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 transmitting across the internet. This is episode one or two of registering matters. Larry, are your arms tired because you've been flying all day?

Larry  0:21  
They are indeed. But I haven't been flying all day. It's only an hour flight. Okay. Tell us tell us where you're flying back from. I was in Sin City sinning. Oh, wow. It's Vegas in Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada. And you were there for what reason was the National Association of criminal defense lawyers or Knechtel they put on continuing legal education around the country and they've been doing this for about 10 years they they have a defending sexual crimes seminar in Las Vegas and it draws 400 and 50 to 500 attorneys, so arsehole, the National Association for rational sexual finance laws. We've been there for five of those. So we go, we go and hang out where the attorneys are. And we try to build bonds with those attorneys. We need for attorneys to be in our camp of cooperating attorneys that we can work with on impact litigation. And what better place to look for attorneys them at a conference where our attorneys are in defense business of this type of crimes are attending for training. That sounds legit. And did you make any noteworthy contact with anybody? Well, it's always hard when you leave there. People come up and are very receptive. And you take their contact or business card and you take their information and then you have minimal contact with them for the next year. We put them on our email list. And we reach out to them sometimes and they don't respond to us. But it it's you keep trying, because it's planting the seed and they're seeing the the logo. They're seeing the literature. They're seeing the faces there year after year. And we we talked about impact litigation. Last that's been our theme about we want partners to be we impact litigation. And that's been our theme impact litigation partners. Marshall has funding, limited funding for assistance with the impact litigation. So we're hoping that some of those attorneys that when they when they say something outrageous, that they'll think of an arsenal and say, gee, I'm just a solo or a two person law firm, and I couldn't afford to do this. But I remember I was in Las Vegas, back in November, and there was this outfit, what was their name again, they had money available to help, I'm going to reach out to them. That's what we're hoping happens. That we can be recognized as when people think about civil rights litigation, they think about ACLU. And when they think about civil rights in this area of sexual offences, we're hoping that they think about, of course, ACLU, but we're hoping to think about in our soul also. And that's why we're at these exhibitions to try to get become more known.

Andy  3:18  
Can you give me a quick explanation of what impact lead litigation is?

Well, it would be it would be

Larry  3:26  
litigation that would have an effect beyond the individuals case. So for example, Marshall probably gets a dozen, a week of inquiries of people who have been convicted in the most corrupt jurisdiction, United States and their public defender sold them out. And they don't deserve this. And, and if if we would just hear their story we would understand, and we hear that they probably certainly have done some of maybe a dozen times a week, but but within that group of inquiries, you're looking for something like what happened in Bucks County and Spalding County, Georgia. Or you can have an impact beyond the individual. No one deserves to be on the registry and be abused. But the fact that that a person pled guilty because the cop trick is not the same thing, as a person who pled guilty because the cop portrait and so we and I'm talking about physical torture. So if we find solid evidence that a cop tortured someone, then that would be that would be that would be litigation, fertile for litigation, because that would have impact beyond that individual. We would be going after reminder to law enforcement that you can't torture people to obtain a confession. So that's what impact mitigation is, the things that will indicate to are going to have an effect beyond The one individual who's who's who's actually the vehicle that we're using.

Andy  5:04  
I gotcha. I gotcha. Is that is that hard to find impact litigation? And then subsequently, is it hard to find an attorney to take impact litigation?

The answer to the first question, it's not hard to find impact litigation. What what the difficulty is finding the legal team that can afford to do the impact litigation, because it's so expensive and time consuming, and it's going to drag on for years, and be very draining on the practice because as we've talked about on this podcast for the regular listeners, the governmental entities, be they state county or federal, they have virtually limitless resources to pump into it and they can fight back at a level that very few small solo practitioners or even a two or three person law firm have. So so so the difficulty is not finding the impact litigation there. There are dozens if not hundreds of things out there that need to be litigated, that would have impact the issue of Trying to find muster the resources to do the impact litigation.

I'm going to then would you call the ACLU thing in Michigan? Is that impact litigation?

Absolutely. That that that is impact litigation that's going to have an impact on hundreds or thousands of people. And that that when they finally resolved that there's going to be an improvement in the lives of people who were required to register under those enhanced requirements. So 2006 and 11. And they're not going to be able to reinstitute all of those because the courts have held that they transformed the register Michigan registry into inflicting punishment and you can impose punishment retroactively. So that is definitely a good example of impact litigation, but it was very expensive. And I think I've told the story that that the

fees as of

the last accounting I had that had been approved by the state for the defense for the season before the plaintiffs. The state was officially But the the the fees that had been stipulated by the state of Michigan, or $1.8 billion. Yeah, I thought, right. Yeah. If that if that weren't a law school, and the ACLU carrying that and the Michigan's one of the more affluent states today, so you probably has a lot more money than, say, the Tennessee the Alabama ACLU. And that they wouldn't have been able to carry that litigation for all that time. And then they do it with cooperating attorneys as well. And the cooperating attorneys get get their money on the backside litigation when it's finally paid. And they get cost up front, which is the kind of model that Arsenal tries to follow. We we we try to provide case cost and maybe some modest amount of attorneys fees, but we basically asked people to work on faith that they'll win

and be paid

as a prevailing party and prevailing party fees are not necessarily available except in federal litigation. Some states provide for prevailing party to be paid and sub states Make it optional. They can recover attorneys fees and son to help provide for it at all. So that's also a barrier as far as their baby, something is very ripe for challenge, but there just isn't the resources to challenge it. Because in this capitalist system we have people like to be paid for the work that they do. And Shame on them. I can't

imagine why people want to eat and feed their kids and whatnot.

It is kind of a horrendous, think about it, that people that go to law school and have huge debts and have overhead that they would actually want to, to repay their debts and to supply, education and housing to their family and medical care and stuff. I mean, it's just appalling. They shouldn't because to take an oath, they should be willing to take an oath of poverty, poverty, and they should work under that crushing debt that they have, and they should do it for the good of all that that's what they should do. But the only problem is, that's not how our capitalist system works. We don't put into it for the good of all. We were individualized it's for the good of the individual and, and I find it kind of kind of a little bit entertaining. Every time person says, Well, you know, a person gets a better lawyer, if they have money, I'll say they sure do. They do better car, they get better house, their kids got better colleges, they were better closing the debate. We can go on and on with things, that they get better when they have money. I mean, why does it surprise you that they would get a better attorney? Also, what is surprising about that everything is better when you have more financial resources?

