Andy  0:00  
registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts FYI p recording live from fit studios, east and west with a handful of guests transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 63 of registry matters. Happy Saturday, Larry. I hope it's not freezing cold where you are.

Larry  0:24  
It is not as a Bobby 94 degrees here, balmy 9494 they'll probably the 50s earlier today. But it's it's colder down since the sun has gone down.

Andy  0:36  
Well, we have. We have Josh joining us tonight. And Josh is up in up in Michigan. And he took off his sweater just a little while ago because it must be like above 50 below zero. So that just makes it like t shirt weather. Hey Josh. How are you?

Larry  0:50  
Hey Andy. It's actually pretty nice today. It's a little chilly but not much.

Andy  0:55  
But not like with Windchill?

Larry  0:57  
No, no, that was last week.

Andy  0:59  
That was that was some crazy weather. Well, so you are from the decarceration nation podcast. You've written a book you are like 1000 per week. Twitter? Or Or how do you Twitter?

Larry  1:14  
I have no idea. Tweet, Twitter. Yeah,

Andy  1:17  
Twitter, whatever. And you are a resident expert on Michigan and some kind of sort of like hot publication came out I guess from the Attorney General up there. So I wanted to have you on so that you could speak first person about that whole situation.

Larry  1:30  
Yeah. Thanks, Eddie. I'm here.

Andy  1:33  
Ah, so what other kind of like stuff can we talk about later before we actually get things rolling?

Larry  1:39  
Oh, have I done anything crazy? The last week?

Andy  1:42  
Yes. Pretty much have you have you changed that? Any showerheads? Have you had any outbreaks of flooding? Can you figure Have you figured out how to park your car yet

Larry  1:53  
not changed in a shower heads I haven't traveled so that has not been necessary. I have not figured how to drive the car yet. So I'm still driving the old one. And I have actually flooded my house just a couple days ago. So

Andy  2:09  
flooded to a degree like a leak like swimming pool.

Larry  2:13  
Well, this is this is this is the most laughable thing that anybody could ever imagine a month. I've only been doing this for like six years. So I've got to get around to fixing it one of these days. But

Andy  2:24  
there's a new problem though.

Larry  2:26  
Well, I wouldn't call it new if it's been since like 2011. As I said, I'd be like seven or eight years now.

So I have what's what's built as a slab house so those of you who don't know what slab houses are, that's where they rather than having a crawl space there on cement slab or as I said, The Beverly Hillbillies see Matt and all your piping and everything is under that slab. If you have any problems you have to break the slab and so so in the 80s when this place was built, they were using a product called poly Bewdley piping and it turned out not to be a very durable product. And it springs pinhole leaks which become larger and larger and the there's been enough there's been a number of them, but the beautiful thing about Polly beer lane is you can put a smaller pipe inside that pipe so it doesn't make hard 90 degree turns you don't have joints they just laid across the ground that it follows the curvature and and turns up in the wall and it feature fixture. So I've been I've been sleeping all these leaks. Well, I've got one now that I can't find

and it's not easy to sleep. So what you do in a case like that, if you put you put a shutoff valve so you can turn that water off when you're not using it. Well, I went home couple nights ago and it turned it on I forgot about it.

And a matter of a couple of hours. It builds up enough water over the slab to the stars up through the slams. All of a sudden does have water in the garage.

I have an important important question for Hillary does that mean once it all leaked out that you had a see my pond

well it wasn't that much water the the is interesting but when you when you when water is on your floor, you can take a cup of water glass of water, dump it on the floor, you think you've got lots of water you really don't want us when I scooped it and got it all up I think I probably hold up maybe eight gallons of water but but that's all spread across your garage floor you think you've got you know you think you've got a flood and so but but try getting up eight gallons of water where it's all spread across the floor and try to corral that with the dust pad with a nice smooth edge or whether whether whether whether the bot will Street Market Samurai times you have to bring out your Bob to get an eight 910 gallons of water let me know how long it takes it if you don't have a Wet Wet back you're going to be it but you're gonna be picking up water for a while so that's that's my mic my excitement for the for the week.

I was just trying to make a pile on The Beverly Hillbillies. joke there. But

the same at pond. Yes. I didn't have enough water to have a seat met pond. So but yes, I'm familiar with that. See Matt pond?

Andy  5:18  
Well, let's get rolling. And first up. We had a we had a question from a patron in Wisconsin. Dave and he had a pretty long question about GPS and the state Supreme Court and Dave rights. Hi, Andy. And, Larry. As you know, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently decided that lifetime GPS is not punishment. Then shortly after that, another case went to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals where was decided that it is not unconstitutional to apply lifetime GPS retroactively if GPS isn't punishment, and it can be applied retroactively. What's to prevent it from being part of the registration process, if I understand correctly, the way our laws are now. Now, just anyone can be given GPS monitoring, you would need to violate conditions of supervision or be convicted of a new crime. But why not require all this constant registrants to wear GPS, it's for the public safety. After all, I understand the concept of trying to prevent bad law by presenting facts to a committee of legislators. If a new bill is introduced, that would require more registrants to wear GPS, it could hopefully be stopped in committee. But what happens once a state Supreme Court makes a ruling does the next cakes does the next case go to Circuit Court of Appeals? Also, in hindsight, could anything have been done to sway members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court into deciding differently? Sorry, about the length of the question, this GPS thing is really on my mind. As always, thank you for an excellent show you guys are doing well. Thanks, Dave, for the long question.

Larry  6:47  
Well, it would be a series of questions, we could actually do a program on this, which I think I might recommend that we do a program about this whole episode will be our feature event there. So there's so many questions in here.

I have not read that case came out a bit 2018 I skimmed it and show prep today, but I did didn't really digest it to the level that would that would be probably the best helpful but I can tell you some things I spotted right away. And and that was it's all important about how a case comes before the court the vehicle that you're writing, and people don't understand that they think that when you're in court, that you just you file something and the court figures out what it is, and no, you don't just file a thingy, you follow a particular thing that has a name, whether it be a petition for a dissolution of marriage, whether it be a petition for restitution of your property of your landlord, whether it be a petition for revocation, or probation supervision, if it's a state it, whether it be a criminal complaint, alleging there's there's all these different pleadings. And each each type of action has a different process and different set of rules, different standards of evidence that different evidence taking and gathering rules for the evidence that go forward, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea, because he alleged that since they fail to surprise him of that GPS monitoring requirement that he should be allowed to withdraw has played well, the the requirements for being able to withdraw a plea since I don't have any associate practices and was constant, I've never associated with an attorney and had to work on that issue. I can't tell you what, what the what the what the exact standard for Wisconsin withdrawing a plea is very, very, very difficult unless you have an agreement in advance. And that's universally federal, or across the country withdrawing a plea. That's why they asked you all those questions that you don't like being asked about. Do you understand English language? What grade Did you attended school? Are you under the effect of any medications today, as your attorney explained that all the rights are getting coming up, you have the right to do this, and they go down a whole litany of things. They don't do that lightly. They do that to make sure that that door shut behind you. And I can assure you that he probably answered all those questions. He understood all these things. And when it come to find out he didn't understand this, because it wasn't it wasn't explained to him. He didn't he didn't know about it was in the in order not to have an avalanche. What the what the court would have been considering is that we don't want to do anything to encourage people to use this vehicle have withdrawn, please. Next thing, you know, we'll have hundreds and they worry about the proverbial floodgates. So they would have said, Wow, we're going to have a deluge. If we let this guy on his plea. There's no telling how many of these cases are out there. So they would enter this looking for a way to make sure that his police do it. Well, how do you get there? Well, they decided to use the the intent effects that it has to say that well, GPS in of itself isn't really punitive. And they went for the children analysis of what's punishment, which is imprisonment. And they went through a list of things that constitutes punishment finds. I said, Well, it's not a fine, it's not incarceration. It's not restrictions on his move, but he can go anywhere he wants to is just that we we hit where he goes as track, but it doesn't say kit. And we don't say anything about punishment. So therefore, they upheld it. But you've had so much upheaval, Wisconsin in terms of Supreme Court in terms of Walker, but got to be governor, there were some vacancies and I don't know the history of this, the listener probably knows better than I do. But I know Walker ended up a former Governor Walker ended up pointing a couple justices, Supreme Court and there were some consternation about whether he was battling with the quarter what he was doing, and I don't know all the interfaces that but but I do remember that judges are elected except for when they're vacancies. So the justices you've got on Supreme Court, they're elected for like long periods of time, you know, it's like eight or 10 years. It's not a short but it's not a short tenure of the they saw and they they structured that deliberately to make sure that the political winds didn't blow too hard against a you know, the data was somewhat insulated from the from the whims of politics, but this is this was an example of a court wanting to get to the answer what they wanted to get to, because he was breaking a petition to withdraw his plate if he'd have brought a different type of action where you could build an evidentiary record about how punitive GPS was, rather than just trying to do a straight motion to withdraw as play. It's possible he might could have got a different outcome. No one knows. But so that's that's my take on it. And does this go to the court of appeals? No, I mean, when he's talking about this is this is the next step, the federal courts do not automatically have jurisdiction over over state courts. They're not they're not the Superior Court of the states, the federal courts are actually a courts have limited jurisdiction, you can only take an issue to federal court if there's a federal claim that you want to assert. So there's no automatic

Andy  11:58  
constitute violation, right? Right.

Larry  12:01  
Right. It's been hit the radical he could he could make he could make a constitutional assertion here that that the state Supreme Court got it wrong, and that does constitute punishment. And, and he could he could, he could go into federal court, but there's no automatic that that would be a place where he could go because it doesn't where else to go into state once you once you've exhausted state Supreme Court as they want to reconsider their opinion. That's the end of the gigs. So so he would have to go to federal court. But But he has to he has to have a cognitive will claim that they went to federal court just because you don't like what your state court decided that's no basis to go into federal court, because the federal court so limited and what they can hear

Andy  12:38  
that is a lot of I'm just going to say it this way, it's a lot of word salad. That's complicated. I don't mean that I don't mean that at any derogatory way. I mean, that's just a lot of complicated stuff that you just described. And I'm just kind of still trying to digest it. Because, you know, I'm the dummy over here.

Larry  12:52  
Well, that's why I think we should do a program if we can find a Wisconsin practitioner and bring them in here. I think we could do a much better job of this but elections have consequences you got it you got to do the best you can to figure out who your elected to the Supreme Court, would you when governors have a point, but powers like a lot Governor Walker did, it'd be interesting to look at sea of that decision, which justices for which way Matter of fact, I wonder if it said, the decision right now that we have, I've got that I'd like that. Read

Andy  13:20  
it last year. So what you're describing is when you go to the voting booth, it's not just like, it's not a piece of paper handed and it's red or blue and you just colored in

Larry  13:29  
elections have consequences.

Josh  13:31  
See, I've never heard that before.

Larry  13:35  
Yes, we need to think about what we're doing what we vote. So that's what I'm not sure that David say who bogus which way I'm taking a glance that but yeah, I'd like to come back to this one at a future time. Okay.

It's kind of kind of kind of an interesting topic of me, I've always felt like that one of the things that Larry said that we were talking about before the show started was this kind of notion of courts making things true through kind of legal fictions. And I've always thought that all of these kind of safety concern things like GPS monitoring or civil commitment are kind of in that area of things that they created through sort of legal fictions like as a person I kind of feel like what GPS monitoring the most important thing is that if you're going to say that we're going to provide GPS monitoring because it provides public safety you should be able to prove that GPS monitoring actually enhances public safety and to my knowledge there's no really good research that suggests that so you know a court will say that's not their job that's the legislators job to decide if it's true or not but at the end of the day I still think it's it should be true that we should only deprive liberty for reasons that are based in evidence for the most part evidence

Andy  14:45  
that's See that's some poppycock right there

Josh  14:49  
well good Papi Kaka hope

Andy  14:54  
and then moving on. So a person named Christian went to registry matters dot CEO and left and it is in reference to a question from a listener from last week about the internet identifiers and he says Kentucky's requirement that people on the registry provide Internet identifiers was so vague as to be unconstitutional. That was the subject of it and says dear Andy and Larry a great question last week from the gentleman in Kentucky about not having to provide Internet identifiers. If you remember doe vs. Tilly from 2017, this law was struck down by a federal judge citing Kentucky statutes were declared unconstitutional by the trial court. And he gives a link to that. So just wanted to pass it on. He also says that guy Hamilton Smith actually filed a suit and keep up the good work. Thank you read it. And you will see more in detail also. He says give Larry a hard time for me. I don't know what that's about. So just going to throw that out there.

Larry  15:47  
Well, Christian, thank you. Thank you for actually alerting me to this case. I did not know about it. I did read it. events of the of the podcast. And and there again, the court don't over read this case didn't say that you can't collect these they said that you can't collect them under this statute because there's not sufficient precision. The Void for vagueness doctrine is what we talked about. And because the the the lack of clarity in terms of what of what had to be collected and how it was collected in the three day period that it It opened the door to the legislature, if they wanted to go back and address the courts concerns they could craft a brand new statute and start this merry go round all over again, the courts can never prevent law backers for making walls

Andy  16:33  
but then if they start doing that, does that enter into the realm of ex post facto

Larry  16:40  
is how would How would How would collecting the internet identifier be I mean you could do an ex post facto law as long as it doesn't conflict punishment

Andy  16:49  
right right read

Larry  16:52  
I mean it is true that in in those verses Snyder that they did have concerns about the internet identifiers in that case if I remember correctly, I don't

I don't remember that particular part. But in this particular case, then doe versus Tilly these are district Kentucky 2017 they were concerned about the collection of the identifiers and the vagueness of how that was drafted because the offender doesn't know how to comply if you don't write with specific precision and and what what they had they had social media BAM which was struck they said that that was that was a no brainer so out now band that Kentucky had on social media that that fail and it's likely a steak steak on but in terms of the collection, this was the other component that case they said that you can't collect these under this statute. They didn't say you can't collect them, period. People always want to hear what's not there.

And I'm not advocating for reenacting the law. But I'm telling you that they could go back and and barely craft a law to get specific guidance in terms of what they're doing. And the start to America around all over again.

Andy  18:02  
Well, are we ready to start tackling these articles? I have a feeling that we could we could beat around these articles for a long time. And I'd like to get going. So we're not here to let's do it. Let's do it. If somebody have a question about who was it, put them in here? Why? Yeah, well, there's only two of them. There's only two nuts involved in this whole thing.

Larry  18:20  
Well, I wouldn't, I wouldn't. I wouldn't classify myself as a nut so they don't want to leave one other.

Andy  18:25  
Okay. So just here's a general question chime in. If you want to chime in. Does anybody ever think that they're crazy? That is actually crazy. Sometimes people will say that they're crazy. But to create not too crazy people know they're crazy. But will they tell people that I'm actually crazy?

Larry  18:40  
Yes, they do. All the time.

I've got a family member that readily confesses that she's crazy.

Andy  18:46  
Um, do you think that a person that actually is crazy that is in denial of it, but then Well, obviously, they wouldn't profess that they're crazy. So then we're back to do crazy people know they're crazy.

So I'm doing subbed out, right, so possibly the other co host of this show might actually be crazy. And in denial, it's possible. It's possible.

Larry  19:05  
Absolutely. Just, I've heard of it.

Andy  19:08  
All right. So out of the New York Times, this one's asked, we cover this subject and it's kind of you know, kind of goes to the lawsuit that's in Louisiana and it says one lawyer hundred 94 felony cases and no time I was trying to look through again, while I was a while we were talking and I was trying to find some of the specific numbers of how many hours they say on average, it should take a defend defense attorney to be able to represent someone's cases and I think the bottom line of this whole story is ultimately that this particular public defender would need five years of time to defend the hundred 94 cases that he has on his case load at the very moment funny little clip go ahead

Larry  19:52  
if you just do simple math is roughly about the lower 200 working days in a year right right

Andy  20:00  
and working hours give or take

Larry  20:01  
Yeah, so if you break it down to working days are counting personal time off vacation time and and holidays, your personal going to do a little over 200 working days a year, if you've got 200 cases that kind of tells you right there if you're not in a mathematical genius that you've got eight hours to to make with your client, review all the discovery, do pre trial interviews, do any witness interviews outside with your experts, going over expert testimony, preparing for trial, conducting the trial and getting it done? I mean, is that really practical to that for for a public defender to handle hundred 94 cases?

Andy  20:41  
No, you're absolutely right.

Larry  20:42  
There's probably a reason why not 95% of cases are plea bargain. I remember when I was being one of the hearings that I was in, I was standing outside waiting to go in and I went over to look at the docket and there were two public defenders who had 30 cases and just that day which was you know, I mean, pretty astounding to me at the time

Andy  21:05  
Well, there's a picture in the in the article there's like a little gift whatever, the attorney and he's got a bunch of pink slips on his on his desk there and they're just strewn everywhere. And he's frantically looking for whatever case and he's like throwing up his hands and frustration that he can't find the particular docket that he's looking for.

Larry  21:21  
Well, this has got to

be a nightmare, a reflection of who we are as a society of the way that's the thing that we've got an obligation we have this is one of those things where there is a right to counsel it's been it's been defined long time now what's early 1960s or forget the year but we've got the right Gideon is like 60 years old the case and and here we are all these decades later. And we still don't provide resources to people now of the tripod of the judiciary justice system, only one that the only one that can control the caseload is the defense attorney. The defense attorney doesn't decide what's filed. They don't decide what's dismissed and they don't decide at the prosecutor can elect to shrink their caseload busted but not following the judge can hold prosecutors to the deadlines that dismiss cases that are not believing properly. They don't do it as often as I should. But a defense attorney can only shrink his caseload by doing what cleaning out the case. That's all they could do to get their caseload and the cases keep coming,

Andy  22:27  
right. Yeah, I mean, he has 194 and a docket today, but he's going to go into court tomorrow and there's going to be 30 new cases so it to to deal with. And don't

Josh  22:37  
forget, there's also the the resource disparity between the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. And then the the prosecutors also have their own investigation arm which the defense attorneys obviously are missing as well.

Larry  22:50  
That's a great point that they don't

Andy  22:53  
they don't have any, any additional help. Well, yeah,

Larry  22:56  
well, the the expertise of the of the, the the forensics resources are such a big barrier now, everything's expert driven today. I mean, there's an expert for every aspect of a case and and the the prosecution arm has all those resources because they've got the local police, they've got the local sheriff, they've got the state police they've got crime lab that I mean, on and on the resources. They got the FBI if they need to, and the defense attorney has got his own budget, you know, he or she has to use their own clients funds or public funds which are very scarce because the person all to just plead guilty. The police are overworked already. And they went abroad to charge if they didn't have the right person and all that person. All they want to do is just to play game for the system and drag this damn thing out. They should just plead guilty and get it over with, they don't

Andy  23:42  
need all this expert. This is just a bunch of BS. There is something so actually let me ask you this question. Um, so then what? What is the solution? I realized? I mean, we could just like in this particular case, the guy has five times the case Look, do we fund the public defender's office five fold? Don't

Larry  24:02  
think of the past people have suggested equalizing the funds

i don't i don't think i don't think that's the answer. Andy

Andy  24:11  
give me give me an alternate solution then

Larry  24:15  
everything

I know every Monday is always a component of every problem. And it's interesting because when it's when it's a conservative problem, like wanting to fund more cops, they'll they'll they'll tell us when we want more money for schools or anything for social related deals. I say all you liberal do gooders all you think of us more money and all you want to do is throw more money to problem well, that's exactly what they want to do when it comes to military and comes to presence when it comes to national security and things like that they won't throw more money at the problems so magically money isn't and I don't think money is as as necessarily the solution we've got a systemic problem is deeper the money yes, money would be an infusion to try to bring a better quality attorneys into the system and more resources would be a part of a solution. The bigger part of the problem is that there's a meat grinder that sucking too many people in the system. And we should find boring economical ways to deal with our societal ills that bring in a criminal case against everybody seeking seeking maximum prison sentences, which is what this administration said they wanted to do when it got elected was imposed maximum maximum penalties and that's their words, not mine. I think that that we need to look at our failed policies that we incarcerate it multiple, many multiples of the world over in terms of the length of sentences compared to the industrialized civilized world, and we need to rethink our entire system. So money blood be a part of a solution, but there's a bigger problem to solve. And that's our over prosecution over incarceration. That's the bigger part of the problem.

I think the second part of that the prosecution part is also important, which is that prosecutors need to stop prosecuting so many cases, we need to make sure that there are more alternatives to incarceration across the board. We need to look for a better alternative than incarceration, and I'm every instance. And I also think equalizing, maybe not equalizing fees and making sure that fees are available. It's not a bad idea. I also think prosecutors need to provide more you know, there's also these states where prosecutors or even legally at times allowed to keep information from the defendants which is problem too, I think.

Andy  26:22  
All right, let's move on to this article from the Noonan times Herald I think this is like in my my neck of the woods almost it's not an idiot sorry I

Larry  26:31  
said I counted called Kavita

Josh  26:34  
and how need a, start up in a local

Larry  26:37  
the local ones, pronounce that Kalitta. Now, the people looking at that what's probably said Cal well, but if you live there is carried accounting it's a county range. Okay, so

Andy  26:48  
yeah, so if it's the Grange, then it's just north of Columbus. So it's on the west side of the state. But they they talked about having these warming centers for these frigid nights that we get here in Georgia. And it's a expected hit 35 degrees at night or 45 on rainy nights. So they're going to open up these these these shelters for people to get warm, and they go through, they're talking about all these people like you're going to have a lockable doors for women and children. Men staying overnight. They have sanctuary, this is awesome. There's blankets, they're going to do everything. And then it just says registered sex offenders will not be allowed to stay at the shelter. Gotta love it.

Larry  27:25  
Oh, what's what's the problem with that? Andy?

Andy  27:28  
I know, right. Well, I you know, this is actually a perfect segue so we don't we don't have to dwell on this one for very long but this will be a perfect segue into the to the next article that we get out of the the all four comes laws, which is the Alliance for constitutional sex offense last the the California group out there and so a guy guess I'm not quite in Joshua's neck of the woods, but in Springfield, Missouri, he he couldn't find shelter, so he froze to death, which is pretty frickin fantastic. Ya gotta love that.

Larry  28:00  
Well, there was one in Michigan also in that same article. Yes, there was in Grand Grand Rapids, Michigan. My these are horrible people. Mobile stomping grounds. As a matter of fact, that would be Kent County.

Andy  28:14  
I didn't know you had you had ties. Yeah, let's say Josh.

Larry  28:17  
I was gonna say I didn't know that you've lived in Michigan. There

are I have indeed registered registered to vote with the Secretary of State and I got my driver's license with a secretary of state, the only place I've ever lived where you went to the Secretary of State's office to get your driver's license. Do they still do it that way? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

What I waited acid gotta change my license. I said oh, so horse it'd be day they said. What I said the MVD and so what? What are you talking about? I said, I need to get a driver's license. You people who give licenses appeared on today. Oh, yeah. You got the Secretary of State. I said, You know what?

The Secretary of State I thought they registered voters. They said Oh, you get your driver's license. Alrighty,

so. But yes, I did live there. Back in the early 80s and Grand Rapids it's a wonderful place to live. It's just too It's too darn cold.

Especially for people on the registry who are homeless

Andy  29:15  
right Right. Right. So that takes us to whatever we had the the polar vortex a week or so ago. And it was I mean, the numbers that they were importing. Just unfathomable to be what 50 6070

below zero, with Windchill

Josh  29:27  
it was it was damn cold. I'm not gonna lie to you on Wednesday. Last week. I didn't go out of the house purpose.

Andy  29:34  
I don't blame you. And. But you know, so. You are in a place you have shelter if you were out on the street. I mean, these are unserviceable things I saw pictures on I guess Reddit or something. A girl with long hair she had wet hair and she goes outside and she like flips it over and I don't know if it froze instantly or did she hanger head upside down long enough and then she walks back in the house and her hair is like sticking straight up in the air it's like three feet in the air because her hair is frozen go allow these people place to live

Larry  30:04  
I had to get on Michigan because I had a pontification I wanted to do

pontificate so the the

I actually I actually agree with what's what the senator said state senator Nancy cassis I guess that's how you pronounce it a part of what she said she said that she supports the registry the law I don't agree with that but then she blames the social safety net for failing Mr. Polly who was the one that did I agree with her on that but what I find is ironic about this is that although I don't know what she's when she has an office but the social safety net in Michigan has been slowly dismantled over the last few decades the last they had when I was there they had William Milliken as governor and followed by James Blanchard and after Blanchard left office they took a hard right word swing politically and they've had they've they've they've dismantled the social safety net so but I'm curious if if he wasn't office how much participation she had in that dismantling because they used to have a statewide assistance program called ga that that a single person was eligible for and it would be have enough money that you could usually find some kind of rooming and shelter and they kicked all those able bodied people off general systems terminate the program now the only way you can get any assistance in Michigan is if your hip you have a disability which is consistent with a lot of other states and Michigan said that we're tracking too many people here but I just wonder if state senator Nancy cassis feels any regrets for how that the social safety net has been dismantled if she would actually like to exam I wish I would work with her on try to re establish some of those programs that were dismantled back in the 90s because that is a significant problem you know it was still not deal with people who need our emergency shelter which died because of the thousand feet but that's going to go away or at least be greatly diminished when the what all this litigation is done

on the those verses Snyder on the on the those two cases actually pending right now, which we're going to talk about later. But But I would hope that she would realize that that that that the social safety net got dismantled, because that's what the people Michigan bonded and that's what they that's what they got Josh

Oh, yeah, I agree with what Larry say. And that makes a lot of sense to me. And in a couple weeks, we have a legislative day in Lansing. So if I run into her flask seems like a good question. You said it's the social safety net What are you doing to fix the social safety net

asked her how she feels about general assistance and I have a report and so report I'll shoot it to you about what happened to a lot of those people that role in ga and and after they were terminated. Some died some moved out of state some probably did, but it would relatives some probably even got jobs. I haven't read the report a long time. But ask her if that was if that was a wise public policy choice, even if she wasn't in the legislature because Michigan used to have a very good, so safety net.

Yeah, unfortunately, it's gotten much worse. You know, last year, I was involved in the fight to stop work requirements on Medicaid here. Unfortunately, we lost that battle, we're still dealing with a lot of the restrictions on food aid, including work requirements, and a lot of other things. There's not a lot of areas where you know, and a lot of times, especially for people who are just coming out of prison or jail, the lack of a social safety net as a bridge if nothing else is really important. And unfortunately, a lot of people don't qualify and you end up being in really bad situations. And that's especially true for people on the registry. Because as we all know, that discrimination isn't a lot of ways worse.

Absolutely. That so so. But yes, I really have. I've agonized over what what what Michigan has done in terms of dismantling what was, in my view, a much better state and you know, so is Wisconsin I mean, they've they've read a lot of things about Wisconsin that we're good but of course, that's just my opinion as as an outsider but actually lived in Michigan

Andy  34:05  
this this next article comes from law.com and the title of it and Larry, I totally need your help on this one says rape conviction survives shield bought attack. And the subtitle is Chief Justice Harold Melton ruled that a trial judge aired by allowing evidence of the victims prior sexual behavior even though was to help when a rape conviction but the conviction stance Well, that was

Larry  34:27  
it was ironic to me because of the would actually need to read read the more details on the case. But But rape Sheila usually is something that the defense attorney wants to use,

it blocks the defense attorney because if somebody has a history of making accusations as a defender, we would like to less relevant I mean, this is several time I mean, this distortion seems to be the well apparently the prosecutor brought it up and the the the the appellate court said well, it was George supreme court but the George Supreme Court said well yeah it was it should have been allowed the prosecutor brought it up but I didn't really affect the conviction he would be convicted anyway so you can't you can't win so it's just that the irony of the of the of the prosecutor misusing the system and apparently the prosecutor was able to get away with it and it worked against the defendant and the Supreme Court said well it doesn't really matter but but it was just the already that I put it there from from from over in where I was born in El Kofi Judicial Circuit includes new county Covington so I thought well gee This is right close to home here

Andy  35:39  
right um. There was something in there that caught my attention it says um I would base the courts conclusion in this case on whites failure to satisfy that problem of the four part plain error analysis can do you know what the four part plain error analysis I do not all right well then I will then we'll just move on because that was like my only question is some sort of like legal jargon that we could have could have covered

Larry  36:03  
so don't we can we can bring this up at another date well we know more

Andy  36:07  
all right and then up Hey since it's a it's a whole cold theme show let's talk about a Brooklyn jail to be visited by federal judge after heat and power crisis I'm sure Josh you're up on this one

Larry  36:19  
Yeah, actually tried to trudge to visit so that

Andy  36:22  
OK, so the article goes into say that you've got you've got a jail I think over on the water. So it's got to be, you know, obviously, over on the east coast of New York and

Larry  36:34  
federal detention facility, it's not actually technically a jail, they serve the same function,

Andy  36:40  
okay. And it has 1600 people and like their huddled and blankets and they're just yeah, it's not good conditions out there. I think they're, they're almost like protesters hanging out like families and whatnot, trying to protest to get treat,

Larry  36:55  
there was a fire in the facility that knocked out the electricity right before the polar vortex. And then everyone was the never was basically left there for a week with no electricity in the middle of the vortex. They were on lockdown the entire time. And they had no electricity or heat.

And so they didn't allow them to have except for the blankets that were already in the facility. There's no extra clothes that were given out. And so yeah, there were several days to protest, eventually, they got it turned back on. But the thing that you'll learn, as you read more about, like when the judge went to visit is that, you know, this like most jails to the United States, I mean, for all the time that I talk, and everybody talks about the problems in person, in my personal experience, in, in, in most of what I've known, jails are generally even worse than prison, but much less talked about. And, you know, for instance, in this particular case, a lot of these people in the, in this detention facility or needing medical care and weren't getting at the medical care they were getting before this all happened was very bad. For instance, they found a person who had a gunshot wound and wasn't being treated because, you know, people come straight in from the street into a detention facility and just all content, there was black mold all over the place. And, you know, I in the jail than I was in that the kitchen closed, why was there for black mold, you know, terrible healthcare situation. So, a lot of times when the immediate problem gets fixed, the problem with these stories is this great outpouring of support that happened dissipates because the immediate problem gets fixed, and they forget that the real problems are a lot deeper than just that, although that was terrible enough. No doubt,

Andy  38:31  
right? I'm with you. 100%. Yeah, we make it we make a big outcry when something like this is super duper egregious, but the daily it's almost like, you know, how do you how do you how do you boil a frog and you put them in sort of like chilled water and then you just slowly turn up the heat until they eventually wake up dead

basically, what, but the status quo of our people being detained or in prison is really not very admirable.

Larry  38:55  
Well, and there's a long history at this particular facility of all kinds of problems from sexual abuse, to like a very bad health care problems to lots of health problems in general, caused by the facility and a lot of problems with the correctional officers that were happening before any of this happened. And hopefully some of this will spill over, but it does seem like it's already unfortunately, dissipated a little bit.

Josh  39:16  
Yeah, so it's out of the news cycle. I'm sure we're talking about some sort of border wall or some Trump ism or something or another by now

Larry  39:24  
what it really disappoints me when I when I hear I mean, I know there is it equitable facilities, but but the federal system funding is usually not as critical they usually have much faster resources and to be to be experienced at that but your problems there's there's there's a manager a problem now that power algae ability failure, something that is that that you don't directly control, but you have backup plans when you're running facility, you try to imagine everything that can go wrong now they do that they're trying to imagine they have all these SWAT teams and cell extraction teams that have all the dollar and everything but you also might ought to take into account failures that would affect the the human beings that are in there that would you would be responsible for but but it's it's it's disappointing to hear that, that that this went on for so long and a federal facility

Andy  40:15  
very sad, for sure. You know, it's a you know, it's a troubling thing that happens in in many of the states.

Larry  40:23  
What's that, Andy,

Andy  40:24  
when you turn 18, you get prosecuted for having a girlfriend that's 15.

This one comes from the Miami Herald. They says they dated since he was 15, he turned 18, and now faces 15 years behind bars. This is just this is stupid. I mean, like, what is the difference literally, other than the legal side of it? between 17 and 364 days, and then 18 years old, I can't quite fit like the maturity level hasn't really adjusted much. I can't even and they're having consensual sex. It just, it doesn't make any sense to me that this kid should go to jail for 15 years. What's

Larry  41:00  
How did this get on the radar of the the authorities? Bob called? Well, there you go. mom knew they were mom knew they were dating for years. And then this that's just crazy. It is.

Well, but see, here's what happens. Now. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. But here's what happens. There are people who could advocate on behalf of victims of sexual exploitation. And they comment to the legislature and they say, Can you believe there's adults out there having sex with our kids. And course I don't bother to tell you this are talking about people. They're just just 18 years old, by virtue of big, big chronological day, and they're having sex with our minor kids. And that's an exploitation of children. And we ought to make it illegal for adults to have sex with children, then you don't have anybody on our side. They're when they're debating the law that says that it that is exploitation of children to say, Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, when you and I were in school, that we actually had sex and it was a status symbol to have sex with someone who was older because they could get alcohol and they have a car or whatever the things that made it status, and we did that and we're going to be putting a lot of people in jeopardy if we do that, and we don't put a gap and four or five years between there. So no one raises the question and they passed the law not knowing any better if, if nobody brings up the issue, and nobody says anything. And they end up with a law like this. If you were to research Florida law, you would probably find that at one time there was a gap but people said we don't need these adult man having exact but teenage girls and we got to do something about that, by golly. And that's how the log out there without the gap. Just about bet you.

It seems like one of those things where judicial discretion should still exist. You know, like if someone has been dating someone since they were 15, and they turn 18. I mean, I understand what you're saying to Larry. But this particular case seems

uniquely absurd to me.

Josh  43:05  
Oh,

Larry  43:06  
he said, though, the one the one day difference really shouldn't have made here shouldn't be a 15 year sentence.

Now, I gotta push back on that. So you want to judge to tell the prosecution that even though that laws on the books that it says that it's against the law, and it's a felony, the state of Florida you want to judge wearing a robe to usurp the power of the people that they've validly a duly enacted an active law and say, I'm going to throw this case out of court because you ought not be prosecuted that you want to judge to do that?

Yes, yes, I do.

I will absolutely

guarantee you that that the general public does not want judges deciding what laws are enforced.

Well, in this case, the general public is wrong.

So

there's a reason why we have a tyranny of the majority argument there. The reason why it's not a purely mature Attarian system, so Well, I mean, wouldn't

that be a great system as a judge? Because I don't feel this is not such a I don't really care for this law case out of here.

Josh  44:13  
Well, you're right. The law Well,

Josh  44:18  
yeah, I mean, I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying it's a bad law that

Larry  44:23  
in particular, that that that sometimes the absurd cases are what proved some things about law, this would be one

of those lines, but this is an example where I where I get to say a bad loss, not necessarily an unconstitutional law

in a confirmation hearing. I believe it was sort of my or maybe it was okay, good. But one of them said that a bad loss so unconstitutional. This is an example of a bad law. Yes.

Well, let me push back because prosecutors always get to choose whether to enforce the law or not. So why are you opposed to dejection judicial discretion, but not prosecutorial discretion?

Oh, that that's that. Absolutely. I agree with prosecutorial discretion, they have that discretion to choose to bring a case and but a lot

they should bring a case but that's still their discretion to choose to do it or not, because they've seen the fact that they think they, you know, one is more likely than the other, etc, etc, etc. What's the difference?

The difference is it's not the judge the judge is a neutral party the judge is not to determine what the people want prosecutor the people elected there prosecutor and almost every jurisdiction this country, the people made the decision to trust a particular person to decide which laws to prioritize the wish to prosecute, the judge being a neutral referee is supposed to referee that fight and not telling the prosecutor I don't like your choice.

But the problem you will at least admit that the prosecutors overriding the legislature when they don't prosecute cases that are legally mandated,

I would say I wouldn't put it quite knows terms, I would say a prosecutor that uses their discretion, hopefully it's allocating resources. Now this is an idealistic because I know that sometimes they're doing it for political purposes, but you could not possibly will be prosecuted everything that law enforcement sins to you. There's no prosecutor office that has enough resources, even with our over staffing to prosecute everything. So you do develop criteria that you develop grid systems, and you look at certain ways of how you do intake and cases work their way through, and they decide this is a no go and this is a goal, the evidence how strong they have, and it says number decision skills into prosecuted. But but but it's not the judge's decision that the best to referee the fight.

That was that was kind of my point is, though, that the whole point of having a judge be neutral is because they check the tyranny of the majority. And so judicial discretion serves a similar function

as don't agree with you there that the judge doesn't get to toss out a case. If that's a valid law, and the prosecutor wants to bring it forward. It's not that's not the judge's decision.

All right. We'll agree to disagree a little bit. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. But I think there's a little bit there with why that the judge actually does

the judge, the judge can say, council approach, do you really do you really want to go forward this but if the customer says yes, the judges will say, okay, it's your call, Mr. Prosecutor, it's your call.

And the judge can tell the prosecutor I can't imagine that a courts going to send us this person to prison, even if you can victim But still, you got all the collateral consequences that go with a felony conviction and a registration that follows it's a horrible thing to do to subject but the people in the state of Florida need to fix that law so that there's a protection for people who are reasonably related in age that's the solution not to have judges arbitrarily decide that they don't want the law enforced

but we agree that there should be a change legislation for sure.

Absolutely agree we agree on that

Andy  47:51  
then this one comes from place I don't think we've ever covered it before it's called roll call and there there's not a lot that we can actually cover because it's a podcast with a

woman named Patricia Hill calls herself a feminist and a little demo democrat but the title is me to reconsidered one feminist on equalizing campus sexual assault rules I listened to it and her point is one thing that I took away from listening is that she absolutely believes very much like Larry would say is that there has to be a due process there has to be that what's the word confrontation you have to be able to interrogate both parties to vet out their story to see if there's like legitimacy in it you can't just say the woman is either to be believed or not you have to figure out if their substance behind it you have to do that in some kind of court setting ish thing

Larry  48:48  
that's that's that's that's the way I feel about it the the and I'm glad the reason why through it it was because see me to are generally have a lot of good things about there but someone who's in that movement saying whoa whoa I mean we we still have to have due process appreciate it that slot through this article in there that

I mean we got a lieutenant governor now being accused in the great state of Virginia

and and but but he's entitled A little bit of due process Don't you

Josh  49:18  
think? I would think so.

Larry  49:21  
Well I think this time I really am playing devil's advocate I think there's a difference between legal due process and the court of public opinion or your job if that

that makes total sense that makes total sense i mean he he is going to be diminished in public opinion and it's going to be very difficult for him to do the job whatever those duties are in our state he would preside over the legislature with our session presented the senate more more than the legislature but there would be ceremonial roles that would be very very difficult so so he has to decide whether he wants to try to continue to hold that job but there should be be no rush for us to assume that he's guilty we're talking about something happened a long time ago if it happened at all and now I did here I did I did her there was some evidence that she did at the time he announces first election for office not from tonight governor but the first time he was running that she did what are the accusers did say that did make a an accusation a long long time ago that this guide you know don't contact me for he contacted all the alumni and and she said don't contact me ever again your creep you know this the other so there's at least a shred of evidence of that's that's contemporaneous with it with the time

yeah I hate books go ahead

Andy  50:39  
well I was gonna bring up that I find it is very interesting that with you know the the Al Franken accusation and it's, you know, so then he steps out and all these other ones that what is now possibly about to happen in Virginia, which is kind of humorous, is that the top three people in the only statewide elected official are the top three. So the governor, Lieutenant Governor, and I forgot what's the other position, okay, so the Attorney General, those are the only three democrats and if they they, they all three step down for these various social breach of contracts, if you want to call them that, then the next person up would be Republican. So then what the democrats want to actually like clean house and let the other party step up to the plate. It's kind of an interesting situation that they're gonna have to play a little bit different, because in Minnesota without Franken, when he stepped down, then the governor could just appointed other Democrats. So it wasn't a change in the balance of power, but this could ultimately be a change in the balance of power. Well,

Larry  51:39  
well, the question would be, you know, the answer to the question would be, if if a vacancy springs up in the lieutenant governor's office in Virginia, is there a process to feel that vacancy because if there is then the governor north on what just hold on hold on the power until there's a lieutenant governor filter through that process, then if he ends up being topple, then the lieutenant governor would go go in so so the logical way we would be that the lieutenant governor would would step aside, if there is a process, if that office stays Faker, then that creates a new problem but you know, the federal level I can remind people that that are that are that are two younger weren't paying attention. In 1973, we had that very problem and United States Watergate erupted in the summer 72 with with a break in democratic national headquarters. And then Watergate was going pretty strong. By 73 we had a resignation of the Vice President of specialty Agnew if anybody remembers that name. And when Agnew resigned that created a vacancy in the vice presidency. Well, the President was in great peril. Bye bye. Bye bye. 73. So the question became, what do we do with the with the vice presidency can can someone be confirmed because without the vice president being confirmed that you would have had a switch of power because the next in line of succession would have been a speaker of the house who was a democrat from Oklahoma named Carl Albert so Carl Albert could have if he had been of the mindset of people are today to keep things making, he could have just thrown a monkey wrench in any other of the confirmation process that went forth and 73 to confirm the nomination of Richard Nixon which was was was House Majority Leader journal for for Michigan from Grand Rapids as a matter of fact, and and so that process was allowed to work and there was a replacement put in Gerald Ford was confirmed and then he ascended to the presidency in August of 1974. Well, if there's such a process in Virginia that would be that would be one way but if there is no such process I can assure you that those people those three people are not going to voluntarily step aside and hand over storage or the power of the state to people who were not elected but but the the confirmation went smoothly and forward was confirmed almost unanimously in both the House and the Senate it took

three core took a super majority and he was he was reasonable to confirm because he was very well respected on both sides the but I'm not sure that what happened today

will turn return back to your original question when he you know Andy when you're asking me about what I've been a flush it out a little more what I mean, it's like, for instance, when I was arrested, I was given the choice by my employer to resign or or they would fire me not much of a choice but it's but that still is different than legal due process. I had not been found guilty or innocent In my case, yet they just you know, because, you know, in businesses can do that there's a difference between due process, which is a legal process and the way your employer or public opinion, you know, decides that you're, you know, how you should be adjudicated, you know, I mean, it sucks I mean, I think obviously, way too often, especially with a lot of these situations that we're talking about. Now, the rush to judgment is is is fast, but that's you know, that's like the idea of due process writ large, not due process, the legal process which is really what has someone that's a right to

Andy  54:58  
know and then Larry said to backtrack, you have just an unbelievable depth of knowledge that just doesn't even doesn't even make any sense that why somebody would know those things

Larry  55:07  
will pop, wouldn't it? Doesn't everybody know little things

Andy  55:11  
know, I've heard the name spear whatever, Agnew. I didn't realize he was the vice president and then yeah, yeah, just some last

Larry  55:19  
Well, well, I assumed everybody out there, listen, doesn't know who Spiro Agnew is?

Andy  55:24  
I've heard the name.

Larry  55:26  
Yes. Well, I agree with Josh, partially about due process. But Josh, how would you feel if the due process had related to conduct on the job? And if the employer said we don't care about your due process? We don't have any here

the accusation is that you put your hand on that blog, you're out of here. I mean, I know we live in the world the way it is me not the way it should be. But we are you

know, I wasn't saying that. I wasn't saying that. It was right. I was saying that, that that's actually the way it works. You know, I was talking about the world that we have, not the world that we should should have. I agree with you that I don't think any of these things are great, and that the public rushes to judgment, it would be nice if we at least figured out if we had the facts right, before we, you know, basically ran someone out of office or whatever. Well, I

just like to be consistent with what we're taking as a posture for the for the current administration at the federal level, the posture they're taking as that that anything that happened and prior to the presidency is off limits we can only impeach and remove for conduct that occurred on presidential time. So I would like to adhere across the board of that if the Lieutenant Governor engaged in sexual misconduct. He certainly is not being accused of it yet since he's been in office for the 16 days or so that he's been in office since January 19. So what does that 30 days I don't even 30 days 20 days he hasn't been accused of any misconduct on the job so without an accusation of misconduct on the job then we revert back to what to do processes in the case of a crime the people liked it the guy they liked it and not that long ago and therefore I think he gets the stale the job until he's at least indicted for a crime

I do think it is not it's important to note that almost all the same people who are asking for large due process for justice Kevin are the same people a lot of the same people are asking for these people to be it will basically thrown off the job so that's

that's the point I'm making is the same people were saying that we can't touch the president unless we have misconduct in office okay I bought into your strategy always like to buy people's philosophy can touch somebody for unless he did it in office I agree let's let's don't touch this guy until Miss Congo surface while he's an office or until he's at least charged with a crime there's a prosecutor who finds that there's enough evidence which it doesn't take much in a sexual case all it takes is a person saying so but until he's at least charged with a crime I would say convicted of a crime we have a personal preference but he hasn't been charged with a crime yet and we're ready to dump it out of the job that the people like to him to do three months ago doesn't seem quite right to me

Andy  58:31  
ready to be a part of registry matters get links at registry matters dot CEO was on the registry. Keep fighting without you. We can't succeed. You make it possible. All right. And then our pen ultimate article is from Kentucky submitted by Mr. Hank up there in a god what state Nebraska or three other people but

Larry  58:54  
yeah, thank you. Hank, always appreciate the contributions.

Andy  59:00  
This was this one's kind of fun. It's Kentucky Supreme Court told voters misinformed on Marcy's law is to overturn vote. This is a this is a law that's like running around. It's highly funded. It's running around the different states and 63% of the voters in Kentucky voted and this is a this is a bill that goes through to give victims more notification than they might already get about their assailants release if they've escaped from prison if they got released from prison, their whereabouts etc. And as I understand it, like these mechanisms that are already in case this just makes it more law that they get these extra notifications about their assailant. And but apparently the way that the it was on the ballot in Kentucky that it wasn't necessarily clear and the way that it was worded, it was just like, Well, of course, we would be in favor of this. So the question asked, Are you in favor of providing constitutional rights to victims of crime, including the right to be treated fairly with dignity and respect and the right to be informed and to have a voice in the judicial process and so obviously 63% said yes

Larry  1:00:11  
I couldn't disagree more i don't think i on it we talked about or I don't believe there is such a thing as victims rights I think rights are rights from the power of government in a legal context. And I I there's no Liberty at stake for a victim there's only Liberty Safe for the person who's on trial. So for me, you know, that doesn't mean I don't have empathy for people who are victims of crime It doesn't mean that I don't think that we should care about or take care of or try to protect and always aside from the adversarial court process but I don't think that they have I personally am I don't like the idea of legal victims rights I don't think it's constitutional and I don't think it's correct last

Sunday Josh total bless me

sorry

Josh  1:00:57  
yeah,

Andy  1:00:58  
that's it you're never coming back on the show period I thought

Larry  1:01:00  
I will get off now blasted victim so now there's two of us

so windy. The difference is that they're putting this in the Constitution. Most of these things are already in Kentucky statute. Yes. But the Constitution is far more complicated code a difficult to amend is that US Constitution what is a bit of mandatory seven times state constitutions usually can be amended either the Federal Constitution but it's still it's much more difficult. So they're trying they're trying to try these statutory requirements into the Constitution. And I do agree with Josh victim is a witness in a crime that was committed against the people and we seem to lose sight of that we we we think the crime as against you know, your witnessed it stopped people who made the rules and structure of society. When you break a rule of society, you have slapped the face of the people and said, I don't want to play by your rules. It's the people who decide what the rules are as the people who decide what the penalties are. That way we don't have vengeance. A lot of a lot of people if we left up to them what the punishment would be, there'd be a lot of toothless Alice handlers, there'll be a lot of people that would be a bit miserable conditions will be dead. That's why we don't leave it up to the individual. We allow that individual to participate in the process. We need their participation, in fact, because they have to be a key witness. But in terms of the crime, it's a crime against the people of the state of Michigan. It's not a crime against you. And the people in the state of Michigan decide what is illegal, what the range of penalties will be, how the process should be adjudicated to keep it fair, and it's not up to the side but they've interjected the victims that everything they get to be at the front end they get to be at the building and they get to be at the back end when you're big broad they get together they get to come testify if you're going to get off the registry in a state that had in the states that have D registration processes the victims even in states where it's been declared unconstitutional I remember a Maryland where they this the supreme court or their their equivalent Supreme Court said twice that the registers on Constitution and the state invented a requirement. They said, well, we're going to notify the victims before we take the people off the registry. What the hell did you do that for?

They don't get any space on the court has already determined that this laws that costs you, oh, we can't remove you until we notify really, I think we might have someone from Maryland that was listening earlier that could

Josh  1:03:39  
confirm that.

Larry  1:03:40  
But I said, that is the most bogus stuff I've ever heard in my life to notify the victims to take or they're going to be taking the person off the registry, I guess if you were checking the register, if you were a victim, you would basically say their name disappeared, wouldn't you

Andy  1:03:55  
right? Um, I wonder though, when something like this if, if it's so traumatic little video clip there. They said that lady like she's in the she's in the grocery store, and then you turn the aisle and there's your attacker on the next dial down shit. Like, I mean, if that is such a traumatic experience, wouldn't it be within the framework of the sentencing to say that you're banished from this county?

Larry  1:04:20  
Oh, my goodness.

Andy  1:04:22  
I'm not I'm not trying to, like advocate for that. I'm just trying to like, I mean, people have to coexist and if the person goes back to the same area that the thing occurred, then there is the chance that you're going to run into the people.

Larry  1:04:37  
Yeah, that's

Andy  1:04:39  
I know, I know, it does. But it's, it's that traumatic.

Larry  1:04:42  
I feel like, you know, I definitely have empathy for the situation. But I feel like part of this is that you're, you know, once you're punished, you know, what's your say, for instance, you go to prison for a crime, you know, you've had essentially a lot of your rights suspended, and a lot of bad things have happened to you come back. I'm a big believer in that you pay your debt, when you serve your you know, when you serve your sentence, and when you come back, and yeah, accidentally running into someone might be traumatic, but the idea that that person should, again, have the rights suspended simply after they've served their sentence, simply, you know, I just I just I don't understand the justification. I understand the emotional justification for it. But I certainly don't understand the constitutional justification for it. As Larry said, before we started talking, I don't see that in the Constitution. I don't see that word victim in the Constitution. So to me, I, you know, I I guess I empathize. And I think it's, it's it sucks for both parties. Probably.

But, you know, I don't think it's I don't think there's I don't I personally don't think there's a legal justification for it, I don't know. flurry agrees with that or not.

I do I do read. I want to actually try to get zero in on the question. Which what's a diatribe? The question is that before the court which is what Hank muscle? The answer to is, the court is that actually if they take the side, they like to decide the issue, they're going to decide whether the the ballot was was sufficiently succinct and clear that the people understood what they're voting on. And I think that will ultimately conclude that it was because there's you can't put these in these you can't balance can't be alarmed enough to contain the full language of constituent members. So you end up with summaries. But what this shows is that the complexities of issues are such that we should not be throwing complicated issues out to the voters to decide because they just can't understand it. example would be in Missouri, when they debated the what we call rule for for B, which is propensity evidence and prior bad acts. There was a there was a constitutional amendment put out to should should should the prosecutors be allowed to use the question was essentially should prosecutors be able to use evidence of prior of proc crimes or something to that effect? Well, do you think an average person is going to say, so they're not going to understand the nuances, the 44 be the prejudicial effect, they're probably not going to care, even if they do understand and we already have a balancing act it's done for prior bad x can be admitted. If you can overcome the barriers provided by that rule at at it. This is just it. This is an example of why we shouldn't governed by referendum. It was never intended that way it doesn't work. And I think the Supreme Court of Kentucky is going to be hard pressed, I hope they come down and surprise moments like that what the people overturning the will of the people but they've got to consider if they were elected themselves. And 63% of the people supported this and they just simply slapped or 63% of the people in the face. And then they have to face the same people themselves. I just don't think that's going to potentially play out very well for them. So ultimately, I think that if, if they're elected in Kentucky, that that that may factor into their they're deciding it and that's not the world the way it should be. That's the world the way it is, is be

Josh  1:08:01  
yes, we're gonna we're gonna have to make that the thing like it'd be, you know, whatever. This

Josh  1:08:05  
whatever the sentence is raised. We everyone on the call has to go is be at the same time

Larry  1:08:10  
now, lol I guess people throw that to me. When I'm having a debate. They'll say, well, that's not the way it should be. And I said, Well, we don't live in the world the way it should be well over the world the way it is. And then I said, Well, I don't tackle the beat, you know, the world the way it is,

Josh  1:08:23  
which

Andy  1:08:24  
we won't we won't include the part about that's not really good grammar. But that's that's a lot. But you grew up in Georgia. So that makes it Okay.

Larry  1:08:32  
Well, I have, you know, that I grew up in a time when they actually did teach grammar in school. They we need to, and we did things that were actually learned how to use a sentence structure and punctuation. I just don't do it enough. You know, everybody, everybody these days gets lazy. And I just handed off to my staff to take care of

Andy  1:08:51  
you. But Larry, you also grew up in a time when you use the slide rule and math.

Josh  1:08:55  
We didn't. We didn't even have those. They hadn't been invented yet. Right.

Andy  1:09:01  
Math hadn't been created yet. When you were in school?

Larry  1:09:04  
No, we do use the abacus.

Andy  1:09:08  
Alright, so

Larry  1:09:09  
we actually did have the school. Did you have

Andy  1:09:11  
one? I have never learned how to use one. I've seen them. I think they're fascinating. It is a very, very, very creative invention that like, I don't know, what is that? A 6000 year old creation? 4000 year old creation? That is a very old calculator device. Have you ever seen the videos like the kids like they do speed math on an abacus though I'll have to go find a video it's absolutely insane. They have like competitions on who can do advocacy. Is that the right word? The fastest. All right, Josh, the reason why you are here is because this this Attorney General activists, it's not even a kiss cure. cure. A How do you pronounce it up

Larry  1:09:50  
here? So the second one,

Andy  1:09:52  
okay. So cure a. And so this is the brand new elected Attorney General for Michigan, Dana Nestle. So right. Yep.

And this is file I guess this is all in response to the class action that's going on up there.

Larry  1:10:06  
No, it's actually it's actually a response to a different case. But it does give us a bellwether for what's going to happen next week in the class action. I think I've talked to enough people involved have a fairly good sense that that's correct. So

Andy  1:10:22  
I did a little recording because I didn't want to read this and like stumble over my words. So here is the introduction from the attorney general, the tide is changing. For years, federal and state courts consistently held that sex offender registration and notification requirements were not punishments and therefore did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. their conclusions relied heavily on the Supreme Court's analysis in Smith veto of 2003 and its conclusion that Alaska's sex offender registration act was non punitive. But more recently, both the state and federal courts have been rethinking the issue in light of the significant additional burdens that have been added to these statutes since Smith upheld the first generation registration statute. State Supreme Court's in Alaska, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania have concluded that there registries constitute punishment and their retroactive application and ex post facto violation either by distinguishing Smith or by relying on their states Ex Post Facto Clause. In 2015, the Sixth Circuit previewed Michigan's sex offender registration act determining that sorta was something altogether different from and more troubling than Alaska's first generation register law. And holding that it's 2006 and 2011 amendments were punishment, and that their retroactive application violated the federal Ex Post Facto Clause. The Sixth Circuit caution that Smith was not a blank check to states to do whatever they pleased to do in this arena. Smith's rationale which was premised on the limited nature of Alaska registration scheme seems outdated. With respect to modern registration schemes. It surely is with respect to Michigan Sex Offender Registry, which has changed greatly since its initial character as a tool to help law enforcement keep Michigan citizens safe from danger, sexual predators, and far exceeds the baseline federal requirement for such registries. It has become a bloated statute, whose recent amendments are out of touch with the practical ramifications of its geographic restrictions, and in person reporting requirements with society's evolving relationship with the internet with the needs of law enforcement, and with a more balanced and research understanding of recidivism. But the current sort it is not the way to achieve that goal, because it places people on the registry without an individualized assessment of their risk to public safety. And with little differentiation between a violent rapist or re offender, an individual who has committed a single non aggravated offense, the 2006 and 2011 amendments are punishment and their retroactive application violates both federal and state ex post facto clauses wanted to do that too. I mean, it's a it's you know, it's 50 something pages and I figured that that would give people a way to hear what the introduction is and what the conclusion is from her point of view instead of a you know if you don't want to read all 50 pages but so dang dang dang Have at it.

Larry  1:13:32  
Alright, so the most for people who don't understand I mean, I assume almost everybody in your audience at least understands what happened in those verses Snyder, which was a pretty big case that happened and went all the way the Sixth Circuit and then was petition to the Supreme Court Supreme Court decided not to take it, which means that essentially for the area of the Sixth Circuit, it is now the law of the land. Unfortunately, the state of Michigan while they got the memo did not then follow up by changing legislation or the way that they interact, forced it. And so as a result, the ACLU brought what a case that's called what we've been calling those two which is a class actions to make sure that all people who are affected by the ex post facto application of the law and in essence, anyone it was sentence before 20, well, actually, anyone who was charged before 2011 at the date when they had them, all shack came into effect, in essence, that all of them should get relief from the dose versus Snyder case, and the main right now that cases in what's called pre trial settlement. And the thing we have not heard back from actually on one of the task forces thats related to that, and the thing we haven't heard back from yet was the ag. And so when we got that advocacy yesterday, well, it's not directly related to the dose to case, it does seem to suggest that the ag is essentially going to agree or not try to pursue a fight against the dose to case will know for sure next week. But that means at the very baseline at the floor, that we're probably going to at least have a situation where the courts will not be enforcing a retroactive application of the Adam Walsh Act, and people who were arrested before the date when that was enacted, which is pretty good news. I also think that part of the argument we've been making to the legislature here is that if that happens, if those two wins, that's going to create a lot of nightmares for how the registry is enforced, because you have all these different groups of people who the registry is enforced on in different ways. And so the ACLU came up with a bunch of legislative fixes, this is going to create a lot of pressure, hopefully, on the legislature to actually enact the legislative fixes. And I think actually, Dan Nestle in the brief did a really good job of explaining a lot of the arguments that like I've said, for a very long time, that if you're not going to get rid of the rest, that what you really need to do is to allow the registry to graduate people off of it to get rid of the part that allows essentially technical violations to become mandatory for your felonies, get rid of in person reporting, get rid of residency requirements, and, and you'd have at least and, and, and maybe risk assessments. I'm not a huge fan of that. But at least this is everything she said in the brief basically agrees with most of that, which is very exciting. And I think more important than maybe anything is it's the first time an attorney general in the in that I know of in the United States has ever written an advocate spree for any kind of public statement really coming out against registration as a currently exists. And so to me, it's a fundamental challenge to the idea of registries as they exist now. And you know, you got to remember an attorney general's the top law enforcement officer in the state. I mean, it's just astounding to me. I think a lot of us were just flying our guest it as we were reading it last night. I know it's 50 pages, but I probably read it three times. So I mean, that's the short version and you can certainly ask me more questions.

Andy  1:17:08  
Let me let me circle back. Larry, can you give us a quick rundown of what that does? One case would have been that's the one that Miriam Ackerman worked on. Right.

Larry  1:17:19  
Well, it was it was a it was the big he was the first time where we had circuit find that the registry as it exists today was is as as punitive. But it was an unexpected victory. They they had achieved a victory on on a different issue with that the trial court level and they had the expos factor clause, they had not one on and it was a it was a surprise I they had what they thought was a conservative panel of the of the three judge panel on the Court of Appeals. And, and that that case, as Josh said, when the when the when the when the state got that decision. They they, they petitioned US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court declined to hear it and and the Michigan ACLU and the clinical law program that Paul Ryan go hit headed up with, he's retired or not now, but they put a lot of hours into it about $1.8 million worth of hours of defining that and and they they went to DC and met with the Solicitor General's office about about the Why did the Supreme Court should not here the case on the Solicitor General the United States so I can guard that they should not hear the case. And they decided not to hear the case which effectively made it the law of the land and you can read more into it, you can read into it to the Supreme Court felt that they got it right. I don't read that much into it. I read into it that Michigan's sex offender registry is highly distinguishable from what's required by federal law. There's a lot of things and Michigan law, the law it's not required by federal law. And, and the the rather than running the risk of having the federal law under examination scrutiny. It was it was a strategic decision to let the let the scrutiny be on Michigan's

components of registration that have nothing to do with federal law. And you can be compliant with that a ball should not do a lot of the stuff that Michigan get themselves in trouble doing. You don't have to have proximity restrictions. You don't have to have residential restriction. You don't have to have employment restrictions, all those things are not required by federal law. So when you hit when you hate those don't get mad at federal law, they're not in the federal law to start with. So the the Solicitor General said don't hear this case. Because all those things to have nothing to do with federal law. And he attempted to contain the damage by saying let's just keep it as a six circuit level.

Yeah, I was gonna say one thing I would clarify is that Michigan took the ball of the animal shacked and ran with it so those things were creaky what I was saying at a mall is the the the genesis of that it's because Michigan then took that as an excuse to add all the rest of the stuff to the law

Andy  1:19:48  
which probably all of the states have done the specific thing that I want to get though is the reason why there is the dough to case is because the one case only apply to five or six plaintiffs

Larry  1:20:00  
well technically anyone who went to court could use those like say that after those verses Snyder I got arrested on a violation for being tier for registering as a tier two even though as a tier three which is factually correct

Josh  1:20:16  
then I could go to court and say well the reason I was only two is because Joe said so and the court might use those as a reason to give me relief but this ensures that that is just you know that that all people in the class that it would apply to as opposed to just those those six people and there are 40 whatever thousand people it's the second third fourth largest registry in the country I think fourth but our population I mean by percentage it makes for a very large registry because our populations much lower Yeah,

Andy  1:20:46  
um, so I'm curious I was semi throwing some cold water on the whole thing. I was like, Yes, just another one of those things and Larry's going to tear it apart so did you have a chance to read a thriller I did not

Larry  1:20:59  
read the entire thing I was concur with Josh that it is it is a first I mean, that's the one those darn liberal do good attorney general like that. And we don't need those kind of people around here. But for for for a stipulation from the desk, essentially, from what I did read as a simple, essentially stipulation that, that that legislature blew it. And they went too far. And a lot of jargon that I use it was was in the brief and I don't appreciate people not giving me credit for what I've been saying

Josh  1:21:32  
when guy and I would guy and I were talking about this lesson,

Larry  1:21:37  
one of those times when you're reading one of the late law review articles from the new but brilliant law student who's saying everything you've always wanted to know only was from someone with power.

So So yeah, but But yeah, what would people keep saying that the Supreme Court ratified and sanctioned and approved anything, they did not do that they did just the opposite of that, they said, we're grudgingly going to allow this registration scheme to stay on because and always harp on Disabilities a restraint of the seven factors that they use to determine if a regulatory scheme and spirit of the biggest one in my view, that they that that was pivotal, that case of what happened damn thing to do with your recidivism. That is not what decided to case although there's people out there who would love to believe that it was built on the fact that Alaska didn't require that impose any probation and all the debris required you to send out a form and they equated that with renewing various forms of licensure. And they said, this is not punitive, in our view, so therefore, we can't hold it punitive, it is an ex post facto application. But if all it it can only be a violation of excellence factor. If it imposes punishment, it does not, therefore it stands but they didn't say you go do anything you want to. And I'm glad to see people finally putting that in briefs because that's the reality situation you can't do anything you want to do. But you can do a regulatory scheme and and Michigan can go back and they can bring all the people that that have gotten off back on the registry if they want to, if they're inclined to if they want to do a misguided public policy as long as they have a regulatory scheme that doesn't impose punishment

Andy  1:23:21  
that is correct Well, I wanted to

amount of time for us to cover this so feel

Larry  1:23:27  
don't encourage I don't encourage them to do that because it's misguided policy the ag just told about the brief but if they wanted to if they wanted to say okay we got the message we're going to have a registry you'll Melis a form once a year you'll come in every three years to update your photo and you can live wherever you want to you could work wherever you want to and and possibly take your your home address off the internet and maybe just have your city that would probably be constitutional I don't advocate for it but it would probably fall within a celebration institution ality

and I think there's a good chance that will end up with something like that. You know, I mean, I think the four pillars of what the ACLU have been asking for our get rid of the the public nature of the registry allow people away to graduate off, which would make it I think a much better for almost everybody.

Josh  1:24:21  
And you know, what were the other two pillars? I think you just mentioned them, I'm spacing for some reason. But basically,

Larry  1:24:29  
I don't remember. But anyway,

the idea is, it's it's it's the constant reporting

in person recording.

Yeah, talked about that make a formal probation. So but I can take that out, I can say, okay, you don't have to come into more you mail me a form will send you a form once a year, and you return it and tell us that you confirm that you live there. Okay, that's got rid of the inputs of reporting. So therefore, it's no more no more like probation. I take your home address off the internet, you complain about that you might have a project all coming through your window. Well, we don't reveal your address it more so there's no project all coming through your window anymore. Because nobody knows how to find you. They just don't live in Grand Rapids.

I would like to see the internet. I'd like to see their net go away. But I'm saying if you're trying to dance around and find out what you could do. That would be what I would do. If I were representing Michigan, I'd say Well, what's we got to stop the in person reporting. We've got a not teleport, they can live we've got a not restrict where they can work. And we've got to make sure we don't do anything that resembles punishments. That means we can't charge any fees. Well, when you start taking all those things out of it. It kind of defeats the purpose because the people that want registries, they're in joined the punishment, the humiliation if you coming in every 90 days or every 30 days or 10 days. If you're homeless, they're enjoying the humiliation, it is there that can no longer humiliate you. The thrill of having a registry will largely a bait.

That's an interesting point. But I do think it's a very likely and I think really important is that it is very likely I think that Michigan's registries can substantially change in a way that person provides a counterpoint to the rest of the country. And I think the important thing is going to be if recidivism rates stay low, after that happens, I know the media is going to go crazy every time there is a recidivism incident. But if the recidivism state rates stay low, after the changes happen, it's going to make a fairly strong case, I think, against the rest of the country. And a lot of ways

I would say on on an intellectual level, it will on an emotional level, it won't

people people have the facts don't matter when it comes to emotional decisions. And this is driven by emotion.

Well, I don't I don't disagree with that. I i do think, however, that, you know, the long process we've been going through of changing this demonstrates that there is at least a core of people who are committed to the idea that that evidence and reason matters. And while that doesn't always dominate, especially in the moment, it seems to be starting to win the day, I think when she starts the brief by saying the times are changing, or whatever she said that that's a you know that that's that's what she's talking about?

Well, this is a fantastic, fantastic brief from what I read.

Oh, one other thing I want to say about the brief real quick, I know you're going to father, but one of the things I thought was really remarkable is that with the exception of referring to the sex offender registry, she went out of her way to never even really call a sex offenders, whenever she referred to people, she might talk about people who are required to register or some other but you would very rarely, I don't think, if ever say, refer to the people who are on the registry of sex offenders, which I thought for, again, for a law enforcement official is pretty amazing.

Andy  1:27:39  
What about this trickling across the 49 or 72 states, whatever we have, at this current count the rest of the United States, what does it take for this to have any sort of movement to go to the other states

Larry  1:27:54  
call it Larry say something about that, first, I'm sure he has something,

it's gonna take what I would, if I had all the resources that we need, and want I'd like to, I would like to start building this out. And I would start within the Sixth Circuit, of course, because as George said, it's the law of the law, the circuit so I'd start start trying to knock down as much as I can in the Sixth Circuit, and you build momentum by doing that and and and, and contemporaneously with doing that if we can build our legislative advocacy on a state by state basis, you begin to try to do some strong legislative advocacy was just as you began with stopping things from getting worse. There's always proposals all of the country right now, there's proposals to make registration worse than Arkansas, they were considering a

Halloween but restriction, which I think is Dan for the moment. But you would if you if you build up your legislative advocacy, you stop the freight train from getting worse. And then you begin to have a dialogue with people about how that the case law is not in your favor. And you refer to brief like this, and hopefully more additional wins to pick up and six circuit where y'all certain to win if the registries within the Sixth Circuit or punitive and then you you try to build out additional litigation and other states relying on the Sixth Circuit is as though it's not binding, you use that as as persuasive authority, when you can compare your registration requirements outside the Sixth Circuit to the requirements in the Sixth Circuit that were restricted. And you point to that very fine analysis of the Sixth Circuit. And you say, although this is not binding to you guys here, this is very persuasive. This is fine analysis and you get more circuits on board an event or the supreme court will decide to revisit the case when there's enough circuits, there's already quite a list of state supreme courts that have said this is no longer the case Smith versus there was no longer relevant when you start having multiple circuit court saying this is Smith versus Dell is no longer relevant, the Supreme Court is eventually going to be Brit Brit want to be rendered uncounted. And they're eventually going to take a dispute at some point in time and say, here are the boundaries of what you could do with a so called regular towards game. So that's what I'd like to see happen is a combination of more litigation, more legislative advocacy

when I think there's also kind of one of the things that's really I think remarkable about that Cory Rayburn has said that he feels like she was a little bit put in a in a box, Dana, NASA was putting a box by the situation between the Sixth Circuit and the dose to case and that may very well be true. She above and beyond in her reasoning in the in the brief. So I feel like she's, to some extent on our side, based on some of the things that were said in the brief. However, you know, I think it's really important to remember the political courage it took for her to put this out, you know, I don't think, you know, part of the thing that I've never seen before from an ag I just have never seen anyone willing to stand up who is that powerful, and I mean, she's going to get backlash on this. There's no doubt about it, she had to know that you had to prepare for it. And once someone has the courage to do that, if she makes it through the Yes, and the law changes and things change, other people are going to have more courage to do it. I've seen it in every other area of criminal justice reform. So sometimes it takes that one person who's willing to kind of stand up who has the power to stand up and do something like this and hopefully beans other people will soon to

you're absolutely correct about that, Josh, that is exactly the way politics works. Politicians are like snakes in the grass and not the way that people are hearing that they lay low and they wait to see if somebody sticks her neck up if it gets chopped off. And if it doesn't get chopped off, that they'll that they'll they'll I mean, you can watch it. If you if you're stupid enough to watch voting, if you go to committee meetings and watch a vote take place when you see a lawmaker past when they when the when the court calls the role in a committee and a lot of my capacity that lawmakers pass it because he's waiting he or she's waiting to see how the votes go with it if they're going to be isolated. So if the court calls rolled your name starts with a say you say a pass they want to see where things are headed. And absolutely, if this attorney general managers to survive this, luckily, she's in her first few days and office just got like the 2018 and hopefully this will be old news. And she'll been able to put away on enough payday lenders and whatever her priorities are for consumer protections and things that attorney general get against a lot of credit for. This won't be a big part of the reelection. But if it turns out to be a part of the reelection and if somebody who was on the registry offense again, and it's it's vilified. It could have the opposite effect. It could make sure that people say, Well, I won't go down the path what this crazy woman did,

I think it's inevitable that someone will a friend reoffend again, and I think one of the things that we need to be careful to make in all of our ever his plight, of lobbying and things like that, we really need to start being able to articulate the difference between someone recidivism and overall recidivism rates increasing or decreasing and make that in a per se persuasive way. You know, in this particular case, you know, really what I want to say, I think Larry's exactly right. But five years ago, it would have been inconceivable that the President of the United States would invite for formerly incarcerated people, some for who are in prison for violent crimes, some who are in for crack cocaine after they've been released early to be his to be his guests at a state of the union. And I think it's just as astounding that an attorney general got up and said, not only do I think that the the Michigan sex offender registry is a little bad, I think it's really got some serious problems. You know, I just, I hope she does survive. And I I think this was a really important moment

it is I'm very happy to see Michigan help us turning the corner because the, the things that they were doing there

when they, when they when they souped up the registry particular 2011 I said this is awful you know this is Toby awful. And then here we are eight years later final, it looks like that we're moving towards a resolution of of those horrible changes I made.

Andy  1:34:18  
There's a bunch of information in the in the PDF that I mean, it's well sourced and well cited two things. One, there's no way that she that this was produced within, you know, her month and office or so and more so than that, with all the sightings and everything that's in there. This is a an incredible framework for people to use to have if they're going to go to the legislature and talk about anything that this has like links and references to all the things that you need for your talking points to say that policy A or B is bad.

Larry  1:34:50  
One thing I want to draw particular attention to is she makes it argument I personally think the last argument the last desperate gasp of the people who are tough on registrants in terms of the evidence is the argument for underreporting I don't think personally, it's a very strong argument but people are very persuaded by it. She makes a very smart argument at the end of the brief about underreporting and uses statistics and we will use this evidence to back it up that suggests that the registration actually increases under reporting which is I think it's really good to have a tool kit full of arguments against under reporting because it's the one they always go to when you go well you're wrong on all the effort on all the other stuff they'll go oh but you know most people aren't you know under reporting you know that's what they always go to it's like they're go

well it has that is correct and as far as the brief Andy she she didn't have any do with writing this this this of the something was produced if you look at the signature by fog wall hormone mooned and I am Sherman de de Solicitor General assistance Lesser General that that she might not even know it was even filed but but but it's under her name because she's the Attorney General but but

although you don't have manage they put out a press release with her name so she definitely knew what I mean you don't put out a press release unless you as the as Dana

Josh  1:36:07  
well sir

Larry  1:36:08  
yeah she she she was told as we got this press release the object but but but but just peripherally. That's all she knows about this. She's not micromanaging this case I can guarantee you there's hundreds of people working today he is office and I doubt even Mr. Ford. Why actually wrote the thing itself. They they've got they've got legal scholars are working the ag office they gave the approval for it though.

Yeah, I was gonna say she had to know that that she was taking this position and she had to sign off of it because

because the political consequences would be too big on something like this for her now

she she she she likes the he didn't write the brief but she does she is comfortable with the position

so so I'd like to meet fatwa.

Maybe you can have him as a guest next time or her

so I don't know it's a fox thought wise. Male or female?

No idea.

Andy  1:36:59  
No, these things is there anything else that you want to throw out there before we close this out?

Larry  1:37:05  
I think this is a great, great day to be alive and do that

people always wondering, progress is being made progress has been made

thousands of people in the in the near future, we're going to get some relief in Michigan. And so that's a good, that's good thing.

Andy  1:37:20  
Let me ask you this question. On a scale of one to 10, you know, 10 being like, Oh my god, this is the best thing ever the registries taken down. Where does this fit?

Josh  1:37:29  
Well, for me, I mean, this is, you know, I mean, this is this big to me is Windows vs. cider came down

Larry  1:37:36  
because of just the symbolic impact if nothing else, and because I think it's probably going to mean that those actually gets enforced for all registrants who are it'll put applied to, which is a pretty huge deal. I think there might be even a lot more it might actually result in a different kind of registry that most states have right now. Which is astounding to me. I think when I got out that was inconceivable to me so

well, Josh, do you have any idea how they will deal with the people that have convictions that predate 2011 and they moved to Michigan afterwards? Oklahoma took the interesting tag they said, well, the X Factor applies only if you if you were here prior to our decision, but we're gonna look at where you are subjective. The analytical framework is when you when you subject yourself to registration, Oklahoma, so if you moved to Oklahoma now, too bad you don't benefit from Starkey but I wonder what they'll do it when there's all these u haul send it to Michigan or people who have older convictions, and they're living under the bridges of Florida and they want to get this new modern registry? Michigan? What Why do you think that's gonna play out for people without a state convictions?

I think, sadly, and you know, probably more about this legally than I do. Sending is the state of conviction is

what governs your state of original conviction is what governs how you're treated. And so I think that that might be a loophole in the sense that Michigan might not have to recognize it, except for people who were charged in Michigan. I could be wrong about that, too. That'd be my guess it would suck. I hope you're right. That it you know, I know, everyone's always afraid of state a or state be becoming a haven and everyone's going to move here. And maybe that's true. I hope I'm actually in this case would be okay with that. Because, you know, your These are my people. But But, you know, I I suspect that there might be that loophole. Do you do you think that's correct, Larry, I really I really don't

unless Michigan law says so. Because when when when my I give my regular listeners have heard this a dozen times before but it's like when you move your car from from the arid sunny west where we don't worry about pollution and you take it to New Jersey where they have a compact will populate

What is it? What do you have a huge population per square mile. The fact that you don't have to register here doesn't mean you don't have to a smog inspection at their Well, well, unless the state to specifically says you're governed by your state of conviction, you're governed by the state of the registry laws of the state you move to the conviction is no longer relevant. If they Florida says your lifetime and you go to Vermont, you're 10 years you're you're 10 years and let's robot says we

will accept if you've been except if he didn't leave Vermont and go back I see what you're saying. It does make

Josh  1:40:25  
sense to me.

Larry  1:40:28  
So my take on that that taking that posture that we required Utah's the first one that comes to my mind is that they say we require you to register for 10 years, or the time required convicting state, which is longer.

Josh  1:40:41  
So I guess I'll have to think about that and ask around. I suspect that my hope would be that they don't figure that out until after we finished

Larry  1:40:50  
doing

Andy  1:40:51  
well,

Larry  1:40:52  
I'm not the brightest bulb of the socket. I can guarantee if I can think of it someone else can.

Yeah, well, but in that case, I'm going to start thinking about that one for sure.

Well, well, I suspect that if Michigan comes up with a good registered there, I don't know what the Daily Bieber why wouldn't you go there, if you have a chance of getting off and you have a chance of getting off who the right mind would stay in a state where they're going to be oppressed versus the state where they can get off? You'd be insane to continue to stay there.

But wasn't that the case in New Mexico for a while? Wasn't that one of the fear? Or Didn't you all for a while there was kind of it was kind of set up that way? Is that not correct?

Well, it's still set up that way, you have to be covered by a registry law. We don't we don't have a law that says just goes you have to read for somebody that French to hear. No, no, no. Have.

Yeah, I was just meaning that you had kind of a more lenient law in New Mexico for a while, did that end up becoming a haven in a sense or?

Well, it depends on who you ask, according to the site people is I hate when people book here all the time that that have older convictions, if if they're too old, we don't care if you rock paper by July 195. You don't have to register here regardless of what your expenses regardless what the other state says. Well, that's not something that that that hundreds of thousands of people come here. But people do come here. And then when they're dumb enough to tell them, what they do is they said, Why don't you move to New Mexico when I did the research and the Mexican a lot. And I don't think I have to register here. And they put that on a tally sheet. And what you tell them as I got a job here, and I moved here because I like the climate. But they run that on TV. I don't think I'm gonna have to register here.

And that they use that as their their argument that there's a magnet of people coming here. I don't know what the top list, but but people do. But I'm saying why wouldn't you? You'd be crazy not to if you had the option. Some people are stuck for various reasons. But if you have the freedom if you have an income stream, and you can live anywhere, why would you choose to have projectiles coming in your windows and people picketing outside your house? Why would you choose that? Would you can live someplace where you wouldn't have that?

I would try to answer that. But I don't really know if there is an answer to that.

Well, they, but I'm saying if you have the option, some people don't have the option. You know, they're caring for sick love. One, their job is there. They could never get another job that pays anything like that. There's, they're in love with someone, and they could never leave their loved one because my spouse won't leave here. We grew up here. We went to high school together and all the relatives are here. And for various reasons, they won't leave. But if you have the option, well, I think you'd be really nuts. Not to, if the registry is bad as what people say it is. And I do believe it is as bad as what people say it is. Why would you not want to extract yourself from that if you could?

Josh  1:43:37  
Absolutely.

Larry  1:43:42  
Now we should get for that one. But,

Andy  1:43:47  
um, well, Josh, I so very much appreciate you coming in and giving us the lowdown from the local point of view. How can people find you on the Twitter on your website? Which podcast? Which your book tell us all about good stuff?

Larry  1:44:00  
Alright, well, the first thing I'll say is for those of you who have you all talked about untouchable before on here, the documentary,

Andy  1:44:07  
I totally keep forgetting to bring it up that it's available on all the streaming sites. But go ahead and tell us

Larry  1:44:12  
Yeah, well, David, my guest this week on decarceration nations Vega, who was the director of the of the documentary, so I'm pretty excited about that. You can find that at decarceration Nation. com. It'll be up on Monday.

The Twitter is just my name, Joshua. Joshua be Whoa. And the book. I have never really plugged the book before. But it's a book about addiction and recovery. And you can find it on my website or at Amazon under my name.

Josh  1:44:43  
Awesome.

Andy  1:44:43  
Well, Larry, let's go through this whole thing. How can people find us?

Larry  1:44:47  
They're gonna have to look very hard.

Andy  1:44:50  
Really hard. How hard?

Larry  1:44:52  
Well, if they if they if they I think if they Google registered matters, it would take them right there, wouldn't it? It?

Andy  1:44:58  
Totally what I did is just a little while ago. So number one leg. So yeah, you can rest assured that you will find and I even checked being because someone brought it up. And I was like, what is being but yes, it'll show up there too,

Larry  1:45:07  
as far as to say already search engine. But but particularly Google, but big would probably do it and you say it does. But if you don't want to Google it, you can just go to registry matters. dot CEO.

I don't know if this is true for you all. But I got told by Apple that someone could say to Siri, just the name of your podcast, and it would start playing. I don't know if that's true. Or not. Oh, I totally. Yeah, you can do it on the

Andy  1:45:29  
on the echo device. I don't want to say the word the word because then it'll start taking same. But yeah, you can totally listen to the podcast on all of the smart speakers to I don't really plug that very often. But I was really excited when I got it to do it.

Larry  1:45:41  
Yeah, I guess mine is there to just seems like, I guess people do that. I don't have one of those things.

So. But now if you don't use the internet, because you're forbidden and you want to talk to us, you can actually use an old fashioned phone. Once you have a rotor. If you have a rotary phone, you have like a little circular dial, and you would dial 747 to 274477. And if you're more modern, you have buttons and you would push those buttons 74774477

and y'all are old school

people use the dial phones, for heaven's sake.

I remember rotary phones, I'm not young

Josh  1:46:30  
if you're more modern. All right,

Andy  1:46:34  
how can they email us there?

Larry  1:46:36  
If you are allowed to use the internet, you can send us an email at registry matters. cast@gmail.com

Andy  1:46:43  
What is the absolute best way to support and show your love for the podcast? Oh, that's

Larry  1:46:47  
the thing that I think I said to three weeks ago, as you you look at the amount that you bring home on your check, and the net pay, and then you go to portray them to being funny here. patreon.com registry matters. And you take that amount, and you put that in as the monthly contribution standing

Andy  1:47:07  
right on

Larry  1:47:08  
man, if that works, I got about that.

So actually, you can put in any about if you're inclined, starting, I don't think $1 minimum of

Josh  1:47:19  
$1 awesome to show the sport

Larry  1:47:22  
and we're trying to build not numbers of of patrons. So if you if you if you can afford $1, there's something magic is going to happen. We reached a certain level and Andy has explained it to me, but we're not there yet. We get a certain number. It's kind of like the YouTube channel will pick out 100 we're going to get some magic recognition will reach a certain number of supporter. So if you can afford $1 that be fantastic.

Andy  1:47:48  
Absolutely. If

Larry  1:47:49  
you know, you can afford more, we'd like that as well.

Andy  1:47:51  
Of course, you know, it is sort of like a side subject. But in about 36 or so episodes, we hit 100. So we have to figure out what kind of big celebration to do and 30 something episodes

Larry  1:48:02  
so we'll we'll figure out something all right. We can we can have a party on the on the on the on the podcast. And then what something about discord here. What does that how does that work?

Andy  1:48:13  
Yeah. Well, discord is the platform we have about a bunch of people that come in and talk about it. There are people listening there are people asking questions and helps uh. You know, I submit show topics, people send topics in there. It's a it's a really great place to hang out and be in a friendly environment with people of like minds. Do we have any people in discord? Tonight? We do we have a typical crazy person from Kentucky and then we also have someone kind of special from Maryland, should I unmute the person from Maryland?

Larry  1:48:44  
You should you should delete that person from the server.

Andy  1:48:49  
Say hi, real quick.

Larry  1:48:50  
I resemble that remark.

Andy  1:48:53  
And you are Brenda Jones, the executive director of Nassau, correct, yes. Very good. Thank you for joining us

Larry  1:49:01  
tonight. Did you enjoy our art our discussions tonight? I certainly did. It was nice listening to everybody so well. We hope we entertained

and informed and informed

Andy  1:49:17  
Thank you everybody and have a great night. I will talk to you soon.

Larry  1:49:20  
Bye. All right. Bye guys.

Andy  1:49:23  
Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai