Andy 0:00 registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts, FYI P. Recording live from si p studios, Oceanside and si p studios West, transmitting across the internet, this is Episode 83 of registering matters. Larry, how the hell are you? Larry 0:21 Well, I couldn't be better. But I'm here, Andy 0:24 you could probably be worse to you are like 300 years old. So we can't expect too much. Larry 0:29 That is true. The the age that I am as an age that few will ever see. Without a doubt. Andy 0:35 Without a doubt. We have a few people joining us in in chat, which is exciting. We have a new person Oh, we actually got I got to go have to go get the information. But we have a couple of new patrons. One of them is Charles, you don't happen to remember who the other one was. I'm you know, I'm running on reserve energy here. I'm traveling, Larry 0:54 but I sent the message to you. Like I can discover it very shortly. But I do not remember it. You know, by my How would you expect a 300 year old person to remember? Unknown Speaker 1:02 I know, right? Well, that's a pretty high expectation for you. Right? Larry 1:05 So now if it happened 200 years ago, I can remember it is just what is recent that I can't remember. Andy 1:10 It is Carl, how about that? So so we have two new patrons, we have Charles and Carl, and I can't thank you guys enough. And also thank you to all of our patrons. Thank you. Thank you, it makes it so awesome to do this podcast knowing that people support us like this. Larry 1:25 Sure does. Thank you everyone. Andy 1:27 Well, let's, we just really need to dive into this. Because this is a this is a very special like, you know, I'm coming out of hiding. I'm traveling, I'm on the road. And because of the most importantly, this Tennessee thing just like bubbled up out of nowhere. And so we gotta run the new sounder. And we got to talk about this. Just briefly, before we get into the show what's going on in Tennessee, Larry? Larry 1:50 Well, the Tennessee legislature passed the Senate bill for 25, which will do enormous damage if it's allowed to become effective. And there was a temporary restraining order issued yet today. So that it's truly like breaking news, and we'll talk about it more as we get towards the end of the program. Andy 2:05 This is horrific, though, isn't it? Larry 2:08 Oh, it would be horrific if it were allowed to go into effect. Andy 2:10 Hmm. I, one of our one of our listeners will who who phones in a lot he is he's kind of all over this sending messages and messages and finding out a whole bunch of bunch of information. But yeah, so we'll cover that here in just a couple minutes. tell tell us what's going on in the with what's going on with the Supreme Court decision that about the child pornography. Larry 2:37 Well, that was another another fantastic when at first had opine to privately conversation that it was less related to sex offenders. And that was more related to due process for people and supervised release, but upon a cursory glance, which has told him read the opinion it is very much about that was convicted of child porn possession, because they they the Supreme Court has clarified that that the jurisdiction to extend the sentence by revoking supervisor lease giving people more time than what they had originally, those those facts have to be determined by a jury. So this is a fantastic decision. I'm hoping I can read it over the coming weekend and be more for next week. But it was it. It was a USA vs. hatred. And it it was, unfortunately, it was not a unanimous decision. Most of the conservatives abandoned but at least at least a couple of a bit joined with the liberals that we got a great decision that the United States Supreme Court says Mr. I highlight just a few things in the syllabus, Mr. Heyman will face a lawful prison term between zero and 10 years. But just like the facts, the judge found at the defendant sentencing and a lien, the judge found found here increase the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences in violation of Fifth and Sixth Amendment that's on page two, it says the mandatory five year sentence comes into play as a result of additional judicial findings, that they're only found by preponderance of the evidence. And that cannot stand because of evidence that a supervisor release the standard of evidence is only preponderance rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. So so it's just it's just fantastic news that that people will not end up be incarcerated on auto auto preponderance of the evidence standard for a sentence greater than what they had originally. Andy 4:31 tipa we cover something about this, maybe two months ago, this sounds incredibly familiar, where someone in this case is there, they're on supervised release, and then they have is this is this an actual new crime? Or is this a probation violation? And they have given them extra time beyond what their sentence was, this sounds so familiar to me. Larry 4:52 Well, it, it can be both I mean, the possession of images can be can be a new crime, depending on which images you're was that sick on this on this case, he was he was revoked revision, supervised release. And there's a special special section that applies when a defendant commits. This is a fracture, and it requires a mandatory five years, which was that was not, that was not safe, zero to 10 was the option at the beginning and he got 38 months. And then by violating his conditions of post prison supervision, he gets a five year mandatory minimum. Right. And that was, and that's on a much lower standard of evidence, a burden of proof. So the Supreme Court said that cannot stand Unknown Speaker 5:35 remind me what burden on purpose is that just 50 plus one? Larry 5:39 Well, depends on there's various levels. Of course, the beyond reasonable doubt is the most significant one, that you have all these lesser burdens, but by cleric advancing by preponderance of reasonable reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause, but but this is this is provider. So you have this is slightly more than 50%. If you're if you're going to scale balancing that evidence it till tips, the scales slightly in favor of one side versus the other. Andy 6:07 But so I just feel that we had this this, the situation come up before where someone got charged past, what their original sentence would have would have allowed for. And I'm just trying to clarify if we've covered this, is this something being regurgitated that SCOTUS finally saw? Or is this something completely new? Larry 6:28 I think we've we've danced around this issue before, it will continue to resurface because the the apparatus wants to continue to focus more time Well, people then what they really had available to start with. And I really liked the part of the syllabus highlighted that, that the that section 3583 k limits the judges discretion in a particular manner by posing a mandatory minimum term of a president, not less than five years, upon a judges finding the defendant is committed. And the judges find it like say, inspired by Ponderosa, the evidence. And this is just great news. Even out of a conservative, relatively conservative Supreme Court, there was some justices that saw it the correct way it might be. Andy 7:09 Right I was, if I recall, I was reading through some of the comments on this particular case. And they I'm surprised whenever I see positive comments surrounding our issue. And it seemed that I mean, I read through 20 or 30 comments, I didn't see anybody say throw them under the bus, they should die. Everyone was saying it looks like they got it right. In this case, you can't have someone get sentenced past the amount of their time. If the person had the if there was something of a probation violation, then all they could do is maximum out. But they can't give them time past what their sentence would have been. It. All the comments that I saw from people were supporting what the the judges had decided? Larry 7:49 Well, I think I think they got it right, of course. But some of the justices didn't think they got it right. And they descent. So Leto filed a dissenting opinion, which was true Bob Roberts, and Thomas, and Kevin. Andy 8:02 And do we want to call colors Bolden or what is opposing stripes, stripes and solids? Who was on our team and who was not on our team? Well, it is one Larry 8:13 of those things where there's there's never a predictive model that you can be starting on. As a general rule, the more liberal judges are going to be on the side of the accused when it comes to due process. That's a general rule. And this case we had, we had them joined by a couple of conservatives, but but you can never predict these things. Scalia, the late Scalia was was due process, you didn't have a stronger judge who believed in due process. And Scalia, so so I hate I hate to politicize it. But if I were a betting person, and I had to, and I tell people, I don't have