Andy 0:00 registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts FYP recording live from FYP Studios east and west and I'm in a torrential downpour Larry transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 98 of registry matters. It is a Saturday night and it's been raining for like 24 hours and it's cold. It's like wow, it's weird here. What's up with you? Well, it couldn't be Larry 0:27 couldn't be nicer here. Well try it was probably what but what's the problem you people are having? Andy 0:33 I think there's some sort of tropical depression that came up at a Florida and came this way. Larry 0:38 That's what I heard there was a Andy 0:40 horrible man. The weather map is terrible, terrible. Terrible. Larry 0:45 Yeah, well, we're not having that problem. It's lovely here, Andy 0:48 man. Alright, so do you have a guest bedroom that I can stay in? Larry 0:51 Sure, as long as you don't mind turn the water on and off every day. Andy 0:56 You don't mean at the faucet You mean like at the street, right? Larry 1:01 That's actually not quite that bad. I've I've taken steps to mitigate that. Andy 1:06 You have a you have a water leak that you keep trying to fix with with putting pipes inside of pipes. Larry 1:11 That is correct. And it works. Andy 1:14 And your house is 150 years old 3030 This seems awfully young to have that many plumbing problems. It was a Larry 1:22 it was a it was a bad product that they put back in the 80s it was a piping called poly beetle lane and it turned out not to be a reliable product for this for this climate for the for the gyrations that temperature we have and stuff it just turned out that it's been people whose homes were were Piper that it turned out to be a miserable failure and I was not aware of the of the of the pipe it when I bought the house Andy 1:50 will tell me what do you actually keep doing and I don't want to sit here for very long. What does this have anything to do with your shower heads? Larry 1:57 No, it just it just did. I've got a leak on the cold side. So I turned the the temperature of my water heater down so I could run straight hot, because I have I have one of the pipes turned off that feeds cold into my kitchen and bath. So I'm writing or running just straight hot water so I have to turn it down so that the water is usable because there's no way to mix. It's not that I can't afford to redo the piping is that I they're going to have to do jackhammers and solids and stuff and it's going to be such an ugly mess of cutting the walls and trenching through through cement slab it's it's just going to be a major disruption so I hate the downtime of the of the project. It's going to be an expensive project also but it's just a lot of lot of lot of mess to deal with a lot of disruption. Andy 2:46 We have a ginormous amount of content. So I think we're going to end up carrying some of this over to Patreon extra cover a little bit and just to provide a little bonus content for our super fabulous patrons and So with that, of course, I want to thank all of our listeners, but and then a special thank you to our patrons. And we did get two new patrons. And we would especially like to thank our newest patrons, Steve, thank you. Thank you. Thank you and then an extra extra thank you to john. incredibly generous, thank you so much, greatly appreciate it. Larry 3:17 Well, I just I'm always astonished that of the generosity of the support and the nice people and sometimes words are not adequate. Other than thank you to everyone. I agree. Andy 3:30 I agree. warms my heart. Well from to start off we we received a guest Jeff wrote in maybe he voicemail this and it says in my state and he's in Kentucky says in my state, a man has moved into a house and he has a registrant there is a sliver of land that isn't being used near the house. So a local prosecutor contacts the city to see about turning the land into a pocket Park. For obvious reasons. I'm pretty sure Kentucky is one of a handful of states that does not have a grandfather clause. saying that if you are already living somewhere and a park pops up, you get to stay as long as you don't move out and then try to move back in. This is very disturbing to me. First of all, I have a lot of fields around me that could be sold and turned into parks. I doubt it will ever happen because my city already has a bunch of parks and the land is in a very desirable selection section of the city. I can't see them building a park on such prime real estate. But the fact is that it could happen sometimes makes me worry. I honestly feel like someone was to fight this long Kentucky they could win. I would fight it if it happened to me, but it just hope it never happens. But it's disgusting, very unbecoming behavior of a prosecutor. I'm sure one of the things I have read is that the Sixth Circuit Michigan has ruled unconstitutional is the resident residency restrictions. If this court case comes out, and it's favorable, it would certainly open up the floodgates for challenge on laws like this in the Sixth Circuit. And you have an amazing response to all that. Don't you? Larry 4:56 Do it? It's like it's a great question, and it's kind of this illustrates one of the reasons why we do want to do this program. Because rather than talking to just one person on an old fashioned phone, I can give this answer to hundreds of people at one time that are across the country in different places listening. And in Kentucky. This issue was dealt with more than 10 years ago, this decision was rendered and 2009 by the Kentucky Supreme Court. And the legislature in 2006 had changed the law that allowed the what had been supervised and posted in the conditions of restrictions that where people can live they expanded it to the registry at large. And then the no one was safe from from from because there was there was no grandfather. He is correct. It said that applies to everyone. They would have been given 90 days to move the people were in non compliance. And the Kentucky Supreme Court said no, you don't get to do that. No one would ever be safe. If, if if this so they they analyzed that using the Smith vs. Doe. One of the provisions that one of the some of the dictum Smith versus doe was that they found it constitutional because it did not impose any disabilities or restraints. And the Kentucky Supreme Court said that it was difficult for them to conceive how restricted where a person can live didn't, did not amount to a disability or restraint. So therefore, therefore, they said you could not do this to people whose crimes occurred prior to 2006. So So, depending depending on if that is still valid precedent, so I'm not licensed to practice law, I can tell you that I don't find any evidence that suggests that still longer valid case law to the contrary, it looks like it's a solid that could be and that a pocket Park would do the same thing it would it would force people who are already in place to be in jeopardy. So therefore If I were faced with this, I would cite to the Commonwealth versus Baker case from 2009. And I would say sorry, you can't. You can't tell me but but it's it's it's very good solid case law, in my opinion. And I don't believe that, that there would be any retroactive that would keep people from moving. It would certainly it would certainly serve the purpose of keeping any new additions or new arrivals. But I don't believe it would result in people being forced to leave. They're already in place. That's good news. And then I think this question came from Dave in Wisconsin, if I'm not mistaken, the second question. It did that. Andy 7:40 Okay. This question that I would normally have submitted to registry matters because we are the authority on these things. However, several months ago, I decided to take a self imposed break from the internet and I'm only using the library's computers for just a few hours a week. It's probably not a bad idea. Honestly. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to listen to RM the way I used to, but I still listen to certain segments that interest me. By the way, thank you for touching on the GPS issue in Wisconsin and 14 talking about online 16. Several months ago, another justice for form group based in Wisconsin printed misinformation, saying that one could take back their plea if they weren't informed of being put on lifetime supervision slash GPS. I'm just about positive that isn't sufficient to withdraw a plea because those in positions are regulatory and not considered punitive, even though they are of course, since this misinformation was published and sent via prison newsletter to about 3000 Wisconsin inmates. I've received lots of inquiries, very frustrating. And this other advocacy group has not issued a correction and still insist their information is correct. Can you please give me a definitive answer on this? Can one withdraw their plea or not? My research indicates No. And that's what I've been telling other inmates, but I just want to hear it from you. Larry 8:55 Well, I'm honored that he would think I would have the answer, but I don't know that I have asked Solid answer for sure. Because they're all they're always these variables. I didn't get the opportunity to do full amount of research on Wisconsin now they remember there was a proclamation for their Supreme Court that GPS monitoring is not I think we covered on the podcast, one of our episodes said it's that it's not punishment. Therefore it can be retroactively imposed. I think I remember that. Do you remember us having something like that on on in some previous episode? Andy 9:27 I would say we've had it happen on a bunch of episodes because we constantly refer to it's a civil regulatory scheme. Larry 9:33 But I think we talked about Wisconsin in particular. I don't think we're in astonishment that they didn't consider it to be punishment, therefore could be imposed retroactively. But, but poor I would say it gets a little dicey here, as attorneys, as a general rule, have an obligation to find some clever consequence consequences. I believe that's the case of US Supreme Court case and pedia versus Kentucky. But they could they're not required to be clairvoyant and see into the future. So if they properly advise you at what the collateral consequences are at that time, that they've done their due diligence. So, I would say that a person who if GPS monitoring was going to flow from that plea, and it was a given at the time the plea was done, that the person would have a stronger case to make for being able to withdraw their plea because they would not have done it but for the attorneys advice, and the lack of that information could have changed the outcome. And being so careful because I don't know if that would get you to the finish line of being able to withdraw your plea since withdraw employees are so difficult, but you'd be in a stronger position. If the collateral consequence was in existence and the attorney fail to advise or miss advised When it comes down to what you can prove the attorney said, and what whose word they're going to take, because oftentimes attorneys will say that they advised and they didn't. And people don't usually have recordings of their meetings where their attorneys and they it's just not something where there's enough documentation and guess who gets believed. And that's why it's best to be done on the record, totally abolished in front of the all the collateral consequences should be presented in writing and the judge say, Now you've you realize as a result of this plea, they're going to be collateral consequences that flow, as your attorney explained all those to you. And if the court has a list of those that included you're going to have to register the sex offender and with that goes GPS monitoring for whatever class of headers that that attaches to? Are you aware of that? Well, then, of course, you're not very strong. If that's if that's occurred, you're not embarrassed or grounds to withdraw your plate. So the answer is, the answer is man Maybe this could be misinformation. I haven't, I haven't seen the article. And I'd like to dig into this again if a if he could get the article to us. And if we can get a Dale Nicholas, who is litigating GPS and she will come in and talk, we invite her. We just have it. We just haven't played all the schedule we just haven't carved out a lot of time for but I prefer to come back and visit with this with with Adele, who's litigating right now in Wisconsin, on on GPS monitoring, but the article could be correct. And it could be wrong. So that probably doesn't give Dave the answer he was looking for. Unknown Speaker 12:39 And since he's not listening to podcast, he might not hear the answer. Larry 12:43 But But 200,000 other people will. Andy 12:46 Very true very true. Um, I think we can move over to john our new patron he he sent in possibly what would be like Larry, you need to clarify your position on on RU UN originalist? And do you want to play the clip first? Or do you want to play the clip after you dialogue for a moment? Larry 13:07 Well, the clip relates to it because of, I believe, is he the one that said that? I should spend more time on Supreme Court defense? Was that is that is Andy 13:17 that? Yes. Larry 13:18 Yes. So, so that relates to, to to my position on Supreme Court descent. So. So I think I think I'll put the clip into context. I made, I've made comments about not reading Supreme Court sense. And that's not to say I don't read any of them. I don't read. I don't read all of them. I don't read them with great interest. Because what is the US Supreme Court dissent? It's a very little use and terms of until there's a change in the makeup of the court. It's not binding, it's not suitable for any purpose. Now, if you have a if you have a destiny, In a state Supreme Court is like if if a state Supreme Court was seven justices, and you come down with a four to three split, and you would latch on to that dissent at a heartbeat, and that would be that your debt would be something that you put in your cert petition if there are federal constitutional claims, because you would say, and this divided opinion from the Georgia Supreme Court, and the descent, the descent raise these issues, and that's your bait to try to get to get cert granted. But when you when you've gone to the Supreme Court, there's nowhere else to go. And therefore, the descent is is all nice academic discussion. But until the to the breakup, the chord changes, and sometimes that can take decades, and you'll hear that in the clip until until that till that change occurs in the court, that the sand is a very little value. So that's that was that's the context to whereas if I've got a 68 page document, if and 40 pages of it is the majority opinion, and 28 pages as a dissenting opinion, since I can't do anything with that. I can't use it. Further by case law, I don't spend a lot of time on it. But But those who want to alter the trajectory of who's appointed to the court, it would be a good exercise for them to understand where that where the dissenters are. And and if we need more people, like those justices who descended like, for example, and bush versus gore was a 2000 election was decided that reading the dissent would be would be a good exercise because even john paul stevens is no longer on the court is also deceased, appointed by President Ford 1975. He descended in that case, he thought that the Supreme Court got bush versus gore won. So so it's good in that regard, but you can cite bush you can cite Stevens and said all you want to, but it doesn't change the outcome of bush versus Gore. Andy 15:51 All right, well, then here's this clip. And this um, interestingly, this comes from a crash course which is like a YouTube channel and they have tons and tons and tons of different channels. And this is from Crash Course government. Many Supreme Court cases are not unanimous. In fact, in an ideologically divided court, you're likely to find a lot of cases decided by five to four margins. The judges who are on the losing side who didn't support the majority decision can write a dissenting opinion I just sent does not set a precedent for a lower court and has no force of law. But often two cents are very eloquent. And they can provide arguments that might persuade later courts and similar decisions. Sometimes, as was the famously bad case of Plessey versus Ferguson. The arguments in a dissent can form the foundation for the majority opinion in a later case, even though it can take 50 years to get from a case like Plessey to Brown versus Board of Education. So that's the nuts and bolts of how Supreme Court decisions are made. But before we wrap this up, here are a few key things to remember First, there are a lot of hurdles you need to jump over before a court makes a decision in a case. Most certiorari petitions there are usually about 8000 each year don't make it past the clerk's or the Solicitor General and don't get granted it takes four judges to agree to hear a case but five to render a majority opinion only the holding and the rationale supported by at least five of the nine justices becomes binding press In for lower courts, the sense of concurrency is maybe fun and interesting to read, especially if there are pictures. And they may include important legal ideas, but lower courts don't need to follow them. So that's how the court works procedurally, but there's another way to think about Supreme Court decision making to really understand the Supreme Court we need to consider the thinking behind judicial decisions. Interesting that Chris in chat has then also said read Guttenberg ginsburg dissent in Smith versus Doe, she was right on the money, which leads us right back to the dissenting opinions. Larry 17:29 And and I I have read that the sentence and i i i'm just Justice Stevens was also with that with that descent, but it wasn't 63 decision was best ever recollect. And and those three justices are not the court has to change before that before we need to have at least two more that that agree with that. In the meantime, we may have to last ginsburg passes away or has to retire. And then then the Watson's They named a there's another very old male justice that that that was that was around in those days. So, so it's nice that they decided, but we we don't get anything from the descent. Andy 18:11 And what about the the your thoughts on the rank and decision? There's another judge in Colorado. That was also part of this question. He's asking that in chat as Larry 18:21 well. what's what's the question? Andy 18:24 Furthermore, despite the plaintiffs concession in Mellard for the ranking that the Colorado soreness or five, the intent portion of the Mendoza Martinez test judge made squares up to that reality as well. The Colorado General Assembly's disavow of any punitive intent is an avoidance of any responsibility for the results of warning the public of the dangers to be expected from registered registrants. The register is telling the public danger stay away. How was the public to react to this warning what is expected to be the means by which people are to protect themselves and their children. The reality of the matter is if you want to make progress as a An advocate for sex offender laws, you need to take on a living view of the constitution the same way Mitch did. Only when the majority of the Justice cross country start taking a more data driven scientific approach to the law. We will get past these as applied rulings and find something that sticks facially a Kennedy Scalia attitude just won't cut it in this day and age. And Larry should read the sense more often, I kind of know where you're going to go with the data driven scientific approach, because we've talked about that a bunch of times public policy doesn't have to be based on evidence or science or I forgot how you word it. Larry 19:32 You know, the, the, the now when I when I say this, I'm talking about from a constitutional perspective, there's nothing in the constitution that requires policy that's made by our elected officials to be good or data driven, or to even achieve the desired stated purpose for the legislation. So whether or not registries are good, is not the point on judicial review. There does not need to be data to support that. All there has to be until Until we get past a rational basis review, which we've talked about the various status or review, until we get past rational basis, the mere fact that that the elected branch of the government wants to do something to protect humanity. Why did this actually achieves the result? Or whether data drives it is not a constitutional test? You don't get to do that you don't judge a target to say, Well, I'm going to look for the data to support this because it doesn't have to be there. There's there's no requirement, I think, I think that you'd be hard pressed to say, to find anything that says that public policy has to be driven by data and science and all this stuff. Now. That's a different question whether it should be but but it's not required. So if we're doing or have had our own constitution, we can't we can't impose a requirement. It just isn't there. Andy 20:51 I've been trying really hard to think of something where we wouldn't want evidence where wouldn't be important and I'm almost thinking that Even the conversation we were just having pre show and then this morning about assisted suicide or you know your own right to your own life. I don't think you would find any data driven behind that. It's just, hey, it's your life, do what you want. So we can implement a policy that has nothing to do with it. It's just because we want to. Larry 21:19 Well, that's what I was going to say about being originalist. I am at originalist and one small sense that I believe that the constitution presents a floor which we cannot drop below. But it does not present a ceiling which we cannot rise above. And we have we have a floor, the Confrontation Clause, where are great with Scalia who, who was an ardent supporter of the Confrontation Clause, it's the floor. And despite all the hoopla from the victims advocates about how it re victimizes people, until the Constitution is change, you have the right to confront your accuser. That's something that we cannot afford week. cannot drop beneath? Well, I believe. And in terms of the evolving part, I believe that we have to look at what, what what the conditions were at the time, when these men existed, and they were all man who were involved in the drafting. We have to look at the times that they existed in. And we have to look beyond what they could have foreseen because they couldn't have foreseen the evolving society. But we would take example of we, we believe that they, they wanted the individual to be in control of their destiny, and they did not want the government to be in control of their destiny through laws and an ordinance of intrusion from the government. So therefore, in an area of like, like suicide, you, if you, if you look at what what people died from back in colonial times, they died much younger. I don't know what the life expectancy is because I didn't do the research, but I can I know that it had to been at least 1520 years less than what it is today, it may be even more, they died at home or they died in a shootout and in a corral and a barroom brawl somewhere. And the the medical aid that was rendered was largely some some alcohol or some something to try to manage pain. But they, they they died without anything keeping them alive. As society has evolved. There are ways to keep people alive that the founders could never have imagined or conceived because of the time they lived in. But if you look at the constitution and say, well, they