[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.
[00:22] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the internet, this is episode 391 of Registry Matters. Larry, what’s up? How are you tonight?
Larry: I’m doing awesome. I’m sure glad that you could join us tonight.
Andy: Yeah, it was kind of sketchy. Lots of yard work today. You know, my fences, there’s just like years of mold that is collected. So I was out there trying to spray some demolding stuff, and the demolding stuff did not demold it, so I had to break out the pressure washer and then just like, just hit the… It’s a pain in the ass.
[00:56] Larry: Well, I think you should hand that off to a teenager in your household.
[01:00] Andy: I agree with you there. That seems like that would be the smart move. That’s why you have teenagers, isn’t it? You make them your little worker bees, yes? I’d say so, yes.
[01:24] Andy: He’s worthless. Remember to show your support by hitting like and subscribe and hit those fancy buttons and follow us and leave a five-star review. That would be awesome also. And if you… If you want to be extra generous, you could head over to patreon.com and for as little as a dollar a month, you can show love and support for the program. And then Larry can go get his cup of coffee every morning as he drives to the office.
[01:36] Larry: That sounds like a good… What’s your favorite kind of coffee? That sounds like a good plan, but I don’t drink coffee. I drink bourbon.
[01:41] Andy: Oh, okay. Well, hey, day drinking is just fine for the listeners of our show. All right. Child replicants? Yes, that tracks. All right. And so what are we doing tonight? Well,
[01:53] Larry: For this episode, we have a case from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it originates from the enlightened state of Alabama. Enlightened. Wow, that’s a stretch. I understand you want to talk about a situation that unfolded in Tennessee with the botched execution of Krista Pike, so we put that on the agenda. And we have a comment from a listener that was posted on YouTube.
[02:20] Announcer: 20,000 names gone from Michigan’s registry in one ruling. Pretty good week for the Constitution. Of course, lawmakers are already sharpening their pencils to bring it all back. Registry Matters will keep tracking every move. Even $1 a month makes you a patron and unlocks everything. It’s about the cause, not the tier. Become a patron at patreon.com/slash/registry matters.
[02:44] Andy: Then we’ll head right over there for that. So this is, we don’t have a name, but someone in Michigan has a lifetime testimony tether law. And so this decision does not affect that, but I am wondering why not. It seems like the registry issue and the lifetime tether would go hand in hand. Is anybody concerned about or addressing the unconstitutionality of the lifetime tether law? And tether is a GPS monitor?
[03:14] Larry: Correct. And I thought it was a good question because some people do not realize that courts cannot address issues that are not before them. And this tether law is imposed as part of a person’s punishment and is required by the statutes of the state of Michigan. Michigan requires lifetime electronic monitoring, or otherwise described as a tether, for individuals convicted of specific severe sexual misconduct involving young victims. Under Michigan Penal Code 750.520, the lifetime requirement applies to individuals convicted on or after August 28th, 2006, for first-degree criminal sexual conduct under that section of the law. It also applies broadly to all criminal sexual contact convictions and second-degree criminal sexual contact when the defendant is 17 years of age or older and the victim is less than 13 years old.
So it is, in the statute, a part of your punishment. The registry is not a part of your punishment; it’s a civil regulatory scheme. Utter those words: civil regulatory scheme. And it’s a collateral consequence of the conviction. So therefore, this challenge was against the registry, not the punishment aspect. They were arguing that there were punitive aspects to it, but they were not challenging the laws of Michigan that impose punishment on people.
But it is possible that another challenge in the future might be undertaken against the tether law, because as I researched it, it’s lifetime. And it does seem like there should be a way off. And some of these arguments would be appropriate and might be considered, because when you get to be 70, 80, or 90 years old, perhaps you don’t need to be tethered any longer.
[05:15] Andy: You’re probably tethered to a wheelchair at that point.
[05:17] Larry: Yeah, you probably are confined in sufficient ways that this ought to be taken off you. So that might be a challenge for a future date. So my guess is the rider is subjected to it. And then another commenter said that—thought it was a good question. And I thought, well, if two people think it’s a good question, maybe we should address it. So we did.
[05:40] Andy: I do think, Larry, that even after we’ve done 390 previous episodes of this program, the distinction between “as part of your punishment” in the statute, your criminal conviction, and then the registry—that distinction, that line, that fence of being on this side versus that side—is what throws people the most.
[06:07] Larry: It does indeed. But if you read the Michigan Compiled Statutes, it says “Michigan Compiled Laws” or whatever they refer to it as; it states that “as a part of the sentence, this shall be ordered.” So the court doesn’t have a choice—it’s a part of the punishment for committing that offense. The registry, on the other hand, says that a person shall be apprised of their duty to register and that duty is subject to change from time to time. It doesn’t say that explicitly, but it is because it’s merely a collateral consequence. It could be shortened; it could be lengthened. The punishment is fixed in statute. So unless a judge can extinguish it under some mechanism of law—which I didn’t find any of my first research—this is clearly part of your punishment for being convicted of that offense on or after August
[06:58] Guest 1: the 28th, 2006.
[07:04] Guest 2: Well, picture this: A jury acquits you on serious charges and the state makes you register anyway. Minnesota’s highest court said that goes too far. Wins like that get explained one at a time right here. Registry Matters is a non-profit and your support literally funds the fight. Become a patron at patreon.com/registrymatters.
[07:31] Andy: So over in Tennessee, are you familiar with a little event that happened a couple days ago that made all the news? Oh, I am indeed. So there was an execution, and if I’m not mistaken, the woman who was going to get executed, her name is Krista Pike. She’s the first woman to be executed in Tennessee—I want to say it was 200 years since a female execution, but forgive me if that’s off by a bit. It’s been a really long time.
[08:04] Larry: Thanks for writing that up; I saw it, so thank you so much.
[08:09] Andy: Hey, very good. Um, I’ll try to skip that part when I get to it; I was kind of ad-libbing at the moment. So there was this botched execution, and I thought, oh my god, I’m in Tennessee a couple nights ago. A story came out today saying that Tennessee’s top prison official is stepping down in the aftermath of the failed execution of death row prisoner Krista Pike. The state governor, Bill Lee, announced Saturday that Frank Strata, the Department of Corrections commissioner, will leave his position later in October as the state launches an independent investigation into what went wrong during Wednesday’s botched execution of Pike. According to Lee, Strata for his part said his regular resignation would allow that review to move forward in the best interest of Tennessee. Do you support a resignation like that?
[08:52] Larry: But it’s not enough; at least he did resign. He stated I believe this review is entirely appropriate and necessary and I look forward to doing everything I can to help determine exactly what happened. Now, isn’t that amazing? He’s now worried about what happened but I wonder how worried he was before it happened. Probably not.
[09:15] Andy: Very true. Without going any further, do you have anything in here about the drug concoction they use?
[09:24] Larry: No, I do not because like that is a significant part of this because the way that I remember it is we’ve had a very successful concoction of the chemicals that we would use to put people down and nobody will make it anymore they have ethical problems so we can’t get it so oh well we still need to put people down so we’ll use other methods and this is what you end up with.
[09:45] Larry: Indeed, this is not the only state where botched executions or attempted executions have happened; this is just one of the most gruesome because she survived. They’ve had to work on making people die using those alternate concoctions.
[10:00] Andy: Along so Pike’s attorney Randy Spivey who witnessed the procedure from inside the death chamber described what happened as cruel and torturous. He said he personally counted—I don’t even want to read these things—seven needles inserted into his throat, and he pointed to Pike’s left arm, one of which appeared to be bent when it was pulled from her. Her attorneys have alleged that Pike’s failed lethal injection was the fifth botched execution carried out under Strickland’s leadership in two states since 2022 as The Guardian reported on Saturday hours before his resignation was announced.
[10:43] Larry: It was further reported that Pike remained on a ventilator at a local hospital as of Friday, according to her court filing submitted by her attorneys. Her attorneys said the hospital personnel were trying to save her life, and as of late Thursday, they were working to clear the two doses of the execution drug from her system. I wish we had our pharmacist here to explain what they might have been using and how difficult it would be to clear that.
[11:08] Andy: So it’s phenobarbital is what, and I’m pretty sure that’s what they use, and I read somewhere along the way that it’s similar to what they use to put down dogs and cats when you go to your vet. It’s used in veterinary settings for euthanasia.
[12:09] Larry: It does sound that way, but boy, I will say unqualified is a strong word. But Laura Porter, the executive director of the U.S. campaign to end the death penalty, said in a statement, hopefully this is the beginning of accountability and the end to secrecy that enables these debacles. Pike was sentenced to death for the 1995 killing of teenage classmate Colleen Slimmer. She and her then-boyfriend Tadaryl killed Slimmer at a job training camp in Knoxville.
[12:47] Andy: It was noted that had her execution that day succeeded, Pike on Wednesday would have been the first woman put to death in Tennessee in more than 200 years. We have some clips to play of an interview with a former corrections director. Would you set up these two clips?
[13:02] Larry: Yes, the person’s name is Alan Ault. He was a psychologist who headed the Georgia Department of Corrections, then the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and later the Colorado Department of Corrections. I believe he taught at a university in Kentucky but don’t remember which one. He was a distinguished professor.
[13:29] Guest 1: He’s a great guy. What effect does administering the death penalty have on your life?
[13:40] Guest 3: And what impact does it have on institutional staff?
[13:48] Guest 4: It’s ironic that I took the attorney general with me to the executions. We could have stayed in Atlanta, but my philosophy was that I wouldn’t ask staff to do something I wouldn’t do. And he handled it by running for governor and talking about being tough on crime. He used to ride with me and then later he would have his publicist ride with him and they’d stop and talk to the press before we went in and when we left just to show him he was tough on crime, like a lot of politicians do. But most of the staff, including the warden and myself, I realized at one time we were giving psychological help to all the staff that participated. And then I realized, except for myself and the attorney general, I was suffering pretty badly about it. Because you have to understand, it is the most premeditated murder.
[15:08] Larry: Well, what did he say? He said, “You have dozens if not hundreds of people planning for weeks carrying out this ritual to make sure they get things right. And it’s really a choreographed situation.” We don’t have the death penalty in this state. We haven’t executed anyone for a long, long time. But it is horrible and it is premeditated. And so then he goes on in the short little clip that we have.
[15:38] Guest 1: explaining this situation.
[15:48] Guest 4: I finally,
[15:49] Guest 1: went
[15:53] Guest 4: Went to a psychologist to get some help, even though I am one.
[16:01] Andy: He wasn’t willing to self-medicate. Instead, he went somewhere else to get medication.
[16:09] Larry: That tells you the type of person he is and the kind of character he had. You know, he could have resigned his job but chose not to because it was part of his duty to carry out court orders. Throughout that entire interview, he described how they waited with phones connected directly to the governor, the Supreme Court of their state, and even the United States Supreme Court, hoping for a stay. But this is what they had to do. And it takes a terrible toll on these people. The folks who make these laws don’t consider that at all. It’s sad because going home and telling your family, “We put a person to death today” must be gruesome. How was work? Well, we killed a person today.
[17:07] Andy: I would be willing to bet on social media that people are saying that they hope she suffers forever. People might say things like, “She got what she deserves,” and “I hope that she suffers.” These sentiments could come from your neighbors or mine.
[17:31] Larry: I’m quite confident that these sentiments exist. But we’re supposed to be a civilized society. If something terrible happens in real time, like the attempted hijacking of a plane where the co-pilot stabbed the pilot, my emotions might overwhelm me and make me want to take action myself. There’s a chance the hijacker could escape custody or be traded in a prisoner swap. But if you stop him immediately, you can ensure he won’t cause more harm. In real-time self-defense, there’s no premeditation involved. However, I don’t believe in taking a human life under most circumstances.
[19:17] Andy: That’s different because it involves killing but not murder. There’s no premeditation in my view.
[19:27] Guest 3: I get you. Introducing a bill means nothing. Larry will tell you the only number that matters is how many bills actually get signed. Registry laws often pass unanimously because nobody dares say no. Want to talk strategy with him directly? At higher levels, patrons get one-on-one time with Larry. Become a patron at patreon.com/slash/registrymatters.
[19:48] Andy: All right. Well, so we have this thing from the 11th Circuit that you put in here, and the case is Henry versus Sheriff. That’s not Sheriff Andy from Mayberry, is it? No. Okay. So this is a case against the Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, number 24-10139. The name of the case does sound a little bit familiar to me. Should it be?
[20:13] Larry: It should be because we’ve discussed it multiple times already. This is a case where the state refused to accept their defeat. They keep losing, and then they come back again and again. We discussed this case most recently on episode 339 in April 2025. Then again on episode 381 in 2026. And we also discussed it back in 2025 when the trial court ruled, and then when the appellate court ruled. Alabama just can’t take no for an answer. Remember, this is a state that conserves taxpayer resources as if every dollar were their own. They believe in individual liberty of the family and the individual. You hear all that rhetoric in Alabama. This is who we’re talking about here.
[21:07] Andy: So fourth time’s a charm. Alabama’s Alabama Sex Offender Registry and Communication Notification Act states no PFR may, among other things, reside or conduct an overnight visit with a minor. Now, does this even apply if they are the minor’s parent?
[21:28] Larry: Yes. If the adult PFR has been convicted of any sex offense involving a child, regardless of whether the adult sex offender was related to or shared residence with that child, the ban applies for life and prevents them from living with their current and future children. Alabama offers no escape hatch from this act for anyone who falls within its contours. Now, the irony is that this is a state that claims to strongly believe in keeping the government out of private lives and protecting the dignity of the family. They certainly believe that a child deserves a mommy and a daddy. I’m saying this because I want you people in Alabama and in other states who vote for these people to ask them how they can separate a mommy and a daddy from their children while claiming to believe that a child needs both parents.
[22:20] Andy: Now, my recollection is that in an en banc court, the court determined that Henry, like all parents, enjoys a fundamental right to live with his children. Now, why did it have to go back to the panel for a full court to determine that it was unconstitutional?
[22:37] Larry: The question is, why did it have to go back? It had to go back because the en banc court did not determine that the prohibition was facially unconstitutional. Remember, facially unconstitutional means there’s no set of circumstances when you could do that. So the en banc court telegraphed to people that we can take your children from you. But they stated this does not mean that Alabama can’t regulate or even abrogate that right. To do so, though, they must act constitutionally and their legislation must survive strict scrutiny. That is, Alabama must show that its legislation is narrowly tailored to further its compelling interest in the safety of children. The en banc court then remanded the case to the panel to determine whether the act is narrowly tailored and thus would survive strict scrutiny.
[23:21] Andy: Okay, hold on. Can we back up a step? What did Bruce Henry do? What was his conviction?
[23:26] Larry: In 2013, Bruce Henry pled guilty to a violation of United States Code 2252A(b)(5). The details were knowingly possessing any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disc, or other material that contains an image of child pornography. When officers arrested him, Henry had two videos and 348 photos of prepubescent and adolescent girls, all of which he had downloaded from the internet. Before his arrest, they reported he had no prior history of sexual offenses. So what was his sentence? It was a stiff one: 70 months in prison, almost seven years, and 60 months of supervised release with special conditions. He served five years before his release in March 2018. After release, Henry completed a qualified sex offender treatment program as well as individual and group counseling. He continues to attend weekly Sex Addicts Anonymous meetings. The court also noted he maintains a steady job and attends church and volunteers. Does he have any special conditions? Yes, Mr. Henry must participate in the United States Probation Office’s Computer Restriction and Monitoring Program. That program prevents him from possessing or using certain electronic devices that may communicate with other electronic devices without prior approval from the probation office. And Henry may not have unsupervised one-to-one contact with any children under 18, except his own children. See, the probation office understands he deserves access to his own children, but Alabama doesn’t understand that.
[25:16] Andy: So as I was pressure washing the fence today, I was reading the case and noted that he violated his supervised release. Can you explain what happened with him violating the conditions?
[25:30] Larry: In multiple instances. Hahaha – Yes. Henry admitted during a polygraphed interview that in July 19, he accessed naughty images using an Amazon Fire Stick to view porn.
[25:46] Andy: If you know what a Roku is, it’s Amazon’s version of a Roku. I don’t know, but let’s move on.
[25:53] Larry: A forensic examination revealed no saved images, but Henry had viewed titles indicating they were of young or teenage females. Henry admitted in a follow-up polygraph test that he actively sought out images of teen girls and children posed in sexual positions. Now, admit that the kabuki machine works.
[26:14] Andy: No, I don’t think I can because it probably scared him into confessing. Can you admit that?
[26:26] Larry: Okay, I can admit that it convinced them to confess, but without the kabuki machine, he would not have admitted it. So, you should at least admit that it works. He would not have confessed without the kabuki machine, right?
[26:38] Andy: I only can say that you are just completely hopeless, okay.
[26:43] Larry: In December 2019, Henry used his wife’s unlock phone now this is funny, I’m gonna have to get you to laugh at it. He searched for prawn images and disclosed the incident to his PFR treatment provider but failed to inform his probation officer during the officer’s home visit in January 2020. Instead, the probation officer learned that he was not able to find the incident from Henry’s supervision report that month. This proves what I’ve stated continuously: treatment is merely a collaborative fishing expedition. I bet you’ll agree with me on that.
[27:13] Andy: Uh, I definitely agree that it is a collaborative fishing expedition. Now should that be PH or just FI? Which one should be PH or FI? Oh, I got you, yeah, yeah, because the current term “fishing” is spelled PH. Moving along though, in August of 2021, Henry and his wife had a son but because of the act, Henry cannot live or reside overnight with him and by extension with his wife. They could put the kid outside so he could stay there right? Come on, you can put the kid outside, get a shed and lock his anyway, so that’s what really the crux of the case is.
[27:52] Larry: Well, that was his argument that he can’t reside with his wife, and I disagree. He can reside with his wife just not with his son. He’s misstating the case; he can reside with his wife. So the people don’t know that he can reside with his wife just not with his son. His wife can come to the United States but he can’t sponsor her.
[28:13] Andy: Right, well, the act prohibits any registrant from, among other things, residing or conducting an overnight visit with a minor unless the PFR is the parent, grandparent, step-parent, sibling, or step-sibling of the minor. He is the parent, so this appears to exempt him, doesn’t it? Uh, no because there are
[28:35] Larry: exceptions. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Yes, that’s what’s funny. Section 50-20-11a subsection d as relevant here states a PFR may not reside or conduct an overnight visit with a minor even if they are the minor’s parent if the adult PFR has been convicted of any sex offense involving a child regardless of whether the adult sex offender was related to or shared a residence with the child victim. This subsection applies to Henry because his sex offense involving a child includes offenses involving child pornography, and I don’t think we’re going to agree that that’s funny.
[29:15] Andy: Only to a deranged person would it be funny. What is the threshold for determining if a person is residing with a minor? How long does someone have to be there before they’re considered residing? If you’re there for five minutes, does that mean residing? If you bring your pillow and take a 10-minute cat nap on the couch, is that residing with a minor?
[29:31] Larry: Truly, I had a little difficulty understanding it myself. So, I’m going to read it and let you people figure it out. It says under Alabama law, a sex offender resides at a place if they are habitually or systematically present. I don’t know what that means. Courts determine whether a person meets the threshold in turn by the totality of circumstances, including the amount of time the person spends at the place and the nature of the person’s conduct at the place. As a baseline, offender resides at a place if they spend more than four days, four hours a day. So let’s get this straight: four hours a day there on three or more consecutive days, so you go there Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday for four hours or more each day, or it can be 10 or more aggregate days in a calendar month. So that means you can be there no more than nine times because the tenth day will get you.
[30:28] Andy: It’s either a three-day or a four-day rule. Because four weeks and then two of those, so that would be eight, and some months have five weeks, so that would be your 10 or more aggregate days during a calendar month. So you can hang out on weekends. Now I’m not completely sure…
[30:47] Larry: It sounds stupid, but I have trouble understanding that. I can only imagine that a person of normal intelligence would have the same complication seeing it as complicated as I do.
[30:58] Andy: You think that people in Alabama in general would have more difficulty understanding it? Oh no, I think there’s a more sophisticated state in the country, sure. Okay, on page eight, it says sitting on bank we vacated the panel opinion and reheard the case in those proceedings. Alabama argued that parents who engage in misconduct, including receiving a child sex offense conviction like Henry, lack a fundamental right to live with their children. They continued: We rejected Alabama’s position. Rather, we held that Henry enjoys a fundamental right to live with his children because the act deprives Henry of that right. We explained we must apply strict scrutiny to it to determine whether as applied to Henry the act is constitutional and
[31:47] Larry: That then they stated as an on-bank court, we remanded this case to the panel to conduct that analysis which is why it went back again because the full court wasn’t going to hold the judges’ time trying to figure this out. So they sent it back to the three-judge panel that had originally held it was unconstitutional. So that’s back at the panel again, and so here we go all right.
[32:10] Andy: We divided our discussion into two parts. First, we review the framework for evaluating substantive due process claims. Second, we apply strict scrutiny to the act as applied to Henry. What does the substantive due process provision prevent the government from doing?
[32:28] Larry: Well, that particular due process clause is part of the 14th Amendment and it prohibits any state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process. Now, this is one of those things where you can actually turn it upside down and it means what you’re saying here. It’s a guarantee—it’s both procedural and substantive. The first step of the framework takes which trait analysis takes and they said that step requires determining whether the right is fundamental. Rights are fundamentally if they are objectively deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. I think raising your children would probably be pretty deeply rooted, wouldn’t you think? I would think that would be up there. Implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such as neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. But anyway, rights that don’t satisfy this test are non-fundamental. This is a fundamental right. Folks in Alabama, you’re struggling if you can’t understand this. People have the right to raise their children.
[33:59] Andy: The court stated, so to be clear, that a right being fundamental does not end the inquiry. A right’s fundamental status does not mean the government can’t regulate it. Indeed, the government can and does constitutionally burden fundamental rights when it invokes a compelling interest and narrowly tailors its law to further that interest. Did the en banc court decide if raising one’s child is a fundamental right? Yes,
[34:25] Larry: During the en banc proceedings, the court determined that Henry enjoys a fundamental right to live with his children despite his conviction. I mean, what a surprise.
[34:36] Andy: And then on page 12, the court stated, Alabama bears the burden to show that its action is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court made it clear that Alabama certainly has a compelling interest. Indeed, it is indisputable that a state’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological interests of its citizens and the psychological well-being of a minor is compelling. Did they meet that burden?
[34:59] Larry: They did not. And again, legislators just can’t help themselves. Now, we’ve got dozens, if not hundreds, listening. They continuously overreach and paint with a broad brush. Folks, if you can learn from your mistakes, the court noted at its broadest, the act covers some crimes that sustain little or no rational inference to a parent as likely to harm their child. For instance, the act would bar from residing with a child a 19-year-old college freshman convicted of downloading sexually explicit content sent by their 16-year-old high school sweetheart. And because the law operates forever without exception, that categorical bar would remain in place even if the 19-year-old college freshman later married his high school sweetheart and fathered a child with her after living decades of a law-abiding life. Alabama offers no justification for treating that person exactly like someone who last week trafficked or raped children. Folks, why can’t you understand this? You can do anything as long as you narrowly tailor it.
[36:06] Andy: So I noticed another aspect of this case. The court eloquently pointed out that the act is under-inclusive as well. They stated, “the statute doesn’t prohibit a covered offender from unsupervised visitation with his or her child at the residence of the criminal sex offender where the child does not also reside.” That is, it allows every qualifying adult PFR daily unsupervised access to minors for up to four hours at a time in any one place on two consecutive days and nine aggregate days per month as long as such access occurs between 6 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.
[36:45] Larry: Definitely funny.
[36:46] Andy: That’s pretty funny. The court stated Alabama could employ less restrictive alternatives to accomplish its goals. Do you have any
[36:54] Larry: examples? The litigant did. Henry suggested five different ways Alabama could more narrowly tailor its statute by holding individualized hearings to assess a parent’s fitness. That would be one, by allowing residents under certain conditions such as the presence of a qualified caregiver or ongoing supervision by the Alabama Department of Human Resources, by including fewer qualifying offenses. What a concept. Fewer offenses. Who would have thought of something as brilliant as that? By time of day, by limiting its law. Gee, that’s just so brilliant. I could never even have thought of that. Or by providing criteria for reinstatement into the home-like completion of a treatment program. All these things make such sense, but they cost a little bit of money because you’re going to have to have staffing to evaluate these things. And see, we like to make the victim’s advocate’s apparatus happy and we don’t want to spend any money to make them happy.
[37:48] Andy: Now, in your studies of how the United States finances work, is Alabama one of the wealthier states? Or less wealthy?
[37:55] Larry: They’re in the bottom tier of per capita income.
[37:59] Andy: So what did Alabama argue in response to these ideas of alternatives? Well,
[38:05] Larry: It had a great response. It contends that no expert tool can establish with a reasonable degree of scientific accuracy whether an offender poses a risk to their child. In Alabama’s view, individualized determinations could never advance its compelling interests as effectively as the current statutory scheme because they cannot solve any of these problems. And the court responded by noting that Alabama has failed to introduce any evidence that satisfies its burden of proving that the mere availability of individualized relief will make its statutory scheme less effective. Now, that’s funny—the fact that the state argued something for which they had no evidence in the record. I love it.
[38:47] Andy: Now, the way I understand this is that there’s some number of years after you are probably out of prison, but it could even just be the date of the incident that got you in trouble. After you’ve been in the system for let’s say five years, the chance of recidivism is background noise and you’re basically at the same level as an unknown person when it comes to committing a new crime. So if there’s no way to determine whether you’ll be naughty once you hit that point, then nobody should be allowed around children because you can’t prove what they’re going to do.
[39:25] Larry: That is true, except you have the one factor that this convicted person has already done something. But they cited that in the litigation. Henry’s legal team did a stellar job and they cited all that. It was 30 pages, single-spaced, and I couldn’t go into all of it, but they went into all those arguments. So yes, they pointed out to the court that that was BS, if you know what that means.
[39:48] Andy: I might need you to explain that in a little bit more detail. Perhaps “BS” is letters B and S or is it spelled out B-E-E and then E-S-S? No, the letters B-S. As we are closing this up, the court stated, in sum, because section 15-20A-11-D4 is both over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time, and because less restrictive alternatives are plausibly just as effective, the law as applied to Henry, a non-contact offender, fails strict scrutiny. And I’ll let you close things out with the conclusion.
[40:30] Larry: The court stated, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the act fails strict scrutiny as applied to Henry. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling as applied to Henry. Now, I’ll make a little commentary here. The district court, now these are people who believe in government efficiency and not wasting money. And they would never waste money. So we’ve had a case that’s been running for how many years and gone up to the flagpole through how many courts? And it got back now that the district court, the original judge, had it right. And they’ve spent, no telling, hopefully we can track down the fee petition and find out how much they spent on the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. But it will be over a million dollars, I can tell you, for this. So a million dollars
[41:15] Andy: To keep Henry from being with his kid.
[41:17] Larry: Yes. And the sad thing is that this was an attempt by people who have no constitutional understanding at all to create a blanket rule, a law that takes people’s children away because of something they’ve done. We have child protective bureaus in every state, which assess whether children are in danger and can remove them from homes if necessary. But such decisions must be made on an individual basis, assessing each person’s threat to their child. Otherwise, we must allow those children to stay with their parents. That’s just the way it goes in our country where we value freedoms. You can’t do this. And I think we have a clip that expresses my thoughts about the government in Alabama.
[42:06] Andy: Oh, I know which one that is.
[42:09] Introduction: Run by the strangest collection of misfits, loony tunes, since the advent of the third right.
[42:17] Larry: Is that the one? That’s the one. So, but as well as they’ve been, I wouldn’t put this past them. And as well as the attorney did on this case, and how it’s framed up, I would actually like it to go to Supreme Court because I think that they would prevail. And I think this would dissuade any state anywhere from trying again because the Supreme Court will have spoken. Right now, this is a presidential decision in the three-state 11th Circuit. But it’s not binding outside the circuit. So there are states that are just as loony tunes as Alabama that are not in that circuit. You’ve got Mississippi, Louisiana would be another one. And on and on, you’ve got people that would do these things. So this would be one where I probably would be happy if they took it to the Supreme Court because I don’t see the Supreme Court overturning this decision. It’s too fundamental. They can’t. I mean, they could, but they can’t.
[43:19] Andy: And the 11th Circuit is Florida, Alabama, and Georgia, right? Correct. Okay. I was just wondering directly where it applies. Let me ask you, when something is persuasive, so you’re in the 9th Circuit, the 1st Circuit, whatever, how persuasive is persuasive? Does it mean like, wow, we really need to lean into this? Or like, eh, maybe?
[43:40] Larry: Well, you always argue it. It’s very persuasive when you’re wanting it to be used. I see. And it’s really up to the court itself to determine if they want to adopt it. I don’t have any data that shows how often they do because you do have circuit splits where they’re not in alignment, where they’ve got two different decisions. But I don’t believe that there would be a circuit split on this. It was hard for me to imagine that any of our circuit courts could believe that it’s okay to barge into people’s homes and take their children away from them without any due process. I can’t believe that you could put your hand on the Bible like everybody in Alabama likely does when they’re sworn into office. They probably put their hand on the Bible there and say they will uphold the Constitution of the United States, but then they do stuff like this.
[44:30] Andy: Absolutely. Hypocrisy at its best. I have a clip for that one too.
[44:39] Guest 5: For you to come back and call Biglets my admirers is a farce. It’s an act of hypocrisy. It’s a terrible way to treat a guest on your show, and you know it.
[44:49] Andy: Hypocrisy, not hypocrisy? Hypocrisy. Who was that?
[44:53] Larry: That’s Lester Maddox. The former governor of Georgia. He was elected in a plurality election in 1966 that went to the Georgia House of Representatives because Georgia was solidly Democratic in those days. There was a three-candidate race. The candidate that kept him from getting a majority was formerly a Democrat if I remember right. I was quite young then. But they chose who they chose rather than the alternatives. They had two alternatives: Ellis Arnall and Bo Calloway, and they chose Governor Lester Maddox.
[45:34] Andy: If you say so. Before my time. So,
[45:38] Larry: Well, you haven’t been around quite as long as I have.
[45:42] Andy: No, I haven’t. And I haven’t lived in Georgia that long either. You want to talk about gas prices and diesel prices and farm diesel? You want to talk about any of that stuff?
[45:51] Larry: No, I think I’ve run off enough listeners tonight talking about the executions because that’s really how did you tie that to registry matters topic, subject matter? How did you get that in there?
[46:02] Andy: Literally, that would be how dysfunctional our country is when we allow that to happen.
[46:08] Larry: Pointing out the dysfunctionality of our leadership.
[46:14] Andy: Idiotic roles that we elect people to perform duties like killing people for things like that. I just don’t get it. It’s that kind of mindset that would then tie into how we make registry laws.
[46:34] Larry: Oh, I see. See, you explained it. That’s how it ties in.
[46:38] Andy: Yeah, it’s idiocracy.
[46:40] Larry: Idiocracy. All righty. How do you spell that?
[46:43] Andy: I can’t do that without reading it out. I do have a question for you. What is Larry’s definition of “quite young”?
[46:52] Larry: I would say prepubescent would be quite young, if they haven’t gone through puberty.
[46:57] Andy: Okay. By your standards, only 80 was the guess.
[47:03] Larry: Oh, okay. By my standards, it would definitely be anything less than about 75 or 80 would be quite young.
[47:11] Andy: Very good. All right. So head over to registrymatters.co for show notes and links all the places you need to go. You can head over to registrymatterscast.com or excuse me, email registrymatterscast at gmail.com. There was an attorney in California that left us voicemail a couple weeks back. I heard about that. Head over to patreon.com slash registrymatters to show some support for the program. And of course, you can get some fabulous swag. Did I mention Mel, who bought one, is going to wear his shirt to his polygraph? He’s going to wear it. So you might be having to pony up some money. I’m looking forward to it. That would be so funny if he does that. And that’s all I got. So I hope you have a great night and a great weekend, Larry. And I will talk to you not at five o’clock tomorrow morning. Don’t do it.
[48:04] Larry: I’ll wait till seven. All right.
[48:06] Andy: Perfect. Have a good night. Bye-bye.
[48:10] Guest 1: You’ve been listening to FYP. Bye.