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 at a crazy time that I don't understand this time warp thing. And transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 103 of registry matters. I got a question for you, Larry. But first, how are you tonight?

Larry  0:23  
This afternoon? I'm doing fantastic.

Andy  0:25  
Why do we choose to say oh or zero? Depending on nine cases? Are you a zero? You are a person?

Larry  0:34  
Well, they're they're two different characters that depends on what which words you're using.

Andy  0:39  
Well, for this episode, it's 103. Would you say one of the three or 103?

Larry  0:44  
Well, it would be correct at 103.

Andy  0:47  
But which would you say?

Larry  0:48  
Nobody in the right mind would be like the songs when they put in he don't love me like I mean, they're Correct. Correct as he doesn't love me, but try, try figuring that out.

Andy  1:00  
There's this guy that I go to lunch with all the time and he's like, Well, yeah, my mom don't want no nothing to do with that. Like, can you please not do that? Please, please, please don't do that. Wait, who's that laughing there who's laughing? Do we have an intruder?

Larry  1:14  
We didn't have an intruder. So let me introduce our intruder. We have Liberty and Justice Coalition's staff attorney Ashley raymore. Cloud. Welcome, Ashley.

Ashley  1:28  
Thank you. Sorry to intrude, but we have exciting news today. We do.

Andy  1:33  
Hey, that should be my cue. Hang on, I'm going to do my cue. The exciting news is a stellar decision out of Illinois. Do you guys want to give a quick, quick little teaser that will cover more depth in a minute? What's going on in Illinois.

Ashley  1:49  
So we have a decision out of the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois that ruled that a probation conditions somebody on probation cannot totally be banned from the Internet.

Unknown Speaker  2:01  
Okay, wow, that's it. That's a quick teaser for sure. That and

Larry  2:05  
and they they said that it wasn't unanimous or was that a split decision?

Ashley  2:11  
There was one justice who declined to even get involved but all the other ones did a unanimous decision. There's no dissenting opinion in this.

Larry  2:20  
This is exciting. I can't I can't wait to break it down in a jiffy.

Andy  2:25  
Interesting. All right. I'm looking forward to it. I like glanced over the decision looking for keywords and such. But Alright, so we will, we will we will move on to some news items. What is this? What is this first article this craziness that you have up here, Larry about registered forever New Jersey offenders fight for reprieve?

Larry  2:46  
Well, I thought the article was relevant because I'm continually trying to illustrate for those who believe in their heart that they want textual interpretation of the law. That this is a case where we're going to get an interpretation from the High Court in New Jersey about what the law says. And the law specifically says exactly what the prosecution what the state of not the prosecution or what the state is arguing. It says, it says that you have to be a fence free for 15 years before you're eligible to be removed from New Jersey's registry. It doesn't say sex offense free, it says offense free, keep a clean record for 15 years. So I put it in here because our our audience which tends to lean toward the conservative side, they are always saying give me judge judges that will merely interpret the law and not put their own spin on it. This is precisely the type of thing where this is not exactly what you would want because if you look at the text it says exactly what the state is arguing it says that I'm gonna let Ashley she's she's got the thing. She's got the statute, but on Well, the statute so what does the statute saying relevant part actually?

Unknown Speaker  4:05  
So, I believe

Ashley  4:11  
Yes, you did. Sorry, had to get down to the part that it said, except as provided in subsection g of the Section A person required to register and this act may make application to the Superior Court of the state to terminate the obligation upon proof that the person has not committed an offense within 15 years following conviction or

Larry  4:33  
stop stop stop right there quickly says but it says it says and office didn't say sex offense actually didn't say sex offense or didn't say offense.

Ashley  4:44  
It just says offense. Okay,

Larry  4:47  
now let's let's dive into this a little bit before you finish. With however many people serving jersey assembly, if they had meant it to be sex offense free, do you think they possibly would have Enough brains to put that in there? Or do you think that they intended to leave it broad and wide open? But the court is faced and looking at this, this this word again, it says has not committed on offense within 15 years. And that seems to be if you're a textualist, you would be palpitating saying, well, they're interpreting exactly they come down with a ruling that come down with their interrupting exactly what the letter of the law says,

Ashley  5:27  
at a very high minimum, even if they wouldn't have put sex offense in there, you would think they would have put serious offense or related offense or some other language instead of leaving it this broad, because, as you know, offense can mean everything from murder to a traffic ticket. And that's a broad spectrum.

Larry  5:50  
And there's a there's a there's an end and it's and it's not like and it's not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. But you don't get to that point. If you have These people are arguing that we're fully rehabilitated. And our offense was so minor and it happened a long time ago. And we're not likely to pose a threat to others. But you don't get to that point. If you've had an offense in last 15 years, and in this article, they've had other offenses. So they're not eligible.

Ashley  6:18  
No, they're they're not you never get to that second ad. It's not or it actually says and is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. The other thing that's interesting about this is has not committed on offense within 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility. So essentially, if you get to 14 months, or 14 years and 11 months and 29 days and you commit a shoplifting, it doesn't even give you the option to start over again. You're just done. Whether you commit a fence on day one when you step out of and that could be again a traffic ticket. It could be larceny, it could be anything but the There is nothing that specifically says that you have to be 15 years offense free. It says within the 15 years following conviction or release,

Larry  7:09  
and that's what one of the individuals is arguing that at least a 15 year period should restart. But the law doesn't say that.

Unknown Speaker  7:17  
No, it does not

Larry  7:19  
know, our audience. We don't want people who put on a black robe to legislate from the bench and create law that is there Do we

Ashley  7:30  
know

there is a separation of powers for for a reason. However, as as I know, you and I have had good discussions about this, that when it suits everybody's purpose, we want judges to legislate from the bench. But the reality is, is there is a statute for a reason, and the judges job is just to interpret it. And if you're a textualist, and you're not bringing any other language into it at all or thought process which True textualism does, then it is within 15 years. And it is an offense. And it's very, it's left broad, but it's it's pretty crystal clear what they intended to do.

Larry  8:12  
So well and of course, if you are one who subscribes to something that just like Justice Scalia found revolting, he referred to it as purpose of his if you would look at the purpose of this rebuildable process, and clearly you can drive that probably the purpose is to give people relief from the sex offender registry. If they're not committing sex offenses after they have originally been convicted of a sex offense. I mean, you could you could deduce that but again, purpose of Islam is as a noxious to participate. They say that that that that's just who we are. The law is wherever you want it to be on any given day, but but barely going by the text. There's no way the court can give these guys relief because they're not in title to it under the law.

Ashley  9:03  
So to take that one step further, Larry, I and I kind of agree with that premise, but I don't think it is just sex offenses. I think that if you went out and committed murder, and they had just put sex offenses in there, but you killed somebody within that 15 years, then you could argue that well, it said sex offense, it wasn't a sex offense. So I think they left it pretty broad for a reason. And, again, I what you're saying, if we want to look at what the purpose behind it was, then are we going to say no more sex offenses? Or are you supposed to be crystal clear with zero issues for 15 years to the day from your conviction or release?

Larry  9:46  
Well, that's what the law says. And that's what I predicted the courts gonna find us we have a bunch of liberal activists out there who decided it's their job to save society, from the from the will of the people as an active They're like the spokespersons, but they're like the spokespersons gave crystal clear guidance after 15 years without any offenses, you're entitled to the petition. And at that point, you got to show district no longer dangerous or threat to the community. But they did not leave all that mushy, good feeling stuff. They didn't leave all that shoulder of opportunity for you, as far as I could see, and the wording, it's very, very clear.

Ashley  10:26  
I think it's pretty clear. I think it's also interesting that they threw in the paragraph right below it to that says, except is provided in subsection G. And if you are acquitted by reason of insanity from more than one sex offense, you also aren't subject to this removal process. So it's an interesting statute.

Larry  10:42  
So well, now before the hate letters and emails and phone calls start coming. I didn't say that was my personal view. We're talking about judicial interpretation, and about textualism versus purpose and intent. And I'm trying to help our audience understand that so Sometimes you think you're for something that you're really not once you get a little below the surface and scratch and look a little deeper. What you thought sounded good may not be as good as what you thought it sounded.

Andy  11:12  
Do you guys want to move over to the next shenanigans case of the week?

Larry  11:16  
That's great because that actually follows this a lot of things.

Andy  11:21  
Alright, well this, this, this next book comes from kW TX and you almost have to be living under a rock to not have heard of this one within our circles. This is a mother in Utah being charged may have to register as an offender after being topless in her home. The way that this story seems to go down is her and her husband were hanging some sheetrock or something maybe in the garage and they instead of getting dusty, like putting on some like utility clothes, they they decided to get mostly naked. And so they were they were still wearing their bottom stuff, but they took off their top stuff. And eventually, somehow the kids saw mom and then I guess like Child Protective services, whatever. Anyway, so she's being charged for being naked in her own home, or at least half naked. And you laugh, Ashley?

Larry  12:10  
Well, I don't I don't see any issue with it myself. I looked up the Utah statute and it's under lewdness. And we have it we're going to make it in the show notes at 76 dash nine dash 702. And it is very clear that a person is guilty of lewdness if the person performs at the following acts in a public place, or under circumstances which the person should know will likely cause a front or alarm to or in the presence of another who is 14 years of age or older. So the question I would like to say in the charging instrument was were these persons 14 years of age or older, but if they expose under under under subsection one be exposes his or her genitals, the female breasts below the What does that Word areola or the buttocks or the ages, anus or the pubic area. So if she took off her entire top, assuming that she is a born female Now, of course, if she's transgender, she could say, well, I was born, I wasn't born female, so therefore this doesn't qualify. But if she was born a female, this statute if she exposed the entire her entire top, this statute covers that if those miners were over 14, so I don't see any problem with this. This is the law.

