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 si p studios, east and west, I'm back in my own proper place transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 74 of registry matters, Larry, it's Saturday and we are having a party because obviously that's what people should be doing on Saturday nights as they should be recording a podcast. I think Larry 0:26 that's a great thing for people to be doing. We do it every week for less 74 weeks. We have Andy 0:31 a we may we missed a couple in there somewhere. But I will let it go. So 70 something weeks, we've done it. Larry 0:38 I did Saturday, I think Andy 0:40 so I think everybody should be joining in on live stream and harassing me with crazy questions or something. But someone, someone over on Twitter said, Why don't you guys ever take a week off? I was like, because there's lots to talk about every week. Plus, we could record any day, it's just a couple hours, I don't really see the necessity to to take a break at any level of regularity. Well, there's a little more than the recording time. There's the accumulation of prep time. But But yeah, I get I get the point. This is not our full time job. If it were we would be going broke really quick. That well. Yeah, that's true. I don't think I could pay my rent on what what you pay me. Larry 1:20 We're gonna have to cut that if you don't improve the performance. Andy 1:24 Oh, my God, I didn't realize that this was performance based Hang on, wait a minute, when is my annual review? And what are the metrics? Larry 1:30 metrics are we have to we have to exponentially increase our listenership at our patron level? Andy 1:36 Hey, that's a perfect segue. We have two new patrons this week. Larry, I've heard about that. We have a Christopher. And we have a David which I you know, look you David because David's a very common name, I'm just going to let it go. I'm not going to call it your last name, because we have about 12. Teen David's on the list. So you know who you are. And I can't thank you guys. Enough, enough, enough, enough, enough, enough enough. Unknown Speaker 1:59 I can you Andy 2:01 Okay, well, we'll begin. Larry 2:03 I can't, I can't thank you enough, all you have to do is give your net pay. And Unknown Speaker 2:09 we're back to that. Andy 2:10 All right, then. Larry 2:13 So one of these days, someone's going to create a dummy paycheck. Because it's easy to do, you could create a fictitious employment, and someone's going to create a paycheck, bring it home, like 25 bucks a month or something. And they're going to say that's true. You said you wanted the debt pay. Here it is, I'll tell Andy 2:29 you how somebody could do it is they could, you know, if they put in some bs number, but someone could create the account, they're not going to get charged until the end of the month. So you could come in and pledge to give me the $1 million per per per month and and then it just would, you know, you cancel the account right before charges and everything goes away, everything's fine. Larry 2:49 They be surprised if I'd be surprised if that cleared the process or a million dollar donation, very few people have that type of credit or debit, as I know, Andy 2:57 but it doesn't do it till the end of the month. So somebody somebody signing up today, they're not going to get a bill for three days, but come may 1, you're not going to get billed for 31 days, Larry 3:07 you think that we've made that that's such a ridiculous number that the that the metrics of the system, what they will let you enter that. That is very Unknown Speaker 3:15 true. It's kind Larry 3:17 of like the claim make assumptions with our s there was a about not forget what it is. But if you claim to meet exemptions that are available, contact your employer and say we need documentation. Because Because you can't there's only so many exemptions you can have, you know, there's a limit to how many offspring you can create. Andy 3:33 Okay, so they'll track how many kids you can create. But Paul Manafort buys, whatever they ostrich jackets and launderers hundreds of millions of dollars and like it p never gets caught? Larry 3:46 Well, I don't know if that's the same analogy. But the withholding withholding is fairly well controlled. And we've got systems that are in place for a long, long time for for tracking withholding, and now rest kind of has that down to a science Andy 4:00 very well. Well, let's let's start jumping into these articles because someone criticized us for having too much beginning banter. This art first article comes from why why and Congress considers making college more accessible to people in prison. Can you believe that? Larry, like there have been studies done that the more education you have, when you get out of prison, you are less likely to go back. And this would ultimately even though we would spend money on the Pell Grants, they would have reduced costs on the backside. I'm I'm shocked. This doesn't even sound like it could be true. Larry 4:30 Well, I'm shocked as well. But I think we admitted to introduce that we have a couple more people that are going to be participating tonight. above normal. You and I so well. I Andy 4:40 figured we would introduce at the end. But we can we can backtrack. We do we do. We do have a guest from the northeast state of Vermont named john. JOHN Say hello. Hello. Unknown Speaker 4:52 Welcome. Hey, I feel welcome. Thank you. Andy 4:56 I'm glad that we have we have another one. We have two more, but they're just hanging out listening. They're not they're not they're not here to speak. Larry 5:04 Okay. All right. So we've got so as John's last name Sanders, no, I don't think so. Andy 5:14 Are you? Is there a Bernie Sanders brother? Unknown Speaker 5:17 There might be but it wouldn't be me. Andy 5:23 Up. Larry 5:24 All right, but I'll miss. Go ahead with your question. Andy 5:27 Well, I was just I mean, can you believe that that we would actually do some sort of studies to find that people getting out of prison, if they have more education, that they have more opportunities and thoughts on the backside? I think it says that if we the estimates to increase the spending would be about $40 million, but the return on investment would be $300 million. Larry 5:47 I'm always dubious about those calculations for return on investment. And sometimes I tell people, I'm not interested in those predictions, I'm interested in doing the right thing. It's the right thing to do. Because society to me as better off if we have people who are better equipped to participate in compete in a capitalist system when they come out of prison. So I know that this was a restriction that they put in place back in the tough on crime days in the US. And then I think Obama tried to try to relax it back in his administration. And perhaps now we'll make some real progress, because this is kind of like when Harry Truman was president, anything he tried to do. And the last his second term was bad because it had his name attached to it that that it was easy to call something the Marshall Plan that it was the treatment plan. But, but this is this is this is something that's well past, ripe for discussion to use present time to rehabilitate people. Andy 6:43 But on the back, so going back to the 90s, when this was signed in it, there's just this whole mentality of like, the super predators that that term came out at the time. And just like, okay, you did your crime, you're now in prison. And that, like they started taking out any sort of recreation things, I guess it got popular to talk about that. They're just sitting there watching cable, and just keep beating people with sticks and reducing access to any sort of resources and any sort of rehabilitation to help you on the backside. And just, it's bizarre. Larry 7:16 Well, it looks like this has bipartisan support both. both Democrats and Republicans had a hand in the tough on crime policies. And now now it looks like that this is also enjoying some bipartisan support. Andy 7:28 Don't you often yell at me for this is all about the bipartisan support that you like? Larry 7:34 Well, I don't think that I don't think that's the way I intended. What what I intend to communicate is that just because something is bipartisan, doesn't mean it's good. Andy 7:43 Okay. Larry 7:45 It's kind of like just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional. Just because something bad policies can enjoy bipartisan support that would explain the registry and are tough on crime. But But reforms where you're actually relaxing, bad public policies, you need bipartisan support, because if you don't have that, then you're going to end up with one side vilified the others, you have a great political vulnerability. And that's where when you have bipartisan cooperation, then you can say this is not a this is not a liberal, conservative. This is this is just a sound policy here. This is Bipartisan Policy. But but so what I'm trying to communicate is that bipartisanship in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing. But there's times when it's necessary. Andy 8:26 I understand. And I agree, let's head on over to Baltimore, where I don't know how this guy actually survived. How did the police shoot it a guy 44 times and forgive me for the way I've just I'm going to be blunt. How does this guy not die? Larry 8:41 Oh, I think I think I hope I think they helped I think they hope he does or did. Andy 8:47 He's he Yeah, he and it's an incredibly long read. It's from the intercept. And I think where you're going to go after this is about prosecutors like I mean, this guy has been either like hung jury, and just on and on, and the prosecutors just keep going back and keep going back. And all this evidence continues to come out or has continued to come out. calling into question that this is the guy that committed the crime that they're alleging he did. Larry 9:14 Well, I have to confess I didn't read every word, the article. I think I'm not that put it in here. But probably. I'm pretty sure I am. But I put it in here to show the zealousness of the system. We have they made a mistake and shooting him to start with ball accounts. And then they're trying to they're trying to make some justification for what that but they've settled civilly. If I read the article correctly, they've settled. they've paid out a lot of civil on this, haven't they? I think so. Yes. I