or in the process of closing their city jail. That’s a good first step. (Andy: Okay. Sure.) if you don’t, if you don’t have a city jail, it’s a lot more difficult to arrest people for petty offenses, because you’ve got to pay, you’ve got to pay to use the Blodged and yes, they could, they could use the Fulton County Jail, they could pay Fulton County would be glad to have the revenue. But that’s another line item in the budget. So they have completely closed or are in the process of closing the Atlanta city jail, that’s, that’s a good first step. Because we don’t need to be arresting people for all these petty offenses, we can give them citations.
And why did you put this next thing in here about the flag?
Just to have a little bit of a debate among our listeners, and I really like to hear the comments from people. Do you have a right to to, this is a fundamental question because let’s just play the clip, and then I’ll set it up better after we play the clip. (Andy: Very Good.)
News Reporter (Audio Clip) 58:10
Also breaking this evening, the Pentagon effectively banning the Confederate flag from US military installations just after President Trump said the flag was a representation of freedom of speech. And BC’s Courtney Kube has that story.
Courtney Kube (Audio Clip) 58:25
Tonight defense secretary Mark Esper, announcing the Confederate flag is no longer allowed to be publicly displayed on any military installations, a move many had been advocating for years.
Jackie Spears (Audio Clip) 58:42
The question you have to ask is why didn’t you do this? 20 years ago, 15 years ago?
Courtney Kube (Audio Clip) 58:47
Congresswoman Jackie spears.
I don’t think as a member of the military, you have all of those privileges and rights that you would as a standard nonmilitary citizen, like you can’t just go out randomly protests, you sure as hell can’t do it in uniform. So I don’t see how anybody thinks that they have like a freedom of speech if they’re actually under the, under the auspices of serving in the military.
Well, I was gonna expand that discussion to the workplace in general. (Andy: Right.) Do you have the right, and I’m not I’m not taking a position yet, do you have the right to fly or post anything when you’re at work? And I think we can agree that the military facilities they those are places of work. So would you would you have the right to fly the flag of your choosing at work? Would you have the right to post anything when you’re when you’re at work?
I would I would extend that ever so slightly to to the housing areas like you would probably have more liberties but you still have requirements on how to keep your lawn. You know, like you can’t have cars up on blocks like I mean, they seriously still control what you can and can’t even in base housing, but I’m certain it’s a lot more, there’s a lot more liberties there, but still, they’re going to very tightly control it. So flying a flag, probably not on the list of things that you can just randomly do.
Well, and that’s that’s where we get into the Constitution. And where do those rights end? And do you have the right in the constitution to never be made uncomfortable? It seems like that that’s an invented right that people say that this makes me uncomfortable. Well, would some listener please tell me in the Constitution where you have the right not to be uncomfortable? I wasn’t I wasn’t aware that there was such a right.
And you’re talking about so you walk by a confederate flag and it makes you feel uncomfortable? That’s violating my rights?
Yes. People say that I have the right, If you do that, it makes me uncomfortable. But where do you have the right to be comfortable? that no one has the right to make you uncomfortable. What where’s that enshrined in the constitution?
Sure. But it’s my freedom of speech, man. And if you were flying your flag, then my speech is curtailed, therefore you’re violating my rights. see how I did that?
Well, how does how does flying the flag curtail your speech rights?
I don’t, I don’t know, I was just trying to make up some bs excuse.
But but that’s where the struggle is because because no one wants a hostile workplace. And an employer should not want a hostile workplace because it would suppress productivity and the efficiency of the operation. So, you wouldn’t want that. But where is it enshrined that you have the right not to be the least bit uncomfortable?
Don’t though that’s a whole big sliding scale of what offends me if you if you want to come into work wearing all of your gay pride that could make me feel uncomfortable. The workplace could say that you can’t do all that stuff, either.
