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, Unknown Speaker 0:09 FYI P. Andy 0:11 Recording live from si p studios, east and west, we are transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 78 of registry matters. What's going on, Larry, Happy Saturday night. Larry 0:20 Well, thank you Andy, we're looking forward to a marvelous holiday weekend. And we're, Unknown Speaker 0:24 it is a holiday weekend too, huh. Larry 0:27 And we're slaving away over a hot stove. Big responsible to our listeners to make sure that our podcast is distributed on time. Because we know there Yes, people waiting to click the mouse waiting for the notification. Andy 0:45 They are possibly salivating with bated breath over the release of the podcast. Larry 0:51 I know. So we cannot Unknown Speaker 0:52 let them down. Andy 0:54 And I don't want to get into the habit of just every week saying God, it's hot. It's gorgeous. But oh my god, it's hot. It's going to be triple digits this weekend. Larry 1:02 And that's hot. I had heard that from my friends in Georgia that it is pretty hot in Unknown Speaker 1:07 the state right now. Andy 1:09 It just seemed to start all of a sudden we were like in the 70s and 80s. And then they just frickin turned on the inferno and you walk out and it's like somebody punches you in the face says Hi, I'm heat. I'm here. Welcome. Welcome to summer. Oh, well. Larry 1:23 It's a little bit early to be this hot for for real estate. But Unknown Speaker 1:29 you guys do have air conditioning. Right. Andy 1:32 But what's this crazy Voodoo science you're talking about? Larry 1:36 Well, it is pretty common in the southeast states that everything's air conditioned. Andy 1:43 Yeah, I'm not sure I try to keep my electric bill down. So I don't run the thing. I just sit here in sweat. Yep, that's what I do. Larry 1:50 cares about. Who cares about the electric bill? Andy 1:54 Well, yeah, that's one way to put it. We do have a late breaking story there. We have a story. And this one is coming out of the Washington Post. And this is one. We've there have been stories about this a bunch of different times. But this one is a teenage girl texted her friends a graphic video of herself. And the court said that she shared child pornography isn't like right off the bat. I just feel like this is something where the person if someone tried to commit suicide, and they failed, would you try and for them for attempted murder? I can't get over these cases. I don't see a problem with it. Unknown Speaker 2:34 But yeah, we're gonna get Larry 2:36 we're going to get into this one in greater detail in the toward the end of the podcast that was with Windows significant discussion. But it's a fascinating read for the legal eagles. And this was submitted to to us by Hank. And it looks like this is going to Maryland's highest court. But we're going to be talking about the decision that came down from their intermediate Court of Appeals called the Maryland courthouse special appeals. And this decision actually came out just shy of a year ago. And it looks like it's headed toward the final resolution by the state's high school which they call their court of appeals. So we'll be talking about that later. Andy 3:13 And then we also have a second late breaking news story. And this one is a judge in Michigan sets a deadline on them revising the sex offender laws up there. Larry 3:25 That is That is correct. They the class action suit that was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union has, the parties have agreed to what they call stipulated judgment. And then we're going to get into that in greater detail. But the parties have agreed that it's this case where we go to trial, they would lose on the merits. And therefore, they stipulate to a judgment, but there are the remaining issues that will get into that will need to be decided. And the hope is that the legislature will will will do what they should do, which is to fix the law. And we'll talk about why that is not likely to happen. In my opinion, anyway, we'll get into this. But these are two great, light breaking stories that we wouldn't be talking about except for our correspondents out in the field. So this is kind of what we're looking for something that's breaking, breaking. And the final lead up to us recording. Unknown Speaker 4:21 Woohoo, Andy 4:22 go listener participation. We did also got a new patron this week, I would like to extend a super duper special, warm welcome to Denise. She was I think, you know, like in our podcast rise to fame. She was the first person that came up and introduced herself and said, Hi, I listen to the podcast. And I was just super duper flattered that somebody came up and said, Hi, if you happen to show up in Houston, feel free to come over and say hi. But welcome Denise. And then also thank you to all of our patient patrons. And without your support, the show would be much, much harder to make every week. Larry 4:56 Welcome, and we will be having registered matters and the conference where we're going to be sponsoring pins for distribution. So you'll you'll see us when you pick up your packet, there'll be a nice little pin that has registering matters thanks to one of our patrons. Andy 5:13 And we may figure out how to record an episode while we're there. I'm not sure how we're going to pull that one off. But Unknown Speaker 5:18 it could happen. Unknown Speaker 5:21 If you thought about that Larry 5:21 you thought about it. And it very well could happen. We've done. We've done that before. In fact, Andy 5:28 we did that last year yesterday, we had a little roundtable in the bar. And you know, surprisingly, it came out halfway decent. It wasn't that bad. We also got a voicemail from someone that we haven't heard from in a while. It's a it's a little bit long, but there's probably three or four points that we can touch on. So let's give a listen. Unknown Speaker 5:46 I have just some quick comments about the whole Facebook fan registry. I would like to point out that Facebook only has access to the information that you'd like to speak, authoritative Central. So how can use of Facebook be protected from other citizens from around the world who have a convention for them just a social networking platform, Unknown Speaker 6:14 hopefully more done to solve this issue of registrants being banned from Facebook, even if it means having a special symbol for marketing on the Facebook page that says the person this is a phenom two pi finger, the thought of that is going to keep your fingers from Facebook. Anyway, Unknown Speaker 6:33 why pay? The first thing Andy 6:35 that he says about getting their data? I would completely disagree that Facebook does not I mean, they may receive email addresses and other identifiers from different law enforcement agencies. They are totally capable of going and getting them. Maybe not the email addresses. But they have definitely a way to get your information so that they could police themselves. Well, they Larry 6:54 do in fact police themselves in terms of they encourage tips, and even had a card some people would make would provide tips to a person who's on Facebook that has an obligation to register. And they would certainly have access to the public listings of people who were listed publicly, which was overwhelming majority of the registered population. The The thing that makes it a little bit easier is that that data dumped at the feds. And I don't know what the technical term for that database is. But there is a there's a repository of monikers and email addresses that, that the government has made available to social media platforms. So so but but we're going to it's it's kinda it's going to fit in with what we're going to be talking about later. Because, again, I don't agree for our listeners, and for a lot that this should be this way. But it it from a practical point of view, it's not unconstitutional. Background like policy doesn't magically become unconstitutional just because you disagree with it. We're going to get into that more on the on the articles as we start dissecting what what's happening. And in the case of the transmission of the images. The Constitution protects people from having the government suppress their speech. And the government was told clearly in North Carolina, you cannot do this as a government. But the the body of case law has not evolved to the point that social media itself can't do that. It very well could over time that the body of law evolves. And and you know, those who believe that we are stuck in the colonial times as far as they're concerned, it doesn't evolve, but those who believe that we have that that there is an evolving standard of society societal decency, we may conclude that will will no longer tolerate, accompany banning someone just like we don't tolerate the the banning of people from from going in restaurants at home like we once did. I hope I live to see that. But right now that the argument that that's unconstitutional is just it's just not credible. What it really isn't. It's not the way I wanted to be, but it's the way it is. Andy 9:14 Well, then we'll start with this box article. Kamala Harris wants public defenders to get paid as much as prosecutors. I am pretty sure I read in here that they get paid something of a quarter, maybe a third as much as prosecutors. Yeah, the one Oregon study found, for example, that entry level public defenders in one county were paid more than $24,000 less than entry level prosecutor. That's a lot of money. And why why would someone then take a job as a public defender versus a prosecutor with that much of a disparity in pay of a couple grand a month? Larry 9:50 They would some people wouldn't do it. Some will go on the other side and prosecute. But some people do it because they feel that that's their calling in life. And they will a lot of people work for less or less just because that's what they want to do. But I mean, here we go again, this is this is a bunch of liberal mumbo jumbo of a far left wing extremist, wanting to use federal, she's talking about spinning millions of dollars of federal tax, whether it was this is bill authorizes $250 million in grants for the goal of eliminating the pay pay gap. First of all, I'm in favor of opening the pay gap. But always asked myself since I do have some leanings toward the Constitution in terms of what I believe. I'm not sure that providing indigent defense is a federal responsibility. Are you Andy Andy 10:40 I would certainly have to take a bite on that one. And just oh, well, I have no okay. So Unknown Speaker 10:44 this is the states who make the crimes. Unknown Speaker 10:48 So we get there we Larry 10:49 get we saw the state gets to create a criminal statutory scheme that criminalizes everything and puts in horrendous penalties. And then because the US Constitution says you're entitled to a defense that somehow knows the federal tax parents have to be, of course, we don't pay our taxes sufficient enough to pay for our government work, we've run a trillion dollar deficit. But the federal taxpayers and the the budget gap have to absorb defending people. I'm not even sure as a progressive that operated aside on to this. I mean, I Unknown Speaker 11:20 do Larry 11:22 steadfastly agree that that the resources should be more equal, and that the that public defender should be compensated better. But I'm not sure that I'm even ready to sign on building this to the to the to the Fed, but I'm not sure this is a federal responsibility. Andy 11:37 We I'm sure we could get there in a different way of prosecuting less making less things illegal, or at least reducing the amount of sentences that go behind it. Unknown Speaker 11:47 But you could read Andy 11:48 and this would have to be done the state level, I'm not trying to suggest the feds have to do this. But the states could reduce the prosecutors pay by some amount and then tack that on to the defense side Larry 11:58 there. Yeah, that would work out really just go, go try to sell that. You want to reduce it, say it would work anything for the law enforcement apparatus, you want to cut police pay your prosecutorial pay and tell me how long how long your political career is. But But Andy 12:14 I also don't think that they should have tanks in North Carolina. But that's an entirely different conversation. So Larry 12:20 what now this is not the first time I've raised the issue of whether something's a federal responsibility. I've even said the same thing about the National School Lunch Program. Do I believe schools deserve a children deserve a balanced, nutritious healthy lunch? So they can learn? Of course I do. Unknown Speaker 12:34 I'd be nuts if I did. Unknown Speaker 12:36 But I'm not sure it's a federal responsibility to feed your school kids. And I just I haven't been sold on that either. It's a responsibility. Yes. Kids should be fed? Yes. But I'm not sure it's a federal responsibility to do that. Andy 12:52 Right. And then I would say, well, shouldn't Shouldn't the state then be interested? Like, I mean, there, you would have no argument that a well nourished child is going to perform better, therefore grow up to be a more productive human as an adult? Why wouldn't we then focus a boatload of resources on the front side of pre k? And I don't care who funds it, but it should be funded for the interest of society. But oh, not in my backyard. I don't care. My kids get it because I'm wealthy. I don't care about your kids. Larry 13:26 Well, I'm saying I agree with all those things. You've just articulate. Yeah, yeah, I agree with all those things. But I'm not sure that it's a federal responsibility. If you say, the state's love to have it both ways. They love to have all those federal dollars, and yet they love to cry unlimited federal government. And you can't have it both ways. When they had all the debate about Michelle Obama's improved nutrition standards. The only reason right, Michelle Obama got to say anything about what the lunch standards were, because you accept federal money. If you just simply say, we're withdrawing our school system from an National School Lunch Program, and we're going to fund it ourselves. Michelle doesn't get have anything to say about it, but the lunches that your kids eat. But the state's love to have it both ways. They decry all this federal bureaucracy of the requirements. But then they put their paws out for the money. But I'm just saying I'm not sure it is a legitimate function of the federal aid is a responsibility of us as humans and morality that to make sure kids are learning environment where they're provided. Nutrition. Of course, nobody would disagree with that. But is it a federal responsibility? Well, I went back to this public defender article, yes, the public defenders ought to be paid. But it's you people in your states that are making all these laws, and it's you people that are prosecuting all these crimes. And it's you people that have an obligation to the fight to provide defense. Why do you get to build this to the federal government? Andy 14:53 And have you ever seen so we know of the Philly da, he is not doing it in that direction. We're prosecuting less sort of accomplishing this in a different direction. Have you ever heard of a governor going out there and saying, Hey, I'm going to make sure that our state defendant defenders are paid the same as a prosecutors Larry 15:13 haven't heard it coming from that higher up? I have heard. On occasion, everybody gave law makers propose more parity. But I don't remember, ever heard it from such a high level as a governor. Unknown Speaker 15:27 It just do they get tarred and feathered for saying it? Well, of course they do. Larry 15:31 I'm working, I paid my taxes, trying to send my kids to school, by golly, and all these people, but all the needs we have in society. And these people bunch of liberal morons, all they want to do is just political criminals and spend more money and more money. And we can't afford that. I mean, next thing, you know, what else are they going to pay for? They want to they want to provide them sex change operations in prison, what's coming next. Andy 15:57 I had a friend that was a school teacher in a super duper rural area of the state. And she told me that I like the the local business, a kale in mind where they get the clay, whatever to make paint or something like that. He said, I would prefer it if you did not educate your people. So we have people to go work in the mines. Wow. Larry 16:17 Well, this art that's appalling to me. Well, this article talks about the horrendous case loads that some of public editors are carrying. And I think it'd be a worthwhile read because what people call the public defender's office and they say, I don't get a call back. Well, if you're carrying 194 felony cases, and we've talked about basically what is our 240 days of the year, and it says, York Times story found this January one attorney, Louisiana was working 194 felony cases while another was battling for the 13th. Well, you couldn't possibly talk to your clients, because you can even barely played out 194 cases if you go play one every day. Unknown Speaker 16:59 So you'd have to go Right, right. Larry 17:02 Full pleadings to the but this is but this is this is our problem at the state level. I appreciate that. The Kabbalah is is a recognition of the of the of the Unknown Speaker 17:15 deficiency. Larry 17:18 And I'm glad that representative Ted highbrow set and Florida is offering a companion bill in the House. I'd be surprised if it gets any traction in terms of support enough to get this to the President's desk. And that'd be ultimately really surprised if it got a signature if it made it to the President's desk. I don't think it ever would Andy 17:38 have I have heard just not to like literally go after her. But I've heard that she was a like an incredibly aggressive prosecutor, just wondering is this atonement is this, Hey, I just had a job to do. I went and did it to the fullest. I don't necessarily believe that I was just doing my job to have this level of a difference. I mean, if she was a prosecutor than she was going up against these severely overworked individuals, Larry 18:03 it's hard to say if she's headed up, Tiffany, it's hard to figure out a political angle for this because unless she has an amazingly, amazingly unique constituency, even in a liberal area, like like California, this just isn't gonna play that well. Right. So I just and she's Andy 18:22 not me, she's not pulling well, overall. Anyway, as far as I understand, so, so is this is this just something to, to bring something of this element to the stage, maybe somebody else will pick up on it that makes it further along in the, in the primaries and all that Larry 18:37 are decided, but I don't I don't see it as something's got to go anywhere. Unknown Speaker 18:43 And I hope I Larry 18:44 come back a year from now say I was wrong, but I don't see this going anywhere. Andy 18:49 Will somebody take a note, Laura, take a note that says, revisit this in a year or so and see where we are and see if this has gained any traction. Larry 18:58 Moving on to an article from Andy 18:59 this signal, I don't know what this publication is. Santa Clara Valley, God that is written in a really obnoxious font, it's very hard to see. But it says our view, sex offender law fight or punt city choices limited. The gist of this article is that the city decided to say, well, we don't want to try and fight these, these laws. Were going to end up being sued. So we're just gonna have to let it go, you know, setting up 1000 foot or 2000 foot restriction. And they're just going to go with the idea of say, well, we'll just lay down the sword and let it go. Larry 19:33 I don't know, is this signal? Is this a newspaper? It looks like this is an editorial stance by a publication of possibilities, because it says by the signal editorial board. Andy 19:43 Could be could be and it says they have been in place for 100 years. And you know, I just picked it up, I think on probably on Twitter's where I got it from but he just just wanted to bring up from the political side of somebody trying to create a city ordinance. And instead of actually trying to go through with what they want, not necessarily good or bad public policy, not concert? Well, I guess it is from the side of it being an unconstitutional thing, something that they will lose in a court fight that, you know, like the the the signs in the yard at Halloween. Like they can't do that. And if we go step up and push back, there's a clip in there from for Janice Baluchi that she targeted cities that impose residency restrictions, that they will then back down because we have stepped up. My point is is that we you people 800,000 of us need to support whichever organization It is so that we can support these fights and challenges and make them flinch and back down. Larry 20:43 The the the city actually had the ordinance, they have not even forcing it because of the California Supreme Court decision 2015 and retailer at that that decision was not a Baluchi case. But what Janice has done, to her credit as she has, rather than putting that decision up on the mantel somewhere and saying, gee, the Supreme Court says you can't do this. And then people keep doing things to their stopped. She said, Now that Supreme Court said you can't do this, I will stop you if you don't stop on your own volition. So she she draft letters to the cities and municipalities and counties, whatever governmental entities has these restrictions. And she asked them, would they like to repeal this? Or would they like to be sued. And some of them say they'd like to be sued, because for political reasons, they don't feel like they can. They can do anything until they're facing a lawsuit. And then once they're facing a lawsuit, or their kind of their, their, their legal department, big city or county tells them you're going to lose this, and we're going to attorney fees. And this is this is how I want to end? Well, because it's clear, the Supreme Court said you can't do this, then most of them have folded their tent. But I think if you have not, but but this is this is like a case where that that that 70% of the voters by their beautiful referendum system, and 2006 past that proposition 83 that that gave that gave the restrictions which were ultimately declared unconstitutional. You can't trust the people to know to do the right thing from a constitutional perspective. And this is a clear example of why we don't have a majority rule on everything, because people would enact bad public policy because it makes them feel good. And that's what they did with proposition 83. And many other things California as well. Andy 22:22 Interesting. Just still, I still think I mean, do you agree with the part about stepping behind organizations that are fighting? Larry 22:30 Absolutely hopes? Absolutely. I do. Janice is doing amazing work. But you can't necessarily make this heard on on the listserv of the normal listserv. They feel it's where someone had pontificated that, that that was residence rejections that people always told their tent, no, they do not always sold their tent, they generally find that they get Andy 22:54 the Texas thing where this the whatever challenges whatever the hell Unknown Speaker 22:57 they were called, Larry 22:58 I sided, I sided the city, Lewisville, Texas where it went all the way to the United States, A Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Lewisville orders was upheld. Because the Texas Supreme Court has not ruled the way to California Supreme Court has ruled so that you cannot just say, well, these things are easy. I mean, there's other organizations have opined that, and they're wrong, these things are not easy. They're they're difficult. It's just in California, the case law is in support of have these things worked out. And the Genesis credit she's tearing them down. And she's being nice about it, she gave them a chance to to repealed it without litigation. If they don't do that she Linda gates, Andy 23:40 and she more or less already has the framework in place, much like the sign thing that may get used in the future. Larry 23:46 She absolutely has the case loss of border, but that's what the decision leaves were told me, we're going to lose. Andy 23:55 Let me ask you like a nuts and bolts question, when you do have the framework, is it like you can just do a search and replace in word and replace the names? And then you submit paperwork? Or is it a I mean, is it a 10% reduction in the work? Or is it a 90% reduction in the work to file a an incredibly similar case, Larry 24:12 terms of the actual preparation of the complaint, it would be a lot of pacing in terms of David where go to trial, it's a work to do what many recommended this case to go ahead and fight it, that you'd be looking at the same process because even though you're going to lose the if you can't get a summary, judgment or summary motion for summary judgment, you have to go to trial, if they can distinguish the witness in some significant way that that that goes to travel in the marriage, you've got, you've got a whole bunch of work to do. And of course, our side, we would move for summary judgment. And we would claim there is no there's nothing distinguishes this from what's already been held. And we would hope that the way that there would need to be a trial. But if there what would need to be trial, you could be looking at significant expenses. Andy 24:57 We also have an article from NPR where he we got a good news article. So for those who you keep in track mark, another little tick mark in that column for inmates are getting jobs as employers ignore stigma and bright economy. We often talk about how bad it is for people with convictions to get a job. And here it is, you know, to to the low unemployment rate to to there has been a lot of maybe in the last four or six years, it's just been a changing of opinion in the way the public is receiving information about people that have been incarcerated the number of people that have been incarcerated in the in the, in the in the country. So now maybe people are more open to giving them a shot, at least that's what the article says, Larry 25:40 well, it's it. It's like anything else the the the pull of a strong economy has, has been pulling massive numbers of people in the workforce for for several years now. 200,000 plus a lots have been added to the workforce for the last four years of Obama presidency and that assembler number during the two plus years of the Trump presidency. So we've got we've got a, we've got a an economy that's generating and jobs greater than what the new arrivals and the workforce, which is brought down employment rate down to very, very low levels of people who want to work. But it brought it down in stages, the people who are least desirable, get hard last, as you get down to where you need more bodies, you're going to, you're going to these are not my personal beliefs. This is what I've learned from, from from from watching how things work. The people who who are more difficult to employ who have various challenges are selected when nothing else is available. And that could be anywhere from anything from disabilities to being too old. There are players who would rather not have an older person, but it's better than nothing. So I will put up with the risk of of an injury and the complications of dealing. So that we've gotten to the point where offenders have been pulled into the economy and massive numbers and significant episode of it's a massive, but the last group of the offender population are the most despised. So we don't need a whole bunch of emails saying that there's still sex offenders who are having trouble finding jobs. Yes, we know that there are still people that are required to register, they're having a difficult time finding a job. But what we also know is a lot of people who had had difficulties there on the registry have now gotten jobs. And it's gotten a lot easier. And there are people who have been promoted to positions that previously were denied simply because the ranks and found of workers, so the baby boomers are retiring. And there's more and more need for lower level mid level managers. And we know that people are people are moving through the economy. And their position has improved because of this. But it's not the cure all end all, there's still a lot of underemployment and unemployment out there. Because people perceived that they have risk. And we're going to talk about that one of the articles of hiring a sexual offender. And I think that's it coming up very Yes. Andy 28:02 And I would also just want to point out that and I don't know the exact number, but even at the height of you know, the unemployment rate being in those double digits, people with the most education and higher levels of education, their unemployment number almost didn't change that is great, were able to move around. So and you know, from our standpoint, you have this really frickin Big Red target on you already find as many ways as possible to to limit those exposure points, you know, find like the most in demand jobs, there was a there was a post I was following on Reddit, where someone was asking, What can I do for a job and people started throwing all kinds of suggestions out there, go find some sort of trade that may be more dangerous, maybe obviously less desirable, I just there, there are ways that we can can pull ourselves out of these things. I'm not saying it's easy, and I don't want to get those emails, I just think there are ways. Larry 28:55 Well, if it's like a preach to people about, there's certain things you can't help about yourself, but there's a lot of things you can help. And the things you can't help or the things you should help, you won't get a lot of choice and what what nation you're born in, and your skin pigmentation and those type of things. But you do have a choice of whether you brush your lobes and whether you screw everything through your nose. And what do you put tattoos all over your body, and you're totally covered, where you look like some, you know, something scary walking, you have choices that once you put them there, I don't understand the art of tattoo removal, I was gonna say, Man, it's hard, Andy 29:31 it's hard to remove that I don't, Larry 29:34 I don't understand all the complexity of that. But what what I strongly encourage is the things you can deal with, you can you can stand up straight, you can be on time, you cannot be smoking and drinking a big gulp can when you show up before the interview, you cannot be texting on your cell phone while you're in the interview. You can be respectful, and you can talk politely not interrupt the interviewer. That's a whole lot of things you can do. You can bring it a resume, that articulate your life experience of what skills you possess, you can do those things. Getting in the door is the hardest thing. And this this technologically advanced age we live in, you don't run down and put an application in person very often anymore. Or you get where they get to see you. They get to see your your electronic, they get to see what you submit in that digitize. And it's difficult. I don't know how people adapt to that. Because in my day, you would go get to know somebody and try to form a relationship and get introduced to somebody. Well, that's not exactly the way things go these days. From what I understand. Andy 30:38 To the contrary, Larry, I mean, I know I want to disagree there. Like there is a social I know we can't be on social media often. But LinkedIn, that is where a boatload of connections are made you you link up with every person that you've ever worked with, and every person you've gone to school with, and so forth. And when you are looking, there's your inside connection, to get into the next job, hopefully, but then again, we're limited on the social media side, often, you know, but that almost then runs down the same path is what we keep talking about with Facebook, if that is the way that people are getting jobs, and you are restricted from that method, you are Unknown Speaker 31:15 left. So Larry 31:18 well, I don't think LinkedIn has that for similar, but I think that your your criminal history will prevent you from having evident user profile on LinkedIn does it? Unknown Speaker 31:29 I've never heard of it. Andy 31:30 I've never heard of it being a barrier. But that that is that I mean, and I wouldn't necessarily say that you shouldn't go make those personal contacts with people. But that would definitely be the way to go about it. If of linking up with everybody and then announcing that you are in the job market. And maybe somebody has some sort of connection that they can help you with it sure makes it easier than trying to go fill out a general application online. Yeah, civic Larry 31:51 clubs are another place people still network and civic clubs are very important. You know, there's the kilometers club, the road, Rotary Club, the city hands all these things, right, you're going to meet people who are in key positions. And always you don't have any money at all. And you don't have anything fit to where you're probably not going to have do this for a civic clubs, I don't need an email to be I'm forwarding them all to you. Andy 32:16 registry matters cast at gmail. com and I will forward it right to rest assured that hopefully, Larry 32:20 hopefully as as, as your situation stabilizes, those some of those doors will open because it's not prohibitively expensive to be like my clubs, I get confused. The Kiwanis Club is more of a of a yard, your keep by doing volunteer service, I think the Civic hands are the rotary, what are those two were where they look for more of a monetary contribution. But you can get some of these clubs for very, very modest amounts of money. And as a huge benefit to be connected with those people. In fact, that was where a lot of litigation took place, our generation or so ago, because of these clubs were off limits to women. And what Bry women said, Hey, wait, you know, this is where this is where the action is. Now this is this is where a key people are, and this is where decisions are made. And we can't be a part of these clubs. And that was an argument that was was persuasive. And it made it ultimately prevail. And and the social media, you know, that same argument might very well be successful. But we're gonna have to develop that and we're gonna have to plow that Earth. It's not, it's not developed yet. Andy 33:31 And on that same subject, then if we move over to this article from CBS, 17. com, this is a local Durham pizza place owner happens to be one of our people on the registry, and there is a public call for, for the community to boycott the place, because he may be hiring under aged people. And there's about a half mile away I believe it is it's outside of the restrictions zone. You know, whatever presence restrictions they may have. There's a school or something like that down the street and the guys that like, hey, look, I made my mistake I did my time I'm trying to repair my life and move on and like Why can't I have a shot? Larry 34:08 Show. It's all about that before we did it. So Unknown Speaker 34:14 we just then move on. Larry 34:15 This is an example of what we talked about week after week about the vindictiveness of our society. This is a person who was engaged in an online chat with someone who claimed to be at some point, we don't have the details, but at some point, said I'm under age and apparently he continued to chat, which is not a wise thing to do when a person says I'm under that age. But it was an officer posing so we we never actually had a minder being threatened. So this was an exam who's the victim then we had an example of having an overfunded law enforcement apparatus. chasing an imaginary Boogeyman where they're very few of these crimes that actually occur or where there's a minor being solicited. There's been so few I can count them on one hand, my life that I can remember it not across the nation, but in my circle of work that I do. I can count on one hand, the number of times a real minder has been on the receiving end of a solicitation that's been prosecuted. It's always the law enforcement people posing. So this is a person who contributes to society pays to access hearts people generates economic right wellbeing for society. And society is so angry that he made one mistake that they want to boycott his business, hurt people's lives. Run him out of business hurt his family. From what To what end. Everybody knows is on the registry now. He's not going to be doing anything at the at the pizzeria. It says a little something I would Andy 35:52 I for all of our listeners in North Carolina please pretty please with sugar on top. Go visit this guy's pizzeria. Please, please, please, please. That is what we could do at least. Well, he's on he's in Durham. Yep, probably won't be too hard to track down. And if you're in that area of Raleigh Durham area, then you probably know if the guy or at least you've heard this on the news. The PS Peabody pizza company is the name of this of this place. I love I love when they banned books, Larry, I just love it. I think it's the best when we banned books from prisons. So we have this article from the New York Times is called chokehold and it's out of Arizona prisons ban on book about racism and criminal justice draws a challenge. This book is called chokehold, and the author says that it's the criminal justice system targets black men by design. And it also says that prison should be abolished, which I can't imagine you would get a whole lot of support for of just absolutely banning abolishing the prison system, though we probably could curtail it. And my only personal understanding of this is the way that the Florida constitutional amendment that just got overturned or reversed, I should say, made anybody with a felony conviction in eligible to vote. And then they targeted just any sort of infraction to make you have a felony conviction to keep you from voting? Larry 37:16 Well, with with this particular situation, it's a little dicey or the the, it's not that simple. Because when you're running a correctional institution, you've got the responsibility. I know in Alabama, it would not seem so when some of some of what we've learned that goes on in Alabama, Alabama prisons, but you've got the responsibility for the safety and security of all the people who are there, that includes the staff, as well as those who are in voluntarily committed. Unknown Speaker 37:44 And Larry 37:46 if, if this book, which I haven't read, is something that would cause additional strife, and possibly have a compromise institutional security, they're going to get broad deference terms of their censorship, because you don't have an absolute right, you don't have an absolute right to have any reading material that a person who's in the free world would have. So this one is not cut and dry. The fact that the ACLU has gotten in on it says to me that they think that this is a strong, compelling case, because they don't use your hitch hitch their wagon to something they think so be a losing proposition. But but it's just not cut dry when you're talking about a question one institution because of the responsibilities that go with running one safely, and the differences afforded those officials to keep material down. And that would that would that would compromise that that responsibility. Having been in a correctional institution, I think you would, you would agree that that safety is an important thing to maintain. Unknown Speaker 38:47 It definitely is for sure. Larry 38:48 Well, if if there's a book that that talks about how minorities are constantly being scammed against, and it encourages any type of insurrection, which I haven't read the book, so I don't know what the book says. But I think that the sensors could justify and be upheld, depending on what the content of the book is, in terms of if it's if it's a legitimate threat to the for the early operation of the institution. So we'll just have to see how this plays out. Sure, I, Andy 39:18 the literacy rate of people in prison is already so low that giving anybody something that they might be inspired to read good, bad or indifferent. And to me, it feels like having more educated people more reading people is better, even if they're reading something that you don't approve of reading more reading is better. Larry 39:36 So use as the book does not pose any danger to people in presence. The book expressly disavows any type of violence toward police officers or anyone else on moral strategic grounds. So their assessment is, is it's not a security risk? Well, I guess ultimately, the course of trauma won't day. Andy 39:54 That would be what seems to happen somewhere down the road, and they Larry 39:57 can do it until they're stopped. Andy 40:00 That's going to be the subtitle of the show. Welcome to registry matters. They can do it until they're told to stop. Oh, Larry 40:07 well, a manual. Farmer correction says it mates are not allowed to have any sexual assist material or content that threatens the safety of people inside the facilities. So so that's going to be what they hang their hat on and try to say that this is going to cause race or racial unrest, it does make it more difficult for them to maintain their orderly operational presence. Andy 40:28 I assure you that in prisons across the United States, there's already a significant amount of racial unrest. I can Larry 40:35 assure you that as well. segregated presence of the most segregated entities left on planet Earth. Andy 40:42 Yes, yes. And something that I did not know until I got there is that I don't know how to delicately put this but I did not realize that there was racism amongst blacks in general amongst themselves have the light skinned ones versus the dark skin? I had absolutely no idea that that existed. Larry 41:02 so bizarre. Yes. Well, I've had I've had an awareness of that. Andy 41:07 So I did not so well, you, you called me a couple days ago. And you you told me if I if I had heard of Thomas Silverstein, it could be Silverstein, I'm not sure which way it's pronounced. And this is another article from the New York Times, this would totally be our first obit as far as I as far as I can remember. And he died at 67. He is believed to be the most solitary confinement person in the history of American prisons that I did I characterize that correctly. Larry 41:36 I'm surprised because every person I run into on the streets knows the name of Thomas Silverstein. Andy 41:42 Probably in Colorado, Larry 41:44 or possibly so it's but this this article was interesting to me, it doesn't directly relate to registry issues. But what it does relate to is how we treat individuals and the the Silverstein case I wrote a book written by an author, I forget his last name was early. But he had written a book about his solitary confinement, and I've read the book like 20 years ago, and that the bureau presidents did not have the ability to subject him to the death penalty, he killed a guard. And all they could do under federal law at that time was was life without parole, which is what I think he got. But they, they they wanted to, they wanted to be able to punish him because the Bureau of Prisons felt like that if if we don't make a strong stand, that other officers will be subject to having their lives taken. So we have to do something. So they built a special facility for him in the bowels of Leavenworth federal pen. And the way it was described in the book was it was constantly under lights. Cost at home with machinery in the background was it was it was in the bowels of Leavenworth. And he had no human contact. He was not allowed to have visitation, he was not allowed to have any human contact. Now, I guess, unless they had a robot bringing the food to me must have had some limited human contact. But he was put in that condition. He was kept in there for decades. Now, I'm not the bleeding, hard to believe that a person who kills a police officer should get not get punished, but he was being punished, he was going to serve the rest of his life in prison. And that is Andy 43:28 punish we need to make it punish punishment. Punishment or, and Larry 43:32 and I couldn't get that word out. And he he that is a significant deterrent to killing a correctional officer in and of itself. So the fact that they kept him under lights and limited access to human contact for for all those years was was troubling to me. And always wondered, I was wondering what happened to him. It was like, I don't hear anything about it anymore. That's what happens when you're in the bowels of Leavenworth, well turned out that moved into the Supermax and Colorado. And he he apparently died at a relatively young age of 67 in a hospital in Colorado, but this is just an example of what we do. And how we do it. Yeah. And I think it was overdone. Certainly, certainly I don't condone what he what he did, but don't human contact with what would run a person mad. They were We were not designed to be We leave you in contact with. You can't live in a vacuum. I'm here Apple Andy 44:32 studies shown with chimps or unknown babies that have limited contact, and they and they develop very, very bad social disorders later in life when they don't have all that human contact, or excuse me, like parental contact, whatever, even even like if they wrap a ticking clock with, you know, some super duper, soft, furry stuff and the baby can latch on to that. Like that sort of counts as some sort of contact with them. And the social orders disorders don't develop. But when you have when you are removed from that content, that's how you make fighting dogs to you remove social contact from them. And then they get just kind of angry and we can bring up the enlarged medulla Blanca again. And it makes you honoring Larry 45:12 the course that that reinforced what they were doing, because they drove it bad. Yes. And they said gee, look at it. He hasn't. His hairs down does but his fingernails are foot long. Yep. And of course, he didn't have any access to take care of himself. But he was serving three consecutive life terms. He was not going to be released. And there was no need for that. barbaric of behavior. It actually had an article it says the guy's name was Peter early that wrote the book that I read. And it was called the hot house. Didn't Andy 45:41 it also say in this article that he claimed that he wasn't like, he ended up in the Aryan nation. He didn't know anything about that he wasn't a racist and all that when he went in, but then he got indoctrinated into it Larry 45:56 in prison. What he alleges Andy 46:00 I am deeply disturbed by that, that, you know, you take someone that did obviously you commit a crime, but everyone gets housed in sort of like what you know, general population, like everyone is in there together and it doesn't, it doesn't do anything to rehabilitate you. It does everything to indoctrinate you into that lifestyle. Larry 46:18 That was just a just a thing, I thought was worthy of noting that it says meals were delivered through a slot in the cell door, which is what you would have to do yeah, with a person you're not gonna let have any human contact. Andy 46:30 been there done that. But Larry 46:31 yeah, it was a it was a special design unit today go for it I Leavenworth and then apparently, they moved him to Florence, and 94. Unknown Speaker 46:39 So Andy 46:42 there you go. Let's move on to this article from workforce calm. And this is apparently some backlash to an attorney that was speaking about his advice to his client in having one of our people as an employee, and he wanted to highlight that you you do have exposure, you do have risks. I'm pretty sure that's the way I am, I'm hoping that you can clarify because it almost felt worded kind of awkwardly to me the way the article went down. But he, he received a lot of negative I mean, a lot of negative feedback, but I'm pretty sure he was defending his decision to tell his client, his client being the employer that he does have exposure. And these are the risks of you hiring someone that is on the registry Larry 47:26 tonight. And I follow the righteous side, he he wrote a blog posted something here. He's one of those attorneys, that that represents employers and and like any other attorney, you're trying to look for ways to generate business. So you got social media, and talk about yourself. And apparently, he wrote this thing about how he advised an employer to to have their potential liability and how to be careful of hiring people who had to go victims for sexual offenses. And it it stirred up, I think they said in this article 17 comments that he highlighted the worst ones for people said things to him Andy 48:10 half as advice. That's what lawyers do best. Larry 48:14 And he said he was shocked because he has an ethical obligation to if he's retained by the employer for guidance and employment law. Remember, folks, he doesn't make these laws. He didn't create the registry. He didn't cause the juries to rule in favor of the person who brought a negligent hiring suit. that body of case law has developed because of people who felt like that, that the employee should have hired a particular person in view of all the available factual information. And as a as a one time landlord, I faced that decision all the time was as how much risk can we take prudently to balance between the giving the person an additional chance? And and also, how much are we willing to put ownership at risk if we guess wrong, because all you're doing is guessing you do not have a crystal ball. Andy 49:14 I do find it kind of odd that he received so much negative feedback in him saying that you do have exposure, maybe you shouldn't keep this employee on etc. Considering how much shit we always report on, where people are saying, yes, these people should be buried under the jail. Yes, we don't want them in our neighborhoods, etc. Yet this guy is actually telling his client, that yes, you have these exposure points. And he receives negative feedback for that. That one is hard for me to square, Larry 49:40 we don't know the source of the feedback. We don't know, we don't know if it was generated by an organization or what what calls 217 comments but but likes having been on both sides, you know, it's a careful balance. So you're trying to do because you, you're wanting to be fair, you're wanting to have a personal one second chance. And then you've also got 90 other families living in under your responsibilities that you have to balance between, what am I going to do if something happens with this person? And and how am I going to defend this and what what is the liability to my ownership, and you end up in this capitalist system that we live in, you end up having to make economic decisions that sometimes you're very uncomfortable with that sometimes you just don't make there's others don't make those decisions. But But you're faced with those all the time. Andy 50:34 There's a there's a paragraph and there says I understand that those impacted by Sex Offender Registry laws have a deeper stake in this issue than I they believe they believe that these laws are overly broad, overly restricted, restrictive and in need of serious reform, they are likely correct. They also however, appear to miss believe that I owe some kind of obligation to the employee, the registrant to advise my client, the employer to take those factors into account and consider the individual from play or continued employment despite his or her registration status. The guy is, at least you know, at least passively agreeing that the laws are overly broad. But again, he's just like, Hey, here's my obligation I've been hired to advise my client, the employer on these issues, seems rather, on empathetic on our side, if that's who these people are to understand his position, and that we do and I'll felons, employees in general expose you to risk. Larry 51:27 Absolutely. It anytime. Anytime you're running a business, you're constantly assessing risk, and trying to mitigate risk. There's not a I'm not aware of any risk free businesses, you run over business, you have real skills, you've seen a lot of cases developed against Uber, and then having to revise their policies. You're constantly dealing with slip and fall in retail, you're dealing with all sorts of risk. And you're you're constantly trying to mitigate your risk, because that's how you keep your insurance premiums low. That's how you keep your coverage intact. And that's how you stay in business. And for us to get mad about someone and get our rate that they're trying to mitigate the risk just seems a tad bit inconsistent with our belief in capitalism. I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't have it both ways. If you believe fervently in the capitalist system, then the system we have requires you to factor in risk of doing business and to do an assessment of how much risk you're willing to take but there's no risk free business. And it but but negligent hiring as a as a body of case all that has developed in the last 2025 years of what what the reasonable expectations are for ordinary hiring and you just can't hire people like you did an 1860s when you said, Oh, well you got a horse. You plow well go ahead and hit you don't know what we don't live in that era anymore, right. Andy 52:54 Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters.co. 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 747 to 274477. Want to support registry matters on a monthly basis. Head to patreon. com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting without you we can't succeed. You make it possible. This next article comes from what will be CBS Chicago and the article now that it has moved off my page it is a the Illinois sex offender registry is riddled with fake addresses and I have I have the new segment from the from the TV station here Unknown Speaker 54:02 puts the home addresses of more than 31,000 sex offenders on a website so you can see who lives in your neighborhood. Trouble is we find many of the addresses are bogus wrong are flat out laughable Unknown Speaker 54:13 CBS News Megan Hickey is always investigating how could so many slip through the cracks. Office Building Larry 54:21 is number one offender got away with registering a p o box and another offender lives on hatred street in Evanston. Nope, not a real Street. So how are they getting away with it? It boils down to the fact that no agency is taking responsibility. The Attorney General's Office Illinois State Police, local law enforcement and other agencies are all referring us back to each other. A p o box would never be an acceptable address for a sex offender. So we took our questions to the Department of Justice, which told us that to date, Illinois because we have to take precautions. You know the scariest part, no one seems to know who's accountable. Meghan Hickey, CBS two news. So we asked to speak with a representative with the Illinois Sex Offender Registry team through the Illinois Attorney General's office and state police that request was denied. Megan, though will of course keep pushing on this. Andy 55:14 And to everyone listening at home if someone comes and knocks on your door and says hey, can we ask you who lives here? What is the answer, Larry? Larry 55:21 f. Why? Andy 55:23 Because you have no right to know who lives down the street around the corner or the next door. Larry 55:30 Having listened to that story, I couldn't get that to play for me. But having listened to that now I find it to be the typical bias of the journalist. The reporting. It is clear that people who have this horrible obligation to be listed publicly what a bull's eye on them. Some people will give false information. Yes, that that that happened. So I would be foolish to sit here and say that no one had ever tried to take the bull's eye off of there. But what I would say in addition to that, that I'd like to see some data that shows how many of those were false information deliberately? Or were that were there was no mention of typographical errors, that could be that the P o box ended up in there because they selected the wrong field for public display, put it in the wrong category. That could be actually the physical address. That's that's that was suppressed that we should have been on that. You know, you see what I'm saying? That would explain that is a potential that they could have actually be a physical address attached to the requisition. It's not visible to the public. people when they're putting in street addresses, I know it's amazing. But people do type things wrong six on 606 could have been 61626. Right, Abby, we don't know, where do we dig a little bit deeper and see what the person actually provided to the registry office. So we know that human errors can occur. We also know that, that people in Chicago, especially are notoriously unable to and particularly Chicago for turning people away that come in to report things. And to do registration updates. We know that because we've heard that complaint for a long time. So we don't know that some of these might be out of date simply because they couldn't get the report in in a timely fashion. We also know that people who live on the registry can't find housing. And they they they resort to ask for your loved one. Can I stay with you for a while it's getting pretty cold in Chicago. It's our points of the year, it's one of the coldest days you could ever imagine with all that lake effect that comes off of Lake Michigan. Yeah, people there people there would be desperate for housing. You can't stay in the shelter. And you as someone who's related to your friend, if you can you stay there, the person might say you can't stay here. But I don't want that on the internet. I don't want projectiles coming through my windows. And the person could say, All right, I'll do everything I can I'll give them another address, just let me stay. That angle never gets reported at all. And I know that registrants are afraid to go on the air because it's already humiliating enough. But that ankle needs to be told about the difficulties that comply with the way that was reported? The answer would be as far as society would be as its penalties are not severe enough. Therefore, we should crack down more so these people won't, won't won't give fake addresses. And right there advocates in this business who believe that, because you can show that the registry addresses are incomplete or not accurate. That means that the registry should be abolish, it actually means nothing of the kind what it means to the average person is that we need to be tougher. And if we're tougher people will comply. And they'll have the fear of non compliance. And but but I'd like to see a more fair reporting that that that story was so biased. I mean, Unknown Speaker 58:41 that's why I want to throw that in Andy 58:42 there. The other thing that I was just thinking about I didn't think about this earlier is that on my day job, I have to deal with this taking a customer's order and making sure that it gets routed to the right address. So I have employed various levels of technology to make sure that a person's address is a legit place. Why can't our government use any of those kinds of tools that when someone does their address that it gets verified with the Postal Service, the Postal Service is pretty good at knowing about all of the places that people live? Larry 59:09 Indeed, there are ways to verify addresses. But there again, like said, we don't know, on the one source addresses are not valid. We don't know that that was all deliberate. Right? I mean, here whenever I Andy 59:24 was also, I was also thinking about your other issue of like, doesn't the Department of Motor Vehicles or whoever Don't they have it also, most likely not everybody has a driver's license. But that would be one agency that would have people's accurate addresses? Larry 59:38 Well, not necessarily people at their drivers license go out of date. That true, that would, that would, it would it would it would now do advocate moving registration. And for those of you who haven't heard this before, I don't support registration. Until it's abolished until that day cops I want to make it is benign as we possibly can. And I would not want a civil regulatory scheme to be at law enforcement and some motor vehicles as a much better place to register. Because they are well equipped to take photographs, to issue documents to the correct address to send out notifications that it's time for renewal they send you out a notice with your license plate is up they said john, notice my driver's license be renewed, they have the capacity to take a digital photograph. And they all that stuff could be done at a much less obnoxious manner. Now those of you who don't understand what I'm saying, you can continue to believe I support the registry but I don't. Unknown Speaker 1:00:40 But I'm going to make it is much Larry 1:00:44 less obnoxious. If I can if I've got the choice of having a registry that where you go in and you go into a jailhouse and you have to dress out in a uniform and we actually had that happen on a couple instances jets Lucious fault at a California and and we've had it here on in my state, if I've got the choice of having that, or registry where you go down to your local motor vehicles, I'm going to choose the motor vehicles every single time. Unknown Speaker 1:01:10 Because there are no guns. There. Nobody Larry 1:01:13 telling you they can't leave. There's not some dark, shapeless room like what we have here in my county. And it's far less intimidating. But experience is a very intimidating experience, what's the right word? And so therefore, I would favor that over the status quo. But ultimately, we'd like to get towards there is no registry. Right? I guess you can tell I'm a little frustrated with people thinking I support the registry. And I can't say it loud enough and clear enough for them to understand I do. Andy 1:01:42 I was actually just thinking that you did. And you know, I'm kidding. Yes. I'm just being silly. I'm sorry. All right, and then moving on to color. lines.com. Never heard of this publication. But this I find to be awesome. We covered something a couple articles back about having people read more reading being better. here's a here's something that it seems to be gaining a decent amount of support. But second chance Pelle experiment expands education behind bars, this is going to bring it possibly bring back Pell grants to people that are that are locked up, which I can't, I can't honestly come up with any reason why you would want people leaving prison to be better educated than prior to. And it seems that when people leave behind the walls, that you would want them to go be employed, pay taxes, be an upstanding citizen, not get locked back up spending the $40,000 a year that it takes why wouldn't you want that person earning $40,000 a year instead of consuming $40,000 off the system? So I would put this in the in the box saying that this is some good shit. Larry 1:02:46 I would I would do that. And I would say that this in all fairness was a creation of President Obama's administration. But to get no, stop it stop it like to give credit. The department is education under this President has announced that they will expand the second chance chance Pell Grant experiment. So this is one of the few things that they haven't seen the need to abolish, because every legacy of Obama, they think that everything should be abolished. But this is one where they get credit for recognizing that this is not something that was who we left this mumble jumble. And I'm glad to see that this is something that's just enjoying continued support from the present administration. So I never give credit, I give credit, every chance I possibly can to this administration is just that I don't agree with this administration, or a heck of a lot of stuff. It's hard to give them credit for what I don't agree on but I agree on this. Unknown Speaker 1:03:44 Absolutely. Andy 1:03:48 I just rearranged an article, Larry, we will then move on to the New York Post article talking about this. The team who showed sex tape to friends will register as a sex offender. This, like I said from the New York Post, that we're missing a bunch of details that you can go into here in a second. But this is a elder team, you know, maybe 18, maybe less than and has a little videotape going of him doing to an inappropriate things not I should say it that way, probably consensual, inappropriate things with a 14 year old and then he shares the tape with some friends or the recording with some friends. And now, I he is going to be get charged and possibly placed on the registry. But it says Horton who was one of the 14th prosecuted in connection with the video pleaded guilty in April to felony child pornography charges. So somehow they're going to be 14 indicted and charged and all that. Larry 1:04:45 He's the one that's apparently at this point in time when he was indicted, he was 18. But it's not clear as his age at the time of the offense. If he was under 18. And he was less than four years different in my state, he would have absolutely with nothing to worry about. Because there's a four year protected zone where you can have sex with anyone within four years of your age. Between that between that 14 and 18. So if he if he if he was any person who's who's over 14, but less than 18, they can consent to have sex with a person who's no more than four years older than me, which means a six year old 16 year old could have sex with a 20 year old. But in this particular case, it's not clear how old he was at the time of the of the actual sex. But the sex is not really what's a question here was a question here is that he filmed it. And then he distributed it. And and therefore, therefore he has broken the law. And again, at my state, if he was under 18, he would be protected by statute. We, we we carve that out in 2016. And a 60, 8081 8100, it can't be prosecuted. We're going to get into more of that in the very one story here in a few minutes about how it says that wasn't carved out in Maryland how you can and would be prosecuted. But in this case, he's going to have to register as a tier two for 25 years, every six months now. Because because he had consensual sex, which apparently was not illegal because he didn't get prosecuted for that. But then he kept the video route. And we just you just can't be doing that. I mean, you could have the sex but by golly, you better not take any photos of that. Andy 1:06:30 Yeah, because then you end up with child porn charges, even though you perhaps are a child and I still am I'm baffled by this. It would be I don't know. I'm so baffled by that whole concept of of taking a picture in the one that were kind of come up with but taking a picture of yourself as a minor you are now in position of job born. I am just overly baffled by that. Larry 1:06:54 It's a big baffled about it. We'll get into it later. Yes, I know. Andy 1:06:59 Well, with further ado, then I will I will play this nifty little sound. A teenage girl texted her friends a graphic video of herself. A court said she shared file child pornography. This is almost just like this thing out of Ohio. This is from the Washington Post. And this is happening out of Maryland. And a girl took some video of her with a boy and then shared it with some of her friends. And I guess then there was a falling out of the friends and then law enforcement ended up getting becoming aware of it and then the wheels start turning go on to motion. This is awesome. Larry 1:07:37 This is good stuff. This is out of Maryland and it that the case is resurface two parents go into Maryland's highest Tribunal for review, but it's it's gone through the appellate process, which in Maryland is called a court of special appeals. And the court of special appeals is the second level of corporate from the from the circuit court at work where the where the child was charged. But this was a 16 year old girl, which goes by the initials sky she sent a text message to two friends, both juveniles containing and approximately one minute long digital video file of herself performing fellatio on a presumably adult male. And she was she was referred to juvenile court and she was adjudicated and juvenile court for engaging in criminal behavior. And she she she put for some very novel arguments. But they the the arguments had no merit because the the the laws clear and we we've got a situation in Maryland where that the state charged her with filming a minor engage in sexual conduct conduct in violation of 11 tools seven a two of the criminal law article distributing child pornography and violation of level seven a former criminal law article I displaying an obscene item to a monitor in violation of level two or three B One, two of the criminal article. And she she put forth all these creative arguments and they largely fell on deaf ears at the edge Jupyter hearing, after hearing from the detective they educated her that she had she had done these these committed to this infraction. And at a salon appeals appeal. She said Well, that's really nice that you educated me, but I didn't. I'm not I can't be charged with this. I'm Unknown Speaker 1:09:45 the subject of the video. Larry 1:09:48 And I have the right to video myself. And it reminded me the same person Hank said it to everybody to be able to Nebraska case where we talked a little bit about texture lyst. There's a judicial philosophy referred to as textual ism. And that's where you look at the text of the statute. And you don't give any consideration to anything other than the text. If it says that that's what it means. If as long as it's clear what that that's what it says. You don't second guess the the will of the people and say, well, it would be better if it said this, as long as you can discern from the plain text what it says. And as far as the court of special appeals is concerned, just like in Nebraska, the law said any person who goes to Nebraska, who is required to register in another state is required to register here. So they looked at the text and they asked to gobble you are a person, aren't you? Yes, you did both the brassica, didn't you? Yes. You are required to register in Colorado, aren't you? Yes. Well, then what did you your beef, the law covers you. And then there's the philosophy of purpose of Islam. And Nebraska doesn't require those who are convicted, as Juve adjudicated I keep saying mistakenly does or adjudicators juveniles to register. So he said, Well, you know, like a top 10 of this wallet off your adjudicators gentleman, Nebraska was adjudicated as a juvenile court model, that I wouldn't have to register here. And I said, Well, that's a nice novel theory. But the legislature didn't say that. They said any person who boosters or brasco was required to register another state is required to register here. Black letter, there's no ambiguity. There's nothing ambiguous about that. It says it if the legislature wanted to carve out an exception for you they could have Well, we're back to textual Islam. I can't hear this. The question is, is this is this minor a person? Because as relevant here, 11 207, a four I prohibits a person from distributing a matter of visual representation of performance that depicts a minor engaged as a subject in sexual conduct. You are a person, right? Yes. You did perform, didn't you? Yes. Okay. You did distributed to your friends, didn't you? Yes. But what the hell's the debate about? There's nothing I beg of us about this. You broke the law. And so so that this is what you have, when you when you when you say that you're a believer in textual, it doesn't have purpose of Islam, as a person who looks at it says, well, let's just slow down here. And always go back to Justice Scalia, who was a big texture lyst, the late Justice Scalia, Unknown Speaker 1:12:43 he Larry 1:12:44 he gave an interview, and I was not able to find it in time for the podcast, but he gave an interview, which I quote from where he talks about attorneys fees, and a statute that says preventing party shall be awarded attorneys fees. He says, Well, what does does that mean? Well, an attorney is a person who earns a fee. And he said that, I look at that. And it tells me that that I am toward their attorney, his or her fees. And a person who buys into the purpose of this of a statute, they would look at it and say, well, the attorney does have their own fee, but they also have investigators, and they also have experts, and they also have court reporters. And they also have paralegals. They also have all these different costs. And clearly the statutes intent purpose was to was to make the person home. So therefore, under our judicial philosophy of purpose of Islam, we will interpret it broadly. Well, this Marine Corps special appeals, they're not buying into the purpose of Islam. They're not inventing what's not there. They're looking at the text. And it says that clearly that this person is covered. Therefore, if you read the, which we're going to link this to the show notes, the 31 page opinion, and we've got a lot of highlights in there. But if you if you go to page nine, Unknown Speaker 1:14:08 which which is really, Larry 1:14:10 really something I like to to highlight a lot when people talk about what the way things ought to be. sk remember, that's her initials, argues that legislative history demonstrates that the purpose of 11 274 is to criminalize the actions of child abusers, not the children who are depicted in the imagery. Does she contents law, the law cannot be complied applied to individuals who like her engage in consent, consensual sexual conduct. The court says regardless of whether S case argument may have merit as a matter of policy, it has no merit as a matter of statutory construction. It might be good from a public policy, that we don't prosecute miners who do this. But that's not a decision for the courts to make. Now in my State of New Mexico, we've actually done that, we've actually decided that as a matter of public policy, that we are exempting people from prosecution for this particular offense, if they are under the age of 18. We don't let the prosecutor do what, what they're allowed to do it most states because that great theory about prosecutorial discretion, and they would never do that. They would do that. And they do it all the time. So the best thing to do is just not to allow them to have the opportunity to do something. And that's what we've done. But but that's not for the court to decide. And the court is taking a very restrained non judicial intervention and the legislative process. And they're choosing not to legislate from the bench and try to incorporate something in public policy. That might be a good idea. But the but the lawmakers can give them that guidance if that's what they want. So I'll slow down let you have some response time here. Andy 1:16:00 I'm still just kind of flummoxed on the idea that somebody that takes a picture of themselves under age gets tried for having child porn of themselves. I can't, it would. I'm not saying that I agree with it. But it would at least seem to be more appropriate if it was of somebody else. But I just I always think back to the the thing at a North Carolina, if I'm not mistaken of 17, or something year old and a 16 year old girlfriend and they were sharing pictures back and forth. And they're going to try the boy for child porn distribution of himself. And I just can't wrap my head around how we get to that stage, I Larry 1:16:35 just can't, well, I can wrap my head around very easily. We have hard time legislatures who are rushing through hundreds of bills. And you need to have policy walks who look at things and ask tough questions as they're going through. And you don't have that. And you do have an occasion when someone dares to ask such a question about what would happen if, if this happened. This scenario that we're discussing tonight, they would say oh, well, the prosecutors are so overworked they would never bring a charge like that. And then everybody says, Well, of course the prosecutors are work, they would never bring a charge like that. And they go on and approve it anyway. But that's not the reality of the situation. So I've got some language I can offer you for for fixing this. The provisions of subsection eight which is are unlawful for a person to intentionally possess, and you have seen a blah, blah, blah. And then we go to Section B the provisions of subsection a of this section shall not apply to depiction possessed by a child under the age of 18, in which the depicted child is between the ages of 1418. And then pick the pick the depicted child, Nolan voluntarily considered to the possession. Okay, if you can't figure this out out there in other states, poor backwards to Mexico, we've got the link that will share with you how to fix this so that your prosecutors won't have the option to prosecute this. And your attorney general will do exactly what ours did. He or she will go ballistic. And victims advocates, they will do exactly what they did here, they will go ballistic. And they will tell you that this will open up a Pandora's box to they will be exploitation of children galore. And that will have been the fear tactics, they will use our attorney general still on the campaign this past and 16. And he's still on the bandwagon about what a horrible mistake this was that we did this. But we saw prosecutors misusing the power so we took the power away from them. That's what you have to do. If you want this, if you want this problem to go away, but this case is going up to the Maryland highest court, which is called the Court of Appeals. Most courts, most states refer to that as their Supreme Court. And apparently, they're going to decide it. I know nothing about the Maryland Court of Appeals. I don't know their judicial philosophy. But what I do know is this as a well reasoned decision, depending on your judicial philosophy, you could easily come down the way the court of special appeals did. There's nothing absolutely nothing irrational about what they did. Do I agree with it from a policy perspective? Unknown Speaker 1:19:11 No, Larry 1:19:12 I don't agree with it as a policy perspective. But the courts don't exist to save us from bad policy choices. And in fact, we have a little quote here from Justice Scalia, that we're going to play where he talks about that, if we have it ready for to roll. the death penalty was the only penalty for a felony at the time of the Bill of Rights. It clearly was not cruel and unusual punishment. And since it wasn't banned, it isn't maybe a bad idea. And some states have thought so have eliminated it. I don't I don't I don't take any position on the on the merits of it. But I know it is an unconstitutional my reading of the Constitution. And of the history of the times shows that there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits restrictions upon abortions, again, it may be a very bad idea. But it's not unconstitutional. Now, the other side, would would like the Supreme Court to hold precisely the opposite of Roe vs. Wade, they would like the court to hold, then a state must prohibit abortion, because the fetus is a human being and the Constitution provides for equal protection of the laws for all persons. I don't share that view at that point you become at that point, I become an anti conservative, I guess. And I'm Unknown Speaker 1:20:35 an anti conservative lawyer. Larry 1:20:37 So. So the point I'm making is that Marilyn has a bad public policy. Unknown Speaker 1:20:43 But I cannot Larry 1:20:45 fathom that this is not constitution. I believe that it is constitutional to tell a person that you cannot do this, even if you're doing it of yourself, I think you can possess it for your own private usage. But I do not believe that. Since we have have afforded and deferred that and we all agree that keeping our children safe is we can growing up and free from any type of exploitation to allow this to get out of the public domain. Because it wouldn't be great if we could if as long as the person was a teenager, they could could produce their own and then it could just magically work. I mean, that's like a client, we had one time who said that they charged him with with distribution of drugs, and he said he wasn't charging for it. And I told him, I said, now I'm on your side, the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. I mean, if it's illegal to possess it, use it. And the fact that you're not charging for it, you're still distributing it. So if we if if if we as a society believe that having depictions of minors engaged in sexual activity is harmful A to the minor depicted, if it gets out in general circulation. And if it's if it's harmful, then society clearly can constrain those that would distribute that including the person who shot themselves. If they put it in the elder oldest in store it on their own device. I think they're probably okay, from a constitutional perspective, perspective. But in terms of saying that you can't do this, I think, from a constitutional perspective, not from a public policy perspective, I don't believe the constitution will shield you, I believe you're going to have to do what we did. And like I say, I'll make that language available to any of you guys out there that need some help coming up with it, because we went through a laborious process to come up with this language, to get it in 2016. And you can stop this problem in your state, but I don't think the courts are going to be able to save you. Because it's just not their role. Right. That's precisely the point I'm making is that this is a good read. For the for the junkies out there. I've got a lot of highlights in there. And I know that that we've got some real legal junkies, I've made a lot of made a lot of yellow lines through points of interest, where's all of her constitutional claims, Philadelphia thought she had one that actually gained traction. And that's because the language of the statute in terms of what constituted what she was disseminating it, the the the language had last minute ended in 2006. And they concluded that what she did, did not constitute a film. So, so big that they are literally is that they're taking, looking at the exact words that the barrel legislature defined, Unknown Speaker 1:23:36 what constituted what up what a person cannot distribute. Larry 1:23:40 And they included some definitions, but they didn't include this. And the state arguable you should interpret it broadly to include discuss this was a video and they said no, actually, it is it isn't a failed, it isn't anything that said to protect it. lyst. So therefore, she had distribute that. So it's a fascinating read, but I'll be anxious when the when the quarter appeals are there effective Supreme Court there, I'll be anxious to see what they do with this case, because I have no idea what they're going to do with it. But, but it is a fascinating. Andy 1:24:13 So you get everyone gets all twisted and knots, whether they want to be textual lyst or legislating from the bench or overriding the legislature? Larry 1:24:24 Well, well, and I do this to try to get people to rethink some people who think that their tax lyst when I cite these examples, they get themselves in a contorted position because all of a sudden they're not texture lyst. But if you're a texture lyst this is exactly the right ruling. The basket case is exactly the right ruling, if your texture lyst. If your purpose of Islam driven, it isn't. But in terms of the issue, she went on, it says on page 24, the statute defines that I've been a still picture, or photograph, book, pocket book pamphlet or magazine, video disc, video tape, Video game film or computer disc, or recorded message. And they said that what she did, did that since the legislature made a list of what you couldn't distribute that this was not any of those things. And I think we can agree it's not a pamphlet. It's not a book. It's not a magazine. And it was not a still picture. But it seems like it might have been what is the video disk? It's not a video tape. I know what that is. That's the old magnetic tape. But but it Unknown Speaker 1:25:33 was the video disc at your desk? Yes, Andy 1:25:37 I can't place what that would be referring to is a video desk. So Larry 1:25:44 well lay away the fact that that that the law has changed in and all these years since 2006. They had not expanded the list. This is an example of statutory construction, does it keep pace with it? There's no magic group of people that are analyzing all the state statutes, continuously to look for ways how technology has evolved and how the language has become more cake. That just doesn't happen. It comes to the attention when something like this when the decision like this is made, and the prosecution apparatus goes running in said, Well, you know, we got this problem now. We've got this new technology, and there's millions and millions of people, they're using this technology. And this is a loophole we have where we can't prosecute this. And then there's an amendment but right now this this is a loophole in America, this particular thing is not one of the items that that statute define. So therefore, the court special appeals said it that she wins on that particular point, but she doesn't wait on anything else. She is a person and she did distribute for Andy 1:26:46 the person. Have you ever run into anybody that can answer no to that question? Well, Larry 1:26:51 it's, it's humorous, because if you write it when I know when you draft it that way, and it says any person, it's pretty obvious you qualify. Yes. So page 22. It says although she makes the bold assertion, the play language of the statue does not support application to a minor. Under the circumstances, she fails to explain why that would be so we find this argument without merit. The plain language of the statute prohibits any person from displaying an item to a minor. Unknown Speaker 1:27:18 You are a person at heart you bless Larry 1:27:22 the people you send it to our monitors, weren't they? Yes. Well, you did do that, didn't you? Yes. Unknown Speaker 1:27:30 So Unknown Speaker 1:27:33 are you done on that soapbox? Larry 1:27:36 Yes. So I'm ready. I'm ready for questions. Andy 1:27:40 I have no questions, because I still can't wrap my head around the idea of prosecuting children for pictures of themselves. I'm just totally stuck in that Larry 1:27:48 nature. To stop it, yes. Don't don't pass on because it can be found when it's done all the time. If you find this did change the law and do what we did say you Unknown Speaker 1:28:03 will not have this power. Unknown Speaker 1:28:07 So should we should we move on to the final thing? So Larry 1:28:12 Well, I just encourage the legal Eagles to read this. And then let's follow this as it goes through the remainder of the of the field process. Unknown Speaker 1:28:22 But I found Unknown Speaker 1:28:24 it to be quite, quite good. So Larry 1:28:28 all right, well, I guess we can we can we can we can we can go on to the to the final news. So this is the best one is going to impact a lot of people. Andy 1:28:38 Absolutely. And this is from the detroit news. And then I think there's also a second source listed in the show notes if you guys want to go hunt those down. And this is where Judge sets a deadline for revising Michigan sex offender law. And it says a federal judge has set a 90 day deadline for Michigan lawmakers to revise the state's Sex Offender Registry law. And I mean, there's like not a whole lot to the article beyond that. I had but you you have maybe not so optimistic take? Larry 1:29:07 Well, I'm very optimistic that there's going to be changes because the the case for those who might be listening for the first time if we have anybody, and you have heard of Dell's vs. cider. This is the case out of state of Michigan, where Unknown Speaker 1:29:22 a group of players Larry 1:29:25 operating under those name, challenge Michigan's registry and the the ultimate decision after it got through the appellate process was that the the amendments in 2006 and 2011 had transformed what had previously been upheld to be a civil, not punitive regulatory scheme to be one that inflicted punishment. Therefore, it was unconstitutional Unknown Speaker 1:29:47 as applied to the dose, Larry 1:29:48 well, that was real dice for those plaintiffs. But it didn't do a whole lot for anyone else. And and Michigan took the position. Well, we've done our duty here we've covered the people litigated the relief that they're in, too. Unknown Speaker 1:30:01 So the Larry 1:30:02 the ACLU, which brought the original those case brought another case. And federal court again, where the first case was brought, they brought a case relying on the precedent of the Dallas versus Snyder case, which the state tried to get the US Supreme Court to look at it the Supreme Court that denied to review their let the decision Stan which makes it binding and Michigan binding and the Sixth Circuit and the the so now we we have a second case file. And they filed a case and asked for class for certification and the trial court certified as a class action. So now we've got a whole new ballgame. And this Attorney General's Office decided rather than fighting it because the precedent is binding one panel, and if this goes up on appeal is not going to overturn the other panel on the same issue. So this this three judge panel that this would go to would be bound by what's called circuit press. The circuit press on it is that Michigan's registry as it existed with those amendments in 2006 and 2011 are in fact punitive. So therefore, it's it there's little doubt that that this case is going to result in a victory. So the state rather than giving the ACLU and the law school and all these people big attorneys fees, I decided to stipulate to a judgment. So we have a five page stipulated judgment that came out just what was it Friday, the 23rd. So I guess that would be Thursday, but it just came out Thursday, where the state has agreed to have a judgment issue. So whether that five pages the the first page talks about what's going to happen next, and the court having having accepted the stipulation has deferred for 90 days, the question of whether the declaratory judgment should be applied to the class members, that the lead plaintiffs of this case. And then there are several other things that that the court talks about. But the most important thing is at the bottom of page four, in the event that the legislature has not revised statute within 90 days of this order, the party shall submit a status report. And the court will set a briefing scheduled to decide the questions of an easel two questions that the court would have to decide whether this declaratory judgment and a subsequent objective release shall apply to those class members listed in paragraph two. That's point one that they'd have to decide the severability of whether sorta can apply to all pre pre 2000 level registrants? That's number two, question they have to answer. And what remains shall be ordered in this cases, number three, and number four, any other issues raised by the parties at that time? Unknown Speaker 1:32:53 Well, Unknown Speaker 1:32:55 I'm a politician. I'm a political junkie. And I I can't see any reason that the Larry 1:33:02 legislature would want to fix this. I, I can see every reason why they would want to the court to fix it. But the Unknown Speaker 1:33:09 legislature would want to duck this. Because that's just what they do. You don't want Larry 1:33:16 unless you can get 100% unanimous ruling on a remedy so that no one can use it against you. And even then, you can only get an agreement with all the hundred percent of the people that are serving now not the people who might run against you, I doubt you can get an agreement from the people who might run against you and oppose you that you want to do something good for sex offenders. So that would always be that doubt about what you went beyond what the court would have done, if you agree to fix this legislatively. So therefore, you would have every incentive not to fix it legislatively, and you would have every incentive to let the court fix it for you can point your finger and say it's not our problem. The courts made us do this like they did California, but the prison litigation, thought us let them out is all day liberal pointy hands, I have lifetime pain, you're on the bench. And that's that's what the legislature is more likely to do. That's not a guarantee. But that's more likely. In the world of politics 90 days. It's not a very long time. No, certainly Andy 1:34:14 not. Is there any Is there any sort of what's the word I'm looking forward to? Is there a friend in this with the new agey that wrote that really nice letter about that these laws are ridiculous. Larry 1:34:25 I would say the office day, geez, office posture has certainly gotten better than any other agents office I've ever seen. But the ag there again, can only recommend to the legislature, the ag cannot force them to do anything, nor shield them. Maybe some shielding can come so they can say what will they do strongly encourage us to do this. But but the the ag can merely recommend that they make these modifications the ACLU wants to allegedly fix because the fear is that prior to this decision, that the last time the registry was held, held to be constitutional to that's just simply the legislative fix would be drove back to that level. They don't want that. Because there were problems with the with the registry, the last time it was held to be constitution. So they're actually trying to push for things that would go beyond that, that that remedy. I just with a short 90 day timeframe. And knowing the political reality, this is 2020. And I just about guarantee you, we're coming up on 2021 2019. Unknown Speaker 1:35:35 But if you Larry 1:35:38 perfect some kind of remedy that looks like it softball sex offenders, and you're coming up on 2020, you're setting yourself up for vicious attacks. Nobody wants to do that. Sure. Andy 1:35:50 But if so the the judges said a 90 day deadline. So that puts us so we're basically June, so July, August, somewhere around September that this has to be dealt with. But what and so then it just rolls back to the previous version, which also has problems. So then does that mean Larry 1:36:06 Well, no, it doesn't start running previous judges the verge of that, that that's that's we don't know what the courts going to do? Because then we got these questions. I just read out that the courts going to order briefing. To figure out what to do next. The court, the court will set a briefing scheduled to decide the questions that I just read whether declaratory Joker is so so therefore, the court is going to give the parties top to brief and maybe have arguments. And they're going to figure out whether this thing is whether the statute of several will beat me. Sometimes statutes have specific language that if any section of this as the carbon Constitution, the remaining shall survive. I don't know squat about whether this has it has a separate building clause that will that will save it from from from from from annihilation, if they find it to be if they were sold. So the courts going to argue the course I could argue anything, the parties that got the state conceived was going to argue to the court that that that that it is several, and it should be part so it's to survive. And if you're representing the plaintiffs, you're going to argue that it's not terrible, and that the whole damn thing laps. And that's going to create a real problem, because the other states that face that New Hampshire face that Ohio face that New Hampshire, they, they ruled it I can't remember the case. But they their Supreme Court ruled that their registry had evolved to declare a way to inflict a punishment. And then they went off on this wild goose chase and said, well, but it doesn't do all those things if you have due process, but there's no due process to determine. And they told they said if the person hasn't a hearing to determine whether they're dangerous, or whether they still need this, that it's all kosher, but then the legislature to my knowledge hasn't created such a process. So I don't know how the I don't know how you would fall for a hearing that doesn't exist in statute and want to put you with title depleting sale. I wonder what these new dad hearings that the New Hampshire Supreme Court said we're entitled to. And and I don't know what the rules evidence would be, what the standard of proof would be, I don't know how far we're engaged in the practice in New Hampshire, how to get one of these things set up, because because the legislature hasn't created such a beast. But but but you run into a problem where if this court were to strike the say that it were not several will, therefore the whole thing would collapse, you would run into a problem where they wouldn't be registered at all. The courts not going to find that to be a very attractive option to have 10s of thousands of people with no registry obligation. So So this, this, this thing is far from over. And, and I hope that, that there, the legislature does fix it. I hope I got back here three months from now and say that I was totally wrong. But knowing politics the way I do, I just don't have that optimism. And I realize some people expect me to be optimistic, but I don't have that. And and they want me to say what, what they would like to hear. But I don't feel like that this is something that there's a lot of going to be a lot of political, political impetus to do. There's a lot of reasons why they shouldn't do and very few why they should. And I feel like that The clock is going to run out. And then the court is going to be faced with this trying to figure out what whether whether how they're going to answer these questions. And this if the state were to all of a sudden change their posture and start fighting on everything they could they could they could require all they can expend a lot of resources, just on these four questions that the Court has said we that we want, we would have to deal with. They could this could let this litigation could drag on for quite some time. And all the people who are writing in saying When do I get off the registry? We don't know. Unknown Speaker 1:39:31 We truly don't know. Larry 1:39:35 And Andy 1:39:36 this isn't like on the super duper optimistic side, this isn't a vehicle to get us back to the 2003 Alaska registry, is it? Larry 1:39:44 Well, that's that would be something that you could hope for. I don't see no registry at all big, big, big an option. But But I think someone who was the ACLU of Michigan said a totally abolish this thing. I think that was one of the they issued a proclamation to just simply abolish the registry. I don't see that happening because the U haul businesses going to get really good from the ground. If they did that, and I Andy 1:40:08 don't think we are we now giving insight or stock tips? Is that Larry 1:40:10 what you're saying? Well, it could be writer, it could be u haul. Brother, but but I just don't see how the legislature can stand idly by and let the registry be abolished? That would be politically suicidal. Andy 1:40:25 And then I thought this was going to be a short segment too, by the way, Larry 1:40:28 you know, this is not the world that the way it should be. But it's the world the way it is. Right? That there again, I can't be as optimistic that this is going to result in some kind of magic solution in 90 days. The court is doing the correct thing, though the court is tried not to legislate from the bench. They're trying to say this is a problem you guys created. Andy 1:40:52 And and fill me in as Michigan a year round legislature or is it? Larry 1:40:57 Or I believe they are. So I'll be like that. It's not that they can't do it, it's that the incentive is not going to be there to do it. Right, you, you just there's just no win in this to go do this. Therefore, if if I'm feeling politically threatened, the the course of best resistance, the least resistance, I mean, not best resistance, of course of least resistance is to say we're going to do more than Don't worry that the court requires us to do. Therefore, we're going to handle this and let the court impose its own remedy. And then we're going to point to that and say that's the problem. If you people have a problem with it. complain to the federal judge don't complain to us, we didn't do this to you. And that's, Andy 1:41:40 that's worth their hands tied behind their back in like, this sounds vaguely similar to the gerrymandering stuff to me as far so the legislature draws the lines. And then the court says you can't do that, then the legislature does nothing, then the court says this is what you will do. Who's the final authority, if somebody I don't care which branch decides to not act? Larry 1:42:00 Well, the court is ultimately going to have to deal with this case, because the issues before them. So they're going to have to determine what's how broad a relief, they want to fashion. If their legislative branch won't play ball and do a legendary fix, they will eventually fashion a judicial remedy sort of thing. So it will it will get remedied in terms of their probably be a significant number of people who will no longer have a registration obligation. But if they determined that there are several built December ability is there they could just sever the things that create the problem like the Exclusion Zones, you know, the residence of restriction so you know, the things the things that the 2016 2011 amendments that create a problem. If there's severability there. If you just separate those things out, then you bet your back to say, well, you gotta do all the other things. It's kind of like when the Pennsylvania homeless person, you have to provide an address. And then I had call after call pig, I don't have to register? No, the court did not say that. Court said that it was unconstitutional and supplied to you because a homeless person cannot provide an address. But you can find all the other things that that's required. You just can't provide a single location? Well, if you sever out the requirements and say you will no longer enforce this on any pre, pre 2011 registrant, then that may be one way that the court fixes it. And then the legislature can say, Well, you know, we would have those residence restrictions, but we're not allowed to, we would have those employment restrictions, but we're not allowed to Don't get mad at us. I mean, that is the likely way this will play out. Andy 1:43:34 And then what is the what's the step going forward? The next legislative body whatever the you know, the next Congress, whatever, they then say, we're going to update this judicial like, how what invalidates the judicial remedy versus bringing in a new legislative one? Larry 1:43:50 Well, what if the court we're all just playing a lot of game here, because that was that was gonna happen. But if the court of validates this for everybody, that what what they applied in the Dallas case, if they extend this release to everybody? And they say that we do find it in several, and they may, they may certified this question to Supreme Court, but it's several buildings there of the state because it's in state statutory scheme. So they may they may serve on some of these questions. So the Michigan Supreme Court, but if they determined that they can sever and and have the remainder of sorta Michigan, remain operational, nothing would preclude their legislature from coming back and trying to dance around and make some restrictions that are less onerous because the courts cannot prohibit bodies from legislated and each each enactment would be presumed constitutional. So they could come back and say, well, we had restrictions on everybody and New Hampshire, I know you're listening and going to get mad about this. But they could come back and say, well, the courts right, we had a broad brush that we applied residency restrictions to everyone. What we're going to now rather than applying to everyone is we're going to selectively apply residency restrictions. And there's already a body of case a lot of the eight circuit out of Arkansas residency restrictions, they applied to level three and level four resident they have a risk based system in Arkansas. And the courts have said, targeted residents restrictions, as long as it's not a broad brush, and there's due process for determining who to target those two. They are constitutional. Are they good public policy? No. Do they prevent crimes and offenses? Probably not. But constitutionally they would probably withstand. So the legislature could come back and say, well, we're going to have residence restrictions that are gonna be much more narrowly tailored and targeted. And then you would have to start the challenge all over again, if you felt they went too far. Unknown Speaker 1:45:52 Wow. And we're way over time. Can we get out of here now? Unknown Speaker 1:45:55 We could. Andy 1:45:58 Larry, how can people help grow the audience and share the podcast? What can they do? Larry 1:46:04 Well, let's see. They could they could do it by going to our website. And that is, I believe, is registering matters.co. If I remember, right, Unknown Speaker 1:46:15 that is correct. Or your favorite method, they could call Larry 1:46:20 and we will play it if it's audible and not too long. 7472 to 74477? Or, and how about sending us an email message, they could send it to our to our gatekeeper. And that's registered matters cast at gmail. com. Who's the gatekeeper? That would be our Holly, technical producer and Georgia. Unknown Speaker 1:46:45 Oh, I think that's me. Alright. So the best way to support the podcast, Larry 1:46:50 the best way to support us is to do what we just Welcome to the patron this week. I've done forgot her name. You've gotten old. We do with Denise, you can. You can go to our signup on patreon.com slash registry matters and the donations or monthly and they can be as little as $1 and up to the full gross amount of your paycheck. Unknown Speaker 1:47:16 That sounds like that would be amazing. Larry 1:47:19 I'm not sure we've got any gross checks yet, though. Andy 1:47:22 Not we do not yet, at least not by any sort of American standard of living. I mean, if you're talking about somebody from like Sudan, we probably have gotten some of those basic. Larry 1:47:29 We've gotten some we've got some nice donations from some loyal patrons. And we're just flattered that that what we do is valuable enough that people actually support us the way we have them. Andy 1:47:43 Well, that is all I have. Larry, that'll wrap up the show. And with that, I bid you a good night and hope you have a great weekend. Larry 1:47:49 Thanks, Andy. Take care. Bye bye. Thank you for listening to the IP IP network. Transcribed by https://otter.ai