registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west transmitting across the internet. This is episode I think it’s 158 of registry matters, Larry, Happy New Year. How are you?
It’s actually 159. but who’s counting? Are you serious?
I just looked at Oh, it is 159 Oh, crap. I’m messed up. All right. 159. Happy New Year.
Well, thank you so much. Glad to be back in 2021.
It is 2021. Can we maybe take just a couple minutes? Where there? Can you think of anything super significant from 2020, from the PFR stance that that we could reflect on real quick before we dive into the scrape content for the day?
And I gotta hit you. I didn’t even prep you for this one. I was something I was thinking about. Is there anything that we can reflect on as being either good or bad from 2020? that we could highlight just real quick?
Well, we’re certainly we’re certainly building the body of case law in a number of areas, particularly in the First Amendment with with the the the additions from other courts that have adopted the reasoning of packing him those are significant developments. And the recognition that the generation first generation registries like existed in Alaska for more courts are are beginning to depart from the Smith versus doe analysis and saying we have to look at current generation so that those are positive developments. and expand on
that real quick since you’re talking so Smith versus doe then said like, because there really wasn’t much of an internet at the time, there were no disabilities and restraints as I really love that term, no living restrictions to work restrictions, things like that, like that registry, quote, unquote, would be okay. And I’m making air quotes. They’re departing from that thing, doing more things than that that’s not okay.
That’s correct. The lawyers are finally beginning to own the cases that are not being decided by summary judgment, they’re actually having factual development in the way of trials. The the cases are being developed where the the registers they exist today, are shown to be far more debilitating and having disabilities that didn’t exist when Smith versus doe was decided. And as I’ve said, so many times on the podcast, the Supreme Court didn’t say you can do anything you want to do. They have basically said, you can have this registry as exists now, because it doesn’t do and they went through the litany of things that doesn’t do since then. law makers have done those things. And that’s why they’re they’re experiencing losses in court because they couldn’t stop at a registry, a registry wasn’t what they really wanted. What they really wanted, was to continue to inflict punishment on people after they had been punished sufficiently through their sentence and the expiration of your sentence, that’s what they really wanted. That’s the same thing. But with the sex offender, six, civil commitment, they don’t want to do any treatment. All they want to do is continue to warehouse people, after they’ve paid their debt to society. Let’s be clear on that. That’s what they want with the registry. And that’s what they want with civil commitment. If they really wanted to treat people, they would treat them at a mental health setting. To begin with.
I completely agree with you, I find it interesting the way that you word that I was, I was following the the movement, maybe a year or so before you and I established any kind of a relationship and I never really heard anybody describe what you just said about how the registry was designed and how that Smith v doe decision. They no one ever described it as saying, well, you can do whatever you want with the registry. Like that’s how it always sort of seemed to me it’s like, Hey registry, like the voters voted for it. And it’s okay. But you really draw a line at the at that decision, like, Hey, you can do this, but you can’t do whatever you want. And like you said now with like Michigan and so many other places are having decisions come down with no you can’t do whatever you want. I find that to be really a stark contrast. And what I’ve always heard people describe how the registry is set up.
Both I’ve been told they’ve been told that like when the the part time legislatures, which most of our states have. They’re not filled with expert analysis. Analysts, I should say, they’re not filled with us. You’ll have someone coming from California, where they have a gigantic well funded legislature or New York where they have lots of money. But these states don’t have that the smaller states don’t have those resources. And the law enforcement apparatus comes in and tells them When they’re when they put forth their wish list of a new proposal of things they want to do in registration, they tell them that it’s okay. And if if if a token lawmaker says, Well, wait a minute, this seems like it might be unconstitutional. The first thing they say is the Supreme Court said a Smith versus Doe, that it’s okay. And the non lawyer people, particularly but even lawyer people, they they’re they’re looking at them saying, Bill, okay. Well, you’re saying that the Supreme Court upheld us, all right. And and they give it the thumbs up, because nobody from the registered side is there to say, actually, that’s not what the court said, is Smith versus Doe, they actually said, you can collect names. And you can do something similar to a driver’s license renewal. They didn’t say you can do all the things that have been heaped on through the years. They didn’t say that. I gotcha.
All right. Well, do you want to give us a little teaser about what we have coming down this evening? Or do you want to just dive right into it all?
Well, let’s do a teaser. We have we have some questions that were submitted. I think they all came from behind the walls This time, I think, prisoners and then we have we have a review of a decision from the California Supreme Court that came out on the 28th. It has to do with pf Rs. And then we have a small discussion on on the emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court out of Louisiana. And we’re gonna talk about Pell Grants, and they work on a bash Governor Cuomo.
As Governor Cuomo, man, we could actually probably like make that a whole segment on its own is a bash Cuomo.
So all right, so let’s do it.
Alright, well, So question number one, it says, Dear Andy, and Larry, and this is dated on 1213. And just to get to the meat and potatoes of it, is, how do I get around the internet and can connected device issue? And you handed this to me, Larry, and I said, I don’t want to tell anybody how to, like circumvent them monitoring your internet usage. So um, yeah, that one’s scares me. And I guess we can have a private conversation, but I am not responsible. Is that what this person is talking about?
I didn’t interpret the question that way. Because if you read further down, he’s asking, Can I file a 1983 or 2254? Now, so what the way I interpret and Adam, thank you for the for the question, the way I interpret our question is, he wants to, he’s anticipating that he’s going to have these restrictions to deal with when he gets out. And he’s correct. In all likelihood, he’s got to have restrictions he did not know about, that never came to his attention. until until, until he’s on supervision. So he’s learning to file now to try to extinguish those restrictions. And as his first point, I would say that this is getting close to having an individual wanting advice about their case, which we’re not allowed to do. But generally, I would say without, without crossing that line, that if you file something now, while you’re still in custody, and you have not had these conditions handed to you, and you have not been told to sign these, these could apply to you. I can tell you this, if I were licensed to practice law, and that petition came to my desk, my response would be as follows. That this is hypothetical, that that that this, this might be an issue and it might not be an issue. That is a distressed upon speculation. And I would ask the court to dismiss this request, because you don’t know yet what you’re going to be required to do? I don’t think so that would be by my expectation they would move to dismiss because it’s not ripe.
