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 FYP recording live from FYP Studios east and west and we're transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 87 Larry 87 of registering matters. Unknown Speaker 0:20 How are you tonight? Right now? Are you sure it's not 88 Andy 0:23 I'm I'm almost positive I pretty sure I made an 87 and you know, we recorded 8686 is on the website not 87 just I don't know. I'm thinking that's what it is. Larry 0:37 But you're assuming that your your partner actually looks at what goes out after we record these? I Unknown Speaker 0:44 Yeah, probably. Andy 0:45 Yeah, I probably assume something along those lines. I mean, you do get a notification on YouTube that it comes out right? Larry 0:51 I do. I do. I do. Play the first few seconds ago on YouTube to see how it sounds and then I said gee, I sound awful. I don't listen to it unless someone tells me I said something I don't recall saying Andy 1:04 because someone said that they couldn't hear the news ticker thing in the background. So like hey, it's at 20 minutes and you go Yeah, that's though there you're just deaf. Larry 1:12 Do have we do have some people that are that are hearing challenge but that happens to our bodies as they break down. Andy 1:19 How is it when you are 200 and whatever you are years old? How much does it break down? Larry 1:24 All the way it really breaks down when you're this old? Like your skin's almost translucent, isn't it? It is almost translucent and I can barely like it barely lay of the bed for more than a couple hours even though memory foam without it hurting. So I Andy 1:38 need to get suspended to do Do you remember the movie way, way back? altered states? I do not. This is this is 70. So I mean, you probably were seeing movies in the 70s anyway, so this guy he wants to get into a quote unquote altered state. So he goes into a sensory deprivation tank and you know completely closed in. He's in a you know, 98.6 degree water so like he can feel anything and he turns into I think he turns into like a an ape or something like that. But anyway, you're buoyant, you're just you just sort of hover and you can't hear anything. You can't see anything and you can't feel anything because you're just in water. That's basically the same temperature anyway. So you should try that maybe you could sleep in that Larry 2:17 was wondering if those habits like on Gilligan's Island they would become comfortable Andy 2:23 I don't think that would be comfortable at all. I really almost positive that that would be maybe you could get a rock like a boat Larry 2:34 out or they just happen to have those are the three our tours what I've always wondered all the stuff that they have with them. Andy 2:42 Yes, the three hour tour, you would not be stocked up and all that stuff like they were for sure. Alright, so now that we are done talking about the history of Gilligan's Island in 70s movies. I, I apologize. Because with having guests on and like 7000 articles, I've totally forgotten announced patrons. And I totally want to make sure that we recognize and thank the new patrons that we've gotten recently. Larry, why don't you start us off? Larry 3:08 Well, we just got such generosity from Veronica, I don't know what to say. I just hope we can live up to provide you value for your, for your support. So thank you, Veronica. Andy 3:21 Thank you, Veronica. Jeff bumped up his contribution. Thank you very much, Jeff. And Charles has joined the FYP. Team. Thank you, Charles. Awesome. And then we also have George with the JUR. Amazing. Thank you so very much, and thank you to all of our patrons, and thank you to all of our listeners to patrons. They extend that extra little helping hand to make this whole thing worthwhile forced. Larry 3:42 That just might be Jorge to Unknown Speaker 3:45 it could be Jorge, I don't know. Maybe if you if it were this part of the country, it would probably be Jorge, and possibly be getting deported. Unknown Speaker 3:55 We don't deport people here. Okay. Oh, we're sanctuary state. Unknown Speaker 4:00 Oh, you're one of those places? Andy 4:04 Um, do you want to give us an update on the Georgia challenge? Larry 4:07 Well, that would be the the Halloween direction of Halloween signs. And two counties in particular, and buts and spelling, which are South Metro Atlantic counties. We've been planning this since last Halloween. We've been wanting to to initiate an action to prevent sheriffs from imposing their own requirements. Now people need to distinguish between Why did Marshall jump on this one? Because, well, Larry, don't you understand there's Halloween restrictions and a whole bunch of states? You're correct. But they actually are on the statute books, either local statutes or local ordinances or they're in the state statutes. This is a case where two sheriff's decided that they were going to impose something that doesn't exist and require people to do something. It's one thing if the statute is unconstitutional, it's another thing if if a law enforcement official, and that something that we think that the standard for proven, this case is a little easier, because they have nothing to cite to. So so we have been working on putting together a legal team. And we we've sent out about 258 letters just in the last 10 days to people who live in those counties that are registered. And there's been a significant response. In fact, the attorneys said that they were overwhelmed. And I don't know what overwhelmed I didn't put a call volume, but they said they were overwhelmed with response. And I said, Well, I would have been surprised if it got more than three or four. So it could be that that the the effect of those signs was more than what we were able to to understand looking at from the outside and not having anybody connected with us out there live in either one of those two counties for the further science were required. Andy 5:52 So just a just a backup there, though. You told me earlier you said hey, we can talk about this and the overwhelming response. I thought you were like bullshitting. I thought you were know trying to be funny about an overwhelming response. But there has been something of a significant response. Larry 6:06 They said that they were overwhelmed. And like I said, interesting. Well, if you've got a busy law practice, an extra three calls may be overwhelmed, right if you really want to be but it was it was described as big overwhelming, and that they would reports also the coming coming days of what they were able to filter and decipher from the people who called in. Andy 6:27 Because then we just have one county uncle. Larry 6:31 Was it but sad, but since balding, Andy 6:33 300 and change or what? Unknown Speaker 6:35 200 round two and 58. Andy 6:37 Okay, cool. Awesome. And I think those hit the mailboxes probably somewhere on Friday or Saturday of last week. Larry 6:43 Yes, that would have been that would have started being delivered a week ago on Friday and Saturday. So they're out there for about a week now. Andy 6:51 And you've you've you're adamant that someone is going to take that letter down to the sheriff and go, Man, look at these, so and so's trying to stir up crap and CODEL. Do you know who these people are? Larry 7:02 I have no doubt that everything that we distribute makes us white law enforcement. Because if you've ever served any prison time, you will be quite well aware of what a stitches. And there are people right constantly tried to seek curry favor with the man. And so people who are on the registry who are wanting to curry favor, someone or some group of people will run them down to the registry office. And their justification will be well, I'm just wondering if this was a hoax. I got these I thought y'all had never heard this lawyer here. Have y'all never heard anything like this. And that will be what they will say when they take the lead room, but they are actually trying to curry favor so that that that whatever slippage they might have in terms of compliance, that that they're clearly on the sheriff's team, and the sheriff will cut them a little slack or so they help. Andy 7:54 These are just people simply on the registry, these are people that are also under supervision right? Larry 8:00 There, we'd have no way of knowing whether on supervision call wasted up to everybody who's on the registry. Andy 8:05 Alright, so that probably would include then at least someone I mean, there's a fine line up that I so Larry 8:10 yeah, I'm certain that the the the attorneys are, are thinking more that the people under supervision don't have a stronger of a challenge. Right. I don't see that quite the same way the attorneys do. Because compel speech is compelled speech regardless was under supervision. And I don't know that that without without any due process, individual Taylor, you could compel people to speak a message to share. First of all, it's not their supervising entity, the sheriff is merely the registrar. Unknown Speaker 8:41 So he's just Andy 8:42 he's just dealing with the regulation side of it. Right, the living restrictions, the thousand foot restriction, he's just dealing with that part, Larry 8:48 the civil regulatory scheme, that that's called sex offender registration. So for the sheriff, who to be able to say, well, they're under supervision, they get a lesser level of privacy expectation, that's not for the sheriff to decide. So I don't know that I agree. That's the beautiful thing about the law, people legal minds can disagree. I think that the challenge is fairly strong, even if if there aren't supervision, if that requirement was being imposed by their super bit, supervision agency, rather than the sheriff, I think then you would have to name the supervision agencies, the defendant, and then the defendant would have to clarify what their tailored was and how they identified who needed those signs. Because really big on the registry would not necessarily in and of itself, pose a threat to a to a child trick or treating. So for example, if the supervising authorities do something that they never can do competently, if they were too narrowly Taylor, and please, I'm not recommending this, but if they were to narrowly tailor it say that anyone who has been convicted of this particular offense and the last five years, that involves a minor, they will not be allowed to hand out candy, they could probably get away with it. But it's not the it's not them doing it. So in my opinion, I believe that their challenge would be equally strong, whether they're under supervision or not. But since I'm not licensed to practice law, we have to do some deference to the people who are professionals and practicing law, they see it differently. Andy 10:16 But you know, just just a backup on to like nella narrowly tailoring, if someone did commit their crime on like a Halloween kind of situation, that would be Hey, well, thats related. So yeah, we're going to restrict you from the Halloween activities. But they, you know, it's not just that you can't hand out candy, you have to be in by 5pm. You have to, you know, you can't turn on your lights. So you can't have any decorations. You can't have anything inside your house, you can't have a candy in a bowl in your house on that night. Larry 10:44 And there again, I believe, does broad brush. imposition by supervising authorities would be vulnerable to a challenge. But that's not what the sheriff required, as far as we know, the sheriff require that the signs be erected. Right. As far as I know, the sheriff didn't impose any additional requirements that have come out in the vetting of the people, as I call it, it could turn out that the sheriff told him in addition to not being able to hand out candy, that there was a whole bunch of additional requirements that so we just don't know what all was was imposed. We don't have enough people communicate with us that live in those counties. In fact, I don't think we have anybody communicate with us that live in those patterns, do we? Andy 11:19 Not that I'm aware of Now, where do you think this goes? Do you? I mean, I put put on your your time traveling hat Larry 11:26 does this does this? Does this make it into court? Does this make it and does a judge rule in our favor? do this? Do they then appeal and it goes to this Georgia Supreme Court etc? We're going to be in federal courts. I won't go Georgia Supreme Court. Okay. Okay. We're raising a federal constitution playing Oh, so so it'll it'll be it'll be in the United States District Court for either the Northern District or the Middle District of Georgia, depending on