The California Supreme Court recently issued two significant rulings regarding gang-related sentencing enhancements, sparking widespread debate on their potential impact. These controversies aren’t just legal minutiae—they represent the intersection of law, public safety, and social justice in one of the country’s most populous states. How these rulings affect sentencing—and their broader implications—has sparked heated discussions about justice, racial equity, and public safety.

In this blog post, we’ll unpack these rulings, examine their roots in California’s legislative and judicial history, and analyze their potential ripple effects. Whether you’re hearing about gang enhancements for the first time or are deeply familiar with criminal justice debates, this article will offer a nuanced look at what these decisions could mean for Californians—and beyond.

---

Understanding California’s Gang Sentencing Enhancements

Gang sentencing enhancements have played a significant role in California’s criminal justice system for over three decades. These enhancements impose harsher sentences on individuals convicted of crimes deemed to benefit a gang. The penalties often include significant time extensions for convictions tied to gang-related activities, with the aim of deterring organized criminal behavior.

The origin of these laws can be traced back to the late 1980s, a time when violent crime rates in California were peaking. In 1988, the California Legislature enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, which explicitly targeted gang violence. This law aimed to curb escalating gang activity by allowing prosecutors to attach enhanced sentences for felonies alleged to benefit a criminal street gang—a controversial move that was met with both support and criticism.

As fears surrounding “super predators” and rising violence grew in the 1990s, voters supported measures like Proposition 21 in 2000, which further expanded the STEP Act. However, these laws have since come under scrutiny for their overly broad applications, excessive penalties, and the disproportionate impact they’ve had on low-income and minority communities.

Key Outcomes of the Recent Rulings

The two recent decisions from the California Supreme Court represent a shift in the legal system’s approach to gang sentencing enhancements. Both rulings stem from the Step Forward Act of 2021 (Assembly Bill 333), which raised the standard of evidence required to prove that a crime directly benefits a gang. Under this new standard, prosecutors are obligated to demonstrate that the gang received tangible benefits—beyond just reputational gains—from the criminal activity.

Let’s break down the two cases at the heart of these decisions:

1. Fletcher and Taylor Case
   In the first decision, the court determined in a 4-3 split vote that prior gang-related charges no longer met the new evidentiary standard introduced by AB 333. As a result, those charges could not be used as “strikes” under California’s notorious Three Strikes Law. Larry Fletcher and Eric Anthony Taylor Jr.’s 2015 gang enhancement convictions played a key role in their sentencing for a 2020 attempted murder charge. However, because their appeal overlapped with the enactment of AB 333, the court ruled that their prior convictions no longer qualified as strikes.

2. Aguirre Case
   In the second decision, the court overturned the death sentence of Jason Aguirre, an inmate who had been convicted of murder and attempted murder in a gang-related case. The court sent the case back to trial, stating that the jury in Aguirre’s original trial was not provided instructions that aligned with the revised definitions under AB 333. Aguirre’s crime occurred in 2003, yet the court’s application of the revised law retroactively introduced new legal uncertainties into his sentencing.

It’s worth noting that both cases reveal disagreement among the justices, with split decisions reflecting varied interpretations of AB 333’s retroactive application. Critics argue that these rulings could set a far-reaching precedent, potentially leading to reduced sentences or retrials in other cases involving gang enhancements.

---

The Broader Debate: Crime Control Versus Social Justice

California’s history with gang sentencing enhancements is intertwined with calls for balancing public safety and criminal justice reform. Supporters of enhancements argue they provide a powerful tool for prosecutors to combat gang violence and ensure community safety. Critics, however, argue that these laws target individuals based on racial and socio-economic biases, leading to over-policing of marginalized communities and excessively harsh sentences.

Legislative Origins: From STEP Act to AB 333

The STEP Act and its subsequent expansions, such as Prop 21, were developed during a time of heightened fear of gangs and urban violence. Critics have long asserted that these laws enabled prosecutors to penalize entire neighborhoods by criminalizing associations, cultural symbols, and geographic proximity to perceived gang activity. This approach, they argue, disproportionately affected Black and Latino communities, as well as other racially marginalized groups.

AB 333 attempted to address these criticisms by raising the standard for prosecutors to attach gang enhancements to crimes. No longer could “reputational gain” for a gang qualify as evidence—the law now requires material gains or benefits to the gang, such as financial profit or increased resources.

Proponents of AB 333 also argue that gang enhancements often rely on insufficient evidence, such as hearsay or circumstantial links to alleged gang membership. As societal views on criminal justice shift toward rehabilitation and equity, this legislation represented a move to correct what many saw as the overreach of earlier laws.

Dissenting Voices: Public Safety Concerns

Not everyone sees these changes as progress. Critics of the recent rulings fear the focus on social justice for the accused will come at the expense of public safety. In the case of Fletcher and Taylor, dissenters argue that removing the three strikes enhancements could result in violent offenders returning to society prematurely. Similarly, the Aguirre case raises concerns about retroactive applications of revised laws disrupting established convictions.

Justice Patricia Guerrero, who dissented from the Fletcher decision, admonished her colleagues for invoking powers she saw as exceeding the court’s authority. She argued that their ruling effectively rewrites the Three Strikes Law, undermining its deterrent effect and potentially eroding public trust in the legal system.

---

The Potential Impact of These Rulings

While it’s too early to gauge the full effects of these decisions, several key implications are already clear:

1. New Appeals and Retrials
   By applying AB 333 retroactively, these rulings could open the floodgates for appeals from incarcerated individuals sentenced under prior gang enhancement laws. This raises questions about how California’s courts and correctional system will handle the heightened caseload.

2. Precedent for Other States
   California often serves as a bellwether for national criminal justice reform. These rulings could inspire similar legislative or judicial challenges in other states that also use gang sentencing enhancements.

3. Public Safety Concerns
   Opponents worry that loosening gang enhancement laws will lead to higher crime rates, as individuals convicted of violent crimes could have their sentences reduced or overturned.

4. Progress Toward Equity
   On the other hand, reform advocates see this as a victory for addressing systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system. They argue that these rulings provide an opportunity to reduce mass incarceration and reconsider laws that disproportionately impact people of color.

---

Final Thoughts: Navigating a Complex Issue

The recent rulings by the California Supreme Court highlight the tension between maintaining public safety and advancing equity within the legal system. As the state grapples with the implications, other jurisdictions will likely keep a close eye on how California resolves these challenges.

This landmark moment in California judicial history reminds us that the path to justice is rarely clear-cut. Whether these rulings represent a dangerous potential for increased crime or a necessary step toward a fair legal system may depend on your perspective. What’s certain is that the conversation around gang enhancements and sentencing reform is far from over.

---

Actionable Takeaways

1. For Lawmakers: Consider revisiting existing gang enhancement laws to ensure they align with principles of fairness, due process, and public safety.
2. For Advocates: Focus on education campaigns that highlight both the human costs of excessive sentencing and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities.
3. For the Public: Stay informed about changes in your state’s criminal justice laws and their impacts on community safety and equity.

California’s story is one of evolving priorities. Whether you view these rulings as progress or peril, their implications are sure to resonate well beyond state lines.

---

Introduction: A Legal Odyssey and Its Potential Ripple Effects
In the world of criminal justice reform, few cases have the potential to alter legal interpretations as dramatically as Louis Matthew Clements v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections. This case highlights a key debate surrounding individuals listed on the Florida sex offender registry, also referred to as PFRs (persons forced to register), and whether their mandatory obligations constitute “custody” under federal habeas corpus standards.

Habeas corpus—a legal safeguard against unlawful detainment—has long been a cornerstone of American constitutional law. However, its specific application to individuals no longer physically imprisoned yet significantly restricted, like Florida’s PFRs, remains a point of contention. Could these restrictions—a relentless combination of residence exclusions, constant reporting obligations, and travel limitations—make registrants “in custody” for habeas purposes?

This blog post unpacks the legal nuances surrounding Clements, explores its broader implications, and examines how this saga could reshape the laws governing registries nationwide.

---

What’s at the Heart of This Case?

The case centers on Louis Matthew Clements, who pleaded guilty in 2008 to lewd and lascivious conduct under Florida law. He was sentenced to five years of probation and required to register permanently as a PFR under Florida’s strict statutes. The story doesn’t end after his probation expired in 2012. Years later, Clements challenged his ongoing registration requirements using federal habeas corpus—a legal instrument typically reserved for those “in custody.”

Florida courts dismissed his petitions initially, claiming his registration obligations didn’t qualify as “custody” under federal law. However, Clements argued otherwise, particularly focusing on Florida’s stringent residency restrictions, which effectively bar PFRs from living or traveling through significant swaths of the state.

The stakes of this case go beyond Clements himself. A favorable ruling could open the door for registrants across the country to challenge the constitutionality of their reporting restrictions via habeas corpus, dramatically altering the judicial landscape for PFR oversight.

---

Understanding Habeas Corpus and the Legal Debate over “Custody”

Habeas corpus, often referred to as the “great writ,” is used to challenge unconstitutional imprisonment. However, “custody” for the purposes of habeas isn’t confined to iron bars and prison compounds. Courts have broadly interpreted the term to include certain types of community supervision, such as probation and parole. The point of contention, however, is whether the burdens of being on the Florida PFR registry, such as residency and movement restrictions, meet the “custody” threshold.

Key arguments from Clements emphasize:
– Residency restrictions: Florida prohibits registrants from living within certain distances of schools, parks, playgrounds, and other child-heavy areas. According to Clements, this amounts to being effectively confined to only 50% of the state’s livable land.
– Ongoing registration and reporting obligations: Lifetime registration demands frequent updates to local authorities regarding any changes in residence, employment, or personal details under penalty of law.
– Additional restrictions: These include travel constraints, mandatory polygraph exams, and unannounced home inspections, depending on probation terms or state-specific protocols.

Florida’s position, on the other hand, relies on the argument that these requirements are neither punitive nor custodial but merely “civil regulatory measures.”

---

Key Legal Precedents and Developments

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ approach to Clements v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections signals that the judicial interpretation of Florida’s PFR restrictions is at a tipping point. While most courts deny that registry requirements amount to custody, some have started to break from precedent.

The Legal Precedent in Play: “In Custody” Cases

1. In-Appellate Review: The appellate court in Clements highlighted something critical—residency restrictions hadn’t received proper scrutiny in lower court proceedings. While earlier rulings denied Clements’ claims, they acknowledged that the cumulative restrictions on registrants could theoretically meet the “in custody” test.
2. Other significant cases: In 2019, the Third Circuit ruled in Piasecki v. Court of Common Pleas that Pennsylvania’s PFR registration requirements constituted custodial restriction sufficient to qualify for federal habeas review. The case set a notable precedent reinforcing the idea that registrants under substantial limitations might utilize habeas corpus.

---

What’s Different About Florida’s Restrictions?

Florida has become infamous for imposing some of the harshest and most far-reaching restrictions on PFRs in the United States. From mandatory registration to ruthless residency restrictions, the “Sunshine State” casts a long shadow over its PFRs, leaving them with virtually no meaningful freedom.

For example:
– Residency requirements: Clements and others are prohibited from living within certain distances of schools, parks, or childcare facilities—essentially relegating PFRs to remote or undesirable areas.
– Lifetime penalties with no reprieve: Florida’s registry is unique because it imposes lifetime registration requirements with no provision for automatic removal, even for individuals whose crimes occurred decades ago under vastly different circumstances.
– Broad travel and employment restrictions: Registered individuals in Florida cannot move freely or pursue certain careers due to these lingering constraints.

Essentially, Clements’ argument hinges on these cumulative infringements functioning as substantial restraints on his liberty, despite being outside traditional incarceration.

---

What Are the Implications of a Favorable Ruling?

Should the Eleventh Circuit eventually side with Clements, the fallout would be profound—not only for Florida but across the United States.

Ripple Effects on Florida’s Registry System

1. Filing of New Habeas Corpus Petitions: A ruling finding Florida PFR registrants “in custody” could open the floodgates for similar cases. Thousands of individuals who believed federal habeas corpus was unavailable could now access it as a legal tool to challenge their restrictions.
2. Constitutional Challenges: With habeas corpus jurisdiction securely established, registrants could attack the constitutionality of registry laws themselves, particularly the claim that they are non-punitive.

National Implications for Legislatures and Courts

1. Other Circuits Joining In: A ruling in favor of Clements could nudge other federal circuits toward acknowledging restrictive registries as custodial for habeas purposes.
2. Legislative Narrowing of Policies: States with overbroad or unnecessarily draconian registration laws may find themselves forced to scale back these policies to avoid legal challenges in the future.

---

Where the Court Stands and What Comes Next

In its initial review, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of the factual record. Specifically, the court emphasized the need to assess whether residency restrictions, combined with lifetime registration obligations, constitute “custody.” The case now hinges on the ability of Clements, his legal counsel, and the state government to either reinforce or dismantle the case’s factual scaffolding.

---

Actionable Insights and Key Takeaways

While the final outcome remains uncertain, here are some lessons and potential next steps:
1. Understanding the Threshold for Habeas Corpus: Clements’ case underscores the importance of marshaling arguments supported by both constitutional principles and concrete evidence of restrictions’ severity.
2. The Role of Fully Developed Records: Lawyers filing habeas petitions must create a robust factual record during district court proceedings. Appeals courts review what’s presented—this is no time for last-minute discoveries.
3. Legislative Pushback: Advocates, scholars, and policymakers must reevaluate overbroad PFR laws and push for reforms that prioritize narrowly tailored, evidence-based solutions.

---

Conclusion: A Case to Watch, A Landmark in the Making

Clements v. Secretary of the Department of Corrections could mark a seismic shift in how courts interpret the rights and constraints of PFR registrants. At its core, this case tests whether lifetime restrictions under civil regulatory frameworks still rise to the level of “custody” for habeas corpus purposes.

Florida’s aggressive PFR laws, while framed as public safety measures, may prove unsustainable under constitutional scrutiny. With the Eleventh Circuit poised to potentially break new ground, this case serves as a clarion call to lawmakers nationwide: unchecked legislative overreach on registries will eventually meet its reckoning in the courts.

Stay tuned—this is one legal drama you won’t want to miss.

When it comes to registry requirements, residency restrictions, and state-level bureaucracy like Medicaid, nothing is ever simple—especially for individuals living with the designation of a “PFR” (Person Forced to Register). These challenges are compounded for those looking to relocate, live with loved ones, or access healthcare across state lines. If you’ve ever felt like you’re fighting an uphill battle against an invisible system that complicates every aspect of your life, you’re far from alone.

The story at the center of this article highlights the unique struggles faced by a Texas resident forced to register, known as Derek, and his partner living in Indiana. From navigating complex residency restrictions to deciphering the opaque world of Medicaid transfer waitlists, their journey brings to light the systemic hurdles faced by individuals in similar situations.

What follows is an exploration of the key concerns Derek brought up and the recommendations provided during dialogue, with additional insights to help clarify these issues for anyone in a similar predicament. From residency restrictions to actionable strategies for overcoming systemic challenges, this article aims to provide clarity and resources for navigating the sometimes-confusing legal landscape tied to registration and relocation issues.

---

Context Behind Derek’s Situation

Derek currently resides in Texas and is subject to life-long registration requirements due to a prior conviction. Despite this, he has built a life with his partner of five years, who resides part-time in Indiana and has his own unique obstacles, including living with a disability. Derek and his partner’s plan for a permanent move to Indiana seems promising— he assumes their relationship should allow for greater stability. However, complex barriers have made this process anything but straightforward.

Key complicating factors include:
– Residency restrictions for PFRs in Indiana, which prevent individuals from living within 1,000 feet of parks, schools, and other child-centric spaces.
– Questions around whether Texas could enforce Indiana’s residency restrictions, or how these restrictions apply across state lines.
– Difficulties transferring Medicaid benefits between states and the surprisingly long waitlists associated with some state Medicaid programs.
– Ambiguity in local law enforcement interpretations of these restrictions and inconsistent guidance when Derek’s partner attempted to gather information.

These overlapping issues raise a fundamental question: How can Derek plan for relocation without inadvertently violating statutory boundaries, especially when it seems like every system is set up to create blockers instead of solutions? Let’s break down each of these issues in-depth.

---

1. Understanding Residency Restrictions for PFRs

What Are Residency Restrictions and How Do They Vary by State?

Many states impose residency restrictions on PFRs, particularly individuals convicted of crimes against children or considered “sexually violent predators” (SVPs). These laws generally prohibit PFRs from living in close proximity to key locations like schools, parks, daycare centers, or other areas designated as child-focused. Indiana, for instance, requires PFRs meeting certain criteria to maintain at least a 1,000-foot buffer from such locations.

However, enforcement and definitions can vary widely not only between states but also between counties. In Derek’s case, his partner’s home, inherited through family, happens to be next to a public park, potentially complicating his prospective move to Indiana. When his partner sought clarity from the Allen County Sheriff’s Office, they were met with seemingly arbitrary refusals to answer or cooperate—raising questions about whether the law itself was the issue or whether restrictive attitudes against PFRs were creating barriers.

---

Does Texas Enforce Residency Restrictions Imposed by Other States?

Interestingly, the question of whether Derek’s current state, Texas, can enforce Indiana’s residency restrictions is legally murky. While Texas is known for its stringent registry enforcement practices, enforcing another state’s specific geographical limits on a registrant is rare. Why?
1. Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution: States are required to respect the “public acts and records” of other states, but they don’t have to enforce laws or restrictions specific to another state’s jurisdiction.
2. Equal Protection Clause: If Derek resides in Texas, under Texas law, he must be treated like any other Texas resident and not subjected to Indiana-specific conditions. While these claims would need to be argued in court, they highlight potential constitutional defenses if Texas tries to impose restrictions not explicitly written into its own laws.

At the same time, relocating to Indiana would bring him directly under that state’s laws, meaning he could no longer rely on Texas legal interpretations to challenge such restrictions. This highlights the importance of legal clarification before making any major changes.

Actionable Tip: Have a legal professional evaluate the specifics of residency restrictions at both state and county levels, making special note of any registry-related laws that are unique to either location.

---

2. The Medicaid Transfer Maze: Why Moving States Is so Challenging

Another substantial hurdle for Derek and his partner involves Medicaid. Medicaid, a program aimed at providing healthcare to low-income individuals and those with disabilities, operates via joint federal and state funding. While the federal government provides broad guidelines, states administer Medicaid independently, meaning eligibility rules, benefits, and application processes often differ.

Why Do Medicaid Transfers Take So Long?

In Texas, Derek’s partner faces a reported three-year waitlist to transfer his Medicaid benefits—a delay that could severely restrict Derek’s partner’s ability to move. While Medicaid is federally funded, states impose administrative controls on how they process incoming applicants. In some cases, new applicants (even those already enrolled in Medicaid in a different state) are treated as fresh cases, leading to long waitlists reminiscent of Section 8 housing programs.

Indiana Medicaid, however, has no such waitlist, making the decision even more complex. Derek and his partner must weigh whether they can both thrive in Indiana’s system given the residency restrictions versus Texas’ healthcare challenges.

Actionable Tip: If facing Medicaid transfer issues, consult a benefits specialist or Medicaid navigator in the state where you’re relocating. They may uncover ways to expedite the process, such as waivers or priority allowances.

---

3. Why Local Law Enforcement Isn’t Always the Best Resource

Derek’s situation also showcases another perennial issue for PFRs attempting to comply with the law: inconsistent communication and guidance from law enforcement. When Derek’s partner contacted the Allen County Sheriff to inquire about residency restrictions, they were met with dismissiveness and incorrect information. Unfortunately, this is a common experience for PFRs and their families, as many local officials prioritize deterrence—as opposed to carefully and accurately explaining how to comply with the law.

Why This Matters: While Derek’s partner didn’t provide his name or case details during the interaction, the uncooperative nature of the sheriff’s response underscores why PFRs need to navigate these conversations deliberately and carefully document any advice or instructions provided by officials.

---

4. What Are Derek’s Next Steps?

Given the complexity of his situation, Derek should consider the following actionable steps before committing to any form of relocation:

1. Clarify Indiana’s Rules with an Attorney: Engage a professional well-versed in Indiana registration laws to determine how residency restrictions may specifically apply to his circumstances. Ensure they also interpret any gray areas, such as Indiana’s allowance for proximity to public parks.

2. Determine Texas’ Position on Enforcing Out-of-State Restrictions: Have a separate attorney evaluate whether Texas law includes provisions requiring them to enforce Indiana residency restrictions if Derek remains a Texas resident—although this would only apply if Derek decided not to relocate.

3. Speak Directly with Medicaid Navigators: For Derek’s partner, speaking with Medicaid experts in both Texas and Indiana may unveil expedited pathways for transferring benefits or securing care.

4. Consider Selling the House and Moving Elsewhere: As frustrating as it may sound, the suggestion raised during the original dialogue holds merit. By selling the property next to the park in Indiana and relocating to a county or state without such barriers, Derek and his partner may find greater peace and stability.

---

Final Thoughts

Derek’s story is emblematic of the challenges faced by countless individuals caught in the web of registration requirements, residency restrictions, and state-level bureaucracy. While no one solution works for everyone, understanding the laws, leveraging legal experts, and adopting a methodical approach to navigating these hurdles can help pave the way toward a more stable future.

For PFRs and their families considering relocation, preparation and persistence are key. Don’t hesitate to consult attorneys, benefits navigators, and other professionals to ensure you aren’t inadvertently violating the law while moving toward a better life.

Actionable Takeaways:
1. Consult with legal experts before attempting to navigate residency restrictions in a new state or county.
2. Document all communications with law enforcement officials in case conflicting advice arises.
3. Explore all avenues for addressing bureaucratic delays, particularly when dealing with Medicaid or other benefits programs.

Your life and your rights are worth defending—don’t let systemic hurdles stand in your way.

When facing a situation that involves a polygraph examination, it can feel intimidating and fraught with pressure. Particularly in sensitive legal or supervisory contexts, polygraphs—commonly referred to as lie detector tests—are designed to detect physiological changes in response to questions, theoretically revealing the truth or uncovering deception. But does it really work this way? What are your rights, and how can you approach such tests judiciously to protect yourself and your legal standing?

This article delves into the mechanics of polygraphs, the limits of their validity, and how to strategically engage with them while navigating complex scenarios. Whether you’re dealing with a supervised release program or just curious about the nuances of polygraph tests, we’ve got you covered.

---

Understanding Polygraphs and Their Purpose

Polygraph examinations are often lauded as scientific tools to unearth truths. However, there are numerous debates about their validity, reliability, and real-world application. Polygraph machines don’t directly detect lies. Rather, they monitor physiological changes—like heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, and perspiration—that might indicate stress when asked specific questions.

The key issue is that these physical responses are not exclusive to deception; anxiety, discomfort, or the phrasing of questions can easily trigger the same responses. In some instances, polygraphs are used in workplace vetting, criminal investigations, or supervisory conditions for convicted individuals, particularly in cases involving sensitive charges.

---

Introduction to the Scenario

Recently, a conversation arose concerning the rights of those taking polygraph examinations under supervised release and how to avoid potential self-incrimination. The question originated from a handwritten letter asking for clarification about a prior recommendation: is stating “I request that my attorney respond to that particular question” still a viable approach for navigating polygraph tests?

The short answer is no. As explored in this discussion, there are more effective ways to safeguard your rights without escalating the situation or risking unfavorable consequences. To understand why, let’s break down the points discussed by legal experts and their real-world insights.

---

Myths About Avoiding Self-Incrimination

One common misconception is that you can bring your attorney into the polygraph room as a failsafe for avoiding self-incriminating questions. Unfortunately, that’s not permitted. Courts and probation offices typically do not allow legal counsel to accompany individuals during a polygraph exam. Consequently, misunderstanding this restriction or outright refusing to engage in the examination can lead to serious repercussions, such as technical violations of supervision.

As Larry shared during the discussion, taking a hardline stance—like outright refusing to cooperate or defaulting to “talk to my attorney”—is not a viable strategy. You cannot abdicate your responsibility to answer every question to legal counsel. At best, it will escalate tensions; at worst, it could result in a violation of your release terms.

---

Protecting Your Rights: What You Can Do

While you cannot delegate your responses to an attorney during a polygraph, you do not surrender your right to avoid self-incrimination completely. As a probationer or supervisee, navigating these situations requires a delicate balance of cooperation and caution.

Here are the steps to take when preparing for and engaging in a polygraph examination:

1. Understand the Pre-Test Process

In any legitimate polygraph exam, the questions you’ll be asked are outlined in a pretest interview. This step is crucial. Accredited examiners will not attach the polygraph machine and ambush you with surprise questions. Instead, they provide a clear roadmap of what will be covered, giving you the opportunity to evaluate each question.

If an examiner skips this step, you’re not engaged in a proper examination and should report the irregularities.

2. Assess Each Question for Scope and Specificity

Certain questions may be too broad or poorly phrased, which could lead to unintended consequences. For example, Larry recounted an instance where the question “Have you ever had any sexual activity with someone below the age of consent?” was posed to him during a supervised exam. As he explained, this question lacked clarity because laws regarding the age of consent vary by state and often evolve over time.

By raising this concern, Larry was able to have the question revised to something more specific and legally appropriate: “Have you, since achieving the age of majority of 18, knowingly had sexual contact with anyone who was below the age of consent at that time?” This careful revision ensured that his responses reflected the facts accurately without triggering false physiological reactions due to ambiguity.

3. Invoke Your Right Against Self-Incrimination Strategically

If a particular question could lead to self-incrimination, you are within your rights to decline to answer—but this must be done with tact. Experts advise that you express your desire to cooperate with the examination overall while firmly and calmly stating that you cannot answer a specific question. For instance, you might say, “I’m unable to respond to this question, as it may incriminate me, but I remain willing to answer the other questions.”

Be prepared for potential pushback during this process, as refusal to answer may prompt examiners to involve probation officers or other authorities. However, staying composed and consistent in your reasoning helps protect your credibility.

---

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Navigating polygraphs is already complicated; however, certain missteps can amplify the challenges. Below are some pitfalls to sidestep:

• Refusing the Entire Exam: Refusal to participate entirely can be interpreted as noncompliance, risking sanctions or even incarceration.
• Misunderstanding Context: Not all questions in a polygraph test will be incriminating. Collaborate to clarify which questions pose risks rather than assuming a defensive posture outright.
• Engaging in Emotional Reactions: Examiners are trained to manage emotionally charged situations. Remaining calm and rational is a critical advantage.
• Misinterpreting “Control” Questions: Questions like “Is your name John Doe?” are often control questions used to establish baseline physiological readings. They’re rarely intended to entrap you, so it’s best to answer them straightforwardly.

---

Looking Back: Historical Cases and Context

To illustrate the complexities of age-of-consent laws, the conversation referred to controversy surrounding Alabama politician Roy Moore. Decades-old accusations surfaced, alleging relationships with underage individuals during a time when societal perspectives on age differences were different from today’s. This highlights how evolving laws and cultural norms might complicate the interpretation of certain polygraph-related questions.

Such historical examples underline the importance of specificity in polygraph scenarios, as poorly phrased questions can open the door to unintended implications or misinterpretations.

---

Conclusion: Balancing Cooperation and Self-Protection

Polygraph examinations are inherently stressful, but with preparation and a clear understanding of your rights, they can be navigated without jeopardizing your legal standing. The key takeaway is striking a balance: communicate your willingness to cooperate while firmly protecting yourself against self-incrimination.

3 Actionable Takeaways:

1. Prepare for the Pre-Test Interview: Anticipate questions and evaluate their phrasing to identify potential risks.
2. Request Clarifications When Necessary: Work with the examiner to rephrase overly broad or ambiguous questions.
3. Respond Strategically, Not Emotionally: Remain composed and politely assert your rights when declining to answer incriminating questions.

Ultimately, understanding the structure, purpose, and limitations of polygraphs equips you to respond confidently and judiciously, ensuring your integrity while maintaining necessary compliance.

[00:00] Intro: This episode of Registry Matters is proudly brought to you by our amazing pledge patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael, Joel, James. Your support makes this podcast possible. Thank you, and don’t forget FYP.

[00:15] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 352 of Registry Matters. What’s up, man? How are you?

[00:24] Larry: Doing awesome. I’m glad you made it back from your lovely weekend or week at the beach.

[00:30] Andy: It was quite delightful. And I I we had a little bit of a miscommunication. Sorry about that. I I swore we were not recording tonight because you told me there was not anything going on. So I was sitting on the couch watching television, but here we are.

[00:45] Larry: That shows the dedication to of the many, many workers who put together this quality con content

[00:52] Andy: from coast to coast. And the dedicated people are you and me, which mostly you for putting the content together. So you don’t think we have a team dedicated from coast to coast working on this? Yeah. We have a team of you and me. Yeah. That’s a team. It’s pretty much coast to coast. With some of gaps in between. Yep. We do have one dedicated patron listening to us live. Thank you very much for joining us. And you’re on time, which I know you’re gonna leave us in a moment and go have dinner. What are we doing tonight, Larry?

[01:26] Larry: Well, you forgot to tell people to sign up.

[01:30] Andy: Well, please head over, like, subscribe, five star ratings, notification bell, share it. If you’re over there on the, subreddit for the PFR subreddit, please thumbs up when I post the episode on there, and everybody will be super happy about it, and we can drive more listeners in here. There. Now, what are we doing tonight?

[01:54] Larry: Well, I hate to break the studio audience part, but it’s just mister doom and gloom chance cannot be with us probably until later this month. He’s got other conflicts, so it’s just me. But we have a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It’s not a huge win for PFRG yet, but it could become so in the near future. Also, we have we have a belated phone message that I should have covered months ago. We have a question from Frank about your favorite topic, the Kabuki machine. I like the Kabuki machine. Also we have an article that I’d set up for Chance and he was in it was intended to be covered by him. But since he’s not here, it’ll be mister doom and gloom for that as well. So I think we’ve got a little bit of of content going tonight.

[02:53] Andy: Fantastic. Alright. Well, let’s dive right into the letter, the handwritten letter from Frank. And it says, dear sir, please forward this to the legal corner. A couple of years ago, NARSO published an article regarding polygraphs and our rights. To avoid the yes no trap and the issue of self incrimination, you suggested we respond, I request that my attorney respond to that particular question. Can we still use that? Is this still a good method of defense?

[03:26] Larry: Well, the what caught my eye about that, I’ve been intending to cover that, was that I generally write all the things legally for the Arsenal newsletter. And I don’t recall writing that because yes no questions are the way the polygraph is designed. It’s not a narrative.

[03:43] Andy: Yeah. It’s not an open question of, hey. Can you tell me what you did last year for Christmas? It’s like, that’s not gonna be a yes or no. Is your name John Doe? Yes. That’s how that works.

[03:55] Larry: That is how it works. I can’t imagine that that I would have written anything of that nature. But in terms of Frank’s question, I’m not a big believer in being at the poll, polygrapher’s office and saying my attorney should answer that question. That’s why I don’t think I wrote that. That is the quickest way to get yourself a, violation of supervision if you were to do that. You don’t think they’d find that funny? Well, I would agree with you. You say nothing’s funny. This this this would not that would not be funny. I can’t imagine who the attorney was that wrote that, that said that, and how it escaped my scrutiny because, really, they’re a practitioner and they tell a person, you can’t take your attorney to a polygraph exam. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

[04:48] Andy: No. I can’t. I would like to bring my my attorney with me to these questions, and he’s going to then answer for the ones that would incriminate me.

[04:58] Larry: Now, that having said that, Frank, you do not give up your right against self incrimination. That is something that you can do, But you gotta do it very judiciously. We had a case in Georgia early on in this program’s history where the guy told them what they could do with their polygraph. You remember who I’m talking about, don’t you? I do. He wasn’t going to take any polygraph questions. Wasn’t going to be examined at all. That’s not the correct way to invoke your right not to incriminate yourself because the entire exam may not be incriminating. It’s only a particular question that might incriminate you. So, each question has to be evaluated in the pretest interview. And you would tell the examiner in that situation, I won’t be able to answer that question because and then all the furniture on the Titanic’s deck will shift like you’ve never seen before. They’ll start pushing buttons to get the probation officer in there and they’ll threaten you with all sorts of bad things if you don’t cooperate with the exam. That’s what will happen if you do that. But if you don’t want to go to prison for incriminating yourself, you just have to stand firm and say, I can’t answer that particular question, but I am cooperating with the exam except for that question.

[06:13] Andy: Now let me let me dig into this a a little bit. Can you you can help them encourage them at whatever the terms we wanna use there. If the question might be too broad, or but then it can be you can get them to focus it so that you don’t have to answer to something. Do you do you see what I’m saying? Like, if they Well, I I don’t know. If if they ask you, did you do the bad thing to this person? You could get them to be more specific, etcetera, or less specific in a way that you can answer it where you’re not gonna ping the, the Kabuki machine?

[06:53] Larry: You’re correct. And I had that experience myself with the one and only PFR exam I took as the question needed to be narrowed because they asked, have you ever had any any sexual activity with someone below the age of consent? And I told them that’s not a good question. What do you mean we ask that all the time? And I said, well, you make a mistake all the time if you’re asking it if if you’re phrasing it this way. I’m laughing because you’re directing them over. If that’s how you’re asking it, that’s not a good question. Oh, and I said, so we we got variables here. I said, first of all, I need to know, was I above the age of consent at the time I had the sex? I see what you’re saying. But could the law have changed also in the time that they’re asking the question? That’s where I’m headed. I have been here a long number of decades and the law has changed. When I moved here, the age was 13 and I was considerably younger than I am now. And at the time when the age of consent was 13, I was in my early twenties. But still it was it would have been unlawful if they were below 13, but it would have been completely lawful if they were above 13, even though I was in my twenties. And I told him, I said, so you need to phrase the question like this. Have you, since achieving the age of majority of 18, knowingly had sex with anyone who was below the age of consent at the time you had the sex? Right. Right. I gotcha. I said, and they agreed to, modify the question because I said otherwise it can trigger a response because I have had sex with people under the current age of consent.

[08:34] Andy: I mean, this is making me it’s reminding me of the is it Doug Moore that was the somebody in Alabama, and he was catching all kinds of heat for forty years ago having a relationship or whatever that was. Is that the guy’s name? Yes. That was the, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. And, so looking back in the seventies or eighties, the age difference wasn’t looked at it wasn’t looked at the same way that it is now.

[09:04] Larry: That that is correct. If I remember right, he was a young person himself, and he was working at a restaurant called the Old Hickory House. And, he had, maybe worked up to where he was a supervisory type person, but he had sex allegedly with someone underage. And it was just nothing but rumor and gossip and, and malicious attack on him because there’s no way he could defend himself. You can’t find someone from the nineteen seventies that you supervised as a teenager and find all the people to find out if that was consensual or not. I mean, it was just crazy, but that’s what they did to him because they’re looking for ways to discredit him.

[09:42] Andy: Right. And so let’s go back to to Frank. So if they are going to so anyway, if they start asking you questions like, what is your name? Do you live at this address? Those kind of control questions, and then they’re gonna hit the the specific ones that would entrap you in in a sense. You need to answer all of the ones that you can and then work with them to make the question not roast you for the ones that, that are gonna well roast you.

[10:09] Larry: Correct. And that should be determined in the pretest interview. They don’t just hook you up and start asking you questions. You are apprised of what the questions are gonna be in advance. If you’re not apprised of those questions, then you’re not taking a bonafide polygraph exam from accredited examiner. I know from what you think about it, but still there’s a process to do it. And that’s not the process if they just wire you up and start asking you questions without you having any idea what’s coming at you. It’s just funny because to me,

[10:37] Andy: here’s the placebo, aspirin. And if you if you are not taking a bonafide placebo, aspirin, and it doesn’t make your headache go away, then you’re not taking a it’s like it’s pseudoscience, and it’s not real. It’s all in your head. And so we’re talking about a real thing in your head. Got it. Well, there’s a process to follow for Right. For the calligraphy business.

[11:01] Larry: I don’t know that it deviates anywhere coast to coast. So if you are hooked up and they just start asking you questions, that’s that’s totally junk.

[11:10] Andy: I gotcha. Alright. I think that was fantastic. That was a lot of fun. Kabuki machine. Alright. Well, then we will head over to this question from Derek. And I remember sending this to you, like, I don’t know, a decade ago.

[11:27] Larry: Well, I don’t think it was quite that long, but I do feel bad about it. I was that it’s lingered for months. I totally lost it until it popped up into my briefcase last night. I was going through trying to make it lighter and throwing out cases that I take home to review. You know, they’re thirty, forty, 50 pages on Yeah. Sure. I had printed this with the intent of calling Derek, and then it fell off my radar. So, Derek, I apologize. I intended on calling you, but you wouldn’t have answered your phone anyway, but still I intended on calling you. Nobody answers anymore. Well, this is what he said. He said, I’m a long time lurker and Patreon contributor to registry matters. The amount of time and effort that you, Larry, and Chance spend on this critical issue is incredible, and I’m very appreciative of it. I do, of course, have a registration question that I need help in determining what my next steps should be.

[12:16] Andy: If you have a couple minutes this week that I can lay on you, that would be awesome. I live in Texas charged with possession of CP at the federal level. One count, but I still have to register for life here in Texas. I’ve made peace with it. Now I have been with my partner for over five years. We actually knew each other before I went to prison, but he didn’t know what I was doing illegally. Anyway, we finally met up at the 2019, and he lives in Indiana, and he’s on disability. He has been amazing because for five years now, he has split his time flying between Texas to me and going back up to handle the rest of his affairs. His being on disability hurts his opportunities in Texas to get the same level of care that he’s getting in Indiana. There’s currently a three year waiting period to get Medicaid through Texas. He owns his own place in Indiana inherited through his grandmother, but his place is right next to a public park. I thought Medicaid was federally funded? Was it his three year wait what is this three year waiting list about? Is that actually something that to get your Medicaid, like, transferred into Texas, it’ll take multi, multi years?

[13:24] Larry: It can. And I learned that with my sister moving from Florida to Georgia, but she had an ex Medicaid friend that had worked in the bureaucracy and they were able to cut that weight down to just thirty, forty five days. But it’s, jointly funded by the Federal Government and the states, share that with the federal government. But the federal government picks up the larger share and many states do have waiting lists, for Medicaid. So you don’t just because you’re eligible, magically get on it. It’s kind of like, section eight housing.

[13:56] Andy: Everybody says, well, go get section eight. Well, there’s a three year waiting list, so you don’t get on it right away. Alright. Well, then he went on to say Indiana has a 1,000 foot residency restriction that they placed on SVPs and offenders against children. I found that they also give a clear definition of what constitutes an SVP, an offender against a child. But when my partner called the Allen County Sheriff, they completely shot it down without my partner even giving him my name or case number. I’m pretty sure that the sheriff was giving incorrect information. Now I’m not looking to pick up a registry violation. However, what would be the best way to reapproach the sheriff?

[14:36] Larry: Well, I still do need to speak with Derek for, for a point of clarification, but it sounds to me like Texas intends to enforce Indiana’s BFR restrictions. And I’m not sure they can do that. Cause Indiana is no longer in control if he were to move to Texas. So that’s a question we need to resolve. Is this a Texas law that says that he can’t live there? Because he mentioned the park in Indiana.

[15:02] Andy: And if he’s living there, then obviously it’s not a problem in Indiana. Right? No. No. What what the way that I’m reading this is that he’s going to try to move to Indiana to be with his partner, and his partner lives next to a park, and there’s the thousand foot restriction. So him moving to Indiana is gonna be a challenge.

[15:20] Larry: That’s what I’m reading. I read just the opposite. He was gonna move to Texas.

[15:25] Andy: But he is already in Texas.

[15:27] Larry: No. But the partner’s not. The partner’s in Indiana, and the partner’s going to move to Texas, and that’s where the Medicare whatever thing kicks in. Well, that’s what I’ve done. We’re saying the same thing, though. But but I it seems like that India, Texas is trying to enforce Indiana’s, restrictions. And I’m not sure they can do that because Indiana would no longer be in control. But the question would be, that’s my first question. Do I have this right, Derek? Is that what we’re talking about? And then the next question will be, does Texas have a provision in their law that requires them to enforce another state’s registration requirements? As wacky as Texas is, they’re right behind Alabama and wacky. But I wouldn’t be surprised as a deterrent to keep BFRs out of Texas. They would put something like that in their code that says that whatever restrictions that are another state would follow you there. But if they’ve gotten that in in their code, that is within its own most constitutional challenge because there’s also the full faith and credit and equal protection clause and all that and the the, the equal protection clause. If he becomes a resident of Texas, he has the right to be treated like a Texan. I understand. So with, what we know, what do you recommend for sure? Well, we need to do the point of clarification. So he can either call in again or agree to answer his phone, and I’ll call him now that it’s come back on my radar. But we need to know that clarification, and we need to have a legal opinion once we ascertain the facts, which I can get from an attorney in Texas. Do they have that provision in their law that they enforce out of state restrictions? But this is quite interesting. He can’t he can’t live with his with his partner because Yeah. Allen County Sheriff said no way. It’s like, really?

[17:16] Andy: Now now just from what you remember of this, and does it is he just, quote unquote, just on registration or is he still under some kind of supervision?

[17:26] Larry: Oh, that point is not clear also. But Okay. But by the way the letters the voicemail was constructed, it’s fairly certain that he’s not under supervision because he said he’s been commuting back and forth for five years. And I can’t imagine them letting him go back and forth to Texas if he were under supervision to see another PFR. I just can’t see that being approved.

[17:48] Andy: I don’t think his partner’s a PFR. Yeah. We need to get clarification because I think we’re reading different things out of this. I think we are. I don’t think I don’t think his partner is any kind of PFR. He’s just

[18:04] Larry: somehow he met him and he’s in Indiana. That’s what I’ve got. But I don’t yeah. I can see how you’re reading it that way. But I don’t see what if he’s a non PFR, what the hell does has to do with anything? Because it’s just like anybody else moving. But does this Texas tell you who you can live and be be, in love with and who you can be? Texas?

[18:23] Andy: Really? I can imagine that they would have an issue with a PFR living with a dude. I can totally see that. No. Not because we don’t. This is this is a state of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Come on, man. Not a state that believes in individual liberty and all that kind of stuff. Really? Not Texas. Not a chance. And then the whole Medicare thing, oh my god. You can’t move there and and just show up and end up taking money from the coffers. So, yeah, they would be very is the word reticent to let his partner move from Indiana and then immediately end up starting collecting a check? Benefits. And I don’t mean this in any disparaging way whatsoever. If the guys on disability, the guys on disability, but Texas, I would imagine they are not a fan of having somebody else show up, Especially gay living with a gay that’s PFR. No.

[19:15] Larry: Well, Google Allen County and find out. I didn’t take the time to do that. Find out if that’s Podunk City or where it is. But it sounds like a bastion of progression progressive thinking to me, doesn’t it, to you?

[19:27] Andy: Yes. See, and I’m thinking Allen County is then in Indiana. So, yeah. There’s an Allen, Texas. So I’m thinking it’s Allen County, Indiana. Well, we’ll have to get this cleaned up. But anyway, I wanted to get it back on the radar because it had fallen off. It is. It is Allen County in Indiana. So that’s what he’s talking about. He’s talking about him trying to move up there, calling the sheriff’s office there in Indiana to try and figure out what the deal is gonna be if he moves. And they’re giving him the runaround, which is what I’m sure every PFR office does for the most part is give everyone the runaround because they don’t want you to move in there either. However, his partner lives next door to a park. So that’s gonna be negative right out of the gate. You got that right. If if if you’ve interpreted it correctly, I think you have them. He’s gonna have a tough road to overcome to get there because But if that’s Okay. That’s you. So here, I’m gonna put on my love counselor hat. If the two of you are made for this and he’s inherited the house, then sell the house and move someplace where they can’t mess with you and you have that thousand foot restriction and move there.

[20:31] Larry: Well, tell me tell me about Allen County. Where is it? What’s the name of the county seat?

[20:35] Andy: Oh, good grief. Alright. Allen County is twenty twenty sent sent hey. It’s 385,000

[20:42] Larry: people. What’s the county seat? It’s the,

[20:45] Andy: a county I don’t even know how to understand what county seat means. If I if I search for seat on Wikipedia? Yeah. If you’re in the Wikipedia, it’ll say it’ll say the county seat. Fort Wayne.

[20:57] Larry: So okay.

[20:59] Andy: And I’m assuming that’s a good thing being, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Right? Well, being 385000

[21:05] Larry: people, that sheriff’s department has the power to enough manpower to be to be thorough.

[21:11] Andy: Okay. But isn’t wouldn’t if it were 2,000 people, then they’re going to be very aggressive about having a PFR to monitor. But three eighty five is a pretty substantial city. It is a pretty substantial population.

[21:25] Larry: But nobody wants PFRs to come. Period.

[21:30] Andy: I gotcha. Okay. Well, after we’ve, noodled around with that for a little while, do you have any, closing remarks before we head over to the main event? The main event. Let’s do it. Alright then. So this is a case that you put in here, you people have put in here from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And I read it over while I was driving back today. For six hours, I was reading this. And I see some justification for this case consuming FYP’s valuable airtime. The issue is a habeas corpus. Now how’s that so far? So far so good, so keep going. Alright. The name of the case is Louis Matthew Clements versus secretary of the Department of Corrections. And in 02/2008, Clements plead guilty to a single count of lewd and lascivious conduct in violation of Florida statutes. He was sentenced to five years of PFR probation. No time, just PFR probation. The terms of which provided that he qualified and shall register with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a PFR pursuant to Florida statute nine four three dot zero four three five. Do we need to describe PFR probation a little bit? We probably should because if it’s Florida, it’s going to be worser than anywhere else.

[22:48] Larry: Well, in most instances, with the exception of those supervised in Houston County, Georgia.

[22:54] Andy: I think I think that’s a dig at me.

[22:57] Larry: PFR probation is much stricter than any other form of community supervision. It involves frequent home visits, so called treat, but then involves the use of polygraph examinations, strict curfews, and really strict travel restrictions, except for Houston County, Georgia. So anybody who wants wants to be under lack supervision, transfer your PFR supervision to Halston County, Georgia.

[23:21] Andy: Alright. Well, I can’t really argue with this. In 02/2017, roughly four years after the expiration of his probation term, Clements proceeded, pro se, filed his first, twenty two fifty four petition in the United States District Court of Middle District of Florida challenging his conviction on various grounds. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction concluding that Clement’s obligation to comply with Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for PFRs did not place him in custody for habeas purposes. Now did Clement appeal that denial?

[23:58] Larry: He did. And on appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the district judge holding with some hesitation that the restrictions on freedom of his movement imposed by Florida’s lifetime registration and reporting requirements were not severe enough to place PFRs in custody under 2,254, which is a Federal law that limits habeas to review of state convictions to those who are in custody. And that was reported as Clements versus Florida. That’s Clements one fifty nine, Federal fourth at 12 o four to twelve fifteen, eleventh circuit. And a cert petition was filed with the United States Supreme Court, and it was denied.

[24:43] Andy: Alright. Well, then, do me a favor, please, and explain the significance of what the in custody requirement is for habeas corpus.

[24:52] Larry: Sure. In order to be able to utilize habeas corpus as a vehicle to seek judicial relief, a person must be in some form of custody. In custody is broadly interpreted to include probation and parole, but simply being on the PFR registry, I think has been denied as custody excepted one Federal Circuit. And I didnit do the research, but I think one Federal Circuit has held that it is, it does constitute custody. If itis not a Federal Circuit, itis a, itis a State Court, but I think itis a Federal Circuit. But a person who, who is not in custody, they’re, if they’re only required to register, they’re not under any form of restraint of their liberties according to the court. So therefore, you’re not in custody. You’re in a civil regulatory framework.

[25:36] Andy: Alright. But during his first appeal, Clements argued for the first time in his pro se brief that the residency restrictions in Florida impose excuse me, registry restrictions Florida imposes on PFR contributed to his, quote unquote, being in custody. Now what did they say in response to that argument?

[25:56] Larry: Well, they actually declined to consider the impact of those restrictions because Clements had not raised the argument below in the district court, and the record was undeveloped as to that issue. They even refused to take judicial notice of how much land was covered by these residence restrictions without access to appropriate and detailed maps and plots. And they explained that without knowing where Florida schools, daycares, parks and playgrounds were located, they could not sketch out the residency buffer zones as experts might do. And Clements did not provide the specifics necessary to evaluate the impact of these restrictions on appeal. Thus, they expressly reserved consideration of the issue for another day.

[26:41] Andy: And that day has now arrived.

[26:44] Larry: Correct. It has arrived.

[26:47] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.

[27:36] Andy: Alright. Then in April 2024, Clements filed his second Prose twenty two fifty four petition, again challenging the constitutionality of his conviction. This petition provides the basis for the instant appeal. Clements’ petition included the explanation regarding lack of custody, which acknowledged the questions, question left open in Clements one, and Clements one is his first pro se whatever. Right? Right. Okay. So, opened by Clements one and argued that because Florida restricted PFRs to living in only 50% of the state’s land, the district court should conclude that he was, quote, unquote, in custody for habeas purposes. Did the district court agree?

[28:22] Larry: They did not. Of course. District court. The district court acting on its own accord dismissed Clements’ petition for, lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that Clements had failed to address his custody status or assert that it had changed. So it was bound by Clements one’s determination that he was not in custody. It noted the fact that Clements now believed he had a new basis to bring the twenty two fifty four petition did not alter the fact that the court was without jurisdiction to consider it. The district court basically flushed the case.

[28:56] Andy: So Clements then moved for reconsideration and argued among other things that Clements won did not address the impact of the residency restrictions on his custody status. The district court denied Clements’ motion. First, it stated that it would not ignore this court’s binding decision in Clements one just because Clements had identified an alternate reason for why he was in custody. Second, the court found that Clements’ motion merely restated the arguments in his petition, which was insufficient to carry his burden for reconsideration. So he appealed.

[29:31] Larry: He did indeed.

[29:33] Andy: And I think I’ve heard you pontificate that a certificate of appealability is required to file a second habeas. Am I losing my mind? Am I having amnesia way too early for my age?

[29:46] Larry: No. You’re not. I did mention that at some point in our relationship. And the court addressed that in footnote one. They stated, ordinarily, a certificate of appealability is required to appeal to the denial of a 22, 54 petition. And they cited the appropriate US court, United States Court, code section. However, Clements was not required to obtain a COA in this instant case because his petition was dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and they cited Hubbard versus Campbell. And that’s three seventy nine federal third at twelve forty five to twelve forty seven. And that’s a 20000 2004 case, from the eleventh circuit. So he didn’t need to have a certificate of appealability. That’s funny.

[30:30] Andy: So what is the standard of review for this kind of appeal?

[30:33] Larry: Well, the court answered that for us. They said, quote, we review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a twenty two fifty four petition for lack of jurisdiction. They cited Diaz versus Florida. And that’s a 2012 case from the from the eleventh

[30:48] Andy: circuit. If we can circle back, I’d like to focus a bit more on what, quote, unquote, in custody means. The decision says federal courts may hear petitions for habeas relief filed by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the constitution or laws or treaties of The United States. Accordingly, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider a twenty two fifty four petition from a petitioner who was not in custody at the time of filing. And that’s citing, Malang versus Cook, four ninety US four eighty eight, pages four ninety and four ninety one, and that’s nineteen eighty nine. How was custody determined?

[31:33] Larry: Well, section twenty two fifty four a’s custody requirement is construe to be construed very liberally. An individual need not be physically imprisoned to be in custody for habeas purpose, Jones versus Cunningham. That’s way back from 1963, US Supreme Court. Instead, significant restraints on a person’s liberty to do the things which, in this country, free men are entitled to do when the constraints are not shared by the public, generally. That can be sufficient to satisfy the in custody requirement. The relevant inquiry is whether a petitioner’s actions and movements are substantially limited when looking at the cumulative effect of the restrictions on the petitioners autonomy. Now that’s what I keep telling people about the registry. If you’re free to come and go, just being registered is not enough. But the states that keep piling on these restrictions, they eventually are building a new vehicle for you to challenge aspects of the registry because you’re in custody.

[32:33] Andy: Now this situation seems to be a no brainer to me. PFRs in Florida have significant restraints on their liberty. Florida argued that Clements one was binding and that the matter had already been previously decided. What did the court say in response to that?

[32:49] Larry: They said, contrary to the district court’s belief, Clements One is not binding as to whether Clements is in custody for purposes of the instant petition. In the prior case, we expressly reserved consideration of the residency requirements for another day. As claimants had neither raised the argument in district court nor developed a complete factual record.

[33:09] Andy: No. Do me a favor. Repeat what you just said. I think you said something about development of a factual record.

[33:15] Larry: I did. I said that claimants had neither raised the argument below in district court nor developed a complete factual record. You need to have a fully developed record when you go up on appeal. I mean, hello, folks? This is serious business. When you’re in appellate court, they don’t develop the record. They review the record. Alright. So you’re on a roll. Keep going. They said Florida’s PFA PFR residence requirements are more than an alternate reason why Clements may be in custody for the purpose of instant case. These restrictions present a potential custodial constraint on Clements Liberty, and our court explicitly left open the consideration of these restrictions. As such, the District Court erred by not considering Clements new in custody arguments and by suis ponte dismissing the petition before the state could even respond, thereby denying the parties the opportunity to follow develop their arguments regarding the impact of Florida’s residence restrictions on Clements custody status.

[34:20] Andy: And what you’re talking about there with fully developed is similar to the thing that we talk about all the time of a summary judgment?

[34:27] Larry: Yes. That is not what it’s not exactly identical here in this habeas, but you’ve got to have the records

[34:35] Andy: developed below. The appellate courts are already reviewing the records. You don’t get to admit new evidence. You get to argue about the evidence that was put into the record below. Alright. Well, then the court stated, we must now consider whether despite the district court’s error, the record on appeal is sufficiently developed for our court to resolve Clements’ new in custody arguments. Now what did Clements do to better develop the record?

[35:00] Larry: Well, Clements took the first step by arguing in his pro safe filings that before the district court that Florida’s PFR residence requirements along with his registration and reporting requirements sufficient to restrict his liberty as to so to render him in custody. They noted that now that he is represented by counsel, that’s the court. They noted, Clements maintains this argument, but attempts to supplement his contentions by providing maps, as well as citing studies and academic briefs articles in his brief. However, much of the information is not part of the record on appeal because it was not first presented to the district court. You’ve got to let the district court have the first bite at the apple.

[35:46] Andy: Now it sounds like the record is still undeveloped. I’ve heard you say over the years that appellate courts excuse me, appellate courts do not admit new evidence. Did they allow it in this case?

[35:58] Larry: They did not. They stated we ordinarily do not review materials outside the record on appeal, and and as an appellate court, we do not sit in as a collective trier of fact. We therefore decline to consider Clements’ evidence regarding Florida’s residence restrictions in the first instance and conclude that the record is undeveloped at this stage for meaningful review of the issues Clements presents on appeal.

[36:26] Andy: Does that mean this case is going back to the district court for a third time?

[36:31] Larry: It does mean that. The court said, we we remand this case to district court to permit the parties the opportunity to develop the record as to the restrictions imposed by Florida’s residence requirements. The district court shall then rule on whether these residence restrictions, considered in combination with the registration and reporting requirements, render Clements in custody for habeas purposes. Mister Clements, I know you’re listening. Make sure that if your attorney isn’t doing the job that you don’t let this case go up undeveloped. You probably won’t get a force bite at the apple.

[37:08] Andy: So Well, but then by by what is happening here, what do you think the court is telegraphing?

[37:13] Larry: Oh, I actually think they’re telegraphing that they’re seriously considering the argument that being on Florida’s PFR registry meets the in custody requirements for federal habeas. And if they do that, if they come back with that decision and it holds up on appeal, that’s gonna be gargantuan. You would have another circuit to join that has said that it is in custody. And that’s a brand new vehicle for people to use because they no longer have to be under supervision. They don’t have to be in in a hard custodial situation. They just have to merely be registered. So Florida, keep on amping up your registry requirements. Keep doing what you’re doing, and you’re gonna be the downfall of the very thing that you’re trying to protect, which is your precious registry. Isn’t that funny? That what can you help me extrapolate that out to the people that live under bridges? Does this apply to them potentially? I don’t know if I follow the question. Under bridges, what does that have to do with anything? Well, be, like, the there are so many people,

[38:21] Andy: like, from the, is it Untouchable? The the documentary about Ron Book. They’re all the people in Dade County, I guess it is, where they can’t live anywhere, so they end up finding a place under a bridge somewhere that because of the way the residency restrictions are, that they would fall and then these people would be able to potentially find housing? Would this then give them relief?

[38:42] Larry: Well, yes. Now follow your question. If if the ruling goes the way we hope, this is determined to be in custody and he gets to cite constitutional arguments. He gets to raise, contingents on the constitution of every aspect of the Florida registry because he now has a vehicle to use. And he’s, I think he’s going to win this. I think the odds are better than fifty fifty that this eleventh circuit is going to rule in his favor. Ultimately, if the if the attorney doesn’t botch this case. Are are you in a position to be in contact with? Do you know who that is? I don’t know. I could figure it out, but why would they listen to me? I don’t have a law degree.

[39:24] Andy: Yes. I understand that, Larry. I I I do that you don’t have the letters, But that doesn’t mean you don’t know the arguments and the strategy and the opposing arguments and all that that you couldn’t be of great value to them.

[39:40] Larry: Well, I might I might reach out if I can determine who it is. I’d have to do some work, but if Clements is listening, you can contact the program.

[39:50] Andy: Yeah. No doubt. As he should be. And if anybody in Florida knows who this dude is, please point them in this direction so that he can get on board. Like,

[40:00] Larry: I’m assuming, Larry, that you could come up with all of the arguments that we should present and then what the opposing side would present in return. I’m assuming you could put that together. Oh, I think I could because I know what they’re gonna do. They’re gonna argue and argue and argue that he’s not in custody. They’re gonna argue and argue that their registry is merely civil, non punitive, or regulatory. And these all these restrictions are narrowly tailored.

[40:23] Andy: So, like, one of my big deals, Larry, was that can I go see a movie? I enjoy going to the movie theater. I like the big sound. I like sitting down with a big ass box of popcorn. But when I was on supervision, at least at the very beginning, I was not going anywhere near a movie theater even for a during the school day matinee where there wouldn’t be any kids there or anything like that and going to see, like, an r rated movie. No kids allowed. But to me, since I couldn’t go, that sounds to be more like a disability and our strength that sounds more like being in custody because you sure as heck can’t go to a movie while you’re in prison. So that’s just one of those things that you probably shouldn’t do is go see a movie, particularly one that has, like, you know, even if it’s adult, like, a Pixar kind of movie that has Shrek and adult jokes in it, but kids still end up there. Like, it’s just not a wise place to go. But that’s just an example I’m giving to say disability and restraint.

[41:22] Larry: Indeed. And, again, Florida legislature listened carefully. All legislatures around the country listened carefully. You can do almost anything, but you have to narrowly tailor it. You can apply it to all PFRs. If you’ll contact me for a minor fee, I will help you draft narrowly tailored legislation that will withstand constitutional challenge, But you have to target those restrictions like going to the picture show to a person who’s offended against a minor and more recently than than decades ago. But you can do almost anything if you narrowly tailor it.

[41:58] Andy: But that requires work for them to individually evaluate you to what your

[42:05] Larry: restrictions should be. Well, in addition to that, more importantly, it doesn’t play to the political machine. The victim’s advocates and the law enforcement apparatus, they do not want to hear about Narrow Taylor. They will tell you that there’s bracket creep, in which I’m using that term loosely, but they just because they didn’t offend against the child originally, that they progress and they escalate and they do all these things. So they want this you could never pass anything that’s sufficiently narrowly tailored because it wouldn’t make the victim’s apparatus happy.

[42:36] Andy: I gotcha. Now, someone posted in chat, they said, that they think that their a 2019 decision, the third circuit ruled that individuals required to register as PFRs in Pennsylvania were considered, quote unquote, in custody for habeas purposes. That’s exactly right. Allowing them to seek federal habeas. And he says that the case number is Piaseca versus Court of Common Pleas.

[43:02] Larry: I think I remember that. I think that’s exactly where I remember being from Pennsylvania.

[43:06] Andy: Okay. Well, there there there you go. It’s in the show notes for you to reference at your leisure.

[43:14] Larry: Thank you. Well, you put this You put this for the vast research the vast research of our audience.

[43:20] Andy: Yeah. That is, from, from 10 brands. Alright. Well, then you put this article in here from the AP, which has gotta be the most left leaning publication ever. It says the California Supreme Court handed down two decisions last week that could impact decades of sentencing for gang related offenses and allowing thousands of people to petition courts to reexamine their cases. That sounds like a bunch of liberal do gooders turning loose a tidal wave of crime on innocent Californians to me.

[43:51] Larry: So what do you expect from that place? It’s governed by communist who only care about power, not the people. But I put this in here for the sole purpose of making the point as we go through this. Keep in mind that gangsters are probably on the pecking order like number two or three below PFRs. So if a bunch of liberal do gooders, communist sympathizers can rule in favor of them, it’s possible that we might get some good rulings out of the California Supreme Court for us. So that’s why I put in here it’s hope. But, anyway, go ahead.

[44:30] Andy: Both rulings examined a 2021 law that raised the standard of evidence for proving that someone broke a law as part of criminal street gang activity. In different ways, the Supreme Court chose to apply the new standard to past convictions. One decision took an incarcerated person off of death row. The other sided with two incarcerated people who contested past strikes on the record that set them on a course for lengthy sentences. Now can you believe this? They’re siding with career criminals?

[45:00] Larry: Well, not so fast here. It’s uncertain how far reaching these two rulings will be. Both of them came in split decisions reflecting disagreements about how to apply the 2021 law. In one case, a four to three majority determined that prior gang related charges did not hold up under the new legal standards and thus could not be used as strikes. Larry Fletcher and Eric Anthony Taylor Jr. Argued that twenty fifteen gang enhancement convictions could not be applied as strikes toward three strikes sentenced for a 2020 attempted murder, as their convictions were still under appeal when the 2021 law took effect. It remains unclear exactly how Fletcher and Taylor decision will set precedent for other individuals looking to reverse sentences under the three strikes law, but it does have the potential to to let people out of prison. Chief justice Patricia Guerrero

[45:59] Andy: dissented from the decision. She admonished her fellow justices for invoking the authority to change the three strikes law under the guise of interpreting it. A second case ruled on Thursday upended a defendant’s death sentence and remanded his case back to trial court. The case was decided five to two upholding Jason oh, jeepers. Ag oh, Aguirre?

[46:21] Larry: Aguirre. That’s good enough. Aguirre,

[46:24] Andy: Jason Aguirre’s 2009 murder and attempted murder convictions, but sending it back to trial court in Orange County for what the court described as further proceedings. Both the majority and dissenting opinions said they would have reversed the defendant’s gang enhancements.

[46:41] Larry: Yeah. So you can see what these liberals are doing. They’re no wonder. The Gary was in his late twenties, a white man who prosecutors alleged hung up with a Vietnamese youth gang called Dragon Family Junior in Orange County. One night in twenty o three, he and a few younger accomplices chased a group of people from a restaurant to a cul de sac where members of the group crashed their car. Aguirre shot three of them and one, a 13 year old man, Tron, died. At trial, a detective testified that Aguirre shot three people for the reputational benefit of the gang. At the time, that was a valid reason for a prosecutor to pursue gang enhancements to a defendant’s sentence. That’s the kind of person I would want to live in my community, wouldn’t you? Without a doubt. So then in 2021,

[47:31] Andy: the law changed that. Now the law says that the gang enhancements have to show that any benefit the gang received from criminal activity has to be more than just reputational. I don’t understand what that means. Well, I guess they’re saying just,

[47:45] Larry: going out and killing somebody for to establish a rec reputation. I guess that’s what they’re saying, but I don’t really understand it either. It was noted when the trial took place, the defendant’s jury was not given instructions that tracked the revised language of the 2021 law. Guerrero wrote, in the majority opinion, would the relevant aspects of Assembly Bill three thirty three, the 2021 law, apply retroactively, this disconnect with the law as it has since been amended constitutes error affecting defendant’s conviction for active participation in a street gang. So they’re just looking for a way way to turn these criminals loose.

[48:23] Andy: I see. Aren’t gang enhancements pretty common across the country?

[48:27] Larry: Yes. Gang enhancements and so called three strike, laws date back decades to when California’s crime numbers were peaking in the late eighties and early nineties. State legislators in 1988 enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention, known as the STEP Act, in response to rising gang and crime violence, notably most visible in Los Angeles neighborhoods. Participation or association with alleged gang or gang members became highly subjective criminal acts that added sentencing enhancements for felonies committed to benefit a criminal street gang. Then during the era of so called Super Predator, voters in 2,000 approved Proposition 21, which expanded provisions of the Step Act to increase mandatory sentencing for gang related crimes. And that’s what when their prisons got so overcrowded out there.

[49:15] Andy: I see. And it’s in it’s what the people demanded over the next two decades, local prosecutors in California pursued allegations of criminal street gang activity for both violent and nonviolent felony charges.

[49:29] Larry: They did. And critics, activists, and reform advocates argued that gang allegations and gang enhancements disproportionately and fairly targeted defendants from minority and low income communities, and that the low thresholds of evidence led to prejudiced juries resulting in disproportionately severe sentences primarily for people of color.

[49:48] Andy: I can see it from that perspective, of course. The article notes that in 2021, the Step Forward Act, legislation authored by then assembly member Sydney, Cum Lager Dove of Los Angeles, attempted to address the inequities and excessive punitive impact of the original Step Act and its amendments. The Step Forward Act is the law at the center of the of the two new California Supreme Court rulings.

[50:13] Larry: That is that is correct. But, critics also say that current gang has some statutes criminalize entire neighborhoods historically impacted by poverty, racial inequality, and mass incarceration as they punish people based on cultural identity, who they know and where they live. I’m not so sure I completely understand that. I’m gonna have to have a little broader education on that. I don’t know how you punish a whole neighborhood, but maybe somebody could enlighten us.

[50:41] Andy: Maybe. Okay. So where else do we go from here? Is that is that all you wanna do with this particular article?

[50:50] Larry: It is. I think we’ve got all the content on the agenda done. And like I say, this is tangentially connected. If they’re willing to turn loose the tidal wave of crime of gangsters, it’s clear that they’re not worried about their reelection very much.

[51:05] Andy: Would that be because I I don’t know. What is it? Like an 80% blue state?

[51:10] Larry: I don’t know that I can say that, but it certainly is a blue state at the moment.

[51:15] Andy: I see. Well, it seems like they would have to all be the communist to let the forth the tidal wave of crime. Because you know they’re all moving from California to Texas. Right?

[51:25] Larry: Well, and and, of course, you know that liberals don’t care about people. They care about power. You understand that, don’t you? I’ve heard something about that too. Yes. Of course. Yep. Yes. So

[51:35] Andy: Well, I do wanna mention, Larry, now that we’re closing out the show, that we have two fine new patrons. One is named James and another is Joel. I would like to welcome them both to the FYP family. Roo roo rah rah rah and applause and all that fun stuff. Thank you guys for coming on board.

[51:55] Larry: Did they come on at stimulus level?

[51:58] Andy: Pretty close. One of them was much closer than the other one, and but the other one was quite generous as well.

[52:03] Larry: Alright. Thank you.

[52:06] Andy: Head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Even while I’m sitting on the beach, I will pick up your email and I will forward it to Larry. Leave an old fashioned voice mail message at (747) 227-4477. And please, as James and Joel have done, support us on Patreon at patreon.com/registrymatters. It takes a lot of time and effort to put the work into, to make these programs, and every little penny helps, show the support and love for this. So if you would be so kind to join us on Patreon, that would be immensely appreciated. Head over to f y p at, education.org/shop to find some merch, t shirts, and particularly the, Kabuki machine. It’s fantastic merch. Anything else? What are you doing this weekend, Larry? Well, I’m going home to visit with my kitty cat. Alright then. Fantastic. Well, I hope everybody has a great night and a good weekend, and stay warm or cool depending on where you are and what the weather is. I hope it’s all fantastic for you. And I will talk to you soon, my friend.

[53:09] Larry: Seven in the morning. Of course.

[53:12] Andy: Take care of my good night.

[53:17] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

The subject of jobs and automation sparks strong emotions for a good reason—advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are rapidly reshaping the modern workforce. If this feels like something out of a sci-fi movie, think again. We’re not talking about potential scenarios years down the road. This is happening right now.

From truck drivers to software engineers and call center employees to human resource professionals, today’s workforce stands on a rapidly shifting foundation. The AI revolution isn’t a far-off dystopia. It’s knocking on our door, displacing jobs, reconfiguring industries, and fundamentally altering what “work” will mean in the coming decades.

In this blog post, we’ll break down the history of technological disruptions, where we stand now with artificial intelligence, and why certain groups of workers—especially the economically disadvantaged and individuals with blemished records—may face the greatest challenges. More importantly, though, we’ll discuss actionable ways for individuals to make themselves indispensable in this brave new world.

By the end of this article, you’ll understand how to stay ahead of the automation curve and build a career resilient to the seismic shifts driven by AI.

---

A Brief History of Labor Transformation

It’s important to frame these changes in context. Disruptions to the labor market are not new. Labor Day itself—a holiday celebrating the achievements of organized labor and improved working conditions—serves as a historical reminder of a time when five-year-olds worked in coal mines to help their families survive.

Today’s working conditions, achieved through advocacy and union efforts led by pioneers like Samuel Gompers, look drastically different. Yet, the driving force behind labor market changes remains the same: technology.

Just like industrialization put untold numbers of manual laborers out of jobs, automation in the 1980s wiped out manufacturing roles that sustained an entire generation of skilled workers. And now, we’re entering the automation age 2.0—powered by AI and robotics, which are replacing not just physical labor, but mental labor as well.

---

The Current State of the AI Revolution

The Scope of Job Displacement

AI has shifted from being theoretical to an active disruptor of jobs across diverse industries. Consider these staggering numbers:

• In 2025 alone, major tech companies cut over 77,000 jobs, many due to automation and AI proliferation. That’s 495 jobs eliminated every single day.
• Surveys reveal that 14% of workers believe they’ve already lost a position to AI.

The job losses aren’t isolated to a particular field either. Industries across the board, from white-collar roles like human resources and marketing to blue-collar positions in manufacturing, are seeing major shifts. To name just a few examples:

• Microsoft and IBM slashed thousands of jobs, including HR and software development roles.
• An e-commerce company famously eliminated its entire customer support team after deploying an AI bot that was 85% more efficient than humans.
• Back in 2020, MSN replaced its newsroom of human reporters with AI, arguing that even intricate tasks like journalism were dispensable to machines.

What’s most important to note, though, is which jobs are getting hit first—entry-level workers and those already on precarious ground. Disadvantaged groups, people with criminal records, or those lacking impressive credentials often bear the brunt of AI-induced layoffs. The lower you are on the economic ladder, the closer you stand to the chopping block.

Optimism: Will AI Create More Jobs Than It Destroys?

The World Economic Forum, with its characteristic optimism, predicts that while 92 million jobs may disappear due to automation, AI will concurrently create 170 million new jobs by 2025. The catch? These new roles won’t just be high-tech programming or algorithm-heavy jobs; some of them will arise in sectors where human labor is still indispensable—healthcare, agriculture, construction, delivery driving, and nursing.

So while it’s clear AI will continue to disrupt the workforce, it’s also a reminder that not every industry is at risk. Jobs that rely heavily on human-centric skills—such as empathy, communication, leadership, and critical thinking—are still safe, at least for now.

---

Who’s Most Vulnerable to the Effects of AI?

The landscape is becoming increasingly uneven. Those at the top—the executives and decision-makers—aren’t the ones AI is coming for. The layoffs and automation cuts often hit the most vulnerable:

• Individuals without college degrees or specialized training
• Workers in easily-automated fields like data entry, customer support, and junior design roles
• Economically disadvantaged populations, particularly those who struggle to access reskilling opportunities
• People with criminal records or resume gaps

If your job can be boiled down to repetitive tasks or straightforward workflows, you may be especially at risk for displacement.

Even in higher-paying professions—like software engineering—entry-level workers are finding themselves competing with machine-generated productivity. For example, generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot are enabling engineers to automate large portions of coding.

---

What Can You Do to Stay Ahead?

The good news? While the risks are intimidating, there are practical steps you can take to safeguard your career. By focusing on under-automated skills and developing an understanding of AI itself, you can position yourself as an indispensable worker in any industry.

1. Invest in Human-Centric Skills

Robots are excellent at calculations, pattern recognition, and repetitive tasks, but they still struggle with the nuance required for many human interactions. Focus on developing the uniquely human traits that are hardest for machines to replicate:

• Empathy and Interpersonal Skills: Whether it’s leadership, counseling, or customer relations, roles requiring emotional intelligence are relatively secure.
• Critical Thinking and Judgment: Adaptability and problem-solving cannot yet be fully replaced by algorithms.
• Creative Thinking: Roles that involve creativity, from marketing strategy to product design, remain highly human-centric.

2. Become AI-Literate

AI might seem intimidating, but learning how to leverage it instead of avoiding it can be a game-changer. Even non-technical professions can benefit from utilizing AI tools. Here are some ways to upskill:

• Take free or low-cost courses online. Websites like FreeLearningList.org compile affordable resources to help you gain new knowledge.
• Familiarize yourself with tools specific to your field, whether that’s AI-enhanced graphic design programs, productivity tools for administrative work, or machine learning for data analysts.
• Experiment and collaborate with AI as a productivity partner in your current role. For example, AI can take over repetitive tasks, leaving you free to focus on strategic thinking.

3. Explore Cross-Functional Skills

Diversifying your skill set makes you a more adaptable and valuable employee. For example:

• Learn a second language to expand your communication reach.
• Take up courses on management or collaborative team dynamics—skills that are critical in any organization.
• Gain technical proficiency to complement your soft skills. A hybrid skill set is harder to replace.

4. Take Charge of Your Retraining

The unfortunate reality is that large-scale retraining programs are few and far between. Employers and governments have largely passed the buck, leaving individuals responsible for their own futures. Instead of waiting for a miracle program, take proactive steps to reskill:

• Enroll in community college trade programs or online technical courses that align with high-demand industries.
• Volunteer or freelance in roles that help build new, future-proofed skills.

---

Conclusion

The AI revolution is here, and it’s moving fast. Employers and governments may not have a roadmap for managing its effects, but that doesn’t mean you’re powerless. By doubling down on human-centric skills, gaining AI literacy, and cultivating adaptability, you can build a career that not only survives but thrives in an increasingly automated world.

The key takeaway? Resilience in the age of AI is rooted in your willingness to invest in yourself. Upgrade your skills, stay flexible, and treat AI as a tool to enhance your productivity, not as an enemy. This isn’t just about staying ahead; it’s about shaping your future with intention.

When you think of stories involving decorated veterans, you often picture themes of honor, courage, and resilience in the face of adversity. Rarely, however, does that narrative turn to tales of methamphetamine trafficking and complex legal battles over the boundaries of judicial delegation. Yet, this is precisely the tangled web surrounding Daniel Lockridge, a decorated combat Marine turned methamphetamine dealer. His story is one of moral complexity, institutional failures, and a broader conversation about justice, treatment, and the role of delegation in our legal system.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently waded into the deep waters of Lockridge’s case, touching on thorny issues that could have ripple effects on how courts, probation officers, and other parts of the justice system collaborate in sentencing and rehabilitation. Who ultimately holds the reins in decisions about treatment and monitoring for offenders like Lockridge? And what does this case mean for the delicate balance between judicial oversight and efficient delegation?

In this post, we’ll dive into Lockridge’s story, the legal questions it raises, and how this fits into a broader system of criminal justice and rehabilitation.

---

From Decorated Marine to Meth Trafficker: Lockridge’s Story

At first glance, Daniel Lockridge’s life could’ve been a script for a Hollywood drama. A decorated combat Marine who served his country with distinction, Lockridge returned home from overseas in 2009 just as the country was grappling with greater awareness about PTSD in veterans. Like so many others, Lockridge found himself struggling to adjust to civilian life. He turned to methamphetamines—initially, he says, to manage symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, what began as a way to cope with his inner demons soon spiraled into a much darker narrative.

Lockridge transitioned from using meth to dealing it as a way to make extra money. His operation grew to significant proportions. Sourcing meth from Atlanta, he supplied dealers and customers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, becoming what the court termed a “supplier’s supplier.” Over time, Lockridge’s network distributed over seven kilograms of methamphetamine before law enforcement shut his operation down.

A federal court convicted Lockridge in 2024 on charges of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court sentenced him to 210 months (17.5 years) in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Yet, the story did not end there. At the heart of the legal battle was an unusual objection by Lockridge over the conditions of his supervised release—a challenge that soon brought larger constitutional questions into focus.

---

The Contested Conditions of Supervised Release

As part of his sentence, the district court required Lockridge to participate in two specific programs post-incarceration: one for mental health treatment and another for substance abuse rehabilitation. Unlike most cases where such conditions go relatively unchallenged, Lockridge objected to how those conditions were designed.

Specifically, Lockridge argued that the district court unconstitutionally delegated its authority by allowing probation officers to make key decisions about the type, duration, and intensity of his treatment programs. For example:

1. Mental Health Treatment: A condition of his release required Lockridge to participate in mental health treatment “as directed by the probation officer” until the officer decided Lockridge no longer needed it.

2. Substance Abuse Testing and Treatment: Similarly, Lockridge was required to undergo drug or alcohol testing and treatment per the probation officer’s direction, again with no set limit or specified frequency outlined by the court.

Lockridge’s objection boiled down to this: Should a probation officer—a non-judicial figure—have the power to decide how these conditions are implemented? Or does this effectively transfer judicial authority away from the court, violating constitutional principles?

---

Delegation in the Eyes of the Law: A Constitutional Question

Lockridge’s case hinges on a broader debate about delegation in the legal system. For context, Article III of the U.S. Constitution grants judicial powers to courts, requiring judges to impose sentences consistent with statutory guidelines. However, courts often collaborate with probation officers (and other non-judicial officers) to manage the finer details of sentencing conditions—such as calculating damages or tailoring treatment plans.

This system operates on the assumption that judges cannot possibly oversee every granular decision themselves. Probation officers, for example, are seen as extensions of the court, tasked with monitoring and implementing the finer points of sentencing under judicial oversight.

But where is the line drawn? Lockridge’s legal defense argued that by allowing probation officers to make critical decisions about inpatient versus outpatient treatment or drug-testing frequency, the district court improperly abdicated its constitutional authority.

---

The Ruling: A Balanced Approach to Delegation

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit Court disagreed with Lockridge’s arguments, affirming that the district court had not overstepped its bounds in delegating decisions to probation officers. The reasoning was simple yet nuanced:

1. Judicial Oversight Remains in Play: The court emphasized that while probation officers can make initial decisions, final authority still rests with the judge. For instance, if Lockridge disagrees with a treatment program imposed by his probation officer, he has the right to petition the court for relief. Thus, delegation does not equate to complete relinquishment of judicial power.

2. Practical Realities of Long Sentences: Lockridge will not begin supervised release for more than 17 years. The court recognized that it would be impossible to predict his mental health and substance abuse needs decades in advance. By delaying those specific decisions until Lockridge’s release, the court ensured that determinations would be based on updated evaluations.

3. Efficiency in Justice: Probation officers play an essential role in the justice system, acting as the eyes and ears of the court during post-incarceration phases. Their discretion allows for adaptability and responsiveness, rather than rigid, one-size-fits-all approaches favored by inflexible judicial pronouncements.

The court concluded that what might appear to be “delegation” is, in fact, a practical and lawful collaboration.

---

Larger Implications: Veterans, Justice, and Treatment

Lockridge’s case sheds light on multiple systemic challenges, especially when it comes to veterans struggling with PTSD and substance abuse. His situation invites broader questions that extend beyond the courtroom:

1. Who Really “Owns” Justice?

While collaboration between judges and probation officers is practical, cases like this reveal a perception problem: many view probation officers as wielding outsized authority. For defendants, especially those unaware of their rights, this can foster feelings of helplessness in the face of bureaucratic power dynamics.

2. Treatment vs. Punishment: Did the System Fail?

Lockridge’s descent into methamphetamine use underscores how poorly the system addresses veterans’ mental health needs. Could early intervention—properly funded and easily accessible—have steered him toward recovery rather than incarceration?

3. Veterans and the Cost of War

Lockridge’s initial turn to meth isn’t an anomaly. A significant number of veterans struggle with PTSD, depression, and addiction post-deployment. This raises questions about society’s responsibility to care for the mental health of those who have served.

---

Key Takeaways from Lockridge’s Case

The Lockridge case isn’t just about constitutional delegation—it’s a reminder of how deeply intertwined social, legal, and institutional problems often are. Here are some actionable takeaways:

1. Re-examine the Veteran Support System: Advocacy groups and policymakers must push for earlier mental health intervention for returning combat veterans to prevent similar cases in the future.

2. Promote Transparency in Rehabilitation: Probation officers wield immense power in determining post-incarceration treatment. Clearer guidelines and oversight could improve perceptions of fairness in supervised release.

3. Encourage Reforms in Sentencing: Cases like Lockridge’s also highlight the need for rehabilitative justice models that prioritize treatment over prison for addiction-related offenses, particularly for veterans.

---

Conclusion: Justice Is Complicated

Lockridge’s life story, much like the runaway-train plot of Breaking Bad, sheds light on uncomfortable realities in our justice system. At its heart, his case reveals the human toll of untreated trauma, the cracks in systems meant to serve and protect, and the ever-ongoing legal dance between efficiency and constitutional integrity.

As public attention inches closer toward issues of criminal justice reform, Lockridge’s case will undoubtedly serve as a touchstone for the unresolved challenges at the intersection of law, health, and rehabilitation. For now, one thing is clear: delegation might be efficient, but the responsibility for justice remains inherently human.

Probation is often perceived as a second chance—a chance to move forward without incarceration, provided the individual complies with a strict set of rules and conditions. Yet, as the story of JT demonstrates, navigating probation and treatment can be fraught with challenges, misunderstandings, and often contradictory expectations. As we unpack JT’s experience, it becomes clear that attempting to cooperate with probation officers and treatment providers can sometimes backfire, making the situation worse than it initially seemed.

This article explores the nuances of JT’s case, the broader implications of probation management, and the critical lessons individuals on probation should keep in mind to avoid worsening their circumstances. Whether you’re on probation, are close to someone who is, or are simply curious about how the system works, this article will explain the importance of navigating probation with caution and strategy.

---

Context: A Tale of Probation Challenges

JT’s story is one of many frustrations. On probation following a conviction involving indecent materials in February 2023, JT was given a stayed prison sentence contingent on completing treatment successfully. However, complications arose from alleged violations: accessing websites that may not have explicitly broken rules but raised questions about compliance. His probation officer (PO) suspected misconduct without substantial evidence. A combination of conflicting communication, unproven accusations, and JT’s own admission to a seemingly minor infraction spiraled into a formal probation violation report filed with the court.

JT’s case highlights the intersection of legal technicalities, personal accountability, and the challenges of dealing with probation officers and providers who may harbor their own biases or agendas.

---

The Probation Officer’s Perspective: When Compliance Isn’t Enough

One striking aspect of JT’s ordeal is his perceived antagonistic relationship with his probation officer, who appears intent on escalating minor incidents. According to Larry, the discussion’s legal expert, some probation officers may act with a punitive mindset, seeing their role as enforcing harsher-than-intended consequences when they believe the court has been too lenient. This can manifest in several ways:

1. Fishing for Violations: JT’s probation officer seemed to be searching for reasons to justify revocation, even after failing to monitor his devices as required by the court. In some cases, probation officers may prioritize proving a perceived point (“you were too lenient, judge”) over genuine rehabilitation.

2. Overreach and Retaliation: JT’s transfer request to a reputed treatment provider more aligned with his needs seemed to irritate the probation officer, prompting her to suggest an in-person program JT could not feasibly attend. This kind of manipulation raises concerns about whether punitive measures are being used unnecessarily.

3. Communication Breakdown: JT’s probation officer appears unreliable—missing phone calls, misinterpreting emails, and returning from leave uninformed. Such miscommunication further eroded trust and added unnecessary stress to JT’s efforts to comply.

Reader takeaway: Your probation officer, whether acting with authority or potential bias, wields significant influence over your life. Being meticulous with communication, documentation, and compliance is critical, as trust may not always be reciprocal.

---

Mistake #1: Confessing When You Should Deny

One of the central lessons from JT’s story is the importance of handling accusations carefully. JT admitted to accessing a website that wasn’t explicitly prohibited but raised his probation officer’s suspicions. After repeated questioning, he “cracked” and confessed to the behavior, thinking he was being cooperative. This confession was later documented as proof of a probation violation, undermining his otherwise strong record of compliance.

As Larry astutely pointed out, admitting to allegations—especially without legal representation—rarely benefits the individual on probation. Even in cases where a polygraph test or other compliance tools suggest dishonesty, an admission is often treated as definitive and invites harsher scrutiny.

Why confessions often backfire:
1. Interpretation Bias: Once you confess, even a previously minor incident is viewed as a serious breach. What might have been disregarded as unsubstantiated suspicion becomes concrete evidence.
2. Irreversible Damage: Statements made to probation officers are nearly always recorded and included in your supervision records, leaving little room for retractions.
3. “Help” With Strings Attached: JT’s probation officer claimed to want to “help” by digging deeper into his admission and referring him to an in-person program. However, this offer for “help” came with consequences, including revocation proceedings and unruly demands.

Reader takeaway: Never admit to potential violations without consulting a lawyer. Even when a probation officer offers assurances that “honesty will help,” be skeptical of such promises. Maintain your right to remain silent unless a legal professional advises otherwise.

---

A Systemic Issue: Probation, Control, and the Role of Treatment Providers

JT’s interactions with his treatment provider paint a stark contrast to his relationship with his probation officer. His provider expressed skepticism about the seriousness of JT’s alleged infraction and advocated for giving him the benefit of the doubt. This difference of opinion only exacerbated the tension between the probation officer and JT.

Larry referred to this dynamic as a “collaborative fishing expedition.” Treatment providers and probation officers are often expected to work together, but their goals sometimes diverge. While treatment providers typically prioritize rehabilitation and long-term success, probation officers may focus more on compliance and control. In JT’s case, his therapist’s reputation and supportive stance seem to have provoked retaliation from the probation officer, who sought to undermine that relationship by imposing impractical treatment conditions.

---

The Legal Perspective: Does JT Have a Case?

Despite the probation officer’s actions, JT’s situation may not be as bleak as it seems. Larry provided some key points about what JT might expect moving forward:

1. Prior vs. Current Behavior: JT’s main line of defense is that his alleged wrongdoing (accessing the website) occurred prior to his sentencing. Legally, actions taken before probation begins cannot technically be considered a violation of supervision, as supervision had not yet started.

2. Judicial Discretion: Since the original sentencing judge opted for a lenient approach, it’s unlikely that they’ll impose harsh penalties unless there’s overwhelming evidence of defiance or new misconduct.

3. A Strong Record: JT’s otherwise strong progress in treatment and probation may work in his favor. Judges often prefer to reward tangible rehabilitation efforts rather than disrupt progress.

---

Lessons Learned and Practical Takeaways

JT’s case provides important takeaways for anyone navigating probation and treatment programs:

1. Document Everything: Keep detailed records of all interactions with probation officers and therapists, including emails, phone logs, or notes from meetings. This protects you from miscommunications or baseless allegations.

2. Admit Nothing: Follow the mantra “admit nothing, deny everything.” Even a seemingly small or irrelevant admission could escalate into a formal probation violation.

3. Stay Calm and Strategic: Even when facing what feels like retaliation or unfair treatment, it’s essential to remain calm. Work with an attorney who can effectively advocate for your case and push back against excessive demands or punishments.

4. Understand the System: Remember that probation officers and treatment providers may have different goals. Advocate for a provider who aligns with your needs, but recognize that your probation officer’s cooperation may be limited.

5. Prepare for Court: If a violation report reaches the court, ensure your lawyer emphasizes your compliance, treatment progress, and any mitigating circumstances. Courts care about effort and evidence of rehabilitation.

---

Conclusion: Walking the Tightrope of Probation

JT’s situation underscores the delicate, often precarious nature of life on probation. Accusations, confessions, and misunderstandings can derail even the most well-intentioned efforts at compliance. However, by approaching probation with caution, documenting interactions, and consulting legal experts when necessary, individuals can mitigate risks and better protect themselves from unnecessary complications.

The justice system is far from perfect, and its rehabilitative structures can feel punitive at times. But by staying informed, proactive, and strategic, it is possible to navigate probation successfully and emerge stronger on the other side.

Introduction: A Landmark Case in Parental Rights

The right to parent is often regarded as one of the most fundamental and sacred liberties afforded by the law. It cuts to the heart of family, identity, and personal agency. But what happens when courts intervene in this most personal relationship? Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived this heated conversation, casting a spotlight on how such decisions illuminate the tension between individual rights and state authority.

At the center of the debate is a complex and controversial legal case, Henry vs. Abernathy, which challenges whether a past criminal conviction automatically justifies severing parental rights. The discourse has spanned months and drawn widespread attention, with new developments raising questions about judicial impartiality and the extent of fundamental rights.

This article unpacks the latest in this landmark case, delves into the broader implications for parental rights, and exposes the intersection of law, politics, and societal values. Whether you’re a legal scholar, a concerned parent, or an advocate for rights, this story touches on themes that affect everyone.

---

Background: What is Henry vs. Abernathy?

At the center of this debate lies an Alabama law that prohibits certain individuals with criminal convictions from maintaining custody of their children, even when no evidence suggests harm or danger. The case of Henry vs. Abernathy arose when Henry, a parent with a past conviction, argued that this law violated his constitutional rights to care for his child.

In April, a three-judge panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Henry’s favor, affirming that his conviction alone was not sufficient to prove he was a danger to his child. The court underscored the importance of safeguarding parental rights, famously declaring that such rights are among the most fundamental liberties recognized under constitutional law.

However, just months after this win for Henry, the Eleventh Circuit announced it would rehear the case en banc—a procedure where all the judges in the circuit court reconsider a ruling made by a smaller panel. This spontaneous decision, known as suis sponte, was made without a formal request from either party involved in the case. Legal observers have called this exceedingly rare and potentially troubling.

---

The Importance of a Fundamental Right

The crux of the case lies in the constitutional principle that a parent has an unenumerated right to live with and raise their child, barring evidence of harm or neglect. This principle has long stood as a cornerstone of family law. Legal advocate Ashley, who has analyzed the case extensively, asserts that this right is “unalienable” and applies unless the child is a victim of the parent’s actions.

Yet, Alabama’s legislative stance complicates matters. Larry, a legal commentator on the case, expressed frustration with the state’s apparent contradiction: while championing family values and the importance of children having a mother and father, Alabama enforces laws that directly sever these familial ties. “It’s ironic,” he notes, placing a spotlight on the hypocrisy of such policies.

---

Why the En Banc Hearing is So Rare—and Risky

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc has raised eyebrows across the legal community. Legal experts suggest it signals dissatisfaction among the court’s higher-ranking judges, potentially led by influential figures such as Chief Judge William Pryor.

Larry pointed out that such a move, done suis sponte, is almost unprecedented in his long career observing appellate courts. “In my hundred and ninety-one years now of existence,” he joked, “I’ve not seen this more than a handful of times.” All humor aside, the remark highlights the unique and unexpected nature of this decision.

Typically, en banc hearings are initiated by a losing party filing a motion to reconsider. This time, however, the court acted on its own accord. Such actions often suggest internal discord among justices or an influential judge’s determination to revisit what they perceive as a misguided outcome.

While the reasoning for this move remains speculative, the implications are immense. The previous ruling, which celebrated a critical win for parental rights, may now be in jeopardy.

---

Reading the Tea Leaves: What’s Next for Henry vs. Abernathy?

So what might happen now? Larry predicts the court may opt to “narrow the decision” rather than overturn it entirely. He points out that the original 111-page ruling meticulously documented its reasoning, making a complete overturn improbable but not impossible.

However, politics always looms large in these cases. Alabama’s stance on family values and its historical conservatism suggest that a narrower ruling or reversal might have significant political motivations. “It’s hard to ignore the irony,” Larry adds, referencing how lawmakers often profess a commitment to traditional family values while enforcing laws that break families apart.

One broader concern is how this case could create a circuit split. In Tennessee, laws nearly identical to Alabama’s exist, meaning that if the Eleventh Circuit narrows or reverses its decision, opposing interpretations across circuits could lead the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Such an outcome could provoke a landmark ruling on parental rights and criminal convictions, potentially altering family law nationwide.

---

The Role of Hypocrisy in Legal and Political Debates

Beyond the courtroom, Henry vs. Abernathy epitomizes a broader societal debate about hypocrisy in policymaking. Alabama, for example, often emphasizes the importance of two-parent households in child welfare. Yet, its legal actions against parents like Henry contradict these very principles.

This hypocrisy does not go unnoticed. Larry and others argue that policies like these undermine the government’s credibility, especially when voters fail to hold lawmakers accountable. “How can we trust a system that preaches family values yet systematically undermines families?”

Such tension exposes the gap between rhetoric and reality in debates over fundamental rights. The ideology of protecting children and families coexists uncomfortably with laws that create barriers for parents to fulfill their roles, particularly when those laws simultaneously fail to prove their necessity on a case-by-case basis.

---

Conclusion: Balancing Rights and Public Safety

The Henry vs. Abernathy case isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a referendum on how society approaches fundamental rights, public safety, and the role of government in private lives. While parental rights are deeply ingrained in American legal tradition, they’re not invulnerable to challenges from lawmakers seeking to impose moralistic or punitive measures.

As the Eleventh Circuit moves forward with its en banc hearing, all eyes will be on the outcome—and its ripple effects across the nation. Regardless of the court’s final decision, this case highlights the precarious balance between protecting rights and enforcing laws.

Actionable Takeaways:

1. Advocacy Matters: If you believe in fundamental rights, stay informed and voice your concerns through public forums or by supporting organizations advocating for parental rights.
2. Understand Your Rights: Regardless of state or circumstantial nuances, all parents should educate themselves on their legal rights and consult attorneys when facing family-related legal challenges.
3. Call Out Hypocrisy: Inconsistencies in policymaking should be addressed, whether through local activism or challenging officials to uphold the values they espouse.

In the end, cases like Henry vs. Abernathy remind us of the importance of vigilance and advocacy in safeguarding the rights central to human dignity and family life. They stand as a vivid reminder of how critical it is to protect principles that parents—and children—depend upon for stability and belonging.

[00:00] Intro: This episode of Registry Matters is proudly brought to you by our amazing lifetime patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael, John t, John d. Your support makes this podcast possible. Thank you. And don’t forget, f y p.

[00:17] Andy: And Joey says he’s ready, so we are off to the races. Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 351 of Registry Matters. Larry, fine, sir. How are you this evening?

[00:32] Larry: Doing awesome. Glad you could have me back for this one final episode.

[00:36] Andy: One this is the last one. I’m telling you. That’s it. We’re done. Lights out. Head over to, YouTube and head over to your favorite podcast app. Make sure that you press like, subscribe, do all those happy happy joy joy things to help improve. Share the podcast, make the algorithms happy. Do all that stuff. Helps it makes a difference for us that we can grow the audience. We even got a new patron today. That’s awesome. And, so what are we doing tonight?

[01:06] Larry: Well, being that it’s a holiday weekend, I was trying to keep it light. But as the day progressed, I made it heavier and heavier with different stuff that I added at the last minute. Chance is unable to join us because of the holiday. That means it’s just mister doom and gloom. But with mister doom and gloom, we have a case from United States court bills for the sixth circuit, and it’s not a huge win for PFRs, and it’s not even directly related. You’re gonna probably snarl about that, but it has to do with treatment needs and courts delegating those decisions to the probation authorities. Also, we have some late breaking news from the eleventh circuit, and it’s likely not good. And we have a discussion about the AI revolution, which was gonna be the prime topic for this Labor Day weekend because of the dramatic changes that are happening in the labor market. And, also, we have one situation that’s relatively common from a patron and we’re gonna analyze it and it deals with treatment amazingly.

[02:20] Andy: Well, let’s, let’s dive right into this one. Let’s see here what I can do. I’ll press this button. You’ve got some, late breaking news here. Right? Tell us about what’s happening here. Yes. I haven’t heard that in a long time. I know. I wanted to see if I still had it, and poof, there it was. So

[02:38] Larry: that is that is all, archaic stuff. I don’t think anybody that’s less than 50 would have even heard that kind of sound in the background. This is a long running case that we’ve been discussing on the podcast. I think we discussed it maybe in April or May, regarding Alabama’s law. A three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the district judge in late April. And then this past week, a few days ago, there was a vote by the full court to hear the case en banc. And that means all the judges, I think there’s 22 to 24 judges in that circuit. And the previous opinion ended with some good stuff. It says we conclude that section 15 dash 28 dash 11 d four violates Henry’s fundamental right to live with his child as a parent, to care and the custody of his child because his conviction alone does not prove he’s a danger to his child. And that was, a huge win at the time, but it may be in jeopardy. And it goes on to say, but we conclude the district court abused its discretion and facially adjoined the state, from enforcing the law because they found facial invalidity. We talked about how that would, you could never get there because there has to be no set of circumstances where something could be done for a court to declare it facially invalid. And Henry did not meet that, burden. And the case is Henry versus Abernathy. And, so that’s what the late Ricky News says. And we really don’t have any more new news other than, a one paragraph order from the eleventh circuit saying that they have voted, polls of judges, and they have voted to hear this case en bloc. And if you go to the eleventh circuit’s website or any circuit, if they have a listing of their enboc cases, you’ll see they’re far and few between. So this is rare, and it’s usually not good.

[04:45] Andy: Alright. So just to backpedal just real quick. This was a decision that was good for us, and now they have sort of internally overruled the judge to go back and hear it en banc?

[04:59] Larry: Not quite. The it was already at the eleventh circuit, and a three judge panel held upheld the trial judge, finding that it was unconstitutional. Right. And that was back in April. But normally, a party makes motion. One of the parties that loses makes a, motion to hear it en banc or to reconsider. And this, the the one paragraph order says that the court pulled itself, and this was done suis ponte, meaning that on the court’s own initiative without a motion from the parties. That is pretty unusual in my hundred and ninety one years now of existence. I’ve not seen this more than a handful of times.

[05:41] Andy: And if I may, the we we often people often think, well, I sure wish the supreme court would go back and read blah blah blah this particular thing. They don’t ever can’t do it that way. This is what you’re describing is happening. Like, the Supreme Court can’t go Smith versus Doe from 2002 or whatever it was. Oh, yeah. We had that all wrong, and we will redecide. They don’t ever do that. A case has to be brought to them, but that sounds like what you’re describing here.

[06:09] Larry: No. Not exactly because this is a case that’s in the court. The court has just decided it in April with the three judge panel, which is how they decide appellate cases. You can’t. If you tried to run all the cases through all 24 judges, you would only you’d reduce the capacity of the court dramatically. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. I understand. So, therefore, this panel has been overturned by the full court. But it was not by motion of a party. It looks like it was suisbante. And that means that, to me, it’s very dangerous because that means somebody, and likely a powerful judge, possibly the chief judge, which is, we got a future segment I’m building for the chief judge of that, circuit, is the former attorney general of the great state of Alabama, William Pryor. Okay. And his confirmation to be on the eleventh circuit was so contentious. It took a long and torturous route for him to get to the position he’s in now. But my suspicion and listen, I’m saying suspicion. I have no proof. My suspicion is that judge Pryor or somewhat of his magnitude of those 24 judges decided that they don’t like this. And they went around him and built support to revisit this decision.

[07:32] Andy: So what would you just, you know, read in the tea leaves, Larry throw some dice, see what you think. What how’s this gonna come out in the end?

[07:42] Larry: I think they’re gonna narrow the decision from where where it was a really fine win. They may narrow it. I’d hate to think it’s hard for me to imagine that they could find the basis to completely overturn it because it it was a 111 pages and we we couldn’t even cover it all. It I mean, they covered they did a very good job of documenting their reasoning behind their decision. So they may narrow it, but they certainly could overturn it altogether. But then that would definitely create a a circuit conflict because in Tennessee, they have a almost identical law. And, so I think you would have a split with the circuits and then this would get to go to where everybody wants it to go to the Supreme. And

[08:23] Andy: Ashley, the attorney that we have had on a bazillion times says that you do have a constitutional right to be with your children, provided they’re not the the victims in this, which I totally understand that. But otherwise,

[08:35] Larry: she said that you have it’s it’s an unenumerated right if if I’m not mistaken. That was in the opinion. Yes. It’s one of the most fundamental rights that that a parent has. And it’s interesting coming from the state of Alabama, where they profess that they’ve so much believed that a child needs a daddy and a mama.

[08:55] Andy: You’ve heard that. Right? I believe I’ve heard something along specifically, a male dad and a female mom. Nodes what is it? Even what is it?

[09:06] Larry: Adam and Steve yet. Not Adam and Steve, and I don’t know what the inverse of that would be. None of that none of that hanky panky. This is so ironic, and it’s one of the many things of hypocrisy that gets to spew from the right, and they don’t get held accountable by their voters. And I keep begging the audience, please, someone, say that you’re willing to come on and criticize this hypocrisy and we will open our FYP mics to you because I’m begging. I want someone who sees the hypocrisy to criticize it like I do. I criticize hypocrisy from my team all the time. But this is one of those things that drives me up the wall. They claim that they believe that a child needs both parents, and that they pass a law that says you can’t be a part of it. And they have all these laws where you can’t attend school, you can’t do all these things, and yet they get to pretend that they want children to have both parents. Isn’t that funny? It is. I have something to play for that.

Lester Maddox: For you to come back and call bigots my admirers is a farce. It’s a act of hypocrisy. It’s it’s it’s a terrible way to treat a guest on your show, and you know it. Hypocrisy.

[10:11] Andy: Hypocrisy.

[10:12] Larry: Who was that like it? That was, governor Maddox, Lester Maddox of Georgia in the nineteen sixties.

[10:19] Andy: Very well. What was the name of that show?

[10:22] Larry: What? Was that was that Cavett?

[10:25] Andy: I believe so. The Cavett show? I don’t remember which one it was. That’s I’m pretty sure that’s what it was. Well, okay. Move along. This is a a letter from, JT that came in I don’t know. I was, like, sitting at dinner, and, I was like, I should send this over. And it says, JT said, I messed up on probation. I have been an SOT, which I guess would be, PFR treatment, and on probation since February 2023 for indecent material involving a minor with prison stayed and jail time imposed, but not executed subject to successful completion of my treatment. My probation officer claimed to have received a report of me accessing inappropriate sites. Now I was not placed on device monitoring, although it was ordered by the court. I did slip and access a particular website on a couple of occasions on an account created prior to sense sentencing. I have a problem with like, I kinda, like, accidentally did it kinda sorta thing. Like, you don’t accidentally do it. But, anyway, I denied it and was threatened with a polygraph. Upon notification that I was about to complete the main phase of treatment and enter the six month post treatment phase, my PO told my group therapist about her suspicion. He discussed it with me. I didn’t admit it, but he told me if I did access access the site, he wasn’t really concerned enough to hold me back because the site was not related to anything illegal content or nonconsensual behaviors. Now what’s your take on that?

[11:58] Larry: Oh, that’s a pretty easy one to have a take on. The probation officer wants him to fail. Now that I can’t tell you why. And I’d certainly be curious as to reasons why, but my suspicion is that the PO feels that the original sentence was way too lenient and they like to substitute their judgment for that of the courts. And also, he has a job that causes him to travel. And, certainly, in this state, they’re not fond of you moving around outside the county. And it looks like that he’s traveling according to what we’ll get to later. They don’t like that because the probationer has too much freedom. And and there could be other reasons why they want you to fail. They could just have pegged him as a screw up, but I suspect they just don’t think he got the punishment he deserved. And they’re looking for a way to tell the judge, see, you’re wrong. Judge, look at here. Look at what he’s doing. That’s what I suspect.

[12:51] Andy: Alright. He went on to say also, he said since she failed to place monitoring on my phone, he wasn’t interested in her accusations. He also told me I may be subject to polygraphs, but a polygraph is only a minuscule part of their consideration. To put things in perspective, I’ve been extremely active, successful, and truly shown great progress, and he believes in me despite knowing I may have slipped. He was more critical and skeptical of her actions than anything. He wrote her an email telling her he wouldn’t hold me back or take any action even if her axe accusations were true, and the lack of monitoring was even more reason for an action. What do you think about that, mister doom and gloom? Oh, that would have gone over like a lead balloon.

[13:39] Larry: The appeal would not have wanted a treatment provider to say anything like if that’s anything approximating on a an accurate recount of what the treatment provider said, they would be trying their best to get that person decertified as treatment as a treatment provider here. That’s how much that would’ve gone how well that would’ve gone over.

[14:03] Andy: So then, I guess this is JT. He stated she called me in for a meeting a couple days later and restated her accusations and her intentions. I, again, denied, and she said their investigation will continue, and she has already confirmed a resource with law enforcement to investigate further to get the truth. She said they only want to get me help if I need it if I’m struggling. And that sounds like we’re from the government and we’re here to help, doesn’t it?

[14:29] Larry: It sounds exactly like that. It does. And unfortunately, he said, quote, I cracked and admitted accessing the site. She documented my statement and asked approximate dates and printed it out.

[14:44] Andy: Now JT realizes his mistake already. He said, I guess I should have known better, but she filed a formal probation violation with the court and said I’ll have a court date set. She then said, although she knows I’m in love with my current provider, she’s going to refer me to an in person treatment rather than the Zoom treatment. She knows I’m unable to use my current provider in person because, they are over 200 miles away. And I believe it’s retaliation because my therapist doesn’t agree that it’s as serious as she does. My current provider is highly regarded as the best of my state, and I switched to them, due to them having the resources to provide treatment directly related to my offense. I begged her to work something out with my current provider, and she said she would discuss it with her supervisor, but doubted it. Now this sounds like a farce to me.

[15:34] Larry: It’s likely indeed a farce. And that’s the reason why I refer to most PFR treatment. The arrangement that they have is merely a collaborative fishing expedition because she was fishing for something, and she’s not getting it from that provider. So what do we do? Well, we got two choices. We give up and say, let’s just let the guy graduate or we send him to someone else. And she’s not willing to let go of it because she wants this guy violated. But there’s a bright side to this. If he were in this state, he would already be in jail Because probation officers here possess, arrest and hold powers. They issue they’re, like a mini court when it comes to probation. They issue a detain and hold order. So they come out, lock you up, they take you to the jail, and they lodge you, and that that arrest and hold order is the same as as if a warrant had been issued. And in many states, most states, I don’t think allow that, but New Mexico does. So look at the bright side. He’s not in jail yet.

[16:53] Andy: He said she also forgets phone calls and accuses me of not reporting things, so I switched to email. She then fails to read a reply and berates me for not being forthcoming until I find the emails that include replies, and I show her. She has taken two leaves of absence for two plus months since my probation started and returns uninformed. I know you will say, don’t rock the boat, and I probably shouldn’t have admitted anything to her. This is getting long, so I’ll wrap it up. Feel free to contact me to clarify. I tried to be as detailed and concise as possible. Also, I’m in the state Of Minnesota. So, just just to push this out there, somebody in the chat said, rule number one, admit nothing. Rule number two, deny everything. He broke both rules.

[17:35] Larry: Yeah. And I hate to I hate to be that direct, but that’s one of the prime rules here. It doesn’t matter if you fell a polygraph. You cannot gain anything from these people by admitting even if you did what the deception is showing on your Kabuki machine. You can’t you can’t better yourself by doing that. I don’t know of a single instance. Now there may be one somewhere out there, but I do not know of a single instance where a person has admitted to something and then it going well for them. I just I wish I could say it works out that way, but I don’t have any evidence that it does.

[18:17] Andy: Okay. So since we’ve already, let the barn, the horse out of the barn, what does he have anything to stand on now, or is it just, like, just get your affairs in order and be ready to go?

[18:29] Larry: I think he’s got a pretty compelling case, actually. The, assuming that the court is not out to get him. And if it’s the same judge that sentenced him, one or two things are gonna happen here. The judge is gonna say, I told you when I sentenced you, I had a zero tall tolerance policy. And the lawyer if the if the lawyer is thinking, the judge is that’s gonna say, judge, well, you did have a zero tolerance tolerance policy, and he’s adhered to that. This, this event happened prior to sentence being imposed. I think that’s where you read it. Right? It does happen. And so he has not violated, and he takes us seriously. And so I think the judge having, having sentenced him leniently, there must have been a compelling PSR in his favor. He’s likely has very minimal or no prior history with the courts and was a stable, productive member of the community. And the judge isn’t likely gonna wanna violate him for something he did prior to being on probation. I would find that highly unlikely. So if she’s filed a violation report, I expect the judge to do very little with it except hold it in abeyance unless they come up with something stronger than what he’s conveyed to us. And abeyance would be put it just off to the side in case something else, and then we’ll stack everything on top of it? That’s what I would expect the judge to do. The judge would say, I’m really disappointed this case has come back before me, but it really doesn’t rise to level of meriting revocation because that was before you were you in fact, legally, I don’t think you can revoke for somebody for something they did prior to being on supervision. But I’m telling you this final time, I don’t wanna see you again. Could you could you go over that again, something that you were doing? So this guy was into whatever he was into that was legal, and he was doing that prior to? Well, whether it was legal or not, it doesn’t matter. He he broke the law prior to being under supervision. So it’s not a violation of his supervision. I see. I gotcha. Okay. Yeah. If he even if it was illegal, I don’t know what that site is. You didn’t call it by name. I don’t know if it’s a good site or a bad site. But It’s just it’s a fetish site. It’s a site that adults would go to to find like minded adults to do whatever though they wanna do, consensual and legally. If he’s been going to that site subsequent to being on supervision, that’s gonna be a different situation.

[20:59] Andy: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[21:03] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.

[21:52] Andy: Alright. So let’s talk about this decision from the Sixth Circuit. Now you have this in here from the Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals and I’ve read it. I was doing the grass again there and I had that push mower thing going. And I’m struggling to see the connection to PFRs. You do this all the time where you like, let’s see how far we can twist and mangle this and contort my face to see how you want this to fit into something that’s PFR related. So what is your brilliant readers reason for wanting to discuss this? Well, I have some brilliant reasons. It has to do

[22:26] Larry: it it has to do with the treatment and the delegation. Some believe there should not be any delegation and the Supreme Court in, ended delegation when they overturned Chevron deference. I said then, it’s going to have minimal impact on how things operate because we have to have delegation. So therefore, this is another example of, you know, delegation is not gonna end. Folks, get over it.

[22:52] Andy: Alright. Well, then I’m gonna set this up, and this is the case of The United States Of America versus Daniel Lockridge. Lockridge is a decorated combat marine and a convicted methamphetamine trafficker. He claims that after he returned to this country in 02/2009, he turned to meth. First to manage his post traumatic stress disorder, then to make some extra money. He soon became his supplier’s supplier. That sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie. Sourcing meth from Atlanta, Georgia and reselling it to a supplier turned customer among others for distribution in Chattanooga, Tennessee. By the time law enforcement caught him, Lockridge had sold over seven kilos of meth in the volunteer state. I have no idea. I don’t even know how much a kilogram is, like like, visually, and I don’t know how much that’s worth. Did did you say he became his supplier supplier? Now please admit that’s funny. I did say that. That’s why I’m saying it’s like someone even wrote in chat. It’s like that’s that’s like Breaking Bad. That’s like almost exactly the same storyline of the TV show Breaking Bad. Phenomenal show, by the way, Larry. If you wanna watch a show that you might I think you would actually like that one. Now so I do agree that there’s a certain amount of irony here. And in 2024, Lockridge plead guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute meth. The district court sentenced Lockridge to two hundred ten months in prison and three years three years of supervised release. Two condition of Lockridge’s supervised release require treatment for his mental health and substance abuse challenges. The first is a special condition that requires him to participate in a program of mental health treatment as directed by the probation officer until such a time as he is released from the program by the probation officer. The second is a special condition that requires Lockridge to participate in a program of testing and or treatment for drug and or alcohol abuse as directed by the probation officer until such a time as he is released from the program by the probation officer. Now I take it that Lockridge didn’t really dig those conditions too much? He he did not. At sentencing, Lockridge objected and argued that the district court must, pre authorize any inpatient

[25:07] Larry: as opposed to outpatient treatment under both conditions and set a frequency for drug testing under the second condition that required to be drug tested. I’ve never heard of that argument before, and I’ve been doing this a long time. The district court, Lockridge, argued, may not constitutionally delegate these decisions to the probation officer. The court overruled Lockridge’s objection. Lockridge appealed to the sixth circuit contesting these features of his sentence.

[25:35] Andy: Now I recall when SCOTUS issued their ruling overturning Chevron deference, you pontificate it that it would have little or no impact on how things operate. Now how can you not recognize that people should do their jobs and not shirk?

[25:51] Larry: Well, I don’t know how I can not recognize that. I just recognize the reality of the what the situation is. Article three of the constitution requires courts, consistent with congressional statutes, to exercise any discretion in imposition of punishment, but it does not require courts alone to propose the initial conditions of a sentence. The district court may use the assistance of non judicial officers as it does for other exercises of its judicial power, such as calculating damages. The judge doesn’t sit there with a calculator and say, now let me see that picture. What do you reckon that car would cost to put it back in order? Uh-huh. The judge doesn’t do that. They cited Thorne v. Carson, decision in 1813. Now, we’re not talking about something recent. Analyzing When you’re in your Ute? Yeah. That was about three years after I was born. That that decision was analyzing common law claims tied up in bankruptcy. What makes this assistance permissible is that article that the article three court does remain in charge. It reviews and accepts, modifies or rejects the non judicial officers recommendations. Now that’s a little bit of a stretch for the court to say that the what the reality of it is the probation department and The US, Probation Service tells you that you’re gonna do this and there is no review. You sign the document. You if you disagree, you’re facing consequences. It’s signed under duress, and you have to take them to court if you don’t like that. But but they’re putting the best spin they can on it to justify their decision.

[27:31] Andy: Why can’t judges decide if the treatment is needed and issue the order?

[27:36] Larry: Well, they they did. He decided, this judge decided that it was needed. But it would be terribly expensive and time consuming. This type of collaboration between article three courts and non article three officers is common in criminal sentencing. District courts regularly look to probation officers, who would like an Article three commission to report on each defendant’s background, to propose the guidelines, the sentencing range within the guidelines, and to make other re recommendations about conditions of sentencing and victim impact and all that kind of stuff. What while the probation officer’s proposals benefit the court, they do not bind it. Judicial power is still with the court. Punishment remains with and the final decision is made by the court.

[28:20] Andy: Now, as usual, Larry, you are pretty much impossible. And I say that the probation officers should not hold all the power.

[28:28] Larry: I agree. And they don’t hold all the power. They just hold most of it.

[28:32] Andy: Yeah. They do seem to hold quite a bit.

[28:35] Larry: And as often in the case within the future conditions of supervised release, remember, he got two hundred and forty months. So 15% off of that doesn’t take off much because this is a federal sentence. And the district court in this instance, did not spell out precisely how these conditions would be implemented years in the future. It’s hard to know what conditions the person would need two hundred and ten months out. He maybe he gets better. Maybe he gets worse. The probation officer’s gonna see him when he when he walks out the gate of prison. The federal judge is not gonna see him. I mean, this is just silliness.

[29:10] Andy: Now I memorized page four. And so the parties agreed that the district court could decide at sentencing whether Lockridge must undergo treatment, here mental health and substance abuse treatment, during his term of supervised release. And the parties agreed that the district court permissively exercised its discretion in saying some treatment was an order. What separates the parties is whether the district court was required to specify the features of the treatment program programs two hundred month two hundred ten months in advance. Now by finally not deciding whether, inpatient or outpatient treatment was required at Lockridge’s sentencing, In other words, did the court abdicate its authority to make that that decision? The district court did delegate.

[29:55] Larry: No. It did not delegate that authority. If Lockridge does not want to go undergo treatment when he’s out, he can go back to court and ask that the probation officer be overruled. That’s not gonna happen. Now that would be funny. How often does that happen? It doesn’t happen, but he can do that. So the court stated we have no reason to think that the district court relinquished its authority to select Lockridge, Lockridge’s treatment programs to the probation officer by not making that choice at sentencing. And we have every reason to think that the court merely delayed making that choice. Almost two decades will pass before Lockridge begins supervised release, during which time he will attend five hundred hours of substance abuse treatment while in prison and undergo any number of personnel, personal changes that a lengthy sentence will bring. No one, not the district court, not the probation officer, not even Lockridge himself can predict at this stage whether Lockridge will require inpatient or outpatient treatment when he begins supervised release. I mean, you people need to get over it.

[30:57] Andy: Five hundred hours while he’s locked up? That is a lot.

[31:01] Larry: So

[31:03] Andy: so on this record, it thus makes sense to read the sentence as reserving for the district court discretion to choose treatment programs at a time closer to Lockridge’s supervised release. At that point, years into the future, Lockridge’s probation officer can can assess his treatment needs and recommend inpatient or outpatient treatment to the district court. With enough time for Lockridge to object with the help of appointed counsel before he sets foot in any program. Yeah. That was what the court said and it makes sense to me. And they concluded with, quote, then and only then will the district court weigh Lockridge’s

[31:38] Larry: need for inpatient treatment. If such a need exists against Lockridge’s slippery interests before these interests are compromised. They’re gonna, he’s gonna have an opportunity if they try to put him in inpatient treatment and he is as needed, he can contest it. The court not the probation officer will ultimately decide whether the lockbridge must be involuntarily committed or must attend inpatient treatment. Does that say inpatient? Yeah, inpatient treatment against his wishes. You don’t really get to attend it. If you’re inpatient, they lock you up. All of this ensures that decisions regarding Lockwood’s treatment will remain where article three requires with the district court.