Well, that’s that’s why I’m I’m saying that the employer probably has significant rights in terms of curtailing what they will accept in their place of employment. Because after all, you have a choice. You really don’t have to work there. You don’t have to join the military. You haven’t had to join the military since 1973 when we abolished the draft, so so you you have a choice about about where you work in this country. But if if the workplace doesn’t make that choice, and I think they should not have hostility in the workplace, but if they choose not to make that decision where do you have the right in the constitution to be comfortable?
I understand your point. But what is it so? All right then let me just point out blankly ask, Are you in favor of them banning the Confederate flag or are you not in favor of it?
I’m in favor of it. I just said that, I don’t think that the things that that are that generate a hostile or an uncomfortable work environment. It’s not no business should want that in their workplace. You should not want that. But what a business should do is different than what you have a constitutional right to. I’m hearing arguments, I have a constitutional right. That what you’re doing is making me uncomfortable. I’m not familiar with that right. That’s like the right that the person says, I have the right to know that you’re on the sex offender registry. Where does that right? Where is that right? illuminate me, help me understand where you have the right not to be comfortable in a country where speech is considered a fundamental right and expression. Those would clash because there would be people who would speak and express in ways that you wouldn’t agree with that would make you uncomfortable.
I am following you 100%. We have a clip that I don’t know where we’re supposed to play it play it. Where are we going to do the Rush clip, Larry?
Oh, the rush clip. I haven’t thought about that. Yes, we might. We might we might hold him for a little while. Oh, Rush, Rush was making some comments on his program yesterday about he was trying to draw an analogy about the mask requirement and he was trying to relate it to the AIDS epidemic back in the 80s. But but but yeah, I think we’ll hold that one, let’s let’s stay on the sex stuff with the poor teacher, the poor beauty queen, and I mean that literally I’m not being facetious in any way.
All right, well, here’s a clip that some, a listener sent in from I mean, if you want to talk about some right leaning publication this comes from the…
Well let’s do the plea first when she did the plea. This is a beauty queen in Kentucky that ended up entered, so the one on top would be the first one because that’s when she did the plea. And then the other one was where she comes back to sentencing so the Blaze is not a liberal, leftist outfit.
Not even a little bit. But here’s the clip.
News Reporter (Audio Clip) 1:04:36
Andrew Jackson middle school teacher and former Miss Kentucky Ramsey Bearse entered a guilty plea this afternoon in Kanawha County Circuit Court. She was arrested last year accused of sending nude pictures to a minor 13 News reporter Nikki Walters was in the courtroom.
Nikki Walters (Audio Clip) 1:04:52
It’s been just over a year since Ramsey Bearse was charged with four counts of sending obscene material to a minor. Today, she was in court to plead guilty to one count of possession of material depicting minors in sexually explicit conduct. Bearse was emotional and court she stood next to her attorney as she told Kanawha County Circuit Judge Duke bloom, The first photo she sent to a former student through the social media app Snapchat wasn’t intended for the student.
Ramsey Bearse (Audio Clip) 1:05:22
I accidentally sent this young man a risqué photo that was meant for my husband. The young man’s name was listed next to my husband’s name on my phone.
Nikki Walters (Audio Clip) 1:05:34
she said when the minor asked her for more pictures, she panicked and continued to send photos. Eventually, he sent her a photo of his genitals. She says she didn’t keep the photo or share it with anyone else.
Ramsey Bearse (Audio Clip) 1:05:49
I’m so sorry and he was just a teenager. It was definitely my fault, and I accept the full blame for the situation.
Nikki Walters (Audio Clip) 1:05:55
Bearse faces the possibility of a minimum penalty of up to two years in prison. And a maximum of 50 years’ probation. Bearse would also have to register as a sex offender. In Charleston, I’m Nikki Walters 13 News working for you.
50 years of probation?
The reason why I put that in there is because the minimum in the state of West Virginia, I think it’ West Virginia, right?
this is again, an example of where judicial discretion has been obliterated by a mandatory minimum. In this state, it would be so unlikely that that person would ever go to prison, Because being a teacher means that she’s got no criminal history, or she wouldn’t be licensed. Right?
Fair. I don’t know. But I’ll accept that.
Well, well, it Unless Unless West Virginia is one of the I don’t know of any state that doesn’t do background checks, and they’ve gone to doing follow up background checks on a routine basis to make sure teachers have picked up Any any criminal convictions or arrests. The odds are very good that she has no criminal history. (Andy: Sure) the behavior is very minuscule on the scale of what you’d want to lock a person up in a cage for. (Andy: Right?) Because she’s not likely to do this again. I would be very surprised if they didn’t revoke her certificate to teach already because this was over a year ago that this happened. (Andy: Yeah) so she’s she’s already out of the classroom. She’s already never going to have any contact in that setting again. No school’s ever gonna hire her again. And so she has to get a new life. her reputation Miss Miss Kentucky right? Miss that was Miss Kentucky?
Miss Kentucky. I bet you She will have to like give up her title.
So she’s destroyed. And the fact that you people in West Virginia are so damn vindictive, that you require a person to go to prison is just mind boggling to me. Like I say here that would be so unlikely she would get present time they would have to be something draconian that would come out in a PSR presentence report, or they would have to be some facts that would have been illuminated that she would have agreed to, in the plea that she did. And from the way she presented that, if it truly was an accident, and I can attest to I’ve actually sent things to the wrong people to the wrong person, not what she sent, I don’t think, but I have sent things I didn’t intend to people before. And and, and she did make the mistake and error in judgment of not when she, when the kid responded, and she should have said, Sorry, delete that. You know, that was a mistake. But this this is just mind boggling to me. A life ruined for what?
For some risqué photos that she intended to send to her hubby.
So, I don’t understand it. I do not understand why she’s been hauled off to prison. And I saw on the YouTube comments that We’re gonna play the other clip. Yeah, but I saw the YouTube comments about how such a disparity they feel if it was a guy, it would have been 10 years. If it was a guy here, it wouldn’t have been 10 years. If it was a male here, it would have been the exact same outcome, it would have been probation. If there was no prior criminal history, but go ahead with another clip.
News Reporter 1 (Audio Clip) 1:09:18
Just days before a new Miss America is crowned, a former contestant is in front of a judge, admitting she sexted with a 15-year-old boy. The former beauty queen who represented Kentucky at Miss America admits she sent inappropriate photos to a student.
News Reporter 2 (Audio Clip) 1:09:34
A former Miss Kentucky breaks down in tears as she admits to sending sexually provocative photos to a 15-year-old boy
Ramsey Bearse (Audio Clip) 1:09:42
since I’m an adult, and he was just a teenager. It was definitely my fault and I accept the full blame for this situation. I messed up big time.
News Reporter 2 (Audio Clip) 1:09:53
In 2014, Ramsay Carpenter wowed judges in the Miss America Pageant with her beauty employs, her talent was playing the fiddle. She reached the semifinals. After Miss America Carpenter married Chazz Bearse, the son of a coal tycoon and moved to West Virginia and became an eighth-grade science teacher.
(Audio Clip) 1:10:12
You’re sending nude photos to your students.
News Reporter 2 (Audio Clip) 1:10:15
He stood by her when she was arrested.
Ramsey Bearse (Audio Clip) 1:10:17
My husband was working all the time, and was too distracted and overwhelmed with work to pay attention to me.
News Reporter 2 (Audio Clip) 1:10:23
the 29 year old claimed she meant to send the first risqué photo to her husband and sent it by accident to the teenager, her former student, but she continued sending other photos. She claimed the student asked for more and she was afraid to not appease him
Ramsey Bearse (Audio Clip) 1:10:38
I messed up big time.
News Reporter 1 (Audio Clip) 1:10:40
The former Miss Kentucky faces two years in prison when she’s sentenced next month along with as much as 50 years’ probation, and she’ll be required to register as a sex offender.
That’s just incredible.
So yeah, I was thinking she’d already been sentenced. I thought that was what the clip was gonna say that she had but…
yeah, I think that the the TV clip the audio clip that we just had is was recorded long before because so she was sentenced the article that we had is from July 17, which is from yesterday. A friend of mine sent it to me so that’s when that’s how it got put in the in the show. So a former Miss Kentucky was sentenced to two years in jail after it was discovered she was sending sexual photos to a teenager. What I thought was really interesting in there though, Larry is that she said that my husband was working all the time. And he was overwhelmed and like she felt neglected. I bet you could overlay that onto the other side of that equation on guys going after some extra partner kind of activity. I bet you that applies there as well.
It probably does. That would not have been advice I would have given for someone to say in court. And again, that’s a part of prep for sentencing. You you would not want a person to say that.
Yeah, like you’re totally admitting like, I don’t know. Anyway, so you were seeking attention from a teenager? I got it. All right.
Yeah, that just isn’t a good selling point to. To make that argument, it may be true. It may be something you work out in therapy, if you can actually get some decent therapy. The sex offender regime is so horrible that usually they try to interfere with you having any real therapists so they can put you in their collaborative fishing expedition to revoke you, but if she could get some good therapy to deal with that, but but that’s just not something that would generally be advisable to say at sentencing.
Yep. All right. We have an article from the New York Times that the government has carried out its first execution in 17 years, and I think this is a teeny bit dated Larry. So this is from July 14, they executed three people this week, if I’m not mistaken.
Yeah, they had they had a list of four or five they were to go through in quick order, and then they’re, they’re willing to the list because the Supreme Court is not intervening on these last minute, on these last minute appeals. The Supreme Court It’s it’s not interested in that because as you just heard Scalia say earlier on the podcast that capital punishment is not unconstitutional.
And why has this been on hold for so long?
We’ve had we’ve had an intense debate through the last couple decades, 17 years, and we had a liberal do-good administration that wasn’t in favor of the death penalty for the eight years Obama was in office. But even even George W. Bush wasn’t fond of of the executions, although he did allow them to take place in Texas as governor, but we ended up we end up with a different administration and the Attorney General we currently have says that the sentences need to be carried out. And as much as I detest the death penalty. There is some logic to that. If it’s a horrible public policy, and you carry it out, perhaps it’ll trigger broad resentment at the polls and we’ll actually eliminate this as a public policy. But yes, that’s what the Attorney General says. We’re gonna we’re gonna execute these people because that’s what the penalties were imposed.
I thought that they were, these were all on hold as because we were using a three drug cocktail and now, like, my understanding is the companies that manufacture that are opposed to it being used in that way. And so they have stopped selling it in the United States, making it available to the United States. So my understanding is then that the United States is then drumming up their own way to do its pentobarbital. And I believe that’s how they put animals to sleep. And so they’re just using a single method and people have been challenging it because the the the executions have been botched where people are like waking up screaming in pain and all this stuff. It’s like been a pretty dramatic thing that that’s why they that’s why I thought they were on hold was because of that.
Well it has been more recently, but in the 17 years since there’s been no federal execution that hasn’t been in debate.
Oh, oh, oh so I guess I’m thinking of like state level executions. This is okay, I see the difference. I see what you’re saying. I didn’t realize that that was the case there.
Yeah, these are federal executions. The Federal death penalty has been reinstated. And we did, We did that after McVeigh blew up the Murrah building over in Oklahoma City in ‘96. We had to make sure we we brought the death penalty back to the forefront. And when they passed the anti, let’s see, what’s it called AEDPA, the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996. So that’s when they put severe restrictions on on federal access to federal courts to challenge your state court convictions. They limited habeas corpus proceedings in that AEDPA legislation back in ‘96.
I see. Oh, now I understand. I didn’t I didn’t realize the significance of the of the two different echelons there. I got it now though. Interesting. So do you Okay, so is this like I realized the executive is the executive and he can say yea or nay to believe that this is a Barr thing, or is this a Trump thing?
Well, Being that at the federal level, the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President, unlike at the state level where they’re independently elected. In a state, you’re only going to have an appointed attorney general if there’s a vacancy arises during the course of the term. So I always say anything the US Attorney General does is a direct reflection on the president because the president all he has to do is say, Mr. Attorney General that’s not the policy of this administration. And so the Attorney General, in my view of the United States Attorney General, is carrying out the mandate that he’s received from from from the president.
I’m more inclined to think that this is not him acting unilaterally, but him saying he wants to do it and him not getting any roadblocks to it. That would be my personal take. But that’s just me. So that’s lovely. Let’s move over to an article from the Washington Post, which I have a clip for. Oh, wait, I do have to play this one. We have to play this one really quick. That cracks me up Larry. Why, why are we playing that clip for this?
Well, because of the relatively heinous nature of holding the gun to the, to the handcuffed man’s head because he wouldn’t give his name. And to the credit of the people in Florida, I believe this was Florida, they’re doing the right thing. They’re, they’re actually holding the officer accountable. And that was the only point I wanted to make is that all these protests will die down if we start having accountability for when police do things when they when they say I got my rights, and there’s no accountability, that’s when you have civil unrest. When you start holding them accountable, you’ll find that that’ll die away because that’s all people want is for people who are wearing the uniform to be held accountable when they mess up.
Now I realized that this is super left leaning tree hugging Washington Post but says a sergeant with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Tampa has been fired and charged with a felony after aiming his gun inches from a handcuffed black man’s head and threatening to kill him if the man did not give him his name, according to the sheriff, like give me your name? No, I’m going to kill you if you don’t give me your name. How does that happen Larry?
I don’t know. But it’s the responses are…(Andy: It’s so ridiculous.) they were very prompt and they were they were they were very thorough and that’s all we’re asking for is that cops are human beings and they will make mistakes. Sometimes they got through the screening process and they shouldn’t have. Or they’ll just make that they’ll just make bad judgment calls just like other mortals and they have to be held accountable just like the person who’s putting on makeup or texting, and they have no intention of running over a child that’s riding a skateboard And they do it, we have to hold that driver accountable. Now we don’t hold them accountable with malice, like the person who pulls the trigger, I mean pulls the gun and holds it to the head and says, I’m going to kill you. But that’s all we want is for the officer to be held accountable.
And we in we’re not going to get to an article tonight on how do we hold them accountable. And people talk about putting up registries for the place, but I don’t I still can’t figure out why when you go from California where you killed 17 people over 20 years because we had an officer that was like that, something like that. Like I think it was two or three people. And then so you then go to another state you pick Minnesota and like hey, I’d like to apply for a job here and no one’s question like, Hey, what’s your previous? Why doesn’t anybody go, well have you killed anybody at your last job? No, we don’t want you here. Like how does that not happen?
Well, I I’m sure that that they do have a screening process but what happens with with it would be like any former employer Employee relationship. A litigation is a fear. So therefore, if you get rid of a bad officer, why would you want to cause that officer any grief that they’re gonna come back and sue you? So it’s like goodbye Good riddance. It would be the the the church, particularly the Catholic Church, they moved him around the country, they, the priest, and the when there’s a lot of people who get jobs that probably shouldn’t have gotten jobs because the previous employer doesn’t report that but there’s talk of some sort of registry and and a registry doesn’t have to be punitive boy, this should generate plenty of hate mail this week. Merely the act of registering someone doesn’t have to be punitive. We register young men for Selective Service. We register, I mean, we could spend the rest of this podcast which we’re at the end of already, but we could go on and on about registry. There’s a flint children registry for the children of Flint, their registry is not designed to punish those children. That registry is designed so that since those children were largely from urban poverty, that we can keep track of those children and find out what sort of developmental problems they are encountering, and how we can try to keep them connected to services. A registry doesn’t have to be punitive. Now, having said that, almost every sex offender registry is because that’s the way it’s designed to be punitive and it’s disguised as non-punitive, but barely putting someone in a database. If you don’t tell the officer you can’t work anywhere else. You can’t live anyplace else. You can’t be present anywhere else. If they don’t put all those restrictions, just merely having a compellation of the officers transgressions. And it would be available to any law enforcement entity that might be considering a relationship with an officer. I can’t see held that would be viewed as punitive. It would be up public service that would help the officer to move on to other stages of his or her life. Because you really aren’t fit to be a police officer. The same thing I’d say about a teacher, that teacher texting a student, whether it was intentional or unintentional, we got to be very careful but having a teacher like that in the classroom, around kids, but that doesn’t mean that her life should be destroyed. The officer’s life doesn’t have to be destroyed because they can’t be police work. What is there about another thousand job classifications in united states that they could engage it? The registry of officers doesn’t have to be punitive.
All right, then from mynews13.com. We have an article that was submitted over on the discord server by a listener. It says sex offenders could be barred from certain businesses If a Brevard Commissioner gets his way. The title of the article says it’s from Orlando I have no idea where Brevard County is does that resonate with you?
I don’t know the geographic, geographic, geography of Florida but I know I hear that county quite often. So I’m thinking it’s an urban County. It’s probably it’s probably near southern Florida probably near Broward. I’m betting if you look it up on the map, it’s probably near Broward County.
Oh, now you’re gonna make me do it. Um, so so so this this is some sort of local ordinance, whatever that would make it so that PFRs cannot even go into different kinds of businesses. And there’s a paragraph in here that I wanted to bring up. It’s like the Obloy, O-b-l-o-y, Obloy family ranch owner, Eric Obloy, said he’s excited about being part of a new voluntary registry certifying their business as a place where children regularly congregate, which would restrict sex offenders and sexual predators from coming within 1000 feet of the business coming within. That doesn’t mean that they can’t come in. They can’t be within 1000 feet of the business, which is a fifth of a mile. That’s a pretty good distance.
Well, I’m hoping I’m hoping that this would not be passed, but I’m hoping also hoping if it is passed and enacted that the businesses themselves begin to challenge it because it’s not your right to prohibit a person from doing business with someone. I mean, we do have free commerce in this country. And it’s the same thing I’ll say about apartment complexes, you know, if I were that business, again, I would be saying it’s none of the government’s business, who we rent to, if they’ve got a prior conviction for whatever that conviction is, that’s assessment we make in consultation with our ownership and with regard to our our interest here, and it’s not a governmental decision about whether we have a relationship and same thing about businesses. I don’t think the government has any business or the authority to tell a business who can be near it or who can be in it.
And moving over to the Atlantic, John Roberts is just who the Supreme Court needed. The Chief Justice has worked to persuade his colleagues to put institutional legitimacy above partisanship. Why did you put this crazy Kabuki article in here? This is all a super left leaning rag of the Atlantic.
Well, that’s all the more reason why you put it in there because John Roberts was appointed by a conservative president back in 2005-06 somewhere in that mid Bush term and the the, the fact of the matter is of the conservative bloc on the court, he has proven himself to be a pragmatist. He’s proven himself to be deeply concerned about the legitimacy of the court and not allow the court to become a an Obama court or a Trump court, or conservative versus liberal. And he’s made decisions that as an Associate Justice that he might have been uncomfortable with, but it’s the Chief Justice when his vote has been needed. He has made decisions that were that were in keeping the legitimacy of the court and the non-politicization of the court. And I just thought it was really remarkable that a left leaning rag would be this complimentary of Chief Justice Roberts and that’s why I put it in there that he’s been the right person at the right time to keep the court from going over the deep end completely.
And remind me of the term is this Stare decisis of using precedent to to inform how you vote? (Larry: Yes.) Is that the right term? Okay. (Larry: Yes. Yes.) And and so I think we’ve covered recently that Thomas, who I think there was an article that he he authored the decision, and then is turning back saying we shouldn’t honor precedent against the thing that he wrote the decision about, I think that’s what it sounded like. There’s a movie called Inception for anybody that’s like follows 20-year-old movies with Leonardo DiCaprio. But I was just I think that’s really odd that the person that wrote a decision would then be the one that’s going back and saying, No, we shouldn’t follow what we said we did before.
So yeah, I think I vaguely remember that but I mean, clearly if you if you if you’ve gotten it wrong, there’s not a problem. But But if if it’s merely a political decision, and you haven’t gotten this, I mean Plessy versus Ferguson was wrong and it took them decades with Brown versus Board of Education to to undo Plessy but just because you don’t like a decision that doesn’t make it wrong, and the conservative bloc has a lot of decisions that they do not like and they have been setting about unraveling them, particularly the area of of reproductive rights, abortion and and the business as far as the collective bargaining rights. They’ve been chipping away at collective bargaining that the the requirement to pay union dues, you know, the union has to represent everybody and that opens up a whole Pandora’s box but but but they’ve they’ve they’ve eliminated the requirement that you pay for your your fair share apportionment because I shouldn’t have to pay money to the union to represent me if I don’t want it.
Right, right. Let’s move over, back over to the Washington Post, and I just want to put this one in there because it’s kind of silly. It’s a disabled black veteran drove through Alabama with medical marijuana. Now he faces five years in prison. I’m going to assume that Alabama doesn’t have medical marijuana and he was traveling through so he was driving from Florida somewhere west where they do have it and he got jammed up for something and now he’s in in trouble huh?
I would say that that would be a pretty good guess. And we are guessing so if anybody in Alabama wants to take issue, just send the facts in and we’ll clarify. But I’m guessing that he was asked, Do you mind, you don’t mind if I search do you? And and he if he objected, then they would have called for a canine and done the sniff and then they would have searched anyway. Based on the canine always magically alerts and then they found the marijuana and he may have not understood that your card in one state doesn’t make it legal in another
Okay, hey, let’s let’s let’s let’s play this out as being something with a firearm. So let’s take the most left leaning, you know, a New York kind of state where they don’t want any sort of any sort of handguns. You know, whatever those extremes are. I don’t even know what the rules are. But you’re coming from a state where you’re out in the boonies and like everyone’s required to carry a gun and you go drive through New York and you get pulled over and like, well, what’s that? Well, that’s my gun, and there’s the thing of reciprocity. And so I’m reading here in the article it says I explained to him that Alabama did not have medical marijuana. The police report said according to Appleseed, I then placed the suspect in handcuffs. If we were to portray this scenario with a gun rights thing, I bet you everyone would lose their minds and like, I’ve got my rights to own a gun. And just because I’m driving through New York, you can’t tell me I can’t have a gun. I’m from Wyoming, Minnesota, wherever. And you wouldn’t get jammed up for the gun there. I suspect.
Actually you would, but that is an ongoing legal debate about about whether the, what Trump’s in terms of what rights you have under the Second Amendment. And if you’re if you’re a citizen of Georgia validly carrying a concealed and you’re in a jurisdiction doesn’t have that, who controls and that is very much a live controversy right now.
And you, and you can’t know all laws against all counties and cities that you are participating in, though knowing that you have medical marijuana, you know that most places still more than half of the states don’t have legalized marijuana of any sort. So I don’t know. Do you think that this is just someone making a really poor decision?
Well, no, I think that it’s unfortunate of our 50 state, federal, federal system where we have where we have all these different laws. I think that we can fix this by passing if the big old bad federal government would pass a law that says that the states have to recognize now that would be very hard to do because there’ll be extreme opposition, depending on what you’re recognizing. The conservative states would be in all in favor of passing that to force recognition of their gun permits, but they would be less inclined on the on the drug side. Yeah, if you’ve tried to force your liberal agenda down in Alabama, on the drug side, they’d say now, that’s a decision that the people in the state of Alabama need to be making. We don’t need that federal government telling us what we got to do down here. But that’s probably really the only thing you can do short of an interstate compact agreement with the states that they will grant reciprocity on the weapons or on the on the marijuana cards would be if you could pass a federal law that says that there’s recognition for those, and I don’t even know if that would be constitutional, but but there’s no way you can know all that stuff.
Yeah, and just for my own little correction it says recreational use is legal in 11 states iand DC but medicinal use is allowed in 33 states. That was a little self-correction on the fly. I think you were probably gonna point that out to me.
So and of course for the transcriber, how do you spell Federal [spoken with heavy accent]? when he gets down to…
And then, government, how do you spell government [spoken with heavy accent]?
Unknown Speaker 1:32:19
Alright, let’s wrap this thing up.
Yeah, I was gonna say we should probably wrap this up because it’s about that time. Anything else you want to cover? Just before we get out of here?
I think that we did a splendid job, we’ll recognize Well, I think we got seven or eight new patrons this week, didn’t we?
we at least have one. And so we can recognize WVRSOL. You guys and gals are awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the support. Do you want to tell them because they came in at a level that gets you a certain perk that you are introducing? Do you want to talk about that real quick?
Sure. That’s a good thing. I had forgotten all about that. At Registry Matters Podcast we’re trying to figure out how to grow the podcast. Because we haven’t been growing at the rapid rate we would like to see. And we’re receiving inquiries from from prisoners, they see it in the NARSOL newsletter and they don’t know how that they can listen to it because without a smuggled cell phone, you can’t listen to it. And there are plenty of smuggled cell phones in prisons but I don’t know if that’s how they want to use their their time is listening to an hour and a half podcast. But But what we’ve decided to do is that for those patron supporters out there, that are already supporting us, if you are a member of NARSOL, and you want us to send a transcript to a loved one, all you have to do is request it. $10 a month or more, we will send it to a person of your choosing. If you’re not a member of NARSOL, it’s going to cost you a minimum patron level of $15 a month to get the same thing. And I’ve started launching that sent out the first couple yesterday afternoon for people who’ve requested them, and and we’ll handle all the administration now you could technically do this yourself, you could actually all you have to do is have large envelopes, a good printer where you can print 35, 40 pages, a postage scale so that you can figure out what the weight is, and a mix of stamps so you can put the right postage on there and the dedication to send it out weekly, you could do that and avoid that. But the hard cost is going to be about 10 bucks a month to us, and probably a little bit more if we if we factor in everything, but our hope is that more people in prison will see the content of what we talk about, and that they will let others know that there is such a thing and that it will grow the listenership and ultimately grow the patrons support. So that’s the offer to you guys. If you’re at $10 or more, and you want the podcast transcript to go to someone, just send it to email@example.com and we will we will set that up to start happening.
Fanfreakintastic. Again, thank you West Virginia for that. That’s really awesome and so very much appreciated. And Larry, we record the show live usually on Saturday nights, unless of course you’re not feeling well and we start early but then the power goes out which then we ended up kind of recording at the same normal time. Anyway, you can join the discord server if you’re a patron and listen live. But if you can’t listen live, you can always do so on demand, which is the whole point, listen to on demand. We want to make it available to you at your convenience. If you would do me a favor and subscribe. You can do this in your favorite podcast app on Apple or Google or Stitcher, wherever. And we also have a YouTube channel. You can listen and subscribe there. But we want to make sure that you get the episode the minute we post it. It’ll come right down to you on your device. So you’ll have it in plenty of time for your Tuesday morning commute. And let’s go over like you can find the podcast at registrymatters.co and Larry what’s the way to leave voicemail?
And you can email us at firstname.lastname@example.org and we love all of our listeners, Larry, but we want to encourage people to become patrons and how do people become patrons?
Very carefully by going to, to the proper website. And, and signing up.
which is registry, excuse me, patreon.com/registrymatters. That’s why you didn’t say it you threw it back over to my court and I botched it.
No, actually, I was scrolling down to make sure I had it right. And by the time I’m like, well I gotta say something here to buy myself a couple of seconds. So patreon.com/registrymatters or you can just go to patreon.com and search for Registry Matters.
You can do that too. Larry, as always, you are an immense amount of information and I greatly appreciate the time that we spend and with that, I bid you a happy and healthy Saturday night.
Good night, everyone.