any politician. I agree with anybody I agree with all the time. If I'm going to align myself, I'm going to align myself with people. I agree with more of the time that not I would, I would rather criminal matters be decided by by the more liberal side of the page as a general rule, but not always. But as a general rule, yes. Andy 9:12 I gotcha. And so who then push it over? If the for liberals voted then who was it that sided with us to make it five four? Larry 9:22 It says, Gorsuch announced the judgment of the court and deliberate and opinion on which ginsburg sort of Meyer and Kagan Joanne reified, filed a patent conquering no judgment, Alito found the dissenting opinion of which Roberts, Thomas and capital joy. Andy 9:37 Gotcha. So Kevin, outside or something that Kevin, of course, have decided with us, it seems I want to say again, and I know you can't predict it, I understand that and they shouldn't be politicized that way. But it does seem that you have Team Blue and Team Red, Team Blue generally goes in our favor. And here we had Gorsuch, switching, switch, switch eating and coming to our side. Larry 9:58 And we've had capital. Yes. And I tell people what I think they've heard longtime listeners heard me talk about judge john paul stevens was a scary figure when he was replacing the the late Natalie, Justice William O. Douglas. And Stevens turned out to be a very good justice. So we just don't know what these newest justices will evolve into. We just don't. Andy 10:20 Gotcha. Well, let's move on over to you know, last week, I guess it was we covered an article at a South Florida where they were reducing the amount of Exclusion Zones that people had to worry about. And it was going from, like 2000 to 1400 feet or something like that, and it opened up 15% of the county for people to live. Here's an article from the west Volusia beacon, and it is dead bury tentatively okays tougher sex offender law, this is moving. The city council currently requires 1000 foot separation between homeschoolers parks and where registrants live. And now they're going to make it it looks like it says 2500. And that's from boundary to boundary, I guess means like property, corner to property corner. That is a huge increase in restriction zones. Larry 11:06 It'd be interesting to see what what the effect of that will be in terms of the amount of parcels that will be available after the restriction takes effect. This is why it's so critical to prevent these localities from doing these, it becomes a competition. And we we took the initiative to pass this into state law in 2013, where we preempted the locals from having any part of authority to do this type of regulatory intervention. And it's it's as far as I know, we're the only state passed it in statute. I think there's other states that may have had it in statute from the get go, maybe one or two others and and then there's been judicial decisions that have said that they're preempted by the state constitutions by the reasons that they can't do it. But But this, this is a battle, you can't win, because these councils are responding to the fears of their constituents, and they're not hearing anything from from the other viewpoint, they're just hearing that keep my kids safe. But that's what they're going to do. Andy 12:10 Is Florida having the ability to do this, similar to that case in Texas from around 2015, where they were smaller than such and such size, so they weren't allowed to be responsible for their own actions. I don't remember the right way to word it. Is this vaguely similar to that? Larry 12:27 Well, I don't think there's a home rule ever heard the whole real issue there. But that was the case that takes us where the smaller cities, the less than 5000 did not have did not have they did not have the authority to to regulate sexual offenders, but the larger cities did, and the court ruled on a challenge that you're correct, the Home Rule says can do that some had done it. And as I've said many times, you can do it until you're stopped. So the people, the people that had the towns that had the smaller populations passed the ordinances, and they were challenged. And the challenge prevailed. And the course then they went to the legislature, they argued for the authority to regulate sex offenders. And it was very difficult to say, well, we have this great authority that we get to our larger cities. But since you're small, you're not smart enough and sophisticated enough. So of course, the legislature passed giving, giving small towns the authority with us the opposite direction, where you're wanting to go, the direction you're wanting, it will go as Do you want to preempt from from locals doing that, because then you don't have the competition, then you'll have to worry about state law. But that's enough to worry about, because the state law can be increased, but you don't want you don't want competition between between cities trying to they're trying to drop the offenders out of their territory. Andy 13:39 So not in my backyard, but eventually, there's no backyards left, and they end up living under bridges, and then they get evicted from there and they're just stuck wandering and then they get arrested. Larry 13:50 That we get to spend the whole bunch of money all over again. Andy 13:52 And you see you keep saying competition so that this county says here we're going to go 2500 feet then another county says Well, we have to go 2500 feet they did it and then it just spirals out of control and goes around the whole state. Larry 14:06 That is That is correct. They, as we get into the main event will will hear a little bit more about the about the the reaction Tennessee was partially driven by the law in Alabama but what we have is is get you got well look at Metro Atlanta and you look at all these small communities are in the suburbs that are not in the city limits. And so I feel like the Cockers the Covington of Riverdale, Sandy Springs and Dunwoody, an avid Avondale estates and Clarkston and on and on and on you, when you start having these restrictions crop up, each one wants to push them further out than the other and the city that doesn't do that. Or they perceive that they're gonna have an influx I mean, if you do it if you do it in Clarkston, you don't do an indicator who towns close by Well, all the all the all the sex offenders will go to Decatur can't live in Clarkston. What else would you expect them to do? So Decatur says, Well, we don't want anymore here. But Andy 15:01 I when does it eventually hit some sort of critical mass where someone goes, this is untenable? They have to live somewhere? What do we do? Larry 15:12 Well, that's what I say we do we pass away, we do our best to make it past preemption so that that you don't have the ever SLA requirements. And then you tried to go address the existing requirements, from a policy perspective that they're not, they're not effective. And that's bad public policy. That's a more tough sell. Because you're, you're dealing with emotions of humans that humans feel like it makes them safer, even though it doesn't. Andy 15:38 Yeah, no doubt, no doubt. Um, and if they're at like city council meetings, and they're, you know, down there with pitchforks and flaming torches, I have to think that the city council people are just going to cave under those conditions. None of them are going to stand up and go settle down, folks. The evidence says that if we do this, it actually may everyone less safe. I mean, they're going to get voted out, they're going to get booed out they're going to get tomatoes thrown at them. It's not going to go well. Not gonna go well. Larry 16:08 And when you start talking about the greater good, Carson doesn't care about Decatur, they care about getting them out of their territory, right. And if we can make 95% of Clarkston off limits, who cares about Decatur, that's not our problem, right? You have to start thinking about the greater good. And I had a very conservative persons just in last couple weeks talking to me about the greater good. So now you're starting to sound like a liberal, we're talking about the greater good. I thought, I thought we were in it for what's good for the individual. And we're all about individualism. Now you're starting to start talking about public policy, right? Based on what is the greater good. But clearly, society would be a greater good if we didn't have offenders on a registry period of we didn't have offenders on registry that go underground because of these ridiculous, right? I mean, they can't defeat their own beliefs if the registry works, which I don't believe it does. But if it did, how could it work? If the restrictions drive it to where you can't comply? If they drive a non compliance rates up? How could it work? If it ever did work? Andy 17:09 Yeah, no doubt, no doubt, no doubt. I'm, I'm looking at the next article. And I find it terribly interesting that so the next one comes from