Listen to RM149: Man Arrested For Failing To Notify Angel Watch
registry matters as 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 transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 149 of registry matters. Larry, how are you Saturday night? Welcome back.
Fantastic. Thanks for having me. We’re catching up with my age.
almost almost Um, I don’t think that anybody realizes it because the comments I received like I had it was about 10 hours of editing to put the podcast back together last week there were so many problems but everyone was like I didn’t notice anything but we had a lot of technical problems this weekend. So hopefully tonight goes much more smoothly or just about that for a word
transcription. I hope that I hope they can figure out something with that
it was a yet vulnerable See, we should put a marker to go look flag that one down when we get to it.
Unknown Speaker 01:01
Tell me what we have going on tonight.
We’ve got a plethora of little listener questions sometimes their readers come in from prison but we’ve got questions. We’ve got a discussion about the who should make the Supreme Court appointment and how did how did how did the hearing go? And the confirmation hearing that is that then we’ve got some articles to talk about. And these questions should be good because do pentas we should we’ve got set about last week’s episode we got a polygraph boisterous question. I mean, this is good stuff.
Awesome. Well, let’s let’s get going. First on the list is a letter that came into asking a question says I am serving time who sent this letter. That’s a I don’t even know who this was. Let me see that was real quick. This is from Thomas is what this is. says I’m serving time in Iowa where the state has recently started requiring voice stress analysis test to all inmates required to do sex offender treatment. The prison is telling inmates that this test is 100% accurate, which Larry, there’s no way that that’s hundred percent accurate. The question pack is given to animates to fill out prior to this test, ask many questions about other acts or crimes, but does not pose a single question regarding the inmates current crime or conviction. This packet seems to be the very definition of compelled self incrimination as defined in the McCune vs. Lyle, as completion of treatment depends on passing this test. And SMTP is required for good civil commitment. Sorry, good time versus civil commitment, etc. In Iowa, there is no way that there is a stress test thing that would tell you whether you’re lying or not. There’s just no way.
We we actually discussed if I think on an episode not too far back, I know, I wrote about it for the nozzle newsletter the digest in June. And it’s interesting, because that question also came from Iowa. So this is a hot topic in Iowa, the introduction of this voice stress analysis. And we honestly don’t have any case law, but I’ve been able to unearth on that particular thing. So so my opinion would be that we would need to look at the existing case law in terms of the polygraph. Because force incrimination regardless of what tool they use, it’s still it’s still the constitution for self incrimination. So the case law developed particularly in the tent, and I believe the Seventh Circuit, if I remember my article on the 10th circuit was the Vaughn bearing and then the Lacey versus Butz case, I believe was the Seventh Circuit. If if the if the person’s being forced to bring themselves within a zone of criminal prosecution, they can declined to answer those questions. But they can’t just declined to participate at the testing regimen. And I would, I would guess, like I say, we don’t have any any any case law on point that I’ve been able to find out about voice stress analysis. But if if the person objects to a particular question that what they’re doing is they’re doing the sexual history polygraph because that determines how much treatment the person needs. There may be a lot of victims that haven’t been detected yet. And this person may have been offending for a very long time is their theory. And so they do this sexual history disclosure again with
it, whether it’s voice stress or hooking up a kabuki machine to you to intimidate you into confessing to things if that would then be required for you to complete your treatment which would then be required for you to potentially get off early. Like get on parole, whatever term you want to use in your state. They are putting you in I guess that’s that Hobson’s choice thing where maybe you do have a bunch of victims in your past, but there’s no evidence to like there’s no criminal case that’s being brought before that. Or you could just be super stressed out, and they think you’re being deceptive. And now you’re just screwed and have to write out your whole sentence.
Well, that’s but I believe in the McCune versus Lau case. That’s what exactly what the Supreme Court said, they said that this is not to adding additional punish by that point, I was already there. Right, you’re just not you’re not getting the privilege of big, big request early. So therefore, you’re not entitled to privilege that was the Supreme Court’s reading in that. Now it gets more interesting and K in states where you’re not being released early, when you’ve actually done all of your time. And they continue to hold hold you. I’m not sure they’re doing that for treatment reasons, but they’re doing it for lack of proper and appropriate housing, that comes to have a post period, supervision period that follows incarceration once you’ve served the sentence Illinois, been example into Mexico be another example. But But when you’re when you’re being granted the privilege of leaving early, I mean, you can tell them where to take their polygraph with their voice stress analyzer. And you do not you do not have to take these tests. Now, okay, but you, okay. At some point, if you leave prison with a period of supervision, you’ll be back in the same position.
Yeah. And and the other thing that that has been suggested is, go ahead and take the test. And when they ask you the question that’s going to cause you that much grief, then you decline that question. You don’t just say a few, I’m not taking anything, right?
That is correct. And you’re going to know the question before they wire you up. They don’t they don’t just hook you up to the Kabuki machine and start asking new questions I do. They do. Free love
Kabuki seen for real.
They, they they do so the questions are pretest interview and they do they tell you what they’re going to ask you. So it’s not a surprise, barrage of questions. I’ve had people tell me, well, they just hooked me up. And they just weren’t quite sure if they did that. That would that was not anything approximating a legitimate calligraphy. Because that’s not the way polygraphs are done.
And and the whole idea there is to see the question in advance to get you to start stressing over it so that when you like the question about four years ago, when like that they’re doing it for the reason of planting the seed to get you to stress out over?
Oh, well, that’s not their theory, their theory is that they’re giving you the question about so that you can disclose at thing you need to that would cause you to have problems. But the question, it’s a question was too broad, you can work on the phraseology of the question, and that that they claim they’re not doing it because you have stress.
And so what are what is our answer for a Thomas? Is that what it was? Thomas?
Yes. Well, well, the answer, the answer is that he’s in the Eighth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit case law. I didn’t find any directly on point. The the seventh and the 10th was for Vaughn bearing came from those are persuasive date circuit is entirely with exception of one didn’t hard judge panel on the Eighth Circuit. So number one to three judge panel you draw, you’re going to get all conservative, appointed judges by various republican presidents. Obama had one appointment. That’s it. So that court, but they’re there, they’re all republican appointees slide No, we get the right decision. Because the right presidents made the appointments. But But if we don’t have anything,
there’s no snark there is there, Larry? No,
but but we don’t, we don’t have any, we don’t have any case law to go on. But I’m assuming that if I were in that position, I would argue that these persuasive cases from the other circuits would be would be not binding. But you would argue that things are persuasive. But you just can’t refuse to be polygraph. There’s got to be a threat your your your self incrimination kicks in when there’s a threat of actual something happened to you. The fact that you find a question I’m comfortable, does not put you within the zone of prosecution. And that’s the word on bearing. And the cases are coming down that there’s has to be a credible threat of prosecution. And so I don’t know where to thread that needle. In terms of how far to tell someone cooperate. You almost have to make your own decision when you when you’re faced with a situation. What am I going to do? How bad do you want to?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Charles is asking says what if you say you have no prior crimes and you fail the stress test, then they’re going to call that you’re being deceptive and you’re certainly not going to get released early from from after that situation. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t.
I’m guessing he’s right. But what I would never do, and and this is something that people frequently do as I began to confessionals after they’re told that they failed. He never confessed anything. uncounseled right. fashion’s council confessions. What I mean on council without an attorney, you would never admit to committing a crime without the advice of counsel. And normally you’re going to get something in exchange for that admission. But I don’t care how many times they tell you failed the polygraph, you never say that you did a crime.
And this is also behind the walls where you would have way less chance to get a an attorney to represent you.
It would be a lot more difficult. Yes.
All right. Well, then let’s bounce over to question number two, which is, maybe this is enhanced language. And this says I listen to last week’s episode about the case that went to trial in New Mexico. Although I was happy to hear what sometime excuse me that sometimes there is an acquittal. I am sorry for the victim in that particular case because she was denied justice. It’s obvious to me that Ashley is a high dollar attorney, and she was good at manipulating the jury. Now, thanks to Ashley, the victim has to carry this with her for the rest of her life. Ashley herself admitted that sex occurred, how can she sleep with herself knowing that her scheming and manipulation deny this woman justice? How many people facing sexual accusations can afford a high dollar attorney like Ashley? Geez, Larry, that’s kinda kind of harsh.
Well, it was. I didn’t put a name with it, because it would it would reveal the the person who is actually one of our advocates, that that wrote this. And there is a much embellishment here, but just a tad bit. But but there are so many questions here that I don’t know where to start. But I’ll tell you that in this particular case, actually was not a high dollar attorney. He was a very, very lowly paid public defender who who received a contract appointment that paid only a few hundred dollars. So so that that did not apply in this particular case. That doesn’t mean that people that have a large bank accounts, don’t get better representation. But this was not a case of that. In terms of how can she sleep with herself, I can answer that one, we sleep mighty fine. Because our job is not to find the truth. When you’re on the defense side, in an adversarial system, our job is to hold the accusing party to their burden of proof and make sure they carry that burden to be under reasonable doubt. We do not have any obligation to help figure out what happened. We have an obligation to make sure that the accusers proof what happened to beyond reasonable doubt. So we don’t go home and think about it. Beyond the end of the trial, when we’re not guilty comes in this last time you think about it, you celebrate and you go on to the next case. If this person, did I get away with something. I suppose that when they get a charge that next time, perhaps they’ll bring in 404 b evidence, which is the rule that allows you to bring in prior bad acts. And maybe they’ll come be different. But But you sleep just fine. That.
So Larry, on the other side of that equation, though, for the prosecution side, they’re not seeking justice, either they’re seeking a conviction, you’re seeking something of acquittal, not guilty, you’re seeking that side, but from the prosecutors not trying to seek justice, either. The prosecution is just trying to seek a guilty verdict.
Well, I would like to think that the prosecutor believes the accuser, and that they brought the case because they actually believed, but the jury didn’t. In this particular instance, the jury of 12 did not believe that the sex that was acknowledged, was not consensual. Just because sex happens, doesn’t mean that it’s non consensual. And if you’re going to try to put a person in a cage, and you’re going to take their freedom away, you have the burden of proving that what happened wasn’t consensual. The accused has no burden to carry.
I don’t like it. I still see like, should they be interested in justice? Yes, I think they should be. And we you know, we are 9597 99% of the prosecutors out there seeking justice and not bringing bs charges. Yes. But does it happen the other way too? Are there vendettas axes to grind? Yes. So then at that point, then you have people’s personal agenda getting inserted into the system?
Well, you do indeed have that you have. You have the prosecutors are largely elected at the state level, that they’re elected by the local district. That that or that prosecution office functions. And they are for a number of reasons. They could be driven to bring a weak case because of the politics but I can’t change that. That’s the system we have. It’s like but I talk about capitalism. When I talk about this system, we have a system where you have to jousting opponents We don’t have this lovey w system that people are talking about where we have restorative model, we have an adversarial system where the accusing party bears the burden to prove in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the people who are charged with carrying out that responsibility are elected. And they have a variety of considerations, including staying at office, because they’ve got kids to feed and all this stuff. And they do have that moral responsibility, an ethical responsibility that a prosecutor has this actually greater than advanced attorney to seek justice if they know that the person did, but they don’t. Most of them don’t know that. I mean, nobody knows what happened, whether it was consensual or not. All the prosecution has is a victim of the victims advocate telling them that you need to get justice and what if that person’s politically connected? What if they What if they’re prominent in the community or connected to someone who is and they’re getting pressure? Suppose it’s a high profile case in the media and they’re getting pressure. They’re being told to get justice, the pressure on them is to get justice. A justice means convicted, someone holding someone accountable. So so there’s a variety of reasons why prosecutions happen. And it all actually comes back to us. It’s it’s us, we the people who apply this pressure.
Let’s move over to another listener question. It says thank you for your continued efforts to chip away at registration laws with the goal of pushing the wall over, I will continue to support you supporting us and this is from Brian, this who this is from I guess I could have seen that in the title. Briefly. I am incarcerated Newcastle Correctional Facility in Indiana. facility is around 95% pfrs. However, almost no one has heard of nor saw. I’d like to see nagarsol reach more and more inmates have you considered uploading your registry matters podcast to the various companies that supply us tablets. For example, here in Indiana GTL, which is global tel link is one tablet provider. Your podcast could be uploaded to the music library and we could search nagarsol to listen to any material you’ve uploaded. Use your podcast to advertise subscriptions to nagarsol, the digest Lifetime’s magazine etc. as Derek Logue says, with knowledge, we rise above the ashes, please consider expanding your reach and providing inmates with the knowledge they need and deserve. I hadn’t really considered this one. And I did like about three minutes of intensive Google searching to figure out that it looks like I would have to we would have to pay to get it to each person. I don’t know that this is for sure. I don’t know if they have any way that we could upload the podcast and let it get disseminated just on its own. But I will continue investigating this. I think this is this is similar to the transcript idea, Larry, and it might be might be an interesting avenue for us to get the actual audio feed into the prisons.
Well, that would be fantastic. If we actually had listeners, and rather than having to wait a week, or I should we try to get him out within a week, but a week to 10 days to get the printed copy. That would be fantastic.
Yeah, I was, like I said, so I was looking, we would have to know the persons in made ID all of that data and actually, like upload music to their library. So we would I don’t know if we would have to like press buttons and click and so forth to get the podcast distributed to their tablet. But it is something that we will definitely investigate. I think that’s a phenomenal suggestion. I’m all for it. And then we will move over to L This is from Steven says, I want to relocate overseas as a registered PFR. Am I allowed to do this? What stipulations are involved? I am not outright outright barred. Am I? What does the process look like? Anyone who could contact for me for more information? I would love it. This is you know, I was on the connections than ourselves social media site and I somebody just made a post that said, I am about to meet the woman who will become my wife in Nigeria, I think it was maybe it was at Nigeria. It was Kenya it was Kenya. And then there’s a picture of him like I have now met my wife that was like, Okay, this guy is taking extreme measures to get to the United States and he has gone to Kenya, he feels that PFR is treated so poorly. He has gone to Africa. Wow.
This This one is a is a regular question or variation on it that this person Steven, it’s in the Texas state prison system. What we’re going to assume since the letter short and we love short letters, but we don’t have all the information. We’re going to assume that you have a period of supervision to follow you, Texas as I recall and imposes a long period of time. You might have a 20 year sentence but but you’re eligible to be to be released after a fraction of that, which then you have that that remainder to be under supervision. But if you’re under supervision, I don’t imagine that the Texas authorities are going to approve a transfer to A foreign nation. So that would be the first thing that you would have to ask yourself and answer, am I under any type of supervision? If you’re not under the supervision, if you walk out of Texas prison free, you can go anywhere on the globe. There, there are no barriers for the United States will preclude you from going you can go anywhere. The question you have to find out is whether any of those nations you would like to go to, would allow what American convicted of the type of offense that you have, if they would allow you in as a temporary guest, or if they would allow you in to a residency status and give you some kind of permanent status. And that’s on a nation by nation basis, whether they would do that, and we’ve got someone or we’ve played videos from that seems to think that Germany is a great place to go that you would, that you would love to find welcoming and that they don’t hold your conviction against you, but but the US does not stop you from going the door is wide open, you’ll have to notify us authorities that you’re going to be traveling outside the country. And they will send a notification blurb to the foreign nation that you’re that you’re you’re coming there and you that you that you have a conviction and all likelihood not not everybody gets those notices, but but it’s in terms of America standing in the way, you know, you go to where you want to.
And we could point out that there’s the registered travel Action Group that I don’t know how accurate their information is. But I don’t know anybody else that has any information that says what countries will turn you away at the door, or ones that will let you in. I suspect that Kenya probably doesn’t care, I would suspect they have a lot of their own issues. Otherwise.
I used to think that but when I was at one of the National Association of criminal defense lawyers, ideal meetings, I met a person I believe that was the National Conference state legislature I was I was at a meeting. And the the that’s not necessarily the case, the African nations are being put under intense pressure to stop the sexual trafficking of people coming through what so they they’re signing up for IML alerts, and they’re doing everything there can so I would not make that assumption at all. But he’s wanting not only to visit, he says I want to relocate, which to me implies a more permanent status. And and I’m not, I’m not so sure I would definitely not spend a lot of money. flying to a foreign day should only be turned around, I would find out if you’re going to be able to achieve any type of long term entry into the country because it as with America, we do the extreme vetting. And we turn away people, I would expect that other nations would have similar interest in turning away people, including those who have what they would consider to be kind of bad. criminal past.
Unknown Speaker 22:55
I think i think i think i think we’re ready to go over to this little ad hoc thing that we are, we’re going to cover Do you wanna play the clip? You want to set it up? Do you want to?
Alright, so do you want to do you want to do justice question or skip that one? Because we have one more we’re gonna call it. We’re gonna skip. Okay, we’ll
Yeah, we’ll skip it.
Okay, all right. So, I’ve gotten I’ve gotten some emails about the Supreme Court, and I’m sure it’s been the topic. And so I wanted to answer what my opinion is, should the next president make the Supreme Court appointment? This doesn’t have anything directly to do with registry. So for this segue, but people you may want to, you may want to hit the skip and pause or whatever you do when you don’t want to listen to it. And then what my impression were of the hearing of the hearing, so I’m going to I’m going to start before before we play the clip that say that I agree with rush limbaugh on the clipping it’s about to play. I actually agree with him. And the only problem I have with Professor limbaugh is that that’s completely contradictory to the position he had in 2016. So so let’s let’s hear what rush says about which President should make the appointment.
Unknown Speaker 24:12
But the Constitution is clear. Trump is the guy who makes the choice Trump is the guy constitutional, you make the choice. The controlling election on this nomination is 2016. It’s not the election in 20 days or however many days it is. The controlling election for judicial nominees like Amy Coney Barrett is the one in 2016. Trump was elected by the people 2016 President served for four years. During that four year term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away creating an opening. The President of the United States, Donald Trump is empowered, in fact duly constitutionally required to choose a replacement and the Senate’s role is just to advise as a consultant, that’s it. There’s nothing about waiting for the next election if it happens, it’s real close. Nothing like that at all. That’s just a democrat made argument, a
Democrat made argument, what was the what was the situation in 2016, when Scalia passed away?
That is what is so intellectually dishonest about that is because that was not a democrat made argument. That was a republican made argument for a vacancy that occurred in February of 2016, which were at the very front end of the primaries, and hadn’t even didn’t even have nominees. And so so he misled his audience, which is billions of people. That is not a democrat made argument. That was their argument. That’s what they said. And now, if he were intellectually honest, I agree with him, the President is president for the entire four years. Now, realistically, having said that, depending on how late the appointment is, if you’re not doing a railroad operation, rushing it through the normal, the normal processes are so time consuming, that they put through the FBI background check. And then setting scheduling the hearings and giving the minority party a chance to do their background check. All those things take time. So normally, this process drags out for a few months, and this one’s being expedited, because those things were recently done in 2017, when she was appointed to the Court of Appeals. But I only wish that we knew how to play the game with the other side, because the rules change. Just in four short years. It was it was a whole different rulebook back then, just four years ago, it was the In fact, they said that they might not confirm any, if Hillary won, because the polls pointed toward that they said they might not confirm any Supreme Court Justice, let the court run on eight. That’s what they said, back then. Not only were they not going to prove Obama’s who was the sitting president in February when the vacancy had occurred, they said they wouldn’t approve anybody.
All right. We don’t need to beat around this one. I have like a million things to say. But we won’t. We won’t stick around here. So let’s cover some news items.
So while I was put out of the hearing, I wanted to say what little bit Oh, go ahead. Go go go. So the hearing the hearing about if we had not politicize this process, I will tell you that this, this nominee is extremely qualified. She gave magnificent answers. She was she was polite on like the last nominee, who was rude and obnoxious. She has the temperament to be on the court. And philosophically, she might be a little bit off for her I would like her to be but she is eminently qualified. So I don’t see how they can vote her nomination down. When it comes to a vote. I don’t see how they could do it. I know it’s going to be a party line vote. But in terms of if you were just that, not regarding politics, looking at the qualifications, a law professor and the fact that she’s already a second highest tribunal being on the Court of Appeals. I mean, the question should be is she qualified? And she’s she’s no doubt very Emilie qualified to be able to Supreme Court. But I’m just struggling with how the rules change and how they’re doing this simply because they can. And Senator Whitehorse from Rhode Island, I think he’s from Rhode Island somewhere, but that that part of the contract, please throw it on him. But he reminded them that when you do something because you can. Don’t be surprised when you’re in the minority if things get done because we can. And that’s like, that was a warning shot of what’s to come.
Right. I understand that. Yes. This is Yeah, the whole process is politicized. I recall hearing that RBG got confirmed with something like 97 or something like that. votes. So how do we go from getting 97 votes to getting like it’s just going to be 53 to 47? I’m pretty sure
we’re not gonna get it won’t be 53 they will allow the the Tater and republican women to vote no, because they’ll still have the margins so they can go ahead and allow three people that are in close contested races to vote no. Which will be surely it’ll be Collins, pepper koski. And lol what is as possible one more if there’s someone who needs to be allowed to duck because their constituents want them to vote a different way. So they’ve got three votes to spare. And they are predict they will probably use those three votes to give people a pass that really don’t need to take the heat. So they’ll be it’ll be 5050 or 51. Resident than 53. But But how we got to that point is is hard to explain because it used to be that that was a question of qualifications. There was a tad bit of polarization politicization and 68. But this was in 68. It was a it was, it was the Democratic president who wanted to replace the retired Chief Justice. And it was the democratic conservative democratic senators from the south, who did not want any more. They’d had enough of that liberal stuff. And it was the democrats who stood in the way of their president making the appointment, they handed off the chief justice to President Nixon. And they’ve never there’s been, every time it’s come open since then. There’s always been a republican president. So since 1968, we haven’t had a Chief Justice appointed by democratic president.
Yeah, I know it’s been highly slanted in the Team Red camp since then. Ah, all right. Maybe we move on now?
Sure. Let’s do it. Okay.
So first one comes from the Associated Press, Idaho prisons tell inmates about relief check eligibility, we should merge that with another article that we have coming up, I thought there was one. But this talks about the relief money that came up with the cares Act and the whatever all the crazy names, that they come up with these things, that people that were incarcerated, they’re going to get that money, too. That’s what this is, right?
That is what this is. And again, I want to remind people, that this was an example of overreach by the executive branch at the direction of the Internal Revenue Service without any statutory authority. They ask prisons to withhold the payments. This necessitated a lawsuit. And the judge has ruled in favor of the inmates at less than the people. If the Congress had wanted people in prison, not to be entitled to this funny, they would have said that, and they didn’t. Therefore, the administration invented a requirement. And yes, I’m bashing a republican administration. But just to be clear, I bashed the former governor of California, just I think the last episode four inventing requirements for early relief that weren’t in the legislation. It’s all about policy, folks. It’s all about policy, pointing out that the administration did this without any statutory authority, and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and they’re being slapped out.
Right, and that second article that we have is from the Washington Post, and I’m going to press a snazzy little button, and I think it’ll switch over to it on the on the screen when it gets over there. But yeah, so this is, uh, so people in prison are going to get their 12. This is the 1200 dollar check. And I guess this would then give them the money that may come down the pike, if that ever gets signed into whatever, the one that you said we were going to get.
I have been proven wrong so far on that on that prediction. They the I would, I would guess that if there’s a change in administrations, because it looks very unlikely they’ll there’ll be another relief packet collected election. If there’s a change in administrations, there will be immense pressure to exclude prisoners from any, any any of these payments, because it’s so heinous, that we’re giving 1200 dollars to people that incarcerated, were already paying for their care, and sending them hard earned taxpayers money. So they can sit in prison and live the high life I mean, saw but often suspect that the republicans would be very adamant about inserting that into future legislation, because the courts are saying that unless you unless they’re precluded by statute, you can’t do it by executive action.
Can we can we take a quick detour just to sit on that subject for a minute, I hear from people from time to time about the the people that have received the money that should and like we’ll just go dead people received it. Can you briefly explain how, because of the way that they did this, like it was let’s get the money out as fast as possible how people that were completely ineligible, and I don’t mean prisoners, I mean, dead people as an example, they might have received the money.
Well, it would be because of the, the, the the urgency of getting the money out. And remember, we had the economy in freefall because of the of the shutdown. So we had an unemployment rate that jumped from 3.5 3.6% to 14.3%. And one month reporting cycle, like, like 20 million people lost their jobs. And this was, was it when you take 20 million people out of the workforce, that that has an economic hit, that’s significant. So this was this was created to try to put cat cash back into the economy. And magically stimulus is okay when you have when you have this administration. But that’s a separate topic. But how this happened was that they decided to use previous tax returns. Well, there’s no direct link between those tax returns. who’s still alive and who was dead. So So when you’re using the IRS has direct deposit information for for people and addresses and people who filed a tax return, it’s quite conceivable because if you had filed an 18 or 19 return, they were using that. And if you didn’t file an 18 or 19 return, they were using social security. Now, Social Security does keep a pretty good track of who’s who’s alive. But still people collect Social Security, their debt, some of those fall through the cracks. But but that’s how it happened. People who were given payments actually had to ceased. It’s kind of like people who vote and they die before the actual Election Day. You’ve had early voting already going on for a couple weeks now in some states, and some of those people will actually die before election day
that have cast votes. Right. So then so somebody does some sort of poll, like checking out who voted and then you find john smith had died, and they voted. How do you have dead people voting? It’s because
that’s, that’s one of the conspiracy theories that they come up with. They’ll they’ll they’ll do. They’ll do a research they’ll do their research and find out that there were people dead that voted, but they were mostly alive when they voted. And it’s difficult to track. Precisely. You could die the day before election. You could have failed your your ballot three weeks before the
Sure, sure. Or overseas and you’re killed in some car sidebar in a roadside bomb like okay, I’m with you.
Okay, yeah, this is one of those things where it was unavoidable. You try to recover the budget, they’ll try to recover the money from the from the people who should have gotten it but it was no grand conspiracy to give people money that weren’t entitled to it.
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. firstname.lastname@example.org you can call or text a ransom message 27472274477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies 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 over the Tampa Bay Times. This is a this is pretty disturbing to me. This is the Hillsborough County Sheriff publicized a sexting did it target gay men. These were people that were being a little bit like voyeuristic or exhibitionist and having some some naughty times in a public space. And I think it’s like a misdemeanor for it to be done. But then the sheriff decided to like publish it to their hundreds of thousands of followers on the on the social media sites. How do you feel about this in the way that I’m reading this article? It definitely seems like somebody is not fond of the same sex couples partaking in activities where they probably would have just said, hey, go get a room. Stop that. If it were a hetero couple.
That was actually I, I, I put this in here with a great deal of trepidation because I hadn’t read it. And I want those who believe in evidence. And I hear this accusation all the time about these bias biases, which do exist. I mean, humans have biases, like to see evidence. And so I put this thing in and I asked Brenda, to take a look at that for me, cuz we’re gonna talk about the podcast and I want I don’t want to sound insensitive. And she said, Well, you better read it. And after I read it, I said, well, gee, this is pretty clear that they were that they were targeting and what I interpret they weren’t actually having sex. They were meeting up with the hope of having sex. Fair enough. They weren’t meeting at the park with the hope of having sex. And the odd thing about it is that that, according to all the information in the article, the neighbors had complained that was my argument that race. Well, Brenda, I said, Well, you know, Brenda, here’s the deal. If you’ve got a park, and the people around the park are calling and complaining about activities, and it turns out that that most of the activity is between consenting same sex couples, the police did pick and choose who’s there at the Park fornicating. I mean, it is what it is. But that’s not what was happening to this situation. This was on overfunded law enforcement agency that has too much time and resources on its hand. This running an undercover operation that no one has asked them to do. And we’ll be talking about defunding the police. This is yet another example of why law enforcement could do with less funding.
There was a word I didn’t know I so the men arrested in these stings typically face a charge of entering or remain In a place for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or asik. nation I had I had to go look up that word.
I don’t know. Nope, never heard.
Oh, and now I gotta go look it up. Let’s do a quick Google search. It is an appointment to meet someone in secret, typically one made by lovers. Ah, that’s what the article says. I didn’t know that word prior to.
So so you people in Hillsborough County. You could you could do with fewer deputies. Because they clearly have far too much time on their hands. Now I’m not saying you should abolish the Hillsborough County law enforcement. I’m saying you could probably do with less.
There is also a picture in the article of the park layer and it looks like it’s an overgrown, not very well trafficked kind of area to it doesn’t look like it’s, you know, like whatever park there it is in in New York, where you just see gobs and gobs of people are sitting there on the Washington mall with the Washington Monument in your face and it’s just an open Park and people are flying kites. It doesn’t look like a park like that. At least the picture doesn’t depict it that
that picture doesn’t know. So
they are they are and then they’re just shaming people for for going and having the Ron Davis and ecig nations
Unknown Speaker 41:18
or what ecig nations?
Should I highlight? Should I emphasize the the first three letters that
Yeah, because the transcriptionist is never going to know.
As diggnation See, and I’m not cussing in this. Alright, too much too much. 12th grade humor. All right. And this is over a courthouse news and then a companion article from the Washington Post. Military tells High Court there is no time bar to rape case. This is I think this is something along your your one of your hot subjects of what’s the word statute of limitations?
Yeah, this is gonna be an interesting case when it comes down next spring, early summer. This is where you’ve got the the the the military and the the ministration. Kind of on different sides about the weather. But But statute limitations, not a constitutional right. Okay. It’s something we’ve had in law, but it’s not a constitutional right. But but they change the statute limitations after people commit their crimes. And therein lies the problem, because that’s what happened in this case, they changed statute limitations and they polished in 2006. Let me remind you in 2006, Congress, the White House was under the art camp when they did that. But that doesn’t matter, when when they abolished the statute limitations for for these type of offenses. So it’s something we’ll circle back on later. But but the military tailor tells the High Court that there’s no problem. And I tend to think that it’s a statue of limitations, whatever was in place at the time, and that should be the guideposts. But the way the courts have interpreted is, since it’s not a constitutional right, if the statute, there was a place at the time hadn’t expired, that they that they can barely extend the statute, which they made it an unlimited statute limitation on these of these crimes back in 2006.
I don’t even have anything to say, because I know that the person that has been the victim of this feels that they need to get their justice i that is a really hard thing to square there. And I know that you want to you draw the hard line and said, well, Justice has a time limit. I do find that that is a that’s a hard line to just cross over.
It is for me, Oh, well. Well, again, remember, the system is designed to be fair to both sides. Right? And you you’re leaving out you’re you’re acting as if the victim is the only side of the equation. We don’t only owe that alleged victim fairness, we own the accused fairness. And the more time that passes, the less likely we can give the accused fairness because the the quality of the case degrades and the witnesses die, and members fade. And we have a situation where we can’t give the accused a fair trial. So we cage a person who didn’t get treated fairly. And that’s the part that the victims advocates lose sight of. I understand your argument. If a person suffered or trauma, someone’s getting away with it. If they did it. That is all sad and everything. It’s unfortunate. But I worry about the caged the caged individual who didn’t receive a fair trial which is what one of the the ideals that our country is supposed to stand for. We are supposed to be the model of fairness and for the world to end And if we just make it so easy to get convictions on the appeals court that military appeals court said that that the charges should be dismissed because of the statute limitations that this like say the US Justice Department is arguing against a military say that that the military appellate court got it wrong. The Court of military appeals got it wrong. They called the Court of Appeals for the armed forces. But there’s they’re arguing to give the court of the military and I find that odd because it seems like to me that in terms of the campus stuff, this administration has been on the side of due process and presumption. And it seems like to me that they would understand that if if enough years go by, there’s no way you can get due process, just like the hated senator in Alabama, Roy Moore, the what would be center he never he never actually achieve the status of Senator but but but that to me, it’s it’s not that hard, because I’m for all sides be treated fairly, not just the accusing party.
And what is the punishment in the ucmj? For this for for a rape crime? I’m not sure. You tell the second paragraph it says For years, the US military code is placed no statute of limitations on the lodging of rape claims as the crime is one punishable by death.
I don’t think I don’t think they actually impose that punishment. But
that is correct. They said somebody in 1960 did something and they actually sought the death penalty. Payment if that’s on the table. Wow, that is a frightening. Oh,
but yes, this will be one that we’ll be circling back on. If we’re still in business. When this decision comes.
Larry, we are we are only like a quarter an eighth of the way to our run of 1000 episodes
was that we’re gonna shut down after 1000.
We will hope to we will have the registry problem solved by 1000 episodes guaranteed.
Already, I’ll write that down in my book.
All right, the next article comes from the collateral consise kakade. I can never This is such a hard thing to say collateral consequences Resource Center, Michigan makes sealing of convictions automatic, including for some felonies. We have a second article from the Detroit Free Press about this one too. This is pretty awesome that how many states this is there’s only a one of a handful of states that have become automatic expungement or sealed records states where after x period of time for such and such kinds of crimes, that you have a clean slate so to speak. That’s pretty awesome.
It really is. And I wish we had a Michigan person here to explain it. But it it is well explained in the collateral consequences Resource Center about those, it’ll be automatic and those that won’t be automatic. And then the exclusions are down to the bottom of the of the article. And of course, you know who got excluded?
I’m pretty sure be of ours are excluded.
Yep. That’s always what happens. But but it is a step, a significant step in the right direction. And it was bipartisan, Michigan is under democratic governor but Republican legislature and they came together and got this done. So it’s fantastic news.
And is there anything that we should cover the Detroit Free Press one is also quite long as I’m looking through it.
Yeah, I didn’t even read that one. So I don’t know what’s in Detroit Free Press.
Just Just this what the legislation does over in that article says the state follows Pennsylvania, Utah, California and adopting an automated system to wipe clean certain convictions from public records after a period of time, Michigan law will apply retroactively, and is the first to automatically clear prior low level felonies.
Unknown Speaker 48:59
Jen and chat says Josh worked on it. Yeah, our friend over at the decarceration nation podcast. He had some hand. I don’t know what his involvement is. But he had some hand in helping move that along.
I think he drafted it himself. He may have
we should pause right now and I’ll call him up and try and get him on the show. So we can have an interview with him right now.
Let’s do it. Okay, the next one is about more about stimulus.
Okay. And this is the one from the appeal. I forget No, no, no, no, no, I move that one over because that was the same one that we did back. That’s the stimulus money that’s going to the incarcerated
kid so we don’t have to deal with that one.
Correct. We we combine that with the other one. This is a this is Florida’s most powerful pro police lobbying group is an anti reform force. This is from the Florida Sheriffs Association games a third of its multimillion dollar budget by selling big ticket items like truck And mobile command centers to local sheriff’s departments and other government agencies. This to be sounds like policing for profit layer. This sounds like you could in the nefarious kind of ways you could have the police actually go hunting for people that are committing crimes and then they go impound the vehicles and houses and whatever stuff they can find, and then they go sell that off at auction so that they can have more money in their budget.
Well, what I took from it is the immense amount of money that they spent in Florida to to extinguish any reform legislation. And they documented that in this appeal article about about the significant presence they have and even even things that are that are bipartisan, beat a dead end, but when the Florida Sheriffs Association, oppose it. So again, reform can’t happen until we get the law enforcement apparatus on board. And that that’s the problem here. The
What do you think about them like snatching, not snatching, I realized that’s not the right word, you’ve committed a crime and then they impound your car. And then next thing, you know, Hey, can I go get my car back then? Sorry, we sold it.
Well, that’s a whole separate debate. We have been here for a long time about asset forfeiture, which I’m dead set against but but I wanted to focus on during the 2020 session, the former Sheriffs Association opposed a bill from Republican state Senator Rob Bradley that would have imposed limits on maximum sentences for those convicted of certain drug offenses. And even americans for prosperity, the lobbying group founded by by brothers, Charles and David Koch, supported Bradley’s bill, but after the Florida Sheriffs Association, analysis, opposition, the bill failed array there there. The next quote says, There are very few things the legislature we find bipartisan support behind. But the criminal justice Democrats or Republicans are finding common ground. Unfortunately, it’s law enforcement and prosecutors calling the shots. This is not Larry saying that. This is the reality of what’s happening. We’re up against the law enforcement apparatus and the people that you’ve like, they’re a little pretty things that they wear and all that insignia that you vote for that tell you how wonderful they are. And these are the people that are preventing reform from happening.
So yeah, we are voting for the people that turn it like I remember when I first left, I read an article in reason magazine, it was about the prison lobby, like the guards lobby. And I think this is pretty much exclusive to California, that they would lobby to make longer sentences and harsher and all that stuff. And I was like that’s a really severe conflict of interest that people get locked up, then they lobby to make more people locked up that creates job security from a not a genuine incentive structure.
What do you mean by not a genuine incentive structure?
Well, I mean, it’s not like they are seeking justice, so to speak, they’re not trying to seek reform of being in the prison system, they are enhancing sentences so that they can keep their jobs. Go. I know. And I’d like I’d never considered this as like the incentive structure. And this is the same thing here in this article of like, well, we need to keep our jobs. I shouldn’t police go into their job, like the job of Nassau is we would really like to not have to exist, that is the like, the ultimate goal of NASA would be same thing with us here. Our goal would be that we don’t have to worry about a registry, which will probably never happened. So the police officers and the prison guard Association should their goal should be to have 100% safe cities and not need prison guards, because everybody abides by the laws that we have established to be like the the social contract of living society a certain way.
Well, that’s ideal is a function. What would that? Of course, well, how many people want to abolish their own jobs and their own careers?
I get that, but for a safer, more wholesome society, like society at large. I know it’s like, I know, I know. It’s a what’s the word? down it there’s a p word. I’m thinking of the liberal do good isms. What it is, that’s what it is. So anyway, so this is this is a misguided incentive structure that they could be in, they could vote to have harder and tougher laws and resources that they can acquire from just citizens who make some kind of mistake and then they steal the hundred thousand dollar car and go sell it at an auction. And that helps fund their system that would then just feed the system.
Oh, well, it’s it’s one of those realities of life. What did I say about it? I haven’t said it for a while. It’s not the world the way it should be. But what’s the other part of that?
The world as it is be?
That’s right. The world as it is B and the the the law enforcement organizations beat Sheriffs Association, police associations, district attorneys associations, these people, they get to come to the legislature, largely on public funding, because they incorporate that into their day duty. They don’t volunteer and show up and take off personal time they show there. In fact, they generally designate someone to be their lobbyists, but they get to come in and scare people to death on public body about how these token reforms that are very well thought out would be would be so disastrous. It further an article each year, the Florida share civilization employs a battalion of lobbyists to ensure their prison sentences remain long, mandatory minimum drug laws, sell the books, and police departments can’t buy up all the equipment they’d like. That’s again, that’s them saying it not me saying it. But that’s what’s that’s what happens. In my experience.
Sure, totally. Okay, well, then let’s move over to Mother Jones. And this article is titled private prisons have spent more on this election than any other in history, I think this is probably going to be a pretty short segment. But if you look at the graph, what I have up on the screen, or I can describe it super quick, just a bar graph of how much they have spent to various candidates. And in so 2020 2019 and 2018, they have spent what would appear to be two, three or four times as much donations to Republican candidates than everybody else. And the number seems to stay roughly the same two Democratic candidates. Well, that
seems to be going down, if you look at the blue part of it, dropped into it. But yeah. But I’m gonna take a moment to say that that I don’t want to imply that they’re buying Republican votes, because I’m actually on the backside of this. And most of the money comes because they like to weigh your voting. They like the speeches you give, they like to put your say, but this graph says what I could never say what people would say I’m a person. And this tells me and should tell you that they like the republicans a lot better than they like the Democrat Party. If you look at what sliver of their donation skills, the Democrat Party, and then you look at what cost of the republicans and then the other parties, I don’t know who other what party setting that accomplices, but the democrat party doesn’t get a whole lot from private prison industry.
Yeah, and just for anyone who wants to yell at me for having an article from Mother Jones, the the source to it has come from says opensecrets.org, which I haven’t heard of, to be honest with you center for Center for Responsive Politics I have heard of, that’s where their source data came from.
Now, now, I can dig a little deeper and tell you why the Democrat Party typically would not be on the receiving end of private prisons, the prison workforce so that the public sectors are largely unionized, and that they’re there, they’re not going to be typically strong supporters of the Republican Party, very, very few unions and endorse Republican candidates, because republicans generally aren’t not pro union, generally speaking. So the so the the the private prison operators, which largely are not union, they’re not going to be attractive to the to the democratic party that they feel is just the reality of how the the democrats are more for having a presence in the public sector, not in the private sector. So that’s why you’re not getting that. That’s why they’re not receiving the donation. So the democratic side? Sure.
And then our final article is going to be this one’s funny. He’s just, you gave this one a couple days ago, it’s from justice.gov. It’s a sex offender arrested at LAX, attempting to leave us allegedly failed to provide authorities notice of his international travel plans. I’m pretty sure this is IML. Related, there.
Unknown Speaker 59:06
Well, this is one of those things where I encourage people to follow the law. And if you read the article, he had initialed on his registration. As recently as a few months before his arrest that he understood that he had this obligation under federal law to to notify. And he didn’t provide notice that they actually had left the gate as I understand it, and they returned to the gate to deplane him and prosecute him and he’ll get a federal term of incarceration. And this is one of those things where I wish that the litigation would really zero in on this 21 day advance notice requirement because I feel like that that’s where the meat of this argument is. All the other stuff is less compelling about so imaginary right you have to be in a foreign nation. But you do have the right in my opinion, to travel without being impeded, particularly with this 21 day advance notice they don’t provide any exigent for any exigent travel under circumstances. And this notice that they say, and it’s fairly innocuous, but it does say that a person has been convicted of an offense against the child or minor. And, and it’s, it’s tragic to me that there hasn’t been more focus on this prior restraint of travel, you don’t have a right to be in Singapore. But you do have the right to try to travel to Singapore, Singapore will let you without being impeded by your own government, requiring a 21 day itinerary and all the stuff that they require. Now, Singapore still may not want you. But that’s up to them. But you don’t even get the chance to travel Singapore in any any circumstances where where you can’t give the advanced orders because there’s no exception under law for not giving it I
still don’t quite get why we care if somebody wants to leave we covered a Supreme Court case, if I’m not mistaken. And like Elena Kagan or someone like that said, like, why did we go get them from whatever destination country they were in and bring them back? Like they were gone? They can’t recidivate in this country? If they are not here. So if this person wanted to go to Egypt, why would we not let them go to Egypt?
