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, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 90 of registering matters. And Ashley is joining us from Liberty and Justice MF coalition. What is the MFO? Ashley 0:25 Mother's finest mother's Andy 0:27 finest? I like it? I like it. I like it. Is Rick going to approve of that moniker? Larry 0:33 Not sure we'll have to ask. Unknown Speaker 0:38 I have Andy 0:39 a question and feel free to either of you to chime in. It was torrential torrential torrential rain. But my question isn't about the weather. Why? When it is raining to the point that you can't see 10 feet in front of your car? Do people still drive without their their headlights on? You can't see an end. They're driving in a great car. You can't see them. Bye. Ashley 0:59 Bye. They'd like to live dangerously. I mean, Andy 1:01 this is asinine. Ashley 1:03 I can explain it very easily. Well, please, please, please. Okay, well, well, what happens if you if you've ever lived in a climate where rain comes and goes, it could be that they had been driving before it started raining. And they don't know that their lights are not on. Because they didn't need them at the time they started. It's kind of like when you're driving when the sun goes down. And you don't have automatic lights. So our vehicles that don't have the automatically Of course, you have to also set it automatic, but people don't realize they're driving without their lights. And I had that discussion with my brother about a year ago when he was cussing somebody to the top of his lungs about not having the lights on. And I said well, are you telling me that you have never driven out your eyes? He said absolutely not. I said Really? You've got a purpose. Every single time you've been in the car and you know exactly when the sun has fallen below the horizon. And you know that you have never forgotten to turn your lights on. I said Europe miraculously person that you have that type of memory. So I suspect that people got caught in downpours and didn't realize that their lights were not on with beep I guess I don't think anybody deliberately wants to be hit by another vehicle or to be driving unsafely. Unknown Speaker 2:13 Ashley, I knew that I was going to poke the bear and get ready to go off on a rant. Ashley 2:22 Well, I'll wait. I just I just I just assumed that people. My brother will say he pulled out front because they wanted me to hit him. I said no, he did not want you to hit Andy 2:29 me not sure. Unknown Speaker 2:30 Hey, hey did not see you. Yeah, it's Andy 2:34 like, generally speaking, I don't think that people get in their cars wishing to get their head smashed in. Unknown Speaker 2:40 That would generally speaking. Andy 2:43 You have joined us before Ashley. Larry, would you do the quick 32nd intro. Ashley is the staff Ashley 2:49 attorney for Liberty and Justice Coalition, which is the New Mexico State affiliate for nozzle, the National Association for rational sexual offense laws. And as has been a prosecutor for most of her 25 year legal career, but she's done other things. But she's prosecuted every type of crime that there is from, from murder, to arson to DWI to domestic violence. And she's now working as a defense attorney. And she is also working as our staff attorney for liberty and justice. So she has been with us before and I'm hoping that she'll be with us on a regular basis. Andy 3:23 Outstanding. And as I recall that, Ashley, you are at least minimally charismatic and you're significantly more than that. You're very fun to have on the podcast, and you're welcome anytime. Thank you. I like spunky, you know, funny replies and being able to keep up with being somewhat snarky Unknown Speaker 3:45 that I can do, I can always keep up with snarky Miss. Andy 3:48 I do want to kick out a quick reminder that any other people that are doing the Patreon side of things that you do have a little bonus episode over there on the website if you're not downloading it on your podcast. And that is also a little backhanded plug. If you're not a Patreon supporter, then you're missing out on some bonus episodes that we started releasing maybe one ish or so a month. And there's an extra 45 minute episode that we did last week when we had the three different decisions that we talked about. So if you want to get that telling you $1 a month feels to me like a massively good value for you. If you want to get deep dives into these different subjects that we go into. Larry 4:28 It's certainly the Ashley 4:28 best bargain out there. Andy 4:29 I'm telling you, thank you for that. That's great. Ashley 4:32 It certainly sounds like a good buy to me. Because if you get the podcasts are free, and you get a deep dive for no more, you can go as little as a buck a month, that's 12 bucks a year. Andy 4:45 Seems like a good value. I mean, we even have like will in chat who who does that at that level? Not to call you out? Well, but and he gets the bonuses and he loves it. Right. All right, well, Ashley 4:56 so we're really we're really trying to jack our patrons numbers, because it makes it makes us look good to have have a large number of people that are there that are subscribing at some level to the podcast. So we're Andy 5:11 absolutely in chat that it's worth the value. Ashley 5:14 So we'd like to see that number doubled. I said, but in a year, but we're we're going to have to really push to make a double by the end of the year. Andy 5:19 Yes. All right. Well, let's get going. And here we go. All right, Larry, tell us what's going on for the breaking news. Ashley 5:28 Well, this is an old story, but it has a new twist to it. This is a civil commitment as it applies to sexual offenders, which happens in 20 of our US states. This is a case of a young man, relatively young man. But of course, by my standards, anything's young, named Galen Bachman. And he's he's facing a second civil coma trial in the state of Virginia for getting on Monday. And we plan to do a deep dive. But the breaking news is that the Commonwealth has decided to seek commitment on him for the second time after they lost the first time, some number of years ago. Andy 6:10 And they have the authority to do this. Why? But we Ashley 6:15 don't know that they do. Andy 6:18 But I mean, like, I'm trying to not like jump too far ahead. Do they have I mean, is this a case of they're doing it until they're told to stop? Ashley 6:26 That is correctly that is that is pro? Exactly. I love my work Pro. Exactly. That is exactly exactly what they're doing. It they the civil commitment statue to siloed, it doesn't say this, I can only file one. And if you're a textual issue, you would believe that if they had all it, what if the prosecution to be able to file just one petition, they would have said so. And so until we get some case law that says that they can't follow a second petition, without what's called a predicate offense, which is one of the offenses that that makes the person eligible for several games, it's a solid, they'll that they'll potentially fall a whole lot of these if they if they are successful in this one. So this is a very, very important case, get affects a small number of the offender population. it's it's a it's it's an, I think three or 4000, across the country. But three or 4000 is a lot if one of them happens to be you, or your loved one. Andy 7:22 And I think in the interest of time, I think Ashley is just going to stick around pretty much just up till the top of the hour. And we're going to dive right into this one already. Do you guys want to just start going at it? Or how do you want to proceed from here? Ashley 7:35 Well, I would be delighted to go go go at it now. And we'll do the articles later. But this is this is something where Marcel has has issued a statement a year ago about this particular case. We've issued a statement many years ago about but civil commitment generates that applies to sex offenders. And we need to probably do a little bit of a deep dive explaining the all state civil they commit people. But this was a different and unique process that for the 20 states that have have this separate track for sexual offender civil commandment. And and this is a scary form of civil commandment compared to what is generally accepted as a civil commitment which all states have some level of civil commitment that takes place. So Ashley, have you ever done so what the DHS offices do those in New Mexico? Have you ever done a civil commitment? Yes, I have but not on sex offenders. And I definitely have not done one in the way that they're doing it? Well, we don't we don't think about this. We don't have that kind of go ahead, or we don't have that kind of commitment here. So I would hope you haven't done one. No, even the dangerousness hearings I've conducted or not even they don't even rise to this level. Because let's think about this. I can't even imagine any other type of process, that you get two bites at the apple lon, you don't get it on trials, you don't get it on a whole bunch of other things. You can't simply commit somebody the first time, you don't get to do it again, and then take away a bunch of the tools that that person might defend themselves with, which is exactly what we have here. Oh, well. Well, can you elaborate on that? What what are some of the tools that they've taken away from Mr. Obama? That would normally be I mean, I agree with you completely this but my point and the and the writing I've done about civil, this particular case of civil commitment is that this is a second bite at the apple without additional predicate offense, we would probably be willing to concede it although we wouldn't like it, because I don't agree with the whole process to begin with. But I think that if they have a mental disorder, they should be putting the mental health system out of prison. But if you're going to have civil commitment, and it's not unconstitutional, if they were to commit another predicate offense, I think we would agree that, that you could file it as a petition. Right. Right. But Unknown Speaker 9:50 I think they would have less problem with that. Ashley 9:53 But that's not what happened here. He texted if the allegations are assumed true, which we will for this for this conversation, he texted a 16 year old with, with what was nothing criminal about it, except it was a violation of his probation. He texted a 16 year old. And there was nothing that could prosecute him for but they revoked his probation and finally about on probation, and then 30 days before his probation, or before his prison incarceration ended, then they follow this petition. And there, they have don't do a criminal offense, they're trying to commit the man for the same behavior that constituted the predicate offense all these years ago. Unknown Speaker 10:33 Right. And I think you put it plainly in at least one of the things that I've read from last year is that I don't even want to say thinly veiled, this is a flat out attempt to extend a sentence for somebody that is already going to be done with their sentence, if not already done by the time they do the several commitments. So essentially, they're doing what the law says they really can't do, which is what somebody has done with their time, you can't better increased their time, unless they commit something else. And then you have a whole new crime. But that's not even what happened here. These weren't even texts that were sexual in nature. But assuming that those facts are true, like you said, and essentially what they're doing is they are going after him again, because they weren't able to civilly commit him in 2012. So now they're initiating the process again, except this time, they're not allowing him to talk about any of the exams that he had done. And the ones that even the state had done that said that he isn't dangerous. I have never even seen a process like this. Ashley 11:36 So so the state the process that would send him to a state of facility for examination, if I understand it correctly, that Xander said that he wasn't he didn't qualify in the in the in the Select category that and they still went out in hard, a separate evaluator together, they would opinion shopping, isn't that what they did, according to what we're reading? Unknown Speaker 11:59 Not a did they do that. But I believe by statute that they aren't even allowed to do that. And instead, they went ahead and went outside who their accepted practitioners were to do these type of exams, went off the grid, so to speak, found one that would say exactly what they wanted to, and then the judge is not allowed allowing any of the other stuff that you would rely on to conduct those initial examinations. He's not letting any of that information come in. Ashley 12:28 So so they get a second bite at the apple. So they get they get to talk about his offense that a previous jury has already heard about. They got to go back and talk about that offense again. And he doesn't get to raise in response to a rebuttal. I mean, we all understand what rebuttal is. So he doesn't get to rebut that and say, Yes, I did commit this heinous offense, if you want to call it heinous, although it wasn't very heinous from all accounts, committed this heinous offense. And you people tried to commit me already. You people failed. And now you're edit again, he doesn't got to say that. Right. Unknown Speaker 13:00 Right. He doesn't get to say that they did not find it in 2012. He doesn't get to talk about the exams that have been conducted on behalf of the State no less, that state that he is not a danger is not a native this additional civil commitment for mental treatment. He's basically being hand tied in a trial that the state holds all the cards, and he has nothing to put up against that. Andy 13:26 Why Why can't he present that stuff that says that he's not a threat? The judges ordered that that is not allowed to come in. But at the same time, then the prosecution can bring up all the bad stuff. Unknown Speaker 13:38 Yep, exactly what we have going on here. Andy 13:40 I'm just going to ask the dumb question. That sounds unfair. Right. Unknown Speaker 13:46 It's completely unfair. And I honestly have never seen even in, in some of the jurisdictions that we have here. I've never seen a judge do it. This blatantly. Andy 13:58 Does does this then do you think that this would then let's say they take him to court and let's say they civilly committed, does that then start rising something to a threshold to bring a SCOTUS to elevate something to a SCOTUS challenge of this being, you know, permanent imprisonment without any sort of due process? Unknown Speaker 14:16 Oh, absolutely. There's going to be a definite due process claim as a result of this, unless the trial plays out differently than what we're seeing right now. There's, it's going to I don't want to say automatic appeal, but there's definitely a due process violation claim that can be raised here. Andy 14:34 Does Does this mean that all of the advocacy the ACLU of the of the United States, will they step up and and throw their hats in Unknown Speaker 14:43 now that I have no idea? I don't know how much interest they have in the civil commitment area, Larry, maybe, you know, Ashley 14:51 well, I'm not quite as optimistic as you are, because I see this debt will certainly be on appeal. If if they, if they commit have this, this man, unfortunately, is connected with enough resources, enough people like him, enough people recognize he's going to there's going to be an appeal. And I can almost speak for an arsenal that we would want to be supportive of any way we can. But But the issue here, this disappear, will not be to bring down civil commitment this appeal will be that that the decisions are that are being made, they're suppressing the evidence by the judge, that are violating his due process rights, that that's what the nature of the appeal of the civil commitment has been upheld time and time and time and time and time again, Sure. Sure. Sure, sure. Right. And why don't we just actually, since we've got a person who's licensed to practice law, why don't we get into to something that that I try to dice out as best I can, and people roll their eyes for something to be facially unconstitutional. That means that there are no set of circumstances by which that particular practice could be constitutional. Civil commitment, correct, is possible. Right? Several commit But no, no commit in and of itself. Not Not, not sex, commit, but but simply the act of civil to committing someone that is constitutional. I'm presuming since all states do it, right. Unknown Speaker 16:14 That has been upheld over and over again, as you pointed out, that you can simply commitment commit somebody, however, there is a threshold and there is a process. Ashley 16:23 And so what we have to challenge with sex offender specific civil commitment, is if the process is robust enough to meet the process that we have, that protects people in regular civil commitment. If we just simply say, civil commit was unconstitutional, the courts will look at us they will roll their eyes and discussed and say how can you come before us and make a claim like this when clearly civil committed but it's not facially unconstitutional, your particular claim against your particular state, and your particular circumstances as applied may be unconstitutional, but the mere act of simply committing someone is not uncomfortable. So therefore, we're never going to break down civil combat, but across the board, because it's eminently constitutional, if it's done correctly, Andy 17:08 which would take us to the due process side of it that this is not happening for Galen, Ashley 17:14 it's not certainly not happening for Gala. And it doesn't happen for a whole lot of folks. Because what happens is they get to the end of their prison sentence. They have no money, they've been locked up for all the years. And the state files this petition where unless this unless the statute of the state provides them indigent funds, they don't have the right to counsel because they're not facing a criminal charge. They're facing a civil proceeding. So they're there, they're facing the power of the state, the vast power of the state, with no professional resources, no money for experts. And no way to rebut this fellow presumption. That is, you have to have a mental abnormality. That is such a low standard that that it's very easy to commit these people, if you take a person has nothing to fight with no resources, and you have a very low standard, what do you suppose is going to happen when you file a petition against them? Unknown Speaker 18:08 Yeah, you're screwed, they're gonna lose. Ashley 18:10 And that's what's happened. There's there's of these 4000, or however many days I hope some of the listeners that we have a civil committed, but will give us some solid numbers. So we can go back next week and say how many It really is. But of the of the several thousand people who suffer commitment, very few of them got anything that resembles due process? Andy 18:27 Where's the breakdown for this? And the due process? Whatever, arena? I mean, shouldn't there be someone that's going hey, this is violating this dude's due process? Shouldn't somebody along the way they say this, like, I don't know what the judge? Unknown Speaker 18:43 So I'm guessing that the defense attorneys have already raised and preserve these objections for the appeal. But yes, judges are supposed to uphold the due process and constitutional rights for whatever reason and cannot comment on on what the motivation is, or anything else without knowing additional factors. But essentially, in this one, it's setting it up for a good due process or appeal. Andy 19:08 Can I can I ask? Is it because he is to some degree connected? Is it because he's the guy that was doing TED talks? Right, Larry? Larry 19:15 Yes. Andy 19:16 Okay. So is it because he was out there made some kind of mockery of them letting him go? And now this is their retaliation, something like that? Ashley 19:25 it very well be very well, could be that the system, they're sore losers, they are very sore losers. You know, I grew up believing that that when when when the court said something, the court decreed something in the court or something like the people put their hands on those Bibles and said, I believe that they would actually fall into line and follow those orders. They don't fall into line, and they don't follow those orders. And they have nothing but contempt for those orders, and they do everything they can to retaliate. So it would be a possibility of read also, the possibilities been raised. I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me I would possibility just because they're they're big, extra zealous, because because he's gay. That that that has been levels an allegation. Unknown Speaker 20:08 So go ahead, actually, please. Unknown Speaker 20:11 Just Larry brought up a really good point about the the the, it could be potentially because he's gay, because what we look at the factors that they're considering, for the civil commitment, there's what it's like 450 pages of stuff. And I could be totally exaggerating the number of pages. But it's skewed heavily. So that if you're young, because of some of the questions that automatically add points. So for example, if you're 19, and you commit your crime, and you haven't been in any other relationship other than the one with the victim, it bumps up the points, if you're gay, it bumps up the points because it falls under that same thing. So it is skewed in terms of not being fair. It is fall under a couple of categories. Doesn't that violate, like some 14th? Equal Protection stuff, even asked that question? And I was actually considering that when I was reading through the criteria that they were using that there might be a protection argument here, Larry? Ashley 21:10 Well, if we if we have I mean, the static 99 is the instrument I think that they went to the Commonwealth. That is that is biased, because it does elevate the points for for homosexual behavior. I don't I don't know if it does or not. I mean, if if, if there is, you know, you guys were big, great on your figures or your statistics, and you say there should be empirical evidence, if there is empirical evidence that supports that. Not that I'm saying I'm for it. We're having we're having a discussion about whether they can do it constitutionally. I don't know that there is a constitutional claim if there is empirical evidence, but again, this is not me saying I endorse it. The question was whether they can do it from a constitutional perspective? Unknown Speaker 21:58 Well, I see this is similar to when the schools were being challenged on the testing that was skewed in favor of, okay, not skewed in favor of minorities, and basically, were detrimental in certain city areas. I see this is very similar if you have a test that static 99. And it asked questions, and it gives you points. And no matter what you do if you're in a certain criteria, for example, if you're gay, and you answer those, you're automatically getting points where somebody else might not be in that situation. I think it can rise to an equal protection argument. Andy 22:34 I stroke isn't the static 99. It doesn't the 99 represent the year that it was enacted. Or my reading and Unknown Speaker 22:43 I don't actually know what the what that means. All right. Well, Andy 22:46 let's let's just hypothesize that that the static 99 has been around for a while, like prior to the social acceptance level that homosexuality and same sex partners are in the United States at this point. That could be information that was presented at a time where there were still sodomy laws, or, you know, they hadn't been all the way removed and all that and you still had massive bias, you still have bias, but like more bias, or, as it were, how could I don't know how, like people have same sex relationships and their quote, unquote, perfectly healthy? Like, I don't and I say that with the quotes just to say that it's like, it's kind of a stupid thing to even bring up that they're perfectly healthy because it's kind of sort of normal, at least society at this point. You know, we covered something Larry What about a year ago where they were giving a guy Cain lashings for being gay? You know, we're not doing that the United States at least. Ashley 23:40 Sounds like a pretty good idea. Actually. Andy 23:48 This is this is really troubling. Um, can I ask a question from chat real quick? Sure. All right, we'll asks, How can someone be found totally saved to bear the full punishment for their crimes on the front end? trial, and then on the back end, they're magically incompetent to be released upon expiration of their sentence? Unknown Speaker 24:06 That is an excellent question. And the question that follows up on that is, how can you be deemed mentally fit or competent to stand trial, but you're mentally unfit or incompetent to release? It's the same, same thing, but they're Unknown Speaker 24:22 making the offer Coco, Ashley 24:24 therein lies the nuance, they, they, they don't, they don't mess this, they don't pretend like you have something that's in the DSM five, I'll play that stuff. They use the term mental abnormality. They don't say they don't say mental disease or defect. And, and, and the mental abnormality, that makes the person predisposed to have urges, or some kind of vague language like that. And it varies from state to state of the 20 states, I have them but but they center greatly on mental abnormality, because they know that that, that, that they are that that they're playing a game here, if the person was mentally defective, they never should have gone to prison, because we're supposed to have our person is incompetent. Or now this is where I have a lot of, we're gonna we're gonna take a detour here on incompetence versus insanity. They're two different, they're two different legal thresholds for being incompetent to proceed. And being criminal, being irresponsible, being not held responsible because of being legally insane. There is there are two completely different senators and lawyers, I, I get into arguments all the time, and they'll say they're one of the same, no, they're not one in the same. The first one has to occur, to determine a few if you are fit to proceed. And that's a very low threshold to determine if you understand who your defense attorney is, what role they play, if you're oriented person, place time, if you if you if you can participate with your turn in and assist. It's a pretty low threshold to beat to be incompetent, stand trial, and then whether you whether you are not responsible for your, for your for your criminal behavior. It's a different standard. And it varies from state to state a little bit but it's basically whether you whether you can understand and appreciate the criminality of your of your actions, which they always the example always finds you, you can understand that what you're doing is unlawful. And then if you if you do have the ability understand it can't as Are you so diseased or defective that you can't conform your conduct to the requirements of law. And that kind of gets to the irresistible impulse. McNaughton tested that you still apply? Those are two different, those are two different sets of facts that deal with mental health and incompetency is not the same as insanity. So, so you lawyers out there listening, try to understand the difference. Unknown Speaker 26:51 And there is a difference. You're absolutely right. I mean, you succinctly Do you know right from wrong in order to have not committed the crime is completely different on whether you're competent stand trial, those are two different things. But essentially, they're trying to do that in the civil commandments. They're saying, okay, you're competent, but you can't be released, and back to when they were in prison, or even on probation. If they were so mentally unfit for release, why didn't they start getting them treatment there, why wait until after the sentences over, unless you're actually just trying to increase the sentence without statutorily increasing a sentence. That's, Ashley 27:29 that's what that is what this is civil commitment is nothing more than a very expensive, and they pay gobs of money, because even in the states where they try to provide treatment, and like, that's where they spend, where they, where they put all the pony dog and pony show and tried to pull up provide treatment. They spend gobs of money for this for this civil commitment. But they're still intending on keeping the people locked up Minnesota, for example, I think very few, if any, have gotten out of that facility. In fact, they're expanding it because a federal judge declared it unconstitutional. And the Eighth Circuit overturned to federal judge and said, it's quite constitutional that no one has the right to get out. Just because people are not getting out. That doesn't mean that they couldn't get out someday. So so they spend a ton of money on this, this is this is a livelihood for a lot of folks who make their living on keeping these people committed. And the examinations that take place. Through these through these kangaroo courts that they do this is big business. How is this not double jeopardy, Larry, it's not double jeopardy, because it is a civil commitment. It's not a criminal prosecution. It's it's its its its, its its regulatory, and it's for its for its for the good of the of the person itself. So if they were charging them with a new crime, it would be double jeopardy if they were charged enough with the same crime again, but they're merely coming in and saying, well, we, we understand that you've paid your debt to society, but you're not quite ready for release. So we're going to try how to put you in a facility where you can get some more help. And this is not to punish you. This is merely to get you the help you need. Andy 29:07 Wow, all right. I'm deeply confused. And will again posts he says is a cheesy and cheesy and run around double jeopardy is what he's saying. Ashley 29:16 That's that is precisely what it is. This, this is a game that's being played it is it and it's a sad commentary on our society that we're allowing this game to be played, we wouldn't allow it if it weren't for the despise population that we have labeled as sexual offenders. We don't allow this type of thing to take place with with regular civil commandment, the whole the whole goal of civil commitment, when someone goes on top of the water tower, and they start scraping all kinds of obscenities and spray paint inside of the thing and threatening the job. When they take them to a mental health facility. The whole goal is to release them. Of course, if you do too much graffiti, they might charge you for the vandalism on the on the tower but but the the goal of that when when Ashley was doing that prosecution, she did adopt prosecutions, probably not that what she was doing that civil criminal proceeding. She was not celebrating saying I'm going to make this person suffer. She was salivating saying I hope we can get this person some help. Unknown Speaker 30:15 Right. Right. Absolutely. I mean, that's the whole goal of the civil commitment. And even when we do the dangerousness hearings, here, which are a little bit different, but have a pretty high threshold. It's to treat them back to competency under that or, and even the civil commitments to get them treatment. It's it should never be about punishment. In fact, that's the whole reason the Supreme Court keeps saying, Oh, it's not punitive, because the purpose of the detention is psychiatric treatment, how can you have that purpose if you're not even sending them off to get treatment. Ashley 30:48 So right, but but but when we commit a person to our state Psychiatric Center in Las Vegas, New Mexico, the whole, the minute you walk in there was up for the first clinician does their intake, they're trying to figure out how to get you out of that facility. Because it's very expensive. And society doesn't want people there. It's it's their liberties, big restraint. So when they could get them stabilized on medications, and hooked up with community resources, the goal is to get those people out. That type of civil commitment, if that was what this was really about, would be a lot less objectionable. But that's not what this is all about. This is not about to get those people out. You even take, I think we've talked about john Hinckley a number of times on this podcast, when he was felt not guilty by reason of insanity. And I believe that was an 82. The shooting happened at 81. But when he was found not guilty by insanity, of course, after shooting the President and the press secretary and three law enforcement officials, that person is going to be perceived to be quite dangerous. But the goal of the of his country but which was several because he was found not guilty, was to release him someday. And he was released, he has been released, and a free to go on with his life. Unknown Speaker 32:10 Very strange. The sound This is really, really disturbing and really terrible. Unknown Speaker 32:15 It is And let's not forget that. So what they're doing is the civil commitments on your sexually violent predators Act, the SVPA. But in fact, in gallons case, is predicate offenses were actually not violent. The victims didn't even want to testify. So we're essentially punishing him for things that don't even really shouldn't even fall under this act. Already, then, Ashley 32:43 oh, well, we're going to be following this very closely. Normal will have a representative in the courtroom, at least one of the days they've allocated five days for this hearing. We're going to have someone there at least one day or maybe more to observe and try to make connections with with his legal team. And let them know that that we find this very, very troubling. And we want to be supportive. Whether or not you like Galen is irrelevant. This is nothing about this doesn't resemble anything that America should stand for in terms of due process of fundamental fairness. Andy 33:20 Can I have one other final question I have to ask if the left is is quote unquote, if they are willing to throw the constitution out the window, blah, blah, blah, and the right stands for constitution and due process and and all that? Shouldn't they be like burning down the place trying to get this to have the due process side of it? Ashley 33:38 Well, Who says that? Where do you get those assignments? So who's for deposit? Who's not? Andy 33:43 I don't, I'm just making I'm trying to stoke flames. And people claim this that the other thing and I anyway, shouldn't all the people that believe the constitution stands for something like judges, shouldn't they be just chomping at the bit to go that this is incredibly terrible cardless of what the cases? Ashley 34:02 Well, actually, I think that the judge is essentially a neutral referee, doesn't objection have to be raised before a judge can rule on or can they rule so spot on emotion? It hasn't been made? I mean, I'm assuming he's got a very fine legal team. They're gonna be making these objections. But But can the judge himself object to the way this was proceeding predictable? So says judges making the horrible rulings that are motion or the state? What What, what, what what gives here Who? Who guards who guards the henhouse? Unknown Speaker 34:31 So yes, judges are supposed to uphold the Constitution, when I heard the judicial branch that does that. So suicide bond day, and I have seen this all the time, that if they feel somebody's rights are being violated, then they're supposed to do something about it. Now, technically, should there be motions, and I'm sure there have been motions from the defense. But they're still the guardians are the final Guardian because before it ever gets to a jury or anybody else, there the gatekeeper, there ensures that no due process is violated prior to that. Larry 35:03 So Well, well, well, I Unknown Speaker 35:05 got the podcast off with shitty news. Well, I hope that Ashley 35:08 I hope that we can spend more time on this issue of this very important issue civil commander for those who listened to us and several commit, but we don't talk enough about this issue. And we're going to try to do better. Very good. Andy 35:21 Actually, do we need to let go? Unknown Speaker 35:23 Um, do we want to talk about the New York law? Before I go? Andy 35:27 That sounds good to me, we can bump that up to the front layer, if you're okay with that. Ashley 35:29 Sure. Cuz I'm gonna let her off the bus. Andy 35:32 Ashley, what is this new law, New York law thing you're talking about? Unknown Speaker 35:36 So there is a New York law. And if I'm reading this correctly, it is 2836. See, which is the 2019 2020 regular session in the Senate. And essentially what they're enacting is it's a variation of the Tennessee law about not residing with children that are victims of crimes. This one, however, does not take it to the level that Tennessee does, what they're actually stating is that they're finding it dangerous for the child to be placed in custody or have unsupervised visits with a person who has been convicted of several enumerated sex crimes, including first degree or second degree rate, course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, and then a couple of other offenses, or if they were actually the victim that the person was convicted of, then what they're stating is that the offender can't have the kid the child back has custody or have on supervised visits with it. It is way more limited than the one that we're seeing in Tennessee. It I don't want to say it's a concern, so much as it is that what it seems like they're doing is to make sure that if you they're just trying to protect children, because we're doing it under the domestic act, it's in the state. Larry, do you have a different take on it? Ashley 36:59 For a while little I was able to determine I say it is far more limited. But I I don't know. I don't know that I've fully dissected the adjusted where the limitations are. I'm always concerned when I can see the family courts already have the prerogative to do this. So I always do things with great skepticism, because I believe it's a solution in search of a problem. And I believe this is catered to the victim industrial complex. Unknown Speaker 37:30 Pretty sure you I'm pretty sure you've coined that term where Unknown Speaker 37:34 the the Ashley 37:37 already already the courts have ample power to remove a child from from a parent or guardian. That's unfit. Right, Ashley? Unknown Speaker 37:48 So essentially what they did in this one, and they do they have that ample power, however, what they're doing, it says down at the bottom of this act, that they're applying it to the Family Court Act. So all they're doing is expanding on the Family Court Act, and stating that if you have two parents and one of them is convicted of of molesting the child in that custody situation that the person who's who's convicted of that cannot get the child back. Larry 38:15 So it has to be that particular child. Unknown Speaker 38:17 Yes. On that or the enumerated giving custody? Or on supervised visits with with a convicted sex offender? If it was one of those enumerated things. So essentially, we're right back to the Family Court Act, just limiting Ashley 38:35 wouldn't if you had if you were convicted of one of those integrated sex offenses? Wouldn't that preclude you from having relationships with your own child if that child wasn't a victim? If it wasn't the victim? If it's one of the enumerated offenses? Have I got that right or wrong? Unknown Speaker 38:52 That is what they're stating there stating, custody or on or have unsupervised visits? So Ashley 38:58 yes, what that essentially blocked that parent from having custody of visits with a minor child, even though that person wasn't a victim, like say, I haven't fully digested this, I'm still struggling with it. Unknown Speaker 39:10 So the way that I'm understanding the language is actually good. Let me see notwithstanding any other provisions, um, there was language, who is subject of the proceeding. Oh, was conceived as a result of actually they do so. Okay. Okay. Unknown Speaker 39:28 They're making it very narrow. Larry 39:30 Okay, so, Andy 39:32 so as I, as I read it, and understood it, and they use legal ease in there, to me, at least, if if you perform one of these acts on your child, you can't gain custody or unsupervised access to your kid later. Correct. Unknown Speaker 39:47 Correct. Or if they were conceived as a result of the rape of the mother or? Okay, some of the other sexual assaults that are enumerated in here. So it is very narrowly tailored to that. Not just if your child, you have a child and you're convicted of a sex offense, Andy 40:04 and feel free to throw all of the darts at me, is this bad? Ashley 40:10 Well, Unknown Speaker 40:15 lawyer, let me ask it this way something is good or bad? Andy 40:18 Yeah. Let me ask it this way that if it feels like that would be in the interest of the child. So let me the the more broad question is, what are the the hidden areas that I'm not seeing right there on the face of it, that would come back and do something unintended consequences later, I guess. Unknown Speaker 40:36 Like if it was a familial child under the age of 12. Unknown Speaker 40:40 And, and that's not actually in here. These are just the children as part of the union or as that are conceived as it but my, I mean, there's always going to be hidden landmines as far as I'm concerned, but at least they very narrowly tailored this. I guess one of the concerns to me would be if you didn't want the other person to get custody of the child, we already see incidences where there's allegations of abuse, sexual abuse against the the other parent, and to me this could perpetuate that. Andy 41:13 Where do you see any hidden trapdoors there? Ashley 41:16 Not not having been able to dive deep enough into my general thing is I always feel trapdoors, anything the victim industrial complex is behind? Because they don't analyze things from the same perspective we do. They analyze it from it. It sounds good, like they say terminate the parental rights of a rapist. Well, that sounds really, really good. If you went out and asked 100 people on the street, should we terminate the parental rights of a rapist? 100? People would say yes. But when you appear below the surface, and you look at what constitutes Right, well, there's all these variations and degrees of of that for universe. So in our case, when the advocates industrial complex, they bring that legislation and they include the entire universal sexual offences where the cases for people have gotten together and stayed together. And and they've conceived a child. And but it's a time it would have been unlawful for that, for that conception to have taken place. You follow me? I do. That would have been against the law on draw law for that. But But they've stayed together. Well, that was technically a rape. And of course, when you start saying, well, there's different types of rape bear by says no, rape is always right breakers raping rappers, right? They want but rape is not there's different shades of rape. And then you get in big trouble if you start saying that. But when you pair below the surface of terminate parental rights of rapist, you see that it goes all the way down to the consensual relationships. And then they want to, they want to have it where the the the person doesn't need to have had a conviction. They said, well, they should never have had to have a conviction of rape all the time. So what they want to have the victims of industrial Commons. Next I want the people to be able to come in and say years and years after the the the conception, or the person may have been participating as a child support, providing child support. They want them to be able to come in and say, well, that child was conceived, I guess my will. And he's been paying child support for the last eight years, and he's been apart. But he shouldn't have done that to me, and you should terminate the right. That's just not right. And those are the hidden line landmines that I worry about when you start digging bubble below the surface because they bring them into a civil committed civil proceeding, because it's not criminal in nature. They don't follow the new charges, they follow a civil petition for termination, you're not entitled to indigent counsel. So if you're working down at the octopus carwash for 1111 or $7 an hour minimum wages, would you work it down to a doctor was carwash you don't have any money. So they they put you in a position where you have to defend yourself against something that was alleged to happen nine years ago, and the terminate your parental rights. And it was in the evidence, your standard is by a less than the templates required to convict a person. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's either bra ponderous or clearing convincing one of those lower standards. And they they put very tight timelines on these proceedings have to be the petition has to be filed, the court must hear it within 60 days. And somehow the person is going to magically be able to muster a defense against something that's alleged to happen a decade ago. It's It's It's, it's wrong. And it doesn't resemble due process, and the victims industrial complex is wrong. In my opinion, Andy 44:39 Larry, have you ever considered like doing a filibuster? Unknown Speaker 44:43 I think you could have just kept going, you could do that. You just keep rambling shit for like an hour. Well get your tennis shoes out there on the floor. Ashley 44:51 But I see these people come up with these legislative proposals. And they put on this pony show about well, everybody agrees that rapist should be targeted? Well, of course, everybody does agree with that. But that's not what you're proposing. Right? You're not proposing that. you're proposing to take the entire universal sexual offenses. And you're proposing to put people into a civil process where they have no rights to speak of no representation. And you're proposing to take away the parental rights even in cases where they've been supporting the kid that is wrong. And nobody will call them out on because you're not supposed to say anything against the victims advocate says somehow unAmerican if you do that? Andy 45:36 Actually, let me ask you this question. You when you were doing the intro to this particular piece, you were saying that this was more narrowly tailored versus the Tennessee and I think you said another state could like they're they're making it more broad. I guess of that this applies to more people I don't, I can't personally find the way that this is written the way that I understand it a problem with the New York one. But the problems with the other ones. Unknown Speaker 45:59 Anytime we have where you just are doing blanket removals, like they're doing in Tennessee, where you can't reside with any of your children, and they're tearing families apart. Those are extremely concerning. And I'm with Larry, there could be trapdoors, and this one that we haven't actually seen, even me looking at the language and going wow, they even though they did by petitioning in order to show cause I'm not so sure that they actually spelled out criteria, like they need to. So I think that could be an issue, but at least it is not to the level of Okay, you can't be you can't reside with any minor children, including your own. At least it does not say that it's actually way more specific, which Larry 46:43 is what they did. Andy 46:45 Yeah. Okay. And does this does this apply post like all of your time? Or is this even while you're under some sort of form of supervision? The Tennessee Unknown Speaker 46:53 killer one that's New York, or the Tennessee one, Andy 46:56 either or because the reason why I'm asking that is because Georgia has language while you're under su provision that you can't have any contact with minors, including your own children. Unknown Speaker 47:04 And New Mexico does to know the Tennessee one, they were done with their supervision. Almost every single person on there was done with their supervision weren't they learn? Ashley 47:14 The plaintiffs that they select the world world does their supervision? This applies to everybody all the registry if you had a victim hundred 12? Andy 47:21 Correct. And I asked you somewhere in the past Ashley, one of the previous times that we were together that I said and you have a constitutional right to your family, you said Yes, you do. How does this not then violate this the Tennessee one New Mexico probation and Georgia? How does that not violate that stance? Unknown Speaker 47:40 It is my position that it does as do undisclosed romantic relationships in the courts are split on a lot of that. But I do see this as being an area that we will be fighting on the probation side, at least in New Mexico. I'm not sure about other states. She's already been fought in California, on the romantic relationship side. Andy 47:59 But this will be two consenting adults, doing whatever and you don't tell them and you get in trouble for this. Even if there are no kids anywhere in the picture. Unknown Speaker 48:07 Sometimes it's if they have kids, sometimes they should just if it's an undisclosed romantic relationship either way. Yeah, I think there's issues I think you have a fundamental right to procreation. And I think you have a fundamental right to marriage. That's not maybe a personal opinion. But also as a lawyer, I believe, you know. Ashley 48:26 So on this on this Tennessee thing, let me just give you an example of things that don't get thought about because the advocates are not there. I don't know the specifics of what Tennessee does, and what it what it takes to put a juvenile and adult court already know about our state adult that you don't succeed very often try to kill juvenile put it adult court here. But it's a it's a very high mountain mountain to climb. But let's say Tennessee's one of those states where all the prosecutor has to do is file a piece of paper saying I'm charging this this person, if they're if they're over 14 as an adult, which is, which is the case in some states, they can just automatically do it without any type of due process, just upon the prosecutors decision. Let's say that a person in Tennessee was was put in adult court at age 50. And that they had a victim under 12, which would not be so painlessly impossible to imagine for a sex offense. Because a temperature boy at age 15 could be messing around with a with a with a girl that's two weeks shy of being 12 years old, and that would not be unheard of. Well, so that person is convicted of a sex offense and Tennessee, and no one was there asking those lawmakers Well, why don't we go what we don't do? Because you say that they that if they if they had a victim under 12, that they can't never be around the but what if what if they were only 15? At the top they did their sex fails? What the victim under 12? wasn't what nobody was there asking those hypothetical questions. And that's how you spot the things that are going to blow up on you later is you have to you have to be critically analyzing the legislation, you have to try to imagine the worst case of what could happen. And you have to be there posing those questions. And when they said, well, the prosecutor would never do that. You saw him? Yes, they actually would. They actually would. I know they wouldn't do it in central County, New Mexico, but they would do it and a whole bunch of other counties that are state. Absolutely. The listeners all get that joke said old cat is pure as the wind driven stuff like that. Unknown Speaker 50:27 That's my hood, Ashley 50:28 the desk, the district attorney, there is so pure wind driven. And those of us on this podcast, I've actually said that there are good district attorneys out there. I've expressed admiration for those that are, but they're not all good. And I've expressed dissatisfaction with those that are not but I've expressed a given accolades, particular to both both colleagues up in Boulder that I that I thought were very, very ethical, back in the day. But But, yes, this this is actually why that advocacy is so important. Someone has to be watching what they're discussing. And someone has to be posing hypotheticals that haven't been thought up. Unknown Speaker 51:11 You're absolutely right. And then like you just pointed out, what I've seen lately on a lot of the legislation legislation in in various places is will the prosecution is not going to be like that probation is not going to be like that. The courts not going to interpret it that way. But they are. I mean, we see this on the parole revocations. Oh, no, they're just going to let them out. And they don't. So I think that definitely, as part of any legislation, you need to ask those questions, and then consider the worst case scenario. What happens in this instance, what happens in that instance? And that's how you tailor legislation. Ashley 51:47 That means you can't stay behind your computer screens? solely. You have to actually go and in person and talk to people and build relationships, so they will want to hear what you have to say. Unknown Speaker 52:00 I'm not doing it. Absolutely. Unknown Speaker 52:03 Are we ready to move on gonna? Andy 52:05 boycott it? Not gonna do it? FYP Larry not gonna do it. I'm gonna do it my way. My way when and I will show it to you. Ashley 52:13 So you just just for those in South it's I don't do it. Yeah, jacket. I ain't go. Andy 52:22 Well, will is definitely His ears are perking. I was like, hey, they're speaking my language. I suppose we should let you go. Now. We're 3030 minutes past the time that you said that you would stay with us? Unknown Speaker 52:34 Well, I appreciate you guys having me, as always, and I'm really looking forward to is keeping tabs especially on the civil commitment with Galen and see how things shake out this week. I'm sure it's going to be a hot topic. And I'm going to be curious to see how this whole thing plays out. So I appreciate you guys giving me the time. And as always, Ashley 52:54 thank you, we will also give a shout out that Ashley will be with us on Monday night for the dark side and action call that will be on from seven until nine Eastern time. Andy 53:05 And the people that are catching this podcast will know about it then after it has been well, they're gonna Ashley 53:11 get this podcast tomorrow afternoon on Sunday before the reflection. So there are 50 people that will know about it. Give or take Yes. Unknown Speaker 53:22 It's worth $1 a month, right? Correct. Andy 53:27 I'm on board with that. Thank you actually have a great night, YouTube. But this first article comes from CNN and as a California man says he was beaten after being mistaken for success as a sex successful for a suspected child predator. This guy actually looks like Johnny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean, a movie you have never heard of probably. But the story is pretty amazing that the guys in a bar someone comes up to him. He's a little he says he's kind of hammered not even just tipsy and says, Hey, man, I need to speak to you outside and proceeds to beat the shit out of me. After having a little conversation. He's like, no, that's not me. And then the guys running away, and they're still trying to beat up the guy because he says, Hey, you look like this dude on the registry? I don't see a problem with it. Right? Larry 54:11 I don't know wicked move on to the next article. Andy 54:15 Could you tell me why this is a problem that could you just speculate, could you step outside of your comfort zone and come up with a reason why this might not be such a good idea. Ashley 54:23 What we've, we've set for so long that the registry the public, the dissemination of the information is, is dangerous to the health of the people who are on it and their families. And for those of you who don't care anything about the the former offender, hopefully you'll care about the innocent family members. But this is an example of what we say our fears are that the retaliation and oftentimes the the violence that that goes on, there's no clear connection, they don't proclaim they're doing it because on the registry, there's a low level of background violence that's happening all the time. In fact, a guy just left the state, because he has got a neighbor of police officers been going door to door, stirring up trouble. Now that's a couple steps below, chasing someone down, beating them up how many lashes over the head, they said he suffered. He said 2025 blows on the back of his head. And I'm not equating that to that, but that the public dissemination causes people to be able to do things that they shouldn't be able to do. We've always had sexual offenders in our communities always. But they weren't on a list or the public click a mouse and see their address and their image and go out and target them. And that's what's happening here. He got targeted there is there is a striking resemblance. Andy 55:49 Certainly, no, totally accept that. So I wonder, then, could there be if someone were so inclined, I'm not saying that this guy would be but it seems that somebody could be so inclined to say, I'm going to sue the shit out of the state for allowing this to happen to me that because they made this information public, that I had my civil liberties violated by this man punching his fist into my face repeatedly. Because they they posted a list that made it, you know, had this guy public that looks like me. Ashley 56:21 I wish there were more litigation, that area. The litigation for has been has not been successful. I haven't analyzed to know if it's been incorrectly, if it's been presented properly. The defense to that that the state will assert is that there was no direct linkage to the registry. I mean, people get beat up all the time. And unless they proclaimed, they're doing it because of the registry. And this case, there was such a proclamation. Current disk, yeah, this, this case, in this case will be treated differently because there was the Proclamation. But the state generally has a matrix for what what they do in the registry is the law of the state of salt, the officials are largely been for, for IVF. What, what what would you want them to do? So the last thing Andy 57:12 I get that side of it, yeah, but I get that side of it that they like, it's kind of vague. So you can't you can't point to but this guy says we don't like your kind in here, and then proceeds to beat the shit out of them. So it's like, we need an ambulance chaser guy that collects, you know, helps you collect checks from you know, having some car that mode you down and broke your legs, and they were you know, not driving with the right certifications, whatever. And they take 50%, whatever, get some ambulance chaser kind of law firm to because this guy was wrongfully beat up, because the state published that information. Ashley 57:44 Well, and and and within our listening audience, you'll have you'll have people who will? Well, I mean, guns don't kill people, people do that. That's the position of the registered it killed that beat this guy up, the person did win when you would you when you would you're drinking alcohol is who consumes alcohol? And is that the person? Or is it the bartender pouring down your throat with a funnel, the state, the state merely provided information, they would argue to enlighten their citizens. And this is not me saying that I'm just putting myself as a defense attorney for the state. The state will argue that we merely provided information intended to help our citizens be safer. That's our intent, nothing more. And the fact that people are going to misuse that information that thought our defense would be that's not our responsibility, no more than it is the person who goes out and does something with the gun manufacturers. They're not hoping that somebody gets killed at the end of their their weapon for a sinister reason. It does happen, but you don't hold the gun manufacturer responsible for that the person who goes out pulls the trigger, right? Totally. Right. I mean, I'm just trying to tell you that that's what I know. Andy 59:02 Now, I know, I understand. I mean, you know, same thing with cars, you know, somebody, you know, unless there's an actual malfunction, the car did kill somebody was negligent, and they're driving, like driving in the interstate in a torrential downpour without their headlights on. But this is just, to me, this just feels different than this was literally targeted as a I mean, this would we've talked about hate crimes recently, this actually goes to exactly what a hate crime would be. Ashley 59:30 Well, it does. And one of our podcast supporters said that he didn't believe in and and that that should be a hate crime. But I did post that question. But but the the state will defend what best way superior resources to anything that we could test or they will defend saying that, that we simply are providing the information. We're not encouraging. In fact, we have disclaimers on our website that says it's unprofessional not to be used in such a manner. And the person's going to willfully break the law and do that. I mean, that's on them. That's not on us. I disagree with that. I think that it's a tool that would not exist, but then you can make that argument with a lot of tools that wouldn't exist. This is this is this is a state operated tool. This that allows for people to inflict great harm and discrimination and all levels of retaliation and vigilantism. And this is not the type of nation that I think we should be or we claim to be that we that we provide this type of tool to our citizens to do what basically it's almost a license to do what you want to do there are there are the disclaimers saying not to misuse us but tell me how often someone gets prosecuted. I mean, right it's very rare Andy 1:00:46 certainly well let's move on this is just kind of like a public service announcement I it came to my attention only look in the last couple weeks there is a another podcast and it has been out for quite some time. I've listened to a handful of episodes it's worth a listen it's a it's more I guess like on the call it the story side of things of life on the registry so to speak. It's called the pariah nation, podcast with cowboy and karma maybe you guys could go give it a listen and check it out and might be something up your up your alley, one of our listeners, he said he's like binge listen to all of their episodes going back. They started around January to release their emphasis. They've done 20 or 30 episodes or so. Ashley 1:01:27 What was that? analysis I've result to listen to all those. What what what was the feedback? Andy 1:01:34 Captain crazy likes it. And he listens to all of the offender related podcast because there's also the registry of registry, registry report. Yeah, registry report is the other one. And he meant he likes listening to all of them. And he is a fan of hearing it more from the humanitarian side where they're talking stories about life on the registry, or being a registrant in prison and so forth. Just wanted to bring it to your attention and didn't know about it. We then have an article coming from the hill, current and former prosecutors respond to bars concerning comments on progressive DS. I'm assuming Larry that this is all about because I think it says there at the bottom signers of the letter include Philadelphia da Larry Krasner. So bar is not in agreement with what the progressive prosecutors are doing and trying to make prison less Ashley 1:02:26 awful. Yeah, this is US Attorney General bar that we're talking about the hates he's trying to stir up hate over. prosecutorial discretion likes taking place in Philadelphia. So in a speech at the fraternal release, last weekend, bar blasted unnamed DA who have declined to prosecute some non violent offenses as, quote, anti law enforcement. And so there was a public statement to make it clear that the the US Attorney's Australian general is being condemned for that. And some significant people have signed off on that. Andy 1:03:01 So what does this mean for us? Why Why are we Why are we bringing this article into the podcast? Unknown Speaker 1:03:06 It's my fault or your fault? Well, it's my fault. But it's it's it's Ashley 1:03:12 trying to illustrate how that those who stick their neck out and do try like to, like Chris are and Philadelphia and New York County, da Cyrus bounce, some of those people the grief that they're taking from a law enforcement apparatus, particularly the highest ranking law enforcement official United States, the US Attorney General, that that is something that that I find very troubling. So but this is, this is what we have at the top right now. So just barely an informational piece. Andy 1:03:46 Fair enough. And just just to like, fill that in backwards. We have talked repeatedly about the the success statistics of prisons, systems and other nations. And then we talked about ours and how atrocious it is, then we have some a handful of outliers that are trying to make things where if you are going to get less than three years, you don't go to jail or prison at all. You get diverted. And then you've got William bar the the top official saying that these guys are anti law enforcement. That's really awesome. Ashley 1:04:20 Okay, he's entitled that opinion, but it's very irresponsible course, of course, it should cause a little bit of pause for people who thought that this administration was going to be so Pro, a justice reform. Because remember, a lot of people said, Oh, what the hell, we've got to do administration all the holder? And I said, Well, no, they campaigned on being tough. They can't pay us they did. And and I don't know where you draw this conclusion somehow or other magically that they're going to be soft. they've, they've been issued directors for the entire time to be to be tough to seek maximum penalties to stack charges at the federal level. Now, we're talking about federal prosecution. I don't have anything to say about what's going on in your particular state. But its national level, this administration ran on a campaign of law and order, and dice exactly what they're delivering, and they're continuing that tough talk to this very day. So if you are further reform, which you claim you are, you may want to think about whether this administration accurately represents you. Andy 1:05:25 Because here's the point where I would throw in the quote from Trump saying I am the lawn or the candidate, right? Larry 1:05:30 Yes. So I am Andy 1:05:34 the law and order candidate. All right. Do you want to talk about some really deplorable conditions in in Mississippi? Ashley 1:05:43 I sure don't want to but we have. Andy 1:05:47 We have a couple articles. Go ahead. Ashley 1:05:49 It pains me to talk about these type of President conditions to imagine the United States of America that this is going on in our prison, one of our state prison systems, and it's going on many of our prison system, not just this one. But this one stands out. Andy 1:06:04 We have two articles back to back. And from Pro publica, some of the country's worst prisons have escaped Justice Department action. Not terribly long ago, we talked about their neighbor, Alabama being like, like the worst of the worst, but this is the worst of the worst. So that the US these places are unbelievable. And they are hell, and they are violent. And you've got to go in there prepared to defend yourself. And then there's no guard support that you can have a safe Club Med vacation while you're while you're visiting us. And Ashley 1:06:37 the second one is particular sad, because I guess I was in beta that was a beat to death. And while they were crying out for help, there was no help to be offered because of the staff. Lack of staffing. Did you catch Andy 1:06:51 there's a guy that got? Yeah, I did. There was a guy that got set on fire. I mean, how, okay, when you when you when your family comes the visitation, they get not strip search, but something close to it. So how did an inmate get gasoline to throw on another inmate to burn him? Unbelievable that this could happen? Ashley 1:07:10 Probably to some of the machine shops that the Mississippi Mississippi operates. So very, very labor driven system or where they they they put people in more jobs that are raising crops and and tending to animals and making they make license plates? I'm sure but they do they do they do a whole lot of stuff that would have it made, it might send labor roles that somebody would go off to present grounds depending on the security level, of course. Andy 1:07:40 And of course, that's where they would have gotten it. But then when they came back in through the Shakedown shack, whatever, you would then think they got strip searched, you know, to make sure that they weren't suitcases of phone or dope or whatever. So what did he do suitcase gasoline? Ashley 1:07:57 Well, there's a number of ways. I mean, it could have came from the facility itself, I mean, that if they're, if they're operating a prison facility that has vehicles, I mean, they would have to have a motor pool, and I'd have gas I mean, they've been a number of reasons why, and despite the best to shake down procedures, I mean, you're going to have human failures of lack of attention diversions, from from distractions for that they might so cleverly known to pull off and it just apathy, all sorts of things like you saw stuff go through the through shakedowns at Shutterstock. Through the people, absolutely. People learn who's watching what and what they hit, and how, how how to work the system and you, you can't have a prison, if if you're going to have movement at a prison, you're going to have, you're going to have a lot of stuff moving around within the prison. If you cut down movement and lock everybody down. Those prisons are far more expensive to operate. And then the movement takes place through robberies with staff members and guards and it just not going to have a prison. But this is so egregious that the staffing ratios are so ridiculous that the data what it said one to 23, or one to 29 for one staffer for every 20 that Andy 1:09:11 that seems really horrible. I thought it was something in the single digits for state prisons in Georgia, but it's in the mid double digits for the private prisons in Georgia. 23. sounds Ashley 1:09:21 horrible. And, and the not being able to respond to someone's big beat to death. It's really, really sad. It's so starting pay for a correctional officer at Southern Mississippi, which this article focuses a little notice $12 and 33 cents an hour. And it says a contrast to salary for a kitchen manager nearby hardy starts at $36,000 a year, which is $10,000 higher than a new guard would earn at 26,500 $650. I mean, and that that. That says something about about Mississippi's priorities. Andy 1:09:57 Certainly not. Maybe maybe they should hire Joe Arpaio for some of their administrative roles there. He could probably teach them a thing or two. Larry 1:10:06 Yeah, he sure could. Andy 1:10:12 Uh, Wow, dude, we are really really horrible people ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 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 register. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed. You make it possible, we should probably move on and talk about the Wisconsin bail system because I know that you you probably don't even have much of an opinion on the Bell System, do Larry 1:11:11 you? I don't. Andy 1:11:15 This article is from Wisconsin Rapids Tribune. And it's Wisconsin's bail system burns the poor opponents say as they call for reform, as we have talked about before, and I really don't want to beat a dead horse. But let's talk about this just one more time that if you are a poor person, and you end up incarcerated to some degree, even a $25 Bond could be beyond your means, which then causes you to lose your job which causes you to lose your apartment, which all of your Fix in your apartment get thrown out on the street curb. And you have to pretty much start all over just because you couldn't come up with 25 bucks to get out of jail before your trial. Ashley 1:11:51 Well, how do you Well, you took you took the extreme, which does those extremes do exist in real life, there are people if you if you go to a jail roster they were they allow the amount of the bond to be posted, you will see some very low bonds and the hundred dollar range, you seldom see anything lower than $100. And you do see people who are sitting in custody on very small bonds. And that's that's one side of the tragedy that if you if you shoplift a $9 item from the local Kroger store, and they take you in rather giving you a citation and you have $100 bond. But theoretically, you shop you shoplifted the $9 item because you didn't have the hundred dollars. And that's a tragedy that you sit in jail, waiting to go to trial. And oftentimes those cases are played out after so many days in jail for credit types are. But the flip side, the flip side of that is, is that that's that's not an ideal setting, because being able to post a bond gives a distinct advantage to a person who is able to have some real economic resources, or at least collateral ization for a bail bondsman so that they can get our bond, it gives them some additional participation that they wouldn't have in their preparation for trial when they're on the street, but the flip side of that is the other extreme kicks in when a person doesn't have the option to post a cash, Bob, when they when they switch to these non cash systems did that create a whole lot of new complexities that cause grief for people because they have to go through an evaluation process. So under the old system that was primarily driven by monetary bond, a lot of offenses would have a preset bond, shoplifting less than a certain amount would be $100 that these these judges, the prosecutors have all agreed to things are called jailhouse bond. So there's a schedule of bonds already available for a whole host of offenses. So the people are able to immediately post that bought and returned to the to the workforce. So if you had to thousand dollar bond for some, some low level felony or some high level misdemeanor, and you didn't lose your job, because you didn't sit jail waiting for this evaluation to take place because you get picked up on Friday afternoon at the pre trial services, they come in first thing Monday morning. And they have they have they have a backlog of people who got arrested for less of the 4872 hours. And they have to go through those and they have to score. They have to run criminal histories. And they have to investigate their ties to the immunity to see if they're if they're fit to be released on their personal recognizance. If they're not, then what combination, what accumulation of conditions can they impose on them. So while they're doing all that the person is calling in, if I can get to the jail, on the first day of work, absent work the second day, the third day that they if they can't call it, they forfeited their job because they consider their job abandoned, and they've lost their job because they can't get out jail because the process works too slowly. That's the downside to that. We talked about consequences. Those are some of that intended consequences. And this is bad. Why is it bad if you lose your job cuz you can't get out of jail? And you're supposedly presumed innocent? Right? You've been hiding something because you are innocent until proven guilty as I understood it. But so so although I am, I am one of the people who believes that that that a system is entirely driven by the monetary cash mail system we have largely in the US has a great number of flaws. What we've replaced it with also has a great number of flaws. Unknown Speaker 1:15:38 We got to figure out a way to fix it there. That's the answer. Ashley 1:15:41 Well, that that is that is the answer. But maybe one of the methods would be on very low level offenses, we just wouldn't arrest people, we would give them a summons that would that would go towards the beginning of a solution. And then we're there low cash bonds world on the old jailhouse bond schedule, it might be that we would just agree that those people automatically get released on their own recognizance barring say, a violent felony, which is truly violent. And we define what violence is, and the last X number of years, if the person is shot from a motor vehicle, for example, or if they've done if they've if they've used a weapon and the commissioner, they beat the little lady over the head with a with a with a slap jack or do we call those things or if they've engaged in an act of violence, then that that that that might would cause that person to be held for further scrutiny in terms of what kind of conditions that could be released on but but what we have replacing the cash pod system, it's no panacea. Andy 1:16:40 It's fraught with a whole lot of problems. And I was then going to bring up that in talking about that. We, the article two articles ago were written about William bar saying that these are anti law enforcement, the Larry crackers who have tried to put those things in place and they are getting, they're getting pushback from the legislature in Pennsylvania for liberty presidents case of trying to do things like you just described. Ashley 1:17:04 Well, not only do they get pushed back, they passed on a statue that gives the attorney general's office the power to step in to prosecute things that the local people have declined to prosecute. Now these are normal that people who claim they believe in local government being smarter and closer the people unable to make better decisions. But they magically drift away from that, but it's something they disagree with. fascinating, fascinating. Andy 1:17:29 The next article comes from courthouse news.com. And this is governor Newsome out of California Science a new use of excuse me, it's not new, some science use of force for form into law in California. I remember us covering the proposal as Bill several months ago and I the way that it was worded felt backwards to me. So this is something that then gives a little bit more teeth to hold officers feet to the fire. And if they do something like I don't know, shooting somebody, and giving giving some prosecutorial teeth to prosecute officers that act like that. Ashley 1:18:04 Well, it is a step in the right direction. The what the reason why I wanted us to talk about this article is because I have sat and pontificate it for so long, that it is time for us to citizens to take control of the police, the police or not, this renegade forces should be allowed to use any tactics to use any weaponry to safety procedures and to interact any way they want to with the citizens they work for us, we will determine what equipment they use, we will determine when and where they deploy that deploy that equipment, we will determine the what they're allowed or not allowed to do. And this is a step and say police actually, you don't get to make all the decisions, you don't get to decide everything about when you can discharge deadly force. And this is giving them some legislative guidance of what they're not, it's a step in the right direction. I don't see it as a cure all end all, but it is a step up a state. But getting to say, we're not going to just accept the fact that you say you data to shoot the person, that is not good enough for us. Andy 1:19:08 It It feels as I would understand it. So we are the taxpayers, therefore we pay the salaries, we elected the sheriff, it feels like we are sort of like the board of directors for the company. You know, like maybe the sheriff is sort of like the CEO, but we are the the shareholders. And we get to say what happens? I think I think that might be a decent analogy. Ashley 1:19:30 That's a great analogy. And that's what I've been saying. But the police have convinced of the governing structure, they've convinced that that they should be their own decision makers about everything, that somehow or other that we're not competent enough to exercise. Can you imagine any other employment relationship where that would be the standard, try that on your on your job, those of you have jobs, boy, go into your boss Monday morning, and say I've decided that our protocols were changing, and that we're going to do it this way. And I'm going to do my job this way. And I'm going to use this piece of equipment. And I'm going to set this as my policy hi interact with customers, and that I will hang up on customers my deem appropriate. And you don't get into say so I'll try that and get get on next week podcast and tell us how well that went over for you. Andy 1:20:19 I mean, I see I see to a certain point that they should have at least some sort of say they there should be influence there. You know, they should have a seat at the table. But if they're completely dictating and saying get off my lawn, while I make these policies that affect your life and death. That does seem like an overreach, Ashley 1:20:36 that is that will be that's the age old debate about how much they employees get to be involved in policy making for for their workplace. A lot of employers site minimally and employers like Facebook and some more enlightened employers like Warsaw. But at the very minimum sense, we have to pay the salaries as the as the public and we have to be responsible for the misconduct. And we have to make the citizens hold that have been been abused at the hands of the police. It only stands to reason that we get to decide what the policies are how our officers who are being paid by us and interact with us. I mean, to me, it's just a no brainer. I don't understand why there's even such debate about it. It's It's It's It's really straightforward. If we if we make the the if we make being a police officer too difficult, we won't be able to fill the positions. The market will let us know. When we when we when we make it too difficult to be to be a police officer. It'll be it will tell us Andy 1:21:37 that sounds like a libertarian point of view. Ashley 1:21:39 But sounds like to me like a capitalist point of view. That's that's what everybody says is the answer to everything. The free markets, they the free markets are the cure. Well, I agree with you for sake of this discussion. I agree with you. Let's let the free market tell us when when we are putting too many controls on the police. Right now you have a whole lot more applicants for police jobs, and you have then you have police jobs available. Now I know that they don't make it through the process. I understand that because like on somebody's gonna say, well, Larry, if you would just put smart ass and you would actually get better informed, you would know that there's an officer shortage. I actually do know that there's an officer shortage. But the reason why there's an officer shortage is because of the very strict criteria. They began to liberalize a little bit about if you can use a little bit of marijuana that doesn't automatic exclusion, but they they have all the fitness and agility tasks to have these mental batteries they put people people through and if you can't shoot right away with with they have all the simulators so they put them through it, they tell you that you would have been dead 14 times because you don't fire quick it up so you don't pass the fitness test. If you actually would let people who are a little bit older be police officers go through the recruiting process maybe a little bit just a tad bit heavier. Because all society is not travel 22 year old, good looking, beefy of all American. The sound of society. So if you would actually have some people in their 30s and 40s, who maybe can't run quite as fast and but maybe have some good life experience and how they interact with people. Maybe they smoked a little bit of dope. Yeah, you might find that you'd have a much more diverse police force, you might have something that more represents your community and you might have a police force that's able to actually relate to the people in your community because they actually look like the community we're not all 22 year olds that live that live in a city but take a look at your it's your police force particular out west you I can't speak for back I know I see a lot of pot bellied cops when I'm when I'm back in Georgia. When when you when you encounter a police officer in the Albuquerque Police Department on patrol, you're more than likely going to encounter an officer in their 20s very healthy very fit and very very conservative looking at their parents so with with that cropped hair, and that's what that's not what the community looks like. I'm sorry to tell you. It looks it looks really pretty and everything and it's nice if you like to look at a hot officer, but that's not the community. Andy 1:24:10 So can you describe Georgia police again? Ashley 1:24:14 potbelly did the sheriff that's the night The lights went out to Georgia. And the big was a pot bellied shark grab his gun and said Why did you do it? Well, every time every time I've encountered when I go to the to the north Georgia ferret which the Cobb County Sheriff's handle with with me they handle the those huge crowds, they do a great job. But every one of the ways like 250 pounds, they've had their their bellies hanging over their over their belt looking at us and you won't see that you won't see that in my hometown. Unknown Speaker 1:24:48 gonna have some hate mail coming in. Andy 1:24:51 Later before before we get too far out. And the next article comes from LH lyst latest, I don't know how to pronounce this La la la AS calm. La rules about where homeless people are allowed to sit and sleep could get even more complicated. I'm interested in this because I just I've heard Paul dribbling say you do not have a constitutionally protected right to housing. Okay, I get it. And I just think that maybe the framers of this whole thing were like, we would never get that cruel that people couldn't find a place to stay. But in California, they have 27,000 people experienced homelessness in the city, and they have approximately 4000 beds for single adults, because their beds are already reserved for for families and so forth. Would he just going to leave them on the street then and then they're going to restrict that they can't sit or sleep here and then they you know, the neighborhoods are going to run them out? Because you know, we don't want those people in our backyard either. Where are they supposed to go? Ashley 1:25:53 I haven't figured that out of the 27,000. I think that's just a de Los Angeles. California. This is the Los Angeles know. But it's it's one of those things where the the ACLU type organizations have been fighting. Even here in my city where they've tried to they've tried to make it where you can't panhandle and ACLU keep shooting the battle that you have the right to ask the person to help. So here they keep passing these ordinances that you can't panhandle and every time the past one that so you filed for an injunction gets injunction and they go to trial. And they went and they go back to the craft another one not the same thing happens. So they don't learn anything. They do the same thing again and again. But the big point is that, how does this happen in America? How does this happen? Those of you listen to the podcast and go way back. I mentioned on some episode that in 1970, we had virtually no homelessness, homelessness in this country we had through the war on poverty in the 60s, we had largely eradicated homelessness except for the people who were transitory by nature, because they're moving from city to city to get a job. They they may they may be staying at a shelter that until they can get hired on as a temporary. But but but homelessness was largely not existed in 1970. How is it that just a few decades later, we have to be at least as smart as we were in 1970? How come? We can't find a way to find shelter for our citizens in a very wealthy country like this? I don't understand it. Andy 1:27:25 Is this a problem? Not specific, but exacerbated by California? Specifically, these particular is like the the bay area where they have ordinances where they can't build any sort of higher density residential areas that might help alleviate this. Do you think that this is related to that? Ashley 1:27:43 I think I think that's a contributing factor. I think that there's there's no one solution to homelessness, everybody looks for the magic bullet. There. They're probably the difficulty building. Affordable Housing is a factor. But we've lost abandoning the notion of public housing assistance in this country. We've we we dramatically under fund the section eight voucher programs, demand far outstrips the available slots. And as far as building public housing is a thing of the past. I mean, we do we do some low income tax credit properties, which is the low income threshold or are way beyond these people's ability to pay. Low Income means what you would see on this chart for low income because I used to bid Low Income Housing business as shocking as what qualifies because it's based on the median income of your area. And if you're, if you're below a certain percentage of the median income, that person's considered low income, but but these people have virtually no income except from the plasma centers. And except for right except for their panhandling. And and we've, we've got into a condition where we have hundreds of thousands of people that are just destitute, and it's not possible to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And still adage goes that we're at a modern economy, skills are needed, where you're where you're needed to come into work prepared to work properly dressed, properly groomed, and and these people who, who, who, they're broken individuals, and they need far more help that we have resources out there, to transition them back to productivity. So what we do we just let them meander the streets and then we get mad because we find your urine and excrement and we we find these problems associated with, with with with being homeless, but what would you expect if they have nowhere to go? I was with my brother few months ago, in, in, in Georgia, and he was mad that this lady was set out under under a shade. One of those. I forget the last record, but it was she had a little little tent over her. And he said she's here every day. And I said, Well, of course she she has nowhere to go, what would you like her to go? Unknown Speaker 1:29:53 I just doesn't want her there. Ashley 1:29:54 I guess all my bugs me? I said yes. But she has nowhere to go. There's no means to get there. There's no shelter in this town. If she goes to a business, they're going to tell her to get off the property because they don't want it to interfere with her. I mean, where do you want her to go? It's like, well, I don't know. But she shouldn't be there. Andy 1:30:14 Right? Um, can you? I don't I don't want to spend too much more time here. But can you help me understand when people say that when you do give these kinds of hands out that you're then just perpetuating that, that, you know, Hey, I got this handout for free. I'll try and get the next handout for free. And they just end up sitting on their couch watching TV all day just taking handouts from the government. And that's my taxpayer money. And I don't want them doing that with my taxpayer money. Ashley 1:30:38 Well, there's some truth to that, that there's there's some truth in that, that people as as, as it becomes easier and easier for people to survive without having to live a structured life there are there are there would be a segment of people who would do that. But we don't punish people for bad decisions. They make what I don't like pair for you because you smoke. That's my time dollars. That's what I don't like pay a few kosher overeat because you weighed 250 pounds. And because you're hooked up to every kind of apparatus that's costing me 10s of thousands of dollars. But I do it because it's the right thing to do. I bet but yes, there would be some people who would take advantage of it and and the spirit of the rehabilitation, we offer true rehabilitation. If we offer rehabilitation centers where people could go to where they could get actually training, and get job assistance. And, and, and, and transitional assistance to be back in independent living, there would be some people who would take advantage of that, and they would use drugs, and they would gain the system. Absolutely, that would happen. But that doesn't stop into being the right thing to do. You just have to accept Andy 1:31:43 it as part of the overhead, I guess I don't want to say collateral damage. But just part of the process of having it done, Ashley 1:31:49 it would be a part of the human condition. There are people who who owe their defense contractors who over build the government, that's a part of that Andy 1:31:58 never happens, come on down. That doesn't Ashley 1:32:00 there. There are people there are people who charge for asphalt that they never lay that's a part of the human condition. Of course that would happen. But there would be a whole lot of people who would actually benefit from it, and they would begin to pay taxes. And that would all set the people who gamed the system, we would have more people. I'm not convinced that of the hundreds of thousands of people out there that they're all losers. I've talked to enough of them. And I don't believe that I believe that they've had bad things happen to them, or they've either made bad decisions, or someone else has, has, has has, for example, the position that people that are audiences that they've made a bad decision, and then they're Forever, forever forbidden to reintegrate and function. Well, you're not the only ones had bad things happen to you, that are beyond your control. And so it to me, it's very, very selfish and unforgiving to think just because someone makes a bad decision that you shouldn't help them. If that's the way you feel that you're selfish person. Andy 1:32:56 Definitely our pen ultimate. I should even say that because we have a Scully, a clip here, coming up with the penultimate article is out of WN yc studios, again, just like before, this is more of a shout out just to make sure you're aware of it. I guess you could kind of call them a shining star of being in the public eye is guy Hamilton Smith. He was on the podcast, I don't know three months ago, he came on, I think just before the conference in Houston. And he ended up getting on this program for to be on YC called the takeaway, and they're talking about the inequity of sex offender registries. And it's not a terribly long Listen, maybe I think 12 or 15 minutes. Awesome. Listen, he does an incredible job. He's super duper humble on Twitter, if you happen to see that he's like, Oh, my God, I can't believe anybody would listen to me. I sound like a complete dirt. And anyway, he's a pretty stellar dude, very informed on the on the subject and is working for the sex offender litigation and policy Resource Center. And he's trying to help people write the laws that make our lives better. Ashley 1:33:58 He has absolutely dynamic speaker, a very, very nice guy. And I would encourage people to listen, listen to it. And he's, he's, he's, he's a super guy. Andy 1:34:08 Yep. All right, let's do Scalia. Ashley 1:34:12 You ready for school? Yeah, I'm ready. This one's gonna be a short one, because I got a long one coming next week. Andy 1:34:17 Outstanding, and I don't have music to go along with it. So you have to put up with that. Ashley 1:34:21 When you call yourself a textual lyst. That's not the same thing as the popular notion or the popular term that I think many lay people now which is strict constructionist, can you explain that? Unknown Speaker 1:34:32 Oh, yes, I have. I have never been a strict constructionist and advise no one to be a strict constraint. Strict construction ism gives a bad name to text you realism. For example, if you were to interpret the First Amendment, strictly, you would come to the conclusion that Congress can censor handwritten letters, because it says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. A handwritten letter is not press. It's not speech. So Congress can of course, that's not what it means. Speech and press is Unknown Speaker 1:35:11 meant to cover the ground of expression. Andy 1:35:14 I isn't he? Is it this even this whole concept of he is making his own level of interpretation on whether he's a constructionist or a textual lyst where other people doing something similar of does the does the body of work evolve forward, just like Andrew Torres was saying is like, look at all the precedent from yesterday last year, that moves the whole conversation forward of where we are today of an evolving standard of decency. Isn't he then doing the same thing, just within his own realm of what he's comfortable with? Ashley 1:35:46 That was precisely the reason why I put the clip in here is because Scalia says that, that you're not supposed to read anything into the text. It's not there. And there was a lot of debate, don't remember exactly. My history is, it's not good. I'll tell you how long they worked on the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, but they spent a lot of time. And according to Scalia doctrine, that he's espoused on other clips we've played, you're not supposed to read into it was not there. And they didn't, they didn't say that. And certainly they should have been smart enough to say that, that they intended to protect that level of speech. So what he's doing is he's looking at what he believes or debt, which is his job as a judge. So I'm not I'm not saying that he should not do that. But I'm just pointing out that no one is a strict anything. In fact, I'm going to magically become the biggest textural issue you've ever seen. And some of the litigation we're going to be doing in Mexico because it suits our purposes for litigation, sheriff's are doing it makes you a hypocrite makes me nothing of the kind. It makes me it makes me follow the doctrine that suits the purposes for the claims that we're serving. And we're starting that since there's nothing in the statute that requires a person to respond to an arch flyer this up on their door, does they don't have to do that if the lawmakers had wanted the fires to be left and for someone have to respond their states where they say that you must respond at inquiry by law enforcement officer. We don't have that. So I magically going to become a textual as well, Scalia, magically, when the First Amendment was interpreted. He said, Well, clearly, I mean, they didn't say it. But clearly, that's what they meant. He was able to look beyond what the text is. And he's able to expand and say, well, that is the attempt. Don't buy this 100%. And anything interesting, Andy 1:37:27 but you know, here, here, here, you are pulling out a clip where he, as you know, since we've been covering these various different things, here it is where he's almost talking to two sides of his mouth, you know, from two different times week to week, whatever, but still saying it's okay to do it here, but not okay to do it here. Ashley 1:37:42 Well, like say, none of us that way. I'm going to be a text lyst when it suits the agenda that I have for litigation. And Andy 1:37:51 isn't there a difference there, though, in the way that you're doing it? You're You're like, consciously making a decision that I'm going to fluff follow this policy here. Where I don't think in the clip that we just played Scully is taking that he's like, No, that's not what that means. He's not doing it strategically. He's doing it that's just like the framework. That's the bedrock of how he thinks, Ashley 1:38:10 well, probably probably true, but but he, he, I think we played a clip of him where he said that, like the the statute providing attorneys fees, he said, Well, they're smart enough, they could put in attorneys fees to include cost if they don't want to do well, the purpose, the person who looks at it at different interpreting law based on purpose of which he referred to that his purpose of Islam, they would say, well, the purpose was clearly to make the purpose of winning prevailing party hope. Well, that's what he just did. And that statute, he said, Well, the purpose I not a statute, excuse me in that in that amendment, he said, Well, that was clearly the purpose of the scope. But but he's reading something into it that's not in the text. He's not really he's not truly being attached to it. But that doesn't, that doesn't make him a hypocrite. I think it makes him a normal human being like the rest activists. We we see things that that help us in a particular situation. That's what we're for. And, and we're tech, big tech journalist, helps our tech journalists, when, like in the case of Nebraska with a registry, the argument that was that since the rascals convicted juveniles adjudicate the brassica didn't have to register. They clearly the intent of the legislature was that those command from out of state didn't have to register. Well, the Supreme Court Nebraska said no, that's not what is didn't say that. It says yeah, you are a person, aren't you? You did move your didn't you? You are required registered, aren't you? While you're covered? That was a textual interpretation. Well, I magically, magically, not a textual is there all of a sudden, go back to being purpose driven? Because clearly, I think the purpose of Nebraska, no one ever thought about this when this law was being debated when the in 2009, which was the law we're talking about. No one raised that insane. Well, wait a minute, wait a bit language this is gonna clearly include, literally, it's called a hands closed juvenile, because it says any person in person includes juveniles. And if you had race at that, it said, well, ain't nobody called never. I mean, clearly, we don't read juveniles here. No one would have taken that seriously. But they're taking it seriously. Now. I understand your point. Andy 1:40:14 So let's shut this whole thing down. We have one more article to go and we can get out of here. This is an article from the appeal. So get ready to read for an hour. And it is in one Arizona county pay for your ankle monitor, or go to jail. You talk about using ankle monitor as a diversion tactic to keep people that are pre trial from hat, you know, as a alternate way instead of you sitting behind bars, so you keep going to work, etc. Doesn't that fit into this model? Ashley 1:40:42 It does, but it doesn't. And that's like Ronald Reagan said when unemployment was skyrocketing when when helen thomas asked him could unemployment go even higher? And he says what it could or it couldn't? It does. That's exactly what he said. Helen Thomas was the up our court correspondent and went on deployment was skyrocketing. And his first hard when it went to 10 point, I think seven or 8%. The she says got unemployment go higher. And Mr. President, he said it could that again, it couldn't. So this, this does, but it doesn't. Because if if a person is faced facing long term detention, because they can't post a cash bond, and a GPS monitor would provide adequate monitoring. I mean, jail is we agreed that monitoring doesn't get much more strict than a pre trial detention, your monitor pretty much pretty much do it. 2024 seven, Andy 1:41:41 unless your name is Jeffrey Epstein, what you die. But that's a different conversation. But but Ashley 1:41:46 it so so here's, here's, here's the way that debate would fall out. You would have people like me say, well, GPS would be appropriate, because you could, you wouldn't have to impose a cash bond, you could put the purse that on GPS monitoring, that would be enough tether, that you would you be able to know that they're going to appear and that they would not be violating any the conditions of not approaching the victim, and, and blah, blah, blah, not to go into alcohol establishments, if they were if they were accused of something where that was an issue. That was type of conditions, you'd say, well, that would be a great tool. But then the issue becomes is going to pay for it. Well, we already know who's going to pay for the jail that's going to come out of the jail budget that the taxpayers willingly pony up. But here's where it breaks down, while the person out there, the general taxpaying citizen says, Well, I don't think I want to pay for the able to be out there roaming around the countryside or GPS monitor, they came, but they they would pay for that themselves are to pay enough taxes. So you get into a situation where clearly GPS monitoring would be cheaper, less expensive, less costly than housing a person and pre trial detention. So in my model, I don't think that should be imposed on the person, I think that that should be a societal cost to pay. But that's a tough one to sell to the general population, because they already think they're being had enough with taxes, just like the person who says I don't want to pay for these people. But whatever I mean, that they don't want, Unknown Speaker 1:43:08 they want to pay for it. With this actually, like, potentially, quote unquote, reduce taxes. Ashley 1:43:13 Well, it would, it would potentially reduce costs, but see, those costs never materialized. Because if you take a jail that has let let 100 people and you let 50 of them go on GPS monitoring, there's not a there's not a reduction at the edge of the jail, you still have to have the jailers there, manning the shifts, you still have to have the cooks there, you still have to, you still have to run the facility. I mean, it still has to be air conditioned, bin Laden, the cost of having 54 inmates, I mean, you might save a few dollars on food. And of course, if one of them has a significant medical ailment, you might save a little bit on hospitalization. But it but it's not. It's not statistically measurable. But these if you have to pay for 50 people to be monitored at 50 bucks a day. That's a new line item in somebody's budget that has to come out from somewhere. Andy 1:43:55 And it sounds to me, like the Larry Krasner approach was to like, end up shutting down some jails. That's what his approach was, Ashley 1:44:03 that save some money that would that would definitely save money, if you actually close on city, but just taking a few people out facility doesn't really translate to a dramatic reduction in the cost. We've learned that our juvenile system here barely has anybody in it, and it costs more to operate than ever before. We don't have a soul in custody. We had the highest juvenile cost per inmate of the entire 50 states, because we have such as sliver population. And we have we have we have these costs that have commensurately dropped and the conservatives are fond of pointing out to us because we told him if you do juvenile justice reform to go save all this money, and I said, Well, hey, website, baby mama, you're telling us the same song and that style about doing justice reform on the adult side. Anyway, saved it in my own juvenile side. We've been we've been at this gig for nearly 20 years now. So So cutting the jail population without clothes and facilities, that's really the key to saving money is you got to close the facility, which runs into it whole set of problems, because what if, what if the prisons don't employer? substantial employer that how? Unknown Speaker 1:45:06 Yes, absolutely. Also, that's where I was just gonna go with Ashley 1:45:09 it all side, you lay all 375 people. Unknown Speaker 1:45:13 And people people are a little upset when that closes down? Ashley 1:45:15 Well, it's not only that, but it's the spending capacity goes down for those 375 people live in the town the budget start suffering lots of economic activity. And people who hate government magically come big supporters of government then because it's kind of like what we don't when we don't when you're the governor was was playing tough, hardball and capital outlay, which is the process by which we do roads and bridges and community centers and things we spend money on the legislature. So it's a separate budget, the capital budget as a separate budget from the operating budget. And the governor was teaching us a lesson and she'd be told the capital outlay, that our capital outlay, and that affected the entire state and all these people who were for fiscal responsibility all of a sudden started putting pressure on the government because all these capital outlay projects were working, we're not funded. And all of a sudden the bulldozers were stopping to we're going to have to be shut down. And all of a sudden people's talents of livelihood depended on governmental spending that habit and and and and little Susie q folded her 10 sheets, she signed a capital outlay bill. But magically people who who hate government when it comes to keeping their businesses live all of a sudden they love government for some reason. It's yours. Strange. Andy 1:46:22 Interesting, interesting. I was going to throw in a question there. But let's let's get this. Let's get out of here. Because we are like incredibly way over time. Ashley 1:46:28 Well, I want to make a personal notice one of the please do a listener said that I was a little bit insensitive last week, and I tended to not think about it in the way that that it was perceived about the people who think they're smarter than the police. And I didn't intend it the way it came across. And I apologize for that. What I intended to communicate is that one one way break the law, whether it be a traffic law, whether it be speeding, that may not work, our seat belts are that big traveling across the state to meet a minor or whatever. We all believe that we're not going to be caught. And it's not saying that you're smarter than the police is probably a very well known that was a fair approach are so words is that we don't think it's going to happen to us. When when you were when you were driving home today, I don't know if you got a chance to do any speeding to get home. But when you decide to speed do you do? Do you speed with intent and the expectation you're going to get caught? Andy 1:47:32 We shouldn't talk to me about that. Because I absolutely 100% try to never speed because of the unintended consequences of perhaps killing people. Or then I have to tell my PO had an interaction with law enforcement. And I can't see how that's good for me when I have to talk to my handlers about Ashley 1:47:46 stuff. But but but whatever we do, we do it with the expectation of not being apprehended. So when a person is on an online chat, they intuitively know they know that it could be a sting, but they believe that they will assess the odds of their interaction. And they believe that in the conversation, that it's all legit. Of course, they've been lied to by the person who's far more skilled at this because they are professionals and they're doing this for a living. And but they they end up with their analysis is that the odds are very low. And they take the chance. But But like I say I apologize for for that I'm not intending on conveying to anybody that they're that they're not smart. It's just that we don't plan to get caught when we do things. Andy 1:48:26 Of course, of course, of course. Larry, do you remember the website this week? Do you remember the website of where people can go to find the podcast? I do not. All right, it's registering matters dot CEO? And how about how about can you remember the phone number? I'm sure you can. Ashley 1:48:42 I can always remember a phone number. So that tells me what the plan is 7472 to 74477. And if we don't have a call next week, We're shutting this thing down. We're gonna we're gonna we're gonna put paying $40 a month for a phone line at once you like, Andy 1:49:00 Man, that's harsh. Alright, and then how about how can they email us? Ashley 1:49:05 Oh, that's easy to read food matters cast at gmail. com. Andy 1:49:09 Outstanding. And then the best, ultimate, most awesome, best way to support the podcast and show the love. Ashley 1:49:16 That'd be@patreon.com slash registry matters. So if you go to patreon.com and you don't know registry matters, what would you do? To try to find registry matters. If you didn't know that know that extension. Andy 1:49:27 There's a search box, just types registry matters in the search box and will pop up. Ashley 1:49:32 So all right, so go to go to patreon.com. And just search for red tree matters if you forgot the name of the podcast if you've forgotten it already. I guess you could put it in the search bar if you forgot Andy 1:49:42 it would be hard if you forgot it already, then probably all hope is lost in this but Larry, as always, I super duper appreciate your time, your knowledge, expertise, your fun banter and your your stories from your vast 200 and whatever years of life that you've been going on, and I will talk to you soon. Thank you Ashley 1:50:03 and I'm looking forward to the next century. Unknown Speaker 1:50:05 Absolutely. Perfect. Perfect. Take care guys. Unknown Speaker 1:50:09 You've been listening to FYP Transcribed by https://otter.ai