Wk, Rn, and it says, Giles county sheriff says sex offenders moved to Tennessee for lacks last. And I just say that, and I'm tickled by it because of the next article about Tennessee, kicking people out of their homes. But so here's the sheriff that says the sex offenders are crossing the Alabama border moved to Tennessee, because Tennessee has more lacks laws than Alabama. And I guess we've covered a bunch of times about state shopping and you'd be crazy if you didn't state shop. And the organizations that were part of they won't go out and publicly say this state is better than that state, just because there will be a whole ton of backlash, and people get messed up for living in those states, they would call them out, I guess you could say, but I just I just kind of find it kind of coincidental ironic that this article shows up here too. Larry 18:04 Well, it's it's it's it's good timing, because the listener is a patriot, but one of our listeners, Pennsylvania had written to us asking about about Florida, Pennsylvania. He took it as though I was saying that, that that he was state shopping, I have no idea who state shopping. I'm not in position at all I know is that people do stay sharp. And my personal opinion is you would be it would I hate to say crazy, but you would be remiss if you didn't stay sharp, if you have the option. And circumstances will allow you to live and other states where you can have a better life. Why would you choose a more harsh life in state a versus state be? I can't imagine anybody in their right mind would. So this is this is an example of where people have gone from Alabama, to Tennessee. And they've told the registry officials boat here because I can't have my kids. I can't be at the home with my kids, Alabama. That's what I caution against if you do move to a state from another state, when you go into register when they say Why did you come here? Never say it's because your laws are better. Because that gets documented. And that gets compiled into a spreadsheet, where they say when they go to the capital, and the the the sex offender registration apparatus asked for the laws to be changed. They use those numbers. They say we've had 47 people move here the last year that said they move here because our state is more relaxed. So please don't do that for your own good. When when asked you why do you move here? So I'm not sure I have to have a reason for moving here. That's one answer. Another answer is I moved here because I liked this state. Unknown Speaker 19:44 Guess better school something. Larry 19:46 Yeah, don't tell him because the registry restrictions are more lenient. So that was my point, if this comes in is a good time to do the Pennsylvania issue, I think was was where he had no connection bustle ever to Florida, but just happened happened to have a crippled Georgia. And then he's he's he's hounded by a regulatory scheme that that, that Pennsylvania says based on your Florida conviction, you have to register by their requirements, and they have the option of incorporate that into their law, and they can't do it until they're stopped. If If I were in that position, I would consider a challenge say, Well, I think it's an equal protection issue. There's no assurance that that's going to work. But clearly if you if you have an equivalent state offense, and you would have to register for 10 years, and you have out of state offense, and it's it's truly a regulatory scheme, that would, to me, that would seem like an equal protection issue that could at least be explored. Because what would happen if you brought your card to Pennsylvania, Florida used to charge you $274 a year for that and our stadium, it normally be at $85 a year. But we're going to charge you the two waiting for that Florida charge, I think that would clearly go as an equal protection. So I don't understand why this regulatory escape. Well, that would not be a credible case. Like, I can't guarantee it'll work. But I can guarantee you it won't. If you don't and I can guarantee you they're not going to change it or volition. Right? Right release you from from from that LinkedIn obligation. Andy 21:12 I just I just think it's kind of funny that this guy's just coming out. It almost seems like he's trolling to get his the people living in this county to rise up. And thanks for keeping us safe. And bringing this to our awareness and all the stuff just just just making stores just a stewardship. Larry 21:29 Of course, that's what he's doing. That's why we have to get this regulatory scheme out of the hands of law enforcement. There, there are not at regulatory schemes that I can think of where you have to register with people that have guns, and tasers. And you have to go behind locked doors oftentimes to do that. And I think this one should be removed from law enforcement, there's absolutely no reason why this can't be handled without you having to be above a law enforcement. So that's my goal is if we can't kill it, we moved it out the hands of law enforcement. Andy 22:03 Can you I'm sure I've asked you this before, what does that look like going forward that looks like you go to the DMV, and you just do it or. And it's just a normal sort of paperwork process, just like renewing your driver's license, and there shouldn't be a whole lot of stress involved. Larry 22:19 That would be my vision. Now, this is not a vision of a registry I'd like to have. But as I say, on this podcast, if I have an opportunity to make life better for people, I'm going to seize the opportunity, because it's all about improving the quality of life for people. So those of you who dream a pie in the sky, the silver bullet, that's going to end the registry, you can keep dreaming, but in the meantime, I'm going to try to do everything I can to make life more livable. So if we could take the registry as it exists today. And since it's a civil regulatory scheme, if we could move it to that would be the logical place because they're set up for all the things that need to be done. When you deal with a motor vehicle office, you're dealing with people, people who know how to keep a database, they know how to take photographs, they know how to take fingerprints for commercial driving a lot of drivers license applications, and they know how to send out notices of renewal. They do it all the time for millions of people with with their with their license plates of what their drivers licenses. So since that civil regulatory, you would go in at periodically, just like you do to update your driver's license and you would update and you would decide like what what motor vehicles you can go online and do a lot like like most states require within 30 days that you type, like they're supposed to notify them that you've changed your address, to reregister your car to the correct address and have your driver's license even though it may say the old address on your license didn't be in the computer correctly. And they provide you the opportunity to update that online what you would do the same thing for this civil regulatory scheme. If a person has any information that changes, they would merely go online and update the the registry. There's no reason for guns to be coming out. There's no reason to be dealing with a person that to keep this database there's absolutely no reason that requires law enforcement. So that's why that's why we have to get it there. We wouldn't have grandstanding sheriff's like a Giles County, Tennessee, and all over the country. I'm not gonna stick my mouth they do it all country. Yeah. Andy 24:14 Yeah. I mean, I just like you. I think we talked about like, you know, you have enough technology in your pocket, that you could take a picture of yourself and upload it to the DMV website, and they could approve it, you would actually never have to step foot in the place to do your registration, you can do a driver's license for 10 years in Georgia. So why? Why does this has to be where it is? Larry 24:38 Well, I'm going to I'm going to talk about my qualifications I hadn't had a discussion with last time I had my photo made the take glasses off. Right, right, that that that the photo does certain biometric like sorta use measurements that they can't do those with your glasses on? So I don't know if a cell phone selfie would be sufficient to do all the biometrics that they wanted their photographs, does it take some of that do the photo match where they can where they can use their billions of they can run a photo through their millions of millions of get it and get a hit or at least a near miss. So but But clearly, your photo that you don't change that much over a three month period, there's no need for a photo every three months. There's no need for a photo, in my opinion, more frequently than what the state requires for driver's license such you can go eight years without updating your photo and your driver's license. I think that would be an appropriate interval. Certainly half that would be would be would be no more than half that would be enough or more than every four years. I think in New York, we've got a list here. But I think you're back. I think you only have to update your photo every three years. And the g8 New York registry. Andy 25:42 Do you think it has anything to do with something like facial hair and haircuts just so that they have that really that on the point kind of picture of you? Larry 25:52 Well, that's their excuse. They say that the sex offenders are very devious, and they try to conceal their identity. But you can do that you can do that. facial hair doesn't take that long girl. So you could go in with a completely shaven face. And you can have facial hair within a week or 10 days later, Andy 26:06 right? Yep, go in there with a full beard some shave it off the next day. Larry 26:10 So if that's if that's the reason that that's Hocus Pocus, then you might as well just have a continuous photograph. Yes, every day would you get up you have to do a live stream to the sex offender office. Andy 26:20 Charles Charles says only level two pics every two years and level three every year. Larry 26:25 Level three occur. That's that's that's a risk based system in New York. So so I thought it was not very frequent to have to go with this. So so every every three years did he say Andy 26:34 he every two years for level two and level three is every year? Larry 26:39 What about level ones any Unknown Speaker 26:40 information? He didn't say? Andy 26:44 Well, all right, then, um, do you want to do the Scalia clip now? Larry 26:48 Are you prepared for that we missed we missed him last week. So we want to continue our, our, our famous song, music along with with hearing a little bit of squeal below. Andy 27:00 Here we go with some Antonin Scalia. Unknown Speaker 27:02 But that there are these broad guarantees in the Bill of Rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal protection of the law, that the application has to evolve over time. And that otherwise the constitution cannot fit the modern age. Unknown Speaker 27:17 It doesn't have to evolve over time, if it if it If it was up to the courts to make it evolve over time, there would not have been a provision for amendment. It contains a provision of amendment precisely because the framers understood that they may find some provisions in the future not good and additional provisions are needed. Look what the Constitution does. Those provisions especially that guarantee individual rights, it takes certain matters out of the background rule of democracy, which is the majority rules. Now there are exceptions to that. And most of them are in the Bill of Rights, the majority won't rule about, about speech, about religion, about quartering groups, in homes and so forth. Every one of those things is taken out of democratic self government. And whenever you leave it up to the courts to read in a new exception, you're leaving it up to the courts to limit the scope of self government. So it is not that I think the constitution cannot be applied to new phenomena, such as TV such as telephones as far as free speech is concerned, of course it can you have to figure out how those principles apply to new phenomena. But as to the phenomena that existed at the time. That's this is what originalism consistent with respect to those phenomena, it doesn't change. Unknown Speaker 28:50 So that's why you would say with the death penalty, which you said often that because it existed at the time of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. The fact they didn't mention it means Unknown Speaker 29:01 well, it isn't just they didn't mention they said Chroma unusual punishments. But nobody at the time believed that that proscribed the the death penalty, because every state had it and every state continue to have it for several centuries. Now, it may be a very bad, bad idea, in which case, pass a law, you don't need the constitution to get rid of it. Andy 29:23 I have a question for you. He brings that up a lot where he says every state, there were 13, maybe 16 or 17 states at the times that he's talking about. It's not you know, we have a whole lot more states, there's what 57 states Larry 29:36 now, something like that somewhere that? Andy 29:39 Doesn't that change somewhat of the dynamic of him saying all of the states when you're only talking about a dozen ish, versus 50? Larry 29:48 Well, but throughout American history, the majority of states had a death penalty, I think they still do have majority of deaths. But the so what hit the point he's making is that framers represent those states had no attention, prohibiting death penalty, they did not when they were when they were dreaming up cruel and unusual punishment. It never ended, there entered their mind that there was anything cruel or unusual about the death penalty, since it was widely used in colonial America. So that says point he's making. Therefore, you can't evolve the death penalty out by an evolving standard of decency, you have to do it by law, which is what we did in 2009. My state we, we repealed the death, but they replaced it with life in prison without parole. And he said that that's that's one of those things, that example of the Constitution doesn't evolve to change what was a given at the time. But you can change it. That's why you have to member process and if it doesn't require a member, you can change the law. And so I just want people to understand that, that he's big on democratic society has a responsibility to self govern. And don't get mad at the courts, when you govern in a way that you end up the things we the majority have helped us say some say, so don't expect the courts to save you from the will of the majority, unless they have traveled the Constitution. And he takes a very narrow view of what it takes to travel the Constitution. There's no such thing as far as he's concerned as any any right to be free from from from up from from execution. As long as you get due process. You could be deprived of life, liberty or property, but due process of law, and when you say narrow you could you describe what you mean by narrow. He doesn't believe that it's the judges role to decide what's good for society. It what's in the best interest of society is not for the court to determine that's for the people and as a self government, as they govern themselves to figure out what's the best public policies. He is only there to guard the Constitution. And the constitution as it was, as it was as it as the framers intended to what what the limitations were, what they intended. And he doesn't believe that it evolved include a whole bunch of stuff, including abortion, he doesn't believe there's a right to an abortion and the Constitution. Andy 32:02 But it also i don't think he's taking the stance that there there is a prohibition of it either. It seems Larry 32:08 absolutely thanks to standards at State Street appropriate prohibit abortion, right. He takes the standard that they have, since there's no right for abortion, that there's a right to prohibit abortion. But the Supreme Court said 1973, there is such a right at least during the first trimester. And so that's under attack. Now, the there's a lot of states that are that are passing laws, like the heartbeat is that one state passed a heartbeat detection and then another state passed. there's a there's a handful of states that are they're hoping that they could position something before the court because they want to find out, the only way we will know how far they can go to limit abortion is is to is to keep chipping away passing laws that are presumed constitutional until a challenging party shows that they're not so sold, they're determined to get more chases dealing with abortion before the Supreme Court. Same thing with gun control. There is no absolute right. Total weapons, Tony any type of weapon. But and judge Scalia has said that will play that clip at some point in the future. I have it in the inventory, but we'll play that but but where that boundary is, is to is yet to be determined the right case has to make it to the court. Andy 33:17 Yeah, I mean, I mean, not not that particular point. Like it's clear. You don't have people driving to the local convenience store in a tank loaded with you know, hundred 55 millimeter or inch round, you know, big massive artillery going to the convenience store. Larry 33:32 Absolutely. But the the courts will will draw the boundaries as the cases work their way through the system through the appellate courts and get to the Supreme Court. And they decide for justices decide to grant or review my grant stored as it's called, then we'll we'll find out and some of these abortion laws. They're being enjoyed from enforcement right away. And of course, the proponents of these laws will try their best to get these issues before the court because I believe the courts more favorably to draw temples more limitations than what was what they were in Roe v. Wade. Unknown Speaker 34:07 Interesting interest is Larry 34:08 drifted way drifted way off topic here. Andy 34:10 I know I totally get it, I totally get it. But we're talking about his his mindset and of what would be considered constitutional. And that's I just want to try and as I think about these things in my own thought process develops that we are covering and trying to dig into those issues more ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 744771. 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 for Stitcher, or tell your buddies that your treatment glass about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. without you. We can't succeed. You make it possible. Well, I guess that kind of leads us down to this whole Tennessee thing. Larry 35:18 Right? It does lead us to Tennessee. Andy 35:21 Have you? Have you heard about this thing in Tennessee going on? I have heard about it. Larry 35:25 It's all over the news. Andy 35:27 It kind of blew up twitter and also our Discord server. Do you want to give us the the 10 second version of what goes on with that senate bill for 25? Larry 35:39 Well, that's that's what I can post your questions for. Andy 35:43 Show tell people that I have scripted questions. Larry 35:47 Well, you normally don't. But what had happened was for the listeners we had we had an attorney that was going to be here today with us. And as as my style. I don't do ambush questions. I do provide questions in advance I provide them for the purpose of getting precise answers, and making sure that they're prepared to answer what I what I'd like to know what I think would help the listening audience. So therefore I prepared the questions written as if we're gonna have the attorney about two hours before recording time, he informed me that that one, one or two of his colleagues decided that that this would be treading and the area of ethical violation of ethics and Tennessee for them to comment publicly on this case right now. So therefore, he asked to to drop out, and therefore I would prefer that the questions I will attempt to ask him that I'll do my best to answer though. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. So so what we were intended to do is we want to illuminate the nuances of the statute, we want to talk about the importance of plaintiffs selection, and the presumption of constitutionality of legislative enactments, the robust defense that the state of Tennessee is likely to come out, and the complexity of litigating class action. That's what that's what the overall scope of the interview that I planned and that that you have to listen to me rather than how brilliant a very, very well qualified attorney and up sorry that he felt, and I think I think I agree with him, that's probably the right thing to do it just precarious posture. So what we have right now, procedurally is that the temporary restraining order has been granted. And therefore, the state is not free to enforce this, it on July 1, as they would have been, and then the court is going to have a hearing on the 11th of July for what's called a preliminary preliminary injunction and sold a tiara was it's called is in effect right now. That was issued yesterday. And then there's a there's a hearing on the 11th. And if, if anything, were to blow up on that, that that tr o could be dissolved. So so since that time and litigation, so so. So we're, we're waiting for this, if the preliminary injunction is going to be issued on the matter of the 11th hour, the preliminary injunction is not final, the case still has to go to trial cases are only resolved by either settlements or going to trial. So the preliminary injunction would cover until the case were to proceed to trial or to be settled. And that's what's the status and Rhode Island right now there was the same exact thing happened when they were going to evict the offenders from their homes, by expanding the residence restriction from 300,000 feet. There was a temporary restraining order issue that the state I believe, stipulated, to my surprise to the entry of a of a preliminary injunction, at least they did not oppose the issuance of the injunction. And then the case has not proceeded to trial because the state has been fighting tooth and nail and not cooperating and the discovery process and then that they they amended the statute, which convoluted issues that had to be further developed. So that cases just sitting there, but everyone's protected. So we've got protection at going to see right now, through the 11th. I would like to hope that based on what has already been filed a plan that that that that's going to continue beyond the 11th that will become a preliminary injunction. And then the case will be set towards trial or towards settlement and that whatever settlement if there were to be a settlement, of course, would include a permanent what would be called a permanent injunction. I guess it forced but I can't imagine they would settle this without a permanent injunction. So settlement but include permanent injunction Andy 39:28 to fill in a gap of what I understand. I think there are three plaintiffs, and wouldn't the injunction only apply to them? Larry 39:38 Well, that would that would be technically correct that, but but the demotion is for for it's a class action complaint. It hasn't been certified yet, as a class action. But the the request for the objective relief is for an injunction for everybody to join the state of Tennessee for for from it sickness, this actually would apply to everybody. Just just normally would you have a plaintiff the action is to the to the plaintiffs, but this has been filed as a class action. And the judge has granted the ability to apply to everybody that Tennessee's frozen and placed in the status quo, at least until the 11th. Unknown Speaker 40:19 Okay, is it hard to get a what's the legal standard for obtaining and jumped in? Really? Larry 40:25 Oh, it's a very, very high one. And that this is this is one of those things where we're really held for our people to understand not liking a law is not enough to get an injunction. that that would be fantastic, if that were the standard, but the the standard is a very, very, very high one because the collective wisdom of the lawmakers in Tennessee. Now let's just be clear, this was not something that snuck up on people and passed and mill the night but no debate. This was something that was introduced, I believe, on January 31. There was a bill introduced at a house and unlike us, identical bill introduced in in the Senate, the Senate Bill, which was the one that ultimately passed both chambers, but it went through the committee processes. It passed unanimously in the in the Senate, and it passed unanimously in the house. So the collective wisdom of all the residents of Tennessee, is that this is good public policy. So the courts have, they begin by assuming that it is constitutional, the presumption is a legislative enactment is constitutional. So to nullify the will of the people and to stop the will of the people from becoming operational. The standard is horrendous. I have to show that that through their initial pleadings, that this is this case is likely to prevail, the merits that the plaintiffs are going to prevail on the merits when it if it does go to trial, and that they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Now, the International Megan's Law is one that comes to mind where people were disappointed. Well, the standard for an injunction is almost impossible to meet. And that's why they could not meet that standard because, and Tennessee we've got we've got an exact act that's going into effect on Monday, without without an injunction. sheriff's departments have already been advising people in the preceding month is besides may 10, become effective July 1, the sheriff's departments amazingly short staffed as they are have been advising offenders and the probation and supervision authorities have been advising people that they have to get out of their homes by by by July 1. And so we have certainty of what's going to happen with international Megan's Law, we did not have certainty of what was going to happen. We had, we had a congressional action that that was was totally unclear what was going to happen. There was going to be a barking on the driver's licenses, we didn't know what the market was going to look like. We didn't know if it was going to have big red letters. If as a sexual offender, if it was going to be a little code that says af 127. We have no idea what it was going to be what it's going to be looking like and how people were going to be it contrast to what you haven't had a seat, you have a family where you're being told, as of Monday, you can't be with your daughter. on international Megan's Law, you may not ever travel international Megan's Law, I didn't say that you couldn't travel, it said that. If you did travel that you need to give 21 days advance notice. And that that you would, you would, you would have some kind of special market. So here we have the exact x spelled out what's going to happen, which is the eviction of separation of families, Jesus a familiar thing we hear about that and other aspects of our daily life. So we, we know that separation of families was going to happen. And, and and we, we assume that if you're separated from your family, unless we can invent a time machine, we do not know how to get that time back. That bonding time that nurturing time, and, and portray I mean, if you have to maintain a separate household, I would dare say you're going to incur some additional cost, certainly. So we can see, we can see the irreparable heart, but we can't get the time back, it's going to be costly. So therefore, you have the basic two elements, there's there's actually a couple more, but the primary two are that you have to show that you're likely to succeed on the merits when you go to trial. And if you would suffer irreparable harm, without the injunction, we didn't have the ability to meet that standard with international Megan's Law, we did not have the ability to meet that that's that's why it wasn't granted by two different federal judges. It's a very hyper at these lawyers have picked up there's a team of four. And who knows, there may be other cases we don't know about. But in the case we know about that we're talking about on the junction, there's four different attorneys at one of us as just supremely qualified with his credentials to be doing this type work, the one that was going to be on the show with us. And they've put together a very compelling case with very good points, that that that are very attractive in terms of of the case that they've made. Andy 45:04 Is it hard to I want to work this is that there's something to be said about filling the courtroom with a whole bunch of people. Is there something that having spectators there? Is that good for us? Larry 45:18 It's a natural tendency to want to do that. My son's going to court today, by golly, I'm gonna show up and show support, I've got to be there for his support. Well, I always tell people, if what we're doing here, it's it's not advisable unless the legal team wants it and always consult with the legal team because they know the nuances of those judges, they know the nuances of the lay of the land, but just on an intellectual basis, we don't we seem to get angry with the when when when courts impose sentences based on mob rule, there's an angry chant in the courtroom, and someone just five years in prison when they could have gotten probation. But for that angry champ, we would be irritated to know. And if that happened, we would say, well, this judge is supposed to go by the law and the facts of the case and it's not supposed to respond to an angry mob. Well, why doesn't that work in reverse? If we show up with an angry mob there? Why would we want the court to rule based on an angry mob, if the court can reboot, if we don't want to give him mob justice, we we should not try to intimidate the court and ruling our way. So I tell people show up only if you're invited. I mean, you have the right the courts are open, it's like you want to go through that metal detectors. And through the screening that they do in a federal courthouse, you you certainly have the right to go if they have CD, but don't go planning to chant that protests that have outburst in the courtroom, that's not going to be helpful to the calls, who might get you thrown in jail. Andy 46:48 who provides a defense for this class action? Larry 46:53 Well, as a general rule, and it specifically in case of Tennessee, it'll be the attorney general's office. So they will, they will be, in fact I, I've been cleared to announce that they have already become aware of the litigation. And they have already entered an appearance to the court. Now, it would help for people to understand when you file for a temporary restraining order, that is an ex parte communication with the judge, they went in just a couple of days ago, asking for this, to borrow. And without hearing from the other side. That's why they were called temporary restraining orders. Because just all the compelling nature of the pleadings, you're looking at that site, my goodness, this, this, this is this is so compelling, that that will the credibility of the of the legal team, I'm going to grab an emergency request to restrain this from happening, pending a hearing where we hear from the parties. So So this, this is just an amazing thing, that that that that the attorneys had that much credibility to get a get a judge to stick his neck out in this case, and grant a risk straining order over over what will be, I can almost assure you be at the vehement objections of Tennessee when when they get to the hearing on the 11th. They're going to have a whole host of reasons why this is sound public policy, there's nothing wrong with it. And they will, they will defend it, which is their job, when they put their hand on their Bible on that on that Bible and take their oath of office, they say that I will defend the laws of the state of Tennessee. And that's exactly what they will do. Andy 48:24 Do they? They have to scale? how hard they try to don't they? I mean, sometimes they'll be like, yeah, we're not going to fight really hard on this one. But then other times, they're going to throw down the gauntlet and tooth and nail and you know, I'm going to die by my sword. If you know to fight this one. Do you think that they would fight this that hard? Larry 48:43 I think they probably will fight this because you have to remember that office is elected office. I don't know if it has stayed in the country where the Attorney General of the state is not elected, there may be one. So I'm not saying there is up but I don't I can't think of one. So, since it's a politicized office, the very nature of its creation that you run for attorney general, the will of the people is somewhat in your back of your mind all the time. I mean, you can wish it weren't. And you can say that's not the way it ought to be. And I agree with you. That's not the way at the at all to be, but that's the way it is. And so therefore, in the case of like with same sex marriage, California Attorney General decided they weren't going to defend that action of we're not going to defend the ban on simply the voters did it. But we're going to let it fall by the wayside. We're not going to defend it. Well, they had a significant amount of public support for that position. I bet the public support in Tennessee for the sex offenders is kind of on the lower part of the scale. What would you bet? Andy 49:41 I would be willing to bet that they would happily throw them under the bus when that bus comes knocking. Larry 49:46 So so I don't think an attorney general can afford to go in and say, Well, yeah, this is kind of something where it shouldn't have gone through the legislature. They got it wrong. Oh, that was unanimously. Oh, yeah, I'm supposed to defend it. I'll show up. And I'll make a few members of protest. But I don't reckon it'll be too bad. If the if it, that's not likely to be their position. Unknown Speaker 50:07 How hard is it to get class action status? Larry 50:11 It can be it can be very hard because the state will fight that as well. They will fight certification because they don't want the it's kind of like the the the comparison with the if you have an employment relationship, where you have the ability to to sue and a group or if you have to break your actions collectively, the business industry is communities we're pushing really hard to neuter. At any rights of you to bring an action collectively, because that's much easier brainbow a class action does the same thing with challenging this criminal law. If the Attorney General can succeed, and and having no certification on the class, that would mean that the for players if they do when that other other people will sit will be suffering the fate of the law, and they'll have to bring their own independent actions. Well, there's 29, I think the attorneys at 29,000 sex offenders in the complaint at Tennessee at least that's the number that gave? Well, what's the chance of 29,000 people being able to know about this, knowing how to secure representation and having 29,000 cases pending? Well, the court takes that into consideration. Also, when they grant class action, they take into consideration the commonality of the of the of the of the claims, how similar or identical they are, add the ability of the law firm, to represent everyone, it's a class. And there's there are all these factors that go into but but just simply stepping on their class action. That's what if you look at the complaint, which I think we were going to have in and the case notice, though, it says class action point for declaratory interactive relief. But that doesn't make it a class action until the court certifies it. And the state will fight back, I'll be back utterly amazed at the state just as sure because the class action judge, we don't have any objection to that, because they could take a neutral as the relief by making forcing everyone to follow their own cause of action. So the state will be vehemently opposed to the class certification. This, Andy 52:17 this doesn't apply to 29,000 people, at least my understanding is this is a fairly exclusive set of people with a very young victim. And you're right, so hundreds of people, this probably affects it all. I would say Larry 52:33 I would say, well, you have to you have to advance with a with someone under 12. And then you're not allowed to live with a mind or even your own. But, but say this, this is the nuances that I'm not clear. If you if you if you had had a victim under 12. And you didn't have a victim under 12? Well, of course, it would apply to if you picked up a new victim, right? If you if you picked up another sex offense, you would have a victim it was under 12. But of the people who have who had victims under under 12, that would be a finite number. But it would be very difficult for us to know looking at from the outside, how large the 29,000 is to have a victim or under 12. But it could be a significant number. I don't think it's going to be just a couple hundred. Okay. Unknown Speaker 53:20 It would just seem to know that it's, you know, in the low thousands, maybe but I don't know thousands? Yeah. Larry 53:28 But what if, what if 3000 people have to bring their own case, sites to the register? Andy 53:33 That was gonna be my next question is, is there a minimum standards a new class action? I mean, do five people then want class action status? Or is it 50? Where does that threshold begin? Larry 53:44 It has to I don't think there's a I don't think there's a magic number there has to be there has to be a number of people where they are they their claims are almost identical, and everybody's claimed would be identical in this I had a big tomato 12. And I'm going to be forced out of my hope. So to me that fits that fits the criteria and judicial economy. But the best Sir, may say it is 3000, you don't want 3000 cases bobbing around in the court. Right the same exact issue with 3000 different discovery process, he would be happy with that because they got the public's money to operate with. they would they would probably be not happy, but they would be okay with it. But it would be very difficult for the for the individuals to Mount 3000 causes of action. So I think I think there's a reasonable chance that they'll get a reasonably good chance they'll be certified. But that doesn't mean the state's not going to fight right there with you. And I'll be very surprised if they don't oppose it will watch us as it goes through. But I would be very surprised if they stipulate the classification. stipulate means that they agreed to and say that judge just fine, you can go ahead and certify this this class action. Andy 54:50 You have mentioned this to me, I'd never considered this concept before, but you bring up judicial economy, please tell me what judicial economy? Larry 54:59 Well, kind of kind of like, just what it what the word rather than having, each time there's a case open that's gonna have to be assigned to judge. And it's going to have to have support staff on the court side, and I know the state side as well. So rather than having 3000 cases, would it be much more economic for the courts have one case where they're doing one process, and they're resolving this exact same issue for everyone. So that's what judicial copy that rather than having all these, it's a neat concept that you brought up to me some time ago, talking about a Georgia case and individual counties and all that stuff just hit would come up the system with just this one thing, but to be able to lump them all into one general concept and push them all through at the same time. Um, and that's what the class certification would do is that that anybody unless they opted out, there was a process where if you don't want to be a member of the class, you could use a file notice that you want to be opted out. But I don't know why anyone on the registry opt out free attorney, this gaining traction disabled rather proceed while cause of action. I doubt that the any OPT outs, but you can't pop Andy 56:07 up someone in chat it is. And I don't know if I read this anywhere, but it says Does it hurt anything? If they admit, there wasn't much of any research into how this policy would affect people? Does that matter at all? Larry 56:20 I can't see why, how it hurt evening that there's there's when when when you when you're making public policy, unless you break the Constitution, you don't need research. Now, if the court decides that you can do this, they could come that could rule that, that having the entire universe of those who had victims under 12, should not be but if it were narrowly tailored, and targeted towards certain select vendors, maybe it would be constitutional because as I've said, you can take life, liberty and property with due process. So if they were provided to process it might be coming institution. But let's see if I were on the legal team. And they made the argument I said, well, there is already that due process for people. If you're going to narrowly tailored, it's already narrowly tailored, the family courts already have the Child Protective Services already have authority to investigate homes, and to petition family courts for custody of children that are in an unsafe environment. So there's already a mechanism to remove children from from the homes of offenders. And I think it's in some cases already over the years, because I hear complaints about well, they they showed up at my house for no reason at all just goes on the registry. And I had to go through all this laborious investigation and prove it that I was a fit parent. But to me, there's already a process for that. So so i think i think they very well could, this could be constitutional and very, very limited circumstances. But I would fight against that. But just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional. If it's sufficiently now Tyler, there's a lot of things can be done that are narrowly tailored, including taking away your rights to your children. Andy 58:04 And leading up to all this particular person in Tennessee was kind of blowing up my my connection, he was chatting with me a lot saying how did how did this get missed? How come nobody was watching? Nobody saw this coming, slipped in under the radar. And I know that you address that a little bit before, but that we collectively don't typically have any, any much of anything in place, watching for the terms. And to see any of this stuff coming down the pike? Larry 58:33 Well, well, let me just answer that listeners question with a question. You have a legislative website in Tennessee. Every time a bill is introduced, it's listed on the website, where you watching the website, because on January 31 of this year, these these this these pieces of bill or two pieces of legislation will have a salad in the Senate and what was thought in the house, if you weren't watching, that's how the public gets notified. And, and the there's no organization that I know of, whether it be of the three that they advocate primarily for sex offenders it has, it has the ability to watch all these legislative websites. And then once you're watching, watching, it doesn't do any good watching is the first step. But this next step would actually been to show up in the Tennessee Capitol, when this was moving through the committee process and offer testimony and offered the real life stories of what was going to happen. And that like it when you read this complaint, which which tells the story of the four plaintiffs about the hardships they would endure, that would have been your opportunity to have that discussion with the policymakers. But there was no one there making that argument. It didn't slip under the radar, it went through the process over a five month period was nobody watching that cared enough about it. I mean, we do about it toward the tail end of it, but we didn't have we were powerful at parcel to do anything about it. The advocacy in Tennessee is very, very much in its beginning stages in terms of, of how well organized they are, how much experience they have. And having somebody who's who's able to be in the capital this has happened. Andy 1:00:05 Yeah, I knew that's where you were going to go with it. And it one of the main purposes of this podcast is to give the people listening, the the concept, the idea of the tools so that they can take that first step, watch the website, figure out how to how to navigate that just at least know that this is coming down the pike here it is the end of June. This was definitely in play sometime in