Well, he’s not leaving permanently. And the reason why is because we have made agreements with other countries, that we want them to give us information about people who are traveling here, who would be less than fully desirable, so that we can turn them away. And if we do not provide information, it is less incentive for the other nations to provide us information about people we might not want to admit. And it could be people who have criminal convictions, or it could be people who are on terrorist watch list, or various things that we would want to know from foreign nations. So we are in an international agreement. That’s why they call it international Megan’s Law, that we will provide a two way flow of information of all of our, what we consider to be bad guys, if other nations will provide us information about their bad guys. And so the reason why we care is because if we don’t do this, there’s no incentive for other nations to do the same thing for us. That’s why we care nd
I see. So it’s just about the reciprocity with other nations.
That is correct. And we do receive information from other nations about people for a variety of reasons. And believe it or not, we don’t admit a lot of folks in the United States, I do not have over Wait, we do not have open borders. Now. I wish the people who are so adamant that they have the right to be in another nation. And I wish they would lobby our government, that we just allow anyone to come in here that wants to be here. And magically, they quickly changed their opinion, for some reason about having open borders into America, they only want or open borders for an American to go someplace else. Correct.
And this is a, this crime faces the statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for not filling out some paperwork and providing advanced notice.
Well, but that’s not the way the prosecution will spend it. So they’ve already done a press releases of CC, this is an immediate press release. So so so this is this is going to be a high profile case. And they are sending a message to people in that jurisdiction, that the US Attorney’s Office takes this very seriously, that you have to provide this notice. And if you don’t, we’ll put you in federal prison. So they will be seeking a significant prison sentence and they will use anything they can, including, like if he happens to have a distasteful offense that that you can really embellish, they will do everything they can to give him as much time as they can give him so that he understands and the whole community understands that this is serious business. We’re not going to let you do this and get away with it. It’s like a slap on the wrist. So so this is this is going to be dealt with very harshly.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:13
Well, that is all the articles, Larry, we have a special event coming up in a couple of days.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:21
Yes. I have been teasing it for a while people may have seen some Twitter postings. They’ve seen connections postings with a big just a blank thing. That’s 654. And I’m telling everybody this because on the day that you’re hearing this when this gets released, there is been a movie released that fyp Studios has released and it’s called the intruders. Have you watched it?
I’ve watched it. What do you think? It’s fantastic. It is so funny and and very, very realistic, but maybe a little embellishment, but very, very good.
It is totally meant to be satire. I sat down with a friend of a friend and he writes movie scripts. And he I saw some of the little shorts that he made. And he wrote a script with a guy named Freddy offender. And he is doing his Halloween ritual. And the intruders ensue. And so that the the handlers come in and they harass him. And there’s a takedown and it’s it’s all it is a lot. It was a lot of fun. It was a lot of work. And I think it came out quite excellent. And I’m going to release it to the world on Tuesday, and I’m super excited about it.
I think that our our audience is going to go up exponentially.
And actually, Teresa points has something it’s based on a true story that which is very true. It is based on actual events, and you know, using different people’s stories together because like will in Tennessee still has challenges going to church during Halloween, which is ridiculous.
They have that blackout period of like, almost a month, I think.
Yes, it was 21 days, I think. So anyway, I hope everyone enjoys it, you will find it over at the YouTube page. That’s pretty much the only place that I have a way to deliver it to you. So go check out the registry matters YouTube page. And Tuesday it will be released to the world.
Alrighty, well, we have we have some fantastic news about new patrons. This week.
We do we do? We got to and I hate when this happens. I don’t hate that we have patrons but we have two Michaels. So Michael, thank you. And then Michael, number two with a very generous contribution. Thank you. Also, I can’t thank everybody enough for being patrons. And I would also like to point out that there’s like 100 people in chat and that’s embellishing but there’s a like a dozen people in chat and I think all of you for for participating this evening. Really appreciate it.
It is soon going to be that we have as many people watching and listening to us as we record as rush has on his digital cam is just a better that is.
It could be true. Could be true, Larry, I think that man I thought that we were gonna have a lot more there was gonna run longer. But I think we’re about done.
How do people how do people contact us and support us and all this kind of stuff? Oh, I want to I want to promote the the transcripts where we’re getting a little bit of traffic. But I was hoping for more the first our soul digest newsletter whether add in there without and it should have all the prisoners should have it by now. There was some delay because of elections. And bulk mail takes backseat to election mailed by statute and are both business mail. We’re still hearing that they were trickling in this past week, but they should all be out now. But we we want to get more transcripts out we are set up for getting transcripts out, we would like for people in the prisons to be able to to share the podcast via the transcript. So subscribe combined into to more than one of you go in together but buy a transcript for a housing unit and share the thing but but it takes a $15 a month patron and you can designate for your loved one to receive the transcript or we’re letting the people subscribe directly to us for $10 a month for the transcript and they are put out usually the last few weeks. We’re getting them in the mail by Tuesday after the recording, but they they go out no later than the week of the public gets that they’re going to go out that week at some point. But I’ve been getting about Tuesday.
So what you’re saying, if they’re a $15 patron, you’d have to reach out and either through Patreon, you could message us email registry matters. email@example.com tell us we’re going to need the full run name, inmate number, all that address stuff to get somebody to get it into prisons, which we could then tie this over real quick to making the nonprofit because that’ll help get it into prisons, won’t it?
Well, we’re hoping it’ll help do that and get some financial support, we would like for the price in prison to be less. But it pretty much devours what we’re charging for the production cost and the postage cost and the the envelope are sending about an envelope. So for the moment, and and we’d like for them to be less costly. And if we do the nonprofit if we get approved, and then that’ll be part of our educational mission. And then I would imagine there’ll be donations to help support the prison component of the podcast and then we can we can cut that price down as much as we can cut it down which I’d like to see it go down dramatically.
Fantastic. That is all in your neck of the woods, man. I don’t I’m not handling any of that. And I appreciate you doing all of that. That’s really good. But we were about to say so the website is registry matters. dot registry matters.co I’m feeling like gonna have some, some brain farts here that you always have. And phone number 747-227-4477. I already said it registry matters firstname.lastname@example.org. And the best way to support the podcast to show your love email@example.com slash registry matters. And thank you both both of the Michaels for supporting the podcast this week. That’s all I got there. thank you as always for joining It
is my pleasure, Andy. That is why I am here. Have a great night.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:09
You’ve been listening to F YP