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,

Larry  0:09  
FYI P.

Andy  0:11  
Recording live from si p studios east and west back in our own own home little places, Larry, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 82 of registry matters. Good evening, Saturday night again, if the sun is still up. It's almost like noon here. It's humid as hell. But hey, how are you?

Larry  0:26  
Great. I've heard that this has been stifling hot in the the great

Andy  0:30  
Peach State heat index of like one or two or something today. It was It was lovely step outside and you feel like you got punched in the face by a bucket of humidity.

Larry  0:39  
It sure was good to get back to the to the arid, high desert because when I got off the plane in Houston was not what it costs to play. But when I came outside the airport terminal building the wait for the shuttle, my glasses fogged up. And then somebody told me to overcome that problem by walking backwards. I said that's probably not an ideal.

Unknown Speaker  1:02  
I hadn't heard that story. That's funny.

Larry  1:05  
I don't know. I just I just can't see that. I would adopt that as a as a as a behavior to walk backwards.

Unknown Speaker  1:11  
I don't see she said.

Larry  1:13  
What she said that's walking backwards. If you won't, they won't follow it. But I didn't test it to find out. Okay. What I got to Georgia, I was he was writing for quiet for the first few days. And then it cleared up and we had some beautiful weather there.

Andy  1:28  
Dude, you had you had spectacular weather for you while you were here. Mid 80s whatever high 60s at night. Yeah, you had spectacular Wait, wait, what I

Larry  1:35  
did drop down into 50. Some people were firing up the heat,

Andy  1:38  
good grief. I would like to direct people to go look at the episode 81. And if you ever are like if you want to know what kind of equipment you need to bring with you when you travel so that you have a good quality shower at the hotel. Feel free. There's a picture there It has the equipment that Larry recommends. So this is endorsed by Larry for your traveling needs.

Larry  1:58  
Well, there's only one problem that's that's an old model of that showerhead and I don't make it anymore. It's one that that actually let some water flow through it. Oh, maybe no actually did it. It had a removable water restrict or not. But now they're making very few of them with removable restrictor is because of the federal guidelines to try to try to promote conservation. So now that it's very difficult to remove the restrict or the flow restriction.

Andy  2:23  
Just curious. does that have anything to do with delegation?

Unknown Speaker  2:27  
It might Oh,

Andy  2:29  
I hey, that's that's a foreshadowing of what's to come? I think I hadn't even considered this. Wow. All right. Well, I let's dive in. We have a mountain, we have a mountain, we have a mountain of content to cover tonight, we have a boatload of articles. And then we have a Supreme Court decision. And we also have a decision coming out of Colorado, that we're going to get to also want to point out that there's going to be a Patreon only special, we're going to we're going to cover Gundy and give you the nitty gritty of what you need. But then we're going to go into and we're just going to talk until until Larry's brain is completely exhausted. And we're going to release that to the patrons. So how do you get in on that go over to patreon.com slash registry matters. For $1 you can get the full extent you get the the episode released early, it'll come out Sunday, sometime probably around lunchtime. And you'll get all of the thoughts that are going into why this decision is or isn't good or bad or where it stands, how this impacted, you'll get an unbelievable them information will probably be 30 or 45 minutes that will talk about after the show.

Larry  3:34  
I'm just curious, Andy now you're telling people to do that part of the release? Now? How would they? Are people able to hear this before it's released? How would How would they?

Andy  3:43  
Well, you know going forward if you donate if you contribute the dollar then you would be able to get the episodes released early. And yeah, I mean, that is a good point. But the people that are Patreon people they will hear it early and maybe they could share it. But yeah, you're right. But still to get the extra content the the non patrons won't get the extra content regardless.

Larry  4:01  
Well, that's a good point that everybody that's a patron encourage someone to listen to the the the whatever we're gonna call this up this segment of post post registry matters for it's kinda like the green room I guess on the on the TV shows they go into the green room afterwards. Yep. And

Andy  4:18  
yeah, so so however long you care to stay and however much detail you want to to reveal in the thought process of this but it'll be a patron only portion of the episode, like I said, will give the listeners the the cheap ones, the ones who can't contribute. I don't mean I don't mean to offend. I'm just being silly. But just you know, will give you will give you what you need. But then we're going to go in and deep dive and try to clear up every point possible in the post show.

Larry  4:43  
Maybe we should just let the people that are tonight. Come and ask some questions because because there's not there's not usually more than a couple hundred listening and

Andy  4:53  
discord, we will see I will I know that they're here and if they want to ask they can they can let me know if they want to ask good question. But let's let's dive right in Larry, I was having a conversation with with the the one who shall be named our super patron Mike. And it was funny he he ended up posting somewhere out there on the internet. And I don't want to reveal too much about it. But he said I actually want to teach a class to registrants, I need to teach them how to listen to the most important broadcast that covers the biggest problem they have in their life. I need to slap them all in their face and get them to wake up and realize that they're being morons for not supporting the podcast and helping this cause that's podcast listening one on one with Professor Mike. He is awesome. He is a huge fan of ours. And I can't thank him enough for his support for I don't know if like 15 or 16 months, he's been listening to us the almost the entire time.

Larry  5:45  
flattering, and I mean, politically, I don't even think that we that we're in agreement on most issues. But I am so, so grateful. I guess that's the word that he recognizes that we put effort into trying to bring solid information and good quality content to people that that are here. Absolutely.

Andy  6:03  
Yeah, I he, his position is that this is such a driving force and how our people's lives are impacted positively negatively, most negative most often negatively. And this is the only game in town. And I you know, forgive me for blowing our own horn. But we are the only game in town that is providing actionable data to people. And he just wants to do what he can to spread the word. So I appreciate it. Thank

Larry  6:33  
you, for you've heard of many have heard me say that, that I think that this is the most important issue. If you're living in the states where the registration laws are so so oppressive that if you can't go to your schools, your children's school events, and you can't watch them play sports, can't watch them at a play, you can't have a job with them. There's a we talked about this at a ga meeting when I was there last week about all the restrictions on planet simply because the location of employer, you can't work. You can't rent housing. To me there would not be any issue that would that would that would be supreme to this. I can't imagine how people. So I always say if the registry is as bad as, as you say it is. And I take your word, I believe it is that bad. But this would be a very high priority in terms of how you how you allocate some of your personal resources. And that would be personal resources, either volunteer, or some make monetary donations to the organizations and there's a number of them, you know, I happen to be on the board of Gardasil, but they're doing good work in the and the Alliance for constitutional sexual offender laws. There's there's there's good work being done out there. And these organizations have very, very miniscule resources. And they're they're working on behalf of a million, which I believe that number is inflated, but there are certainly many hundreds of thousands and their family members and they need support. Definitely.

Andy  8:02  
And did you get a chance to look at the email from the listener and the article from the hill says Thomas urges Supreme Court to reverse demonstrably erroneous decisions?

Larry  8:14  
I did read. I did read that article. And I can I can comment on it a little bit. Let me open it. But there was there was parts of this that were that I was concerned about. If you if you the way you framed it, what's being said there? It sounds good. A lot of things sound good when when they're when they're over simplified. But what they're what they're talking about is the the deference to existing precedent. And the doctrine CALL US, US stereo devices. That's the word I couldn't

Andy  8:51  
remember. I couldn't remember story decisis.

Larry  8:54  
And, and and for Justice Thomas to say, if we read the article, I have something playing in the background since I click on the article, which I think is the computer reading the article to me? It could be Yeah, but it's scary. It's scary for me, for a Supreme Court justice to say that, that the lower courts shouldn't be bound by the decisions if they're clearly wrong. If we if we were to adopt that, then they would be there would be no rule of law. Because the Supreme Court is the final decider. And all the other courts are inferior. And for for the for the circuit courts, and for the district courts and the federal system to be able to ignore the supreme court and say, Well, clearly you're wrong on that, then we wouldn't have any rules law. So that that that kind of alarmed me that Thomas would make that comment, if it's an accurate quote,

Andy  9:48  
I was intrigued by like he said in the article that they should try to go revisit them, by what vehicle would the Supreme Court bring a case to themselves to try and change the precedent?

Larry  10:02  
Well, they wouldn't bring the case to themselves, they would they would, when they get the opportunity to revisit, like in Roe vs. Wade, they could they could go back and when when these cases were inevitably they're going to be a number of them that'll be certifications will be filed because they southern states are passing abortion restrictions as fast as they can. They can say I am. So these cases are going to work their way up and they're going to grant cert to one of them are a number of them. And they would simply revisit their their their previous precedent. And therein lies the debate about a story, Sarah decisis. They would we when we confirm justice, we typically that question is asked I don't ask it, but it's typically asked in the confirmation process. How do you know when you respect existing president judge cabinet was asked, Justice cabinet was asked that. And so it's one of those things where where there's no right answer, because if something's clearly clearly wrong, he would you would want to reverse the way Supreme Court has held in our history. They they've been wrong.

Andy  11:03  
Right. And I mean, I heard about earlier that, okay, so women couldn't vote until about 100 years ago, the precedent had been prior to that women could vote so should we not go revisit something that is clearly erroneous? To try and correct it? I know that that goes both ways. I just it seems like if it's right, you would go revisit it. And it could get overturned, it could get upheld. Well,

Larry  11:28  
sometimes what's right, is that now the beholder fair? So?

Andy  11:32  
Oh, no, I totally agree with that. You know, obviously, people take their position on pro choice or pro life. I, you know, obviously, there's, there's those two, there's two camps and every other issue has two camps. That just happens to be the most politically charged and emotionally charged conversation in our society at the moment.

Larry  11:49  
Or for those who hear me throw around policy versus Ferguson. I've said that a number of number five podcast and that was the 1896 decision that that said separate but equal was was okay. And it wasn't until 1954. So you're talking about nearly 60 years later, before the Supreme Court did what was what was a bad decision? sometimes bad decisions can stand for a very long time. And I think that's where Thomas is coming from, is that if it's clearly if it's clearly bad, there should they should go back and revisit, but a case has to go. I mean, the case is the supreme court is not a roving tribunal. So something has to be brought to them before they get before they can address it. They don't go out looking and trying to provoke a controversy.

Andy  12:32  
And, you know, then so it has to go through your local court then has to go to your state court that appeals and work its way all the way up to SCOTUS.

Larry  12:41  
Well, it could it could start in the federal court system, but it would have to work its way through through the court system and the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear it. I can hear a final decision from the states from my state supreme court if there was a constitutional question. They can't just hear it in a case because they don't like what the state Supreme Court decided there has to be a federal constitutional question. The state gets to be the final decider. That's how you had the decision in Nebraska, that dealt with registration of juveniles. There was not a federal issue there. The juvenile didn't have a right not to register on the Federal Constitution. Do you think that's a that's a continuous problem that people confuse that for certain issues? Your state Supreme Court is the final arbiter and for only a narrow group of issues that it goes to SCOTUS? They are they are they are very much confused about that. And they the the federal courts are courts have very limited jurisdiction. And when when you say that people roll their eyes and they leaned a chair backwards, they said, What is he talking about? But federal courts only have limited jurisdiction, it has to be a federal issue before you can before you can go into federal court. Same with criminal prosecution, there has to be a federal crime and the reach of federal jurisdiction and criminality as it has exponentially increased in the last 2530 years, particularly the of the internet. And there's so many internet, basically, if you were looking at what a typical federal prison would look like in the 1970s, before the internet, you'd see a lot of bank robbers and a lot of white collar crimes that did involve embezzlement, securities violations and stuff of that type. Those are no longer the significant part of federal prison population now and because of the advent of, of the modern digital era, and there's so many people being prosecuted for crimes that that are that where the feds have claimed jurisdiction. We've always had, for example, it not always I should say, well, it's been possession of images of minors has been illegal in all the states for an awfully long time. But all the prosecutions until a generation ago were in state courts, because in order to get caught in the federal system, the US Postal authorities had to intercept your package, your carefully concealed conceal packet of duties to prosecute you. Otherwise, otherwise, the feds didn't have any jurisdiction. So there's been there's been a dramatic increase in federal jurisdiction for criminal behavior. But it's largely a reflection of the time but it's a reflection of both there's been some some overreach, I think there's some questionable, tenuous, jurisdictional look so sorted for federal prosecutions, but it's also an evolution of times that things that we couldn't have imagined, not that long ago, exist today. I mean, we've had telephones for a long time, so so so you could prosecute people for making obscene telephone calls, either federally or state, the feds general declined to prosecute those unless there was some terroristic threat made or some significant threats of harm. They typically do for adults to local prosecution, but they had jurisdiction, but we just didn't have the jurisdiction what we have today because of the digital age we live in. Yeah.

Andy  15:54  
Well, are we ready to move on? We have some important announcements. So what what we have going on tonight, Larry, and we'll get a brief synopsis of what we're going to cover here later in the show is there was a significant I it was definitely watched by our people a case by what was it Gundy versus the US? Is that how that would be worded? Yes, yes. And so there's been all the forums and all the Twitter's and all the stuff. There's been a mountain of people talking about that the liberal side of it against us, and can you give us a you know, a couple minute synopsis of what's going down?

Larry  16:31  
Well, I would say stay tuned.

Andy  16:35  
About an hour for now, we're going to go a deep dive.

Larry  16:38  
Don't don't don't leave a podcast. Well, all throughout the, from the time the cert petition was granted, there was a lot of misunderstanding about about Gandhi. And it was really not about the registry. And and it was hard to convey that message to folks because everybody so desperately wants a case that's going to attack the registry. And this was never it. It wasn't we're about to register. And and when I when I say that those who have read the news accounts, so they're gonna say, Well, he know he's smoking some of that really wacky weed, because that's all they talk about is registration and the 59 pages. And I've only read the majority decision. I haven't read them. But the dissenting I, it's kind of like bush versus Gore. How many people read the dissent, and that it doesn't matter. It like Justice Scalia said its water of the damn way is it's decided this is the decision about the court and the delegation of of there was a small amount of delegation to the to the US Attorney General. And that was not an abuse of the delegation clause, according to the US Supreme Court, which they are the final decider. And we'll have a lot of fun with that later. But But unfortunately, it doesn't, it doesn't. It doesn't go the way that people hoped it would go. And if it did go the way people hope to go, we're going to dive into that. It would have changed most of your lives. So we're going to take a dive at the that.

Andy  18:00  
Well, I'll write them. And I think then I'm going to play the voicemail later because it is related to the issue. So we'll skip that for now. This the first article we have this is a from yellow hammer, no idea what Yellow Yellow hammer news is, but they're the the politician who introduced the chemical castration law in Mississippi. He is recorded on a local new show and its child sex offender, chemical castration bill sponsored state representative Hearst, it should be surgical castration, some offenders ought to die, this white trash, but dragon is actually saying that we should actually put these people through a an actual surgical process to remove their man bits. I don't know what else I should call them. And this, this is apparent to me, I can't even imagine that we would we would cover this. Oh, sorry. And someone saw me it's Alabama, Mississippi, whatever, both of those states garbage.

Larry  18:57  
I was thinking it was Mississippi as well. But anybody who would, who would call for the genital mutilation of someone. And the sad thing about is he should be utterly rejected at the polls. The citizens of his district should say, I can't believe that you were that you were proposed, such as thing. And and then he says, but God is going to deal with them one day on this issue. So he's invoking the Bible to justify what he's doing. What he's proposing, he's not doing it yet.

Andy  19:32  
It's I can't Is there anything else remotely similar, where you would be forced to have some sort of surgical process? I can't, I can't imagine that there's anything else like, you know, you're not born with a gun in your hand. So you don't have to have a gun surgically removed? I can't think of anything else where we would actually require a medical procedure to probably not even fix the problem. This is just totally x excessive punishment.

Larry  19:59  
Well, that's the is it's clearly it's designed to raise the general meter mutilation.

Andy  20:06  
Yeah. And, and I, I've heard if I'm not mistaken, that from like a psychological standpoint, this isn't necessarily like a libido issue. So doing the the castration would solve the libido issue, but that's not what this issue actually is at its core. So this doesn't necessarily even fix that problem. Either. This guy's just being an asshole, and trying to further punish, then, then the punishment that is already applied and available to them.

Larry  20:32  
Well, I mean, he goes as quote, it says, but if somebody molest a small child to be quiet, quite honestly, if they should die. Well. I think all of us find molesting a small child to be very repugnant. And I think all of us want appropriate punishment. I'm sure you do your father. Yep. He would want more punishment for for that. But calling for the death penalty. And since I can't get the death penalty, saying that I should have jet there, gentlemen mutilated? Really?

Andy  21:01  
Yeah, yeah, I can't. There's nothing that we could even even say other than this guy is really not a stellar politician. This is this is definitely misguided.

Larry  21:12  
I would say for those of you follow the podcast, someone watch the watch his district, and it is Alabama now I have sources and I was thinking Mississippi, but watch his district him watch the margin by which he wins reelection. And then when when people snarl and rock their share backwards and say this is not when I say that people support the harshness come back and tell me that I'm wrong, that he got rejected at the polls. And we will actually put you on the podcast and say we were wrong, that he was settled or rejected at the polls, but I seriously doubt he's going to be able to reject it to the polls, something tells me that his constituents he's he knows his constituents very well. And he knows that this is quite what they're This is what they're wanting to hear. And he he feels like he's going to be rewarded by his constituents, we wouldn't have made that kind of comment.

Andy  21:57  
I would even be willing to bet that Tibet in the district he might even be running unopposed.

Larry  22:03  
You think? Well, they're quite possibly Alabama. So republican that hit the only thing he would possibly have would be a Republican opponent in the end and the party primary. But it's difficult unless you in an urban area. If you're not in what GM Ray or Birmingham or an urban area, you can't get elected to the state legislature in Alabama that the battle legislators are elected they're totally insignificant.

Andy  22:28  
Well, let's move on to the article from the New York Law Journal. And this is lawmakers passed bill to extend statute of limitations for rape in second and third degree, the subtitle is no one and especially not our most vulnerable should be denied justice because the law provides an inadequate window of time to come forward said Assemblywoman Arabella Simone tos democratic queens, here we go even even more with more statute of limitations extensions, this one looks like it would extend the second degree out to 20 years, then in the third degree would extend it out to 10 years. I don't know is that 20 years in total, or is it 20 years further, I've got a guess it's just 20 years in total, that you would have the time to bring forward a sexual assault allegation.

Larry  23:16  
That's the way I interpreted and it says that, that they've already had first degree right, they've already eliminated the statute limitations. And so you this the erosion that we've talked about these high profile cases, you know, the gym this doctor with whose name I can never recall. You know what I'm talking about the gymnast doctor theme for the show, last Nasser,

Andy  23:39  
Larry Nasser,

Larry  23:40  
a doctor Nasser and then the former House speaker has stirred and all these high profile cases, there's so many of them, that the the victims advocates are winning the day all over the country that there should be no statute limitations, or it should be seriously increased. Those of you who have not heard me before, it's it's a dangerous thing. It's very dangerous because you can't defend yourself. I even talked about Roy Moore, who's announced he's running for senate again and Alabama. Can't wait. We just talked about Alabama. He and he'll actually win this time. You think so? But But he? Oh, yes, I think he'll win this time. And I'll give you the analysis, you want me to tell you why. So we can come back and see if I was right, but I'll tell you why I think he's gonna win. But he will, this statue of limitations is going to be a relic of the past, and the not too distant future. And you can try to slow down the train, which we do here. We, we we do everything we can to slow down the train, and we slowed it down this year, we got our, the building put forth, significantly amended, it did get past with, with, with with with dramatically reducing the reach of it, and then the governor vetoed it because there was a conflict. And she said I support the bill. But we can't have the conflict in law. And it would take too much time to explain the conflict. So Sochi incursion to bring it back next year for the short session, and to fix the conflict. So so we're going to continue to have that fight here. But it's, it's, it's gonna be a relic of the past. So tell me why you think what Roy Moore is going to get reelected. But he's never gotten elected. He's going to get elected. Oh, sorry. Well, the reasons why he's going to get elected is because he's been elected multiple times to be they like their Supreme Court and Alabama, he's been elected at least twice or three times. So he's got experience winning state elections. And he, at the time, he lost a special election. The anti Trump fear was at its height. Okay. And the meteor movement was with fighting justice, Department of Justice, cabinet cabinet, was at its height, all those things have subsided, right. And those things are old news. So when you bring a news story about 20 to 20 rolls around, that's old news. And he's already had to beat that back. And he's just come simply respond to say, dare you people go again. There you go again. And then what makes it different now is he's got three years of Doug Jones to run against his record. And Doug Jones is trying to walk every type of tightrope he can find to represent a conservative state, and trying to be loyal to the Democratic Caucus. He's a member of so he's he's taken some tough votes on some things. And he's alienated some people in the three years, a good campaign strategist will illuminate those things. And I can assure you that Roy Moore has great campaign strategies that will illuminate how he's out of step with Alabama. And if Trump gets reelected, which its economy doesn't turn south, he's likely get reelected. If that if he has any kind of type of coattails at all. It shouldn't be any trouble for Roy board to make up those 22,000 votes he lost by in the special election in 2017. So I think the odds are, if he gets the Republican nomination, and he's the nominee of the party is very likely he would win the statewide election. They will do everything in the party ticket could prevent him from getting the nomination because President has has stated that he doesn't think he should be the candidate. They can't win

Andy  27:07  
on the back end when he ran before, though.

Larry  27:09  
I'm not sure if he did. I don't think he did. I think he he backed the interim appointee. I think the President back back to him. But But say I find it ironic that we're doing a podcast on but I think it's I'm a political junkie. So I can't I can't resist talking about politics. If you open that door, I'm going to do it. But I think it's ironic that the President would say someone can't win when he won with more credible allegations of his own admission, on the access hollywood tape the he had done those things. Now I'm only taking him at his word that he had done those things. And then he had accuser step out. Dozens of them saying yes, he had done those things. And despite all the pundits say he couldn't win. He did win. Yep. So for the President to say that a person can't win that said allegations Roy Morris allegations are 40 plus years ago, 40 plus years ago, and there was no tape of Roy boss saying I did these things because I can. And yet, Roy Moore, if he's analyzing this, he would be looking at it and saying, well, gee, if the president can't win, admitting that he's done these things, and having dozens of accusers come forward, and I've only had a couple come forward 40 years ago, it was sad. The reason that I can win as well, that's that would be his analysis. All right. So he would be big fuddled, he would be totally befuddled at the President's calling for him to step aside. Because he would say, well, gee, if he went I cannot.

Andy  28:28  
Right, right. Well, okay, now we know we have to close that door and move on.

Unknown Speaker  28:34  
So you talk about politics. I love it.

Andy  28:36  
I know. I know. The next article comes from Penn live com. And this is chalkboard found on a repairman excuse me, child porn found by repairman can be used to prosecute computers owner split, Pennsylvania Supreme Court says. So a guy has a computer and drops it off at the local repair shop, they find some not so appropriate material, and they turn them in and that can be used to prosecute the guy. I mean, I know of a case here in Georgia, I'm almost positive that that's how this went down. But isn't there's something in here about them using the the repair shop as an agent of the state?

Larry  29:12  
Well, I didn't read the opinion, you you had been loaded down with stuff too. But, but, but I'm assuming that that's what it was about it. So any listener that did read the opinion can feel free to help us next week? If we got it all wrong, but but you have, you have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, under the Constitution. So searches that take place have to be reasonable. Well, clearly a search, when you take your computer in for repair, you would have reason to believe they're going to search to try to find the problem. I mean, that goes without saying, right?

Andy  29:46  
Sort of but I mean, you don't have to go scan the whole hard drive looking for images that say, you know, the kitty naughty pictures. I mean, you're not looking for that

Larry  29:57  
framework to go somewhere. That's so you would assume that someone's going to look at the computer, if you take it in for repair, right? Yeah, you can send in kinda to search if I hate your my wallet, until you tell you tell you that it's broken. And there's stuff in there and you're going to put stitches on it, you probably got a thumb through it, make sure you have it out. So you and you're probably gonna, if I have some pictures of know, you're probably gonna say, Well, he's got a hot girlfriend or hot boyfriend or whatever I mean, don't. So it stands to reason. If you turn your computer over to someone, they might actually see something on it. But then comes the question, when they saw the something on it, what did they do? Well, I'm concerned citizen, and many states has an obligation to report that I mean, we've we've passed all these laws around the country that you have a duty to report on child abuse, and you know, so so it not knowing what the what the duties were to report. I can't opine on that. But if it once it was reported, the question would be that I don't have the answer would be would be, what did what did the What did the law enforcement do to establish the probable cause? Because remember, the no search without probable cause? So at some point, law enforcement notified that we've got this computer and it's got this contraband on it? Did law enforcement, go down to a judge and say, we've been notified by Jeff's Computer Repair, that there's a computer that needs for us to search it to find? If did they? Did they go get a warrant? Or did they go pick up the computer and search it? And then go get the warrant? Which what was the order of when they got a warrant? Or did they even get a warrant at all? Right? Okay.

Andy  31:35  
Okay. And they're like, I think you were just saying, There's no probable cause he made, you know, it's possible, he didn't know it was on there, there are ways that you would end up with this stuff on your computer without you knowing. And so he just drops it off, because he's infected with a bunch of viruses, which could have happened in the process of him getting infected with things and then child porn ends up on his computer, he could be innocent of the crime to begin with. And he tries to get it fixed by someone with experience at this and ends up getting 13 years of probation, six months in prison, 13 years of probation.

Larry  32:07  
Well, and say, was my lack of technical expertise. I don't understand all the stuff about having a not knowing you've got it, you know, to the average layperson doesn't know, we assume that anything's our computer, we put it there. And it's probably a wrong assumption. But I'm more concerned about the legal part. I know, when the repairman solved the contraband and reported to the police, I don't find a particular fault with that. What did the police do is what I'm more interested in? Did they go to the office or sit down and write an affidavit saying that I was notified by Jeff's Computer Repair, that there was these images? And that they go ask for permission to search the computer to a more thorough detail, for instance? Or did they go pick up the computer? And just say, Thank you, Jeff, let me have it, and then they go look at it, and then prosecute him was out having a warrant? Or did they get a warrant based on what they found with the forensic search after the private party turn turned the computer over to them? And my humble opinion, they should have sought award based on the report they received from the source of the computer store, I think most most judges would have upheld that as a sufficient probable cause if a repair person is in the business of repairing computers, says I have found porn, I think that would that would be enough of a probable cause to justify board depth analysis and search. So I think that's for sure probable cause for the warrant. And then when you have the warrant, based upon probable cause you find the contraband, then you're in a much shorter position. But since I didn't read the case, I don't know how this all unfolded. It does say what a bit alright, well, that would be a right way to do it.

Andy  33:42  
It will just say a critical point, Justice max bear wrote in the High Courts majority opinion is that the porn was discovered by a private individual, not by law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment only governs searches conducted by agents of the government bear stressed, do you not know that the Fourth Amendment protections against the computer guy searching your computer?

Larry  33:59  
Well, I don't I don't agree with that. I would have to read the opinion. Okay. I agree with it, that it's technically correct. But once the law enforcement was called, I'm assuming that the law enforcement didn't just have a Geiger counter that was going on. And they thought that there was Cormac assume they got a report, that would have been sufficient, in my opinion, to get probable cause to get the warrant to search his computer. So the fact that it was a private party to me is not as significant because the report came in, you go get your warrant based on that, that constitutes your probable cause. If that was not done, then I have a real problem with it. Because we we converted the person in the private sector to be an agent of the state and a part of the prosecution team. And we never bothered to go to court to get to establish before a judge that was probable cause. So that search was unreasonable. It was not a reasonable search, because it was done by private party like probable cause, which are only protected, but from the state from probable cause searches. But then that material was turned over to the state at a prosecution and sued based on a search that did not have probable cause. And you you effectively death, but deputize that person it made them an agent of the state? I don't like it. But since I haven't read the decision, I don't know all the nuances. That's cool. What we could we could probably bring this up again next week, because then I'll know which which way it went in terms of the technician, as I say weren't wasn't looking for anything, just trying to fix the computer. Sure.

Andy  35:29  
I'm still kind of puzzled as to how he like he says he was copying data from A to B and how you, you I mean, to the unless the file names said, Kitty's doing naughty things. The files copied at thousands per second, you wouldn't be watching something happen?

Larry  35:45  
Well, I felt it was kind of an extension on files that were that would tell that will give you a close to what time that type of I've heard people

Andy  35:51  
Yeah, no, no, you would see a JPEG. So a JPEG could be a picture of you and your family at the beach. It could also be kids doing naughty things. So it just says jpg. The difference. It just says

Larry  36:00  
there's no unique extend, or, you

Andy  36:03  
know, there's no porn extender. So let's move over to this reason article says why we shouldn't treat serve, treat survivors and victims as authorities on policy issue. And I, you know, we're not going to spend a whole lot of time here because we still have a mountain to go over. But just because you're the victim of a crime. Does that mean you're an expert on crime victimization? I don't think that that's that's a true statement.

Larry  36:26  
I think you've heard me say that on several issues, additions of the podcast that reject that theory. And I think that we should challenge it more as advocates. We should I mean, the victims advocates come in, they bring victims and they parade them through and they whine and they cry and they bail or they do all the things whatever white way I can describe it. But that does not make you an expert. I grew up in the foster care system. Am I an expert? No, I have some knowledge about foster care and things that were going wrong in the 1960s are still probably going wrong today. But I'm not an expert on the system to sit because I went through it from age eight, age 17 when I when I when I decided to extract myself from the system. But but we've we somehow decided that if you've been a victim of a crime, you are an expert, and you're an expert in absolutely nothing other than whatever you're an expert in in your life. But you don't know anything about supposed to search and seizure. You don't know anything about the rules of evidence. You don't know anything about forensics. You don't know anything about due process.

Andy  37:21  
You are certainly a

Unknown Speaker  37:23  
Confrontation Clause.

Andy  37:24  
Yeah, you certainly experienced at your issue, like you were the victim and you have a certain amount of experience with it. But that doesn't mean you're an expert on what

Larry  37:32  
you saw. But someone broke into your house and Milla night, and they put a nasty rag over your mouth, and you had difficulty breathing. And they and they did where they did to you personally or they took all your belongings and they ransacked your place. You know, you know that? Yeah. But that's all you actually know. Right. But that doesn't make you an expert. You don't know anything about how the process works, what that person is accused of the presumptions that they're entitled to, and how they're getting was to be treated, and how we're going to try to put that person in a cage that you figured. And you don't understand that putting someone in a cage is a significant deprivation of their liberty, and we have to make sure we get this right. That's not your concern. Your concern is that you were harmed, and you want somebody to pay and you have to pay holder you want them to pay. And that's a natural emotion, wanting someone to pay.

Andy  38:23  
And somehow we have to pull that back and go, yes, I'm sorry that you had this happen? And can can we can we also have the conversation of how can we help them recover from that, but at the same time, still put up a wall there that says you're still trying to take away this person's liberty and put them in a cage? Can we still is that splitting the fence? Is that having both conversation simultaneously? Is that okay?

Larry  38:48  
I think it's okay. I think I think if we listen to people, once they get once I get the person put in the cage looks the desk. It doesn't give them the closure they were looking for it doesn't make them whole been the person put in a cage if they're truly violent and dangerous. It does do one thing, it does keep them from being able to, to inflict harm on the general population not mean that I'll have to concede if you're caged, you're not gonna be able to inflict harm on the general population, you might be able to inflict harm in the in the social population, but on the general population, but that doesn't make you whole. If you suffered psychological trauma, that doesn't make you whole. Sure. If you suffer an economic loss, that doesn't make you whole, certainly. And if you suffer physical harm, that doesn't make you whole, and people suffer all those things in criminal criminal conduct. They suffer psychological harm, physical harm and economic harm. Absolutely. All the time. You'd be you'd be nutty. If you if you minimize the how criminality harms people. The goal of society should be to try to prevent recidivism, for those who have committed crimes, and try to figure out how to divert people from committing crimes to begin with. And then we don't have those people who have to be made whole or we don't is many of them. I mean, that, to me, like seems to be a more rational approach. This week, we try to address the core causes of criminality, which is not just so simplistic, it's just a mean person. There are so many people out there who who don't want to play by the rules. But there are other reasons for crime, other than just mean people.

Andy  40:18  
Yeah, there was there was a cat that will live next to me for a while. And the reason why he was locked up was because he was addicted to whatever was opiate, opioids, whatever, whether it was heroin, meth, whatever. And he needed to go rob a grocery store or convenience store so he could get somebody to get us next it. That's how he ended up in prison.

Larry  40:37  
He should have thought about that before it became addicted.

Andy  40:39  
Yes, the problem. The only problem with that there is a lot of people became addicted to opioids at the hands of physicians. That is correct. Also, that is this is coming out turning out to be very, very, very similar to the master settlement agreement of the tobacco companies. What was that in the 90s? Or was that even in the 80s?

Larry  40:55  
The 90s? Yeah,

Andy  40:57  
so this is going to come down. It's just like it. Our next that's an interesting, interesting observation I had I hadn't thought of that. It's, it's exactly like if they were pushing it, they would you know, they knew how addictive it was. They knew what the ramifications were, and they were totally downplaying it, it's going to be exactly like and I used to work for big tobacco. So it became of interest to me to understand what the NSA was ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email, registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message to 7472 to 74477. Want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon. com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast, we want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed, you make it possible. Moving over to an article from the crime report legal aid for inmates compassionate release. And I'll just again, this is going to be a quickie. But it says people who can barely make it out of the beds in the morning should not have to go into court alone against the largest law firm in the nation, which would be the the criminal justice system. And we just have a good Jillian people's that they're aging in prison. And they're trying to get out because maybe they're you know, they're they're almost done. What what's the hospice care, they're almost to that level there. They're short term like the windows closing. And they have to then file all kinds of paperwork and processes to try and get out. And we're now let's just leave them locked up later, it'd be it'd be better for us, I don't see a problem. We should just move on

Larry  42:50  
next article through this article in here, because it will tie into the delegation that we're going to talk about later. And the reason I put it in here is because when when you pass a broad public policy, oftentimes you can't get into the nuances of the details. And there has to be a delegation of of what you want done as a public policy as a public policy. The feds and many states our state has, I believe our state house and I don't think anybody ever gets it. So it's so it's so rare that that that I came aside to statutory section of our of our state code that allows it but I know the Fed federal system has that and no one gets this release, because the administrative guidelines that they've that they've put in place, and the fear that they have of adverse ramifications from a political point of view that they status, don't grantees, but it would be impossible, almost impossible for the Congress to mandate by statute, who to release because a they have not been monitoring the prisoners for their 10 2030 Years Day One they've been there. They don't have all the new offices downtown. What what what medical informatics would be of what I mean, you can make a broad proclamation that if they have physical limitations, that make their mobility difficult or something like that, but how do you make the determination of who qualifies and what the process is for them to be released? Well, that was delegated to the Bureau of Prisons. And the case of the Federal of the bureau presence has a process under the Obama administration. And I think that the trend, the trend has continued under the Trump administration that no one's being granted compassionate release. When I Congress, although they can't micromanage it, they can go back and they can provide more clarity that that what we want people released it meet this criteria be a little bit more clear. But again, they're going to have to delegate it back to the bureau presidents for implementation. The Congress is not going to personally manage who gets out of federal prison early and take the applications and have a congressional staffer do that it's going to be back to be your presence delegated for implementation. So I threw it in there just kind of building delegation is necessary.

Andy  45:02  
Yeah, I just so so you don't want Congress every year to have to go figure out what the scope is of figuring out who should get compassionate release the that's not an efficient way to handle it.

Larry  45:12  
That could never be an efficient way to handle. You got you got to nearly 200,000 people in the federal prison system. And I don't know how many of them are aged individuals who have medical information, she couldn't have Congress decide, on a case by case basis, who's going to get out. You brought up earlier today, people with HIV that maybe even 10 years ago, at least 20 years ago, or at most 20 years ago, like it was a death sentence you were going down and down. It's there's almost an imperceptible amount of time difference that you're going to live with all the drugs that they have available. Absolutely. Well, the reason I brought that up is because people who are wanting the demolition of the administrative state, a lot of them would be very distressed when it actually happened because their programs very vital programs like social security disability. And and there was a time when was was a presumptive disability, they have to have the listing listing impairments and there's there's there's some that are presumptive finding a disabled, if you have that impairment than they have, they have discretion on combining the the the effect of a combination of impairments to come up with a residual functional capacity, whether a person is able to engage in substantial gainful activity, the Congress there again, cannot determine who's disabled. They made the broad proclamation that people who have a significant mental physical disability that that prevents them from engaging a substantial gainful activity for 12 months or more orgs are expected result in their death. they're entitled to payments if they have worked enough to have the credit sent to the Social Security system. The Social Security Administration is tasked with figuring out what that list of impairments are adjusting that list to reflect diagnostic improvements in treatment, treatment improves and evolves aids a be a good example of that. things that weren't treated. Just think about back in the Civil War times. Think of it on the battlefield, the Civil War, think about how many things that that killed people in Civil War battles. That would be laughable and Vietnam, pretty much everything that because was

Andy  47:10  
medical a battlefield? Yeah.

Larry  47:13  
All right. So so as society evolves, that there will be things that we consider to be disabling today that will look at it. So one thought that wasn't really as disabling as we thought it was. And they'll be things that that I diagnosis that we've never heard of today. I mean, whoever heard of COPD 20 years ago, 25 years ago,

Andy  47:32  
well hang on, can we back up? What was it like in the Civil War, then how did you make it without getting any sort of mortal injuries? Well, you didn't make it if you got what you had. You had to know people.

Larry  47:45  
Well, why did I was the deputy secretary of under sector staff. But But, but but if you if you got injured in those days, you were likely to die at and well, will age you got it back in the 80s you were likely to die. And so the evolution of treatment now aids can be can be, you can go into remission, and you can live a fairly normal life for with that. So it's no longer presumptive disability. And so there again, Congress could not make all the adjustments. They could do it, but it would be so painfully slow that you died before you ever got your bed.

Andy  48:20  
Yeah, I was just going to bring up like, suppose they had to actually delegate out or excuse me to legislate out which flu vaccine they were going to administer each year, that by the time Congress rolled around voting for that flu season would be over and we would be getting the flu vaccine from the previous and that wouldn't help at all.

Larry  48:38  
That is correct. I mean, people who want the demolition, administrative state, it's clear what they want. They they would not want, they would they would pretend like they're not trying to get rid of the Veterans Disability Determination process. They wouldn't be trying to get rid of social security disability, they would be wanting to get rid of things like OSHA and the EPA and there are certain things that that that there's that there's a sites are settled if they'd like and I'd like to get rid of some things I'd like to see the TSA go away right I got fumbled and groped and summaries another always set off every alarm no matter how how much I strip it out. I go through and I get my hands scammed and and and I go through this every single day.

Andy  49:18  
And you wait like a bucket of fire. It's not like you're a big dude, like, hide shit places.

Larry  49:23  
And so I would like to see the TSA go away. But it's not likely to happen in my lifetime. And and they would they would need to be here. And I'm not saying I wouldn't want some sort of screening process. But I think this is a whole bunch of Kabuki. They fondling they grow passengers for no reason. They never find anything but they find will grow up tell everybody who's listen to this podcast. If you've had a pat down, I want you to tell us if you actually had anything more than you forgot a quarter in your pocket or something or tissue, something. But have you ever had anything pulled out of your person and put on the table that would have constituted a threat to aviation security? You would be able to say that you have and or would you have ever seen anybody who has when I see people pull things out of their pocket where they've had their pat down and they do all that they turn their pockets inside out to had a handkerchief and there was I forgot about Yeah. Or they have their bunched up underwear, like which I typically have and and they see that. But but so yes, but the administrative state is not going to go away. We could run government. Yeah, we could not do the things that people expect to do without having without having delegation of administrative responsibility.

Andy  50:30  
Our super patron that I referenced earlier, he said in an article that comes out of Florida, it says Fort Lauderdale relaxes restrictions on where sex offenders can live the sounds like some some good news for our people that there's an article there's a paragraph that says the change will expand the available housing for convicted offenders from 1.4% of the city to 15.3%. That's a huge jump. It's still a very small amount of places that they can live. But that's a gigantic jump.

Larry  50:58  
It is and then there was a couple of citizens that spoke in favor of expanding it to make it no greater than state law, which is 1000 feet. And so this

Andy  51:08  
is this is an area that has a an extra buffer zone of 1400 feet now that they can't live instead of the state being 1000.

Larry  51:18  
Yes, is that a meeting to Michael to Reza residents parties Cummings and and Wiley both expressed or concern that the Lord still doesn't do enough still isn't enough. And it says the comics reminded that changing the words to 1000 feet would open up one third of the city. So now that would rather than have 50%, they would have a one third to see, right. But one of the commissioner said we're trying to strike a balance, there is a balance to strike people in America should be able to live wherever they want to particularly after they've paid their debt to society will concede while you're paying your debt to society. Sometimes you pay your debt to society, but inside a cage, and we certainly decide where you're living them. And when you're paying your debt to society in the community, we can have a significant say for where you live, but in the United States, you should be able to live anywhere that anybody can live after you've paid your debt. If you can afford to live there, you should not be impaired by restrictions.

Andy  52:19  
And is that government restrictions? Or does that even move over to the civilian sector of background checks and things of that nature?

Larry  52:26  
Well, now we're getting into a new debate about whether whether an apartment complex should be able to to deny residency, in terms of the residence you would own I think there's an unequivocal you should be able to own a residence anywhere that you can afford. All right, right. In terms of when you're when you're renting, when you're renting, you've brought another party into play that has a responsibility for the community. And having held that responsibility, it's a significant responsibility because of the legalities of what happens. So I'm not advocating that they'd be blanket discrimination. But I'm telling you that as a manager of a business, that you have a lot of existing case law in terms of negligent hiring when you're hard people, and there's case law about apartments have ready to people without doing the most rudimentary check where they could have obviously an older particular characteristic of a person. And those apartment owners have lost. They've lost, they've lost a loss. Oh,

Andy  53:20  
ok. So the community brought up a charge against the business owner and the property manager should have known who was living there and they found them negligent.

Larry  53:31  
Yes, I should have known this person had this. You run into a cat work or you do that person just got out of prison for cat burglary. And and and why did you turn that personal loose on us? What it does back the question, though, if they've paid their debt to society, and society has reiterated them, should the apartment owners should should they be shielded from liability? You can't have it both ways. If you're going to hold a blob? Well, it seems like to me that that you have to give them some latitude.

Andy  53:59  
Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. I think I skipped over the article from on the media. There was a there was a podcast, it was what they call their podcast extra. And this is like a 20 minute listen. It was very, very interesting. But I'm sure almost all of us I can't imagine anybody hasn't at the show's been running for 30 years. It says what running from cops learned from cops. So the TV show cops, you know, Bad boys, bad boys. There's a guy like watched, I think every episode, and did some statistics to compare real world from what we are proceeding on the TV show cops, they are totally heightening the the drama out of it. They've got different police forces, they are actually like declining to sign a contract with the TV show because they are being asked to heighten the tension. And then the statistics, the ratios of who's getting arrested or chased and all that stuff. It is not in line with what we actually know to be the real deal in reality. And I wanted to point it out. So like I said, it happened that came out on June 12. So go back a couple weeks and check out this episode. And I think you'll find it interesting. And it's a good listen.

Larry  55:07  
Oh, that. So that's your assignment. So every every listener of the podcast will follow written report.

Andy  55:13  
There you go. Yeah, I'll be I'll be looking for those emails and whatnot, about cops.

Larry  55:19  
And they will be graded. thoroughly read a graded?

Andy  55:23  
Well, let's see here. So we can go over? I think we can go over to the Colorado decision. Since we just flipped the tape. Are we ready to get there yet?

Larry  55:33  
We can do that. Sure. Excellent. We have two decisions out of Colorado, we're only going to touch on one because like I had not enough time to prepare on the other one. And I don't think from what I did read, it's going to really have the effect initially that people would be hoping for.

Andy  55:46  
Can you tell us who is in the plaintiffs and who is the defendant?

Larry  55:52  
In which case,

Andy  55:53  
the one that we're going to cover? I want to make sure I have the right article? We're going to cover

Larry  55:56  
Yeah, so we're doing we're doing the petitioner TV.

Andy  56:01  
Good, good. Good. I have that one pulled up. So this one is people in the interest of TB juvenile or excuse me, juvenile delinquency, sexual exploitation, exploitation of a child statute, erotic nudity. Wow, that is a very salacious title there.

Larry  56:17  
Yes. And I tried to highlight it, but for some reason, reason. The highlighter was skipping and just highlighting just letters and each paragraph. So I ended up end up after I read about half of it, I ended up taking the old fashioned yellow highlighter and started highlighting by hand. But I but I'll go back to the rest of it. And I'll do a scan of it. So you can have by highlights but it was a it was a fascinating read for me. And I know the legal beagles will enjoy it. And it's a good it's a good case about this was the textual interpretation of the Colorado law. And so so if this is any indication of the Colorado Supreme Court, they did. They did consistent with the Nebraska Supreme Court did an on the on the juvenile been convicted in Colorado and moved to Nebraska. The he argued that he should be exempt from registration because juveniles convicted arrest are exempt. And they said, well, by golly, we look at this statute that says you are a person, aren't you? You are educated of a sex offense, aren't you? Right? You did move to Nebraska from a state you were required to register in that state, weren't you? Well, you sure seemed like you're covered us? Well, this is a this is a very close comparison. This is a person who the guy was a juvenile and TB. And he went to a camp or there was a hand gate. He he bought some some some girls that he took an interest in. Yeah, they traded phone numbers. And he started, he started texting and he sent a picture of his job. And his job was directed when he sent a picture. And then he persuaded THROUGH THROUGH THROUGH through the course of time to send pictures of themselves in various stages of undress. And he got arrested for a sexual offense, which he ultimately was acquitted of committing that sexual offense. But in the process of investigation, when they found his phone, they found the pictures that he should have had. And he had pictures of their junk and of his job. And so he got he got convicted. And he argued, he put forth a whole litany of arguments and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the lower court that that they thought develop bowling pins, they he didn't. He didn't have anything that was that was compelling to them. And he he tried to say, well, as a juvenile, I can't be the victim here, Robin, I'm possessing a picture of myself. That does. And I said what they said, well, though it does say a person you are a person, right? You are possessing an image of a minor, right? Yes. Well, you're covered.

Andy  59:01  
I can't help but bring up the three ish years ago where the whole High School was trading pictures of each other. And the DA didn't process I realized the DEA didn't prosecute. So there was no reason that it would ever gotten to the Supreme Court. But they chose to not prosecute because the count the the city, the townspeople would have like torch the place. This is the same thing.

Larry  59:21  
Well, except for it isn't. They didn't prosecute because of public pressure. But that's that's a that's a decision a prosecutor can make but they're not required not to prosecute something, but the laws be broken. They put they put their hand on that Bible and they say they're going to

Andy  59:36  
do this is the exact same thing, just one got prosecuted because of No pressure. The other one did get prosecuted because of pressure.

Larry  59:44  
Well, I don't understand what you're saying, a prosecutor who likes to prosecute for whatever the reasons are, as well, then there's sound judgment to do at a prosecutor who likes to prosecute, because that's what they're swore to do. That's what their sound judgment. I don't understand the point you're making.

Andy  59:58  
But I, I think simply we have an unequal level of treatment here that one group didn't get prosecuted for the same thing, because one group was active in in lobbying against it. And the other person, this particular case, didn't have the same lobbying efforts. So it's unfair treatment. It's not equal.

Unknown Speaker  1:00:17  
Well, whoever said that the law has to be

Larry  1:00:23  
but but that day, you had massive you had that was a situation where you involved a dozen or more a couple of dozen, maybe third down remember it was it was a lot more students where you had massive public, this is not a massive this is this is a case of one, one person? Yes, a 15 year old boy who met a 717 year old, eh and 15 year old lb at the Future Farmers of America conference. And he sent a picture of his junk to them and he got them to send pictures of their junk to him. Yes. And he was in he was in possession of junk, and he was not allowed to be able to Colorado law did not allow him to possess, it says, a person commit sexual exploitation of child our child if, if he or she normally possesses or controls any sexual exploited material for any purpose, including the day going to define that? Yes, he can't, he can't possess pictures. The statute defines sexual exploits material to include any photograph that depicts a child engaged in participating in observing are being used for explicit sexual conduct. And erotic nudity is the display of the human male or female genitals in a public area. He's clearly in violation of the law there. But he's a junior, and well, but they didn't exempt the juveniles, you're one of the legislature's to legislate the court to come in and do what the legislature could have done, and maybe should have done and the interest of public policy and what we did do at our state. But that's not the courts job to come in and save you from bad public policy choices. Now, in fairness to the Colorado, they have actually amended that statute since then, since his conduct occurred, they've actually I made it a civil infraction, and they have various levels of infraction where it can become criminal, but it never does get better than a misdemeanor. For juveniles, it's over 14 and the person who their sex in with us within four years of their of their of their age. But that wasn't the law at the time. We're not in the world the way it should be. It's the way it is. And the law at the time, the court is obligated to follow the law at the time the legislature could have where they changed, the law could have made it retroactive, they didn't do that.

Andy  1:02:28  
Does this individual then get any relief if they've amended the law? ex post facto I don't think right term, but that's the only one I know at the moment,

Larry  1:02:37  
not through the courts. So the there may be some some there may be some remedy through through executive clemency out of Colorado processes if it goes through the governor or if there's a through any system, but through the courts. The courts can't in it can't come in and substitute their judgment. Andy, that's judicial activism. We don't want that to me. Well, we pretend we don't. But I'm finding out more and more as I do this podcast that we actually do want that I get a lot of hate mail saying, Larry, I don't understand. That's exactly what the courts are supposed to do. And I said, Well, I thought it was just the opposite. I thought the courts were supposed to interpret the law, not to make it.

Andy  1:03:15  
I am amazed at how split brain people are depending on what the issue is on whether they want something or they don't want something just depending on where the issue false.

Larry  1:03:25  
Well, that's part of what we're doing on this podcast. We're trying to provoke thought, yes, we're trying to provoke people to take a look inward and see if they really offer what they think therefore. Because if you want if you don't want judicial activism, this court did exactly what you would want them to do was to be restraint and to defer restraint and they've deferred to the to the will of the people is expressed with like two representatives.

Andy  1:03:48  
Well, so can we can we move it over into your wheelhouse? Larry, and I'm pretty sure that in your state, you guys have situated it so that June, June vials, as you like to call them? They can't be processing commuted for these kinds of crimes.

Larry  1:04:02  
That is correct. That's only been since 2016. But yes,

Andy  1:04:04  
oh, just a couple of years. And but then we need our people, our advocates, etc, to to go around to their specific states and try to push for these policies to be changed at their own state level so that we don't end up with TB and eh, and Ts and whatever all their initials are, so that they don't end up going down this path to

Larry  1:04:25  
that is that is correct. It says it's a tough way to go because your attorney general of the state and ours happens to be a democrat named Hector Bell, Doris, he fought tooth and nail against and he opened the door Oh, yes. He fought tooth and nail and a very fine republican senator lost her seat over that she helped us on that. She was she's also in her day job as a defense attorney because the legislature is already a part time gig without salary. But she she lost her. She lost her seat over that, because when the Attorney General's delegation was going to go to the floor as an expert witness, there was always that that objection, the sponsor, the bill would like to introduce this expert witness. And usually there is no objection. But she raised her hand and said that she had an objection that the attorney general's representative had not been particularly productive and negotiations on this legislation. Well, he retaliated. Afterwards, I went after her with everything from For me it was it would take up the entire podcast, but but the Attorney General went after her, she lost her seat. And then he's been trying in vain, so far to change it, because it's opening up the door to all this abuse of juveniles and exploitation. And it's just a dangerous thing that we've done here.

Andy  1:05:35  
I'm kind of baffled. My kid is 12. And he has had a, he gets hand me down phones, and everybody's got the top end phones. So he gets a year or two old phone. And he's got a highly capable phone that he can use internet, he can take pictures, he has no idea what's going on. He's very naive and innocent in that regard, as far as I know. And it just doesn't seem like it would be at all difficult for him to take that Cameron pointed in his junk and take a picture and send it to his latest new girlfriend that he will not admit that he has. And next thing you know, somebody's mom and dad, somebody lets loose that, that they have the pictures of my kids going off to prison

Larry  1:06:13  
to prison, but it would be a hellacious encounter. And that's what we sought to stop here. Because the prosecutors will use this power, they have that trust me, it got used in TVs case it will get used. If they have it, you have to take this power away from them. You cannot trust them to only do the cases because all cases can have potential to be prosecuted. If the laws on the books is just as a viable argument to Vegas, I've been charged with enforcing the law. I don't make them. It's not my prerogative, I swear on the Bible, I was going to do it. And by golly, they brought me this case I'm going to prosecute it.

Andy  1:06:46  
And it just doesn't I don't feel that that is using the example I just laid out for my kid, I don't see how that improves public safety to any degree.

Larry  1:06:58  
Well, why does the law have to improve upon safety? Ah, where's that? Where's that?

Andy  1:07:03  
I get? I'm thinking in the broader context of what the registry is, and all this stuff is that we are interested in having a safer public. So what would be what would be the point of prosecuting a 12 year old or 15 year old or however old TV is in this case? What are you actually trying to achieve by putting this get on the registry?

Larry  1:07:22  
Well, we don't know that he's on the registry. I don't think he has but what you're what what they would argue they're trying to achieve as a deterrent. We don't want kids doing this because it's it's so detrimental. And the long term minute Sonic Sonic the interest of our healthy of our health of our children for them to be doing this? and by golly, we got to be I don't agree with it. That's the argument they make. And it's best because I say something people? Well, that's his position. No, that's not my position. And in one regard, I'm like Scalia, I just simply tell you, that this is what they're arguing. And they believe in their arguments. And and will mistake our advocates to make is you somehow demonize people who have a different viewpoint than you. And therefore you can engage with them. And and you need to talk to Hector builders as people to figure out why us rigid view that he says, well, but maybe it would only be the rarest of cases, we would prosecute, we need that power, we need to find out what those rare cases would look like, how we would etch that into the statutory scheme to make it clear that only those would be would be available for prosecution. And I would tell Hector, that if I had the conversation with him, frankly, I don't trust the attorney general's office to have that discussion. So tell me what those heinous cases are. And tell me how we would. So we have a structure so that that you would not be able to prosecute anything other than the most heinous cases. But if you're not willing to have the dialogue, you can't get to the policy, you end up talking past each other. Hackers telling us society is going to hell because we're not prosecuting juveniles. And we're not having a conversation with him about should Is there any Everson situation where juvenile should be prosecuted? I can't think of one but i'm open minded to hear it.

Andy  1:09:04  
It doesn't. This also then slapped the face in the delegation piece that you are like so. So on one hand, somebody saying that the the prosecutor should have the discretion to pick and choose. But by that same token, you're turning around and going the other direction and saying that we're going to tailor the law to such a degree that the prosecutor has no choice but to not prosecute these cases, they don't have the tool?

Larry  1:09:25  
Well, this is not a crime for this, you have to do it. I mean, that doesn't sound perfect the legislature, we get to decide what the crimes are the day to day Attorney General doesn't get to decide that.

Andy  1:09:32  
So you so tailoring a law to keep the prosecutor from doing something and that's in the executive branch. Doesn't that also go kind of along the lines of what the Gundy cases about? No, it does not why

Larry  1:09:46  
the legislature gets to decide what's against the law,

Andy  1:09:49  
but not how to, to administer what is within their their framework.

Larry  1:09:54  
I'm not saying that we decided this not against the law for for juvenile sex that's within the sound purview of the legislature to decide that.

Andy  1:10:03  
Okay, I see where I'm confused, then. I gotcha. I do. I do I do. Interesting.

Larry  1:10:07  
Okay, we can decide that something that's against the law today can be that's how that's why we're having a dope legalization debate. It's illegal to possess marijuana in most states. What is it that 10 or whatever is? Yeah, the remaining the remaining 40 can decide that it's no longer against the law, they get to decide that not the police, not the Attorney General. The people through their elected representatives get to decide what's against the law, we decided that juvenile sexting is not against the law in the state of New Mexico.

Andy  1:10:33  
But as soon as it's an 18 year old and a 17 year old, or what's the Is there a age gap thing

Larry  1:10:39  
on an age gap, but saying that if you're not a juvenile, you can't you can't, okay, you can't be texting, you can't be can't be possessing a send a job to to a to a minor if you're if you're if you're not a minor.

Andy  1:10:51  
So by one day, the 18 year old and a 17 year old boyfriend, girlfriend now that what they've been doing is illegal now. Okay. Hang on, Larry. Suppose you still have pictures, there's of your junk when you turn 18 of your 17 year old junk? I don't

Larry  1:11:05  
know. We'll have to wait. Scalia says we'll have to wait to see what that case comes. Interesting. Okay. Without weight is like, I mean,

Andy  1:11:14  
so you experiment, you take pictures, your junk, as soon as you turn 18 you have to go through some massive cleansing of all of your equipment to make sure that you don't have any

Larry  1:11:22  
question came up. And I got that doubt that question came up during the debate. I've never considered it. I doubt any 16 year old came in and said, Well, why I could do it. Now. I can sext all what to do I have to get rid of my pictures when I turned 18? I don't think that that question arose? I would have ever thought of

Andy  1:11:38  
it. No, nobody would have but I was like, yeah, and and that goes to one of the other fundamental purposes of this podcast, is that's why we have to be it represented at the state level to to help craft these laws.

Larry  1:11:54  
That's correct. You have to be participating and raising the scenarios that no one would think of, as a prosecutor will say, we would never prosecute that. But but but we don't know that.

Andy  1:12:04  
And and and just to extend on that. So my kid takes pictures of his junk and then says, Hey, Mom, I'm going to the bathroom. Can you hold my phone? Somehow the situation comes up where the police now are in possession of that phone, and now you're holding a phone that has kids junk pictures on it? Oh, you're possessing

Larry  1:12:19  
your personal right.

Andy  1:12:23  
There you go again, with that?

Larry  1:12:24  
Ah, that's what the law says, doesn't it?

Andy  1:12:27  
It is it totally is. And yes, you are a person and you are in possession of and yeah, I just don't see how you out run these things. And I think that is where there would be the judicial activism that we would want to be the judge to say and the prosecutor but they should be like, come on, man. This is

Larry  1:12:43  
not really there's there's no way there's a knowing that you don't really be in possession of it. Now that sometimes that falls to the wayside with because legislators are being pressured to pass strict liability offenses. The Florida drug statute has strict liability. You don't have to know that you're possessing drugs are intended to possess drugs and porn possession, you have to you have to know exactly

Andy  1:13:05  
that session, that is the term strict liability. Is that correct? I have strict liability. Guess what the first time I heard Katherine Carpenter say that I was like, I had no idea what this term means.

Larry  1:13:17  
Well, for those who listen, listen, for the first time, straight liability is a term that refers to no state of mind required. And, and those those type of statutes are highly disfavored. There's not an exact bright line of what constitutes a word, that word where you draw the line. But but there was a general General of the Supreme Court, the United States has has held repeatedly that that the criminality requires the convergence of an evil doing mind combined with an evil moving hand. And you have to you have to intend to commit commit a crime. If you if you're driving down the road, and you're speeding, that, that, that criminality cares, very minimal consequences, you might get a couple points on your license, and you're going to pay a ticket. So there for we can have strict liability, you can say, Well, my speed numbers, but we don't care. But ours broke too bad. You're speeding. So but when you're talking about a felony conviction that's going to carry a life altering ramifications, we have to have a state of mind that you were intending to break the law and that you were doing so normally. So if you're possessing a phone that doesn't you don't know that has junk because it's not your phone. You probably couldn't meet them. It's a requirement that there be there be acknowledged that you you said, Well, I had to hand it to me, it's going to the bathroom and it was handed to me as first I've ever had the phone in my hand. I didn't know it. Jerry would probably buy it. But when you shift the burden to the to the defendant to prove that they didn't know something, that's where it goes Australia, the state is supposed to prove that you knew it. You're not supposed to have to prove you didn't know it. You see what I'm saying? And like with the Florida drug, the drug statute they've they've built in other fields, it's called an affirmative defense. You say yes, that officer did find that backpack in my car? And yes, it did have what turned out to be drugs at it. But no, I didn't know it was drugs and the burden is yours to carry that you didn't know that those were drugs. But that shouldn't be the way it is. It should be that the state has to prove a that they were drugs in the backpack which they would easily meet and be that you had intended to have drugs in the backpack. And did you do that were drugs? Yeah. All those elements should be on the state to prove you shouldn't have to prove anything. That whole bird that whole result? Yep. Burn shifting. That's what that says that's burden shift.

Andy  1:15:35  
Okay. Yeah, cuz that whole thing is flipped over of you're just like you, you exist, you're guilty.

Larry  1:15:41  
Well, and it was strictly build elephant schemes. There was a very dangerous, but it helps us get more convictions because the victims advocates will tell you we need more strict liability offices. They don't need to give a parent having to prove all these elements that's just re victimizing them all over again. Yeah.

Andy  1:15:56  
Yeah. Yeah. Ah, alright. Well, before we go into the feature feature feature segment, I want to talk about an article from the Miami Herald it says Florida sex offender population is aging, where can they live out there several years silver years. And here we go. We got we got sex offenders that have been on the registry for or excuse me, they are older, and they are living in deplorable conditions to begin with. And then they're there. They're getting old, much like you are Larry. And I'm assuming that many of the the old age homes and so forth won't take a registrant and now you've got people that need all kinds of medical attention, and there's literally no place for them to go.

Larry  1:16:37  
That tragedy of paint playing all over the country, the the when you're in Florida, you don't have any exit to register that I know of except for death. I don't think I don't think there's a process to get off the registry, Florida as you can correct us if we're wrong. But if it's a lifetime obligation with no escaping, then you're going to die on the registry. And as you go through life, you're going to degrade and health and your need more and more care and, and they're still worth for these people to go. So it's a tragedy.

Andy  1:17:05  
And it's okay that these people, obviously they committed, they were convicted of a crime that makes them the lowest of the lowest, and we should just throw them out with the garbage.

Larry  1:17:13  
Apparently so but the there was a time when we didn't think about when people needed nursing Karen, and assistance with living we didn't think about what they've done in the past. Now we've got to where we we exclude them from cemetery barrels if they've got military service, and we exclude them from public aid of needs, and we exclude them from everything, including including assisted care living, I don't I don't know what these people are supposed to do.

Andy  1:17:38  
And our and our super duper good friend Ron book that says sex crimes are sex crimes, he said, doesn't matter if they're 18 or 98. He doesn't give a rat's butt about any of this stuff. He just feels guilty and wants to turn the screws on all of our people, because his daughter was molested as a child.

Larry  1:17:59  
Oh, they committed the crime as a 98 year old, I could see where he could say that that's based in logic, but we're talking about people who have things that happened many decades ago. And you can you can have a 50 year old fence I think can be on the registry and Florida. So I if book would actually take the time to become informed which is a struggle for people who, who who make their career and talking points and flaming public opinion. But if he will take his time to be informed if he has the capacity to process information, he will understand that these these are ancient memories for many of these people.

Andy  1:18:36  
So then Gail colada down there she's the president I don't know if that's right title executive director of Florida but committee This is a humanity a human humanity issue should be a humanitarian issue said collective president of Florida Action Committee, were more concerned about stray animals than we are about people with issues that need to have medication, they need to have oxygen, they are just human beings.

Larry  1:18:57  
I've said several comments will not agree with Gail that we've we've got people who need to remember one story came up a guy needed his leaders like TriCity they was homeless and couldn't, couldn't run the What do they call the concentrator that helps them to breathe? And it's like, really, I mean, this was the compassionate America, we pat ourselves on the back. They were the most compassionate nation on planet Earth. And I sent you a clip today that said, if you don't watch any, just watch the last minute because I know four minutes would be a struggle for you to to stay tuned for something that long. But but the representative us representative made that made that comment about we we go around telling people how compassionate we are that we're most generous. And I have trouble seeing that compassion when it comes to this population. I don't see this compassion, but it was other things we have we have a severe problem with homelessness in America. And I don't see that being a priority at all. I mean, we're letting it continue to escalate in most most instances. You know, California is becoming a haven, almost like a third world country. And it's gotten so expensive that you can't afford a bathroom closet out there. And it says that way and every major city, whether it be Las Vegas, whether it be Austin was hit by New York City, whether it be Chicago, I mean, you even our city, we we estimated was about 5000 homeless here. We don't tell not

Andy  1:20:24  
their fault, they should pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

Larry  1:20:27  
Yeah, if it were only that simple.

Andy  1:20:32  
All right, let's let's dive into the deep weeds segment and this Gundy case, are you ready?

Larry  1:20:38  
I guess I'm as ready as I'll ever be. I've updated my life insurance policy.

Andy  1:20:43  
I'm going to start this off by playing a voicemail message from will and hopefully everything plays after my little power outage problem.

Unknown Speaker  1:20:51  
And we'll give it a go here.

Unknown Speaker  1:20:52  
Good evening. This is William from Tennessee. And I have a question for Larry, with regards to the recent Gundy's decision. Do you think in view of Joe C. Snyder, where the Supreme Court refused to grant cert to Michigan, that he would have gained more traction with the court? Had he focused on the ex post facto component of this sorta law as it's applied to pre act defenders? Or do you think the court would have still found another way to overturn him? Thank you, and to all you people who support this kind of monstrosity. You're such friendly young people. Good night.

Larry  1:21:36  
Are we are we ready to tackle all this, Larry? We are like say my life insurance is up to date. And I and I and I plan to go in total seclusion after this podcast for the next 30 days or so. Because I expect will be some people who will be angry that I'm not going to give them the the answers they're looking for.

Andy  1:21:53  
So right off the bat. They ruled to not they ruled not in favor of our people. And it was a five three decision with the four liberals plus one conservative justice and then the three conservative justices. dissenting

Larry  1:22:10  
answer wills question before we go into it. Yeah. Okay. So so we'll ask what would have gotten more traction? Well, unfortunately, you can only raise claims for what you have standing. And he didn't have an ex post facto claim, because there's no ex post facto application to him. He the the red is the duty to register already existed. When when he when he was convicted in Maryland, there was a duty to rage. He moved to New York and New York had a registry in 2006. All states when the Adam Walsh Act passed, all states had registry say it had him since the late 90s. So So this was not a retroactive imposition of registration obligations on Gundy. He he already had a requirement to register. So what what will ask what would he would he have gotten more traction, I don't see how he would have been able to afford it was ex post facto because the registry existed when he got convicted. There are people who would possibly have the legal standing to assert an ex post facto claim. And there are people if you look at the Alamo check, we got very, very new obstinate later in the post and the segment post podcast. There are people who grew up a vision of that emotional act, who had never been registered, that had been brought into it. Through that through that clause, they will possibly be able to assert that but this guy didn't have that standing, in my opinion, because he it wasn't applied excellence back from him. So I don't think he could have made that argument and it wouldn't have gotten any traction had he,

Andy  1:23:51  
if I may pepper off, like my rough understanding of what what has happened. So Gundy gets convicted of a sexual offense, I think in Maryland in oh five is that I think I'm in the right ballpark there. And then he moves. What?

Larry  1:24:07  
Correct me please, you're the right ball. Okay.

Andy  1:24:09  
Yes. And then then he moves to New York. And as far as I understand it, there's some form of language in all 73 states, however many there are now that say, if you are convicted of a sexual offense, you will register in the state and I know the wording is varied across the different states. So by that means there he had to register when he arrived in the destination state.

Larry  1:24:32  
That is, that is correct. Hey, New York had a registry and Marilyn had a registry. And he would have had a duty to at least present himself in New York for them to analyze whether he would have been covered by their law. He didn't do that. Then Then he was he'll go, go, go go. He was a violation of state law at the time.

Andy  1:24:53  
But what would cause what would be the mechanism that New York would have to know that he is there? Or does he just fall inside the cracks or, you know, behind the cracks, wherever, so that he can just exempt himself by

Larry  1:25:06  
moving? That's exactly what what what was happening. That was one of the things that the Adam Walsh Act saw to cure was, at the time in 2006, there was approximately half million people registered. And according to all accounts about 100,000, which constituted Jewish

of the of the offender population had exempted themselves by crossing jurisdictional boundaries. And they, the state, the person who left without Marilyn would have been happy he was gone. Once they, once they got a win win whatever method Marilyn was using and those days to verify registration information. When they determined he was still over there, they would have said, Well, good riddance. He's off doing whatever he's doing on another state. And the state that he didn't present himself in did not know he was there. So therefore, he was on track. So the US Congress had had had was the driving force behind the registries that were in existence at the time data mall shack pass, the registers in existence had been encouraged by the US Congress with a passage of the Jacob Wetterling act. And the Congress did not have the authority to register people who had been convicted in the States, arguably, they do have the authority to create a federal registry, which they haven't done. But it would only be for people who were in the federal jurisdiction, which would be the federal courts, and possibly the territories, the Indian reservations and maybe the military tribunals, but I don't but But otherwise, those who have been convicted of state law, the feds have no authority. As I've said, there are limitations on what the feds can do. But they do have the ability to offer incentives. And they've offered the states and the senate when they passed the Jacob Wetterling act. If you'll if you'll enact these registries against children, you will not lose 10% of your of your birth justice grants. And all states by the by the enactment period, the three years had done so by 1997, every state has enacted a registry. Well. And that intervening years between 1997 2006 it was discovered that people could simply exempt themselves from compliance but crossing into another state, the state they left was happy to be rid of them stay there and didn't know they were there. And I made that analogy I tried to do something people will relate to would be like what's with interstate trucking? You if you have if you have vehicle inspections, you're at your state level, your your private vehicle is only inspected by your state. But with the Interstate, when the interstate transportation, that there was a federal regulatory component because they are federal, that there's that the interstate commerce clause gives the possibility for federal oversight. So therefore, the trucks that are on this on the roads that I'm not an expert in trucking, so this is just, this is just basic stuff that I know, the trucks have drivers have limitations on how many hours they can operate continuously. And they have safety inspections they have to do and they have weight inspections, and they have all sorts of regulatory logbooks they have to keep. And that's for regulatory purposes, if simply leaving the state exempted the trucks from regulation, then you if you had 20% of the trucks that weren't being was weren't being regulated, I don't think you can credibly say that that wouldn't enhance public safety. If If a fifth of the fleet didn't didn't have any oversight of that field of the fleet. That'd be a lot of very fun operators that would keep their vehicles very safe. And they would have here to safe driving practices that they would do the things that the regulations require. But there'd be a lot of people who would cut corners, and the highway safety would draw. And so that was the basis for the Adam Walsh Act. You had you had 50 regulatory schemes operating in the in the country that were barely speaking to each other. And you had people who were moving across jurisdictional boundaries, and being lost and unaccounted for. And there was a clamor for plugging that system up. And if you read the opinion, I've made highlights that will put on there's all sorts of things highlighted word that the Congressional Record reflects what Congress was trying to fix, they were trying to get the registries communicating with each other, a more uniform system of registering individuals, and they wanted to figure out some way to bring the people who had exempted themselves back within the compliance structure of of being monitored. And the way they did that was by passing a penalty, which this guy was charged with Gandhi was charged under federal law, for traveling from one state to the other and not presenting himself for registration. He was federally prosecuted. And as any good defendant would do, you would look for some basis to try to get your conviction set aside, because the penalties on the federal system are far tougher than most states. Certainly a significant number of states. So the balloting sorta to federal level is, is more significant penalty. So he was prosecuted federally. And that's what this case was about whether or not that federal prosecution would have been allowable. And the court looked at it the way, I think, is rational, that, yes, he had, he did in fact, travel and interstate across jurisdictional boundaries, there was an obligation under federal law for him to present himself to New York, he did not do that. Therefore, he violated federal law, he violated federal law in the presence and the presence, not in the past, he violated in the present by engaging interstate

movement. And he didn't register, please don't hear this as an endorsement of the registry. It's merely helping you understand the analysis of the court, the courts looking at the federal law, he's required to present himself. And he didn't do that. So therefore, he broke the federal law. And that's what they were seeking to fix was to bring those people back into the system that were choosing to voluntarily absent themselves. And he he he shut up this trial, this this theory that that somehow and other that, that that was that was unconstitutional. For for federal prosecution, I think it's a reach of the jurisdiction, the fact that you go across the state boundaries as a private citizen, somehow you've triggered the Commerce Clause. That's a real stretch. You are a human

Andy  1:31:49  
and you are engaging in commerce, aren't you?

Larry  1:31:52  
Well, I don't know if the mirror commerce is pretty broadly defined, if barely crossing the state of Maryland mind makes it makes it commerce. But but they they modeled after the interstate flight to avoid prosecution, they have that you could you could have committed a crime at Georgia have done nothing that merits federal prosecution, and you could take yourself to Hawaii. He said, Well, gee, George's got spend a whole bunch of money extradited me. Yeah, and therefore I'm safe. Well, not necessarily, that the theory is well reasoned that you've saved but the feds have have that statute they could use. And they can assert their jurisdiction, they can go to Hawaii, and arrest you on Interstate flight to avoid prosecution because you've engaged the interstate movement to avoid the Georgia authorities. And they could haul your behind back to Georgia, on the on the Connor transport plane, and they could hand you off to Georgia, and they can dismiss the charges of Interstate flight to avoid prosecution wants to get you back to Georgia. And Connor bring it

Andy  1:32:50  
really bad memories of Nicolas Cage and a movie about that that's disturbing. So

Larry  1:32:56  
thank you for that. That's, that's what they were looking to do was to figure out a way to federalize because you could, there was no, under the old structure, there was no way to encourage Maryland to the states where people had left to want them back. And the states were that they didn't know they were there. They were looking for them because they didn't know that they were there. And so they the sort of component that a bullshit created a mechanism to prosecute, and to go about investigating, apprehending and tracking down those who had absolute to themselves from registration by simply going across state lines. But it's not an ex post facto application of the law, because he already had an obligation to register, and we'll dive into the people who could conceivably make that argument. But it wasn't him.

Andy  1:33:42  
Why do you think that people think that there's a federal registry? I think that that mean, that's fundamentally one of the key components that our people have have confused?

Larry  1:33:53  
I don't think it's all all dead on on unreasonable for people to confuse it because if you read this opinion, it's almost as if the court thinks that there's a federal registry. Can you

Andy  1:34:02  
read you have any any specific examples where they said that?

Larry  1:34:05  
Well, the people that read my highlights, but when they're talking about the the Attorney General, needing to get two people to react offenders registered, their attorney general doesn't register a single person, right? The Attorney General, when they're talking about to turn to the top with us, there is no process for federal registration that I'm aware of. And if there is, I'd like for someone to illuminate what it is. But when you get out of when you commit a federal crime, and they discharged you from prison, they direct you to go to your to your state registry where you're going to live and get registered, they don't register you at any federal registry office. And and so but reading this decision, it's almost as if the court is confused themselves about the nuances of the of the registry. The the animal shot did not create a registry there stills no federal registry, data bullshit created a set of rules recommendations to the States, and said, if you want our precious money, you really ought to do these things, at least substantially do these things. And those things are, are voluminous, but primarily was to link them, the amount of time a person's registered based on the severity of the crime. And the basic terms big 1525 in life for tier one, two, and three. And but many states if our majority had 10 year registration periods at that time, and they wanted them to expand the scope of the registry to include more offenses, there had been an evolution in technology, and there were offenses that weren't covered. So they wanted them to to increase the offenses there that are being covered. They wanted them to shorten the period of time for initial registration. And for for, for periodic in person, they wanted to in person reports, rather than like robot does that that's not where you're compliant to metal in that form. They want they want the the the the the annual or the quarterly, the same manuals done in person. They wanted the states to do those things. They wanted them to register, the serious juvenile offenders that had aggravated offenses that were over 14. And they wanted the registries to communicate with one another on on compatible platforms, I guess for lack of better word, they wanted to register as talking to one another and sharing information. And but it's not a requirement as the states do. That is simply a suggestion. Every state in the Union could have done that. We're happy with our tenure. And and you know, and the initial registration period is three days by federal standards. If your state allows seven or 10 days, the feds can't do anything about that other than not give the state substantial compliance. They can but in terms of they can't prosecute you if you can't, if the if the law of New Mexico gives you 10 days. And the federal suggestion is three days. Our law controls is our regulatory scheme, not yours. We get to decide how quick you have to run. I just heard that the federal government we only we only take the federal suggestion if we want the dollars. And Ohio jumped all over the dollars. They were the first state they just busted themselves open to get into compliance because there was a special bonus if you if you did it within the first 12 months, I think after the enactment, there was there was additional amount of bonus money. And they did and they wanted they wanted that cash infusion for early early implementation. But But every state could turn away from this and signed up, we're not going to do it. And there's nothing the federal government can do about open with holder funds. That's all they can do.

Andy  1:37:33  
And what you're speaking to is where like Florida has I think it's 48, it could be 72 hours, I think Georgia something like a week, you know, just that how long it is for you to register when you step foot on their property?

Larry  1:37:45  
Well, I'm talking about that all the both the initial registration periods, the the AWS standards are to cut those all down to 70 to 72 hours. So you get convicted of a sexual offense, you get a probate percentage, states of inquiry have been encouraged to create a 72 hour window. If you move to a state with the intent of becoming a resident or student or becoming employed, that they've been encouraged to adopt the 72 hour. A lot of states have not done that. But for the federal standards, that's what have been encouraged. But you don't have to do that. We don't have that here that you don't have to do that is only if you want the money. That's what Congress did. They held up a temptation and said, Wait, we give you a lot of money for crime fighting. And if you don't do this, we're going to take 10% of away from you

Unknown Speaker  1:38:34  
10% doesn't sound like a ton of money. I mean, it's not an insignificant amount, but it doesn't sound like a ton of money.

Larry  1:38:40  
Well, it varies according to the size of the state. There was a justice Policy Institute or somebody did a back at 10 years ago, they had this How about you what about to for each state, and it's only the states, the state funds, it's not. There's a lot of federal crime funds that go in for the local law enforcement as well. And it was only for the state itself. Not every entity, every sub political subdivision in state lost their money. It was what the state itself was going to lose it the funds that flow directly to the state. Now our educational states, a lot of those are passed through to the locals as well. So they've made the state mag as a pastor entity. But but it was only the state component of the of the of the funds that are lost. I have one question before I think we should wrap it up because we are we are very long as it is. I just want to know is who tracks missing offenders from state to state be if you know you leave your state you leave, you know, Oregon and you move to Minnesota. How does somebody know that you've left state a and move to state be if you don't go register in state be if you just fly below the radar use living grandmas and you know, in a shack in the shed in the backyard? How does anybody know? Will state a knows that you're all over compliant? Because there's some there's some reporting with pardon state a state a nosy that met with the form if you're in Vermont? Or they are they know that you didn't come in for your periodic verification? So de knows that you're not in compliance?

Andy  1:40:02  
Do they report it to somebody though? Or do they just

Unknown Speaker  1:40:04  
have all they do?

Larry  1:40:07  
They do now. But but but we've got to reflect back to where we were in 2006 and 2006. They went to their offices and now uncork the champagne bottle. I mean, if they're if they're Intel, if they're Intel, reflected today, just simply move to the next County, they would not uncork the champagne ball. But if all the Intel they could gather through the various means that they had available, which were extensive in 2006. If they detected that you were out of state, they celebrated in most instances, because why wouldn't you want sex of looking at it from their eyes? Not from mine? Why wouldn't you want them to leave? If you've got 500 that left? statistically, you're going to have a number of offenses, even if it's only 3%. That's 15 offenses, they're going to curse somewhere else. Yeah, you would be happy that they're going to be courting somewhere else, would you? Yes. So that's what they did. And then oftentimes, they just split closer file. And they didn't do any take any further action. Well, the person who would go into New York was off the grid in New York or wherever they went to. And no one was actively looking for them. Because it would be hard for you to justify as a state spending your dollars, which each state claims to have they their law enforcement is woefully under, under staff, it would be hard to justify spending your dollars to track down a person that's that that has left Maryland, and they're an Idaho, then you got to spend your expand your extradition resources to bring them back so that you can prosecute them and possibly lose the prosecution, or maybe get a minimal jail sentence sensitivity back in your community committed another sex offense? Why would you if you were a rational thinking person, why would you want to do that?

Unknown Speaker  1:41:45  
I understand I'm with you.

Larry  1:41:48  
Well, but but I get so many people roll their eyes and their head and they tilt their chairs over they they make all kinds of hissing noises when I say that. But why would you do that if you were rational, you wouldn't bring the person back, they would be the risk that they would stay, and that there'd be a risk that they would do something, you would celebrate their departure. And that was the part of the problem that Congress was trying to cure. They said, Gee, we've encouraged the states and 94 to create these registries. And they really don't have an incentive to enforce them once the person goes non compliant. Therefore, what do we do on a national level to try to bring some sense of order to this process, because we've got a system where one fifth of the people are out of compliance. And nothing's being done. No one has an incentive to do anything.

Andy  1:42:30  
I don't remember what the case was. But I believe it was a guy that moved from Kansas to like the Philippines. I mean, he moved out of country and we went and got him. And they went to the Supreme Court night. And if I recall, right, Kagan says he was gone. Why did we just leave him there? Why did we bring him back? And there was it seemed very funny to me that, like, why would we go get them to bring them back?

Larry  1:42:51  
I had that discussion with a detective of our local sheriff's office here, some 1012 years ago, they were bringing someone back from, from South Dakota a month, one of those states up in the upper Upper Midwest, and he had told him he was going to California and then he ended up registering and South Dakota, Montana. And they said he had falsified his information in New Mexico. And I said, why would you want to bring him back here? And they said, well, because he lied to us. And I said, well, it's building your statistics on a case. But why would you want him here? This? Well, because he gets he gets a little probation, he'd be under oversight and watch him and keep better track of him and acid. But he might, he might commit an offense here. And since you say that there's recidivism. And if he's not going to be in jail here, which is hard to get put in jail on those facts, I can't imagine a judge with jail him here, if they brought him back. And I never knew follow up how they what they did with him. But if they brought it back, and he had actually registered in the state that he ultimately moved to, he did register in California, because he decided for whatever reason he wants to live the job fell through or, or it's too expensive. And he registered and the new state know, judge would impose a jail sentence for that here, they would put him on probation at mumps. And and of course, if he's if he has the potential to reduce recidivism, would you rather be doing that in Montana? Yeah, no doubt. I mean, if you're, if you're trying to protect the citizens of New Mexico, why would you want to spend the harder tax dollars to bring back a person who's in Montana, to prosecute a person to run the risk? They would be here? Wouldn't your community be better served by them being in Montana? I would think so. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Andy  1:44:31  
Is there anything else that you want to cover? You know, for the for the average listener, before we go into the Patreon

Larry  1:44:38  
say that that this case, this case was never about whether that could be registries. This case, never was going to address that that wasn't the issue. The issue of this case was very, very narrow in terms of Mr. Gandhi. And so those who got their hopes up for an end to the registry, even I can say this, even if it had gone away, if you if you flip the result over and they had declared that Congress violate the delegation clause, this would not have ended the registry because it did not create the registry. And what it would have done, had they ruled the other way, is that those who have been subject to prosecution for traveling and interstate movement, those those convictions would be in jeopardy. So that would be a narrow group of people who would have the potential for getting relief. But it would not have ended the registry, the registry was never in jeopardy, no matter how the court ruled. Now, if you were one of those people were sitting in federal prison right now, because you traveled, this would be a very important win for you had it gone the other direction, because your conviction would be hanging and dangling. And you would possibly have it set aside and you'd be going going on your merry way to just simply go back and read. Sure. But if Mr. Gundy will never know. We'll never know if Mr. Gundy had not been discovered by the feds if he if he had ultimately been discovered by New York. And if they had prosecuted him, which they would have had the authority to have done. We'll never know that, because the feds got to him first. All right. I don't know how to tell people, I don't know how to tell people we don't know what would have happened in New York, do you think they would have just said Well, you've only been here nine months. But you did. So bad just go and get done. bailiffs register with their prosecutor, we don't know that what they would have done. It would be core to what jurisdiction you got caught in what type of caseload they have in that local jurisdiction has zealously they try to get jail time for people who who are not in non compliance was registered. In our state, if you simply exempt yourself, there's a much greater chance you would get jail time, if you just simply are in a technical violation here. It's very difficult to get get jail time on the state side of it for violating the registry. But But if you simply we have just living under the radar, and the state catches you, there was a much greater chance of you getting a small amount of jail time because you're willfully being not comply. What New York would have done, we'll never know, because they didn't get a chance the feds caught him first. All right,

Andy  1:47:14  
well, let's uh, let's move everything else on to the post show. And so for those of you have made it this far, if you want to get the post show, then go over to register, excuse me, patreon.  p p@espn.com. Slash registry matters. Sign up for a buck. And then you can download this extra show. And if we ever start putting out extra content like this, then you'll get all that you'll get the show early. Otherwise, visit registry matters dot CEO that's the website phone number is 747 to 274477. Email is registry matters cast at gmail. com. And again, patreon.com slash registry matters. And I think that's all we got to do now, Larry, and for the rest of everybody. Have a great night and we'll talk to you soon. Goodnight

Transcribed by https://otter.ai