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 our super secret bunker, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 95 of registering matters. I also forgot to say it's FYP Studios even. How are you this afternoon? No, it's not even afternoon yet. It's 11 o'clock in the morning on a Saturday.

Larry  0:28  
That is correct. It's a it's a hot Saturday of hot Atlanta.

Andy  0:33  
It's not going to be that it's not gonna be as hot as it was yesterday. It was. I think my phone said it was one on one yesterday with the heat index. I'm a little bit further south than the super secret underground bunker. But today it's only supposed to be in the low 90s How about that?

Larry  0:46  
It's amazing. They they've been setting records here that go back to 1911. And having having lived around here and knowing that this is typically fall weather and going to the fairground would be typically with a light jacket, and there was no need for jackets last night or at night this week.

Andy  1:06  
Okay, um, do you want to let's see which we should jump right in. We have we got a short time schedule that we have to work through. We did get a new patient. I totally forgot to mention this last week. But it's from New patron, john. So welcome aboard. Thank you very much. And then I just need to throw this out there that Justin, you are incredibly generous. And thank you and you increase your contribution. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Larry, please say some kind words for Justin.

Larry  1:34  
I don't know I don't know how to respond to his his generosity. I hope that whatever we're doing that we were doing it for a lot of people and the service we're providing we intend it to be beneficial. And apparently it is to some but thank you so much for for your warm support. It's it's certainly a love offering.

Andy  1:56  
We then also from from our episode last week, we've received some feedback on the episode. And first off, we'll in Tennessee says Wow, Larry brought the showerhead love it. My LG rebel only has eight gigabytes. So he's in the same boat as you are there.

Larry  2:13  
Oh, that was adequate until last week.

Andy  2:17  
He also says move over Larry, I need room in the underpowered smartphone boat. Thomas also wrote and he said in response to wills comment or question he says such friendly young people I he caught the FYP in there, but that's not what FYP stands for.

Unknown Speaker  2:35  
What does it said for? It means?

Larry  2:39  
I don't think we can say that my family program.

Andy  2:41  
Yeah. But you could just say, you know, figure out what the f is. And it's just you people. We had an episode what two or three episodes ago that talked almost entirely about what happens when the people come? Oh, it was the What was it like the New Jersey? Or was it New York Community supervision people whenever like the local nonprofit, the citizens for Megan's Law, were coming around knocking on doors.

Larry  3:04  
Yes. And they were If you answer the door, my position is no one has the right to knock at your door. But unless the statute compels you to respond, you have everyone has the right to ignore who's at their door and to answer the door be non cooperative. Now, I'm not recommending that. But I'm just telling you that that right does exist in united states of america unless there's a statute that requires you to be cooperative. And that statute may be vulnerable if there is such a statute, but you have an obligation answer door. In fact, I seldom ever answer my door.

Andy  3:37  
Right? Just like I don't ever answer my phone. Because 99% of the time, it's a scam call. It's a telemarketer calling.

Larry  3:43  
I would tend to agree that that the overwhelming majority. To me getting rid of a person at the door is more difficult than getting rid of the phone call. There's a little button you can press that ends the call. I have discovered a button Yes, they'll enter in the call the confrontation that's a door that you start they can close the door, provided you have something between you and the person for they can't put their foot in the way and where they can't shove their way in. But But to me, it's just so much easier to disengage, and I'm what I call that is to disengage and unwanted door knock. I would completely agree with that.

Andy  4:13  
And then finally, David says, Larry, I think you need a slightly more capable phone.

Larry  4:20  
Well, I do I doubled this week.

Andy  4:21  
No, you doubled you have now 16 gigabyte missiles. I sure do, man. That's fantastic. And

Larry  4:27  
I've installed ZL on my phone. What are you going to do with this in case I need to transfer money? Huh?

Andy  4:35  
That's a sound sketchy. Sounds sketchy?

Larry  4:39  
Well, I thought that was a very efficient movement of funds. It is.

Andy  4:44  
It is definitely a more efficient way of moving funds around. It's, it's owned by PayPal. To me it's the same thing I don't I don't get with the differences.

Larry  4:53  
Well, I I was told that it's far more secure than PayPal.

Andy  4:57  
I've never heard of a breach from PayPal. I'm sure that it has happened. I've just never heard of any sort of large scale. The only thing that PayPal has is a bad reputation because people used their name to send out phishing email messages. But all right, well, let's move on. We we just received some breaking news. Did you get this one today from from Nebraska or did you get this yesterday?

Larry  5:19  
I came today but I think that's the result of this. last few days. Yeah, had some hearings and Nebraska and the legislature I guess it some interim committees they have

Andy  5:30  
the articles dated from yesterday, but it's Nebraska sex offenders testify for changes in registry law. I didn't get a chance to read a whole lot because you sent it to me like 10 minutes ago.

Larry  5:40  
Well, I got it 15 minutes ago. Did you read it? I did read it. Alright. So it appears as though the Nebraska legislature has interim committees similar to what we have. And the Judiciary Committee, which remember, they only have they only have one chamber that they don't have, they don't have a bicameral they have a unicameral so they have have just one one body. And it looks like the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the on the brassica registry of ways to improve it and the the gist of the article, the way I read it was that a large number of people testified some offenders and some fam family members in regards to how the 2009 law has made their life more difficult. And so so the chair Lathrop is, is very much interested in if I need to make improvements to the to the to the law, not whether he can achieve that is another matter because you've got 49 senators over there. So that means you have to get it to the floor to through the committee and I forget the number on the committee, if there's a bill but then you have to get you have to get majority of the 49 you have to get the executive signature says 28 people were who were registered and and their family members, brothers, sisters spouses were there.

Andy  7:07  
I think we've talked about this before, but what do you think the impact is of? Yeah, fine. Okay, we've punished the sex offenders. But what about the families that get punished? What do you think they're the impact of them testifying before the politicians is

Larry  7:21  
far more far more powerful, persuasive, something I've been hoping to see more of for a long time. And I'm glad that they did it. I'm impressed. I didn't, I didn't get to see it, they sent me a link. So I could have watched it live. But since I'm on the strip, I wasn't able to set aside that block of time to watch it live. But but it's very, very powerful. I'm sure that they had some moving stories. Because I've heard some of those stories from Nebraska, they would be the same in any states just spent more time A few years ago, working with them. And I heard some of their stories of, of how their life was Nebraska had a risk based system prior to 2009 and 2009 changed it to an offense based system. I know the risk based system, the majority of the people are not or not on the internet now under their office based system, everybody is on the internet. And, and and for much longer periods of time as well. The the previous system was 10 years, unless you have more than one conviction. And and now that went to the to the modeled after the federal system. That was what they were hoping to do was to get their precious compliance designation. So they modeled themselves after the federal system. But they didn't do a very good job of it some regards, because they didn't give the five years on the tier one that could have given for reduction in time. And and some of the offenses were tiered incorrectly. They didn't have to be in tier three. But But as long as you at least do the minimum, that's what people have trouble grasping is that the state can over tier. But that's not a problem. I said, Well, the with us. I don't have to be a tier three in Nebraska has got mid tier three. Well, that's true. You don't have to be born to brassica doesn't get penalized for having you overtired, they get penalized for having you under tear.

Andy  9:13  
What is so the argument within Well, you should you should have thought about that before you committed your sexual offense. And I mean, shouldn't we hold people accountable for their decisions even that I mean, using your family as some sort of collateral consequence? I mean, that seems to be a legit leverage point to get people to act, right?

Larry  9:36  
Well, a, it assumes that the registry is intended to punish, we do hold people accountable for their consequences, and they do suffer consequences. But those consequences are not a part of the civil regulatory scheme. The punishment was the present or the intensely supervised probation. And the felony conviction, the the the punishment of the righteous tree, which is not supposed to be punishment, even if you could make the argument that you should be able to punish people through a simple regulatory scheme. You're not entitled to punish the family. And And beyond that, how would you be able to imagine, since it's a civil regulatory scheme, and they can change it, it will, assuming that you do think of it advanced, assuming there's no impulse behavior that causes someone to act in an operational fashion and commit a sexual offense that it's out of character for them? How would you be able to anticipate what type of Atlanta outlandish and ridiculous changes that can be imposed and costly moving goalpost so that you can never exit this regulatory scheme so that they can constantly escalate? How would a person be able to take that into consideration when the goalposts are constantly moving? I'd like to know the answer to that.

Andy  10:51  
I was thinking more in like the very present sense. But then our super patron Mike that, you know, he committed as a fence 100 years ago, he's still there and dealing with all of that, even though he's no longer on any sort of supervision, but he still has the Florida garbage that he has to deal with.

Larry  11:10  
Right. But I don't like Florida has always had all that garbage, I think for like most states is continually escalated the requirements. Thanks, Dr. Victims advocacy, they always seem to be able to be very persuasive, and how you should be able to punish more people through the regulatory scheme. But assuming you do think in advance, and you say, I'm thinking about committing a sexual offense, let's see. Now I may, I may get three years in prison, and I may get five years on probation, I can hack that. But how would you be able to anticipate an ever changing landscape in terms of the additional pylons? How could you take that into consideration some of the comments on this article say that, that they should have thought about that? How would you be able to anticipate what the ever changing requirements would be? That's what I don't understand. I'm assuming that people do think in advance, and that they should think in advance how would you be able to do that?

Andy  12:07  
Yeah, I, like I said, I could see something more in the immediate sense, but something that happened any degree of time, you know, after especially after your sentence is done, but up to dorsal have any any involvement in this whole show, naturally, this showing?

Larry  12:24  
Well, I'm not even sure the affiliation status on Nebraskans, I'm afraid, but that was organized by the The show was organized by a group called Nebraskans on afraid. So so I'm not certain if they are affiliate or an advocate or how they're connected. They're our soul. It's kind of embarrassing that I don't know all that.

Andy  12:45  
That's not I mean, that's not even the question I'm asking Brynn, Brenda, saying that. She's saying that they're all connected to our soul and our soul submitted written testimony for that. That hearing?

Larry  12:54  
Oh, yeah, do recall that she can chime in her she likes and tells

Andy  12:59  
she just said she stepped away. So she can't do that at the moment. But she wanted me to bring that up that Marcel was involved with all that. And you being the spokesperson for an arsenal, please chastise me for saying that

Larry  13:13  
I am not the spokesperson.

Andy  13:16  
Well, we can then start moving on to different articles that we have. The first one is kind of interesting, in that it's from Lancaster, Pennsylvania is from WGAL and Lancaster mother's sentence to house arrest for bringing child to home of three registrants. And both of us are still scratching our heads. There's not nearly enough meat, I did a quick Google search to try and find any sort of more information about it. Is there a statute in Pennsylvania that says that you as a free raining citizen, you can't bring your children to the home of a registrant therefore you're committing the felony? That's, that's very strange to me.

Larry  13:56  
Apparently, that might be the case. It's not really clear to me that it I mean, you you have America, the person who's non convicted individual, which is the mom, they're not under any restraint. So theoretically, they can associate with whomever they choose. I thought that was one of the basic principles on American freedom and liberty. So therefore, you take your you take your kid to visit where there happens to be a registered sex offender. In my mind, you wouldn't have been vile in violation of anything. Now, that doesn't hold true for the people that said there was at least to one and that house under supervision. But what's not clear, it's kind of clear, but if the person named Johnson was under supervision or not, you that person could be in violation of their conditions and supervision. But I didn't know that a person was forbidden to date, or have any type of overnight any visitation with a sex offender. I've not heard of that one. So so this is going to be enlightening to us to figure this out. Because a listener will be out there and Pennsylvania will tell us that Oh, no, you can't. If you're on the registry, a person can't have it. How would they know that you? How would you How would you or with the knowledge come from?

Andy  15:18  
It's It's It's not does it doesn't seem to be terribly different than someone goes to a bar and they interact with someone that someone turns out to be a minor, but you were at a bar where you needed to present legal ID to get in and all this of legal age, and then they turned out to be you know, using a fake ID that you had no knowledge that strict liability, right.

Larry  15:37  
That that would that would be my definition of it. If you if you have if you have you would have every reason to believe that the person in there is of legal age. So it would assuming that the bars doing his job, you wouldn't need to run a separate identification check on your at this bar, but she unveiled cotton in here or Holly link, I saw your mind short where your ID

Andy  16:02  
right. So this is similar, right?

Larry  16:05  
It does feel very similar.

Andy  16:07  
How could you be and she apparently knew I'm not trying to even make that case. But how would you know to not bring you wouldn't necessarily be up on the laws, you could find out that the person is a registered and you're like, Okay, I have no idea what that means. So then you go open up the 400 pounds of law books and figure out Oh, wait, I can't bring my children around you because you're like, how I can't see how that would law would be enacted, where everyone is now subjected to a code that they are completely unaware of and could violate just on a dime.

Larry  16:42  
That seems very bizarre, hopefully will on earth support information on on this. But the average person walking around, I started this country, we gave the parents broad decision making power to make the decisions because they know what's an interest best interest or kit. We hear this all the time about family planning stuff, we don't need the big bad government telling us that that their kids need to be taught sex education and stuff in school because the parents know what's best for the kids. It would seem like to me that a parent would assuming that she did know in this case, I think she did know, wouldn't the parent be the best equipped according to conservative doctrine to decide who take it to have their have their relationship with I don't understand why you want to put the big bad government in that decision making process.

Andy  17:29  
And I'm gonna I'm gonna make some crazy assertion. I mean, that the I don't know how long it's been that way. But Pennsylvania, is Republican controlled in the legislature.

Larry  17:37  
Yeah, wouldn't. Since we don't know enough about what I would want to I would want to make that correlation. But in general, it is the conservatives who claim that they stand for lack of intrusion of government into family decision making able to seem like this would be one of those areas where the family like, like they say that they know the best. What's best for the kids. Maybe the mother had evaluated the offenses, maybe the mother had concluded that this didn't pose any risk to her child. Why what makes the big bad government more qualified to make that decision and spend and prosecute This woman has spent a whole bunch of money because I thought the parents were best but makes decisions anyway.

Andy  18:18  
No, that's clearly not we need government oversight parents. All right, well, then the next one comes from law.com. And this one is certainly up to me off the beaten path a little bit, but white vs. Louisiana, flawed memory and the Confrontation Clause. I guess that's part of the deal that we would want to cover. But it seems that this individual has a different account for what went down versus what the police say and then somebody else's, they don't remember. And what I one of the things that I got out of the article was that the the judge didn't want to open up the floodgates for everyone to come in and go, I don't remember any of this stuff. Can you shed some light on what is going on in this article?

Larry  19:05  
Well, it's it's it's not as complicated as the long article makes it out to be. And boy, it was a long read. So I'm probably the only one that reads it. The The issue is that the person who did the shooting allegedly had had a witness against him named Brandon Coleman. And he gave a statement to the police that, that he witnessed white do the killing a videotape statement. And then he suffered a brain injury. So by the time white comes to court, he has no independent recollection of what he testified to. I want to make a statement, it was not testimony at that time, but he can't recollect his statement. He can't remember anything. So the judge decided to admit the statement anyway. Because the judge said, Well, if we allow people to make a statement at the police station, and then magically have memory loss, he said, that's what everybody will do. Does, they will do that. So therefore. So the guy took the witness stand. The Brandon Coleman took the witness down. And he, he was at risk of big kryptonite, because he was an accessory to this crime. And he just couldn't remember anything. So they list the questions in the article that he was asked. And he just did not have any independent recollection. So the question became, since there is a Confrontation Clause that the victims advocates are trying so desperately to get rid of. The question was whether or not the Confrontation Clause was satisfied, because he couldn't remember anything? Well, there's two trains of thought he did show up for court. He was there. He did take the stand. He just pages could remember anything. Well, does that satisfy the Confrontation Clause?

Andy  21:06  
I can see that going both ways.

Larry  21:09  
That's exactly why the court, the court, the appellate case law that they sided to has gone both ways. He showed up for court. It's not like he was shielded from come into court. He presented himself, he took the stand. And he testified and the defense attorneys could have asked him all the questions I wanted to ask him, he just couldn't remember anything. But but he was not hiding from questions. He, he didn't choose not to answer your questions on Fifth Amendment grounds. He said, I can't ask you a question, because I don't have any recollection.

Andy  21:39  
And he did confirm and they're like, Can you can you confirm that the person you see on the tape is so and so? Yes, I can confirm that. But I don't remember the event. Okay, and let me I'm going to completely go down a different path. You've heard in the news about all the deep fakes where computers are able to analyze all the syllables, and they can create speech that never said by a person.

Larry  22:01  
I've heard of that. Okay, so

Andy  22:03  
here it is. So you and I have done in 95 episodes of this podcast, we have probably enunciated every syllable and sound that we would ever make. Someone could then go catalog other stuff, and they could create a whole podcast, and we never said anything. And we get up on the stand. And we and so the the prosecution goes, Well, can you confirm that like, yeah, that sounds like me, that sounds like the things that I may have said, but I didn't say them. Well, how do you know, like, I mean, you've planted something completely fabricated. And if I'm taking it off track, just to me, that's like where this goes. But you could totally not remember you could also be lying your ass off. But you could totally not remember something happening or not even be aware that the thing occurred?

Larry  22:51  
Well, that's what the trial judge was, was concerned about that if he if he says if he will, if he didn't rule the way he did, he was concerned that that his court would become the laughingstock because everybody would just not remember anything. Yeah. And so he, but but even the strong advocate, Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court, he's even gone the other way. And I can't break out all the nuances because of the article was longer than what I could digest and short prep time. But he's even said there are exceptions. And and we, if they grant sorcerer, or this is on is going to do conference. So so it's going to be interesting to see this was a I was saying that this is that the petition for search, and go into a conference to see if they can find four justices who want to grant review. And there's interest in the case even at this stage of the process, which normally do we have thousands of start petitions, it's hard to get support until the court has has ruled as one of those catch 22. There's not 1000 vehicles coming through to ride. No one has the resources to follow brief or 9000 cases. So they weighed into it to see if the court is going to grant cert, and then it jumped in. But this one's already got some interested parties at this early stage.

Unknown Speaker  24:10  
Do you have any sort of idea what what direction you think things would go?

Larry  24:16  
Well, I think it's very possible that they can get the four justices for the cert, but I have no idea where it's going to go with they decided to pick the case.

Andy  24:24  
We could possibly assert that um, Gorsuch being Scalia, Jr. would be in favor of the Confrontation Clause side.

Larry  24:32  
If he holds true to the to that to the aspect of his Scalia was one of the best on confrontation. I said, by golly, that's what it says. And that's what it means. But see, this guy was there for confrontation? Is it is it? Whose fault is it to the defense attorneys didn't ask him any questions? I mean, they could have kept one stand for 14 hours and let him answer every single questions like I don't remember.

Andy  24:57  
That would be a lot of fun.

Larry  24:59  
Well, but but he present himself record. So he was comfortable. They chose not to confront him. My hunch is that, that if they are that they're that this is going to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. I don't

Andy  25:11  
see how you could get it. I mean, unless you then hold the guy in contempt of court for not cooperating. But how

Larry  25:16  
could you hold a person in contempt that can't remember it until we can establish what you

Andy  25:20  
remember? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Could you bring in all the psychiatrist, psychologist, neuroscientist, everybody to validate whether the person does have some kind of traumatic brain injury that he can't remember things?

Larry  25:32  
You could do that, but you still won't know what he remembers. Yeah,

Andy  25:36  
no, I'm with you until we get like, you know, seeing into your brain technology. And boy, do I really not want that to happen. I really, really don't like having my thoughts in my head be mine.

Larry  25:46  
I would imagine so particular the thoughts that are in your head? No doubt, no doubt, no doubt.

Andy  25:51  
All right. From the appeal. There's this Louisiana Gulf War veteran is serving life for selling 300 million in doubt. No, I'm sorry. It's $30. With a marijuana. How do you get life in prison for selling 30 bucks a weed?

Larry  26:06  
Well, you you commit multiple crimes in the state of Louisiana that has a habitual offender statute that permits that, or the lawmakers have gifted the prosecution with that ability. And that's how it happens. And that's how it did happen.

Andy  26:24  
Is he a drug dealer then?

Larry  26:26  
Well, he was he was apparently dealing drugs, he sold $30 worth of marijuana, that would constitute a sale, wouldn't it?

Andy  26:35  
I think if he sold it, I think that constitutes selling.

Larry  26:39  
Right? Well, then he was dealing and let's I mean, but but but if you give it away for free, is that dealing?

Andy  26:46  
I still think it sounds like it's stealing.

Larry  26:49  
But certainly distributing.

Andy  26:50  
Yeah, that's certainly that. Yeah. Where does the line get crossed, is if you take charge one penny for what your cut, maybe you should set up you put a hat down and say donations taken. And you know, so you give somebody that we for free? It's you know, but hey, I will take donations,

Larry  27:05  
then you're not selling. So well. So but but just to simply answer the question, you, you get that result? What do you empower the establishment with those powers. And it sounded very good when they were passing the law. Now, you know, Louisiana's in the top, they either run number one, two, or three, depending on how the the calendar is running in terms of the highest percentage of incarceration per hundred thousand. But the reason is, if if a prosecutor didn't have that power, they would not be able to exercise it now blood day,

Andy  27:43  
they definitely would not.

Larry  27:45  
Well, so how the result is that that the prosecution had the power. And they they saw habitual status. And it was granted. And so now, so now he's whining, whining it and there are people who find it, the unconscionable. But I would say it's unconscionable to you the people of Louisiana who made this law. without sufficient thought and narrowing it said we have a three strikes law in our state that will put a person away for life. We drew it so narrowly Not a soul has ever been put away. I think this was signed by Governor Johnson 9596. Not a soul has ever been sent away for life.

Andy  28:25  
And we tell me about governor Johnson, what do you call him? That would be Gary puff Johnson, the libertarian presidential candidate.

Larry  28:33  
The one the one who had had an amazing turnaround about marijuana. He he, when he was liked at first he was the law and order governor. And when he when he ran for reelection, he was the lawn over governor wanted promised that they would serve every stinking day. And then in his process of a second term, he matured and he came to the conclusion that we're spending too much money on prison, incarcerated low level drug offenders. And to his credit, he said he was wrong, that he realized that we didn't have a criminal problem, we had a prosecution problem. And we needed to decriminalize all these minor drugs, marijuana, and we need to let people live their lives. And he had a complete turn about. So I call him puff just for kicks and giggles. But he did he did doing about face and his credit, he realized that he was wrong and said so. And that's exactly what we want people to do is to is to learn from, from their life experience and to recognize when they were wrong as I have been, and I will continue to be on things. As I gained more information. I look back. So I thought I had a ride on that, that I think I see that I didn't have it right.

Andy  29:49  
So let me let me travel down this path real quick. So that's an example of someone changing their mind. And then we the people will then go, Oh, this politician flip flops like you can't hold them. They can't update and change their way of thinking and we beat them to death. But then we will also beat them to death on can they ever evolve their thinking, you know, the whole criminal crime thing with Hillary Clinton, the super predator and all that stuff? And, you know, people's attitudes evolve and change?

Larry  30:16  
Well, I think from my personal perspective, I hold them accountable when they have oscillating views that change from audience to audio. So I don't hold any anyone to disdain for maturing and recognizing that they were wrong. And they evolve in our thinking. But if you speak to one group, and you're pro life and you speak to the next group, you're pro choice that that's the that's the problem. Okay? But But Gary Johnson has truly had an evolution of his thinking. He's still the fiscal conservative he was, he vetoed everything, even even even things that republican sponsored because he was he believed that government should be perpetually intrigued by that was his belief he made it made no doubt about it. And he got elected president, he federal government is anywhere from 20 to 40%. too large. I disagree with him on that. I think it would be a cataclysmic, I think we would have a cataclysmic depression in this country. If we were shrink the federal government by 20 to 40%. I mean, it would, it would send us into something we haven't seen since the Great Depression. But he at least is consistent with that view. He doesn't speak to one group and say, we should shrink government by 20%. And in his next group and say we should grow government. Okay. So, so But back to this article, was interesting about this article, which makes it good for the appellate review that is undergoing is that that he was he was he was the prosecution offered him a plea of seven years. Now, and that original offer, they did not agree to take habitual off the table. But apparently, the offer was not communicated to him, then they made us they made a subsequent offer to give him 10 years. And again, that it appears that that his his, his appellate lawyer now is saying that offer was not communicated to him. US Supreme Court said about six or seven years ago, maybe it was I think it was in 2012 or so they they ruled about plea offers, the prosecution has no duty to make you a plea offer. But a defense attorney does have a duty to communicate that offer. And if if this offer was not communicated to him, and there was such an offer, then he has recourse on US Supreme Court. And I can't cite the case by name, but I can tell you there was two of them the same term. And they had to do with plea offers or the plea offer some plea offers that were not communicated. And and that was one of them. And the other one will, I think dealt with the rejected offer. But there was two cases at the same time, regarding please the US Supreme Court decided, and this would fall squarely within that his attorney had a duty. You could you you could you could simply send your client an email, you can send them a letter, you can do something to the last known address. And the attorney says his original trial attorney says I lost contact with him. Well, maybe you did. But some method of communication should have been preserved. If you sent the mail, say the prosecutor has made 07 your offer, this is something you ought to look at. And let me know. If that was not delivered, it should have been returned. And even if it was delivered, and you would at least have a record. Hopefully you keep records of correspondence, I'm hoping that our attorneys out there to represent people keep some level of of diligence on what they're doing, you at least have a notation on your file set offer. And then 20 days later you go back because the offer was going to be withdrawn after 20 days and you noted the file, never heard anything from the client, at least you would do that much I would hope.

Andy  33:51  
I was just going to ask you, sir, to win a plea offer gets presented, then to cover your own but as the defense attorney that you would then bring it to your client. And even if they decline it, then you have them sign something saying, Hey, I showed you this and you've declined it,

Larry  34:06  
not just verbal, I would go I would say you have to go through the steps of having them sign it. But certainly you need to document. Now, I know that I've got 127 cases open where they should have about a third that number. I understand that. But it's one of those things where you have to find the time to cover this because the client come back said that they never do what they offer. They're sitting in life for prison now or that might might not have been the case had they taken offer. So when someone's life is at stake, you need to find time, I would think

Andy  34:40  
but I don't want to jump ahead too far. But the one of the coming up articles is going to be about what why we should

Unknown Speaker  34:47  
fund the public defenders less.

Andy  34:51  
So that would be one way to help solve this problem. Right?

Larry  34:54  
Well, how would How would last four,

Andy  34:56  
because then they would be able to spend less time and that would make it more efficient.

Larry  35:00  
So Missouri versus fries coming to mind on one of the cases that sold the gurus out there could search Missouri vs fry, I'm actually not smart enough to open another window and do that. But that one came to my mind. And then there was another case that same term, about plea offers that were made, and what the Supreme Court decided. But if you need to communicate the offer to your client, and your client has to have the final site they want to go to trial.

Andy  35:27  
This next article is also from the appeal. One prosecutors and Barry police lies. I am still over the top just completely confused it and just to throw like a counterpoint on this. I was listening to the podcast opening arguments where that attorney that we had on a couple months ago was on and he says excuse me, he said he knows a bunch of prosecutors. And he said they they they like lose sleep over the notion of putting an innocent person away and you know, taking away somebody's liberty and they want to make sure that they went away it says presented that I'm trying to remember the clause that he used that the statement of it enacted a thing when there's evidence and I can't remember what it was called at this point. But so how is it the prosecutors have evidence that could be exculpatory, and they just like, we'll just put this over on the bottom of the filing cabinet, and we just never find it, I just can't figure that one out.

Larry  36:24  
Well, and that that particular situation is slightly different than than what they're talking about here. What they're talking about here is for a cop comes with a with an affidavit. And they they raise their hand and I put it a bit here before judicial official and they take they take out a warrant to go they request a search warrant on arrest warrant. And they swear to certain facts. Well, the prosecutor looks at that. And they say that couldn't happen that way. They read the affidavit, they say it couldn't have happened that way. That's just not a credible story. And, but but it puts the prosecutor in an awkward position because the police union, and even if it's not a police, you know, the Brotherhood camaraderie among police officers is very strong. And I can't explain it because I've not been there I can only tell you that this is this is the reality of being existence. When when you when you're in the prosecutor's office, you have to work with police. You don't do your own investigations that arrest. So you're relying on when that when that drug bust went down, you're relying on a team of officers from from various ranks, who put that case together, and you're reading reports written by multiple people. And some of those reports look like, wow, this wouldn't have happened that way. Then you're faced in an awkward position because your team is lying. And you know, your team is lying. You know that that didn't happen that way, because your life experience tells you that that couldn't be credible, that a person wouldn't have reacted that way that that was what happened in this case. But you have a choice to tell that member of the team sir, ma'am. Your affidavit is just totally, totally false. And you know that you've lied in this affidavit. Or you have the choice, which happened in this case, you make a sweetheart deal offer so that you don't have to put that person on the stand. And the cops rely on the sweetheart deal, because of mandatory minimums. mandatory minimums, which victims advocates are so fond of promoting, that that gives the leverage to the prosecution team because if you roll the dice and you lose, you're going down for a mandatory amount of time. So the lying officer never has to testify. Well, the the prosecution when they were they look at those affidavits that were that were bogus, and they know they're bogus. They don't take any steps to do anything about it. Because it wasn't a necessary they got their conviction anyway.

Andy  39:02  
And we know when we covered the Larry Krasner stuff that he I don't remember the number but it was a some decent number of officers that were listed in some sort of book that couldn't be trusted. And I'm not sure if they got fired, but like, Hey, we're never going to call them these officers to bring in testimony, which could then make the prosecution's case crumble. And in the opening paragraphs of this particular article, the police told a virginal story saying Oh, they saw bolts in the internals is the person's name they saw Bolton is in his jacket, and then they find video surveillance and completely contradicts their story. It could be the police just miss recollected. But if you have a history of it, but there they are trying so hard, the police are trying so hard to keep that information from getting out on their own internal, like rating system of how reliable a particular officer is. Why don't we the people have access to know how trustworthy a particular COP is?

Larry  40:04  
I wish I knew the answer that. But I wish I knew the answer to one other question. I wish I knew the answer to I'm assuming because we've heard all of our life, that the overwhelming majority of police officers or Google or honest hard working, right, you've heard that

Andy  40:21  
I have, you should look at them. And they're going to hell right, right right, askew, etc. Well,

Larry  40:25  
I feel the same way about teachers I feel to overwhelm I draw them or good hard working people. I feel the same way about about my colleagues when I worked in the grocery store. The ones you are them were not all of them. But the majority of them were good, hard working people. What is always confused me, as since you're a good hard working person. Why do you want to protect a not hard working person who's not good? It befuddled me as a teenager, why you would want to have dead weight around you and have people that dishonor the profession. So I'm confused as to why police officer saying a colleague being dishonorable and writing a fictitious affidavit and going in and testifying and truthfully, it puzzles me as to why a police officer, since they're all overwhelmingly good, honest, decent people do not want that bad apple out of the force. I wish a police officer could explain that to me, cuz I'm not able to process that.

Andy  41:23  
This seems to be more like protect the team protect the institution at the expense of the individuals to

Larry  41:28  
what has exactly it, I get the part that they're protecting the team. But to me, since I think I'm semi rational and logical, I don't understand why you would want to protect a bad member of the team. Okay, so I say you that Lana Falcons, and you've got a person who's out making the Falcons organization, what bad? Would you want that member to be a falcon? Or would you want that person to be bad? Would you want the public to thank all Falcons for that way? Or would you want that person to be ousted so that the public doesn't think that all Falcons are that way?

Andy  42:01  
Yeah, I do see your example. But we could say this about political parties to is it you know, there's some impeachment talking to you protect the institution of the presidency? Or do you bring charges? I don't want to talk about the credibility of the charge. I don't want to talk about that. But do you? Do you do what you are, like, constitutionally mandated to do? Or do you say the office is too respected to be challenged?

Larry  42:28  
So Well, that would be a rabbit hole to go down? But I know,

Andy  42:31  
I know, it would be but I'm that feels like, you know, a fairly close fairly significant current level of news, comparison.

Larry  42:38  
Well, well, back to this article, though, the prosecutors do not challenge the police establishment because they need them. And most of these cases resolved themselves 95% with please. And and therefore is just as it doesn't need to be dealt with, as far as they're concerned.

Andy  42:58  
Oh, just want one of the thing is, would it be possible to separate out that prosecutors are not like, you know, quote, unquote, related to the police? Could could they could they be? Could it be a three legged system? Sort of like the way the government is set up in general, to where they're there their own independent organization? You know, not tied? I don't know, I don't know if I'm communicating that well, just seems like an idea so that they're, they're more impartial to where they're getting their evidence from also.

Larry  43:30  
Well, but but somebody has to be the ground trooper. So that's the that's the law enforcement. That's the cops, the beat cops. Somebody has to be out there grabbing bad guys.

Andy  43:39  
Yeah, yeah, I'm just trying to see if there's a way to set up some sort of barrier to create the almost like having a, you know, so this particular county, they use that particular counties, sheriff's office, you know, law enforcement to do the investigating, but then have prosecutors from a completely different areas that they're at least more independent than having the local

Larry  44:03  
now that's an interesting, that's an interesting theory. So so they would not be tied at the hip under that.

Andy  44:10  
Yeah, I mean, you know, we talked about attorneys, you know, you would want one that can grease the wheels for you would want for something that you're trying to get almost like a favor, if you're trying to get a petition to get off the registry, you would want the well connected lawyer, and all that. But if you're going to bring some sort of controversial thing, you would want to get the out of town lawyer so that they don't lose their political, whatever the words are the, you know, their political ties, and they don't burn any bridges by bringing some controversial case.

Larry  44:34  
So they the Bucks County where we're sitting now, they their their cases would be prosecuted by by someone who's not directly connected to Bucks County, they would just take a total independent look at the evidence.

Andy  44:51  
Yeah, possibly even like a random drawing and you move the case? I don't know. I don't know. Just something that I was thinking just now.

Larry  44:56  
Well, so you, would you, you would have like roving prosecuting tribunals, that would not be that would not be the not be so closely tied it to him, right. So somebody from the county would be prosecuting this case here. And they would say, Sorry, this just doesn't add up. Therefore, you've got no case. Yeah. I mean, just interesting, huh. I don't think it's the worst thing I've ever heard. It's kind of like professional jurors. Yes, because we have such a high level of complexity and and forensics evidence today that we didn't have even 2030 years ago. Right. And, and the jurors, jurors, were just overwhelmed with experts now, overwhelmed. If you were set through a trial today, if on the off chance that it involves even the most basic of forensics, the experts are just mind boggling in terms of what they testify to.

Andy  45:49  
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, register matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts for Stitcher, or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed. You make it possible. All right now after that rabbit hole, let's move back over to LA calm. You know I reading just the title of this. And it just says public defender council would furlough staff to meet government budget, cut mandate, a governor's budget mandate were cut mandate and really threw it Hey, this is in the fine state of Georgia where they want to say this camp, the RFID. Wonderful, who wants to drive around in his own pickup truck and pick up the brown people. He wants to go around. He wants all agencies to cut 4% from their next year's budget, including to the public defenders, but not including I think it's at the law enforcement and then also prosecutors. So we want to prosecute more people, but we want to give them less defense.

Larry  47:21  
Was that a problem?

Andy  47:23  
No. All right, let's move on.

Larry  47:24  
So yes, well, what's interesting about this, and I think it ties into another article, first of all, knowing a little bit about how well funded states or Georgia is one of the best finance states of the country, in terms of having a very diverse economy, having very reliable revenue streams and and having Predictable Revenue flows. So the so I don't know what's driving the request for for for the budget cuts. I mean, this is supposed to be the best economy. There were in the history of all mankind. And so revenue should be just gushing, in particular in a diversified state like this. So I don't know what's driving the forum. I haven't been into what the local politics well enough to know. But it says in the article that public defenders opened 144,224 new cases in 2019, fiscal year 2019, which was a 20% increase over fiscal year 2017. Now, that's under the booming economy of this administration. And yet the number of cases have gone up by 20%. And a very brief period of time, that's 10% per year, right? Yep. Well, I mean, mathematically, it's actually a little bit different, because of the compounding but but 10% per year. In a booming economy, that tells us a couple things that tells us that either the booming economy is not having any direct correlation with the people who who are committing economic crimes, or it tells us that they have so well funded the police and law enforcement apparatus, which is apparently what this article is alluding to, because they don't suffer any cuts, it tells that they're able to pump it more and more cases into the system. That's what I'm reading between the lines here.

Andy  49:06  
Yeah. And something that you've brought up on a number of cases is the three legged stool that I just mentioned, but from a different point of view that you have judges, they don't control the caseload prosecutors, they control the caseload, but a public defender, I guess judges do control to a degree, but the defense attorneys, they don't control the caseload at all. And so now we're going to fund them less is that going to make the system more efficient or less efficient?

Larry  49:30  
Well, if you if you believe that due process as irrelevant, then it'll make it more efficient. Because if you if you have your defense attorney, and so just made more and more cases are resolved by the last minute plea deals that that where they've never seen their attorney before. And they told him this, they tell him this is the best I could do. But But in terms of the three legged stool that the judges actually do control cases, judges are part of the initiation of cases that most jurisdictions they have to they have to sign off on some level of probable cause. Enter, the judges have control over making sure the rules are followed and deadlines are bad and timelines were adhere to, and that grant extensions and exceptions to the rules. They have some control. defense attorneys have only one mechanism to reduce their caseload and has to do what to plead out the case. Yes. So the prosecutor has a lot of discussion because they can choose prioritize and say we don't prosecute that in this district that that's like, for example, in Boulder, you'd never get a prosecution with drug possession. They just flat out wouldn't bring it because if they did, no jury, Boulder, whatever, convict anybody have a drug, a simple drug possession, so they just simply don't file them. And prosecutors have that type of discretion. And in fact, now that Colorado is a is a legalized state, I don't think you would have whatever the legal limit is if you had less than that, but even if you had slightly more than that, they would not prosecute that in Boulder, because no jury would convict anybody. Yeah. I would say that would be the case down here in Houston County, Georgia, I bet a jury would convict someone a possession here.

Andy  51:00  
I yeah, I mean, I've talked about before it was right before I got out, the legislature was considering legalizing I want to say that the even like watered it down to where it was just the CBD oil. It has since been legalized. But you got this father who's testifying saying, This is the only thing that helps my kid who has hundreds of seizures per day. So what you're telling me that I have to do is go, like, go to Colorado where I can get it or California some other place where I can get it. And you want me to package it in such a way that I can transport it on a plane and you want me to travel across state lines with this illegal substance so that I can keep my kid from having seizures, and I can't fathom how the legislature goes, nope, FU sorry, we're not legalizing it. I can't fathom how they do that one.

Larry  51:46  
So well, the adversarial system breaks down. But if you don't have if you don't have defense, and what so eventually the adversarial system is going to break down completely because everybody doesn't seem to like that sterile system. It's too inconvenient due process is just too expensive. And it takes too much time. So we should I mean, the accusation should be enough. I mean, if if someone accuses someone a crime, we should believe them. We should we should cater to them. And we should tell the person that was accused. Sorry. We've got all we need right here.

Andy  52:22  
Doesn't that doesn't them defunding this to some degree violate people's six them? Is that the one that you have a right to

Larry  52:29  
calculate what it does. But but but that's that's never been fully funded any way that the all state struggle with adequate data to defense? I don't know, I don't know a state that anybody can cite to where they do a spectacular superb job

Andy  52:41  
fair. I guess I know, just somebody who better than us,

Larry  52:43  
I'll do better than others. But I

Andy  52:45  
would suspect that George is not one of the better than others.

Larry  52:48  
I actually it depends on county to county still, there's there's disparities and counties here where the worst sub counties are more generous than others. But I think that was the idea of community of people of them creating the state system some some years ago, because it was such a disparity between the counties that said, we were going to, it's kind of like indigent burials, you got counties that will give $300 for an inch barrel in the state, you've got counties that would give a couple thousand dollars for for advantage. And, you know, I think Fulton is one of the most generous counties and then you've got counties where the other Tiger has to do it, take a loss on it, because they get them they pay up two or $300.

Unknown Speaker  53:26  
Alright, I think we're going to drop this article, the one back kick. Did you want to drop it? Or did you want to cover it real quick, I don't know anything about it.

Larry  53:33  
But I can talk about it if you if you lead the way.

Andy  53:38  
I'm not sure if it'll make it off the cutting room floor. But there's a messaging app called kick kick, KIK, sorry. And they've been in business for about nine years. And they're shutting down to focus on a cryptocurrency scheme that they've got going. But there's a whole bunch of controversy surrounding the app, because it's already cut mostly anonymous, like you don't have to use your phone number to create an account with this thing. And that has been led people to do nefarious things with it to to any sort of child exploitation, anything that would be you know, an online crime like that. And so I think the from that side of things, it's a good thing. I guess I just don't see how, like this app being the target for that kind of scrutiny being challenges like, Hey, this is the tool that people use, you can use a pencil to commit murder, so we should ban all pencils. But so this app is shutting down after nine years, so they can focus on cryptocurrency.

Larry  54:35  
Well, it wasn't it, Wasn't there a high profile case just recently associated with it. Or a girl was lowered?

Andy  54:42  
Yeah. I mean, there's there's, there's there's a there. But I don't think that's the reason why, again, how do you how do you convict the communication platform for being? I mean, yes, they facilitated but the Do you? Do you accuse the post office of mailing the bombs around? Or the? Yeah, yes, it was bombed. But there was a white powder substance during the Obama administration, I guess it was, maybe it was even during Trump that stuff, people mail stuff. So then is the post office guilty of doing it?

Larry  55:10  
Well, I don't know that we would say the post office would be guilty of doing and I guess the question would be, can the post office at a reasonable cost? And that's always the Battle of what's reasonable, at a reasonable cost, detect unsafe packages and parcels that are moving through their network to prevent them from reaching their destination? That's the question. Well, that's the same thing with kick is is, is there a reasonable precaution that could be taken there would not unduly burden the company and unduly interfered with people who want to communicate by that platform? so that you could so you could not have these things be as likely happen? I think that's the question not, would you would you want to shut it down altogether? But what could you do to pay respect possible corporate citizen, I guess they've decided they could be a responsible corporate citizen by shutting down.

Andy  56:04  
I just saw their Canadian based and they were once valued at a billion dollars. And I don't know I only use it briefly and I got scolded by my handlers, they saw that I had installed it. And I don't know, I installed it. I used it a couple times. And I installed it, but it showed up in my history. So they were like, Oh, you have this app. It's like, I don't have it. But it showed up anyway, they were upset with me for having.

Larry  56:28  
So Well, I've heard that I've never gone to the I guess I couldn't have to shut down. But I never looked it up. But I heard people from time to time mentioned kicks, I had heard of it. But I didn't know anything more than that. So you didn't have to connect it to a phone.

Andy  56:43  
You it is an app and it's on your phone, but you don't use your phone number two. So that keeps you anonymous from that point of view. And that's why a lot of people would use it as on almost everything else, Facebook, anything else, even the privacy focused messenger app called signal that's a highly encrypted, they, they authenticate you using your phone number. It makes it less than anonymous by having to use your phone number to authenticate against it.

Larry  57:09  
So well. Alrighty, if you say so.

Andy  57:13  
I do. I do I do. And I'm the final arbiter of things being said, this next article comes from our our star calm, which I have no idea what RR but Rockford is 62 degrees in Rockford right now. But the title of the article is fantasy sports and sex offender internet access on state Supreme Court docket. This is coming from Illinois. And there's two cases both of them internet related. One of them is just about betting online. And how do you like get your wager money back? The second one is a social media ban. Where do you want to go first?

Larry  57:48  
I don't really think about either one.

Andy  57:53  
I did reading through it. I don't I don't particularly care about the online betting thing. Go ahead bet have fun there. They're legalizing it all over the place. So get your rocks off doing that. The other one is a social media ban that sex offenders can't use social media. And this one, there's a couple points that I think to me are of interest. And it says in court documents. The defend the I guess it would be the plaintiff called barring access to the internet draconian. And but then there's another statement in there. And this is I can channel my inner Larry, if I say it, but it says if you're on supervision, you have a diminished expectation of liberty. That is correct. But then I guess, you know, the packing ham stuff. It was people post that they couldn't use social media. And that's where that got struck down. And this is, you know, it's going to get rehashed, I guess from from their point of view. But one other thing that it's is, it says it is almost impossible to that in today's world that you could live without access to social media. define what social media would be. So we're reading this article, and at the bottom of it says, Hey, would you like to comment? Doesn't that make it social media? And we're at a news website?

Larry  59:05  
Well, it depends on how they define it in the in the stat in the states where they've tried to do social media restrictions of bands depends on how broadly and the case of Louisiana It was so broadly, that that they wouldn't even the Coursera said No way.

Andy  59:19  
So I let me channel my inner Larry, you are a person, right? This is this is a media publication. Right? Right. You are being social. Right. Right. So then this is social media using this, this website, but I think you would then find a lot of problems from people, they would push back and go, Well, you can ban somebody from reading the news,

Larry  59:42  
could you? Well, they can read it avail fashion paper,

Andy  59:46  
good. I mean, that might not be possible, you might then be limited on the publications that you can get, you know, can you can you go to your library and get it Oh, wait, many of our people can't go to libraries?

Larry  59:58  
Right? Well, you that is that is one of the tests that are adequate alternatives. So

Andy  1:00:06  
these things drive me crazy. I, you know, again, back to my stupid pencil example, the internet is just a tool that people use to do things. You can do wonderful things, you can do nefarious things, if you want someone to be monitored, monitor them. And I'm deeply troubled by them restricting access to the internet. This one, this one showed up. And again, it's another article that we don't have enough, but we're going to just try and bed at around for a minute. This is the Irish post calm. And five year old boy with autism labeled sex offender after hugging a classmate. I how do you take a kid that has a diminished capacity and does something that he thinks is appropriate? Doesn't seem that he did anything really that horrible, but you label him a sexual predator? That's terrible.

Larry  1:00:54  
Terrible? Well, of course, I'm not clear on this. It's when when I said labeled a sexual predator, who made the label it is as a result of a criminal proceeding or is this the school saying that he's entirely that they've described him who has bestowed that label on him.

Andy  1:01:12  
The family claim that Nathan is being accused of sexual activities by members of staff at the school. That's in the second paragraph, the article. So the staff at the school is saying that this kid is a terrible, horrible human at night with autism.

Larry  1:01:26  
The staff is saying that, but that doesn't make someone a sexual predator. entirely. The school says that they're that, that they that they're providing special monitoring of this individual, that doesn't translate to being a sexual predator as far as the The world is concerned. So I'm just a little confused about when, when they know who's who's who's labeled him a sexual predator, it sounds like the schoolhouse doesn't sound like he's been through a court of law that they've determined he's a sexual predator.

Andy  1:02:00  
Brenda says, it seems that the school system said something maybe even from the family saying they feel like he's labeled.

Larry  1:02:07  
Okay. Well, I would, I would feel the same way. But that's, that's an example of how our zero tolerance policy has developed. stuff is handled by schools entirely differently than what it would have been it looks like they did call the guardian and say that they were concerned. But things are not handled the same way they used to be handled because of the public sensitivity that we have today. About, and this is not me saying I support this for those who magically translate when I say something. I'm just reflecting public opinion creating it. Public, the public has demanded that schools respond very sternly, very properly, very aggressively to sexual inappropriate behavior, regardless of the age, what would have been handled in my generation one bias, that's not an acceptable method as far as how the public sees how serious the situations are, by today's standards. Yeah.

Andy  1:03:10  
What do you do with a five year old though? What are you gonna do? run them up the flagpole and label them as a sex offender forever?

Larry  1:03:17  
Well, I don't know how much information we have about about this, it seems like they're providing more more oversight, and more scrutiny to his behavior. But if you've got an autistic child, they're not going to be able to conform their behavior, depending on the severity of the elitism, they're not gonna be able to conform their behavior.

Andy  1:03:34  
Yeah, I think society then conforms around them, depending on the severity of the autism.

Larry  1:03:39  
So but what would what would what would be the alternative would be that we would we would no longer try to mainstream these kids. And we were trying to put I mean, that that's what we've been doing for the last 30 years is trying to is trying to mainstream kids rather than separate my generation, a kid like this What even been in regular school, right?

Andy  1:04:01  
But then you end up with all kinds of equality claims and challenges to that the kid deserves a traditional, quote unquote, normal education.

Larry  1:04:11  
Yeah, that's that's the point I'm making, you know, as we as we as we strive to mainstream these kids. Some of them will behavioral problems that in particular, when they're having when they have a degree of autism. They're not able I had a sister Sister that was institutionalized, died a few years ago, but she, she was institutionalized in a Georgia institution for was was with autism for almost her entire life until they close the institution.

Andy  1:04:40  
Well, let's move over to the Altoona mirror. And this title is inmate loses court challenge Hill heavily contested sexual violence predator binding. And where is this I guess a tune is Pennsylvania. And a Bedford county man who entered a no contest plea in 2010, to the rape of a child has lost his challenge to to a court finding that he was a sexually violent predator, which means he must register as a sex offender. Why do you think that this is an important article to cover there?

Larry  1:05:10  
Well, I don't I don't know if I'll put it in here. But but for the for the people who have thirst for legal knowledge, and who enjoy the nuances, this, this case is very challenging for that type of mindset. Because in Pennsylvania, you don't become a sexually violent predator by by crime, you become a sexually violent predator by proceeding that people go through. And so at the at the end of your trial, as you take it to trial, or two, or after you plea, the Commonwealth as that you'd be designated as a sexual predator. That was under their previous Megan's Law, they don't have a Megan's Law anymore. They adopted, they adopted the animal shack, which became effective in 2012, their version of the animals act, and they went purely to an offense based system, and that designation, no longer existed, well, then, all these court challenges resulted in new problems for people for the for the Commonwealth, because the retroactive application of of of data mall shot was declared invalid by by the courts. There was two cases, Martinez and I forget the name without the other other one that may have been Tucker or something. But there was two cases. Butler okay, but Well, I was close. Yep. And the the we talked a lot about that my last decision on an article on various conference calls. And so the people, the people that wonder the Megan's Law designation as a sexually violent predator, they end up with a designation that I can't challenge, because you had you had one year from from when your sentence became final, to challenge that determination? Well, then, unless you had a crystal ball, you didn't know that, that the new version of registration was going to be declared unconstitutional. So these people are arguing that they should be able to go back and challenge outside the one year window there. There are sexually violent predators designation. And, and the court thing, not until we were told by an appellate level court that you that that the moon is and the butler decision is retroactive. They're not retroactive. So you still don't have a vehicle to use your time barred. So so that's why it's interesting to me if they're going to be able to, to lift that time bar to, and I know someone on a personal level that has that designation, and it's tragic because that was who he might have been decades ago. That's not who he is today. Gotcha. But there's nothing you can do about it because the doors closed. Okay.

Andy  1:08:07  
Me. So that's almost like a statute of limitations, right?

Larry  1:08:10  
Well, it's Ty bar from from from for baking challenge to the STP designation. And, and so he's trying, they're trying to establish that that the the appellate level decisions of mode as a butler should open the door to up to LA to challenge and I hope they win. I do, too.

Andy  1:08:31  
We are very time constraints. So let's cover these last couple articles quickly. We have a New York Times opinion pieces is how mandatory minimums and naval police misconduct. Did we just like reference some stuff about this? And we did previous articles? I mean, it sounded familiar.

Larry  1:08:45  
Yeah, these tied together. A lot of misconduct by the police can be covered up by mandatory minimums because the prosecutor looks at that, Oh, well, this doesn't like a very credible. This, this affidavit just is incredible. So this, this works to to to illustrate what we were talking about earlier, if a prosecutor is reviewing affidavits and evidence, and they are dumbfounded because they know that that something could have happened the way that it's written down by the officer, then they have they, they have the opportunity to extract a plea anyway, because there's a mandatory minimum in play. So a defendant can can move to suppress evidence, and the prosecutor can say, well, I'll give you a sweetheart deal to go ahead and take just one time deal today. I'll give you probation and we'll look the other way. They don't say that but but what they're saying indirectly. So well, we're gonna look the other way on the misconduct. You got a sweetheart deal. You're going to probate it sounds and you go about your life. Well, they shouldn't have made the stop to forget what they lied about what the basis for stopping but yeah, they did find the dope but they didn't have the basis for the stop. They couldn't have seen what they said. They said because all because it was pitch black and the windows were tainted, and they couldn't have seen what they said they saw. So I want to officer have to testify and I want to show the video. I don't want to show this officer to be a pathological liar. Well, you can do that. But if for some reason you get loose the suppression motion and your your probative sentences off the table, and you're going to get the mandatory minimum if you get convicted. So you'd rather serve three years in prison on a mandatory minimum, then have three years probated sentence, that's a tough position to put people in agreed. And that's that's the one of the one of the downsides of mandatory minimums is because it It allows for misconduct to be accepted. Because you think you're getting a great deal, because the hammer of the mandatory minimum, the judge is not gonna be able to give you probation because the legislature has tied his or her hands by saying that this, this offense against society is so severe that you have to receive this sentence.

Andy  1:11:01  
This goes back to like the thing that I keep saying though, it just feels like prosecutors are just totally after the notch in their belt. They're not interested in justice. They're not interested in the civil liberties. They are interested in the victories, only the victories and this supports that.

Larry  1:11:18  
Well, they're, they're interested in closing out the case. And they're interested in not destroying the camaraderie of the team, they have to work with it. How well are they going to work with a police agency? If If you have prosecutors, looking at the police officer and saying, Well, I'm sorry, this affidavit is just unbelievable. Yeah, I think you're I think you're a joke of a cop.

Andy  1:11:42  
But that's at the expense of somebody going and sitting in a cage.

Larry  1:11:45  
That is exactly that that safe, the expense of that. But but but that doesn't change the reality. Yeah, the COP is going to go back and say you're not going to believe about prosecutor. Jones just told me that I was a pathological liar. And she wasn't going to even put on my case that she was dismissing it and falling into leprosy. KK you believe that? And then officer says, Well, I'll declare? Well, we'll just find out about that. First thing, you know, you've got no camaraderie on the team. And that's, that's the problem that they're facing. Again, I don't agree with this, folks. I wish this wasn't the reality of the situation. I am dead set against this. I'm barely telling you. I'm the communication piece telling you why they do it. Because I'm waiting for the deluge of hate mail saying there he is. He's on the prosecution team, all of a sudden, I'm going to forward them all to you, by the way. But that's that's what their considerations are. And I can't change their considerations. I don't make the rules for police conduct. I don't form that camaraderie of protection that they have. And I don't make these rules for life. Very telling you that store consideration.

Unknown Speaker  1:13:02  
So not the world the way it should be. But it is be.

Larry  1:13:04  
That's exactly right. I gotcha.

Andy  1:13:06  
All right. And then to close it out. And we have the other New York Times opinion piece. So the police can't solve the problem. They are the problem. 25 years after the infamous 1994 crime bill, too many criminal justice groups are simply reimagining mass incarceration.

Larry  1:13:22  
Good read,

Unknown Speaker  1:13:24  
and any highlights that you want to cover before we have to scoot out here.

Larry  1:13:29  
I liked this article because it, it illustrates what I say. And since I don't have a fancy degree to say it. It has statistics that are in here that are just so remarkable, that that I would like to highlight them they the crime bill of 1994, which President Clinton signed. That's the super predator thing, right? Oh, well, I was one by many things. Did but but but it those of you that are too young to remember, or those who have faded memories, President Clinton promised that he was going to help local communities have 100,000 new officers on the streets. Now he was elected in 93. And he left office at the end of 2000, early 2001. But it's a time but between between the decade of the 90s, the number of police officers went up dramatically, thanks to a lot of federal funding and board with those local communities who believe that hate the federal government so much, they were happy to take that money to have those extra police officers. So so the the the legislation was partly responsible for a 30% increase the number of police officers from 699,019 92 899,000 in 1999. So we got 200,000 more cops 7000 more police officers into schools. And now today, according this article, there are over 1 billion law enforcement officers in the United States. Now at the same time time, at the same time, there has been a 26% decline in overall crime from 1993 to 2000. So so as crime went down, the number of officers continue to grow up go up. And what I don't understand is a few continue to increase the number of cops watch while the number of crimes are going down. How do you provide work for those cops to do?

Unknown Speaker  1:15:25  
Oh, I think I know. They Trump a bullshit things to do, like, go around and harass people on Halloween?

Larry  1:15:32  
Yes. So I can't tell you to say that. As crime drops, the number of people in the law enforcement establishment needs to also go down, not up down folks down. The you will, you won't be able to contain the number of cases that enter the justice system, if you don't contain the ability to file cases. So therefore, rather than running down to your city council, and to your state legislature demanding more and more cops, you need to run down to your city council, your county commission and to your state legislature demanding fewer and fewer cops, because you're safer now than you've ever been in recorded history. And we were just talking about that we're watching a TV show the show the other night here in this very bunker about a crime in Covington. And so this crime like this crime would have happened 30 years ago. The only difference is today. We know about it because Covington so part of the Atlanta metro area is accepted. Now back in 30 years ago, you had to make a long distance call to call from Covington to Atlanta, and you had to pay money to talk from Covington to Atlanta. And if you were going to put something on the news from Covington, you had to dispatch a remote vehicle that cost gobs of money, you had to buy satellite time, so you could upload it to your studio. So you could or you could you could do a live stand up. You do all that with free technology today. You know you can you can be on your phone doesn't cost anything, you can do a live stand up on location. So what happened in in Covington that made the Atlanta news wouldn't have made the Atlanta news 30 years ago. But you're safer now than you were 30 years ago. Statistically, folks, you're safer being alive today than you were 30 years ago. Back to the point of this article. If you want to stop the number of people being brought into the system, you've got to contain and reduce the number of cops closing jails as a part of the equation. But if you continue to have the same number of people processing and arresting folks, you're going to have an overcrowded situation with your remaining jails. You have to stop bringing cases into the system. And the cops are not going to file if your cases. If you double the size of your police department, you're going to have more people arrested. I mean, it's just basic numbers. If a cop out on patrol, he's going if you have doubled number patrol officers, those officers are going to write more citations and they're going to do more stops. They're going to do more Kanaan searches, they're going to do more things that they wouldn't have been able to do if you did to have them out there.

Andy  1:18:15  
Brenda says we can't have that we won't be safe.

Unknown Speaker  1:18:20  
Oh, you know,

Andy  1:18:22  
so this goes to we've had this conversation about like this, there's some sort of implicit rule in Georgia that you if you drive 10 over, you won't get pulled over, which I say is complete. poppycock. I mean, it may be true until that day, where there's an extra cop and they've decided to set the rule today to be six miles over or than another day, it's four miles over. How do you know that today is the day that it's 10. And that's okay. You just set your cruise on at when it's 70. Why is that all of a sudden, okay, it does say speed limit. I don't mean to be a pedantic asshole. But like, I you know, it's five, okay, is six is seven, where does across the line that the cops gonna let you get away with it. And there's 10 times as many law enforcement out there, that number might become one,

Larry  1:19:04  
it might become one, or it might become one if you fit a particular profile. And that's what we have the problem with profiling because as a middle aged white man driving a rare conservative car, they're probably not going to pull me over in most circumstances. I know, we had a guy telling me he was in a ghetto in a high crime drug infested area, and they pulled him over because he was white. He didn't belong there. I've heard that story before we've had it on the podcast. But by and large, I'm not going to get pulled over. No matter where I go. By and large, I'm not gonna have a problem. But if you forget fit one of the profiles, you're going to get pulled over if they're the extra manpower to do that, because that's what cops do. They look for problems. That's how they're able to set up these massive sting undercover operations, where they have dozens of officers from multiple agencies, chatting online, convincing people that they're 1314 1516 years old, and convincing them to drive across the state across the country. That's how they're able to do that because you gave them the resources.

Andy  1:20:16  
layer, we got to close this thing out. We got to get on the road. You think so I do. So I'm going to say this really quick. registry matters dot CEO 7472 to 74477. registry matters cast at gmail. com. And of course, as always the best way to support us as patreon.com slash registry matters. And thank you to all of our patrons. Thank you to all of our listeners. Thank you to people in chat. And with that, Larry, Episode 94 is is in the is in the circular file now.

Larry  1:20:43  
Well, thanks a lot.

Andy  1:20:44  
Take care. Bye

Transcribed by https://otter.ai