were very concerned about the right of the individual to be free from government intrusion, it would be very easy to evolve an additional right now this doesn't mean we can take your life if you don't want to take it. But it would be very easy to evolve into the right of a person to die of their own choosing, rather being kept alive and hooked to everything. As long as there's no there's somebody to build So that we can rip off the government medicaid medicare system to keep people and you can have all the living wills you want. You can have all the Do Not Resuscitate orders you bought their hospitals, they will not order them. There are circumstances where you could you could have a situation where you were your health deteriorates, unanticipated, and you didn't have a chance to read ever did drop such a document, and you find yourself in enormous pain, and they've got you hooked everything they can to keep you alive. And I believe that that although the founders couldn't have foreseen that, because you've been laying there and they've been pouring whiskey down your throat trying to get you to take fire. I believe that the founders would have said, Of course this person has a right to die. And of course, we don't have the right to have a law I get the government shouldn't have a law against a person committing suicide. And of course, we should not force a person to endure agony. I believe you could evolve into that. So I I also believe that the constitution With the evolving society can be interpreted to take into account what has changed in the last 200 plus years that the founders could never have foreseen. Andy 25:10 I would agree I was driving up I 75 today, and I was thinking, do you think it's possible that Henry Ford, and not that he created the auto but you know, first to, to mass produce them. And I'm just seeing mountains of cars coming over in the oncoming traffic coming over the hill. There's no way in the world he would have ever imagined thinking from his little automated carriage, you know, horse drawn carriage that's automated with an engine, and probably like 20, octane fuel. I mean, it was just it was just terrible. There's no way that he could have imagined what automobiles would have come to today. I'm just making that as a parallel of, you know, 100 years, even after the United States, the Constitution, all that stuff. There's no way you could support see where things would be today, without and putting a cap on what can change Larry 26:00 Well, and and and I think the Supreme Court evidence, my view. And the decision I made and this is the case, I can't cite the name up. But it's been in the last eight years, that they decided that searching a person's cell phone without a warrant. There's been the incident to lawful arrest doctrine of searching a person. So if the police arrest you, and the rest is lawful, not invented arrest just for the purpose of searching you the internet for a search, a search as an incident to lawful rest of your vehicle and your person has been held to be constitutional because they take the inventory of what you have in your car. So you don't come out and say that you have all this stuff that vanished. And then they take the inventory of what's on your person, including your cash and your wallet and your rings and all those things that database been arrested. Those are what the process goes. That that type of search has long since held to be constitutional. But it came to the to the cell phone the case i think was out of California, where the The they had also search the cell phone itself. And the Supreme Court said, blowhole you can't do that. Because the the the founders would never have anticipated they were protecting you. Your Constitution protects you to be free from search and seizure of your home. And your personal. Well, the phone is not your person. Is it? The phone decide. I mean, we can agree Andy 27:24 the phone is not a person can't wait. It is definitely not a person but the amount of data and information. Right. Larry 27:29 Right. But for the purposes or for the purposes is the constitution protected you to be the person and and their and their home and their person. Well, the Supreme Court was able to evolve and I think that decision even was unanimous that they were even even if they were able to say well, they didn't have cell phones back then. But what people have in their phones now is equivalent to what they would have in their home, them. Your whole life isn't as many people that got a youngster working for me. I don't think he has any paper documents. I think everything he has is on the cloud. I wouldn't store try to avoid Andy 28:11 having any paper documents. Larry 28:13 Well, that's what the Supreme Court said. So they looked at Well, the intent was to protect the person so that the cops didn't come busting in their door and searching their home. But they were able to say, well, there is a there has been some evolution in society. And we're now doing something that the founders didn't think about. But clearly the attempt was to protect people's privacy. So therefore, we had that only evolution take place where they said the phone is also your purposes of big free from unreasonable search and seizure. The phone can't be searched without a warrant. So when they book you into jail, they should take your phone and they should put it on our property. Pretty bag, they should not be going through your telephone. I'm not saying they're not doing that I have no doubt that they're doing it all across the land, that the cops are going through the cell phones looking for pictures and looking for hot girls or hot guys or whatever that turns them on. But, but I'm saying that if they do that, that should be suppressed. Because they did if they didn't have a wart, all they should do is get their personal jollies from going through that because because Supreme Court said that without a warrant, they can't do that. So I hope that that clears up a little bit of by originalism, I, I talked to originalist line because I know so many of our listeners profess to be a red list and texture list. And I try to to point them towards what that would mean in terms of if we had nine originalist on the court you probably wouldn't like and I use Scalia's own words, saying that the capital punishment is not grown unusual that you have no right to abortion, you have no right to same sex marriage. All this stuff is invented stuff. And I want people I mean you, I have no problem you can you can believe whatever you want to. But if you mistakenly believe that if we had nine Scalia's that we would live happily ever after, and they would have the greatest country, and we'd have dealt most respects for individual rights. I just don't think you'd be what you had those nine schools, I don't think you'd be happy with what the court would be finding out what they'd be holding, because he takes a very limited view of what of what of what the court should be doing, and ever every legislative attack, but as far as he's concerned, it's not for the court to second guess legislative act. If that's what the black letter law says. That's what the text says. That's what the law means. It means what the text says. So if you want people who look at the text and say I'm a Texas, and by golly it says you are a person, Archie, you did move here from Colorado, didn't you? You, you you did have to register in Colorado, didn't you? Okay. That end of End of discussion, we don't look beyond that. That's what the text of our law says. So that's that's where that comes out. And I'm actually trying to provoke thought I'm not have not I'm not an originalist by any stretch except for I believe that is the floor for the for the rights cannot be extinguished Second Amendment example that I believe that the Second Amendment is not absolute, but I believe that this DC vs. Heller was decided 10 years ago, that that there's clearly an individual has the right to own weapons. And as Scalia said, it's not absolute right? Don't any and all forms of weapons, but that right is there. So that's the floor we cannot sink below we have to respect the right of the individual to all weapons until either the Constitution has changed, or until DC vs. Hell was overturned because that's the state of the law as it exists today. So so we can't drop below that. Andy 31:56 Well, there we go. That was a 20 minute detour. Down whether you're in originalist or not, Larry 32:02 so at IL and some limited wait. Andy 32:07 Thank you, john, for becoming a patron. And thank you for that very elaborate, detailed question. By the way, too, I think I think you compose that incredibly well. Let's move you have a Halloween update and also an event happening in what is it two weeks? Larry 32:22 So it's a week, isn't it? It's closer, less Unknown Speaker 32:26 was a week and a half. Okay. It's like 12 days. Larry 32:29 So our soul will be conducting a Halloween marathon called him program in conjunction with Axl Unknown Speaker 32:38 and and who is Axel? What was dorsal? Well, who is in our so that's a good question to start off Larry 32:45 the National Association for rational sexual offense laws. And that was the Alliance for constitutional sexual offense laws. Andy 32:54 And why are we joining up or why? Why are y'all Why are you people joining up with XL to do that? Larry 33:00 Well, this will be the third marathon we've done and what we're trying to do is to to bring the the combined strength of the organizations together to bolster the the input and the participation and the impact. I believe if there's more people participating, more eyes watching, what we're trying to do is watch the cops. There's a cop watch hotline got to be a part of it. So when when people are receiving these knocks at their door demanding to come in and predict for people who are not under supervision, and there's these large array of officers out there yards. We want we want to get some reports are there if they're required to turn themselves into custody, to sit it for four hours in a location to be detained? We're trying to build a base of what's going on and identify additional causes of action. For example, nozzle has launched two lawsuits and Georgia. We've talked about him I think on the podcast before but we've watched two lawsuits in Georgia. Two adjoining counties but and Spalding, where the sheriff decided to put ups or require signs to be to be posted by people in the registry last Halloween. And we sent them cautionary letters not to do it last year they did it anyway. So we promised that we would investigate and reach out to people in those counties that we would do our best fall loss. It will. We've kept our promise we filed a lawsuit. We're seeking an injunction to prevent the share from doing that. Now the sheriff is Baldwin County has already announced after being stopped the lawsuit, that he will not be doing this in 2019. But he didn't say he wouldn't be doing it in 2020 or beyond. But he said he wouldn't be doing in 2019. So we can serve that a victory already. Because without the lawsuit, we have no doubt that he would have been doing and in 2019 the sheriff in Bucks County has already announced that he's going to do it again. So we're going to do our best to get an injunction to stop the direction of those signs. And then another county called Ben Hill which I don't even know where been Hill county has shifted. You people have 159 counties In that state, they they've announced that they're doing the same thing. So we're getting a cautionary letter out of them, telling them you really don't want to do this. And then Hill if you're listening, you really don't want to do this. Because we are going to contact all the offenders in your caddy and we are going to sue you. If we don't see you this year, we're going to sue you before you get a chance to do it next year. So you shouldn't unless you just enjoy wasted you're, you're you're counting somebody you shouldn't be doing this. I'd urge you not to do it. Andy 35:32 And just for clarity, just to backfill this why can or cannot a sheriff do this? Larry 35:39 Well, in this particular case, there's nothing supporting underlying the sheriff's action their states for more they have laws that says a sex offender cannot post but but decorations up and and it applies to everyone on the register. I think Tennessee maybe I'm not sure I keep hearing from Tennessee, Missouri. There's places where there's in statute This is not in Georgia statute. This is the sheriff decided on their own initiative, that they're going to impose a requirement that's not in local ordinance or in statute. Now, we see that as a lower hanging piece of fruit to capture. We don't agree with any of that. We think it's Hocus Pocus and even the sheriff and buds county admitted there was a article linking him to say that the chances of anything happening are so slim. But but if you don't have anything, we don't have to argue about the constitutionality of what's been done because there's nothing on the books that these that these departments can hang their hat on. They're acting unilaterally outside the law. So that's what that's what makes these targets more attractive and more vulnerable. Andy 36:43 Well, here's something from the article. It's from WFXL. Where they were, anyway, one of the one of the people in Georgia shared this and it says legally, these signs are placed in accordance with Georgia law, Octa 42 112, I five, whatever all that means allowing the Sheriff to notify the community of the presence of sexual offenders. Larry 37:03 Well, that's that's that's the that's the general sex offender statute in Georgia where it says that the sheriff has a duty to, to inform the community. But that is not a special provision to go out and hang signs on their houses at Halloween. Andy 37:22 They can go knock on the neighbors doors and say, Hey, at 123 Main Street, you have one of these people living here, but they can't do anything and come on your property and put up a sign. Larry 37:31 Well, they say that can we say they can't, but we'll find out from from the federal court, if I can or not. But but but that's that's the catch all provision where this year. Again, this is why I want to get registration out of law enforcement hand because it is a civil regulatory scheme. And anytime you involve law enforcement of something, there's going to be over the top behavior. And if I can't abolish if I can't, if I can't abolish the thing, I want to get it out of law enforcement hands I think that sounds incredibly sneaky on your part, and I like it. Well, it I'm conceding but for the purposes of this discussion, if it's civil regulatory, let's take it out of law enforcement. They don't deal with civil regulatory schemes. They deal with criminal schemes. Unknown Speaker 38:17 So devious. Larry 38:18 The only thing that shares do that remotely civil as I serve processes on people who are being sued? Yeah. And then like and many jurisdictions to share, some component of law enforcement is involved in and dispositions of people for like, for not paying the rent, and that's done to keep the peace. That's that's a law enforcement function. Can you imagine if a non law enforcement person showed up and said, well, the court said you have to vacate? Well, what you gonna do if I don't, and yeah, so so law enforcement is involved in those and they'll civil, but but this is a civil regulatory scheme. It has no business for law enforcement be involved in because there's nothing that nothing that would require that the pictures can be taken by Motor Vehicle office. Yeah, the electronic notifications can go out to schools. I think pretty much every school has internet access, I don't know, at this late stage of the of the evolution, but I think Can you think of any schools that don't have internet access? Unknown Speaker 39:15 It would sound very strange to think of one that doesn't have one. Larry 39:19 So I think that the notifications could go out to the affected schools that are within the radius if that if it's a statutory scheme requires that. And I think that the internet is quite capable of receiving notices of changes of people's addresses. I don't think that there's any reason for law enforcement to be involved in and I think that photographs can be updated. I think that I think in fact that you could probably send an updated photo of yourself. I don't think that most people's cameras are adequate enough to capture that and I think there's, I don't think there's any reason for law enforcement to be involved. Andy 39:50 You know, consider I've just been opening I opened up a bank account opened up a business bank account and the amount of paperwork and all that that's required and you can do all of that online. All the The Federal terror watch list crap that they have you fell out to certify that you're not money laundering and all that stuff. That seems to be a much more stringent set of criteria that and you can still upload PDFs and whatnot online. Why can't you just update where you live and update your photo using some sort of app or website or whatever? Why can't you Larry 40:20 get away? What you could the whole thing because I don't want that way because they're intended it's like punishment. Sure, how does it that's why they can't Andy 40:28 Yep. All right, let's move on. Um, I we already covered the first article. So the next article is from law.com. And this is kind of a funny title Larry. This is defendant convicted of watching porn and parking lot fails in constitution challenge to public obscenity law. That is a very bizarre thing that happened. So I guess the the short version of the story is some dude is sitting in a McDonald's, not really parking lot. He was sitting in a restaurants parking lot, probably just there to use their free Wi Fi and he is Sitting in his car and he has like a tablet on a steering wheel and he's watching some people do the nasty and mom parks next door. And my first rule area is find the parking space furthest away and park there. I don't want to park next to anybody. But and then she goes in the restaurant and comes back out and her she goes by and she's hearing noises moaning noises and I guess her kids eyeballs are like glued outside of the window and he's watching dudes born in the car. Anyway, I'll let you take it from there. And it all go south for the guy after that. Larry 41:30 Well, the last time you've heard about the kid, there was no evidence that the kid even saw our knew what was going Oh, just to make it clear. Yeah, there was no Andy 41:36 all of the windows in the car were down to Larry 41:39 Yeah, well, that that's what was that's what was alleged. But it's funny, dude. Andy 41:49 So mom goes and takes your kid off to the sporting event. And what goes on from there? Larry 41:54 Well, Mom, mom comes out of the restaurant and they go to the ball practice. With the 12 year old and their mom calls a friend and or text of random Mackler, of which it was, but contacts a friend, and how outraged that she was about something. And the friend calls the police. And the police arrive about two hours later. The and they find the same condition that was described in the third hand report. When they when they come back contact with the person he's still watching on his on his tablet, and he starts clubs in the windows and officer observed. consistent with what the report had been, that there was there was porn of what people lose sight up here. There's nothing illegal about watching porn. There's only certain types of porn that are illegal to watch. And so this this case have had quite a new ones. First of all, I've passed I can't even begin to guess I make cars I made a pass walking, going into someplace to eat or someplace to shop. And I can't imagine that I could find enough energy to spend enough time by someone's window to see the graphic descriptions that she gave. But what was on that screen include the hair color and the actual act they were engaged. So so so the sheet here specifically she said, she saw woman with blonde hair, performing or will sex on a man, then having sex after that. She also heard moaning, but you could hear that and during depiction of oral sex, the mother salt quote, a penis to bother became mortified and shocked as I lived in a small town, and she had never experienced anything like that in her life. Unknown Speaker 43:47 She never seen a penis before apparently. Larry 43:50 I don't know Well, I don't know how she got to 12 year old so saw the police dispatch and they make contact with a guy They asked him for identification. And he's not cooperative, which probably wasn't the best strategy on his part. to just say I don't have to give you my license you have no basis to engage me. And it went then downhill from that they brought the canine officer look for real dog though. Look for drugs I don't think they found any drugs. And they he had he had more phones than anybody I've ever he had more electronic devices than what I've ever heard of anybody in their life. If you read this, he had says only carry one baby you can you can enlighten me. Why do you have four or 567 devices? Can you explain that for a solid Understand? Andy 44:40 It helps you keep all of your different girlfriends segmented so that they don't if they grab your phone and you don't end up reading on yourself, I'm speculating. I have no reason I have like a backup phone just because of my old phone on I never sold it. So I have to. Unknown Speaker 44:55 So that's it. Larry 44:56 Well pursuant to the search warrant the polio recovered the iPad and cell phone from the front seat, three cell phones in the glove compartment and the other cell phone from the rear seat and a second iPad and a laptop from the trunk of the vehicle. Do you travel around with that? You live by my shower head Who do you know that does that? Andy 45:19 When I travel on vacation, I will be carrying a cell phone and a tablet and a laptop but I mean that's about it. batteries and power cords. Okay, what Larry 45:26 would you have? says that the police recovered the iPad and cell phone from the front seat three cell phones running off compartment, another cell phone for a rear seat and a second iPad and a laptop from the truck. That's more than what I carry but maybe I'm just an abnormal person. Andy 45:42 You are because you have a $30 cell phone there Unknown Speaker 45:45 99 Thank Unknown Speaker 45:46 you. Oh you you upgraded Unknown Speaker 45:49 So Larry 45:51 what it does everything I want it to do. So Andy 45:54 what happened to dude in all of this exchange, though? Larry 45:58 Well, he he had ends up being charged with a series of offenses including obstructing the officer and displaying. I forget what these charges were, but they charged him with three different offenses. And he went to trial he tried to a trial free trial to extinguish the complaint on constitutional grounds, which were denied. And then he went to trial. And, and to the credit of the trial judge, they didn't let down a couple of things that would have been even more harmful. He was convicted anyway. But the officer recovered two Hot Wheels cars, and a Minnie Mouse figurine from the defendants pocket but these items were not presented the jury now when we talk when people have heard us talk about for for be evidence, that would be something that a sneaky prosecutor would try to get in, because it would be intended to frighten the jury. Baba 30 no not 3752 year old guy have Hot Wheels cars and Minnie Mouse figurine and their pocket except for being up to no good But if they tried to get that down, which it doesn't say that they did, but if they tried that was excluded. And that would be why because the that would have been will be talking about being provocative versus prejudicial, wonderful for be, which is the, which is a rule that allows prosecutor sub discretion and getting prior bad XM, including prior convictions, but things that weren't necessarily conviction, but it might help them establish mode of operation motive, a lack of a mistake. planning something unique about you can you can bring in something and a sneaky prosecutor would have said, well, gee, all I gotta do is to have to get the fact that a 52 year olds got hot wheels and Minnie Mouse in his pocket and they're going to convict him just because they don't like him. You know, figure he's up to something. Might as well lock him up. Make sure that we keep him off the streets. Unknown Speaker 47:50 So he get he gets convicted. Andy 47:53 Go ahead, go go go. Somebody somebody else in chat and Charles asked and chat. Why did the police take all of the other devices when porn was only alleged to happen on the one device. Larry 48:02 they they they got a warrant for for based on what they observed on the Monday rolled up into the same that that form the affidavit for a warrant to search him because they expressed concern that that he that he might be engaging and other criminality and that was a question where were a judge that was really strict on establishing probable cause one judge might say, well, I see nothing here illegal why I'm gonna let you search that. I mean, he's watching porn, so you got all the evidence you need. You caught him in the act. And so he's big and decent and public, but you hadn't cited me any basis to believe that something of a criminal nature is taking place. So I've got to deny that war. And other judge might say well, on abundance of caution, a person that's sitting there with a Minnie Mouse it up and doing this at a restaurant. We better take a look and see what they've got. So the whitelist grant For the search, and so they searched the devices they didn't find anything that amounted to anything on the phones I didn't find. They found that he engaged in chats, online chats, I found that he looked he was a he was a connoisseur of adult porn sites but they didn't find anything that amounted anything. He effectively got probation he got five days in jail and two years probation Andy 49:24 and says he appeals it to try and to squash everything even further. Larry 49:29 Yes, he he's he's he's he's he's things he's got a constitutional challenge. Well, let's deal with the wire since the affidavit supporting the war. I've got this highlight which should be in the show notes. say there was probable cause to play defense electronic devices contain evidence associated with child pornography and age in the welfare of children based on defendants viewing of pornography at a fast food restaurant in front of a minor. The recovery of kids toys from the person and the appearance of a younger of young girls on his iPad when the officer portion scar pursuant to that a search for the PlayStation recover the iPad and cell phone from the front seat and that's the stuff so so that's how they got to probable cause based on based on what the officer observe, but that a judge could have gone either way on that. Okay. So but but he he he's he's arguing that, constitutionally that this statute as a void for vagueness, and that it's a overbroad and that the appellate court decided it was neither. Unknown Speaker 50:29 So he loses and has to stick with us five days? Larry 50:33 Well, unless unless he made the state Supreme Court has yet to weigh on justice to the mid level Court of Appeals. The state supreme court where did if he has the resources, and the state Supreme Court wants to weigh in, if they if they have that grant, a cert petition. There could be there could be more to come. But uh, but he, he he's, he's kind of on the right track, but he's on the road. Track because void for vagueness is is one claim and overbroad it's another and that there's an overlap. But there are two separate claims that he's trying to he's trying to turn those into one claim. When when something's void for vagueness, it it's because the language is such that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot discern how to conform their conduct to the requirements of law. And that it that that the drafting is is wrapped in such a way that that enforcement could be haphazard, uneven, and it could lead it leads to whimsical prosecutions and I'm pulling this out, you know, I'm making these words up, but that's what Boyd for vagueness is on overbroad statute is a statute that reaches into an area where there are there, there is no business of the government to regulate. And so he's trying to He's trying to combine those two into one that it's that it's so broad and reason why he's tried to try to do is because he didn't raise both claims at the trial court below. So he's trying now to cure that deficiency by not giving the trial court an opportunity to address both of those claims. He's now saying that, that this, this is one single claim. Now, I'm on his side, I would like for people be able to watch porn in their car. And I don't like for people to stand by the window, watch it, and spend the time that it took to figure it out. And from all accounts, we did it two hours went by nobody else called the police, it was probably not as bad as what one person this one person described. But the over breath doctrine is is is where the government sweeps too broadly. And and they pass laws that are beyond the scope of where they have the right to regulate. And so he's trying to combine those two into one because he failed to break them up below. below. So that's really all you can do when you when you when you haven't done the right thing below is that you, you try to cure it by combining it and so I gave him credit for trying but it didn't work. They said don't These are two separate issues. Andy 53:13 So do you think he'll have to be put on the registry? Larry 53:16 I didn't dig dig into that. I don't think so. I don't I don't think so at all. But But I don't know that one way or the other. So. So, in terms of of voicera vagueness, I'm reading from the opinion, a penal statutes shall not become a trap per person board intelligence acting good faith, but rather should get fair notice of contractors are forbidden. Clear and responsible legislation is a fundamental prerequisite to due process a lot especially where criminal responsibilities involved, involved vague laws are unconstitutional because I'm clear or in comprehensible legislation places both citizens and law enforcement officials and untenable position vague loss deprived citizens of adequate notice of prescribed contact have failed to provide a Officials with guidelines sufficient to prevent arbitrary and erratic enforced. So so that's what board for vagueness is. Andy 54:06 And something that I read well, if I was reading the article was that they went and like, I guess, subpoenaed the records of the router at the restaurant, and they found he was looking at porn from there, too. All right. Larry 54:18 Well, that's up to that. That's probably why he was there. He was probably wanting to use the Wi Fi so that he could have unlimited porn, I guess. But the statute that the statute provides that a person who knowingly publicly communicates obscene material as defined in section two c three four dash three, or causes or permits it to be public communicated on property he owns or leases or operates as guilty of the crime and fourth, fourth degree. Well, I wonder if he owned the leases or I guess he was operating that property. That vehicle was his where he was doing that? So I guess that's how they they selected me on to that, Andy 54:56 right. That's crazy. That is all crazy and I'll just point out that if you're going to watch porn, perhaps you should move from one place to another and don't sit there for three hours watching porn in your car. Larry 55:07 I would tend to concur with that. Unknown Speaker 55:12 So Larry 55:14 you, you probably ought to try to do porn mostly in private, I would, I would think you would think, Andy 55:21 I would think that seems like that would be that I generally people want to do that sort of thing in private generally, or at least with some sort of consenting partner. Not just out there in the open, but I can tell you that I've been driving like in Atlanta or something like that, and somebody drives by and you see porn going on in the screens in the car. I've heard about that and kept going. Larry 55:42 Yeah, well, you should call the police should have Andy 55:45 it shocked to my conscience. Larry 55:48 A he did challenge the they weren't moved to suppress that and that was denied and the Court upheld the denial of the suppression and I'll tell people that that suppression emotions Or, I mean, you do what you can, but most of most of them go down in flames when you move to suppress something they the trial court was given great legal way. And they decided not to suppress that. And the appellate court under precedent said we're not going to revisit the suppression. And they they consider that the automobile stop, which he was already stopped today, but the engagement by law enforcement to be reasonable because they said that there was an articulable suspicion that he was doing something that might be wrong. The says the personal observations by the officer defenders the attention and warrants being issued, even though the officer did not directly communicate work with reliable in format, as argued by the panel, they found out, they found that to be enough to justify the engagement, you know, that that they were there was a report, and it matched what was what the police officer observed was consistent with what the report was, that was third hand so he's so far he's he's like So I but he got a relatively modest outcome in terms of person who goes to trial. Yeah. So he did he did okay in that regard. Andy 57:09 Are we ready to move on to the next article before we drive like that one for 30 minutes? Larry 57:12 I think we've got enough on that one. It'll be it'll be there with highlights for people that kinda legal Eagles at one look at it. Andy 57:21 In a couple weeks will be recording Episode 100. Larry doesn't know about the surprise that I'm trying to spring on him or at least I don't think he knows for Episode 100. Mind you, it's a pretty significant achievement to get past seven, let alone 100. I would love for as many people as possible to send it Nicholas congratulatory message. It can be super simple and sweet. Hey, congrats on 100. Or you can be more elaborate patrons of the show. Feel free to take as much time as you would like. And please keep it a secret. Mum is the word and after you've recorded your memo, you can either you can do it with voicemail at 747-227-4477 Or record a voice memo on your phone. And then you could email it to registry matters cast at gmail. com. Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting without you, we can't succeed. You make it possible. Alright, and then This comes from the crime report. org. And this is the title of this is where's my ID prosecutors get a harsh lesson and post prison life. I know that we don't want to spend a lot of time on this. This one is essentially an exercise in empathy, that To try and teach prosecutors what it's like when you get out of prison. And maybe you don't have any ID, you certainly don't have a lot of money, you have so many obligations, and you're, you know, you're carrying around a ball and chain at all times to try and get to this place to get to that place. also go to counseling or treatment or whatever. And you don't have money for a bus and you have to get housing and by golly, you still have to eat. And they broke out the class into like, you have 15 minutes to accomplish this task that counts for one day. And you're going to spend a couple hours doing this to see what it's like to live in this environment for a week. And at the end of it, they're all like, holy crap, that's really hard to do. Larry 59:55 I think that's fantastic that this says the paper co authored by Manhattan district attorney saw Beyonce Jr. There's got to be at least one listener out there who remembers the name Cyrus fans. And this this would be a relative I'm guessing sub but but I have no doubt this is related to the former Secretary of State in the Carter administration named Cyrus Vance. You remember him quite well, don't you, Andy? Andy 1:00:18 Absolutely. Considering I was like two years old, or let's see, what was I seven, I was 10 years old when Carter was an office Larry 1:00:25 phone. So you remember it just like it was yesterday. But absolutely, Andy 1:00:28 I felt like I like I was there with Larry 1:00:30 him. But I'm assuming that this is a direct descendant of former Secretary of State SARS fans. But but at least at least, this exercise shows that even those who come out of prison with with high levels of motivation, the barriers that they're facing, in particular in terms of identification, because the REAL ID which has been on the books now for more than 10 years, I think it passed it oh five or six After 911 Where were the it's very, very difficult now to get an identification or driver's license because of all the documentation that are required. And this was the big bad federal government imposing this on the states because of the hijackers you know, you remember they, they they had they had state issued IDs that were there were some were fraudulent. So now they've made they've but but but the ID barriers are so high, that without an ID, you're just you're just stuck as a non person because you can't open a bank account. You can't do so many things. You can't get a job. Because first like that, as an employer, I'm going to ask you for your ID your social security card, I'm gonna want to fill out an i nine and it was Unknown Speaker 1:01:45 required by Larry 1:01:46 law to do the nine four. So I can't I can't do anything with you if you don't have ID. And hoops are so high. If you've been in prison and say you're, you're you're born in a different state from where your imprisonment you have No money, you're trying to figure out how to get that that birth certificate that you need, and then that they've made it more difficult to get birth certificates because people engage in birth certificate fraud. So they've tried to erect barriers to control who could get another person's birth certificate. It's just, it's just an expense involved. None of these things are free. I mean, we, we, we have people who are incurring a lot of expense trying to get identification. Andy 1:02:27 It is definitely a challenge. And yeah, if somebody doesn't have that low, some level of support or somebody looking out for you while you're gone to help you get situated, it is a nightmare when you get out. It is really, really crazy. But so I'm glad that they do stuff like this. I wish more of the people in the law enforcement apparatus, as you call it. I wish more of them would go through these kind of exercises, just to give them a modicum of empathy for what happens when you get out. Larry 1:02:56 I wish that and I wish that states that we have one state in the country. treated its purest, a wind driven style. And that's so high when they do a great job and reentry. And of course, I'm saying that because one of our board members is from Ohio, and she works in reentry, and she constantly tells me that I have it all wrong that that'll How does a far better job than most states, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that Ohio does a better job. But I can speak from my state, we do a horrible job on reentry. This is the type of thing where the process also began by the persons in prison. And you can assume that since the longest period of time a driver's license can be valid in this state is eight years in some states, it's even shorter period of time, you can assume that if a person has been in prison longer than an ID can be valid for that their ID is expired. So we can start with that premise. So reentry work auto auto begin, pull in terms of making sure that they have those things in place, and we need to have some, some government funding. I know the taxpayers hate to hear this, but we need to actually have some government funding for reentry assistance. And in terms of helping people procure these documents, so that they can they can move forward with their Live. And that means that means case management. And it may be the budget of people paying of the state paying for what people need so that they have a have a fair chance to come out and go to work. Because you can't get a job. With so many barriers already with with being a convicted felon. Well, the fact that everything that you've done, your life is online, but you can't even get to that point, because you don't have the prerequisite documents. You don't have the boots to wear for the for the heart of job where they buy. I mean, there's so many barriers. And if we said why don't you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you may not even have the boots. Andy 1:04:32 It was also for me personally, by the time I was released, my driver's license had actually expired. And then not only that, but if you didn't renew it, within two years, they expunged the record, I had to take my driver's test the actual like motor vehicle test over when I got out. So that's funny. Larry 1:04:51 That's pretty funny. Andy 1:04:53 I hadn't driven in, you know, six years or whatever. And here I am trying to take my driver's test again. IVF the iPad Larry 1:05:00 Any Well, well, anybody can pass in Georgia, Andy 1:05:04 you would think you can pretty much just like put your hand on the road and drive like, you know, as a blind person would no offense Charles and pass the driver's test? Larry 1:05:12 Well, well, I'm, I'm a big believer that once we've punished people that, that we also need to be compassionate in terms of helping them transition. And reentry services are sorely lacking. And funds to help people with these barriers are not there. In fact, we do just the opposite. We stack all these charges on people that they can't pay. I mean, financial obligations. When I say charges, I don't mean criminal charges, what we stack all these things on they have to pay. They have to start pay for the GPS monitor debt, start paying for their accounts like that start paying of supervision fees, so we do just the opposite of what we should do. Yeah, we set them up, we set them up for failure. Andy 1:05:50 Yep, it does seem to create that circular door thing for them to come right back. So this article comes from the BBC, and it's sex. torsion botnet spread 30,000 emails an hour. This is super fun, Larry in that, it's what what they're doing is they're creating, just like all the other spam email messages that you get. They are sending you a message saying that they have pictures of you doing naughty things. And they actually even insert a password that may have been exposed on a you know, on one of these data breaches. So now you're thinking, oh my god, they have my password. So they must have access to my data. And they say that your computer has been all hacked. And they're asking you to pay something of $800, the equivalent of $800 in Bitcoin, and people are falling for it. This is a place where the law of large numbers comes in. And it doesn't matter. You know, if you send out 100,000 email messages and only you know, you get a 10th or a hundredth of a percent, you've still made some money and it didn't cost you very much. Just be aware that people are sending out email messages, trying to extort money out of you. Perhaps Larry 1:07:01 okay but when they came to me the Bitcoin would be a clue when someone wants to be paid that way oh yes but but what what happens to those who don't what that's what i didn't i wasn't clear on what happens to the people who don't pay the ransom it's kind of like we know with a computer when they tell you that they that they've they've gotten control your computer and your files are locked and they're going to delete them and if you don't pay them the money we know what happens what happens to this if you don't Andy 1:07:29 I'm pretty sure in this case you like nothing happens because if this is just a scam and they grabbed a password off of one of the data breaches and they're just trying to trick you into coughing up a Bitcoin I don't think there's any I mean it's almost like when when the the people are calling the registrants and they say hey, you know we're sending out people to to arrest you right now. What happens if you hang up the phone? Unknown Speaker 1:07:51 Nothing. Andy 1:07:52 Right, but you don't know that. So what happens to these people nothing. They they're just they're just being extorted at a money for no consequence, but they think There's a threat because they have a password. Larry 1:08:04 Well, wouldn't you just change the password? Or where are you locked out is that that's the part I'm not missing. Andy 1:08:10 Okay. I think even more generally, they're just saying, I know that one of your passwords is password one. And Larry, you go, Oh, crap, they have my password. Now, I didn't tell you what I have your password to I just told you I have a password of yours. And so you have you know, you you are one of the 3 billion accounts that Yahoo lost and they expose, they got the password and they say, Hey, I know your password is password one. And you're like, shit, that's my Yahoo password. Oh my god. They know my stuff. And so you fall for it. Larry 1:08:40 And then I go change that password does something different? And I say Well, I've cut off whatever they don't already have. Right? Unknown Speaker 1:08:47 There. They probably already got everything. Andy 1:08:49 If you if you believe that this would be true that they have actually hacked into your computer, which I'm pretty sure in this case they haven't. And they're just they're just trying to extort money out of you. For literally no consequence, that's the way that the article reads to me. It's just a complete scam, and they don't have access to your computer to begin with. Unknown Speaker 1:09:07 I see. Well, there you go. Andy 1:09:09 So if you get an email message saying that they have pictures of your junk and your computer's hacked, and they do have a password, don't fall for this one is yes. Yeah. This one is from I love the name of this website. It's my act Lummis, or our column Excuse me. So it's a Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi is the is the website, and they have an article talking about that there's a new app unveiled to keep predators away from children in Louisiana. And someone already pointed out that even the title of the article is inverted. It's not to keep predators away from children is to keep children away from predators. And the app is is this is terrible, Larry, because there's a program there's a computer trick that people do they install a Trojan horse on your computer to where they have backdoor access to your machine. And then they can get it and they can NZ your passwords and they can capture your key logger stuff. This is exactly that this is a Trojan horse that you are installing on your children's phone so that this watchdog group, this offender watch thing can can keep your kids safe. But now they can see all of the things that your kids are doing to. This is terrible. And I do have a clip to play for it. If you are ready for that. Let's do it. Unknown Speaker 1:10:24 Online predators are becoming more clever with technology to target unsuspecting children. Now there's an app that's fighting back. Save virtual neighborhood is a new app that can watch and monitor children's phone calls text and social media activity on their smartphones. Here's how the art the app works parents and guardians download the app on their child's smartphone. The app then monitors and scans all phone calls, emails, texts and social media activity on the phone. Now if a registered sex offender makes contact with the child, the parent or guardian is immediately alerted from their parents are asked to contact local law enforcement And talks their child about some safety. Unknown Speaker 1:11:05 What we're going to do now is take it beyond the physical yard. The internet has expanded to the point where offenders can communicate to your children right there in the living room. Unknown Speaker 1:11:18 The sheriff's have taken a proactive stance. And as the community the environment has changed, we've been able to adapt new technology to protect children. Unknown Speaker 1:11:31 parents and guardians can download the app or learn more at offender watch calm. Andy 1:11:36 This is a terrible idea to be Larry, because you are giving this entity access to see everything that your children do. And now if your children start to do what we often talk about is they start swapping around some some nudie pictures of themselves. Man, everybody's going to get in trouble for this. Everyone's in trouble. Larry 1:12:00 And, and people, people are not going to be able to see that until it happens to one of their kids. Right now the way that story went down, it sounds like the greatest thing that you could imagine. And then we're going to hear complaints about it. When, when, when we, when we see what you're what you're potentially identify, Andy 1:12:21 remind me of this. So you were you're around when the telephone was invented? What what authority Do you have when you receive a phone call from someone that you don't wish to speak to? What can you do? Larry 1:12:34 Well, anybody under 25 would never have heard this, but you could, we would say hang up the phone, but you know, nobody uses that terminology anymore. Andy 1:12:44 So where I'm going with this so if your if your kid receives a you know, kids 12 years old, you know, something like that my kids 12 and he receives a message from somebody that he doesn't know and starts talking nasty to him bullying, sexual pick your subject could We teach him to block it reported to mom and dad, we don't need an app. To do this, you need to have some level of open communication with your Larry 1:13:09 kid. Well, you certainly make a point there, but the argument on the other side would be that the kids are vulnerable and you catch them at a at a vulnerable moment. And all the teaching on the world they they react to, what is it called grooming. You know that something? Yeah. So so they, you you could take a kid who's been well trained and some kids are still getting cars from people they shouldn't I mean, they've done those tasks and shown that you know, people say my kid would never do that. So you can teach your kid to do to report and reject calls but a kid they may find something they did they receive intriguing course there's a way you could actually stop it. You could just not have your kids running around with a smartphone Andy 1:13:50 that would stop the whole problem. It would stop the vast majority of it would be tough. I'm good but but on that though, you know, in Now the parents have some level of tethering so to speak, you know like the helicopter parenting you don't want your kid running around without the ability to call home and say he needs a ride to you give them a phone Larry 1:14:12 you know I can only imagine what a school would sound like today with Can you imagine with all the the the people not selecting their phone and the the the text and and of course I didn't even know anybody would actually call a kid anymore because kids don't believe in talking on the phone. But but all the texts and can you imagine after 911 or an amber alert or something goes out or not and I live it but an amber alert goes out when everybody's phone goes off at the same time. Can you imagine what what that what the classroom was like when that happens? Andy 1:14:42 Yes, I can MP at his school there. It's a pretty hard and fast rule that you can't have it. I don't even think you're supposed to have it on you. So I think he just leaves it off in the bottom of his backpack. What was it just I was just going to say something. It also provides an interesting way that That you could then know when your kid gets home from school you can set up some things that would tell you, you know, you can as the parent monitor where your kid is provided the phone is on and I get that. But yeah, I I don't like the idea of saying offender, watch install this on my phone so I can keep tabs on what my kids doing. Larry 1:15:18 It doesn't doesn't sound like something I would want either. But a lot of parents are willing to do this because the they're there. They're fearful of all the bad things that they think is happening. They're happening. The things that are really bizarre, that are not happening, but they they're convinced that they are and Unknown Speaker 1:15:37 it's totally a false sense of security. The Larry 1:15:41 anything that I can do one more thing I would just, I would I would not be able to get over this if there was something I could have done to kept my child safe. Not course you would legitimately feel that way. If your child had something happened and you go back and you say, Well, I could have done this. We always second guess ourselves about what we could have done but You know, the downside is when all this stuff that's being transmitted, but it's been transmitted from people who are not on the registry, but it's still unlawful? Do they have an obligation to report those images? If they're if they're sexting, Andy 1:16:14 right? And what happens if you collect if you get a phone number that happened to be associated with a registrant and now you get falsely accused of trying to groom some kids? Because you ended up with a transpose phone number? Larry 1:16:27 Well, that's like a good point. And then what happens to the adults when I'm kind of not savvy about phones, but I've been I've think I've understood that you can actually see what your kids are doing in terms of you can see the messages and what they're, if they're sexting, is that true? And if so, what happens if, if like it my state, where kids are exempt from prosecution for having images of themselves? What would happen if you had that same image Andy 1:16:53 that I think you're done? I think you're done for I think you're screwed. But as I don't, it's not as easy as I don't think it's as if you, you can certainly go get the information, you can put other kind of watchdog apps on it. But I don't think just, you know, hey, it's a kid's phone, therefore, you have access to it. Larry 1:17:11 There's no app that actually lets you see what their texts match because I was thought I was I thought somebody said I can actually see what my kids are doing on them. So that Andy 1:17:18 you could uh, you can set up stuff to do it. It's just not done by default you can put on monitoring apps and stuff like that that would get you that access. Larry 1:17:26 right but but but if they if they transmitted damage, where my state they couldn't they wouldn't be allowed to possess it, but they would be allowed to possess it wouldn't couldn't be prosecuted. But just a parent with that app as I capture the image that the kids that when I said that their job Unknown Speaker 1:17:39 certainly would, Andy 1:17:40 I'm pretty sure that you would end up receiving everything and now you are done for that's a Unknown Speaker 1:17:45 terrible, terrible idea. Larry 1:17:49 So parents that yet if there is such an app, you probably don't want to intercept to a particular unit Mexico, you probably don't want to be intercepting any of your teenage kids. Because you might find something that would get you in trouble that if you had it. Andy 1:18:05 Yep. I think Yeah, you should handle your child's phone with like, latex gloves in a Faraday cage to make sure that nothing leaks out of that. And you just hand it back to the king go. But I didn't see a damn thing. Have fun. You may want to consider deleting those things. But I didn't see anything. Unknown Speaker 1:18:23 I think that would be the better way to handle it. So Andy 1:18:27 all right, right. We got some voicemail messages that I want to play for you one of them. The first one is from our super patron Mike in Florida. Are you ready for this? Unknown Speaker 1:18:36 It's pretty well, too. All right. Unknown Speaker 1:18:38 Good day, gentlemen. This is Mike, one of your central Florida patrons. I wanted to call in and make a comment on something that you discussed on the show last week, which was the school using the system verify, verify people to keep them out of the you know, entering the school grounds. That's something that Hillsborough County has been doing for a very Long time. And I know for a fact that they don't just screen out registers. They also screen out weapons charges. There's a few other things that they will stop people from entering the school for. I've seen it happen actually, period. Also, I noticed that on the show you guys were talking about it with your probation, whether they were allowed to go on to the school grounds or not down here, if you're not on any kind of special probation and restrictions, you're allowed to drop your kid off, pick your kid up. They just wanted to inside the school. I just wanted to throw my two cents in on that. Also, one more thing I had to reregister this morning, and when I did, they are handing out little flyers, reminding people about Halloween and special restrictions you have and they will be watching and enforcing it. And I just figured I'd ask them how many cases they had. had many problems with Halloween and anything going on with Halloween and there was four deputies that were in the vicinity. And I asked them all, you know, how many problems have you had. And I did not get one response. They couldn't think of one time anybody had done anything. They had any issues, period, yet they're still pushing the hysteria, as usual. Other than that, I really enjoyed the podcast. I'm a huge supporter, big fan of you guys always love the content. And I just want to say keep up the good work. And I'll keep supporting you guys. And just wanted to wish a big old Halloween special FYP to all the people who hate on us and love you guys. Take care. And I hope to hear from you soon. Keep Keep up the good work. Thank you very much, Mike. Andy 1:20:49 So very much appreciate his longtime support. I'd have to go back and see but it's been almost for forever. It has Larry 1:20:56 and I appreciate that because it clears up what The the the the article that we were talking about was one from from Georgia from one of our one of our supporters who said that could never go on school grounds. And I took issue with that because I was saying, how would they know that you're on the grounds, very few schools are set up for monitoring the grounds, but they are set up for modern buildings and access to the they've centralized. Most schools have a size have centralized and they have, they have electronic. They have cameras, they buzz people in it's a lot different than it was back in our day. And so I can understand how they would keep you out of the school building. But in terms of pulling through the circle drive around through the school, I do not know there are many schools so who have closed campuses where they have guards and I said okay, you're getting ready to come on campus master your ID, please. I just don't know if there are many schools that do that. So so he he clarified that those who you can go on the school grounds to pick up your kid, but you can't go on the school building because they're going to run you at that point. And that was the point. I was trying to I think the thing you know, Georgia was an overreaction because they go still pick their kid up at at discharge time, but they couldn't go pick their kid up, possibly, if they're going to go in the building to check the kid out because they may not let them in the building or once they get in the building that I said get out. But in terms of I don't see how they'd ever keep you from going on school grounds because no school few schools are set up to monitor who's on the grounds. Andy 1:22:25 Yep. I do understand and agree. And now it is time for a voicemail message for Charles which is sort of related to the the the pornography and the car situation. It's at least, you know, sort of similar and here is Charles Unknown Speaker 1:22:41 here's a question. Um, I was inspired by a conversation with a friend and I was at an appointment in a building and also the pencil and my we were in the waiting room and my friend was looking through the window. The waiting room and was commenting how he could see into the opposite building. He proceeded to someone's apartment and he was commenting how they had a messy apartment. And he made the comment, you know about how, fortunately, no one's walking around naked in the shower or, you know, something like that. And which is the question, is it a crime for someone to be walking around as father apartment naked, where people in the opposite buildings could see them as it? You know, it's not illegal, it's not a crime? FYP Unknown Speaker 1:23:42 I think it's a great question. Larry 1:23:44 I do. I think it's a great question. And I don't know the answer to it. Because you have, you have an expectation of privacy in your home. And there was an expectation that generally you can do many things in your home that you can't do in public. So if you're walking around naked there's I would argue you have the right to do that. Can they force you to close your window shades? And, and and do that without anybody being able to see you? Yeah. But my answer is to people if you don't want to see what someone's doing, don't look in their yard. Don't look at their windows. You could pass me I'd never recognize you because I'm not paying very much attention to who's passing and what's happening around me. I would be the most vulnerable person in terms of I have no idea who's around me what's going on. But I don't know if they could prosecute you for any type of indecent exposure. I guess it would be very nuanced in terms of where you make an making an extra effort to be seen. Was there a reasonable expectation that that miners could see you You know, did you get up to the window dangling? I mean, I did. I just, I think it would be very nuanced but I don't know if any in particular was it says you did. You did. You can't be naked and running around dude in your house that none are coming to mind, but I wouldn't put anything past or might be. There might be such a Andy 1:25:09 I'm inclined to say, Man, you can run it. I think that I'm inclined to think that inside your house if you leave them up and you know, obviously you have some voyeurism and what's the word I'm looking for? I can't think of the word exhibitionist tendencies, but like, stop looking at my windows then like, I have the windows for me, not for you. Larry 1:25:29 Yeah, but say that what the what the little little prude would say as well. I have to get fresh air every morning because I've got asthma. And I'll bet winder up at the first thing I see is this person dangling his pally Wacker out there and he does that just to get at me, cuz he knows that I have to get a breath of air the morning and that ain't right. I should have to endure that. And I bought something done about it. That would be the other side of that. Andy 1:25:59 Wow. Wow, Tally whacker You're too funny, man. Oh my god, it's probably time to shut it all down. What else do you have besides that? Leave that for the Patreon content. That's silly. Larry 1:26:17 Well, you All right, well, I don't have anything else for this for this segment. Andy 1:26:23 Oh and Larry, before I forget, I wanted to mention we I know that we covered this last year and we may have talked about it this year. But will is a longtime listener and also a Patreon supporter, and he hasn't been able to go to church. He has some sort of like 1012 day prohibition on being outside of his house after curfew. Anyway, he as I understand the story, he he reached out to the ACLU, and they wrote a letter saying that this violates his constitutional rights. And he gave that to his handlers and they said, Hey, you can now go to church or and Bible study and so forth. You can attend church functions, excuse me during the This little Halloween window. Larry 1:27:01 That's a long festival period they have in Tennessee, it's like it's like a 10 1012 day period where they, where they put great restrictions and I'm still not able with all the research I've done to find that there's any statutory authority for people who are not on supervision. But this listener is on supervision for life as I remember, but but the the kudos go to the ACLU being the deluge of, of requests, I get it. And people can't fathom how many requests I get because everybody that hates the ACLU, which is the bulk of the population, I mean, their membership is, is what a million people out of 330 million. And it's only done that since Trump's been elected their membership has actually grown exponentially since 2016. But they the the, the resources they have are just so miniscule compared to the civil rights violations. So for them to take the time. Do this, what it tells me is that they see a potential win in this area because if if, if you can't win on separation of church and state, then you can't wait on anything. And I think that sounds fair. I think that they see a potential here for In fact I would say they'd be just as happy if the if if the state a topical pounds down because they might actually initiate litigation. This one one of those things where we're when you're analyzing your business model and and they sell you as a business that has employees that has expenses and and you're analyzing what you can do with your limited limited resources. When ability as a as something that you consider because you deploy your resources just to have fun or you deploy your resources to make a difference and advanced a body of law. And the separation of church and state is something they're big on. That's one of their priorities. They do not believe that there should be 10 commandments and well by disagree with that they there, they don't believe that the church and state belong together. So this is where they're being at least intellectually honest. They're saying, Hey, guys, although we're not big religious proponents, we also don't believe you should have the right to interfere that wall separations there. So well, it's a great, great achievement that you were able to get their attention and they were able to do that for you. And hopefully, the fact that they received the letter from the ACLU, and what I don't know if it went to some central state official if I went to a local official, how much impact it may have beyond will individually, but if it went to a to a state official, it might trickle down to others who are in the same situation that would like to worship during that 10 day period of time. Andy 1:29:52 And do you think that that then has persuasion for others? Unknown Speaker 1:29:57 What do you mean by persuasion Unknown Speaker 1:30:00 mean like I'm sure that only applies to will but then doesn't that transfer over to was? Potentially Larry 1:30:07 if Yeah, if he's in Polk County, and they run the office locally, and only the local people in Polk County receive that, then it probably won't have much impact outside of Polk County that has 14 offenders under supervision. But if if Tennessee has set up or they have a statewide system of supervision, and this letter went to somewhat high and a state level, it may very well trickle, they may actually communicate to their to their field supervision office, hey, we got a letter from the ACLU that says we got to back off on this because people we gotta let people go to church during this during this 10 day period. And so it could very well have impact if that's what your remaining it depends on who's all that are went to. And I don't understand who the letter went to. I haven't seen a copy of it. Unknown Speaker 1:30:54 Very good. Unknown Speaker 1:30:55 Well, congratulations. Larry 1:30:57 Hopefully that does spread if we'll have a copy of that. I'd be happy to talk about it on the next episode. Unknown Speaker 1:31:03 I do he sent me a copy. Larry 1:31:05 Well, let's have a look at it. Andy 1:31:09 Let me track that down. I will drop it over in the drop box. Larry 1:31:17 Take a look at it and see what see what it sales. What else that we have on this special segment? Unknown Speaker 1:31:30 after you read that, then we can move on to the Patreon only stuff. Unknown Speaker 1:31:36 Let's take a look at this. Larry 1:31:40 Oh, this led to the highest levels to Commissioner Tony Parker, Tennessee Department of Corrections. This may very well be you know so it's a longer letter we're not going to read but but this this very well could have have impact. At first glance it looks like they did a good job composing the letter Unknown Speaker 1:32:02 So Larry 1:32:04 they can see protecting children generally is a legitimate state concern, and has traditionally entailed certain additional restrictions around Halloween holiday restrictions such as a 12 hour curfew not only affect the Liberty interest of an individual but can also have collateral effect on the rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. That's that's cool stuff. Unknown Speaker 1:32:26 Very good. Larry 1:32:26 So and courts have affirmed and the next last paragraph and individual status on the registry does not deprive them of constitutional rights. And they fight though versus city of CPE Valley a federal court and validate Halloween Stein requirement which I think Janice was involved in that case James pollution So good job with it. I'm good job Andy 1:32:47 to, to them the Georgia attorney. Side any of that stuff, though. Well, Larry 1:32:55 there were there were few citations and the complaints that were filed because there's no, there's no authority whatsoever. What's being done? Apparently there's something in Tennessee, that that this, this authorizing this. It may be. It may be policy. But there's something underlying this. The Georgia Sheriff just pulled that out of there. You know what? Unknown Speaker 1:33:20 Yeah, I do. I do. I do. Larry 1:33:22 So, so Tennessee has something backing it up. And I don't know exactly what it is. Unknown Speaker 1:33:27 Very good. Andy 1:33:28 All right. Well, then how can people find the podcast? Larry 1:33:30 They can search very carefully. And their browser. If they go to our registry, my address.cl they'll find us. Andy 1:33:40 And we did get some voicemail messages like a whole plethora of them and what's the phone number to reach us? Larry 1:33:45 7472 to 74477 Andy 1:33:49 of course, how about leaving some email messages. Larry 1:33:55 registry matters cast@gmail.com Andy 1:33:58 Finally, our most Appreciate it. and best way to support the podcast is patreon.com slash registry matters. So that's p@reom.com. Good. And to those of you that aren't patrons, if you want to get the extra content $1 a month would get you this bonus content. And we're going to let it hang loose a little bit. Maybe I can get Larry to actually cuss on the air. And otherwise, you guys have a great week and I will talk to you soon. Good night. Good night. Transcribed by https://otter.ai