And this goes to having standing because you’re not being harmed. You don’t have controversy yet.
But well, he would have the requisite standing if the conditions were imposed on him. But But if they have not been imposed, if he if he if he’s just imagining based on what people have told him, that he’s got to have these things. He’s he’s he’s he’s pretty mature. And courts don’t decide hypothetical questions. Right.
Interesting. And 1983? Is, is that just like codeword for a hideous? No, the
25th force ABS to the 1983 is the civil rights 42 section 42 us code?
I’ve heard that brought up on another podcast before okay.
Yeah, yeah. So so. So yeah. And I would guess that that that, that they would try to extinguish the petition, if you filed it now, that would be my expectation. That’s certainly what I would look at if I if I were faced with it. And I know people get angry, but always try to imagine that. I mean, the other person’s, the other party she was I would imagine what they would do. It helps you know what to do if you don’t what your opponent’s likely to do.
So yeah, that’s fair. Yeah, you when you’re when you’re playing chess, you should play chess from the other side of the board and try to figure out what they’re going to do to figure out what you’re going to do. Don’t just make your moves blindly. I wanted to share on this then just a teeny little bit of anecdotal, before I was released, knowing that I kind of live by computers, I had someone call, like, figured out who my probation officer or potentially predict probation officer would be called the office and said, Hey, so and so’s getting out soon. And you know, they use a computer and they said, Nope, not gonna happen. And, oh, crap. Now I got all this fear and anxiety. And I get to the office, when I’m released, like, in maybe it was the day or day after, and I go sit down, he’s like, and I handed him a letter from the company that I was going to work for. And he said, Just don’t do anything you’re not supposed to do. And that was the end of it. And I’ve never had any issues with computers since. So it’s really interesting how it just was like, like nothing. I see all these things of people challenging and having restrictions and it just never applied to me.
Well, I mean, I can I can say that he did say that. Adam, on this question. He does say that, that this was imposed on him, but he was previous on probation. Now, he, his argument would be, hypothetically, that he can anticipated when he gets out again, they’re going to pose that condition. But again, since it wasn’t imposed by the court, and just as you pointed out, you may he may have a different probation officer, the case law may have developed since then. And they may what they did previously, they might not do again, like I say, I think there’s probably not anything a person can file this particular situation until they actually have the restriction imposed on it.
And everything matters based on your probation officer based on their supervisor based on the county based on the state based on like the overall climate of what the pressure is to like, I mean, so many things could have changed from whenever this happened originally. That’s correct. All right. And then we will move on to question number two. And this says listener question from Rm 150. Oh, four one Rm 159 says perhaps this question is asking for more speculation than intended. But what is the legal significance of something being labeled a utility? And if things continue to move in this direction? What might this change about the exercise of blanket internet bans, after all supporters of such bans like in the practice to revocation of driving privileges for those convicted of major traffic offenses, but I would argue that a person today has greater access to alternatives to driving than to any real alternative to the Internet, and that the practice of blanket bans is more akin to telling someone that they can not have power in their home because their offense involve the use of electricity. What are your thoughts? Can you imagine that someone uses electricity to grow marijuana, and you know, their electricity bill goes through the roof. And because they use electricity to commit that crime, then they are no longer allowed to have electricity.
I mean, it’s a it’s a great analysis of correlation there that, that that a, and I think that we’re going, my personal thought is that we are going to move more towards the internet being viewed as a public utility. But the it all starts out differently than the public utility concept came about because of, it really wasn’t practical. When you think of public utilities, you think about water, electricity, and gas, it really wasn’t practical to have all these competing companies stringing wires, you choose your electric electric company to buy electricity from. So so you end up having monopoly monopolistic practices within a service area, and the the the companies were they they agreed to serve everyone in the service area. And in exchange for the regulatory paper, in the old days, companies were guaranteed a rate of return so that would they would the public utility Commission’s would set the rates in the state sufficient to guarantee the competent, 10 12% rate of return on their investment. And they would agree to serve everyone. But the internet did come about that same way. You don’t need, you don’t need the you don’t need wires and pipes. You need water for your pipes for water pipes for gas
too. Because that said, you don’t have the tubes.
You don’t. You don’t need the same infrastructure on the LD internet. But But regardless of whether you need the same infrastructure, people, people’s lives depend on the internet more and more, you you you can’t do it. I mean, you can actually deal with social security by phone. But But people now create an online profile for their social security to manage their benefits to apply for jobs to do everything. They do it online. And I think if you if you listen to what the President’s argument is about the section 230 He’s making a tangentially similar argument about about how he’s being denied access. Because because of the, you know, the restrictions because of the truth detection, that that that Twitter and all these platforms are saying that that they won’t allow untrue things to be posted. You know how they’re bartering content. The President’s making that same argument, yeah, he’s making, he’s making simple argument that, that they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. So I believe with his power, and people like him, recognizing that, that that, that the internet is an integral part of everyday life, we may be moved towards that. It big defined as a public utility, but it’s not that way. today.
He, as someone reached out to me and told me that they were watching Trump do a town hall of some sort within the last week, and it was only and maybe he was watching it on Facebook. And I like all of my little Tingley senses went up, I was like, oh, if if the President of the United States exclusively used Facebook to deliver their message, oh, my God, everything would have to come down. Something I heard about, if a restaurant wanted to not serve a group of people, like they can choose to do that. But if a politician goes in there, it has to be open to everybody. Because you can’t say, segment the population from a political point of view. And if Trump started using as a political official, you know, after he leaves office, then then that would all go away. But he can’t just use, I’m sorry, he could use Facebook as that only platform, but then Facebook could not restrict access to anybody from watching it.
So while I like, I like the way you’re headed, if if if public discourse is more and more online, which by this pandemic, we’re going to have our legislative session that way, they’re going to they’re they’re going to be the committee meeting is going to be virtual far as I’ve been able to hear. If you were not allowed on the internet, you will not be able to participate, you would be excluded from government because the capital buildings Don’t be locked down tighter than a houndstooth this year. And that’s a colloquial term there for those who are not resolved.
But when you say they’re going to be done, virtually, they’re going to be using their own platform, they’re not going to be doing these things through Facebook, Twitter, like none of those massive social media platforms, they’re going to, for lack of a better term, they’re going to make a zoom meeting for their for the events.
But wouldn’t if you were not allowed to have an internet accessible device? wouldn’t matter if you had a blanket ban? Wouldn’t that keep you from being able to, to, to hook up to it?
Totally. It’s just when we talk about these internet bands for people, you have repeatedly said only under the most extreme of circumstances, like they can’t restrict you from using the internet, but they can heavily restrict it and monitor and so forth. That Facebook then is where our challenges of blocking people. So if your legislature is hosting these things online, then that’s that’s the difference that I’m making is most most most everyone has access to some kind of device for them to participate. It would only be in those rare circumstances. But God, Larry, what do you do, like you have said, if they made a ban with like the 1000 foot restrictions, I remember Paul Doobly, putting up a map with the circle of the state capitol. And there was some sort of daycare or something within 1000 feet, and there’s a presence restrictions you’d like I’ll be damned if I’m not going to the state capitol to redress my grievances. Because of that 1000 foot circle, I am going to the Capitol, and I’m going to go talk to those people. Would you then apply the same logic here if they said you can’t use this, but that’s the only way for you to participate? Would you go do it in any do it anyway?
Well, it’s easy to say what you would would do face to face learning the consequences, but it’s one of those things where someone has to be willing to do it, because that’s one way to bring the controversy and the constitutional challenge forward. Like Well, you you would have standing to file if there were such a restriction imposed on you without placing yourself in jeopardy, but it makes more of a potent point if you if you do it in real time. You know, if you say hey, I’m showing up to capitol because during a session for 30 days that I have to be here now. Otherwise you pay it might take you a year to two before you get anything but get your case to court.
Interesting. Wow. All right. And so then to highlight the point, though, is that there there isn’t really any sort of alternative to the internet. So like you know, we can’t it’s sort of how connections got created with ourselves that we could at least have our own social media platform. And but you don’t have an alternative on when you look at the Burger King, marquee and it says go to P BK jobs calm or whatever to apply for a job. You don’t have an alternative.
That is correct and supervising authorities, I hate to break it to you what you’re going to need to do. I know it’s complicated for you. But what you’re going to need to do is you’re going to need to develop a list of internet sites, that would be problematic. And you’re going to need to develop a criteria for offenders who you can legitimately restrict from those problematic sites, you’re going to have to let go of this notion, you can ban everybody from everything. And you’re going to have to strategically target restrictions on people for particular sites. And if you’ll do that, I know it’s hard for you. But if you’ll do that, you won’t find yourself in court all the time with these constitutional challenges.
It’s not rocket science, it’s not even that hard to do there. It’s just not that hard to do.
Well, it is for them, because they’re afraid that they might overlook somebody See, human beings can be charming. And you can have the most beautifully drawn criteria in the world. And you can have people who could smoker folks that get an exception made for them. And it was that exceptions may end up or something goes wrong. There’s the fear of when those cameras come rolling in. How did this person have access to do this? So it’s easier just to have a blanket ban? Because Did you don’t have people falling through the cracks? And but they’re going to have to get beyond that they’re going to have to actually develop criteria for what sites are problematic. And what individual characteristics on offenders make those sites problematic. And if you’ll do that, you’ll be able to constitutionally supervise people and protect the public. And I know that’s a difficult concept, but that’s what you need to do.
And then we’ll move over to our third question. It says hello, I wanted to ask a question I hear it’s extremely hard to transfer supervision of pfrs to New Mexico, then I heard that all pfrs have a curfew if you’re not at work. They say you can’t live with your own kids. I have a 17 year old son and my wife and I plan to have more children in the future. So I would not be able to live at home. That sounds insane. Also, what are the residency restrictions eg 1000 foot rule all that just curious. We need to find a decent place to live in a landlord that will rent to a PFR if you have any information that can help, please let me know. My wife has a Bachelor’s of Science blah, blah, blah. I don’t see how any of that matters, but then says thanks again for remembering me over the holidays. Larry, this is your neck of the woods.
Well, since I don’t see it anymore, I had it in the Dropbox, you’re gonna have to go through the questions. There was several questions and there were so we’re gonna have to go through them. I again, expect my memory to be that long.
I do. Still there and Dropbox. I didn’t move it. I just copied it. Oh, I did so yeah, it’s still there. But it says I hear it’s extremely hard to transfer supervision of PFR to New Mexico. I think it’s probably equally hard everywhere. Nobody wants you.
So yeah, that would be that there’s nothing that unique New Mexico may be a little more zealous about the trying to invent something to turn the defender down for some states might actually just go strictly by the rules and and the Mexico is known to to invent something they’ll say well a school bus stop just might locate here. It’s not here now but it by so with with New Mexico I I would say that it’s it’s a tough one to get an out of state supervision transferred here. And but but I don’t think any state is open and welcoming. I just out the folder now. Okay, so so Yes, that is true. curfew then
Yeah, go ahead. curfew. Yes.
Yes, curfew curfew is is common. It can range from six o’clock on at five or six in the evening. Early curfew. And I think the latest that they’re they’re granting is a nine, a nine o’clock curfew. Now that there’s an exception for that if your job goes past nine o’clock, but if your job doesn’t go past nine o’clock, you can’t be out past nine o’clock. And then the but you can’t say your kids, I’ve never heard of that. So I think that’s a little prison mumbo jumbo there. If you had it inside the home victim, meaning that the offense happened within the confines of the family unit, whether it’s a child or a niece or nephew. If you had an inside the home, hands on victim, they will look at that with a great deal of scrutiny. Because there’s justification there. I mean, that’s them doing their job. If, if you are going to to be supervised for a sexual offense that you had a hands on inside the home offense, you’re going to run into some problems. But if you just simply have a biological child and your offense had nothing to do with them. The family unit, I don’t recall them giving a great deal of difficulty for people living with their kids. So that so that that one is not something I’m familiar with.