[32:19] Andy: Now what about his other challenge on drug testing?

[32:22] Larry: He didn’t do so well on that either. Lockridge’s second challenge fared no better. Lockridge argued that the district court needed to specify the number of drug tests required by the substance abuse special condition. They stated, the court did, the problem for Lockridge is that we already have held that district courts may collaborate with probation officers on this feature of a sentence. The district court may allow the probation officer to take the first pass of the number of tests required by special condition. So as long as the court remains free to modify that choice, put its own initiative, or responds to a claim by the defendant. So he lost. And folks, you’re gonna have to live with the fact that the judges are not gonna be the ones who make the decisions initially. And probably 90 of the time, they’re gonna go along with probation. So if they tell you gotta do something, you’re more than likely gonna have to do it.

[33:19] Andy: So I just wanna point out something that I think is a little messed up with this. And let’s see. I’m trying to trying to put the timeline together that so he he came back to The US. I’m assuming he, you know, he was a decorated marine combat veteran. And he returns back to The US, and he turned to meth first to to manage his PTSD. I’m pretty sure that I I I’m not positive, and I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be something that was prescribed to him for that. He would have been prescribed something else. I just wanted to try and make a connection that we sent him someplace, and he comes back with PTSD, and then he can’t get the help he needs. So he ends up turning to illegal drugs to deal with it. And then he gets all screwed up because he’s addicted to a drug because of something that we essentially caused for him. Well, now that’s making a lot of assumptions that we don’t have any evidence. Well, there’s only one piece of that that I’m making the assumption is just where what was the primary reason he started using meth? Was that because it was prescribed to him for his PTSD?

[34:21] Larry: Well, we don’t know he wasn’t using it. We don’t know that he wasn’t using it all all along, do we?

[34:26] Andy: While we don’t know that, that’s true.

[34:29] Larry: Alright. Well, anyway So but yes. Had the PTSD from being in combat. That’s really where I’m going with that. Well, but the the what you ought to do, if you believe in what you’re saying, you ought to get a hold of the conservative members of congress and say, look. Yeah, you guys are the big supporter of the military and of our veterans, and you don’t believe in them ever being mistreated. And here’s an example of a person who went, defended us and put his life on the line. And we’re spending, $50,000 a year to keep him in prison for the next twenty years when all they need is help. And I guarantee the conservatives will just line up down the block to help.

[35:08] Andy: Absolutely. So I I do need to ask you a question. Can you elaborate more on what the heck does this have to do with PFRs? I know you said delegation, but could you elaborate and, like, break it down for my pea brain?

[35:21] Larry: Well, it’s very common that PFRs are ordered into treatment. And the treatment you’re gonna have to do is gonna be exactly what your probation officer tells you. You’re gonna have very little judicial review. And if you argue for judicial review, you’ll end up like what happened in the first segment that we did. Okay. I hope that covers the question from chat. Yeah. This is this is, very common that, when you get, supervised for a BFR type of offense, you’re gonna be are ordered to undergo treatment. And if you push back, you’re gonna end up in in jail. Yeah. No doubt. Well, you can refuse the treatment. You have that option. You absolutely do.

[36:04] Andy: And, did I ever tell you when when, I’ve like, I was out for it could have even been a year that I was out and they’re like, have you started treatment yet? I was like, no one told me to go to treatment yet. They’re like, you probably should start treatment. And I’m like, I’m not going until you tell me to go, and even then, I’m not really excited about going. But so then the guy, I’m sitting there across from the PO, and he hands me this piece of paper and he’s like, I’m not telling you which p, which treatment providers to see. And he’s got two really, like, circled 12 times around. It’s like, I’m not saying which ones you should call, but these are the ones that you should pick from. And he hands me a list of, like, 10 people, and two of them are, like, multiple times around. I was like, wink, wink. Got it. I understand what you’re saying. Now there are people who would not have chosen those two, and they would have gotten off to a bad start from the get go, but you had a sense enough not to do that. I chose one of those two and I called the first one and I kinda don’t remember the reason why I didn’t stick with them. And I called the second one. I had two questions for them and I was like, do you push polygraphs? And they’re like, only if we feel you need one. I said, cool. Do you have some kind of statement about faith, religion, anything of that sort? And he’s like, nope. We don’t do that here. I was like, sign me up. And that guy was on his way out, and he was retiring soon. So I was in treatment for eleven, eleven months. And, like, he was like, okay. You’ve passed through the whole book, and I’m retiring. So let’s get you out of here. Sweet. Eleven months. And I know people go to treatment for years and this is just another somehow luck of the draw, bullet dodged, whatever. I know. I understand.

[37:41] Larry: That was, it was divine intervention.

[37:44] Andy: Yes. It could have been that for sure. All right. Well, happy labor day. So it is Labor Day weekend. Today is what? August 30, and Monday is the Labor Day weekend holiday. Do give us a quick little history. What is Labor Day?

[37:57] Larry: It’s it’s a celebration of organized labor and all the achievements for better working conditions.

[38:02] Andy: And this would be like yeah. I went toward a coal mine a couple years back, and they had, like, five year olds with with candles on their forehead. And all they did was operated a door, and that would let them have housing for the family because they’re the only male that could go work in the coal mine. Like, that’s the kind of labor conditions you’re talking about, I believe. Yeah. Back in the days of Samuel Gompers. I’ve never heard that name before. Well, Google it real quick. Samuel Gompers? Yep. G o m p e r s. I’ve never heard this word before. Samuel Gompers, was a British born American cigar maker and labor union leader, a key figure in American labor history, and this was 1924. He was born in nineteen eighteen fifty. So one of your contemporaries.

[38:53] Larry: Yes. We we had dinner together many times. And why am I looking up that dude? Just, he’s well, the father of the organized labor movement.

[39:03] Andy: I thought you were gonna tell me, like, some schmuck that was doing terrible, terrible labor practices.

[39:07] Larry: Alright. No. Not at all.

[39:09] Andy: So the reason why we’re like, this is a perfect time for us to do that is we’re gonna dive into something that’s been rattling rattling around in my head, and I know yours too, Larry. So this whole AI revolution. I have told you a bazillion times. I was like, truck drivers, it’s over. When they can figure out how to make them drive on the highway, Larry, it’s over. 4,000,000 truck drivers, you’re only gonna need them to drive, like, around the town areas to do the the pickup and the delivery on the highway. It’s over. So and I know AI revolution sounds like some sci fi headline, but really it’s not because it’s, like, right here. This thing is moving fast. And here’s the part that gets under my skin. For folks like us, people who’ve got, say, you know, some kind of blemishes on their record, so to speak, a conviction. We might be the first in line when pink slips start flying. And that’s not just me being paranoid, and that’s kinda how the world works. So tonight, we’re gonna we’re not gonna tiptoe around it. We’re gonna dig in what’s happening, why it’s happening, and more importantly, what, if anything, can you do to not get shoved off the cliff first? Larry, if you and I are standing on a cliff next to a cliff, I’m going to like, kind of nudge you a few times pretty hard. Just saying.

[40:19] Larry: No, I wouldn’t be surprised, but what you said is right. And I want to emphasize something. This isn’t some hypothetical prediction about what might happen in 02/1935. It’s already happening. The data tells a story. Major tech firms and we’re talking household names have already eliminated more than 77,000 jobs in 2025 alone. And the driver a lot of the time is automation and AI That averages out to roughly four ninety five people every single day losing work. Think about that every day, 500 people have been displaced. And surveys confirm it. About 14% of the workers believe they’ve already lost a job to a machine or an algorithm. This is not the future. This is now.

[41:09] Andy: So then here’s a kicker. So who gets smacked first? Oh, you already know. It’s not the CEOs. It’s not the guy in the corner office. No. No. It’s the folks already at the bottom of the ladder, the economically disadvantaged groups. That’s how the reports phrase it, which translated from corporate speak means, yeah, that’s probably us. People with records, people with gaps in the resume, people without all the fancy credentials. And it’s not just those white collar high-tech roles. I read about an ecommerce outfit that straight up canceled its entire customer support team because the bot was, I love this number, 85 more efficient. 85%. What about Microsoft? Thousands of cuts. Software engineers, not just software engineers even, marketers, even lawyers. How about IBM? Proof. Excuse me. Poof. 8,000 HR staff gone. And let’s not forget, MSN. Way back in 2020, they thought, who needs human nuance and replace their human reporters with AI because apparently humans don’t bring any spec thing special to the reporting. Right. And the shocker of shockers, it’s always the entry level jobs that get whacked first. Junior coders, designers, call center staff, the folks in data entry. You know, the people who are just trying to climb to the first rung of the ladder, They’re the ones standing under the ax.

[42:27] Larry: Precisely. And what stands out to me is how quickly the ground is shifting. The pace of this change is extraordinary. And yet, if you look around at the coordinated societal and government response, you won’t find one. You won’t find much. There’s no real plan for re for retraining, no serious strategies for cushioning the blow to vulnerable workers. In practical terms, the burden falls to the individual, to us. If we want to survive in this new landscape, we can’t wait for a rescue mission from Washington or Silicon Valley.

[43:03] Andy: So here’s where I want to pause and say, now don’t crawl under the bed just yet because, yeah, it’s grim, but there are slivers of good news. Or maybe silver linings is better. The World Economic Forum, bless their optimistic little hearts, they predict AI will destroy about 92,000,000 jobs, but then magically also create a 170,000,000 new ones. That’s their math anyway. And here’s the surprising part. They’re not all those high-tech sci fi technical jobs you’d think of. Their own report says there’ll be a boom in fields like delivery driving, construction, agriculture, food processing, and nursing. Basically, things that still need humans in the loop. Places where AI can’t, at least not yet, haul bricks or take care of grandma. So maybe the future isn’t all coding and algorithms. Maybe it’s a little more hammers and hard hats.

[43:53] Larry: Yeah. That’s kind of ironic because one of our community colleges has its origin here and being a technical school, they are reinventing themselves with bringing back more focus on trades. But which leads to the central question, how do you make yourself indispensable in the kind of world that we’re facing? And the answer is both straightforward and challenging. Focus on the skills that AI cannot easily replicate. These are human centric skills, communication, leadership, teamwork, empathy, judgment, the qualities that make us uniquely human. Very few counselors are gonna be replaced. I don’t think people are gonna sit in front of a screen and talk to, the computer. Maybe they will, but I just don’t see that. So you’ve gotta you gotta work in something in your resume that cannot be easily automated.

[44:50] Andy: So you’re talking about the the the squishy kind of stuff, the messy unpredictable stuff, things that robots still can’t really fake, at least yet. Keyword being yet.

[45:02] Larry: Correct. Because robots are doing things I never thought I would see them doing. Some companies are are experimenting with retraining. Ikea, for example, gave this place call center workers the opportunity to become interior design advisors. But these programs are thin on the ground. They’re exceptions and not the rule. We cannot count on employers or even government to hand us new skill sets. Now, of course, we wouldn’t want the government to do it because everything the government touches, they screw up. So we wouldn’t want the government we would want the private sector to do that. Right? Yes. But it’s up to us to invest in ourselves, whether that’s through community colleges, online courses, or even volunteer work that builds the kind of human skills that we’ve been describing. You just you’ve gotta have something that you’re you that’s unique.

[45:49] Andy: Which is why I want to make a shout out to a website. There there are other places like this, but one of them that I frequent is called freelearninglist.org. This isn’t a paid spot, so I just happen to like it. It’s, I’ve I’ve encountered it through multiple different channels. They have a just a metric ton of resources, math courses, language courses, like Duolingo, critical thinking, you name it. There are a bunch of podcasts on there, some of which I even have without. I knew about them before I saw them on the list. It’s the kind of stuff that can actually help you level up without tuition bill attached to it.

[46:22] Larry: Well, that’s an excellent illustration. Freelearninglist.org is the type of resource that can make a difference because the reality is large scale retraining programs remain largely theoretical. Regulation is stalled, and it’s likely to stay stalled in the current political environment. The clearest, most actionable path forward right now is self directed learning and and get on with it.

[46:48] Andy: And look, I joke about it sometimes. Here’s the free website. Good luck, not getting yourself automated. But seriously, that’s smarter than waiting for Uncle Sam or some corporation to roll out a grand retraining plan because let’s be real, those are thin on the ground. Free learning list calls itself the Internet’s best education resource, teaching how to think, not what to think. Now that is act exactly what we’re talking about when we say human skills. That’s critical thinking, that’s problem solving, that’s learning how to adapt, which is the survival skill of the AI age.

[47:21] Larry: Exactly. And to be clear, we’re not just talking about soft skills. There’s also tremendous value in becoming AI literate yourself, Unlike me, that’s, dodging most of it. Learning how the how tools work, learning how to use them effectively. So the recipe is both human, centric skills that AI struggles with and AI proficiency so that you’re not left behind as the tools advance. Like, I’m trying to figure out how to do research with AI and I barely can scratch the surface because I’m doing everything the old fashioned way and I’m not using my time very wisely.

[47:59] Andy: I think we could, give you a couple level up sessions, and you would find it to be overwhelmingly helpful. Just a handful of different tools that you you just end up collaborating with it, and it would help you immensely. I use it literally all day every day. As a coder, I say, write me this kind of function. And not to say that I can’t do it, but why spend even if it if it took me a minute to write it and this thing can write it in ten seconds, I’m now fifty seconds ahead of schedule. So that gives you fifty seconds of time to waste. Oh, I mean, why we could do that. But, Larry, like, seriously, you probably grew up did you do it like hand washing of laundry with a scrub board? Is that even of an era for you? Yes. I’m familiar with that process. So why wouldn’t you have a washing machine at this point? If it’s gonna take you seven hours to sit there and go scrubby, scrubby, scrubby, scrubby for all of your clothes one by one, you You just throw it in the laundry machine and you go do something else. And and I’ve made it clear. I’m a big believer in technology,

[49:01] Larry: but I’m also a believer in making sure the accuracy is there. And if we rely on technology that’s not completely accurate, we’re serving we’re not serving ourselves well. But if if it’s 90% accurate, 95% accurate, there’s no technology. I don’t care if the machinery that that packs your boxes of cereal. It doesn’t get every single box right. Nope. There’s some where it doesn’t it it goofs up. But it’s probably 99.5% accurate. Would you guess?

[49:28] Andy: Probably. And and but they also then have the the systems in place to check it. And I I remember at the tobacco place, they’re shooting boxes of cigarettes down the line at this speed, and there’s a camera taking picture of it. And if there’s a defect on the box, it kicks it up. Well, and that’s the way I wanna use technology. If I can validate

[49:48] Larry: the accuracy, but I don’t wanna put something out that I have not, don’t do not have confidence in. Based on our AI translation of the podcast, the accuracy is not there yet, at least on the voice to, text recognition.

[50:05] Andy: Just on that subject alone, though, that was never the intent was to have a complete product. But it was also, at least from that point of view, even at a 100 words a minute, what do we what do we speak if it’s 200 words a minute for sixty minutes? Is that 12,000 words? If you type 60 words a minute, 12,000 words is still gonna take you a long time to get through.

[50:26] Larry: Oh, I agree. Take, like, four hours to type it out. I love the technology. I just wish I could have found someone who would actually pay attention and listen to the podcast and and make sure that they correct all the mistakes because it wasn’t accurate. That conversation again. That’s not the point. The point is is that it was faster to go through it and do it that way than to have, to to go type it by from scratch. No. This there’s no debating that. That not even that is not even worth your debate because everybody agrees with that. It’s a tool that helps you get to the finish line.

[50:55] Andy: So at the tobacco place, like, moments after I got hired there, they announced that they’re gonna close and move to a new location. And all kinds of people were like, I’ve worked here for thirty years. What do I do now? It’s like, you probably should’ve thought about that weeks and weeks and weeks ago instead of becoming comfortable on your laurels and just try to ride things out and get a pension and all that, keeping your skills somewhat up to date. This isn’t what I’m really getting at is this isn’t something specific to PFRs. This is to as people age, they cost more for employers, because of health insurance reasons. They probably make more. It’s easier to hire the dude that’s right out of college or just new on the the job front. You can pay them half as much, and they’re cheaper in all aspects. They may have more energy. They’ll stay late, whatever. And they shit can the old people.

[51:47] Larry: The what? The old people? People they shit can. Okay.

[51:51] Andy: And if if you don’t bring something addition to the table, which could be you have extra life skills, you could bring better soft skills, This is what I’m trying to ultimately talk about as those things here anyway.

[52:05] Larry: Well, I’m hoping that our audience understands that you could likely be on the chopping block if you have a job that’s readily convertible to technology. So you need to be thinking about this because if you wait for the government, you may be waiting for something that never happens.

[52:22] Andy: Can we can we talk about a particular person in abstract that that is kinda almost like the nexus of the segment?

[52:29] Larry: I don’t know who that person is, but go ahead.

[52:33] Andy: Well, there’s a there’s an individual who is in our sphere, who is a little bit on the older side, who has kind of put back himself into a corner and not evolved with the time. This has almost nothing to do with AI. This just happens to do with a changing job market and what services he would provide, and the market shifted out from underneath him. And now he’s kind of in a in a shitty spot.

[52:56] Larry: No. I think I now know who you’re talking about.

[52:59] Andy: So I would imagine you do.

[53:01] Larry: And, yes, as a a prime example, and I’ve done the same thing. If I were to be looking for a job in the profession I’ve been in for twenty two years, I would be worthless largely, except for strategy and analyzing. I have no idea how to review discovery in the modern era, the way it’s distributed to us because it’s changed so much since we were in in that business defending people and getting discovery. I would have to be completely retrained, or they would say, well, gee, we can’t afford to pay you what you’re looking for because you’re only one dimensional. We don’t need just, just the fields that you currently have.

[53:45] Andy: Yep. Alright. Well, that’s a happy way to end up the Labor Day segment. I think the the point of what we’re trying to tell you is that you you ultimately want to make it where somebody else gets canned before you poop canned before you do, and you would do that by having additional skills that your job isn’t specifically asking for. Soft skills, those would be if you’re doing this this kind of job and you can have something that’s, like, a cross pollination, if you know more about math, if you can speak a second language, anything along those lines, they’re going to make you a more valuable employee that has less of a chance or at least someone else getting canned before you do. That’s really all I’m ultimately trying to say.

[54:33] Larry: And I think we should start a FYP education. We should start a retraining program for those who are gonna be eliminated by AI. And

[54:41] Andy: I will offer services to people telling them how they can have less chance of getting canned.

[54:48] Larry: Sounds good. So the FYP provides a broad array of services.

[54:53] Andy: Absolutely. Alright, man. Anything else before we go, and have a great weekend?

[54:59] Larry: I think we’re done. This one, fifty four minutes.

[55:03] Andy: Right right on time. And I I wanna definitely make sure that it was TJ that that, we did the email from earlier. Correct? Yes. Or JT? TJ or JT? JT. And thank you very much for becoming a patron. And, yeah. So make sure that you link your Discord account, and you can come hang out with all the crazies that talk in there all the time about jelly fin and so forth. Head over to registrymatters.co. Email, registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Voice mail Larry loves voice mail. (747) 227-4477. And, of course, if you are so inclined, head over to patreon.com/registrymatters to support us directly. And that is most, most, most appreciated. And I hope you guys have a great holiday weekend, and, I will talk to you very soon. Have a great night, Larry. Good night.

[55:53] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Introduction:
In a startling case that has underscored the intersection of politics and violence in modern American society, former Republican state legislature candidate Solomon Peña has been sentenced to 80 years in federal prison following his conviction for orchestrating multiple drive-by shootings targeting the homes of Democrats. What began as a stunning example of political discontent escalated into outright violence, leaving Albuquerque, New Mexico, and much of the nation grappling with troubling questions about the role of political rhetoric and accountability in a divided society.

Though no one was injured, the calculated nature of the attacks, fueled by Peña’s baseless claims of election fraud after a landslide loss, has kept the incident in the national spotlight. This blog dives deep into the case: the events leading up to Peña’s conviction, the legal arguments on both sides, the broader implications of political violence in a polarized country, and whether his sentencing was just.

The Unsettling Introduction to a Violent Political Act
The story of Solomon Peña’s disturbing path to violence began in 2022, after he lost his bid for a state legislature seat by a stifling margin, trailing his opponent by almost 50 percentage points. Despite this clear loss, Peña insisted the election was rigged against him—an assertion reminiscent of the narratives pushed by high-profile political figures questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

Fueled by his grievances, Peña orchestrated a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of elected officials—most of them Democrats—whose only perceived offense was adhering to their public duty of election certification. Among the homes targeted were those of two county commissioners and, shockingly, the current Speaker of the House of Representatives for New Mexico.

In one harrowing case, bullets fired by Peña’s accomplices tore into the bedroom of a state senator’s 10-year-old daughter. Miraculously, no one was physically harmed during these attacks, but the psychological trauma and the intended message of intimidation could not be understated.

Who Is Solomon Peña? An Overview of a Failed Politician Turned Violent
Before his unraveling, Peña was a little-known political candidate running under the Republican banner. His campaign was marked not just by his low support but by his apparent detachment from the political realities of his constituency. He ultimately suffered one of the most lopsided defeats in the state’s electoral history.

Peña’s loss became the catalyst for his actions. He believed, or at least claimed to believe, that the election was stolen from him. This unfounded belief became his justification for resorting to violence—a desperate and dangerous attempt to cause chaos within the political system.

Despite his public outcry of innocence, Peña was found guilty on multiple federal charges, including conspiracy, weapon offenses, and orchestrating the shootings. Notably, two of his accomplices pleaded guilty to their roles in the attacks, implicating Peña as the mastermind behind the operation.

The Prosecution’s Argument: Justice for Political Violence
During Peña’s trial, prosecutors argued that his intentions were clear: to use violence and intimidation to impact the political process. They highlighted how his actions were emblematic of a broader wave of threats and attacks against public officials since the contentious 2020 election.

In seeking a 90-year sentence, prosecutors emphasized three key points:
1. Premeditation: Peña carefully planned the attacks, identifying targets based on their roles in certifying election results.
2. Recklessness: Despite no injuries occurring, the bullets mindlessly fired endangered lives, including those of innocent children.
3. Lack of Remorse: Peña, according to prosecutors, exhibited no regret for his actions, instead doubling down on his resistance to the judicial process.

The Defense’s Argument: A Case for Leniency
Peña’s defense team sought a reduced sentence of 60 years, arguing that the punishment proposed by the prosecution was excessive, given no physical harm resulted from the shootings. Moreover, they pointed out that Peña still maintains his claim of innocence and suggested that the primary evidence against him came from the testimony of two co-conspirators who received plea deals in exchange for their cooperation.

Was Peña simply a scapegoat in a larger conspiracy orchestrated by these men? His attorneys argued that there was room for doubt, raising questions about the integrity of the prosecution’s star witnesses.

A Sentence That Divides Opinions
Ultimately, the judge sentenced Peña to 80 years in federal prison—a compromise of sorts between the prosecution’s desire for 90 years and the defense’s request for 60.

For some, the sentence represents justice served for a man who sought to terrorize public officials and undermine democratic processes. For others, it raises questions about proportionality. Could 80 years be an excessive punishment, particularly when compared to cases of violence that resulted in actual loss of life?

The debate over Peña’s sentencing also touches on broader issues of judicial consistency. Critics have pointed to perceived disparities in how political violence is punished—for instance, comparing Peña’s case to some of the lenient sentences given to participants in the January 6th Capitol riots, where lives were lost.

Understanding the Broader Context: The Rise of Political Violence
Peña’s crimes cannot be viewed in isolation. Over the past several years, threats and acts of violence against politicians, election workers, and public officials have surged. Much of this can be traced back to divisive rhetoric around election integrity, particularly following the 2020 presidential election.

According to data from the Brennan Center for Justice, threats to election officials have spiked dramatically, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for those upholding the democratic process. Peña’s actions, while alarming, are part of a troubling pattern that challenges the very foundations of public service and democracy.

Was Peña’s Sentence Just? Analyzing Accountability and Redemption
While the gravity of Peña’s actions should not be minimized, the question remains: was 80 years the appropriate punishment?

Some legal experts suggest that the sentence sends a strong message—any act of political violence, regardless of intent or outcome, will carry severe consequences. Others argue for a more nuanced approach, one that accounts for Peña’s remorse (or lack thereof), psychological state, and potential for rehabilitation.

The possibility of future clemency or sentence reduction remains open, especially given the political climate’s unpredictability. Peña’s case may well become a focal point in discussions of sentencing reform and how the judiciary handles cases of politically motivated crimes.

Conclusion: Lessons from the Solomon Peña Case
The Solomon Peña case is a stark reminder of the risks posed by inflammatory political rhetoric and the growing normalization of violence in political discourse. The 80-year sentence will undoubtedly serve as both punishment and deterrent, but it also forces society to reckon with the broader conditions that gave rise to such an act.

For leaders, citizens, and institutions, this case is a call to action. How can the U.S. rebuild trust in its democratic processes and ensure that discontent does not devolve into violence? What measures can be taken to protect public officials and safeguard the integrity of elections?

Actionable Takeaways:
1. Advocate for better security measures to protect politicians, election workers, and public officials.
2. Support initiatives aimed at educating the public on election integrity to reduce the spread of misinformation.
3. Call for bipartisan leadership to publicly condemn acts of political violence, regardless of party affiliations.

The cycle of distrust and hostility can be broken—but only if society collectively commits to upholding the values of democracy. Solomon Peña’s story, though tragic, can serve as an inflection point for meaningful change.

From balancing constitutional legality to addressing critical ethical concerns, registries—whether for immigrants or other groups—continue to spark impassioned debates. The recent decision by a D.C. Circuit panel to decline a request to block the creation of a universal national registry for noncitizens has reignited discussions surrounding the limitations of such systems and their potential impact on individual rights.

This post explores what led to the panel’s decision, delves into the legal and constitutional considerations at play, and reflects on how registries fit into the broader societal and administrative landscape. Whether you’re an advocate for civil liberties, an interested legal observer, or someone simply seeking clarity on this complex issue, this article breaks down what you need to know.

---

Context and Background: What Happened in the DC Circuit?

The legal issue at hand stemmed from immigrants’ rights groups seeking to challenge the implementation of a universal national registry for noncitizens residing in the United States for more than 30 days. The registry, which has drawn significant criticism, is seen by some as a tool for overreach and control, while others argue it serves administrative or security purposes. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit panel—composed of three judges from diverse political backgrounds—declined to grant the request for a stay of enforcement.

This per curiam order, delivered without significant elaboration, simply indicated that the immigrant-rights advocates failed to meet two critical legal thresholds. Specifically, they were unable to:

1. Demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their case.
2. Show that they would suffer irreparable harm if the registry’s implementation were not halted.

As Larry succinctly pointed out during the discussion, courts require plaintiffs seeking an injunction to meet both thresholds clearly, which the panel found lacking in this instance.

This outcome may seem technical, but it holds broader implications for the ongoing discourse around governmental registries, constitutional rights, and administrative practicality. To fully understand the case, we need to unpack the legal principles behind injunctive relief while also exploring key terms and critical issues related to registries in general.

---

What Is a Registry, and Why the Controversy?

A registry, in essence, is a systematic database designed to collect and centralize information about a certain group. Historically, registries have been developed for a variety of purposes: from maintaining records of licensed professionals to criminal registries that aim to track individuals convicted of specific offenses.

In the context of noncitizens, advocates of national registries argue that such systems enable government agencies to better manage immigration status, streamline paperwork, and track legal compliance more efficiently. On the other hand, critics raise serious concerns, including privacy violations, potential abuse of power, and the potential stigmatization of vulnerable groups.

A number of pivotal questions hover around this debate:
– Are registries inherently unconstitutional? Courts have repeatedly ruled that, in principle, registries are not unconstitutional. As Larry articulated, “Not liking something doesn’t make it unconstitutional simply because you don’t like it.”
– Who gets access to the data? Questions arise about data protection and who may retrieve sensitive personal information.
– What are the safeguards against misuse? Without strict limitations, registries might inadvertently pave the way for profiling, discrimination, or even harassment.

Understanding these concerns is critical to analyzing why certain advocacy groups oppose projects such as the noncitizen registry currently at issue.

---

The Legal Lens: Why Injunctions Require Stringent Evidence

Injunctions are among the more complex remedies a court may grant because of the profound consequences they impose. By issuing an injunction, a court essentially disrupts the normal course of affairs, which is why parties requesting this relief bear a high burden of proof.

To prevail in their request for an injunction, litigants must generally satisfy two key criteria:

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
   This means plaintiffs must show that, under existing laws and precedents, their case will likely succeed in the long run. For example, if prior case law supports the constitutionality of registries in general, it’s an uphill battle to argue that a specific registry is unconstitutional.

2. Irreparable Harm
   Plaintiffs need to prove that they would suffer harm that cannot be undone if the injunction is not granted. Without this harm being both substantial and actual, courts are unlikely to intervene.

Larry astutely pointed out that the panel’s lack of detailed reasoning in their order suggests that the evidence proffered by the plaintiffs failed on one or both of these factors. In Larry’s words, “When you ask for an injunction, be prepared with evidence.”

---

Are Registries Constitutional? Exploring the Precedents

The discussion around this national registry brings up a broader legal consideration: Are registries inherently unconstitutional? The simple answer is no—courts in the U.S. have upheld the legality of registries when designed and implemented in certain ways.

For instance, registries for convicted sex offenders and violent criminals have been validated by courts under the rationale of public safety. However, these registries typically come with considerable controversy, ranging from debates over their effectiveness to potential infringement on individual liberties.

In the case of noncitizen registries, the stakes grow even higher. Unlike criminal registries, which target individuals based on their actions, noncitizen registries categorize individuals based solely on their immigration status, a factor over which they may have little control.

Critics worry that such registries could serve as tools for widespread surveillance, contributing to stigmatization or even acting as precursors to broader anti-immigrant policies. Larry provides an insightful observation here: “Just because you don’t like registries doesn’t make them unconstitutional,” but it’s fair to argue that even constitutional systems may raise ethical red flags.

---

The Way Forward: Questions to Ponder

The case highlights an ongoing tension between administrative practicality and the preservation of civil liberties. While the court’s immediate decision did not delve into the substantive merits of the registry itself, its refusal to grant the stay allows the program to move forward—for now.

Several key questions remain unresolved:
1. Will immigrant-rights advocates be able to marshal stronger evidence in their case moving forward?
2. What measures could be implemented to safeguard registries from overreach or abuse?
3. What is the broader societal impact of normalizing large-scale data collection on already marginalized communities?

---

Final Thoughts: Navigating the Registry Debate

As the conversation around registries continues, it’s evident that they sit at the complex intersection of law, ethics, and administrative efficacy. While registries may not be inherently unconstitutional, they raise important questions about how governments balance efficiency with respect for individual dignity and rights.

For those advocating for change, the key takeaway is clear: When challenging such systems in court, the burden of proof is demanding. Evidence must be substantial, and arguments need to be built on solid legal groundwork and existing case law.

For now, as this case plays out, it remains a potent reminder of democracy’s ongoing struggle to reconcile operational needs with civil liberties. Whether you’re for or against registries, one thing is certain: This topic isn’t going away anytime soon, and these debates will likely shape policy discussions for decades to come.

---

Key Takeaways:

1. Courts require evidence of both legal viability and the risk of irreparable harm before granting injunctions.
2. Registries, while not inherently unconstitutional, are fraught with potential privacy and ethical concerns.
3. Advocates challenging registries will need to build stronger, more robust cases based on existing legal precedents.

Sex offender registry laws have long been a contentious issue in the realm of public policy. California Senate Bill 680 (SB 680) brings this debate to the forefront once again by targeting a specific loophole in the state’s sex offender registry laws. Dubbed by supporters as the legislative fix for “creepy age gaps,” the bill aims to enhance accountability and close gaps in the legal system surrounding unlawful sexual conduct with minors. But what exactly does SB 680 entail, and why is it stirring conversation across legal and public safety circles?

In this article, we’ll break down the key components of SB 680, explore its implications from both legal and practical perspectives, and examine the potential challenges it may face as it works its way through California’s legislative process. Whether you’re a policymaker, a legal professional, or simply someone interested in public safety laws, this is your comprehensive guide to understanding SB 680.

---

The Loophole SB 680 is Designed to Close

The originating issue behind SB 680 is a well-documented gap in California’s sex offender registry laws. Under current laws, most severe offenses involving minors, such as oral copulation or sodomy, automatically trigger mandatory registration on the state’s sex offender registry. However, there’s one notable exception: cases involving “unlawful sexual intercourse” where the defendant is more than 10 years older than the minor.

In these instances, the law treats the crime less severely, effectively saying, “Sure, you’re 20 years older than the victim, but it’s no big deal.” This legal loophole has allowed certain offenders to bypass mandatory registration and the long-term oversight it entails—essentially giving them a “free pass.”

SB 680, authored by Senator Susan Rubio, proposes to eliminate this disparity. If passed, the law would mandate registration for individuals convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor if they are more than 10 years older than the victim or if they have committed the offense multiple times, even with a smaller age gap. By closing what some are calling the “Lolita loophole,” SB 680 creates consistency in how sex offenses involving minors are treated under the law.

---

Understanding What SB 680 Does (and Doesn’t Do)

To provide a clearer picture of SB 680, let’s break it down into what the bill aims to achieve, as well as its limitations.

What SB 680 Does

1. Mandates Sex Offender Registration for Certain Offenses:
   Offenders convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor must register as sex offenders if they are:
   – More than 10 years older than the victim, or
   – Repeated offenders, even when the age gap is smaller.
   This aligns these cases with the way other offenses against minors are treated in California.

2. Adds Consistency to the Legal System:
   By removing discretionary registration for these cases, the law enhances accountability and ensures that all sex offenses involving minors are treated with similar severity.

3. Protects Future Offenders from Retroactive Registration:
   Amended versions of the bill clarify that it will not apply retroactively. Only offenders convicted on or after January 1, 2026, will be subject to mandatory registration under this new provision.

What SB 680 Does Not Do

1. Create New Crimes:
   SB 680 doesn’t criminalize new behaviors—it only revises the way existing crimes are handled in terms of sex offender registration.

2. Address Past Offenses:
   Early drafts of the bill suggested retroactively applying new registration requirements, which could have resulted in tens of thousands of people suddenly being subject to mandatory registration. However, the amended version removes this risk.

3. Impact “Romeo and Juliet” Exceptions:
   High school relationships involving small age gaps, such as a senior dating a freshman, are not targeted by this bill. These relationships remain exempt unless statutory offense elements are involved.

---

The Advocacy Argument: Why SB 680 Matters

Proponents of SB 680 argue that it’s a much-needed step toward closing gaps in California’s sex offender registry laws. Advocates believe the current discretionary approach allows predators to escape long-term oversight, leaving victims without adequate protections. From their perspective, SB 680 promotes accountability and aims to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation.

Another argument in favor of the bill is its objective to treat all sexual offenses against minors consistently. Under the current system, the penalties for sexual offenses can vary dramatically based on how the crime is charged. SB 680 seeks to right this perceived inequality.

However, while the intentions behind the bill are clear, its critics point to potential unintended consequences.

---

Practical Challenges and Criticism

Every legislative effort comes with a set of challenges, and SB 680 is no exception. Critics have raised concerns regarding the bill’s impact on both the individuals it targets and broader systemic consequences.

1. Legislative Intent and Financial Responsibility:
   Critics argue that California’s existing discretionary policies serve a purpose—namely, ensuring that offenders are held financially responsible for their actions. Historically, laws surrounding unlawful sexual intercourse with minors were designed to address incidents where adult men impregnated underage girls. By avoiding mandatory registration, legislators sought to ensure these men could still secure employment and provide for the children they fathered. Opponents of SB 680 worry that mandatory registration could limit offenders’ job prospects, ultimately defeating the goal of financial responsibility.

2. Administrative Resources:
   Opposing voices also highlight the potential logistical and financial strain posed by the bill. While the amended version does not apply retroactively, new cases arising under SB 680 could still create an increased burden on local law enforcement and the legal system, including compliance checks and registry maintenance.

3. Economic Arguments:
   California is already grappling with a significant budget deficit. Critics have suggested that pushing SB 680 through without thoroughly evaluating its economic impact might exacerbate financial strain on the state. Opponents suggest lawmakers may need to focus on funding priorities that address broader public safety issues.

---

Where SB 680 Stands in the Legislative Process

As of now, SB 680 has been approved by the California Senate Public Safety Committee. It’s set to move to the Senate Appropriations Committee where it may face additional scrutiny, particularly regarding its financial implications. While the bill enjoys widespread support in principle, critics will likely push to analyze or inflate the potential cost of implementation in hopes of stalling its progress.

Larry, a guest expert on the Registry Matters podcast, described it best: “This is one of those bills where it’s tough to be in opposition politically. Lawmakers risk backlash by voting against something seen as protecting minors. The best strategy for opponents may be to demonstrate that the fiscal impact outweighs any potential benefit.”

---

Final Thoughts: Balancing Accountability and Real-World Consequences

SB 680 represents an effort to enhance accountability and consistency in California’s legal response to sexual offenses involving minors. While it addresses a long-standing loophole in the sex offender registry system, critics warn against potential unintended consequences that could undermine its effectiveness.

Key Takeaways:

1. SB 680 mandates sex offender registration for certain offenses involving minors, closing existing gaps in the law.
2. The bill ensures only future cases (post-2026) are affected, avoiding the controversy of retroactive application.
3. Debates around the bill highlight the tension between accountability, fiscal responsibility, and the purpose of existing legal discretion.

As SB 680 continues its journey through California’s legislative process, it will face increased scrutiny for both its practical implications and its potential costs. Whether you see it as a necessary fix or a potential overreach, one thing is clear—California’s debate over sex offender registry laws is far from over.

---

Introduction

The legal landscape surrounding child molestation statutes in Arizona has taken a seismic shift due to a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. The case of Bradley Bogansky v. David Shinn revisits Arizona’s controversial burden-shifting framework, wherein defendants must prove a lack of sexual intent—an approach deemed unconstitutional by federal judges. This case highlights not only the fraught nature of Arizona’s legal system but also the broader impact such rulings could have on the rights of defendants in criminal cases nationwide.

In this article, we unpack the legal intricacies and implications of the Ninth Circuit decision, tracing the evolution of Arizona’s molestation statutes, the constitutional challenges they pose, and what this means for the future of criminal justice.

---

The Bogansky Case: A Brief Overview

At the heart of this case is Bradley Bogansky, a foster parent accused of child molestation. In 2017, a jury found Bogansky guilty of knowingly touching the private parts of children under his care in violation of Arizona’s molestation statute (ARS § 13-1401). During his trial, Bogansky raised an affirmative defense, asserting that the contact occurred while bathing the children and was not motivated by sexual intent. Despite this defense—and in keeping with Arizona law—he was required to prove his lack of sexual intent by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

However, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that Arizona’s burden-shifting framework violates the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the panel concluded that requiring defendants to disprove sexual intent impermissibly transfers the state’s burden of proving all elements of the crime. This decision not only upends decades-long legal precedent in Arizona but also raises significant questions about justice and procedural fairness in criminal trials.

---

The Evolution of Arizona’s Child Molestation Laws

Arizona’s legal framework regarding child molestation has evolved over the decades, often in ways that jeopardize constitutional protections. Key milestones include:

1. Pre-1990s: A Strict Scienter Requirement

Arizona’s molestation statutes once required prosecutors to prove scienter—or the defendant’s criminal intent—beyond a reasonable doubt. For instance, a 1965 version of the law defined child molestation as touching a child’s private parts with abnormal sexual motivation. At that time, proving the defendant’s intent lay squarely with the state.

2. 1993 Revision: Affirmative Defense Introduced

In 1993, Arizona revised its laws to allow defendants to claim a lack of sexual motivation as an affirmative defense. Unlike a traditional defense, an affirmative defense requires the defendant to admit to the conduct in question and then establish that mitigating factors (such as lack of intent) justify or excuse their actions. While this shift purportedly clarified ambiguities in prior statutes, critics argued that it placed an undue burden on defendants.

3. 1997 Changes: Proving the Negative

The contentious 1997 amendment eliminated the state’s obligation to prove sexual motivation altogether, codifying the requirement that defendants demonstrate their lack of sexual intent. This marked a significant deviation from constitutional principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court, which prohibit states from shifting the burden of proof to defendants in criminal cases.

4. Divided Courts and Holly Decisions

The issue of sexual intent reached Arizona’s appellate courts in a series of cases, most notably State v. Holly. While Holly I ruled that sexual intent remained an implicit element requiring proof by prosecutors, the state Supreme Court reversed this in Holly II, affirming the legislature’s intent to treat sexual intent as an affirmative defense. This created significant precedent, which the Ninth Circuit now finds constitutionally flawed.

---

The Constitutional Question: Can the State Shift the Burden?

Central to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is the concept of burden shifting. The U.S. legal system, rooted in due process principles, requires prosecutors to prove every element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt. For charges like child molestation, this includes proving criminal intent. Arizona’s approach, however, effectively criminalized even lawful conduct—such as bathing a child—by removing intent as a prosecutorial burden and requiring defendants to disprove sexual motivation.

The Ninth Circuit hammered this point, stating, “Arizona is the only jurisdiction ever to uphold the constitutionality of putting the burden of disproving sexual intent on the accused.” Citing critical Supreme Court cases such as Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975) and Patterson v. New York (1977), which prohibit burden shifting on core elements of crimes, the panel concluded that Arizona’s laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

Implications for Justice and Due Process

1. Unequal Burden on Defendants

Requiring a defendant to prove their lack of sexual interest inherently violates their right to remain silent and shifts the prosecutor’s responsibility onto the accused. This effectively forces defendants—like Bogansky—to testify, undermining constitutional rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment.

2. Risk of Wrongful Convictions

As the Ninth Circuit noted, Arizona’s statutes allow for the prosecution of everyday conduct. For instance, a parent changing a diaper or a physician performing an examination could face criminal charges despite lacking illicit intent. The vagueness and broad reach of the law raise the risk of innocent people being convicted of heinous crimes, with life-altering consequences.

3. Precedent for Federal Habeas Cases

Remarkably, this is the second recent instance of Arizona’s molestation statute being struck down in federal habeas proceedings, following the Stephen May case in 2017. These rulings signal a growing willingness among federal courts to scrutinize state laws that veer from constitutional norms.

---

What’s Next for This Case?

1. Arizona’s Likely Appeal

Arizona will almost certainly appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision, possibly seeking a rehearing before the full circuit (en banc). If unsuccessful, the state could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. Given the high stakes—including potential implications for hundreds of past convictions—a Supreme Court showdown seems probable.

2. Implications for Stephen May and Others

If the Ninth Circuit’s decision is upheld, it could pave the way for appeals by other individuals convicted under Arizona’s unconstitutional statutes. Defendants like Stephen May, who remain incarcerated, may have renewed hope for justice.

3. Nationwide Ripple Effects

Should the case reach the Supreme Court, its decision could set a nationwide precedent restricting or endorsing burden-shifting frameworks. This would have far-reaching consequences for criminal law in other jurisdictions, especially those with similarly questionable statutory schemes.

---

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bogansky v. Shinn is far more than a single victory; it’s a resounding critique of Arizona’s burden-shifting legal framework and a milestone in the fight for due process rights. By reasserting the principle that criminal intent must be proven by the state, the court has rebalanced the scales of justice—tilting them away from prosecutorial overreach and back toward fairness.

For now, Bradley Bogansky stands as one example of a flawed justice system corrected by federal intervention. But the ultimate resolution of this case may depend on the Supreme Court—a final battleground for defining the scope of constitutional protections in our legal system.

---

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

1. Legal Advocacy is Essential: Individuals in Arizona charged under the child molestation statute should consult constitutional law experts to evaluate their cases.
2. Prepare for Broader Impacts: Jurisdictions with similar affirmative defense policies should revisit their statutes to avoid constitutional challenges.
3. Stay Informed: Follow the Ninth Circuit’s developments and any forthcoming Supreme Court decisions on this pivotal issue.

Arizona’s case serves as a stark reminder that even well-meaning laws can lead to unjust outcomes when constitutional rights are compromised. Let us watch this case with vigilance for what it reveals about the balance between public safety and fairness under the law.

[00:00] Intro: This episode of Registry Matters is proudly brought to you by our amazing pledge patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael, Steven, Rachel. Your support makes this podcast possible. Thank you. And don’t forget, FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west. More west to be included. Transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 350 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. What’s up over over there?

[00:29] Larry: Well, it’s not as toasty as it has been. It’s only 91 today. So we’re coming down into Only 91. We’re coming down to the, downside slope of the summer season.

[00:41] Andy: Fantastic. Be sure to head over, show your support by hitting like and subscribe, thumbs up buttons, five star reviews. Those are great ways that you can show support for the program. It really makes a difference for all those crazy algorithms that follow that kind of stuff. And if you’re feeling extra generous, please head over to patreon.com, and any sport would help us out and be incredibly valued. So, Larry, what are we up to tonight?

[01:06] Larry: Well, good news is Chance is able to join us today, and that means Woo hoo. Not miss just mister doom and gloom for this episode. He has a California corner segment coming your way. Our main event is we have a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the night circuit, and that’s a huge win for for PFRs, at least like last week for the moment. We have a couple of articles

[01:34] Andy: if time permits. Until they change it. Until they change it. Well, let let’s dive right into the deep end. You put this thing in here from the Ninth Circuit, and that’s, West Coast stuff. Correct?

[01:48] Larry: Yes.

[01:51] Andy: And isn’t that the circuit that Supreme Court used to overturn that they they usually overturn most frequently?

[01:58] Larry: It it is. It used to be, overturned frequently. That was when it was dominated by a bunch of liberal communist sympathizers like, Stephen Reinhart. But, Trump has packed it with rational thinkers, so they don’t get overturned as much as they used to.

[02:14] Andy: Wouldn’t what but then hold on. Wouldn’t the ninth circuit be the antithesis of ideology against the Supreme Court?

[02:21] Larry: Well, unless I’m saying it was, but Trump fixed that during his first term in office. You know, you had several replacements on that circuit, and now it’s it’s, packed with rational thinkers, and those communist sympathizers who are out of there. I I see. I figured that it was still kind of a left leaning institution. Alright. Well then,

[02:42] Andy: so, like yeah. And I and I certainly don’t agree that they would be the most rational of people. Anyway, but the the case that we’re gonna talk about is Bradley Bogansky. Is that what we’re going with, Bogansky? Either way. Bogansky or Bogansky. Oh, oh, sorry. Bogansky. Okay. So we’ll do Bradley Bogansky versus David Shinn, and that’s the director of the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry. The decision was released just only a few days ago, actually, on August 12. So four days ago as we’re recording this. Now you claim it’s a win.

[03:16] Larry: It is. The three judge panel reversed a district judge denial of Pekonski’s habeas petition, and that petition was challenging his Arizona jury conviction for child molestation and was remanded with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus, which the trial judge had denied. That is a rarity, and it is good news.

[03:38] Andy: Well, look. I read over the case. I went to a picnic today with a whole bunch of friends, and I was reading it while I was at the picnic. There was a shrimp boil. We had, andouille sausage and all that stuff. And as I was reading it, I couldn’t help but be reminded of an individual named Stephen May in in a case that we covered multiple times. He got shafted in the ninth circuit as I recall. Am I on the right track there? You are. Now I recall that habeas, that a habeas judge had declared Arizona’s Centimeters statute unconstitutional. Would you go into Arizona statute a little bit?

[04:14] Larry: Yes. What kind of statute did you say Centimeters? What is that?

[04:18] Andy: I chose to not say the the words out loud that you already said. Okay. Centimeters. Okay. So it’s already been said? It has been said. Okay. Arizona defines

[04:29] Larry: Centimeters of a child as any direct or indirect touching of the private parts of a child. That’s it. During the relevant period, this, for Bekonski’s case, the state provided an affirmative defense if defendant could show by preponderance of the evidence that he was not motivated by a sexual interest. Despite that, a jury found Bogonski guilty of Centimeters, despite him putting forth the affirmative defense that he was not motivated when he helped bathe girls placed in his care, through the foster care system. He and his wife were taking care of foster children. And so he said that that was the reason why he was bathing

[05:13] Andy: them. So I wasn’t losing my mind with the similarity and the eerily similar case with Stephen May. He was a lifeguard who had touched a minor in the course of his duties as I recall? That’s correct.

[05:26] Larry: Well, then with your amazing storytelling skills, can you refresh the audience on what the term affirmative defense means? I do my do my best, but we actually have a real lawyer here, and he can backfill what I miss. An affirmative defense is when you do not contest the commission of the underlying deed. For example, killing a person and claiming it was done in self defense is a classic example of an affirmative defense. The accused admits, yeah, I shot the son of a bitch, but he asserts it was in self defense. And then the burden shifts to the accused, usually by a much lesser standard to to prove that the act was done in self defense. And there are many affirmative defenses. Not guilty by insanity is another example of an affirmative defense. But, yes, you’re basically you put yourself at the mercy when you assert an affirmative defense because you can’t really assert it without saying, yeah, I’ve done it. But, Chance, can you make it gooder than what I’ve done?

[06:22] Chance: No. No. Can’t make it gooder. That sounds pretty textbook to me.

[06:27] Andy: Alright. Well, in this case, the panel held that Arizona’s statute scheme unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proving an essential element of the crime of c m to the defendant, contrary to the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.

[06:45] Larry: And the irony is they relied on the exact same cases that Stephen may rely on those for Patterson versus New York from 1977, Mulaney versus Wilbur from 1975 and in re Winship, which I’ve not read that case to my recollection from 1970, But this is long this is well plowed earth, as they say, the South of in terms of shifting the burden. And, that this is what Arizona has done.

[07:12] Andy: Now I’ve heard that you have have thought about for years that nobody succeeds in overturning a a state conviction in federal habeas court due to the anti terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996. This is the second time that Arizona statute has been overturned in habeas proceedings in federal court. Now can you admit that people do win?

[07:35] Larry: Yeah. Occasionally they do. This despite the fact that representative Henry Hyde and the Newt Gingrich crowd really totally gutted federal habeas in 1996 when they passed the AEDPA. But nonetheless, the panel concluded that under the standard set forth by the AEDPA, the Arizona Court of Appeals decision upholding Bogansky’s commission conviction, therefore involved an objectively unreasonable application of legal principles clearly set forth in decisions of the US Supreme Court, which is what you have to show. Is it can’t be an appellate level decision. It has to be from the highest court of the land. But but, yes, people occasionally win.

[08:19] Andy: And I thought we were supposed to defer to the state’s highest court. The opinion states the Arizona Supreme Court has held that the offense is complete when the child is knowingly or intentionally touched because the crime of Centimeters does not mention, imply, or require sexual motivation. That was so decided in State versus Holly or Hall. I don’t know. H o l l e, and that’s a a what? A 2016 case.

[08:48] Larry: That is correct. AEDPA does require deference. That was one of the great pride and joys of Henry Hyde, chair of the house judiciary committee, I believe, at the time of the nineties, a Newt Gingrich for, gutting federal habeas. Cause all these whiny state prisoners were going into the federal courts and clogging that system up just with complaint after complaint, after complaint about how they had been railroaded. And therefore, they wanted to stop all this nonsense and make these, have finality. But the AEDPA does require deference except when the determination is a direct conflict with the US Supreme Court decision. But during the period relevant to this appeal, Arizona provided an affirmative defense if the defendant could show by preponderance of the evidence that he was not motivated by sexual interest. But as I said earlier, in 2017, a jury found Bradley Bogansky guilty of Centimeters. Despite his defense, he was not sexually motivated when he helped bathe girls in the care of he and his wife in the foster care assistant. Would you remind me what preponderance what level that is? Is that so the 50 plus one? Yes. It’s slightly tipping the scale above well, the when you put when you’re weighing and when you see those scales of justice, when you flip it just a little bit in favor of one party, that would be my definition. Chance, do you have a similar definition, or am I on the right track?

[10:11] Andy: Yeah. Preponderates by 1% over the 50 mark. That’s exactly right. Oh, good. Now whenever I think about those scales of justice, I always think of, like, the Encyclopedia Britannica sitting on one side that you’ve gotta try and lift it out of that. So but you know it’s not possible for a man to bathe females without, a sexual motivation. Of course. Like, you would take your children, and you would be like, It’s bath time. Right?

[10:35] Larry: Yes. No. No. I didn’t actually know that, but I know that’s the theory out there. So you gotta understand men are horn dogs, and women are purest of winter with snow. So if a woman bathes a boy, it was it’s all for the best of intentions. And if a man bathes a female, he’s getting some kind of pleasure. And it was kind of like searching in prison. You know, how they don’t let male guards search female female prisoners? Yes. But the other way around, it’s okay because see, women don’t get all horned out about about this kind of stuff.

[11:07] Andy: It it I’m trying to say there’s a I never I never had a female search me. So In my opinion. To say there’s a double standard there. It sounds like it. Definitely sounds like it. Now the court covered the history of the statute since Arizona became a state, and that was in 1913 in in Larry’s, like, teenage kind of years. Would you would you agree that you were roughly a teenager in the ’13 No. Time frame? I’d already served in Lincoln administration as a that’d be official. So no. I was well into adulthood by 1913. I see. Alright. Well, then much much later in 1965, Arizona substantially revised the statute. The new version pro provided a relevant part. A person who molests a child under the age of 15 years by fondling, playing with, or touching the private parts of such child or who causes a child under the age of 15 years to fondle play with or touch private parts of such a person shall be guilty of a felony.

[12:04] Larry: Yes. That’s what I saw in my history. So you’re reading the same case. But, shortly after the legislature enacted this 1965 version, a defendant challenged it as unconstitutionally vague, arguing that it was applicable to such people as parents and doctors who might touch a child’s private parts, for other than condemning reasons. And that was a case decided in, State versus Berry in 1966. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected that argument, concluded that the statute proscribes certain easily recognizable acts, which combined with the necessary intent, constitute a violation, except there’s no intent required. That’s the funny thing, but that’s what they said. The court resisted the defendant’s argument that the statute did not expressly incorporate an element of scientra, which is knowledge, and thus the statute could not convict innocent minded people, which it could have and has. The Arizona Supreme Court read into the act a requirement that the state prove abnormal sexual motivation, reasoning that when the words annoy or molest are used in reference to an offense against children, there’s a connotation of abnormal sexual motivation on the part of the offender. Now this is courts legislating from the bench at the at the finest. Therefore, a doctor or parent may touch the private parts of a child without molesting him by doing so and without violating the child molestation statute. In other words, they admitted and inserted an imaginary requirement that the state proves I enter.

[13:35] Andy: And this this probably is a time when you would be okay with them legislating from the bench, I’m guessing.

[13:41] Larry: Yes. If you’re on the defense side, you would be okay with it.

[13:45] Andy: I noted that Arizona made two additional changes to the scienter requirement in the nineteen seventies. Would you dig into that?

[13:54] Larry: Yes. In 1978, the legislature changed molest to knowingly molest, which is good. That puts scienter in play. In 1983, the legislature made explicit what was implicit in the 1965 law, after the, Supreme Court’s decision in Berry. It it was a defense to see him if the defendant was not motivate motivated by sexual interest.

[14:21] Andy: And then so Sientra was required to be proven in 1978 and then converted to an affirmative defense in 1983? Did I while I was eating my lunch, did I figure that one out? I think you did. That’s the way I interpret it. Yes. Then how did the the statute evolve from there? Well,

[14:42] Larry: it’s getting getting funnier. Following the balance of this defense, Arizona courts were divided over whether the statute must still prove that the defendant had touched the child with some kind of sexual interest. First, in Re Maricopa Juvenile, Action, the Arizona Court of Appeals revisited whether abnormal sexual motivation was still an element of Centimeters. And that was a 1992 decision. The court held that the statute, that the statute still required the state to prove the defendant’s sexual motivation, but that abnormal motivation was no longer the standard. Just sexual motivation. Noting that the legislature had added the defense of lack of sexual interest, in that section that we’ve talked about, thirteen-fourteen oh seven. The court reasoned that the element of abnormal or unnatural sexual interest was superseded by the less stringent statutory defense of lack of sexual interest. Now this is getting very blurry even for me. I’m trying to understand what abnormal or unnatural interest would be. I’m trying to figure out what an example of that would be. Yes. So that’s why it’s getting very blurry. Although the court also suggested there was little substantive difference between the two even if the formal standard was ever meant to do anything more than distinguished criminal conduct for innocent conduct. For example, the act of a physician treating a child or the parent bathing a private part. Parts. But, again, this has gotten so fuzzy that it seems like this thing’s been unconstitutional for decades.

[16:14] Andy: And and, you know, like, I have a child, and of significant importance is that those those pieces of body, they need to be cleaned, whether it’s boy or girl. In my case, I have a boy. And you gotta clean the back end, and you gotta clean the front end, and girls will be the same. Like, your skin doesn’t get super dirty because it’s kind of exposed to your and, like but the stuff that’s contained inside, like, underwear and all that, and you got diapers on, you gotta clean that stuff. So how could you not like, what are you supposed to do? You get a fire hose or a pressure washer and do it at distance? I suppose so. You need to ask the the great, liberty lovers that are serving in the California

[16:54] Larry: the Arizona legislature.

[16:58] Andy: I noticed that in a criminal omnibus bill in 1997, the Arizona legislature substantially revised its framework for affirmative defenses. The legislature amended Arizona revised statute 13 dash one zero three to abolish common law affirmative defense and added subsection 13 dash, two zero five, which required a defendant to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. And that is from, 1997, amendment. Now before that time, Arizona common law provided that the burden of proof regarding an affirmative defense shifted back to the prosecution after the defendant presented any evidence of the defense. Now is this where the problem begins?

[17:43] Larry: I would say it’s where the problem certainly got far worse, but the problem’s been around a long time. In 1997, they codified the affirmative defense does not include any defense that either denies an element of defense charge or denies responsibility, including alibi, misidentification, or lack of intent. And, I don’t know how to explain, but that’s only got chance here. So read read that next one. So I don’t know. I’ll go ahead and read it. But, if I had to explain it Can you explain it, please? If I had to explain it, I would say the victim advocate’s apparatus and the law enforcement apparatus convinced the legislature that the criminals were exploiting a massive number of loopholes in the system. That’s what I think happened.

[18:25] Andy: And because this is so murky and all that, can we keep moving to try to get out of this? What happened next?

[18:33] Larry: You mean you’re not absorbing? You’ve read this how many times?

[18:36] Andy: I I’ve read it, and I’m trying to I’m still trying to figure out what what unnatural and abnormal interest would be. I’m really trying hard to figure that one out. Well,

[18:46] Larry: fast forward to twenty o seven. The Arizona Court Court of Appeals for the very first time considered the 1993 version. So this thing managed to bob around for a decade and a half, the 1993 version before it was made its way up to appellate level. And they looked at the affirmative defense framework and they decided that sexual interest was no longer an element of CEM. And that was in a case called State versus Simpson. And, the court held lack of sexual interest under 13 dash 14 o seven e was an affirmative defense that the defendant had to prove by respondents of the evidence. Second, the court reasoned that because the statute had been updated in nineteen ninety two three to remove the phrase knowingly molest, prior decisions from the l l Arizona Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals did not compel the court at this time to interpret it to require proof of sexual interest as an element. They’re basically saying that since the legislature changed the wording, we’re no longer bound by existing precedent. So we’re gonna interpret it this way.