Ashley  13:37  
I don't think it's just the kids seeing her though the way the statute reads is pretty funny, because or in the presence of another who is 14 years of age or older, and you have exposing his or her genitals, the breasts etc. That's also her husband. So does that mean you should never be naked in your own home in your own marriage because Doesn't carve any exception. Well, I

Larry  14:02  
didn't even I didn't even think of that. Now, that's a good point. So you can actually, you can actually be charged because over for it doesn't give an age cap. So it says 14 or older. So if you pull out, pull off your bra and expose that to your husband, then you have committed a sex crime in the state of Utah. If you if you literally read this the way it's written,

Ashley  14:31  
yes, if you read it exactly the way that it's written.

Larry  14:35  
Now, why look at the statute when when Andy told me about this last week, I said, Well, this case is not going to go anywhere because this wasn't done in public and and and people have the right to do what they want to in the privacy of their own home and, and, and that being that most of our audience is going to be against governmental intrusion. And we think the parents are always the best decider of what's good for kids and it doesn't take a village to raise a kid. It's all about the individual. If a Parent thinks it's okay for them to prance around the house with our tops off, who's the government to come in and say otherwise? So I was thinking, well, gee, this case is going to go over. But that's not what the statute says. And go ahead, Andy. I'm sorry. I kept kept. Oh,

Andy  15:13  
no, that's totally cool. I start to then wonder about, like, it's obvious in our social culture, and you know, for this country and other Western nations, not the United States that there's nudity on TV, you can see a man you know, doing the morning, run to the bathroom, whatever, and you will totally see like full on buttocks. People in the United States would lose their freaking minds if that happened United States. There's also breasteses shown on TV and other countries and not in a sexual manner. The other question that I would like to kind of tie into all that the United States they lose their minds when a woman breastfeeds in public, even though she's not like exposing her breasts so much, but like, this is somehow some sort of taboo action. Why do we have such a dislike Ah, when a woman breast is shown but we don't do that for guys. It's the same materials

Larry  16:04  
well not exactly there are some anatomical differences in the end and the equipment but but but I get your point

Andy  16:12  
hang on I bet you Jared from subway after he lost all his weight he was a larger cup size and most women

Larry  16:20  
but would you would you agree that the rest of a woman provides a slightly different function than a man

Andy  16:27  
I mean as like a function as in nurturing a an infant Sure. Yes, yes.

Larry  16:31  
Okay. Yeah, well, I don't think male breast do that for at least I'm pretty confident I don't know but in terms of the size yes on man could have some pretty good size depending on the size of the man. And and I can answer my personal opinion. I think it has a lot to do our Judeo Christian values. I think that that we have so spooked everybody about sex and sex is supposed to be between a man and a woman and in the st. A marriage. And I think that that has something to do with our we have we have we have an influence that other countries don't have. I mean, I think we have the highest practicing amount of Christians in the world. I may be wrong but I think we do.

Unknown Speaker  17:15  
I would I won't argue with that when the United States honestly 70% Christian

Larry  17:20  
Yes. And I'm not saying for sure I know that for a fact but I think that may be maybe a fact and when and and and within our legislative process and state exert and enormous influence on public policy. So Ashley,

Andy  17:33  
can you can you split the the line there between as a woman and also an attorney? Why do we have this inconsistency that dudes can run around at the beach with their shirts off and women, by golly cannot even if it's just a tiny little piece of thread covering the nipples that they can do it and we lose our minds over this?

Ashley  17:55  
It's puritanical. It's its parents simple. It goes back to the Victorian era. Where we view the female and certain areas of her body as more sexual than the areas on a male's body and it's a male run society. It's it's a sexist throwback to that there's, there's no other explanation for it. The funny part about all of that, and I'm not sure that it's very funny is that we're talking about a Utah statute that is essentially saying you can't be naked in your own home. This is also the same state that does not and I apologize to you tie ins. But it does not allow you to show Saturday Night Live and other shows that would actually show buttocks or anything else they actually sent to those things off the TV. They don't do SNL in Utah, they did not. And if they started doing it, it would be recent because my parents used to live there and I would be there on Saturday nights going Why is Saturday Night Live on not on?

Andy  18:54  
I have never heard of this. That's amazing.

Ashley  18:57  
Hadn't either but so it does not surprised me that this is where the statute comes from. It does surprise me the level of what could be charged under this?

Andy  19:07  
Well, that's pretty easy.

Larry  19:09  
It would be my view that there there are some significant constitutional issues with the statute in terms of the equal protection clause, the over breath, which generally gets our getting first admit but and speech but to have a statute that that potentially regulates conduct at home, I think you could stretch the overbred doctor and include this what do you think?

Unknown Speaker  19:31  
I agree

Andy  19:33  
to she have a constitutional claim to equal protection, blah, blah, blah.

Ashley  19:37  
I think there would be a good equal protection argument on this because it does say female breast does not say female or male breast.

Larry  19:46  
So, you know, our our laws are supposed to provide equal protection and and this is clearly a, this particular subsection only applies to the breast I'm a female. So I think that clearly there's a protection An issue there that you would need to be able to explain why a female breast is so different, it would be like the 55 hour speed limit, if we had said that men could still drive 70 back in the bargo days of women could drive 55. To do that we would have had an equal protection clause unless we had been able to show that there were sub compelling difference between the driving skills and the safety of female drivers. And in fact, female drivers are, are statistically safer than guys.

Andy  20:29  
Come on, man. Everyone knows that guys drive better than girls.

Larry  20:31  
know, everybody doesn't know that that because it does that the actuaries don't don't bear that out.

Ashley  20:37  
That would be why male insurance rates are so much higher, especially up to the age of 25. Oh,

Andy  20:43  
yes, I actually think that that has a lot to do with guys being show us and probably having a undeveloped brain.

Larry  20:50  
And what is that that enlarged?

Andy  20:52  
Go to LA oblongata. I could play the clip for you. It's an amazing response you have for that layer. I love Your response to that was let's do it. Oh, gosh, put me on the spot I just

Larry  21:06  
moved out of that folder to don't don't don't worry. Sorry. So

Andy  21:10  
I got I got it right here. I got it right here. It feels to me like in many of these states, they are aggressive about this stuff because they have an enlarged medulla oblongata. What? I love the way you say that. I love the way you say that.

Larry  21:29  
Well, I still can't even say it after you've given me the word as many times.

Andy  21:33  
Tell me tell me this though. As far as is it? Is it possible that she is like running this up the flagpole to actually try and get something changed? Didn't you say something earlier about an Abe Lincoln quote, Larry.

Larry  21:45  
Well, she's not running up the flagpole. She didn't have any choices. That's true. That's true. So that's true. So here's what's going to happen because the prosecution can't help themselves and they they're going to go forward with this. She's Going to force a constitutional interpretation, because she has no choice. She can either accept a sex offense, conviction, or she can challenge the law. But but she's not causing this, the prosecution is bringing the case. I mean, the defendants are just barely on the receiving end of this. And I always thought find it humorous when they say, why did this particular defendant have to take this case as far? Well, he didn't. You did? Yeah. Oh, you brought the charge. So the reason why this is going to be found to be unconstitutional, if it is, is because the state is unrelenting. And they're going to they're determined that they're going to have their day in court and that they're going to do their duty as putting their hand on the Bible, that they're going to enforce the law as it's written. And so therefore, we're going to have a constitutional challenge, and hopefully, the Constitution will prevail and this will be stricken as being unconstitutional overbroad.

Andy  22:54  
And actually, I found an article from 2013 titled Saturday Night Live moves to Salt Lake city's Mormon owned NBC affiliate. Maybe in the last six years, somehow they got SNL, which is bizarre, bizarre to me that they would have SNL.

Ashley  23:10  
Is that not bizarre that they didn't have it up until then?

Andy  23:14  
Yes. And then there's like pirate TV, pirate radio, whatever broadcasting that stuff for, quote unquote, those people to hear. That's bizarre.

Ashley  23:24  
Yep.

Andy  23:26  
Shall we move on over to this Illinois decision?

Larry  23:29  
We should because we have limited time with Ashley and then she's got other responsibilities. So let's let's do this. So we are talking about a case that was just decided on Thursday. That's why it's late breaking news. And it is going to be it's going to be a case that Ashley will not be able to contain herself on and and I am going to just say, Ashley, do you want me to ask you questions or do you want to just go ahead, give them synopsis of this of this state Supreme Court case, first. So let's listen. What is the case? What is all about? What's the name of this case? For those who are out there listening, haven't heard of it yet.

Ashley  24:10  
The case is the people of the state of Illinois, versus Conrad Allen margar. And he appealed this all the way up to the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois.

Larry  24:21  
And I think you got choppy on that the case name was what

Ashley  24:25  
it is the people of the state of Illinois, versus Conrad Allen margar.

Larry  24:31  
All right. So, so what what was the case about him? And why did why did he say that necessitated to contest the law? Why didn't he just take his punishment and do what any good criminal would do and go on with their life and and suck it up? What was What's this? What's this case all about?

Ashley  24:52  
So Mr. margar, seemed just bent on asserting his constitutional rights to Freedom of speech and not to be subject to probation conditions that are unreasonable, not rationally related, or otherwise vague. And so what he did is he took a bunch of probation conditions to the court of appeals in Illinois and stated that they were overbroad, and most of them were dealing with internet, social media, things like that. The appellate court said they were not overbroad were not unconstitutional. And so he took it to the next level to the Supreme Court when he took it to the Supreme Court. All he was challenging at that point was that there was a provision in his probation. And it was by statute that says that he could not be on any social networking websites. And the question before the Supreme Court was, is this unreasonable and unconstitutional under the First Amendment? Do you want to guess how it ends?