which of those two counties because ones in the northern ones in the Middle District. But where I see it going is that bill asked for, for an injunction for a temporary restraining order, going to be tough to meet the standard because we have to show irreparable harm depending on what what what happened last Halloween? What I mean, for all we know someone had projectiles launched their windows, we just don't know what happened as a result of that. But if we, if we if we cannot beat the irreparable harm standard, then the case will have to proceed to trial. Unlike what happened in Tennessee, where were that they were able to show the irreparable harm, immediately we have to show the irreparable harm, it can't be speculative. And we have to show that we're likely to succeed on the merits. Both of those standards have to be met, along with some lesser standards and getting a getting a temporary restraining order an objective relief. Because when you get that type of relief, you're getting relief before you've won your case. And people don't understand, well, why is it such a high hurdle? Because you haven't won your case? You're getting relief before you have proved your case, by the standard of evidence. So it has to be a high standard. Andy 12:58 So this is like the due process kinda sorta, Larry 13:02 yes. When you get when you get an injunction, you're getting the court to award you relief before you've won that relief. Right. And so they have a very high standard to be to get that relief. Andy 13:12 Okay. And and that would tell you that would give you some sort of looking glass forward to say if they do grant that, that ways to some degree of like an opinion saying, well, that's good news. I mean, if they say no, then, you know, then then it looks less favorable, that there would be a win. Larry 13:30 That's a good way of to phrase it. If you're able to meet the very high standard for objective relief, you have already had the court telegraph to you that the authorities that you cited are sufficient for the court to believe that you're likely to win after the trial has concluded down the road. And you've shown the court, and then you've convinced the court that the harm that you say will flow will actually flow without the relief. And interesting can't be speculative and people, people that you you can imagine all sorts of harm. But that's not sufficient for us to believe. That's the problem that we had with international Megan's Law and peak right, I was just Unknown Speaker 14:07 gonna ask that Larry 14:08 listen regularly. Because everything that people tried to imagine was speculative, we did not know, since we didn't know what the marker was going to look like. We did not know what the consequences of the marking would be. And that was so difficult to understand. But except it wasn't difficult at all to understand, because it was all speculation, if you understand the basic concept, that the harm has to be certain and not speculative, you would have known that without knowing what the marker is, you can only speculate about what the harm would be. That's all you could do. But you lose on your objective relief. It doesn't mean you lose on the merits, but it means you lose all your in short term relief. Andy 14:48 And just just as a comparison, I haven't seen what the Oklahoma or the Alabama markings are. But someone showed me their Florida driver's license, I just had this tiny little, a little code at the bottom, it was really benign. And if you didn't know to go look for it, it would not jump out at you. But I believe that the Oklahoma and Alabama ones like, you know, it's like a do not cross kind of sign like a red circle with a line through it says, you know, offender on it. Well, there's there's no lyst interpreting that. Larry 15:15 Well, the Oklahoma was upheld, the Alabama will strike down so the Alabama okay designed or driver's license, and the Oklahoma unfortunately did not did not fare as well. And you got two different circuits. You got to the Alabama big in the 11th circuit. And I think that was a district court decision. And I and I maybe they didn't want the listeners to correct me I don't know that Alabama appeal that. But if they did, it would have gone to the 11th circuit and then Oklahoma's in the 10th circuit. So would it go on to different court. And this agents are not binding on one another. They're they're persuasive, but not binding. So you can have this within the circuit, which is a good thing, because it would, it would argue for getting this issue of marketing licenses and important documents to work. The limits are there the limits of what you can do on a governmental document. But just to say that you can't market it's absurd to say you can't mark a dog, we mark all kinds of documents all the time. That's that's what the government's do with their documents. You we we mark driver's licenses in both states if you're under 21 or under 18. But certainly under the drinking age they they make you have a vertical license and my state that the market clearly that's market, if you're if you're under sanction for DWI, and you have a you have an internet interlock license, they mark that, of course you can mark documents. Andy 16:34 And the reason why I bring that up those because you know, without knowing what was going on, not that this is the IML show rehash. But just saying, you know, nobody knew whether it was going to be some big like whole page by itself that says offender, or is it going to be like a tiny little.in the corner of a page, it's like only the people that know to look forward know, to look forward. Larry 16:50 And that is why it was speculative and premature. Andy 16:53 Right. That sounds what I was trying to get at. Were you ready to jump down some articles? Or was there anything else you wanted to hit about the GA? Larry 17:00 Let's Let's do it. I think that's enough information about Georgia. I'm hoping that we can get one of the legal beagles from Georgia to come on to the podcast. They've been on the dorsal and action but we haven't had Mr. Your check or Mr. Beg out on on on this podcast. So perhaps we can after they get after they get through with their screening and they have something to report? That would be pretty awesome. Andy 17:23 Yeah, that'd be great. All right. Well, the first one comes from the Colorado sun. And you know, and and the way that this article is focused is on about people that are on the registry, but this really feels more like it's almost anybody that was convicted of a crime. But so state and local laws push more registered sex offenders into low income Colorado communities, I'm pretty sure short of the restriction part of it, where your your more fluent communities can kind of band together and they could pop up a daycare or a park. Not necessarily at will, but they could make it so that you keep making these different areas that are people can't live in. But I you know, convicted felons, formerly incarcerated folks, they don't end up to rise, often, they don't end up rising to the top of the food chain, so to speak. But they end up in poor hotels, and you know, they then maybe that hotel has some buddy complained, and then they have to move to another one. And they talk about how it just, you eventually end up homeless and and for what costs that it doesn't improve anybody safety, which you know, we can we can fire back around that one again, if you want to? Larry 18:28 Well, it's one of those things where it's, it's a, it's a combination of factors, economics, largely drive that, that bus, if you if you have just total equal restrictions, which we don't support any restrictions on where people can live. But if you have equal restrictions, economics drives the train more than anything else, because a sub want to wait would be one of our zip codes, that would be an example that used to be known as the war zone. The people live in that zip code don't prefer that title. So they prefer, it's evolved now to be known as the international district. But it's still a very economically challenged part of our city. Which means that landlords can't be as picky the properties are older, the the desirability of living in that neighborhood is as less than the more modern, more fluent places. So the if you have rental properties, you're more likely to be a little more tolerant. So you end up you find out that this this complex takes people in the registry and first thing you know, you've got several complex because it's so difficult to secure a housing and, and that that's part of what's driving the bus is economics. You, you, you, you go where you can afford to go with it. And people in the registry, are very, very underemployed and underutilized in terms of their talent. And I'm not saying they're all holding 10 cups under a bridge, that is not true. But there are a lot of people in the registry who are employed at far less than what their education and their skills would permit. We're all too big on the registry, to tear so many employers from hiring them, and particularly employees that have to employers who have to be listed on the website. Andy 20:08 Right? Because, and also from the employee side, you don't want to go through the scrutiny too. So you once you find a job, you may settle. Larry 20:16 Absolutely you you, you're happy that you've got something coming in and and people people are complacent. In terms of going out looking for work? Well, I've got a job. I'm at least able to pay my rent, and I'm stable. And but but the economics are the driver of those I think Andy 20:36 so. So I often mentioned Mike super patron a lot. And we I talked to him on a very regular basis. And and he is adamant that like the 900,000, whatever number you want to throw out there 800 or 700,000 of us that are on the registry, then you know, one degree of separation of families, friends, whatever, that that we don't have the people listening to this podcast, but this is the single most impactful thing in your life, that we should be more proactive. And what I'm trying to get at here is we don't do anything we don't collectively I don't and I don't, you know, there's 1000, there's 2000 of us that are active. But if we were more numbers, we could possibly affect change. And here, this is the place where you're going to get the ideas, the philosophies, the talking points on how to talk to your legislators, legislators and get these things possibly changed. Instead of keeping your head down below below the firing line and saying, well, maybe it'll get better if I don't do anything. Unknown Speaker 21:36 Nope, that's not going to happen. There you go again, sorry, your your doom and gloom? Unknown Speaker 21:42 Yeah, no, Andy 21:43 I'm not. I'm trying to be inspiring and all that. Like, why don't like? Larry 21:48 Well, I will when people when people take that attitude, I understand a self preservation is a powerful, powerful instinct. If you can, hunker down and write it, I can understand that. But I asked people, how has that worked for you? Why don't you let me give you a list and provide you a list of how many times your registry has been amended in your state. And in most states, it's practically every time the legislature is in session, you just had you just had more restrictions added to you in Arkansas. And I'm not saying the Arkansas is not doing anything, they're doing the best I can with the resources that they have available to them. But sitting back, and and being instinctive and flying under the radar, by and large hasn't worked very well for, for those who've done that. So if you can't do anything else, and I know this gets me criticism, if you can't do anything else, give money to those who are doing something to help them defray the cost. And maybe they can pay for more things that we'd like to do. We just hired a staff attorney we talked about last week had on the podcast, that model, hopefully is one that'll spread. But in order for that to be a successful model, we're going to have to have people really amp up their giving, so that we can keep her on our staff. And so hiding under the rocks from New Mexicans, it's not going to be gonna be a model, because we will run out of we will run out of money without without support. So if you can't do anything else, go to your state, find out for where you have a state organized group or an informal group or whatever, and support them in whatever way you can. Because hoping it gets better does it make it better. Another Andy 23:32 point in the article is fear and declining property values. There was a study done in North Carolina that estimated that if a an offender lives within about a 10th to about a third of a mile away, that your home will decrease in value by about 5500 bucks. That's awesome. So here's a here's a business model for you, Larry, find some offenders, get them to go move into XYZ neighborhood, you know, where they can pull it off, property values go down by the house, and then the fenders move out. And then you can turn a profit on that house. That's entrepreneurship there. Now, before all of you, Trump supporters, throw hatchets at me, this article talks about that the report that the testimony that Muller gave to Congress a couple weeks ago. Unknown Speaker 24:24 And we kind of Andy 24:26 I don't think there's really very many people in the middle, Larry, but they're either people that said, this is a scam. And there are people that are saying impeach. And that's the point of the article is that walking in the door, the opinion has already been identified, like your opinions already set and nothing, nothing you say or do is going to change my opinion about what is coming down the pike. And they then turn that over to people going into the courtroom. And you're saying you're way more qualified to talk about this than I am. But I just I just know about people in their unconscious bias. And they already have determined ideas. As soon as they see like the headline of the article, they've already made a determination about it. Larry 25:04 It is certainly a very significant problem with high profile cases. And then this digs a little deeper into to those who were in politics where how how there's all your mind is made up based on party affiliation. And it's a tragedy because other countries have recognized the power of when you look at the founding fathers, they weren't thinking about the internet. They weren't thinking about broadcast networks. They weren't thinking about all the things that would render of a fair and impartial jury that they had no, no way to imagine all that. You would you when you look into the 1700s all this all this things that things that all these things that make it impossible for someone to get a fair trial could have been foreseen. So it makes it it makes it difficult. We have not evolved as far as other countries have that warm luggage show people's face, you know that they will allow you to the perp walk you think you've ever talked about that on a previous i do i Andy 26:07 i remember, kind of can't think I can't think of the guy's name the French Prime Minister, and they you know, they wouldn't do a perp walk. I can't think of the guy's name but he got accused of doing something naughty with a with a hotel person in New York. I believe this is 10 years ago. Yeah, I can't think of that. It's not it's like on the tip of my tongue anyway, but they do not do purple box to give that perception because you see guy walk in with the handcuffs, cops all around and be like, Well, shit, he must be guilty. Larry 26:35 Well, is that he must be a really bad dangerous person. Right? When when the cops do that overreaction to how they take someone into custody and how they and how they do their takedown special like to catch a predator when they have these 60 and 70 year old man where they tackle them. It's pointed at them. Yeah, when they got to do a search warrant, they make it. So everyone believes that they've got a monster. But the founders could not have ever perceived that what that I mean, we were living in a relatively agricultural society, by and large, except for a few cities that didn't exist, and that the only publicity you would have gotten would have been on a newspaper, and there wouldn't have been a perp walk because nobody would have seen it. And all those kind of things have evolved as society has matured. And as we've advanced, and we have not built any protections in to our system for what cops are allowed to do, and prosecutors are allowed to do, and therefore, unless we restrict their ability to do these things, they're not going to self police. I think we've talked about that about women and about handcuffing, seven year old, I mean, they're not gonna they're not going to stop doing it until they're stopped. Andy 27:47 There, there's a paragraph says jurors are supposed to be objective and ideologically neutral when it comes to reaching a verdict. I mean, I'm at least aware that I have them because like, I kind of study this sort of as a hobby, but there's no way to get rid of them, we are inclined to favor those that are like our tribe, people that are same gender same, you know, same sort of community with, you know, same color, same race, same nationality, same religion, people that work in my workplace, all those things, like they tie into your different biases, which is the exact same thing as saying, Hey, I root for this team. If you don't root for my team, then you're my enemy. Unknown Speaker 28:27 And therefore we have to go to war. Larry 28:30 Drop down the next one, the paragraph, it says when the defendant in the court of public opinion as a political figure, there's an almost unfathomable amount of biases, right, bring to the table, their party membership, their political history, and their past behavior will all inform our initial disposition to them, even before the cases try. Unknown Speaker 28:51 It's almost as Andy 28:51 if bringing someone to trial, they should be in a box, and you should never see them. And you should do it entirely on paper, almost Larry 29:00 almost lead and then some people have recommended professional no jurors were Andy 29:05 heard about that. Larry 29:06 They would they would they would not have these biases, because they would understand kind of like the theory we have about judges that when when when you say something that's not admissible, I moved to strike what your order to disregard that? Well, you don't have to invent, you don't have to make that motion comes to the judges, he knows what he or she knows what to strike and what to disregard, because they're a professional. Well, that's the theory about professional jurors is that the professional jurors would come in without all these biases. And they would be looking for actually the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But with all the preconceived notions and they would not make all these differences into the shackles and the chains on the stuff that that that may have been published in the local newspapers or the local print media, not print media, but to broadcast Digital Media Server stuff would would not would not have inflamed our passions. They're looking, did this person abducted child? Did they do this? And is the stage show that beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, that would require a major, major change in how we do criminal justice, because it's supposed to be a jury of your peers from your community. Do you have an opinion on that subject? I've heard that floated before and I can see the merits of it. I was just like, What is your opinion is it is are there merits that make it even like worth the conversation? I think there are parents to make it worth the conversation. I think that how fair your trial trial you get around this country, for the few cases that go to trial is very dependent on the type of jury that you have and the you take, you take the educational level and the sophistication of a particular material pool, which is what you're going to get if you're if you're in a place where there's not a lot of educated folks, you're not gonna get a lot of educated jurors, sometimes educated jurors are needed because of the complexity of the issues that we're looking at. You have been when you talk about tech, do you realize how how, how bizarre looking when you start talking about? Understood, they were about we understand the issues. And so the sophistication of yours has a lot to do with how fair the trial is. A lot of is Unknown Speaker 31:15 something that has come of age. What's that? Andy 31:18 I mean, you know, it was a trial from 200 years ago, when you were coming up as a kid is a trial back in that time frame. Is that, like life was just that much simpler? Or is it a Is it a relative thing? I mean, kids today grow up in tech, except for they still don't know what I can promise you that I've just wanted, like, you know, the world around you, the world around us is vastly different and more complex now than it was forever ago. Larry 31:42 The issues are no trial before simpler in the day, we didn't have forensics, you know, 50 years ago, 30 years ago, we didn't have when you look back in the founding times, most most crimes herself by witness testimony, okay, which was largely proven to be not reliable at all. But that's complete Unknown Speaker 32:01 bunk. Larry 32:03 The police had to catch you in the act of doing something, or someone had to witness you in the act of doing something. And then as society has evolved, we've learned how to connect people to things that that no one saw them happen. I mean, what did the fingerprint opened up in terms of in terms of prosecutions before we had fingerprint technology? Yeah, what what did I before we had the advanced DNA, which I don't understand it all, you know, I can't tell you mitochondrial or whatever DA from another type of DNA. But before we had DNA, a lot of cases are being resolved that nobody saw anything. Because there's a DNA connection that magically seals their fate. Well, maybe it should, maybe I shouldn't Unknown Speaker 32:44 have a quick teeny little lesson for you, teeny, teeny, teeny Andy 32:48 mitochondrial DNA, just think of the letter M, it's from mom. That means it goes all the way back all the way back to the beginning. however far back, you want to take that mitochondrial DNA doesn't change over time. Just say, Larry 33:00 but but but the simplicity of a trial if you if you conducted a trial and a blink and days where I was born, you would have been looking at eyewitnesses for for the for your evidence. Did you see john Wilkes Booth? What did he do? Oh, he paid Lord is weapon and he did what next? I mean, you you went to miss Reagan into ballistics expert to talk about that weapon. There were no ballistics experts in those days. But now all the all the complexity of you're arguing about the credibility of the evidence and whether it was properly if the chain of evidence was sufficient. And if if if the expert that the state had was was qualified, and if the defense was provided ample opportunity to contest or that you saw you have to split evidence up sometimes, you know, you need blood for the defense to examine. I mean, there's it's, it's it's a whole different world, I mean, we run, what we do down to trial is so far different than what we did 5075 years ago, much less way back in the founders at times, Andy 33:59 though, other thing that I can't remember how the expression goes. But I think it's something to the effect of, if you can't figure out how to get off of jury duty, then you're a moron or something like that. So the the more fluent, the more educated, the more sophisticated people often figure out ways to get off jury duty where maybe someone that's something you know, maybe they don't have air conditioning, they live in the house in the south, this would be an opportunity for them to spend a few days in air conditioning all day. Larry 34:28 Well, there's some validity to that the the jury pools that that are pick, are not nearly representative enough of society, I can assure you, if Buffett gets a I cannot assure you that I'm guessing that Buffett gets a subpoena for jury duty, he would probably rather be managing billions and billions of dollars as money rather than sitting on a jury pool, waiting to be questioned and be examined and be asked his views of things. So so I would imagine that he would do everything he could to get it get excuse that he wouldn't be able to excuse because he Unknown Speaker 35:02 he's a busy man. Yes, no doubt. Yeah. And you know, Andy 35:06 riding around on your luxury yacht, your hundred million dollar yacht Boy, that would be tough. Sorry, I can't be bothered with this little petty petty theft at the at the base exchange for some videos. Larry 35:17 But but but the complexity of trials is really what's changed in terms of the jury understanding of the issues and jurors that are over over their head, they can't, you can't take a person who doesn't understand these issues that put them in a jury box and have that magically understand. They will hear from an expert from each side. And they'll decide which export they like. Yes, I want to believe Unknown Speaker 35:39 back to biases. Larry 