[19:54] Andy: You and I have actually, like, kinda debated in the past of whether you can prove a negative. And you’re like, well, if it’s not there, you’ve proven the negative. How would you prove you were not interested? You you can’t prove the negative in most instances. And then a different division of the Arizona Court of Appeals expressly disagreed with the Simpson court’s interpretation. I’m gonna need you to explain that.

[20:17] Larry: Yes. There was Holly one. That was the case that you talked about earlier. There’s there’s, two decisions, Holly one and Holly two. Holly one acknowledged that the legislature made lack of sexual interest in, a defense to child molestation, but it added that section. The court explained that in its view, the 1993 amendment did not significantly alter the elements of Centimeters because it did not do so in the text of the molestation statute itself. Thus, sexual interest remained in this, in implicit element of, of Centimeters that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt its defendant race, lack of sexual interest as a defense. They said to conclude otherwise would force defendants to negate a fact of the crime, which the state is to prove has to prove in order to convict, violating the defendant’s right to due process. In other words, Holly one, read the legislature’s post Sanderson abolition of common law affirmative defenses and shifting of the burden as proof of its interpretation of sexual interest was an element of the child molestation offense. The court concluded, thus, legal error, it was legal error to place the burden on the defendant, to prove conduct that was not, motivated by sexual interest. Now that was a good decision. That was Holly one.

[21:42] Andy: And then the Arizona Supreme Court reversed Holly? Is is that what I picked up from all that too? Yes. The the Supreme Court vacated Holly

[21:51] Larry: one, and they held that the plain text remember, we’re textualist around here of section 13 dash fourteen ten and thirteen-fourteen oh one broadly defined sexual contact as any direct or indirect touching, fondling, or manipulating another’s private parts, but did not implicate the defendant’s motivation. The statutes defining the crimes did not mention, imply, or require sexual motivation. FERSA’s statutory scheme unequivocally identified lack of motivation as an affirmative defense. And because of lack of sexual interest as an affirmative defense, the legislature may allocate the defendant the burden of proving it. Don’t agree with that, but that’s what the highest court in the state said. The court held that allocating the burden does not violate due process because the state is still required to prove every element of the Centimeters statute. In lack of sexual motivation, all the excuse conduct that would otherwise be punished, one, did not convert any of the elements of the offense. So they said.

[22:54] Andy: Now was Holly too? Now was the Arizona Supreme Court what was their final word in that one in the 13,

[23:02] Larry: 13 dash fourteen ten and then the, 13 dash 14 o seven? What was their decision with Holly too? Well, that was their decision. We just talked about that. But but there was one other development we should note, in 2017. From the state court, that was the end of it. But in 2017, the Arizona Federal District Court, which we talked just a little bit earlier, granted habeas relief under AEDPA to a defendant, and that was Stephen May, convicted in 2007 under that same section. And senior district judge Neil Wake concluded that Arizona had shifted the burden to the defendant in violation of Patterson, Mulaney, and Winship. The district court found that Arizona is the only jurisdiction ever to hold uphold the constitutionality, putting the burden of disproven sexual intent on the accused. In the district court’s analysis, Arizona has had created a regime which everyone starts out guilty and law enforcement decides who has to prove himself innocent. He said, there’s a grievous threat to due process of law making defendants disprove their own state of mind for conduct that it’s not wrongful in any sense way without a bad mental state. So in other words, you’ve gotta show what your mind had going six years, five years, three years ago by the time this man gets to the court.

[24:23] Andy: And that was ultimately reversed? Yes.

[24:28] Larry: But in an opinion that was filed simultaneously with that re reversal, an unpublished disposition, judge Frederick Block, who was on the court, noted that Arizona is the only state that places the burden of proving lack of intent on the defendant. It will it will well be the issue if it reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would agree with judge Wake that it’s unconstitutional.

[24:57] Andy: Well, then during his second trial in 02/2017, Bogonski took the stand to raise the affirmative defense under section section 13 dash 14 o seven. Bogonski admitted at trial that he washed the girl’s genitals, with his bare hand during the Sunday bath. Wow. Only Sunday? Oh, anyway. But asserted that he was not motivated by any sexual interest. That sounds like he was forced to testify in order to assert the affirmative defense. Now I thought the accused had a constitutional right to not testify. Well, they do accept in Arizona.

[25:33] Larry: And, Chance can weigh in here in a second, because he’s done 2,000 trials in his life. But what’s funny is the jury instructions was given. Let me let me just let Chance weigh in here. Isn’t that effectively neutering the person’s right not to testify if if the only way you can assert it is to is to testify?

[25:51] Andy: Absolutely. It’s a clear violation. So Could you get up there and just do that? They could say, I’ve, you know, ask 10,000 questions and you say, I plead the fifth whatever, but when you ask this one question, you could answer it? I mean, wouldn’t that sort of Yes. Yes. Maintain your your your right? Yeah. You could stipulate that this that you’re answering this, and that’s the whole scope of the answer and that’s that. Sure. But you’re still testifying.

[26:18] Chance: And it you know, if you if you exercise your right to be silent, then it should be respected. Period.

[26:27] Andy: I see.

[26:28] Larry: But but what’s funny is the jury instruction that was given, The jury was instructed as follows: The defendant has raised the affirmative defense of lack of sexual interest with respect to the charged offense of child molestation. The burden of proving each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt also remains with the state. However, this is what the jury was told, the burden of proving the affirmative defense of lack of sexual interest is on the defendant. The defendant must prove the affirmative defense of lack of sexual interest by preponderance of evidence. If you find the defendant has proven the affirmative defense of lack of sexual interest by preponderance of the evidence, you must find the defendant not guilty of defenses of child molestation. Well, I have a feeling that very few juries would ever come to that conclusion.

[27:19] Andy: Yeah. Just because you said so, yeah, I doubt I I agree with that. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on three Centimeters charges involving one of the girls, but found Begonsky guilty of the three main charges of Centimeters involving the other two girls. How many people are we talking about? Apparently, three. Because it said three that he was acquitted of. Right? Not guilty, anyway. And then three, he was found guilty of two others. Sorry.

[27:47] Larry: Well, I think it was three, counts with the same victim that he was acquitted of. I understood it right. But it it was a very confusing case. I can understand why you struggled for so long when you were reading it.

[28:01] Andy: Well, not only that, I people were talking to me all day. But then the ninth fort ninth circuit stated on page 32, we have profound concerns, with the substance of the Arizona scheme and with the Arizona Supreme Court’s analysis in Holly two. Those concerns persuaded us that Arizona has shifted the burden of proving the only fact that really matters in Centimeters cases whether the defendant touched the child’s private parts with some kind of sexual motive.

[28:28] Larry: Yep. And the court stated Arizona’s child molestation scheme is not just broad. It’s pernicious. What the hell does that mean, Chance?

[28:38] Chance: Well, pernicious means it’s it’s ugly. So Very ugly. So And absolutely horrendous and terrible.

[28:47] Larry: It criminalize every it criminalizes every knowing or intentional touching of a child’s parts, no matter the reason. Everyone who knowingly knowingly changes a diaper could be convicted of child molestation even when the state’s proof of the fact is not proof of any evil interest, but only traditionally lawful conduct. The state’s burden of proof under thirteen fourteen ten is only a modest imposition on the prosecutor. But not everyone will be charged. Only those persons whom the prosecutor believes will not be able to prove a negative that the defendants were not did not have a sexual motive will be charged.

[29:28] Andy: They stated Arizona has foisted the burden of proving the sexual motivation of the defendant on the defendant himself. This the state cannot do, consistent with the due process clause. Every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged must be proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court cases clearly established that Arizona cannot shift the burden of proof to the defendant. I swear, Larry, I heard you say that a bazillion times about burden shifting with the May case. I did. And that’s what they did.

[30:03] Larry: And then they went on to say, we have a little difficulty concluding that Arizona has shifted the burden from the state to the defendant to prove a core element of of the child molestation statute. That defendant touched the child’s private parts with some kind of sexual interest. Arizona has done so with violation of due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment as clearly established in decisions of the United States Supreme Court. This is what they have to say to have a hope of this holding up. And because of this case, the Arizona Court of Appeals, was bound by Holly too. So they’ve given them a pass because of of that. But for the reasons we have explained, Holly too identified the correct legal principles in the Supreme Court’s case, but its application of those principles was objectively an an unreasonable one.

[30:48] Andy: And the conclusion states, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the district court to issue the writ of habeas corpus. Alright. What’s next?

[30:59] Larry: Well, I would predict that there would be a request for reconsideration, which will be denied. Then there’ll be a request for a hearing of the full court en blanc. That in a very, I think that has more likelihood of being granted. But ultimately, this matter is likely to go to the Supreme Court because if I’m Bogansky’s attorney, I ain’t stopping here. If if the if the full court convenes and overturns it, I’m not stopping here. And I’m gonna go to the US Supreme Court. Now where what happens there? Who knows? But I think this case ultimately could end up in the US Supreme Court.

[31:41] Andy: Do do you want to well, let me first first. Does does this have any does this help, May?

[31:48] Larry: Not yet. But it might What would the what would the hurdles or the the milestones along the way? Well, this has gotta be upheld. The Arizona statute has got to be declared unconstitutional, and then he would move, to vacate his conviction because he’s being held on an unconstitutional statute that’s been found unconstitutional. And that’s why they’re that’s why they’re gonna fight tooth and nail. They’re not gonna wanna turn the prison gates open for all these child molesters that have been convicted under a non constitutional statute. Now it’s funny because they they raise their hand and they put that one on the bible that they are seeking justice and that they wanna do the right thing, but they will fight like hell to keep these people behind bars even under an unconstitutional conviction. Now that’s funny. Admit that.

[32:31] Andy: Now I need you to go back. You you didn’t put enough eyes in there when you said that word. I did? Yeah. Yeah. You didn’t put enough i’s. You need at least 10 i’s when you say bible. Okay. And the bible. There you go. That’s much better. Interesting. So, I mean, he’s still locked up for some number of years, but, potentially, he doesn’t, end up spending the rest of his life there.

[32:54] Larry: Well, if the US Supreme Court gets this case and they have the final word and they agree with the with the panel, then I don’t think Arizona will have much choice, but they’ll slow roll it. They’ll do everything they can. I mean, they’re not gonna wanna let people out of prison. I don’t know why I can’t explain that. They claimed overworked, understaffed, short staffed, and they claimed they were the guardians of the purse and all this kind of stuff, but they don’t wanna let go of anybody. I’ve never figured that out.

[33:18] Announcer: Oh, weird. Yeah. Yeah. It’s kinda weird. Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular registry matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.

[34:10] Andy: Well, okay. From the intersection of law, policy, and public safety in California, this is California Corner. This is, your source for legal for clear legal insight into the laws that govern California PFR registry. Now welcome to today’s segment, which is California’s s b six eight zero or as I like to call it, the bill that said no more creepy age gaps. Senate bill six eighty authored by senator Susan Rubio just passed the California senate public safety committee four to one. Now it targets a gap, otherwise known as a legal loophole in the state’s sex offender registry law that’s been letting certain EFRs, particularly in cases involving minors, avoid mandatory registration. Basically, it’s like the legal equivalence of patching a hole in your boat after you’ve already started sinking. Or as I like to say, Chance, I like to say, I like to, build the parachute as I’ve after I’ve already jumped out of the airplane. Now I am joined by Chance, a criminal defense attorney whose practice is primarily focused on PFR type crimes in California. Chance Oberstein, thanks for being here, or should I say taking a chance on us?

[35:18] Chance: Alright. Thank you, Andy. As I see, you’re already trying out your stand up routine, but let me start getting my day job. Okay. That’s I think I would agree with that.

[35:31] Andy: Well, can we start with the basics? What exactly is the loophole in senate bill six eighty, and what does this aiming to close?

[35:36] Chance: Okay. Well, on the under current California law, most sexual abuse crimes involving minors including acts like oral copulation and sodomy carry an automatic sex offender registration requirements, mandatory. But there’s an exception, The charge of unlawful sexual intercourse which is often used when the defendant is more than ten years older than the minor. It’s treated really as less severe. In other words, the law was basically saying sure you’re twenty years older, but hey, no big deal. SB six eighty changes that.

[36:12] Andy: And no more Lolita loopholes? Is that right?

[36:16] Chance: Exactly. But don’t worry. The Romeo and Juliet exceptions are still kind of intact. So if you’re in high you’re a high if you’re a high school senior dating a freshman, you may be safe from the law at least. Your parents’ judgment, well, that’s another story.

[36:33] Andy: And and the bill has been amended since it was first introduced. The original version version could have put tens of thousands on the registry retroactively. Is that what I understand?

[36:43] Chance: Yeah. That was the problem. Early drafts would have applied it to past convictions. And this is this is the threat of most things coming through the the tube from our our legislators, potentially adding up to 30,000 individuals. That’s a lot of people suddenly googling asking how to explain this to my neighbors. But the amended version now says only those convicted on or after 01/01/2026 will be required to register. Well, would you do us the service of breaking down what this bill does and does not do? Feel free to use bullet points because who doesn’t love a good list? I love to make a good list, but it’s a very short list. And here’s what it does. And bullet point number one, requires mandatory sex registration for unlawful sex with the minor if the offender is more than ten years older or if the offender has committed the offense more than once, even with a smaller age gap. It brings these cases in line with other offenses against minors and the way they’re treated in California. What it doesn’t do, bullet point one, is it doesn’t create new crimes. So no need to panic unless you’ve already are breaking the law.

[37:55] Andy: And the advocacy angle?

[37:59] Chance: Supporters of this say that it closes a loophole that has allowed predators to escape long term oversight and has left victims with uneven legal protections. In other words, in their view, it’s about accountability and consistency in the law. In practical terms, it says no more Lolita exceptions.

[38:19] Andy: But let’s be real. If you’re using Lolita as your dating manual, you probably got bigger problems?

[38:26] Chance: Much bigger problems. I agree with that. But remember, registry laws aren’t static. They evolved as lawmakers address unintended consequences or swipe at low hanging fruit.

[38:38] Andy: Now speaking of low hanging fruit, Chance, thanks for walking us through this. Anytime. Good luck with that comedy career. I hope it works out for me. Thanks, Chance. Now the bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee. What do you think will happen as that moves about, Larry?

[38:56] Larry: Well, I wish I knew as much about California legislative process, but this is a bill that’s hard to be in opposition to. This is one of those things where you have to have a good relationship with some key committee members, and it has to quietly fade off into the oblivion. And that’s even more difficult in a year round legislative assembly like California, where you’re dealing with, thirty to sixty to ninety day session. You got 1,200 bills moving, and if one fades off the radar, unless it’s really being forced by a lot of power behind it, nobody notices. But this one is gonna be tough because you can’t vote against this. It’s just politically, potentially suicidal to vote against it. So I say it. Your best hope for this going to Senate Appropriations is to try to make an economic impact. Governor Newsom is already dealing with a huge budget deficit. So try to figure out how to blow the cost of this thing beyond what anybody can imagine. And I don’t know how to do that because I don’t know what all the ramifications fiscally would be. But if you can get appropriations to stall the damn thing, that that might be a strategy to see if you could make it die, wither on the line.

[40:09] Andy: Correct. It’s it’s all there. Just wouldn’t that be 30,000 people potentially that now you have to have registry officers doing compliance checks and all that other garbage?

[40:20] Chance: No. No. No. No. Because that’ll because they’re eliminated because it’s it’s it’s it’s not retroactive. Oh, that would just be the new people? Be the new people. But the real problem with this is not that. I mean, the real problem with this is the legislative intent of having, sex with a minor, set at 18. The the reason it’s done in California is because too many adults were impregnating, too many underage girls. And so, that’s how the law came about. That’s why they said it at 18. It was a deterrent. But the reason it’s discretionary is because beyond the deterrent, if if the child happens, then financial responsibility kicks in. Well, the reason the the the biggest reason why the law was set at 18 is they didn’t you know, the the legislators didn’t want California to become a welfare state. The biggest reason it’s discretionary registration is because those adult men who did that, also need to work and pay for what they did. It’s called financial responsibility. And if you now have mandatory registration and that registration gets in between, that person, that individual finding a job or not, you defeated the whole purpose of raising the age to 18 in the first place. So it it just doesn’t seem like a very bright idea.

[41:48] Andy: Alright. Larry, shall we move over to this, DC thing, the from courthouse news service?

[41:56] Larry: Yes. But do you want me to tell you something funny?

[41:59] Andy: I do want you to tell me something funny. I always want you to tell me something funny. The

[42:03] Larry: apparently, I didn’t hit the button correctly, and it’s not recording for me. I hope you’ve got something that’s capturing this.

[42:09] Andy: Wow. I thought you like, when we started, you said I gotta go check this and check this and check this. Wow. Tonight was, like, the one night that I actually made a backup copy. Well, thankfully, because, yeah, I I didn’t it it either didn’t take or I didn’t hit it. I thought I hit it. But, anyway, okay. So what where are we going next? Alright. Well, from courthouse news, a DC circuit panel on Tuesday declined to freeze the implementation of a universal national registry for noncitizens in The United States over thirty days, setting up further arguments before the appeals court in the fall. In a per curiam order, US circuit judges Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkes, and Bradley Garcia appointed by Ronald Reagan. Holy moly. They must be a 100 years old. Barack Obama and Joe Biden respectively. The panel declined the immigrants rights group’s request for a stay, finding they failed to satisfy the stringent requirements deeded. And what did they fail to satisfy?

[43:08] Larry: Well, I looked at that very brief order, and I’m sure they’ve it was devoid of details, but I’m guessing that the panel, which was a balanced bipartisan panel, felt that they didn’t show that they were likely to succeed on the merits, and that in order that they would suffer irreparable harm, it’s both of those. You’ve gotta show that you’re likely to to succeed on the merits and that you will be irreparably harmed, but for the injunction without that being granted. My guess is they didn’t feel the evidence was there. And, again, not liking something doesn’t make it unconstitutional simply because you don’t like it. And I don’t like registries, but registries have been upheld as not being unconstitutional. And that’s probably what they did looked at and said, well, registering somebody is not unconstitutional in and of itself.

[44:00] Andy: So so in summary for me me dumb people, this is making a illegal immigrant database registry?

[44:09] Larry: That’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know the details, but that’s what I’ve heard people complain about that are immigrants’ rights advocates that they’re trying to create this massive database for I think they’ve they’ve encouraged immigrants to sign up for it, but again, I’m not certain of all the details. But just FYI is the reason I put it in here. When you ask for an injunction, be prepared with evidence. Evidence has got to include that you’re going to win with existing case law, that your case aligns with existing the body of case law, and that without this, you will be irreparably harmed.

[44:49] Andy: Same thing it went on. We should create we should create registries for effectively every person in the country, and then we should create a registry of people who have created registries.

[44:58] Larry: Well, there was an advocate out there that tried that. He created a registry for the officers and put people’s officers pictures on. You remember that guy? I do not know about that one. I’m not gonna say his name because I don’t wanna start a flame war, but, you know, there’s an advocate out there that created a registry for for for the people who register PFRs. Can you tell me where this person do I know this person? Yes. You would know this person, but like I said, I wanna start a war.

[45:25] Andy: This isn’t somebody in New York, is it? No. No. It’s not. Okay. Then I have no idea. I have no idea. So this is gonna be a registry for only the officers that do PFR registrations? Yes. That’s okay. See, that’s funny. Alright. Well, then you put this is from the Albuquerque, New Mexico reported by the Associated Press. And it says, failed political candidate was sentenced to eighty years in federal prison Wednesday for his conviction in a series of drive by shootings at the homes of state and local lawmakers in the aftermath of the twenty twenty election. What is this about?

[46:05] Larry: Well, it’s about a, former Republican candidate named Solomon Pena, who, was early this year, convicted of several charges, conspiracy, weapons, and the shootings. But, he went by the homes of Democratic elected officials, firing into their homes, and, including the current speaker of the house of representatives. The prosecutors had sought a ninety year sentence, but the judge graciously reduced it to a more reasonable amount. But the prosecutor said that Pina had shown no remorse and had had hoped, to cause political change by terrorists and people who held contrary views to him being too afraid to take part of the political life. This was big news here when it was happening, when the shootings were happening, and then with the prosecution. But, yeah, this is eighty years seems a little bit harsh when nobody was killed or even hit, hit by the bullets.

[47:04] Andy: No. No. I, you know, I wasn’t paying a lot of attention. I just heard you guys talking about it in preshow. This sounds exactly like wasn’t it in Minnesota where the guy was shooting up politicians’ houses and killed two people?

[47:17] Larry: Yes. Yes. There was there was Isn’t this exactly the same thing? Well, I don’t know if it’s exactly the same thing, but it was certainly there was a shooting in Minnesota of two, two people. I think a lawmaker was one of them, if I remember right.

[47:28] Andy: And and his wife. And he had, like, set up to he had, like, a whole map made up of all the places he was gonna go to that night. And I believe he made it to two houses and and ultimately killed a husband and wife, a lawmaker, and his wife, if I’m not mistaken.

[47:41] Larry: So yeah. Well, this is this is our version of that, but, fortunately, no one was hurt.

[47:47] Andy: Yeah. Fortunately. Alright. Well, then the article states Pena’s lawyers had sought a sixty year sentence saying their client maintains that he is innocent of the charges. They have said Pena was not involved in the shootings and that prosecutors were relying on the testimony of two men who bear responsibility and accepted plea agreements in exchange for leniency. Could he be innocent?

[48:07] Larry: Well, I think mister Chance is a better person to answer that. Sure, he could be, but the jury convicted him. So in the eyes of law, he is a guilty person. The text took place as threats of acts of intimidation against election workers and public officials had surged across the country after president Trump and his allies called into question the outcome of the twenty twenty presidential election. That was the impetus for a lot of violence that happened thereafter. It was all that craziness about how corrupt it is, of how this election was stolen, and blah blah blah.

[48:38] Andy: Prosecutors said Pena resorted to violence in the belief that a rigged election had robbed him of victory in his bid to serve in the state legislature. The shootings targeted the homes of officials, including two county commissioners after their certification of the twenty twenty two election, in which Pena lost by nearly 50 percentage points. I mean, mathematically, how do you lose by 50? Is did he get zero? He got a very small number of votes. No one was injured, but in one case, bullets passed through the bedroom of a senator’s 10 year old daughter.

[49:16] Larry: Well, I’m not I’m not rationalizing it at all. It’s not anything that’s funny or rationalizable, but 80 does seem like a pretty harsh outcome. But we are in federal court. And two other men who, acknowledged helping Pena with attacks had previously pleaded guilty to the federal charges, and they received long prison sentences. I don’t remember how much. But I’ve been thinking maybe the president will intervene for mister Pena. He’s intervened for others who have done things of this nature. So, this guy didn’t kill anybody. And and so he’s real concerned about people getting harsh sentences. And, seems like to me that this would be a good candidate for him to to step up and say, hey, let me commute this eighty sir year sentence down to time served.

[50:02] Andy: Do do you mean harsh harsh sentences for terrorist acts? Is that what you’re saying? That’s what I was just gonna ask. I mean, weren’t people on January 6 didn’t some police officers die that day and they were, whatever, exonerated, commuted, whatever the word is? It was. There was there were some that were commuted, and some I think were just pardoned altogether, but,

[50:21] Larry: you know, this this is really, sad to me, but it is an excessive sentence, I would say, for a person who didn’t really physically harm anybody. And, it would be one where if I were in the position to, I would look at that along with his remorse and his life history and a lot of things to determine if he was treated excessively harsh for the conduct.

[50:45] Andy: Interesting. But, like, mathematically. I mean, you have to generally get 50% to, you know, something like, oh, this candidate won by 54%. And if he lost by 54, he got single digits? No. No. And he’s really pissed off at You you get 75% of the vote there. That’s 50% more than somebody else got. If if the person got 75 to 25, that’s 50% more. That that’s right. It’s anyway, he he got a very small number. It wasn’t like it was a a four or five point. What did Trump win by? Like, a a handful of percentage points? I think it’s less than 2%. But, yeah, this guy had mental problems getting what’s funny is had he got elected, he would be observing in the capital here. Wouldn’t that be funny? That would be amazing. Okay. We are at fifty minutes. Is there anything else you guys would like to talk about for about two or three minutes, or should we just close it all down?

[51:39] Larry: Close this mother down.

[51:42] Andy: Chance, any final words? Do you wanna plug your podcast? How’s that going? Hey, that’s going really good. You know? How could people find it? They

[51:49] Chance: can find it by, going to YouTube and looking up sex crimes defense. That would do it.

[51:59] Andy: And we’re not allowed to stop yet. Deanna still has alcohol left. Just saying.

[52:05] Larry: Wow. Wow.

[52:07] Andy: I do wanna mention that we did get a new patron a couple weeks back, and his name is Owen. I say welcome. Welcome. Welcome to the family. You can, get your account joined over on between Patreon and Discord, and you can just automatically come and hang out with us on Saturday nights while we’re recording this. Well, head over to registrymatters.c0 to find show notes, and you can find links to everything as far as downloading it or find YouTube and all the other places where you could find the podcast if you need to do that. Send email over to registrymatterscast@gmail.com. We did receive email from people this week that I keep forwarding over to Larry, and I believe Larry has been responding to some of the people, and that might turn into segments on the show. So don’t hesitate to send those emails over. Am I am I right on that one, Larry? You’re right about one in particular that,

[52:52] Larry: that believes that the being listed on the website triggers an IML passport, marking. And I’m trying to debunk that, but it’s gonna take more research than I can do. So I just have to apply logic to it, but I don’t believe that that’s the case. But it’s a very good, scenario that he’s put together because if it turns out that he’s right, that would be a tragedy because I would have to up my belief that being on the website is more damaging what the it’s damaging enough. But I think I might have to rethink if it turns out that merely being on the website generates that. I don’t believe it does, but it could. Alright.

[53:33] Andy: You can also leave voice mail at (747) 227-4477. And as I stated at the beginning of the show, patreon.com/registry matters if you would like to become a supporter, which we would appreciate so very much. And, gentlemen, I hope you have a fabulous night, and I will talk to you guys soon. I hope you have a good night. Take care. Thank you. Good night. Thanks. Good night. And apologize for the lack of the recording. Hopefully, you have all you need. I hope so. If not, we’ll just record it again.

[54:02] Larry: That would be definitely funny.

[54:12] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

[00:00] Intro: Ladies and gents, let’s swing the spotlight onto our fabulous lifetime patrons for this episode of Registry Matters. Justin, Brian, Michael, Chris, and Paul. A massive shout out to these stars. And remember folks, FYP.

[00:18] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, Transmuting across the Internet. This is episode 349 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. How are you? I’m nice and toasty. Thank you. Toasty. So, Larry, just let’s just dive right in. After after everyone has pressed like and subscribe and go over to YouTube and press the little thumbs up thing for the bell rating and all that good stuff. What are we doing tonight?

[00:45] Larry: Well, the bad news is Chance had a last minute situation arise, and he’s not able to be with us. So it means it’s just Well, that’s unfortunate. It means it’s just mister doom and gloom for this episode. But we have some upbeat news from the Indiana Supreme Court. It’s a huge win for PFRs, at least for the moment. And also we have some questions from our supporters. And I have at least one article I wanna cover about Arizona from Arizona, I should say. And it’s it is about Arizona as well, so we can dive right in.

[01:22] Andy: Fantastic. And this is Rolfe, like Rolfe I guess that’s Dolph never mind. Anyway, Rolfe. Right? That’s who this first one is?

[01:31] Larry: Yes.

[01:32] Andy: Alright. So quick question. Will your newsletter, NARSOL, be addressing that APFR and that I you know, the way it is spelled, I don’t I’ve heard it’s Jelaine Maxwell. And so please forgive me. You know, it’s spelled very odd. But has this has miss Maxwell been sent to a camp? Now, I thought that PFRs, most of whom, like myself, have camp eligible points, but due to a public safety factor, aren’t able to be, designated to camps. From a legal, precedent setting standpoint, does this open the door for that to eventually happen? As I have no available funds right now to afford NARSOL, I am paying my own schooling. If, if you did have the time, a brief paragraph response would be awesome. And if not, no worries. Thank you for your advocacy.

[02:26] Larry: Well, Rolf has been a long time supporter of both the podcast and, NARSOL. And that is really a good question. And the answer is we don’t know yet whether it will or whether it will not. I will say that without being on the inside, that clearly when you have the Deputy United States Attorney General go visit you in prison, you have attention at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. Therefore, if the Department of Justice, which the Bureau prisons, reports to the Department of Justice, It’s, it’s a part of the Department of Justice. If the DOJ asks that someone be assigned to a camp, being that that’s your boss, that’s gonna happen. Very few people are gonna flip the middle finger and say, No, sir. We can’t do that because we have this policy, the of the public safety factor. Ms. Maxwell is 900 years old, probably doesn’t pose much threat, and probably an override was, allowed, authorized, or even ordered by the top administration at DOJ. Will that result in PFRs being to go to camps that they will take the safety off because they’re afraid that a PFR might offend while they’re at a camp because camps don’t have fences as a general rule. A person could just walk away and they could PFR all they wanted to. Right? I suppose so. So, therefore, that’s the reason why they have that policy. They don’t wanna have to defend why that BFR was able to walk away from camp and do naughty stuff. In normal times, I would say one answer, but we’re not in normal times anymore. This administration has learned and taught us that whatever it says or whatever it does, it can break the mold on public opinion. It’s done so many things I never thought possible I would see in my lifetime. I don’t want off any prediction. But if Trump is pro PFR, like a lot of the PFRs that voted for him, think he is, perhaps maybe he will suggest strongly that the DOJ ask the Bureau of Prisons to take that public safety factor off so that more PFRs could be in camps. But I don’t know if it’s gonna make any difference. It may just be a one, and you’re done. And we’ll have to wait and see, Ralph.

[04:57] Andy: She was born in 1961, by the way. So she’s 63. She’s not a thou what did you say? A 100 years old? A thousand years old? 900 years

[05:05] Larry: old. She’s not that old, man. But anyhow alright. Well, at that age, most people are beyond their typical crime prone years, and I’m not convinced that she had as much to do with this. I didn’t sit on the trial, so I don’t know what the evidence was. But I’m not convinced of anything other than I think that she was scapegoated because Epstein’s dead. Somebody had to pay for his sins. And I think she got, she was unlucky at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[05:34] Andy: Reasonable. And the reason why I cannot figure out how to pronounce her name is she’s French and it’s it looks like it’s Ghislain, g h e e l a y n is the pronunciation. So that’s like Ghislain. Alright. Beyond my pay grade. Moving along, sir? Let’s move along. This one alright. So, this is from Jeff. Now I have subscribed to NARSOL through my incarceration and during the four years I have been out as of 07/21/2025, I have two questions that I hope someone can answer for me. A long while ago, I remember reading in NARSOL about a fundraising effort to challenge Florida and the registry regarding, now I believe, them not taking people off their registry once they leave from a visit or whatever. There may be other items challenged as well, but I don’t recall those. NARSOL even had a running total on their in their newsletter. Now what happened to this challenge?

[06:33] Larry: I believe my recollection is that the challenge was unsuccessful. Florida has every right to keep records of criminals on on display. As I recall, that’s what the court ruled. So there was no nothing unconstitutional about reporting that a person has been a PFR in the state of Florida. So I believe that that litigation died with an unsuccessful outcome. That’s my memory. I know we’ve got probably hundreds of Floridians listening. They can correct us, and we’ll put it on the air next week if we’re wrong, but I believe that’s what happened with that litigation.

[07:06] Andy: Very good. Alright. And then the second question is more personal in nature, but I would say it’s one that runs through the minds of PFRs quite often. Is there any hope of a better life, registry, set of, consequences, etcetera for us? Now I’m so tired of grasping for straws in this ocean of constant punishment. It seems that what little victories, NARSOL Registry Matters announces, are later overturned or only applied to a few people or a particular state or area. To be honest, I am about to give up. In the four years I’ve been out, my state has enacted just about as many laws to restrict me more. Pretty soon, I’ll need permission to leave my home or walk in my own yard. I’m just so tired and it looks like, as if there will be no end. Please send hope. And that’s from Jeff.

[07:53] Larry: If you scroll down, I believe he’s in Kentucky. Right? On down the Road. Well, I I didn’t really wanna do that because I didn’t wanna dox the guy. Oh, well, don’t dox the guy, but I believe he’s in Kentucky. So I guess, I will start by saying, I don’t know if he’s under supervision, if he can vote or not, but he could certainly support people whether or not he can cast a vote.

[08:12] Andy: Can you hang on. Can you stick around that specific subject? Because I had a I was involved in a conversation with someone that was like, well, I didn’t vote or I can’t vote. He’s in Florida. Can can we dig around that for just a minute on what can you do even if you can’t vote on how much impact you can have? Well, I think we did on the last episode, but if we could do it again. It was recent. Yes. We you can. Well, let’s see. Having been in the political arena for decades,

[08:37] Larry: you can distribute literature. Candidates need that. You can donate money. Candidates need that. Phone banking is becoming less and less relevant because phones are unanswered anymore. But people, older school candidates still phone bank. You could, that’s called get out the vote. You could drive people to polls. I’m assuming you have a driver’s license. So people get campaigns offer rides to polls. Yeah. There’s there’s so many things you can do. You can help, candidates be informed on issues. They’re not experts on everything. You can do research. You can, I mean, we can go on and on the things you can do that can have an impact on an election? And you may not be able to vote in certain states, but that doesn’t mean you can’t influence public policy.

[09:29] Andy: Alright. I’m with you. And, so then what else I know you just gave a litany of things. But back to his back to his question, there’s there is hope.

[09:39] Larry: My recollection is the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled many years ago when it was under leftist regime and control. I believe that they were one of the earlier states that ruled that, residency restrictions could not be imposed retroactively, meaning that PFRs couldn’t be forced out of their home if a daycare or something popped up after they had established residence there. I don’t believe that has changed. So that’s one thing that hasn’t changed, in terms of Kentucky. But if you don’t take any interest in the political arena and you sit idle on the sidelines and you let people who, espouse hammer down, hammer down, crack down, crack down, more time in prison, tougher on PFRs. Don’t be surprised when you get that. So, I would say that, Jeff, you need to spend some time trying to influence public policy even if you’re not a voter because of of of what is it called? Disenfranchement disenfranchisement.

[10:39] Andy: But but, Larry, I look at the total picture. PFR issues are only one.

[10:44] Larry: Oh, I know. Because see, the I’ve heard that for quite some time now. You’re so shallow to only focus on one. Well, but see, the problem is most of those issues run hand in hand. The people who are hammered down on PFRs are also hammered down on criminals in general. And they’re also, not in alignment with me on most other issues. When I’m out of alignment with my team, I call my team out on it. I think you’ve you couldn’t even document how many times I’ve criticized my team in the course of the years we’ve been doing this program. I would need new math. We don’t give them a pass. The other side gives their team a pass, but I do not believe in giving my team a pass. If you’re wrong, I do everything I can to change your mind and persuade you. If you’re wrong on too many issues, I do everything I can to defeat you. So it’s that simple. Yeah. And that means going out working for your opponent, In some cases, if you’re if you’re wrong too many times, but you’re never going to agree with people completely on everything. So I take the 80% rule. If I can get 75, 80% in agreement, I’m for someone.

[11:50] Andy: I dig. Yeah. And the the conversation that I was having with the person we were talking about, the person the particular, health and human services secretary? Is that d yeah. Department of Health and Human Services? That guy is just a tragedy.

[12:05] Larry: Now, you shouldn’t say that. He was appointed by the president of The United States and confirmed by The United States Senate.

[12:12] Andy: Absolutely. And most of the things that were talked about during his, confirmation hearings have not been held to true. He’s a freaking environmental lawyer. He’s not a a medical doctor of any sort.

[12:25] Larry: Indiana Supreme Court. Let’s go here. What do you wanna talk about from this who the hell lives in Indiana?

[12:31] Andy: I don’t think anybody lives there. There’s there is a big racetrack there, but it is a win. And and look, Larry, I I wasn’t doing lawn work today. I was actually, like, we we filed tax extensions, and I was, working on our taxes. But while I was doing that, I was reading it multiple times. I’m not sure why you’re so excited. What’s got you so giddy?

[12:49] Larry: Because the Indiana Supreme Court adopted my legal analysis. And how could you do that? Well, easy. Read the language. It didn’t come if it didn’t come from FYP, where could it have come from?

[13:03] Andy: Perhaps they performed their own legal analysis, like, they they they they played three d chess the same way that you do. Did you consider that?

[13:12] Larry: No. Actually, I never thought about that.

[13:15] Andy: Okay. Well, here’s the case. And and this this guy should not be named Gage Peters. It should be Cage Peters because that would be a perfect supervillain name, Cage Peters. But, so this is Cage Peters versus Dennis j Quackenbush in his official capacity as Hamilton County Sheriff and Lloyd Arnold in his official capacity as commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections. The case was decided on June 19. So that’s just a a couple months ago. Are you ready? I think so. Alright. The question facing the court is whether such a person must register for the period required by the other jurisdiction even though they committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement. The court said, we answer that question in the affirmative. Now I’m not seeing the reason why you are so giddier.

[14:03] Larry: Well, I see the reason because it affirms what I’ve been saying about being listed on a website versus actually being registered. They ultimately held because Peters is not currently required to register in another jurisdiction that he need not currently register in Indiana as a sex or violent offender. They reversed the trial court and remanded for interest summary judgment in Peter’s favor. So that’s why I’m giddy. Alright. And you said they reversed it? They did. They actually reversed the, court of appeals, but the trial court had been, upheld by the court of appeals.

[14:39] Andy: Alright. Well, then here’s some background on how we got here. In October 2013, k, Gage I was gonna say Gage. Gage Peters was convicted of criminal sexual abuse in the state of Illinois. This conviction came with ten year POF registration requirements in that state, a period beginning on 10/15/2013. Then in August 2016, Peters moved to Indiana and complied with his duty to register. Then soon after he settled in the state, the Department of Corrections advised Peters of his ten year registration requirement under SORRA. This obligation, the department added, was subject to modification should the registration requirements change. Now this is all from Illinois. Now how did Florida come into this whole equation? Well, it got a little bit muddy, but as best I could figure out from,

[15:28] Larry: September 28 through 10/04/2021, after Peters moved back to Illinois in in January, he vacationed for that brief period of time in the state of Florida. And Florida requires an offender to register in that state if they take up, quote, a temporary residence for a period of three days or more. In compliance with this law, Peter signed a notice of sexual predator and sexual offender obligations from which he agreed to maintain registration for the duration of his life. This form also advised Peters that his registration would be published on the state’s BFR website.

[16:05] Andy: Now I see. Okay. So he’s, quote, unquote, only listed on the website, the Florida website, even though he no longer resides there?

[16:13] Larry: Correct. He’s listed on the website, and everybody insists that that’s the same thing as being registered. And we’re going to get to the point where the court agrees with FYP. In May 2022, Peters moved back to Indiana and registered with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department. That office’s PFR registration form initially listed the end date as 10/15/2023, which was ten years from the start date. But in February, the sheriff’s department notified Peters that he had a had to register for a lifetime as a PFR due to state of Florida registration laws when he resided there during his vacation. In response, Peter sued for declaratory judgment against the Hamilton County Sheriff and Department of Correction seeking relief from the change in his registration requirement. I’m guessing that the state of, Indiana did not agree with his position with his petition. Well, how did they respond? Yeah. So, well, the state moved for summary judgment, which was converted from a motion to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion after finding no issue of material fact as to whether Peters is required to register for life in the state of Indiana, because he is required to do so in the state of Florida. So they just did did the minimum work possible. The trial court could not be bothered with the nuances of Peter’s argument. Well, I looked yonder that former. You signed that thing, and I went here in Florida and it said you gonna register for life. How come you’re taking up this call with time? That’s what that’s what he did.

[17:46] Andy: Well, then then Peters, it it seems that he appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Is that their version of the Supreme Court? Is that still one step below? That’s one step below. That’s the intermediate court. Okay. And so what happened there? Well, the panel, it was split,

[18:01] Larry: but they affirmed holding that the plain language of the code, and that’s in Indiana code 11 dash eight dash eight dash 19 subsection F. And that’s the jurisdiction statute. It compels registration for individuals with out of state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations. And that case from down below, is cited as Peters versus Quakenbush, two forty three, northeast third, at 11:45 to 11:51. And that was just decided last year at the Indiana Court of Appeals.

[18:38] Andy: Alright. And then I see that on page four, it says, in so holding, the majority expressly disagreed with and declined to follow the decision in Merroquin versus Regal. What is that case about?

[18:51] Larry: Well, I had to do some work to figure that out. But it in that case, the defendant had been convicted of a class d felony of sexual misconduct with a minor, an offense that did not and apparently still does not require registration in the in Indiana. After moving to Virginia, Virginia required him to register for ten years, but was later that was admitted to lifetime, based on the Indiana conviction. Well, he didn’t he didn’t like that lifetime obligation too much. So he moved back to Indiana and the sheriff informed him that the Indiana jurisdiction statute required him to register now for life in Indiana because Virginia had required him to register for life. He sued, arguing that the jurisdiction statute doesn’t apply when the requirement to register another jurisdiction is based entirely on the existence of the Indiana conviction. And that is when there is no independent requirement to register in another jurisdiction. The court of appeals agreed in that case, reasoning that the purpose of the jurisdiction statute is to ensure that a person who is required to register another jurisdiction because of a BFR type offense in that jurisdiction cannot avoid registration by moving to Indiana. Well, that reminds me of a guy that moved to, he was convicted in Wisconsin pre registration and he moved to Nevada and got into the gaming industry. Nevada used to have mostly a private registry and then they went AWA compliant and everybody ended up on the Internet and he didn’t like that nearly as much. So he went back to Wisconsin and they said, well, now not so fast here. You didn’t have to register when you left, but you’re coming from a state where you have to register. So now you have to register.

[20:35] Andy: And this is some garbage. I mean, if if if you haven’t done anything other than change your location, it doesn’t seem that that should be the way that that works. I know we’re gonna talk about should be and ISB. I I understand that. But if you didn’t do anything to activate the registration requirements, it doesn’t seem like you would. Okay. But here’s you a chance to call out intellectual dishonesty.

[20:59] Larry: My conservative friends that are listening. You guys say that you like to keep the cost of government down and you like to waste no money and you claim law enforcement is overworked and understaffed. How is it that you let them create extra work by inventing requirements as absurd as this to boost the number of registrants while at the same time they claim that they’re underfunded and they can’t perform basic law enforcement functions? Why do you give them a pass on that? I don’t, but you do.

[21:33] Andy: Alright. And then this seems to be already settled case law?

[21:37] Larry: It was already settled in Marroquin, but they chose to ignore their own precedent. The court stated in rejecting Peter’s claim that his departure from Florida relieved him of his obligations there, the majority pointed to his subject to registration status on Florida’s PFR website, which it does say that. I looked it up myself, adding that it matters not whether he needs to report in person there, but he’s subject to registration. But that’s only if he’s there in Florida connected by employment or living. Can you admit that that’s funny?

[22:08] Andy: Not funny at all.

[22:10] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snort from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y d.

[23:00] Andy: So then in dissent, judge Mathias would have adopted the reasoning set out in Merriquin to find the jurisdiction statute inapplicable when there’s no independent requirement to register in the other jurisdiction. Judge Mathias, invoking the absurdity doctrine, concluded that the legislature could not have intended the results here based on a one week vacation in another state. Judge Mathias had a point, did he not?

[23:26] Larry: I think Judge Mathias was looking at it correctly. He did indeed have a point, but a visit to a state does not alter the underlying conviction details. Indiana took the position that you visit Florida, so poof, you’re now lifetime PFR based on a brief visit. I’m trying to get you I I wanted this is this is funny, isn’t it?

[23:50] Andy: Now now look, the next time we all get together, I will ask all the Floridians that I have access to to see if it’s funny. And if they don’t find it funny, I will offer them tomatoes to throw at you. How about that? Sounds good. Now, it would be funny if it wasn’t so absurd. Now, can we move on to the Supreme Court’s analysis? What is the standard of review there? This is where it’s strict scrutiny and those things. Right? Yes. This is a good question about standard review.

[24:19] Larry: The court stated when reviewing summary judgment, a summary judgment ruling, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Now, they left out the part that all any doubt is resolved in favor of the non moving party, which is what tripped up the people in Smith v. Stowe in Alaska. They couldn’t understand that. But when, when like here, a challenge to summary judgment ruling presents only questions of statutory interpretation. The court says, we review those issues to noble, meaning there’s no difference to the decisions made below. They’re totally at liberty to do whatever they wanna do without deferring. So they took a fresh look at it, in in the in the

[25:12] Andy: alright. And then so in 1994, the Indiana General Assembly adopted Zachary’s law, requiring a person convicted of certain PFR type offenses to register. And then since its inception, Sora has undergone several amendments. Of course, they have. Under the law today, a person must register and that’s report in person to local law enforcement. Now if that person is a, PFR or violent offender who resides in the state, works for or intends to work in the state, attend school or plans to attend school in the state, and that’s, what is IC? Indiana code, I guess. Yes. And that’s, you you gave that one before. That’s eleven eight eight four. Now, how broadly is the registration requirement applied in Indiana? Pretty broadly.

[25:58] Larry: Sex or violent offender refers to a person convicted of one of many enumerated Indiana offenses, including various PFR type crimes or substantially similar offenses committed in another jurisdiction. The term also includes a person who is required to register as an offender in any jurisdiction. And that’s in that same code section, sub subsection B one. Defining a PFR can include a person who is required to register as a PFR in any jurisdiction. So that’s where they were trying to rope him in here. But see, he ain’t required to register in another jurisdiction. He’s gone. He poofed and he vanished. And that’s what people don’t understand.

[26:38] Andy: Indiana is one of the and and I guess a bunch of, Eastern Seaboard cities are that way too. But Indiana is one of the, states where a lot of people live just over there in the other state next over that you would end up with where where it’s talking about if you intend to work here or live here, the that really kicks in where someone in your state, there’s not much likelihood that someone lives right next door to the other states around it. You think? I think so. But I could be I do you have a major city on your border?

[27:10] Larry: Not especially a major city. No. We do have some That’s my point. Yeah. So Alright. Well, but how long must they register in Indiana? Well, I think, basically, the registration is ten years. But if a person is required to register in any jurisdiction, then that person must register for the period required in the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer. That’s where they were wanting to deviate from the ten years because he was required to register in Florida for life. But the court noted by opposing such a requirement, Indiana avoids becoming a safe haven for PFR type offenders attempting to evade their obligation. I tell you guys that’s a real concern of people doing state shopping.

[27:51] Andy: Now I noted that the court stated the parties here dispute whether its requirement rep applies to a person residing, working, or attending school in Indiana, even though that person committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement.

[28:08] Larry: They did say that. Correct. In part one of the opinion, they concluded that it does, require that it does apply. But whether the jurisdiction statute applies to Peters is another question that was addressed in part two of the decision. And they held that because Peters is not currently required to register in any other jurisdiction, the jurisdiction statute does not apply to him. This means that being listed on Florida’s website does not in and of itself constitute being registered as a PFR. He couldn’t have won. Sure. He couldn’t have won this case if they looked at it the way most PFRs look at it. They say, well, I’m on the registry. I’m registered in Florida. I said, wait a minute. Are you registered anywhere? Well, no. I got off in in, Vermont, but I’m registered in Florida. I said, no. You’re not. You’re on the website. They said, no. You’re not. You’re an idiot. I’m on the registry. Under your doctrine, he would have lost this case. But under my doctrine, he won this case because he is not registered in Florida. He’s got residual information on the website. They concluded that he does not have to register in Indiana due to the short vacation in Florida. In essence in essence, they recognized and adopted FYP’s analysis that being listed on the Florida website is not the same as having a registration requirement.

[29:26] Andy: Then the Court of Appeals majority declined to follow Meroquin explaining that the plain language of the jurisdiction statute compels registration for individuals without of state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations. What did the supreme court say about that?

[29:44] Larry: Well, Peters argued that once he left Florida, he no longer had a duty to register there because he no longer maintains a temporary residence there. Peters admits had he admitted that Florida maintains and has no obligation to remove his public profile, and that was addressed in the question previously because that case was lost. They have no obligation to remove his profile from the online PFR registry. But he distinguishes the state’s obligation to notify the community of registrants in the state from an offender’s duty to register in the state. So I’m starting to like this Peter’s guy more and more. I think he must have been listening to registered matters.

[30:18] Andy: You never know. The state acknowledged that Peters might not have to update his information personally in Florida while living and remaining in Indiana. But the duty to personally update registration information the state submits is the only obligation terminated by leaving the state of Florida, not the duty to register. They argued that a PFR’s registration requirement does not terminate when the offender moves to another jurisdiction. And what did the court say about that?

[30:45] Larry: They said, we hold that the jurisdiction statute applies to a person with out of state registration obligations regardless of the source’s obligations. But because Peters is not currently required to register in Florida, we hold that the jurisdiction statute does not apply to him. We thus reverse the trial court and remand for entry of summary judgment in Peters’ favor. I’ll just finally make it clear that being listed on our website is not the same thing as being registered.

[31:13] Andy: Interesting. I’m sure it makes it clear, like, what what would be the way to word it? Like, in statute, it makes it clear. But with all the people that are being doxxed on the Florida website with the way the Internet the pervasiveness of the Internet is at this point, I think that’s a it’s just a non starter kinda argument. You can’t argue that people don’t have disabilities and restraints. And I know that’s not what this is about, so don’t go into all that. I realize that, but people are experiencing a lot of, pain and grief from being on the websites. Indeed. There would be people that would be denied housing in other states. They would say, I found you. Is this you, Yondra? Look at a picture. It looks like an old picture, but it sure looks like you. Did you used to live in Florida? Wow. And and And your name is so oddly similar. And that would that that would actually be happening to people. Then you have actual damages if you can if you can document when that happens. That’s part of the point goes wrong in these cases. Nobody can ever prove that they were denied anything because of the registry.

[32:09] Larry: They can’t document the the volume of their monetary losses. But if you can get someone on video saying, hey, I would’ve hired you, but I found this old stuff on the Florida website. I think you’ve got something that will keep you in court beyond the the 12 b six motion for summary judgment.

[32:28] Andy: Alrighty then. Any final words on this?

[32:32] Larry: So well, I wish that the well, Indiana Supreme Court would send us payment for our services, don’t you?

[32:39] Andy: How much do you think that’s worth?

[32:41] Larry: Well, I know that that they would have to done a lot of work somewhere, so it would be easier just to get it from us and pay us for the work we’ve already done.

[32:51] Andy: Alright. Well, which publication is this from? Where did where did the the AZ Capital Times? So this is the Arizona Capital Times. They don’t have, like, a logo at the top of the page, man. Arizona’s two hundred ninety year sentence was a failure of justice. Now, we have this article out of Arizona and it says Katie governor Katie Hobbs recently denied clemency to Carl

[33:14] Larry: Bousk. How would you pronounce that? I would have a clue. That’s why I’ll always give you these hard I would say buzk, but it could be buzk. I was gonna say he probably Buski. Buski or buzk.

[33:27] Andy: A man serving a how long, Larry? This guy has got a longer sentence than you’ve been alive, which is two hundred ninety year sentence. Holy crap. Two hundred ninety year sentence in Arizona for possession of CP. The author stated, I want to be clear from the outset. The offense is serious and deserving of accountability. But two hundred ninety years for a non contact crime? That’s not justice. That is vengeance disguised as a law. Now, do you agree with that? I do. So mister Busque, Busque, mister Busque’s case is well known to those who have followed Arizona’s sentencing pattern. Even the judge who sentenced him bound by law to impose ten year minimums for each of the 29 counts to be served consecutively, acknowledged at the time how extreme the outcome was. The original prosecuting attorney agreed. And most recently, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency voted unanimously to rec recommend his release. Now can you admit that a consensus like that among the judge, prosecutor, clemency board is virtually unheard of? Yet, governor Hobbs rejected the recommendation. Now what kind of spin can you put on this?

[34:33] Larry: Oh, that one’s easy. The governor is facing reelection in 2026 along with 35 other governors in the same cycle. She’s attempting to remove the issue from the Republicans as as they’re likely to raise it. That she, she’s fearing that she would be perceived as soft on sex offenders and that’s not a good thing in an election cycle. So I would, I would surmise based on my political experience that that’s what’s, driving her to intervene.

[35:03] Andy: The author pointed out that this denial isn’t a disappointment. It’s a missed opportunity to affirm what Arizona Department of Correction, Rehabilitation and Reentry claims to stand for, rehabilitation and reentry. Mister Busk has served over eighteen years in prison. He’s got a long way to go on that two ninety, though. He has maintained a clean record, completed all programs available to him, and aged into a low risk category by any standard. I pose the same question. If this man is not eligible for a second chance, well, then who is?

[35:33] Larry: Well, I’ll agree. And all you have to do is convince the opposition. And right now, the governor Hobbs that would be coming from the Republican side out to stand down and not criticize and use this as a political issue in 2026. Now, I know all the vast audience we’ve got in Arizona, a lot of them would be inclined to be Republican. Try to get in touch with your party apparatus, the chairman of the party, the candidates’ managers, because there’s a couple of candidates I think already announced for for governor on on that side of the aisle. Try to get them not to politicize this. That’s what I would urge you to do.

[36:09] Andy: The article states clemency exists precisely for cases like this when mandatory sentencing laws produce outcomes so disproportionate that they violate basic notions of fairness. Arizona’s laws tied the judge’s hands. The clemency board exists to untie them. And the governor’s office, as the last safeguard, is supposed to ensure that justice is not merely legal but humane. In this case, that system failed. I’m certain you agree.

[36:35] Larry: I do. The writer pointed out that all governor Hobbs had to do, was only one thing, is to let the clemency take effect. She had to do nothing. In a literal sense, that is probably true. She didn’t have to endorse Mr. Buskey. She didn’t have to issue a press release. She simply had to allow the board to exercise this judgment that was, has been entrusted to them. Instead, she chose to rule them without providing a public explanation against the advice of every professional who handled the case. The only problem is that it ignores the political reality. I think Governor Hobbs, if she’s not old enough, she would remember Willie Horton and how the governor of Caxachusetts back in 1988 who was running for president, was so vilified for Willie Horton getting a weekend furlough. And he was the governor and he didn’t even have any idea, I’m quite certain that even there was such a thing as a furlough program because governors don’t get involved in the minutiae of prison operations. But he was vilified relentlessly for turning loose that type of individual. Governor Hobbs just barely won her election by a fraction of a percentage point and it stayed in contest for weeks and her opponent never did concede to my recollection. And Arizona is a Republican leaning state, and she just doesn’t have any political capital to waste on a PFR. I mean, I don’t make the rules. I’m just relaying to what she was likely thinking.

[38:04] Andy: Arizona ranks near the top of the nation in incarceration per capita and near the bottom in education. The author pointed out that he supported governor Hobbs. He said, I believe she would bring balance and compassion to Arizona’s justice system. I believed we were turning a corner. But today, I join a growing chorus of citizens, faith leaders, professionals, and justice advocates who are tired of watching rehabilitation denied in favor of political calculation. Now based on what you just said, your response to that?

[38:33] Larry: Well, my response is simple and similar. As the article states, Republicans there was a second article. Republicans see a prime pickup opportunity next year in Arizona’s governor’s race. For Democratic incumbent, Katie Hobbs faces a tough reelection and a state president Trump won by five points just last year. Two Republicans so far have entered the race, developer Karen Taylor Robeson Robeson, who ran for governor in 2022 but lost to Carrie Lake, and Representative Andy Biggs as chair of the House Freedom Caucus. That doesn’t sound like a particular progressive caucus to me. But without Governor Hobbs, you guys that are wishing that she was gone, without Governor Hobbs, there’s no check and balance on extremism. She’s vetoed some stuff. I can’t give you a whole list, but she’s vetoed some stuff. She’s taken some crazy stance. But I agree that mister Buskey’s sentence was extreme. His rehabilitation is probably real. And the decision to keep him in prison indefinitely is neither just nor defensible. But we live in a democracy. People made those laws of Arizona that he was able to get two hundred ninety years. They forced the judge to enforce that to impose that two hundred ninety years sentence because it was mandatory. So Gary, who I respect, he used to correspond with us, before he was out in the free world. I respect him. But I don’t think he has the political savvy to understand that this is political survival here one zero one. That’s what’s happening.

[40:07] Andy: And then you said there’s another article. Is this one free for fifteen years?

[40:11] Larry: Yeah. I didn’t really get that one prepared, but, yeah, he he did find a good company. When you said we had it. Well, we’ve got we could we could just chew the fat for a few minutes if anybody has a question and then then I’m gonna get out of here.

[40:25] Andy: I wanna ask you about gerrymandering. Just kidding. No. We can get out of here. We can, call it from there. Does anybody have a question that they wanna throw at Larry? No one has asked any, and I have been chatting the entire time. All I have to say is that elections have consequences. Well, okay. Mike, Super Patriot not Super Patriot, Mike. Big Mike just asked this, that do you think the Supreme Court got the, analysis wrong of a civil regulatory scheme back back back, you know, in 02/2001?

[40:59] Larry: I do not. Did they get it wrong based on the situation at the time? I I do not think they got it wrong at the time.

[41:05] Andy: I agree. That’s what I was just saying to him. I was like, given the state of the Internet, given what they said, it’s like you just gotta go in and and talk to the Popo once a year or whatever. Like, that’s not really that big of a deal. But So do you think if a similar case came up now, do you think that the Supreme Court would, rule differently?

[41:26] Larry: It’s always scary when you look at the type of rulings that were coming out of this particular court. But, we have the court that the people gave us. If a case is properly developed, where you actually spend tens of thousands of dollars proving down below, no summary judgement lawyers, no summary judgement, trials, evidence, experts, witnesses that are highly credible, that don’t testify contrary to what what your assertions are.

[41:59] Andy: That’s awfully specific, Larry. Are you referring to something? Maybe something written by someone recently even?