Larry  25:58  
Yeah, how did how did this end big So we've got, we've got all over the country, we've got supervising authorities, either by policy, or in some cases, such as in this case by statute, saying you're not allowed. And I think our co host was told in Pennsylvania, that if you move here, you will not be allowed on the internet. Isn't that correct? That is correct. Okay, so we've got we've got these, we've got these authorities operating either with statutory language or by policies that they've promulgated, or that they've just pulled out of air when they're they don't have either and they're applying them across the board to everyone. What, what is it going to take to, for them to realize that you just can't do that. You would have thought packing ham would have been a wake up call.

Ashley  26:55  
And that's what I love about this case is so both sides Relying on packing ham, but they're interpreting it differently. They're both stating that it's a pivotal case. And the court said yes, it is a pivotal case. But it's more than that. What packing ham said was that you can't have these blanket bounds on social media and internet and things like that. But it did not refer to them being probation or parole conditions. It was referring to a North Carolina statute that says that you cannot do any of these social networking sites or anything else. If even after you're, you're no longer on probation. And so that's what it ruled unconstitutional. This case takes it one step further and said, literally, what's the difference? If probation and parole is for rehabilitation, and you're supposed to be reformed after it? What's the difference between being reformed and being rehabilitated? And this Court said there isn't a difference? Those are the same things. So why can you have that condition for one and not the other if they both have the same purpose, and I thought it was brilliant the way the court put that.

Unknown Speaker  28:03  
Well, I,

Larry  28:05  
I have been one of those who said, I will have caution that packing him since it was only for people who had paid their debt to society that you can't say that you can't say that it automatically it means that as a supervised offender can do whatever I want to I've said that but also said that analysis that flows from it, because they used a language particular for people who have who have paid their debt or served their sentences Atari, I forgot the specific wording. But the analysis of how they got there was they they talked about the town square compared the internet to they they made a brilliant they gave they gave you the roadmap that said, if you're going to impose these very, very strict conditions, they better be narrowly tailored to a to a particular offender and not to a class of offenders not to a broad section. And somehow and other. If I were running a probation department, I read packing ham I would say We've got to be very careful here because we have a policy that says that everyone who is required to register or even in our case in New Mexico, if you've ever been charged with a sex offense and you played it down, they put these conditions on you. And I would be saying, Hey, wait a minute, we're going to be careful, we're going to find ourselves in court. But apparently there nobody does that.

Unknown Speaker  29:22  
I was just going to say, Larry, you are you are giving them way too much credit for their thinking processes.

Larry  29:27  
Well, I thought that you were your job was to stay abreast of the law, either through a statute or case law and to discharge your duties in compliance with the law is what I thought a probation official was supposed to do.

Ashley  29:44  
And you're absolutely right on that because under 1983 actions and color of law, it is one of the criteria that if there's a Supreme Court decision or some other case, that tells you you can't do something and you continue to do it, it actually shifts the burden from the person who is challenging the condition to to the probation or parole. So you would think that they would be more careful about that.

Larry  30:09  
Well, let's just let's just break this down a little bit for people who who are not familiar with 1983, which is a vehicle incident, the Federal federal, the federal system to use to bring us civil rights claim. When you're when you're alleging that a state actor has violated your your rights. You have to show that it was clearly established. Well, the Supreme Court case, that usually would meet the definition of a right big clearly established, right, correct. Okay, so, so, when did packing have come down? Because it wasn't 17 or 16. It's been a couple three years ago.

Ashley  30:39  
I want to say it was 2017. So,

yeah, 2017

Larry  30:47  
Okay, so you've had two plus years. Notice now two and half years for the user countdown, early, late spring, early summer. So you've had two and a half years notice. Law enforcement, you've had plenty of time. To know that you cannot arbitrarily capriciously restrict everyone from the internet, you know better and you deserve to lose all the losses is going to come at you if you keep doing it. And we liberated justice. We plan to bring some against you here. So you need to be on notice right now for those of you who are listening to us, I know we probably have some law enforcement listen to us. We're coming for you.

Andy  31:29  
There, Larry.

Unknown Speaker  31:30  
But we're going to back it up.

Larry  31:34  
So we've already come from a forum and one lawsuit, and we have several more on the horizon. And and there's one thing that they've learned hopefully dealing with me that was it. I actually do save and do what I said I'm going to do. We are coming for you New Mexico authorities. We we definitely are coming to you.

Ashley  31:53  
That is correct.

Andy  31:55  
Wow. Like why do they think they can do this?

Ashley  32:00  
Exactly. Oh, let me see your favorite thing. Why do they think they can do this?

Larry  32:05  
Because they can until they're stopped?

Andy  32:06  
Exactly. And then it's just totally our job to make them stop.

Larry  32:12  
Well, in an ideal world, Andy, we wouldn't have to make them stop. Ideally, when you put your hand on that vibe, when you take the badge and you take the oath and all this stuff. Ideally, you would be getting up each morning saying, I want to stay within the contours of law. In an ideal world, that's what you'd be. But we're not in an ideal, perfect world. We're in a competitive society, where people want to gain whatever advantage they can. And they believe in their mind, however distorted their mind is they believe that they're somehow keeping society safe, and they're somehow they're rendering justice to people who didn't get it. These people shouldn't be on the streets. The court got it all wrong. And by golly, I'm going to make their life as miserable as I can, and I can put them in jail but see unfortunate that's not your job. You weren't the decision maker who got to decide that they were on the street. You're the official of the Court in case of probation. You're the official of the court that's designed to execute the judgment of the court, which was the court's judgment that they were supposed to be in the community receiving rehabilitative efforts, rather than providing rehabilitative efforts, and try to guide the person to become a better citizen, you spend all your energy trying to wreck them and put them in prison. So this can be a burden on the society. And so that you could have another feather in your cap that you took a bet another bad guy off the street, and they they invent this thing that they think that somehow that's their calling to do, which is not what they're supposed to be doing.

Andy  33:37  
And you said they put their hand on what they put their hand on that Bible. Okay, so you didn't say it quite like that last time. I always get very much tripped up and Ashley, please help from your prosecutor. Hat wearing days that like this is if you know, it's if you know, it's not within what you should be doing. If you do You believe that you're actually saving society and and doing the right thing, even though, you know, blue letter law says you can't use a fork on Wednesday night t chicken? Like I mean, you know, a prosecutor could go after that

Ashley  34:13  
they could and that's the distinction between what Larry was talking about early earlier, which said that they take an oath that says I will uphold the law, and versus what that oath actually is in New Mexico. And if it isn't, in the other states, it should be I take an oath to uphold justice and protect both the rights of the defendants and the community and it's a balancing act. And if they did that, we wouldn't have these issues. But we know for a fact Mary that they don't do that. Right.

Unknown Speaker  34:45  
Well, they do it in one county, the state, only one, only the one I was in.

Larry  34:54  
So well, I'm going to ask you a few questions about the case if you don't mind. Okay. So, while the first thing people that are listening, I want to know, okay, this is an Illinois, what does this do for me? I don't live in Illinois. I live in Ohio. I don't live in Florida. I live in Louisiana. And I've got the same problem here. And all I hear you people do is babble and babble about all this great body of case law. What does this do for me? What so what does it do for these people in the other states?

Ashley  35:28  
So while it is not binding case law, meaning the court has to follow it, this is persuasive case law. And on top of that, in most of these jurisdictions, they're reviewing this stuff de novo, meaning they're reviewing it as if it's the first time that they've heard it because there isn't good case law on it. This gives them guidelines because this took a Supreme Court case, a United States Supreme Court case, and put it in the context that it acts and extended it to people still on probation or parole.

Larry  35:59  
Okay, so The people in Louisiana they're listening, which I know we have some that are that are under these horrendous restrictions. What would they do? Okay, so we've got, we've got a body of case law developing on this area of social media. And so how do I get my state? How do I get this case before by this issue before by state supreme court? I've working for $8 and 25 cents an hour. And I can barely pay all the costs that they that they've leveled on me. And I can't even I can't do any of this stuff. I can't go out and hire a lawyer. What do I do to get this before by Supreme Court or the hell's the ACLU? Well, wow, these people, Louisiana, and all these other states going to get this up to their state Supreme Court to apply packing him to what what did they do?

Ashley  36:44  
So there's a couple of avenues and that's a good question on where the ACLU is, I actually believe the ACLU across the US is working on stuff on these complete internet bounds. So this might be a worthy challenge depending on the state but an absence of that what this is going to take is somebody to be violated, or have these conditions imposed on them. And they're going to have to stay the course, they're going to have to follow it through, they're going to have to even if they do a post a motion or the public, if they have a public defender and the public defender gets involved and file something with, with the state court, whatever the level is superior district, whatever you call it in that jurisdiction, and then they're going to have to follow it up the chain. And it's going to have to be challenged, but it has to be challenged on people that are actually under these impositions, which, interestingly enough on this particular case, by the time this actually made it up to the Illinois Supreme Court, this particular defendant had served his sentence, and normally that would have rendered it moot, however, as an exception to the mootness doctrine, doctrine, meaning that even though it doesn't technically apply to him anymore, it applies to others and so the court gives an analysis and says, This is is a question we have to decide. And that may be the case of the other states do. Well, and and I noted that in the highlights, which will be available in the show notes. So starting on page eight, they go into the, to the mootness. doctrine. And I always tell people, there are exceptions to the mootness. doctrine. And, and, and there, there are exceptions for for the public interest is significant. And this is an issue that needs some authoritative determination for future enforcement. And there's a likelihood that this will continue to repetition. There's a standards where you could so so moving on to a particular individual, that's a state tactic. They said, Well, if I could just get rid of this person who knows about let him off supervision early probably know, but that doesn't, in all cases, that doesn't enter into controversy because there are exceptions where you can keep the litigation alive, but that's what this this happened. They said too bad this is this is the exception to that we're going to keep right ahead and analyze it.

Larry  38:56  
But but there's a lot of highlights in the in the the case we're going to make available. And I always call people's attention when there's a constitutional challenge. So on page seven, and in principles review, I've highlighted all statutes are presumed constitutional. Of course, we have the party challenging the Constitution of the statute has a burden of clearly establishing its validity. This court misconstrued the statute, so to uphold its constitutional if reasonably possible, so they start trying to uphold the statute, because that's their job is is to afford great deference to the will of the people. But they couldn't get there from here. They looked at this and they could not get there because it's just such an overbearing, overbroad infringement on people's fundamental liberty.

Andy  39:48  
How much do you think the the impact of the internet then weighs into this? I can't think of really another example. Is there you know like, isn't Illinois that has They can't go to public parks and things like that. I mean, if this is a this is this is a freedom of expression challenge if I'm not mistaken, right? And doesn't this then apply to that too? Or could it tangentially

Ashley  40:15  
maybe, but I would think we would have a harder time getting there. And the reason is, is because what this court is relying on is the Supreme Court has characterized social media websites as being the modern public square, and that there are a lot of legitimate purposes for people being on social media, exchanging ideas, learning about stuff furthering, furthering their rehabilitation, furthering their education, getting jobs. And all of those are way beyond any immoral or illegal purposes that they're claiming a social media The only reason a person would use social media so they could be immoral or illegal. And that's not the case. So I'm not sure you can make that same argument with regards to parks because there's some other Things that they're considering on those. However, they do actually compare this case and use as a basis a juvenile case in which a juvenile was not allowed to travel to a particular geographic region. So with that being said it might be able to be stretched to apply to parks and things like that, if there is no legitimate purpose,

Larry  41:21  
and that is about the case I was going to bring up JW was with they relied heavily on the case of JW. And when they talk about when they talk about the framework of JW. The considerations in determining whether the conditions are valid. They've got an I've got these highlight on page 17 of the decision, whether a condition or probation impinging upon costumes rights is really reasonable way to the goals of probation and dust narrowly drawn and not overbroad, include one the nature of the offense to the rehabilitation defender. Remember probation is supposed to be rehabilitated three, whether the condition probation recently released to the rehabilitate purpose of the legislation for whether the value of to the public and imposing the condition of probation manifestly outweighs the impairment on the probation, probation was constitutional rights and five, whether there are any alternative means that are less restrict subversive to the probations constitutional rights book still comport with the purposes of conferring the benefit of probation. That's your framework in Illinois. If they throw conditions of probation on you, you can cite to JW and say, these are what the courts go to look at these five if I challenge your condition.

Ashley  42:41  
And that's exactly what they will. And I also made notes on that page to Larry because this to me doesn't just apply to social media, it also within those paragraphs, applies to searches and travel, the geographical restrictions, things like that, that essentially what this is telling probation and parole. You Better having narrowly tailored probation or parole condition that will only only be served by imposing this condition.

Larry  43:10  
So, so so people who are in the state of Illinois, you've got a fresh position that affirms that probation does have limitations of what they do. And what could have happened here since the the rest live in Illinois. This could be I give some benefit of the doubt this is a long stretch, but it could be that probation dudes, they couldn't do this stuff. And it could be well, by golly, we'll just put it in the statutory code, and you will do it because that's what we want you to do. It could be that these these, this condition that was imposed by statute was something that there could have been hesitancy by the probation authorities and they could have said, Hey, our hands are tied. And also, conversely, they could have gone to the legislature and said, We want you to do this. I don't know but either thing is a possibility. Either way.

Ashley  44:01  
That is true. And that should put states on notices that are not even under that statutory deference, that if you just have the behavioral contract or you're just imposing probation conditions, and they already been statutory, you're going to have a tougher road.

Larry  44:15  
It's that's, that's what I say, like New Mexico. You don't get any difference of a statute, because we don't have a statute. The only thing you're going to get some difference on the statute is the statute of the GPS for people serving parole, because we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna shoot your damn parole down all together anyway, because it's unconstitutional. But, but but in terms of this behavioral contract and all the slop that you're imposing on people, you don't get the difference of a statute because there is no statute.

Unknown Speaker  44:44  
does this apply to other sales directly?

Ashley  44:47  
I think it could I again, it's persuasive case law, but it's like what we're talking about. There is a wave of cases coming down stating that. Enough is enough. You've gone too far. You cannot Have these blanket bounds just because you want to, without any reasonable, reasonable relation to what the person is actually convicted of. And it even if they're violated on probation or parole, and it involves the internet, this case actually goes so far as to say that that may not even be enough either, that you really better have a good reason for having these kinds of impositions on somebody and there could be examples or people that this could actually apply to, but it's going to have to be very, very narrow and states need to take pause when they're both drafting or imposing these conditions.

Larry  45:39  
And again, our side needs to be there holding up these cases we need to be in the in the arena, saying hey, will, you know, Indiana legislature, you can try that but it got shot down and Illinois is the Supreme Court and the same analytical framework. They're gonna we're gonna round packing him here. We're going to have a similar outcome here, don't adopt this kind of stuff. But when these kind of things are going through, there's nobody there on our side. I mean, the law enforcement apparatus is represented by every entity that you can imagine, but our people are nowhere to be found.

Andy  46:15  
So actually, to go back to that, if someone were to want to move to another state, they just walk into their probation officers a building and say, here, here's the the decision out of Illinois, you guys should comply, smack them over the forehead.

Ashley  46:30  
Sure, and then when they call us from jail, or they take it back to their state in handcuffs, then we can say how maybe that might not have been the best tactic. So, again, it's going to take some challenges to it. It's going to take civil rights organizations, it's going to take challenges from our soul, it's going to take challenges from the public defender's offices, and I urge them to actually get involved at the local levels and start taking these cases up the chain because it will never change unless we get that kind of buy in.

Andy  47:04  
And there's a little bit of dialogue going on in chat about this of you know, in many states where they do have just outright bans on internet usage you know, your crime could have been 100% in person zero percent online, possibly even like with an adult person, but they still have you know, like there's the there's a woman in Virginia that is a on the registry because she didn't report her kid doing something naughty. Well, so she could potentially I don't know if she does or not, but you know, she were Illinois. Maybe she has an internet ban because she didn't report her kid doing the nasty with another kid. What about things not applying directly to your case?

Ashley  47:41  
That's what this case is about in this particular set of facts. In this Illinois case. The person was actually convicted of having sex with his sister. There was nothing to show that he talked to her over the Internet that they were in chat rooms that they were on social media or anything at best at best all the could argue was that he viewed porn at some point on the internet. That's it. That is not enough of a rational, related, narrowly tailored condition. And yes, most states have a blanket ban New Mexico has a blanket ban, it doesn't matter what you were convicted of. It doesn't matter if the internet wasn't even invented when you were convicted. It's essentially there is a blanket social media and that includes sites like offer up and let go that aren't even any closely related to anything having to do with a sex offense. So it's these blanket bands need to be challenged. And I mean, we're about to challenge them here in New Mexico. So I'm hoping that other states get involved, especially with opinions like this coming down, because this gives a definite framework for doing that. It gives a solid basis and argument as to why you cannot have these conditions. Larry, can we take a teeny little detour about the individual that that brought this case? Did they have any? Are they something like a known entity to us as the advocates for changing these laws? Or is it just a lone wolf kind of person?

Unknown Speaker  49:09  
I don't know who brought the case.

Andy  49:10  
So meaning no. And so then that leads me down a path of how do we collectively, you know, the way that you people? How do we get known to more of our people? You know, there's eight 900,000 of us on the registry. And it seems like we would do better to fight these battles as a collective instead of a lone wolf.

Larry  49:32  
Well, it if we had the resources if if someone had reached out to me for an article, and ultimately would have made its way to me if someone had reached out to me said I want to start this challenge, I would have had no resources to offer up to them. I don't I don't have a staff attorney in Illinois. I don't have any money to throw around. So we run into the same problem we run into continuously. I don't even know if this was done through through the public defender if this was a privately retained, I don't know how this case was brought.

Andy  50:00  
Hmm, all right. I mean, that's not that's not my day. I'm not trying to dig in. I'm just like, I'm, you know

Larry  50:06  
what the answer. The question is, if we had gobs of money, we would staff up around the country at least have regional staff attorneys, but but we would have a legal operation each state with people who were on salary who evaluated prioritize litigation, and we would be on top of this, the truth of the matter is we don't have any paid staff. We we don't have we don't have the ability to to to do all these challenges. So we were usually looking at from the outside, and we're installing amicus briefs we occasionally have the resources to do because brief, but New Mexico is the only state that has its own attorney but but right but no other state does. The national organization does.

Andy  50:47  
So bottom line is we would everyone to donate $1 and then we would have money to move mountains.

Larry  50:52  
Well, I think we're gonna need more than $1 because of the of the of the enormity of the problem, but if they're radically if all I ever thought that's

Andy  50:58  
what I meant. That's what I meant everyone to Need $1 but

Larry  51:01  
including what but the thing is, yeah, but but but the financial barriers are enormous because these cases drag on for years and those who've listened to the podcast for a long time. They hear me say this all the time, they devour a lot of resources and the state has hitless resources and most individuals don't have those type of resources. So we end up with without adequate, we can't match what they so they can they can do more violations than we could ever challenge.

Andy  51:35  
Alright, then, Ashley, how long can you stick around with us?

Ashley  51:39  
Have a few more minutes. Larry, do you have more questions for me?

Larry  51:43  
So Well, I think I covered the highlights but you can certainly jump in here with any more advice to people because this is such a significant thing when you're trying to work in 2019. You're trying to live a life where the internet is such a relevant I mean, I'm It's only the rare employer that you can actually go in and fill out a paper application anymore. I mean, you need to be on email you need to be you just you just can't work in this day and age without. So this is this is a significant issue and social media, it's kind of like the the organizations were at one time you couldn't be a member of the Kiwanis Club if you were women, female. They say social service. Organizations, you remember the Kiwanis, the Rotarian all these clubs? Well, a lot of businesses done and those those organizations were forced to open their doors because it just wasn't at a society that prides itself on equal equality. It wasn't fair to exclude women from the opportunity to network but it's not fair if we expect a defender to reintegrate into society and pay taxes and be a level by citizen. How is it that you can sit and say well, we won't give them access today, they'll leverage modern society and they will violate them and complain that they don't read a great until modern society. How does that work?

Ashley  53:06  
That's exactly what this that they're doing. And it's. So it's interesting because the state was asked how to explain the total ban on access to social media, which I'm sure you highlighted this, this phrase in this opinion, the state was asked to explain how the total ban on access to social media would contribute to a defendants rehabilitation. The court actually says, After some security, circuitous, non responsive references to protection of the public, the answer was that the band would remove the temptation to reinvent the answer might carry some weight, where a defendant is one who would use social media to orchestrate enough formally committed crimes. But the thing is that like what you're saying, You can't even get onto Google Maps without internet or going through what would presumably even be social media to try and find destination to your job. even get to the probation office for the first time. I mean, there's just a whole host of ways that you need this. And they're overlooking all of that and going, Oh, all anybody is ever doing on social media or the internet is trolling for causing more crimes, trolling for kids and, and committing new crimes. And I think it's also interesting that the court pointed out that there were other conditions that could achieve this, namely, don't commit more crimes that would cover all these. So they don't have to have these blanket bounds. They don't have to have these probation conditions. They're just putting them in there.

Larry  54:34  
They can have a condition that you don't have any relationship with anybody who either is or represented to be below a certain age, in that that could be narrowly tailored to those who've had, who's had solicitation type of fans if you've solicited a 15 year old or 14 year old or whatever. I think it would be fair to say on social media, you cannot have any friends who are minors other than your bylaws. juggle children and maybe some extended family. But to say that you can't use the tool that everybody uses to promote family, I mean, people, everything is done on social media now. I'm old and antiquated. I don't but everybody has has that. That's how they share their family photos. That's how they schedule reunions. I mean, that's how everything's announced on social media.

Ashley  55:20  
Yes, to keep track of people's birthdays, it's how, how I find jobs. I mean, there's, like, there's no way around it. And that's essentially what the courts are saying you may be 100 years ago, and we didn't envision social media, you could say, okay, you can't be on something that would allow you to have contact with minors, but that's not what they're saying. And they've taken it way too far. And I'm glad to see opinions like this saying, you've gone way too far.

Andy  55:48  
I have a reference to an article. I'll leave it in the show notes from vice calm, and this is from December of 2018, where the reporter tried to quit the various big internet companies and one of them One of the sections and there's how to quit Google and says Google was without a doubt the hardest company to purge from my life. And you know, just as you were just describing, almost everything that you do, even to the point of, you'll try to hit a web page, and they'll be one of those little goofy captures. Most of those are provided by Google. If you purge Google from your life, you can't log into some large percentage of sites on the internet. And then you just described about using maps. google maps by far kills everybody in their mapping when iPhone when Apple released their mapping software. It was atrocious at how bad it was. And it has since improved, but it's just it's, it's just like, you know, I don't want to use foregone conclusion, but to me, it's just a foregone conclusion that they just have the best piece of technology to do that those specific jobs, and it would be ridiculously hard to get those things out of your life.

Ashley  56:49  
Yes, exactly. And that's what this is, too is it's ridiculously hard to avoid all social media, all internet access all computer things. Like I was telling Larry today New Mexico is a provision in the behavioral contract that you're not allowed to have shredders. It doesn't say for employment purposes or anything else. So what happens if you have your bills and you want to shred up or you get a bogus credit card in the mail Hey sign here and you have $10,000 of credit, you want to chop it up? And somehow we should risk identity fraud just

Andy  57:21  
don't have a shredder. I was just thinking about you know, so somebody has has has survived the registry and they're more fluent in they go out and buy a Tesla, which is like, you know, internet connected car. Does your po St. No, you can't have that car.

Ashley  57:33  
That's interesting, because most of the cars are actually now internet connected. Not even just Tesla's but I mean, most of the cars anything after 2017 has internet connectivity, or seamlessly integrates with your apple or your Android or all things because it reads the little chips and stuff in it, too.

Andy  57:53  
Yes, absolutely. Crazy. All right. Well, this is ultimately good news.

Larry  57:58  
Well, as I say, it's great now Thank you for spending your Saturday afternoon part of it with us. And welcome to have you. You're welcome. We would welcome you anytime.

Andy  58:09  
Yep, I agree.

Ashley  58:11  
Thank you guys, and keep up the good work and enjoy the rest of the podcast. Thank you very much. Enjoy your animals. Thank you. Bye.

Andy  58:20  
But Larry, we should we should move over to this courthouse news article where it says judge waits into debate over conditions at San Francisco jails of these people, these new people, I've got to figure out a way to word that. So it's the new people expression. They haven't had like sunlight in years. And it was something that said, this is just stupid to me that somebody would said that I'm trying to remember. He said something like, hey, there's artificial light that meets the standards. It's like really, you went that far to try and say that artificial light is a good substitute for natural light.

Larry  58:57  
Well, I didn't want to spend a lot of time on here. But I'll put this in for a sinister reason. I like to try to think of myself as somewhat fair, and this is what's supposed to be an enlightened and progressive San Francisco, where they would be conscientious about human rights and about and here we are having this federal lawsuit and discussion about whether or not a people need some natural light, whether it were locked up for months or possibly years on him without any. And as I just thought it was kind of neat, but it said the US District Judge, Sally Kim appeared skeptical of the claim of this claim. So so it doesn't sound like that the judge is predict or sympathetic. It's just articles accurate. But why why do you again, Joe our pile, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County. Hey took pride in treating the people. The people less less well than a treated the animals the he had the President's taking care of the animals and he had the the dog the dogs ventilated and cooled off and he had the humans out and sweltering heat. Why is it that we have to even have this discussion?

Andy  1:00:18  
Is it is it fair to even like make the claim like potentially the dog didn't commit a quote unquote Crime The dog is just existing and this is just where we have you know, we are forced to place them in lack of having housing for them, it would be you know, call it foster kids so to speak. So you take someone that has committed some kind of crime, robbery, jaywalking, you know, check kiting, whatever, and they have committed a crime a willfully committed a crime.

Larry  1:00:44  
Well, if you assume that everybody who's in a county jail has committed a crime, if you jettison the presumption of innocence, then I guess you could make that quantum leap. But just because of persons in jail does not mean that committed a crime it means that they've been accused of a crime but county jails are primarily holding facilities. True. So this is what we're talking about here. We're talking about the San Francisco County Jail I do believe

Andy  1:01:08  
will references that Joe has said in the past that our troops live in hot tents in Iraq. So and those those people didn't break the law. So should our inmates be more privileged than our troops in Iraq?

Larry  1:01:19  
Well, my job my debt, my debt comparison. The difference the difference for that, is that that when when people volunteer for deployment they're free to go I mean, I've made for all practical reasons you're the military on shoot but you can go inside I want to be a soldier I want to be discharged and it's pretty easy to get out of military these days. And and the the, your provided recreation, you provided access to your loved ones, you provided internet access, you provided a whole lot of stuff that you're not provided in jail, in jail or piles Tent City, so it's not a valid comparison and Joel part or pile is actually actually I think he's gonna try to make a comeback for sure if next year is six and so he's gonna run

Andy  1:02:06  
is that because the senate bill keeps failing?

Larry  1:02:09  
I don't know I think it's probably important season sort of five whatnot. But but but he he cost the citizens millions of dollars at millions of dollars in liability. he defied federal judge's orders. He was founded contempt of court he was convicted of contempt of court, he received a presidential pardon. So they didn't have to serve the sentence that was imposed on him. I mean, he's above the law. And and I mean, I hope hope will joking because I don't see any comparison whatsoever between a person who is voluntarily agreed that they will be deployed, to be in conditions that are less than ideal that a person who is presumed innocent and taken into custody and is deprived of all the basic dignity of life I see. That is no comparison whatsoever.

Andy  1:02:56  
I completely agree. I was just referencing what was actually said by the man So spectacular human being Yeah. Anywho All right, well then let's move over to KU er or which is an NPR station in Utah. Hey, this is a second thing from utak. Right. Prison saved my life. You taught inmates a new horizons with college coursework. Can you imagine the notion, Larry, that if you give people something while they're down? Yes, they've made a mistake. Can you imagine that if you gave them training opportunities that when they get out they could lead lead more enrich lives and potentially reduce recidivism? Can you imagine?

Larry  1:03:36  
I put this in for that very reason that we've got a relatively conservative state. And we've got there being on the cutting edge of recognizing that education is the key. And and it says read. Senator Mike Lee or representative the way of things Senator Mike Lee from Utah Yes, a senior senator Mike Lee. is looking to break back to Pell grants that were the Federal Way to pick the job. There was a prohibition since the 90s. And he's looking at lifting that prohibition on on on Pell Grants and federal aid to two people been convicted. So I think that's a that's a great thing. So utilize as is actually, they've actually led the way not only on this, but in terms of homelessness in Salt Lake City,

Unknown Speaker  1:04:27  
reducing or increasing

Larry  1:04:28  
of reducing it. They have not stamped out homelessness, but they've come closer than any city of their size, in terms of what they've done to aid and rehabilitate people that are homeless and get them off the streets. So so so although we talked to gave them a little bit of grief earlier about that crazy statute, that doesn't mean everything that they're doing a Utah's crazy,

Andy  1:04:50  
certainly that there are they say that there's only a handful of states that have some kind of course program and so it's a It's three lefties and a righty. So it's New York, California, Washington and Illinois have college coursework.

Larry  1:05:06  
But where's the righty of that?

Andy  1:05:08  
Isn't Illinois more of a red state then than a lefty?

Larry  1:05:12  
I don't think so. Oh, I thought they were called on the wrong Oh, they're too much a liberal do gooders in Illinois

Unknown Speaker  1:05:19  
bastards. Why is it only the liberals that allow there to be courseware in while you're down?

Larry  1:05:25  
Well that's why I put this in here for this is not the liberals This is a very conservative state that part part? Yes,

Andy  1:05:29  
I was just Okay, so so now we have one out of five.

Larry  1:05:32  
Yeah, well, it But see, the thing is, conservatives don't get vilified for doing it. If you look at if you look at what President Obama tried to do, in terms of ameliorating the end, he successfully reduced the federal prison population, not the state because the president is a controlled state, but he successfully brought down dramatically the federal prison population, particularly the second term, but he got vilified for turning loose a tidal wave of crime. You don't get the same vilification when it's right when it's conservatives doing it, because they're being fiscally responsible, and they're doing the right thing. And you don't get the vilification from the left saying that they're turning loose a tidal wave of crime. So Mike Leach get away with this because he's a conservative. And that works the other way on liberal causes. Only only Bill Clinton could have signed the welfare five year limitation. That ended welfare as we know it. If there had been a Republican in the presidency at that time, they would have been so vilified, because they were they would have been throwing all these millions of people under under the bus, which is what we did do. But but since it was a democratic president, the democrats stood down and didn't criticize Clinton for signing welfare reform. They privately told him he was wrong. But so conservatives get away with being able to do criminal justice reform because they don't get vilified. They're not they're never accused of sacrificing public safety.

Andy  1:07:03  
And you've mentioned something like that before that it's it takes a lefty to do a righty thing and a righty to do a lefty thing,

Larry  1:07:09  
right? That is correct. That is correct. If you look at a few and you can take an edit it works out well in foreign countries. If you look at if you look at the path to peace in Israel, to the extent that we have peace between the Palestinians, it it it is the real conservative Prime Ministers that are able to pull it off. You might not be able to buy Camp David. We had we had Prime Minister bacon, who was the most right wing of all who did the peace agreement with Egypt because he could hit no one would ever have challenged begun on security. And then less than a generation later when you did when you had the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians white boards where they turned the territories over the Palestinians. That was Mr. Security. Former Prime Minister begun I'm about to begin. ravine that was Robbie, nobody would ever challenge Rabin's commitment to Israeli security because he was Mr. Security. But you let a left wing come in and do that. He brought trash. I mean, he got criticized when he pulled when he pulled the Israelis back beyond the there was a there was a security buffer with what they had invaded Lebanon and 82. And in 99, I think I think Brock withdrew from the from the securities of that they had been occupying for all those years. And he took enormous criticism because he was compromising Israeli security because he didn't have those credentials. So it is just not a not an American phenomena is that way in other countries as well.

Andy  1:08:44  
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom Message 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 glass 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. How about this new york times article? It says how laws against child sexual abuse imagery can make it harder to detect. Did you get Were you able to get through the New York Times paywall to read that one?

Larry  1:09:43  
I was not. So I was gonna let you lead the charge on this.

Andy  1:09:46  
This one is. So if if you and I are both working in forensics, you know, we have our big propeller heads on and we are trying to figure out how we could make computer code that would figure out if and image where have a child and some sort of nudity kind of thing? We would have to transfer those images back and forth. Oh, wait, nope, we've just committed a crime. So it seems the way that the articles describing it that there are, I'm not saying that we should let people transmit images across but if without being able to do things like I guess in a in a laboratory to try and figure out if we could make algorithms to detect it, that these things make it harder for anybody to try and come up with any sort of methods to to detect the child pornography. It goes through a whole lot of technical stuff. I did pull it up. It's in the document, but I

Larry  1:10:37  
say it below here. Yeah,

Andy  1:10:38  
I got it kind of late in the game for you though. I was just, I was like, hey, well, we could make some sort of like, you know, we'll call it like, the the District of Columbia will make an enclave where this stuff would be legal to do a wait, you can't transfer it there because you've transferred it out. There's no way inside of our legal framework for anyone to do any kind of research to figure out what could be done. One thing that has been done is once you have an image, you can make a signature of it so that the next time you see it, you can easily detect it. And I'm sure you don't want to go into the details of how we would get there. But then there's millions of new images that show up every year. And they have no way of detecting those without a human flagging them as being naughty images.

Larry  1:11:23  
Well, I the only thing I get out of this as you have no privacy on anything online, well, that's for sure. There's, there's, there's a there's powers greater than I can even begin to comprehend monitoring the images and probably the text of everything you're saying that everything everything you're communicating online, but would that be fair to say?

Andy  1:11:42  
That is pretty close and just you know, harking back to a couple segments ago, we were talking about the ubiquity of all the big internet companies, the Amazons, the Googles, they are watching everything you do. There's no worry in my mind of having one of these new a word, the echo things from Amazon in your house because you're carrying Around a cell phone that is beaconing out your GPS location. It's got a microphone and a camera on it. Like you're leaking so much digital data, it's kind of irrelevant. As far as your privacy goes, I think you can do things to mitigate it, but you're kind of stuck.

Larry  1:12:15  
So I'm leaking right now. So I truly am spewing radio radiation as I move around,

Andy  1:12:20  
you are definitely spewing some, some radio, radio waves for sure. And so it But back to something else you said about, we have no privacy online. When you go sign up for a Google account and you and get Ashley and you have the legal expertise to read it. They send you a 7000 word, user acceptance agreement that no one ever reads. And you've turned over all of your privacy information their places like Facebook, when you post an image, they own the picture. You don't own that picture anymore, which is I don't know you wouldn't really expect that. That's what happens. And in some cases, not that this is related to our subject at all, but they will take that image and they will We'll roll it into a marketing message. And it could be a picture of you and a friend of you sitting on the couch and you're having a cup of coffee or tea or something. And now you end up on a T advertisement because you gave them a photo of you and your friend drinking, just for your own personal use. And they turn that into something that's not at all what you intended. But you signed that user acceptance agreements, saying that you let them use all of your stuff for their purposes.

Larry  1:13:25  
But you also refuse to side that by golly,

Andy  1:13:28  
yeah, you could totally refuse to use Facebook and Google and Amazon and all those things. It just, they are they have their tentacles so deeply entrenched into our lives. It's very hard, especially Google.

Larry  1:13:41  
I couldn't think of how I would get through the day. Yeah, without using Google or some or some search engine. It's hard. It's very hard. Like, I don't know how you would do it. This society has evolved to the point where what would you do when you need you can't look I mean, Imagine trying to look up something in a phone book what When's the last time you seen a phone book anywhere

Andy  1:14:03  
they still deliver on my house and they get very angry that I have to throw away this is I live in a smaller town it's not that big but it's a pain stop

Larry  1:14:11  
Well, it doesn't have residential is listings I just by guarantee it has it they here 2013 they quit caring residential publication but they still do a business so but but but try try finding one try finding An Encyclopedia Britannica when they when did they put publishing those? Try doing research without Google try try fine. I mean, you just could you could. So all of our all of our legal research, we do it online nowadays. If you went to the law library, they still last time I was over there, they still have the printed the printed original reporters. But if you were actually pull one off the shelf that the dust complex. I mean, that would be such a storm of dust that you probably wouldn't be able to breathe for the next several days because no one does anything that way anymore.

Andy  1:14:58  
So to work back to the article They they talk about a patchwork of different laws that have been created that make navigating anybody trying to figure out how to curb this solve this detected prosecuted, etc. It's incredibly hard and then throw in which I don't think they covered in the article, the technology side of being able to circumvent whatever technology they do have to detect it. I don't know how how they're supposed to solve this problem without having humans involved, which requires transferring images for someone to flag them and say that these things are inappropriate for someone else to then make some sort of arbiter decision that that's the bad pictures.

Larry  1:15:38  
What it looks like you have you have you have one what arm if I glancing at the article, what one entity working against the other, and laws that undermine the ability for you to actually do some things that might be helpful by getting the gist of the article? Yeah, yeah, that that impedes the investigation because of the restrictions.

Andy  1:16:00  
But I would still I would always end up struggling back and I will avoid being graphic as much as I can. If you go to the beach, there is a lot of flesh showing. And I don't know how you could detect that ratio of flesh versus something that is not appropriate flesh. Like I don't know how you can get there. Because you're talking about a very subtle a very fine line between something that is a child wearing a bikini versus something far more sinister than that.

Larry  1:16:31  
Well, I don't have the answer.

Andy  1:16:33  
Yeah, I certainly don't either. I just don't know how you get there. Because, you know, even the Supreme Court said, You know, I don't know how to detect what is porn, but I would know it when I see it. Okay, well, maybe that is by your moral compass, but not by somebody else's moral compass. You know, people join nudist colonies, perhaps some super conservative person would be a no, no, no, we can't do any of that. And then, you know, you have that whole varying spectrum which I thought was part of the United States was to be free to do those things and This crashes right into that.

Larry  1:17:02  
Well by golly we just ought to make it legal and quit even try, but could be a way to

Andy  1:17:06  
go. Hey, lets US News and World Report says a letter show psychologist broke rules with iOS sex predator. This married woman apparently wanted to get into, like an emotional like a verbal relationship with one of her patients seems a little bit sketchy to me.

Larry  1:17:25  
It looks like it got but young man it looks like that he was alleged to have committed an act in her presence, correct? Yes,

Andy  1:17:31  
he he may have self stimulated as a way to put it colloquially. To put it politely.

Larry  1:17:38  
Yes, he appears to have have done that. And she lost a $98,000 a year job because of her her boundary issues. Now. What I took from the article is probably the opposite of what most people take from the article. Everybody's always crying for prosecution, prosecution, prosecution, prosecution well Clearly, prosecution isn't the answer to everything. This is probably an adequate resolution, you've got a person who was supposed to be in a professional environment, administering treatment. And the temptation was beyond what was able to be with him her result of tolerance, the temptation was too great. And she went beyond professional boundaries. That doesn't translate magically to a crime.

Andy  1:18:31  
Right. You call it moral and ethical problems, but not a crime, right?

Larry  1:18:35  
Yeah, it shouldn't. It shouldn't translate to a crime. And what you do with a person like that is you we talked about the teacher in Connecticut, I believe it was that had the relationship with a 19 year old that stalked her for the whole winter break until he managed to hook up whether and because even though he was over the age of consent that Connecticut could prosecute her. That prosecution was way over the top as a nation. execution here with what's the habit part of it, just simply she got fired. But would you have this type of thing? You can't have it because it, it undermines the therapeutic to the extent that andis therapy was actually going to have any positive outcome. You don't have a true therapeutic relationship with there's when there's when when people fall in love. You don't have institutional security, when you have someone who is trading secrets, and breaking the rules. So you have a breakdown of all sorts of things when someone when someone falls for for a person that's in their care. So the right thing to do is to remove her, and that's what they've done. They've removed her from her $98,000 job.

Andy  1:19:45  
But on top of that, though, like her her husband works in a similar capacity, and he recently left a state job and now the couple's Cherokee home is listed for sale. And I don't want anyone to know my whereabouts for obvious reasons. The woman's said

Larry  1:20:01  
I didn't catch that part

Andy  1:20:02  
with the very end it's at the last two paragraphs.

Larry  1:20:05  
So I did a Larry

Andy  1:20:06  
read and read it all the way. That's what you get, man

Larry  1:20:09  
that's what you want anyway yeah so

Andy  1:20:14  
so so don't get involved in a relationship with a patient and then you don't lose your hundred thousand dollar your job so that the the short version of the story

Larry  1:20:21  
well, unless there's any prosecution but so far this article doesn't allude to any that that there's going to be any prosecution I hope there isn't.

Andy  1:20:31  
You decided to put in a novel article from the appeal and then there's two or three articles right? That are the same thing after it. What does death by incarceration look like in Pennsylvania, these elderly disabled men house in a state prison? This we have people in prison that committed crimes quarter century half century ago and they're still in prison. Maybe that's justified, but these guys are like hobbling around on canes and wheelchairs. And why and there's even one picture of a guy that has the I don't know what it's called the nose breather thing, the oxygen tubes go into his nose. These guys are looking really rough with their orthopedic beds. And so for this crazy that they're still in prison, but

Larry  1:21:15  
that's the reason why I put it in here. It's it's an article I'm going to use if my favorite representative on the Republican side in New Mexico brings back his three strikes law that he sold fun to fond of bringing every session is and I have the conversation Am I say well, you claim your fiscal conservatives. Right? Right. Okay. What we know is that as people age, their ability to engage in criminality declines, so although you may be angry at them when they pick up the third felony at age 26, by the time they get older, they have aged out of that criminal behavior. So you're willing, as a fiscal conservative, I got to straight your way going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars because you're angry that they picked up three felonies by the time they were 27. And you want to pay for their medical care, and they're going to become increasingly expensive for us to take care of because even though we don't provide a true hospital setting, geriatric inmates cost us more money because we have to provide medications at some level. We have to provide medical care at some level above an average inmate. We have all these devices that cost money. And we have we have extra security so we end up having to help when you when you when you when you have a large number like Pennsylvania does they have they have a couple presence at all, but all they do is help elderly patients. Those prisons are very expensive compared to the to the regular president, because of all these extra costs. Did I say as a conservative, how can you justify doing this? Then he says what It's easy. It's the law, you know, it's a way you know, it's they had their chance and they, they should they, they, they, they, they don't deserve to continue to get chance after chance. I say okay, well let's give them life without parole. I'll go along with your debt. If you will give a safety valve at some point they can get out of life without parole works automatic they don't have to go to because in Pennsylvania, they have to go through this parole board process. And this article alludes to since governor Milton shap was an office back in the 70s that all the combined administration since him have only granted a fraction of the relief that he granted during his governorship. So I saw tell by conservative representative if if you'll provide a safety valve or will just automatically release these people, when they get a certain age and certain medical ailments that they'll just default out of prison and they'll go into it to a supervised setting. Oh, no, we can't do that. I said what that I can't support your bill. But But I don't understand how how the citizens are so willing to This level of resources on someone who poses so little threat to society by all accounts

Andy  1:24:08  
Yep. And we have a similar article over at the Philadelphia Inquirer why 1200 people who never took a life are condemned to die in Pennsylvania prisons. Ah, so these are I guess this would be like three strikes stuff where you get convicted of three drug crimes because that the some of these people

Larry  1:24:28  
well, I think this one is the that I clicked on all my Arkansas I think this one's where people committed second degree murder but it's the same as they can get the same. Same same sentence.

Andy  1:24:44  
I did jump ahead of you my accident. Oh, yeah. You go to go to the Arkansas on a life sentence in Arkansas and a lifetime of pain. So okay,

Larry  1:24:52  
that one was as legally totally not legally met the totally blind person who was like 72 years old and all all, all of the requests for clemency have fallen on deaf ears, deaf ears.

Andy  1:25:06  
She was an abused wife and even had left at one point and then through pleadings of her husband, she returns and he's beating the crap out of her raping her, etc. And she's beating him with the pistol and the pistol goes off and she gets. She's been in prison for quite some time then.

Larry  1:25:22  
But apparently the parole board in Arkansas is recommended. But but but the governor has not granted. The so. I don't understand. I don't either. The current the current governor could because he's not seeking any higher office as far as I know, he's done the pinnacle of his career. He's He's served in Congress, and then he saw a governor of Arkansas and he's getting up there and years. I don't think he has any other aspirations so so but well, he Well, we'll see.

Andy  1:25:56  
Yeah, and if you want a bunch of statistics and data and stuff There's a final article that the Philadelphia Philadelphia Inquirer has that I was mentioning just a second ago. There's a bunch of data charts and how many people are spending, how many years in prison and so forth and how much money it costs etc.

Larry  1:26:12  
So was that was the one where they were they the total commutations, while the governor's after shop was only a fraction of what he did. So the hope is that the systems they have in place will will, will make an individual determination to let these people out, never going to happen.

Andy  1:26:30  
I think we should ever close the show out with a article from reason magazine, that's West Virginia inmates will be charged by the minute to read ebooks on tablets. I can't think of a better way to generate revenue out of a prison for having someone read Moby Dick five times and charge them for every minute that they're reading that book five times.

Larry  1:26:50  
Well, this is your capitalism. Now you are a staunch capitalist. This is companies like GTL and various businesses who have Vesta, global telecast GTL These are companies who have who have offered to buy the equipment for the prisons to buy the tablets and to make it they make these books available. And I know that you wouldn't want to stand in the way of free enterprise working now would you

Andy  1:27:17  
say to me this is unconscionable that we would do this the like the thing that we would want more people in the country to do, but particularly be I don't want to focus it that way. But like everyone in the world should read more, not less. And to punish people for wanting to read a book. This way, just seems unconscionable to me and then for the state to sign on and make it a revenue share model where the Pennsylvania also pays a private contractor 4 million know that's digitize the mail. There was something in there where it says that they will get a kickback from it. I forgot how much it said, Oh, that says In addition, the 5% Commission will go towards a fund of each presentation made, excuse me, so that's part of their part of the revenue stream that they they're going to donate 5% of That money to go to inmate welfare projects.

Larry  1:28:04  
Well, now, people out there and a work in pay in taxes. And a lot of them can't even afford tablets for their kids and you are wanting to confiscate the wealth to the taxpayers to give it to these people who break the law, who had a choice about what they did. And you want to fry provide them free access. I mean, what it what comes next from your side? What what is it that with you people, you just want to hand out money like it? There's no tomorrow?

Andy  1:28:33  
Well, I am like Mr. Digital, like, Don't send me you know, don't send me paper for anything. I do find that reading a book is it's far more convenient to read a paperback book than it is to do it on a tablet generally. Obviously, for size purposes, it's way better because you could have 1000 books on a tablet and it takes up the same amount of space. But so here you have libraries that are probably shutting down from lack of use because everything's moved to the internet. What do you do with all these books? I know donate them to prisons. Nope, not doing that we want to have tablets in the prison so that we can charge per minute to read a frickin book that's 100 years old in the comment in the public domain. This is terrible. This terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible.

Larry  1:29:14  
Well, I'm just disappointed that you don't see the virtues of capitalism at work here.

Andy  1:29:17  
I don't I don't see that this is beneficial to anybody.

Larry  1:29:22  
It is beneficial to the companies who are who have been innovative, who put their hard earned money invested it. jp and GTL these people have these companies have invested their resources and being creative I thought that's what America was all about.

Andy  1:29:38  
Do you think then you can get whatever publication you want? Do you think that you can get I don't want to go down the penthouse letters Avenue but could you get just something of a controversial book like even I think they, they maybe they they push back on having a book like Twilight, that whole series in there or maybe the Harry Potter Harry Potter books. So they've provided to you And you're paying per minute, should they then not be able to censor what you read?

Larry  1:30:04  
I hadn't thought of that. But on a serious note, I do have the same concern you do. I think that we, if we were thinking rationally, we would want people reading books. And we would want people to do it in a way that's most collections of books are our security hazards that can be used for a number of things, including bonfires. And it would seem to me that they would be at our interest as a society to have better managed presence to have people using technology, it would seem like it'd be better to have people using emails because they can be monitored. Yes. And they can be scanned more easily. It seems like to me that we would be embracing the digital age and be moving away from as much print as we possibly could just for for a number of reasons. I I don't understand why that they want to build a barrier of charging people, but I can tell you, what has That when you want to set up a program like this, you're talking about upfront cost. And trying to figure out how to fund the up front cost. It's kind of how we got into having the largest privatized prison, the largest percentage of any states correctional beds are under private control or here in this state. And the reason how it happened is that we decided that it was easier rather than using our precious capital outlay to build prisons, that don't have a lot of support for when you when you go out and build capital facilities. For most anything else, whether it be senior citizens or schools or whether it be hospital, whether it be do bridge, whatever it is library, you have a ribbon cutting, and there's a lot of community support and pride. You don't have that same level of support for building prisons. So we brought in the private prison operators here and we guaranteed them a level of occupancy and a level of per diem that they could count on to in exchange for their capital outlay that we have a perverse system here, we're that it's in our interest not to have our prison population decline beyond a certain point, because we are on the hook for paying these companies who put their capital outlay, who use their private capital. And that's what happened in this case, the outfitting all the presence of Virginia, West Virginia was going to cost a whole bunch of money. And that capital outlay had to come from somewhere. And this company raised their hand said, Oh, well, we've got the perfect solution. You don't have to invest any money at all, we will provide it the equipment, and all we want is a small car. That's all we want. And that's how it happened.

Andy  1:32:39  
Isn't this also you know, someone that gets store goods, you know, I was fortunate to have be provided for while I was gone, so this wouldn't necessarily impact me so maybe I get one or two less soups or more depending on how much I wanted to read. But the people that don't make store call that don't like are they provided some kind of waiver but they they keep going in the hole deeper and deeper. That That seems troubling to me.

Larry  1:33:03  
It's not it's not clear in this article it right if this is a if it's a privilege, that if you have the bunny, I mean, again, it stands to reason and a capitalist society, I mean, people get all torqued out of shape, it would stand to reason that to the extent that prisons allow variations, whether you're allowed to spend 65 bucks a week, or 150 bucks a week or whatever they allow, it stands to reason that those who have the 65 or 85 or $95, a week maximum that they can spend, they're going to have more than a person who has nothing on their books, but it stands to reason that a person who has the ability to pay this fee, they're going to have more access than a mate who doesn't have anything at all his books. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out unless they make an image of provision. And there again, who's going to pay for that?

Andy  1:33:55  
further discriminatory to me.

Unknown Speaker  1:33:57  
First it is

Andy  1:33:58  
it feels further like kicking the person that has fewer resources to saddle them with more challenges.

Larry  1:34:04  
Well, what's the solution to it? What do we do we do we do? What do we do it? We can't tax anybody

Andy  1:34:10  
know, we certainly can't tax anybody. I wanted to bring up one of the things that I was thinking about. I don't know if you ever spent any time in the hole. But you're only allowed to have so many books checked out from the library to begin with. So when you're in the hole, they'll they'll, you know, they'll ride around with a little cart. And you can then pick three books from whatever's left from all the other people's grubby paws picking books, and then people start swapping books around. And you know, because if you're in the hole, you can read for 16 hours a day, you can knock out some books, you know, you could knock out two or three books in a day. Now, what are you supposed to do for the rest of the week? Are you going to start tossing tablets around?

Unknown Speaker  1:34:46  
hadn't thought of that either.

Andy  1:34:48  
Yeah. So there you go. Do you have anything else that you would like to cover this evening?

Larry  1:34:55  
Well, I'd like to know about when you were in Vegas. Tell me about your shower experience.

Andy  1:35:01  
Hold on a I didn't go to Vegas so I have no experience and I'm trying to reference something that you may have told me about a shower experience and I don't recall a shower experience.

Larry  1:35:10  
Do I have all times I had I had a shower experience in Vegas.

Unknown Speaker  1:35:14  
Tell me about your shower experience. I

Larry  1:35:16  
didn't have a shower head. Head. I had my shower head with head with me. And I that Planet Hollywood they have largely every room I've ever stated I'm assuming it's all throughout the hotel they have. They have stand up showers they also have tubs but they don't do the tubs are not equipped with a shower so you have this nice deep tub you can take a bath it but they don't have anything overhead. So but it stand up they have these tile floors and so on. I'm taking so I do what every traveler I note as I I took off their piece of crap shower head but all mine because there's there's there's a linear water flow through. So I saw juice it up and how All the waterfall I needed but after about two two and a half three minutes the the base of the of the of the shower stall had filled with water and so therefore I was not able to use my shower head because my shower heads thanks so much water through there was backing out but when I put their little puny shower head on, no water was a there was no backup. So I was in a conundrum I couldn't call maintenance and say come fix my drain. Because if you were to turn on the shower and let it run for 10 minutes with terrible puny head that had a little stream there was no backup at all. So that's a the gods certifiable. And then I'd have to say Well, look, let me see show you what happens when I put my shower

Andy  1:36:40  
to remember the story, and I apologize.

Larry  1:36:43  
So so so I had my beautiful shower head and I could not use it. I had to use their little puny thing. Because, of course, I could have requested a change of rooms but that's always a lot of work after you've set up all the crap I carry with me. Yeah, no doubt. I bet I'm stuck in this room. I have to use their low flow shower. And I had my beautiful shower head, but it was it was not used to me.

Andy  1:37:07  
Larry, Captain showerhead strikes again. That's all I gotta say.

Larry  1:37:11  
Well, I'm telling you, if you just ask the TSA, everybody carries a shower head with them.

Andy  1:37:17  
I think someone sent me a picture of an X ray of somebody going through TSA and there were like 75 showerheads in their suitcase. That wasn't you was it?

Larry  1:37:25  
No, but it's a normal thing to do.

Andy  1:37:27  
normal, normal, normal. That's a very relative term.

Larry  1:37:31  
I can't think of any reason why I personally wouldn't carry a shower head with them.

Andy  1:37:35  
Well, feel free to email or post comments on the episode and tell me what you think about if you travel with a shower head or not. And where would people do that? at the website? Right, Larry?

Larry  1:37:49  
Yeah, registry matters.co.

Andy  1:37:51  
And maybe maybe they would like to phone in their opinion about using a showerhead and they could leave some voicemail. Where would they do for that? Well,

Larry  1:37:59  
that's Gonna be a different story, if they if they want to phone in because nobody does that anymore. But if if anybody out there were to feel inspired, you would call 7472 to 74477.

Andy  1:38:15  
And if they wanted to send that email message telling me their story, their life story behind to please don't send me a life story about your showerhead usage. Where would they do that?

Larry  1:38:25  
registry matters cast@gmail.com.

Andy  1:38:29  
And of course, if you would actually like to tell me your life story, there is a place that you could you could contribute in a way that we would be compelled to allow you to tell your life story, where would

Larry  1:38:39  
they do that? Oh, that would be that would be@patreon.com and you can search for or just hit slash registry matters and you will be able to do gross or net or any amount of $1 or more per month. Or we don't have any we don't have any takers on the gross or the net. Yeah,

Andy  1:39:00  
I think that's true though. I think some of our people are so far down on the totem pole as far as income goes, they might be doing gross or net. which is unfortunate. I don't mean to say that in any sort of like, condescending tone. It's just sad,

Larry  1:39:12  
but, but the very nice patrons that we have thank you again, as we always appreciate very much.

Andy  1:39:20  
Hey, this is uh, it's the week this is the last episode before Thanksgiving. Correct.

Larry  1:39:24  
That would be will be recording. My guessing two days after Thanksgiving next week.

Andy  1:39:30  
Very good. So let us wish everyone a happy turkey day gobble gobble. And I hope everyone has Safe travels and see your family and friends and everything is well for you.

Larry  1:39:39  
So well and thank you for having me again.

Andy  1:39:42  
I appreciate it very much. And please extend my best wishes to Ashley when you see her again. And with that, Larry, have a great night and I will talk to you soon. Good night. Bye.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai