FYP Education

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from f y p studios East and West and a little bit more West and then Ultra West. Transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 331 of registry matters. Good evening, Larry and Chance. Larry, how are you?

Larry: I’m doing okay. Now, who is the, Moore West? Is it me or the special guest? Oh, no. You’re just west. And then I think,
Andy: Isn’t Colorado like Denver? Isn’t it like almost straight north of you?
Larry: I was gonna say, I think we’re almost about the same meridian. Okay. And then obviously all the way West.
Andy: I mean, almost in the Ocean West, almost in the Pacific Ocean West. That would be the more West.

[00:56] Chance: Right.

[00:59] Andy: Please do us the biggest of favors and please head over. And if if you can’t do anything, write a review, five star review. You could then go to YouTube, like, subscribe, thumbs up, notify, whatever those things are. And, so, yeah. Then, Larry, what are we doing tonight?

[01:19] Larry: Well, we have a special guest from Colorado. Super secret. I don’t know how he’ll be introduced, but right now, a super secret guest from Colorado.

[01:30] Andy: I introduced him to like, to the, to the Discord servers. Like, Hey, I got a super secret guest. And everyone’s chiming and saying, Oh, oh, oh, who is it? I just did it as a way to, like, entice people to show up.

[01:44] Larry: Well, he will be discussing legislation and possibly asking me a few questions about the process. And Chance is with us with a California court order. He has a case to discuss. I have no idea what it’s about. And we have a comment from one of our supporters. And, I think you had a question for me before we got to the segment.

[02:07] Andy: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. I do. Well, I mean, yeah, I hadn’t oh, I guess I see. So, if you don’t mind though, Larry, before we do get started, I have a question for you. And, here.

[02:20] Unnamed Senator: How much longer are you planning to stay?

[02:23] Louis DeJoy: A long time. Get used to me.

[02:27] Andy: Why are we playing that?

[02:29] Larry: There’s a certain irony on that. That’s postmaster Louis DeJoy. And when the Biden administration took over, that was a question posed to him. They mistakenly thought he was a political appointee and that he was a holdover. And he is not. He’s appointed by the postal board of governors, which is a bipartisan commission. So, they tried to run him out. They stacked the board of governors with Biden’s appointees and they still couldn’t run him out. So, the irony is he’s back. So, I’m gonna try to stay as long as he stays. So that’s my goal. As long as he stays, I’m staying.

[03:06] Andy: I see. Okay then. Chance, how are you tonight? I’m good. I’m good. Thanks for asking. Of course. Anything inspiring to share before we go on?

[03:20] Chance: Oh, no. Just, you know, just happy to be here. And, you know, 331. Unbelievable.

[03:28] Andy: Yep. 331. Larry, let’s go over to this question. I think I just forwarded this to you like an hour ago, didn’t I? Isn’t this the one that I just sent over a couple hours ago? Yes. More just a comment. But yes, it was just sent to me and I thought it was

[03:43] Larry: so touching that I wanted to play it. Plus, it’s got content that we’ll be getting to when this decision comes from the Missouri Supreme Colette.

[03:51] Andy: Well, fabulous. It says, dear Andy and dear Larry, and then I’ll throw in dear chance, a little note to say how much your podcast is appreciated. As an active listener while under investigation for two years, but missed out while I was locked up from September 2022 to, 2024. So he’s just locked up for about two years, on a three year sentence. Needless to say, I’m catching up after two years. So he’s got, like, a hundred episodes to listen to. I also wanted to send an article about something going on in here in Missouri that affects me and many others. Forgive me if, you’ve already covered this. There is a challenge to Missouri’s PFR GPS lifetime monitoring that was argued before the Missouri Supreme Court on December fourth of twenty twenty four. Missouri’s stand alone program of lifetime post sentence monitoring is not based on risk, but only on whatever statute you plead guilty to. In my case, a class e felony, which is the lowest in Missouri, during an undercover law enforcement sting operation. I was uninformed about this collateral consequence by my attorney at the time, so I currently have retained counsel to help me with this matter while we await the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. I’ve attached to this email a link to the news article and also the appellate’s brief in the case as argued by two very experienced appellate attorneys. Also, if you need any sort of remote administrative assistance, transcription work, or anything, please let me know. I’m very experienced administer with fifteen years of professional career behind me at the age of 44 years old. I currently maintain my own little business as proofreader to court reporters here in Saint Louis, Missouri and other clients around the country while they work toward being a what? What is a scopist?

[05:32] Larry: What is a scopist? Larry? I’m gonna have to let the brilliant attorney. I have no idea.

[05:39] Chance: I have no idea what the world is. I

[05:44] Andy: know what a stenographer is, but what is a scopist? Okay. I have no idea. Someone please help me out with this word because I have no idea what a scopist is. Being a scopist. Okay. Anyhoo. Alright. Keep up the amazing work. Wow. Scopist. I’m gonna go ahead, Larry. I would imagine that based on the word that it’s you look at what the stenographers did,

[06:04] Larry: under the scope. But, so to speak. That’s what I’m guessing. But I’ve never heard that before, to my recollection.

[06:11] Chance: Maybe it’s just an, proofreader.

[06:14] Andy: It’s, Ascopis is a comprehensive, multi disciplinary, and trusted source of scholarly literature data and analytics. It offers powerful search tools, author profiles, metrics, and AI powered features to enhance research and scholarship. That’s what Google says. What? Never heard this.

[06:32] Larry: Well, I am glad to know about this case because I didn’t haven’t heard about it. But I’ll say this. Based on my reading of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Grady, I believe that was the name of it out in North Carolina, I believe that the Supreme Court’s made it clear in that, I think it was all non unanimous. I think it was, Burke. But anyway, that was a strong decision. That when they attach that device to a person, it is searching and seizing. And therefore, to our Constitution, search and seizure requires an individualized determination. So therefore, since he says that this is a categorical application, I believe that if the Missouri Supreme Court doesn’t find this to be unconstitutional, this is subject matter and right to go to U. S. Supreme Court.

[07:26] Andy: I mean, how similar would you say this is to, God, what was it like, the mid-2000s where the Supreme Court heard a case where a police would just, like, plop a GPS on your car and now they know everywhere you’ve gone. How similar would this be to them? Would be very similar because that’s what the state of Missouri is doing. And just to categorically

[07:46] Larry: say that you lose your constitutional right to privacy for the remainder of your life based on something you did once, that would be like having a perpetual search warrant because you goofed up once in your life. And even after you paid your debt and leaving or left prison, then we would say, Well, this is a perpetual warrant. I mean, chance would that stand?

[08:09] Chance: Nah. I don’t think so. It doesn’t sound right. Just doesn’t sound right.

[08:13] Andy: So this is gonna be pretty awesome. And then he also did say he has the lowest, class C felony in Missouri.

[08:19] Larry: But I don’t think it would withstand scrutiny on, you know, any categorical application. Folks, listen carefully. If you want to put GPS monitoring on people, you can get away with it. You’ve got to individually assess them under some objective process, and you’ve got to do it on a regular basis. But you can’t just categorically apply a device that tracks and monitors them and charge them money for it for the rest of their life. You just can’t do that.

[08:50] Andy: Sorry. Well, Larry, I wrote up something that I wanted to ask you some questions about advocacy work. Do you, do you mind if we cover this for a little bit of a, of a personal kind of Q and A, but also more like at a 30,000 foot level? Well, as long as you’re not giving out my phone number because I, unlike you, I answer my phone when it rings. I’m never answering my phone. None of none of that is ever any good. Alright. Well, let’s zoom out all the way. So we’re, like, in an airplane 30,000 feet. We’re trying to in my mind, the objective of this whole PFR advocacy movement is to eliminate the disabilities and restraints that people have in having to live under the rules of the registry. Is that, is that fair? Like, the ultimate goal? Would you agree?

[09:36] Larry: Well, I think I would agree, but it may not be a realistic goal. But if you’re in a fantasy world, sure, it works.

[09:44] Andy: So I just wanted to set the stage of, like, if we could have everything, that’s what we would be trying to do. But as you said, fantasy level, then if we moved zoomed in to where we’re closer to reality, there are dozens and dozens of things that keep people from living their best lives in relation to the registry. And I’m thinking of things like where people have the living and the work restrictions and having your whole life doxed on the Internet. And to me, those are the biggest challenges for people to live remotely close to normal

[10:12] Larry: lives. Well, I can’t disagree with that very much because that is exactly what’s happening. You’ve got a tremendous amount of disabilities and restraints in various parts of the country. Your very private information that was not a part of the conviction, unlike what it was when Smith versus Doe was decided. There’s a lot of stuff that you’re providing that’s being made public that’s not a part of the conviction. And you have so many things that you’re not allowed to do with your children to live a normal life. So, it’s a tremendous challenge for people who are on the registry. Absolutely.

[10:52] Andy: And then are you familiar with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs?

[10:56] Larry: Come again.

[10:58] Andy: Okay. I figured. So it’s if you can picture the food pyramid that we all saw when we were in growing up in school and whatnot. And so it’s a pyramid looking thing that covers the very basic needs of a person. They are psychological needs, safety needs, love, belonging needs, esteem needs, and self actualization needs. It’s all this, like, psychology gobbledygook. But until a person has these things, if we think about the ones where, like, safety needs, if you’re living in a tent under a bridge, you’re probably concerned about your stuff and your general well-being. And it’s hard for them to move on to anything greater of importance in their lives. Would you does that sound reasonable?

[11:37] Larry: Well, it does sound reasonable, but is this a psychology show?

[11:43] Andy: No, it is definitely not. But anyway, stick with me. So, I do have a point of what I’m trying to get. The point is, is that there are quite a few people within the sphere of people impacted by the registry that have needs deeply within that pyramid and they can’t do anything. And if they’re living in a tent, they’re probably not able to do a lot of advocacy work. Whereas a person that has, I don’t know, 50 rental properties, they’re not really worried much about their next meal. They might not have the time to do advocacy work. They do have other resources available to them.

[12:15] Larry: Oh, I think I can see where you’re going with that. I’ve preached a similar sermon many times.

[12:21] Andy: I’ve heard some of those. And so, I think there are two things that are required for advocacy work, and that is time and or money.

[12:33] Larry: Very ironic. I just had that conversation with one of our supporters here in the state, And I don’t think he has quite 50 rental properties, but he does have a number of rental properties. And that’s what his profession is. And he has a conviction that forces him to be listed publicly. And he has teenagers, which this is somewhat disruptive to their life. And as they’ve grown from being small, youngsters to teenagers, he’s become more concerned about the impact that it has on them. I suggested to him that you really are a very busy person with your properties and you’re very busy with your, with your life and your children and trying to be a part. And so you really don’t have a lot of time to hang out to stay capital. But what you do have, a lot of people don’t have is money. And we have people who do have the time if they’re compensated for it. Kind of like you get compensated for your properties. If you can provide money in lieu of time, that’s what you can do. So, there are a lot of people out there, they’re on the registry. There are some who are living in the woods and selling pencils, but there are a lot of people who are doing quite well and they don’t feel like that it’s their obligation to contribute because they’re making it okay. And that I have not been able to sort out in my head.

[13:56] Andy: And when you say okay, like, they don’t get harassed. They don’t have fire bombs and bricks going in their windows. They go to work, they function, etcetera.

[14:05] Larry: Well, like this guy, he’s doing okay, so to speak. They cannot really cause him to get fired because he owns the company. Right. And they can’t, they can’t really, in a short housing market, convince his tenants to move out. Although they have tried. Really? Yes. There’s been some sneaky phone calls that have come to his tenants saying, did you know that this person’s on the PFR list that you’re running from? But they really can’t disrupt him in the way that a person can be disrupted that’s renting an apartment that they can cause problems for. He owns a lavish, place. And they really can’t do him as much harm, but it’s no fun for what he’s going through. But he has options that the people that are living day to day don’t have that are barely making it. And I told him, keep giving money and even up your giving because we’re in the legislative session right now and we need support because we’re trying to do the best we can to keep things from going downhill.

[15:05] Andy: And we do have so many people in so many places around the country that do have enough intelligence that they could get more directly involved. And I would like if you would give some, maybe even, like, off the beaten pathways that people could get directly and or indirectly involved. Now keep in mind that some people have very issues that are challenges. Some people, that might get exposed. So they would want to keep a degree or two of separation away. And maybe they’re overly shy and going to talk to a powerful legislator might be off the off the table for them. And with all that taken into account, can you help me expand on the idea of what people could do, whether that’s phone, email? Could they stalk the representative’s house? You you do some things that I think are available to we people. And where this all comes from, though, Larry, is that I’m annoyed that someone presented something that we should be the ones doing all the work because, well, whatever the reasons, but we should be the ones doing it. The person used the term trial balloon, And it drove me crazy because you and I aren’t lawyers to do a trial of anything.

[16:15] Larry: There are so many things that can do in states where you have either a formal organization or an informal group that’s working. Like, for example, my capacity to do things right now is limited by just not enough time in the day. I can’t watch the legislative website as thoroughly as someone who’s hibernating and afraid that they’ll be outed. But watching it is not enough. Watching it is the first step. But I need you when you find a bill, I need you to to identify that bill. I need you to look through the 14 or 18 or 22 pages of that bill and tell me why we don’t like it succinctly. And I need you to help me write the updates that go out to the supporters because the supporters like to know that we’re on top of these things. So you could watch the website. You could draft bullet points for me. You could draft arguments for me that tell tells me that you understand why the bill is not good. And I think that’s gonna come in a later segment from from our guest. And you can also go meet with your lawmakers. They will not know you are a PFR. We do not scan people when they come in the capital to say is there there’s a PFR checker. So in the in some circumstances, you could actually make contact with the people who represent you, particularly of if they are of the more conservative nature, because they’re the ones who tend to push the hardest for crack down on the registry to make it tougher for registrants. You can communicate. There’s so many things you can do. You can give money to the organization. You can give money to a candidate. And you’ll basically find that a small state like this, you’ll have access. If you contribute time or money to their campaign, you will find that you are a very popular individual and you’ll find yourself with their cell phone numbers.

[18:03] Andy: So, there’s a lot you could do. Could you, could you, when you, when you say that, are you talking that you open up and write a 5 figure number out of your checkbook? I don’t understand that question. Me or you? Oh, Well, no. If you donate money to their campaign, are you saying that you donate 10 or $50,000? Are you saying $500?

[18:23] Larry: You can donate in a state like this a $500 even a $250 campaign contribution for a state legislator is impressive. And then as far as time Amazing. You’ll find yourself amazingly, in their good graces if you make a $300 donation, particularly if they’re having to face an election where it’s competitive.

[18:42] Andy: Okay. And then if you donated time, if you show up and help take out the garbage, does that, does that grant you an audience?

[18:49] Larry: Probably not the garbage, but you can be making phone bank calls, which are not ever gonna be answered. But you can still make phone banking, at one of your volunteer occupations. You can do literature drops. We go house to house. I don’t do it much anymore, but we go house to house and put literature that people largely throw in the garbage. But you hope that 10% of those get looked at and we’re doing name recognition. We’re doing association with that. We know that you’re not gonna vote for someone because you’ve got, a door hanging on your door. We’ve got some stuff to know that. But we also have sense enough notes. You have so much going on your mind that you may forget the name of the person when you’re sitting in there in the polls for those down ballot races. And you might say, Who? Well, if I’ve just put a door hanger on your door the day before election, you say, yes, that’s my state representative. That’s my state senator. I’m gonna vote for that person or that someone I want to be my state rep.

[19:46] Andy: I gotcha. Well, I think I’m done with my soapbox. Is there any chance, would you like to add anything to this little diatribe on mine? Oh, no. No, no. I think you guys have done a very comprehensive job here. You did my very best, which kind of makes a decent segue into moving over to what I teased earlier today of our super secret special guest from Colorado.

[20:08] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.

[21:01] Andy: Can can I get, like, a a hello, Brian? Just to make sure you’re here. I’m here. Okay. Very good. I was like, oh my god. You sounded like you were on your on a phone for a moment. But alright. So Brian is joining us, and he’s a dedicated advocate for criminal justice reform, focusing on the harmful impacts of the PFR registry and the needs for legislative change. As a PFR himself, Brian is working to build a statewide movement that empowers registrants and their loved ones to fight for fair, evidence based laws. Evidence based. You and your silly terms. His work centers on mobilizing effective in and then individuals engaging lawmakers and challenging misinformation to push for meaningful reform, whether through legislative advocacy, public education, or direct action. Brian is committed to ensuring that those on the registry have a voice, a community, and a path forward. Brian, you you just got put on the registry, like, three weeks ago. Right?

[21:56] Brian: Twenty six years

[21:57] Andy: ago. Twenty six. Twenty ‘6. Like, ’99? Did I do my math? Ninety nine. Yep. Nineteen ninety nine. Jesus. That’s a really freaking long time. Why are you here, sir? It’s lifetime. So Like It’ll be for the rest of my life. Everybody? Or did you do something? For me. Or okay. Alright. Well then, so why are you what are we going to talk about?

[22:24] Brian: So over the last couple of years, I’ve gotten into the habit of looking at the bills that have been presented to the legislation at the beginning of the sessions, which starts in January, and looking through them to see what sort of bills that are presented and especially something that might make sense to maybe potentially challenge or get in front of from a legislative perspective. I I do a lot of work in the, off legislative season interacting with, at least my state rep. And, she’s very, very, very involved with the the or the legislative side of things. And, you know, basically listening and, getting advice from her as well. In this this particular year, there was a house bill 25, dash one zero seven three, which is, basically wants to put mandatory minimum sentences for sex certain sexual offenses against children. This one really jumped out at me because, if this bill were to pass, the, conviction that I was sentenced under would no longer be a class four felony. It would move it to a class three felony. It would also move it from being a, some judicial discretion, whether there’s, a sentencing where you’re incarcerated and make that a mandatory minimum sentence, incarcerated. So, it it’d be a minimum of, like, ten years in prison, and the judge would have no option other than to sentence me to that. Obviously, we don’t wanna go backwards, so having this bill not pass would be better because at least state keeps the status quo.

[24:04] Andy: It’s funny that you’re kind of bitching about there being mandatory minimums where Georgia is just laid in with all kinds of mandatory minimums where, like, the minimum for just showing up in court for a PFR type offense is five years. You’re just doomed from that point.

[24:18] Brian: Yeah. When I when I was going through sentencing, the it was up to eight years. And in this particular one, that’s now would be a minimum of ten. Jesus. All right. And what is your issue with mandatory minimums? Why don’t they deter crimes? So there’s, some basic research. Basically, on first reading of this for me, it was like, that doesn’t make any sense. I mean, because, I don’t know about anybody else. But, you know, before I committed my crime, I didn’t look up and see what sentencing guidelines were and be like, oh, no. Class four, that’s totally fine with me. I’ll go ahead and commit that crime. But, oh, class three, I can’t do that. So on its face, didn’t make much sense. So I did some research based on that, and there’s a couple of items out there. National Research Council has a number of articles that say, you know, minimum deterrent effects, minimum sentencing doesn’t deter, the the crimes from happening. There’s a a a group some really good studies out there from Eric Luna, who apparently is a fairly well established law professor, found that minimums minimums don’t fail to reduce crime, and they actually sometimes have more severe offenses or encourage more severe offenses on top of that. So, you know, those are the types of things that, we would be against or, you know, try to prevent, but try to bring it around to fork focus more on law enforcement resources, early intervention, and evidence based prevention programs. That would be much more cost effective from, that type of a bill.

[25:56] Larry: Well, of course, having more people in prison leads to more expenses. Would that be correct? I would assume that if you have 5,000 in your state prison system and you go up to 7,500, it would cost more, right? Yep. So in Colorado, it costs about $40,000 per person that’s incarcerated.

[26:17] Brian: And in Colorado, we’re actually needing to trim around a billion dollars out of the state budget. And something like a bill like this is a perfect thing to push back against because when they go and look at how much it’s gonna add to the overall expense of the state, it it it’s it doesn’t align correctly. So the and and in addition to seeing more people incarcerated, they’re gonna be incarcerated for a longer period of time. It’s gonna ultimately cost taxpayers millions of dollars. And again, it’d be more cost effective to, fund schools and victim services and rehabilitation, rather than sticking people in, into prison, without really making people safe. The one that, a couple of other things that also came to light, with this group some groups that I’m working with. When you’re in prison in Colorado, and I don’t know what the other states are like, you’re still required to complete sex offense therapy. But the problem is is that they don’t staff the therapist well enough. So you potentially could complete your prison sentence, but are ineligible to be released because you weren’t able to complete your, your your sex ordered therapy while in prison. And just to put a little bit more icing on that cake, they’re still required to do maintenance polygraphs while they’re in prison, which to me is, like, you’re incarcerated. What what are you doing that you need to have a maintenance polygraph? And again, the state pays for that, so it doesn’t to me, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[27:53] Chance: Chance, do you have any questions? No. No. Not so far. I’m just listening

[27:57] Brian: intently. Alright. Well

[28:00] Larry: oh, go ahead. What sort of things can be done to help cut costs for individuals on the registry? Am I missing something I should be addressing?

[28:09] Brian: Well, by one of the things I mean, taking the power away from the judges, to have some judicial discretion really, to me, it it it kinda neuters the whole why why do you have a judge if there’s just mandatory minimums? Because every case is gonna be different. I mean, we all sit down and have conversations about, you know, what our offense was and things like that, and we’re all unique. So having a judge be able to, look at the case and be able to put in some, fair and thoughtful, judicial rulings on it make a lot more sense. And those are the things that I can think, at least I can think about.

[28:53] Larry: This is similar to the line of questioning that Justice Jackson faced during her hearing before the Senate for her confirmation to be on the US Supreme Court. Didn’t she kind of try to tailor some downward departures? And didn’t she get vilified for doing those downward departures?

[29:09] Brian: Yes. She did. Yeah. And that’s one of the areas that, when I was looking at this, it’s like, okay. Well, this sounds vaguely familiar. But again, I mean, the the judge is the person that’s sitting there looking at the case and and listening to the arguments. I I would hate to take away that type of, ability for the judge to be able to do that. So, but then there’s also some additional, you know, secondary victims. I mean, these never get talked about because they’re just everybody wants to be tough on crime. I mean, you get the the kids of folks, you know, they’re the parents who they’re in prison. You know, quite often, jobs are very difficult to come by, if you’ve done any sort of time. So, you know, poverty and then the the psychological trauma. I I have a friend of mine that, he effectively has PTSD from all the required therapy that he went through, and, you know, he struggles with it. So, but it just makes it really challenging for families to just even function. So trying to keep people from going to being incarcerated really, it just doesn’t it makes sense to keep them out as much as possible if they can be, working in the community. I mean, I benefited from being out in the community, and had I been incarcerated, I would’ve I would’ve spent ten years in prison without working and without making any money, and I wouldn’t be in the fortunate position that I am now.

[30:39] Larry: So so what’s the smarter approach?

[30:42] Brian: Well, so, and this is one of the areas that, when I build the the discussion or have the conversations with the representatives, you know, or definitely reinforce that, you know, this is not the most cost effective way to do things. So I look at it from a financial perspective. And then, you know, the reason why bills like this get put in is they’re effectively like a feel good law, where, when the individual in the, you know, know, the house or the senate wanna run again, they can hang their hat on, you know, I’m tough on crime, and here’s the things that I did. So they need some level of political cover to be able to say, okay. Yeah. That that bill might have been not quite correct, but here’s what we’re doing to help with the situation. So, you know, providing some rehabilitation programs, more victim services and prevention programs, those types of things would be more beneficial and give the politicians the the necessary cover to be able to either vote for doing those types of activities, or if they vote against them, then it’s like, well, no. They’re not they’re not for this type of thing or, you know, that it it it gets sticky in the election cycle, and that’s the reason why you have to sort of build the argument for them. So, and I mean, is there anything else that I should be doing, more to get organized?

[32:09] Larry: I guess you’re asking me that. Right? Yeah.

[32:13] Chance: Either chance or lyric. Yeah. I I do have something to say about all this. And it may not be in terms of organization, but it may be in terms of emphasis. And, you know, what politicians, legislators are sensitive to. And, you know, I think you’ve got it right. I mean, costly. You know, longer sentences increase the cost of the prison sense or the prison system, which is often funded by taxpayers. This money could potentially be better spent on prevention, education, rehab, things that you’ve already mentioned. But I also think that that’s tied into overcrowded prisons, as you’ve mentioned before, even the length of stay that you could have done. Okay? And also, one thing you didn’t mention, which is unintended consequences. Because in some cases, mandatory minimum sentences can lead to unintended consequences, such as incentivizing a defendant to go to trial rather than accepting plea deals, which can clog the court system and delay justice for all involved. So there’s a lot of things that could happen here, as a result of implementing these things. But, you know, as far as emphasizing those things, and maybe those things go into your organization as well. What do you think, Larry?

[33:27] Larry: Well, I have had extensive conversation with Brian and he’s doing an amazing amount of the right things, amazing number of things correctly. And he understands how to comport himself. And he’s doing right. Some of the arguments he’s making are not quite as powerful as he thinks they are. They should still be made, but they’re not quite as powerful as he believes them to be. Like, for example, I’m gonna take a detour back to what something was said about the study that shows that mandatory minimums don’t deter. I would agree with that. It probably does not do much in the way of deterrence. But one thing it does do, it makes sure that you’re not recidivating while you’re in there. And conservatives believe that we need to protect the community from recidivism. So, therefore, if you’ve done something really bad, even if it’s a chance of you doing it again, it’s only 5%. We can reduce that chance to zero for those eight or ten or twelve years that you’re mandatory locked up. So, so that’s, that’s one detour. But the other thing is when you argue cost, cost is somewhat important. The budget has to be balanced. Most states are required to have a balanced budget and they can’t borrow and print money the way the federal government can. But there are some things cost doesn’t matter, even though they should. It is unequivocally proven that it costs more money to put a person to death than it does to have them serve life in prison. But yet, states all over the forgiving Bible Belt, they put people to death. Alabama just juiced someone with nitrogen or whatever it is that they’re using, and Texas just executed someone. And if you look at the dates of the commission of these crimes, they span the period of twenty and thirty years because that’s how long the appeals take to be fully exhausted. And so that cost hundreds of thousands, if not over end of millions of dollars for each one of those death sentences. If someone can shoot me a copy of some legislation from the state of Texas, which is the number one executing state in the country, about why when they’ve last proposed to repeal the death penalty, I’d sure like to take a look at that. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to the average Texan about what it costs to put a person to death. I think that’s money well spent. That person took a life and they deserve to lose their own life and they don’t give a damn what it costs. So so sometimes there may be better arguments to augment with the thing about cost because it’s not as powerful as you would like to believe.

[36:12] Andy: Well, what can he do right now, though?

[36:15] Larry: Well, what he can do right now is to continue to build his relationships, which is what he’s doing. We talked about him getting to know the committee analyst for the typical committees, the bills that he’s going to be working for or against are going to be routed to, and he needs to provide them with solid, data a little bit more condensed than what he did with what he provided me because they don’t have a lot of time to read a a long, long submission. But if he can frame the the analyst, report that goes to the members, he can have a dramatic impact on the committee chair and possibly some members on the committee to ask the right questions, pose the right questions, and keep these bills from passing. He’s largely gonna be on defense, almost everything you’re doing. Brian, you’re largely not gonna be pushing for bills you’re trying to pass. You’re largely gonna be trying to modify or kill bills, as I see it. Right?

[37:21] Brian: Yeah. I hope to pivot to working on bills in the future. But, again, it’s a a learning process for me.

[37:31] Larry: Well, you are doing an amazingly good job, and I don’t know if I was at your stage. See, I have decades of being interested in politics and decades of hanging out watching it. A very close amount of observation. Twelve years serving a state Senator. I have so much more than average persons have, but if I were starting out from scratch, there’s nowhere, no way I would be where you are in terms of what you’re doing and how well you’re doing it. And, and I enjoy working with you and you’re one of the few that will tell you, contact me at any time if I can be helpful.

[38:11] Brian: Thanks.

[38:13] Andy: Yeah. And I mean, do you have any final messages? Oh, good. Good. No. No. Well, I didn’t want to interrupt. But

[38:20] Brian: I guess I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to pivot over to the advocacy side of things or I have a question.

[38:27] Andy: We are fine on time. Do you have any final messages?

[38:32] Brian: Well, from my perspective, one of the things that, I’ve been working on is basically building some coalitions here in the state. There’s a few smaller groups that, they’re really small. But, you know, from my perspective, unless these changes aren’t gonna happen unless we make them happen. So from my perspective, you know, rather than sitting around waiting for somebody to to do it, it’s like, well, I can do it. And if other people’s wanna get involved I mean, just this week, I’ve had two people reach two people in the state reach out to me and say, hey, what can I do to help? And, so, again, I mean, the the more of the more people that step forward to help, the the lighter the load, you know, many hands for make many hands make for, light work. And Right. Every every single one of us have, a good skill set. I just found out that, one of the guys that reached out to me, he actually has a personal, engagement through business, with our attorney general. So, you know, we have inroads that we can leverage from that perspective. And working to build those relationships with the politicians really helps put a face to the name. I’m I’m fortunate in the sense that my representative actually is aware of my offense only because I disclosed to her. But nobody else in the political spectrum knows. And whenever I go to an event, they are more than happy to engage with me to, do things for me. I have personal phone numbers of a number of these individuals. It’s it’s not all one way because I do show up for their campaigns, and I do contribute to their their campaigns. Here in Colorado, there’s a cap on what you can donate to an individual, at the state level, and I think it’s, like, $400. So, and I just maxed that out with, some of the representatives. So, but and they do remember you. It’s amazing. It’s like I show up to events, and they they come over and they shake my hand, and they greet me by my name. And, I mean so they know who I am, and all it takes is really reaching out and showing up. That’s the main thing.

[40:49] Andy: Larry, if we can go back, when we’re talking about the money side of it, there’s the federal OMB, which is the Office of Management and Budget, I think, that figures out the cost of things. Do states have something like that?

[41:02] Larry: I think that most do have a similar process here. There is a fiscal analysis done on legislation. If it has a direct appropriation, if it’s, if the legislation has within the body of the text, that there’s going to be an upfront appropriation and ongoing recurring expenses. But beyond that, the bills are available for the agencies. So the agencies themselves watch the legislation. So if, if there’s a bill, hypothetically, this mandatory minimum for the Department of Corrections, their people at the Department of Corrections have already under our system here, they would see the bill and they would submit their response. They would put the average cost of incarcerating an individual and they would, then you would bring in the administrative office of the courts and you would try to figure out how many people were convicted on an annual basis for this crime and what the input factors would be in terms of the new admissions to the prison system. And they would try to put some kind of number on that. And so you would see in the fiscal report, the Department of Corrections responded as follows. They say that based on the number of offenders who this is the high charge on their This will result in 194 new admissions each year cumulative over the next five years. This will have this impact on the department of corrections budget. So, that’s the way we do it here.

[42:38] Andy: I see. Well, Brian, you are amazing. I appreciate all that you do, and I appreciate our personal friendship immensely. I think you are a fabulous human being, and I enjoy talking to you almost every day these days, especially about all the tech GPT stuff coming down the pike, man. Wow. Yep. It is crazy. Well, thank you again, man. I appreciate it. Yep. I hope you have a fabulous night. Go get some dinner, man.

[43:01] Brian: I’ll wait. Yep.

[43:04] Andy: Well, back for another episode of California Corner, and we’re gonna dive into something that’s both important and, of course, it’s complicated in how to handle a DA’s objection when trying to terminate PFR registration. And we’ll be breaking it down through the lens of a key appellate case, and that is the People versus Mansoor, and that is from 2023. To help make a sense of it all, it is going to be our resident attorney, Chance Oberstein. And, so it’s good to have you as always.

[43:33] Chance: Alright. Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Do people need to get their, like, Black’s Law books and propeller hats on to follow in on this? Nah. Maybe maybe, you know, some aluminum foil to make a little cone at the top of their head, but that’s about it. Okay. I remember a movie called,

[43:49] Andy: Signs, where the kids were sitting in the closet, and they had little, tinfoil hats on. Well, let’s dive in. Do do you give me a brief summary of the Mansour case? Of course. In 02/2006,

[44:01] Chance: defendant pleaded guilty to a felony possession of penal code section six six four slash two eighty eight point two, which is an attempt to distribute harmful matter to a minor, which required lifetime registration as a sex offender under former section two ninety. Years later, the trial court granted his petition to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor under penal code section 17 b. After the legislature amended section two ninety to provide for a tiered system of registration, in terms of time periods in 2021, the defendant petitioned for relief from the lifetime registration requirements. He argued he is entitled to relief from the registration requirements because the reduction of his felony conviction to a misdemeanor places him in tier one under amended section two ninety, and he is therefore only subject to a ten year registration requirement. After the petition was summarily denied, he appealed. The the the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and held that section two ninety provides that an offender is a tier three offender subject to lifetime registration if the person was convicted of a felony violation of two eighty eight point two as defendant was here. Notwithstanding the fact that his later conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor further, the 2021 amendments to section two ninety do not reflect a legislative intent to create an exception to this rule.

[45:26] Andy: Well, then how does Mansoor’s case relate to our topic on this day?

[45:31] Chance: Yeah. This is where the shoe drops, but let’s let’s get into this a little bit. It relates in this way. A district attorney may cite the Mansour case to argue against a petition to terminate sex offender registration stating that reduction of a felony in a generic way to a misdemeanor does not relieve a defendant of their lifetime registration obligation. However, this argument can be countered depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

[45:58] Andy: So that seems really insightful. Let’s try to do something actually, we probably need a tinfoil hat if we’re gonna do a hypothetical situation. Suppose a petitioner, we’ll call him mister PFR, is reassigned to tier one because his felony, it was reduced to a misdemeanor under penal code section 17 b. And I know these things because I’ve read this California law, and I have it kinda memorized, like, the back of my hand. And then the district attorney objects to his petition for termination citing, well, Mansour. What would be an appropriate response?

[46:28] Chance: Okay. Well, the key point here is that the Mazur case is not directly applicable to mister PFR’s situation. And here’s how mister PFR should respond. Number one, PFR should have read that the manager case involved the person convicted of violating penal code section two eighty eight point two, which is a felony or misdemeanor, is a tier three offense requiring lifetime registration. In contrast, mister PFR’s conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor reassigning him to tier one, which only requires a ten year registration period. Therefore, Manzer addresses lifetime registration for tier three offenses, not a tier one offense. Two, the California Department of Justice reassigned mister PFR to tier one after his conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor. The district attorney’s objection contradicts this practice and undermines the tier registry law, which differentiates between low and high risk offenders. Three, sustaining the objection would undermine the purpose of the tier registry law. It aims to focus on high risk offenders and allow low risk offenders, like those assigned to tier one, to be removed from the registry after meeting certain criteria. Five, the district attorney’s stance should set a precedent affecting other registrants convicted of Wobbler offenses. It could set a precedent in that way, keeping them on tier three despite their eligibility for reassignment to a lower tier. And last but not least, the objection relies on penal codes actually relies on penal code section 17 e and cases like Mansour, which do not address the eligibility of tier one registrants to petition for termination. This misrepresentation could lead to unjust outcomes.

[48:13] Andy: That sounds like a pretty compelling argument. What would a judge consider when responding to such objections?

[48:20] Chance: Well, you know, this is what a judge should consider, the following. Like, number one, mister PFR is eligible to petition for termination as a tier one registrant. His conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor, and he met the ten year register registration requirement. That’s, I mean, that should be it. But, further, the disc attorney’s objection does not raise a valid ground under penal code section two ninety point five a two. It is based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and does not address the specific criteria for objecting to a petition, such as community safety concerns or failure to meet registration requirements. And I believe that in California law, especially in two ninety, the court shall grant the petition if the prosecutor doesn’t aver those things. And three, the DOJ has confirmed mister PFR’s reassignment to tier one. The judge should respect this administrative determination as the DOJ is responsible for these assignments. Granting the petition aligns with the intent of the tiered registry law, which aims to remove low risk offenders from the registry after meeting certain criteria.

[49:31] Andy: Any anything else? I appreciate you breaking that down. Is there anything else that you wanna dig into that before we go? No, I think that’s comprehensive. Larry might have a comment. I’d be happy to hear what he thinks. Definitely. Larry, chime in.

[49:46] Larry: Well, I was thinking about this. So, this is your famous wobblers that you talked about on previous episodes. And the person was reduced by that law and it wobbled down. But they couldn’t get off of the PFR list.

[50:06] Chance: Well, this, in this particular instance, this particular offense is unique. And that, and that is why it can’t, there can’t be any removal because if you wobble down, let’s just say you let’s let’s just say you have a PC three eleven point eleven, which is, CP. If it wobbles down from it it has a it’s a tier three felony offense, but if it wobbles down to a misdemeanor, the DOJ reassigns you to a tier, tier one, and since you’re tier one, if you’ve done the ten years, you’re eligible to petition. In this case, the 280.2 is a tier three, no matter whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony. And so, even if you wobble down to a misdemeanor, you’re still stuck on tier three.

[51:00] Larry: To me. What does Andy say? It’s like, clear as mud.

[51:04] Andy: Yes. I would say it’s clear as mud. Put on your aluminum cap. Put on your aluminum cap. This stuff can get messy.

[51:12] Chance: It’s you know, it’s funny because interestingly enough, the right outcome would be to to just honor the reduction because with that particular offense, and we’re talking about harmful matter, that, that if you, if you’re, if you get a misdemeanor out the gate, you don’t have to register at all. But if you get a felony and it’s later reduced, you’re stuck on tier three. It’s just an anomaly. And the legislature can clear this up very, very easily.

[51:49] Andy: Yeah. But would they?

[51:51] Chance: Well, not so far. And it’s so interesting in the Mansouri case because it’s not, this is like, you know, so bad because it’s not, he didn’t get, he didn’t get, you know, this is not a straight, 288.2. It’s an attempted 288.2. So it’s just wrong on so many levels. Just wrong.

[52:13] Andy: I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Larry. I’m sorry.

[52:15] Larry: That was going to be my question, sort of. When California designed this to your registry, though, they categorized the offenses in statute. How is it that the Department of Justice can usurp that legislative classification?

[52:36] Chance: Well, they, I don’t think they really do policy. And, you know, when they’re implementing it, sometimes it can just be downright, unintelligible. And, you know, it’s really for, I think this is really an issue that, these are little anomalies that the legislature can clear up, you know, and it just takes a little concentration. It takes a little bit more than, you know, the average bear does as a legislator to understand these things and to fix them. And they have the help of the sex management group. They’ve delegated to them to make recommendations, and I believe that this is on their menu.

[53:21] Larry: So, but depending on the exact language of how the California law reads, if it says you were convicted of it and it doesn’t say, and should that later be reduced? If it doesn’t say that, I could credibly argue that if the legislature had wanted these people to be tier one, they would have said that, that it could be changed. Because if the language says based on what they’re convicted Let me give you a simple I’m working on a case of a guy at the military, and we’re going to do a segment on this if he gives permission, but he was registered, never registered at all. He had a military encounter when he was in his early twenties with the 14 year old babysitter. He got court martialed in 1994 and he, he pled to the court martial in June of nineteen ninety five. Our registry, as it was originally passed, was applicable to anyone who was convicted on or after 07/01/1995. But June comes before July. But then in the year February, it was amended and it said, the language says specifically, or anyone who was a convicted owner after 07/01/1995 or, or and, I forget which reads, and or whatever, they were in prison on 07/01/1995 or on probation or parole. Well, he was, he’s, by the pure letter of the law, he was not in prison. He continued to work his job after the court martial until they sentenced him in August of nineteen ninety five. So, he was literally not in prison on 07/01/1995. And that’s what the law says. It doesn’t say in prison on 07/01/1995 or at any part thereafter. It says in prison or on probation or parole on 07/01/1995. Well, that is clearly not what they intended. They intended to scoop up anyone who was serving any portion of their sentence on or after 07/01/1995. But they did not artfully craft that legislation. Well, magically, I’m a textualist all of a sudden. Because I’m looking at the text and this is gonna keep my client from having to register or so I hope. Words are important. And if the legislature wanted these people to be wobbled down and gotten off the registry, They didn’t say that, did they? So you’ve got to be around the Yeah. It’s

[56:05] Chance: two different, two different sections. You know, when you’re when a wobbler when something gets wobbled down, you know, you’ve got to look at the statute very carefully. And you also have to abide by the policies of the DOJ. But this particular issue in Manzer wasn’t between Manzer and the DOJ, because the DOJ had him in tier three no matter what. He he went back to the, I believe, to the trial court and he said, look, this is what I should be, at. I should be at level one. And so since I should be at level one because I’m a misdemeanor, please take me off the registry. And there is a section in California law legislators put that in there for the very purpose of keeping judges from removing people from the registry if they wobble down based on the fact that now they were a misdemeanor. Judges can’t do it de novo. It’s it’s the jurisdiction of the DOJ. And this is where it gets really sticky because the DOJ, you know, is is trying to follow exactly what the legislature has laid out, and that’s what they build their policies on, and that’s how And they also make, they also interpret what they can do through, you know, case law. So, you know, it’s a sticky place. It’s a thorny area.

[57:24] Larry: So, well, it’s as clear as mudd. But we really appreciate

[57:29] Chance: you. Yeah. I’m glad I could clarify all this stuff for you.

[57:33] Andy: Well, I appreciate you clarifying. Yes. And and bringing these segments because boy, oh, boy, this stuff is really clear as mud. And it’s helpful to have somebody discuss it, break it down and make it easy, easier ish, Lee, for some of us here. My pleasure.

[57:50] Larry: I would suggest that if anyone is in a similar situation, just give your phone number and call Chance because I don’t understand it. If you don’t understand, we have no shot. How would they, how would they get a hold of you, Chance?

[58:06] Chance: They can call me on the number right there on the screen, (949) 365-5842, and I will get that and return their call. That’s to my office.

[58:16] Andy: And you answer your calls?

[58:18] Chance: I answer them sometimes, and sometimes when I’m in court, I’ve gotta call back.

[58:24] Andy: Yeah. Totally. I can imagine you say, Excuse me, Judge. I gotta take this. Oh, yeah. I gotta call my watch phone. I’ve gotta go. Well, gentlemen, we have reached the conclusion of another episode of Registry Matters. Do you have any parting words?

[58:42] Chance: Larry.

[58:43] Andy: I enjoyed being here. I look forward to seeing you in a couple weeks after we take a week off. Oh, we’re gonna take next week off? Cool. I like it. That works perfect. I will be out of town next week, and, yeah, next week would be a struggle. But I would make it. It would just be a struggle. Alright. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you too. I will see you in a couple of weeks like everyone else. Very good. Head over to registrymatters.co, and you can find show notes, and then head over to FYP Education where I have blog posts. And, you can also head over to fypeducation.org/shop to find all of the merch that we’re posting, t shirts with crazy slogans and pictures of Larry being doctor doom and gloom. And, head over, and you can leave voice mail at (747) 227-4477. Send an email to Registry Matters cast like that individual did that we covered tonight on the program. And then, of course, it is super huge and awesome if you become a patron for even as little as a dollar a month, and that’s at patreon.com/registrymatters. Gentlemen, I hope you have a fabulous rest of your weekend. And, oh, just give me your football picks because most people will hear this in the future after the game has been played, So we’ll be able to challenge whether you got it right or not. Who’s gonna win? Philly. Shock. Philly. Larry?

[60:02] Larry: Kansas City.

[60:04] Andy: Oh, a split. Oh. Alright then. Okay. Well, tell me in chat who you think’s gonna win. Maybe we should have a little poll or something. Oh, so, yeah, we got some splits. Perfect. Well, I hope everybody has a great weekend, and I will talk to y’all soon. Have a good night. Thanks much. Thank you.

[60:22] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.