It does it does. It does feel like justice should be economically neutral neutered, what's the word I'm looking for? You know, no identification there that the Justice should be influenced by the amount of money of the person that is defending

well, but then again, then we have to have a debate about how do we achieve that objective. And most of the options that we have to put on the table it's kind of like solving other problems. When people talk about the bias media and I said well do you want to put more money in public Brock,

no health Though you don't

want to do that, do you want to do you want to try to break up the conglomerates that own the TV and radio stations? No, we don't want to do that. That's anti competitive Batman. So yeah, same thing with this. If if we all recognize that, ideally that that people, regardless of economic status would have greater resources, or at least more equal resources, for some reason, know that we buy into this equality mantra, if we were to do that, then we'd have to figure out how to make it happen. And that would mean we would have to pour a whole lot more money into the public system. Or we would have to restrict what people spend that have the private resources. And I don't see either of those big very popular. I don't think when you start talking about restricted people, what they can spend that's going to be very well supported by the general public. We say well, you know, we're going to respect restrict you to $50,000 for attorneys fees, because that that's a reasonable mountain and and, and you can't spend any more of your personal wealth for that. I don't think that's going to go And if we want to vastly increase what's in the energy system, we've got a couple articles talking about that tonight, if we want to do that, that's probably going to meet some been some tax increases, and we can never talk about tax increases, because taxes are evil. And they should never be increased on any circumstances. So I just don't know what the solution is. Once we buy into the to the notion that that justice should be more dependent. It should be less dependent on money, what what is, what are some options, I'd like to hear something that would put on the table. I mean, theoretically, we could file fewer cases. But that still wouldn't change the $50 reimbursement rate or $40 reimbursement risk concept, we could fall half number of cases, that still doesn't get you a better lawyer for the remaining cases, would it? I think not and before you drive off all of the remaining listeners, we should move on. Like we've got three listeners still left. We do I think we we have

three 303,000 something like that. This first article I picked up while looking over Reddit And it's from a subreddit that I follow called data is beautiful. And I just wanted to get your opinion of it. So I'm going to try and describe this a little bit. So it's like a waterfall kind of graph. And you have some blue colors and you have some red colors. The red colors represent what would be considered the these were justices nominated by a Democrat or Republican. So on the blue side, you have Ginsburg, Brier, Sotomayor and Kagan. And on the red side, you have Thomas Alito Roberts, Gorsuch and Kevin, and the graph kind of sways lifted right? And based on the overall opinion, on which way the justices voted, and whether they have leaned further left or further right, as time has gone on, you have asked for in the past for someone to do some analysis of how the supreme court justices have ruled to try and see if they have always voted with their team have they voted against their team and you know what percentage? I thought this was possibly like a first draft of what to answer that question, and I wanted to get your opinion on this graph.

Well, Having trouble closing what makes it hard to view but that's not exactly what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is within the 80 to 90 cases that the Supreme Court grant Sorcerer to each session each term, I would like for someone to go pick the eight or nine or 10 because they're not all criminal justice stuff. They deal with all sorts of things from border disputes between states to to antitrust, to environmental, I mean, I would like for someone to go through and I'd like for them to pick those eight 910 12 that have to deal with criminal justice and then I'd like to have an align but upheld the judges vote how the justices vote on each one of them because it would not be that tedious of a task because you're only looking at a dozen cases out of out of 80 or 90 once you once you take out the stuff that's not and I'd like to show people cuz they they operate under the false belief that the conservative justices vote with us More than they do they vote with us very seldom. And, and the liberal justices vote with us more often in terms of the outcomes we would like to see. So that's what I'm looking for is I want to be able to pop up on the screen and say, Look, the Supreme Court looked at eight cases last year that dealt with with with prisoners or criminal justice. And of the eight cases, the five conservatives voted against us of seven of the eight on our position. That's what I'm looking for.

Yeah, I mean, I figured that but I was hoping that uh, so from from this, it looks like pretty much everybody has stayed in their camp and they have the Team Red has seemed to slightly move left. And but Team Blue has moved decidedly to the left as far as this graph goes. But anyway, that was just my thought might be a fun little exercise to play around with some graphs.

Yeah, well, now that thousands of people have heard by my my dream of an analysis. I'd like to see I'd like to see more analysis of the actual breakout because As people yearn for more and more Scully, as a ball more Roberts and more and more leaders, I just would like to remind you we've we've covered a series of decisions, both in state and federal court where you've got interpretations that most of our people don't find very fascinating or agreeable. And these are the type decisions you get with, with those who say up a texture lyst. But original list, you know, that that's what you're going to get what else what else justice says, but it's not what people connect the dots to they fake that when they when someone says I'm a textual list or an original list, that they're going to have those justices big anti law enforcement, shut the sob down on everything. And that's just not the reality. So that's, that's the analysis. I'm what I'm wanting to see. Because otherwise, I'm just pontificating, and no one believes me.

Yeah, I totally get that. I totally understand. Let's move over to the New York Post. We're talking Schumer, he is the Minority Leader of the senate Feds haven't shared sex offender database. I mostly want to get your opinion of this, as, as I understand it, the feds would get all of their information from the States, because the states are the ones that are in control of their own registry. And so why is he all up in arms about the feds not sharing the information?

Well, I don't I don't know. But he may be thinking he may rather be talking about the public registry. He may be talking about the law enforcement registry. The database is contained in the NCIC of sex offenders. That because if you merely relied on the public database, there'd be a lot of people that universities and that's what universities but, but schools and daycares wouldn't be able to access that would actually be registered. So I suspect he's talking about the the NCIC that that they've got set up. Easy access for people to verify for those entities to verify with what that person is a registered sex. offender the National Crime information centers database rather than the public listings.

Do you think that this is a foregone conclusion that they will then open that up? It says Schumer also released a stern letter co signed by us representative Adam Schiff. He sent to the FBI Director Christopher Ray and Attorney General William Barber demanding a reply explaining why the law wasn't implemented and a timeline for when it would be.

Well, I want to

I want to be a little bit little condemning of humor. I kind of think he's grandstanding here. It's an election year and this is a way to criticize the Department of Justice and try to gain political points and Schumer through his political career, he has been an excellent source of doing that type of thing. And in fact, those of you that remember the great recession of 2008, and all the banks and financial institutions that seized up and collapsed, Schumer was running his mouth off back at them about the install The Washington Mutual which they had not been declared insolvent yet, but he made a comment to the effect of the person out not leave their money on Washington Mutual, which caused the Washington Mutual to have what certainly added to the to a run on Washington Mutual. So although I typically aligned myself with Democrats, I don't align myself blind with the democrats when I think that they're grandstanding. And I think that she was doing a little bit of grandstanding here. And I don't mind saying that. Okay, I will accept your answer. Yes. I wish the other side would call out some grandstanding once in a while, but I'd say this is nothing but grandstanding. The the the changing? I don't know what I don't know what's involved in giving these educational institutions access direct access to the NCIC and how that would go about, but I'm thinking that's probably what what this is about, and that that's probably not a process they can Institute quickly. It's kind of like the international Megan's Law right? passed under Obama and 2016. Mm hmm. He didn't get it. He didn't get it implemented before he left office.

Yes. Just now just coming in with what in the last year is what it's finally been put

online.

Now they the the the markers, everything that took some it took some time to do that. And so I don't I don't think I'm ready to conclude that, that the that the Trump Department of Justice is stalling for no reason. I mean, that could be but to conclude that just because just because of time has passed,

right? Um, so over@kuow.org, which I'm not really sure what this one is. But experts worry active shooter drills in schools could be traumatic for students. I have a quick question. I realized that this happened after you were way past your your school years that they were drills in schools in the 50s and 60s about nuclear weapons being dropped on us so kids had to get under desks and whatnot. I have to think that that would be something of a traumatic experience. Like you You have this impending threat of a big flash and you know, the mushroom cloud and all this stuff. How would this be different to think that this wouldn't be a traumatic experience thinking that you could go to school today, and there might be an active shooter,

not a drill, but a real shooter. So I was on the very tail end of that one terms of real life, the the 60s when we were wait, just gone through the Cuban Missile Crisis and started school in 64. And so I was on the tail end of the of the drills and I was so young, I don't really remember it being particularly traumatic. They just had you had to get under the desk as if that was really protect you from I know, right?

Probably might have protect you from some stuff falling off the ceiling, but it's certainly not going to protect you from the blast and all that other stuff.

So, you know, at my age I didn't think a lot about it's kind of like the fire drills that we had and I'm sure they still have when when the building Starts buzzing and you your order to evacuated. And then in the 70s we had a lot of bomb threats. You don't hear much about bomb threats anymore, but we had an awful lot of metal and in the 70s where school would be evacuated. And I think probably that would have been more traumatic because when you're leaving the building when that alarm goes off, they didn't tell you there was a bomb threat but we knew that we just had a fire drill three days before Yeah, and we had a we had a suspicion of the bomb threat. So so that was that was probably more more accountable to the to the to the drills for the shooter and yes, we we did we did always wonder if there was anything in the building was going to go Kapow. We always wonder when they pronounced it safe, we could return if anything had been missed, because in those days, they didn't have all the gadgets they have today. Very few police departments even had bomb sniffing dogs in those days. That the They they went to locker locker and they use the master keys and opened up and who knows if they were able to open all the lockers or if they opened every 10th locker or what they did but but we'd be outside for for for a couple hours and then they pronounce everything clear and we go back in but how thorough search Can you conduct in two hours?

Very true. Oh,

let me take a quick detour. While you were in Vegas. Was there some sort of hovercraft flying around? Like looking for emitting radiation?

Well, there was a hovercraft I'm not sure if it was looking for sexual offenders that we're out of compliance but there was there was a hovercraft and I suspect that has to do with the the increased security of the strip and the thousands of people that are constantly there. I know the hotels put out. what they said was a joint communicate from from, from from just Caesars Palace over to Caesars property or Fairfax. Said from from from from the Las Vegas hospitality Association but anyway there was a there was a letter left in Rome say that we're going to be checking the rooms even if you don't if you put a Do Not Disturb no room service side if we don't see any activity we're going to we're going to be checking on those rooms so there was some discussion about how much privacy was was being given up because they're going to come in your room anyway if you have Do Not Disturb so I suspect all that's to do with enhanced security that so the hovercraft is probably looking to see if there's anything to that they need to deal with. But But yeah, there's there are hovercraft, and even in Vegas that's not far from an area 51 I think. I think I think I think there's a lot of hovercraft over here if you have to one right.

There are reportedly lots of them. And then there was this whole like what was it

three ish months

ago, there was a whole like a petition that they were going to go storm area 51

so

that was super fun to go see That would have been amazing to go see. But I think all major going no, I there were like a million people that signed the petition and like 200 showed up. But I think major sporting events, major events that you find a lot of hovercraft nowadays, probably probably that are doing doing various forms of surveillance with high tech stuff that we don't even know about it exists that that they're looking down upon the population with.

Well, these next two articles, one from the appeal, and the other one is from the Texas observer are sort of related around the same subject of how much we spend on indigent defense and public defenders. So the first articles from Massachusetts highest court is urged to address the crisis in indigent defense. One thing that I plucked out of the article is the current rate of compensation is 53 an hour for district court cases a $3 increase of the rate paid 10 years ago. That is a stellar raise over 10 years, Larry, I think that probably keeps up with the inflation rate, don't you think?

I don't see a problem with it. These people should be paying. If you're paying your paralegal $50 an hour or something, and you're getting $53 for the case, I don't see a problem with that. Do you

know that balances out? I mean, you get to pocket $3 for work that you're not even doing.

So this is from Hampton. I guess that's how they pronounce it Hampton County. Superior Court and Massachusetts. The the I guess the supreme court the Supreme Judicial Court had ruled in 2004. About about establishing deadlines for charges aren't broad enough. Council doesn't enter the things including dismissal what happened to the case? It says if the in that case they ruled it. Anyone else pre travel more than seven days who did not have counsel had to be released and anyone that has the profit council more than 45 days were entitled to dismissal of the charges. But now, there's a new issue because the the, the the distance the defense attorneys, the indigent defense attorneys don't have the resources. They there were there was a judge who said well, even though you're saying you can't handle your caseload, I'm order you to handle the caseload and the inner appearances and represent these people, all the various stages. And there's there's there's just not enough of the bodies to go around even what the extraordinary measures of trying to draft people into service. I don't have enough people to cover these these cases. So that now the cases before the court to try to nullify that, that that lower court order that said you will enter and represent these people, regardless whether you have the staff because remember, various points on the podcast, I said, Well, I don't know why they don't just stipulate and say, I can't do a good job well, but they actually did that in Massachusetts. I stepped out and said we we can't do the job. And the judge says too bad aboard you too. The job

at the at the end of the article says an article on last year's effort reported that a public defender in North Hampton, I think that's probably the North Hampton, who joined the office in 212 2012, said he started out around $38,000 a year or 39. public defenders are among the lowest paid actors in the system earning less than court officers and probation officers.

Larry  27:23  
That's pretty bad. I don't see a problem with that.

Andy  27:26  
I'm just going to I don't want to try and Institute any sort of idea about class warfare or this person is better than that. But a lawyer goes through an extensive amount of education and you would think that they would then be rewarded for such probation officers not to bag on them, even though we can bag on them for many, many hours of the day. But they, you know, maybe just high school graduates, basically. So I would think that we would reward the people that go to school and do all these things, especially the person that's protecting another person's liberty and defending them that they would get paid more but apparently that's not the case. The United States we don't give a crap

Well, I've said the same thing about about the we've got police officers that were always whining about the cops not being paid enough. And the cops get paid more here in my city than the people who defend and the cops get their training for free. I'm not saying the cops should have to pay for their training, but they get their 12 weeks to the academy for free. They get their uniforms for free. They get their badges on their their their batons and their radios and all that stuff for free. The lawyer doesn't get what the if they work for the public defender if they have an office structure or the for the have a full fledged public defender operation, but their private practice, do a contract work. They don't get anything for free. They have to provide all that stuff. They provide the uniform there have to provide the telephone, provide their computers that provide their periodicals and provide everything out of that money.

If you can take politics out of the equation for a minute, is it is it equity? Is it a fit would it be a fair system to say that the difference gets the same budget as prosecution? Or could you come up with some sort of Is it a 20? Like they should get 25? Because there's the all the investigators and other things that would go on the prosecution side that the defense doesn't necessarily have to worry about. What kind of ratio do you think would be fair, outside of the politics conversation?

I don't know that you could ever do it that way. Because so there's a everybody doesn't get represented by public resources. There are people who retained counsel. So you'd have to you'd have to factor in those who have their own privately retained counsel, some people privately retained counsel, and they have a hybrid system like we have here where a private attorney can apply for, for for, for expertise of the public defender system if the person can't continue to pay. So you have those things but then you have all the intangible things that can't be quantified. The days office, of course will have the attorneys and support staff And there's all and they'll have they'll have the as investigators, but they also have all the law enforcement apparatus. If if you're a district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, you don't just have the, your DH investigators. You have the Fulton County police, and yes, they have county police and and Georgia, you have the Fulton County Sheriff's Office. You have the Georgia State police state patrol, you have the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you have the Department of Homeland Security. I mean, you can go on and all these alphabet agencies that they have that they can call upon for expertise that they don't have to pay when you need. When you need an expert from the GBI from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, you don't pay the GDPR to come in and do the work and do the analysis that the crime lab that's done. But the defense has to pay for that to have to have that analysis done. Mm hmm. So I don't know I don't know that you could ever come up with a with a match that would that would be on the total funding. I think you'd have to look at it on on a case by case basis in terms of, of the complexity of the case, and you have to look at what the state put into it, you have to try to figure out sub rubric to calculate all of the of the forensics that have gone into the creation of the state's case, I would have to commit to making the defense case, somewhat on par with the state's case, if we really were serious about being fair. And that I think, has a long way into the future before we ever make that commitment.

Interesting. And then over at the Texas observer, is this in my understanding this right, that there's a Sixth Amendment challenge being presented that the public, the people needing public defense are not able to get a proper defense, so that's violating their Sixth Amendment claims?

Yes, that's so we have the blend of the two states because we have quite supposedly a liberal, progressive enlightened state of Massachusetts. So then we've got this Potter County, Texas, which I believe is in the panhandle of a that might be Amarillo, or Might be Lubbock, but it's in the panhandle of Texas. And we've got we've got a shabby system. There were were there. Were the there's not adequate representation. So I don't know that we can run this red and blue here. I think that we have to look at this beyond the issue of partisanship because

it's it's

they don't come much more liberal than Massachusetts.

Probably not probably and they don't come more conservative and read and all that then Texas,

especially the panhandle of Texas, if I've got this right, I think this is where a popper County. Yes, I agree with you there. Yes, and not relevant there. So,

yes, you can say that Dallas and Fort Worth and Houston are going to be much more progressive or at least liberal versus

this other part.

So and the listeners out there that they have an idea how we can find it into defense, I'd be delighted to hear it because we know that that the traditional options said that came to my mind are not are not viable options. So what what can we do?

Let's move over to WOWK. tv while we work. I don't know, this is in West Virginia, this this is a TV station outfit and they interviewed a calligrapher. And he the the title, the Arctic is how to lie detectors actually work. And first of all the conference that was in Atlanta a week or so ago. My understanding is from talking to some of our friends that went to the conference that about 50% of the treatment providers think that polygraphs are a legit way to what's the word you know, keep keep track of people being compliant, that they think it's real science and this guy here is saying that all this thing actually works and he hooks you up to the machine and the machine monitors your physiology and what I captured from him at the very end was he said After the polygraph was over and he detected that the person he was interviewing had some deception showing, and he starts talking to him and the guy keeps making some quarter sort of gun

gesture.

And he's so that now the guy admitted to doing something with some sort of crime involving a gun. So the polygraph didn't really work. It was him intimidating and interviewing him after the fact that got him to admit to having a gun. These things are complete bunk, and I hate these things to death, Larry, and it drives me crazy that our people pay, you know, 250 to take a polygraph to show whether they're compliant or not drives me crazy

300 to 350 to 400 I want to know on that tries Well, it's crazy, but but they're going to keep doing it as long as it works. And although it doesn't work in the way that I wants us to have more faith than that, if that works as far as the, the actual science of it. The actual emotions of it still do work. Because people can tell you to confess after there's shown the graph that says you've been deceptive. So if something continues to work, why would they stop using it?

I man I do understand you know the psychology of it. And so so if you don't believe that the Kabuki buki machine works then you won't be susceptible to the caboose to the Kabuki machine working kind of can't say that word.

Well at the at the neck de la set it on two of their sessions and one of them was about about police interrogation and confession and terror again, they brought down the read the read, which I have not even thought it was somewhat informed about police procedures but they read interrogation techniques. I have not had any training on that. And this very good presenter went through that and she showed how they break people down and how they that they get people to to get caught false confessions and how the return resulting and false confessions. Again, they're going to keep doing this as long as when people say when they say you have the right to remain silent. That should in the conversation, but it does 99.8725% of the people have conversations with the police. Yes, because, yeah,

yes. Because like, hey, the police are your friend, they're going to help you get out of this, like, you know, so we have this sub level of implicit trust that the people are there to help you win. By golly, they are not.

Well, that that's clearly not the case. They are from the government and they are not there to help you.

They have their own agenda. So was

well it was a good presentation. And she was a great presenter, and planning on getting the PowerPoint from her to look at it further and probably read the book about that. The reading.

Very good.

But But yes, it will polygraphs work because people let them work.

Fair enough. And

and and it's like when people when the law enforcement comes to your door and says, I have nothing to hide, do you mind if I enter?

Why does that continue to work?

Because we want to be compliant and people say well if you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you just comply? Larry, why do

you want to be a harder?

Well and I will comply soon as we finish looking at your house. Will well it says you have nothing to hide. We finishers will look at my next

over at security magazine. com. I want to say that this is like an IT security magazine. I didn't quite catch that. That's where this publication was from because I've read this before. Anyhow, this is a Hey, we're back to Senator Schumer, US Senator Shuman calls on DOJ to implement better employment background checks. Have we been sort of trying to push back on the background check part of the equation like you know, there's the ban, the box kind of pushes that, you know, hey, your past is your past, Can people

ever move forward?

I thought that's the direction that we were heading in this arena.

will say that's the hypocrisy of Charles Schumer. Now he will justify it by saying Well yes, I'm for reintegration and for second chances, but we're talking about dealing with our children. We can't wait. We can't. That's a different standard there. That's what he would say.

But, again, I'm

Charles Schumer is is grandstanding in my view, is grandstanding because 2020 is an election year and he would probably like to be Majority Leader again. Do you think that's pretty much what this is? Is this just him in an election year is he up for vote Next Next go round i'm not i'm not don't know about his and he's no Jeopardy in terms of his his senate seat but the that he would like to be Majority Leader. And he saw he's allowed now. He He contributed to a bank run. That's pretty much a loud mouth.

I was trying to see real quick where he not he was reelected or not.

There's not a and I'm going to use the jargon if the government uses no deposit or has ever lost any money in an insured account since the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now, I did some very crafty wording, because people do lose money banks all the time when they're when they don't have insurance because they're above the deposit limit, but no insured deposit or has ever lost to die in a failed institution. So even if Washington Mutual failed, and it did, nobody lost a dime, and nobody was going to lose a dime. There was no need for for for him to assist and run on the bank.

All right. Can you can you word that The other way that I know you played word salad there, no. So people that had their normal savings and loan account, they didn't lose any money. The people that lost money were people that had the toxic assets from the mortgage crisis stuff.

Know, people who had for each depositors insured to us to a limit of 250,000. At the time weather is recession. I don't know what that limit was. It may be at 100,000. And they may have increased it, but but no one who had an insured deposit has lost money. But if you had positives greater than, oh, yeah, and they they do 50 right. If you will like to say it may have done that only 100. At that time, it may have been nice to 50 during during that. I mean, that deposit insurance limit has gone up continuous. I think it started probably so my life has been at lowest $20,000 but it went to 49. I went to 100. And I think during the financial crisis, I raised it to 250 But no, no ensure a deposit has last has been lost. But people have lost and liquidated institutions where they've had money greater than than the amount that was insured. And that that's a wordplay, but, but the fact was that the patient be caused helping cause a bank run. And so I've got gotten a lot of fondness for Mr. Shue Murray, although he has he has the Democratic Party. I would be I would be okay if I'd be okay if somebody else held his seat.

All right, over a patch com which has got to be one of our favorite publications of all time because they they instill so much confidence that law enforcement is doing their job around Halloween. That's pretty much the only time I ever hear about patch. And this is operation hallowed streets checks on 5000 sex predators. Nearly 5000 sex offender compliance checks were conducted for Halloween as part of history. statewide enforcement effort. I feel so much safer. Larry, I'm so happy that these people in Tampa Bay, Florida were doing this.

Well, again, look at look at they've had, they have the data down there. Look at the hours that were spent on this. Looks like it

says about 15, almost 1600 hours dedicated to this operation.

I'm not a mathematical genius. So let's put the time in there. That usually this these are overtime operations, but let's figure that out. I mean, some of the things that's a fair number of what what is what is the cost of that? 640,000? Yeah, 600 No, $64,000 I'm sorry. So what do they say spins? Well, it's not a mathematical genius. I'm deferring that to you guys.

Yeah, 64,000 bucks.

And and I would be curious if in Hillsborough County, if any if anybody was herded car accident well, Halloween. I Sharon was struck was struck by by traffic. And of course the difference is a lot of this money comes from that federal government that we love Hate, because for doing home verifications, there's federal money available. And although I hate that federal, federal government, even these darling conservatives, they love to put their pie out to get some of that money from the government that they hate. And they say is too large. And I've never quite figured that out. I wish I wish a conservative would explain that to me someday.

So out of the nearly 5000 that they did is just shy of, they found 118 people not in compliance, like, Okay, so this is people that didn't have their car registered, perhaps they didn't have some social media accounts registered because Florida does that kind of silliness. So, this doesn't necessarily mean that they actually walked up on someone to coin a phrase perving on a child somewhere.

You know, there's probably a lot of technical violations right. And the registers have become so complex with so many owners requirements and so many short timelines to comply. That is not difficult to be out of compliance if you've got 48 hours and Virginia believe it is to, to report a social media creation. You don't have a lot of time before you out of compliance.

And even with that, you know, depending on the state I think Florida has an online mechanism to do it. I don't know Florida does or not that you you know, just go to a website type of things in it wouldn't necessarily be that.

And honestly, I miss challenging I misspoke, I misspoke. It's four hours, not 48, you got Holy crap, you've got four hours, and then you've got 48 to 72 hours to report signature significant changes, like a change of a vehicle ownership or changing our dress or something. And sometimes you can't get to the offices or they're not easily accessible. So it's like the complexity of these. The more complicated you make it, the more likely you are to find someone else compliance. Definitely.

Let's bounce back over to the appeal real quick. And, you know, I'm just gonna have To let you drive this one but says you can be sentenced even if you were acquitted. So as I would then play this out in my head, you go to court and everyone like the jury says acquitted and then somebody turns around and goes, Nope, sorry, you get some prison time.

Not quite like that.

So, but close

we've we've talked about rule 404 be guilty, guilty guilty or innocent phase and this was a corollary to for for be but we've talked about rule for for be which allows during the guilty innocence determination for evidence of prior bad acts that are bear to pass some significant test of being to help establish the the the motive and absence of mistake of identity is not for the purpose of short your bed character but if there's something unique about how you effectuate the criminality That they would allow that to come in the shop to show that that that it would be more likely than you. And then there there's the rule that it has to the prejudicial effect cap. And it has to have more probative value than the presence of the being prejudicial. So so so into guilty innocence phase there's there's the potential for having uncharged conduct come in to help the court, the jury find you guilty. Well, the same thing happens after a verdict after after either play or after a verdict. There's, for example, the, the jury May May acquit you have four counts I met may convict you of one or two, or the plea deal may dismiss four counts and you may plead to one or two. But that are the sentencing process. The judge can take into account. The unconvicted conduct as long as the judge finds that it's more likely than not that you engage in that conduct. So a jury can acquit you of the conduct because the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. And they don't find you in a contrary to your belief, they don't say that Andy didn't do this. What they say is the state of Georgia did not meet their burden to show that Andy did this beyond reasonable doubt. So that's one are very tough standard. If you lower that standard down to preponderance, which is just tipping the scale slightly more than 50%. The same jury might have said, well, Andy did do it under that standard. But under the standard that we were charged with examining, he didn't do it. So the judge his sentencing gets to weigh out if there was if there was a preponderance of the evidence I did. That can be a factor in sentencing. Now it doesn't change your maximum exposure. So for example, if the if the account that you pled to or got convicted of only cares a maximum of 10 years. The judge can't give you 20 years on the unconvicted conduct the judge can't say, Well, I'm enlarging your sentence, but what the judge can do as your Memorandum of mitigation, where your defense attorney brings out all this good stuff that says you ought to be getting a very minimal sentence or probation, the judge can say, Well, I did consider all the mitigation, but also consider the factors of the of the of the other conduct, and I find that it's more likely than not that that conduct was actually committed. So that's going to be a factor in the sentence. And and but the 10 years is still the maximum that could be given or whatever the maximum was for that child. So it doesn't enlarge your exposure. But it may cause you to get more time than what you would have gotten if there if the uncharged if the unconvicted conduct hadn't hadn't been there. I see. I don't think I sent you. Okay, that still sounds complicated, though. I mean, maybe this is the

title. The article misleading

Well, let's see what's misleading about it.

Oh, it says you can be sentence even if you were acquitted

while you you can be on stands for that conduct but not if you were totally acquitted of everything.

So this is just saying you you were charged for two things acquitted of one and then you get sentence for the remaining one.

Why and you can end up in the acquitted conduct can factor into you getting a harsher sentence on the one you got convicted up, because the judge doesn't have to believe that you're innocent. The judge only has to believe that you are more likely guilt, because it's because you were found guilty of something. But it doesn't it doesn't enlarge the exposure. But there's an effort underway to change that. And actually, according to his has a bipartisan support if I read the article correctly, did you notice that?

I do not

that this has got this has got some bipartisan support to make changes. So that was what are they calling it here? They

can you say that as condescending tone that you always use when you say Oh, bipartisan support. Can you do that for me?

Well, I didn't say Bob parts that can always be battle saying it can't be bad. A lot of things a lot of I'm not saying it's always bad, but just because something's bipartisan doesn't somehow magically make it good or are bipartisan or do you think they're good?

I do not. And they are definitely bipartisan and they are not good.

So so so when you're always panting and foaming at the mouth wanting to bipartisan ship, I'm saying, well, that isn't necessarily going to translate to good public policy. But but the Supreme Court has already said that this can be done. So it's going to require it's gonna require legislative changes, but it says the cato institute Institute due processes to National Association of federal defenders, and family families against mandatory minimums have all fall brief in support of the petition. And there's good reason to think that marriage justice is will be interested Justice Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined a descent from denial insert in the Jones case in 2014, which Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly called upon the court to clarify that acquitted conduct something violates the Sixth Amendment. So, so it sounds like we might get another bite at the apple on this because because I didn't catch this looks like it's got a springboard again.

Excellent. There we go. more stuff to watch.

And we're never going to run out of material for the podcast. It says In addition, members of Congress are working to eliminate the practice and sep tember bars are group including democrats Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy and Cory Booker and Republicans chuck grassley, Thom Tillis and Mike Lee introduced a prohibiting punishment of acquitted conduct act of 2019. So that is bipartisan three and three, and said, very good. So but, but right now it can be done. It is done. So it is an SB.

So it is be right now. All right.

Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast@gmail.com you can call or text or ransom message to 747 to 274477. Want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts for stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting without you we can't succeed. You make it possible. And over at law. com. We have an article I don't I don't even want to try and pronounce this name. But it's a it's a woman Sue's Jeffrey Epstein estate on behalf of three sexual abuse accusers.

Ah, what kind of nut put this in here? Did you do that? I'm pretty sure you did it. Oh, I'm not that didn't do you are always puts in law com articles.

So we have, I'm pretty sure we have a dead guy. As I recall.

Della Reese, I'll put it in here it was it doesn't require a lot of talking is that the high profile attorney? What David Boies and the prediction that was made I was one of the ones who made I'm sure others that that'd be a feeding frenzy with with with his demise. This is just an example of the continuous parade of lawsuits that will come out of the woodwork against him. And they will they will dismember his they they will dismember his estate and it looks like Dershowitz Island Dershowitz and David Boies and their own dispute. They've seen countersued each other up Down at the bottom there it says David boys suits Alan Dershowitz for defamation. Dershowitz files counterclaims against against the state accuser for defamation.

That just sounds like a whole bunch of lawyers making a bunch of money off of each other. Well,

but they're going to believe this state until there's nothing left there.

Right. I wonder if there's any way to shield a bunch of that money and move it elsewhere? You know, I mean, I don't know. Like I, as far as I know, he's not married. I don't think he has a whole lot of family. So I'm not really sure who is managing the state or who he would have willed anything to.

I think he should move it to the register matters podcast.

I agree. I think this is a great thing. We should start some sort of letter writing campaign.

So I don't know how it is the state is being managed, but I know that there will be plenty of people that are trying to take what they can out of it and they'll be pursuing justice for those who were denied it for so long.

Over at the daily Gazette, local Opposition mounting to criminal justice reform. Where is this occurring? I don't even remember knowing where this is coming from. But Clifton Park, why New York, New York. Oh, there's a new york deal. This is a widening coalition of capital region officials and law enforcement is pushing back against sweeping statewide criminal justice reforms scheduled to take effect next year. I'm going to just throw out there that this is a bunch of blue people got elected to try and like do the Larry Krasner move and then the legislature saying, not doing that and they're tying their hands.

That's going to be my house. Well as this look like an interview to me, this, this this is an interview with I don't know who this person is being interviewed.

But But,

but I did find something I found entertaining toward the end of the article. And

it was it was

I always say that the Giving the police more resources is not the answer. And it says, is the reform that you're proposing given more resources to the punishment bureaucracy? Or is it taking resources from the punishment bureaucracy and give it to communities? And then he goes on to say, That's why, for example, you always, you always need to oppose hard more police officers, giving them more money for body cameras, increasing their budgets, even even a progressive prosecutor offices, we need to shrink all the systems or we need to invest in the community based at mutual aid impairment solutions. That sounds familiar. I don't know how you people expect there's going to be fewer prosecutions. If all you do is constantly hire more police. And you expand the apparatus, how will you reduce the number of people being put into a system if you are hiring more and more people who bring people into the system Hello.

I think you do. Due to work with the new math stuff, if you could learn the new math, and maybe you would understand why this would actually work in practice, your old math does not does not make this work.

new math would work. Okay, so if we have 100,000 new police officers, are they going to drink coffee on the community? Or they're going to they're going to build criminal cases? I mean, they are in the law enforcement business, which are they going to do drink coffee and eat donuts and go play baseball with the kids? Are they going to go out and make cases? I think the coffee and donuts is a foregone conclusion, then they're going to go make criminal cases. So but but yes, this this this, this guy saying a lot of a lot of what I'm saying the problem is the system is actually working exactly as it was designed to do. What we say our cripple system, but justice is broken, it's not broken at all. It's doing exactly what we designed it to do, is doing what we have voted for the politicians to put in place for for us to have done and that's what he said here. We were We want it we want extremely harsh sentencing in this country. We have for 2530 years, we've gotten it which would lead us right

down the path to the next article, which is from the intercept. And the title of it is how force foreshadowed you've had done, I guess would be a way to put it. The criminal justice system is not broken. It's doing what it was designed to do.

Well, I think I was looking at did I jump ahead of you?

You did. We were talking. We were doing the daily because it was all opposition to justice reforms. Article, man, look, I gotta get some better help. Because you're not you're not doing you're not holding your own here.

So Well, I'll tell you, I got old timers.

I know. I know. But yes. This article is talking about how the criminal justice system is doing exactly what it is designed to do. And that is to be punishing and oppressive and it is not rehabilitative, because the people I tell I say this all the time later, and I and I think I've received some pushback. People, but we have voted for the politicians that have implemented the policies. And we have not told them to stop. So they are doing what we want.

And that's what I've been saying. And yeah, I did jump ahead of you on that on the other articles, jump to that one, but criminal justice reform, criminal justice reform is going to continue to have pushback, which is what I should have said, when you brought the previous article because we're threatening people's livelihoods. And we talked about that last episode. I mean, your PO did say that, it would be nice to have a lower caseload. But when the VO didn't say, it'd be nice to have no job at all, to have half as many pills because that's what we really need. If we're gonna, if we're going to talk about really taking this beast, we don't need smaller case loads. We need a lower number of officers. And I bet if you go back and say well, would you like to cut the pro supervision staffed by half or third, I bet you'll get a different answer because he or she makes feel the third, that third that would be cut.

And, and and people are not going to willingly sign their jobs away.

We just don't do that.

No, we definitely do not.

We could we could vote for us to have 50 senators instead of 100. But that would mean 50 whole infrastructures would go in. I don't think anybody's going to vote for that.

I don't think you'd get a lot of support in the United States Senate. But for for that, you know, states house,

but that's why we have isn't the 27th amendment is the one that they can't vote for their own pay raises.

It's the 26th 27th Yes.

The 27th amendment, no law of varying the compensation of the service of the senators or representative Shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. So they can't vote for it while they're still in office. That would have to take effect later. So at least they can't vote for their own increase in pay. Like

now, right?

Larry  1:01:02  
They have to wait. Well, I think they've gotten around that by having having it come automatically. Now, I think they have to vote against it. If I'm not mistaken, I think that, that it did it builds around the the the CPI and like with other adjustments that happen, and those that, that that know more can correct me, but I think now that their raises, they have to vote against them. But if they don't if they take effect the next cycle, but you're going to get reelected 95% of the people that run for reelection get reelected in the US Congress.

Andy  1:01:34  
Yeah, I'm sure they figured out ways around takes

for sure. Well, it takes too much money to beat an incumbent. Yes, it does. We done that. You've got you've got an enormous amount of power and a Norris amount of name recognition. And again, we bemoan and wring our hands about, oh, there's too much money in politics, too much money in politics, and then you start proposing solutions. Okay, what do you want to break Wire. Publix on auto can't do that. I don't believe we should be a public taxpayer. Okay, well, do you want to force the broadcast entities to carry a certain amount of when Hova can't do that that would be after their certain Well, okay, well, what do you want to do to get somebody? Do you want to forbid? People from having money and campaigns? We've already heard Citizens United, you can't do that. So what what would we do if we can't limit the amount of spending, and we can't boost the money coming from the private sector, from me from the public sector to match the private sector? And we can't confiscate people's of entities that that that have, whether that be publishing or whether it be internet or whether it be broadcast traditional, if we can't forcibly take their take their resources and, and allow people to run and run using resources. They haven't paid for the type of commandeer what what is the answer? What are some options to put on the table? There's too much money in politics. throw something What's out there?

Yeah,

it's it's nuclear war. It's you know, it's a constant escalation. So when one person raises 100 and then the next one raises 120, then the next one raises 200 that you could put in some sort of artificial cap, but then you end up with political action committees and then there's a whole bunch of other money coming down the pike and dark money and whatnot, and I don't know I don't know what you do. I do not know Well, well,

the thing is negative negative ads in politics work. We said earlier, they will stop doing it when it quits working. We We We sit around and we've been monitoring our hands about how we hate negative campaign but you know what we go We'll hear something we'll hear something kind of salacious rumor about it. Well, I heard it on that all the Obama did this or that and I've got I don't like that. I'm not going to go for it. We we vote based on on just horrible stuff that said about about People that that there's nothing to support. Oftentimes, it's just an allegation and or it's taken out of context. It's totally distorted. In terms of, well, my opponent voted for such and such, well, they voted for it because of the context that you're not telling. That's why they voted short for it. But But they'll they'll take it completely out of context. And if you don't have any money, you can't respond to that negative campaign.

Yeah, yep. Yep, yep. Yep.

Um, how about over at reason calm. Georgia has executed a death row inmate without DNA testing the evidence. I definitely struggle with this one. So this guy was convicted in 94 for the shooting death of a store clerk. And I don't know when DNA evidence came into play. But so in the what's 2829 now, sorry, 25 years since this occurred. I know we have DNA evidence now. Why wouldn't there be the willingness on the system to allow there to be DNA testing to Potentially Well,

well, because it wouldn't have, it wouldn't have changed anything. He never said he wasn't there. He just said he didn't do the shooting. Right. And under Georgia and Georgia law, it didn't matter because he was still equally guilty. So what the state of Georgia his position is that the defense attorney doesn't need to get the the reason why you'd want that the DNA because if you can show that your personal wasn't the shooter, you would be arguing that this person doesn't deserve the ultimate punishment because the two accomplices shouldn't get the one who actually did the killing should get the more harsh punishment. So you'd be able to argue effectively, that that this person didn't pull the trigger, but it does not require them to Georgia law that they prove I mean, he was equally guilty and under under Georgia law, as I understand it, so why would you want the DNA? I mean, I know exactly why just said because he would have had the opportunity to argue mitigation and it might have spared his life. If if that mitigation could have been brought to the forefront, but but that the coordinator position is I think we're guilty under the law. What do you want us to do?

Yeah,

I guess I understand that. So the getaway driver is just as guilty as the bank robber even though he didn't actually, quote unquote, rob the bank, or I guess sort of by extension, attempted kidnapping is the same as kidnapping, you just didn't succeed at it.

Is that an attempted attempt to use your one level less than the actual completion of the Georgia, but I don't believe I know, a novel even attempt will be a lesser serious crime across the board. But but but an accomplice to a crime. If you're assisting in the Commission on the crime, theoretically, if, if, if two people are accomplice to murder, it might not have been able to be pulled off with only one so therefore, the accomplices just as guilty. Although he or she may have played a lesser role he they might not have actually been the one who, who did the data itself but the may have prevented someone from discovering the data in progress and said divorces life. So you're in favor of the death penalty? I didn't say that. I said I understood. So you're mixing you're like the liberal do gooders. You've mixed arguments here. The issue this is not about the death penalty. This is about whether or not he gets DNA testing so he can try to mitigate his sentence and the court said, you, you you had 25 years to do that and the DNA DNA is what mitigated because you'd still be eligible under Georgia law for the same penalty and and you're speculating that you might have gotten the judge may have given you a lesser sentence had the judge know that you want to trigger person but that's all speculation. Right? Okay.

No, I agree. And I appreciate you explaining it that way because I it to me, it feels like we should have done something more to give the guy afford the guy the opportunity to at least not die.

Well, that's what medication what a theoretically done right is given him the opportunity but Under the law, he's not entitled to not die just because he didn't pull the trigger. He didn't have a claim of I'm entitled not to die. You're not entitled to mitigation. You're entitled to argue mitigation but you're the judge so I have to find mitigating factors. Yes, I do understand interest. Oh, okay. I don't know what it is about you people join our status. Can you can you play you people tonight for people who haven't heard it? Do we have a clean copy of that yet?

I mean, I can do you people all the time and if you want to hear you,

I'm talking about I'm talking about perot's you people.

Oh, Peru. Okay, while we go over the next second, and I'll try and find a clean, clean copy of it. So I was talking,

I thought you meant the Larry version of the people.

So those who don't know that it came from ross perot.

Yeah, I will go find that during while we're recording this next little bit, because I want to hear your take on the do you do you know about this? This released to reoffend news 11 investigates the sex offender next door they say that there's a 99% recidivism rate

Did you do you know about this article? Yeah, I heard about it. Yeah, I was following the news. Yeah.

This is insanity of what this person has put together and I, I only learned it today, but it came out a couple days ago. And like the the Twitter thread on this reporters account is overloaded with everyone that I follow saying that she's an idiot. Where did you get your facts? Everyone is asking for her to cite her sources and all this and this is this is terrible. And this person is deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply misinformed.

Yes. Alright, so we're going to

take, I think that there's been several comments and reactions to the misinformation. And she said what her source was, it was some institute that none of us had ever heard of. So she used us some sort of Kabuki source. Well, it was a nonprofit, I think and the area where the story ran, because I saw chatter on the listserv about Today that that she referred she's reporting back to a to a nonprofit source she got her figures bro

I can't I like you know I play a lot with math a lot and to

have

to later in the in the clip she's interviewing someone and says that night it says 94% are happened by friends and family you know someone close to the to the victim

and

but I'm thinking okay so if 99% of the people reoffend and 94% are committed by a family member, like your family would know about the things that you've done and probably be aware and keep you awake like those numbers can't cook coexist together that way there has to one of those has to give

Yeah, which one?

I'm inclined to go with the we have a mountain of evidence to support a much different number like an inverted number. I mean, I I always hear 3% is the recidivism rate.

We know the recidivism rate when we when we take out the They overblown numbers of of technical violations that Yeah, group together when a sex offender is under under supervision and they'll say, well, we had a 42% violation rate. Well, the 42% of those, all of them except one was simply a dirty you a GPS monitor failure, missing a class missing appeals appointment, a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with a sexual offense, but yet, they got hauled in on a PV and got cared before a judge or parole board on a PV. And they didn't do anything in the way of a sex offense, but we have a 45% or whatever astronomical amount, they say, violation rate while under supervision, but they're not really solid violations most of the time, right.

Yeah, so Yeah, she got she got beat down on Twitter. And but you know, I mean, once this stuff gets in the public's ear, though, like, oh, there's 99% recidivism rate and all these people are out like we need to go hunt them down and get them off our streets.

This is this is horrible. It's really it's really sad that as much information as are out there for governmental sponsored studies that journalistic operation but would be so irresponsible I guess is the best where I come up with to run this story because if I'm if I'm the news director or one of the editors, I will say this 99. That sounds a little high, but what are we looking at for that? Before I let that air I'm not going to want a 99% number to run. If we're trying to be if we're trying to be so called journalists and get the story, right. Yeah. Do you want to hear the Ross Perot clip now? Where if we got a good one where it's not all garbage, it's This one is somewhat garbled, but we'll see what we can do with it. And this sort of thing happens. Do

you hear people do your people do I know that you know that?

Larry  1:13:12  
There you go. There's your you people. That's not a great copy, but

Andy  1:13:16  
it's the best I could do.

You know, that's, that's where that's where I got the started using that from, from what I heard him say it because he took so much criticism. And I was wondering, well, he's correct in terms of the fact that after what it did on the manufacturing economy, he was absolutely correct. And he was speaking to remember as a minority group, but as we looked at it was actually a double acp itself. He was speaking and he was like, I thought it was a little bit more style over substance. When you said you people, I mean it. It was not the most artful construction of words. But he clearly saw what was coming. And that's what he was trying to participate. And since he was not a lifetime politician, I think they're probably could have cut him a tad bit of slack on that. But they they vilified it per se you people. Gotcha.

All right then our final article and then we have some some other comments and stuff to go over this. This one showed up just today. And so Larry, you're going to give me your pushback. But here is an article from WREG. Seattle police captain arrested in own departments prostitution state. This is hilarious. It's a lot of place. Seattle police captain is accused of sexual exploitation after he was arrested in an undercover operation by his own department. Wow. Um, I, I would think that the person in the department would know what the department is doing. And of course, depending on how big the places but he doesn't know that they're running a sting and that he's out like, he's a cop. He probably knows he shouldn't be soliciting this way. or six exploiting this

isn't Captain pretty high command? I

would think that's pretty high. But I you know, I don't know these things I know this from the military side, I don't know how these things work in the

US? Well, I think I think captains

I mean, like, you know, he's probably at least roughly in charge of the place. He's higher on the totem pole than he is lower.

You know, I would I would tend to agree with that. So so we Well, we've got a guy who made a presumed innocent and I would say that even for for a police officer and he's entitled to all the processes that he doesn't believe in for anyone else I'm sure and, and he's entitled to a robust for defense representation. And he's entitled to have this presumption follow him all the way to the conclusion of the process until he either pleads guilty or as found guilty. But it is one of those things where magically He will say that his entire 31 year career should not that this one event should not define him and I agree with that. I agree with him completely when he starts saying that, that when he asked for mitigation if he ends up having to do a plea if the evidence is overwhelming,

I just wished

Captain Worley will it will arena not war, but like shot, same thing. I wish that he had said the same thing in the last 30 years. He's been on the police department. I wish he had said What I'm saying is that these people who make one mistake in their life that should not be used to define their entire life and it should not negate their entire career work. And I just wish he had said that but I I'm kind of doubting the Probably not.

We don't have a lot of evidence to support that the law enforcement apparatus as you call it, it affords anybody else any sort of

generosity.

Well, I'm inviting them by Michael comments to do that I've repeatedly saying that for them, and I'm inviting them to do the same thing. And I'm waiting, and I'm anxiously awaiting, but I would like for someone who's representing a law enforcement entity, to say that people who who get in criminal behavior that should not be the defining moment of their entire life, because I just said it right now about Captain Woolery, if he should be found guilty, or if he should choose to plead guilty, that his entire career should not be eviscerated and he should not be. This one event. This one mistake should not define him. So captain, another capital sale police force. Let's hear you say that about someone who's been accused of a crime by your department, but I would like to hear the command structure echo a similar statement.

I wonder though, I mean, if he Shouldn't he be pretty much just found guilty since he was obviously arrested at the Place where the sting was going on. I mean, that pretty much proves the guilt right there. They wouldn't pick them up if he wasn't like guilty of something, right?

Well, that's what the police generally say about someone they pick up. But I can't magically believe that, because my wiring is to provide person a robust defense. And as we know, we don't have all the facts. We don't we don't know very much. We don't have discovery. And we don't know anything about this case of this news release. So we should not presume that he did it all. Well, that's what the police would like you to presume when they arrest someone and you do your little purple. exactly exactly what you'd like people to presume. But that's not the way it should be. But that's the way it is.

I think I agree with you. I'm Larry, we have a new patron from Lakeland, Florida, and they came in at the supported level which is out frickin standing. And I just want to say thank you think think think think think think think think 1000 times

and who will who Who is that?

I'm going to leave their names off because I think if I even met

while I may, but what are they going by? They don't want it. They don't go by I

didn't capture it that way. I would say a first name, but it happens to not be just a first name. And it would be too specific if I said,

Captain, Captain great.

No, he's already a patron and he's in Kentucky. So we can't say Captain crazy. But thank you so much from Lakeland, Florida. So, um, All right, thank you. And we also received an email message from a listener and it goes through four different points. But I wanted to bring up something about Patreon that people have asked in the past about doing like a one time donation, and I realized that this is somewhat of a pain in that took us that sign up to for whatever level you want. You can adjust the numbers however you want to do it. So you could sign up at the $1 a month level and give $100 and that would be totally fine. And then after that one month goes by cancel your subscription. That's all you gotta do. That would because I don't want to give up my personal paypal account information. I mean, maybe you want to give out your personal one there, but I don't want to give out mine.

So So a person who wants to do a one time just as the one time and and cancel that, is that the solution Yes. And it won't come

out till the beginning of the month they do their their charges somewhere around the first or so of the month. So you know, you can do it then it won't happen immediately when you sign up. And then you just go back through and cancel it a couple weeks later and

before the before the 30 days goes to

record exactly that. So and then I'm all sad because I see people canceling and that makes me very sad.

Larry  1:20:33  
Well, okey dokey them. I'll remember how to do that. I hadn't I hadn't thought of

Andy  1:20:38  
it works. Otherwise. Then, Larry, we have we have a website. I'm about to do a big website refresh. I'm going to change the theme and all the stuff I'm going to make it look all sporty and snazzy. But what would that website be for the listeners that haven't visited the website before?

Oh, well, it's it's, it's, we can't discount that's class. Oh, what's class with You're not really setting for. So don't don't know what the website is. It's classified.

Oh, okay, so we won't discuss that. How about the phone number then?

nobody uses it.

So that's classified. Also, do we have an email address that people could write into?

Actually, the person who sent the comment said that they had to use the phone twice. They did say that left messages twice. So thank you for for leaving messages and the phone number is 747-227-4477. And how about to send us an email like, if you'd like to send us an email to that? To registry matters cast at gmail. com?

And as our friends in Lakeland, Florida, they, they supported us on Patreon. How can people sign up on Patreon?

That would be

what is that patreon.com slash register matters Or you just go to register matters.cl and you'll find us there

yep there are links there that will get you to Patreon

and with anything else so if you go if you go if you go to the registered matters websites you can you can find anything including pictures of our of our host. We know that's not true. No no, no pictures of our hosts i i know i'm not i'm not either. So you can hang that up.

Larry, thank you as always,

Larry  1:22:32  
I thought when I got to Vegas about what a What a tragedy it was that I didn't bring any registry matters pins, yes.

Andy  1:22:39  
Or I could have also given

you some other, giving you coasters and stickers, they were given out at the conference.

Now. I will send some of our way we just we had we had an opportunity to. I mean, it would have been it would have been a little awkward. But we had opportunity to spread the word that we waited get the word out to the to the Lawyers but we may figure out a way to do a follow up letter and see if we can if we can mention the podcast and the follow up letter to the lawyers.

Very well. Larry, as always, I greatly greatly appreciate you joining me and if you're free will try again next week.

All right, thanks. Thanks, everyone, and good Good night. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai