Andy 0:00 Recording live from FYI, p studios, east and west, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 61 of registry matters. Happy Saturday night to you, Larry. How are you doing? Well, Andy, thanks for thanks for inviting me back. I try to have you here more or less every week so far. I mean, I don't think we've done one without Unknown 0:20 you. Oh, okay. I was thinking I was thinking maybe you might have missed one. No, I haven't done Andy 0:25 a solo yet. And I haven't had King on to replace you yet. Larry 0:30 All right. Andy 0:32 Um, but so tonight, we got a live question from from Jeff in Kentucky. And then we're also going to have a guest hang out with us and we'll call him he's an FYI p studios in the hanging chads state, and that'll be Rick and I'll bring him on here in just a minute. Unknown 0:50 Actually, I'll bring him on now. Because I want to ask you a question. So last night, the Andy 0:55 however you want to term it, whether Trump caved or the side one whoever, whichever side one I really I want to know what you think about the whole agreement with Trump and Pelosi to open the government and and what is your take on it mostly, like from a political point of like political strategy not I'm not trying to get partisan and say this side, one of that side one, but I really want to know what your feelings are on how that all went down. Unknown 1:20 Sure. As far as I'm concerned, it was a good move on Trump's part, it's showing the entire United States that we do care about the worker at the same time it's getting them paid and it's showing that we're willing to negotiate Unknown 1:36 Nancy Pelosi however, has not once shown the willingness to negotiate she stated all will give you $1 for the wall I mean, come on. So as far as I'm concerned, Unknown 1:51 whether you want to look at it as Trump one or palosi one it's the American people that are currently winning in this little argument. And I think in the end, it's going to prevail in Trump's court because he's been there the entire time asking and kind of begging the democrats to come to the table to talk to hash things out and to get this wall funded, whether it's a wall border security, whatever you want to call it fence, but you know, border the whole idea is he's been there. He's trying to get anyone to come and talk to him. They're saying, nope, not only that, but most of them originally voted against getting the workers paid well, we finally at least came to a consensus and got the the workers paid. Now let's get the border wall up and running. It's it's absolutely necessary. Larry 2:53 What do you think slightly different take on it. I don't think that the below some shimmers, I know won't negotiate the, that's a that's a spin job that they are putting out there. They're saying that they're negotiation for border security doesn't include a wall or fence. But there's a lot of things you can do to further enhance or security which has been dramatically enhance in the recent decades, compared to what we were like, under the first Bush administration, when they were coming across in waves, and we were apprehending us a huge amount of input to stem the flow itself to say, there's no there's nobody coming across the border, this document would be silly, but to say, is there a whole lot fewer people come across the board? Absolutely. It's it's, it's it's a small fraction of what it once was. And so that won't negotiated, I'm not familiar with the bill that they voted against, to, to not pay the workers. So I can't really comment on that I did, didn't didn't know that there was such about. But in terms of what I think happened, which is kind of what I predicted would happen is that the pressure on Congress is greater than what you can put on the White House, everybody has access within reason to their congressional offices, very few people that wish to live in the District of Columbia or the suburb circuit can can put the type of pressure on the White House that they count on Congress. So you got 435 members like to from the States, and you got 100 senators, and an enormous pressure was mounting on the Congress. So what I think probably happen, and I'm not on the inside to know, but probably had, we had a reasonable so what happened in the Nixon administration, when, when his time was up, the pressure was getting so great on people who are going to start going into foreclosure. And people who were having to quit their government jobs and go look for other jobs that the pressure was on on Congress, and we start talking about public safety, air traffic control TSA and the pressure What about it and congressional leadership probably went to the White House adult, the White House, we can't hold back the tide much longer, we're going to have to pass legislation to reopen the government and will be forced override you which will be significantly damaging to you for the remainder of your two years. If you if you allow that to happen. So Mr. President, you probably need to reopen the government. I think that's probably the conversation that happened. That's why the government was open, but no strings attached at the bomb. But other than that, we're going to open it for three weeks. And as the democrats will negotiate, I don't expect the policy shimmer line is going to change their they're going to say that the that enhance a border security doesn't mean building a barrier. And maybe they might allow some for some discussion about barriers and key places on the border. But I don't see a 2000 mile border, a big bill offense or whatever they want to call it barrier, big built. Now I'm a little more pragmatic, I would go ahead and give them as money for the border wall. If it were me. If I could extract about making deals, I would make a deal if I could get for the dreamers, the people who were brought here without any consider their own that were brought here. If if we could get them free from threat of deportation, I would give them I would give them the money, you could always litigate them later in terms of you can find environmental things to argue about and you can you can you can keep this thing litigation law passed when Trump is in the White House. So if it were me, I would cut a deal. But it's not me. It's Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Unknown 6:15 And I agree with that, Unknown 6:17 as far as I'm concerned, I would agree with that 100% because he's already offered is only Andy 6:21 $6 billion. I mean, it's a really insignificant amount of money, given the the totality of the budget of the United States, I think then, then it comes down to the principal less than a percent. Yeah, it's totally an insignificant amount of money. It I mean, it is $6 billion or five and change whatever you want to call it. But still, Unknown 6:40 yeah, we're only talking I think, at this point, he wanted the funding for, I think, 600 miles worth of fencing. And we know this with the slats, right? We know that it works, you just take a look at anyone who puts a fence around their house, the chance of somebody wanting to break in, decreases significantly. Look at Israel, they've got the border walls and 99% in some areas of that wall in Israel has decreased people trying to get in by 99%. So we know they work and all the information that I have. Border Patrol is saying they work we need them here. We need it. So they're begging for it. And yet Pelosi is not willing to negotiate. Schumer is not willing to negotiate. I think in three weeks, we see another government shutdown, unfortunately. Andy 7:35 But for what I mean, you say, find a wall works great, you make a barricade, you make a moat, whatever. But what are we actually trying to keep out, Unknown 7:45 we're trying to keep out drugs, we're trying to keep it illegal immigration, but they were Andy 7:49 coming from the border, that's not where they're coming from. The majority of the drugs are coming in through like airports or other ports of entry, they're not walking them across the border, Unknown 7:59 now they're digging. Andy 8:01 So a wall is going to keep them from digging a tunnel Unknown 8:04 with the fact that they want to put the slide six feet down, it's going to make a much more difficult for someone dig a tunnel Andy 8:11 or you give me give me a moment. Larry, before Unknown 8:15 if you'll give me a moment, Andy 8:16 there's a supply and demand problem here, the demand is for the drugs to be here in the United States. If you make it harder for them to get here, then the other side of that equation is going to fulfill that demand, somehow they are going to supply it. So build the wall all you want, you're still going to have Americans want all the drugs that they're already getting. That is, if you could curb that problem, the wall isn't going to fix your drug problem. So I'm really really continually Unknown 8:47 right. But it will significantly decrease the amount of drugs that are coming in. In the areas where there are walls, the amount of drugs and crime has significantly decreased, according to every border city that has the walls or barriers of whatever kind. Unknown 9:07 So to say that it doesn't stop the flow of drugs is also going way beyond what it does do. It definitely stems that tide. Larry 9:19 Well, I would just I don't spend a lot more time on this. If we Yeah, I would just say if I hope that Rick has got to the point where if law enforcement says they need something that we automatically, I think that's part of the problem we have today that we've we've we've been willing to bend over and give law enforcement, every power, every tool, everything they say they need. So just because the Border Patrol says that they need that I'm not ready to just Of course, if you say that that's exactly what you need. I'm a little more dubious when law enforcement tells me they need something. Andy 9:51 Well, all right, then let's move on. And so we did a question last week from Jeff. And he was asking about split decisions, and you gave what I thought was an excellent answer. But Jeff still has some follow ups to try and drill in and and get some specific things answered. So hey, Jeff, what what did you want to follow up with? Unknown 10:14 Well, it was an excellent answer. And it's just that I didn't it was me that didn't ask the right questions. But learning what last time I asked about the Sixth Circuit split and I got that I split means the Sixth Circuit disagrees with others, that the nature of the registry being non punitive. My question is, what about the registry specifically, has been found punitive by the Sixth Circuit? Like I used to be required to register emails, and now I am not, is that part of the split? Why doesn't my area have to register social media accounts when so many others do? And I read that the Sixth Circuit decided back in 2016, that the registry was unconstitutional. What has been done about that, if nothing has been done, how long does the Sixth Circuit have to do something about it? And if they don't do something about it, what could happen? Lastly, I heard that the Sixth Circuit no longer allows retroactive implementation implementation of new laws. Is that true? I know that's a lot of questions, but that this will be the last of them. I think this covers every I think this covers everything that I was wanting to know Unknown 11:25 some questions. No, that's awesome. I think, Larry 11:28 oh, gee, I should have had us demographer here to let's try to let's try to take them one at a time the the tail end of it was, has anything been done? No, absolutely nothing has been done. The courts are not the law of making entities, they just told the state of Michigan that they cannot enforce those requirements against those particular individuals. That's all that they did. And I'm not real quick clear on whether that those individuals last time I spoke with the legal team, they they they had not been removed from from, from the revenue from those registration requirements that could be that they have today. I don't know the answer to that. But that's all the six work it did. Michigan would have a choice at that point, they could, they could decide on their own free will, that obviously the exact same thing applies to the 40,000 people we have on the registry, who, whose whose requirements for enhanced in 2006 and 2011, which is what the what the issues were, those were the enhancements that tip the registry to be punitive, they didn't say where the 2006 was more convincing, compelling, or for the 2000 level, but they the totality of those changes to the civil regulatory scheme to be a PPO. So those those things are where the problem is, if the Michigan legislature wanted to, and we're inclined to they could simply go back and remove those things that that that the court if you took it over, you strip everything down, that was added 2006 and 2011 says all the previous decisions had held that the registry was constitutional, arguably, you would have a constitution registry at that point. Well, the the legal, even Michigan disagrees, they feel like that there was enough there was enough prior to 2006, 11, that it was also punitive. But but that would be litigating for another day. But but they have done nothing to fix this. That's why the ACLU of Michigan is falling a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who would be within that zone of having the 2006 and 2011 pounds added enforced against them. And I don't know if they found that but I know that we're getting very close so so that moral obligation to come now the state of Michigan has already paid $1.8 billion in legal fees to the to the ACLU and to the to the to the to the law school there for for for all the hours that they put into it. Now that's not a lot of money state government. But you would think that conservatives who are running Michigan right now in the legislative front, you would think that they would be cognizant of they're just going to spend the whole bunch more money on a losing proposition they wouldn't want a more litigation but apparently that's what they're going to force to have happen before they actually implement the Dells versus Snyder decision and I can't speak for Michigan but that they showed no no intention of rebuilding a sold until they're forced to and the questions were so so maybe let's go back and figure out which ones I haven't taken yet. Unknown 14:38 Yeah, sure. I uh, I was asking. I was wondering if the 630 split had anything to do with why all of a sudden out of the blue I no longer have to register my email address or social media accounts? That was the one I was talking about to really low I'm so Larry 14:56 do you reside within the Sixth Circuit? Unknown 14:58 Yes, sir. Okay. Unknown 15:01 And I didn't read any law that Kentucky past saying you no longer had to register emails, they just abruptly stopped happening. And I was wondering if it has anything to do with the Sixth Circuit split Andy 15:13 just be his local jurisdiction decided to stop asking for it. Larry 15:18 Well, it It could be that or it could be oftentimes they empower this the the the the Kentucky registration statute, which I don't have it memorized word for word, but oftentimes they empower in our state to be the department public safety could probably get regulations. So the case of George I think they empower the GBI, the Georgia beer of investigation to probably get regulations, it could be that through the regulatory framework that they've dropped that as a requirement that they're imposing because their legal counsel could have told them that we're on thin ice collecting this i can't i can't think why but those verses Snyder may have impacted that I don't know it did or did I just don't feel like a like a given answer why they stopped collecting it is it is a statute or they required to be collected in Kentucky Are you familiar enough with a statute to know if that's on the list of things that they should collect Unknown 16:11 well yes it used to be and I don't know that it ever disappeared because I can't seem to find updated statutes Unknown 16:21 but it absolutely used to say that you have to register emails and and social medias there was just an outright ban until backing him of course but uh. Yeah they used to they used to require you to register emails and then they just abruptly stopped asking for them and I didn't know if it has anything to do with the Sixth Circuit split I've been talking about Larry 16:43 I wouldn't I wouldn't keep referring to it as a split it was it's a binding decision it's a valid decision out of the six circuit so it's it's it's it's it's controlling authority for for it is persuasive authority outside that circuit don't think that makes it a split is that it's the first federal service it has found that a sex offender registration statute has evolved to the point that it no longer has the protection of the US Supreme Court decision Smith vs though the the the six orkut said that was the emphasis now things have changed and and I've assorted that to lawyers who looked at me crazy. The Supreme Court didn't say you could do anything you want to do to sex offenders with impunity. What they said in 2003 is that this game and Alaska know it's fairly benign and it doesn't impose into disabilities restraints, that doesn't prohibit people for working or living where they choose and it's not much more inconvenient and belling and your driver's license renewal with it, unless you're unless you're to the point where you have to go and have a visual test. But there's states that you should allow you for a period of time before you required to have a visual test you can do online and they said, We don't say that there's that more debilitating and that therefore it is not punitive. But they didn't say go do anything you want to do anything you can imagine. But that's what states have done. And the interesting decade and a half, they just keep piling on, piling on, piling on and piling on. And we're not there as advocates tell them hey, guys, you can't keep putting this on here. Because you're going to make this this thing vulnerable to constitutional tag. Now, you don't want us to bring down your precious registry, do you and you can actually get traction with that argument. You can tell them look, the You're giving me a gift. When you put this on here. This is going to give me fodder to come after you and and that's what we intend to do. But But yes, that that that that Michigan they piled on a bunch of stuff. The funny thing is, it's not even required by federal law to be able to do a compliant, you do not have to have residency restrictions. But But Michigan chose to do that. You don't have to have at proximity restrictions. Andy 18:48 You don't have to pay people from Halloween activities. Larry 18:50 You don't have to ban anybody for anything, you know, the but but but people when they automatically vomits, they have I say, hey, data anyway. And I said, Well, just like your office, what you hate about data is usually things that are not in the AWS that they hate, they say everybody has about life quite Unknown 19:07 a who is just appeared system, is that correct? Larry 19:10 Well, no, there's a lot more to it than that, there's a lot more to it than that, that who was designed to to get all the states communicate with one another. And, and having an having some similar requirements in terms of the type of people that registered for the duration of time they register them, but you can you can tear everybody for life and still be AWS comply. They suggest that that that you have this tier system, but you could do like Ford, you can put everybody on for life. And that's okay. Because that at least beats a minimum standards and you can put a fence it's on the list or not required like indecent exposure. And they don't tell you how your registry doesn't apply because you're registering decent exposure, but you don't have to register that that's not a sex offense. As far as events are concerned, that is not a sex offense. But I find that people often have some such gross misunderstanding about AWS, they think it worked. There's a bunch of stuff, it doesn't require a lot of that stuff that Michigan has, has has the cortisol problematic, it's not required by AWS Andy 20:10 within which would then be supported by states going back and like I'm pretty sure Pennsylvania thought saying that it was unconstitutional, have residency restrictions, and then they then they won that so they could still be I don't know if they are or not an AWS compliant state, but they don't have residency restrictions. They do all your work address on the website, though. Larry 20:32 Yes, there's, there's there's absolutely nothing requiring any type of probation. So where people can live for federal standards, absolutely nothing. Yeah, so that's not a part of the compliance package component checklist. Andy 20:45 You had a couple other questions, Jeff? Unknown 20:47 Well, there was one specifically and it was basically applying to the implementation of retroactive laws and I keep referring to the Sixth Circuit split because that's all I knew to run all I knew how it's all good as I think Andy 21:03 the way you should word it is it's a it's the sixth circuits decision but that splits with what the other circuits have have decided in the past Unknown 21:12 Yes Well, I read that that that they no longer allow retro active implementation of laws they only they can only apply to people who commit offenses on or after the effective date of the of the act for example, in the state of Kentucky last year they passed laws saying that a registrant may not use the internet to communicate or gather information about a minor and they did not apply that retroactively which I'm glad they did be but I cannot believe I thought it was kind of bizarre that they did not apply retroactively I can at least understand the logic of that law but they didn't apply retroactively which I thought was very bizarre was the Sixth Circuit was very clear of course that's that's not anything they invented it against US Constitution to apply credible Larry 22:03 anything that's criminal cannot be replaced or applied retroactively. They've skirted that by saying that this a civil regulatory and to the extent that that registration scheme is civil regulatory, you can't change register reg regulatory schemes that will that you could do you could change civil laws they will you get there so the constitution wants you to know what the punishment is, and that can't be changed after the fact. But but the Sixth Circuit gave significant guidance in terms of that these these prohibitions might have been permissible except they replied wrote, right rightly so, if those legislators are watching in Kentucky, it would behoove them not to stack stuff on right right away because that puts them in jeopardy of a of a legal challenge based on a binding precedent that that those verses cider decision is bindings. Ross Sorkin Yeah. Unknown 22:55 Well, yeah, that's about all I've got, I feel like a pretty much understand everything is it only took 300 episodes for me to grasp it. Andy 23:04 Hang on, hang on one second. So Larry, Jeff, and I had a little bit of some conversation back and forth a couple days ago about this. And so Jeff was like, Well, what, at what point does the registry be cotton punitive? And I started using the analogy analogy of saying, well, when is porn porn? It's like, Well, you know, when you see it, but you can't actually make a definition of it. And we started going down, doesn't matter if it's closed or whatever. But so the question, Unknown 23:31 I love that question. Larry 23:32 I love that question. That's right. So Andy 23:34 when does it so is it residency restrictions? Is it I can't go out after 5pm? I mean, when does it become punitive? Larry 23:41 Well, and I'll tell you it becomes punitive. This is the smarter like a house or then I'll go in more detail. It becomes period of course it rounds. But but the the framework that they use most courts look at what the US Supreme Court did Smith versus Doe, that decision was decided in 2003, but they looked at a case that got them that was the side 1963 call Kennedy versus Mendoza Martino's. And that's how you look at something this alleged to be a civil regulatory scheme and determine if it is in fact you can call it anything you want to but those are seven factors and that Kennedy been dealt Martinez test. So the Delta Martinez factors are no there are seven of those they look at those and one of them is does it does it as opposed to disabilities, the restraints and the more disabilities? I think that is one of the most powerful part of that test is the is is what disabilities restraints or being imposed. But but but it would behoove everybody to look at those seven factors because that would be a whole program to itself to try to go through them. And then what about the legal profess professionals can't even agree on I'll take one position of what one of those factors beans of the legal professionals come down both sides, it's it's whether they the weather, the regulatory scheme requires a finding of Center, which is a legal term for knowledge. And and and I take the position that that regulatory scheme that doesn't require finding a center makes it clearly more likely be regulatory. We don't care if you're going down the road speeding and 50 miles an hour you didn't see the sign or didn't know any better. That's a strict liability office. We don't we don't care we don't care at all it you're still you're still speeding? Well, with with with falling the registry? I believe that the court when they when that factor would be applied properly to say is in order to violate the registry? Do you need to know that you have an obligation to register and what the requirements are? I believe that's what they meant because that that's a more serious crime. If there's a finding of Santa required the the the people who argue these cases say well, it means was there a finding a scientist at the time you committed defense it puts you subject to registration meeting, did your crime record their underlying crime, I will see what the hell difference the underlying crime but had to do with with anything, we're looking at the regulatory scheme with the point that it's before the court and that's one of the factors so I'm thinking the court boss to know if if to be in violation of that regulatory requirement. Is there a finding of scientists are required Well, in my state i don't know about yours, you have to be notified that you have an obligation to register if they can't prove that you've got knowledge that you are covered by the regulatory scheme that you you're not in violation or to your Dooley notified that you have to register so clearly I like by way of interpreting what that's one of those factors but the but the lawyers disagree that that's a good thing about the law is that it's not it's not cut and dry I believe the court means that the other lawyers believe that it that it means that the underlying I can't see how the hell you could come up with that as being what they would be because we don't care about book what got you subject to registration we care if you know before we punish you will felony conviction that you have a duty to register that's the center Andy 27:15 how do how does somebody reconcile in that those seven tests inhibit some level of disability if you have 1000 foot living restriction and work restriction How do you argue that that's not a disability? Larry 27:28 Well you don't you argue that it is a disability and nobody can Andy 27:31 clearly Larry 27:32 but but but the the the court doesn't give you much guidance in terms of how to wait each of the seven factors they they they they specifically say that there's no particular waiting so if you have judicial philosophy has a lot to do with it. And and and of course, I'll have people go ballistic when I say this, but conservative judges tend to want to find in favor of the power of law enforcement because they're keeping us safe and all that kind of stuff. So they tend to defer to the power that state and they tend to contort themselves and and pretzels many times over to justify overreaching on the state. And the liberals can do that on other things as well. So but on this particular issue, when it comes to law enforcement powers, if you're before conservative judge, you have a lot more difficult time than finding any problem with search and seizure, finding any problem with Confrontation Clause, there's a lot of things and Justice Scalia was accepting the Confrontation Clause, he actually believed in that and he was steadfast in his support the Confrontation Clause, but that depending on what court you're in, it's going to be the philosophy of those judges if you're an appellate level court where you have a panel or you're going to be looking at if you're in a trial level you're going to be looking at the philosophy of the court and states to elect judges they tend to be more but for the people are because that's the people the people's how they get an office I know that's not the way it should be. But as you've heard me say before, that's the way it is be Unknown 28:55 Jeff Thank you very much. I think you did awesome job with those questions those were well thought out questions Unknown 29:00 well, thanks. Thanks for having me on and and I feel like I got my answers now. So I sure appreciate it Larry 29:06 and you come back anytime cuz we love We love challenging questions and hoping that helps people but those are great questions Andy 29:13 and things like patron Unknown 29:15 Yes absolutely. Thank you for what you do appreciate it and Andy 29:19 alright so we got a bunch of articles to cover Larry Are you ready to dig in Larry 29:23 ready if we've got we've got what three dozen? Unknown 29:27 Yes we have Larry 29:30 actually say Andy 29:31 it is eight and there's some duplicates in there too. So it doesn't even necessarily well I guess aren't duplicates there there'll be in the show notes this one showed up twice and someone in the in the registry matters Discord server for story ideas through this one at me. And this is out of Arkansas, the good old state of Kansas that hey, there's a bill that's going through and it will get over to the House or the Senate has approved a bill that makes it so that sex offenders can't participate in Halloween done seem to be some states like Georgia are really restrictive, like you can't have anything to do with it. And then we'll in Tennessee can't participate in Halloween activities for like three weeks or whatever. But this was voted in 29 to one that level threes and fours can't distribute candy to others or other items to minors as part of Halloween related event. And they can't wear costumes and stuff unless they are the guardian of all children present, which I find to be a little odd. But so here we go. More people trying to make Halloween. A taboo thing Larry 30:36 is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Unfortunately, Unknown 30:43 like your Andy 30:43 argument, I'm sorry, we're stepping on each other. I really love that your argument that it's a freedom of expression thing to wear a costume. It's a First Amendment right? Larry 30:52 Yeah, well, we have a lot of fun with this one. Because there's so many angles to work on the the this is not rooted in a type of this solid motion makes feel good. It's hard to vote against one of this, I'm surprised I'd like to find out who the one person was voted against it. But this is this is something where it's, it's, it's it's hard to. It's hard to argue against it. And, and for those who don't, who do not understand our console. They have a level system that's based on individualized risk assessments, okay, gives them It gives them an advantage and doing things like this because you've had a due process, it may not be a perfect due process. If there is such a thing as perfect, but you've had a process to terminate your level three or four. It's not just because of the title of your crime of conviction. So that gives Arkansas a leg up to do things because there's been some narrowly Darrell narrowing and tailoring because of the level minus two. So if a person came to me, and hypothetically, if I were licensed to practice law, Arkansas, and they said, I want to challenge this haven't had any Arkansas listeners word want to come to me? I would tell them well, I don't think we're going to get a lot of traction on challenging this because if we just simply say that you can't restrict people on the registry from because of the First Amendment, I'm going to say, well, the First Amendment, not absolute it and they've done some barrel tailoring and we'll have to see what the final product comes out of the house and you want to reconcile bill looks like if, if any changes are made. I think this is just the beginning of its journey. I think it's got to go through the house. But when we see the final product we can take a look at and and although I think there there's going to be some difficulties challenging from you say you can't do this to sex offenders? I would say, well, let's just don't look at that angle. Let's look at some other angles here. Let's look at let's look at whether weekend there's the void for vagueness dark. I've already reading this article where it makes it difficult, a little bit difficult to figure out what you can do if you're a parent. And you've got kit can can can can candy be handed out at your home? If you're on the registry? If you're a level three or four? I don't know the answer to that can can if your trick or treating your your kid gets hot as decodes, they want to pull their costume off? Are you allowed to hold their costume or violation some ways we can go down a different path here on looking for ways to come at them with challenges that would not necessarily just say you can't do it, we'd say, well, we need to clean it up and make it very clear as to what activities level three and four and SVP, which was a small number of at Arkansas, we could we could we could possibly look into challenges, but it's going to be an uphill battle. And I told him the same thing years ago with a challenge the residency restrictions when they say, but you just can't have residence restrictions. And well, actually, you can if they're narrowly tailored, and they probably with with them scrutiny, because they're not applied to everybody across the board. They're not painting with that broad brush that that happens if you're on the registry, you can't live Arkansas says if your level three or four, you can't live with it, I believe it's 2000 feet of memorized things. And that that has been upheld by the circuit because they have due process and you can go back and have your risk assessment, your level looked at it, it can be lowered. And it can also be increased. If we have a good friend case we covered Andy 34:34 a month ago where the person was getting level by that and he ended up with a higher level. I don't remember the specific but that seems to ring a bell that we covered something recently where a person had a risk assessment and it was not in his favor. Larry 34:48 Well, but but I'm saying during the course of your registration requirement, you have to register 15 years before you can petition for removal. But during that 15 years, you can you can petition have your level dropped well during that process. So times it goes up you you knock at the door, say I would like to go from level three or level two they so or for level two level one because level ones are not put on the internet. And that would be a better example if they said well, your level two but now we actually think you're at level three. So you shot yourself in the foot right yeah, that that can happen in Arkansas but i'm i'm chomping at the bit to see the final product. I doubt they'll be able to kill it although I wish them well. But I'm looking to see the final product and see if there's any viable challenges that can be brought against the people in Arkansas on this because this is nonsense. There has to be alive draw software to stop this feel good source a bullshit guess. Andy 35:44 Let me let me ask you this question though. And then Rick if you have anything, but it says is the void for vagueness Is that something like where it says The bill also prohibits sex offenders from wearing a costume and then you just brought up that your kid ends up like super duper hot whatever. And like you fold the costume over your arm and you may be like, you know, do like you would with a suit jacket and you kind of like put it over your shoulder or something like that would that constitute wearing could that call me wearing Larry 36:10 well logically it would dot but right faggot void for Vegas is fairly straightforward. It has to give specific instructions to a person of ordinary intelligence of what they need to do to comport their conduct the requirement of law, if you're sitting around calling the sheriff or the registry officials saying about allowed to do this, then assuming you are of order intelligence, not a genius, but of ordinary intelligence. If you don't know then that law has failed. And then the flip side of that is it has to it has to constrain law enforcement so that they they should be no haphazard enforcement. You shouldn't be in saline counting the sheriff tell you one thing and you've been blessed account and those are two counties in Arkansas that are join each other, you shouldn't be a Polanski get a different interpretation of what's allowed to be done. So if we end up with a product on that end of the at the final end of this, that, that that where there's a lot more questions that can be raised about what they're allowed to do them that's a good for avoid for Vegas, you're supposed to be able to know how to comport your conduct in law enforcement is not supposed to be able to embed it on the fly. Andy 37:19 Rick, did you have any things that you wanted to ask her hone in on? Unknown 37:23 Yeah, I mean, I took a look at it. And I certainly had some questions. So a lot on the same lines that Larry just pointed out, I don't know anything about Arkansas and their level system here in Florida, we have you're an offender or you're a predator. And everyone believes everyone's a predator, because they don't know any distinction otherwise, right. But the few questions that I came up with were basically, if an offender goes to a party, where everyone knows the offender knows the status of the offender and understands the defenders of fence, yet still invites them to the Halloween related event, this bill would prevent that person from wearing a costume, we're handing out candy at the party. Isn't that a violation of privacy and or at least individual liberty who's going to report the individual given the that the individual was invited to the party as a known an offender, Larry 38:18 he came up with that on the fly, you know, that that's, that's, that's part of what we're what we're going to be battling. Here's his stuff like, like, like that. Unknown 38:28 And then the second point that I I had was, the bill doesn't prevent offenders for giving a child candy if they're with the child's parent or guardian. Now, I said with from what you just said, it sounded as though that meant that it has to be a biological and or stepchild of that parent or guardian. But it just seemed to me that if someone were to come to my house, for instance, and they were with a parent or a guardian, then that person in the house should be allowed to give the person candy because the child's with a parent or guardian Unknown 39:09 So to me, it just sounded very contradictory. And so I basically the question I have is, Does this mean that an offender can allow children to come to their house and can hand out candy as long as children are accompanied by a parent or guardian Unknown 39:23 and also as long as it's not October 31 Unknown 39:26 right see here in Florida I'm not allowed to decorate my house for Halloween I'm not allowed to have my light on in some cases they actually want you to be gone from the residence you have to go find someplace to go Unknown 39:44 and so I kept thinking about that going well okay maybe then on November 1, I decorate my entire house in yes considered Halloween themes and leave that up until October 1 well Andy 40:00 yeah sure sure leave it up for 11 months or something like that I've pulled the bill so it's Larry 40:05 it's short enough that we can read it on the air so let's do it okay be enacted by the General Assembly the state of Arkansas Arkansas title five chapter 14 sub chapter one is amended to add additional section to read a false this will be section 514 month 35 registered offender prohibited from particular for participating in certain Halloween related activities a it is a lawful for a person who is required to register under the sex offender registration act of 1997 and who has been assessed a level three or four offender to knowing the one distribute candy or any item to a minor as part of a Halloween related event event or to wear a mask or or or other costume as part of how we related event if a minor is present at the Halloween related event. Oh, that's good stuff there so you can't go to any Halloween costume Be it is it is not an offense under this subsection. If the person is a parent or guardian of the minor whom the candy is candor item is distributed or or if the person is a parent or guardian of all miners present at the Halloween related events. I guess I will let you have your own Halloween party. Unknown 41:22 Yeah, so that you could go to a Halloween event? As long as there are no children present, Unknown 41:28 didn't it? Oh, Larry 41:29 well, you arguably Yes, you could. You could go to but but it's Unknown 41:33 it's great. Then all the bars are available. Andy 41:37 Right? Unknown 41:38 Who's to say that alcohol won't make you do another stupid thing? Unknown 41:42 Absolutely. Larry 41:44 So I will put this in our folder Andy Suboxone? We can Unknown 41:50 so that's the Unknown 41:51 whole Unknown 41:52 that's the whole bill. Andy 41:53 So literally that news article is pretty much the bill. Yep. Larry 41:59 So it has to come the house and it's gonna be very difficult for not telling you guys in Arkansas, they're going legislature you definitely want to go the legislature. You definitely want to tell them to sort of this. You also want to tell them that the national organization is chomping at the bit to try to find a way to litigate them into submission. If they're if they're turning to do this that we're looking at. We're already we're already looking at what we can do because this stuff has to stop somewhere. Awesome. Andy 42:24 Well, then let's move on to the good old detroit news there's an editorial article and it says the sex offender registry afoul of constitution as if we didn't know that already. They they bring up that Miriam Offerman is the lead attorney senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Michigan and goes through all the silliness of the registry, as we already know, it is and that they haven't made any changes since they lost that court battle we were talking about that with with Jeff a minute ago. And so there's suing them again, and there are 40,000 registrants. So this is going to be a big class action, which is pretty neat. Well, that's what Larry 43:09 I'm just saying. Say we would normally we would normally expect conservatives who are fiscally responsible to say let's stop this nonsense but don't see an indication of it coming so far. This is definitely bipartisan popular. Well, I understand that handy conservatives who believe that fiscal responsibility and not spending $1 of public resources to say, Whoa, we've had this litigated and and it's gone through all the appeals to supreme court denied to hear it that I'm hearing on this and we're still doing this, we've got to change because we've tried to save the taxpayers money I'm waiting for, right, the intellectual honesty to the flow from that, yeah, we've got to stop doing this. Unknown 43:56 And that frustrates me the fact that it's not being done, you know, if it's already come down the courts and the courts have said hey, you know, it's unconstitutional, you got to stop this then stop it because the whole idea of being conservative is looking at the constitution and conserving the principles of the Constitution. Larry 44:17 Well, I'm excited we agree on that. I'm hoping that our mission are putting pressure on their lawmakers because there's I learned from a former governor of ours in this state Gary Johnson that it often takes a liberal to do conservative things when a conservative liberal things because of the vilification but takes place in the world of politics which means that you've ever sell them find very seldom it is possible but you've ever sell them find liberals attacking if conservatives say that we've gone too far on criminal criminal justice and want to reform it light up screws you will never hear liberals attack of that because that's something that they're okay with. Bye. First of all, I want to do things that cut public public benefits it takes it takes a liberal to do that Clinton's only person who could assign welfare reform because if that had been presented to a republican president, they would have gotten vilified because the progressive side wouldn't have accepted that I mean, they didn't like it but Clinton but they went along with it. I personally didn't like it. I think it's been a tragic mistake Yeah, we've led to an explosion of homelessness and it was it was a misguided policy to limit assistance to five years but but but but what the bigger point I was making is that that the conservatives are dominating the Michigan simply take some leadership trust me you won't get vilified by liberals running against you they won't say well conservative Republicans trying to make it easier for registrants that that that seldom happens in other way around and to be honest with you Unknown 45:55 I don't see why they wouldn't do it because in all honesty, they're only going to be Garner more votes come the next election cycle if they were to do it because they're they're actually doing what they said they were going to do and that's probably one of the reasons why Trump got elected is because he said that he wanted to do these things and he's been doing a vast majority of what he said he wanted to do and based on the things that the country at that time asked him to do in the first place so the it would only serve the conservative base as well as the conservatives that are currently in office in Michigan for them to take care of this Larry 46:39 now while we moving on next topic I'm going to see if I haven't put my foot my mouth because they were at Michigan legislature didn't slip because we've we flipped several house we flipped legislators around the country in 2018 election cycle so but but last time I had looked at it the conservatives were running the Michigan so I'm going to go quick local, that customized got right in saying but if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have said that Andy 47:08 while you do that I have you did not announce the name of the former governor of New Mexico correctly. Can you restate the the full name of the governor? Larry 47:18 That would be Gary Andy 47:20 puff Johnson Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we had that clear. Larry 47:24 Okay. Yes, I have according to Wikipedia, I think it's up to date. It's a they have 148 seats on the Andy 47:34 pad. That's a lot Larry 47:37 let's say there's 30 Yeah, it's the the republicans have still both chambers so it's gotten closer though in the house. There's 52 to 58 with Republican 758 in the in the Senate. The Democrats are way down as 22 to 16 Andy 47:53 I Michigan's a tough state and you know we talked about Florida being a tough place to be all the time Michigan is a very tough state to be in and if you're on the registry Larry 48:01 it is Andy 48:02 we should we should come up with a way to like like empirically rate the states not for any sort of tourism kind of you know moving whatever but just to just to rank them you know like living restrictions would get a score and how often you have to register would get a score all those things just to come up with a shame list of the the worst of the worst just Larry 48:27 yeah we've we've thought about that we get that inquiry all the time in our soul and the downside of that is of course is that politics would take control and and the state that wasn't bad what would be shamed into becoming worse because they would become a magnet they would say well there's a national organization that has this training and we're writing as as the is a lenient most lenient state which means that there's u hauls headed here constantly Andy 48:50 and then logistics maybe we should just do the top 10 maybe these are the top 10 worst just and yes I know what Larry 48:57 I do it the worst but I would I would hate to suppose the best ones are not as bad yeah Andy 49:02 don't worry that these are the shitty is states here's here's where you don't want to be if you are elsewhere you're in better shape well but but see now in the Georgia Larry 49:11 General simply when when they passed the law that that ended up being a big part of their downfall when they had to peel back from it back in the early 2000s they the same was a proponent of that he was dumb enough to sell the for US state house that I wanted to be I won't Georgia to be one of the toughest states if they don't like it here they leave that be better for us here in Georgia Kappa Andy 49:38 you end up in the condition of they can't go anywhere where do they go Larry 49:44 well it's not our problem we just don't want him here Andy 49:46 I know is not in my backyard get Miami suddenly becomes what about Miami Miami Dade yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah you'll end up with everyone living under a bullshit bridge and then you don't want to announce where the bridges then someone will say well we don't want them here and it's just that is the worst Larry 50:08 worst well what you need to do here's a hint free in Florida pass a law that says that even in public areas or devout Dr. bridges that they can't congregate. So consider even making a restricted that only did only one register. It could be with the each each thousand square feet of space. And that way you can stop them from congregating under the bridge. Have you thought about that nut jobs? Andy 50:33 Are you kidding, I'm sure Ron book is Yeah, top of that idea. Larry 50:38 Oh, yeah. That's a terrible idea. Just I mean, Unknown 50:42 for Frankly, I'm kind of lucky as to where I live the county that I live in Marion County, Andy 50:51 there's a bunch of the necessary name and I was gonna say geography geographically, roughly. Where are you? North? South? East West Unknown 50:57 center? Okay, well, almost dead center. Unknown 51:01 Yeah, so you're Unknown 51:02 roughly near Orlando more toward or Ocala. I'm about 45 minutes north west of Orlando. All right. So but in this particular county, there is a city that I can live in and have no restrictions based on my particular effect. Okay, so I'm kind of lucky in that particular case. But in my particular case, my church was brought forward from 2002 when the actual incident occurred to 2005 because they were trying to get me as close to the more strict guidelines that they could get to. Unknown 51:46 And the reason I know that Unknown 51:50 they were doing that is because I moved from Illinois down to Florida in 2002, my charge on the federal charge is transportation of illicit material. Unknown 52:02 And that happened in 2002, it did not happen in 2005, Unknown 52:08 but they brought the case to me at that point. And so they put it down as 2005 Unknown 52:14 simply speaking the computer that I had had images on it of the images I believe they showed that less than a percent were actually real images the rest were all fake and of that had I that computer sat in my closet in the packaging that I had moved it in for three years I never opened it Unknown 52:42 so at my hearing few things transpired judge as the prosecutor once last time we looked at it we don't know Unknown 52:52 did you try to send it to anybody doesn't appear like that did you try to make money off of it Andy 52:59 doesn't look so Unknown 53:00 did he tried to did he make any of it now doesn't doesn't appear that that he's made any of it? judge? Look, the prosecutor said would you start bringing me the guys that are making this stuff Unknown 53:14 and my second sentencing recommendation was 36 months I ended up with 24 because he deviated Unknown 53:24 call it lucky I guess, of course, it destroyed everything. But Unknown 53:31 at that time, I was under Unknown 53:35 supervision for three years afterward, most ridiculous supervision I've ever encountered. I'm pretty sure that the counseling I received has actually done nothing to change who I am or how I operate. Unknown 53:52 It was just a mere fact that the punishment in and of itself was enough. I mean, we asked the judge to give me home confinement and he you know, chose not to go that route because literally that's all it would have taken I would not have done anything else Andy 54:09 sure. Unknown 54:11 But you know, the retroactive talking about that they retroactive because I was supposed to be I believe a 30 year registrant and now I'm a lifetime wow Andy 54:24 well I'm you know what you're bringing up there though is is one of the first episodes that we did was that your situation isn't yet not unique to that all of our people are going through some more or less combination of what you've just described which to me then bolsters that why don't we have 800,000 people trying to push and push back against these things so that we can get back to having some sort of functional life but here we are continuing to try and fight this battle and then just gain numbers just to even start maintaining ground where we have an Arkansas they're making more bullshit laws that don't make any sense but our people just rather head below the firing line Unknown 55:08 right. Andy 55:10 Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message to 747 to 74477 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 that your treatment class about the podcast we want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep biting without you, we can't succeed you make it possible. All right, well, then, let's move on to the this next article. Which is super super fun. I got to think that one of that I don't want to say it's the happiest days of your life but it would be a pretty happy day is when you when they say hey, we're gonna let you out of prison on XYZ date and that date comes up and they go maybe not this you may have some mental health problems and we need to find some community housing for you. So this article comes from New York calm and it says New York inmates with mental illness are held past prison held in prison pastor release release dates the lawsuit claims and it's not like New York doesn't have housing. They just don't have enough it says that they have 44,000 units of housing statewide. But I guess you still have people with mental health issues that prevent them from finding a place to stay. So they get to stay locked up longer, which is awesome. I'm not being serious there Unknown 56:55 didn't think you were Andy 56:57 right, right. Why? Why can't I mean, why? Why can't we have enough places for people to live? Larry? Larry 57:06 Well, I'm confused by this article. Because he I don't know to the intricacies. I've only read the article. But it says that some people have if you have a third paragraph, the groups that have also has either fully complete our sentences are raised their pro their approval, parole dates. Well, parole, I always look at differently because that's a conditional reintegration of the community and you don't have suitable housing, I can see them holding you. But if, if that's correct, did you fully completed your sentence, I don't know wonder what authority they would be able to continue to hold the person, right. And now if they come to you, and say, Andy, you and I know that you're struggling with some with some issues, and you've completed your sentence. And all of our publicly funded units are full. So you can either go out on the street and live in a tent, or you can say, in prison, and you voluntarily to make that your home now, I very doubtful very many people that choose that as an option if it were presented to them. But I don't know under what authority they would be able to hold a person that has totally maxed out their time unless they're pursuing a civil commitment of them. And that would be the only basis I would know that you can keep someone incarcerated who's completed their sentences. So I'm really baffled by this in terms of law, we don't have enough money, what is very simple, our needs are very, very great out there. In terms of what we're we're no longer the agricultural country that we were back in the founding days, and life is a lot more complicated and performing and succeeded. A modern economy is much more difficult. And a lot of people have fallen through the cracks for various reasons, and trying to find those things. And the constant era of tax cut text, text text cut, it's difficult because you have too many too many competing things for shrinking budget pie are spending levels in this state or right where they weren't 10 years ago ago, we would you expect would you Andy 59:02 back up though, somewhere where you got charged and convicted? Some like legally binding contract made you become a ward of the state? Could you describe the inverse process of you becoming not a ward of the state? Larry 59:18 Well, I'm saying when when they've served out their time, if this article is correct, it says they've served out completely their sentence. And paragraph three, I don't know what legal authority you would be able to continue to contain a person and a prison without some legal authority to confine a person United States of America, there has to be a legal authority go down to your local jail. And so you'd like to check in and tell me what they tell you, they will try to check in and see what they tell you. Unknown 59:47 I don't plan on doing this. So I would like to, Larry 59:49 I can tell you, I can tell you, you they need an authority to hold you. Okay. If you if you got to local jails, I'd like to spend the night here. I'd like to check in for a few weeks r&r, they don't have any authority to hold. So if if they've totaled out their service. I don't know how they would continue to be held unless the state of New York has filed a petition for civil commitment say that there that they have mental health issues, and they're keeping them wait, awaiting the termination on their on their civil commitment. So that component as a group, I don't understand I'd have to see the Lawson people who've who've been approved for parole and they don't have acceptable housing, I can understand how the product authorities can say well into your get the right type of housing, which will increase your odds of success. We're not going to release you on a conditional release of parole, I can see that component that that cohort of the group, but I don't understand how you would continue to hold someone who's done their sentence. Unknown 1:00:45 Yeah, it doesn't make any sense at all. But we are talking about the mentally ill. So the question to me becomes what is it about their illness and they need specific special treatment? How bad is it? If that is the case, then they should be providing housing outside of the prison if they're not providing that housing. Why? And according to the article, it appears that they don't have enough housing units. Okay, well, you're also providing housing units for the homeless that are already out on the streets not coming from prison. They are allocating I believe it read 20% of their housing units for mentally ill coming out of prisons. Unknown 1:01:35 Is that maybe not enough maybe they should increase the number of housing units maybe go to 30% Unknown 1:01:42 well Larry 1:01:43 great to be cut you'd be cutting other people out of housing if you if you if you merely reallocate Slice the Pie different ways the bigger question is that we have greater need than what what their funding and of course like said taxes said and taxes have become very taboo taboo in America, we can't we can't paying taxes Unknown 1:02:02 Well, they're also trying to allocate 500 additional units through funding so that they can purchase those 500 additional units plus Unknown 1:02:12 operate them so Andy 1:02:15 they're asking for 12 and a half million dollars where it is 12 and a half million dollars come from hang on let me write a check. Yeah, exactly. The only way that a state government has to bring in revenue is to tax the people and one of our listeners is like taxes theft and I'm pretty sure you're of the conservative mindset where taxes aren't evil thing I don't like I don't Unknown 1:02:38 know we haven't established yet. So here's my opinion on taxes, there is a need for certain things that need to be funded by the government and the only way to do that is through taxation. However, if I have to give up 50% or more of my income to provide health care for everyone schools for everyone to provide jobs for everyone is Alexandria. Okay, as occasional cortex likes to say Larry 1:03:09 I'm sorry Unknown 1:03:10 I am not down with that. Okay. Why what incentive Do I have to work if I am having to give up 50% or more of my paycheck of my work of my time I'm working half a year for free six months I get to keep six months I have to send to the government so that I can fund everyone else's needs now Is there a need for government spending there is what is that need well according to the Constitution some of those needs not all of them Unknown 1:03:44 are the military some of them are police forces some of them are in some situations healthcare prison but isn't necessarily the schools I bet if the schools had to compete to bring some students in that teachers will work harder and probably get pay raises based on their work because you go to America looking system but as far as this is concerned so that we don't get off topic too far as far as this is concerned Unknown 1:04:18 should the taxes go higher I don't know New York's got some pretty heavy taxes to begin with and in fact they're giving huge tax breaks to Amazon to bring them in so that they can create jobs and yet they're complaining about not having enough funds Larry 1:04:36 so I find myself agreeing with Rick and part I find that there is a level of taxation that could be oppressive we've we've we've I'm sure we've had we've had levels in the in the days of the in devising hours ministrations we were at 91% marginal tax rate in the Reagan administration were 70%. I'm not sure whenever I hear that at this point. But where I would take issue is that that when you say you're paying 50%, it's as if that none of that slide backwards towards you. And and that's just so untrue. Because everything that you're paying into flows back to you. Every aspect of of taxation and some almost every aspect flows back to that. And I always find it mind boggling that people don't see that they say that taxpayer. And I said, well, so your attacks consumer, all the things that we pay for a bit of for all of us, we all benefit from having national security. So we all pitch in, we all been having food safety inspections, we all pitch in, we all benefit I'm making a list of things that we all benefit from. And the one I have the most fun whether it's about schools for as you just mentioned, people say, well, Unknown 1:05:45 right. Larry 1:05:47 I don't have any kids in school. And I say, Well, okay, you don't have any kids in school. But you all benefit. We benefit from having educated population, they're more productive, they can make pay more taxes. And it'd be we have a better society if we don't, how people are picking cotton all day. And so we benefit collectively. But what what tickles me is that people who are actually receiving gargantuan benefits, I know, I know, a father who has three kids in school. And he says, the self reliance, I look at NASA when I was just take it, like your tax build out You, you, you pay for Robert Kirkman, public schools, your taxation, or your house is about $300, you got three kids in school. And we spend about $10,000 per student per year. So you're about let's say, You're 30,000 minus 300. So you've paid you've got $29,700 worth of our Jess, you're not paying to send your kids to school. Unknown 1:06:39 And Larry 1:06:40 oh, well, I never looked at it like that, you know, update pay my fair share. I said, Yes, you are. You're paying your fair share based on the value of property, but you're not paying the cost to your kid going to school. So you're being subsidized, oh, I never looked at it like that. So we take a look at our lives, we're all subsidized in some way or fashion or another, we're all subsidized by by something. And so so last one I encourage people to do is to to think about all the things that the government does for the be national, state or even local and figure out how much your life would be different if those things weren't being done. And I think you'd be looking more like in Somalia or Bangladesh, and you probably wouldn't like it very much. Unknown 1:07:24 I can agree to an extent on that. I don't know if we find ourselves looking like Bangladesh or not, but you know, Unknown 1:07:35 it's a good descriptor. Andy 1:07:37 Alright, well, then, let's move on to the article from the advocate where a judge advances Louisiana public defense lawsuit calls funding was bad excuse for violating rights. I don't know we haven't had King on here. I maybe we did at the very beginning to talk about just the really sad state of affairs of the public defender system. But I know that he's talked about it on some of the calls. This appears to be a lawsuit that is going to do something to level the playing field, the the public, the indigent defense system over there is really, really atrocious and people have their constitutional protections just just stepped on constantly. If you don't have some money to bring forth your own defense. Larry 1:08:20 Well, that's why I put the article but the big legal team that was the same as hiring the disgrace movie, Harvey Weinstein does not put that's why I put that article in because the the the Louisiana public defender system is like most public defender systems that's woefully underfunded. And we've got a state judge in Louisiana Alexa judges, and we've got a state Unknown 1:08:44 judge who who Larry 1:08:47 despite all the efforts of Louisiana to dismiss this lawsuit, say gets a legislative problem. The judge says well, whoa, the people's rights constitutional rights don't depend on legislative funding. I mean, ultimately they do because if you can't get the money you can't get the money but but but the judge to his credit I don't know how long he'll be a judge maybe it doesn't care to judge said this lawsuits going forward. Judge Todd her then this rule last week to move forward with a lawsuit and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think they're based in Atlanta. They're a bunch of liberal do gooders over there in Atlanta they just stay in their own state and quit trying to go around the country store not problems would be I know that's the conservative lied on stuff like that we would have any problem for these agitator from the outside came in here, but the class action lawsuit has been certified allowed to go forward. And it's a judge is just so courageous to say, it's kind of like the jail we can if if a judge want to say we if I were judged, we can't force you to be able to jail because we don't have the right to appropriate money below we can do is tell you can't put people in this one, we can say it doesn't meet standards, and we can shut it down and it's up to you to figure out well, that's what the judges apparently leaning towards as I can't appropriate the money. But what I can do is tell them that this systems not meeting not meeting adequate standards. Therefore, people, people's convictions are in jeopardy if you don't provide them adequate representation, Andy 1:10:21 and that that goes to something that you've repeated said on a number of occasions. So a law is assumed constitutional by the legislature as signed into law and only until a judge deemed unconstitutional, does it then get reverted back or get challenged in that regard? And this is that where these people are, are possibly allegedly having their constitutional rights squashed, and this judge is saying, Yes, I can't fix it. But I can tell you that it is happening. So we still need the legislature to go back and forth and try to improve the system to some degree to where it would pass a judge's interpretation of what would be constitutional Larry 1:11:03 what the judge hasn't said it's nasty sure that he's saying that the lawsuit of the state does everything they can to dismiss actions and the judge has allowed the case to go for the client side has been certified in that case it's got to go to trial which means at some point there'll be a decision but but he's he's he's telegraphed to the status you don't get the ductus This is going to go to trial Andy 1:11:26 alright so i was i was reading from the last chapter of the book but we're still in the like the prologue perhaps Larry 1:11:30 where we're at the beginning of this ballgame but for a state district judge for a state judge who has to face the wrath of the voters to say okay that that this is going to go forward that's just extremely courageous Unknown 1:11:44 I mean very much so and very conservative to if Andy 1:11:48 you think about and And is he doing No Does it matter if he's a DR Larry 1:11:54 well I don't know if they have that type of system if they if they brought on Yeah, I'm parties Louisiana, do Unknown 1:11:58 they not that I would, I don't know Larry 1:12:02 it doesn't make them for King but I do know that they elect judges King have said that and most of the southern states do Unknown 1:12:10 but but Larry 1:12:11 this judge whether he's conservative or liberal, he's courageous to not to not fall into that trap of dismissing the lawsuit. Because the state says Well, it's not our fault, we would be spending more the legislature with appropriate for the judges say, well, that's not our problem. We determine if the standards are being met on constitution representation for those monies that are not that's not my issue. Andy 1:12:34 Well, let me and just looking up his name, the second link in off of Google says that judge Todd Hernandez hanging up his robe at the end of March. So he's, you know, I guess you could call him a lame duck. Well, yeah, I like it. That's Larry 1:12:47 that explain why today taking my philosophy for because he's not even going to be the one presenting, Andy 1:12:52 right. And he doesn't care about the next go around, you know, what happens in the next election cycle? Interesting. Yeah, Larry 1:12:59 well, now, now, if, if they have the system similar to what we do, this is going to be a complex case, because the state is not going to give up and throw in the towel, what they could end up doing is bringing him back as a pro tip judge, they do that here, because these complex cases will take a judge out of the rotation of doing their normal docket. So if they were to bring him back as approached him, he might, he might prefer to work through the duration that those are good questions for King but but these complex cases, this is going to really tie up a judge for some period of time. And also Andy 1:13:28 it feels then like, how does somebody have enough? Excuse me, ladies? How does somebody have enough balls to stand up to the system and do what's right versus what is politically you know, real electable? How do you get someone to actually do the thing with integrity and do the right thing, when you have an election cycle coming up, that forces you to kowtow to the to the voters that it feels that a judge should be outside of that process to me, Larry 1:13:51 Well, I was going to give you some answers on that line. There's a number of things you can do, you can educate the masses for they quit clamor for that because the masses right now believe that the judges should be accountable to them and do what they want. So you can educate the masses to have them stop thinking that that's not likely to be a successful campaign, you can take the judges out of the like the federal system, but judges are largely insulated from the wrath of the public their appointed, they go through their go through a confirmation process that there for life and removing what is all but impossible, you know, takes a really, really horrendous actual half of a federal judge remove them. So you do called the article three round things are through the constitution for the federal judiciary is but you go that route at the state level, and you remove remove that. But other than that, it's difficult to imagine what we can come up with because as long as the people can go vote a judge out of office, I mean, I guess you could find judges who don't have any monetary needs who don't have kids going to college and who don't have mortgage payments to pay and really don't care about capitalist things. And you know, they live a very meager lifestyle, they can live on nothing, but judges are just like everybody else. I'm assuming they have kids. And I'm assuming they have student loans that was went through college, and I'm assuming that they that they'd like to get a retirement nest egg built up, I'm I'm assuming they're, they're just kind of like the every other mortal which is going to cause them to be intimidated by to lose their job. I mean, is that kind of a normal thing that people are worried about losing their job Unknown 1:15:18 and their livelihood? It would seem so Larry 1:15:24 so so you'd have to fix that component of it as Andy 1:15:26 well. I think that's going to be a pretty tall order to try and get them to to be educated. We don't have much success about educating people in anything that's politically involved Unknown 1:15:39 now that definitely not taking place in colleges specifically. Andy 1:15:48 All right, then. So that one's a dead issue. No, but maybe, maybe. Well, like you said, Unknown 1:15:52 Go ahead. What I was gonna say is that what I found interesting about the article is I wonder what it would be like to actually have enough funding where the funding is split 5050 right down the line between the DEA and Unknown 1:16:06 the public defender's office Unknown 1:16:09 could we imagine maybe actually cases being given the correct due process just from that standpoint Larry 1:16:21 right that's a good question we make that argument here to our legislature time and it falls on deaf ears let's just let's just take that leg of the of the system just a prosecutors and take out all right us because they all tied together when you're when you're with your prosecuting cases, the days office doesn't have to go out and hire an expert they call the expert that law enforcement has so big Police Department like a PD would have a tremendous amount of forensic support and then they would have the state police as well and then they can even call the FBI so so when you're when you're on the defense side you don't have those resources you can can't pick up the phone to call the state police because they're not on your side they're trying to put your guy away but but but say hypothetically, you could do that Barbie Barbie it's still what equalize the playing field because you not only needing attorneys are also needing a vast budget for the for the for the era that we're living in, which is nothing like the founding fathers days when when when we didn't have any anything much in the way of forensics cases were decided mostly on eyewitness testimony in you. Right. Unknown 1:17:26 Right. There's a pool of blood clean it up. Larry 1:17:31 So so but we make that argument. But then the day is have a counter argument. They say, Well, yeah, they have a little point there. We do have a tiny bit of backup. We do have law enforcement, we do have forensics available to us for free. But then there's the private defense bar and not everybody is represented by the public defender. So therefore, you would have to calculate that a third or quarter how many cases are represented on the private side that these to go into the analysis of so when we make an argument for that we should be funded at the same level. The disruptors are they they they they don't find that a very amusing argument. But I like I like the the thought because I think even that would still be unfair, Unknown 1:18:13 right? Unknown 1:18:13 Yeah, I agree with you that the DEA is definitely backed up by Unknown 1:18:20 too many other government sponsored offices, and that the number of experts that come from the public defender's office are technically in the private sector. So how would you at that point, provide the defense necessary based on a 5050 split should we say it's almost near impossible, because the private sector is going to charge what they're going to charge based on the need, Larry 1:18:54 it's, it's a battle that's got a call to get worse because the, the, the evolution of free success got to the point that that case is so complex today. And I know in an ideal world, it shouldn't be that way. But we're in the world the way it is today, not the way you'd like it to be, you know, we're not living Unknown 1:19:12 right at 919 40s, Larry 1:19:13 we're living in almost at 2020 and and the costliness of of prosecutions. And, and one thing I remind people of is that there's there's the three legged stool, the justice system, if you look at the court room, there's the defense prosecution and the judge. That's really it right out of those of that of that three legged stool, two legs of the stool. stool can reduce the caseload, one leg cannot, the the judge has dismissal powers. If the state's not meeting their burdens that to be deadlines, they can just they can actually grant defense motions, not may not be good for their political career, but they can they can make their caseload lighter. Prosecutors have complete discretion on what they break the court I'm not aware of a law statutory scheme that says you shall prosecute this I mean, they passed the law where you Bay prosecuted and they specify penalty that range oftentimes, but they don't say that everyone arrested, everyone investigated, must be charged must be prosecuted. I can't think of a whole law statutory scheme. So the prosecutors have vast discretion so they could reduce their caseload what would the defense attorney do be able to do to reduce their caseload in that three legged stool Unknown 1:20:33 right yeah, they're either at work or not Larry 1:20:36 that directly we have to have the prosecutor the cases get shelf to the defense side of the table. And the only way they can make their caseload lighters to do what plead our case, right. So if you're if you're a publicly funded a targeted you've got a case lot of 100 which is not that uncommon, particularly in underfunded states, if you got if you got if you got a case level that level you couldn't possibly serve those clients. So so you're looking for ways to play the cases out because they keep coming and the state doesn't run out of people to charge they don't find they're not very creative in finding alternatives to prosecution. Andy 1:21:16 So on the heels of that nonetheless, let's move on to the flip side of that and let's go over the New York Law Journal article on Harvey Weinstein assembles high profile non New York lawyers for new defense team I can only imagine the seven or eight figure retainers and whatnot that this guy is paying for the lawyers that he has hired so Harvey Weinstein is a disgrace like movie mogul guy who has been accused of by a couple dozen women have and maybe more and these are like high profile actresses that have come forward and said that to get the to rise up in the ranks of the their movie careers. They had to perform all kinds of interesting sexual acts with the guy and what I felt was really interesting is there's an actress named Rose McGowan and she got picked up halfway recently for some sort of drug possession charge and she had retained one of the firm's that Weinstein has allegedly has brought in and all of a sudden her case like she can't get it dismissed or anything like that. And she thinks it's, it's a huge conflict of interest. Unknown 1:22:24 Hmm. I thought that that Andy 1:22:26 was a really interesting point in the article, Unknown 1:22:29 I guess. I guess I did a Larry read. Yeah, Andy 1:22:34 he didn't show Larry 1:22:39 Well, I caught myself. Did I Andy 1:22:41 yes. I appreciate that. Unknown 1:22:42 My understanding though from that article was the fact that McGowan's case happened several years ago. And the cases done and over with, but maybe she continues to have them on retainer, and I believe she may have been a victim of higher re Weinstein. Andy 1:22:57 Right. So yes, yes, absolutely. of this have something similar? Yeah, yeah, you're right. Unknown 1:23:03 Right. So I think that's where the the conflict of interest is coming in. But if they are no longer working, any case in regards to her, I believe they have the right and I mean, Larry, please correct me if I'm wrong, because I I'm not a lawyer, I mean, act like one on the show, but I'm not one Unknown 1:23:21 but they can represent the other side because they're no longer representing her in regards to this particular case. So because she's her lawyer, quote, unquote, is the district attorney who is prosecuting this case as compared to these lawyers who are defending so I'm not sure based on that whether or not there is actually a Unknown 1:23:50 what's the term I'm looking for here conflict of interest, but it certainly seemed like there there could be now as far as I was concerned if Rose McGowan felt that there was conflict of interest will leave them and go to someone else Unknown 1:24:05 they've chosen to take on Harvey Weinstein Andy 1:24:09 that's fair to say that but you know I mean she probably can afford it I don't know what her financial situation is but she probably did pretty well from the the the the ghosts TV show camera charmed is what it was called but you know she's already sunk X number of dollars into one attorney for them to then say, Nope, sorry, you have to go somewhere else. I mean, her statement here says this is what my case didn't go to trial. My instincts was my lawyers had been bought off he can't just infinitely run around and hire new attorneys hire new attorneys pay retainer fees start paying the court costs that the court costs but the attorney fees in general and just keep doing that and definitely Unknown 1:24:47 well the question is I guess is there a history of it as you got around and bought all the lawyers of those that are trying to put forward the suit against them and I think this is the Andy 1:24:59 way of it yeah that's what I was saying I think it's a one isolated a one off isolated thing but this is a guy that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars he has the the you know the war chest to potentially do a lot of that Unknown 1:25:13 look it's disgusting yeah he can afford it Unknown 1:25:18 so he can do it Andy 1:25:21 and that's the article those it's it's definitely it's a show the contrast between the other side where we have people with that are indigent that are having their constitutional rights squashed and the reason why this article is so relevant is because here's a guy with hundreds of millions of dollars and he could ostensibly by his way out of see any jail time to some degree Unknown 1:25:41 yeah we've already seen that happen in St. Petersburg Florida here Unknown 1:25:47 but the whole incident of the gentleman that has his own little private island Unknown 1:25:54 but yeah I mean it's disgusting I certainly hope that the evidence bears out that he did commit these crimes and if that is the case then I hope he's convicted and you know given every day he deserves behind bars but Unknown 1:26:12 I don't see anything Oh, Andy 1:26:13 you have a counterpoint there I know you have a counterpoint there Larry 1:26:16 well I'm not an expert on conflict of interest I certainly could see the the the allegation there but I'm not seeing the direct conflict is easily either that apparently if I've got the article right since I've done a lot more thorough read of the I did a Larry read first time through the fact that rose had these attorneys represent her on marijuana possession right coke cocaine possession does that mean that they that Unknown 1:26:53 that Larry 1:26:54 I'm just having I'm struggling with the conflict that that that was forever bar those attorneys from representing Weinstein I'm struggling to see that conflict Unknown 1:27:07 the conflict Andy 1:27:08 is as she's accused Weinstein of whatever these you know, I don't know what her specific allegations is but of doing sexual impropriety things with her. And so then that's the same attorney that's representing Weinstein. Larry 1:27:22 Right. But the her criminal case was completely different. That was, that was a separate case. And conflicts can arise there. There's a trick that people play a divorce, though, they'll go, they'll go consult with an attorney that they think that they're the spouse might use to take that attorney off the table. And then when that when the spouse gets there, they they beat up to with a spouse as well. I mean, the attorney says, Well, I already know too much about this case, I've already consulted with your spouse, and I think I have a conflict of interest, but I'm just failing to tie I'm having a struggle with the possession of cocaine preventing that particular law firm from representing Weinstein, it's a whole separate issue that I'm just I'm just having a little struggle, draw, draw the connection together, maybe somebody who understands the deep layers of conflict of interest, but it's not readily apparent to me, at first glance, Andy 1:28:18 the angle that I thought you were going to take, though, is after Rick had made the comments about it's disgusting, and he should serve all the time and all that and that you would bring up the point that he should get a fair trial and serve what he deserves to serve. And if he's not found guilty, then you've brought that up to go for Larry 1:28:35 it. Well, that Unknown 1:28:36 that's basically what I just Larry 1:28:38 said to go. That would go without saying that I presume all people in Assam, I present my police officers that I see shooting people off the side of mountains and in the back of the head when they're in a hotel room, probably I presume that they're innocent. And I think the evidence is overwhelming sometimes. But still, if they choose to take that matter to trial, I believe it's the prosecution's duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of their peers that they did that. So Weinstein has the same, right, right. But there should be no presumption of anything here. There should be the presumption that he's no sense. That's the presumption and the accusers have the burden to carry. It's not that Weinstein has to prove it, we've we've converted this all upside down. When it comes to process works. The presumption seems to be that if somebody accuses you must, you must have done something I presume no such thing like South watch videos of cops doing horrible things, and I say that officer deserves the total protection of law now, they'll never say that on our side, but I say it on their side that we preserve nothing until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So why is that Unknown 1:29:49 and Andy you and I discussed this a little bit earlier today in regards to the coming 10 kids and how quick the media jump to that they should not be presumed innocent shall we say in regards to being accosted at the Lincoln Memorial during the march for life Unknown 1:30:11 you know there they keep jumping to these conclusions and and saying up nope he's he's definitely guilty believe all women, right? We got to believe all women look at Kevin I gotta believe all women even after everything is debunked. Now, now, we still believe or Unknown 1:30:28 what I specifically stated was, I hope that should the evidence bear out that he's done these things that he is convicted and given, you know, every day he deserves behind bars, but the evidence has to bear it out. So I'm not saying he's guilty Andy 1:30:47 public opinion has has definitely made him the guilty party. I mean, he's already lost his CEO ship or whatever, the you know, Chairman and all that, you know, I'm sure he's, I'm sure he's not hurting. I'm sure he's not even like, you know, ramen soups and whatnot. But he's never going to be in that position of fame and glory and power. Again, that's for sure. Unknown 1:31:09 Agreed. So Larry 1:31:12 Well, hopefully, we believe at least made it clear that due process, even even somebody accused of egregious things deserves the presumption and due process and I tried, it can't be that your duty is to step aside if someone comes to you. And if your defense business which is the business man, you say, I'm sorry, that's just I can't I can't cope with that the evidence is too great. And I can't, I can't be zealous and your advocacy. So therefore, you need to look for another show for someone else to to be your mouthpiece. Andy 1:31:45 There's an article from the marshal project. This one is really disturbing and very, very sad that so in fields of blood, my life has a prison labor, or here's a guy that can be convicted of about 40 years in Texas for some pretty heinous stuff. But you know, that being said, he gets into prison in the early 80s. And what you would picture from the 1800s, early 1900s of people just doing like, chain gang, kind of nasty labor this guy is out there with I don't even know this thing's called an Aggie, and I don't really can't even he said, it's called a massive Whoa. And they're just out there, digging trenches, whatever, to plant crops, and it's for 10, 1214 hours a day, and it's Texas. So, it can't be anything other than frickin murderously hot guards threatening to shoot you if you're not working, his bleeding hands just constantly blisters on his feet. We have a really amazingly awesome compassionate prison system. Larry 1:32:48 I think I put it in her for that very reason that gives Yeah, she did her to talk about who we are. And the funny thing sad thing I guess it's really not all that funny. The sad thing is that not much of that has changed in the deep south, they still in Arkansas still in Louisiana, they still use these whole slides and Texas and they put these people in these horrendous conditions and even Joe our pile think brought back chain gangs will actually change them together when he was sharing for Rebecca County. But I think there's some something that says about who we are, yes, we want to hold people accountable for their for their misdeeds. But this this I'm assuming there's even a little bit of embellishment in here I'm assuming that anytime somebody writes something as time passes we tend to look back on it in the snow was a little bit deeper and there was a little bit colder and things tend to get embellished but even taken out to embellish but I know that the conditions that they southern states employee and their prison labor is are very very difficult people people really suffer greatly that and that's not what it by the presence about presence not about how much suffering prisons about and my book putting a person out of circulation that really is is too dangerous to society not that we find that irritating but they're too dangerous to society and we need to contain them until we can modify their behavior through the best attempts to that that we can make to modify their behavior so that they're no longer present a danger to society and then we want to get those people back out into society because I'm a conservative like like like Rick I believe that I would rather people be paying taxes and working that may access to support them so I want as many people out in the end and the economy participating as as all possible and that that's what I think he did conservatorship Unknown 1:34:43 agreed Unknown 1:34:45 I I honestly thought that that's kind of what I was heading into. When I was on my way to prison. Unknown 1:34:53 I think Unknown 1:34:53 God changing labor nothing. Oh, you got to understand I mean, I grew up in a in a Midwest home, Unknown 1:35:00 you know, Unknown 1:35:01 I've only heard about the worst of the worst of the worst in regards to prisons. So my whole concept was looking at something that that that's what I felt like I was headed into Unknown 1:35:15 and and I thank God that that's not what I ended up in, I was at a what's considered a low within the federal system. They have camps low, medium, high, and then penitentiary. And the facility that I was at, had a women's camp a low a medium and then to kind of countries Andy 1:35:41 but isn't a significant distinction that the Fed system is significantly more humane than this states, at least if we bring in to just say, like the southern ish kind of states, the federal system, and also you're talking about something somewhat recent, this guy's talking about something from the 80s not that long ago. I Unknown 1:36:01 absolutely agree. You know, with what you just said, there. I'm just stating that my idea from film and, and TV shows and whatever else as I grew up, the idea that I had of what I was going into was basically what the this guy wrote about, and I thank God that that wasn't it. You actually might get a little mad at me here. But what I walked into was something completely different. Well, we got to move every hour of we had 10 minutes to move from one area to another, I had to sand volleyball courts, a couple of basketball courts, few handball courts, a track, I had a weightlifting area, Andy 1:36:47 right. So listen to you kids, before you commit a crime. Make sure you do something that gets you fed to do it federal, it's the way to go. Let me tell you, Unknown 1:36:58 I had kid you not. I had pool tables Unknown 1:37:02 with q sticks and everything. We you have to have a job while you're there. And my job was to help the band's set up for their concerts. So I worked maybe twice a year. Andy 1:37:16 That's a hell of a detail there. Unknown 1:37:18 Oh, let me tell you, it was the best detail. You know, I got paid what, two cents a month, I think was right. You know, so, but that's what I thought I was heading into. You know, now, I know here in Marion County. I've seen state and county inmates working. I have no idea what their conditions are. But they're coming from the county jail. And they're using riding lawn mowers and grass, Germany and other equipment to take care of the roadway medians and shoulders and stuff like that. Do I think that there was a little bit of embellishment there? Almost certainly, Unknown 1:37:56 you know, but I kind of don't doubt the article only because it's Texas and you want to talk about cancer would have Andy 1:38:07 pretty much the tip of the iceberg on conservatism there. Unknown 1:38:10 Yeah. And and so we do what we want do I think it was definitely way too much and too far. Yeah, I would definitely say that, you know, Andy 1:38:20 but let's try and wrap this up. Because we have just a couple articles left. And we are way long already. This article comes from the intercept. And the rape of Anna chambers led to a change in New York law, but she can't benefit from it. And the key point of this article, I think, is that she got arrested. She was in a car with I think it was two other people, two men, and they let the men go, but they detained her. And while in custody, they had their way with her just you know, and they say that it was consensual. And she went and did what she did probably what I think you're going to see Larry's like, the super smart thing is, after the event was over, she went into immediately got a rape kit done, and they found the semen of the officers and so forth. But the key here is that she can't consent to sex while in custody. I think that's the key here Larry 1:39:14 that that is the key. And it's arguably and I'm not going to be too strong on this, arguably, we have to be careful when we define custody. And we got to be careful about how much we let limit adult consenting adults, but the theory goes that if a person has has has that kind of power, and has has your liberty restrain that anything that any conduct to engage in, it's not consensual, but if we're going to take that route, then I would like for us to be intellectually honest about it when they read you your Miranda rights and ask you to consent to an interview. Yeah, maybe shouldn't be allowed to consent Andy 1:39:57 to that question. Where Where do you draw the line in? You can't say, I don't want to have knocks, you know, do the horizontal Mambo with these officers because they look sexy in their uniforms. What other things could you then say, I am not qualified to consent because I'm in custody really long distance. Sure, Larry 1:40:14 if we're going to get hate mail saying, Well, you could prepare rape to to a discussion. And I'm not I'm not I'm not comparing the two. But I'm saying we have to be careful in terms of or we limit what people can voluntarily do as adults. I find it a little distasteful to me if I if I'm going to have a sexual romantic relationship. If I've had to conquer the by having power. And I did one time have a lot of power when I was a landlord, but I never used the power that way to me. That's not that's not that's not a fun thing to do. If that's the only way you can get it, then you probably don't deserve to have it. If that's the only way you can you can have relations. But we got to be careful about what we how we restrained people, because where does custody start when they offer suppose you over and you're not in any type of facility and officer as as as if the person makes the invitation. Can we work this out and they and they tell the officer I just happen to live three blocks down the road. And if you happen to stop by I mean, I'm sure we can have a good time. I mean, where do we draw the line? And I'm not trying to I'm not to sound crass or insensitive. But these are questions that need to be answered. And it's it's it's it's it's a it's a sensitive situation about about what we're custody starts and what people can't consent to do while they're in custody. Unknown 1:41:38 And for me, I've looked at it and said, well, that just goes right up against innocent until proven guilty, because you're already assuming guilt, regardless of what the situation is. Andy 1:41:50 Wait guilty by who's count, like the woman will see the custody for an alleged crime, and now you have cops allegedly performing crime on the backside of that Unknown 1:42:02 right. Well, that's kind of the question, right? So would it be considered consensual? Have a female officer had sex with a male inmate for instance? Or would that be considered rate as well? Andy 1:42:15 I would be willing to be similar, Larry 1:42:18 they would be considered right. But the reporting of those incidences dramatically lower Exactly. I can I can't explain male versus female. But the the reporting there's a lot of sexual activity that goes on in prisons between between staffers and men. And very little of it gets reported, the more of it gets detected through internal detection systems. That actually, I mean, did you ever have a complaint about having sex while he was in prison? No, no, it's just not the way males are wired right. Don't read it, have it and so so you don't get along reports in that area. But it would be on with the laws gender neutral, you just can't do it. It's great regardless. Male or Female under the law? Unknown 1:43:02 Well, again, it I mean, I don't know it I say that because I look at it and I go well, you're presuming before any facts are given on the on it being consensual or not, and I can only see that particular law going horribly wrong for males in male police officers male corrections officers Unknown 1:43:30 because I like you just said you don't see the reporting as much from a female officer to a male Unknown 1:43:38 person you know under Larry 1:43:42 I'm sorry I'm losing my Unknown 1:43:43 train of thought here but under the weather there in custody or not. So Unknown 1:43:54 I just I don't think it's going in the right direction I think that you last the presumption of innocence Unknown 1:44:03 by blatantly stating that if they're in custody, it's automatically rape Andy 1:44:08 i'd What if that way we you've got someone that has like firearms and all kinds of position of hardware to detain you to where they could they have at least an intimidation factor over you. You Unknown 1:44:21 certainly have. Andy 1:44:23 So if they say, Hey, why don't we have, you know, do the horizontal Mambo and then she's like, if I say no, he, you know, to take it to the extreme he could kill me and say it was in self defense and juries go on the side of cops all the time on that kind of situation. So then she just says, Well, I'll just take my lumps and let's go how's that not right. That's coercion. Unknown 1:44:50 Oh, that is course of and that is rape. But you have to bear that out. That's all I'm saying. Andy 1:44:56 If here we are proposing a law because the system has come up like the cop should have the integrity to not do the thing but obviously not that's why we're that we're proposing a law Unknown 1:45:07 exactly and I understand where they're coming from with the law. I just don't think it's I think it's stepping on being innocent until proven guilty Unknown 1:45:18 because you're not giving any officer of the presumption of innocence What if the woman had you know she's under custody and she's she's the one that initiated and starts the conversation about hey, you know, if you can let me go you know, I'll do this for you. Now. who's guilty the officer because he's still got custody over Unknown 1:45:41 Yes, Unknown 1:45:43 probably. Larry 1:45:45 So Unknown 1:45:46 now you have like a corruption thing going on? Unknown 1:45:48 Well, you do have corruption going on. So he's guilty of corruption but is he guilty of rape at that point Larry 1:45:56 go to the first paragraph the senate bill sevens. 708 asserts that when a person is under arrest, arrest doesn't mean you're in jail, Andy 1:46:06 right Larry 1:46:06 attention. That doesn't mean you're in jail. You could be right at the side of the road or otherwise an actual custody by police officer are the law enforcement official. Well, that includes that person is incapable of consenting to a sexual encounter that's what we're being asked to buy into it once you're in any type of detention or they'd be behind the bars are being confined in your movements that you cannot consent to a sexual encounter I think that that's a little problematic in terms of saying you can't consent it Unknown 1:46:40 if that's the issue that I had Larry 1:46:43 it for Bill like that we're here I would want to try to narrow that Solomon and make sure that that that you are truly in a what I would want you in a custodial situation where there's where there's no choice on your own part realistically but but when when you're pulled over the side of the road you've got you've got all sorts of choices to also put sand castle on you Unknown 1:47:07 agree Larry 1:47:07 right. You have you have you have choices and people people I've heard flash cleavage I've never been able to get make that work me but I've heard of variety of what what people do and this has been directed from a law enforcement officers that I've had really right that that say that they get all for some propositions on a regular basis. uniforms are inherently attractive, and I think they're probably more attracted to women. They are men, but I'm not saying it's universally that way. But something about the uniform does and I can't explain it, all of us the power fist sex sex appeal or something, but who are weak, or we're going to stop all propositioning Andy 1:47:51 propositioning something like that any different than offering money or something else of value. If you can find the chink in the armor of the office, then I don't I don't necessarily find them to be a lot of difference there. We can call it great weekend. Is Larry 1:48:06 that a rape? Or is that is that another crime that you could possibly have? that that that is that officer rape or someone's proposition? Or what I proposition you take a bribe? I'm the one to get some trouble if all for money. Why should I mean hypothetically, devil's advocate, why wouldn't the person making the offer get in trouble? Sure Andy 1:48:27 puttering custody, you're going to start making not necessarily the most rational decisions to try and get yourself out of the situation, Unknown 1:48:36 right. But if you're in custody, and you're making those things, you are the one that would then quote unquote, be consenting to whatever it is that you're offering. Unknown 1:48:46 So this thing is saying that that person can't do that they're incapable of doing that right there because you're under for it's automatically it's automatically rape if you're under rest. I mean, Unknown 1:49:03 frankly, you'll say what I mean, perfect example. I think perfect sample I think I was under duress when I was brought into the police station was Larry 1:49:11 that was spot I was why why don't why don't we just say that that anything that you say to police it while you're This is why don't we just expand it out and say that you're incapable of doing anything in police custody? Andy 1:49:24 I saw that going that direction? I saw that Larry 1:49:27 yes? Well, I mean, under the under the doctrine, that would be it Unknown 1:49:33 right. And that's why I have an issue with with that, because, you know, you go both directions real easily. But again, in my my view, I'm looking at it saying you're automatically assuming that the officer has done wrong now, yes, has the officer done something wrong? Yeah, probably they took a bribe or they took whatever was was a consensual, you have to go down that line, you have to look at the evidence to find out whether or not it was consensual on the part of the person that was in custody. At that point, Unknown 1:50:10 I just don't like the fact that they're just automatically assuming that the person cannot make some sort of consensual Unknown 1:50:18 Overture at that moment. Now, if they're if they're the ones that are doing it, Andy 1:50:25 I mean, Unknown 1:50:27 I don't know I just I think it's a slippery slope, no matter which direction you look at it. Andy 1:50:34 The final article and this one is is something that I kind of have a hot button for them, we'll just we'll cover this one pretty quick is can law enforcement for should open up your cell phone using your biometrics and recently there was a case that came out of California where it was some guys trying to extort somebody over Facebook and in a search for is issued. And when they go into the house, the way the search for read is that you can get anybody on the premise to open up their phone. And a judge ruled that you can't do that. So if you want to john to open up his phone, and that's what the Warren said you could get john to open up the phone. But just because Tom is hanging out with john you can't get Thomas phone opened up. And as far as I know, this is the one of the first cases that has held up that your biometrics your fingerprint your face scan whatever time like your phone is a fifth amendment protection against self incriminating and I thought that this was pretty stellar and it's kind of tangentially related to our people but still on my radar and something I was happy to hear about Larry 1:51:44 it's a good case to bring bring up because it illustrates the evolving nature of society and lights and though the poor Founding Fathers could never have thought about these type of issues so it it means it means that we have to we have to do a little bit of thinking and the technology has and will continue to evolve faster than the law but what they what they applied here was the the third party doctrine that the Supreme Court has has established in terms of how much third party and it would be a whole program and I don't fully understand the third party doctrine but the records that are routinely got from third parties like for example subpoenas issued all the time for phone records okay the third the third parties keeping and what this case evolved around and this is little trial court level likely to be appealed but they looked at Carpenter vs United States which which set new standards on the third party doctrine which was just decided 2018 the end of the term and supreme Supreme Court is has given us a little bit of guidance in terms of what third party records can be made available but they said those people the district judge the trial judge there on this case that we're talking about said that that that that those are just third parties who happened to be there they work to people who were solid so therefore their their records or what's going on their phones not immediately available because their third parties but it's lovely more complex lot more complicated than that but but as society evolves we have do questions that did come up in colonial times and we have to figure out how to resolve those questions within what we think the founders would have intended and we think that the founders would not have intended now for conservative justice didn't think that way but but in the carpenter decision but but but but the for liberals along with Chief Justice Roberts didn't think that way that that the founders would have wanted not for you to be able to get other people's records just willy nilly without some sort of due process so so that that they they expand to the third party doctrine and 2018 Andy 1:53:51 very interesting so just to fill in the gap though they can't get you to reveal your password if you have a pass code or password and your phone but to get your fingerprint or your facial scan to get your phone on like that's that's what we're specifically talking about they have held up that your your password type things things that you know you can claim Fifth Amendment but things that you are they have not held so far until this that you fit the member protections against I think that about wraps it all up Larry 1:54:22 this will this will be a good one to follow. It really would is this case evolves or the appeals really Andy 1:54:27 this really interests me greatly Larry 1:54:30 because they don't have the battle with Apple and Trump's in the demo should be ashamed because they wouldn't would provide the government access to the computer to the phone. I mean, the Andy 1:54:39 smartphone to the phone. Yeah, that's what the San Bernardino thing where the two terrorists type people shut up the place and they wanted to get data off the phone. They the government ended up buying some sort of hack for the phone. It was an iPhone four, if I'm not mistaken, they bought they spent 1,000,010 million dollars for some divulged hack to get into the phone. That's why that just completely disappeared. That's how the whole thing just like it just evaporated off the new cycle. Unknown 1:55:05 Oh, Unknown 1:55:06 so that's sort of like a bug bounty kind of thing. Larry 1:55:09 I was a little shocked at the boycott for Apple, which was called for, but that's what he said. Andy 1:55:16 Yeah. All right, then. Well, let's wrap this up. Larry, how can people find us on the inter webs? Larry 1:55:24 Well, they can they can find us through a variety of they can go to registry matters. dot c Oh, and that Unknown 1:55:32 will find us. How about how about what what about a phone number? Larry 1:55:36 Well, we I love phone calls. Because I'm old fashioned. So please call 747274477. And that phone will not be answered 24 hours a day. But we message and and if it doesn't go on and on which some of our callers do try to keep it to where that it would be concise and short. And we'll play it and we'll try to deal with that if it's related to register matters, or the type of stuff we talked about. That's another Andy 1:56:04 way. How about some email. Larry 1:56:07 And that's the favorite. Because Andy reviews all those and those go to registry matters. cast@gmail.com Andy 1:56:14 and our favorite way for our for our people, for our listeners for our fans to support the podcast a desk Larry 1:56:21 to to to set up a draw from Patreon. For your tart take on paycheck each period. Just Just go see what's your patient Go Go to patreon.com slash registry matters. And just joking aside, if it's $1 a month, it shows that we're building support and that what we do is valued and, and we're grateful because people give different amounts. And I'm shocked what some people give. But But any amount is is appreciated. So acknowledgement that we gather here and we provide something of value to your each week. Andy 1:56:58 Thank you guys so much. Much love the patrons love all the listeners. Thank you very much. And Rick, thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it. And we have run super duper long but thank you very much for for hanging out. Unknown 1:57:10 Thank you for having me. And I look forward to doing this again. If you'll have me. Like I said I'm available every other weekend. Unknown 1:57:16 Cool. I expect I expect we will Andy 1:57:20 all right then. And so with that I bid you all adieu and have a great great night. Unknown 1:57:25 Talk to you soon. Bye. Good night. Transcribed by https://otter.ai