And then I guess we can move over to the that sounds insane part, what are the residency restrictions, 1000 foot rule and all that jump.
Now, keep in mind, we don’t have any restrictions imposed by the registry itself. These are only conditions that apply while you’re under supervision, it’s 1000 feet from, from schools, playgrounds, parks and places where children are likely to congregate with 1000 feet is it’s not really clearly defined. Last time I looked at the probation parole department policy, it says, well, it doesn’t tell how they take the measurement doesn’t say if they measure it from the outermost property line to the structure. But it’s generally 1000 feet. So when you’re thinking about where you might want to live in Mexico, you would want to measure in the most ridiculous way that you could imagine that they would measure it out. So that you would make sure you are at least 1000 feet in any way that they could calculate it. That’s what you would want to do. Yeah, I
was a friend of mine, like blindly bought a house, he just like up, I’ll buy this one I was like, man you are just playing with. I mean, he bought one that’s so far out in the middle of nowhere. But I was like, Man, you don’t know about some sort of daycare, that’s somewhere around the corner. Like I was like, Oh, my God, you’re gonna close on this house and be like, sorry, you can’t live here.
That has that has happened on occasion?
Unknown Speaker 26:36
Of course it is.
Let’s see, we need to find a place to live with a landlord that will rent to a PFR. I you know, like that’s, that’s just you just have to go through the numbers. And you know, and call this one call that one call this one call that one. And I think that’s about it.
Well, actually, the Liberty and Justice Coalition, which is the state affiliate, we actually have a member who is very, very good with pfrs. His his rental units are not in the high rent district. But he is very, very accommodating. And so we would certainly have a door to open now, if you’re looking for looking for exquisite high end housing. He doesn’t have any of that. Most people that we deal with are not looking for that high end housing. They’re just looking for average housing. And yes, we would have someone we can refer a person to that would that would not discriminate based on the DFR stats.
Do I know this person?
I don’t think you do.
Okay. Very good. Let’s see, that’s questions one, two, and three. Well, then let’s go over to what would be essentially the feature event and this is the case with Janice Bellucci in California. And she’s well known for those. She does a lot of work on behalf of the pfrs Can you give us like the the quick two sentence version and then we’ll dig into it?
Sure, this is this is a case that arose because of Proposition 57. And proposition 57 was one of those famous citizen ballot initiatives that was supposed to help reduce prison population, which California has been grossly overcrowded for years. And, and the implements implementation stage of the proposition. They decided even despite the language in the proposition itself, that they will go to exclude people that were required to register for a present offense or anyone who had a previous offense, regardless what their offense that we’re serving present time for. So this case be entered his way to the court and favorable decision came down on the 28th of December from the California Supreme Court
that they would not be working right there at Cal at Christmas time.
Isn’t it absurd that they were working?
That is alright, well, then we have a bunch of questions that we can go over to dig into the content here. So So you put this in here called v. Galvin, it was just released on the 28th I read it I man, look, I didn’t read the decision. I’ll be honest with you. And you’re just bored though, aren’t you?
Alright, did you need something to do over the holidays? that’s what that’s what this is all about.
No, I thought this might be relevant.
Okay, um, and it’s everybody knows you. You don’t have a right to parole. So what is the beef here? Why is this person making all this hoopla and, of course, why are they making decisions over Christmas?
Well, the the reason why the person is making all the hoopla is because the the the, the initiative did not contain the restriction that the prohibition for from parole consideration that the department the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that they invented But as I recall, any California can correct me but I do. Recall, I think when this was being implemented after after they have to the ballot to the language on the ballot, they were concerned and Jerry Brown discovered at the time, and he promised that you don’t need to worry, these kind of people won’t be paroled. And therefore, when the brown administration left, and the Newsome administration came in, a lot of those people with the California Department of Corrections revealed, but rehabilitation are still employed there. And they continue with that strategy. So they implemented regulations that they cut this guy out from consideration, even though he should have been considered. So that was his beef. He said you you’ve had been at a requirement that’s not in the law.
And this individual had prior sexual convictions, but this one was not based on that. This his current conviction.
Yes, he had. He had some old convictions from from a long time ago. But all he did this time was armed robbery.
I mean, all okay. I mean, I can only deal right, you just grab some iron and you go do what you do.
Unknown Speaker 31:15
I did the California
Department of Corrections, just disregard the will of the voters and implement its own version of what I thought was best. Would this be a case of bureaucracy inventing its own requirements.
That’s precisely what it is this, this is the, I’m sure at the urging of the previous governor, and I’m sure without any objection from the present governor, that that they feel felt and still feel despite the furlough, they still feel the same way. They feel that they are protecting the community. And that if the voters had only known that they were going to be releasing these people with that language, they would have wanted that language in there. So they actually, they did the voters of favor in their view, and they created a parole process, but exclude these evil people. And this guy was his convictions from sex offense go way back. And he’s not serving time for for that now. And and but they’re protecting the community. That was that was their theory.
He’s serving a mountain of time to he’s serving like a 25 or 35 year sentence, depending on when I read through part of it like, that’s what I saw. It’s a mountain of time for the armed robbery.
Well, yeah, because he was also under three strikes. He, that is a thing too. Yes, he had to show how far back he had a 1984 conviction for forcible rape, and 1986 condition for forcible jobless nation. So we’re talking about how many years ago? That’s for almost 40. Yeah, so we’re following his conviction in 2007. Which is what he started time for now. He, let’s see, forgetting what to say following his convictions. He was sentenced to total prison term of 35 years to live consistent 25 to life for the assault with a deadly weapon under the three strikes law. So so he was under three strikes.
I mean, okay, forgive me, I don’t want to like minimize what the crime was and how much time he’s going to serve. But if he committed his first crime and 84, we could, we could assume he was of something of rational age, let’s say he was 15, which would be really young, but I’m thinking he was older than he’s up there in years now. I mean, he’s like, pushing 55 or 60 years old now.
Well, he’s older than him, but those last year, but but, hey, he still was out of prison. So I don’t know what that has to do with it. I mean, are you saying that he wouldn’t be a danger now?
I mean, that is essentially, you know, with medical expenses with people just not being able to move as briskly in older years than younger years. You know, you don’t see people running in the Olympics that are 80 years old. They’re usually in their like, teens or 20s. So I’m, it seems that quote, unquote, they age out and like the level of threat would go down over time. You don’t run around seeing grandpa robbing banks very often.
Well, he, he’s clearly, he’s either gotten away with many sex offenses since 84 to 85, or else he’s he’s not been doing sex offenses. But clearly for some period of time, he was engaged in criminality that’s that was that’s what rendered him under the three strikes law he continue to engage in. But philosophically, I don’t believe three strikes law should exist because as you’re playing out, once you get older and older, all you end up doing is having your prison become an infirmary unit, which that could that care cost that incarceration and care cost more than a regular young prisoner. The person has variable threat to the community, but yet the cost of their care and the prison is much higher than a regular that that anonymous informed inmate. And I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have them embattled federal benefits, collecting money on their social security through eligible their SSI or something else, rather than swit. Using state funding to keep them in an infirmary? I don’t. To me, that’s just a no brainer. Yeah, I
like federal benefits, like, what do you think that they would pay out? Like, could we say 20 grantee, I mean, this guy’s also spent a bunch of time in prison, his his a security money wouldn’t be that high to begin with. But we’re gonna spend 50 grand to keep them locked up. And maybe
even more, depending on his mental deterioration medically for a person in prison for life. Their their cost of care goes up. I mean, I’m not saying they provide great medical services, and that you’re going to get nice comfy hospital care in prison. But regardless, it does cost you more to incarcerate a medically challenged, it may
interest interesting. And now Now we move into the case of like, from from an economics point of view from a What am I thinking of like a libertarian, like, let the economics like bear it out? And our capitalism bear it out? And this this doesn’t sound like a good model for capitalism at all, keeping people locked on?
Not at all.
of would this be one of those cases where a textual interpretation save the day?
It actually is the this this case was was initially went through what he filed a habeas petition, but it’s Superior Court, which is a court of general subject jurisdiction in California. And the Spirit court judge denied him and he filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal, as they call it. And the California Court of Appeal reversed. It said, You’re right. And they they went strictly by the text, they said there is no prohibition in the text of this proposition, this constitutional amendment. Therefore, you can admit it California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, you cannot event that. So this was actually some textual interpretation from a very liberal state I might add
is can we then say that they’re inventing their own things is that similar to Sheriff long and butts county
is a great deal of similarities that he invented his own thing, that the only difference was that, that at least they had a backdrop they had a proposition. A lot of just totally embedded at the Halloween sign restriction out of thin air. There’s nothing in Georgia statute anywhere dealing with Halloween. But But other than that, he did invent his own restrictions. And this is what CDCR did. in California. They said, Well, we appreciate the concerns of voters, but we are going to keep you safe. And truly, a lot of voters would be very pleased that I took that posture.
Yeah, I’m sure. And then this is over. There’s nothing else that’s gonna go on now. The California Department of Corrections is going to start treating PFR as the same as everyone else.
I wish I could beat that optimistic, but unfortunately, I can’t I believe that they will they big CDCR. They’ll do everything they can to obstruct parole for those convicted of sex offenses. And in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see another round of voter initiative, or even a legislative enactment if they have, if that’s permitted, if you can modify a constitutional amendment to a legislative enactment. And I’m not sure that you can, but I would not be surprised to see either or in terms of trying to, to fix this. There will be a backlash in California. I know, I know. It’s supposed to be a red state. But the blue state there’s there will be a backlash and particular led by the conservatives, they’re going to say that this is going to result in a tidal wave of unsupervised on accountability. And I would not be surprised if if there is an attempt to to legislatively, change this to put more restrictions and say that you that you don’t have to consider these people now hope I’m wrong. But that’s what I would not be surprised at happened.
Can we backpedal a little bit. I’m drawing a blank on the judge Persky, Judge Persky, that he was removed, because he was he he did what a judge does, and he adjudicated the Stanford swimmer guy and lost his name to that. So he said, hey, look, you’re just going to basically get like probation, because you’ve already done some time served and the registry is really horrible. And the voters went back and can’t him.
Unknown Speaker 39:31
Is that I guess
what I’m asking is, is that pulling the judge out, voting him out? Is that similar to the proposition that California is can do they can vote directly on bills? Or could any Yes, like? Yes.
No. Thankfully not. And yes, they recall they used to process and the recalls are common in California. In fact, Governor Newsom has got a petition pending against him now and and the court extended the deadline for the petitions. The requisite number of signatures I need like 1.495. They’d like 1,000,004 95,000. signatures. And and but that every governor endorsed that. I mean, there’s always a petition circulated there’s always an effort to recall it a governor Gray Davis got recalled back in 2003. And so it recalls that’s in their blood. Okay. But
this is the only state that does that, though. Right. Is this the only state that has the the ballot initiative process?
No, I don’t think so. We have we have constitutional members here that go to the voters. But it seems like in California, it must be much easier. It’s apparently it’s a lot easier to get something through to go the ballot here the legislative hurdles are pretty high to get a constitutional amendment, because we take the constitution seriously. You know, the Constitution should not have day to day operational initiatives in the in the state constitution. But but in California, apparently, it’s a lot easier to amend the constitution and put it before the voters. And that’s how they end up with the three strikes law. That’s how they end up with these things. Like I harp on proposition 13, for back in 78. They, they have that, and I would not be surprised to see the big, pocketed donors coming here to support the law enforcement apparatus to say that we need to close this loophole because the parole board in California is going to be forced to release these people, and that they need to clean the language up to say that there are additional people that are not eligible for this for this privilege. That’s what that’s what I would not be surprised. I’m not rooting for it. I’m not engineering it. I’m telling you, I wouldn’t be surprised if I saw them, if that’s what they do.
And then finally, like you just can’t help yourself, because you wanted to start off 2020 with your typical doom and gloom.
What was doom and gloom, but this was a great decision. Well, yeah,
that’s how you ended 2020. I guess, I guess we wanted to make up for it.
Oh, yeah, that’s a great decision. But but all court decisions, I think we’ve had King alexandrova as a guest from Louisiana many times several times. And, and he will tell you, every time they went something in court, the legislature tries to do it. They just simply go in and pass a new law. We see that what happened in Michigan, they passed a new law, that still the law that they passed, I think it’s better than that existed previously. But what they do in Pennsylvania, they passed a new law, what they do in North Carolina, as Paul Dubey wins cases, they pass on new law.
And the remedy for that is to put us in the put us to get in contact, build those relationships to try and stop things. Fourth, fourth things before they make it to a vote,
that you have to extinguish this stuff before it before it passes. It, I guess a bad example of the one that Governor Whitmer just signed the the the revised registration all in Michigan, as I predicted on the previous episode that we recorded before the holiday. She was going to sign it and she did. She had really no choice. I mean, yes, she did possess the power to the toy, but she wasn’t going to because of all the if you look at the proper consideration, setup that a governor have been looking at our president, you can tell at all likelihood, what they’re going to do. And just like with the defense override, yes, the President did possess the power to issue a veto from the National Defense Authorization Act, you can do that. But the Congress is not going to stand by and let the military be unfunded. And it was easy to predict an override, because I dealt by just going to stand by with the military go and find it.
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get linkset registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. email@example.com you can call or text 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. We should so we’ll close out that section and we don’t have it on the roster. But can we go over and talk about the the Michigan signing? I know that you said that it was going to happen so we can chalk that up to a layer was right. But what are the politics what is what? Like this is a person that has come out in the favor of saying that the registry laws are Extreme and so forth. I don’t remember all the Whitmore said, but why would she go ahead and sign this thing?
Well, I don’t think she said that. I think it was the Attorney General Nestle, Nestle that said, That’s
right. That’s right. That’s right. That’s right.
But but but you can rest assured the attorney general’s office. First of all, the Attorney General never did see that brief had no idea that that was written. The Attorney General’s Office of Michigan’s a vast operation. And the Attorney General’s name goes on everything that’s filed on behalf the attorney general. So our people got all excited that that data Nestle’s, they don’t Nestle had no idea that that was even written. She had no idea the case even existed, and all likelihood. But But when when that brief was written, that was approved by a supervisor in that section of the HHS Office, and it was filed on behalf of the State of Michigan where they conceded that the registry as it existed, Windows 2006 and 2011 A members had become punitive. Those were reboot with this legislation. So So the big things that the court were concerned about, were dealt with, with this change, those things have been stricken. And and I don’t know why people are finding that so confusing.
Okay. And just like you were describing, in comparison with the defense authorization act, that they overruled the veto with, like 80 something votes, it wasn’t even like, Oh, God, we need to get just to the two thirds to get the 66 votes they needed to get, you know, they had another 20 votes on top of that.
Correct? Well, what what you have happened here, the the ag is office, I had given the Go ahead. And I’m not in direct contact with Michigan ag office. But I can assure you that since they were part of the litigation, they would have given the they would have given the legislature the green light saying in our view that this meets the the this beats the requirements to bring us back within the constitutional framework, as the Sixth Circuit has determined that we were out of compliance with the Constitution. And so the lawmakers passed this bill. And it wasn’t unanimous, but it was pretty close. It was overwhelmingly this this this legislation pass. So you have a governor who has a federal judge, who’s not allowing the registry to be enforced, which is actually what, what, what triggered them to legislate because the as I said, while we were watching this unfold, that there’s no incentive to legislate as long as the old law was being enforced. But once the old law could no longer be enforced, which in 2020, the federal judge sets times up, you can’t enforce this anymore, you’ve had plenty of time to legislate. Well, magically, they became a priority at that point. And they did, they did the minimum that they had to do, and that the HHS Office would have given the governor’s office the green light, saying we think this beats the requirements to be constitutional. For the governor at that point on our own initiative to veto that she would have been slapping the face of the entire state of Michigan because it was almost unanimously passed. And it would have left people off the registry, they would have vanished because they that that unconstitutional law was not being enforced. So you would have a sitting governor saying despite the fact that almost all of you that were elected by the people have vetted this, I know best. And I’ve got to prevent 1000s of people from being visible to the systems the state. That’s not a very attractive position to be in, that would atop the new cycle in every media market in Michigan, for days on end, it would have been a major distraction to her coming up to her her legislative agenda for 2021. And it would have been fodder for for defeating her the next election cycle. She wasn’t going to do that. So if you’re looking at a place you’ve been, our considerations would have been, you could easily figure out that he was going to sign it i’m not i’m not particularly gifted in this area is just our considerations would have been what I just said, and she would not have wanted that distraction.
Oh stop, you have like a crystal ball and all that kind of stuff.
So would you want that distraction overshadow your 2021 legislative agenda that you vetoed a bill that almost everybody in Michigan was for?
Yeah, that sounds like that would go over poorly when you try to get reelected.
It would it would be it would have been such a distraction. And it would have come out of left field like her office. Her legislative team was aware of what was passing. They may not have been in agreement with every aspect of it. But they had signaled clearly believe me that the process works different than what people think the governor’s legislative liaisons are working with legislators, and they would have known if the governor’s office had any objections because the governor is usually consulted, maybe not the governor personally but their team is consulted. So so the governor office was also involved in this process.
Alright, then let’s move over to someone over in discord posted this it’s the Supreme Court refuses Louisiana’s emergency request to reinstate sex offender ID law. And like the bottom line up front is this good news, Larry?
Absolutely. This is great news. I don’t know what action that the that the Supreme Court Justice assigned to the Fifth Circuit took? I don’t know if if Justice Alito just pointed it to the full court or if he made a decision. And then it’s I don’t, I don’t, I didn’t follow that closely. But the fact of the matter is, the state of Louisiana is going to have to file a regular cert petition with the Supreme Court. And they’re going to have to wait for the response from the other side. And they’re going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to put it on the calendar. And they’re going to have to wait to see if they can find four justices that want to hear this case. And in the meantime, they’ve got an unconstitutional law. So if I’m the attorneys in Louisiana, I am going to at this point, I’m going to ask for for relief in the form of an order saying that they can no longer enforce this law, because they’re going to enforce it until they’re told they can’t. the finding of unconstitutionality hasn’t stopped him from enforcing it. We’ve talked we’ve had a guest or we’re not a guest, but we’ve had one of our patrons where we’ve talked to him as far as he said, in Louisiana, nothing’s changed. So you’re gonna have to you’re gonna have to go into to the to the trial court, and you’re gonna have to ask for, for an injunction to stop enforcement. That’s what you’re going to have to do. And that’s what I would do at this point based on the facts of Supreme Court would not take the emergency appeal.
And then this means like, they aren’t enforcing the law too.
Well, as far as I know, they are. Yeah, we talked to we talked to a guy a Discord. He said that they were done, nothing had changed. They were still enforcing law. But But I’d take a declaration something’s on constitution doesn’t immediately stop enforcement.
well, it but it doesn’t leave. Even the best scenario, because the case there, there has to be the remand has to come down to the band aid has to come back down. And then you have to ask the trial judge to issue an order, based on what the Supreme Court said. So all that stuff hasn’t happened yet. But I’m saying that now’s the time to go to trial judge if the if if this case has if the mandate has come down from the Louisiana Supreme Court has to trial judge to issue an injunction against the state of Louisiana, you can’t do this anymore.
There’s a particular sentence in here that I really, really wanted to find. I saw it when I read through the article and I I’m not positive to this one. Is it? But it uh, where did it go now? Uh oh, there it is. It says the state’s brief said the law should be reinstated pending the appeal because the danger is not theoretical children die when recidivist sex offenders hide their status. I that is some severe hyperbole that I that some of the worst that I’ve ever heard that is so inaccurate, that like you hide your identity, therefore, you’re now able to go out and do the bad things. I don’t think that the ID is going to prevent them from doing it or encourage like, that’s not even a factor.
Well, that brief I did a skim read of it, that emergency brief that they put to the US Supreme Court. It was so filled with that type of hyperbole and just nonsensical arguments that they made. And they even interdicted this shelter argument, they said that, for example, that those we just have had storm activity in our state, and that the emergency shelter operators would not have known that these people without this big step folder ID I mean, this is vital. But remember Louisianans, you elected that attorney general’s office, and you fund that attorney general’s office with gobs of money. If you don’t want them doing this, he a, you vote for a different candidate, you vote for someone more like Nestle in Michigan, but you would never do Luciana and B, you look at reducing the amount of funding that they have. With less funding, they can be less creative because they don’t have as much free time on their hands and I keep bringing it up every opportunity, because funding is what allows everything to be challenged.
If you want to get a barometer of what the Joe Schmo public thinks of situations like this, go over to the article in the show notes and look at the comments section of what people are saying about this. How this process went about and the people involved in it. And it’s it’s not it’s not at all nice at all. That’s I will leave it at that and use your own judgment to go Check out and see what people say. These are the people that are that we are fighting against. By the way, that’s that’s what I’m really trying to get to is if you’re trying to figure out why the public is not on board with helping us in any way, take a look at the comments section and how they characterize things.
Absolutely. And Jeff Landry’s office, Hayes thinks that they’re doing the will of the people in Louisiana, and they’re doing what is best for the citizens of that state. Like that, I get that I get that just right on the accent.
I think so I think those spot on then we can then move over to the Hey, oh, I saw this, uh, just like, right, right? Maybe the day after we recorded our last podcast and says Congress clinches deal to restore Pell grants for prisoners 26 years after ban? I think this is amazing. So it almost inspired me to go commit a crime. So I could go to prison and get a Pell Grant. Not really. But it brought up brought to my attention because I would have died to get some, some money to go get some education while I was gone. And it just wasn’t available. And I had no idea it wasn’t available. What do you think? Well, I
think it’s fantastic. And you wouldn’t have to go to prison, your your Pell Grant eligibility would be the same if you’re in a community if you were economically eligible. I think that’s the grant based on need, if I’m not mistaken.
I agree with you. But you know, when you go to prison, they have a tendency to like you’re the company we’re working for before stops paying you.
income streams are very challenged for people in prison. I’ll concede that. There are some there’s some things that keep paying but a lot of things don’t. Employers typically don’t and private pensions continue to come. Some government pensions continue to come Social Security doesn’t. I think the VA continues to pay. Yeah, I think you’ve earned that from your service. So So it depends on what, what what you’re collecting, but income would be a challenge for most people in prison. But it’s
roughly the lack of last paragraph says House and Senate leaders also agreed to boost the maximum Pell grant awards by 150 bucks to 6495. So you can get almost 6500 bucks a year. And you could certainly find some accredited schools online kind of you know, correspondence course kind of things. I think you could find stuff in that in that range to get some education situated while you’re gone. I think that fan freaking tastic
Yeah, these liberal do gooders are just looking Bobby Scott representative from Virginia, Patty Murray as liberal democrat on the Senate Education Committee that made it, these people are always looking to find ways to create more government spending.
And like one of my arguments for doing this is, first of all, not everyone would qualify because there’s a crap ton of people in prison that don’t even have a GED, so they wouldn’t qualify for any of this money to begin with. And second of all, then the number of people that would be interested in doing something would be would reduce the the number of people that are trying to do this also, the only thing that comes out of this is someone leaves prison with some kind of more education that would help them find economic stability, that probably would lead them to not commit another crime to go back to prison. And as you always point out, get them paying taxes.
Absolutely. Now, to be fair, this was a bipartisan thing. There’s this was there were a lot of Democrats, but the Trump administration signed on board. But now let’s be clear, the initiative started under the Obama administration with a pilot project called Second Chance pill. And that that was one of those things that started in the previous administration, and to this administration’s credit, they helped bring it to fruition. And so we deserve to recognize both presidents for this both administration’s for this.
Unknown Speaker 59:02
And then oh, here’s your little Hang on. Let me go get up the podium for you to step on your soapbox sorry, with 80% spike in clemency applications Governor Cuomo still unlikely to grant them so what is what is this about Larry Why are you want to go on a Cuomo bashing session?
I can’t help myself when someone claims to be a progressive. I’m a lot less willing to bash those who pulled make no bones about that they’re locked up throw away the key and but but this is someone who claims to be a progressive claims to believe and reform and from the looks of of all that I can find. He takes credit for the fact that the state prison population has been on a downtrend, because crime has gone down for the last couple three decades. But every officer Today he has to do something to reduce the prison population. He is found lacking. He doesn’t grant clemency Apparently, he doesn’t do anything to push for the release on various creative alternatives. Because of the pandemic it seems like he forgets all about it. He’s the big one about keeping folks safe. You remember how he’s been on the on the on the on the warpath about how brilliant New York is and how the federal administration has been lacking? Well, don’t you consider prisoners humans to? Why is it that you’ve been out in the pasture unaccounted for doing anything for for for for your presence, where, where there’s a rampage going on? And you remind me of Governor Blagojevich from Illinois who had a stack and taught of clemency applications. And he took no action on almost all of them. And then he was so complimentary of Trump forgiving him a sentence reduction, which I guess it’s great because he got out of prison. But what he had the power he didn’t do anything. Andrew Cuomo, you have the power? Why don’t you use your power?
Hmm. Do you have any? Like, could you put on your I am Governor Cuomo hat and see why he is not.
I suspect he fears the vilification of a one on a wide. If he went on this broad release a campaign, it hasn’t been that long ago, the New York legislature was under republican control. And I suspect he fears that he would be bashed from from the conservatives. And he just doesn’t want that distraction. But sometimes it’s kind of like I think I’ve told the story about the Indianapolis on the podcast, and when when the when the rescue ship came along, when all the sailors were in the water. And they illuminated the salt, the lights and the commander said I gave the order, despite it was a violation of naval policy. And sometimes you just have to do the right thing. Even though you’re going to take grief for
I mean, that’s why we’re electing them is to make hard decisions and hopefully do the right thing and not just make a decision based on a political calculation to get the job next year to
well, but in reality, if you’re if you’re swept from office, you all the things you care about doing you can’t do. Yeah, so that is that is a legitimate concern. And sometimes you if you spend a little bit less time bashing the other side, and trying to build support for what your vision is, I mean, he has spent an awful lot of time on the on the cable and satellite news networks bashing the federal administration.
I mean, it was like a constant battle back and forth. I mean, it’s like,
Yeah, he could have spent a little bit of time trying to swing New Yorkers towards his way of looking at things, persuading them that that get thinking about people in prison as also a part of being a human. You know, that might have been a more positive use of some of the last year that he spent bashing.
I don’t think that’s going to happen from too many politicians anytime soon.
I hear you, sir. Anything else? We have a couple little notes to close out the show. But is there anything else that you want to talk about before we head out?
just glad that we’ve made it through 2020. And, and I’m looking forward to the podcasts where this is gonna be a year of exponential growth.
Exponential, I like it. I’m all on board exams,
where the the transcript service is going to balloon, we’re going to get our we’re gonna get our 501 c three status sometime in 2020, or hopefully the first quarter of 2021. And we’re going to we’re going to be having this this is gonna become the premier operation of the entire United States related to registration issues.
I think we’re already there, Larry. I mean, I don’t like there’s not a lot of competition in the space.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:06
Just say there isn’t. There isn’t?
No, no, there is not. There have been others and they have client came and and they have went
I thought there Brian Cohen or whatever his name is that does all those videos. I thought he was talking about our issue.
I don’t know who Brian Cohen is.
This this way. It was a joke. No, he doesn’t talk about this issue.
Like I don’t do that. Alright. Well, we did get a new patron a couple weeks ago, and it was a G gn I guess, Janine? I don’t think that’s jenine but thank you so very much I feel now terrible for not being able to pronounce the first name. But thank you so very much. That is a that is all the the new patrons that we got for the time being. And otherwise, that is all I have Larry. And if there’s anything else, then we can shut this thing down and call it a day.
Well, how to people how to people Do things that help us what what would be the first step if you want to support the podcast?
Seriously, let’s make this very easy, obviously, registry. matters.co is the website that you can send people to. So like, subscribe and share it. You can find it on every podcast platform. Larry, I didn’t tell you this. But maybe a month ago, I looked on Pandora. I had been trying to get us on Pandora for ever, and they would never add us. And then I just happen to scroll by and look. And I saw, we are also available on Pandora. But you can find us on any podcast app, you can find us on YouTube. And obviously in your podcast app, subscribe to us on registry matters and tell all your friends and family. And that’s all I got for that.
And if they want to leave a message, how did they do that?
You would record a voicemail message and send it to registry matters firstname.lastname@example.org or leave a voicemail message at 747274477.
And what if they want to give their second stimulus check to us? How did they do that?
Right on second stimulus checks, go to patreon.com slash registry matters and sign up for the $600 month level.
But I’ve only got one $600 payments. So when they have to cancel after the first after the first month.
After we collected they can cancel it. Yeah, because insufficient I will be okay with that.
Do we have a $600 level.
Just fill it in. You can make it whatever amount you want. You can sign up for the dollar a month level and put in 600 it’ll be just fine. It’ll work all
Alrighty, I didn’t know that so we can so they can create their own levels.
Larry, Happy Happy, happy, happy new year. And I hope you have a fantastic rest of your weekend and I will talk to you soon.
Thank you Andy and Happy New Year to all of our listeners each and every one of you.
Thanks a bunch. Take care bye bye.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:56
You’ve been listening to F YP