FYP Education

[00:00] Intro: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, and we take no direction from anyone else. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible, and always remember FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios, East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 362 of registry matters on this Christmas Eve Eve Eve Eve. I don’t know how many I have to put in there. Christmas Eve and some extras. Right? How are you tonight? Doing awesome. It’s a balmy 60 degrees here today. 60? Oh my god. We had oh my god. It was cold last week. My god. It was cold. Bad cold. Like, hey, it’s gonna hit double digits. Woo hoo. Very cold. Yeah. It’s been in the sixties the last couple of days. So, we’re not we’re not burning any any energy here. So I bet guess the electric and gas company are not happy with us. Probably not. And then super patron Mike sends me a message. He’s like, you know, it’s gonna be 80 on Christmas day. And I’m like, you know what? If you wanna trade places, he’s like, you wanna come to Florida? I didn’t look, we weren’t talking about Florida. We were just talking about weather. That’s all. He wanted to go pull all kind of registry Florida shenanigans on me. I’m like, no. No. No. No. You can keep your registry.

[01:21] Larry: You know?

[01:22] Andy: I think I’d like to be on the Florida registry. Oh, that would be amazing. Well, you probably you wouldn’t be on the registry. You’d be on their website. Right?

[01:30] Larry: Correct. I think I’d like that.

[01:34] Andy: Remember to show your support by hitting like and subscribe. Hit that button thing and do a five star rating in your favorite podcast app. It makes us a difference for everybody here and, maybe some new people will show up and listen. Really, the thing that’s been helping us out the most lately is the the, Reddit posts that have been going out. And then, of course, with all of the patrons that are here listening tonight, they, they are here because, well, they are patrons, and we love them because they are patrons. We love everybody even though they’re not patrons, but we love the patrons more. Do we love the patrons more, Larry? Of course, we do. That that buys my bourbon. Bourbon. Fantastic. So, tell me, what are we doing tonight?

[02:12] Larry: Well, we have several questions from the audience, both, written from inside behind the walls and from from the free world. And we have a segment that, seems to always be popular on international travel. And if time permits, we can take a few questions from the, live audience. There’s dozens and dozens of people here on this Christmas weekend. They keep going up, by the way. There are more people here than when we started. So and then we have a letter that you’re gonna read that just came in today, and we’re gonna pontificate about that letter.

[02:48] Andy: I need you to explain to who it’s addressed to. We’ll get there in a moment.

[02:55] Larry: So okay.

[02:57] Andy: Alright. Well, then here’s this letter. It’s it’s addressed to who’s mister Esparo?

[03:02] Larry: Well, it’s addressed to the nonprofit, a tax exempt foundation which is Vivanti Esparo. And that’s the publisher of the newsletter that Narsil puts out. And, I guess that since it says the publishers Vivanti Esparo, they decided to address the letter to mister Esparrow.

[03:26] Andy: I’m guessing he thinks the person’s first name is Vivante, which is a name I’ve never like, who has the name Vivante? I mean, you could have the name Esparrow, I suppose, at the end, but good grief. Who has the first name of Vivante? My name is Vivante Espero.

[03:42] Larry: Is that how that would go? Yeah. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that name.

[03:46] Andy: Alright. So, dear mister Espero, I believe most people subjected to registration recognizes how it is inflicting suffer inflicting inflicting suffering and humiliation, and it is a painfully destructive system for us and our families. Rosa Parks now be knew being forced to sit in the back of the bus was morally wrong. Mexican and American workers excuse me. Mexican American workers in California stood up to unfair labor practices. Over and over again, we have seen unjust actions eliminated through action. Boycotts have worked because they squeeze pocketbooks. We need action. Pick a product and announce a boycott. Start with that conference canceling business. Remember Parks? She started with just one person. Your publication can reach out to so many that are suffering under these Nazi like registration. We are millions. Help us organize, take action, and stop this abuse. Every month, this cruel abuse continues and, add another business.

[04:50] Larry: Alrighty, there’s a lot in there to unpack, but There is. I would start by saying that, the publication he’s referring to reaches a very small number of people. It’s in the thousands, not even the tens of thousands. So the reach of that is very small. Therefore, a boycott would probably be very muted, if even negligible. But we gotta be careful that we’re comparing Rosa Parks with people on the PFR list. Everything he said is correct. It is punishment. It is humiliating. It is unconstitutional, in my view. And courts upheld it to be unconstitutional. But Rosa didn’t have a lot of choice about her pigmentation of her skin. Everybody would argue that people who were on the PFR registry had a choice about what they did that put them in that position. That’s a big distinguishing factor. And, it’s hard to imagine that you can elicit the same sympathy from the general public about skin pigmentation. There was a good percentage of Americans, even in the nineteen fifties, that thought that was wrong. I don’t think that percentage of anywhere close of the people who think the registry is wrong. I may be incorrect. There may be millions that think it’s wrong, but I’ve just not encountered them. Have you?

[06:17] Andy: Not by any stretch. But it’s it is interesting though, Larry, that you do end up finding people that aren’t directly impacted. A person an example that I’d like to bring up is Emily Horowitz because she has four daughters and she has no direct like, it’s none of her kids that are had done anything. She just comes to it through seeing policy or people that she interacts with that have, that has prompted her to do all of her research. But there are all kinds of district attorneys or excuse me, not district attorneys, probably not them, public defenders that have this is some bullshit, and they will then come to our side of thinking and present for, for our conferences and so forth. There are people, but I agree. It’s not like as you use the expression, the ovarian lottery, winning the ovarian lottery. I don’t even wanna, like, try and judge whether someone won or lost based on their skin color, but because that’s just kind of a garbage way to put it. But, yeah, you don’t pick. Last time I checked, there was no hey, which option would you take?

[07:18] Larry: Well, that’s interesting. I think I would choose either option that I have or probably a a better option. But I doubt I would choose Somalia. I doubt I would choose Russia. I doubt I would choose Afghanistan or a lot of places. So, but most people don’t get that choice. And I don’t think that we’re going to be able to win this boycott. Boycotts have been known to be successful and they’ve been known to backfire. And

[07:44] Andy: The most reason was this target.

[07:47] Larry: Yes. And a few years ago, the Chick fil A boycott blew up in their face. Yep.

[07:53] Andy: Alright. It is pretty garbage though, the way that people are being treated. And it it’s as if it’s as if, Larry, we need someone to hate to, feel better about ourselves. It’s like you watch soap operas so that you realize that you’re like, wow, their lives are really shitty. At least mine’s not that bad, except for you’re watching a scripted television show. So in this case, you get to hate on these people that made a mistake and can be redeemed and have second chances without the whole place go burning down. But for some reason, we can’t let this one go. But we have to have some group of people to hate. Indeed. And I think every nation does that. I believe so. I think that that would be what you call the human condition. Agreed. Alright. Well, then this one is from Moses. Like that Moses? Yes. That Moses. Oh, sweet. Okay. Now I was terminated from my last job as a direct result of the registry. The temp agency who ran the initial background check never had any concerns. But upon trying to get hired six months later to the main corporation, a secondary background check disclosed my status on the registry. I have been having difficulties with applying for jobs. I have been trying to be, to be fairly transparent stipulating my felony, and a few places seem to be appreciative that I have disclosed those issues and claimed as long as nothing becomes apparent from the background check versus what I disclose, the that pass should be in the past. That is where there are that is why there are no surprises. My question, because my thought process is that a criminal background check is supposed to be concerning felonies and not necessarily the consequences. Am I wrong, or, and should I disclose my registry status despite that being a consequence of the actual felony conviction? That is why I’m getting confused about the best practice for employment disclosure. So are are we just he’s quote unquote just on the registry at this point and his felony is far enough back that, you know, passes five, seven, ten years or whatever someone’s thinking. He only has a registry situation now?

[10:00] Larry: That is my understanding of this letter of this email. And and, his logic is, flawless Sure. Mostly flawless. He’s, talking about a collateral consequence, like loss of your rights to own and possess a firearm. That’s one of the collateral consequences. But very few employers say, oh, well, you can’t own a gun. Therefore, I won’t hire you. Have you ever heard that happen unless that was a security issue? Not heard of that one. No. Okay. So, so his logic seems to be solid. The problem he has let’s go back to the first part of the letter. The tip agencies, as I understand it, they get paid by making a placement.

[10:45] Andy: Yeah. Well, and they may if they continue your employment, they get paid, you know, like they’ll charge the company $20 an hour. You get paid 10. Yes. They get paid. So they have a vested interest in placing a person.

[10:59] Larry: Mhmm. So, they have the greatest amount of latitude because the company needs a warm body, employer needs a warm body, and they have warm bodies to place in positions, and that gives the company an opportunity to test drive this individual. But before the company pronounces a marriage that’s going to go on in perpetuity, they do their own background check. They don’t trust what the temp agency has done. And therefore, I’m not surprised that this happens to him. Yeah. But then, then you get the need to get to the question about what he should disclose. He should disclose, in my opinion, no more than what the application requests. If it requests only have you, have you, do you have a felony conviction in the last seven years, the last ten years, or whatever the question is, there would be no reason in the world that anybody would say, I did have conviction. It was more than the time you asked for, but I’m still on the registry. Because very few people separate the registry from active punishment. To to the average employer, they think that being on the registry is a part of your punishment. Yep. Yep. Yep. I agree with that. Completely agree with that.

[12:14] Andy: So So what should he do? Should he like like like you just said, if he doesn’t ask about that, then he shouldn’t disclose that?

[12:21] Larry: Well, that would be my position, but I haven’t done HR work for a long, long time. And it may not be the best practice today, but I can’t see giving people a reason to disqualify you if they haven’t asked. In my mind, if you say, well, the the question says seven years, and the answer is no. I haven’t. But let me tell you about it. Twenty three years ago, let me tell you what I did. I was 19, and I was dating a 17 year old girl, And we did all this stuff. And I bought the registry for that. You’re on the what? I’m on the registry. Well, well, wait a minute. You said it was twenty three years ago and you were 19. She was 70. Yeah. But I got to register for the rest of my life. You’ve just muddied the water. If I’m HR, I’m gonna say I don’t want all this baggage around here. Right. You’re on the you’re on the registry. I’m gonna have, threatening phone calls, threatening with boycotts. Thank you for letting me know, but no thanks. So I can’t see how that’s beneficial. What may be an HR person would say otherwise?

[13:20] Andy: But Can you Can you Most of the from from what I understand, a background check they’re going to pull is they’re going to pull your criminal history, and they will then adhere to that seven year rule. Okay. So that conviction is older than that. But then it says you’re on the registry and that’s just an additional thing. That’s like clicking a checkbox as an extra.

[13:41] Larry: Well, it does, but it it comes about because they perceive all sorts of problems, even if they do understand the difference that the registry is a collateral consequence. They’re worried about public image. They’re worried about potential liability. Their insurance carriers have told them if you have these people routed, they offend. Yeah. You’ve got big problems. So, you’re opening up a whole lot of problems by being on the registry. And this gives me a chance to take one more blast at the attorneys. If if we would actually litigate with a large war chest of money and actually bring in HR people and actually put them on the stand and actually get them to admit that they don’t hire people simply because they’re on the register or they fire people in addition to not hiring them because they find out they’re on the registry, we might be able to win a case. But we keep doing a motion for summary judgment. And we want the court to infer that the registry does all these horrible things, and all we have is just circumstantial facts that have been stipulated by a complaining by a complainant in the, in the when they filed a complaint, they have someone say that I didn’t get a job because of the registry, but they have no solid proof that they didn’t get a job or they got fired from a job. And if we keep doing that, we’re gonna keep losing.

[15:02] Andy: Now, I don’t think I’ve ever shared this with you even after all the years that we’ve been talking. When I first got out and, like, you know, I first started going to where my employer is since I, you know, I was working remotely the whole time. But I was sitting in the in the car with the owner going to wherever we were going, like, whether it was the Christmas party or whatever. And, I asked if there were any issues at all with me being on location with a registry conviction, blah blah blah. And he’s like, I talked to the attorney and he’s like, as far as my liability, and this is him saying it to me, as far as my liability for what you did and if you did something again, I am not liable for that. You would be punished if you did something again.

[15:44] Larry: Well, I I agree with that, but having done property management for seventeen years, that just didn’t pan out that way because when people have, when you’re running a multifamily community, for example, and you take people in and they break the law, the first thing that the plaintiff’s attorney asks is, did you do a background check? Yes. Did you know that they had a criminal history? Yes. And you read it to them despite their criminal history? Yes. And you knew they were a burglary? Yes. They burglarized 17 of your apartments now since they’ve been in here the last two years. Yes. And and you didn’t foresee this coming. And also, in addition to 17 burglaries, they also had a record for for, an assault Right. On one of the people they burglarized. And it gets very ugly because even if you win the case, you’ve spent a lot of distracted time dealing with interrogatories, a discovery request. And and it’s just we don’t want that.

[16:45] Andy: Understand. Alright. In the interest of time, we’re gonna, like, keep rapid firing these things out. Okay? Alright. Alright. Well, this is, question number two. It says, hi, Andy and Larry. Hope you all are doing well. I have a question on the article in the AZ Mirror, which I’m gonna assume is Arizona. I read the article and then listened to your podcast. And one thing that sticks out to me is the judge’s statement about conviction and the need to protect the chirrens. You know what a chirren is, Larry? I’ve heard the term. Alright. What does this mean for those who were not convicted of a PFR type offense and those whose offense was not against the Chirons and or where the judge had discretion on applying registration? It seems that if the requirement to register is solely based on conviction and not discretion, then those whose requirement to register was at the discretion of the court should be able to petition to be removed from the registry. In Arizona, registration can be applied if the offense was sexual in nature. Now I may be looking for looking, I may be crazy for looking at it this way, and I’m sure Larry will not hold back. And by the way, we miss you chance. Long time listener.

[17:56] Larry: Alrighty. Well, his logic is fairly solid.

[18:02] Andy: Okay.

[18:05] Larry: But the what he’s saying makes sense. I can follow it. But there’s problem number one. Arizona, like so many states, allows registration to be imposed because of, independent determination that the crime was sexually motivated. In our state, it has to be on the list. Nothing beyond the list is registrable. It has to be, on the list or an equivalent from another jurisdiction that would match one that’s on our list. But since they have that law, his logic that they should be able to petition to be removed, Because what he’s saying, if the judge can discreetly put you on, why can’t you go back and ask the judge to discreetly remove you from the registry? Sure. I see I see no flaw in that logic. Okay. I’ve obviously, it doesn’t work that way in practice. I don’t think I don’t know that anybody’s ever tested this. I think this one might make a worthwhile case, but here’s what’s gonna happen. He’s gonna start calling attorneys and he’s gonna find some ask somebody, will they do it pro bono? Will they do it on the hope that it might win? And will they do it because it’s the right thing to do? And we’ve got to get over that way of thinking, folks. We’ve got to get over that. Litigation against the state trying to get them to do things is prohibitively expensive, and very few firms can do that pro bono. And this one would not require a lot of factual development. So you wouldn’t need, you wouldn’t need tens of thousands of dollars for experts on this, because this is just basically saying, hey, if the legislature said you’ve got discretion to put me on, but I didn’t commit a sexual offense, why don’t you have discretion to take me off? I think this would fit within the contours of the petition for declaratory judgment and fly it fly it at the pole and see what happens.

[19:51] Andy: But we won’t know until we try. And, I don’t know if he has the resources, and I don’t know if any of the organizations in Arizona have the resources financially to help. I heard an expression from, like, an employer forever goes, like, if I’m able to hire you, I’m also able to unhire you. That almost sounds like it applies here. If the judge is able to put you on the registry, he should be able to unput you on the registry.

[20:13] Larry: I have no problem with that. I think it’s sound logic.

[20:18] Andy: Moving over to question number three, and do you wanna like, what are we so this is from Eugene, and we’re gonna we’re gonna cover one part of his overall question and then we’re gonna cover it as a, like, a deep dive here in a minute, but but that’ll be another part. So, like, two parts, part a and part b from Eugene.

[20:36] Larry: Cool? That’s correct. You’re gonna read this part and I’m gonna deal with one part of the question, and then we’re gonna go into a deeper dive because he said more after this came in. Very good. Alright. Well, he lives

[20:47] Andy: in Virginia. They changed the law to allow a max of five years of probation, but it was enacted after my sentencing. I was sentenced to ten years incarceration and twenty years of probation. I have served served ten years of probation, mostly for false charges. Several charges were added following the preliminary hearing, but my lawyer did not reveal the false charges. In 2018 and again this month, November 2025 okay. In 2018, I read a speech to the judge but was denied relief from supervised probation. I wrote a powerful speech last month, but my lawyer insisted that the different judge would not allow me to read a three page speech. It ended up being a question and answer hearing, but many important details were not mentioned. My lawyer even skipped many questions and asked them in a different order than I was ready for. I needed to read the answers because I am 82 and senile. It’s one of your people, Larry. I was unable to memorize the answers. I did okay in court. He asked questions with short answers. Is it common for a judge to not allow a three page speech to be read?

[21:59] Larry: I have not practiced in Virginia, but it’s not common here. But in the context of this type of hearing, you know, he’s in a different setting. It’s not like a sentencing hitting hearing. He’s trying to get relief from supervised probation. So it might be that they’re trying to keep that more compact, but in the interest of fairness, if I’m a court, I’m gonna say, I prefer you not to read, but I’m looking at an 82 year old. I’m gonna say, if, if you really need to read that, the court will indulge, then you can read that. So the lawyer may have been trying to tell him that the judge was going to frown on what he was wanting to do. But if the lawyer had said, your honor, my client really needs to read this into the record. It should have been permitted. I’m doubting the lawyer said that, but that’s what it’s one of those things where I tell you when the, when you have, when the case is not one that should be summary judgment, you have to have the courage to look at the judge and say, judge, I’m really sorry. This case is not gonna be resolved. The I have no intention of filing for summary judgment because there’s so many facts that need development that we’re gonna have to go to trial unless your honor can lead on the lead on the state and get them to stipulate to facts that they won’t stipulate to. But otherwise, we’re looking at factual development here. That’s the same thing this judge would have had to, this lawyer would have to done as judge. My client’s 82 year old year years old. This is an important thing because he’s trying to get the court to consider all the points. He can’t remember them. He can’t recite them from from from memory. And therefore, if the court would just please would like to read this, the judge would have likely said yes. And what is an 82 year old gonna do, Larry? Well, I don’t know. We’ll find out more later, won’t we?

[23:42] Andy: Alright. Question number four. This is like, the twelve days of Christmas here with all these, different segments here. Good evening, gentlemen. I appreciate your work work helping others. I have a question and was hoping to get your opinions. An RSO completes their fifteen year registration requirements in the state they live in for a CP type offense, not on any type of probation or parole. They are no longer an RSO nor required to provide any information to the state regarding the offense. The person now wants to permanently move to a different state. If the new state you are moving are, if you the new state you are moving to considers the same past offense, which has a fifteen year requirement in the original state, a lifetime requirement, can the new state require registering in that state for life? Yes. See? You don’t need me. That’s right. Civil regulatory scheme. They can do what the f they want because it’s a civil regulatory scheme. It’s not punishment. Tada.

[24:42] Larry: Well, I I like this question because it’s coming up so frequently. It has come up and it’s continues to come up so frequently. And the answer is, yes. You could be required to register again. In reality, if youre not breaking the law, you might live another twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years without it ever being a problem for you. But on the other hand, you may be stopped at a place where a cop has boredom and runs your license plate number and gets a name and then does a, runs your name through the NCIC and sees you were formally registered and then decides that you’re you’re something that might be problematic. And, they might run a whole bunch of stuff and they might decide to to, confront you and they might discover you. Or you may have a victim that’s continued to track your movements and may know where you are and they may report you to that state. So you could get in trouble right away. Man. But if you but if you’ve been dutifully removed from registration, the worst thing that’s gonna happen is when they encounter you and they find that you have this offense and you are covered by their law, they’re gonna tell you to register.

[25:50] Andy: That’s the worst thing. You painted, though. That’s why that’s why you have the doom and gloom poster up there. Man.

[25:57] Larry: But it might not ever happen, but it could happen.

[26:00] Andy: And that’s why, Larry, I don’t drive but about five miles an hour over the speed limit because I don’t want any interaction with law enforcement.

[26:09] Larry: Well, you can do that. But, again, with a modern technology, they’re scanning license plates all the time. It’s true. And those scanners, I don’t I’m not tech savvy enough to know what they do with them when they scan them or they run through a system for analytics or they held in a system in case something happens that they need to refer back to it later. If they’re running them in real time through analytics and they see that 12 of the license plates they read in the last hour are to people who are or have been on the registry, what do they do next? They

[26:43] Andy: are not supposed to be used they are not supposed to be used from the EFF that I that I hear. Like, they are not supposed to be used for anything like that, and they’re supposed to make, get rid of them after thirty days, but who’s gonna go audit them and see if they did it?

[26:58] Larry: So but but, yes, he he would be best served not to move. But if he does move, that’s a personal choice. Do you wanna knock on the door like somebody did in Alabama multiple times?

[27:13] Andy: Same thing with a guy in North Carolina. Are you sure I don’t have to write like, can you double, triple, quadruple check, please? I I really feel that I need to, like, just make sure.

[27:25] Larry: Yeah. Well, he made sure alright.

[27:27] Andy: All the way to the point that he had to. The Alabama guy got locked up. Right?

[27:32] Larry: No. But he’s, still fighting as far as I know because his brother, being an attorney, told him just to go on the safe side and go see this law enforcement. And they said, by the way, you have to register. If you leave, we’re going to lock you up. And, Eddie’s been fighting constitutional challenge and he largely lost. He won one point about the dual travel permits. They had to get a travel permit and report, I think, to two different agencies. If they had a county sheriff and if they had a local city police, they had to get a travel permit for both. When they were just traveling, not being on supervision but just traveling and they struck the the dual permit. But you still have to get a travel permit if you’re leaving Alabama.

[28:11] Andy: Right. And and just for clarity, do you remember this if if I’m not mistaken, that’s the guy do you remember how his brother like, his brother’s an attorney. Right? Yes. Do you know when his brother became an attorney?

[28:26] Larry: No. I don’t. But I’m assuming it’s a long time ago. No. His brother became an attorney to help his brother.

[28:32] Andy: Oh, is that right? I believe. I could have the story and the people mixed up, at least in in this case. There was a person who got jammed up, and his brother became a lawyer for that purpose. I thought it was this guy.

[28:45] Larry: Yeah. Maybe. But he’s, he’s not been successful. Last time I heard, the the, trial court was not generous and the eleventh circuit was not generous. And, he’s still registering as far as I know. If he’d kept his self in Colorado, he’d not be registered this very day unless he committed another offense.

[29:05] Andy: Certainly. Certainly. Alright. Well, then let’s circle back to Eugene.

[29:10] 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 snort 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.

[29:59] Andy: The thing that we read a couple moments ago. And now, so you wanna talk about this petition for release from supervised probation, by Eugene in Virginia.

[30:09] Larry: Correct. And that is a resumption of what we were talking about earlier. We just did one point, now we’re going deeper. Alright. So Eugene wrote,

[30:18] Andy: I had a hearing when I tried to be removed from supervised probation. I was originally sentenced to ten years of incarceration and twenty years of supervised probation. I am 820 I’m sorry. Sorry. Eight 82 years old and earn maximum good time while incarcerated with no infractions. I have also served ten years and four months of supervised probation without an infraction. I received 12 of mandated treatment while incarcerated and twenty six more following incarceration. I received voluntary treatment before and after incarceration along with three risk asset assessments, which were all positive. My first probation officer told me that after serving half of my twenty years, similar story to me, she would take action to have me released from probation. Recent probation officers sent letters to the court in 2021 and 2025, with strong reasons for my release. The court has instructed my probation officer to not send any more letters. I summoned my pro I summoned my probation officer. Oh, yes. It’s, the court summoning. I I was like, you come over here. Sorry. I summoned my probation officer to the hearing, and she told the court that I had done everything right and recommended my discharge. This sounds like an ideal candidate to have, probation terminated. It does, but it, it hasn’t happened. So what did the court decide then?

[31:41] Larry: So well, I have the decision and I plan to go even deeper after the holidays, but we don’t have enough time to get into the full decision tonight. But for this episode, I will read what Eugene said. He stated, The judge thought about it for a few days and then denied my relief. The judge was a prosecutor before becoming a judge. There are two judges working in this court, and I got the ex prosecutor one. Also, the district attorney showed up to oppose my release. The judge treated my plea agreement as a binding contract. Well, it is. But but that’s not that doesn’t end that discussion. We’ll get it more of that later, but it is a binding contract. So just be clear on that, Eugene. That plea agreement is a binding contract.

[32:24] Andy: Alright. So it’s very common for people to be terminated earlier. I’m one of those people. Now this is bizarre. So Eugene stated in 2006, I did not know that being on quote unquote probation carried any restrictions. Welcome to PFR land for real. I thought that it only meant that I must not commit another serious crime. Had I known, I would not have been so quick to accept that plea deal. He also stated if the plea agreement signed by me is so strict, I should have not been given good time and released from incarceration early. If good time is a reward for early release from prison, why not also release from supervised probation? That makes a lot of sense. Right? Like, why would you go be a good person in prison if it’s not gonna benefit you later? Well, it did. It got him out of prison early.

[33:12] Larry: So but so the but let me sharpen that down just a little bit more. Good time, it’s usually a result of statutory language. So the statutory language, I’ve never seen a prosecutor come back and say, now, judge, you can’t, the state, you can’t give this person good time because it’s in the statute. But by the judge’s logic, not to argue too much with Eugene, his logic is somewhat, solid. If you if you can’t get good time on probation, why would you be able to get, good time,

[33:48] Andy: in prison? So there’s some logic. Seems reasonable. He’s got like one day a month or something in the Fed? Oh, he’s not in the Fed.

[33:56] Larry: But, but but the judge simply did not want to end the supervision early. But in the Fed, she did, like, fifty four days a year. Okay.

[34:04] Andy: So then Eugene stated, had I, gone to trial instead of a plea deal, there would be no signed contract? Thus, per the judge’s reasoning, I would not be required to serve the entire sentence. There’s certainly a contract you sign when you get convicted.

[34:21] Larry: Well, no. You don’t sign it’s not the same contract. You you’ll That’s true. When you when the jury returns a verdict, you’re pronounced guilty. And then the next stage is setting the PSR if they’re gonna do one decide what the sentence is going to be. But all holes are off. And that’s what Eugene doesn’t understand. That is possibly a true statement. However, if he had gotten convicted on all of those charges, particularly the ones that were dismissed, which he says there was some evidence, The jury may have may have found sufficient evidence. He might not be out of prison today. He might be there True. In incarceration and and facing death in prison. So he did get some benefit from the plea agreement.

[35:00] Andy: Alright. And then Eugene stated, I plead guilty to charges without knowing details of my alleged crimes nor who the victims were. I thought that they were the crimes and victims stated on the arrest warrant. During the preliminary hearing, the victims and witnesses, all children, gave testimony. It was accurate and thorough. Two months later, seven new charges were added by the same victims or witnesses. The prosecutor denied a new preliminary hearing. These seven charges were all false. Most certainly, the angry mother had children give false testimony. I did not see a copy of the indictment until after two years of incarceration. I did not know of these false charges until 2018 when I applied for removal from probation then. I’m still digging through my pre incarceration legal papers trying to find evidence which would show that I should have known about the seven charges. What about this?

[35:52] Larry: Well, I was gonna be flipping and say it doesn’t matter, but, won’t be quite as, it won’t be quite as flippant because he says something that I want to zero in on. He said that the prosecutor denies a new preliminary hearing. In my years of unauthorized practice of law, the prosecutor can’t deny a preliminary hearing. That’s a matter of something you have by right. But let me tell you what actually happened in all likelihood. In all likelihood, his defense attorney who had cashed in the big fat check didn’t wanna do a preliminary hearing, so his defense attorney waived the preliminary hearing. And defense attorneys do this all the time.

[36:28] Andy: All the time. Because once they catch your $40,000, like, well, I don’t have to do any anymore. I got your $40.

[36:34] Larry: So well, waiving preliminary hearings is a big deal for me. I don’t like waiving preliminary hearings because I get an opportunity to look at the credibility of your witnesses, how well they testify under pressure. And I get to force you to put on a mini case. You’ve got to at least establish probable cause. And if this case is not working, there are strategic reasons why you might waive a preliminary hearing. If you’re having serious plea negotiations, it looks like you’re going to get a sweetheart deal. You might wanna waive it. But if this case is not headed towards a sweetheart deal, I want you to put on a mini trial. I gotta see what you’ve got because I can tell my client what they need to do. But in this scenario, since he pled guilty, it doesn’t matter because the law assumes when you sign a plea agreement, that all the things that went wrong, that the violations that occurred have been corrected by the considerations you were extended. Because technically it’s a negotiation. And you tell the prosecutor, hey, I’ve got two of these counts. I think I’m gonna be able to bump in can just at the get go because you just don’t have a case. The basic elements of what are required for you to prove are just not there by reading your complaint. They’re just not there. And, but when you when you do a negotiated outcome, everything that you’ve negotiated assumes that you were getting consideration for anything that happened wrong, an illegal search. Now, all that stuff is being corrected by the plea agreement.

[38:01] Andy: He then said, my original lawyer did not give copies of the indictments to me. His fee was a flat fee of $25,000 and that’s in 2006. He pressured me into accepting a plea deal. Without a trial, he earned $25,000 for less than eight hours of work. It is difficult to understand why I gave my complete trust and confidence to my 2,006 lawyer who claimed to have never lost a case, being trauma traumatized and taking Zoloft medication. I was taken advantage of.

[38:32] Larry: Well, I’m familiar with that term never lost a case. So let me tell you, that can be a true statement. If you never have tried a case, it’s very difficult to lose one. So you wouldn’t call, like, taking plea deals of people being convict accepting responsibility that way, you wouldn’t call that losing? I guess not. No. No. That doesn’t go as a loss because that’s theoretically a satisfactory outcome for all parties. So that’s booked as a win. I see. So when when a lawyer tells you they’ve never lost a case, listen very carefully. The next question is, how many cases have you tried in the last three years? Sure. Because you want the person to be be fresh. And then when they say 27, don’t don’t narrow it down until they say 27 cases. And then say, how many of those cases were for serious felonies, including sexual offenses? Because they might have tried 27 misdemeanor cases. Yeah. They might have tried a bunch of parking tickets. Yeah. Well, you don’t try those usually, but but you gotta you gotta ask the the the question. And they say they’ve never lost a case. I I had I knew a deputy, public defender in in Boulder. He was proud of telling people he’d never lost a case. And I said, the only problem is you never done a trial either.

[39:42] Andy: So And and by far and large, Larry, the general population has no freaking idea what the follow-up questions are to I’ve never lost a case. They have no freaking idea.

[39:52] Larry: Well, that’s why you come to Registry Matters.

[39:55] Andy: Absolutely. Alright. So then he stated, the Virginia oh, wait. I’m sorry. I skipped a no. I didn’t. Okay. The general the the Virginia General Assembly passed a law which limits supervised probation to five years unless the offender needs further treatment. However, the law was enacted after my sentencing and was not made retroactive. Would it do any good to seek clemency from the new Virginia governor?

[40:24] Larry: Now I could go along with that one for once, Larry, because no one is giving you clemency. Now Now, would it do any good to ask the general assembly to pass legislation to limit probation to ten years and be made retro? They must have what? Go ahead. Sorry. Let’s do the first let’s do the first gov the the governor now, that laugh track could be a little bit over the top because if this governor is 860 years old and this is the pinnacle of his or her career, and I don’t know who the new governor is, but if that person has no political ambitions to be a United States Representative, a United States senator, or a president, they might grant clemency. Isn’t that the election that just happened a month ago? Yes. But I don’t know who the person is. I don’t follow Virginia elections. Oh, okay. Well, it’s a woman, and she’s, like, 50 or something like that. Okay. But but, there would be a scenario where you might could get clemency. But if the person has they’ve seen enough, attacks on the governor of Texas. You remember, Michael Dukakis? You remember the governor of Arkansas that handed out, clemency? What was his name? The one that was a a Fox News commentator?

[41:31] Andy: I have no idea who that is.

[41:34] Larry: You do. He ran for president.

[41:36] Andy: Oh, you mean that one? He ran wait. He ran and didn’t win or he ran and won. He did. I don’t know if one person from governor from Arkansas. Yeah. But but he ran he was a Republican governor. He was very generous with his, with his, clemency,

[41:49] Larry: but he came back to haunt him. Okay. Well, the studio audience can look up the governor of Arkansas before the current governor. But but, yes, this is a dangerous thing to start being generous with clemency if you have political ambitions. So, yes, it it would be possible that you could ask the governor. But if that governor is young and has political ambitions, it ain’t gonna happen. And, I mean, you know, it’s a different position, but look what they did to Ketanji Brown Jackson. Yes.

[42:15] Andy: So would it do any good to ask the general assembly to pass legislation to limit probation to ten years and be made retro? They must have passed the five year limit for some reason. Wouldn’t that reason apply in my case?

[42:27] Larry: That would be a worthwhile endeavor to pursue if you’ve got lots of energy. He might be a highly energetic 82 year old, but it’s gonna require a lot of work to get them to make it retroactive because the state is gonna have objections to doing that. It’ll turn loose a tidal wave of people, and it will have a detrimental, impact on budgets. Folks, you gotta understand, agencies do not want to shrink in size. And if you all of a sudden take the probation case load and you reduce it by one third, there’ll be lawmakers who’ll say, well, gee. Why can’t we save a little bit of money? We just cut the case load by a third. And all of a sudden you’re looking at reducing reduction of staff and there’s nobody who wants to see their their fiefdom shrunk. So it’s just a difficult thing to do. But amazingly, we we like retroactivity on stuff like this. We don’t like retroactive application of most laws, but now we’re we’re in seeking we’re in search of retroactivity.

[43:29] Andy: Now if I’m not mistake if I’m reading this right, Larry, so he has ten years of, probation and they changed it to five, but they didn’t make it retro. By the time he would get this pushed through, those five years are up. Well, he had twenty years, but he’s got ten to go. Yes. Ten to go. I don’t like, by the time he would get that passed, I don’t think that it would it would take that long for them to make that tiny little one little character difference in the law.

[43:55] Larry: It would take a lot of effort. It would take several years. It would I mean, it would be worth it would be worth trying, but it would be hard to imagine it would be easy. My experience tells me that this would be a tough one.

[44:11] Andy: Alright. Well, then our final segment as we blister through this thing, we’re gonna talk about some international travel. So I got a scenario for you to imagine, Larry. You’re sitting in an airport in another country, and you’ve just been denied entry, and they’re telling you to go back to The US. Go back to where you came from on the next flight. And you thought you’d done, quote, unquote, enough homework. This sucks.

[44:35] Larry: Yep. That’s a pretty common story, unfortunately. By the way, it was Mike Huckabee.

[44:40] Andy: Oh. Oh. Okay. Well, we like, with the daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

[44:45] Larry: I’m not sure what the relationship, but they are related. But but, yes, he’s the governor handed out handed out, sentence computations, and so did, former governor of Mississippi, Haley Barber.

[44:54] Andy: Okay. No. I just because she was the she was the, press secretary, wasn’t she? And then became when that ended, she became the governor?

[45:03] Larry: Yes. But, there was Asa Hutchinson after after Huckabee. But Huckabee’s presidential campaign suffered because of him being too lax with with sentence commutation and pardons.

[45:14] Andy: Gotcha. Alright. Well, so let’s start right there because I think a lot of PFRs are thinking, my case is old. I’ve got a stable life. My family is with me. I’ve traveled before. I should be just fine. Right, Brian? And then they get slammed. Why does that happen? What are they missing?

[45:33] Larry: Well, they’re missing, three different multiple different systems, at least three. All of which can say no for different reasons. U. S. Notification rules. Now, The U. S. Notification rules will not prohibit you from traveling. You can travel anywhere you want to. As far as I know, The U. S. Has never told a person they can’t travel. Now, we did have, for clarity, we did have one person who failed to give the twenty one day notice, and they didn’t arrest him for traveling. They arrested him for failure to travel without the notice. But, but so The US side is not going to stop you from traveling. But the destination countries immigration and entrance rules might. So you gotta think about that. Remember, The US doesn’t have open borders and other nations have mimicked The United States. So and also whatever informal or internal practices the border agents follow on the ground. Even if your life circumstances look great, time has passed, you got a job. The officer is, the officer may may look at it differently. And, so this person is a PFR. We don’t want him in our country. So so you you just you got too many things. It’s too many moving parts. It it scares me. I don’t have any desire to travel, but I don’t know that I would get in, many other countries.

[46:50] Andy: So, from the officer’s point of view, it’s not this is a dad with an infinite Christmas. It’s, this is a flag traveler.

[46:58] Larry: That’s correct. And the officer may have very little discretion or they might have discretion, but no training. Or they might have it in consistent conflicting instructions. So you can’t assume that your personal story ever gets considered, because it may not.

[47:15] Andy: So let’s let’s dig into that a little deeper though, because people say, look, I’m more than ten years off my case. I’ve traveled before to other countries. My level is low, level one or level two. Surely, that counts for something, doesn’t it?

[47:32] Larry: Well, not much. First, the level stuff is completely misunderstood by most, and even in The United States. Yeah. No doubt. It’s it’s it’s large an American state level concept. When The US sends notification to another country, it generally does not say this person is a level one, no risk. It basically says the person is on the registry and is traveling to your country.

[47:56] Andy: So so they get the worst possible version of your story just registered, period, without any nuance, background, anything?

[48:04] Larry: As far as I know. And then it’s up to that country’s law or policy. Some countries have outright bans for certain categories of offenses, like all felonies, and others have written no written law, but a de facto practice of turning PFRs around. And some are inconsistent. One officer says yes, but another officer says no.

[48:25] Andy: Alright. So I wanna walk through the most common points of confusion I hear because that is where people get burned. So let’s start with, do I have to tell my local police I am traveling? A lot of people still don’t know the answer.

[48:40] Larry: For international travel in The US, the answer is generally yes. Federal law, called International Megan’s Law, requires PFRs to give advance notice of international travel to their registering agency at least twenty one days in advance. Let me emphasize registering agency. But then there’s another caveat. The advance notice cannot be provided in those states where they do not accept the information. And then there’s people out there on the Left Coast that tell you, you file it yourself. And those people, I think, are wrong. The form is not designed for you to file yourself. Not to say they won’t take it if you can figure out where to file it. But it is contingent upon your state notifying within the apparatus and the bureaucracy that they’ve established if your state won’t take it, you really can’t provide it.

[49:34] Andy: And so that’s regardless of your state or your level or anything like that, you just gotta go do the thing?

[49:40] Larry: Correct. Now the the implementation details are somewhat state specific. Who you tell, what form you fill out, and how they handle last minute travel. But the federal expectation is that notice about where you’re going and where you’ll be staying, that that notice will be provided twenty one days in advance.

[49:58] Andy: Now, look, I suppose you, suppose suppose you don’t do that. You say, I’m I’m not doing that. You can’t tell me what to do. Then what? Well,

[50:09] Larry: if you just flat out refuse to, provide the notice. Is that what you’re asking? Yeah. Well, you’re running at a big risk of getting prosecuted, but at the minimum, your your own government’s not gonna send accurate information to the designation. And worse yet, you’re likely committing a a federal offense, particularly if your state requires it. And I’m not giving a legal advice here, but failing to give notice when it’s specifically required can create both criminal exposure and definitely travel problems.

[50:40] Andy: So people will say, I just bought my ticket last week. I don’t have twenty one days. They’re in a risky zone.

[50:46] Larry: Very risky in my opinion.

[50:48] Andy: Alright. Well, then, how about the second big one? The passport mark or identifier. People ask, do I have the mark? Does that matter? Does that guarantee I’ll be denied? How do you how have you heard that this works out?

[51:04] Larry: Well, under, current federal law, if your offense involved a minor, your passport must contain a unique identifier. Itis not a giant red stamp on the front page, but itis inside and itis printed a statement along the lines of The bearer was convicted of an offense against a minor and is a covered person under and it puts the statute number. I think weive shown one on the screen through the years. But apparently these markings are only applied to the passports of those who are currently registered. And thatis been the practice from the Federal Government since the inception of this because itis just not awkward. It’s not feasible to figure out anyone who’s ever been convicted of a sexual offense and attract those people when they’re no longer being monitored. So, if you are no longer being monitored, no longer being registered, if you deliberately exempted yourself and you’re non compliant, that won’t help you. But if you’re no longer being monitored, you’re not likely to get a marked passport even if you have an offense against the minor.

[52:06] Andy: So, if if your case did not involve a minor, this is just reiterating what you said, you usually don’t get that notation.

[52:12] Larry: That is correct. But you could still be a PFR, still be on the registry, but your passport won’t carry that specific language, but you still have the other baggage of having, you know, the twenty one day advance notice.

[52:24] Andy: Now, if you just have that little mark on your passport, does that get you booted from whatever country you go to?

[52:31] Larry: It can. Some countries see that, and say nope. Others don’t care as much about the wording in the passport and rely more on the notification to get from The US or their own background check checks. But the identifier certainly does not help you, and it absolutely could and does trigger denials.

[52:49] Andy: So you’ve got, notification system saying PFR incoming, You’ve got the passport statement in some cases, and then you’ve got whatever database the receiving com country uses. Let’s talk about the expectation people have. Hey. I saw a four year old comment online. Some guy said he went to country x with no problem. So I’m good. Right? Why is it such a trap?

[53:13] Larry: Well, because policies change as they did in The Philippines, and they constantly change without warning. And sometimes they change because of what your government is doing here in The United States. When you become hostile No. When you become hostile to people from other parts of the world, you shouldn’t be surprised that other countries turn it around on you. But a country that quietly allows PFRs four years ago might have had one bad news story, one internal memo, and they’re turning people away. Also, people’s facts are different. Maybe the the commentator had no passport identifier, or their offense didn’t involve a minor, or they weren’t in the same database.

[53:52] Andy: But they don’t mention those details. Sure. Or they just got lucky and you hit the right officer on the right day. Right? That is correct. Just like when you go with TSA security, sometimes you make it through, sometimes you don’t. Right. So there’s this hunger in the community for a quote unquote travel matrix. A big spreadsheet of green and red countries like Shenzhen is good, UK is bad, Mexico, maybe. How reliable do you think those lists are?

[54:24] Larry: They’re useful as a starting point, but they’re not authoritative. They’re crowdsourced experiences, and experiences are lagging indicators. They tell you what has happened in the past, not what will happen tomorrow. You can use them to gauge relative risk, but people report more success. And how do you pronounce that? Shenzhen?

[54:42] Andy: Shenzhen.

[54:44] Larry: Shenzhen. Countries like Canada, for example, but it’s not a guarantee. And a a former PFR that’s off the registry came by my office just last week. And he said because I was giving him grief about being a right winger. And I said, yo, part of this is coming from your country. And he admitted he said in his research because he’s going to travel to the Schengen region. And he said, I saw it right on their website that they’re still doing this in retaliation to America. And I said, well, but Americans don’t see that. Americans think that they have the right to come and go and that they have the right to tell everybody else to get the hell out and don’t come.

[55:20] Andy: American exceptionalism at its best. Let’s let’s linger on that relative risk idea for a moment because someone listening might think, well, if there’s no guarantee, why even bother doing research? Is that a realistic goal?

[55:36] Larry: Well, a realistic goal is to improve your odds and reduce surprises. And, but there is no guarantee. I don’t think you you want to understand The US side, the notice rule, passport issues, get a sense of the destination’s general approach, and accept that you, even with, perfect prep, you might still be denied. Just as people are denied from coming in our country that show up here. You’re trying to move from completely blind to an informed gamble, not from gamble to, you know, to certainty. We can’t get you to certainty.

[56:10] Andy: Yeah. I’ve, I’ve been very hesitant to travel even though I’m off the registry, and you feel your opinion, just as my friend Larry, think that I wouldn’t have any problem except for a place like Canada that just outright bans everybody with a felony. So, like, don’t even try to even though I, like, live not far away, I, like, I just can’t go there. Alright. Well, then, emotionally, that’s where this really hurts because the story we’re starting from is, I’m missing Christmas with my nine month old because I gambled without realizing it. Let’s talk about the emotional trap. People think my life looks so normal now. I must be off the radar. Is that actually ever true?

[56:50] Larry: Well, sometimes, the PFR has been removed from the registry and they live in a state where they’re no longer required and they do have, a normal life, their travel risk probably is significantly lower. But if you’re still a PRFR still registering, then you’re not off the radar. You’re very much on in the system and on their radar. And the fact that you’re the the devoted parent of a ten year ten and that ten years have passed, that matters to humans but not to computer systems. I’m glad that, that that this is, is letting those that computers don’t give them a lot of discretion.

[57:26] Andy: No. They they are they follow numbers, man. If you have this, it equals that. It’s the end of that conversation. So what do you say to the listener who thinks, I wanna take my family to another country. How do I not end up detained at the border and shipped back? We can’t give specific legal advice, but walk through just like a general planning checklist. If you were you, Larry, if you were trying to go to France or The Caribbean or whatever, what would you do?

[57:53] Larry: Well, like, like we mentioned above, are you still required to register? If yes, assume that you’re in the notification pipeline. Does your if your particular if your offense involves a minor. And if yes, expect the passport identifier issue. Know the twenty one day rule. Know that if your state will accept it or not. Figure out how your local agency wants that notice in person and accommodate that. And most of all, do research on your destination. Look at travel reports, not just old ones. Pay attention to patterns. Not just one success story. Remember that if it worked once, it may not work for you. Backup planning. You know, you’ve got to have a backup plan. Accept the possibility of denial. Think about if I get turned away, what does that mean to my job, to my family, my finances?

[58:43] Andy: Let me, interrupt on that point because people don’t like hearing build in the cost of failure. That’s a really amazing, actually, expression right there. But that’s kind of what you’re saying. Right?

[58:54] Larry: It is. You need to be emotionally and financially prepared for the worst case that you might get turned down at the border. And you need to have, ticket money. Gotta fly home.

[59:07] Andy: Does the does the destination country pay for your trip back home if you if they won’t let you stay? I don’t think so. I gotta think that’s a big fat no. I’m I’m assuming, Larry, that you could change your already established return ticket to leave more sooner. I’m assuming you can, but that depends on their availability too. If they got booked flights all the way through, then you’re just gonna sit there. You’d be like the guy terminal where he lived in the terminal for his entire life.

[59:31] Larry: But you’re also gonna be paying an astronomical price compared to what you paid because if you have to buy a ticket as as today, right now, they’re telling you get out, you’re gonna get the current fare, not the three month advance purchase.

[59:43] Andy: Sure. And this is this is, this is leaning practical, not doom and gloom. You’re not saying don’t try. You’re saying don’t build a once in a lifetime memory around something that could collapse at the immigration desk.

[59:58] Larry: Precisely. That’s what I’m saying.

[60:01] Andy: If we can, talk about these Shenzhen countries because it comes up a lot. Oh, Shenzhen is safer. What does that even mean?

[60:10] Larry: Well, according to this script, Schengen is a group of European countries with shared border rules. Historically, some PFRs have reported better outcomes arriving at one country and then moving freely within the zone. But some Schengen countries are stricter than others. Rules for all travelers have been evolving, new entry systems, more data sharing, and again, your mileage may vary as an individual. So, Shingen is safer. It’s it’s shorthand for some people have fewer problems there, but it’s not guaranteed.

[60:43] Andy: And I wanna highlight one thing that came up in, in in the conversation is that even lawyers often can’t give a confident prediction. Why is that? Because they don’t know. Okay. I mean, you you would end up you would have to talk to their attorneys, not our attorneys. Right? It’s not because

[61:07] Larry: form foreign immigration decisions are inherently discretionary and opaque. You’re dealing with another country’s sovereign decisions and processes that aren’t written down in a way that you can reliably access. Officers can override and misapply their own rules. A lawyer can explain US notification obligations with some certainty, but they can rarely guarantee you what a Peruvian or Swedish or Mexican officer will do on a particular day.

[61:32] Andy: So when someone says, my lawyer said it’s fine. What they usually mean is, my lawyer said there’s no US rule that says I can’t board a plane. That is correct. And I will guarantee that there’s no rule. You can travel anytime you want. We don’t build we don’t lock people into this country. You can go any anywhere you want to. People say that all the time, but I can’t travel. Bull crap. You can travel. You might not get there, but you can leave. Yes. We don’t try to keep you in. You wanna go, please do. Now, let’s touch on one more subtle point. People here denied entry and they assume that they did something wrong in the moment, like they answered the questions wrong. How much of this is about what you say at the border versus what’s already been decided in some system before you even arrived?

[62:16] Larry: I would think that the decision is functionally made before you arrive. Once you scan your passport, an alert they pop up. That’s my guess. The officer might have a code essentially says do not admit and they’re just executing. That can possibly be edge cases where answers might matter, but usually the systems have you flagged in a certain way. And your ability to to talk your way through it is probably gonna be very slim.

[62:42] Andy: And, so honesty is still important, but it’s not a magic key? Precisely. Alright. And then to close this out with something practical, for the person who just got turned back or who was terrified they might. You miss a big holiday. You’re alone on a long flight home. You feel like you messed everything up. Should they be thinking about when they land?

[63:05] Larry: Well, a few basic things. Stay safe and grounded. Missing a holiday or milestone is painful for sure, but it’s not the end of your relationship with your family. Document what happened, times, places, what you were told. That can help you understand the pattern later or consult with a professional if you choose. Review your own process. Did you get proper notice? Did you research the destination? This isnit about beating yourself up. Itis about learning. And you may need to adjust your expectations for next time. Maybe just shift destinations that have a track record of being more permissive or reconsider whether those trips are worth the risk. Hey. Let me ask you this question. Would travel insurance protect you here? I I don’t know. I don’t think it would, but I don’t know that. If you if you take the trip and they don’t let you in, I don’t see how the travel I don’t see how that would be covered by insurance.

[63:56] Andy: Maybe, Brian, do you know? And then for everyone else thinking about travel, don’t stake all your emotional chips on a trip that depends on a border agent saying, yes.

[64:07] Larry: Correct. Plan research, comply with your obligations, and hold hold the outcome a little loosely.

[64:15] Andy: And I think that about does it for that section. Right? This is not legal advice. That’s the end of it. Yeah. So alright. See, I told you it wasn’t gonna be three hours long. It was only two hours. See? Close. Alright. Well, anything else you wanna talk about other than wish everyone a happy happy happy happy happy Christmas?

[64:37] Larry: I indeed, and and thank everyone. I don’t know how to do it more humbly than say that even though our audience is not as large as I’d like, we have some very loyal people that are very generous and gracious with us. And Some of them are here tonight? It means so much to think that what we do means the world to people. You know, I talked to one of our patrons last week that just signed up, and I said, I I just can’t believe that people are as generous as they are. Now we just gotta figure out how to have more of them. But thank you and happy holidays to everyone. And I will send out a personal thank you for the fudge. The guy who’s, like, the all time winner of Patreon,

[65:21] Andy: he sends us fudge every year, which just never ask never asks for anything. Ever, ever, ever. It’s amazing. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of our patrons. Thank you so very much, and I hope you have a happy, wonderful holiday. I’m not a Christmassy person, but it’s a holiday time. So be with your friends, be with your family, and enjoy some time off and some good food and snuggles because it should be cold. It’s supposed to be cold. Sorry about that super patron, Mike. It’s gonna be 80 degrees where you are. That’s not very snuggly weather at all. Indeed. Alright. Alright. Well, head over to registrymatters.co to find show notes and registrymatterscast@gmail.com if you wanna send an email message. Also, when you’re typing something, don’t do double spaces anymore. Just one. One is sufficient. Send a voice mail message at (747) 227-4477. And as we already discussed, please be so very generous and kind and head over to, patreon.com/registrymatters and sign up for as little as a buck a month and you get all the perks of being a patron. And without anything else, have a great night, Larry, and I will talk to you very soon. Good night, everybody. Good night.

[66:32] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.