35:42 You don't magically become an expert just because you're sitting on a jury. Andy 35:46 All right. So your opinion is we should have them or we should not Larry 35:49 think that there's strong arguments to be made that our jury system needs to be reformed course it's only one component of our failed show. It's there's not enough cases going to trial there's too many cases that are being lead out. And that's a show into itself several shells in terms of why everything's resolved by plea but but the cases that go to trial the people get people get varying degrees of justice depending on where the trial is conducted. Andy 36:15 All right, well, how about we go over to the appeal where a night in jail for over $2 and 75 cents? It looks like this guy hopped over the the whatever the gate thing is at the at the train station. And so there you go, that gets you some time in jail. I don't know that our justice system should be like, based on economics, like you know, you commit a crime you should be put away we shouldn't necessarily consider the financial side of it because you've obviously broken a law. But $2 and 75 cents seems about petty Larry 36:47 Well, it does. It does and and it's it's one of those things where you're trying to balance as a as a society, if you just give a green light to everybody not to pay their sub pair subway fare, how many people disregarded and how fair is that to everybody else? On the other hand, is it How much do you want to spend on arresting process like a person and after their process if they make bond or don't make bond, the cost of keeping them in jail? And to what end? Do you want do you want this this this person for for for jumping the turnstile? Apparently this is good. Andy 37:23 Go go go go. I mean, this just seems stupid. This just seems overwhelming to me that that an over like over exercising some authority? I mean, it seems like the cop could just like detain him for a few moments, right in some kind of $25 citation citation and like, move the F on because that all the rest of that's not worth it. Larry 37:44 Well, according to the story they've done that it says number of rest for fair evasion have stolen across all boroughs over the last few years. What about hands in the biggest decline according to its own data? Your PDF might not hurt to arrest city wads for the first quarter of this year in the same period. New York Police officers issued 19,000 summonses so now a summons as a as far less costly, because yeah, someone to show up and respond to the summons. So do your PD reports making one arrest for every 46 summonses? Andy 38:17 I know we should do we should put in face tracking cameras, and we should do facial recognition at the subway and we could then just have them automatically get tickets. We don't even have to have the police in there. Just do facial recognition done from soft. Larry 38:32 So well. It says that that says even though advocates acknowledge that the system was turned 15 million to fair evasion, they argue this relatively small sum. Andy 38:43 So I can imagine Larry 38:45 operating budget for 2018 was $16.7 billion. Andy 38:49 I'm just going to guess 500,000 people got it's got to be more than that. There's 30 something million people in New York. So is it five million people ride public transit daily. Unknown Speaker 39:02 It's got to be a gargantuan number. Well, this reminds me of our, our Larry 39:07 lunch, people who gets in school, Albuquerque public schools who weren't paying for their lunches, and they were giving them rather than allowing them to eat lunch at some point of their delinquent accounts. So we're giving them up, providing them a brown paper bag with a sandwich. And the course would be somewhat humiliating for for a kid. And so we had a state senator here, Mr. Michael PDF passed a bill that says that you can't shame the kid for a parent refuse and pay the lunchroom bill. So So here, here are basically the argument that I'm coming around to is basically that we've said, yeah, we recognize people are not gonna pay their lunch for cafeteria bills, we're not gonna make the kids suffer. So So here, they would be people who would take advantage of not having to pay fares? Is it worth the cost to study society, to go after those people aggressively and spend a whole lot of resources and if you don't go after them? Well, the people who evade pay paying their fares wouldn't go up exponentially would explode beyond all imagination. We have not seen that here. And in case of the of the of the of the legislation on the free lunches as far as I blessed statistics I've heard, since I became law, there has not been an explosion of people saying, Well, I don't have to pay too much for my kids anymore. Because the hapa do pass to build itself so that the kid has to be given lunch, even if they have an overdue cafeteria account. I have not seen that. I'm not sure that would be an explosion of turnstile jumpers. But that's always the fear as well. What will what would happen next? Andy 40:41 Yeah, well, let me give a couple corrections. New York City has 8 million people, but the surrounding area, like the New York metropolitan area is 13 million. And it's 2.4 million people Unknown Speaker 40:53 ride weekly. Andy 40:55 That is a crazy, crazy number of people that ride public transit there. So yeah, that couple hundred. What was it? Did you say? A couple hundred million dollars? Larry 41:04 Yeah, out of a $16 billion budget? Andy 41:07 Yeah, that's Yeah, it doesn't seem like to be a drop in the bucket. Unknown Speaker 41:09 But I just like, so. Same thing. And, Andy 41:13 you know, we we've been delivering this for a while, but on the, you know, to, there are people that are very willing to go pay for a service that they could get for free. If they find value in it. This podcast would be a perfect example of it. You can go download it for free. It's not restricted. I greatly, we greatly appreciate the people that support us. And they do it voluntarily. And I'm thinking that you don't want to own a car in New York City, Emily Horowitz, she doesn't own a car. Because you can't move around that city without the public transit. So I would suspect that people be like, heck, yeah, man, I'll pay for that. Oh, Larry 41:50 I think I think we have to, we have to carefully analyze if we're spending our resources wisely to prosecute and chase after fair, fair jumpers. It might not be the best use of resources to do that. Andy 42:03 Well, Alrighty, then. So let's move on the next one on the list. Oh, you know, so this came from Yahoo. And this is kind of appalling. convicted Florida offender CM is though, is beaten by another inmate and drowned in a toilet. Um, I thought one of the fundamental missions behind prison was to actually keep you safe. While you're locked up. I thought, you know, because I mean, they, they are now in charge of pretty much everything about your life. Where is there any level of protection for people behind the walls, Larry 42:36 when I'm going to sound like a right wing fanatic here on this one, because there are some good correctional administrators out there that that try to do a good job. And it's a careful balance when you're running a correctional facility when you when you take people in, you know, intuitively that, that they that these charges are not the most popular, you know that if you've been in corrections for any period of time, you don't that. So it's not a if this comes a surprise to them, but that person would have would have the potential to be harmed. You also know that you've got people like me yelling at you to not put people in solitary confinement, because of the damage that solitary confinement, so you've got people like me suing you saying that you need to let these people have some freedom. And you need to let them be in general population so that they so that they don't degrade mentally. So classification is a very, very tough job. And doing it well, those who do it well. You have to give them kudos for knowing how to figure out where inmates belong and where they don't belong, and being able to justify because not only do you have, you have to be good at figuring out where they belong, you need to be able to put that on paper to explain why you classify them that way. And what the factor for that, because you're going to have some enterprising lawyer coming after you saying that you that you wrongfully put that person in solitary confinement. So it's a tough, it's a tough situation for correctional administrators, then you combine that with the age of the facility, the technologies to have available in the facility, the older facilities, which I know nothing about this one. But the older, the older facilities were that were that you didn't have direct line of sight. It's a lot of stuff you can go in in a linear model, that they can't go in a direct supervision model, in terms of how quickly things can be spotted before you can intervene. So we don't know how much technology was available to observe how quickly help could have gotten to this person. But in the end of the day, you are responsible for trying to keep people who are confined, safe. And clearly there was a failure here. Unknown Speaker 44:33 I would like Larry 44:34 somebody advocating, I'd like to go about the people who do such a thing. You people that are in prison, listen to us, which I'm sure we don't have very many. But why is it that you get so mad at society for judging you and not giving you a fair due process? And why are you so willing to be so judgmental about everyone who comes in the door, we don't know that this person got convicted properly. We don't know that this person. We don't know all the details and your position to be extracted your vigilante justice, you're sick, and you have it, you're totally wrong. But go ahead. Andy 45:07 Well, I mean, well in chat asked about why aren't people with certain kinds of crimes segmented in the prison for because a certain class is certainly targeted, you know, we've talked about the hierarchy in prison before that. Our people are pretty low on the totem pole, you know, people that have actually committed murder, like actually kind of like revered, and they're high up on the food chain, so to speak. And I know that where I was they didn't do very much segmentation at all, and will assume that where he was they didn't do it either. I have heard of this, but it seems like I have a feeling comes down to a resource issue. But why don't they take people that seem to be? What would be a target? Why don't those people get their own wing of the prison so to speak? Larry 45:51 Well, well, and that's a good question. Well, and the answer is they do that, you when you do that, you have people just because just because you with your own kind doesn't mean that you like your own kind. And even within the hierarchy, if you put all the people in sex offender unit, sex, sex offense, accusations or convictions together, there are those who think Well, mine was different. Mine was like, yeah, I'm a sex offender. But I didn't write I did statutory rape. That's a whole different thing. I never, I never molested a child while I looked at porn. So you still have a hierarchy. And then you're assuming that prison administrators get to choose that how often that people are dumped in their facilities. If you have if you have a correctional facility that's designed for 900. And you have a population of 1300 50 people, that limits your ability to move people around and place people because every every ounce of space you've got is valuable. And but you're overcrowded already. So what do you do with this person that comes in it? When people when people react that way, they've never actually analyzed what it is on the administrative side. And I'm not forgiving people, because we've got some horrible prison and correctional administrators out there. But we've also got some very good ones out there. It's like everything else, Unknown Speaker 47:05 they're decent people out there, Larry 47:07 and they do the very best they can, with limited resources, our local jail now that we've got our population down to about 70 870-819-7899, I'll get it right a man 78 80% of its capacity, we have the ability to have to move people around because you've got some open space. And if you say trouble brewing, and if you pick up on things you've got, you've got spare capacity to move somebody, if you're running at 112% capacity, you don't have the ability to move someone around, all you have the ability to do is to lock them down into solitary. And and of course that gets you sued, because that's detrimental to their health. So So I'd like to, I'd like to have a, if a prison administrator would come on here, or even a local jail administrator, I'd be happy to talk to him about that, because I understand enough to know that it's not an easy job, classifying people and trying to prevent all harm that can happen. And this one, this one obviously got through the cracks. And it's a tragedy and it's sad. And and the people who did it should be presumed innocent, but they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and if they're convicted, properly punished. Unknown Speaker 48:15 Hmm. Andy 48:16 Um, do you want to cover Scalia? Never quick. Larry 48:19 I think it's a good time to hear from Justice Scalia. I think that I wonder if I should tell people on our clips what the purpose is before after, Unknown Speaker 48:28 do you want to Andy 48:28 just give us a quick little intro of what this is, and then we can talk in detail about on the other side, Larry 48:34 you know, that we we've been running for several episodes now. A minute and a half, two to three minute clips of, of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. And terms of what his judicial philosophy is we pick him because our audience tends to be more conservative and and and he tends to be very colorful and charismatic. What do you agree with him? You can't not like the way the band community gates of hell he expresses himself. And he expresses himself so simply. And so this particular clip, it's about a constantly you hear me saying, well, just because you don't like something that doesn't make it unconstitutional. So this is Scalia explaining Unknown Speaker 49:13 that. Very good. Here we go. Here is Antonin Scalia. Why are you a faint hearted originalist? Oh, Unknown Speaker 49:20 my I said that a long time ago. Unknown Speaker 49:24 I said in the course of Larry 49:29 I guess it was a law review piece that Unknown Speaker 49:33 you know, if if you're an original apron what the stamp says is stupid, but constitutional, stupid, but constitution. Stupid, but constitution. Unknown Speaker 49:46 The notion that everything that is stupid is unconstitutional is probably the besetting sin Unknown Speaker 49:53 of judges. Anyway. Andy 49:57 Oh, I got a quick question for you. Why does everyone laugh when he gets? Why did everyone give him applause when he says he's cranky? Larry 50:04 Thank you. I think it's funny. That's a little self deprecating humor that he's got. Yes. But But he. So when when I say that I just happen to run across this clip listening to a show prep, I'm looking for something good from Scalia and I ran across this. And I said, well, gee, I've said so many times, just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional. And just because something is not well grounded in science and statistical data, and empirically reviewed, they should be able to that, that is nonsense. That's not what the judges were the ropes to do is to determine what the best public policy is. That's what you as a citizen, and as a voter of this country, that's your job to determine what the best efficient and best public policy is. And if you get it wrong, if you make a bad choice, our system allows those bad choices to be corrected. If we enact a 55 mile an hour speed limit, and we see that that traffic fatalities go up, and commerce slows down. And all these things that happen that we didn't anticipate, course, we should be able to dissipate that because we've tried that before. But we are able to go back and change the policy. That's what democracy is all about. You shouldn't cower down and say, well, we made a mistake. Judges, will you save us from our own stupidity. So that thought that was fitting for her for making the comparison. So people understand, when we get it wrong and public policy arena, we go back and fix it to the same process that we're we made the mistake to begin with, we convince our citizens, we convince our fellow citizens, we convince our lawmakers, and we put pressure on them till we get the policies that we want. Where does the line get cross between a lobbying? Andy 51:53 Just one that doesn't enter the realm of something being constitutional or not? And I hope that the two all laws fall into that category. And then the next extension is, when do we fall into the category of a law being unconstitutional? Larry 52:06 What would you consider? easy when you can cite what aspect of the Constitution it violates? Andy 52:10 So literally, when you read the words in the text, and then the amendments and all that stuff, that is, but but so you know, talking about like speed limits, there's nothing said anywhere in there about speed limits. So wouldn't those laws just be unconstitutional because nothing is spoken about it? Larry 52:28 Just the opposite. The Constitution prohibits what we can't do. by large, we can't go we the Constitution of the doctor document protects us. We're not protected and allowed to God's word the Constitution protects us allows us to go out, drive recklessly and endanger our fellow citizens. So of course, you can have laws regarding speed limits, Andy 52:50 and they don't enter into the realm of constitutional or not, Larry 52:54 not unless you did something in the speed limit law. And I think I've used this example before you passed a speed limit law and you said, Men can drive 75 and women can drive fine. Okay, then you've got an equal protection, that is a constitutional issue Andy 53:08 there. But the speed limit itself is not the problem making different rules for different people is yes, you have to be able to cite everything Larry 53:15 is presumed constitutional opponents and accurate. And the challenging party bears the burden to show by the first of evidence it is not and a judge not liking it doesn't make it unconstitutional. Now unfortunately, we have things where judges don't like it, and they do what their personal views come in. But that is not sufficient. On under our separation of powers not liking something it's not sufficient grounds to strike it down. And that's where Scalia and the texture lyst come from is that Yeah, I don't know that I would do this if I were serving the legislature. I probably wouldn't but I'm not serving the legislature. I'm looking at whether or not there's a constitutional infraction and I don't see it here. Andy 53:56 So therefore it's upheld. Interesting, interesting. anymore about scalar Larry 54:03 No, I think that illustrates my point of what I was trying to make is that stupid but constitutional so just because you don't like something and just because you don't think it adds up with all the data that you'd like to see supporting it. That doesn't matter. Andy 54:19 Maybe I could get one of some of our like musically inclined listeners to give us like an intro almost like a Mr. Rogers thing to introduce the Scalia clip and then have an alto on the other side. So you could you could come in he could put on your sweater, you could change your shoes out and then on your way back out, he changed back out. You do remember Mr. Rogers, right? Larry 54:35 I do. I like I like, I like I like my colonial music, but we didn't play it this week. Andy 54:41 I didn't do that this week. 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 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 Unknown Speaker 55:29 you make it possible. Well we're going Andy 55:32 to move on to my one of my favorite subjects. This is like you know people pick their little pet peeve issues. This is one of my I think like this and the the restrictions, the living and work restrictions. These are probably my two biggest things about lie detector tests. This one This is from the Smithsonian calm and it's a it's a pretty well sourced and cited read. Going back to where Gary Powers the guy that flew the U two spy plane over Russia and got a bomb down. And at the beginning of the thing I want read a little part of this, it says Unknown Speaker 56:03 he, Andy 56:04 I'm just going to paraphrase it but he said like, Hey, I will take this thing. But after he was dead, he's like, I am never he did this for like his entry entry into the CIA. He he opted to take one but when he was done, he was like, This is the biggest garbage. It's stressful. It doesn't do anything. It's fake. And he wasn't ever going to do it again. But it turns out that when he got into Russia, they probably did the same thing to him again. But all this smoke and mirrors and stuff about the way the polygraph is it's just complete. hogwash. It drives me crazy. It's pseudoscience, there's no evidence behind it. And, and then after 911 like it gained a whole lot more popularity, because we have potentially people in the United States that are not loyal to us. So we need to we need to vet them, and we're going to use this Kabuki machine to vet them. So that's my rant about polygraphs. Larry 56:55 Well, you know, that's the thing where we as a society, we have taken action decades ago, I think it was back during the Reagan administration that Congress passed, restrictions on employers using polygraphs and and the pre employment polygraphs were largely a thing of the past except for in federal so Unknown Speaker 57:14 yes, several service. Larry 57:16 But if you went to your local magic market back in those days, or nobody else magic market machine from Georgia. If you applied for a job, before you could get a job with a local seven level or many other private employers back prior to that legislation, you were You're right, you had to undergo a pre employment polygraph test Andy 57:36 for 711. Yes, they would Larry 57:39 like say for for the reason why I know because I had to take one more word for Magic market, who knows what in the world Unknown Speaker 57:45 are circlet? Andy 57:46 What are you sharing state secrets about how to do food distribution? Larry 57:51 well know when you worked at those days as stores were, by and large, far smaller than they are today. You had a lot of coffee, a store clerks are worked alone and a theory went. And you have to look at the technology we had in the day, we didn't have the ability to watch a store clerk like we do now. Yeah, sure. 1974 and 75. So you had a person working in a store all alone, having a customer flow through every 510 15 minutes, with no way to be monitored, you know, there that you didn't have point of sale systems or online, you didn't have monitoring that was live in terms of visual. So so in order to give that person that high level of trust that they could be in a store and have hundreds of dollars sales that were running up for gas later body orders and stuff that they had to be have a little bit of integrity. So they would they would have you do a polygraph test to find out if you've ever stolen anything from any employer you've worked for. And that was the one to question. Have you ever taken anything of value? And they would that you would go through the pre test interview? And they would ask you now, we understand grazing as it was called, we understand you that if you've worked in this business for you, you've poured yourself a cup of coffee or you've you've done great thing, we're not worried about that. But what have you have you taken anything of value other than employ you Grace? Again, if you had, if you had any trouble with those polygraph tests, you didn't get hired? Unknown Speaker 59:15 That is horrifying to me that that's what you would do. Larry 59:20 RFID through that to get a job at the magic, as I was saying and thought about another miraculously past or else they let they let it go through that with my failing, but Andy 59:32 the test is complete bullshit. And it didn't matter. Because I mean, you know, you just came through whether you lied or not the test results said that it was okay. Larry 59:40 Well, and then and then they would do another round of polygraph when the inventory came up short because those stores those stores are susceptible to theft, if you think about it, but nothing's been bothered or things walk away. So then the on a monthly basis, I believe it was they would take inventory the store. And if it came up beyond the margin of tolerance, they would polygraph all the employees and they would ask you had you taken anything of value that you hadn't paid for? Had you allowed anything of value to be taken from the store? Are you aware of anything that would that would would cause the store to have a loss of inventory of company property they that you went through the throat of a maintenance polygraph if your story came up short, Unknown Speaker 1:00:22 right. Just to Andy 1:00:24 take a quick trip down memory lane. If I'm not mistaken, it was Episode Two that we talked about polygraphs, you know very early in our podcasting career. And leading up to it. I recall it being a little bit heated, because you were like, Nah, man, these things work. And I was like, Nah, man, they're complete bullshit. And then, you know, you are one of the few people that's able to go, Well, maybe I was wrong. But I'm still I'm still kind of shocked at when we had that conversation. We're like, Nah, man, we use them all the time. What's wrong with him? I was like, well, Larry 1:00:54 I still say the summer thing. Everyone that we have given a polygraph to the practice law. And we have told them you show deception. Now what that's that's what the result has been. They've confessed. So whether the polygraph was worth them or not. Did matter. The person admitted that the allegation was true. Unknown Speaker 1:01:15 Yeah. So that Larry 1:01:17 that that's what what that we've had a few that were the the polygraph proved inconclusive. And that we we tell them we don't know any more than what we did after. Before before this test was administered. Because the blinker was not able to give us an opinion before the truth were deceptive. But when the believers given us the opinion, they were deceptive. I don't recall a case where the person didn't fess up. So what what you have to explain that whether it's Kabuki science or whatnot, it got the information that we were looking for, which is why they keep doing this because it yields the information. People say, Oh, well, yes, I broke my curfew, I guess I guess I was looking at porn or whatever. So Andy 1:01:56 the answer is, it's called placebo. If you if a doctor was and he's wearing his golf outfit, you are not going to feel as relieved, then if he walks in wearing the white coat in the stethoscope and all that shit. So it's a complete placebo effect. And you believe the machine does something. So therefore you prove them that the machine show something, Unknown Speaker 1:02:15 but it technically doesn't. It's an equivalent Andy 1:02:18 of acupuncture, chiropractic care. It's the equivalent of all of these things, gay conversion therapy, they're all bullshit. Larry 1:02:25 But we just lost 300 podcasts, about chiropractic, there are people out there who tell me that they could not get out of bed for the last six months straight. And that they were almost almost ready to end their life until they till they started having acupuncture and then they're up in their, their, their their boxing, and they're doing marathons, and they don't be so healthy. Yes, I've heard that throughout my life. Andy 1:02:52 I have heard as well. Just you know, it's Kabuki and And while these people go to like a two year certificate program, and they get called Dr. Larry 1:03:00 Just saying. So well, how is it if you truly were flat on your back for the last three months and couldn't stand the pain, what magically makes that pain go away? Because I know when I have pain and I can't move it and I can barely bend over? Unknown Speaker 1:03:16 It doesn't. Larry 1:03:17 If the person can't have no, they don't have mobility and all of a sudden they do what caused that mobility to if it wasn't acupuncture, what what did do it, Andy 1:03:26 someone cracking your back may make some pain go away. But the philosophy the theory behind it, you know, just to take a quick little detour, the organization that is regulating the chiropractor's or the chiropractors themselves, they are self lobbying to get themselves into more treatment to more health insurance programs without any sort of, like empirical, any sort of scientific evidence to support their claims along the lines of homeopathy. So I'm not saying that cracking because you know, you crack your knuckles like wow, that feels so much better. You crack your neck, maybe that feels better. But their their philosophy that you crack this and it cures cancer that is more along the lines of what I'm referring to? Unknown Speaker 1:04:06 Well, I was there there are those that talk about that. Larry 1:04:09 The acupuncturist, I don't understand it, but people have sworn to me that that that that has made their life soap quality of life so much better. And that is relieve chronic pain. And I'm all for relief for chronic pain, whatever it sure if you smoke some weed wherever does to relieve chronic pain, but people will tell me that that their life is as dramatically better after having having those type treatments. So what what is the explanation? If the needles didn't do it? What the Andy 1:04:35 placebo you think it does, so therefore it does in the case of acupuncture, I Unknown Speaker 1:04:39 just Andy 1:04:41 it's almost the same thing as like the sex offender stuff. There's no evidence that says residency restrictions of work restrictions reduces recidivism, yet, we still do it. So on that same token, there's no evidence to support all of these pseudoscience kinds of things yet, we still do it because we believe it works. Unknown Speaker 1:04:59 It's the same thing. Andy 1:05:01 So there you go. And yes, I'm sorry. Thank you 300. listeners, it was nice to have you around. Unknown Speaker 1:05:06 Talk to you later. Andy 1:05:08 Well, there This one's all you. What can Larry 1:05:10 you say RYQCR ratings. Now? Andy 1:05:13 I know, right? I know. They're all going to listen to it. And then next episode 80. It'll be like zero. This one comes from the Marshall project, and you're going to get to drive the bus and it's one lawyer five years, 3802 cases. That's crazy. Larry 1:05:29 It's something we've talked about on before spend gobs of time. But it's it exemplifies the file system we have. And and the you can't possibly handle these type of case load. So obviously, everybody's being played guilty, because that's all you could do it. I think this is not a Detroit, right? Yeah, this was this was this was a Detroit. Andy 1:05:54 Yeah, it's totally to try. Larry 1:05:56 But but in theory, everybody has the right to an attorney. But you look at this fee schedule for a full day trial, hundred $80. Play $110 that tells me which you can do more plays at a date. And you can do full day trial trials if you're going to get $180. And it's just it's just sad. Because the defense we don't get to control the flow of cases, we're on the receiving end Andy 1:06:24 of the way. So an attorney for defending someone in the public defender's office would get $180 a day. 15 years ago, I made more than that per day as it worker. Larry 1:06:34 So we hear these stories about $40 per hour. I think in Wisconsin, we've talked about that. And we've talked about in Louisiana where they do the crushing caseload, I mean you don't have to look for is systemic and across the board even in my state it's it's it's bad. But but it's crazy Unknown Speaker 1:06:51 low. Larry 1:06:52 But But my my point is weird of the tripod, you've got the defense, the prosecution and the judge of the tripod, two legs of that tripod can control caseload, we can't we we don't file cases, on the defense side, your your your your defense attorney will never file a case against you. So we don't get to we don't get to be the initiator. Nor do we get to referee when the rules are being followed. And when when the rules are not being followed, and timelines are not being met, the court can dismiss cases. And the courts are very hesitant to do that. Because then they get slammed like they did at the last moment that episode or two episodes back where the judge that gets them for this very reason, but for not waiting to get up to adult court. Yep. And in New Jersey. So we're the we're the only leg of the stool that has no control over the flow of cases. The only thing we can do on the defense side to make a case, go away is to do what? Unknown Speaker 1:07:51 I plead it out. That's the only thing we can do. Larry 1:07:53 We can't dismiss it. We can't amend the charges. We can't not file the case, the only thing we can do is completed out. So if the cases keep coming, what do we what do we do? Well, I think Unknown Speaker 1:08:05 it's a pressure relief valve. Larry 1:08:07 I have some radical ideas. And at some point, I'm gonna we're going to have Ashley back. And I'm going to ask her this question about why would it not be good for a defense attorney when the when the judge calls the case and says state of counselor states, your parents and a counselor state their parents already? writer behalf of the State events? No, no, you're not ready. You're not ready, you're on? You're not ready to proceed? Well, this has been on the calendar for two and a half months. Now this has been a trial setting, but you're not ready. Well, why aren't you ready? Well, I have not been able with my 117 other cases that I have, I have not been able to do a proper investigation. I haven't been able to review the discovery. I've got 2600 pages, and they're expecting me to have a million pages of discovery there say, but actually 2600 pages of discovery. I haven't interviewed a single witness because I've got your kit, your trial setting. I've got seven others I've had that were set for trial in the last month and I wasn't ready for those either, because the caseload is just unbearable. So I'd like to stay for the record, that advance is not ready. Now, no, that's very radical. But at some point, if the lawyers declare that they're not ready, the judge can't forced. Well, they can't because they can do whatever they wanted until they're stopped. But a judge shouldn't force a trial, when the person stating for the record, why they're not ready. And the steps that would be pertinent to that person's defense that they have not been able to complete. To me it sounds like that's the next thing you could do. To try to bring attention to the situation is sad about ready because it's just not possible for me to get ready. Unknown Speaker 1:09:42 So I'm not ready. Larry 1:09:44 So I'm going to ask what happens if what would happen if you did that with all life is what know what end? Andy 1:09:49 Probably, um, you've been an employer for multiple years, how many working days are there in a year? I like to put you on the spot a Larry 1:09:57 week. tops, tops 50. Get about 250 you get about 250 days, a couple of weeks. Okay, good. You have holidays. So you're going to be somewhere in the 200 plus days for your that's totally Andy 1:10:07 what I thought it was. So I think it's 200 days. Well, Google says there's 260 180 times $236,000 a year, someone that goes through all of the torture and pain and sacrifice of going to law school to come out. Not everything is all about the money. But to make 36 grand that sounds really shabby. Oh, Larry 1:10:28 well, that's the segment. You could do a trial every day. You can't Unknown Speaker 1:10:30 correct? Correct, correct, correct. Yeah. Larry 1:10:32 You can't be prepared for trial every day. Andy 1:10:35 Yeah. So there would be other partial things. Yeah, yeah. So So I mean, like that would be that you could live on 36, depending on where you where you live. But that doesn't, that's not a lot of money to live on. Larry 1:10:48 There's not a lot of leftovers, possible that you couldn't do a trial every Andy 1:10:52 right there is that Larry 1:10:54 this is crazy. You could not be ready for trial every day, because there's a lot of prep work and doing a trial. People actually like to see their attorneys, they're supposed to people are supposed to, well, people love to see their authority, their attorney supposed to compare the criminal complaint with the statute, to see if the elements of the statute that are required to be proven, can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there might be a need to pull some case law related that statute to see if there's been any favorable developments in terms of, of what would help the defense. So you, you've got that aspect of it, then if you if you're convinced that they properly charged the person, then you've got to look at the evidence that they put forward. That's called discovery. So you've got to look at the box of evidence that the prosecution is turned over to you. Or if they have an open file policy, you have to go into the office and look at the file and stick with it, got it, make copies. And then depending on who's been there, who's who's who surfaces, witnesses, you probably need to do a little bit of background check on the witnesses, and maybe have a conversation with them to see if there's any conflict between what they said in their statement. And what they're going to say at trial. I mean, there's just a whole lot, you couldn't be ready for a trial every day. So you wouldn't get your hundred $80 every day because you couldn't do a trial it on each day. Andy 1:12:08 And so I let me put on my my counterpoint hat. Well, the you should have thought about that before you committed your crime, you should have thought about having more resources and saving up if you knew you were going to be doing criminal activity, then you should have saved up so you get a proper representation. What else could we come up with? If you can't do the time don't do the crime? Unknown Speaker 1:12:28 You know, that's what they would say Larry 1:12:31 that that's such a book. Yeah. But we have we have? Why don't we tell people who who make poor choices in their life and other areas? Why don't we tell them too bad? So sad? Absolutely. We, we we treat people who have made very poor choices, particularly health choices that people make, no doubt. No doubt. We don't say too bad. You did that. Andy 1:12:54 But do we we don't do that with people that end up with lung cancer. I mean, it's pretty widely known that if you smoke you get, you don't get but if you get lung cancer, you are probably a smoker. Unknown Speaker 1:13:04 So we don't say too bad. So sad on those people doing all the obesity related. Larry 1:13:09 Element true. Don't tell people that and but but the the system is not going to self correct. It's going to require it's going to require a lot of, of changing public attitudes to get the resources for for the defense side. And we let me give a little due credit. I was listening to radio talk show just Friday, just two days, no yesterday, Friday morning on IKKOBAM here, and they're talking about criminal justice reform. And the reforms committee is co chaired by a Republican and a Democrat and Sandra Rue. The Republicans said that it's important to adequately fund adequately fund defense, because the system breaks down without that. Now he's pro prosecution. And he wants people to be held accountable. But he says the system can't work without that. Some monumental admission for conservative, well, he's more moderate, but for coming from that side of the aisle to say we have to find the fence. So so I'm giving kudos. But he's just one we have to have, we have to have people come around to recognizing that if we're going to make everything illegal in the United States, and we want to be law and order and we want to prosecute everybody that there's a cost, due process costs money. Maybe we got to decide what we should put for fewer people into the system, because we do have choices about who would bring criminal charges against. But unfortunately, those choices are not made by the defense. Andy 1:14:36 We should we should enact a policies layer like especially where you work that any money that you take in, you are going to be the oversight committee to make sure that you are not doing anything inappropriate with those funds. This next article comes from law.com, the New York Law Journal, New York district attorney's formerly moved to strike down prosecutorial watchdog law. So this is a law to help the people that are being watched. Make sure sure that they're doing their job with integrity, but they don't want to be watched. Also problem that Larry 1:15:05 why don't why should the police or the prosecutors be watched? They know what to do? Andy 1:15:10 It seems like it's a conflict of interest to me feels like Unknown Speaker 1:15:13 it. Oh, yeah. Larry 1:15:16 Well, I think that's really hits in here. And actually, it doesn't open completely for me. But I think it it's, it's it's one of those things for the people through their legislative process recognize this need to be done that that oversight was not sufficient. And they they want now now be the prosecutors are trying to use the courts to strike down the people's enactment now. So I suppose that's all right to do that. But they they should be held the same standard of proof that they have to show Unknown Speaker 1:15:47 by declares to prove Larry 1:15:49 that the people's that act is unconstitutional. Andy 1:15:52 This is the same that we talked about where the you know, even like the body cameras, so this would be be hard to shoot. Say that now we have Dr videos all over the place. But if a cop is worrying about a camera, we can we going to make the assumption that it's not Dr. video, it gives you an unbiased perspective of instead of having the cop write down his words, it gives you somebody that's sort of impartial so you can watch what happened. Unknown Speaker 1:16:14 Why shouldn't we have other government entities Unknown Speaker 1:16:19 be oversight? It is that a word? Larry 1:16:22 I don't understand why that anyone who has an employer gets to self oversee, try that in your try that in your normal course of work that tell them tell your employer, when you when you clock in at the grocery store, tell him that you get to decide that the type of cash register if they're used, the type of surveillance that is that's used at the store, the type of point of sale systems that are used to process transactions, did you get to decide the detention policy of who you could Frisk and who you can hold until try telling your employer that and find out what happens to you, you get to decide what it is just nonsensical to think that, that we employed the police that we're poor, the district writing, so we don't get to oversee that, really, that's the craziest thing I've ever heard. So Andy 1:17:10 we should move over to this article from the appeal, which would be the second appeal article tonight. And this is it's time to allow people with felony convictions to serve on juries. One thing that I see out of this is with, there's a really high number of people in the United States that have been convicted of a crime that would then offset the quote unquote, the burden of the people that haven't committed a crime to serve on more jury panels. And I guess, you know, way back in the day where there were far fewer laws and fewer people convicted of things that would disenfranchise them from voting, then, you know, maybe one out of 100, whatever that number is, it wouldn't make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. But now, with so many people that haven't been touched by the criminal justice system, you have a lot of people that don't get to have a say, and how that the jury's go. Well, that's what the article says, Larry 1:18:02 estimated 20 million people. It's funny, we don't we don't know. Precisely. But approximately 8% of adults, but it's, it's a third of black men have have felony convictions. But it's, it's it's beyond my imagination, that at some point, and a forgiving country, as we profess to be that you never get to be fully redeemed. And it's Same thing with owning a weapon. You never get this precious right of self defense. You never are allowed to defend yourself again, you're never allowed in some states to vote again. You're never allowed to serve on a jury. And yet we're forgiving nation Really? Andy 1:18:48 Isn't there's something to be said though, like, you know, depending on what the law is, I mean, I don't want to try and go down this slippery, slippery slope of Hey, this crime is worse than this. But at a time when only the most heinous of things were you wouldn't want that mindset to then be on the jury to then cloud that muddy those waters. But now you like almost get arrested. Like, you know, that kid he like resisted arrest that we talked about last week. He got his face slammed, and I don't know that he was convicted of anything but you have that kind of interaction with the police that could Unknown Speaker 1:19:21 prevent you from serving on a jury. It's ridiculous. Larry 1:19:24 Well, this this this bill, this appeal article highlights Senate Bill 310, which will restore the right to serve on jury, California Senate Bill 310 will restore the right to serve on jury, New York and Louisiana bills failed to pass this year, attempting to do the similar thing. But I think that after a period of time, maybe it's not the day you finish your sentence. I don't know what the magic time is. But why is it that you're Forever, forever tarnished, that you can't fully participate in society, but yet we're forgiven country Andy 1:19:58 I think I've spoken about me serving on to jury panels before and I found it to be one of the most fascinating things that I've ever sat through was to actually like watch the the the jousting between the two sides and hearing the testimony and trying at my very best to be you know, impartial and taking it all in and I was I was just intrigued by the process the robe the the pomp and circumstance of the of the formalities and all that stuff, you know, all rise all that garbage. I just thought it was neat. Larry 1:20:26 Were you on a civil jury or criminal jury? Andy 1:20:30 A criminal for both. So and one was ridiculous. This woman shoplifted three videos from the Air Force Base, exchange up, though up the way. And because she did on federal property was a federal prosecution, which was insane. $60 a video and now she's got federal charges. And she totally was going to lose because like the jury was like, she totally put those in the shopping cart. She totally put her shopping bag on top of it. She totally attempted to, you know, hide it so that she could go through the checkout process and then walk out and that's where the stopped. Unknown Speaker 1:21:00 This is ridiculous. jury found or guilty? Andy 1:21:04 Yes. And I believe on that one, I was the foreman or whatever the hell they call it the person in charge of the jury panel. So I got to read i'd like you, Anna, we find the defendant guilty. But Larry 1:21:20 you know, you as a jury, you can you can nullify if you find that the runaway juries do that on a semi regular basis. Andy 1:21:28 I told it like watching the video of the woman it was, to me it felt completely obvious what she was doing. It was it was she was totally trying to lift the videos out of the store. So I mean, to me, it felt like she was intending to deceive and get out of there was in shoplift? Larry 1:21:43 Well, it it I feel the same way about I'm not a big weapons proponent. But I believe that if we're going to be a country with hundreds of millions of weapons, that at some point, if that is such a precious, right, that after you've had the service of your sentence and its totality, that there would be a point where that precious right all to come back to you. If it's that precious, why did you lose that there are a lot of felonies that have nothing to do. Martha Stewart didn't do anything with a weapon. She's not ready. I don't want anymore. She's a convicted felon. Yeah, so she can't protect herself and Mr. herself. That right is so cherished and so precious. When when you forgive Martha Stewart for her transgression, and allow her to be a full participant in society, she would probably be a pretty good person sit on a jury if now that she's been through what she's gone through. Andy 1:22:30 Yeah, she could be a pretty good advocate for us. Larry 1:22:33 So Well, I think she could be a very fair and impartial jury jury because she understands what it's like to be put in a position where you were where you the deck is stacked against you and holding the prosecution to their standard of proof is kind of what we're supposed to do when you're sitting in that jury box. I've never been seated. I've only been I've only been summoned and then disqualified. But, but but that's kind of what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to go into that jury books skeptical. Right? Unknown Speaker 1:23:01 Yes. Andy 1:23:02 And you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So you're supposed to wait until you see the evidence. You're supposed to wait until you've heard the testimony. You've waited till you've deliberated with your cohorts in the in the private room back there for you to then say guilty supposed to be challenging and supposed to be an uphill battle for you to get that guilty verdict. Unknown Speaker 1:23:20 Correct. Andy 1:23:22 All right. Well, then New York Times this one do this one really kind of like, I don't know, I don't even know how to take this one. It says abuse victims, three billboards called for stronger laws than the state showed up. This woman was apparently a victim of some sort of sexual assault. And then she rents a couple of three billboards it looks like, and there's a picture of her in the middle. It's very stark, and I can't think of like the right word. It's like a grainy kind of picture. But it says my rapist is protected by New York State law. I am not. But this introduced a whole slew of problems of it being registered as a lobbyist. Unknown Speaker 1:23:59 Okay. Oh, Larry 1:24:01 apparently the authorities feel like what she's doing is lobbying. I don't know that I agree. But that's where our courts will, will will resolve at some point. This is an example of an evolving society, where laws when you when you write legislation 27 years ago about what, what what a lobbyist is. And then we have ways to affect public policy that didn't exist 27 years ago, or whatever, I don't know, when it falls. Maybe they're older than that. But this is an example of evolving society. And so I guess the courts will have to interpret interpret whether or not this constitutes lobbying, and Andy 1:24:43 Brenda and chat, so she was in fact pushing a new law. So yeah, isn't that lobbying? So if you, if you like, when, when do you cross the line of just being an advocate trying to talk to your politician and and be an advocate for law change? Where do you cross the line of being a lobbyist? Larry 1:25:00 We'll have to wait and see how this plays out. But Andy 1:25:02 I heard some of your conversations with my cohorts here in Georgia that if you spend, like a third of your time, trying to do law changing things that that counts you as a lobbyist is that, does that sound like a right? ratio? I've never heard that one before. I can't remember if a guy here in Georgia told me that or not. But I think it was some if the organization spends X amount of time doing that, then you should register as a five or three C for whatever, blah, blah, blah, but then, you know, if you're going out there saying I'm representing ourselves, I'm represent. But if you just show up as an individual, I don't think it ever counts. But if you walk in there saying I represent a thing and entity, then that changes the changes the equation. Larry 1:25:41 Well, it wasn't just because she walked in though is because of the of the extraneous activities that she did in addition to walking in. She's cute. She's she spent $14,000 on three billboards, plus $2,000 on a website, well, 28 to 34 years ago, when you when you when we had billboards 30 years ago, but we didn't have websites for many of them that many years ago. So the lobbying stuff wouldn't have wouldn't have covered that because it didn't exist. So I guess we're going to have to wait and find out what what what lobbying what all is included in New York's lobbying guidelines. Andy 1:26:18 When we got this conversation in the last week or so you were we were talking about, Hey, you know, back in the day, you would just you would just call your your local phone carrier at&t or whatever. And you would get a yellow pages ad and whether you got just your name listed for having a phone number, or you run a quarter and eighth or you know, whole page ad, whatever. That is how you market it. So her having a website would be the modern day equivalent of having flyers sent around and all that stuff. Interesting. Larry 1:26:44 Well, it's like it's the two major jobs example of was not keeping pace with the evolution of society. All right, technology moves very rapidly. And if you look at your logs, you'll find out that most of them are way behind. Andy 1:26:59 Definitely, I'm intrigued by that conversation. Because until, I don't know, the mid 80s or so, you know, when the computer revolution really started to take hold. I don't know that anything has changed in our history as rapidly as that at least not for a consistent length of time. You might have had employment, not employment, but like us work safety things when the Industrial Revolution came around. But you had kids riding farm equipment that was incredibly unsafe 100 years ago, and 200 years ago, with steam powered whatever we do, he's you probably remember those days. But the the pace at which the internet changes things is breathtaking. And I don't see how you get the 80 year old senators that are up there to have any clue as to how to, to apply laws and takes them so long to debate it to hear it and then by then it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter anymore. It's gone. Larry 1:27:53 Correct. The complexity of what we're trying to deal with here is is is significant. Then, once these legislative bodies are part time, but if you accept, yes, what handful of states but most of them are running all these 30 6090 day. Andy 1:28:11 Another thing coming down the pike now where they're wanting to make back doors Unknown Speaker 1:28:14 into encryption is frightening. You cannot do what Andy 1:28:18 they want to put back doors into, you know, you guys use some sort of encrypted messaging technology between you and your boss, I use various ones to communicate with people, they, they're trying to like legislate back doors so that they have a key to get into them. Think back a couple years, three years ago to the San Bernardino shooting in California, you know, terrorists shut up the town, but they were like the brown people with turbans on their head. And they wanted to get into the people's iPhone. And they were they were there was some significant pushing by the FBI to try and get into these phones so that they could get the information. And there's a whole other backstory that goes along with that, that we could go into at some other time. But our federal government is like William bar is trying to push to get legislation that would create back doors, like you could not get software in the United States legally, that allows you to send impenetrable, encrypted messages between you and your girlfriend, your boyfriend, your boss, just your friend down the street. Like they want to make it impossible. The challenge there though, go ahead. If you weren't up to no Larry 1:29:22 good, you wouldn't be Unknown Speaker 1:29:24 right. Because the government's Larry 1:29:26 gonna want to take the time to know what you're doing unless it's up to no good. I don't know why you people are so mistrusting of vaping to do with police law enforcement, the government. Andy 1:29:37 Yep. And, and the math is far more complicated than any of us are ever going to understand. But two plus two is four. Always and you can't make it not four, and still be four. And for them to put in a backdoor. If they know what the password is, if the feds have a way to get in, then someone else has a way to get it and you can't have it both ways. It doesn't care who is the good guy or the bad guy. So that's my second rant for the night. I'm done. Last the remaining listeners. last article, Larry 1:30:07 this one this one Brenda de Stein beat herself go she's gonna explain it to us. She's going to Andy 1:30:12 explain I have a feeling that she's going to decline to do this. But this one's from Forbes and this one is hot off the press today is the third and this came out on the third. And it says is unreasonable, cajoling, sexual assault. And I think like Unknown Speaker 1:30:25 the Andy 1:30:26 I don't, I didn't see what the ages. But if you are flirting, if you are saying like, Hey, come on. Or if you're whistling? Like where does it cross the line between being flirty? Or? And then where do you cross over the line and to be creepy? Larry 1:30:43 That's going to be a really tough one. Because we're asking people not to be human anymore. What's, what behaviors evolved and throughout eternity in terms of the pursuit and the chase and the flattery and the compliments on whatever that I mean? I didn't read the article that kind of, kind of irritated me after I got partway through it. So I'll stop. Unknown Speaker 1:31:07 Like, Unknown Speaker 1:31:09 we're at some point, I mean, but what are you supposed Andy 1:31:13 to do in in our society? So you fancy someone? Like, do you? Do you hire an intermediate to try and go out and, and, and present that you are interested in courting this person? Or I mean, can you? Can you wink at someone I you know, like, I'm probably dating myself. You want that? But can you say, Hey, what's up? Do you want to go Netflix and chill? Like, where does it Where do you move that line from from being flirty and presenting someone that you're interested? But to the other side of that? If someone says no, stop, there is that side of it? Brenda says it has to be persistent. If Larry 1:31:50 if they communicate with you via text or social media, and it's on point the quarter the interest, isn't there. I don't know how people court these days. But there's my point is that you don't you don't know what to do if you're if if you you can't tell someone they look nice anymore. You can't help me. Oh, that's like a nice outfit. You can't? I don't know. I don't know how what we're supposed to do. People are going to be attracted to each other. I hate to burst your bubble. They're gonna they're gonna be working at Wendy's at the drive thru and I got to see somebody it's hot and they're gonna. What do you want to do you want asexuals? Andy 1:32:29 Well, there was a I don't know, I don't think we brought this up on the podcast. But there was a guy this is this is months ago, but there was a, this is so funny to a mom goes to visit her cut her kid at college. And the girls are running around with these like, like workout pants that like leave nothing to the imagination. And she sees her son looking at them. And she's like, all up in arms about that the girl shouldn't be doing this. And he should be ashamed of himself for looking. I'm like, What in the world is wrong with you? He is a like, Unknown Speaker 1:33:01 you know, quote unquote, red Andy 1:33:02 blooded male, and he sees hot female. And I'm not trying to pick on genders here. pick whatever flavor you want in there. And I mean, you shouldn't touch I mean, that doesn't mean you should whistle. You shouldn't like I mean, I don't know. But good grief, man. If they're gonna if, if they're going to that's very sexist. If people are going to go out in public and dress in a way that is appealing, like, Unknown Speaker 1:33:25 enjoy. I don't know, I really struggle with that. Oh, I am struggling with it. I think I think that Unknown Speaker 1:33:35 creepy anyway, it's not Larry 1:33:36 creepy behavior is not illegal behavior. Andy 1:33:38 And is it is it unconstitutional? Larry 1:33:41 is creepy behavior is not on constitution. Unknown Speaker 1:33:45 Nor should it be, Larry 1:33:47 you know, creepy behaviors modified by social and societal pressure and pushback. Hey, man, you can't be did. This is not a beat right here. You don't be hitting that you can't be hitting our customers that are coming to drive through. But it's still got to happen. Unknown Speaker 1:34:02 Well, I probably ran off all the other listeners. Well, you probably. I guess we didn't want to have Larry 1:34:07 this podcast anyway. Did we? Andy 1:34:12 That's all I got. Larry. What else? How do people find the podcast so we can help so we can grow? Larry 1:34:17 Well, if they're listening to this, they've already found us. Unknown Speaker 1:34:20 Oh, that I guess that's true. All right, Andy 1:34:22 Kim, can we get our listeners to help us share and get more Unknown Speaker 1:34:26 listeners? That's a good question. Where would they go to do that? Ah, I don't know. My screen went blank. Andy 1:34:35 registry matters that CEO Come on. You can't remember this. And we are also on Twitter. You can follow registry matters on Twitter will so you should follow us immediately. Since you're on Twitter. You definitely Larry 1:34:46 know the phone number, don't you? I should be able to dig out the phone number my memory that would be 7472 to 74477. Unknown Speaker 1:34:56 Or Larry 1:34:57 send an email to us at registering matters cast@gmail.com and outstanding. You got the stuff memorized already. Somebody somebody needs to call us. We haven't had any phone calls to play for a while. We haven't Andy 1:35:09 we can be doing Scalia so that crowds out the phone calls can just continue Scully. Oh, people are tired. And what about supporting podcasts? Larry, how would people support us the most bestest way? Larry 1:35:24 Oh, that would be easy. Just go to your to your last paycheck advice and look at what it says either grocer. NET either one is sufficient, sufficient. Excellent. You go to patreon.com slash registering matters and you plug in one of those numbers. Andy 1:35:39 Very good. That's all I got. Larry. I hope you have a super duper awesome, splendid weekend. Thank you, everybody for hanging out and chat. And I'll talk to you soon. Good night. Bye. Unknown Speaker 1:35:52 You've been listening to FYP Transcribed by https://otter.ai