[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, guided only by us. We’re thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, F.Y.P.
[00:17] Andy: Recording live from F.Y.P. Studios East and West, transmitted across the internet, this is episode 393 of Registry Matters. Larry, how are you tonight? Did you get your heater fixed finally?
[00:29] Larry: I did, and it’s been working. It was fixed Wednesday a week ago, and it has worked consistently since then. I told you I was going to teach you a lesson.
[00:38] Andy: So your claim is that you put it on timeout, so to speak, for two years? And now it has finally learned its lesson?
[00:47] Larry: Well, I don’t know any other way to explain it. It’s been working without stopping for the last 10 days.
[00:52] Andy: Did you have a repairman come fix it?
[00:56] Larry: Well, yeah, a repairman did come do some stuff to it.
[01:04] Andy: And that’s not the cause of the repair? Well,
[01:09] Larry: it could be, but it might have learned its lesson because I did it without any problem.
[01:09] Andy: I see. When will you know if your rates go down? Because do you think that space heaters are less efficient or more efficient than central heating?
[01:19] Larry: Oh, the cost of using natural gas for economic reasons in this part of the country. So I would have been losing money using space heaters and not having as efficient distribution. I don’t know. It may have taught me a lesson.
[01:38] Andy: I was thinking, was it the conspiracy, the dark heater crowd? You know, like the whatever, the deep state. The deep state of heaters.
[01:53] Larry: Yeah. But we had one of those seasons. The natural gas prices were very high because we’d had a really cold stretch a year before, and the gas company was allowed to recoup the extra money they paid to buy gas on the spot market. So we were paying that back. I thought it would be expensive this season too, but I was actually saving.
[02:20] Andy: Well, please make sure you subscribe, give us a five-star rating. Open up multiple podcast apps and rate us in multiple places. That would be great. And share this with your friends. Hey, what’s our YouTube count? Have you looked recently?
[02:35] Larry: 992 as of this.
[02:36] Andy: Oh, come on. Hey, if you’re listening to this right now, go over there and we need eight people so we can be a thousand. That would be fantastic. Do you remember when we did this to get to 100 so we could have a name channel?
[02:48] Larry: I do remember that. That was like calling everybody saying, “Go subscribe to our YouTube channel so we can have a hundred subscribers.” Yes. What are we doing tonight? Well, whoever wrote the script didn’t change it. But what we’re doing is we have a discussion about an article in the Progressive State of California regarding what they’re opposed to changing for PFRs to get parole. And then apparently there was a comment submitted by someone that wasn’t very happy with us a couple of weeks ago. It’s being generous. So, we’re going through that thing. I’ll explain my position about why we do what we do, the way we do it. And I think that’s mostly it for this episode. Do we have anything else that I overlooked? No, I don’t believe so. Yeah, we’re making them a little shorter because people are saying, “You guys ramble way too long.”
[03:52] Andy: I don’t know, man. I listen to two podcasts weekly that are every bit of two and a half to three hours long. There’s another one that usually scrapes up against two hours. And most of the other ones that are just straight podcasts are just shy of an hour.
[04:08] Larry: So, well, but the question would be, if you looked at the data, how many people actually listen for the hour? Or do they listen to a segment of the hour? Trying to hold an audience for an hour or two is very difficult. Even the best of people, Rush Limbaugh couldn’t even do that. You can’t keep an audience around that long. But he would be on for three hours a day. He would join the audience all those three
[04:33] Andy: hours. Of course. And so if someone turns it on and listens to a segment and then gets out of their car and goes into work and then listens to the next segment on the way back, they still get their hour-long content. Just remember, Larry, this is a podcast. This isn’t a YouTube channel. I never knew the difference.
[04:51] Larry: Podcast. What’s the difference?
[04:52] Andy: Well, in the context of YouTube, typically YouTube is video-based. And we started for the first 150 episodes without any video, just releasing it as a digitally released audio program.
[05:11] Larry: I do remember those days. But this is all too complicated for me. All I do is talk and say crazy stuff and make people mad so they can unsubscribe.
[05:44] Andy: All right. Well, so we have this article here from the San Quentin News, and it says, “I don’t like using this word.” CM people. Deemed safe to return to society by California’s Board of Parole. Parole hearings stirred up the question: Can PFRs be rehabilitated?
[06:02] Larry: And Stephanie Nguyen, who’s an assembly member for the District of Elk Grove, California, does not believe that those individuals can be rehabilitated. So she’s proposing to update the elderly parole requirements to require that the Board of Parole hearings (BPH) and the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation refer all PFRs—life sentences for psychological evaluation if they’re characterized as sexually violent predators. According to CalMatters, California’s Department of State Hospitals (DSH), we’re going to need these throughout this because we go back and forth: Can commit offenders who are determined offenders? Nguyen’s proposed change would require DSH to decide if a person released by BPH also needs continuing care.
[06:55] Andy: Now, surprisingly, Larry, as I read this and think about what they’re doing, this sounds like civil commitment to me.
[07:03] Larry: It does to me too. Rick Evans, vice chair of San Quentin Sexual Offenders Rehabilitative Group called Bridging Responsibility, Accountability, and Vulnerability Through Empathy, attempted to dispel the community belief that released PFRs are reintegrated back into society without any safeguards in place. He said the public doesn’t understand that pro-release with life sentences are required by law to continue therapy and complete a year-long PFR treatment program once they are released.
[07:40] Andy: He added that PFRs with life sentences must usually register for life, wear a GPS tracking device for at least three years while submitting to Polygraph’s Kabuki machine monthly, and cannot leave a predetermined area, usually a 30-mile radius. What is the driving force behind this proposal, Larry?
[08:07] Larry: Assemblyperson Nguyen, whose district is where David Allen Funston and Gregory Lee Vogelsang committed numerous sex crimes against children, co-authored new legislation to lengthen the incarceration time for PFRs. Those two were sentenced to serve 430 years to life but were released much earlier due to current sentencing laws of the state. The current laws called elderly parole, which dated back to 2014 as part of a court-mandated effort to decrease the state’s prison population. Remember, the California Department of Corrections was overwhelmed; they had them hanging. They were under court order to decrease their population, so they looked for ways to get people out. In 2014, new laws stated that a petitioner must serve a minimum of 25 years and be at least 60 years old. In 2020, the laws lowered elderly parole eligibility to 20 years of incarceration and reduced the age requirement to 50. That’s what they’re griping about.
[09:17] Andy: Now, Funston, sentenced to three consecutive 25 years to life terms, plus an additional 20-year sentence. Earned parole at 67 years old after serving 27 years, or 28.42% of his sentence. Not to be exact or anything like that. You know, we had this conversation before the show about easy and hard words. Names? This one qualifies. So this is a vulgar saying? Sentenced to how many years, Larry?
[09:35] Larry: He’s sentenced to 355 years to life.
[09:42] Andy: Earned parole at 57 years old after serving a mere 27 years, or only 7.6% of his required sentence. Oh my God.
[10:06] Larry: Yeah, but 27 years is not exactly a walk and a picnic in the park. No, not at all. But it’s just funny that that is only 7.6% of his sentence.
[10:18] Larry: Well, Assemblyperson Nguyen said that rehabilitation is part of a sentence. It’s something people can undergo, but she doesn’t believe you can necessarily change yourself from wanting or stopping yourself from molesting little children. As the mother of two young girls, this scares her. Nguyen is attempting to return the early parole program to requiring all PFRs to remain in prison until at least age 65. When you’ve done things like molest little boys aged 5 to 11, I just don’t know that you can change from that. Yeah, so much for this progressive state that believes in second and third chances.
[10:59] Andy: So the Bureau of Justice Statistics created a meta-analysis. Do you know what a meta-analysis is, Larry?
[11:06] Larry: Not really, but I’ve heard it.
[11:09] Andy: It’s when they take many analyses and put them together to create a single analysis or technique that summarizes the results of research that combines independent studies. Their last report examined recidivism rates among individuals after their incarceration over a five-year follow-up period. The report concluded that 48% of PFRs released re-offended, which is far less than other violent crimes examined in the report.
[11:38] Larry: And that’s an inflated number because it likely includes technical violations or failing to report a change of address or employment. They admitted that. They stated it must be noted that the report, which analyzes data from 34 states, found that 48% of sex offenders were arrested for any crime within five years of release. That does not imply they committed another sexual offense.
[12:05] Andy: So even pointy-headed liberal state people can be misguided as well?
[12:11] Larry: That’s the point I’m making. This issue crosses the spectrum of politics. You folks need to get over it. If you think the Democrat Party is going to save you, you’re wrong. If you think the Republican Party is going to save you, you’re wrong. They’re in lockstep on this. They have different reasons, but they’re in lockstep. But the trick is to get the Republicans to win over their heart because that allows people on the other side the latitude because you don’t want to be hit politically by the conservative side, particularly if you’re in a swing district. If you’re in a really, really liberal district, it’s a different story. But if you’re in a swing district, a 2% cycle of votes can cost you your seat. So you always want someone on the conservative side to help you with criminal justice reform if you can win over bipartisan support because that neutralizes the potential consequences down the road because you can say, no, this wasn’t a bunch of liberal pointy heads trying to turn loose a tidal wave of crime on society. This was a bipartisan, well-thought-out plan put together on both sides of the aisle. That’s what I was trying to explain about Colorado when I got criticized a few weeks ago when they said, well, why would we do that? Well, I’m explaining why you would do that. You diminish the likelihood of political hit. That’s why.
[13:30] Andy: Very well. And do you think that this will pass?
[13:35] Larry: I don’t have any reason to think it would because the prison overcrowding has been diminished over these years. And it’s easy for people sitting in office in Sacramento now to say, well, we don’t have that problem anymore so we can tighten up. It’ll be years before we get full again and I’ll be out of office or dead. So that’s the way they’re thinking about it. So I don’t see any reason it would pass.
[14:00] Andy: Very good. So California is not a safe place.
[14:05] Larry: Not at all. But there’s really no safe place when it comes to this issue. Nobody loves PFRs, and nobody’s going to risk their political future. It’s very unlikely they’re going to risk their political future. But if you can build that bipartisanship, this is one time where I actually do believe in bipartisanship. Because I understand what happens if you try to do it with just one side of the aisle.
[14:30] bumper2: Pennsylvania passed a law for simple phone check-ins and then ignored it for eight years. Only a small fraction of eligible people ever got approved until advocates turned up in budget hearings. Want to watch this kind of show get made? Patrons can listen to Andy and Larry record live. Become a patron at patreon.com. Registry matters.
[14:55] Andy: Well, let’s move over to this comment, which kind of arrived by an odd channel. And the person it’s addressed to didn’t even receive it. Did you hear that whole story, Larry?
[15:05] Larry: Yes, I did hear that.
[15:06] Andy: Well, so I’m going to read it as it is written. This message is for Sandy. Hello, Sandy. My name is Jerry. And I’m writing to you regarding the recent Michigan Supreme Court 7-0 decision in People v. Eddie Lee Smith. I listened to the podcast involving a discussion about this decision that included Larry. Larry, that would be you, by the way. So to put it bluntly, Larry is a detriment to the cause of Narsal. Ending a public registry for people convicted of any so-called sex offense, I’d like to begin by clarifying that neither Sandy nor Narsal have anything to do with this program. We state in the disclaimer at the beginning of each episode that Registry Matters is an independent production.
[15:56] Larry: Well, now, you’re assuming that people pay attention to what we say and they don’t zero in and just pluck out parts that suit their particular purposes at the moment, which it sounds like what Jerry did. When you listen to a podcast episode, listen carefully from the beginning. So your first mistake is thinking we have anything to do with Narsal. We promote Narsal and give them accolades, but we don’t answer to them. We do our own thing, and they have no control over us. We’ve been clear throughout this program that we’re not representing any other organization’s views.
[16:41] Andy: He went on to say he does not understand the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Bets from 2021, which clearly explains why the registry’s 2011 amendments are punishment and ex post facto and cannot be applied to registrants whose crimes were committed before July 1st, 2011. Would you like to respond to that, Larry?
[17:09] Larry: Sure, I will. I do understand that the version of Michigan SORA on the books right now, the Sixth Amendment Registration Act, cannot be applied to those individuals whose conduct predates it. I never disputed that assertion. The problem is that the writer of this comment does not understand what courts can and cannot do. Neither the Michigan Supreme Court nor any other court can prevent a legislature from passing new legislation that creates a brand new SORA. Listen carefully: no court, not even the U.S. Supreme Court, can forbid a legislative body from legislating unless they’ve declared something to be facially unconstitutional. They still can’t forbid them from legislating, but it’s easier to knock down such laws if they are declared facially unconstitutional. But in order to do that, they would have to declare PFR registration to be facially unconstitutional. Jerry, they haven’t done that, and they can’t do that because registration schemes in and of themselves are not unconstitutional on their face. Each one must be examined independently, but courts cannot prohibit the legislative branch from legislating. Again, apparently the writer does not understand the separation of powers: a court cannot tell a legislative body not to legislate nor can it compel them to legislate.
[18:47] Andy: Now, let me ask you the dumb question. Why? Why?
[18:52] Larry: of the separation of powers. Wouldn’t it be nice if one branch could order another branch of government around? Then we wouldn’t have the balance of powers, which if you went to school, Jerry, you would understand that. There’s a balancing act that was designed by our founders to make sure that no branch of the government could totally usurp and run rough over the other branch. It’s a balancing act, and the legislative branch is free to legislate.
[19:20] Andy: And once they legislate, what happens? See, I’m thinking of the whole schoolhouse rock. I’m just a bill. I’m just a lonely little bill. Whatever it goes. But after the legislative body does their legislating, it does what?
[19:36] Larry: Well, if it becomes law and is signed by the executive, it goes into practice unless it’s stopped by a court. But that’s my point: they can’t stop them from legislating.
[19:49] Andy: I just wanted to be clear about how things work and how it will proceed. If it moves from legislative to executive, and then if it gets challenged, the judicial branch would step in, right?
[20:00] Larry: They would step in if a challenge was filed, and if they found basis for it. But just because they pass another PR Act, you’re going to lose if that’s all you have in your challenge, because registration is not facially unconstitutional. Facially unconstitutional means there’s no set of circumstances by which it would be permitted. Therefore, since it’s never been declared facially unconstitutional in all the times there have been constitutional issues, it’s always been as applied in a specific situation. The Michigan Supreme Court did not say you cannot register people under any circumstances.
[20:43] Andy: All right. Well, next he said, Larry also appears to not understand that a legislature cannot stop a court order removing persons from the registry and then make a change or two, and the Michigan Supreme Court will allow placing persons already removed from the registry back on. It doesn’t work that way under Michigan state laws. Larry needs to read how Michigan’s legislature must stay within the parameters of their limitations. I leave it to you. Do you want to respond?
[21:23] Larry: I never stated that the legislature can stop a court order. He’s smoking wacky weed. I said the legislature cannot stand idly by and allow thousands of PFRs to relocate to Michigan. And they’re already headed there. I know at least one that’s leaving my state has already bought a house there. I said, I believe that they will attempt to create a new registration scheme due to public pressure, as well as pressure from law enforcement and the victim advocate apparatus. I stand by that. The writer of this appears to want to live in a make-believe world. Well, Jerry, if I were you, I would look at the Supreme Court of Indiana. They declared registration in the Wallace case in 2009 to be unconstitutional. And a lot of people got off the registry. Jerry, a lot of people have been brought back on the registry in Indiana because they passed new laws. And that’s what I’m afraid of. Now, if you want to bury your head in the sand, that is your prerogative. But I’m trying to educate people that have an open mind that this is a danger that you’re facing. I guess there are people out there who’d like to live in a make-believe world. And I think Jerry might be one of them.
[22:35] Andy: All right. Well, so then he additionally said, the Michigan AG, most likely after discussion with the Michigan governor, did not file notice of appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals regarding federal ex post facto that was included in this decision. And I pass it back to you.
[23:00] Larry: Well, Jerry, if you’re as brilliant as you think you are, there’s not an automatic pathway to the federal courts for a state court decision. The state court has the final say-so; it’s the highest tribunal of the state. There’s nowhere else to appeal to.
[23:34] Andy: Then could they have appealed to the federal courts?
[23:37] Larry: Well, you can always file something, but probably not an effective appeal because the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and would not have had jurisdiction to overturn the Michigan Supreme Court. They would only have jurisdiction if the decision violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution. And since the Michigan Supreme Court said that registration cannot be applied because it violates their own state constitution, which provides equal protection or greater than what the U.S. Constitution offers, there’s no federal jurisdiction unless you argue that the Michigan law violates the U.S. Constitution. If you actually knew what you were talking about, Jerry, you would understand this.
[24:32] Andy: Stated, this is a huge win for NARSAL and all organizations that are against a public registry. Larry is flat wrong that the Michigan legislature will find an end run and get the removed persons back on the registry. They can’t in Michigan. The state Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional, not a legislature. What do you say to that?
[24:56] Larry: I say, again, he’s totally wrong. The court cannot prevent the legislature from legislating, nor can they order the legislature to legislate that, to do any legislating. And some of you have been around since the beginning of the program. I said back when Doe v Snyder was decided in federal court, and the federal court held enforcement of their order in abeyance and provided the Michigan legislature an opportunity to legislate a new law. I stated at the time that they had no incentive to legislate and they would not until they were under threat of the registry going dark. I called it exactly right. They did not legislate until the judge established a date for the registry to go dark. And then they magically legislated, and we can talk about what they did. But it’s not hard to predict what they’re going to do here. They’re under pressure. They’re going to be under even growing pressure. And particularly as people are dumb enough when they arrive there, they’re going to say, why did you come to Michigan? Well, y’all got that decision that just came out that said we don’t have to register if our crime predates this date here. And therefore I decided to come up here and join y’all. That’s what’s going to happen. And even if they didn’t say that, there’d be too many new arrivals. They would have data showing how many new arrivals show up in Michigan over the last umpteen years. And all of a sudden, it’s quadruple quintuple or more. It won’t take any fancy education to figure out that they’re coming because of this. Folks, the pressure is going to come. I’m telling you that.
[26:31] Andy: He went on and stated, protecting the public or not, for Larry to keep saying that every win is just going to be defeated by a legislative end run around a state Supreme Court’s ruling is turning people off regarding getting involved. Those of us once involved have quit because of people like Larry. And the current directorship of PARCEL, how did we make the flip over to what PARCEL has to do with this? I never
[26:58] Larry: did understand what the connection was with PARCEL. And it’s because they’ve, as far as I know, they’ve not been on this podcast criticizing it. But I did not say that every time there’s a win, I said that when, I believe there’s a credible threat, they will do an attempt to do it. I guess, Jerry, would you prefer that we bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the state will simply roll over when they seldom do in the case of our victories? Jerry, they filed appeal after appeal. They ask for cert to be granted. They do every stalling tactic they can. It’s very rare when a state says, OK, we give up. So I suppose he’d like to hear that this is one of those things where the state just goes, OK, y’all PFRs, come on up here, no problem.
[27:54] Andy: I mean, even down in the Butts County case with the Halloween signs, which by comparison is really insignificant. That affected a hundred or something people. And this is affecting 20,000 or something. And that, the sheriff there was, I’ll take this all the way to the Supreme Court, which he didn’t do, correct? Did he even file cert?
[28:15] Larry: They didn’t. I think if I had to guess, being that the sheriffs are elected, I suspect the county commissioners pressured him because they would have to fund the litigation. And but he could have done it. He just went away though. He stopped
[28:31] Andy: Talking about it and just let it die?
[28:33] Larry: Well, that’s what happened. They didn’t file a cert petition with the Supreme Court. The court heads prevailed. But you’re making the point that on something less significant, nobody got off the registry. It’s just that they couldn’t force the signs to be erected. And he was going to take that to the Supreme Court. He wasn’t allowed to do so. I think his funding got cut off. But I refuse, Jerry, to put my head in the sand and tell you what you want to hear. If you don’t like hearing this, can we disconnect somebody from our end?
[29:07] Andy: I think Larry, we were talking about this earlier. If you gave me your IP address and your email address, I could block you from accessing the program. So I could do it from our end. But you could take responsibility and stop listening if you so choose.
[29:25] Larry: Yes. I was at an old small town radio station where the owner and manager told me we can’t stay in business offending customers. But he finally stood up to a woman who called into a talk show, saying only he could do the program called Teletalk. He said, “We just played the song because it’s soft rock and adult contemporary music.” The lady threatened to tune out the station, but he responded, “That would certainly be your choice. But I’m not going to tell people what I don’t believe. Everything I say on this program is something I believe at that moment. I don’t do it for fan mail or to say things I don’t believe in. Am I right all the time? Of course not. When I goof up, I try to correct it and admit my mistake. But if there’s no attempt to create a new registry in Michigan, I’ll be the first one to say, ‘I called this wrong.’ I’m shocked. I’ve learned something new. But I don’t think that will happen.”
[30:38] Andy: He ended by saying playing devil’s advocate with every favorable decision is not good. There is a way to end the public registry. Once it happens in one state, it will be a domino effect. Lastly, Larry’s suggesting that Narsol work with a legislature to write a constitutional registry is the most ridiculous, absurd, and stupid thing to do. It defies what Narsol is supposed to be about. I think the person actually needs to know what Narsol should be about to make that statement. And if not, why would anyone be interested in helping a state legislature write a constitutional Megan’s law? Very disappointed in Narsol and Parsons. If Larry knows anything about how government works, he would know that with the right argument, the registry ends.
[31:37] Larry: I respond with a question of my own. After the Doe’s versus Snyder decision was final, they filed a request to the U.S. Supreme Court for cert, which was denied. The ACLU of Michigan said there was no reason to grant cert. But after that was finally exhausted, why did the Michigan legislature pass SOAR of 2021 if it was simply rollover? Why didn’t it roll over and say, “We give up”? And some say that SOAR of 2021 is worse than what was struck down in Doe’s versus Snyder. I suggested at the time that advocates work with the legislature to craft a constitutional registration scheme. They ignored me just like you did, and they scoffed at me just like you did. And they ended up with another unconstitutional law. So again, I pose the same question: Would you rather I write the law or do you want to put me in jail? I said, “I’m going to call the police and victim advocates to write the law.” Which do you think would give you a better chance of having something that you could live with?
[32:56] Andy: Now, I have to call you out on one of his points. He said if Larry knows anything about how government works, he would know that the right argument and the registry ends. Seriously? Come on. You should be able to come up with a nuclear response like all registries go away.
[33:17] Larry: In a dream world. Jerry, listen closely. The courts cannot end registration because it’s not unconstitutional on its face. They could potentially end public registration, meaning they wouldn’t disseminate the information to the public. But we would have to do more than file for summary judgment; we’d need to bring in a lot of evidence showing the punitive nature of what the internet does and hard data proving that people are losing jobs and housing because of the registry, not their convictions. Since we always file for summary judgment, we don’t have this evidence ready when we get there. Jerry, no court decision can end all forms of registration because registration itself is not unconstitutional. You may never understand this, but I hope our audience does: We must be vigilant continuously because a judge cannot simply wave a wand and say there’s no more registration.
[34:32] Andy: I have a question for you. Is our country doing something collectively in a couple of Tuesdays from now?
[34:41] Larry: As a matter of fact, I think we are. It seems like we have an election day.
[34:45] Andy: Now, how do people become, I can’t use the word if I’m going to ask you the question, how do people become eligible to go do the thing at the election?
[34:57] Larry: Well, I think they do a thing called registering. Wait a minute, stop. They need to be registered to vote in order to participate in the election.
[35:02] Andy: Do I have to go register to vote?
[35:04] Larry: Yes, and that’s a constitutional right. You still have to register to exercise it, Jerry.
[35:09] Andy: Is this similar as far as registration goes?
[35:15] Larry: In fact, there’s a lot of information in the voter registration system that’s public that I don’t think should be. Your ballot remains secret, but there’s a lot of information available. You can get a voter list, but there’s no intent to punish someone with the voter list. There is an intent to punish people with the registry list. Of course.
[35:35] Andy: And so how about the thing that you get in and you put the key in it and you turn it and it goes vroom, vroom, vroom. That thing has to also be registerable?
[35:47] Larry: Registerable. But see, Jerry has an answer for that. He would say that all these things are optional and voluntary.
[35:55] Andy: True. That’s why we use the term PFR because you aren’t forced to register. I know that there’s somebody here listening who doesn’t like the term. You do have an alternative. You could not register if you chose to.
[36:07] Larry: Well, you could.
[36:08] Andy: Right. If you want to spend
[36:09] Larry: the closest corollary is young men in the draft. When you turn 18, you have to register. There’s no intent to punish you, but you can be put in prison if you don’t do it. It carries up to five years of incarceration if you don’t do it.
[36:34] Andy: Could we just briefly touch on the disabilities and restraints part? Because I believe that that’s the part that we would use to go into court to demonstrate that there is a punitive effect. If you just had to go to the sheriff’s office, do your fingerprint and photograph, and so forth, our people wouldn’t have nearly as much problem with this as it is when your picture and address are pushed out there for everyone to see in a simple Google search.
[37:11] Larry: That is correct. And it’s not only those disabilities and restraints, but they have so many prohibitions on things you can’t do. You can’t live here, work there, or do all these other things. Your life is permanently altered. If I designed a registry, you would simply register and be provided an online mechanism to update your location and keep information current. You’d be free to go about your life as you wish, live where you want, with whom you choose, and work wherever an employer wants to hire you. There’d be nothing punitive about that. Your information wouldn’t be on the internet. Ideally, there would be no registry online at all. We could design a constitutional registry, but if we don’t, people will have to deal with whatever proposals come from the Michigan Assembly to create one. I hope I’m wrong, Jerry. But I’m giving people advance warning that they need to be prepared. All those spending tens of thousands of dollars to go to Michigan might not find it funny if they get notified to register within six months of arriving there. If a new law comes into effect July 1st or sooner, they’ll regret not listening to warnings like this one.
[38:41] Andy: I do have a question on that. And I don’t want to drag this out too much longer. But for people who had their convictions prior to there being a registry in the state, like Super Patron Mike, how would bringing them back into the registry be any different from those brought onto the registry the first time?
[39:06] Larry: It wouldn’t be any different. It would be doable. And you might be able to fight another constitutional challenge. But since we have trouble raising money for these challenges, I prefer not to have to fight another one. I would prefer that we find a solution that we can all live with and move on, because I don’t think the registry is going away anytime soon, at least not from judicial intervention. And I don’t see public support building in any meaningful way to abolish the registry. So I think we’re going to have a registry for quite some time to come.
[39:43] Andy: On that note, do you think they spent more than 10 million dollars on the cases?
[39:50] Larry: Oh, I think all the litigation has easily cost them more than $5 to $10 million because they’re paying both sides of the litigation—the state’s attorney—and each time they lose, they have to pay prevailing parties’ fees.
[40:07] Andy: And if we paid an expert bill writer person—doesn’t have to be you, Larry—who could negotiate and make a constitutional wage, is that a $50,000 job? Is that a $25,000 job?
[40:21] Larry: It’s probably in the ballpark of $25,000, and you’d be done now.
[40:25] Andy: I’m no math genius. Which one’s higher, 50 or 10 million?
[40:32] Larry: But it’s not; it won’t be analyzed that way, but we should analyze it that way. The people of Michigan won’t see it that way. All they know is that they’re going to be inundated with people from all over the country. And if they don’t like the ones already there, Jerry, why would they want a whole bunch more? Right?
[40:51] Andy: I understand. Is there anything else before we can close this out? Tie it off? I think not. I wonder how many people I ran off tonight. We will know if Jerry leaves; our number on YouTube should go down by one. So head over to registrymatters.co for show notes and all the information you need to get to our shop and email us. Happy horse poop. And you can email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com or leave a voicemail message at 7472274477. Please, unlike Jerry, become a patron and support us financially for as little as a dollar a month at patreon.com/registrymatters. Larry, I hope you have a fantabulous evening and that your heater stays true and warm for you. And I’ll talk to you very soon.
[41:48] Larry: I think it will. I think it learned its lesson.
[41:51] Andy: Have a great night. Talk to you soon.
[41:54] Introduction: You’ve been listening to F Y P.