FYP Education

[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, not influenced by anyone else. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. We couldn’t do this without you. And always remember, FYP.

[00:23] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the internet, this is episode 369 of Registry Matters. Larry Goodsir, how are you this evening? Doing awesome. Why are we here on Friday? Because you’ve got some shenanigans in your office that you can’t get out of, so we had to kick it a day.

[00:44] Larry: Yeah, it’s going to be funny if she doesn’t show up. Right? Totally, totally. Yeah, it’s getting the financials ready for tax season, and this person used to be a full-time accountant, now she teaches. I can barely beg her to come in here, and I have to pay her an astronomical amount of money, and she ghosted me last time. Hopefully she doesn’t do it tomorrow.

[01:07] Andy: Let’s hope so. That would just be a tragedy, Larry.

[01:12] Larry: Well, if she doesn’t show up, we can record this again tomorrow.

[01:18] Andy: We could record next week’s episode today and then have off next week.

[01:23] Larry: See. All right.

[01:25] Andy: Well, please remember to show your support by hitting like, subscribe, and leaving a five-star review in your podcast app. It helps us out a lot. I don’t know if you hear this on all of the other podcast apps. You don’t ever listen to any podcasts, do you? No, I don’t. This is really a tragedy. But so, what are we doing tonight?

[02:02] Larry: Well, we’re going to have a lot of fun. We have a case from the Appellate Division of the New Jersey court that’s a win for PFRs, at least for now. Also, we plan to discuss a bill that just passed in Wyoming creating a new offense called grooming, which is a felony. That’s bizarre. And similar proposals are pending in many states across the country. We also have a blurb about a PFR running for city council in Fresno, California, which is causing major panic.

[02:40] Andy: Well, all right, then. Let’s start here. This is from Fox 26 News. And this story, there’s actually more than just some chatter in the PFR community. It’s from Fresno, California. The Fresno City Leader spoke out Thursday at City Hall over the candidacy of Rene Campos, a registered PFR running for Fresno City Council District 7. Now, it’s come to my attention, and it even hit national news, that we have a registered PFR that is currently running for Fresno City Council. While I suspect anybody’s ability to serve our community, sorry, I respect anybody’s ability to serve our community, I find this quite disturbing, said council member Annalisa Pereira.

[03:27] Larry: Yes, I

[03:28] Andy: would

[03:29] Larry: Agree with her. I would be very disturbed if somebody like that was running. Aren’t you already disturbed enough, man?

[03:35] Larry: So, Campos’ candidacy has sparked controversy within the public eye. Council members say they are considering legislation aimed at preventing registered PFRs from holding public office. Now, I’m going to quote Pereira again. “If you want to be an effective council member,” he said, “you need to at least be able to go to school campuses.” He added, “I would like to know I can bring my children into city council.” Now, that’s funny. Why would a PFR, what would a PFR be able to do serving council chambers that would endanger children? I mean, I’ve been to council meetings for years, and I’m trying to imagine how you would, how you would do any PFRing at a public meeting.

[04:22] Andy: So, you don’t know this, that PFRs just spontaneously re-offend just because they exist. Are you not familiar with this condition?

[04:32] Larry: Well, I’m trying to visualize it. So, you’re there on the dais, and there are 20 minors in the room, which there’s never any minors, but let’s just say there are. How would this look? I’m going to do like Emily Horowitz, trying to explain how you grab a child and run out of a store with them, or out of a shopping mall. What would this look like? So, the councilor sees a teen sitting in the audience, watching a boring city council meeting, and this male councilor wants to perv on the teen. How would that go down?

[05:03] Andy: Everything about it would be wrong because any legislation or resolutions they’re trying to pass at the council would be slanted in a way that PFRs can do more PFRing. That’s, the whole agenda of the PFR is going to be flawed because of it.

[05:21] Larry: I see. All right.

[05:24] Andy: Because capitalists don’t have ulterior motives. People that have finances invested with pharmaceuticals when they’re voting on a pharmaceutical drug, like whatever. Anyway, so Councilor Pereira added that she is working with colleagues on legislation to block Campos from running.

[05:42] Larry: Yes, well, as we said, Rene Campos is a registered PFR, and he’s running for District 7, but also Councilman Miguel Arias echoed concerns about the safety of children and families, and civic spaces. Arias said, given any Tuesday, we have kids in this room, we have families. And the last thing I want to be concerned about is whether there’s a registered sex offender in these chambers.

[06:12] Andy: So then, Robin Vanderwaal, board chair of the National Association for Rational PFR Laws, said individuals who have completed their sentences should have full constitutional rights, including the ability to run for office. Even if they don’t like folks on the registry, at least they have to deal with the fact that these are also human beings. They’re entitled to dignity and their rights as American citizens. If they’ve completed all their obligations, they ought to be allowed to rejoin society fully.

[07:01] Larry: I tend to agree with Mr. VanderWaal, but it’s kind of ironic. Now, this is coming from the left coast. Fresno is a fairly purple area; it’s not flaming liberal, but it’s not arch-conservative either. And it’s ironic that we’re hearing similar stuff from the liberal side of the aisle. I fought the liberals more than the conservatives on bad legislation in the last session.

[07:33] Andy: I did want to point out one of our patrons said he donated money to the guy’s campaign, which I find hilarious. I wonder if it was stimulus check money.

[07:47] Larry: hoping it’s at least a final stimulus check.

[07:49] Andy: But I think the guy has virtually no chance. Looking at the interview, we didn’t run the clip because it was going to take five minutes of time, but there was a story that you can dig into on the link. And he has all the mannerisms that would cause you to squirm. Listen to this guy talk. It’s the stereotypical stuff you’d expect: “I gotcha.”

[08:22] Andy: Well, just on that little chalkboard comment, I asked my kid if he’s ever seen one before. He said yeah, when he was in first grade they had chalkboards. Okay, moving along then. So a bill aimed at making explicit grooming of children illegal is headed to Governor Mark Gordon’s desk for final approval after passing the house and Senate. House Bill number nine. This is from Wyoming. Grooming of children offenses and amendments aims to make sexual grooming of minors a felony offense. Similar legislation is pending in other states. Now, come on, dude. Tell me what is grooming?

[09:08] Larry: Well, I’m not clear. So I decided to defer to the experts. According to the National Office for Child Safety, grooming is the deliberate process an abuser uses to build a relationship, trust, and emotional connection with a child for the purpose of sexual abuse or exploitation. The manipulative process often involves behaviors that individually may seem harmless but collectively lower a victim’s inhibitions, isolate them from support systems, and ensure silence. So I guess it would be similar to the preteen boys that live in my neighborhood whom I think are potentially going down the dark road of getting into trouble with the law. And I try my best to be friends with them because I don’t want them doing naughty things to my house or to me. And I try to extend an olive branch of friendship and be polite to them. So I suppose that might even qualify as grooming, one option. Like chatting online then? Well, I would imagine that could be considered grooming. Yes, grooming can occur in person or online, I’m told. But the bill defines grooming as deliberate acts that establish an emotional connection with a minor through manipulation, trust building, or influence to facilitate acts of sexual conduct, abuse, or exploitation, which is usually photographs. So like if you’re a friend with these preteens and have the long-range view, you might think this one’s got an athletic build and will grow up nicely. So you get in his good side so that when he gets to be a teenager, you can get him to send pictures. I guess that’s what this would be like. But see, this is one of the problems, one of many problems with the bill. This is all thought police.

[10:56] Andy: Yeah, I got it. That it’s all thought police. All this stuff starts making me think we need to watch Minority Report as one of the movies that we watch. Alright. Well, then the article points out that there is currently no Wyoming law addressing grooming before physical crime occurs. Does this exist elsewhere though, for real?

[11:27] Larry: Not yet to my knowledge, but it is a bill that’s being pushed. And I agree that there’s no law and there shouldn’t be, in my opinion. This is a slippery slope we’re heading down. This means potentially any act of kindness by an adult could be prosecuted as grooming if we’re not careful.

[11:46] Andy: The proponents argue that grooming often precedes exploitation, but is not directly prosecutable unless it’s part of the logic behind the bill. They claim this law is necessary to address sexual violence. I don’t believe it is, and I don’t think it’s actually still a law.

[12:16] Larry: It is a law, but it needs to be enforced properly. Wyoming Statute 6-4-303 on child exploitation and Wyoming Statute 6-2-316 on enticement already address completed acts or pornography. If you solicit a minor, it’s against the law to proposition someone below a certain age—14 or 16 in Wyoming. But these laws do not specifically cover grooming behavior such as online manipulation. Current law allows prosecutors to charge parts of grooming, including solicitation of a child under 14 and sending obscene material to a minor, or sexual abuse when contact occurs, but there’s no stand-alone crime addressing the pattern of manipulation and trust-building that comes first. House Bill 9 would create a specific grooming offense covering online or in-person conduct, even if no meeting occurs, according to Executive Director Terry Markham of Uprising, an organization.

[13:35] Andy: I have a question for you though. Isn’t advertising about building trust and manipulating people to buy their product? Of course it is.
[13:42] Andy: Okay. So did you say the Uprising Executive Director’s name is Terry Markham-Hassan, or just Markham? What exactly is Uprising?

[13:52] Larry: I was afraid you might ask me that, so I did some research. They are a 501(c)(3) organization. And what do they do? According to their website, Uprising exists to empower communities, volunteers, and donors to confront human trafficking and exploitation through awareness, education, and outreach. By the way, we also checked their 990 tax return. They haven’t filed one since 2023 that I can locate, but they’re doing pretty well with what I did find. They’ve got some money, and they’re bringing in money.

[14:26] Andy: So they haven’t filed in two years. Does that mean anything, or just that it’s not publicly available?

[14:31] Larry: doesn’t necessarily mean they haven’t filed it because they could be running a fiscal year that ends in June or any time during the month, during the year, any month during the year. And then they could have filed for an extension, which is automatic. So it could be that they just haven’t filed because of the way the calendar is following. But 2023 is the last one I could find.

[14:55] Andy: Then what does the bill do? The bill makes grooming a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to $10,000. The bill increases prison time and fines if the victim is younger than 16 years of age or in a position of authority, with even higher penalties if the victim is younger than 12 years of age. According to Uprising’s executive director, it also closes gaps on sex offender registry issues for people who committed offenses in other states and move here without registering, trying to get jobs working with children. She also said grooming is a complex process but there are warning signs, like building trust through love bombing—giving the youth time, praise, and attention—and learning about them to notice red flags as a parent or another adult.

[16:28] Larry: For over nine years, I’ve talked about the law enforcement victim apparatus where they come together. Epton Rigney said current law can alert parents of potential victims but cannot arrest someone solely for grooming behavior. House Bill 9 would give us more formal tools to protect children and intervene early before it becomes a full act of exploitation or sexual abuse. We’re not going to ignore behavior and let it carry on until it’s a crime. Isn’t that sweet? We’ll arrest people for something they might do but haven’t done yet. Remember, this is a conservative state that watches the purse so carefully. Their philosophy is every time you pass a new law, you should repeal five or 10 others.

[17:42] Andy: Laws already.

[17:42] Larry: I’d like to see what laws Bratton is preparing to repeal. I bet you none.

[17:51] Andy: That would be my guess. Sponsor Bratton said by creating a standalone felony offense, focused on the preparatory manipulation itself, the bill equips law enforcement and courts to stop predators sooner, protect vulnerable children more effectively, and reduce the escalation seen in recent Wyoming cases involving online enticement and sextortion.

[18:15] Larry: And I didn’t have a comment plan for that, but I want to make one. The funny thing about this increasing frequency of what they’re talking about is only because you create the problem yourself by devoting all the manpower that you say you’re so short on and that you say that you don’t have enough resources to doing these big sting operations and morphing into a minor with people who think they’re in an adult chat room. And then you say there’s a surge in this crime that you’ve created that doesn’t really exist in the real world. Now, can you please agree with me that that’s funny?

[18:52] Andy: It is not funny. It’s a shame. It is not funny.

[18:58] 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 race. 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 register matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say F.Y.E.

[19:47] Andy: Well, let’s head over to a Joy Z. So there’s this case that I mentioned earlier; it’s from New Jersey. It’s a consolidated appeal decision by the appellate division. This is from February 23rd, just a couple of weeks ago. Can you clarify what the appellate division is for the audience?

[20:08] Larry: Sure. The appellate division is the intermediate court of appeals directly below the state Supreme Court. Remember, the state Supreme Court sits as one body, while the mid-level court has 32 judges who review decisions from trial courts, tax court, and municipal courts in New Jersey. They split into three-judge panels, which means there are at least ten panels, right? If you divide 32 by 3, you get about ten panels. So they have a substantial capacity to handle appeals, and almost everyone has the right to take their case up one level of appellate review. That’s what this particular court does in New Jersey.

[21:00] Andy: The issue of this case is whether out-of-state convictions are substantially similar to offenses that trigger a duty to register under Joy Z. Now, how’s that? Well, you’re doing great. I can tell it. When did you read this case anyway? Oh, I was reading it while coding with Claude all day. So keep going. Alright, well, the names of the appellants are Norman Milner and Shaquan Gregg. Tell us what the issue is here, please.

[21:33] Larry: The court considered for the first time whether an out-of-state sex offender’s crime is similar enough to a New Jersey offense under the state’s statutory duty.

[21:49] Andy: I noticed in both cases that neither of them informed their home state that they were relocating to New Jersey.

[21:55] Larry: That is correct. And that’s funny; you’re going to admit that one’s funny, aren’t you?

[21:59] Andy: That is not; that’s going to get them all kinds of messed up, isn’t it?

[22:02] Larry: Well, it did.

[22:04] Andy: So they were convicted of sexual offenses in South Carolina and New York. And they were both required to register in those states. Both then independently moved to New Jersey without informing their supervising authorities in South Carolina or New York. Now, how did Jersey become aware of their presence? I’m guessing it was the hovercraft watching them.

[22:25] Larry: No, it was not the hovercraft watching them.

[22:29] Andy: Tracking chips in their arms. I guess the neighbors reported on them.

[22:35] Larry: No, but those were things that could happen, particularly the tracking chips. I know when you’re in the PFR office, they inject you with a tracking chip. Chip in your arm, right?

[22:44] Andy: Yes, of course they do.

[22:46] Larry: But they were each arrested on separate and unrelated charges, which this decision left out the details of. In each instance, police discovered there were out-of-state PFRs who had failed to register in New Jersey because they got arrested. So, folks, no hovercraft, no tracking software. All this came about because they had other contact with law enforcement. But everything else was just a matter of time.

[23:13] Andy: like five miles an hour below the speed limit, I’m telling you. Don’t tailgate, I’m telling you, that’s another thing. Don’t tailgate. Sorry for interrupting.

[23:22] Larry: But as a result of whatever it was they did, they were charged with violating the statute. And it’s extremely unlikely that the hovercraft, or any hovercraft, will ever be your downfall in this scenario.

[23:37] Andy: In 2024, separate grand juries indicted Milner for felonies. Greg was also indicted for failure to register in the third degree and failure to notify police of an address change. So what happened next?

[23:48] Larry: Well, they weren’t excited about this at that point, and each defendant moved to dismiss the indictments. They argued that the state failed to conduct the threshold legal analysis required under New Jersey Statute Sanitized 2C7-2 subsection B3 to determine whether the sexual offender was a felon. The two defendants’ offenses were similar to a New Jersey Megan’s law offense. Both defendants contended that the analysis was a necessary condition precedent to their obligation to register in New Jersey. The trial court rejected their arguments and denied their motions, and then the court granted leave to appeal. In the meantime, Milner pled guilty to the lesser charge of obstructing the administration of law or another governmental function. And the court sentenced him to time already served and fines. After Greg appealed, the court listed the matters back to back and consolidated them into a joint appeal because it was the same issue in play about whether they got their determination made that it was supposed to be made.

[24:57] Andy: Now, this is super interesting for the audience because many people move from state to state. Before we go into the nuts and bolts of their reasoning, what did the court decide?

[25:08] Larry: They held that an out-of-state PFR’s requirement to register in the state where they have been convicted does not, by operation of law, eliminate the legislature’s clear due process mandate in that statute already read. That mandate requires the state to find that an out-of-state sex offender’s crime is similar to a New Jersey Megan’s law offense prior to charging that out-of-state offender with failure to register in New Jersey.

[25:43] Andy: It is for the moment, Larry. You’re Mr. Doom and Gloom and you never say those words. Well, they have won, but I expect this win will only be temporary. What determines if a person with an out-of-state conviction is required to register in New Jersey?

[26:02] Larry: Rather than saying all those numbers, New Jersey statute annotated addresses the registration of sex offenders. It defines sex offenses and sets forth the requirements for PFRs, including offenders who committed their crimes in another state. And the appropriate section of law states that a person who has been convicted, adjudicated delinquent (which includes juveniles), or found not guilty by reason of insanity for commission of a sex offense as defined in subsection B of this section shall register as provided in subsection C and D of this section.

[26:37] Andy: Now, does New Jersey have a long list of registrable offenses?

[26:42] Larry: It’s not particularly long. And I got this directly from the court decision rather than doing the research. According to the court, sex offenses recognized include, but are not limited to: aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping a victim younger than 16 years of age, endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct, luring and enticing false imprisonment of a minor. So if you rob the liquor store and the mother has her kid there, and you throw the kid in the court and put the padlock on it, I guess you have to register. Promoting prostitution of a child or attempting to commit any of these crimes also requires registration.

[27:42] Andy: There’s this great movie out these days. It’s called “The Roof Man.” The guy would break into houses by beating up roofs and breaking them open, which is how he got through locked doors. He’d target fast-food restaurants during the morning shift when kids were working there. In those cases, he would lock them in the freezer or fridge and take off with the money. So, he would end up on the registry for sure.

[28:12] Larry: He should be.
[28:13] Andy: Yeah, rotten stuff. I know right? We mostly left the audience hanging in terms of the challengers. Let me read directly from the decision. It says, “On November 13th, 2023, the Union City Police Department arrested Greg on charges unrelated to the appeal. During processing, the UCPD discovered that he had an outstanding South Carolina warrant for failure to register as a PFI in that state. The UCPD contacted South Carolina authorities and learned that Greg was classified there as a Tier 2 PFR. Then, on June 14th, 2023, the Secaucus Police Department arrested Milner on an outstanding warrant for an unrelated charge arising out of New Jersey. The Union City Police Department transported Milner to the Jersey City Police Department, and during processing, the JCPD learned that Milner was a registered PFR in New York. Thereafter, the JCPD charged Milner with failure to register in New Jersey.”

[29:24] Larry: Well, I elected not to put the graphic details of their PFR offenses because one of them was particularly graphic—more than our family audits can handle. But I told you it wasn’t a hovercraft; it wasn’t a hovercraft. If you’re going to not register, let me give you a little bit of Larry’s general rules: don’t have contact with the police in any way, shape, or form if you’re not going to comply with registration because they will run you through the NCIC when they have contact with you in most instances as a matter of standard operating procedure. They’ll check their registry and you won’t be on it, and then you’ll have a real problem. So, if you’re on the run from registration, don’t have contact with police, don’t beat anyone up in a bar, don’t drive your car with music blaring really loud, waking up people at midnight—you know, don’t become rolling probable cause.

[30:22] Andy: I mean, the things that you’ve just described are even more along the lines of like misdemeanor kind of things, but that still puts you on their radar and they’re going to run you. Then they’re going to find things that you probably don’t want them to find.

[30:33] Larry: Yes, and I don’t understand how this keeps happening. I mean, we had the case some years ago where a guy from Nebraska moved there from Colorado and got into a barroom brawl. He’d still be living in Nebraska today unregistered if he hadn’t done that.

[30:48] Andy: Yeah, all right. So on January 17th, 2024, JCPD Officer Anna Licia Vega testified before the grand jury. Through her investigation, she learned that Milner was registered in New York due to a 2003 conviction for having a relationship with a 16-year-old female when he was 33 years old. Vega also testified that Milner told police he moved from New York to New Jersey in April of 2023 without reporting his move to New York authorities.

[31:22] Larry: That in itself is disgusting to think that a 16-year-old and a 33-year-old would be having sex. I mean, can you imagine something? There should be a law against that. Let’s talk to the people in Wyoming about that other legislators.

[31:38] Andy: It should be what?

[31:39] Larry: It should be unlawful for anybody to have sex with anyone more than four years older or younger, don’t you think? Don’t you agree?

[31:46] Andy: Would that make the president and his wife not doing proper things? Yes.

[31:52] Larry: But isn’t he like

[31:53] Andy: 20 years older than her, but

[31:55] Larry: That’s different. Oh, that’s different because it’s him. That’s correct, but uh in the case of uh Milner, I would say that he probably should have declined their request.

[32:09] Andy: Think yes, he probably should have. All right, the grand jury indicted Milner on one count of failure to register. Milner moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that he was unaware he had to register in New Jersey. Does it matter that he said he did not know he was required to register?

[32:26] Larry: First of all, I don’t really believe him. But nevertheless, if you’ve been registered 15, 20, or 30 years to say you don’t know you have to register, I think it’s ridiculous. The trial court determined that the statute does not expressly include a culpable mental state. The trial court next found that Milner’s failure to register was knowing. Supporting that finding was Milner’s awareness of his obligation to register in New York and an obligation he’d had for 20 years. Well, they would have been able to prove that he had been registered for 20 years, but they wouldn’t have been able to prove much if he’d kept his mouth shut. So folks, don’t talk to the police.

[33:08] Andy: Seriously, I’m confused. We mentioned already that the out-of-state conviction must be substantially similar to a New Jersey registry offense. How did the trial court handle that part?

[33:20] Larry: Well, the trial court interpreted the statute to not require notice of the state’s similarity requirement or determination hearing to challenge it. The trial court ultimately denied the motion and determined that the state made its burden of proof before the grand jury. Basically, the court said, “Well, I am not going to undo what the citizens of the grand jury did.” And I would imagine if I were a judge here’s my thinking: If you really wanted your due process, you should have presented yourself to New Jersey authorities now. You’re crying about the lack of due process that you didn’t get, but yet you tried to live under the radar. So I would just bet that the trial judge thought of that also and said, “To hell with you; you should have presented yourself, and then you could have expected due process.”

[34:09] Andy: Milner then pled guilty to the lesser charge of obstructing administration of law or other governmental function. The court sentenced him to time served, and he appealed. If they sentence him to time served, why would he appeal? I’m confused about that.

[34:24] Larry: As am I. Unless they preserved an appellate option in the plea agreement, appeal is foreclosed unless the judge sentences outside the contours of the agreement or outside the statutory limits. So unless the agreement provided that he could appeal the issue of his duty to register, I don’t see how he managed to do the appeal. But anyway, he did.

[34:52] Andy: Right. Well, then section B(3) addresses the procedure for potential registration of individuals who are registered in other states and have since relocated to New Jersey. Remind us what that section says.

[35:03] Larry: According to the court, a plain reading of subsection B(3) of the agreement is that if the judge sentences him to time served and finds that for a state to determine an out-of-state sex offender must register in New Jersey, it must find that this out-of-state offense is similar to a sexual offense under New Jersey’s law. That’s what these guys hung their hat on—they said the double determination was made. How is it determined if an offense is similar? Well, the court noted that the statute does not define the phrase “similar to.” They went on to say we have held and this is the appellate court: An out-of-state conviction requires registration of individuals who are registered in other states so long as the conviction being compared to Megan’s Law enumerated offense contains the same essential elements and the underlying purposes of the crimes are consonant. I’m not even sure what that means, but I think it means identical or in agreement.

[35:54] Andy: Because I don’t know that in all of the 300 whatever episodes I’ve ever heard us use the word “consonant” in this kind of context.

[36:02] Larry: What does that mean? I’m not sure, but I think it means in agreement. I don’t know how you’re going to use the word with it probably goes back to old archaic English and some of our vast studio audience can google that, but I’ve never used that word before. I’ve seen it in a legal context.

[36:16] Andy: Decision, I’m thinking that the opposite of consonant is dissonant and that would be like a musical term. I think that seems like a stretch, but what you’re saying is in agreement with all right. Well, I am still a bit confused these two failed to register in New Jersey, excuse me, and now they are claiming that they did not receive due process to determine if their out-of-state convictions are similar. How could they receive due process if they never presented themselves and registered in New Jersey? And Larry, I’ll add to that the only reason they didn’t go register is because they were like quote unquote hiding whatever they were like screw this, I’m done, and moved so they didn’t have to register anymore and now they’re pissed off that they caught up with them.

[36:55] Larry: That’s a good question. The appellate court could not find any inconsistent see however they stated we have also held that an out-of-state sex offender is entitled to notice you an opportunity to challenge a new jersey megan’s law obligation by filing a motion with the judge. The motion triggers a summary hearing wherein the judge addresses the legal question of whether the out-of-state conviction is similar to a qualifying conviction under Megan’s Law. Apparently, they should have done it after they were arrested for failure to register in New Jersey but I would have been a little bit irritated too if all of a sudden after hiding for however long they were hiding went a warrant out for them in South Carolina. I’d be a little irritated too. I mean you’re only human.

[37:39] Andy: They were, I mean the one guy was there since 23, I think so he’s only been there for a couple years. Uh based on my reading of this decision it’s clear that the trial court had an opportunity to make that determination. The trial court determined that Greg’s uh South Carolina obligation to register for his PFR crime in that state created an obligation as a matter of law to register in New Jersey. The trial court further concluded that the out-of-state conviction of the defendant was not required under a

[38:22] Larry: law of pineapple but is required to register under the law that requires the defendant to register in a state where the defendant is located, if the out-of-state conviction is similar to a New Jersey Megan’s Law offense. The legislature expressly required the state to determine that an out-of-state sex offender’s crimes are similar to a New Jersey Megan’s Law offense before the out-of-state offender can be charged with violating New Jersey law. Quote, we conclude the trial court’s denial of Greg’s motion to dismiss the indictment was in error. In Milner, the trial court found that the state did not conduct a statutory analysis but nevertheless decided Milner was required to register as a PFR in New Jersey based solely on his previous registration obligation in New York.

[39:10] Andy: Well, as we get closer to wrapping this up, the question as the appellate court sees it is, can the state bypass its legislatively imposed duty to make a “similar-to” determination for an out-of-state offender when that offender fails to seek proper authorization to leave their home state and secure permission to come to New Jersey? So if we put that another way, does the less-than-diligent out-of-state offender who fails to seek proper authorization to leave their home state and secure permission to come to New Jersey waive their right to challenge a “similar-to” determination before being charged here? And how do they answer that?

[39:48] Larry: held in keeping with our reasoning above, we conclude the answer is no. The states bound by the requirements of New Jersey law cannot ignore this duty to perform a “similar-to” analysis even before the out-of-state offender is charged for those offenders who fail to follow proper registration procedures to enter the state. It is clear that the state must complete the analysis to establish an out-of-state offender’s obligation in New Jersey prior to indictment regardless of the circumstances under which the individual is detected. Now, I don’t know if you realize how funny this is, but basically, you’ve got a license now, if this holds, to move to New Jersey, thumb your nose at it, hope they never find you. If they find you, you say, well, whoa, I haven’t had anyone determine I have a duty to register here. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know.

[40:35] Andy: This might actually qualify as funny. And yeah, so you can move there and they can’t determine what you’re similar to is because they don’t know you’re there. And they just said, yeah, I guess that’s what it is. I like the part though, where they said indicting defendants before affording them the opportunity to challenge whether their out-of-state conviction is similar to a New Jersey Megan’s law crime offends principles of due process and the statute itself. As with any crime, the state retains the burden to develop cause for indictment for failing to register under New Jersey.

[41:11] Larry: I mean, it’s a good reason decision based on the law as the law currently exists. The law is not going to exist like this for very long because I can tell you right now, the prosecution industrial complex has run as fast as they could make their way to the legislature or legislators. And they’ve said, we’ve got a big floodgate problem facing us. And they’re going to change several aspects of the law. They’re going to change it to where that if you don’t present yourself, then you don’t get any due process. They’re going to try to change that unless they’ll succeed. And they’re going to try to put a catch-all provision in that’s not in the law currently that the similar-to will be watered down or eliminated. That’s what’s likely to happen as a result of this decision. Should we buy stock in U-Haul? I wouldn’t spend a lot of money getting ready to go to New Jersey because I think they’re going to close this loophole fairly quickly.

[42:09] Andy: So the one thing that this kind of begs the question of is, is there not some kind of, I mean, how would they, they don’t hire any kind of like investigators, PIs, whatever, like, Hey, this person has absconded. Do they just wait till you get pulled over by law enforcement for speeding taillight out, whatever, before you show up on the radar? There’s no proactive going on.

[42:35] Larry: Those are good questions. Theoretically, yes, they do try to track you down. Both states of South Carolina and New York were supposed to notify the federal marshals when these people had absconded. And theoretically, the federal marshals would be looking for them. Now, it could be that the federal marshals helped find them, but who knows? It wasn’t clear in the decision. Theoretically, both states should have issued a warrant. South Carolina did issue one, though it’s not mentioned whether New York did or not. But theoretically, both states should have issued warrants.

[43:23] Andy: See. So he could have registered and then skipped town the next day, so to speak. And maybe in New York, he didn’t have to register again for like three years if you’re a low-tier offender?

[43:31] Larry: Yes, that’s possible in New York. But South Carolina had an active warrant out for him. This begs the question: How come the feds weren’t looking? Or were they looking and did they assist in apprehending this individual from South Carolina? Because his offense pattern was quite graphic.

[43:51] Andy: I mean, Larry, look, honestly, I try as hard as I can within reason to reduce my digital footprint so that I’m not pinging every sensor out there. But all you do is run one credit card and poof, they know where you are. Like, it’s not hard for them to figure out where you are if you’re you, right? You are a person, as you always say.

[44:10] Larry: That is correct. In this age we live in, you would have to do something that’s almost impossible. It’s really freaking hard. I mean, you could convert to cash, but that would be a problem. If you convert to cash, you still don’t get rid of the photo recognition that every retailer is running these days. And, of course, I don’t know who they integrate that data with. I don’t know when you go to your grocery store and scan your card at Walmart or Kroger or wherever; when they’re capturing all these images of you, I don’t know what they’re doing with them, how long they’re saving them, who they’re sharing them with.

[44:45] Andy: I was thinking on the other side of that. Where do you work? That means you’re working under the table, so somebody’s paying you cash. You have to go get green dots or whatever so you can move money around in any form or fashion, or some way that you’re paying a check-cashing place to cash your check. If that’s the way you’re doing it, then you’re doing it the other way around. If they’re doing it that way, it’s expensive and really freaking hard to stay completely off the radar.

[45:07] Larry: It would be virtually impossible in this modern age. Agreed. You would have to be able to live in the boonies off-grid and not need to go into town and not need to conduct business. You’d have to be able to pretty much live off the land, and very few people can do that.

[45:23] Andy: Absolutely. And that means no electricity or solar. It means well water. To me, it would be really hard. Tell me I’m wrong in comments, on YouTube, wherever, email, whatever. I don’t think that it’s possible. There’s a Wired article, maybe from 2012 or something like this. I read it while I was locked up. And someone tried and put out a request to all the hackers and trackers out there to see if they could figure out where the person was. And so the person that was trying to do the hiding did everything they possibly could. And in like 20 hours, they figured out where they were.

[46:02] Larry: That would be my expectation. It would be virtually impossible to do that. Why would you have to, if you have solar, why would that reveal where you are if you have solar? Wouldn’t that put you off-grid for your electricity?

[46:12] Andy: Totally agree. If you have solar panels on top of your little shack, at least you have some level of electricity. But what are you going to do with that electricity? Turn on a computer and go online? That would reveal you instantly. So maybe you just have a light on, but how else will you use it? Are you going to gather firewood and live like Little House on the Prairie? This is insanity.

[46:39] Larry: So, in our vast audience, there’s probably someone living off-grid who can explain how they do it while being on the run. We’ll give them a microphone if they’re listening.

[46:50] Andy: Off-grid, they’re not listening to us. Oh, maybe they are. They’re listening via satellite. I see. Okay, then. Do you have anything else to cover before we wrap up? No,

[47:02] Larry: but I’m hoping we have a great episode next week. I’m trying to get a special guest to explain about one of Narsol’s recent lawsuit filings. And if that person’s available, that’s what we’re going to try to do next episode.

[47:14] Andy: This wouldn’t be a person that was a guest on the program already from a few months ago, is it?

[47:21] Larry: The Narsol paralegal is who I’m trying to get.

[47:22] Andy: inviting. Yes, he was on the program when we were at the conference. Oh, okay. I wasn’t there. All right. Well, then we’ll head over to the next episode. For show notes and links, go to registrymatters.co. You should also check out fypeducation.org. Email us at registrymatterscast at gmail.com. Old-fashioned voicemail is available at 747-227-4477. And please support the program. It takes a lot of work for us to do this every week—hours and hours and hours and hours and hours every week. Support us on Patreon.com/registrymatters. Also, if you want to buy any merch, we’ve got cool stuff like sweatshirts over at fypeducation.org/shop. That’s all I got, man.

[48:09] Larry: I’m good. And you said that hours and hours for a little bit of sarcasm, but a lot of hours goes into this, believe it or not.

[48:15] Andy: I do say it kind of tongue-in-cheek, but it is many, many, many, many hours every week for us to do this. So any support is greatly appreciated.

[48:23] Larry: I don’t turn this over to AI. I sit down and read these things and try to figure out what we’re going to talk about.

[48:30] Andy: I don’t know how you would do that one, but okay. I appreciate it.

[48:34] Larry: You don’t know how I sit down and read them? I sit down and read them. That’s how I do it.

[48:38] Andy: No, but don’t use AI to finish thoughts and whatnot. All right, well, have a great night. Have a good weekend, Larry. Hope everything goes well for you this weekend. Good night.

[48:54] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.