got this confused. Another article. I know they've paid out a whole bunch of money. And, and, but but they they continue to stand behind their mistake, and they continue to try to put this man imprisonment. Hey, Larry, Unknown Speaker 10:03 can I can I ask you a question? Do I have your why is it whenever we have these shootings and whatnot, that the minute the city settles of victim or the victim's family? That seems to be the end of it? And we never hear about either anyone, you know, admit to anything, it's usually all swept under the rug. But But when you're talking about bullets and blood, and people being shot, like why does, you know, a civil lawsuit? You know, signal the end of these kind of issues? Well, I guess Larry 10:42 that's because it generally is the and if someone gets killed, and the city, the city or the responsible entity settles, what else would there be to do? Other than prosecutor people we know that from experience of watching prosecutions of law enforcement, they're very unsuccessful. The it's very difficult to to to get a jury to convict and that's even in the most liberal jurisdictions, you had trouble they tried to convict was it Freddie Gray, the band The band, right? Yes, they tried. They tried their best prosecutor Busby I believe her name was tried her best to convict. And we had the same thing here in New Mexico with with the shooting john Boyd off the mountain here with the Albuquerque Police Department, former DEA Kerry Brandenburg tried to convict those cops, and you just can't solve it with when you when you do those, since the Civil burden is lower, you remember, it's a preponderance of the evidence, which is slightly more than 50%. The oj simpson would be an example of that, you've got to you've got an evidence sufficient to win a civil lawsuit. So therefore they settled, but trying to pull someone criminal really responsible is very difficult particular, there's an elevated standard for the cop, that seems like the citizens that sit on the juries will hold, give more benefit the doubt to the police officers because they're in the line of duty, and they're putting their life on the line every day. And if it weren't for them, we would be no telling what kind of conditions we'd be living in. So it's very difficult to get a jury to unanimously return a verdict. Unknown Speaker 12:10 Yeah, I guess it just seems that if a person, you know, were to another person, you know, this wouldn't stop, you know, once that person was willing to settle and pay that other person, but because it's the city or it's an employee of the city, in this case, the cop all of a sudden, you know, a civil lawsuit, you know, it's your wipe your hands and kind of walk away, nothing to see here. That's kind Larry 12:34 of what it is. There's nothing to see. Because you can't bring the person back and you can't convict anybody of any wrongdoing. And the it's even difficult even to fire police officers. It's it's exceedingly difficult, but the union rules that they have and police unions are like no other union, they really are in terms of their power. That's the one union strong, that's the one young stronghold that still in boy enjoys broad support. Most people in America that could care less about union organizing and about collective bargaining. When it comes to the police union. We support the police and their union. Andy 13:09 Something else that came up in the article, which I think is it just indicative of the mindset is that the the I guess it would be the victim's mother. So I'm not I'm not referring to the victim of the guy that got shot 40 times. But the the person that was actually killed, his mom says, like, it's a victory. And I'm like, this isn't necessarily victory. If justice wasn't served, it's the wrong it feels to me. It's the wrong attitude about about the judicial process. This isn't a This isn't a victory, like everybody loses in this whole situation. Nobody's actually like a winner. Larry 13:45 That is correct. But I don't really know why. But there's no other just to show the dysfunctionality of our system. And we've got a lot of work to do. And while we we illuminate these things that's like trying to shed light that we, we we have work to do in this country. Clearly were the greatest country on Earth, but we've got a lot of room for improvement. Andy 14:06 Absolutely. And then to move over to an article from K f g O, which couldn't even begin to tell you what that is, but it's from Fargo. So that makes it a North Dakota or North Dakota, right. Fargo? Right. Larry 14:20 That is a North Dakota. Yes. Andy 14:22 Excellent, excellent. Okay, so the article is in some states, sexting could land teens in jail for a long, long time. Since 23, states, I know, we cover this all the time. And I cannot fathom how we we fix this. How would you identify that to 15? are sharing 15 year olds are sharing pictures, and doing it just for exploratory reasons. They're trying to keep it private, but that like how would that be different than an adult and a child doing it or adults sharing kitty pictures? I don't like the technology is not going to discriminate between the two activities. And these little laws are written from a timeframe where it was not easy to send this stuff around at I you know, like Polaroid pictures, if you had a Polaroid pictures of a teen naked, you've probably done something wrong. But you how now have a whole video production studio in your pocket at all times. I don't see how we really fix this without just like decriminalizing this kind of sort of across the board. Maybe that might be a stretch but Larry 15:24 well, that's precisely what we did in our state. So yes, you can do that. What we we don't have that problem here. With teens being prosecuted, they're they're immune from prosecution if they're if they're doing doing that thing. But in fact that were quoted in the article, the Dr. Vic Strasbourg, or professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Americans at the University of Mexico school, man, nice. I see. I see. I see. So, but but yes, I, I don't know how these lawmakers live with themselves. I don't know how they show their faces in the kitchen immunity when they make laws that subject kids to prosecution for doing what we did what they did. They just didn't do it in the same way. We didn't have the capacity to show our junk and send it down. We actually, we actually had to take a picture and figure out some way to in our day, we had a Polaroid camera, you pull that thing out and let the film develop. And he would, are you waving back Andy 16:23 and forth? Right? Larry 16:24 Yeah, but but but but this is not new stuff. And the fact that you would subject a teenager to prosecution for doing this means that you've totally become district connected from your past and from Team behavior. And you probably need to go back to school and learn what teenagers did. And have people remind you of what you did when you were a teen. I mean, this is crazy. Do you feel I mean, it's crazy, but it's real. Andy 16:49 But do you have a sense of which states are firing these laws up versus the ones that are not? Is it is it Do you think it's slanted red or blue? In either way? Is it geographically located as the South southern states are firing this up in the northern states northeast are, you know, in the West Coast are are making it not so harsh? Larry 17:08 Well, you know, my bias tends to suggest that all political bias, but I don't know that I've got any evidence to make that assertion. The the, this, the states that tend to be more, more liberal tend to be more enlightened on, on how to deal with juvenile justice issues. But that's not always a given. Sometimes economics can drive reforms, even though it's not such progressive thinking, but just simply to save money. But But I don't have enough information to say that the conservative states are prosecuting kids, I can just say that we're not doing it. But But I don't know which states are but it's, it's tragic. I mean, making someone a sex offender for sharing a duty of themselves. Andy 17:53 And my kid is right in the wheelhouse. I mean, in another year or two, he's going to be of the age where this story activity could potentially occur. And I don't like my personal I don't really care if he does it. But obviously, there's this, like a massive sledgehammer of consequences coming down. If it falls into the wrong hands, and the authorities are notified of it. You can't I mean, if he closes his door, and he has his phone, and he takes a picture of his junk and sends it to his his, whatever partner that would become. It's out of my control. I can't do anything at that point, then the whole law enforcement apparatus gets ahold of it, and it's over. Larry 18:32 Did we do an episode about a kid that committed suicide? Wasn't that Andy 18:38 yes. Text? Yes, that was done in Napier, Napier, Illinois, whatever it was. So, Larry 18:44 I mean, this is real, science repugnant and unconscionable that these laws would even exist, hey, Unknown Speaker 18:51 whatever happened to prosecutorial discretion, cops, laws on the book against sodomy and whatnot. People don't go to prison for that, even though it occurs in every state of this great land. I don't well don't get Larry 19:06 it. The the sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional. So hopefully, they're not being enforced anywhere. But But prosecutorial discretion is a dream that the My answer is don't give them. Don't give them a tool that they can use, because they would have will inevitably be misused. We can't trust prosecutorial discretion in an ideal world. Yes, I agree with you that prosecutors wouldn't do that. But the fact is, they do do that. So I'm one of those renegades when people say and hearings, committee hearings. prosecutorial discretion, I say no, no, we don't give up that power. because inevitably, it will get misused. Andy 19:45 You don't mean a tool like giving the the Greene County and North Carolina and armored personnel carrier, do you? Larry 19:51 I will, I will guarantee you that. So used it sometime. It will be it will be using a situation where I would be highly questionable. If they don't have that tool. They won't misuse it. But but the prosecutors, if you're if they're given the tool that our attorney general here who's a democrat is arguing for that discretion. He says off course you can trust me. No, Hector, we cannot trust you. We can not trust you, and all your minions to use that power responsibly and only prosecute those cases that are so egregious. But but but that is exactly what I rail against is that we they've demonstrated that they can't have that discussion, because otherwise we wouldn't be having these podcasts every week. Andy 20:30 I hear you, I hear you. Well, the next article comes from NBC News, this this is really I can't like it's just seems so benign of an activity chalking tires to enforce parking rules is unconstitutional, the court finds that you go down to your little local city thing and you park in some, you know, parking attendant troll walks by with a big long stick with chalk mark on the end of it. And they mark so that it takes them another hour to walk back around. And if they see you again, then they know that you've been there for too long. And somehow this has been classified by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that says funny that that's an unwarranted search and seizure. Larry 21:09 Well, you know, somehow over like this article, so I'm gonna have to defer to the other people here that that did read it to come up with some intelligent comment. Andy 21:20 Um, they the way as far as I understand it, be it there's no let's see in the last. The last one the last sentences of the of the article, and I'm going to end up it's it says, taking a picture of the car orgs tires with without trespassing on it with that's not the one there's a it doesn't have any potential improvement in society of them marking your your tire that they are potentially putting a mark on your car that could be tracked later than just this little parking expedition that you've done. And it I don't know, it just seems like a terribly benign thing. But now I guess everybody can just go down to your local city and just park and you can just flip the bird at them and they're stuck letting you park there forever. Unless they find a different way to do it. I guess they could have traffic cams and stuff around. Larry 22:12 But well, you know, this is a 12 page update. Yeah, I didn't I didn't read it. Go ahead. Unknown Speaker 22:16 I read it. The other day. Actually. One of the things I think that was part of that was that they thought the city could do you know if that if they want to enforce parking that there are other ways to do that, like meters and things like that. And Unknown Speaker 22:33 chalking, for whatever reason represented some kind of in as it but anything that you know, keeps the man from getting some of my money is okay with me. Andy 22:49 Um, so the paragraph that I found is, it says, moreover, overstaying your welcome at a parking space doesn't cause injury or ongoing harm to the community, meaning the city is wrong to argue that parking enforcement is part of its community caretaking responsibility, but potentially justifying a search without a warrant. To me, Larry, these these this this argument is, since it's a fourth amendment thing, I am overly overly overly interested in having your phone be a secure device where only you can get into it, that you have secure messaging capabilities between the people that you're you're contacting and so forth, without some form or fashion that the police have to get a judge involved to get your information out of you. And this goes kind of along with that with I'm sure you haven't read 1984. But it goes along with that that gives you the government the ability to sort of track you over over periods of time. Unknown Speaker 23:43 I think Andy 23:44 you should drop this article in for next week. And I'll read the opinion, I guess then that means I have to cut this whole segment out thanks, Lady for making my editing job harder. Larry 23:54 There's no reason to cut it out, we could just realize that we weren't prepared. And that's why people say, Well, we need a better panel. Andy 24:03 We could we need more prep time. But then moving on to an article from reason magazine, and this is circling back to probably two or three weeks ago, the feds are dropping child porn cases, instead of revealing info on their surveillance systems, I don't know if reason is just catching up to us, since we covered this recently, don't really want to try and rehash the issue. But when someone ends up with some kind of child porn charges, and the government has used one of these private companies techniques, and then the defense tries to challenge their techniques of finding out what it was, instead of revealing the information, they dropped the charges. And that means potentially that they're using, I guess, possibly like breaking the law in their detection techniques that might overstep some constitutional boundaries. I'm gay Fourth Amendment stuff, this stuff bothers me to death. Larry 24:58 It could be your they could be trying to preserve the secret nature of their technology and their capacities. They don't want the citizens to know the full potential of what if we, if we knew all the things that the government can do to us, we probably would most of us would, would be so appalled we wouldn't be alive if we knew all the powers that they have. Andy 25:15 Yeah, and I started hearing to go along with that, I'm probably going to botch it up, I hope you can help fill in the gaps. I have heard of people claiming that the government was surveilling their telephone calls without a warrant at because, like, information would come up in a court case that like had they believed was private, privileged, and all that, but they had the information on their side. And they would try to get the government to reveal and ultimately what came out to be like the meta tag stuff, I guess, the metadata during the I think that started in the bush administration, I could be wrong. And I heard of a recent whistleblower that is, is claiming something similar, and is currently locked up in I think of Virginia jail, as and when when asked if the government has some sort of monitoring system on the individual, they basically just say No comment. Larry 26:08 Well, I've been hearing, you know about talk show junkie, so I've been hearing about these capacities, they have the monitor, phone calls, going back to Art Bell, and Andy 26:20 Exactly. Larry 26:22 I don't remember the names of all of them. But I've heard this stuff for decades. And, Andy 26:26 and then to extend that then the government built a gigantic facility in Utah to help supposedly all of the telecommunications that occur between people, I want to say, even down to recording voice, which I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat, I'm telling you encrypt your stuff. So even if they do gain it, they can't do anything with it. Because it's all going to be a bunch of random noise, encrypt your SMS messages, if you can encrypt your phone calls to it, because that way they can't get to it. Unknown Speaker 26:56 This seems a little you know, to say, we're there to tie into the sauna, Adam Walsh Act restrictions on defense attorneys being able to, to, to get access to, you know, the evidence that is so frustrating and makes it you know, so unfair when it goes, you know, to trying to look at I mean, the defense can't even look at what kind of images what kind of evidence they are, in my case, I'm my lawyers, and my consultant had to drive down to Boston, order to look at stuff. Unknown Speaker 27:39 And I feel like, you know, when the government can control all of the evidence, and share it in their own confines, it's a lot like, you know, if you're at of, or if you're suspected, and charged a murder, and you have to go and get your own friends x, today, do the bullet test to do your own forensics of the of the site. You know, not, not two days after, but six months after the after the cry, and they've got their analysis, which is is not only as the evidence itself kept private, but the things that they use to run an analytics on it. And then, you know, what they've, you know, and then all the all the data and research that they've provided to the grand jury is also protected so that at the end of the day, you know, a wonder that 98% of people charged with any kind of sex offense. It's guilty, because it's definitely Larry 28:42 unbalanced. I agree with you fully on that. I've I've been appalled that there's been so little litigation on the the provision of the Adam Walsh Act, which prohibits the defense from taking possession of the images. Right, they do. They do provide the access, but it's in a controlled situation. And it doesn't give you the full potential to do your own forensics and to do your own. Have your age expert. I mean, it just it's very, it's very restricting. And I'm surprised there hasn't been more litigation on that. Because I think that we learned from from Scalia that when he was on the Supreme Court that confrontations pretty important and order, in order for you to conference confront, have full confrontation, you've got to be able to examine the evidence independently to confront the accuser about the veracity or the but the validity of whatever they're alleging. And you can't do that. So I'm just shocked. There hasn't been to my knowledge, you're very much litigation, all. All I'm aware of is motions being filed and all a big summarily denied, and they just simply cite to the law and say, do you have to turn into offices? So Your Honor, you have to deny the motion? Because it's the law and I don't think has been taken up to any appellate level that or anyone's reported the decision to me. One of our lives, he can do the research and let me know if I've missed something, but I'm not aware of litigated? Unknown Speaker 30:07 Yeah. Andy 30:09 As this one turns out, this is from wF RA, which is over on the Far Far, far west coast of New York, this is actually a border town. So where the company is that I do work. So I guess. So. Governor Cuomo signed that sex offenders can go out and vote. But it's then feels like at a lower level executive branch person saying no, that's not happening here. Despite executive order. Jamestown public schools will turn away registered sex offenders during budget vote and school board election. Isn't this someone overstepping their bounds, Larry? Oh, it's not. It could be. Okay. That's it. Okay. So we'll then we'll move on. Just kidding. Um, but what what if they say that you can't go vote and there's going to be a they call it a red shirt? I think a duty police officer, that you'll be escorted off the property? Doesn't this violate your constitutional right to have voting Larry 31:06 access? It certainly seems that way to me. So the the the executive orders, I was as what was a little bit troubling. The what's the validity of an executive order? What's the what? Well, how much legal authority does that carry? I don't know the answer to that. Andy 31:26 Okay. And and then ultimately, we need someone to file some sort of lawsuit after they've been harmed, or I guess in to put is that would be would that be an injunction against this? This? Is Mayor doing this? Larry 31:39 Okay. Yeah. So the school superintendent Brett, I can't pronounce that. And for the school board, that he would not be given authorization of sex offenders. So I think it's going to Unknown Speaker 31:49 be absorbed, I think, Larry 31:51 yeah, I think that he would be named it probably the board and whoever else you could reasonably identify. But but then it goes back to how much real authority this executive order has its founding on this particular entity, and we would need some jurisprudence from New York. But it's it doesn't pass the smell test. I mean, that's clear. Andy 32:15 Very, very good. From over in the Chicago Tribune. Tribune, Cook County makes it illegal to refuse to show or rent property to people with certain criminal records, I can only guess which criminal records it's going to be. Is it going to be this ex offenders? Do you think Larry, Larry 32:35 probably not, they will probably not be protected, Andy 32:39 they will not be protected. So as a property owner, I the the person can just say, Oh, hey, on your background check, it says that you did drugs, great, you can move in, or Hey, you had inappropriate contact or you had some images, therefore, you are not worthy of staying on my property. That is that what I'm guessing this is? Larry 33:00 Well, it appears to be a well intentioned effort to make the transition from prison and with people with criminal records, even if they're not coming from prison to have access to housing, and action taken by the Cook County Commissioner. So so it's what it appears to be. The outcome is, though, is it's it's not a complete victory, because it excludes is doesn't apply to everyone. And there's, there's two trains of thought, there's the train of thought if you can't save everybody, you should start save anybody. And there's a train of thought that I tend to buy into is I want to save as many as I can. And understanding politics as I do. It looks like the Cook County Board of Commissioners is 17 members. So you're trying to get to eight to get something passed. And I'm not sure many counties do not have an executive that has to sign things when you have a mayor, council mayor, alderman mayor, can type of government usually the mayor holds the same position of being able to veto that doesn't usually work the same way with counties you don't usually have a county executive that can veto not always you sometimes there is but usually the county commission coming to a majority that that is the final action on on an item. Since I don't know if there's an executive that holds the veto power. I know for sure you're trying to get to eight. I don't know for sure if you're trying to get to eight plus an executive. But we can start with what we do know you're trying to get to eight. Well, you have two republicans already there pizza vestry edge and Sean Morrison who are not for it. So that's reduced your capacity get eight, because they're out of the equation. And I can guarantee you, I just about guarantee you that they didn't say well, I would vote for it if it included everybody. I'm just about willing to make the bet with anybody. That's not but it was the basis of their opposition. So so all of a sudden, you're still trying to get to eight. And when you're trying to get to those eight, you're running into other opposition people saying well, I just can't go along with that. The apartment Owners Association said that they're reliable for writing to people who have this type of record that kind of record. And they come in with their lobbyists. They told us that that, that there's been a $2 million judgment award and and they need this capacity to turn down bad people. And through the process of this man marked up and debated and discussed and public comments. This was probably the best they could get out. So you had Commissioner Brandon Johnson, who was the chief sponsor, he had a decision to make that he could say, well, if I can't get the whole enchilada, the way I want it, I'll just don't want nothing. They will walk away and turn my and forget these people. Or do you take what you can get and try to build from there? That's the thousand dollar question that we ask all the time that we get criticized about because I'm an environmentalist, if I can't get what I want in totality, I'll take as much as I can. And I'll come back and try to get more later. If I'm trying to get to 15 minimum wage, and I can get there governor, Hassan 12, I'll take 12 comes 12 is closer to 15 and seven years. And if you ask the people who are working for minimum, if they'd rather earn 12 or seven, I can just about guarantee you that very few are going to say well, I don't get the 15. And I sure as hell don't want the 12. And and so I suspect that the felon population, that the developing community with exception of the excluded people are very happy that this step was taken. But it's unfortunate that this is probably the best to take a get get through. Now. I'm not a local in Chicago. I don't know all the politics of Cook County. But I can count and I can do the math. And I know you're trying to get to eight. And I don't know how you can get to eight without making compromises. Andy 36:45 Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair enough. Um, let's go dive deep into the article itself comes from the Indiana lawyer but you you've been diving over this whole the actual decision, but the Seventh Circuit rules Department of Corrections sex offender program violates the Constitution. And here's another article there that you decided to spring on me like an hour ago. I have no idea what's going on. It's all you. Larry 37:11 The the article that was brought on it was only because it was sprung on me. It just came out on the 20 25th. Andy 37:21 Yeah, that says the 26 for the article. So I guess the decision came out the day before. So yeah, so it's a whopping two days old and total. Larry 37:28 I had a chance to read it yesterday. And I think that's when I first became aware of it. But But I find this to be an exciting and I'm going to try to stay shy of irrational exuberance, which is the word I like from Alan Greenspan, if anybody knows who he is, but this is this is building on an important principle of, of self recrimination, that's in our Constitution and the the the Illinois Department of Corrections is going to have to revamp their procedures of their there what let's say we get this right, what does it stand for the insulin program. It stands for Indiana sex offender management and monitoring program. And this is this is required of everybody before they leave prison. And it requires that they incriminate themselves with their sexual history. And they face if they don't cooperate. satisfactorily, they face a reduction of their good time, which lengthens the amount of time their statutory good time it if it causes them to default on their statutory good time, which increases the amount of time they're in prison. And so that that's what's so phenomenal. Because the threat, it's actually a compulsory act, you have to go through this process. Are you are you stable, more time you spend more time in prison? So that's the threat of a compulsion of the analysis. And and the court said, No, you can't do that. You cannot force these people to incriminate themselves. It's a short patriot as far as opinions go. And we're going to have a link to it. What is it 12 pages, 13 pages or something? It's 14 pages, but it's relatively short. And on page five that to succeed in a field of image challenge, I'm reading directly from the opinion. Lacey, who was the leader of the class must demonstrate that the disclosures to which he objects are one testimonial to incriminating, and three compelled. And then they cite the compelling authority. And then they say that the state already concedes that their testimonial, so I don't have to go into that to that analysis. And then they go and break it down, whether it's incriminating, and they go through all of what the program requires, and the threat of prosecution. And these these, these people are threatened with potential prosecution because there is no ability for anything they say, in the so called treatment regime where they give all this information. Andy 39:56 Right. It's totally seems like a witch hunt. Larry 39:59 What, which is it's it's my collaborative fishing expedition. I've been talking about for many years. This is this exactly what this is. And the require disclosures. If you go to page seven, it says the required disclosures could provide enough detail to Kickstarter brand new investigation, that the soldiers might advance or substantiate an ongoing investigation, or one that was halted for lack of evidence in current or potential if, in current or potential prosecution disclosures from inside and some could conform identity or modus operandi under under Rule 44 be two. And that that's a complicated thing. We I think we've had one podcast for for be, but that's where evidence of other similar acts get to come in. Even though that there was no conviction or even a charge, it's it's it's it's proof that that it makes you the so called purposes to make it more likely or not that they've got the right person? Well, you admit that you did these things, and that under the insulin requirements, you have to disclose as much information about the victim, their names are age, the location, well, nothing would stop them from going back and talking to that person once you've identified them. And then that person could come in and give for for be testimony against you in a future proceeding. Right. And then also, as I point out on page eight about a person who, who had gone to trial might face perjury charges, because if they turn around and admit, and this disclosure that installed requires that they did what they were found guilty of that they testified they didn't do that all of a sudden, they've perjured themselves. So I mean, this is this is this is a phenomenally good opinion. Unknown Speaker 41:45 Hey, Larry, and, and yeah. Oh, sorry. is john. I just, you know, is it okay, if I asked the question I asked beforehand, just for the sake of the audience from kind of a lay persons perspective. Sure. That the was it, you know, whether or not there's some kind of parallel here, between the inside program where people would, you know, and had to fill out whatever they had to participate in settings where the confessed to these crimes of the things that they did to the federal probation system, where we have group meetings that are done with counselors who worked for the federal government, port, Unknown Speaker 42:24 and kind of to track not only, you know, what we're doing, but also what we're thinking and all kinds of things. And then they use a lie detector, in order to kind of both trying to verify that, you know, what we're doing is, you know, Unknown Speaker 42:42 in compliance with our conditions, but also, a lot of times to get us to confess to things that we can't willing can be used to prosecute us or violate us and get us back or change the terms, whatever, whatever. It's, it just seems the parallels are archived a similar, because here it says, based on their answers, the offenders may then be given a polygraph examination. There, they will be asked such things as how many children they have molested how many times they've made child pornography. In the Indiana case, you know, the goal seems to be to prosecute people or find out what they're doing. And it seems fairly, very similar to the federal probation. So I just wonder if there's any kind of way that this translates to that. And, you know, are they completely separate Larry 43:31 ICF Not only that, it's like correlation, I'll say, I'll say a powerful relationship, this is going to this building body of case law is going to result. And supervising authorities having to revamp their so called treatment, their collaborative fishing expeditions are going to have to be revamped, because if you want to do this, you're going to have to grant the people immunity from prosecution. And that's not going to sit very well with victims advocates. Because victims advocates don't care about what you get better. They care about what you you go away for the rest of your life. So if you start talking about if you start talking about immunity from prosecution, trying to do that, statutorily, you're going to have every victims advocate organization on planet Earth, not even in the United States come again, to say How dare you consider letting these people get away with a fence and say they've committed against children. But that's the way if you want to do this, and I know, I get criticism for telling people how they if they want to do something, constitutionally, if you want to do these inquisitions, so you could theoretically treat these people for their, for their, whatever you want to call these impairments, their sexual dysfunctionality, you're going to have to immunize them from prosecution. If you don't want to do that, you're going to have to take this out of the picture. You can't do it acquisition and get information that you could turn around to use against them. You should have learned that in school long time ago, even without a law degree, you should know that you can't do that. But it's being done. And I think the federal system is going to have to revamp, I think the state systems This is building on top of the bond bearing decision on the 10th circuit, which was just a couple years ago, now more than three years ago. And we've talked about on the podcast about the polygraph of the threat of being incarcerated. And that was a federal case. It's all recalled. Arizona, California, right. Andy 45:31 Or Colorado, I mean, Larry 45:33 yeah, yeah, it was, but he was on federal probation. Okay, okay. We're supervised release. That was it was it was a federal court, but it was also a federal case. This is actually this actually as a state case, but it's in federal court, because it's a federal constitutional claim. But but but that we've got a building body of case law now because we've got a 10th circuit opinion said, a polygraph that can subject someone to a reasonable fear of prosecution. You can't help those questions. They did say you can't polygraph people. And we've had dozens of people write to us and say, Well, I don't have to take a polygraph anymore because of on bear. Nope, I'm buried did not say that. But they said you cannot use the polygraph to the point that it's going to force someone to self incriminate. Now we've got an additional session from another circuit saying that, that you cannot do these blatantly inquisitive questionnaires about things that they may have done without any guarantee that it won't be used against them. You just can't do it. And and so I'm excited. I know. People don't say we sound excited. I am excited. Andy 46:42 Can you say that again? Please? Larry 46:44 Yes, I am very excited today to see this decision. On top of the barbaric decision that we've talked about. This is this is tremendous news. And I believe that it's only a matter of time that we're going to bring these which haunts which correctional authorities and supervising authorities are engaging, and we're going to bring some some containment to them because they cannot self contained. So we're going to, can you try to try to build on this case, on this case? A lot of the seventh Andy 47:11 does this then impact just those that are that are out of prison and on just supervision where they have them take the the the sexual history, politics and all that. Do you think that'll trickle down to this eventually? Larry 47:25 Well, you know, I you know, I'm not I'm not qualified to give that answer as a legal answer. I have a have a lay opinion that it absolutely does. Because whether or not you're sitting in prison, and being asked these questions, or whether you're under supervision and being asked these questions, questions, the threat is exactly the same. You're you're being threatened with potential prosecution without immunity. And you're helping the the authorities potentially build a case against you. So I don't see any difference in whether you're in prison or out of prison. But like I say, that's my lay opinion. Andy 47:58 Interesting. Yeah. I mean, that that was a while I was in treatment. That was one of my, I mean, just the whole polygraph in general just absolutely drives me insane, because it's complete pseudoscience and garbage. But I mean, I get I guess, if they can scare you into admitting something, then the tool has worked even. I mean, they could have hooked you up to a potato with wires on it. And if it scares you into admitting something, then I guess the tool worked. This is just something that has like clicking the click noises and buzzers and stuff. Like a, like the game we the board game we played as kids operation where you would touch the size of the nose on that guy would go right. Anyway, that's what that's what I think about when I think about polygraph test. Larry 48:37 Well, I think on page nine that I would really like to think in the last two months we've we've mentioned about the courts calling out duplicitous duplicitous arguments. And it's clear that this court finds the state to be duplicitous. The state is saying that it is for plot brief, Indians reply brief to state all what conceits the necessary level risks present the prosecution, it admits that there is the possibility of prosecution. But then, but then they say, Well, we've never prosecuted anybody in the court says, Well, it seems like the state does try and have it both ways. On the one hand, it wants us to believe that the rehabilitative purpose of installing depends on required disclosure is carrying a meaningful risk of prosecution. On the other hand, the state says, We have prosecuted anybody in the court call them out for that duplicitous argument. I love it when I see court saying, we understand that you're being to face here. This is a duplicitous argument, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that we have to threaten these guys with prosecution. And they have to really feel that threat I didn't you can't talk about to say, but we really wouldn't do it. Andy 49:42 Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 746 seven, two to 74477. Want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon. com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment glass about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed, you make it possible. And now we're going to bring on our guests who has been here, you know, you've heard him commenting along during the show. JOHN is an individual from Vermont who wrote us an email message and wanted to push back on some of the stances that we take where whether that be from a political point of view or on the efficacy of our efforts and so forth. And so I will let john introduce, I guess his point of view on on where his stances on what he he thinks that we're, I guess where we're wrong? I Unknown Speaker 51:01 wouldn't say Unknown Speaker 51:02 it that way. But thank you, Larry and Andy for having me on. It's actually or I wouldn't say that you're wrong. You're not wrong at all? No, I would say that I'm challenging one of your, Unknown Speaker 51:16 I guess, precepts and challenging it in a respectful and honest way. It's just a difference of opinion. It's more style, not substance. And just so let's just lay it out there, I guess. Unknown Speaker 51:32 So, first of all, I've been listening, this is what 74 podcasts? And you know, yeah, it's just amazing. I mean, I've only been listening for about six months. And I've been catching up. But I gotta tell you, every Monday or Tuesday, I listened to your podcast, and it just cheers me out, that gives me strength. Unknown Speaker 51:57 It's just really important. I cannot, besides, more importantly, what you mean, to me, and I know, to the other listeners, and I talked to people in group because so many people, even though I've got a great support network, I'm lucky enough to have wife, I still have my kids. You know, I can't talk about these kind of things. You know, nobody listened, my friends, the few that still talk to me, they don't want to listen to me ramble about the Seventh Circuit appeals decision, right. But you know, when I hear from you guys, I get to catch up on the new things, it just it, it gives me strength to go on. So, you know, the fact that you guys do this every week is amazing. And just keep going. So I want to say that up front. And then as absolutely, you should. And by the way, I am a supporter. So I signed up about two weeks ago, I think, as a Patreon supporter. And you know, even though I can't afford it, I can't afford not to support podcasts. Unknown Speaker 53:01 Anyway, that said, what my email was was was simple as basically just I feel like, I agree with you guys. 100% on almost everything, and you all have changed my view. But one thing where I disagree is that I just don't have any tolerance for the registry. And I know, Larry, who loves to say that. It's not, the world isn't the way we'd like it to be. It's the way it is. And Andy 53:32 you're now famous, Larry, just to remember that Unknown Speaker 53:35 I'm gonna make t shirts, you know. But, Unknown Speaker 53:38 you know, I understand that, and he's probably right. But I feel like, you know, since October, in particular, it's, we've had stories after stories of good news. And, you know, I feel like, I just wish that there was a way that, you know, a voice that would say, what I feel, which is zero tolerance for the registry, like, I just feel like that, you know, I don't want to give it any air to breathe. And I think that's not an unreasonable Unknown Speaker 54:18 position. So, you know, specifically, I think, Unknown Speaker 54:26 you know, one of the reasons why we disagree is that, you know, I come to the registry, from only 2017. That's how long I've been there. And I think there's a lot of people who, you know, have been fighting this fight for decades. And I, you know, like, if you were here, during sorta, and during all these other things, you know, periods where the courts were constantly, you know, there was failures. Like, I think I could understand how you would come to believe that you know, what the registry is, the law of the land, this is is just something we need to accept, and that there is a way that it can and should exist in our lives. But I don't see it that way. I look at it more like Jim Crow laws. Frankly, I think it's more the parallel is closer to Jim Crow, than it is, you know, to, you know, some some system that that can be fixed. And I don't think if you were to look back at Jim Crow laws, and look back in the 50s, and 60s, you could see people say, Well, hey, separate but equal can work as long as the separate is really equal. And I say bullshit that couldn't have worked in and I think in 50 years, we're going to look back at these times. And I think we're going to say exactly the same thing about the registry, that it's bullshit. And that to the extent that we allow any arguments to say that it can't exist in any form. It has all of our arguments. Larry 56:00 I was I wasn't sure it was finished. Well, I, I tried to juggle jot down a few notes, but the the, the registry is not something that is effective. It's not something we support, we we Randy and I are adamantly opposed to registering citizens for crimes that they've committed. And, and you bringing this to us helps us understand that we need to sharpen what we're saying in some fashion, because it shouldn't be coming across that way. Because it's not, it's not our intent to peacefully coexist. But I think I would, I would ask you to look back at what we're talking about with the with the Cook County Chicago situation, I'm of the mindset that, that that I have to be realistic with the political situation as it exists, I don't get to decide what the political situation is. Which means if I'm in this if I were to be a resident, and a leader in Michigan right now, and that legislature was grappling with how to deal with the, what they're gonna do with registry. And, and I talked to enough lawmakers, and they're gonna, they're my opinion, it'd be my guests are going to reconstitute some registry of some form, I doubt they're gonna want just to throw up their hands and say, we won't have a registry, because I suspect there would be a massive amount of movement in Michigan. So I'm faced with a choice if the if the people that I work with say, Larry, we're going to have to enact something. Do you want to Michigan State Police to write it? Or would you like to give us your version? Well, that's an easy no brainer for me. I don't trust the Michigan State Police because that's how we got what we have right now, which was so onerous. So I'm going to say, Well, all right, well, makers, if you're determined to do this, and I advocate strongly against registry, but since understand politically, you can't survive, in your opinion, politically, without having some form of registry, you were determined to enact a more benign constitutional registry, I will do my best to give you what you're asking for. And I will give you a piece of legislation that you can defend and say that, by golly, this was constitutional. Do I believe in it? No, absolutely not. I don't believe in it whatsoever. But But I'll give you an example. And in our state, there was a he's out of office now, but but he also he was both majority minority leader, the Republican side, control the house for the year 15 and 16. When he was Minority Leader, prior to 1516, he was Majority Leader. And then he did not run again, for reelection in 2018. But he's he he wanted to do a social media ban for on sex offenders. And we we told him can't do that it's unconstitutional. There was a recent circuit court opinion that said that nothing comes out of Indiana, if I remember, right, but but we don't we can't You can't do that. And he thought he was Lord. And he said, What Nate says, Well, no, it didn't say that. He said, it said he couldn't do just what I said, you're correct, made it said you couldn't do this one. And I said, what yours is just as bad as what the court struck down. And he says, Well, I've got to push something through. He says, What do you want to do? I said, Well, I'm going to try my best to kill it, is what I'm going to do unless you decide to do what the court said with just a narrowly title or something. So he says, Well, you write me a narrowly tailored bill. And I said, All right, I'll do that. So I said, but we're going to have to carve out a whole bunch of things. So we carved out every offender, unless you had your crime of being electronically soliciting a binder. That would that was the only offense in the universe that required you to have a social media ban. And then we didn't have a complete social media ban. We wrote it Where did you had a social media ban for only those, only those networks, that that would likely have minors as members. And then we didn't say you couldn't be on the social media, we said that you could not friend a person, a biter other than your own biological child or a child that you were directly responsible for. And I forgot how far we branched out that you could that you could friend a person, and we had the things so narrowly tailored, that that Not a soul would have ever been prosecuted under it. But it gave him the political when he was looking for because he said, I want to be able to say to my constituents, that I hear them because he was getting a lot of pressure from from from from from from his side, saying that they needed to do something to crack down on social media. We're all these adults are trolling for kids. So nobody was going to understand that we had a law that was so narrow, that Not a soul would ever be prosecuted under and and we put that through the house representatives, I testified throughout the process that got it to the House floor. And then one of the republicans tried to hijack it, and tried to put a bunch of members on it. And since we had the majority, we just simply killed the damn thing, and send it back to committed and never got out again. But did I do the right thing? Well, that's arguably did I do the right thing? I think I did do the right thing. Because a there was no social media ban, and be if there had been, it was written by me rather than monster. And I trust me to write a whole lot better than I trust law enforcement? Well, Unknown Speaker 1:00:59 let Unknown Speaker 1:01:01 so Unknown Speaker 1:01:01 so I don't think so that's where I come from exclusive. I don't think you know, that, either Larry, you know, fixes bad laws, or, you know, in your registrants, you know, start marching on Washington, or whatever it is just to say, you know, like, let's tear this shit down. It's not mutually exclusive. I think. And, and so to that point, you know, I'm going to quote jack nicholson and say that I want you on that wall. And I want everyone who's working on fixing this, you know, shit storm, and it whatever they are, to do that. But, Unknown Speaker 1:01:43 but you Unknown Speaker 1:01:44 know, and the other thing I want to agree with, and they want to state that you've changed my one, there's 180 degrees, when I got into jail, I thought the Supreme Court was just going to fix everything, you know, and boy was I brought that Andy 1:01:58 that's a call. That's a common point, though, people people reference that often that they're going to that that's our saving grace. And I don't agree with that opinion. Unknown Speaker 1:02:06 I thought we lived in a really cool democracy. And I thought that meant something. You know, when it when they said there were three separate but equal branches of government, I actually thought that meant equal. But, you know, it means more equal Jim Crow equal then, really. But, Unknown Speaker 1:02:21 you know, the one thing that I totally want to, you know, give you kudos for, Larry, is your point that the real change, real change is not going to be in legislators, it's not going to be courts, it's going to be public opinion. And I believe that 100% and I see, I think, you know, while we're, the ACLU won't touch us, for the most part. But it while we're fighting our little fights in, you know, courts all around the country. And this is all important. There is no effort, really to change the view that says, you know, to the public, that we are not the monsters that you think we are. Unknown Speaker 1:03:06 And nobody actually, you know, telling them, that those champions of their children's safety that they think the prosecutors and the law enforcement officers and Homeland Security, they're not the angels, you think they are either, and there's nobody telling the public, that the laws that you think are keeping your kids safe, are truly making people that are safe registrants. Unknown Speaker 1:03:36 They were safe, until you didn't let them get a job till you didn't let them get home until you make them freeze in their car. And you've convinced them that they are deviant and unsafe civilization and came the very moment that you were afraid to begin with. No one's telling that story. And it's not I don't I don't know how to do that. But I feel I feel fucking angry. Pardon my French about it. Really path. And there's a an aerosol art story right now. called I'm a child rapist written by a guy named Joe who's probably not as brilliant as Joe. But when I read that, I just I felt, you know, I'm Unknown Speaker 1:04:24 weirdly, like, proud to be registered for the first time in my life. And I don't know, I just feel like, you know, I don't want to give them a win. And I don't get I would rather live 20 years with the shitty registry, then and see it all tear down, then live with it for 100 years. That's incrementally better. Larry 1:04:50 Well, I wish we I wish we could tear it all down. And I think that beyond my lifetime, we probably will we look back as as we evolve our lives. society does evolve in many ways. Sometimes I feel like we negatively or evolve backwards. But we evolve and I think we're going to look back on this just like we look back on Skool Skool segregation, we're going to look back and say, did we do that that we had turned the Japanese? Did we do these things? I think we're going to look back and say, did we actually put these requirements on people after they paid their debt to society? And do we continue to evaluate them and make it impossible for them to be a productive member of society? Did we actually do that? I think we're going to be there's going to be a certain amount of shame that we did these things. But it's going to take some change in public opinion before we actually get to that point. And there are people like Lenore scan Daisy, who's who's doing the very things you you say about she, she's pointing out with her? What it's not even called free range kids called let go, whatever she calls her for her. Like girl, okay, she she's pushing back saying some of the things you're saying but but it's being those things are being said, but, but they're not being covered, but to same intensity of what's being said from the other side, the our attorney general, if he breathes anything about, keep a good safe, I mean, he gets a lot of attention in the media, because he's trying to protect kids. If they if the advocacy organizations that claim that are fighting for victims, if they if they breathe, they get covered. If we say anything about what's about the oppression that's happening, and held it is is tearing families apart and destroying the futures of kids. I mean, kids, kids suffer because of their parents being on registries, they suffer enormously, in terms of being isolated and ostracized, and it even physically abused Yes. Look at a text because of their parent being on the registry. Andy 1:06:43 But then to flip that, if I had a court registry like was in Alaska in 2003, we probably would be having this conversation at all because I other than it being on the internet, and the internet is not what it was in 2003. It wouldn't be I don't want to say wouldn't be that big of a deal. But it wouldn't be that big of a deal. because there weren't restrictions or weren't things that depended debilitated you from from functioning. Larry 1:07:10 Well, I think the internet is going to be the Achilles heel, the registry because the analysis no longer applies. The internet has become so pervasive in life that even if you look at the Connecticut Department of Public public sector versus still decision when the Supreme Court last looked at that, the internet was nowhere near what it is today in terms of the impact it has on a person's life and the availability of information. So I think that the courts may someday conclude that the public dissemination via internet is punitive and can't be done that, that we, the courts might be able to save us on that. But then we would be back to that they still could have a registry that would be non public, which I still wouldn't support. But it would improve, it would improve people's quality of life, which is what I'm trying to do my goal for the anytime I have, is to contribute as much energy as I can, to improving the quality of life of people who are having lived this. And, and I will take every increment i can get to improve their quality of life. Because it's an improvement over the status quo, just like that miserable removal process that California committed a created. That's got to remove very few from the registry. It is I pitifully small first step. Unknown Speaker 1:08:28 Right. But you know, let me let me leave you with, with one thought and that is, you know, remember the 90s right? Remember, remember when they really exploded with AIDS and Magic Johnson and basketball players afraid to play with them and Ryan White? Like, I mean, back then. Okay, remember it. But it was socially acceptable. If you were at a Barbie. And somebody came up to you and said, Hey, I just believe that, you know, AIDS is God's answer for homelessness. All right. I mean, now that's just unthinkably, like, you know, ridiculous. But then that was like, that was people said, People believed, and it wasn't scoffed at what happened between then. And today, I think a lesson that is that we could learn from and that is that the way they we the way they flip the script was they came out, like everywhere, pretty soon, it was like your niece and your uncle. And you're the, you're the guy in the next cubicle, and like, it was everywhere. And you know, we have a min people who are registered. And we're like, you know, being gay in the 1940s. You know, we're hiding in plain sight, but we don't want anybody to see us, and for good reason. But if everybody knew the people, we're actually registered that we're in their lives, I mean, a million. There's 330 million people in America, half of which are women, right? And have beds, I can almost 1% if you consider registrants are males, right? You're talking about one of all men almost are registered? And, you know, I don't know, it's just I think that, that there, if you want to change public opinion, you need to think of ways to do it. And I think, you know, the ways to do it are you know, it's fault. Look at look at the way other minorities who've been marginalized have done it. Larry 1:10:42 I agree with you to a point. But but not completely. I agree with you that, that that's what helped change public opinion. I agree with you that public opinion changing is what caused us to be where we are on that level civil rights. But where I disagree with you, is that the We We We We We always understood you didn't choose your race. We began to accept that you didn't choose your sexual identity that we've we've there are people who still believe that that is a choice. But But I would say that significantly more don't believe it's a choice. They believe that it's that it's it's what, what you are I haven't gotten a whole lot of people convinced that you don't choose to commit to sex offense. So this is this is this is Astros, if I can pronounce it based on so I'll tell you something that you've done. And that's, that's different. Yes. And I think that we're going to have a lot harder time getting that same diabolique shift of public opinion. And I don't say it's impossible, because we're gonna have to go out from a different angle, we're gonna have to go out from angle, you do believe that a person after they've paid their debt to society should be restored? And almost everybody will universally say, yeah. And you say, Well, why are we have them go to a police station to be detained? And to go through all these barriers of voting? And and and can't go see their kids play ball? Why are we doing that to them and allow them to rent apartments, you, you, you just said you believe that a person should be restored. And we're doing all these things to people, I think that somehow we're going to have to connect those dots. And we're not doing a very good job of that. People think that the registry is a part of your punishment, they don't realize that goes on for decades, and sometimes the rest of your life, right, that's the rest of your life. Unknown Speaker 1:12:35 Yeah. But you know, to your point, you don't choose to be, you know, gay, you don't choose you're born that way, and you don't choose to be black. But, you know, a lot of us didn't choose to be assault when we were kids and or sexualized. I mean, I haven't met a sex offender that wasn't actualize when they were a kid. And regardless of what, because I think we all come to this place from different angles. But regardless, we're all made no, there's no five year old that you can look at the sandbox and say guys gonna grow up to have fish for 10 year old boys, right? That's just ridiculous. Like we are human may like, for the most part men, like have made us into what we are one reason or another. You know, and so I don't want sympathy. But the real point is that we committed a crime. Okay, I certainly did. And I did my time. And I'm doing probation with a heavy smile on my face. But the rest of this is bullshit. And like, you know, set, Larry 1:13:45 right. And I agree with you completely on on that the registry is of no use. And it's horrible that we're doing this to people. And I wish I could end at my lifetime. Andy 1:13:58 I just want to throw out like the end role on the show is the Andy role is, I am not like I barely knew civics when I first stepped foot in prison. And through listening to radio and other programs, I started to like, figure out, hey, there are three branches of government and tried to start figuring out how those things work. Listen to a lot of conservative talk radio. But the other so like, for me, this is Larry, essentially teaching me how this all works. And what would be effective in moving the ball forward, where you would have different arguments for the different political sides. The other thing that I'm here to do is say Crazy, Stupid stuff that will jeer somebody and get a rise out of them. That's totally my purpose in this world. It is. Yes, I'm totally here to say things like my blood God and get you to go the way. That's my purpose. Larry 1:14:47 I still don't know how to pronounce that. Those words. Andy 1:14:51 It's good times. And and, john, I just want to tell you that someone in the chat has said you say shit a lot. That's me trying to get a rise out of somebody. Unknown Speaker 1:15:00 Yes. And I gave him a poop emoji. What? Andy 1:15:06 You don't know the word emoji? Larry. Larry 1:15:07 Oh, emoji? Unknown Speaker 1:15:10 is Japanese. Don't worry about Andy 1:15:12 it's an icon. If you look in the chat, you'll see a little piece of poo out there. Anyhow. What else do we have to cover before we shut this mother down? Well, Larry 1:15:21 we I'm looking forward to getting more out on the the GPS, the story of the depart case in Georgia. That's a building body of case law that thanks to the Grady decision by the US Supreme Court. And I think I think we're going to see that body of case law where they're just indiscriminately putting GPS requirements on everybody, because they have a conviction. So the next nozzle and action conference call, I'm going to try to have the attorney from the Georgia case on it. We're going to try to talk more about GPS monitoring. And I think we could certainly do that on the registry. It matters because it's a thing, great interest to people that Andy 1:16:04 are solid action be like in six months from now. Larry 1:16:07 I'm hoping it'll be a little bit sooner than that. We, you know, I'm picking on you. Yeah, we had a period of not having any, it seemed like that, that the tender said, kind of flatlined, it was declining. And that wasn't getting a lot of support from the states to promote it. And I decided that it's put so much energy putting one of those together because people don't realize that you're trying to schedule content, something intelligent to talk about, we try to fit at a time for a guest. You're trying to figure out a time and time slot across the country where you can have maximum listenership, then you're trying to ask intelligent questions, which means you have to research the topic. And I usually prepare the questions in advance so that they know how to prepare to give answers. And as a lot of work and trying to build the script to promote the podcast about the the conference call, we used to send out two or three promotions and trying to get people signed up. And if I'm doing all that work, there's going to be 30 people call in it's like, really, that it's just not worth the effort. But well over 100 signed up and over 100 showed up. So the last one that seemed like the you know, the the interest is there. And I don't know if it was because of the content or because of the long time of not having a call it but but but you know, the content was very exciting, because we were talking about keeping people in prison after they've served their time, which is what a lot of states are doing. And that's what we're doing it by state. That's what they were doing and Illinois are doing and Illinois we are doing and my state, you essentially get two sentences. When you're convicted of a sex offense here, you get a period of incarceration if you don't, if you don't get probation. But the period of incarceration if you do get incarceration is followed by a period of what we call parole. But it's it's it's it's an addition to your your present as a separate sentence. And it's an undetermined period of these are five to 20, or five to life. And here, if the parole board doesn't improve your residence, you stay in prison. What an Indiana prisoner Review Board, the IRB doesn't approve your residence, you stay in prison. After you've done your entire prison sentence, you still stay in prison serving your period of supervised releases, they call it the Indiana parole as we call it here. That is unconscionable in this country that we could tell a person you've got 12 years of prison, you served 12 years. And and we're going to put you on five years of community supervision. Oh, you're going to propose to live at this. No, you can't live there. Oh, was it? Do you have an alternative? know within, we're going to keep you in prison. Wait a minute, I finished my time, we're going to keep you in prison. If you don't like if the state doesn't like the address that the person is proposing, is incumbent upon the state to provide an alternate address and my opinion. And that's what we're going to work towards here. It's getting these people relief from incarceration. And now that they hardly lifting has been done in Illinois workout to poach and plagiarize and do the same dedication here. But I think that may have been blocked calls so many people to show up as that it's, it's it's quite a quite a topic when you're talking about having people serve their time and then keeping them in prison after they've served it. Andy 1:19:22 Well, I guess we have a lot of work to do, I guess that's what we should really ultimately say we have, we have 50 state registries to try and tackle. Some of them being easier than other ones. Wink, wink, john, that's one of yours. And then there are some that are like, I mean, to quote john, like their shitty. But, you know, their their individual issues that we have to fight at each different state. But as you keep pointing out, we It feels like since since we've been doing this, it feels to me like there has been a larger amount of things coming and just even coming, and then even decided in our favor. What you keep saying is we're building a body of case law, that we could then take bits and pieces and replicate and go to the other states and have some other victories. Larry 1:20:07 So that just great momentum we're building and the the thing that always I try to say without letting people down, is they won't run out of creative, creative ideas, those who want to do bad things, if they would, if they were going to they wouldn't be the American Civil Liberties Union after 100 years, they will always be able to come up with that public policy. And then some of that bad public policy will trample constitutional rights, that will there will always be a need for a dorsal if we if we succeed in getting the registry data abolished or totally private. They'll still be doing the things we're talking about. Now, the polygraph the collaborative fishing expedition to ridiculous long sentences, the sexting, I mean, we we won't run out of things to oppose, Unknown Speaker 1:20:55 no, he will not run. Larry 1:20:57 So it's like interruption of the prison bail, though visitation. I mean, they will not stop. So there will always be a need. And I could say what would make people happy, there's going to be we're going to have this enlightenment period where everything's gonna be hunky dory, and there won't be any more bad public policies formulated, and we could just close up shop and go home. I don't see that happening. Because that's just not the way man, we're flawed. We're going to continue to do mistaken, misguided stuff. So there'll be a need for an arsenal to be fighting something, no matter what it is, there'll be something for an arsenal to do. Andy 1:21:34 Well, the chat has completely devolved into sending just crazy silly gifts and memes and so forth like that. So we should probably call it quits, the chat has done what they have devolved, they have devolved into complete chaos and silliness. They are putting silly pictures up there of cats trying to make it through cat doors, and they're too fat to make it through and teardrops falling, it's just, it's out of control. These people are nuts. And we should send them on their merry way. Because they are having too much fun in chat. We can't have this Well, Larry 1:22:02 well, then how do people? How do people support and get to know us and contact us? I think we should encourage people to do all the above, we should Andy 1:22:12 have them send smoke signals. They could just build a teepee up back and they could, you know, make smoke signals and that would get in contact with us. Larry 1:22:20 All right. So then what I send up? Andy 1:22:23 Well, the first one that you would send would would be go to the website registry matters dot CEO. And there you can find show notes. You can sign up for email alerts. There's something in here that I'm trying to remember it. When the podcast gets released to the general public. If you want to know I always forget to mention about the email alerts if there's about 50, or something people signed up to get those. If you want to get notified when it gets released, you go there and sign up your favorite method, I think there was a voicemail message that I was just too busy to try and put this one together. Leave us voicemail message 7472 to 74477. And that's not 737 because those have a tendency to not stay in the air. So it's 7472 to 74477. Email us at registry matters cast at gmail. com. And of course, we love all of our patrons. We love our listeners, but the patrons are helping keep the show going and show appreciation and that is patreon. com slash registry matters. JOHN unmute yourself. So we can say goodnight, Larry, what do you have? Larry 1:23:25 Well, you're being funny about smoke signals. But I do believe and I'm not Catholic, so I'm not sure about this. But I do believe that when they select they totally do. They totally do. I believe they still they still send up a smoke sick. Andy 1:23:35 I was watching that what When was the last one like 2010 or 11? Someone that ballpark? I remember seeing that going on. Larry 1:23:41 They opened up the gym and said the smoke. Andy 1:23:45 This is correct. JOHN, thank you very much for being a super gracious guest. And thank you very much. Larry 1:23:51 Thanks for having me for being a supporter. Yeah supporter and for for your heartfelt comments. We appreciate the constructive feedback. Unknown Speaker 1:24:03 Well, thank you for hosting them. I appreciate it. Andy 1:24:06 And with that, everyone have a great night chat. Try to wrangle yourselves down and not be so crazy over there. And we will talk to you guys soon. Have a great night. Night. Bye. Larry 1:24:18 Thank you for listening to the IP IP network. Transcribed by https://otter.ai