January for someone to do something with it. But we're not even present. Larry 1:00:35 Well, there again, like I said, the Tennessee Advocacy Center is in its infancy. But this bill was filed on January 31. And it was identical one was filed in both chambers. It was it was House Bill 407. Senate bill for 25. And it was placed on heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee in April. We're ready guys, when it was heard it it that they you always hear these past the middle of the night with no one watching. It passed in the middle of broad daylight with everyone watching that character be watching. And most most most legislative lectures are many of them. I don't know if I could say both, but many of them are live streaming, the hearings, the public hearings and committed they're being live streamed. Now you don't get to participate by live stream, but you get to hear what's being said. And so this this is not a closed process. Now I did find out from a few years back that Tennessee does have a little more robust process to sign up to be heard it committee you have to get more permission. At most states throughout work the legislature, you just simply either show up or show up and sign up on a roster outside the committee hearing door. And then they give you two or three minutes to say your piece. But But folks, that you're two or three minutes, it's not really worth it for the worse, the significant impact has had that that has more impact on the victim side when they're arguing when they could fill a room and have people go make made it a three minute speeches. And they can just run two dozen of those through that has impact. But on our side, our two minute speeches are first of all, not nearly as many of them usually. And they're not nearly as compelling. From a point of view compared to the victims. Where you have more impact is that your private conversation, when you develop a relationship with your lawmaker, your lawmaker tells you Well, actually, I have a friend who's on the registry, and this stuff is all wrong. And then you start having conversation with how you can provide that lawmakers a political cover for some steps you'd like to see taken. And you can actually do a whole lot more in private but now public is not i'm not saying it's not important, it is important to go these hearings, it is important to speak up. But that's one part of the equation. It's just like watching the website, watches website by itself doesn't do anything other than get informed you have the tremendous amount to run over you. And he will make it short and testifying committee is an important step. But forming relationships where you can actually be heard privately is also very important and and forming relationship ships with analysts where you can actually get important information to analyst who don't know this issue, so that they can get that those points and analyst committee reports. There's there's so many things. This is the sausage is made in ways that most people don't understand, because that's not what they did. Sure. And all these things, all these things are part of the puzzle, there's no silver bullet. Unknown Speaker 1:03:27 Is there anything else that you want to cover about this before we let it go? Larry 1:03:31 Well, I'm looking forward to speaking for an arsenal we we we've we've been approached by that league team, we've we've, we've heard their their their concerns, and we share their concerns. And we get kudos to what they've done so far. We're waiting for them to have a specific request to us of what we can do to be helpful. They've already had one request, which is money. And that's something we have a small amount of, and we very judiciously have that money out to attorneys. But they've got four attorneys working on this case. Three of them are in small firms. One of them is a solo practice, two of them and or three person firms and that one of them's in a larger firm where there's multiple attorneys. If the state fights back as I expect them to do, you can look at Nebraska, you can look at Michigan, where the attorneys fees rent well over a million dollars that they fought for for a long time. If you look at Maryland, if you just look around the country, the likelihood is that they will, they will be at this for some time before this is resolved. So we're hoping to be able to come to an agreement to provide them resources, financial and expertise otherwise, we've provided them some some news stories that we had accumulated about this, including the Alabama one that you just put on there. They don't think they were aware of that, but but about the DRF saying that the Alabama vendors were coming up to Joel's campus here. But what we are doing our best to be be helpful to them, it may turn into a fundraising opportunity. If this is going to be a prolonged litigation, it's going to be very costly. We may be asking the people in Tennessee to step up and even from around the country. This is not just a Tennessee problem. So I would say to you and the rest of the country. Just remember that the international Megan's Law markings started not by international bought passports, it started by states who were marketing driver's licenses, and it barely caught a whimper of attention. When states were putting over marks on driver's licenses. And first thing, you know, we end up with passport market was the same thing happening here. We've got this, we've got this encroachment of restrictions on people living with their families. And, and that's I think, 13 states I've told have some sort of restriction. Alabama and Tennessee have the similar restriction about you can't live with with any minor, some habit where 13 states have it worried you can't live it if your child was a victim of your crime, until all these things happen that you never have have happened, where that where you finally get permission. So this is one of those things where if we don't take a strong stand now, even though you don't live in Tennessee, and even though you can sit there and say, Well, I'm in Idaho, we don't have to hear whatever's happening in any state has the potential to happen in your state. And never lose sight of that. So we may end up we may end up fighting taking astronomy standards, we can and Tennessee to prevent this from spreading kind of like the stand that we're trying to take in Rhode Island to prevent the retroactive increase a resident restriction for becoming something that becomes the norm. We want the Tennessee assembly to understand you can't do this. And we want any other simply to contemplate it to know that you can't do this. If you do this. There's a bunch of people going to come in from outside your state. And we're going to be right in your throat and in your face. Andy 1:06:48 Well, considering how depressing this is I do feel highly more motivated and inspired by what the things that you've just said about getting involved in helping the other states and being aware and being active. I think it's it's pretty, really unlike. So it's very important to never think you're an isolated Oasis when you have this type of conviction that just because your state doesn't have some time did it can't I mean, Larry 1:07:10 Tennessee didn't think that? Andy 1:07:14 Well, I think we should wrap it up before I get in a whole lot of trouble. We do have a bit of an announcement that I will turn it over to you to make. Larry 1:07:21 Well, we have we have some sad news about one of our patrons. Laura, who's been with us since day one. She's hospitalized now. And now I don't know all the details don't really know me the details other than being a contact ourselves all. The families have reached out to us and said she's she's asking for support. Right? Andy 1:07:46 It's very sad. Yes. And she's been with us for a very long time. And so our thoughts go out to Laura and hope she has a speedy recovery. Larry 1:07:55 Hopefully we'll know more and have a good his next podcast that she is a co but right now, it's very bleak for what I'm still Andy 1:08:03 very sad. Well, on that Larry, I would request that people visit the website registry matters dot CEO. And reach out to us at 747-227-4477 if you want to leave a voicemail message and registry matters cast at gmail. com if you want to send an email message and support the podcast over@patreon.com slash registry matters. And on that, that's all I have Larry and I wish you a very good night. Larry 1:08:32 Thanks Andy for taking time out of your vacation to with your family top to do this important episode we had planned on skipping but what they knew is in Tennessee with the importance of this we wanted to get reached our people with as much information as we could so so thank you for absolutely, Andy 1:08:49 I wouldn't miss it. And with that, thanks everybody hanging out and I will talk to you soon. Goodnight. Goodnight. Unknown Speaker 1:08:55 You've been listening to F y p Transcribed by https://otter.ai