[42:05] Larry: But but as as the registry existed in Alaska in twenty o three, there was really not much more to it than sending out a form. And Right. The Internet was relatively in its infancy. And people didn’t rely on the Internet like they do now. So the Supreme Court is not supposed to be clairvoyant. They were not supposed to embed evidence that it didn’t exist. That case was decided on summary judgment because the challenger at the time felt that he was in the driver’s seat. He says, Everybody knows that this is the next post facto, addition. Well, everybody did know that. But everybody didn’t bother to read the Kennedy versus Mendoza case from 1963, Kennedy versus Mendoza Martinez. Those seven factors that determine whether a civil regulatory scheme is actually civil and regulatory. Because you can impose civil disabilities or restraints after the fact. You just can’t impose criminal penalties and sanctions. So, therefore, they they got arrogant and they moved for summary judgment, which meant that the state of Alaska was not given the opportunity to put on their defense. And summary judgment is resolved in favor of the non moving party. Any inferences that need to be made, any doubts are resolved in favor of the non moving party. Alaska said in their response, we have this because recidivism is frightening and high. Well, without a trial, that has to be assumed true. Right? Under the rules of civil judgment. So, therefore, so the parties below handed the Supreme Court facts that they had agreed to that recidivism was frightening and high. Then they they dump on the Supreme Court for the last twenty five years about something the Supreme Court did not decide. It was decided by the parties who agreed in their summary judgment. I think it was actually a counter motion made by both parties. But you do the same thing in both when a party moves for summary judgment. Any facts that are in dispute that would benefit the other side are given, they get the favor of those resolved in their favor and vice versa. So so anything that the PFR said was resolved in favor of whatever Alaska said what their defense would have been. And anything that Alaska said about the PFR was resolved in the PFR’s favor. But the Supreme Court got it completely right at the time. The lawyers have gotten it completely wrong in intervening years by not building proper cases, by not having enough money invested, by not going to trial and by not proving out their facts. The burden is on you, counselor, to prove that the registry is inflicting punishment. You don’t get any benefit of the doubt. You have to go in with solid evidence, credible evidence. And you haven’t done that and you’re going to keep losing until you do that. Well, very good. Play play that clip. Close out the show. Play that clip about what’s going to happen when you keep losing. Do you get something through your head?

[45:12] Andy: Oh, do I have that one? I don’t know that I have I have that one somewhere else to play. I don’t have it immediately. That’s alright. Yeah. We’ll play it one season. Hang on. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Wo

[45:25] Larry: So But anyway, yeah. You’re gonna keep losing until you get that through your thick effing skull. So well, and I agree with Megan Kelly on that. If if lawyers keep doing the same thing, they’re gonna keep losing. And if they keep criticizing the courts rather than examining what they’re doing wrong, they’ll continue to lose.

[45:41] Andy: Understand. Well, alrighty then. So head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and links to everywhere, which includes the shop, which has fypeducation.org, merchandise, t shirts, sweatshirts, etcetera. I’m holding one up on the screen right now that is the, it’s not punishment. It’s a civil regulatory scheme. You can send email @registrymatterscastatgmail.com. Phone, voice mail message stuff at (747) 227-4477. And, of course, for those that have joined us, in the chat tonight, those are all patrons, and I thank you guys so very much. That’s patreon.com/registrymatters. And if you would like to show support for the show as these ones have done, it is it it certainly makes it an easier venture for us to, take the time out to do these things. And, without anything else, you wanna say any parting words, Larry, before we head out? I’ll see you people in what is it? Seven days from now. It’ll be seven days. Take care, my friend. Have a great night. And everyone in chat, thank you guys for all coming. And you guys have a good safe night and weekend and week ahead. Take care. Good night.

[46:51] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

In today’s digital age, issues surrounding privacy, public registries, and their use (or misuse) are increasingly stirring heated debates. While registries may have been initially intended to enhance public safety or provide transparency, their widespread availability online has paved the way for misuse, including harassment, doxxing, and stigmatization of individuals—irrespective of the accuracy of the information they contain. But where does the line between public access and misuse blur? Can the laws surrounding these registries better protect privacy while still serving their public objectives? And what are the ethical—and even political—consequences of leaving such systems unchecked?

This article will explore how public registries are being used and misused, the challenges of regulating them, and potential approaches to reform. We’ll look at the legal hurdles, the deeply polarized opinions surrounding the consequences, and philosophical questions about the balance between transparency and exploitation.

---

The Original Purpose of Public Registries

Public registries, such as sex offender registries, were created with the intention of protecting communities by providing accessible information about potentially dangerous individuals. In principle, registries aim to allow citizens to make informed decisions or adopt reasonable precautions in their daily lives. “Transparency” was the foundational argument for their inception, characterized by the belief that information could serve the greater good.

However, registries also come with explicit disclaimers, advising that the information is not to be used for harassment, intimidation, or any illegal activity. These warnings, however, are rarely enforced and carry little weight outside of advisory language.

Yet, as is often the case in our interconnected and hyper-digital world, these good-faith efforts can invite unintended abuses. The rise of vigilante behavior, online harassment campaigns, and unchecked dissemination of information have repurposed these tools in harmful ways, undermining their original intent.

---

When Public Information Becomes a Tool for Harassment

The misuse of registry information is one of the most glaring concerns raised by critics. As the conversation in the provided transcript highlights, examples abound of individuals leveraging public registry data to harass or intimidate those listed on them. For instance, merely pulling someone’s information from a public registry and attaching personal spins—such as baseless claims about their danger level—opens a gateway to stigmatization and public ostracization.

Larry, one of the speakers in the transcript, articulates a chilling observation: it’s not illegal to share true, publicly available information. But when this information is distorted or furnished with fabricated claims, the lines between freedom of expression and criminal activity blur. Unfortunately, the ever-expanding reach of the internet ensures that such misuses are amplified, with little opportunity to correct the narrative once it’s out there.

A key aspect of this issue is political feasibility. Even if there were widespread consensus on the problems with public registries, developing enforcement mechanisms poses myriad challenges. States that currently lack laws criminalizing such misuse might need to step in, but doing so requires pressure, resources, and precise legislative action. As Larry points out, statutes designed to deter registry-based harassment would need strong enforcement—meaning commitment from law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and elected politicians.

---

The Ethical and Political Conundrum

One of the most contentious aspects of the registry debate isn’t legal or procedural—it’s ethical and political. Advocates of registries frequently argue that public safety trumps individual privacy concerns. Victims’ advocacy groups, for example, could argue that the resources and attention directed at combating registry misuse should instead be directed toward more pressing issues, such as solving violent crimes or dealing with unprocessed rape kits.

This sentiment becomes especially pronounced when prosecutors or district attorneys are presented with the dilemma of prioritizing cases. How well would it sit with voters if public officials were perceived as spending resources to prosecute those harassing registered offenders, rather than addressing more acute crises facing their constituents?

Here lies one of the thorniest paradoxes of all: registrants, who are often those at the fringes of society due to their prior convictions, are still vulnerable to exploitation and harm. They, too, deserve the protection of the law, yet few politicians or authorities accommodate their concerns without risking political pushback. As Andy observed in the conversation, this dynamic ensures that reform—while potentially justifiable—is unlikely to ascend the political agenda without major shifts in public opinion and awareness.

---

The Near-Impossibility of Erasing Public Records

Another dimension of this problem is the permanence of digital records. Even if states or jurisdictions decided to limit public access to registry information, it might already be too late to make meaningful changes. With registry data having circulated widely for decades, much of this information already resides on private servers or has been indexed by third-party entities. As Larry reveals, individuals or entities with access to historical data might even republish it or preserve it indefinitely.

The permanence of the internet exacerbates this reality—a concept often referred to as the “digital tattoo.” Once released publicly, data can rarely, if ever, be entirely erased. Reforming public registry laws is further complicated by this harsh truth: there’s simply no “off switch” for a system that’s been operating for decades.

---

Reform Ideas: Can Anything Be Done?

Despite the challenges, reform advocates propose strategies to tackle misuse and harassment based on registry information:

1. Restrict Public Access

One of the most commonly discussed solutions is limiting public access to registry information. While this would mark a radical departure from current policies, it represents a shift toward prioritizing both safety and privacy. Those against complete removal suggest developing “tiered” access systems for law enforcement and specific stakeholders while barring unrestricted public availability.

2. Stronger Legal Penalties for Misuse

Clamping down on registry harassment through legislation and enforcement would be another approach. For example, laws could penalize the dissemination of registry data meant to incite harm or intimidate individuals. However, as Larry notes, this would require cooperation from multiple levels of law enforcement and prosecutorial offices to ensure these penalties have teeth.

3. Digital Detox Public Records

Some tech advocates have called for accelerating projects aimed at controlling the spread of historical registry information. This would involve re-educating websites about the ethical dilemmas of archiving this data (many of them for-profit businesses) and engaging in reputational damage control for registrants.

4. Ethical Alternatives

Advocates like Larry have suggested turning the tables, using similar methods to hold registry “abusers” accountable. This would mean creating databases cataloging those who misuse information for harassment or doxxing, while adhering to ethical guidelines. Larry’s idea of exposing public court records, for instance, is intended to draw attention to how registry harm disproportionately allows private lives to be weaponized.

---

Key Takeaways

Public registries were designed with good intentions, but their misuse exposes the urgent need for reform. From harassment to reputational harm and stigmatization, the consequences of unregulated public access have stirred significant debate. Here are three actionable takeaways from these discussions:

1. Balance Transparency and Privacy: Policymakers need to reevaluate how public access is balanced against individual protection. In a digital age, true transparency may need constraints to mitigate abuse.

2. Enhance Legislative Frameworks: State and federal governments must explore deterrents and stronger legal recourse for registry misuse, ensuring advisory disclaimers evolve into enforceable statutes.

3. Shift the Narrative: Public perceptions must evolve to consider the ethical dilemmas posed by registries. Advocacy efforts should highlight how unchecked misuse undermines justice.

Ultimately, the conversation about public registries involves more than technical fixes—it calls into question what society values: public safety, personal accountability, and the ethical limits of transparency. Without deliberate efforts to reform, public registries risk becoming, at best, ineffectual tools—or, at worst, instruments of harm.

Introduction

When it comes to incarceration and parole, most would assume that the law functions as a clear blueprint—defining boundaries, responsibilities, and procedures to ensure due process and justice. However, a recent case out of New Mexico, Jason Aragon v. Richard Martinez, sheds light on the glaring deficiencies within the state’s parole system for individuals deemed “PFRs” (Persons Forced to Register, commonly referring to individuals on sex offender registries). At the center of this protracted legal battle lies a deeply flawed statute with no tangible remedies for noncompliance. The case reveals systemic failures and raises questions about justice, due process, and the purpose of parole supervision.

What happens when the law requires action but fails to define consequences for inaction? This blog post takes a deep dive into this important case to uncover how the New Mexico parole system not only failed Jason Aragon but illuminated larger concerns for anyone subjected to its jurisdiction. By the end, we’ll explore actionable lessons and a possible path forward.

---

The Backstory: Who is Jason Aragon, and What Is This Case About?

In March 2009, Jason Aragon entered a plea of no contest to the charge of criminal sexual contact with a child under thirteen, a second-degree felony. As a result, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with 12 years of the sentence suspended, leading to an actual term of 3 years in custody. Upon completing his prison term, Aragon began what New Mexico calls “indeterminate parole”—a system requiring individuals convicted of certain offenses to serve a minimum of 5 years and up to 20 years on supervised parole.

But here’s where things got murky. Per New Mexico statute 31-21-10.1, the parole board is required to conduct periodic reviews (initially after 5 years of parole and every subsequent 2.5 years) to determine whether continued parole supervision is necessary. In Aragon’s case? No such review occurred—for nearly 10 years. Without a periodic review, Aragon was effectively trapped in an open-ended parole loop.

Worse still, as highlighted in court filings, the statute provides zero accountability or consequences for the parole board if they fail to perform their legally mandated reviews. Instead of receiving the relief he sought—a discharge from parole—Aragon became entangled in a legal tug-of-war over vague statutory language, shifting burdens of proof, and the unresponsiveness of the system.

---

Plummeting Into “In-House Parole”: A Legal Quirk or Systemic Failure?

Before delving further into this case, we need to spotlight New Mexico’s concept of “in-house parole,” an unsettling quirk in its parole structure. Unlike the federal system—which includes reentry facilities and mandates the release of prisoners upon completing their custodial sentences—New Mexico allows individuals to remain incarcerated even after serving their time. This happens when a person on parole cannot secure an approved residence or meet other release requirements.

Jason Aragon found himself in this gray zone. Even after technically completing his sentence, he spent additional time incarcerated on so-called “in-house parole.” In practice, this means serving parole while still confined to a prison facility—a situation akin to incarceration but without the freedom of reentry into the community.

In New Mexico, nearly 300 individuals, primarily PFRs, are reportedly held in similar circumstances, unable to leave prison because they lack approved housing or the proper support systems. This raises troubling ethical and legal questions: Are these individuals still prisoners or parolees? And if they’re prisoners, shouldn’t this time count toward their maximum sentence rather than parole obligations?

---

What Went Wrong in Aragon’s Case? Key Legal Arguments

When it became clear that Aragon had not received any duration review hearings—contradicting the timeline required by law—his legal team filed for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding his immediate release from custody and discharge from parole. His key arguments included:

1. Violation of Statutory Deadlines
   By failing to conduct a duration review after his initial 5 years on parole, the parole board violated New Mexico statute 31-21-10.1. With no review hearings held whatsoever, Aragon argued that the parole board forfeited its jurisdiction and his continued detention was unlawful.

2. Due Process Violations
   Aragon contended that the state violated his constitutional right to due process. A system that predetermines prolonged parole without timely and meaningful review undermines his right to defend his case or argue for discharge.

3. Separation of Powers and Judicial Overreach
   The petition also challenged the constitutionality of the parole statute, arguing that it improperly allowed the executive branch (via the corrections department) to exercise judicial powers in conducting parole reviews.

4. Double Jeopardy Concerns
   Finally, Aragon claimed that the denial of timely hearings extended his parole unlawfully and placed him in a situation akin to being punished twice for the same offense.

---

The Supreme Court’s Decision: Disappointing for Reform Advocates

In November 2023, after years of litigation, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued its ruling. Disappointingly for Aragon and advocates for justice reform, the court sided with the parole board. The court concluded the following:

• There was no jurisdictional penalty for the parole board’s failure to conduct timely review hearings. While the missed deadlines were acknowledged, the absence of a defined legal remedy in the statute meant the parole board retained authority over Aragon.

• The statutory deadlines for reviews, while clear, were deemed non-binding without corresponding enforcement mechanisms. In effect, the court found that the law’s lack of accountability rendered it effectively advisory.

While the court’s decision followed the letter of the law, many argue it failed the spirit of justice. How can a law intended to ensure fairness and accountability remain toothless due to technical omissions?

---

Systemic Implications and Questions of Justice

The Aragon case exposes systemic flaws not just in how parole operates, but in how laws are written. Statutes that grant sweeping authority to parole boards without accountability mechanisms place vulnerable individuals at the mercy of a bureaucratic void. Furthermore, the normalization of systems like “in-house parole” threatens the fundamental principles of liberty and rehabilitation. Key questions remain:

• What Are the Broader Implications for PFRs?
  If this gap in accountability could allow parole boards to skirt statute-defined responsibilities for PFRs, it begs the question—what’s next? Could similar issues arise in other states or for other categories of parolees?

• Why Hasn’t the Law Been Updated?
  Decades after being written in a hurried special session, the statute remains riddled with gaps. Why hasn’t the legislature addressed these issues, especially given rising litigation?

---

Actionable Takeaways: Where Do We Go From Here?

1. Lobby for Legislative Fixes
   Advocacy groups and reformers must push for amendments to statutes like 31-21-10.1. New laws should establish strict consequences for agencies that fail to comply with statutory timelines—whether through fines, loss of jurisdiction, or automatic termination of parole.

2. Challenge “In-House Parole” Policies
   The concept of serving parole behind bars defies the purpose of community reintegration. Reform advocates must encourage the development of housing support programs or halfway houses to facilitate successful reentry.

3. Increase Accountability Through Oversight
   Independent oversight bodies should be established with the authority to conduct regular audits and penalize parole boards or corrections agencies for noncompliance.

---

Conclusion

The story of Jason Aragon reveals that New Mexico’s parole system, as it currently exists, does more to perpetuate injustice than to facilitate rehabilitation. By ignoring statutory guidelines and skirting accountability, state agencies not only compromise individual liberties but also erode public trust in the criminal justice system. While the court’s decision may have closed this chapter, it marks the beginning of a larger, much-needed conversation about parole reform and oversight.

As reform advocates rally for change, the ultimate question remains: when will New Mexico’s parole system start prioritizing both justice and public safety in equal measure? Until then, cases like Aragon’s are bound to repeat themselves, leaving countless others trapped in a maze of legal ambiguity and institutional neglect.

There’s an allure to perfection. Many of us find ourselves daydreaming about the “perfect moment”—whether it’s starting a new project, taking steps toward personal growth, or making big moves for social advocacy. After all, isn’t acting under ideal conditions better than fumbling in chaos? The Nirvana fallacy, however, says otherwise. By chasing perfection, we often end up doing nothing at all, paralyzed by the belief that imperfect action isn’t good enough.

This fallacy isn’t just a minor philosophical idea; it plays out in workplaces, communities, personal lives, and even activism. “When the time is right” can become the perfect excuse to delay, to stall, and to avoid. But, as we’ll explore, the best time to act is often long before perfection appears.

In this article, we’ll examine why waiting for perfect conditions is counterproductive, how small, seemingly imperfect actions lead to massive change, and how embracing imperfect action can break through barriers—especially the ones designed to keep you sidelined. By the end, you’ll see that action, no matter how small and imperfect, is where the real change happens.

---

What Is the Nirvana Fallacy?

At its core, the Nirvana fallacy occurs when people dismiss or delay action, waiting instead for an unattainable perfect condition. The term has roots not in the musical band Nirvana, but from philosophy and decision-making theory. It’s the belief that if a solution isn’t flawless or ideal, it’s not worth pursuing.

In casual terms, it sounds like this:
– “I’ll start that project once I have more time.”
– “I’ll join the movement when I feel prepared.”
– “I’ll take action once the conditions are right.”

This kind of thinking quietly stalls progress. Waiting for something to be easy or “just right” prevents engagement with what’s possible today. It’s the idea of rejecting a feasible good because it isn’t “perfect”—a common mindset among procrastinators, perfectionists, and even those seeking social change.

---

When “Perfect Conditions” Become an Excuse

The most insidious part of the Nirvana fallacy is that it sounds reasonable at first. The logic is appealing, even comforting: If I act later, I’ll be better prepared. If I wait, I’ll be more informed or more credible. But the reality is, waiting rarely creates the ideal conditions we imagine. Often, it just entrenches inaction.

Take Ron, for example—a character introduced in a conversation on the Registry Matters podcast. Ron expressed that he’d “do more advocacy work once [he’s] off the registry.” At first glance, this position might sound logical: The constraints of the registry might make advocacy work complicated, uncomfortable, or even risky. However, digging deeper reveals a more troubling perspective: What if “waiting until later” becomes never? What if the conditions never become as perfect as you imagined?

The two co-hosts of the podcast, Andy and Larry, highlighted an essential truth: Impactful action doesn’t begin with freedom or perfection. Instead, it begins wherever you are, despite the challenges.

“I was [on the registry and] on probation in Georgia,” Andy recalled. “I still donated, talked with legislators, volunteered, showed up, and even started this podcast.” He didn’t wait for relief from restrictions or for the perfect moment to arrive. He worked with the options on the table, growing his influence step by step.

---

The Registry as a Barrier—and a Catalyst

In many cases, systems like the registry create deliberate barriers to agency and action. They promote isolation, fear, and self-doubt—heightened by societal stigma and legal restrictions. This structural environment is designed to chill participation, making the belief that “it’s too hard to act now” feel true.

But this environment also demonstrates why acting now is so critical. Legislators and decision-makers, for example, often have a limited understanding of how systems like the registry impact real lives. They see policies framed in theoretical terms but lack human stories that show the full scope of the harm these laws can cause—on individuals, families, and communities.

Larry highlighted this during the podcast, asserting, “Contrary to popular belief, most legislators have no idea what the registry’s like. If you don’t tell them, they won’t know. They’ll rely on law enforcement [and] victim advocates to tell them that this system is necessary and functioning. They won’t hear about the damage.”

Importantly, this underscores what can happen when someone trapped within an unjust system speaks up rather than waits. Their experiences serve as evidence, lending authenticity and emotion to advocacy in ways studies or statistics cannot.

---

Imperfect Action as a Path to Credibility

One of the core concerns about “acting before conditions are perfect” is credibility. For those constrained by systems like the registry, an understandable hesitation exists. Wouldn’t your message be more powerful, more legitimate, if delivered by someone who no longer carries a label or restriction?

Not necessarily.

The lived experience of navigating injustice while still subject to it carries immense resonance. It’s one thing to advocate for change from a position of safety; it’s another to do so while actively enduring the challenges yourself. This bravery not only challenges assumptions but also humanizes abstract laws and policies for those with decision-making power.

---

Moving Beyond Perfection: Practical Ways to Start Now

So, how can you begin taking action today, even if conditions are far from ideal? Here are a few practical tips:

1. Start Small

Imperfect action doesn’t mean rushing headfirst into massive commitments. You can take incremental steps today:
– Write an email or make a phone call to your local representative.
– Volunteer with an organization aligned with your values.
– Donate a small amount consistently, even if it’s just $5 a month.

As Andy noted on his journey, small steps quickly add up. Listening to informational calls, donating modestly, or assisting with data management were all part of his early contributions.

2. Leverage Your Unique Position

Rather than seeing constraints as a barrier to involvement, view them as a source of credibility. If you’re advocating for systemic change, your personal story lends authenticity. Don’t underestimate the power of being both the messenger and the evidence.

3. Redefine Success

You don’t need to fix the entire problem at once. Change often happens in small, incremental shifts—whether that means raising awareness, building connections, or inspiring others to act. Focus on what you can control today.

---

Why You Can’t Wait for Perfect Conditions

The notion that “removal” from an oppressive system will naturally lead to action is a dangerous one. Waiting won’t manufacture discipline, drive, or advocacy skills. Those traits are cultivated over time through small, imperfect decisions. Furthermore, removing yourself from the system entirely might distance you from the credibility, urgency, and authenticity needed to create real change.

As Larry reminded listeners, “Judge commitment by output under constraint.” Those already working within the system often have the clearest insights and greatest potential for impact. If you’re waiting for perfection before acting, you’re not only delaying progress—you’re underestimating the power of your own lived experience.

---

The Takeaway: Progress Over Perfection

The pervasive idea that we should wait until conditions are perfect causes hesitation, inaction, and unrealized potential. The Nirvana fallacy offers us an opportunity to shift our mindset: Stop seeking perfection and start embracing what’s possible now.

If you find yourself thinking, “I’ll do more when…” understand that this belief might be a fallacy designed to keep you in place. Instead, test what you’re capable of doing, even within imperfect circumstances. Whether it’s sharing your story, crafting an email, volunteering, or making a single phone call, these small contributions accumulate into greater change.

The weather for change will never be perfect. But by eroding the idea that it must be, we can step into action today—and start building the future we dream of, one imperfect choice at a time.

In the United States, navigating post-incarceration life comes with its own set of challenges. For individuals on certain registries, such as the Tennessee sex offender registry, these challenges may go beyond reintegration into society and spill into matters of privacy, housing, and constitutional rights. Recently, a debate has emerged regarding an alleged policy in Tennessee that allows law enforcement to search the cell phones of all residents in a household where a registered individual lives. This claim, as outlined in a conversation between two commentators—Andy and Larry—raises important questions about legality, privacy, and the potential for abuse of power.

In this blog post, we’ll dive deep into this heated topic, investigate the truth behind the claim, explore the legal and constitutional implications, and provide insights into the broader implications for registered individuals and their families.

---

The Origin of the Claim: A Registrant’s Perspective

The controversy begins with a letter from an unidentified Tennessee prisoner, reportedly named Derek. Derek has expressed interest in joining an advocacy organization to fight what he sees as unjust policies targeting registrants. He highlighted one specific complaint: Tennessee’s alleged practice of allowing the cell phones of all residents in a home shared with a registered individual to be searched.

To many, this sounds like a complete invasion of privacy—one that punishes not just the registrant but anyone unfortunate enough to live under the same roof. According to Derek, this policy effectively forces residents to either give up their privacy or deny housing to those on the registry, creating a punitive ripple effect that extends beyond the individual directly subject to legal supervision. Derek also argues this reflects systemic overreach, portraying registry officials as abusing their power.

Understanding these claims requires separating facts from misconceptions. Let’s unpack them further.

---

Does Tennessee Law Permit Household-Wide Searches?

Clarifying Legal Supervision

Derek’s claims raise a fundamental question: Does Tennessee law truly allow the cell phones of everyone living with a registrant to be searched? Based on the initial details provided in Andy and Larry’s discussion, the answer seems to be no.

First, let’s acknowledge that registered individuals fall into two broad categories: those under active supervision (like probation or parole) and those who are simply listed as registrants with no additional legal restrictions. The distinction is critical:

• Active supervision: Individuals on probation or parole are typically subject to more invasive searches and controls, which may include restrictions on communication devices, internet access, and residence rules. These individuals, by virtue of their supervision status, often have reduced constitutional protections.

• Registered individuals without supervision: These individuals have already completed their punishment, but state laws require them to follow certain registration requirements, such as regularly reporting their address or employment status. For these individuals, no ongoing criminal supervision should justify invasive searches.

Misconceptions and the Legal Reality

Larry, an informed commentator in this discussion, made it clear: his understanding of the law does not include any provision permitting warrantless cell phone searches of individuals who simply share a residence with a registered person. The key takeaway is that constitutional rights—including the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment—are still applicable. While individuals under active supervision relinquish some of these rights as a condition of their probation, family members or roommates do not.

If such searches are happening in Tennessee, they may stem from misinterpretations of the law or informal practices by overzealous officials rather than established statutes.

---

The Probable Source of Confusion: Probation, Parole, and Practical Enforcement

One plausible explanation for Derek’s claims is a conflation between registration policies and probation or parole conditions. Registrants under active supervision often face a range of restrictions designed to monitor their behavior, some of which extend into their living environment. For example:
– Probation or parole officers may prohibit registrants from living in households where firearms are present.
– Similar rules may exist surrounding internet-enabled devices or cell phones.

Importantly, these rules apply only to the registrant—not to non-registrants living in the same household. However, the ways these policies play out in practice can create unintended ripple effects that infringe on the rights of others. For instance, probation officers may discourage a registrant from living in a residence where they cannot control the access of other household members to certain restricted items. This creates a practical dilemma: comply with the officer’s demands or choose an entirely different living arrangement.

It’s also worth considering that enforcement agencies may justify such invasive practices by invoking hypothetical scenarios meant to safeguard compliance. For instance, if a registrant is prohibited from accessing specific content online, officers may argue that unfettered access to a non-registrant’s phone creates loopholes for the registrant to exploit.

---

The Larger Implications: Privacy Rights Under Fire

Derek’s claims tap into broader concerns about governmental overreach and privacy violations. Even if such invasive practices are not codified in Tennessee law, anecdotal evidence suggests informal enforcement methods may effectively pressure registrants and their families into surrendering their personal freedoms.

To understand the severity of this issue, it’s essential to revisit the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment safeguards individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures unless a warrant, supported by probable cause, is issued. For individuals not under active legal supervision, such as registrants who have completed their sentences, this right should remain intact. Requiring them—or their families—to submit to warrantless searches undermines constitutional protections and sets a dangerous precedent.

Additionally, policies that penalize registrants’ family members unfairly burden innocent parties. Housing options for registrants are already limited due to public stigma and zoning restrictions. Adding additional barriers, such as intrusive searches, only exacerbates the issue and pushes registrants toward isolation and instability—both of which are linked to higher recidivism rates.

---

Advocating for Change: What Can Be Done?

To address the concerns raised by Derek and others, several actions can be taken:

1. Clarify Legal Rights:
   States like Tennessee should ensure transparency around the rules governing registrants and their households. Clear communication about what is and isn’t legal can help prevent unnecessary confusion and reduce the potential for abuse by enforcement agencies.

2. Challenge Overreach:
   If invasive searches of non-registrants’ personal devices are occurring without legal justification, affected individuals should consider seeking legal counsel and challenging these practices in court. Advocacy groups dedicated to preserving constitutional rights can provide support in these battles.

3. Policy Reform:
   Advocacy organizations can work to reform overly punitive registration policies that unnecessarily restrict the rights of registrants and their families. Reform should focus on balancing public safety with constitutional protections and humane treatment.

4. Monitor and Educate:
   Residents of Tennessee and other states should actively monitor for instances of government overreach and report any discrepancies in enforcement practices. Equally important is educating registrants, their families, and the public about applicable laws and rights. Knowledge is a powerful tool against abuse.

---

Closing Thoughts

Derek’s story sheds light on an important issue faced by many registrants and their families: navigating the murky waters of privacy, constitutional rights, and state-imposed restrictions. While it appears the claim about Tennessee’s blanket policy of household-wide searches may stem from misconceptions or overly aggressive enforcement practices, it nonetheless highlights the tension between public safety and fundamental freedoms.

The broader takeaway is this: policies targeting registrants should be both justifiable and enforceable within the bounds of the Constitution. Overreach erodes public trust, infringes on rights, and disproportionately penalizes those who are not under supervision. If Tennessee and other states are truly committed to justice, they must walk the delicate line between accountability and respect for civil liberties.

[00:00] Announcer: In this episode of Registry Matters, we’re brought to you by our rock star patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael, Aaron, and Ronald. Your pledges make all the difference. Let’s roll.

[00:10] Andy: I hope I can remember how to do this since we haven’t done it in three weeks. Recording live. Well, it was three weeks ago.

[00:20] Larry: Okay.

[00:22] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 347. I thought it was three forty eight, but this is March of Registry Matters. Larry Finezer, how are you? I’m nice and toasty. How are you? Nice and toasty. How’s God. Every year we do this and, you know, it’s like all we ever talk about is the weather. But tell me, how freaking hot is it?

[00:48] Larry: It’s actually not that bad. It’s only 92, but the the air conditioning system that’s supposedly new is failing again. So it’s getting

[00:57] Andy: beyond the zone of comfort for me. And riddle me this. Are you on, like, the Fortieth Floor of your building?

[01:04] Larry: I’m on the Top Floor, so I’m on the Second Floor. Oh, okay. But still, heat rises. Yeah. There’s plenty of it coming from this place.

[01:13] Andy: Especially coming out of your big face hole, spewing all that heat coming out of that mouth. Tell us what we’re doing tonight.

[01:22] Larry: Well, we are doing a little bit of this and that. Chance was unable to join us, apparently. He called, and then I didn’t reconnect with him. So it means it’s just mister doom and gloom. We have a case. I guess we’ll have to make do with that then, won’t we? I guess so. We have a case from the New Mexico Supreme Court that’s a disaster for PFRs. Also, we have a comment left on YouTube by a listener to unpack and a question about PFR rules in Tennessee. And then I think you’ve got some kind of surprise for the audience coming up.

[02:00] Andy: And alright. Well, then let’s dive. Let’s jump right in. So the first one coming up here would be this YouTube comment, and it says, you state so I guess we state you state on your website that the registry is constitutional because we register cars, dogs, cats, etcetera. This is incorrect. We register things, not people. In order to be compelled to report to the police, the state must have a court order. Without a court order, they cannot compel you to report to the police. Interesting point. I’m pretty sure, Larry, we register other things than things.

[02:37] Larry: I’m sure we do, but it’s interesting how this got taken out of context. I don’t say the registry is constitutional because we register cars and other things. What I do say that’s being taken out of context is that when we’re doing a facial unconstitutionality challenge, which in order for something not to be able to be done, period, it has to be facially unconstitutional. And I have said for the, what, eight years we’ve been doing this program, that the registry is not facially unconstitutional because there are sets of circumstances that would exist which would make registering PFRs constitutional. You could very well create a constitutional registry. So, the commenter is wrong about that. I’m not saying the registry is constitutional. I believe that in most instances, the registry as it exists in The US and most of our states is blatantly unconstitutional. But I’m saying you can’t mount a facial constitutional challenge because a court will never rule that there are no set of circumstances by which you can register PFRs. And that’s what a facial constitutional challenge would look like to end it all, and that is not in the offing. But to unpack his point, we do register cars and things, but we register more than cars and things. We register young men between 18 and 26. I think you’ve got one in your household. He’s registered between 18 and 26. And we register them for the secret for the selective service,

[04:16] Andy: as as he registered for the selective service? I just literally just now reminded him, sent him a message saying, hey. You gotta fill that thing out. And he’s like, what in the world is that? And I gave him the paperwork, but I’m sure it is under another pile of other things, and he has no idea what to do with it. Do you know can you go, like, online to a website somewhere and do it, or do you have to fill out that form?

[04:38] Larry: It’s been quite some time since that, process started. It used to be you could pick up the forms at your post office, but it would seem logical you could do it online today. But young men between the ages of 18 and 26, not young men and women, but young men Mhmm. Between 18 and 26, register for selective service. And if they don’t register, they’re subject to a five year term of imprisonment and a large fine, forfeiture of student financial aid and a whole lots of consequences if they don’t register. Now, I don’t hear a lot of moms complaining about their kid getting five years in prison. So, I think it’s very unlikely that that would, has been or would be imposed. But it’s on the books. But we register voters, which is a constitutional right, but you still have to register. We register school children. I mean, but we register all sorts of people, for for the person to say that we don’t register people, I just don’t know what universe that person lives on because we register a lot of people for a lot of things.

[05:43] Andy: The question for the Go go go go. Go ahead. Oh, I just I mean, if we go the other direction, though, about like, if you just had to fill out the paperwork online or in a in a postcard thing that says, I still live at this address and mail it in, and that was you registering for your PFR registration statute, I don’t think anybody would ever complain about it. Like, I mean, somebody would. I’m sure somebody would as far as just the complaint of, god, I have to do this thing every year. But that is not as as you’ll call it, a disability and restraint. It’s the having to go get your fingerprints and get the picture taken and get your car registered and all these other things on top of it. That’s where all the the the pain in the ass comes in.

[06:29] Larry: Correct. And the advance notice of things that you’re gonna do before you do them, like before you before you operate a vehicle in some states, I think you have to notify them, at the registry office, and you have to do these things in person. So, but the early versions of the registries around the country, even in Alabama, the early first version of registration required very little in the way of involvement from the PFR. But as time has grown, we’re in second, third, fourth generation of registries. But this person is sorely mistaken about what I’m saying. So I wanted to clarify that if this person’s mistaken, other people are mistaken. I’m not saying that the registry is constitutional. I’m saying that it’s not facially unconstitutional. I could design you a registry that would be completely constitutional. Therefore, the courts will never order that you can’t register people because you can register people. We register people all the time.

[07:28] Andy: I’m with you. Big Mike is, like, you don’t have to register to vote if you are not going to vote. You don’t go to prison for not registering to vote. He’s speaking of all of the, penalties for failure to register.

[07:43] Larry: Yes. But but that’s not the legal test about going to prison. There are things that you can be penalized, like registering for the draft. You can go to prison for five years for failing to register for the draft.

[07:56] Andy: Is there anything other than registering for the draft that would, lock you up if you didn’t do it?

[08:02] Larry: I think probably every regulatory scheme that’s out there could potentially lock you up. Driving without a license can lock you up. And that’s a that’s a, reg not registered your vehicle can get you locked up if you do it enough times. Run around without a license plate all over the country and find out what happens to you eventually if they if they apprehend you enough times. I’m I’m certain his his, his point’s going to be there that you don’t have to drive. So true. Oh, I I get the point, but that’s not the legal test. The legal test is, does can the court say that you just can’t register people? And the answer is no. They cannot say that because we do register people. Right. And it’s a test of whether or not there are any disabilities or restraints on the registration. And until we start doing litigation correctly, building cases correctly, quit moving for summary judgment without evidence, quit bringing in lawyer, witnesses to testify that counterman the points we’re making, we’re gonna keep losing.

[09:05] Andy: I understand. I know what you’re referring to too. Alright. So then moving along to another one. Where does where did this one come from?

[09:13] Larry: It came from a prisoner, and his name’s escaping me, But I think his name

[09:18] Andy: was Derek. Alright. Not that Derek, is it?

[09:22] Larry: No. Okay.

[09:24] Andy: Says, I’m very interested in your organization. I plan on starting one of my own when I get out. I want to join your fight in telling you of one of Tennessee’s messed up laws or policies. This one of which wherever we choose to live, all of the people living there are subject to getting their cell phone searched, which is an invasion of their privacy for being there. If they do not allow this, then I can’t live there, which is an abuse of power. This is just one of the many things that have gotten way out of control. I understand that we need to let people know where we live, and I do not have a problem with that. It’s just that these people in the registry department have gone mad with power. It’s like they wake up thinking, let’s do this now.

[10:07] Larry: Well, that’s correct, Nati. And that is exactly what happens. They do it until they’re told to stop. But I am we’re not aware of any law in Tennessee that permits searches of cell phones of those who live in the same residence with a registered individual. Now, let me try to make it simple and clear. We’re not aware of it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But, for just merely being on the registry, that’s it. You have no other obligations to the law other than being a registrar. We’re not aware of that law. So, our vast Tennessee audience, if we have missed that, please let us know. But, I think he’s likely confusing registration with probation and parole supervision. An individual who’s under active supervision for a crime does not have the full protection of the Constitution. Remember, you’re being punished. This does not mean that they can come in and demand access to communications device of someone who is not under their supervision. Having said that, but what they can do is forbid the supervisor offender from residing there. It’s similar to a no weapons rule for the offender. I don’t know of a supervising office anywhere that I’ve come in contact with that allow weapons in one of their supervised offender’s residence. But they cannot offender. They cannot prohibit the offender’s family from possessing the firearms

[11:36] Andy: because that’s their constitutional right. But they can forbid the offender from living in the dwelling where the farms are. I’m just going to bring that up. Like, they can’t say you can’t own that gun, but they can say you can’t live there where that gun is.

[11:48] Larry: And and I suspect that’s what’s happening with the phones in Tennessee. They’re telling I mean, but just think about this from a practical point of view. Let’s say you’ve got five people in a house, and one of them is a PFR. And the supervised offenders, doesn’t want to be caught accessing things that the supervised offender shouldn’t be accessing. But when they hear the loud knock at the door and every dog in the neighborhood barking, all you do is pitch your phone to one of the other people in the house. Yep. And then they say, well, you can’t search that phone. And that would kind of neuter the, tracking of the probation service if they could do that. So, it would not surprise me if they say, if we come in, anybody’s there, we’re going to search their phones. And if not, we’re not going to let you live there. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re doing that. But they can’t force the person to comply to an a non warranted, warrantless search. Because the person can say, you can take your search and shove it. I’m not aware of any law that would require them to surrender their constitutional right to privacy. And we’ve got at least a dozen listeners in Tennessee or more. Tell us about it. If we’ve missed it, we wanna know about it, but I’m not aware of it.

[13:05] Andy: Alright. Alright. Well, then let’s move over to what I have titled Nirvana. So I got a quick I got a quick pop quiz for you before we start going on this. Have you ever heard of Nirvana?

[13:17] Larry: Of course, I have. I’ve heard of it. Kurt Cobain’s band from Aberdeen, Washington in the eighties and nineties.

[13:24] Andy: I heard of it then. Am I on the right track? I believe that you’re on the right track. What else do you know about Nirvana?

[13:31] Larry: Well, I mean, I remember Kurt Cobain vividly. Nevermind, smells like teen spirit. All sorts of good stuff. Wasn’t there somebody else named Chris and Dave Grohl and

[13:47] Andy: You got that right. But I’m not referring to that one. So let’s try let’s try another one.

[13:55] Larry: So you’ve been another nirvana, the concept. Oh, oh, I know what you’re talking about. Buddhist teaching liberation from suffering and casual English. You kind of imagine perfection.

[14:07] Andy: Alright. That’s also true, but that’s not what I was really talking about. I’m talking about the Nirvana fallacy. Have you ever heard of this? No. Okay. Well, it is when people hold out for perfect conditions before acting. So they delay or dismiss real imperfect action that’s possible right now. Waiting for the ideal becomes the excuse. It’s a perfect segue into an email exchange that I had with an individual. You know, I’m on the the board with Restore Georgia, and there’s an individual there that I was communicating with. And, so we’ll call him Ron. And he wrote, quote, unquote, once I’m off the registry, I’ll be able to do a lot more advocacy. And I’m like, hold on. What?

[14:53] Larry: Well, that’s classic. I’ve heard that since I’ve been trying to do this advocacy.

[14:59] Andy: They say when the time is right, I’ll get involved. And often, that’s a polite code word for not now and probably not ever. Right. Right. And so this is why it grates, under my skin so bad. I was on the registry, and I was also on probation, a PFR probation in Georgia. I still donated. I talked with legislators. I volunteered. I showed up. I did all kinds of stuff that was related to advocacy. I even started this podcast while still on supervision and still on the registry. And I didn’t wait till the time was perfect. It seemed like I could do it now. But that line from him sounds like a stall, and that’s the Nirvana fallacy in action.

[15:38] Larry: Alright. Well, you’ve learned me something today, nirvana fallacy. And, yes, I can vaguely remember meeting up with you in a rundown hotel somewhere over at Virginia Avenue and, or or, in Hateful

[15:53] Andy: trying to figure out where we could have a PFR conference in Georgia. Is that is my memory is that about consistent with your memory? That is exactly where we met. And so, I mean, he didn’t just say, I face constraints. He framed real advocacy as something that unlocks after he’s off the registry. Like, his voice only gains legitimacy then. And that’s backwards. The lived experience while under the restrictions is the credibility. Now I have a question on that. Do you think speaking with legislators while on the registry is more impactful using the language of this is how it’s impacting me right now? Or would it be better after you’re off the registry? And the problem even with that is how many of us will never get off the registry. So if we all waited until we were off the registry, the number of people available to do anything would be significantly lower. But what do you think about just that of if you could binary split people going to talk to legislators while on versus while off? Which do you think there would be a difference in whether they’re, more or less impactful that way?

[16:57] Larry: Well, again, perfect conditions will never exist. I can see the hesitation. I can feel it. I felt it myself, but I don’t recommend waiting to speak with legislators. Contrary to popular belief, most legislators have no idea what the registry’s like. They’ve never thought about it until a proposal makes its way to them. The law enforcement apparatus assures them that it’s constitutional and the victim advocates are howling and and demanding accountability, for the perp that violated them. And most legislators have no idea what the adverse impacts are on the registrants or their families. And if you don’t tell them, they won’t know. I’m trying to make this simple. How would they know if they’re not on the registry and if you don’t tell them, how would they gain that knowledge?

[17:52] Andy: They would sit there with their their assistant in the office. And as you tell them you’re talking about the registry, they would go Google your name and see if you’re on the registry.

[18:01] Larry: And they would they would see it on a list, but they would not know what the registry imposes on you in the way of disability restraints. They would not know how it breaks up families. They would not know that you can’t go to sporting events. They would not know that you can’t go to your PTA meetings. They would there’s so many things that they would not know because they’ve never been told. So

[18:21] Andy: Now now in my experience so, yes, Georgia law imposes genuine limits. And you are probably the most expert person in the state as far as what the Georgia rules say. But there’s proximity issues as far as living and working. There are certain issues about whether you can attend churches and whatnot and, to to like, things like that. Can you go to 6 Flags or something like that? It’s not an imaginary, but the limits aren’t paralysis. There’s a difference between I can’t do everything and I won’t do anything until I can do everything.

[18:54] Larry: And if you model the opposite, you found lanes. Like say we met and you started immediately wanting to know what you could do. From letters to calls, to providing funding, showing up in rooms, helping us with data management, and then all that’s widened and grown over time. But we were doing a podcast and you were, had a, pounding at your door, I remember, about five, six years ago. Yes. So that was, one of those Narasal inactions on Halloween when they come to do their annual,

[19:29] Andy: shakedown, whatever. But they did a shakedown. They didn’t just come in to make sure they didn’t have lights on. They came in and shook me down that night. But, you know, so I did whatever I could. I started really slow. I was just listening to the NARSOC calls, then stepping into volunteering. I was I always donate. I for the entire time, I’ll be transparent. I don’t don’t donate millions of dollars, but I have the entire time. I’ve donated $5 a month for, like, ten years now. And I and I hope I hope my little contribution moves the needle. And Ron already has influence. He says he’s respected locally, works with clergy, interacts with the sheriff and a judge. I’m thinking he’s already inside circles that other people won’t necessarily have access to. So why minimize that?

[20:17] Larry: I don’t know. Am I am I down here at this part right here? You are. That’s where you gotta go. Oh, okay. Some of it is psychological, self permission needed. People script for a future moment when advocacy will feel safer or more appropriate. But structurally, the registry wants you to internalize delay. It’s baked in the chill to chill participation. And I’ve dealt with this for, I guess, as many years as you have and then a few more. It’s very common. I can’t do anything. And what’s even more humorous to me is they tell you I can’t vote while I’m on probation. And I say, well, you don’t think that, if you look at the boundaries on the map, you will see that you rest with you reside within the boundaries of a district. That person represents you. And they said, but I can’t vote. And I said, but they represent you. And you still get to express your views. And they said, but I can’t vote. And I said, well, 50% of the people in the country can’t vote. They’re minors. They can’t vote. You do you think that that that, children get fairly robust representation even though they don’t vote?

[21:32] Andy: They sure show up on conversations I hear about with, you know, child health care programs or bunches. I mean, they’re they’re they’re talked about often.

[21:42] Larry: There’s a lot of people who don’t vote, but you are responsible for representing all the constituents who live in your district. Now, honestly, human condition’s gonna kick in. If you’re running for reelection and you perceive that your support is not as strong as it should be, you’re probably not gonna spend a lot of time campaigning with children and people who can’t vote unless you’re working at an angle that’s gonna yield you votes. So you’re probably not gonna spend as much time with nonvoters.

[22:12] Andy: But you don’t have nonvoters stamped on your face. They don’t know that unless you tell them that you’re that you’re not eligible to vote. There’s not anything that I’m aware of in the capitals that I’ve been to that scans a person’s forehead and says, vote or not. Have you have you noticed anything like that in the Georgia capital? I’ve never seen anything like that. I do wonder, though, Larry. Like, I I don’t I don’t think I communicate this one very well. If you’re talking about your super, super, super local election where there’s 300 people that vote, your one vote does make, like, a statistical difference. But when there’s 70,000,000 people that vote for one president versus the other one one one candidate versus the other one. Like, your one vote is one out of 70,000,000. Like, it’s statistically insignificant. It still matters. I’m not saying it doesn’t matter. It just matters a very small amount. So, like, I’m not saying your vote doesn’t matter, but that’s just one thing that you could go do.

[23:03] Larry: It is indeed. And I’m gonna push back just a little bit on the 70,000,000 because it actually, it’s 50 separate elections True. True. True. Within the country. And we had election in in the year February. And there was a, contest in Florida that was very close. And, I think the secretary of state eventually certified

[23:24] Andy: George W Bush as the winner. It seems like by roughly 500 votes. Right. If memory serves me correctly, well, your one would be pretty significant if the margin was 500. Correct. I’m I’m I’m with you. I I I totally get where you’re going. But so if my so my gut benchmark is if you’re not using what you have now, then I’m imagining that all of a sudden when you’re given all this newfound freedom of not having to register, you’re not gonna suddenly explode into action later. Removal won’t manufacture your incentive and your discipline to go do other things.

[23:59] Larry: Well, you should judge commitment by output under constraint. If you’re already in rooms with decision makers while carrying the label, that’s leverage. You don’t need a spotless slate. You need to be focused with a mission. And believe me, these people don’t have perfect backgrounds. They’re in the legislatures around the country. In fact, one in Minnesota just got arrested, popped up on my newsfeed today, a state senator there, for breaking in someone’s home. Now, can you admit that’s funny?

[24:30] Andy: To me, it feels like this is a missed opportunity. If he learned leaned into the discomfort now, his impact would be greater because he’d be both messager and evidence at the same time if he chose to do. I know you you keep speaking that you don’t have to tell them that you’re a PFR. And, but but if if that conversation presented itself and it were beneficial for you, then you could present yourself as being, I’m the guy and here are the restrictions that I have placed upon me.

[24:56] Larry: Well, there are instances where you should tell them that you’re a PFR, but but you don’t automatically have to go in and say I’m a PFR. But to have credibility about the registry, you would need to disclose your stats. But that’s the takeaway. The registry is engineered to sap agency and stall your narrative. Now, what does that mean, sap agency? Who wrote that?

[25:17] Andy: I wrote it. I wrote every word of it.

[25:20] Larry: The most resonant advocacy is from within the system, not after you’ve escaped its reach.

[25:27] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.

[26:16] Andy: Penzo, any for anyone listening who’s telling yourself, I’ll get active once x happens, and that’s not the former Twitter x. That’s just when, you know, something happens. Recognize that as the Nirvana fallacy creeps in, start with the imperfect tools in front of you. And that’s how we erode this, not by waiting for perfect weather.

[26:36] Larry: Well said, and I agree.

[26:40] Andy: Well, let’s move along. You put this case in here that you want to discuss, and I’m not sure about it since it’s from New Mexico. Like, what do you have? Like, 12 people that live in the entire state? So who cares?

[26:51] Larry: 22.

[26:53] Andy: Anyway, the name of the case is Jason Aragon. Do I have that right? You do. Alright. And that’s Jason Aragon versus Richard Martinez. Now Jason is the PFR, and Richard Martinez is the warden of the prison where mister Aragon is housed. Now this sounds like to me to be something like a habeas corpus. Do I have that right? Yes. You do. Alright. Now, so I’ve read this numerous times, so you better be ready. And I read it again this morning while I was mowing the grass with my push mower. I’m gonna put a picture up on the screen so anybody that wants to know what I was doing, that’s what it looked like.

[27:30] Larry: I wanna see that. Let let me take a look at that. How do you how do you do that on a push mower? Let me see that. Where is that? You gotta go

[27:39] Andy: Larry, if you don’t it’s you gotta click on voice channels and live stream, and then the screen should pop up. Oh, okay. So so you you actually were do reading that on your push more. How do you how do you read it? Because you gotta hold it while you’re reading it. Right? The the lines are gonna be kinda wavy. I promise. At the end of the day, it like, it doesn’t come out clean. I promise. Oh. So Oh, great. So here you are. It is my understanding that PFRs in New Mexico face long and indeterminate supervised parole requirements ranging from five to twenty years for certain PFR type offenses and five years to life or more for the serious ones. Now, how is the amount of time of on parole determined?

[28:21] Larry: It’s categorical, meaning that the person has five to twenty or five to life depends on the the offense. So there’s a bucket of offenses that’ll put you in the five to life, and there’s a bucket that’ll put you in the five to 20. But what’s most important is that the PIFOR must serve his or her entire sentence in prison. Then in order to determine the actual duration of supervised parole, as we call it, the parole board is required to conduct a duration review at specified intervals, in which the State Attorney General has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the PFR should remain on parole. That’s all it says. It doesn’t say, well, how to make the determination. And, that’s in section thirty one twenty one dash 10.1 subsection C. The initial duration review must be held after the PRR served five years of supervised parole and if continued on parole, at two and one half year intervals after that.

[29:20] Andy: Yeah. Okay. That seems kinda like mud, but, alright, that seems straightforward. What’s the problem?

[29:25] Larry: Well, the problem is the mandatory statute requiring these reviews lacks a remedy if the probe board either neglects to hold the review hearings on time or fails to even conduct them altogether.

[29:41] Andy: Let’s cover some basic background on this particular case. In March 2009, Jason Aragon entered a plea of no contest to criminal sexual contact with a child under thirteen and second degree felony excuse me, a second degree felony. Aragon was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment in the custody of the New Mexico Corrections Department, NMCD, with twelve years suspended for an actual term of three years imprisonment. Upon his release, Aragon was ordered to be placed on an indeterminate parole period of not less than five years or more than twenty years. Aragon completed his prison sentence and commenced serving parole on June 29. However, he remained incarcerated on in house parole until he was re released into the community on 08/18/2010. Now what the heck is in house parole? Is this like house arrest?

[30:32] Larry: In house parole. Well, that’s a term that we’ve coined here for this tragic situation that many PFRs experience. In house parole is commonly known as the time period where the inmate has completed their basic sentence. He completed the three years, but he’s still incarcerated in the corrections department because he didn’t have a satisfactory address to go into that what should be considered mandatory supervised release or whatever you wanna put on it. But it’s not parole. He didn’t earn it by being a good boy. He had to serve the three years. And then he was he went into a parole status, but they wouldn’t let him leave prison because he didn’t have the right, residence, didn’t have all the support that he needed. So they get to, keep holding the peep these people. And their, last count, which has been a few years back, they had close to 300 people, most of them PFRs, still in prison that were serving, in house parole.

[31:32] Andy: Now I’m I’m gonna try and get this more clear. So you just said they are on parole, but still in wait. They’re still on parole while in prison. Do I have that right?

[31:42] Larry: Unfortunately you do. So the picture that just like in the federal, system you serve, there’s no more parole than the federal system. So you serve your your sentence and you can earn to fifty four days a good time annually. So, that shaves off the end of your sentence. But, you serve all your time and then you go into a period of supervised release. Well, the feds, they kick you out. They may put you in a federal reintegration center to a halfway house. But in New Mexico, we don’t fund those type of things. So the person is obligated to find their own residence. If they don’t find it, they’re on parole status, but they’re still serving it in prison. But it’s it’s going against their five to 20, but they’re serving it without having the benefit of being in a community. It’s a separate sentence. It’s mandated by law that follows the period of incarceration.

[32:36] Andy: Would you say it’s analogous to federal supervised release?

[32:40] Larry: Correct. The only difference is the feds actually released the person when their sentence expires. New Mexico does not because we disguise what should be named supervised release as, parole. Interesting. Alright. I see. Well, then, to move along then, on January 13, the New Mexico public defender filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus

[33:02] Andy: on Aragon’s behalf. The petition asserted Aragon was entitled to habeas relief because he was not afforded a duration review hearing five years after he started serving parole and every two and one half years thereafter as required by law. The petition alleged that as the at the time of its filing, Aragon had served nine years, six months, and twenty five days without any duration review hearing whatsoever. Aragon requested a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate release from NMCD, New Mexico corrections department custody, and a discharge from parole. Nearly ten years without a review, yet the law requires a review after five years. Can’t we put the whole department of corrections in prison for not following their laws?

[33:48] Larry: Yes. But can you finally admit that this is funny? That’s hilarious. No. It’s not funny when people have to stay locked up after their time. Well, a law without any teeth in it or any remedy is merely nothing more than advice.

[34:03] Andy: Reminds me of something. It’s definitely not funny.

[34:07] Larry: If we all these brilliant people and we designed something that’s been on the books for twenty plus years and there’s no teeth in it, and it’s twenty years later and we’re still litigating. If that’s not funny, then what how else would you describe it?

[34:20] Andy: Pathetic. It’s not funny at all. It’s disgusting. I see that Aragon argued in the alternative that the New Mexico, corrections department be ordered to immediately provide him with a duration review hearing. Aragon subsequently filed a supplement to the amended partition excuse me, petition withdrawing his request for parole hearings stating the sole request for relief is immediate discharge from the custody of the parole board. And what did the parole board say in response?

[34:50] Larry: The parole board contended that Aragon was not entitled to any relief, arguing that he was entitled to a duration review only after serving a total of five years of parole in the community as opposed to in house parole. He had some violations while in the community, I think. And the parole board invented the five years of the community, although it’s not in the statute, but they invented that.

[35:15] Andy: But then on November 30, nearly eleven and one half years after Aragon commenced serving parole, the district court ordered the New Mexico, corrections department to grant Aragon an immediate duration review hearing. How did that come about? Well, it came about through through protracted litigation that yours truly was somewhat involved in an advisory opinion. Oh. And Shouldn’t you shouldn’t you, what’s the what’s the word? What’s the word when you, excuse yourself? What’s the word? Judges do this when they have a conflict of interest? Recuse. No. You should recuse yourself from this podcast because you were involved.

[35:50] Larry: Hello. Just kidding. I’m kicking myself because we lost the case, and they were following my they were following my playbook. And I don’t like to lose. But the district court reasoned that the initial five years of supervised parole that triggers the initial review hearing required by section thirty one twenty one ten refers to all parole served, including in house. And, the district court denied Aragon’s request for immediate release and discharge because it was not willing to go so far as to rule the corrections department had waived their right to continue to detain him by not having a review hearing. So, the judge, the district judge split the baby, say, hey. You’re entitled to a hearing. But that’s all he did.

[36:31] Andy: Alright. And so this does sound quite like a lot of mess. So what happened next?

[36:36] Larry: Well, the state appealed to district court’s order challenging whether parole under section thirty one twenty one ten includes in house parole. The issue which was then pending in another case called Thompson. And, Thompson had not been settled. This case has been going on pre, resolution by Thompson. But they held the court held this case in abeyance pending the decision in Thompson. And after Thompson was decided, and that that went in our favor, they decided that parole under thirty one twenty one ten point one includes in house parole. Then they, vac the abeyance was vacated and they ordered that Aragon’s case be placed on the general calendar. Now, I’m going to sidetrack it a little bit here to make some something funny about Thompson. Thompson’s case was decided by a district judge up in San Juan County, which is the County City of Farmington. That’s the Northwest conservative part of the state. And they’ll request a conservative judge when they made the argument that he had to be supervised, you know, that the statute contemplated that the person be supervised. The judge there said, well, I can’t think of a place where someone is supervised more closely than in prison. Right. I mean I mean, that that that’s a pretty good comeback. He said I and he put that in his written order. He said, I can’t think of a place where someone gets more tightly supervised than in prison.

[38:03] Andy: That would be true. Now since Aragon wanted to be discharged from parole, I’m assuming he appealed to the district, court’s decision?

[38:12] Larry: Correct. They did. The the parties agreed that the parole board granted Aragon a belated duration review hearing as ordered by the district court, but he was not discharged for for parole, so that didn’t satisfy, the situation.

[38:28] Andy: And then Aragon, he appealed, asserting he is entitled to a complete discharge from parole for multiple reasons. First, he argued the parole board lost jurisdiction by not holding a duration review hearing as required by section thirty one twenty one ten dot one. Second, he argued that the failure to hold a timely review hearing as required by section thirty one twenty one ten dot one violated due process. And then third, he argued section thirty one twenty one ten dot one is unconstitutional because it permits the executive branch, which is part of the New Mexico, New Mexico corrections department, to exercise judicial powers in violation of the separate powers of doctrine. And then, two, it is unconstitutionally vague. And then, third, it increases the penalty for a PFR without a jury making the necessary fine in violation of Apprendi versus New Jersey, and that’s five thirty US code four sixty six from the year February. And four, it violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. Now this all sounds amazing to me.

[39:32] Larry: It does to me as well. That’s why I’m so disappointed. It does sound like very cogent, incredible constitutional arguments.

[39:40] Andy: So this is a consolidated appeal. The other person’s name is Ronald Lusk. I see no need to go through the details about Lusk because they are so similar to Aragon’s. And what did New Mexico Supreme Court decide ultimately?

[39:55] Larry: Well, before we go there, I’d like to try to make sure I accurately describe our system a bit. PFR parole is covered by thirty one twenty one dash 10.1, which was enacted in twenty o three in a special session, and it took effect right away because it was deemed an emergency. And we had, a counselor, a PFR. He was one of the only ones who did PFR type evaluations and counseling back then. And he said that our five year limitation on supervision, which was in the statute, Deb, was just not enough because therapy for PFRs takes a very long time because she’s they’re in denial and they play evasive games and they just run out the clock. And he said that they needed a longer duration. Well, they didn’t want to make the, the system any different for anybody except for PFRs. So, thanks to Doctor. Moss Aubrey’s recommendations, all of a sudden we got indeterminate, supervision for PFRs. And they said, well, how will we evaluate whether they’re getting better or not? And if they responded to treatment and he raised his hand and he says, well, we have instrumentation and tools where we can do that. And he sold a bill of goods, but the statute as it was adopted was admitted in 2007 with an effective date of 07/01/2007. And the court stated that as a preliminary matter that they must decide which version of the statute applies and whether it makes a difference in their ultimate analysis.

[41:32] Andy: So then what did they determine?

[41:35] Larry: They stated, we have held that the law at the time of the commission of the offense is controlling, and they studied state state versus Lucero and also state versus ord Ordonez. I don’t have Ordonez how to pronounce that. Holding that direct or active application of a statute of admission credit on a sentence violates the state and federal constitutional provisions against ex pro factorial laws. Aragon was convicted of committing sexual contact of a minor between the June 2007 and the June. Thus, the 2004 version applies because remember, the, the new revisions took effect for contact after July ‘7. So that the twenty o seven amendments were not in effect. Lusk, on the other hand, was convicted of exploitation of children by manufacturing images between 12/01/2007. Remember, July was the magic date and July. Lost, therefore, was subject to the amended and current version.

[42:36] Andy: Now the court then stated the remaining preliminary question we answer is whether any difference in the two statutes affect the analysis of the issue before us in this case. We conclude they do not. Both versions command that the parole board reviews whether parole should continue after the initial five years of supervised parole and every two and one half years thereafter.

[42:59] Larry: And they noted that both versions also impose the burden of proven proving at each review hearing that the offender should remain on parole. But that’s all it says. It doesn’t say how you go about proving that. Although under difference differing standards under the 2003 version, it says 02/2004, but it’s the 2003 version. The state has the burden of proving to a reasonable certainty. And, under the 2007 version, the Surgeon General has the burden of proving it by clearing convincing evidence. Both versions also expressly provide what happens if the state is unable to prove prove that the PFR should remain under parole supervision.

[43:41] Andy: Would you do me the kind, deed of telling me what the difference is between the two legal standards?

[43:48] Larry: Well, I had that set up for chance. And since he didn’t make it, I decided to do some research and I couldn’t figure it out. So I called an attorney I worked for and he said that legal certainty is not an evidentiary standard like preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it’s a threshold standard applied at certain procedural contexts like this, particularly, he said, in federal civil cases related due to jurisdiction and the amount of damages. But he said it’s not really a legal standard, per se.

[44:20] Andy: I see. So then what is the PFR’s remedy under the law regardless of the standard? They need to have a hearing according to the statute.

[44:31] Larry: Yeah. But what’s most important is that neither version sets forth any remedy for a failure of the parole board to hold a duration of reading your hearing when the initial five year period of supervised parole has been served or the two and a half years after that. Now, if you haven’t had the first one, you’re probably not gonna get, the, you know, the, the, subsequent. But there’s nothing in the statute. There’s no accountability. So it basically is advice.

[44:55] Andy: A statute without any remedy is advice. Alright. Oh, yeah. I gotcha. Yeah. So let me read what the statute says. It states, when a PFR has served the initial five years of supervised parole and at two and one half year intervals thereafter, the parole board shall review the duration of the PFR supervised, parole. And then at each hearing, the attorney general shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the PFR should remain on parole. Now, you know, that doesn’t really sound super ambiguous to me.

[45:28] Larry: I don’t see any ambigu ambiguity, but there’s no remedy. It doesn’t say what happens if they don’t.

[45:33] Andy: Yeah. And alright. Well, then, apparently, your Supreme Court did. They stated, for the following reasons, we conclude that the deadlines in section thirty one twenty one ten dot one are not jurisdictional. Most importantly, section thirty one twenty one ten dot one does not provide that parole ends if the hearing is not timely, nor does it provide any other consequence or penalty for noncompliance. In fact, there is nothing in the statute that prohibits the parole board from holding a duration review hearing after the prescribed deadline. Furthermore, the Probation and Parole Act contemplates that a PFR parolee who does not receive a timely duration review hearing is still subject to the supervision and orders of the parole board. Now, I mean, I don’t really wanna keep reading all of this.

[46:19] Larry: Well, they went on to say, The Parole Board retains jurisdiction over the sex offender until they have performed the obligations of the persons released for the period of parole provided, at which time the Board shall make a final order of discharge and issue a person a certificate of discharge. Finally, interpreting section 3,121 dash 10.1 to automatically strip the Parole Board of jurisdiction for a misdeed that undermines the Parole and Probation Act’s goal of a parole process, facilitating the rehabilitation and registration of sex offenders under conditions tailored to each sex offender, with public safety weighing in the balance. We will not construe a statute to defeat this purpose. That’s amazing. It’s amazing. And, I’m calling up my liberal pointy heads, because I think three of the five are devil liberal pointy heads. I’m calling up my pointy headed friends here on this. You say over and over again, all through your jurisprudence, you say that we construe the statute to mean what it says and we won’t read into it things that are not there. Well, I think that’s what you just did here. The statute the statute, to the point that it is clear and it does have some ambiguity, but it is clear that these hearings have to happen. They would not put something in there. Their hearing has to happen. If there were no consequence for it not happening, that would make that language super superfluous and redundant, would it not?

[47:46] Andy: I I think so. I I think I have a clip, Larry. I don’t I I think this applies, except for it didn’t play. It was gonna be the Scalia thing about purposivism.

[47:59] Larry: Yes. Well, they were they wiggled their way out of this. And like I said, I think we’ve got, it’s the Supreme Court has five, not seven or nine. But I think at least three of them were considered progressives. But this was unanimous decision. There was no dissent. So I’m very disappointed.

[48:15] Andy: And and then they just said, as a result, the parole board’s failure to hold timely duration review hearings did not strip it of the

[48:24] Larry: jurisdiction. Very sad for us because if I’m a if I’m the parole board now, if I have sinister motivations, and I wanna build my prison population to get funding, and amazingly, people like to keep their agencies funded, I would say, well, you know, there’s no consequence for us not having a hearing. We just get to bulge have a bulging prison population and more funding. And what is the penalty? There is still penalty. And try go out try passing a law now. Go out. You could spend about a 112 legislators right now. You wouldn’t find a soul that would sponsor anything to fix this because it would be cast in the media as figuring out how to get sex offenders out so they can do more harm, and they need to be locked up where they belong. This this is this is a mess. There’s gotta be all kinds of laws like this that they they create the process and all that stuff, but then there’s no teeth behind it that okay. Well, they say, f you, we’re not gonna do it. And,

[49:19] Andy: okay. So, yeah, go ahead and continue to not do it. There’s no harm. There’s nothing that’s gonna be done about

[49:27] Larry: it. So well but they don’t realize that I’m not giving up. So I’m just gonna put together a different lawsuit, come at it from a different direction and say that the people need to be released on their release date. I’ve been wanting to do this, but I’ve been told I needed to hold my horses, that we’ve got this under control. We’ve got this brilliant litigation going. And they did argue a lot of the points that I wanted argued. But at this point now, we just need to put the brakes on them, keeping people in prison beyond their outdate. That is a liberty interest. And we’re coming after you again, so don’t think you got in the way with this because I’m working right now on trying to put together a new challenge.

[50:06] Andy: Now now to simplify and boil this last twenty minutes down, it says, if a PFR does not re register, it’s okay just keep them on the registry with no consequences? Is that I mean, would that be a remedy for a person? Like, hey. You didn’t do your part. I won’t do my part?

[50:22] Larry: I don’t think that’ll work the same way.

[50:25] Andy: You think they’ll come at you? I think they probably would. But you could say, I didn’t get I mean, I guess that would get you, you you would have standing in court. Right?

[50:36] Larry: You would, but there’s a penalty for failing to register. This is something where there was nothing put in the statute too. Sure. I gotcha. Just being kind of It was done in a haphazard hurried up fashion in a a special session. Special sessions don’t have full staffing levels here. I don’t know about other states, but here they don’t. They usually have a a proclamation issued by the governor. I want a bill that deals with this particular problem. Most of the time, the bill has largely been, determined what it’s gonna, say. So the legislators show up. They’re in there for one, two, three days. They do a fair minuscule amount of debate and review, and then they vote on it. And that’s what they did. This has been a junk since twenty o three. It took effect in o four, but it was actually passed in o three. It’s whatever. Anyway, but it’s it’s been on the books for twenty years. It’s a mess. It always has been.

[51:26] Andy: Well, all right then. I think that closes up shop, doesn’t it?

[51:30] Larry: Unless you had that other question from Big Mike you wanted to put in. Oh, that let me let me roll

[51:36] Andy: back. Oh, God. Where was that? Right there. So, so Big Mike says, here’s a quick question. I saw a post about a guy on Locals called the do you think it’s okay for me to give the guy I don’t wanna give the guy any, promotions. So I’m gonna leave that out. But many of you will know the individual’s name that I’m referring to. So can things like this be used to show that there are people out there using the registry for harassment?

[52:05] Larry: Yes. And I’ve had time since we mic’d up and started recording here to think about it. And that would be something that you could use to encourage the states that don’t have any laws to enact laws because you see these disclaimers on the websites that says this information is not to be used to be harassing or to do all these things. But again, it’s like what we just talked about. It’s not actually a statute. It’s just an advisory thing. But after seeing what’s happening with how registry information is being used, I think you could build some support and possibly get a statute. Now that’s only one fraction of the problem because you’ve gotta have enforcement. That means that field officers have to be willing to take reports. They have to be willing to investigate reports. They have to be willing to send them to the district attorneys, prosecutor’s office, recommend it recommending that prosecution ensue and prosecutors who are elected have to be willing to undertake prosecutions. That’s a lot of ifs. Yeah. Cause if I’m on the other side of this, what I would say if I were a victim’s advocate, I’d say, well, you know, it’s kind of funny. We got a district attorney here claims to be taking care of the people here in our in our county. That district attorney’s got put so much priority on trying to protect the people on the registry. And we’ve got 47 unsolved race rape cases just in the last year. And there’s kits sitting that haven’t even been examined. And and this person is putting all their emphasis on protecting the PFRs. Can you imagine how well that would go over politically?

[53:41] Andy: Yeah. I totally understand how that would go. And and then wouldn’t there be a a pretty hard burden of proof that that that’s where the information came from and that they’re using it outside of just informing?

[53:58] Larry: You got a good point there. It would be very easy to show where it came from, but true information is okay to to disseminate. It’s where they fabricate it and distort it. That’s the problem. But we’ve long since decided that information that’s true and is publicly available can be re disseminated. But, it gets a little bit more tenuous when you put your own spin on it, when you draw it, when you put the flyer out that you pull off the website. But, if you put your own commentary on the flyer and putting opinions about the dangerousness of this individual, you may be in a difficult,

[54:32] Andy: territory there. I see what you’re saying. So just because it says that you are convicted of x y z crime, that part’s the factual part. And then when you start throwing that this person is dangerous because of these things, and here’s how they’re dangerous and why that’s you throwing your own spin on it,

[54:49] Larry: That is that’s my way of looking at it. It’s when they start putting their own opinions, but merely disseminating your registry information. The problem we have is registry information should never be public. If we’re gonna have a registry, it should not be public. But good luck turning off the lights. They’ve been on for twenty plus years, almost thirty years. How are you gonna turn how are you gonna turn the lights off? You’re not going to. Not the Internet does not forget. There’s a hard drive stored all over the place with all this information on it. Yeah. You’re not gonna make it go away, and someone would then gain access to it. I don’t know. Maybe we’ll call it Palantir, and then they would disseminate it. Yes. Palantir. I just made up that name. Well, my limited knowledge, what I would imagine would happen would be that the private operators that have scooped up all this information through the years, they would make sure that it continued to linger for years and years and decades to come. Sure. Totally. Totally. So you’re you’re not gonna escape that. As long as we have freedoms that we have in this country, there’s a downside. And one of them is that true information, regardless of how ugly it is, can be put out. And that’s why I’ve advocated to the powers that be at Narsal that we do the same thing. I’d like to see websites built. I’d like to go through divorce case proceedings. Almost everybody’s had some kind of cases in their life, whether it be civil or criminal. And the files are full of juicy stuff, particularly in divorces. So, the people that are our detractors, if I were pulling all the shots, I would have websites of you exposing all of your divorce dirty laundry about what your spouse accused you of doing. And that’s merely disseminating information that’s in a public file that wouldn’t be squat you could do about it. And that’s what you’d be dealing with if I were pulling the strings. You’re mean. You’re dirty, man. That’s all I gotta say. Well, I’m playing with the same game that they’re playing. They’ve built websites. They’ve they’ve been doxing people, and we’d get into the doxing business. They said we would do it better.

[56:44] Andy: Are we done? I think so. Alright. Head over to regstreammatters.c0 for show notes and links to the shop, which you could do at fypeducation.org/shop and head up and check out all of our fabulous merch. And, if you want to send an email message, registrymatterscast@gmail.com is that address. You wanna leave some old fashioned voice mail, and I will try to remember to play it on the show. (747) 227-4477. And then if you would like to be one of the fabulous people that support us on Patreon, that is patreon.com/registrymatters. Thank you, everybody, that has joined us to listen to the livestream. You are some of the best people on the planet. And, Larry, thank you very much as always. And I will talk to you soon. Good day.

[57:35] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

In the broader legal and public discourse, registries—whether involving people or property—often spark intense debate, particularly when constitutional principles are involved. It’s not uncommon for commentators, legal analysts, and even members of the general public to misconstrue the nuances of these discussions. A recent conversation centered around the constitutionality of registries revealed just how layered this topic can get, especially in relation to constitutional challenges and the legal principles that underpin them.

This blog post aims to unpack the key points of contention, clarify often-muddled concepts, and explore the practical implications of registration systems in society. Ultimately, readers will come away with a more informed perspective about why registries exist, the reasoning behind legal challenges to such systems, and how courts generally assess their validity.

---

Why Registries Matter—and Why They’re Contentious

Registries serve a variety of purposes in modern governance. On a basic level, they allow governments to keep track of people, property, and activities—often for reasons relating to public safety, resource allocation, and societal order. Take, for example, vehicle registration systems, selective service registration, or even voter rolls. Each of these systems plays an essential role in facilitating the smooth functioning of society.

That said, not all registries inspire universal acceptance or agreement. One of the most divisive forms of registration involves the creation of registries for individuals convicted of specific offenses (commonly referred to as Registry Requirements for People Forced to Register, or PFRs). These registries often introduce a host of stringent requirements for individuals, ranging from periodic in-person check-ins with law enforcement to restrictions on housing, employment, and travel.

It’s precisely these constraints—often described as “disabilities or restraints”—that lead critics to label such registries unconstitutional. Others, including some legal experts, argue for a more nuanced view, highlighting key differences between types of registries and their operational frameworks. The debate isn’t just about philosophical views on civil liberties; it boils down to hard legal questions about constitutionality.

---

Facial vs. As-Applied Constitutional Challenges

One critical distinction that frequently gets lost in discussions about registries is the difference between facial and as-applied constitutional challenges. To better understand these terms, it’s important to look at the conceptual foundation they rest upon.

• Facial Challenges: A “facial” constitutional challenge seeks to declare an entire law, statute, or regulatory system unconstitutional in all its possible applications. Practically, this means that no scenario exists in which the law could be applied constitutionally. For example, if a law inherently violates fundamental rights in a way that can’t be remedied, a court may declare it facially unconstitutional.

• As-Applied Challenges: In contrast, an “as-applied” challenge seeks to address specific applications of a law that violate constitutional rights. Rather than rendering the entire law invalid, the court only addresses particular scenarios where enforcement goes beyond what is permissible under the Constitution.

As one commentator in the conversation pointed out, PFR-related registries aren’t “facially unconstitutional.” This perspective rests on the argument that while many aspects of these systems may impose undue hardships or legal violations, a court cannot reasonably claim that no constitutional version of such a registry could ever exist. In other words, it’s possible to design a registry system that complies with constitutional standards—one that does not impose disabilities or restraints that violate fundamental rights.

---

Do We Register Only Things—or Do We Register People Too?

Another major point of contention in the broader discussion relates to the assertion that “we only register things, not people.” While this claim might resonate intuitively with some, it is factually inaccurate. In reality, society registers people for a range of purposes, many of which carry significant legal and societal implications.

1. Selective Service Registration: One of the clearest examples involves young men between the ages of 18 and 26 who are required to register for selective service in the United States. Noncompliance can result in severe consequences, including hefty fines, imprisonment for up to five years, and the denial of federal student aid. While the draft hasn’t been implemented in decades, the mandatory registration system remains in effect, demonstrating that society does, in fact, compel individuals—not just objects—to register.

2. Voter Registration: Voting is a constitutionally protected right, yet individuals must register to exercise this right. This creates an interesting parallel: if something as fundamental as voting requires registration, can we truly claim that people should never be registered?

3. School Enrollment: Educational systems also require children to be “registered.” While this serves primarily administrative purposes, the process involves cataloging personal data, creating identifiable records, and tracking compliance with mandatory education laws.

4. Professional Licenses and Certifications: Professionals in countless industries—doctors, lawyers, teachers, and others—must register with state boards or licensing authorities. While this type of registration is fundamentally different from entries onto criminal registries, it still demonstrates the breadth of people-based regulatory schemes in modern governance.

The bottom line? Contrary to the commenter’s perspective, society registers both people and things—often for reasons of public interest, safety, or accountability.

---

What Makes Registration “Unconstitutional”?

Whether or not a particular registry is constitutional often comes down to the question of disabilities and restraints. Put simply, does the registration system impose burdensome, punitive, or restrictive measures on registrants? If so, does this rise to the level of violating legal standards related to due process, equal protection, or cruel and unusual punishment?

For example, early registry systems in the United States often required little from individuals aside from minimal reporting obligations. However, as time progressed, registries grew increasingly complex. Many now necessitate frequent in-person reporting, notification of minor life changes (like acquiring a vehicle or moving somewhere temporarily), and restrictions on nearly every aspect of daily life. These layers of regulation aren’t merely inconvenient—they can become untenable for anyone trying to reintegrate into society.

---

Actionable Insights for Addressing Registry Concerns

Understanding the constitutional underpinnings of registries is critical for advocates, policymakers, and anyone involved in litigation on these issues. Here are a few key takeaways for navigating this complex landscape:

1. Focus on Evidence-Based Challenges: Courts are often hesitant to rule entire systems unconstitutional without clear evidence. For advocacy to succeed, cases must be built on solid data, real-world examples, and well-reasoned legal arguments.

2. Clarify Terms and Principles: One of the greatest barriers to public understanding involves the misuse of legal or theoretical concepts. Clear communication helps prevent distortions and ensures that arguments stay on point.

3. Explore Viable Alternatives: If existing registries impose blatant disabilities or restraints, propose less burdensome alternatives. This could involve online self-reporting systems rather than in-person visits or reductions in unnecessary reporting requirements.

---

Conclusion: Balancing Accountability with Rights

Registries, as a regulatory tool, straddle a fine line between public accountability and individual rights. While registering people is not inherently unconstitutional, society must carefully evaluate the burdens imposed in practice. Ultimately, a well-designed registry should serve its intended purpose without infringing on liberties or creating undue barriers to reintegration into society.

Moving forward, constructive dialogue and rigorous legal analysis will remain essential as we grapple with these pressing questions. Whether you’re a legal professional, policy advocate, or simply someone interested in understanding the issues, staying informed is the first step toward meaningful change.

Introduction:
Courts are often seen as the cornerstone of justice, upholding the rule of law and safeguarding democracy. Yet history reminds us that even these vital institutions can be hollowed out and turned into tools of oppression under authoritarian regimes. When laws are manipulated, and courts prioritize obedience to authority over the principles of fairness and equity, society declines—not in dramatic, singular moments, but through incremental erosions of liberty.

In this in-depth exploration, we’ll examine historical and modern examples of how courts have enabled authoritarianism, from Hitler’s Germany to contemporary regimes like China, Russia, and Iran. We’ll then shift focus to democratic societies, including the United States, to unpack the growing concerns around judicial independence and legal manipulation. By the end, you’ll gain a clearer understanding of how the rule of law can both defend and endanger democracy—and what we must do to protect it.

---

Section 1: The German Judiciary and Its Role in Hitler’s Rise to Power

To understand how courts can transition from protectors of democracy to enablers of tyranny, we start with one of history’s most chilling examples: the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany.

When Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the German judiciary did not resist. Instead, it adapted to the new political reality, becoming an instrument for legitimizing Nazi rule. Judges began interpreting laws in ways that aligned with Nazi goals, rather than challenging or upholding democratic principles.

One key moment in this transition was the judiciary’s support for Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This clause allowed for emergency measures, granting Hitler sweeping powers to suspend civil liberties, suppress opposition, and bypass parliamentary consent. These actions, though blatantly authoritarian, gained a superficial veneer of legitimacy because they were upheld by the courts. The judiciary also enforced laws like the Nuremberg Laws, which institutionalized racial discrimination, effectively becoming complicit in Nazi objectives.

While isolated judges resisted, they were crushed or removed. Jewish judges and those deemed politically unreliable were purged from the judiciary and replaced with compliant individuals loyal to Nazi ideology. Even legal education was restructured to indoctrinate future generations in Nazi doctrines, ensuring their long-term influence. The German experience offers a stark warning: when courts abandon the principles of justice, they pave the way for unchecked power.

---

Section 2: Modern Parallels – Authoritarianism in Global Legal Systems

This pattern of subverting legal systems is not confined to history. Authoritarian regimes today use similar tactics, albeit adapted to modern political landscapes.

China:

In China, the judiciary exists to reinforce state control rather than protect individual rights. Courts are subordinate to the Communist Party, which ensures that laws are written—or interpreted—in ways that prioritize state power. For instance, vague laws on dissent give authorities the flexibility to suppress opposition while maintaining a facade of legality. Legal education and public awareness campaigns further entrench this system, promoting “legal literacy” among citizens—but not to empower them. Instead, it serves to increase compliance with state mandates.

Russia:

Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian judiciary is often a stage for political repression rather than an impartial arbiter of justice. High-profile trials of opposition figures, such as Alexei Navalny, are designed to demonstrate the regime’s dominance. While Russia’s legal system appears functional on the surface, outcomes are often predetermined behind closed doors, illustrating what happens when courts prioritize the government’s interests over legal norms.

Iran:

Iran’s judiciary blends Islamic law with authoritarian governance, serving as a tool for clerical power. Broad charges like “spreading corruption on earth” are used to silence dissent, providing the regime sweeping powers to criminalize criticism. Here too, the legal system is more about maintaining the appearance of order than delivering impartial justice.

Across these cases, we see a common thread: courts under authoritarian regimes may maintain a facade of legality, but their true purpose becomes reinforcing the power of the state.

---

Section 3: Democratic Systems Under Stress: Approaching Red Lines

Democratic governments, by design, are meant to function differently. The rule of law is foundational, acting as a check on power rather than an enabler of it. However, even democracies can experience stress, as courts and legal systems come under political pressure.

In the United States, concerns have grown in recent years over potential erosion of judicial independence. During the Trump administration, critics pointed to expanded executive power, including the repurposing of obscure laws for legally questionable justifications. Emergency powers, for instance, were used in ways that significantly tested constitutional limits, such as declaring parts of the southern U.S. border as a “national defense area.”

Additionally, the administration’s public attacks on judges and unfavorable rulings raised alarms. Critics argue that these actions undermined the perception of judicial independence. Courts, however, pushed back against some of the administration’s legal maneuvers, blocking several executive actions. Nonetheless, a more recent Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders sparked further debate about whether legal standards are being weakened.

While these examples fall far short of authoritarianism, scholars warn that they represent warning signs. Authoritarianism rarely arrives as a sudden collapse of democracy; rather, it “creeps in” incrementally, normalizing legal and cultural shifts until they are entrenched.

---

Section 4: The Role of Citizens in Defending Judicial Integrity

History shows that courts alone cannot safeguard democracy. Judges and legal scholars may hold the line, but they require public support to remain independent. Citizens are the ultimate safeguard against authoritarianism—but only if they remain vigilant and engaged.

Warning Signs to Watch For

• Efforts to undermine judicial independence.
• Expansions of executive power—particularly if unchecked by other branches.
• Curtailment of due process for vulnerable groups.
• Legal marginalization or selective application of laws targeting specific groups.

When these trends emerge, they represent red flags that the legal system is being manipulated for political ends. Public pushback and accountability are crucial to counter these developments before they become irreversible.

Actionable Steps for Citizens

1. Stay Informed: Understand the legal system, recent rulings, and how laws affect democratic principles.
2. Hold Leaders Accountable: Question actions or policies that appear to expand executive power or curtail independence of the judiciary.
3. Engage in Civic Advocacy: Participate in movements or organizations advocating for judicial transparency, fairness, and equity.
4. Defend Voting Rights: An independent judiciary relies on democratic governance, and voting is one of the strongest tools citizens have to protect the rule of law.

---

Conclusion: A Fragile But Vital Institution

The rule of law is fragile. It’s not just a collection of statutes; it is a living system that depends on the people entrusted to uphold it and the citizens committed to defending it. From the German judiciary’s complicity under Hitler to modern examples in China, Russia, and Iran, history demonstrates the dangers of complacency when courts prioritize loyalty to authority over justice.

In democracies like the United States, courts have often served as a bulwark against authoritarianism. But even here, vigilance is essential. Citizens must remain informed, engaged, and proactive in safeguarding judicial independence. The legal system can either uphold freedom or become a tool for repression—it all depends on whether we choose to defend it.

---

Key Takeaways:

1. History shows that courts, when manipulated, can help consolidate authoritarian rule.
2. Modern authoritarian regimes use similar tactics to maintain power through legal systems.
3. Even democracies are not immune; vigilance and public engagement are key to safeguarding judicial independence.
4. Citizens must demand transparency, fairness, and accountability in the legal system—or risk seeing it eroded.

Introduction

In recent years, the issue of prison visitation rights has become a hotly debated topic within the landscape of criminal justice reform. The intersection of rehabilitation, public safety, and human dignity ensures that policies governing this area remain complex yet crucial. For incarcerated individuals and their loved ones, the ability to maintain social connections is more than just a privilege—it’s a lifeline to the outside world. Research demonstrates that prison visitation not only uplifts the spirits of the incarcerated but also plays a key role in reducing recidivism rates.

Recently, Colorado took a bold step toward reform by establishing social visitation as a right for those in the state’s correctional facilities. Signed into law in 2023, this groundbreaking legislation seeks to limit the discretion of prison administrators who previously used visitation denial as a punishment for infractions. While proponents of this new law argue that it fosters rehabilitation and reduces recidivism, detractors worry about the legislation’s potential to interfere with prison management. Let’s take a deep dive into Colorado’s new policy, its implications for the justice system, and why the debate over visitation rights signifies a broader conversation about mass incarceration and human rights.

---

The Genesis of the Reform: Colorado’s Legislative Move

The legislation in question originated as House Bill 25-1013 and was spearheaded by State Representatives Rebecca English and Jennifer Bacon. With this law, Colorado unequivocally establishes social visitation as a right for those incarcerated. According to the legislation, the Department of Corrections (DOC) may adopt rules to ensure visitation is administered effectively, but they must refrain from restricting it arbitrarily or excessively. Denying visitation is now a measure reserved solely for instances where routine facility operations or public safety would be compromised.

The significance of the change cannot be overstated. Under the old policies, visitation rights could be revoked for minor rule violations, such as possession of contraband, refusal to work, or misconduct during a visit (e.g., minimal physical contact like holding hands). While maintaining order in correctional facilities is vital, punitive measures targeting visitation often sever essential bonds between inmates and their families, with long-term consequences for rehabilitation.

Despite opposition from some lawmakers, the bill passed along largely party-line votes, with the Senate approving it 22-12, and the House 44-21. The law underscores Colorado’s increasingly progressive stance on criminal justice reform. But its passage also sparked conversations about the balance between maintaining prison security and fostering rehabilitation.

---

Visitation Rights: From Privilege to Statutory Right

Before this law, visitation in Colorado’s prisons was not guaranteed. Rules governing visitation were left largely to the discretion of individual facility administrators. Visitors had to adhere to strict guidelines that, when breached, often led to penalties impacting inmates’ visitation access. For example, minor infractions like refusing prison labor or even receiving a kiss during a visit could potentially lead to revoked privileges. More serious violations, such as smuggling contraband, resulted in permanent visitation suspensions. The new legislation seeks to standardize and humanize these policies.

This is a remarkable shift, as it redefines visitation not as a privilege but as a statutory right. The law emphasizes the importance of maintaining family and community connections, even during incarceration. While prison officials retain some discretion for extreme circumstances, the legislation significantly diminishes their power to arbitrarily deny inmates a chance to see their loved ones.

---

Understanding the Opposition: Concerns of Security and Autonomy

Opponents of the bill, primarily conservative lawmakers, have expressed skepticism about the legislation’s practicality. Representative Matt Soper, a Republican and the longest-serving member of the House Judiciary Committee, voiced apprehension about granting a “statutory right” to visitation. “Sometimes visitation has to be canceled at a moment’s notice,” Soper explained, highlighting scenarios like staff shortages or heightened tensions within a facility. According to him, this legislation could constrain the Department of Corrections from responding flexibly to real-time challenges within prisons.

Beyond logistical concerns, critics argue that legislative mandates may unduly interfere with prison administration. Historically, prison wardens and administrators have had broad authority to manage day-to-day operations, including visitation protocols. Some worry that codifying visitation as a right could undermine this authority. As Soper puts it, the DOC needs as much latitude as possible to maintain order and ensure prison security.

---

The Case for Visitation: Why It Matters

Proponents of the new law argue that the benefits of visitation far outweigh potential administrative hurdles. Social visitation has been widely studied for its positive impact on inmate rehabilitation and reentry outcomes. Studies indicate that maintaining family bonds while incarcerated significantly reduces the likelihood of recidivism.

One such study, The Effect of Visitation on Reentry Success: A Meta-Analysis (2016, Journal of Criminal Justice), examined data from 16 studies and found a 26% reduction in recidivism rates among inmates who received regular visits. The evidence is clear: connections to the outside world can improve an offender’s chances of reintegrating into society.

Moreover, visitation humanizes inmates. For many families, visits represent an opportunity to sustain relationships and support incarcerated loved ones emotionally. Limiting or denying this lifeline not only harms the inmates but also their families—many of whom are already grappling with socio-economic hardships related to a loved one’s incarceration.

---

Demographics and Disparities in Colorado’s Prisons

The legislation also sheds light on the persistent disparities within Colorado’s prison population. While only 5% of Colorado’s general population is Black, 17% of its prison population consists of Black individuals. Similarly, the demographic breakdown of incarcerated individuals reveals that poor and marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by punitive policies—including restrictions on visitation.

Critics of the broader justice system note that wealthier individuals often have more access to resources, legal defense, and avenues to reduce sentencing, resulting in better outcomes compared to their less affluent counterparts. Visitation policy disparities are argued to further entrench these inequalities. A family with fewer financial resources may struggle to afford the time and logistical expenses that prison visits often require, magnifying inequities across racial and economic lines.

---

Implications for the Future: Can Other States Follow Suit?

Colorado’s reform raises an important question: Should other states adopt similar policies? With an estimated 32,495 individuals incarcerated across Colorado’s state, federal, youth, and psychiatric facilities in 2024, the success of this legislation could serve as a model for other jurisdictions. Research suggests that even small changes in visitation policies can make a large impact both inside and outside the prison system.

Families like those of Kim Wray, co-facilitator of End Slavery Colorado, emphasize how visitation rights can improve emotional and mental health for inmates and their loved ones. As Wray noted, the law has been a long time coming for countless families, such as hers, who have loved ones locked away but now have an opportunity to reconnect.

---

Conclusion: Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

Colorado’s new law represents a progressive step in criminal justice reform. By codifying visitation rights, the state recognizes the transformative power of family and community connections for those behind bars. While critics point to the potential challenges of implementation, proponents argue that this legislation fosters an environment more conducive to rehabilitation and personal growth.

Actionable Takeaways:

1. Emphasize Rehabilitation Over Punishment
   Research shows that visitation rights contribute to lowering recidivism rates and aid reentry efforts. Policymakers should consider reforms that prioritize reintegration over punitive measures.

2. Address Systemic Inequality
   Efforts to expand visitation rights must acknowledge and work to reduce socio-economic and racial disparities within the criminal justice system.

3. Promote Nationwide Change
   Colorado’s legislation sets a precedent for other states. Advocacy groups and lawmakers must push for similar reforms across the country.

Revisiting the role of human dignity in corrections is imperative for building a fairer justice system—one that prioritizes not just safety, but also second chances.

When it comes to the legal maze that defines the criminal justice system, few topics carry the weight of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. This right, fundamental to preserving justice, is upheld by tools like the Serna motion in California. But what does this legal mechanism entail, and why are its implications so crucial for defendants? Today, we’ll dive deep into Serna motions, their relationship with the Sixth Amendment, and how delays in the justice system can impact outcomes—for better or worse.

Guided by insights from seasoned criminal defense attorney, Chance Oberstein, and sparking an occasionally witty dialogue, we’ll break down what you need to know about Serna motions, real-world examples, and how they can work to a defendant’s advantage—or disadvantage.

---

What Is a Serna Motion, and Why Does It Matter?

To paraphrase Chance Oberstein, a Serna motion is the legal world’s way of calling out the justice system for ghosting a defendant. This motion, specific to California, empowers defendants to request the dismissal of criminal charges when the prosecution takes an unreasonable amount of time to move the case to trial. Think of it as the Constitution’s way of saying, “Hey, don’t leave people hanging!”

The legal backbone of this argument comes from the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and California Penal Code § 686 sub. 1, which backs it up locally. Without this safeguard, defendants could be left waiting indefinitely, with their lives and reputations hanging in the balance.

But it’s not just a fancy legal declaration. As Oberstein explains, “Justice delayed can turn into justice denied,” especially when fading memories, lost evidence, and unavailable witnesses threaten a defendant’s ability to mount a fair defense.

---

Too Long of a Wait: Setting Standards for Delays

So what qualifies as “too long” when we talk about delays? The landmark case of Serna v. Superior Court (1985) set the standard. According to this ruling:

• Delays exceeding one year for misdemeanors or three years for felonies are presumed unreasonable.

When the delay crosses this threshold, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. They must justify the delay by demonstrating sufficient reasoning or extenuating circumstances. If they can’t, the case may be dismissed in a flash—faster than you can say “statutory violation.”

Oberstein adds that this isn’t a free pass. The government can’t simply play the “oops, we forgot” card and expect leniency. He cites Doggett v. United States (1992), where the U.S. Supreme Court declared that government negligence, like forgetting to file charges or losing track of a case, doesn’t excuse violating a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. “If the government drops the ball,” Chance emphasizes, “it’s on them, plain and simple.”

---

The Barker Balancing Test: Weighing the Factors Behind Delays

However, not all delays are equal, and courts use nuanced frameworks to determine whether a delay is permissible. One key tool is the Barker v. Wingo balancing test, established in 1972. This “legal checklist” relies on four key factors:

1. Length of the delay – Is it beyond what is reasonably allowed for the complexity of the case?
2. Reason for the delay – Was it caused by unavoidable circumstances, such as court backlogs, or preventable negligence?
3. Defendant’s assertion of their right – Did the defendant actively invoke their right to a speedy trial?
4. Prejudice to the defendant – How has the delay impacted the defendant’s ability to mount a fair defense (e.g., memories have faded, evidence lost)?

Chance likens it to creating a pros and cons list with high stakes. Each factor is carefully weighed before the court determines whether the delay warrants dismissing a case.

---

Real-World Example: A Case Dismissed in Orange County

The power of a Serna motion can be seen in concrete cases. Consider a striking example that unfolded in Orange County, California:

In 2019, a defendant was charged with vehicular vandalism on September 16. Fast forward over three years—January 15, 2024—and the prosecution finally issued an arrest warrant. During this time, the defendant had been living at the same address, unaware of the pending charges.

The delay was egregious, so the defendant’s attorney filed a Serna motion, arguing the speedy trial rights were violated per Serna v. Superior Court and Doggett v. United States. The court agreed with the defense, ruling the delay unjustifiable. The case was dismissed, and the defendant walked free—a clear victory for justice.

---

The Devastating Impact of Delays on Defendants

While beneficial outcomes like the Orange County case may occur, delays typically work against defendants in significant and harmful ways. Oberstein outlines some of the common challenges:

• Fading Memories: Witnesses may forget crucial details over time, weakening their testimony.
• Lost Physical Evidence: Documentation or items that could support the defense may deteriorate or go missing.
• Witness Availability: Key witnesses may move away, pass away, or otherwise be unavailable after a lengthy delay.

In short, delays can become a legal nightmare, depriving defendants of the ability to argue their case effectively.

---

Steps for Defendants to Take When a Case Drags On

If you think your case has been delayed unreasonably, what should you do? Oberstein offers some valuable advice:

1. Hire an Experienced Defense Attorney: This is critical. Skilled attorneys can identify whether your speedy trial rights were violated and determine if a Serna motion is appropriate.
2. Track Key Dates and Evidence: Document the timeline of your case from when the alleged offense occurred to when charges were filed. This creates the foundation for your motion.
3. File the Serna Motion: Your attorney will submit the motion to the court under California Penal Code § 686 sub. 1. A hearing date will be scheduled for review.

Knowing local nuances (e.g., different filing deadlines in various counties) is also essential to avoid missteps.

---

When Delays Work in a Defendant’s Favor

Interestingly, there are instances when delays benefit defendants. For example:

• Weakened Prosecution: If the case relies heavily on witness testimony, fading memories over time can make it impossible for the prosecution to build their case.
• Degraded Evidence: Physical evidence that’s critical for the prosecution may no longer hold weight, giving the defense an upper hand.

As noted by Larry, a co-host in the discussion, sometimes delays align with the defense’s strategy. “The longer the case drags on, the more chances for the prosecution to lose a witness or mishandle evidence,” he remarks. A skilled attorney can use these situations to negotiate better outcomes, such as reduced charges or favorable plea deals.

---

When to Seek a Second Opinion on Your Case

Finally, what if you feel your current attorney hasn’t properly addressed delays in your case? Oberstein assures defendants that seeking a second legal opinion is always an option: “Sometimes a fresh set of eyes can uncover opportunities that were previously overlooked.”

While some attorneys hesitate to give second opinions, it’s essential to know your rights. If you feel your current representation isn’t exploring all potential advantages, don’t hesitate to consult a new attorney to reexamine your case.

---

Takeaways: Protecting Your Speedy Trial Rights

The right to a speedy trial isn’t just a legal technicality—it’s a safeguard of fairness. Here’s what to remember if you or someone you know faces a delayed criminal case:

1. Understand Your Rights: Delays exceeding one year (misdemeanors) or three years (felonies) are likely unreasonable.
2. Act Quickly: Work with an experienced defense attorney to evaluate and file a Serna motion if applicable.
3. Be Proactive: Gather evidence showing how delays harmed your case or created prejudice against your defense.

With the right legal expert and strategy, a delay doesn’t have to spell doom for your case—it just might result in justice served.

---

In the end, as Oberstein reminds us, the Constitution isn’t just a set of principles; it’s the cornerstone of guaranteeing fairness, accountability, and justice—especially when clocking delays in the courtroom.

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

[00:19] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, transmuting across the Internet. This is episode 344 of Registry Matters. Larry, how are you tonight?

[00:29] Larry: I’m doing awesome. It’s nice and toasty here.

[00:32] Andy: I bet it is quite toasty there. You’ve got we we’re almost at the longest day of the year. It’s gotta be I don’t know. What is it? January?

[00:41] Larry: ‘1 ’20 ‘2. Seriously? No. ’93.

[00:47] Andy: Oh, I was like, damn. That that’s pretty toasty. Even for you guys, that’s that’s up there.

[00:53] Larry: You’ve lived there for a hundred years. What’s the highest temperature you’ve ever seen there? I’m, like, one zero seven or one zero nine, the highest it’s ever gotten here. The altitude is high enough here that it doesn’t get those blistering temperatures like they have in other places. Death Valley or something? Yeah.

[01:09] Andy: I was in the desert when I was in the army. I was at a national training center at NTC. I think that’s what it’s the the long version is. Holy moly. It was hot there. I mean, it was hot. Hot. One fifteen ish, and you’ve gotta wear all the army gear. You got Kevlar. You’ve got a helmet on. Flak vet. Oh my god. Murder. Murder hot. Murder hot. We have a guest. We we have Chance joining. I should call Chance a guest. He is joining us. Chance, how are you? I’m joining you. I’m good. I mean, you are a guest. So But you’re like I’m a guest. Well, often here. I’m here. I’m here. I’m here. I’m here. Hey. Head over and, make sure that you show some support by hitting like subscribe. You can hit the button on YouTube where the thumbs up. You could subscribe. You could hit the notification bell. Leave a five star review. All these things would help the podcast. It would help us grow and help us reach new listeners, which is what we are always trying to do. And I think that’ll be enough of that. And then I would expect that Larry will then tell us what we are going to do this evening.

[02:08] Larry: Well, the great news you’ve already laid out is Chance is with us this week, which is means it’s not just mister doom and gloom. Chance will have a California corner segment later. The big thing we’re having is recovering a case from the West Virginia Supreme Court Of Appeals, which is our top court in the state. It’s actually good news for PFRs. The gentleman took his case to trial and was acquitted on all but one count Then he appealed based on judicial misconduct and won. We have an article to cover, and I think that’s gonna wrap it up for this episode. I think that’ll probably fill out an hour. You remember last week, I was miserably off on how long I thought it would take. So this time, you thought we were you done in, like, ten minutes. I was like, no. That’s not happening that way.

[02:54] Andy: Alright. Well, today, we’re covering a significant decision from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which you’ve already said oh, excuse me. Let me finish. West Virginia in State versus Eldridge. And, like, I guess the state can call their Supreme Court whatever they want. They could call it the the Supreme Court of the universe or something if they wanted to. They all seem to have weird different names. They do. And what’s the reason that you’ve put this case in here for discussion? I mean, f p FYP’s airtime is incredibly valuable as you were already aware. I know. We actually charge about $300 for each thirty second spot that we run.

[03:30] Larry: Well, man, we get that much money for advertising? Yeah. Actually, I would like to pursue an advertising route, but we just don’t have quite the following yet that I don’t think we can charge a lot for ads, but I’d love to go that direction. But, I’ve lost my track. Where the hell were we? Does this have any constitutional implications? That would be the question. So, well, the case is actually my my script is a reminder that judges have to play by the rules just like everyone else. And there are big constitutional implications here on this case that we’re gonna get into. And since we have an attorney who’s practiced for thirty five years, who celebrated thirty five years of practice this week, and I’m sure he’s seen some judicial misconduct through the years, we’re gonna have he’s gonna be the color commentator jumping in from time to time, to help polish up what I and AI created here.

[04:24] Andy: You mean Okay. Chance is gonna do, like, color commentary like Jimmy the Greek?

[04:29] Larry: That’s what it seems like to me.

[04:31] Andy: Do you guys know that story? Chancey the Greek. Chancey the Greek. We might you might say something and we’ll have to break for a commercial and you will never return. Did I say Greek or geek? Okay. Greek. I I was hoping Greek. Alright. Anyhow Chancy the yeah. Okay. And even though it’s a case involving a conviction, it has major implications for due process. Oh, we don’t care about that. And fairness, also, we don’t care about that. Can we dive into the details, Larry? Oh, we can.

[04:59] Larry: Chad Eldridge was accused of sexually abusing his stepdaughter, G Y, and that’s common that they use initials with minors, between the ages of 12 and 17. The charges were very serious. 17 counts, including, sexual assault, sexual abuse by guardian and incest. And, so he was facing some serious time had he been convicted. I mean, I’ve got a he’s got testicles of steel to go to trial on 17 counts in West Virginia, that would have been three or four hundred years of prison if he’d been convicted. So that’s a lot though. What what happened at trial then? Well, the jury amazingly acquitted him on 16 of the 17 counts. The only conviction was for a second degree sexual assault involving oral sex. It was tied to an incident where he allegedly forced to perform oral sex.

[05:53] Andy: So the jury clearly had doubts in all this?

[05:58] Larry: They did. They had serious doubts. If you quit on 16, and we can get chance in here on this. If you’ve got a 17 count indictment and the jury acquits on 16 of those counts. I would say they had serious doubts, but the judge got involved in the way that the Supreme Court laid a rule was improper. That’s what led to the reversal. But, Chancellor, in your years, have you seen anything like this?

[06:23] Chance: No. No. I haven’t quite seen it this heavy. But, you know, acquitted on on 16 of 17 counts is a is a big deal. It’s a very big deal and probably would cause that to just, you know,

[06:39] Andy: lay where it is. Who’d wanna who’d wanna retry that? Let me ask you the question this story though. Doesn’t the prosecutor, like, find everything possible that could be remotely tried and layer those on there for them to ultimately just have one thing that’ll stick?

[06:55] Larry: Is that for me or Champs? Either. Well, my experience is much more limited than this. Much more limited, but prosecutors, do creatively try to find things that might stick. And I have sat on a grand jury, and I got to witness for three months what what prosecutors do. So but, you know, they claim that they’re only following the evidence, but it’s my opinion having never been a prosecutor that they’re sitting around looking for something that they might can make fit into a square hole, you know, a round peg fit into a square hole so they can stack charges. Chance, would you agree with that? Do do prosecutors look for something that just might be able to be squeezed into a square hole?

[07:42] Chance: A whole bunch. That’s why there’s a whole lot of prosecutor misconduct. Yeah. That’s that’s they do that routinely. Yes.

[07:50] Andy: So who is this, witness the judge questioned?

[07:53] Larry: The witness was r e, which was the alleged victim’s mother and, the accused mister Eldridge’s ex wife, she testified that her daughter had previously made false accusation against el Eldridge and recanted them. She also claimed that the late accusations came after she told you why that she couldn’t move in with her boyfriend.

[08:17] Andy: Oh, so her testimony supported the defense?

[08:20] Larry: Yes. I mean, this is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen in my hundred and eighty four years. You’ve you’re facing 17 counts, and you call the mother of the complaining witness as your as a defense witness. Again, chance, have you ever seen anything like this? She provided alternative explanations and cast doubt on the timing and motives and the allegations.

[08:42] Chance: Yes. I have seen that. You have? I I have. Yeah. I mean, when, you know, you make sure you know what people are gonna say before they say it. That’s that’s the number one rule. And, apparently, the defense had some cards they weren’t showing.

[08:58] Larry: What do you mean by they had cards that they weren’t showing, in terms of that? Let’s say, hypothetically, we did a witness of, we did a witness interview with the with the, alleged victim. Are we obligated to to share the fruits of all that with the prosecution, or are we not? If it’s rebuttal, no. Okay. Alright. So so in rebuttal. Because I thought I thought I remember that we had to we had to be somewhat forthcoming with what we unearth in our investigations. Okay.

[09:27] Andy: But what does all what does all that mean that the judge didn’t like her testimony?

[09:32] Larry: Well, during cross examination, the straight the state tried to suggest bias because she funded Eldridge’s the accused the, accused, jail account using her sister’s credit card, which but signified that that wasn’t on the up and up. But when the prosecutor didn’t go far enough to suit the judge, the judge stepped in and asked her point blank if she had pending fraud charges.

[10:01] Andy: Is that allowed, though?

[10:03] Larry: I don’t think it is under our rules here. But more importantly, it looks like in West Virginia, rule six zero nine only permits using convictions to impeach witness credibility. Pending charges are not admissible, and that’s on page 10 of the opinion. And the judge violated that rule, and more importantly, he stepped outside the bounds of neutrality. And, again, Chance, expand on that. What what what all did the judge do that he helped not have done?

[10:26] Chance: Well, you know, I mean, you can’t be a second chair prosecutor. Let’s put it that way. And, you know, assessing credibility is is crucial because a witness’s testimony can significantly impact the case’s outcome. So a judge has to remain neutral and not take the second seat and prosecute the case when he thinks or she thinks the prosecutor’s not, doing their job.

[10:50] Andy: So is all of that allowed, though?

[10:53] Larry: No. Rule six zero nine only permits using convictions to impeach witness credibility. Now conviction is fair game because that’s public record, but you’re presumed innocent. But pending charges are not admissible, and that’s referred to on page 10. And the judge violated that rule, and more importantly, he stepped beyond the bounds of neutrality because Chance pointed out the judicial system works on impartial judges. They’re supposed to be fair and even handed, and this judge had an agenda. He wanted that information before the jury, and that was not his role.

[11:26] Andy: Because they’re just supposed to, like, sit back and let they’re they’re a referee. They’re not they’re not they’re not putting air in the football or taking it out depending on who’s on the field. Right?

[11:36] Larry: That is correct. Now I believe whether our rules here, chance may have similar rules to cite to in California. A judge can seek to clarify an answer that’s misleading or not clear to to the, that a witness has given. Is that is that consistent with those in California?

[11:52] Chance: Yeah. Pretty consistent. Well, you know, but in California, we, you know, we have a wider latitude when it comes to impeaching credibility. But, you know, the federal rules here seem, you know, constricted. And obviously, obviously, you know, the rule precluded what he did. And, he wanted the jury to know that she has something pending that hadn’t been adjudicated yet, which is, you know, not fair. What’s the difference then between rule six zero eight and six zero nine? I’m sure everyone is completely familiar with what those two things mean. Well,

[12:27] Larry: I’m sure they are. They’re standard across the states, aren’t they? No. Not exactly. Rule six zero eight allows you to ask specific about specific acts if they relate to the truthfulness, but they can’t introduce outside evidence like charges or arrest records. Rule six zero nine, on the other hand, allows prior convictions under certain conditions to be brought in for credibility purposes, but only convictions. And, again, this was not a conviction. But the judge wanted to smear this witness because he didn’t like where it was going.

[12:57] Chance: And Yeah. See that and that and that and that, Andy, is is six zero eight just prevents smearing with, you know, with allegations, you know, and, nuances, you know. But six zero nine says, look. If it’s adjudicated as if it’s adjudicated and it’s there, it’s a conviction, it’s fair game depending on what it is.

[13:17] Andy: And but so what were you saying here is that the judge broke the rules?

[13:21] Larry: Pretty much. He asked about charges, not convictions. And by bringing that in himself, he gave the impression that the witness was dishonest, something the jury was supposed to decide as chance said. Truthfulness and credibility is for the fact finder, in this case, the jury.

[13:38] Andy: Can then the prosecution claim that the charges showed bias?

[13:43] Larry: That was actually their angle. They argued that since RE had committed fraud to support Eldridge, it showed bias. But they already had her testimony about using the card. They didn’t need to mention the pending charges. And the court said that was a step too far, and that’s cited to on pages 12 all the way through 16. They did a quite a story of they, explanation of that.

[14:06] Andy: And then the bias was already shown by her actions. Right?

[14:11] Larry: Yes. And courts have consistently ruled that you can use witness actions to show bias, but not on proving accusations. That’s just too prejudicial.

[14:22] Andy: You did mention something use unusual earlier. Oh, boy. Vibrators?

[14:30] Larry: Yes. On this family program, that word comes up. RE testified that she gave to a minor daughter two of those devices when she was about 15 or 16 so she could explore her own sexuality, without the help of boys, which, I mean, there is some logic in that. Would you agree?

[14:52] Andy: I have a story I could share, but I’ll have to wait till afterwards about the equivalent on the male side, so to speak. But, anyway, that’s certainly unorthodox.

[15:02] Larry: Well, it is, but the problem isn’t what she did. It’s what the judge did. He asked multiple judgmental questions. Did you show her how to use them? What did she think? Was it a good idea? Did she talk about it with Elle Eldridge? That was not clarifying an answer. That was eliciting answers to questions that were not asked. A chance, do you agree?

[15:26] Chance: I agree. Yep. And that That was that was that that was a way of of, you know you know, just throwing slime on her.

[15:38] Andy: And this sounds like the judge was, maybe expressing a little bit of his own personal bias and moral outrage that this would be going on.

[15:47] Larry: That’s how the Supreme Court saw it. Judges, again, must remain impartial, especially when credibility is at issue. This wasn’t, clarification which judges are allowed to do. It was condemnation, and it broke rule six fourteen b.

[16:05] Andy: So the judge again looking like he was siding with the prosecution and and against the defense, which I don’t think judges are supposed to do. They’re supposed to be just straight up like the guys with the stripes that are on the field saying this was a foul, this was fair play, but they’re supposed to just

[16:20] Larry: be fair in the middle. That’s correct. And when a judge appears partial, especially in a closed case, it can certainly sway jurors. And in this case, it possibly did.

[16:30] Andy: And and so that then, what did the West Virginia Supreme Court say about that?

[16:35] Larry: They say, the judge’s actions weren’t just wrong. They were prejudicial. The trial was credit book credibility based. It was GY’s word against Eldridge and the defense witness. The mother was key, and the judge undermined her. That influenced their one conviction. And, so, you know, the the judge the judge sunk the case. It might have gotten the conviction anyway. Might not have, but the judge sunk the case.

[17:03] Andy: Was was the jury deadlocked up to that point?

[17:07] Larry: Yes. And that suggests they were struggling. Then they convicted him on the one charge from a single incident and acquitted on all the other charges, died the same event. The court said that suggested that it was a compromised verdict.

[17:22] Andy: Could you explain that? What does that even mean?

[17:25] Larry: That’s kinda like cutting the baby in half. You got you got 12 you got 12 people sitting there, and they all wanna go home because jury service pays very little, if anything. And Yes. They’re giving up their day jobs and stuff, and they wanna get out of there. So you gotta hold out if you can reach a compromised verdict. That’s that happens. So I bet chance could expand on compromised verdicts because in thirty five years, you’ve probably seen a few compromised verdicts where the devil just didn’t support the verdict.

[17:56] Chance: Well, yeah. Yeah. I I would say so except that, you know, you don’t really you don’t really understand what’s going on in the state, at least,

[18:05] Larry: what’s going on. But, essentially, yeah, stuff like that goes on. Oh. Not very fair, is it? No. It doesn’t sound like it. What’s next for Eldridge then? Well, at the moment, his conviction is gone and the case is remanded for a possible new trial. The state can retry him, but they’ll have to avoid these errors, and they can only retry him to retry him on that one count because, Jeopardy has attached to those acquitted charges. There’s no way they can bring those back. Is there a chance?

[18:36] Chance: Nah. No. No. If you’re acquitted, you’re acquitted. But who would who would wanna go on just that one count after that? That’s massive, which is what I was referring to before. No.

[18:45] Larry: So well, the the takeaway for me is, judge, even in serious cases, the rules must be followed, and the judge didn’t follow the rules.

[18:54] Andy: Is is this actually a resounding victory for due process?

[18:59] Larry: It is. If we don’t decide guilt by mob sentiment or judicial opinion, everyone is supposed to get a fair trial. And Mr. Eldridge didn’t get a fair trial. But amazingly, I would, I just can’t imagine him going to trial in rural West Virginia on 17 counts and having the courage to call. If you’d have brought that case to be honest, said you’re gonna call the mother? What kind of whiskey weed have you been smoking?

[19:28] Andy: Uh-huh. But don’t we almost all the time talk about the the prosecutor’s not gonna lay down? He’s gonna figure out some other angle to go after this and and drum up different charges even though because he knows he’s got the one?

[19:43] Larry: Well, I agree, but to create the courage of getting to that position. Now so what say we don’t know what offer was made in terms of a settlement, in terms of plea offer. We don’t know that that was not discussed in the case. But whatever the plea offer was, they wouldn’t have asked him to plead straight up and down to all 17 accounts. So he would have been restricting and reducing his access by entertaining a plea offer. But if they offered him like ninety years in prison, well, you’re gonna die in prison anyway. You might as well go trial in that case. But if they offered him something where he could actually see the light of day again, it’s just a very, very courageous thing to do to go to trial on this one. You’re facing hundreds of years in prison. Interesting. Agreed. Agreed. And how what kind of timeline does that then take if he is he’s essentially

[20:33] Andy: like, where in the process is he? Is he past indictment? Do they have to do it all again? Is he could he, like, flee the country if he wanted to? What where’s what what are his options?

[20:44] Larry: Well, gotta wait for the remand to be sent down to the trial court. And this is not something that’s highly automated. This is gonna be something where ultimately the chief prosecuting officer in that district is gonna make a decision on what they wanna do. And there might gonna be many factors that go into that decision, like high profile they’ve made this case. And sometimes their own stupidity puts them in a jam where they have to do the case again because they made such a production out of it. And And I don’t know that they did or didn’t, but if they did, they boxed themselves into a corner. Because if this victim got all sorts of airtime on TV and radio and newspaper about how this man was gonna die in prison, and all of a sudden his con all convictions have been set aside on the remand order. He’s gonna get a certain amount of time. It may work different in West Virginia, but they they he’s gonna he’s not gonna walk out of gate of prison immediately. They’re gonna give the prosecution some period of time to decide what to do. And, but it’s not gonna be a definite period of time. Chance, how much time will they get to decide in your experience, of what they’re gonna do with this case? Because they gotta fit first figure out if the witness is available, willing to go through it again, what evidence they have left that can be get get be brought to bear at a trial. There’s a lot of things going into this. And how will public opinion play? Because I’ve gotta consider this as an elected official. If I get another acquittal on this one count, after having been turned back on all 17 counts, I don’t look particularly confident. I would be tempted to wanna just let this case go away, but I don’t know that they can because I don’t know what the lay of the land is in terms of pretrial publicity.

[22:19] Chance: Right. We we probably don’t know enough. I mean, but you’re you’re you’re right about that. They have to consider all these things. You know, they’re a political entity and, you know, this is this is bad publicity, real bad publicity. And, it really it really goes to their own credibility. So it it could take it could take months of meetings and thinking and and and, you know, making a determination or it can simply be a quick no brainer. We’re not doing this again. Depending on what the facts are, and I you know, and and we don’t we’re not aware of those right now. We don’t we don’t know everything, but it if you’re asking me if it could take a while, yeah, it could take months. Well And he just sits there stewing while waiting.

[23:01] Larry: No. If if he if a reman comes down, the judge is gonna the trial judge is gonna give the prosecution an amount of time, and I don’t know what that amount of time is gonna be, is to make a decision, and they’re gonna set conditions of release if the prosecution is gonna go forward. How much time they will give them to make that those decisions, I don’t know. But he won’t just sit there and walk forever, but he could easily sit there thirty to sixty days waiting for something to happen. Okay. Right? Alright. But you’re talking I mean,

[23:27] Andy: we we talked about the worst day in the prison system in New Mexico and you that just by one day, you could end up on a gurney. But, you know, thirty to sixty days is not the end of the universe, but certainly not where I would wanna spend even one day.

[23:41] Chance: Right. I mean, you know, when you think about it and we’re moving on to right to a speedy trial,

[23:47] Andy: you know, that’s universal. Okay. So it’s not like he’s gonna have to wait there forever. Okay. Alright. That that kicks in to help him then one of those that that’s a constitutional right?

[23:56] Chance: That is. Okay.

[23:58] Andy: Well, very good. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for breaking all of that down and all the commentary. Wait. You are Chance the Chance the Greek? That’s what Chancey the Greek. That’s what you are. Are. Chancey the Greek.

[24:09] Chance: Yeah.

[24:11] Andy: Alright. Right?

[24:13] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y d.

[25:01] Andy: Let let’s move over to, this will be California Corner, and it’s understanding Serna motions. And that’s not Sorna. That’s Serna motions and the right to a speedy trial. Is that what it that says? That is correct. Oh my god. Okay. So we’re diving into Serna motions and the constitutional right to a speedy trial. And as always, we have the the insightful, occasionally with witty and miss and very brilliant attorney Chance Oberstein who specializes in criminal defense in California.

[25:31] Chance: Alright. Thank you. Thank you for that intro. I’m thrilled to be here and occasionally witty. Yes. I’ll take that as a challenge.

[25:38] Andy: I’ll see if I can keep you entertained while we talk about the law. Challenge accepted. Alright. So, Chance, let’s start with the basics. What in the world, I’ve never heard of this before, is a Serna motion, and why would anyone give two flips about it?

[25:53] Chance: Okay. Great question. Okay. Surna motion is like the legal equivalent of calling out someone for ghosting you. It’s a tool defendants use in California. Okay. And it’s it’s a tool defendants in California can use to request the dismissal of criminal charges when the prosecution has taken way too long to bring the case to trial, like we were just talking about. It’s based on the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and is basically the Constitution’s way of saying don’t leave people hanging. And in California, this right is backed up by penal code section six eighty six sub one.

[26:29] Andy: And so it’s like the legal system’s version is you you had one job. Got it. But what counts as, too long? Are we talking weeks, hours, months, years? And in the case of year, Larry, we’re talking centuries?

[26:44] Chance: Oh, we’re definitely talking years, and this is a different type of thing. The landmark case is Serna versus Superior Court. It’s a 1985 case, and that set the standard. Delays exceeding one year for misdemeanors or three years for felonies are presumed unreasonable. At that point, the burden shifts to the prosecution to explain themselves. If they can’t justify the delay, the court can dismiss the case faster than you can say statutory violation.

[27:12] Andy: That’s a pretty big deal though. So what happens if the prosecution tries to pull a oops, we forgot card?

[27:19] Chance: Well, Andy, the courts don’t take kindly to the oops defense. In Doggett versus The United States, which is a 1992 case, the US Supreme Court made it clear that government negligence, and we’re talking government negligence, like losing track of a case or forgetting to file charges, is not a valid excuse for delay. If the government drops the ball, the defendant’s speedy trial rights are violated, plain and simple.

[27:45] Andy: From that, it sounds like the government needs to get a better calendar app. But what if the delay isn’t just negligence? Are there factors that the court could look at? I mean, you know, we could we could have an attorney who shows up to court late and just like, whoops, traffic.

[28:00] Chance: Well, you know, absolutely. That that’s where Barker v Wingo, it’s a 1970 case, comes in. This case gave us the Barker balancing test, which sounds kind of odd, but it sounds fancy, but it’s it’s just really a checklist. The court looks at four factors. Number one, the length of delay. Number two, the reasons for the delay. Number three, whether the defendant asserted their right to a speedy trial and or how the delay harmed the defendant. It’s like a legal pros and cons list, but which high with much more higher stakes.

[28:35] Andy: And if the prosecution drags their feet, the defendant can basically say, well, that’s unfair, and here’s why. So is is can we, bring some kinda life with an example? Got any, juicy cases that you could cite for us?

[28:49] Chance: Well, I’ve got a good one that I can use for an example. Picture this, Orange County 2 Thousand And 19. A defendant is accused of vehicular vandalism on 09/16/2019. Fast forward then to 01/15/2024, more than three years later, and the prosecution finally issues an arrest warrant. The defendant has been living it, same address, the whole time, probably wondering if the charges were ever going to show up. His attorney files a Serna motion arguing that the delay violated speedy trial rights under Serna Superior Court and dogged it. The court agreed, dismissed the case, and the defendant walked away free.

[29:30] Andy: Interesting. Three years though. That’s not just a delay. That’s like a full on that’s a Larry nap even. What kind of harm can these delays cause to a defendant’s case?

[29:40] Chance: Well, that’s the point. These delays can be devastating. Witnesses may forget key details. Physical evidence can deteriorate, and important documents might disappear into the abyss. So imagine trying to track down a witness three years later. They might not even remember what they had for breakfast yesterday, let alone the details of crime. In the Orange County case, the defense argued that fading memories and lost evidence made it impossible to mount a fair defense, and these factors are critical in providing our proving prejudice caused by the delay.

[30:12] Andy: That does sound like a bit of a legal nightmare. If someone thinks their case has been delayed unreasonably, what’s their first move?

[30:20] Chance: Well, step one, and probably the most important step, is call an experienced criminal defense attorney. I mean, if it’s been some time and now it’s popping up and, you know, it’s unexpected and it’s been a while, call somebody who can help you, really help you, and that’s an experienced criminal defense attorney. They’ll review the timeline of your case and determine if a Surna motion is appropriate. Filing the motion involves documenting key dates, like when the alleged defense occurred, when the charges were filed, when the defendant was informed, and attaching evidence to show that the delay hurt your defense. Then the motion is submitted under penal code six eighty six one, and the court schedules a hearing.

[31:03] Andy: Alright. And what what about other jurisdictions in California? Are they all the same when it comes to filing this kind of motion?

[31:10] Chance: Well, they’re pretty much all the same with some minor variations. But let’s take Orange County, for example. Orange County has its own flavor of bureaucracy. You need to serve the prosecutor with all the necessary documents and set the motion hearing for several weeks in advance. That gives everybody time to review the claims. As for other jurisdictions, an experienced attorney will know how to navigate these local rules without breaking a sweat or filing or or missing a filing deadline.

[31:36] Larry: Well, before we wrap this marvelous episode up, let’s talk about bad lawyers because I think there are a few that exist in my experience. What if someone feels their previous attorney dropped the ball on addressing delay issues?

[31:53] Chance: Yeah. That’s a problem. But, you know, if if if if it is a delay issue, of course, you’re that’s what you’re going going to the attorney for. If they miss it or you feel that they haven’t really examined it properly, no problem. If your attorney didn’t address the delay issues, don’t panic. You can always seek a second opinion. A new attorney can review your case records and police reports, to identify missed opportunities. Sometimes a fresh set of eyes can uncover grounds for dismissal that your previous attorney overlooked or just didn’t even know about. It’s like getting a second opinion on a bad haircut, but way more important. Oh, we could have a whole episode here on second opinions because I’ve not found very many attorneys that wanna give a second opinion. But

[32:36] Larry: they say, are you represented? Oh, well, you needed to be asking your attorney. I said, well, I go to the doctor, and I don’t like the opinion. And the doctor tells me, feel free to get a second opinion. I go to an attorney, and I want a second opinion. And you say, oh, well, I can’t break a rules of professional conduct. I can’t give you a second opinion. And I’ve always rejected that, but they insist there’s there’s some rule that I can’t find anywhere in the book that says you can’t give a second opinion. But anyway, that’s an episode. Andy puts out a list of things about the bank segment on second opinions because I can’t find attorneys that like giving them. But, speaking of second opinions, what are some signs that the delay might actually work in the defendant’s favor?

[33:11] Chance: Okay. That’s a great question. Sometimes delays can actually help the defense. For example, if the prosecution’s case relies heavily on witness testimony, a long delay might weaken their case because witnesses forget details or become unavailable. Similarly, if physical evidence deteriorate or is lost, it can make it hard for the prosecution to prove their case. So while delays are usually bad for defendants, they can occasionally work in their favor. And if you have a savvy attorney who knows how to leverage them, wella.

[33:42] Larry: Well, that’s been more abundant of contention in the years I’ve been in this business is having that discussion with clients. I tell them that the apparatus that’s coming to get you has more kinks usually than our the ourselves that can break down. And so if you’ve got a case that’s contingent upon multiple witnesses, there’s a lot more chances of a bus running over one of those witnesses that’s critical, or them having an aneurysm or them having a stroke or them getting sent to Baghdad to serve with the army or something or another. There’s all these things that can happen. And with you, that’s gonna work to your advantage if something makes that case weak because, remember, we have a confrontation clause. They can’t just look at the police report and say, well, The officer is dead that investigated this, but for the report says this. I mean, what’s the and I’m gonna get to the script here in a minute, but what’s the what’s the, answer from a a a competent attorney when they try to introduce a police report without without, setting any foundation or for trying to justify why the report is gonna how how does that work?

[34:51] Chance: Well, you know, it’s there there’s a total lack of foundation. So You know, I mean, you know, is it is it relevant? You know, is is there any foundation? I mean, you know, is this, you know, is this you know, there’s levels of hearsay. There’s so many different variables there, but it’s trial by affidavit never works. And and and that’s good because our our system is made to do much more than that. And it works and and and it just it doesn’t work by affidavit. That’s that’s something everybody liked to do. Every prosecutor would love to do, but that’s just not how our system works. Also, it’s contingent upon confrontation, and that’s something we need to to protect. But the silver lining is something that most people don’t think about delays They can actually work to your benefit.

[35:35] Larry: They can actually work for your benefit, particularly if you’re in custody. If I’ve got a client that’s been in custody for a year and a half and they’re scared to death to go to state prison and I couldn’t get conditions of release approved And they’ve got couple years in custody, no prior record. Even if a serious charge, I can say, well, madam prosecutor, this person has already served all the time, but they’re likely to get on a first offense. Let’s go ahead and do credit time serve and probation. That works for your benefit. You never just have to go to the big house, even though you did have the conviction. So, but, thanks for joining us today on this segment and shedding light on the CERN emotions and the right to a speedy trial.

[36:17] Chance: My pleasure. My pleasure. It’s been fun.

[36:21] Andy: Well, you put this thing in here. It is from c p r. So that’s a cardiopulmonaryresuscitation.org.

[36:29] Larry: Do you think that’s what it is? I’m pretty sure that’s not what it is.

[36:33] Andy: Okay. Well, this is some good news. But this is from I but Colorado Public Radio. God, this has gotta be some some lefty bleeding heart garbage. Right? And it says, in recent years, incarcerated people have been denied visitation rights for breaking a prison rule. Legislation newly signed into law that would fix that. What is this all about?

[36:54] Larry: Well, the law of which started out as house bill 25 dash one zero one three, introduced by state representatives, Rebecca English and Jennifer Bacon, establishes social visitation as a right for a person combined in a correctional facility. A right. Listen very carefully. That’s powerful. Wow. It takes away prison staffers’ ability to use denial of visitation. The Department of Corrections may adopt rules to govern administration of social visitation, but shall not restrict social visitation beyond what is necessary for routine facility operations or for the safety of the facility and public, the text states of the legislation.

[37:35] Andy: This sounds to me like legislative interference with prison management. Shouldn’t take the warden be able to do what they wanna do? Don’t prison administrator administrators know best?

[37:50] Larry: I’m not so sure that they do. I’m not so sure that they do because, I think that people have, in administrative roles, they have many competing things going on in their head, the desire to administer justice, effectuate punishment that the court didn’t hand down. And, so there’s so many things wrong with just let it leaving it up to prison administrators. But the article states, those visits could get snatched away. The Colorado Department of Corrections websites, visit an incarcerated individual tab lists rules around visits and breaking any rules and seemingly any area possessing drugs, refusal to work, not behaving properly when receiving a visit could be sanctioned by taking away an inmate’s right to get visits. Even misconduct during a visit where minimal physical contact is allowed could result in visits being taken away. So I would suggest that this probably means that you might be allowed to hold hands, but you can’t kiss. And if you sneak a kiss, you might lose your rights to visit. That’s what I’m guessing.

[38:54] Andy: Alright. Well, that’s I guess that’s kinda to be expected. What about major violations, which I assume means, like, bringing in contraband, for example?

[39:02] Larry: Well, major, visiting violations that jeopardize the security facility may result in permanent suspension of visiting privileges, the website states. Also adding that prisoners in the past could have their rights denied permanently for three drug related offenses and a prisoner with limitations on their visitation who transfers from one lock up to another would have the same restrictions from the first facility followed by the next one. That kind of makes sense. I mean, it is that part of if if you’ve been placed on legitimate restrictions, you wouldn’t escape them by naturally going to another prison. I wouldn’t think.

[39:36] Andy: How do you think that such legislation, legislative proposals pass? Is Colorado the new bastion for liberal lefties? Damn communist?

[39:44] Larry: It maybe it is. It had a short and quick trek through to legislature. It was introduced in January. It passed the senate on May 2 on a 22 to 12 vote after having passed the house about a month before on March 26 with a vote of 44 to 21. For the most part, legislators voted along party lines with all but one Republican in opposition. Amazingly amazingly, the family that espouses family values and how important it is to keep families together, they all oppose the legislation. Please admit that that’s funny.

[40:19] Andy: It’s not funny. Alondra Gonzalez, Colorado Department of Corrections director of communications stated in an email, we appreciate the sponsor’s attention to this issue and are continuing to work with them on the bill. She went on to say, we are currently working with representatives Bacon and English as well as senators Coleman and Exum Exum on the issue. I would say excellent, but you’re close.

[40:43] Larry: The article points out it’s commonly understood that visits boy, the spirits of those locked away and their loved ones. On the outside, research shows that inmates having access to prison visits reduce recidivism. Imagine that. The effect of visitational reentry success, a meta analysis published in 2016, additional to the Journal of Criminal Justice, analyzed data collected from 16 other studies. It found that visitation had a 26% reduction on recidivism. Now, again, the people that profess to be such guardians of the purse, I would think that if I could cut my prison population by a fourth with lack of recidivism, I would think this would be very appealing as a conservative even if I don’t care about my other principle of family values and keeping families together. Wouldn’t you?

[41:35] Andy: It seems sort of a no brainer, But I’m trying to find, like, a a negative angle to that, but I don’t see how we could get there. Kim Wray, co facilitator of End Slavery Colorado, advocated for the passage of the new law and says she has loved ones behind bars who will benefit from it. Opposed to the bill are Republicans, including representative Matt Soper, who sits on the house judiciary committee committee as the longest serving Republican member. He said in an interview that he was quite concerned with the creation of a statutory right to a prison visit. He went on to say, in the prison setting, we need the Department of Corrections to be able to keep a prison safe and secure. And sometimes that involves having to cancel visitation at a moment’s notice. He said he tried to find a way around this opposition, but just couldn’t. I wanted to get a yes, but just couldn’t quite get there because for me, we just really have to give DOC as much latitude as possible with them to run their prisons rather than the legislature to come waltzing in and mandate certain things. Now I have a question for you. Isn’t this, god, what the heck’s the thing called? Isn’t this a delegation thing? Isn’t this where you you’re putting the administrator in charge but they want the the legislator to make the rules of what medicine that the VA could give. Isn’t that this? Well, kind of. So I can see your point. This sounds like talking out of both sides of their mouths that they want the legislator to the legislative body to make the rules. And then when they’ve made it, they’re saying, no. No. No. No. We need to let them make the rules. That’s kinda what’s happening here. But I see a representative Soper’s point.

[43:09] Larry: You don’t want a legislative body that’s only in session part of the year, even if it’s Congress, if they’re out of session all the time, you don’t want them to try to micromanage the prison. But on the other hand, it is when the sound purview of the Colorado General Assembly to establish minimum standards, and that’s what they’ve done here. They have said that you will not deny visitation arbitrarily, that everyone has the right to visitation, that if you can if you can narrowly explain a reason, you can deny visitation. But just as carte blanche, you can’t do that. So I think that’s within their sound purview, but I understand where representative Soper is coming from.

[43:47] Andy: Yeah. I would think that the person on the ground, particularly, like, at the institution, and there’s something going on that they would be able to click a switch and, allow visitation, turn it on or off based on the the climate in the prison. Maybe they don’t have enough staff to run visitation. But what do you think the impact of this will be overall?

[44:07] Larry: Well, according to the article, the number of people impacted by the law, while unclear, could be in the thousands on the outside who may want to see their loved ones and and, now can expect to be allowed even if the inmate file violates a rule. According to prison policy initiative, Colorado’s total incarcerated population was 32,495 in 2024. But now this includes both state and federal prisons, youth lockups, and psychiatric facilities. The state prison population last year was seventeen thousand six eight hundred six eight nine. I might as well say 18,000.

[44:40] Andy: Did you say 32,000

[44:42] Larry: people? I did, but it includes federal prisons and all the other types of lockups. But, 18,000 is, a fair number. But I’m curious if this right actually applies to federal inmates. The article does not state that, three years before, state prisons contained about 2,000 fewer people. In 2021, there was only fifteen thousand eight sixty five, of which 92% were male. So it sounds like to me that Colorado is on a rapid increase in prison population despite their liberal lefty leanings. It doesn’t sound like they’ve done a whole lot to reduce their prison population.

[45:21] Andy: I thought that federal prisons were run by the bureau of prisons, the federal bureau of prisons, and they are a completely separate entity to what the state does. Well, that’s what that’s the question I’m posing. If it’s a law of the state of Colorado,

[45:35] Larry: can they apply to facilities that are operated by the federal government in Colorado? Or will it will this only apply to Colorado inmates? We’ve got the resident attorney here. Do you think that the that the federal government can tell Colorado to pound sand that they don’t have to give, visits chance? What do you think?

[45:52] Chance: I think that I think that’s correct. I think they can.

[45:56] Andy: Interesting. The article notes that the prison population does not track the state’s demographics of 41% of inmates were white, although 65% of the population of Colorado is right white, and 17% of the prison population is black, although 5% of the population of Colorado is black. That’s a little bit of a disparity.

[46:16] Larry: That tends to be the case across the country and and every time I’ve tried Definitely. Dialogue with people about that. They have a, they have response. They say that, blacks commit crime at a higher rate and therefore you if you didn’t prosecute them that you would have you’d essentially be giving them a license to carte blanche to to be criminals. So they have an answer for that. I don’t know if I can argue with that. I haven’t done enough study on that. But, I also know that people who have less resources financially tend not to do as well in the criminal justice system. And it could be that that they commit crimes that are roughly equal rate and that the people that are more affluent have better outcomes. That could be a possibility as well. Chance, what do you think?

[46:59] Chance: I I I would tend to agree with that, actually.

[47:02] Larry: So, you got a much more diverse state in California than even Colorado is. So, do you see that gross mismatch between the ratio of prisoners and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation?

[47:15] Chance: I I would I would probably guess it’s it’s probably the the same very much. Maybe I mean, you know, a variance, of course, in percentages, but I would I would think it would be reflecting the same thing. Yeah. So

[47:30] Larry: well, they had put the other demographics of the smaller. I didn’t I cut them out because they were so small, but, you know, the disparity between black and white was as fairly substantial.

[47:41] Andy: Totally with you. Totally with you. Are we done?

[47:46] Larry: I think so. So we’re gonna promote the, conference, and we’re always gonna promote FYPs, merchandise, and we’re gonna let people know that we probably won’t be recording next week. I’m pretty sure you’ve got a conflict.

[47:58] Andy: I there’s no doubt I have a conflict because I have dinner reservations Saturday night at a restaurant. And so that will not work unless you want me to record from the Korean restaurant, which I will do. That’d be fine. That’d be fine. Well, I’m eating some chicken bulgogi. I’m looking at my calendar, and I have 11PM eastern time Friday night open. So we could record them. Oh, jeez. But that would be one for no. I’m not doing that, man. No. No. Alright. Well, please, as Larry said, head over to registrymatters.co, and you can find show notes, which will include a link to fypeducation.org/shop. You can find the merchandise that is going to be there at the conference, which you should also be at the conference, which is in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Like, go ahead on the twenty fifth. Is that when it is, Larry? Well, it’s It’s like the twenty seventh, I guess. We actually kick off on the twenty seventh. We’ll have a meet and greet Thursday, the twenty sixth, starting around 6PM.

[48:52] Larry: And then, the program itself will kick off on Friday morning, the twenty seventh. It’ll end Sunday around noon on the twenty ninth.

[49:00] Andy: Fantastic. And we will do a live recording, which all of them are live. It’s not like we’re recording dead, but we’re going to do it with an actual studio audience. We’ll find some place to to set up shop. I’ve got this cool little gadget, Larry, that I’m gonna hook up to my phone. I’m gonna try and record it. For those of you like looking at it, I have two little lapel microphones. I’ve got this little gizmo to attach to my phone, and we’re gonna be fancy with two little microphones that connect to your shirt. Again, looking up at the the screen, you can see got a little, doodad here. So hopefully, we can record like that. I hope to make my life easy.

[49:34] Larry: That way, if I bang the table, it won’t pick up on the microphone.

[49:37] Andy: It’ll probably still pick it up. But we’ll give it a shot. Email regstreammatterscast@gmail.com. Leave old fashioned voice mail at (747) 227-4477. After which, I will apply, like, technology to it to make it sound like you’re talking on a tin can from the nineteen twenties or something like that. And of course, I thank all of the patrons so very much. All the people here listening tonight live are patrons, and I love all y’all so very much. And that’s over at registry excuse me. Patreon.com/registrymatters. And that’s all I got. Gentlemen, Chance, thank you for joining us, Larry, as always. My pleasure. Appreciate it. Have a great night.

[50:19] Larry: Thanks. Thank you. Good night.

[50:22] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

Introduction

In recent weeks, a proposed bill in Utah’s legislature sparked significant debate: Should certain people on the sex offender registry have a clearer, shorter path to removal? The discussion around Senate Bill 155 (SB 155) became a microcosm of the national struggle, pitting legal reform and questions of justice against powerful public perceptions deeply rooted in fear and stigma.

Though Utah is known for its conservative leanings, the sheer reaction—phone calls, emails, and an unusually packed committee hearing room—reveals how emotionally charged and politically fraught registry reform remains, even in states with monolithic political cultures. In the end, the bill did not advance, succumbing to opposition that cut across typical partisan lines.

By exploring what happened with Utah’s SB 155, this article will uncover why sex offender registry reform is so disfavored in public opinion, what advocates are up against, and what kinds of legal and cultural strategies may be required to enact meaningful change. Readers will learn about the legislative battle in Utah, the roots of our current registry system, and informed perspectives on both obstacles and possible ways forward.

---

Understanding Utah’s SB 155: The Push for Sensible Reform

What Did the Bill Propose?

Senator Todd Weiler introduced SB 155 in early 2024, aiming to recalibrate Utah’s sex offender registry requirements. The original bill sought to shift certain offenses from lifetime registration to a 10-year mandated term, allowing for eventual removal from the registry for some individuals deemed lower-risk or whose offenses were less severe.

This was not a wholesale dismantling of the registry. Instead, it was a targeted reform: recognizing that not all offenses, or all offenders, pose the same risk to public safety. Research and experience from other states suggest that overly broad registries undermine both rehabilitation and public protection by making it harder for former offenders to rebuild their lives and by diluting law enforcement resources.

Key Points Proposed by SB 155:

• Certain crimes with mandatory lifetime registration could be moved to a 10-year term.
• This would allow some to exit the registry after demonstrating a decade of offense-free living.
• The change was in line with emerging evidence and reforms adopted by other states.

The Immediate Backlash

Despite its measured scope, public reaction to SB 155 was swift and intense. Senator Weiler reported receiving a deluge of calls and emails from constituents adamantly opposed to any registry reform. The bill’s committee hearing saw unusually high attendance, indicating the charged nature of the debate.

In Utah—a state where Republicans overwhelmingly control both legislative chambers—such strong resistance within the majority party was telling. Though SB 155 narrowly passed a committee vote (5-3), it stalled thereafter and, according to legislative tracking at the time of writing, appears to be dead.

---

Why Was There So Much Opposition? The Power of Public Perception

An Issue Beyond Partisan Politics

Unlike many controversial issues that split along party lines, sex offender registries unite an unusual coalition in opposition to reform—rooted in fears about safety and the stigmatization of people with sex offense records.

Larry, a commentator following these developments, observed that, “You can’t make life easier for PFRs [persons forced to register]. The people are just not there and willing yet for that progressive type of change.”

This sentiment echoes a broader reality: efforts to make registries more nuanced—by distinguishing between levels of risk or crafting ways for individuals to demonstrate rehabilitation—often run headlong into a public narrative shaped over decades. For many, any move that could be seen as “softening” consequences for sex offenses is politically toxic.

The History Behind the Registry

To understand the deep-seated resistance to reform, it’s important to look back at why registries were created. The federal push began in the 1990s, especially after the 1994 Jacob Wetterling Act—which set guidelines for states to track sex offenders—and subsequent high-profile cases and laws (such as “Megan’s Law” and the Adam Walsh Act). The laws reflected national anguish over crimes against children and were designed in an atmosphere of crisis and moral panic.

This legacy matters. For nearly 30 years, the public has been inundated with messages warning of the dangers posed by “sex offenders,” with little nuance or discussion about rehabilitation, recidivism rates, or the varied spectrum of offenses that land people on such lists.

---

Barriers to Meaningful Reform: Public, Political, and Legal

Social Stigma and the Lasting Power of Fear

Research consistently shows that people with sexual offenses are more stigmatized than those with almost any other criminal record. Media coverage amplifies the worst cases, while laws rarely differentiate between a spectrum of conduct.

A 2021 meta-analysis published in Criminal Justice and Behavior found that registry laws often fail to reduce recidivism, yet they persist because of public fear and political utility. Lawmakers often hesitate to support reforms—even modest ones—due to anticipated backlash, as seen in Utah’s SB 155.

Political Risks: Why Most Legislators Duck for Cover

Utah’s experience is not unique. Across the U.S., bills to reduce registry terms or create mechanisms for review face political risk. Supporting registry reform can become a “third rail” issue for politicians, even in one-party-dominated states. Advocacy groups working on criminal justice reform routinely report that sex offense issues are the “last frontier” of bipartisan justice reform.

Legal Challenges: The Role of Litigation

When legislative change stalls, legal challenges often become the alternative. For example, Michigan’s sex offender registry system has been the subject of significant lawsuits—challenging both retroactive application and the breadth of registry requirements.

Larry, in the original discussion, noted: “Those are important things. But somehow or another, we’ve got to break through with public opinion… We are close to thirty years behind now since the registry passed.”

Litigation can force states to refine their laws—especially when courts find them unconstitutional—but it can be a slow path, and outcomes are uncertain.

---

Is There a Path Forward? Changing Hearts, Minds, and Laws

Facing a 30-Year Deficit in Public Understanding

The overriding challenge is the substantial lag between research, judicial opinion, and public understanding related to sex offense registries.

Ongoing Myths Versus Facts

• Myth: All people on the sex offender registry are high risk for reoffending.
• Fact: Recidivism rates for sex offenses are lower than for most other crimes, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Myth: Registries are the best way to keep communities safe.
• Fact: There is little evidence that broad, public registries prevent new crimes; targeted supervision and reentry support are more effective.

The Need for Public Education and Storytelling

Experts agree: Policy will only evolve when public perception does. This may require a more active campaign of public education, lifting up the stories of people who have rebuilt their lives, and sharing data about what works (and what doesn’t) to reduce sexual harm.

Some advocates suggest:

• Engaging with local media to spotlight nuanced, data-driven perspectives
• Partnering with researchers and organizations to educate legislators and constituents
• Sharing powerful personal stories from those directly impacted by the registry

A Case Study: Michigan’s Legal Fight

Michigan has become a cautionary tale and a beacon: Courts have found its registry laws to be unconstitutionally broad and punitive. As a result, Michigan has faced repeated orders to narrow its system and make it more just—partly leading to bills that offer registrants clearer paths off the list.

But as Andy and Larry in the transcript hint, waiting for litigation is not enough; deeper change depends on confronting stigma and fear head-on.

---

Conclusion: Lessons from Utah—And What’s Needed Next

Utah’s attempt at registry reform, with SB 155, failed despite its modest scope. The episode revealed how powerfully public opinion and political risk inhibit legislative change—even where there is evidence in favor of reform and a ripe legislative moment.

Yet, the need for nuanced, evidence-based sex offense policy grows more urgent every year. Lives, families, and the integrity of the justice system depend on moving beyond fear toward rational, compassionate reform.

Actionable Takeaways:

1. Stay Informed: Support organizations tracking registry reform, such as NARSOL or the ACLU, and follow legislative developments in your state.
2. Engage in Public Education: Share accurate research and stories that can shift perceptions among neighbors, community leaders, and lawmakers.
3. Advocate for Data-Driven Policy: When possible, communicate with legislators—by phone, email, or public testimony—to demand that criminal justice policy reflect empirical evidence, not just emotion or fear.

If you’re in Utah or another state considering similar reforms, recognize that change is hard-fought—but also that every conversation and every push for truth brings the possibility of a fairer and safer society.

---

Sources:
– U.S. Department of Justice, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison
– Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2021, “Efficacy and Consequences of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws”
– National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL)
– Commentary from Andy and Larry, legislative tracking as of June 2024

---

Original reporting and perspectives quoted from transcript of Andy and Larry’s legislative news discussion, June 2024. Additional context and analysis provided to inform and expand upon the debate.

Introduction

The debate over sex offender registries has again resurfaced, fueled by a recent news segment out of New Mexico. Spotlighting a military adjudication that never made it to the state’s public registry, advocates, law enforcement, the media, and distraught victims are calling for so-called “loopholes” to be closed in the name of protecting children. At first glance, the narrative is compelling: if only the registry had been more robust and public-facing, tragedy could have been averted, and children kept safe. But as the discussion unfolds—guided by podcast hosts Andy and Larry from Registry Matters—a more complicated picture emerges. Are public registries the panacea they are promised to be? What risks do they actually address, and how well? And in a world increasingly defined by digital interaction, how can parents, communities, and lawmakers foster both safety and sanity for families?

This article synthesizes the conversation, expands on its key points, and asks the tougher questions: Do registries actually prevent reoffending, or do they simply provide a comforting illusion of control? What is the real scale of “stranger danger,” and how should parents respond? And perhaps most important of all—is the intense public focus on visibility and compliance obscuring deeper societal challenges?

Understanding the Case: When the System Falls Short

The recent media segment that sparked this conversation centers on Jonathan Giacinto, an individual previously convicted via military court for child solicitation in Oklahoma. After his discharge, New Mexico law required him to register as a sex offender—but his specific adjudication only triggered law enforcement notification, not public disclosure. So, while Giacinto fulfilled his registration obligations, neighbors and potential victims had no way to search for or access his status via public databases.

When Giacinto allegedly reoffended, the case became a rallying cry for closing registry “loopholes.” Victim’s advocates, law enforcement, and local media united to argue for legislative changes that would make such offenses publicly searchable in the future. The outcry is emotional and, to many, persuasive. But Andrew and Larry urge listeners to look deeper—at not just what happened, but why, and what more comprehensive evidence reveals about registries, safety, and risk.

Section 1: The Reality of “Stranger Danger” in 21st Century Parenting

The media’s familiar advice to “teach children to avoid strangers” is comforting but increasingly at odds with data. Larry’s perspective is clear: instances of children being harmed by strangers are exceedingly rare. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, only around 100 children in the U.S.—out of a population of over 330 million—are abducted by strangers annually. In the majority of abuse cases, perpetrators are known to the victim. And yet, “stranger danger” fears have contributed to a culture of parental hyper-vigilance, limiting children’s independence and even compromising their physical and emotional health.

Key Contextual Insights:
– Noted parenting expert Lenore Skenazy, champion of “free-range kids,” emphasizes that kids are statistically safer now than ever before.
– Overestimating stranger risk can lead to a trade-off: less outdoor play, less independence, and less well-rounded development for children.
– Scarcity bias—the tendency to exaggerate rare but frightening events—may drive policy more than evidence does.

Section 2: Registry Compliance—Security Theatre or Effective Policy?

News footage of sheriff’s deputies performing “compliance checks”—knocking on registered individuals’ doors to ensure proper addresses—appeals to a sense of community vigilance. Yet, as Andy notes, the overwhelming majority of registered persons are already hyper-compliant, fearful of even minor technical violations. Rather than catching non-compliance, these checks often serve a public relations function: assuring neighbors that action is being taken, even as those knocked-upon continue to face intense stigma and barriers to reintegration.

Potential Unintended Consequences:
– Public compliance checks, often accompanied by flashing patrol lights, can mark individuals’ homes, causing neighbors to view them with suspicion or fear.
– This stigma can interfere with employment, housing, and rehabilitation—arguably making it harder for individuals to build stable, law-abiding lives.
– As Larry points out, such visible enforcement often correlates with law enforcement agencies seeking federal funding, highlighting an ironic tension between professed small-government values and operational realities.

Section 3: The Digital Age—Grooming, Parenting, and Practical Limits

A critical dimension of the Giacinto case is that the alleged predatory behavior occurred largely via digital communication, followed by the minor leaving home voluntarily after months of “grooming.” Here, Andy raises poignant questions about digital-era parenting: How realistic is it to expect parents to fully monitor their children’s online presence, especially as kids become more tech-savvy than their elders?

• Federal legislation like COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) sets guidelines for children under 13, but actual enforcement is minimal and technology moves rapidly.
• Despite parental intent, most teens maintain some degree of unsupervised access to digital devices and social networks.
• Expert consensus (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics) now recommends a balance between guidance and monitored autonomy, recognizing that total control is often unachievable—and possibly counterproductive.

Larry and Andy’s banter teases out a core paradox: increased digital oversight can help, but there will always be gaps, and government intervention raises additional ethical and logistical concerns.

Section 4: Public Registries—Panacea, Placebo, or Something Worse?

Should the registry have “worked” in Giacinto’s case, or would expanded visibility simply displace the problem? Studies indicate that most offenses are perpetrated by individuals not previously known to law enforcement or included in registries at all. Even in instances where offenders are registered, the ability of potential victims or families to “lookup” threats in real-time is limited—especially in the digital age, where online handles and pseudonyms mask real identities.

Research & Expert Commentary:
– Multiple studies (e.g., Levenson et al., 2011) find no significant difference in recidivism rates before and after the introduction of public registries.
– The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that just 5% or fewer of new sexual offense arrests involve individuals already on registries.
– Rather than preventing novel offenses by strangers, registries often act as a secondary notification system after-the-fact, rather than as a primary deterrent.

Section 5: The Military, Law, and “Loopholes”

Giacinto’s case also exposes jurisdictional rifts between military and civilian justice systems. While the Army can court-martial and discharge an individual for certain acts, it is only civilian law that dictates registration requirements and public visibility. In New Mexico, crimes of solicitation in digital spaces can require registration but not public disclosure—a setup the current outcry now aims to change.

Larry is skeptical that sealing every gap will deliver the promised public safety. The drive to publicize all convictions risks conflating disparate levels of severity and, in his words, pursuing a “cure-all, end-all” policy that may do more harm than good by branding individuals for life, even as empirical evidence for effectiveness remains thin.

Section 6: Recidivism, Second Chances, and the Myth of Total Prevention

Even law enforcement in the discussed news segment admitted that the vast majority of those on the registry do not reoffend. Yet, public policy is shaped by the impossible quest for absolute safety—the idea that even a single failure justifies ever-expanding registry scope.

• Recidivism data show that sexual offense reoffense rates are among the lowest of any major crime category (frequently under 10% within five years post-release).
• The pursuit of zero-risk leads to calls for increasingly punitive, never-ending monitoring, even when such measures undermine rehabilitation and societal reintegration.

Larry and Andy drive home a final, crucial point: The registry did not deter or prevent the original offense; nor, apparently, did it prevent reoffense. Calls for perfect solutions mask a harder question—should society accept that some risk will always exist? And does the ceaseless expansion of registries have diminishing returns, or create harms of its own?

Conclusion: Rethinking Registries in a Complex World

The call to “close loopholes” in sex offender registries is emotionally potent but, as this in-depth discussion reveals, policy solutions that focus on ever-expanding lists may provide only an illusion of control. Stranger perpetration is rare. Law enforcement compliance sweeps favor perception over prevention. Internet-age challenges dwarf the protective power of name-and-photo databases. Meanwhile, individuals seeking second chances may find themselves locked in cycles of stigma, unemployment, or worse.

Rather than asking how to design a “perfect registry,” it may be time for communities and policymakers to reconsider whether public registries—at least in their current form—serve their intended goals.

Actionable Takeaways:

1. Reframe the Narrative Around Risk:
   Parents, educators, and policymakers should ground safety messaging in data, not fear. Focus on building digital literacy, open communication, and evidence-based prevention strategies.
2. Reevaluate Registry Policy Goals:
   Legislatures should commission impartial research into the actual efficacy of registries, focusing on whether they prevent new offenses—and at what societal cost to civil liberties and successful reintegration.
3. Support Families and Survivors Holistically:
   Effective prevention addresses root causes—education, support for at-risk youth, and resources for survivors—rather than over-relying on registries as “silver bullets.”

Next Steps:
– For concerned citizens: Advocate for balanced laws that address genuine risk without unnecessary stigmatization.
– For parents: Emphasize building trust and digital savviness at home, rather than relying solely on external technological “safety nets.”
– For policymakers: Resist reactive lawmaking; instead, consult with experts in criminology, psychology, and child welfare before expanding registry requirements.

Key Consideration:
As Larry quipped in the podcast, perhaps the better question is not how to make the registry perfect, but whether it should even exist at all in its current form. While there are no easy answers, honest debate—rooted in evidence, empathy, and realism—offers the best hope for protecting both children and civil society.

Introduction: Navigating the Complex World of Sex Offender Registration Laws

Navigating the maze of sex offender registration laws in the United States is no small feat. With 50 states and a patchwork of statutes, rules can change dramatically across borders. A persistent question—and the subject of many heated debates—centers on whether someone required to register as a sex offender in one state must also register if they move to another, especially when the new state’s law references “anyone required to register in another state.” Some theorists have even suggested that if a person isn’t required to register elsewhere, then they are automatically exempt in their new state.

This article breaks down that concept, explores the legislative intent behind these statutes, debunks common myths, and offers actionable legal perspectives—while also addressing the crucial role of constitutional principles like the Equal Protection Clause. You’ll learn:

• What state registration laws actually mean when referencing obligations from other states
• Why the so-called “loophole” theory fails both legally and practically
• The real motives behind these legislative provisions
• Alternative legal strategies for challenging unfavorable registration requirements

Whether you’re a legal professional, someone navigating the system, policy advocate, or simply interested in the nuances of interstate legal mechanics, this guide aims to clarify a notoriously confusing subject.

---

The “Looper” Theory: Does Out-of-State Registration (Or Lack Thereof) Dictate Local Obligations?

The Myth Explained

A commonly circulated theory holds that if a state’s sex offender registration law says you must register if you have a registration obligation in another state, then only people with such obligations are covered. Conversely, if you have no such obligation elsewhere, you’re off the hook. At first glance, this logic appears sound—interpreting statute language literally and narrowly.

Expert View: Why the Theory Falls Short

According to legal experts like Larry (cited in the original discussion), this theory, though appealing, simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Why? Because:

• Statutes Must Be Read in Harmony: Legislatures design registration laws to cast a wide net, not to create avenues for “state shopping”—where individuals convicted of offenses in one state migrate to another in hopes of avoiding registration.
• Legislative Intent: The infamous “anyone required to register in another state” clause wasn’t meant as a loophole for escape; rather, it was included to close loopholes that would allow out-of-state offenders to slip through the cracks.
• Use of “Or” as a Conjunction: Statutes frequently include lists of covered offenses, both sexual and (in some cases) non-sexual acts with demonstrated sexual motivation, then tack on the “required elsewhere” clause. These clauses are joined by “or,” meaning any one criterion—local covered offense, out-of-state equivalent, or existing registration requirement elsewhere—triggers the obligation.

Example:
If Georgia registers for making obscene phone calls to a minor, but New Mexico doesn’t list that offense, the “required to register elsewhere” clause in another state could still force a Georgia transplant to register—even if that specific conduct wouldn’t register a New Mexico resident.

What About States Without the Clause?

In some states, the registration obligation hinges strictly on the local statute’s list of offenses or on offenses deemed “substantially similar.” Here, if your past conviction doesn’t appear on the list and there’s no “forced reciprocity,” you might avoid registration—unless the legislature has built in a clause to capture such out-of-state obligations.

---

Legislative Motivation: Closing Loopholes, Not Creating Them

State Shopping: Avoiding the Registry by Moving?

There’s a very real concern about “state shopping,” where individuals seek out states with less onerous registry requirements to shed their obligations. Recognizing that, many states amended their statutes over the years:

1. Broadened Coverage: By adding “anyone required to register in another state,” they prevent offenders from side-stepping registration simply by crossing state lines.
2. Uniform Public Safety Approach: Legislators prioritized consistent public safety standards over technicalities that could exempt otherwise eligible individuals.

Real-World Analogy:
Think of it like vehicle inspections. One state might not require emissions testing, but if you move to another that does—and your car fails—you can’t simply say, “but my old state didn’t care.” Similarly, registration laws adapt to where you reside, not where you came from.

---

How Courts Read and Apply These Laws

The Role of Conjunctions: “Or” vs. “And”

In statutory construction, conjunctions matter:

• “Or” makes any listed condition sufficient.
• “And” requires all conditions be met.

Most states link registration triggers with “or,” so any one qualifying factor initiates the requirement. This further undercuts the loophole theory.

Statutory Examples

• Arkansas: Lists covered offenses, adds “or” for out-of-state equivalents, then finally “anyone required to register in another state.”
• Georgia: Registers some unique offenses, like obscene phone calls to minors, which other states often do not.
• New Mexico: Sometimes requires “equivalent” or “substantially similar” offenses, which may narrow coverage compared to states using broader language.

---

The Faulty Loop Theory in Action: Practical Consequences

Suppose someone convicted in Georgia for an offense not covered on New Mexico’s registry moves there. If New Mexico’s law doesn’t have an “anyone required to register elsewhere” provision, the person likely avoids registration. But if another state uses the broad clause, they must register, regardless of local offense lists.

Key Insight:
These statutory provisions are designed to expand—never limit—the reach of registration obligations. Their purpose is to ensure public safety by including, not excluding, individuals who might otherwise slip through regulatory cracks.

---

Legal Strategy: The Real Argument—Equal Protection Clause

If you believe you’ve been unfairly singled out upon moving to a new state, the better argument isn’t the loophole theory, but a challenge based on constitutional guarantees such as the Equal Protection Clause.

Larry’s Perspective:
Instead of arguing technical statutory interpretation, argue that being treated differently than local residents violates Equal Protection. For example:

• If a Georgia transplant faces registration in New Mexico for obscene phone calls (not a listed offense for NM residents), they could challenge that as unconstitutional special treatment.
• Analogously, vehicle registration can’t single out newcomers. If New Mexico interpolated Georgia’s fees for out-of-staters, that would be discriminatory—and likely unenforceable.

Steps to Take When Challenging Registration Obligations

1. Know the Law: Read the local statute closely—are obligations triggered by offense lists, “substantial similarity,” or “registration elsewhere”?
2. Seek Legal Counsel: These issues can become highly technical and precedent-driven; knowledgeable attorneys can mount constitutional challenges where appropriate.
3. File for Relief: Equal protection arguments must be raised in court, potentially all the way up to the state’s Supreme Court or even federal courts if necessary.

---

Frequently Asked Questions and Common Misconceptions

Can moving to a new state erase my registration requirement?

Not necessarily. States use a variety of mechanisms to keep registration obligations intact for newcomers, especially those “required to register in another state” clauses.

What if my offense isn’t listed in my new state?

Potentially, you could avoid registration—unless your new state’s law includes those broader reciprocity clauses.

Are constitutional challenges effective?

It depends on the specifics, such as disparate treatment compared to local residents. Courts sometimes uphold state schemes for public safety, but strong facts and good legal arguments can bolster Equal Protection claims.

---

Synthesis: Key Takeaways

Understanding the interplay of state registration laws is critical for anyone dealing with these systems. The idea that being unregistered elsewhere shields you upon interstate relocation is, in most cases, a myth. Statutes are carefully worded to prevent avoidance, using broad conjunctions and out-of-state clauses precisely to close loopholes—not to open them.

Remember:
– Statutory language is usually expansive, not restrictive.
– Legislative intent is to cover, not exclude, individuals with out-of-state registration obligations.
– The real path to relief lies in constitutional arguments, not technical interpretations.

---

Actionable Next Steps

1. Research Your State’s Laws: Don’t rely on rumors—read the relevant statutes yourself or consult legal resources.
2. Consult a Qualified Attorney: Particularly one experienced in registry law, to analyze your situation in depth.
3. Stay Informed: Laws change frequently. Subscribe to legal updates or advocacy group newsletters in your jurisdiction.

---

Conclusion
Sex offender registration law is among the most challenging areas of American legal practice, especially as states try to harmonize public safety with constitutional rights. The so-called “loophole theory” doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny, but options remain for those seeking fair treatment—primarily through equal protection arguments and constitutional litigation. In a field where lives and liberties are at stake, knowledge, preparation, and the right legal strategy are your best shields against misinformation and overreach.

Introduction:

Sex offender registries remain one of the most controversial components of the criminal justice system in the United States. Their very existence sparks heated debates about public safety, privacy, rehabilitation, and the right to move on after serving a sentence. But a subtler, yet crucial, debate simmers beneath the surface—a debate that has tangible consequences for thousands of people navigating life after conviction: Does having your name listed on a state’s public sex offender website mean you are still “registered,” even if you are no longer actively reporting, checking in, or under registry-based restrictions?

In online forums, news stories, and even legal arguments, this question crops up time and again. Some, like “Larry” in the conversation above, insist that being listed is not the same as being “registered,” especially when someone has moved away from the original jurisdiction and no longer faces its legal obligations. Others, like “Andy,” argue that public presence equals ongoing registration in the eyes of society—and that the consequences are real and significant.

This article tackles the nuances and real-world realities of this often misunderstood distinction. We’ll explore what registration actually means, how public websites function, the implications of ongoing public listing without active registry requirements, and why it matters so much to individuals and communities. Whether you’re directly affected, a concerned family member, or simply someone interested in understanding a complicated system, this comprehensive analysis will clear up the confusion and highlight what the public registry really means today.

---

Registration vs. Being Listed: Drawing the Line

What Does It Mean to Be “Registered”?

To most people, the phrase “registered sex offender” conjures up the image of someone whose personal details—photo, address, crime—appear on an official government website. However, as Larry points out, there’s more to being registered than online visibility. In most states, “registration” is a legal status, not just a public record. It obligates individuals to:

• Report in person to a law enforcement agency, often several times per year (quarterly in places like Florida).
• Submit biometric data such as fingerprints and updated photographs.
• Notify officials of changes to address, employment, vehicles, and travel plans.
• Abide by restrictions on where one can live or work.
• Risk criminal prosecution for failing to meet reporting or compliance requirements.

These duties are enforceable by law, and failure to comply can lead to arrest and imprisonment. Once a person leaves a state like Florida, their obligation to check in, update records, and comply with those laws ceases—though their name may still linger on the state’s website.

Being “Listed” on a Registry Website

In contrast, being “listed” means your data remains posted online after you move away or are no longer required to check in with authorities. The information doesn’t update. Your photo, address (sometimes last-known or outdated), and nature of your offense remain publicly viewable, often in perpetuity.

For those still subject to registration, being on the list means active, ongoing duties. For those who have moved out of state or completed their term, the listing is static—a relic of their prior obligation, no longer legally binding, but still socially significant.

---

The Public Perception: Is “On the List” Always “Registered”?

Andy argues, with considerable exasperation, that the average person doesn’t distinguish between someone whose name appears on a registry and someone who is “actively registered.” Poll a hundred people, he says, and virtually all would equate internet listing with ongoing registration.

Social Consequences Remain

• Google Never Forgets: Information that appears online, especially in government directories, is indexed by search engines. Anyone—neighbors, employers, schools—can easily uncover a person’s listing, regardless of their current legal status.
• Stigma and Hardship: Even without legal obligations, the ongoing presence leads to public shaming, discrimination, and sometimes harassment or vigilante threats.
• “Doxxing” and Privacy Loss: As Larry concedes, the act of publishing sensitive information online is a form of doxxing, exposing individuals to ongoing harm even when registry requirements end.

This persistent public spotlight essentially ensures that, for practical purposes, the difference between active registration and mere presence on a state registry may feel non-existent to those affected by it.

---

Why Does Legal Registration Status Matter?

Despite public perceptions, the distinction is more than academic. The legal system draws crucial lines between active registration and passive listing:

• No Reporting, No Risk:
  If you are no longer required by law to report, update information, or comply with related restrictions, the threat of prosecution for non-compliance disappears, as Larry notes.
• Changing States, Changing Rules:
  Each state handles registration differently. Upon permanent relocation, most states terminate their obligations—though records (and websites) may not update promptly.
• Control Over Life Choices:
  Active registrants may face prohibitions on where they can live or work (e.g., not residing within 1,000 to 2,500 feet of schools or parks). Once off the registry, these restrictions no longer apply—even if outdated information remains online.
• Travel and Notification:
  Registered individuals may need to notify authorities of travel, and in some cases, trigger international notifications (more on this below). Static listings no longer have this effect.

In short, the loss of registration status is meant to restore rights and agency, yet the digital footprint lingers.

---

Registry Websites: Static Listings and Their Limitations

A common concern among affected individuals is that a stale listing—one that is never updated and may carry out-of-date information—provides little benefit to law enforcement, but substantial ongoing cost to the individual.

• Old Photos and Addresses:
  Once someone is no longer required to update, their online photo can become multiple years old. As Andy jokes, “You could tattoo your face and grow your hair long… and the picture that’s on there is gonna be what it was when you last had your picture taken.”
• Misidentification Risks:
  Outdated data may lead the public to misidentify or pursue someone who no longer lives at a given address, causing unnecessary alarm or harassment for current residents.
• No Law Enforcement Value:
  Because inactive records don’t trigger regular updates or in-person check-ins, their law enforcement value is questionable compared to active, up-to-date registries.

---

The Special Case: Notifications and Cross-State Travel

One persistent myth is that foreign governments or interstate agencies receive notifications about sex offenders based solely on what appears on public websites. Larry explains why this is unlikely.

How Are Travel Notifications Triggered?

• The Role of “NCIC”:
  The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is a national database maintained by the FBI for real-time law enforcement information sharing. Each registered person’s file is flagged accordingly.
• Comprehensive Data:
  Government-issued notifications—such as those sent to foreign countries when a registrant travels—are believed to be triggered by the presence of data in NCIC records, not by public-facing websites. If it were otherwise, he argues, “people who are not listed on websites but are registered would magically become invisible,” which is not the case.
• No Clear Public Disclosure:
  Despite the importance of this process, Larry notes that to his knowledge, nobody has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to definitively confirm the procedure.

Takeaway:
While the public may conflate visibility and ongoing official status, key systems for monitoring and notification operate behind the scenes, independent of the static, consumer-facing registry pages.

---

Enduring Harms: Does a Public Listing Still Restrict or Disable?

Both Andy and Larry agree that being listed—even when no longer “registered” in the legal sense—creates significant personal hardship.

• Ongoing Discrimination:
  Landlords, employers, and the broader community continue to act on information from registry websites, perpetuating exclusion and social stigma.
• Barrier to Rehabilitation:
  The goal of sex offender registration, theoretically, is to enhance public safety while allowing for eventual reintegration. Endless public access to outdated data frustrates this aim.
• Restraint and Disability:
  Having personal information prominently displayed, even when outdated or irrelevant, functions as a disability and a restraint on opportunity, making meaningful second chances elusive. Larry notes succinctly, “Are they suffering an inconvenience and hardship? Yes. Are they being discriminated? Probably so.”

---

Conclusion: Registry Listing vs. Registration—A Difference That Matters

At the heart of the debate is both a legal and a moral distinction. In the eyes of law and due process, being “registered” carries distinct, active obligations and risks. The act of being passively “listed” online is not the same under the law—but, as many registry subjects and their advocates point out, the consequences can feel all too similar.

For communities seeking to balance safety, justice, and reintegration, it is vital to understand—and communicate—the difference. Legal reformers argue for regular review and removal of outdated registry entries. Others call for more public education so that mere online presence is not misinterpreted as a measure of threat or guilt.

As these debates continue, it is important to remember that policies around registries affect not just abstract legal categories, but real people striving to rebuild their lives.

---

Actionable Takeaways:

1. Know Your State’s Policies:
   If you or someone you know is affected by registration, understand the specific legal obligations and what happens to registry listings upon relocation or completion.
2. Encourage Policy Reform:
   Support efforts for accurate, up-to-date, and fair registry practices that allow for removal of listings when obligations end.
3. Challenge Misconceptions:
   Educate others—whether employers, neighbors, or lawmakers—about the difference between being “registered” and simply being listed, reducing the harmful effects of public misunderstanding.

---

Further Reading:

• National Registry Removal Resources
• The Impact of Sex Offender Registration: Research Summary
• How the NCIC Works (FBI.gov)

Introduction

Navigating the complex world of sex offender registration laws can feel like stepping into a legal labyrinth. Across the United States, registrants and their advocates constantly grapple with questions about residency requirements, registry duration, and—perhaps most importantly—the possibility of removal. What does it really mean to be “removed” from a registry? Is being taken off a state’s offender registry the same as vanishing from the public sex offender website? Or does your digital shadow linger long after your obligations have ended?

These questions came to the fore in a recent conversation between Andy and Larry, two advocates deeply involved in sex offense law reform. Their debate, sparked by a listener’s theory about achieving freedom from registry obligations in multiple states, exposes some of the thorniest legal and practical misunderstandings about registries today.

In this article, we’ll break down the key points from Andy and Larry’s dialogue, explain how registries and their web presence actually work, and provide context so readers can understand what it truly means to be “off the registry.” Whether you’re a registrant, a family member, or simply concerned about criminal justice reform, this post unpacks crucial realities that affect thousands across the country.

---

Understanding the Sex Offender Registry Maze

Before digging into Andy and Larry’s exchange, it’s essential to understand how sex offender registries actually function.

What Is a Registry—Beyond the Website?

States maintain sex offender registries for people convicted of certain offenses. Being “on the registry” typically means:

• You must report in-person (sometimes quarterly) to local law enforcement, verifying your address and other personal details
• You may face restrictions on where you can live or work
• You may be subject to random visits by law enforcement

Most states also run public websites that list registered offenders’ data—a form of digital “doxxing” that’s entirely separate from the official government registry itself. While being on the website is a result of registration, the practical burdens registrants feel day-to-day stem from legal requirements, not just having their name online.

Key Distinction:
– The registry = government obligations and monitoring
– The registry website = public notification; online presence

Registry Duration and Removal

States vary greatly in how long one must remain on a registry. Some set fixed periods (e.g., Rhode Island’s 10 years), while others, like Florida, have lifetime requirements. Many states also allow time spent registered in another state to “count” toward their own requirements—creating a patchwork of rules that can be confusing.

Removal from the registry typically means no longer having to register or check in with law enforcement. Removal from the website, however, is regulated separately and can lag far behind—or sometimes never happens automatically.

---

The Theory: Chasing Freedom, State by State

Andy recounted a correspondent’s plan: since some states recognize out-of-state registry service and have automatic removal timelines, couldn’t a person systematically “deregister” across multiple states, gaining incremental freedom?

For example, Rhode Island allows out-of-state service to count toward their 10-year registry period. Andy’s contact—currently registered in Florida—plans to move to Rhode Island when eligible and seek to be “removed.” If successful, he’d attempt the same in as many states as possible.

But what’s truly achieved by this kind of legal hopscotch?

---

Registry vs. Website: What’s the Real Difference?

Larry offers a critical perspective: in states like Florida, even after deregistration, a person can remain listed on the public website indefinitely. Florida is notorious for:

• Maintaining public listings for life, even for people who have moved out of state
• Not removing people’s profiles when they’re no longer required to register

According to some, being listed online is almost the same as being registered—since stigma, housing, and employment barriers persist. Larry challenges this logic, emphasizing the practical burdens that come off only when the registration obligation ends. For example:

• No more in-person check-ins
• Freedom from housing/social restrictions
• Relief from routine police scrutiny

The digital listing poses real-life challenges, but it is not synonymous with the legal duties and direct law enforcement scrutiny of being a registrant.

---

Legal Hurdles: Can You Really Petition for Removal Everywhere?

Andy and Larry dig into whether a former registrant can simply petition to be taken off other states’ lists once their “time has served.”

Justiciable Controversy and Advisory Opinions

Larry explains an overlooked legal concept: courts generally only decide actual controversies—cases where the petitioner has a connection to the state. You can’t usually petition another state to be “removed” from a registry you’re not on or have never been obligated to join.

In legal terms, courts don’t issue “advisory opinions” on hypothetical scenarios. If you don’t live, work, or study in State X, you likely have no standing to ask for removal from its registry or website.

A registrant moving state to state may, in theory, stack state-level removals, but practical and statutory barriers abound. For most, it’s simply not feasible to “pre-clear” yourself from registries in every U.S. jurisdiction.

---

Case Study: The Florida Conundrum

Consider Florida—a state often referenced for its tough registry policy.

• Even after moving away, former registrants remain on Florida’s public sex offender website.
• Deregistering in Florida ends active reporting, but does not guarantee website removal. This persistent online listing can have severe social consequences, even for those no longer under any registration requirements.

Some try to fight for website removal via legal petitions, but success is rare and requires substantial legal justification. Florida’s policies demonstrate how being “off the registry” doesn’t always mean freedom from public scrutiny.

---

Common Reader Questions Clarified

If I move to another state and fulfill my registry term there, do I disappear from the registries of other states?

Not automatically.
In most cases, you’re only removed from the active registry requirements of the state where you currently live. Public listings or other records in previous states may remain active indefinitely.

Is being on the public registry website the same as being legally registered?

No.
The website shows the public what the registry contains, but the true registration burden is about check-ins, restrictions, and law enforcement oversight. The website is damaging but does not carry the same legal obligations.

Can I petition a state to remove me from their registry if I’ve never lived there?

Generally, no.
You need to have a legal connection—such as residence, employment, or being previously registered—to petition successfully.

---

Beyond the Law: Why Listing Still Matters

While legal obligations might end, the stigma associated with public defamation on government websites can still be devastating. Housing and employment discrimination, harassment, or even vigilante threats often stem as much from online information as from legal status.

Some activists argue for changes to registry websites or limitations on public information, citing studies that show little connection between online exposure and public safety.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Being removed from a sex offender registry means the end of legal reporting obligations—but public listing, especially in states like Florida, can persist much longer.
2. You cannot petition for removal from registries in states where you have no direct connection (e.g., have never lived or worked there). Courts require a real, justiciable controversy.
3. Website presence and registry status aren’t the same, even if both cause harm. Being off the registry eases direct law enforcement oversight, but may not erase your digital footprint.

---

Actionable Steps

• Understand Your Status: Know the difference between active registry requirements and online listing in every relevant state.
• Seek Legal Guidance: Before moving states or pursuing deregistration, consult an expert on sex offender laws in your jurisdictions.
• Advocate for Policy Change: Support organizations striving to reform lifetime registry and public website requirements, especially for people who have served their time.

---

Conclusion

The quest to be entirely “off the registry” is fraught with legal loopholes, state-by-state variations, and the ever-persistent shadow of public websites. While ending registry obligations offers substantial relief, it rarely equates to true anonymity or an unfettered second chance.

Andy and Larry’s thoughtful debate serves as a reminder: meaningful reform will require not just legal petitions, but a broader rethinking of how our communities handle past offenses, accountability, and redemption. For registrants and advocates, patience and persistence remain vital tools on the long road toward genuine freedom and reintegration.

---

If you have unique registry experiences or questions, contribute your story to help inform this ongoing national conversation.

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

[00:17] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 341 of registry matters. Larry, is that right? Is it three forty one this week? I can’t really keep track anymore.

[00:29] Larry: I do believe that’s correct. Fantastic.

[00:32] Andy: Well, how are you tonight?

[00:35] Larry: Improving.

[00:37] Andy: Did you did you have COVID, measles, a rash, allergic reaction? What did you have?

[00:45] Larry: It’s unknown. I had either an allergic reaction to amoxicillin or I had measles, but it was lovely.

[00:53] Andy: That, and and you had, what kinda looks like chickenpox. Right?

[00:58] Larry: It certainly has that appearance, but it’s clearing up. I’m 80% clearer now.

[01:05] Andy: Alright. Well, please head over and show your support by, like and subscribe, whether that’s in your favorite podcast app or even in your not favorite podcast app. Do it on YouTube. Thumbs up these videos. It all helps us make a difference and spread the word. We truly appreciate your love. And in return, we’re here to keep delivering content you’ll enjoy. And if you’re feeling generous, you can head over to patreon.com/matters, and that would also be incredibly valued. Thank you for being a part of our community. We have a bunch of people here in chat joining us tonight. And, so without anything else, what are we gonna do tonight?

[01:42] Larry: Well, we have a series of it’s a accumulation of stuff. We got, a couple of TV stories. We’ve got some listener submissions and an article or two if time permits. And I know that we’re gonna have fun.

[02:00] Andy: You know this. You’re confident. To what degree of confidence do you have that we’re gonna have fun?

[02:07] Larry: What was that movie where they said confidence is high when The United States was supposedly under attack? What was that called, War Games?

[02:15] Andy: You mean War Games? Is that what you said? You broke up for just the slightest. Yeah. The the they were announcing that there was confidence was high with those missiles were real. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I I haven’t seen War Games. I watched it halfway recently, but it’s been a while. Yeah. WAPR, w a p r, is the name of the machine. Good good movie. Man, Matthew Broderick, good flick. I was doing that stuff back in the day, Larry. If you watch that movie and him doing the war dialing, I was doing that stuff. I like I like that movie. That was the last time I was at the picture show. I believe that. We need to watch some, prison slash lawyer movies. I think that would be we should start doing those for Patreon extras. Like, watch the, what is the the Lincoln Lawyer? We could watch My Cousin Vinny. We should start with My Cousin Vinny and do a response some kind, maybe, like, do a twenty minute something or another with the movie playing in the background while you talk about his lawyering skills? That sounds like a plan. Sounds like a plan. Have to do any work. You shouldn’t really have to do any work, really. And and it’s a it’s an incredibly funny movie. I mean, it’s off the charts funny. Alright. Well, so let’s dive into this first thing that I sent you was it this morning or yesterday? I don’t really remember anymore.

[03:31] Larry: I have no idea.

[03:33] Andy: Alright. Well, this comes in and says, perhaps you recall that when I sent my draft NARSAW Digest article to you for your review, you made a change, which was where I had said that for states that specify a time on their registry after which a registrant is supposedly automatically removed, it should be theory should be in theory be possible to ask that state for a determination that one has fulfilled their registry obligation there. You change that to say that no court would consider such a determination because there’s no case coming before them. I let it go because that change did no violence to my overall thesis. And I know that I sent you that violence and we talked about that. But what the what is violence?

[04:19] Larry: I think he meant it didn’t violate his overall thesis.

[04:23] Andy: Okay. Good. I kinda could’ve gotten there. But I was like, no violence? Did I miss something? Alright. Anyway, continuing. One thing about my theory is that my I can test it, Larry. My brother lives in Rhode Island, which famously has a twenty four hour visit limit. I wanna check that one in a minute. But they are also in this group of states, and have one of the shortest registry time periods in the nation, which is ten years, and they allow out of state service to count. I will have ten years in 2027, at which point I have every intention on testing my theory in Rhode Island. And guess what? If I’m successful in Rhode Island, I will definitely move on to other states so that I can gain my freedom in as many states as possible before I die. I have so many questions.

[05:11] Larry: Well, what’s interesting about this, and it’s gonna bleed into a second segment we’re gonna have, about whether being on the Internet is the same as being registered. But this person is currently registered in Florida. Now, what does that mean? What does that mean in terms of their theory? Just at first blush,

[05:32] Andy: since Florida’s, doesn’t remove you from the Internet even when you move out of state. But the way that I understand it is you would leave Florida and you would deregister there. But if you’re on the registry, they’re going to require you to register in the destination state. But they’re gonna remove you from Florida’s registry,

[05:49] Larry: but they’re not gonna remove you from the website. That is correct. They will remove the registration obligation once he joins up with a new state. But, his theory is really boggling my mind because if he gets to Rhode Island and they do give him €10 credit and they say you don’t have to register here, according to what everybody tells me, being on the Internet is the exact same thing as being registered. So, what would he have accomplished by moving to Rhode Island? And then beyond that, what would he accomplish by doing this all over the country? Because theoretically, according to his theory, being on the Internet is the same as being registered. So, therefore, he can get this determination in all 16 states, if that’s how many there are out there, that give you credit for a time registered in another state. What good will it do?

[06:44] Andy: There’s so many questions in there. So he would still be on the Internet. So let’s let’s talk about Florida that you you leave. If he does his nine years and change in Florida and then moves to Rhode Island, when he crosses that ten month window, excuse me, ten year window in a handful of months, they are going to proactively remove him from having to register, which means going to get your fingerprints and whatever, all that is. But Rhode Island probably doesn’t really do much of that to begin with. But, whatever. He’s not gonna have to do any kind of annual or quarterly registration, and he’s not gonna be on the Internet. What more do you want?

[07:22] Larry: Well, that’s what I put this in here for because he does doesn’t seem to have any problem with being on the registry, the website in Florida. But, he’s gonna go petition the rest of the country to get off of the registry. He says he’s gonna take it all over the country. Right? That’s against freedom. He he’s not.

[07:43] Andy: Are are there peep I I guess there are people that are registered in two states, particularly if they were, like, living in in a state where they happen to work in the other state. I guess you would be registered in two states probably in those kinds of circumstances. But otherwise, aren’t most people just registered in one?

[08:03] Larry: Yes. But in the smaller states, they’re they’re in border towns that overlap. Yeah. Yeah. They work in they work at they’re in multiple states, but I’m trying to figure out what good this will do him. If he’s right, that if being on the website is the exact same thing, and we’re gonna get to that in another segment, what will you accomplish by getting off the registry

[08:25] Andy: in every other state in The Union if being on the website is the same thing? I would agree. But, Larry, wouldn’t you have to be on the registry in that state to get off of it?

[08:35] Larry: Well, his theory is that you can ask for a determination. And the article that he referenced is different than what he put in this email. The article he referenced was about petitioning for removal. And he wanted to know if he could petition for removal. And I said, well, you really can’t petition because you’re not connected to those states. And therefore, there’s not what we refer to as a justiciable controversy. And it would be re a petition of that nature would be asking for an advisory opinion under hypothetical circumstances, circumstances, and courts don’t do that. So that’s what this whole came whole thing came about. And I asked him to modify that article to make it more consistent with reality. But this has gotten me so con so confused here. I don’t know what he would accomplish. We have tens of thousands of people listening out there, and I would urge them to write in and tell us what I’m missing because I know I’m missing something.

[09:34] Andy: What are you talking about? I’m trying to think. So he moves to Rhode Island and let’s just say he gets off the registry in Rhode Island. He is still on the website in Florida. And now he goes south a little bit and he ends up in Vermont. He’s gonna go knock on the Vermontian’s door and go, I would like to be removed from your registry. And they’re gonna like, you’re not on our registry. Would you like to be on our registry?

[09:57] Larry: Well, that’s beyond what I’m able to comprehend, but I’m trying to figure out what he would accomplish anyway if being listed on the website is the same as being registered. Like I said, we’re gonna get into that a little bit later. I’m gonna explain why it’s not the same thing. But if it is, then what would you accomplish? You would accomplish nothing. Yeah. I got nothing on this one. This one is confusing to me. Well, but we’ve got thousands of people. Someone will correct me because I’m I’m missing something. But I don’t know what you would accomplish. He would do exactly I mean, to me, his whole logic is flawed. Getting off the registry in Rorale would be, a great thing. But he maintains and so many people maintain that being listed on the website is the same as being registered. So therefore, under that theory, you would accomplish nothing. Right.

[10:46] Andy: Yeah. And then we could talk to super patron Mike who approximately every two to three months has to go visit the office to update car registration or just his quarterly stuff, and then they send the popo by his house all the time. That is being on the registry. That’s not the website. The website is just you being doxxed. But he is on the registry and is dealing with that garbage.

[11:12] Larry: Yes.

[11:13] Andy: Okay. I would invite the individual to write more information and be more clear.

[11:21] Larry: Okay.

[11:23] Andy: Well, moving along then, let’s go on to this. I’m sick and tired. Yeah. Okay. So I’m sick and tired. Did I oh, here it is. I got it at the wrong screen. Alright. I am sick and tired of hearing Larry’s bizarre claim that being listed on a state’s registry is not the same as being registered. I don’t know where he gets his wacky weed he smokes, but it’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my life. You could go out and poll a hundred people and probably all 100 would say if they found a person’s name on the registry, that person is registered. Is it the wacky weed or Kool Aid causing this craziness? Now, I think that that is true. If you went out and asked a hundred people, they would probably tell you that a person’s name being on the website is a person on the registry. I think that’s an accurate statement.

[12:11] Larry: I tend to agree with you. And when we get to the final segment from Utah, that’s gonna be confirmed. But just because people think that it’s not the same thing. So let’s talk about being on the registry. Now let’s talk about in the Deep South where this person is. The I don’t know who wrote this particular, but the Deep South where the previous person is is Florida. In Florida, you have to go in in person

[12:38] Andy: four times a year. Yeah. It’s like a it’s quarterly. And you have things to update.

[12:44] Larry: If you don’t go in those four times, you’re subjected to prosecution. K. When you’re when you leave the state of Florida, you no longer have that obligation. K. So that’s one difference. When you’re in Florida, if you’re in, Miami Dade County, you have a 2,500 foot restriction. In the rest of the state, you have a thousand foot restriction that applies to many PFRs. I don’t know if if it applies to all, but it applies to a heck of a lot of them. So they tell you where you can live and where you can’t live. And you’re subject to prosecution. You don’t have that prosecution threat. You don’t have to go in and give your butt print, fingerprints. You don’t have to do any of those things. You don’t have any prohibitions about where you can work that Florida can enforce or where you can live that Florida can enforce. They don’t have any travel restrictions where you have to give any plans for for travel, anything like that. All those things go by the wayside. So you have what is the remnants of a prior registration listed on the Internet, and it likely says after you’ve moved to the other state, living in the state, and it names the state. Sometimes I’ve seen it actually have that address where you tell them you were moving to, but then that address doesn’t continue to be updated. Is it ideal to have your stuff on the Internet? No.

[14:07] Andy: It is not ideal. And isn’t it static at that point that at that point you could tattoo your face and grow your hair long or whatever, and the picture that’s on there is gonna be what it was when you last had your picture taken?

[14:20] Larry: That would be correct. And so if you went to Rhode Island and you got off the registry, then you would have nothing approximating registration. So, therefore, I know the wacky weed and the Kool Aid that they’re talking about, but I don’t understand how they can equate it to being registered. It is a very inconvenient, disgusting thing, but it’s not anything approximating registration. Is

[14:49] Andy: it? Oh, it approximating. Yes. Approximating. Because your picture and your information is out there and someone can Google you and Google never forgets and they will find you and that could lead them to your local registration stuff if you happen to be in a place that might not have it published, but then you can find articles and stuff, and you can track down the person. So it’s approximately there.

[15:10] Larry: Yeah. I don’t think it’s anywhere close. There’s no risk of prosecution. There’s no obligations imposed upon you. And it is it is a doxing but I can’t see it as being registered. And there are people, they come at me from another angle to say, well, don’t you understand that the notifications to foreign countries come from the people on the website. And I said, well, let’s just work through this. Let’s think about this for a minute. Because I don’t understand that. If the public websites were how they linked the foreign travel notifications, then the people who are not listed on websites that are registered would magically become invisible. So that tells me by logical process of elimination that that is not how that system works. My belief is it works through the NCIC. That’s what I think happens, that the, notification is triggered by your NCI registration because each registered person is carried in one of the NCIC person files as a registered person. And I believe that for the comprehensive inclusiveness of travel notification, they would not rely on an incomplete out of date public website. I believe they would rely on the NCIC, which it would be far more complete, and it would be far more up to date. So that’s my theory.

[16:40] Andy: I I can’t really contest your theory.

[16:44] Larry: But I don’t know it for a fact because I don’t obsess about it the way some people do. I don’t know how for sure the foreign those green and purple and red and all those different notices they sent to foreign countries. I don’t know exactly how that works. But it puzzles me that after many years, I think this was signed in 2016, so we’re coming upon a decade. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a done a FOIA request to figure out what that process actually is like.

[17:13] Andy: I mean, it’s I think, Larry, you don’t obsess about it because you spent 90% of your life without the Internet. How old are you now? One eighty what? One eighty four. Okay. So the Internet came out, say, forty years ago. So you have spent a significant portion of your life without having Internet. And maybe that’s why you don’t really give two flips about it because you’ve spent so much time without it.

[17:42] Larry: Oh, I care about the Internet, and I know it’s a major inconvenience. But for people to say that they’re registered because they’re on Internet is nonsensical to me. But are they suffering an inconvenience and hardship? Yes. Are they being discriminated?

[17:57] Andy: Probably so. And is it a disability and a restraint? I think that would be one of the bigger ones that exist is having that information out there for everyone to track down and do something about.

[18:08] Larry: So but, yes, I will argue and argue that it’s not the same as being registered.

[18:16] Andy: Alright. Alright. Well, then here’s another one. I’ve got a question for you. I’ve heard people put forward the theory that if the state’s registration law has a clause that requires registration for anyone who has a registration obligation in another state, that he or she has an obligation in that state. The theory put forward is that the law also means that if they do not have a registration obligation in another state, they cannot be required to register in that state. What do you think of that theory? I turned down my volume for something else, and we didn’t get the full effect of the laugh track there. My apologies.

[18:54] Larry: Oh, well, I think that the laugh track is what I think. I don’t think too much of that theory, other than I sincerely wish that would be the case, but it isn’t. But I’ve heard that theory myself over the years. It’s somewhat logical, but it’s not the reality of the situation. The states that do have that provision in their law have put that in to close what they consider to be a loophole. And as you’ve heard me repeatedly say, statutes must be read in harmony. And that being said, take a look at the states that have such provisions, and you will see their state uses or throughout to describe who’s required to register. I think or is referred to as a conjunction, if I remember my English. And the law will list covered offenses. So it’ll say in the state of Arkansas, you’re required to register for these sexual offenses. And then they will say for a non sexual offense in some instances, if there’s been a, a separate judicial finding that that that was sexually motivated. And then they’ll go on to list out of state equivalence or they will have language like substantially similar out of state offenses. And then finally, they’ll have that clause, anyone required to register in another state. But they’re usually joined with ors. And or is a conjunction that includes any of the foregoing. So what they the states that did that, they were trying to eliminate the loophole. Because if you take a person who comes to New Mexico, and our long term listeners will have heard this before because I keep harping on Georgia because that’s the only state that comes to mind that registers obscene phone calls from adults to minors. And if you were to make obscene phone calls in Georgia and be convicted, you would have a duty to register. But if you came to New Mexico, since our law says, it says, equivalent, not even substantially similar, then that person would not have a registration obligation here. But if you went to one of the states that said or, then you could run into the same situation where you would have to register there even though they would not normally register that offense. But it’s intended to expand the universe of registrable offenses. It’s not intended as a loophole to get out. It’s intended to prevent a loophole from people coming to those states and not having to register because people state shop. And they said, oh, I got convicted of this. And I don’t see this on the list and and this state, so I’m gonna move there. And that’s the loophole they’re trying to close. Sure. Sure. State shopping. Right? Indeed. And the states generally don’t prefer shoppers. Then we’ll learn that more when we get to the end of the program, more when we have the Utah segment because, sex offenders are just not all that popular in most of the country.

[21:57] Andy: Yes. I’ve heard this.

[22:00] Larry: So I just don’t think that’s a viable theory. Now, having said that, I think there is a viable theory. I think you should throw that one in the garbage pail, and I think you should argue the equal protection clause. So if you come to New Mexico from Georgia and they tell you you’ve gotta register for making them obscene telephone calls, you say, wait a minute. I’m looking at your constitution, and it says that New Mexico and The US constitution has an equal protection clause. I’m supposed to be given the same benefits as a New Mexico resident. And if I brought my vehicle to New Mexico, my personal vehicle, you wouldn’t single me out for special treatment because I’m from Georgia and impose additional duties on me replicating Georgia’s vehicle registration system. You can’t do that, so you’re violating the equal protection cost. That’s your argument. But you need to put this one in the garbage pail because it’s not a good argument. And it’s a civil regulatory scheme like your car. It is indeed. And and that’s what I tell people if they would just think about it as the same as their vehicle. When you take your vehicle to New Jersey, you may have lived in open Wyoming, and they have never heard of Smog Inspections in Wyoming. And you take it there and say, well, I ain’t never had to do this in Wyoming. And I said, well, that’s nice.

[23:16] Andy: But that no longer applies. You’re here. Yeah. You can either return or don’t have a car.

[23:22] Larry: Or you can go in where Georgia, where they used to when I lived there, they level they levied an abelorum tax based on the car value. Okay. New Mexico levies registration based on the weight of the vehicle and the age of the vehicle. And if you came here with a new car, you would pay from Georgia. You would have paid three or four times the registration fee in Georgia. What if New Mexico said, well, try to keep them out of staters out there. We’re gonna charge what Georgia charged them. That wouldn’t fly. Because that’s not how our registration system is built for vehicles. You know? And it’s it’s it’s the same. You’ve got the same argument that I’m entitled to be treated the way any other resident of the state is.

[24:02] Andy: Alright. Would you, as we move along, would you set up this thing for this video clip from, New Mexico about this individual?

[24:10] Larry: Yeah. This is a relatively long segment that was aired here in the last ten days or so. And, it’s about a a PFR that had been previously convicted, adjudicated in the military. And, his military conviction didn’t, trigger a Internet publication in New Mexico. And so the law enforcement apparatus teamed up with the victim’s advocates abber apparatus teamed up with the media, and they’ve made this segment about how bad this situation is. This loophole’s gotta be closed. So New Mexico needs to close a loophole to protect children. So we’ve got what, 10 or 11 segments of that five minutes to go through here. Correct.

[24:55] Andy: Here comes number one.

[25:01] News Announcer: In the meantime, we, of course, teach our kids to stay away from strangers, to beware of the big van or the person offering up candy or even puppies. But predators are actually much closer than ever before. And for investigator Britney Costello discovered our own state law is helping keep some very dark secrets.

[25:22] Andy: Well, okay. So if that’s the case, so what is the actual risk?

[25:27] Larry: Well, the the risk that that’s being protected is this person had a previous conviction, And that conviction doesn’t trigger Internet, publication. The registration duties there, but that particular offense isn’t listed on the Internet. So that person was able to continue that behavior and pick up another offense here. And so this is the stranger danger that we’re talking about. This person was online and apparently has has been accused of propositioning a minor here.

[26:00] Andy: Do you think that even how the story opens by framing safety as something we manage by teaching kids to avoid strangers, do you think that’s even a valid concept?

[26:10] Larry: Sure it’s valid. I think kids are safer today than they were when I was a kid. I think they’re safer today than they’ve ever been. I think stranger or danger is very minimal, but teaching kids basic safety techniques, I don’t I don’t have any problem with that. But I think scaring people beyond, kids today don’t go out and exercise. They don’t ride bicycles. They don’t do the things that kids need to do to stay healthy and happy. Yes. That’s true, Victor. And and part of it’s, this imaginary boogeyman that’s on every street corner. And parents feel the need to shuttle their kids every place. I know I know a parent in in, another state that doesn’t do that, but most parents just are so paranoid about an imaginary boogeyman that they do And and, you got people like Leonore Skanese. I believe that’s how you pronounce her name. Correct. She she says the same thing I do. It’s it’s very minimal stranger danger. Of course, if it’s your kid, it’s one too many, but it’s so exceedingly rare. What is it? About a hundred kids or less annual in a country of 330,000,000 disappear as a result of strangers that’s exceedingly small.

[27:20] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y d.

[28:10] Andy: And to to extend on that the way that I understand it, only maybe a single or dub a a small double digit number. Anything happens to them from that. Like, all the whatever they’re called. The the, oh, god. What are they called? The something alerts? Not red alerts. The amber amber alert. Thank you. All of that then goes out and the person’s got a hitman marker on them as they’re driving around. We’re looking for a 1987 Chevy Blazer whatever bred with this license plate. It’s not gonna take long to track the person down. Well, let’s, let’s move on to an an illusion of compliance. And here’s, segment number two.

[28:57] News Announcer: Maybe Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Deputies take a list of names and pay a surprise visit Hi, sir. To every registered sex offender in the county. Hello? Hi, Eric. Just doing address verification for you. All we need. Appreciate it. They’re making sure these guys are living at their registered address. Awesome. Thank you. Detective Glenn Metzger is with the sex offender registration unit. The point is to make sure that the community has the information.

[29:24] Andy: Identify so I it is is it an illusion of compliance?

[29:33] Larry: I don’t know if I would call that an illusion of compliance. The, story proves how much a registry is out and how misleading that peace of mind can be. But if you go knock on people’s doors, I think that it would inspire folks to make sure that their information is correct. I mean, I’m just guessing that. What do you think?

[29:55] Andy: I think that the overwhelming majority of PFRs are almost scared to be they’re scared of their shadow to the point that they will be hyper compliant that this is a public relations make the public feel good situation. Yes. You’re going to find people that are not compliant, but by far and large, 99%, I betcha, remain compliant. So having them you’re you’re you’re scaring the neighbors that somebody is getting knocked on their door all the time. Why is the sheriff constantly every quarter or six months knocking on this individual’s door? They’re either friends with the cops or they’re a bad person, so we should avoid them, like, but they they never have a chance to rehabilitate from that. I don’t think that the I don’t personally think that this would be all that valuable without identifying people that are problem people to begin with. Does that make sense?

[30:52] Larry: Yeah. I never thought about it the way you put it because let’s say, I don’t have them knocking on my door, but I’ll I’m an old white guy that lives in a neighborhood where I think I’m pretty much the only one. The old the old the only old man that was like me moved out and went to a nursing home. And the cops constantly knocking on your door and me being a hundred thousand years old.

[31:19] Andy: And that would I never thought about how that would make you appear to your neighbors. I never considered that. So super patron Mike, almost every time the cops come by, he lives in a very, very, very, very upper class neighborhood. And here it is, the cops with their freaking lights on at 08:00 at night, you know, lighting up all the neighbors houses, and he shows me his ring camera footage of the guy coming up knocking on the door. And as the video showed, hey. I’m just here to do the compliance check that you’re here. Great. Have a nice day. And they move on. But meanwhile, there’s the red and blue lights flashing the wee woo wee woo there in your neighborhood. Like, come on. What is

[32:01] Larry: I’ve I’ve not even seen them do that here. Are they doing that?

[32:05] Andy: That video showed them that that they’re doing it. The video clip that I just showed has them knocking on the door. I’ve not seen them doing that. I didn’t notice that in the video. Yeah. It was, just at the very tail end of it. I don’t know if I can kind of advance what’s on the screen as the video. It’s alright. I just didn’t realize they were doing that. Yeah. If you can if you can see the actual the video that I have up on the screen, there’s the sheriff or the officer, whatever he is, the deputy standing in front of someone’s door and he was incredibly polite. I’m not trying to bash them for their their professionalism and their demeanor, But he’s standing there with his tactical vest on, with a gun at his hip, and it he they had the recording of it. Hey, I’m just here doing the compliance check. And he’s like, great. Hey, thanks. And they move on. And they also say in this clip I don’t remember if we will cover it or not, but, like, he says that the majority of the people, they just wanna comply.

[33:01] Larry: So so yeah. Well, it’s, the they’re chasing the money. And, it’s interesting that most of the people in law enforcement tend to lean politically conservative, and they say government’s too big, but they sure they sure put in every request for federal dollars they can get their paws on. And they don’t seem to think the government’s too big when it comes to money for their their agency. Amazingly hypocritical.

[33:25] Andy: And and now we’re going to take a twist. We are talking about the hidden offender.

[33:36] News Announcer: But there is a name that’s

[33:41] Andy: What happened? Talk for a minute. Let me just see if I can’t make that clip play.

[33:47] Larry: Well, it’s related to the offender we were talking about and why this whole story came into existence. He’s not listed publicly, and that’s what they’re trying to change. And I’m sure you can make it play if you just take a hammer and bang your computer or keyboard.

[34:04] News Announcer: I probably can. Let me see what happened. There is a name that’s not on their Bernalillo County list or in any public databases.

[34:13] News Announcer: How is he a sex offender, but it’s not available to public? Jessica Paul lives in Southwest Albuquerque.

[34:20] News Announcer: She says she found out about 29 year old Jonathan Giacinto.

[34:25] Larry: I didn’t stop it. Jesus. That’s good that’s good enough. Only after he assaulted her 13 year old daughter.

[34:36] Andy: So but isn’t the registry supposed to prevent this?

[34:41] Larry: Well, that’s the whole point of the story. He’s not listed on it. Alright. But he he’s not listed publicly, but he is on the registry in the state. Is that the correct way to put that? Yes. He’s listed, but that doesn’t serve any notification purpose if only the cops know that he’s registered. That’s the whole point of the story.

[35:02] Andy: And is it in the other segment that I think it’s in another segment. I don’t wanna spoil that part of it. And should he be on the public side of the registry in that state?

[35:16] Larry: Not according to our laws, but he will be after if he should be convicted of this because he’ll become a lifetime registrant and they automatically revert to publication on all lifetimes or so. If he gets convicted, he’ll he’ll she’ll she’ll get what she’s looking for. I see. Alright. Well, then let’s move over to grooming in the digital age, segment number four.

[35:39] News Announcer: After months of what Paul calls grooming Showing her a lot a lot of attention and just constant, like, reassurance.

[35:49] News Announcer: Those explicit messages turned physical. In the middle of the night, investigators say Giaquinto drove from his home in Grants, New Mexico to pick her daughter up and take her to a park where they say he raped her.

[36:05] Andy: They also showed video in there, Larry, in that particular block. I believe that she’s knocked out of the house. It wasn’t like he abducted her.

[36:12] Larry: That’s correct. But he groomed her. I mean, you you really shouldn’t give a 13 year old the the, latitude to make such a decision to go out against I’m sure her parents didn’t want her to go outside. Her mother didn’t want her to go out with him. I I was then looking up some laws. There’s something called COPPA, which is the Child Online Protection Act, I think is what it’s called. And

[36:37] Andy: you’ve gotta do you gotta you’re supposed to jump through a lot of hoops if you want your kid to have an Internet presence under the age of 13 and then she is 13. I’m sure that her parents didn’t make this account for her sometime in the last twelve months. I I’d be willing to bet that she’s been online for a while. I’m going to point the finger a lot at parents and their ability to monitor and police what their kids are doing.

[36:59] Larry: But do all parents have the sophisticated, if I happen to have a child right now, I wouldn’t have a clue what to do to keep them off. You you’re very good at keeping your minor your previous minor, who’s now an adult, but you’re very good at keeping control.

[37:13] Andy: But I wouldn’t have a clue. I’d have to call in an expert to figure out what to do. And I hear a lot of tech podcasts talk about this particular subject. Do we want the government regulating it?

[37:26] Larry: I don’t think so. We don’t think we want the government. But what do we do when when parental supervision is not adequate? And that’s always the question I always ask conservatives who say, well, everybody should wear a mask or whatever. Well, we don’t need the government telling them to. Well, they don’t do it if the government doesn’t tell them to. Parents that are not required to supervise their kids oftentimes are not good supervisors of children. So what do we do? We should put them in foster care. Yeah. But we don’t wanna pay for that. That cost an awful lot of money.

[37:57] Andy: I know I’m saying that very tongue in cheek, and I knew that you that would be your answer. I but there hasn’t that been, like, time immoral and and what is the word? Time immortal? That the kids would go out and they’re away from home and they go in the woods and they set stuff on fire just mischievous being kids. And I’m I’m I’m not trying to really make a moral equivalency to this versus that. But kids go out and do kid things.

[38:25] Larry: Well, this needs to play out in court. And unlike others, I believe that this accused is presumed innocent, mister Giacinto. And the facts will unfold either by a plea or by a trial. And the state will be forced to put on evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape. Now if it was consensual, he’s beyond the age. There’s more than four years gap, so he’s gonna still have a problem. Because He was, like, 26, I think. 29. So he’s gonna have he’s gonna have a real problem with the law. But, yeah. Don’t know if he’s given a statement or anything about the case, but he’s likely gonna be very visible very soon.

[39:10] Andy: Alright. Segment number five, registered but unsearchable.

[39:17] News Announcer: Jonathan Giacinto is a registered sex offender, but his charges went undetected. While he was current on his registration in Cibola County, his information is not searchable by the general public. He’s not listed in the national database of sex offenders.

[39:35] Andy: Can what is the national database of PFRs?

[39:40] Larry: Well, it’s a it’s a tool that has has been put in place by the federal government. It links the state registers together. But if you’re not visible in the state registry database, you’re not visible in the national database, and that’s what she’s talking about. But in this particular case, we have a fair number of people. Probably, maybe, 15% of our registrants are not visible. And other states have not the full visibility. And that’s what I was talking about, the nonsensical nature of people saying about the public the, the green notice and the purple notice and all that comes from the registry from the public database. Well, if that were the case, this guy would go undetected because he’s not on the public website.

[40:23] Andy: I see. And, segment six is, would visibility have helped?

[40:30] News Announcer: Do you think that would have changed anything? I don’t. I don’t. I’ve thought about that. I’m like, okay. So this happened, and then still, my daughter’s not gonna look up a sex offender registry. She doesn’t even know that exists. I’m sure it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but then maybe it would’ve. Maybe he would’ve been

[40:51] Andy: more afraid to Oh, Jesus. I made I made the tiniest little noise, and it and it clicked over. So if this that’s the case, then what is the registry even good for?

[41:02] Larry: I don’t understand the question. The what is the registry good for? Well, she said it might have helped had he been visible.

[41:09] Andy: Right. So I like, but she also kinda talked herself around in a circle of whether no. I don’t think it would have helped because the daughter, especially if he’s using a handle, then she you could you’re not even gonna look up, you know, John Doe four five seven because that’s not what your real name is. You’re not gonna find the person on the Internet anyway.

[41:28] Larry: Well, but she didn’t know until this happened to her daughter that the registry didn’t include everyone. And now the whole state knows about it. But it certainly gives policymakers and law enforcement a talking point. I’m not so sure that it would have made any difference, but it’s one of those things trying to prove a negative. Would he have been more timid had his picture been out for the world to see? We don’t know that. And I don’t know how he would ever answer that.

[41:57] Andy: Could couldn’t you possibly compare the level of recidivism rates of people that are public versus those that do remain hidden?

[42:07] Larry: I suppose that would be one way of doing. I don’t know if that study’s been done.

[42:13] Andy: My point would be that I don’t know that registries protect the public. They could scare the potential offender from doing it, but we also know that the vast majority of these offenses happen by people that have no exposure. They they aren’t on the registry at all. They don’t have any involvement with law enforcement at all.

[42:32] Larry: Well, that would be true. There was a former speaker of the United States House named Dennis Hastert that was sexually offended for a number of years when he coached wrestling in Illinois. And, I would dare say, I don’t know. I don’t want to be too critical of him. He’s an old, feeble man by now. But had the word been out that Hastert was doing what he was doing, he probably would have cut back on doing it. I mean, it’s hard to say that people would continue to go their behavior would go unchanged if there was constant exposure of their previous behavior. I mean, I think that’s a nonsensical stance to say that it wouldn’t have made any difference. How much difference it’ll make is very difficult to quantify.

[43:13] Andy: Now we’ll move into the, military segment of it.

[43:19] News Announcer: Army records show a military court convicted Giacinto of sending sexually enticing messages to a child near where he was stationed in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The army discharged him for bad conduct and required Giaquinto to register as a sex offender for ten years.

[43:39] Andy: Now do you think that this is a a gap in the system that should be fixed?

[43:44] Larry: Oh, boy. I didn’t know you’re gonna hit me with that. I should’ve read the script. Well, first of all, her premise is wrong. The Army didn’t require him to register. The Army doesn’t have any way to require a personal register. If The States didn’t have registries, there’s nothing the Army could do. But, New Mexico required him to register because they equated his conduct to a solicitation of a minor because there was no I’m assuming there was no actual sex. And that’s a tenure non public registry registration obligation. But, the deeper question is, does it work in any form? And I don’t think we’re gonna be able to stop them from fixing this loophole, but I don’t know that it’s gonna do anything positive.

[44:34] Andy: Let’s talk about a, built in blind spot for a minute then.

[44:41] News Announcer: There are some crimes in New Mexico that require sex offender registration but are not subject to public disclosure. Giacinto’s conviction of child solicitation by electronic communication device is one of them. And in this digital age, those types of crimes are only getting more common.

[45:01] Andy: And I I kind of rehashing things a little bit. What are we supposed to do with that though? I like, does the person never get a chance to move on with their life and they’re always gonna have this boat anchor that they’re carrying around with? So I guess we should make everyone we should register everybody, Larry. That way, nobody is able to hide.

[45:21] Larry: Well, that’s the way we’re headed with this as result of this story. I don’t know what it makes no sense to me that the registry is being held up as the cure all end all. But, if you’re going to have a registry, and if you’re going to claim it does anything, they do have a credible argument that a person who’s not listed on it is gonna diminish the effectiveness to the extent that it’s gonna be effective. But I don’t think it’s gonna be effective no matter what they do. I don’t this guy, you mentioned a second chance. He got a second chance. If he’s guilty of this, he didn’t partake of that second chance, did he? He did not appreciate that he was given that that invisibility level.

[46:08] Andy: Alright. I’m gonna skip over to segment 10 because I think this one kinda touches a a different area.

[46:16] News Announcer: Do you guys see these these people reoffending?

[46:21] Andy: We have had people reoffend. Making the war. I didn’t touch it. So the point of this little block is that they see people reoffending, but they say that by far and large, the majority of them don’t reoffend.

[46:37] Larry: And you gotta give credit. They at least admitted that the reoffense rate is very, very low. But as I’m telling have been saying for how many years we’ve been doing this? Eight? A while. Doesn’t doesn’t matter how low it is. If I put, you’re out in the middle of a football field and and point a gatling gun at you with a hundred bullets and only one of them is live, I bet you won’t let me pull the hundred, you won’t let me fire those hundred bullets in you. And only one of them could hurt you. That’s very true.

[47:05] Andy: And I’m just gonna read this final one that so the registry didn’t stop him the first time, that he didn’t have any fear of it, and it didn’t stop him the second time. And so it it’s possible that there are other victims that this individual has had.

[47:22] Larry: I would say that that it’s certainly possible, to think that people get caught every time they engage in criminality is silly. When people come to our law office, they’ll say it’s my first DWI. And I did what you would expect me to do, knowing my personality. I say, no. It’s the first time you’ve been caught. Yes. Is it possible he’s committed other offenses that have been undetected? Well, I would say if he’s committed them in this state, now that he’s been on he was highlighted that those people will come out of the woodwork. Right. And, but it’s, might be time we stop asking how to have a perfect registry and start asking if it should even exist at all.

[48:07] Andy: Gotcha. Well, that’s all I got for this segment. Alrighty. Well, what what else are we doing? We have this, last thing from Utah that should pretty much close things out. You ready for that? Utah? Yes. What who who lives in Utah? Apparently, the college that I go to is in Utah and it is the largest college in The United States, which I had no idea, but I looked that up recently. They have a 50,000 students.

[48:32] Larry: Wow.

[48:34] Andy: Alright. Here’s the clip. It’s, just about a minute long. And I’m gonna try to not make any noise and mess it up.

[48:43] News Announcer: A bill proposing changes to Utah’s sex offender registry was met with both support and criticism on Utah’s Capitol Hill today. We do have team coverage of the biggest bills going through the legislative session today. First off, new specialist, Sherra Park, join us live with the latest developments on s b one fifty five. Sherra.

[49:02] News Announcer: Yeah. Mike, when s b one fifty five was first released by senator Todd Wyler last week, it was met with a lot of harsh criticism. Talk he talked about getting call after call emails from folks who did not wanna see this bill go through. So today, a substitute bill was presented, and that bill actually passed committee in a five to three vote, and it now heads to the senate floor for full consideration. Now the full version of s b one fifty five focused on moving certain criminal offenses with a lifetime sex offender registration to the list of offenses only requiring a ten year registration stay. But now this substitute bill

[49:39] Andy: Alright. What are we doing with this?

[49:42] Larry: Well, the point I wanted to show as far as I can tell from the Utah legislative website, this bill did not make it through. And I don’t know if they’re if they’re still in session or if they’ve adjourned. But it didn’t make it through, and it it appears to be dead. If you look at that room, there are people in that room and that hearing room, which is rare for a small legislative, legislature like Utah and New Mexico. You know, the rooms are generally empty. And there’s a lot of concern and consternation about making it easier for PFRs to get off the registry. And so I suspect that this bill died, but we’ve got listeners in Utah. Hopefully, that someone will let us know what happened, and we can report back. But when you propose something, and this was since there were no Democrats in Utah, I think there’s one in the whole assembly. This, of course, came from a Republican. But even with it coming from a Republican, there’s major pushback. You can’t make life easier for PFRs. The people are just not there and willing yet for that progressive type of change.

[50:52] Andy: I understand. And what would be the what would you say that the remedy to any of that is? Is it just that we need to let me ask it in in the way that I wanna phrase it. Do we still just have to fight by keeping bills from making it through crossover and out of committee and fighting legally with court cases like what they’re doing in,

[51:15] Larry: Michigan? Is that where we are? Those are important things. But somehow or another, we’ve got a break through with public opinion and I don’t know the answer to that of how we changed public because we are twenty years behind. We’re close to thirty years behind now since their registry passed. What was it? ’96 when the, ’94 when the Jacob Wetterling Act passed. So, you know, as we’ve got a long time with hype about how bad sex crimes are and how bad these people are. And the public has been conditioned, and I don’t know how that’s gonna easily change. You know, it’s gonna take some major major work to change that.

[51:57] Andy: Doesn’t isn’t there a a movement, a motion? Isn’t there like a little subcommittee that’s putting together to raise funds to start a campaign for public opinion?

[52:10] Larry: I don’t know anything about that. Who’s doing that? Oh, it’s a

[52:13] Andy: a a a selection of affiliates from Narsal. Like, they’ve made their own little offshoot group of people and key figures, not necessarily just affiliates to do something like that, to to do media buys, to create, unified messaging across things like that. I believe. I’m not following it that close.

[52:36] Larry: I haven’t I haven’t followed at all. I’m all for it, but money is gonna be always the critical thing. You know, we can’t do media buys because we don’t, you know, we don’t have the NRA’s funding. We don’t have the, Mothers Against Drunk Driving funding. We don’t we don’t have those type of resources. It’s kinda hard. And when you approach when you approach the Ford Foundation or the Gates Foundation for money, they just don’t tend to open up their wallets to our calls.

[53:01] Andy: Right. Yep. I feel you, man. Alright. Then can you quickly cover the hilarity hilarity of this, judge in, where is this? No. I got an I got another story I wanna do. I got news from Arkansas. Oh, tell me about the news from Arkansas. I did see that you wrote that there. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to skip that. Arkansas. Yes. The,

[53:25] Larry: the, Arkansas legislature has passed two bills that are, not all that good. One is to impose the death penalty for certain, type of offenses. And I suspect that the Governor will sign it. And that’s Senate bill three seventy five. And they passed Senate bill three ninety three, which, enacts Meghan’s law. And they’re spelling it M A I G H E N. I thought it was not spelled that way, but I think it’s as simple as M E G A N, isn’t it? That’s what I thought. But this is, this act shall be known and cited as Meghan’s law. And they’re, putting a lifetime registration obligation in for anyone who’s, let’s say it says at the time the offense was more than 24 years old and the victim of the offense was less than 15 years of age. So, that would mean that a lot of folks who would be eligible for our Arkansas removal will no longer be eligible one, once the Governor signs these two bills into law. So, you people that have put off filing because you didn’t have the money filing your petition to remove Arkansas registry after fifteen years, you may have waited too long.

[54:39] Andy: Gotcha. I was, just getting the links from, our Arkansas listener. Did you have the numbers? It’s, Senate Bill three seventy five and Senate Bill three ninety three. Three 70 five and three 90 three. Well, we’re gonna move on before I can put those up on the screen. Do you wanna cover this thing then from the judge and his, the arguments?

[55:01] Larry: I didn’t read the article, but the headline was pretty funny because, the judge is supposedly alien smuggling has cited the Donald Trump defense for official acts being exempt from prosecution. And you’ve got it met that if that’s a successful defense, that that’s funny. Right? Can you admit that? That’s pretty hilarious. Alright.

[55:26] Andy: I think we can then close out this show of all the chaos and silliness that we’ve performed here tonight. Any clop parting words?

[55:34] Larry: Look forward to seeing everyone next week because we got 37 people in chat here. It is, quite a good crowd as usual.

[55:43] Andy: Well, head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and email us as some people have, registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You can also leave some voice mail. Where did the phone number go? I haven’t I didn’t even notice that that was gone. (747) 227-4477. Again, (747) 227-4477. Support us over at patreon.com/registrymatters for as little as a buck a month. It really goes a long way to to keeping our spirits up and, that we will keep making podcasts for you people. And, you could also head over to registry matters that will get some swag at fypeducation.org/shop. You can find our Kabuki Machine shirt. And, also, it’s not punishment. It’s a civil regulatory scheme. And we’ll have these, this merch at a table at the NARSAL conference that’s in Grand Rapids in, just about five weeks or so.

[56:40] Larry: Sounds fantastic.

[56:42] Andy: Yep. And, so, Larry, I hope you have a fantastic night, and I hope everything you feel better and stop looking like a, like a dot matrix printout. And we’re gonna play connect the dots on you. Sounds good. Take care. Good night.

[56:57] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

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

[00:17] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 340 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. Did your air conditioning get fixed?

[00:27] Larry: It did indeed.

[00:30] Andy: Did you say the guy was literally as old as Methuselah?

[00:34] Larry: He wouldn’t have been much less than Methuselah. He was older than I am as far as his appearance, but I think in reality, he was not as old as I am. But he the years haven’t been good to him. Because no no offense, Larry. You look pretty pretty old. Yeah. But he made me look younger. Wow. That’s pretty rough.

[00:54] Andy: I think we have a a an unusual episode this evening. Do you wanna tell us what we’re doing?

[01:01] Larry: Well, we didn’t have any major cases that came up on my radar, so I picked some articles that I thought might be of interest to the PFR community. Some of them are directly on point, and some of them of the four, there’s some that are a little bit less on point. But for those who have in-depth analytical skills, they’ll be able to possibly figure out why I’ll put at least one article in here. But, yes. That’s all we have. And then, if time permits, if we don’t if we go through these too fast, we can talk about an attempt to, scam a PFR here in Albuquerque last week.

[01:41] Andy: Alright. Well, first of all, you put this one in here from courthouse news, and it says Kentucky law banning some PFRs from using aliases on social media sites does not violate the first amendment. A county attorney from the Commonwealth of Kentucky argued Wednesday before an appeals court panel. Wait. This does sound kinda familiar, though.

[02:03] Larry: It does indeed. I sound very familiar. This seems to be a fad around the country that, they don’t want PFRs having full access to to the Internet. But Kentucky Senate Bill two forty nine requires people convicted of a PFR type crime involving a minor to use their full legal names on all social media platforms. Directly from the article, the Republican legislature passed a bill which was signed into law by Democratic governor Andy Brashear in 2024.

[02:33] Andy: And what’s one such offender claim the law violates his first amendment right to anonymous speech and is overly broad? Do you think that this is a good challenge?

[02:44] Larry: I’ve learned to be more cautious after the Cornelius case out of Connecticut, but, it’s not it’s not one that would have resonated with me had the person contacted me first. But according to the argument to the article, it’s an argument that’s held significant weight. And it held weight with, The US District Judge Greg Stivers, and he was an appointee by that communist Barack Obama.

[03:14] Andy: I’ve heard people call him a communist before. I’ve heard this.

[03:17] Larry: Yes. But in addition, there are some appellate level decisions that have proclaimed the practice unconstitutional. One was, I just mentioned, James Cordelio from Connecticut. And I told him the same thing when he reached out to us. I wasn’t warned for his case, and ultimately, his case was successful. So I gotta be careful. I might be wrong. This is although the anonymous plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in federal court was denied class certification,

[03:42] Andy: Stivers granted his request, for an injunction. The narrow relief granted to plaintiff John Doe prevented enforcement of the law only in Davie’s County and did not apply to any other convicted PFRs in the state. I’m guessing that Kentucky is defending the law?

[03:59] Larry: They are indeed, and that’s their job. I would caution people not to get too mad about the law being defended, when you put your hand on the bible. You know, we criticize people. They take an oath to defend the laws of the of The United States and of the state. So, but attorney Jeff Hayburn, who’s the principal duty solicitor general of Kentucky, and I’ve never heard of principal duty, but I guess that means something, argued Wednesday before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Davies County. And what’s this? John Burlow? Where does that come from? Anyway, Haberne pointed out the challenge made by Dell was a facial one that required him to establish a burden on the speech of non parties. And that’s very legalistic, but but a facial challenge means that you’re challenging on behalf of others. You’re saying there are no set of circumstances, and that’s a heavy, heavy lift to say something is facially unconstitutional.

[04:55] Andy: I mean, it I I thought that you had a right to be anonymous, though, that you could go make your account say, you know, doomaflatch102@gmail.com, and you don’t have you don’t have to release what your real name is.

[05:11] Larry: Well,

[05:13] Andy: but maybe under narrowly tailored circumstances. You know, you’ve heard me say for years that if you narrowly tailor something, you can do almost anything. And I and I the example would be that you used that not that alias, but used an alias to then do naughty things that got you in trouble? And perhaps that’s the narrow tailoring? Well, that might be a little too narrow. But, yes, with proper tailoring, I think this might withstand constitutional muster. Based on the article, US Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee, cited the 02/2017 US Supreme Court decision in Packingham versus North Carolina in which the court struck down that the state’s social media ban for all PFRs. Is there a first amendment right to use social media? Murphy said Murphy asked.

[05:58] Larry: Well, he did ask that. But keep in mind, this situation is very easily distinguishable from Packingham. Packingham was a total ban on social media where the balance of the government’s interest and the burden on speech was way out of whack. That’s what Haybird answered. And he went on to say there’s significant interest here to protect children and this ever evolving Internet age. So this is not the same. So let’s don’t get ourselves to what is it? The Allen Green spends it overly, exuberant irrationally exuberant because this is not the same type of challenge as Buckingham was. So then, judge Murphy stated everyone agrees that’s important, but doesn’t the law need to be tailored? And he’s correct. Judge Murphy is correct, but the state agreed emphasized that the law only applies to people convicted of PFR type problems involving minors. That’s their position. That’s the narrow tailoring. He said they don’t have to use their legal name as their username and can simply include it in their user profile. So that means that there is some there’s some flexibility there. If it’s in your profile, does every who who reads the entire profile of someone?

[07:10] Andy: Probably someone like you, I would imagine. So then moving along. Attorney Guy Hamilton Smith from Washington, DC argued on behalf of John Doe and took issue with that interpretation. Senate bill two forty nine is a categorical ban on one category of protected speech. The facial analysis is very straightforward, he told the court. It simply imposes massive burdens on PFRs, and our and our overbreadth argument assumes injuries to third parties. What do you think about that? Well, are you familiar with that name, Guy Hamillah Smith? It rings a bell. I’ve heard of him. We may have had him on the show at least once, if not twice.

[07:49] Larry: So, well, what I think is he’s going further than what I would feel would have felt comfortable going had I been in that courtroom because, to say that he’s saying that the people that that are not involved in litigation that, that he’s wishing that were involved because he’s saying it’s facially unconstitutional. He’s saying that it, it, we’re assuming injuries to third parties. I don’t think that in First Amendment jurisprudence we assume article, are injuries to third parties. Now Guy has a law degree, and I don’t. But I’m not sure that we can assume injuries to non named parties. So that’s my thoughts. But anyway, Judge Murphy asked about the offender’s ability to include their legal names only within their pro user profile, but Hamilton Smith quickly dismissed that idea. It’s a distinction without difference, he said. On social media, people click through the profile and there it is. Is that true? Do you click through every profile and and see there it is? No. I do not. But I don’t I am the non social media person to begin with. I don’t really find a lot of value in it. So, Hamilton Hamilton Smith reiterated his client’s first amendment protections were spelled out in the Paggingham decision, in which the court had free speech rights supply to the modern town town square. This is like social media. The First Amendment safeguards choice. By not speaking on a certain date, PFRs don’t forfeit their First Amendment’s right to speak.

[09:20] Andy: I’m thinking he’s a little bit on thin ice, but we’ll see. Judge Stivers, the federal judge who issued the initial injunction, honed in on free speech in his opinion. Kentucky may criminalize the use of social media platforms to commit sexual and enticement crimes against minors, but may only do so consistent with the first amendment. And okay. So that’s some legal babble there. What do you what do you say about that?

[09:45] Larry: Well, I’m gonna let Hamilton Smith, answer. He he said, he argued requiring Doe and other persons on the Kentucky PFR registry to use their full names for all communications on social media platforms, it permissively infringes upon their first member rights because the law mandates the use of their full legal name for all communications on these forms, not just the targeted danger. And such conduct is also prohibited by other statutes. He’s right that it’s already against the law to do these things to minors. But that’s not what’s in the challenge here. The challenge has to do with having to disclose your name in this somewhat narrowly tailored group of PFRs who’ve committed crimes against minors. So I think he’s stretching, but we’ll see.

[10:29] Andy: Hamilton Smith asked the court to expand the scope of the injunction granted by Stivers to include all of Kentucky, pointing out that his client could be arrested if he violates the law outside of Davies County. Do you think they would extend it?

[10:43] Larry: I’m thinking that they will not. In his rebuttal, Haber and the attorney for the state requested that the injunction be vacated and defended the law as exceptionally important and narrowly tailored. I don’t agree that it’s exceptionally important part and I don’t agree that it’s really narrowly tailored, but it’s somewhat tailored. So I think he kind of overplayed his cards his hand as well. The article states senior US circuit judge Julia Smith Gibbons and senior US circuit judge Helene White, both George w Bush appointees, also sat on the panel. How large was this panel? It’s it’s a three judge panel. When you go up on on appellate review at at the first level, it’s usually a three judge panel. And then if you don’t like what the panel decides, then you ask for a blank review, which gets the entire, circuit if they grant full court review. And then the next step is the the, cert petition to US Supreme Court. When do you think that we will hear back on this?

[11:42] Andy: Well, the court, of course, didn’t set a timetable, but there is no timetable. They’ll decide when they decide, and it could linger for some time. Do can we can we dig around for this in this just a minute? So you you can make up mister Jingles whatever username you want to, but somewhere in your profile, you have to say, I am mister Jingles, and I am Andy whatever?

[12:03] Larry: That’s what it appears to said in the article.

[12:08] Andy: Just I I mean, does that does that make it sufficiently like, I mean, can you run around and then go bash your your favorite hated politician, be it Marjorie Taylor Greene or, I don’t know, Nancy Pelosi, take your pick. They can then still fairly easily track you down and you don’t have the ability to just remain anonymous.

[12:26] Larry: Oh, I totally understand where you’re coming from. And I think additional narrow narrow tailoring would have been preferable than than no more tailoring that they did. But, the fact that they did some narrow tailoring by not applying it to everybody like what started packing him, I think there’s a strong risk that that may be sufficient.

[12:47] Andy: But, you know, time will tell. Tell me what the negative impact is. Is there since this is already in place, if they lose, it just sets precedent that you can’t challenge this for some period of time without something new and earth shattering.

[13:00] Larry: Well, it was certainly for the that would green light every state in the Sixth Circuit that they can expand their Internet limitations. But it would also set up a cert petition to the Supreme Court because there’s conflicting, decisions amongst the circuits. And, so this would be one where we would very carefully look at on the Narsal side whether we’d wanna get involved in it because this would be contrary to, like, the Cordelio case. I see.

[13:27] Andy: Do you wanna even speculate what the Supreme Court would you would say?

[13:32] Larry: Gosh. That would be a long, hard one to do, but they’ve been fairly consistent on, protection of speech. I’d like to think they would, come down on the side of PFRs, but I’m not convinced that they would.

[13:45] Andy: Well, very well. Let’s move over to the very ultra liberal rag called the Associated Press. Just for the record, the Associated Press is like just a smidge left of center and listed as like one of the most accurate source of information available. And then, so what do we got? We have this article from the left coast and it says a debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying naughty behavior from 16 and 17 year olds exploded in the California legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who sold older minors for naughty behavior. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ relationships to target older teens teens involved in relationships. I know how you feel about this. Now have you referred, to such laws as solicitation in search of a problem?

[14:44] Larry: Yes. And I think you meant solicit older minors not sold, above there. But, yes, I have referred to this as a solution in search of a problem because there are very few incidents of adults acts, actually soliciting real minors for sex online. It’s just such a rarity. But the issue came to head Thursday after Republicans in the assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the imaginary issue.

[15:19] Andy: Now there is some merit to your argument. The article states, under current law, contacting a person 18 to engage in naughty behavior in California is already a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor, engaging in sex with a minor, if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. That’s like Romeo and Juliet kind of laws. Right?

[15:43] Larry: Right. Precisely. And as the article points out, it’s also a serious crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three serious felonies in California places a sentence of between twenty five years in life under their three strikes law. In addition, California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking. This was quoted from Assembly speaker Robert Rivas, a liberal pointy headed, communist sympathizer.

[16:12] Andy: We need McCarthy back for those guys. Now do you have any idea what the actual problem is?

[16:18] Larry: Well, according to the article, those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in a bipartisan legislation, signed last year by governor Newsom, dealing with, sexual trafficking. The law which took effect this year allows prosecutors to charge those of solicitor bisexual minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place the existing law that permits penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Apparently, the issue is that we can’t have any PRFR offense that is only a misdemeanor. That that is apparently the issue. I see. So assembly member Maggie Krell, another pointy headed person

[16:55] Andy: looking looking for the McCarthy era issues, With a background as a prosecutor wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children 18 who are are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. Hardwatch.

[17:15] Larry: That’s what she went on to say. If you’re 70 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that’s rape. That is so ridiculously absurd. Just listen to what she said. If an old man comes up to you on the corner and purchase you for sex, that’s rape. Now how can that be?

[17:35] Andy: Because you’re not 18 and you cannot consent to some kind of exchange in a contract and shake hands and all that.

[17:41] Larry: And and she says that should be treated as a felon. Now this is coming from the person who identified as a liberal pointy head, but she’s a pros former prosecutor. So keep in mind, the Democrat party is not monolithic as people believe it is. Here’s a example of extremely divergent views within the Democrat party.

[17:57] Andy: Why do you think that some Democrats oppose the change?

[18:01] Larry: Well, Democrats on the bus Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell’s bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit sexual malarities. They agreed with Krell’s goal, but worried that their approach would have unintended consequences. Lee La Chapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16 and 17 year olds who are in relationships with other minors. I don’t quite understand that, how that would be used to target them, but that was a direct quote. If they’re target if with if they’re targeting other minors, wouldn’t that be illegal? I mean, what does she mean by that? Yeah. I don’t even know. And I did see that. So then it says, LaChapelle says they are worried about the ways the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial

[18:53] Andy: interracial? Interracial and LGBTQ relationships.

[18:59] Larry: Now wait a minute. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Now you’re telling me that in a state like California, there would be a single person upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships in California, the paradise of of perfection?

[19:11] Andy: I have to think, Larry, that while California is considered this blue bastion, once you move outside of your major population centers, as is the regular rest of the country, It’s gotta be very rural. It’s very farmy. And I bet you, you know, a lot of very conservative kind of mindsets kick in. Granted, I’m gonna tell you a story from when I moved to Georgia, and this is a very racist story, but I would like, a friend of the guy I was sharing with an office with, he was very upset that his daughter was interested in dating a black kid. And he’s like, zebras date zebras? Horses date horses? I was like, are you serious, man? And this is just before the year February. Granted, that’s Georgia, but that mindset is not that far removed.

[20:00] Larry: Well, I agree with California does have a lot of conservative areas, in particular in the in the more rural parts of the state and where a lot of agriculture is dominant. So, yes, that would be true. But the proponents argue the law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same as a felony regardless of the intended victim’s age. That again is hogwash because a 17 year old is much better equipped to evaluate what he or she wants to do with his or her body.

[20:32] Andy: Hey, Larry. A hypothetical, like, some little, brain exercise. People don’t mentally mature at the same rate. Do you see a world where there is ever a way to more objectively measure someone’s maturity and give them autonomy. I guess it’s the, a word that we could use to describe that. Just because you turn 18, you are literally only one day older than you were yesterday when you were 17. And all of a sudden, all these rights and privileges are are bestowed upon you just because of that one day difference. Whereas, you could have a very, very, very young emotionally, intellectually individual who will not become, quote unquote, of age until they’re well into their twenties and be cognizant of their actions. Do you ever see a world where we could figure out a different way to do it than just say, 18, you’re legit? Because you could be 15 and be very, very savvy about the world.

[21:25] Larry: I I get your argument. I don’t see that happening because we have to it would be highly subjective. It’s like this guy that, used to be a a leading advocate in New Mexico. He wanted to us to have a speed limit that was speed would be, judged by conditions. I said, you realize how subjective that would be? Sure. Conditions are variable. And each driver’s skills and the safety of their vehicle and how it handles those conditions is variable. So to say that one driver is driving a vehicle that handles much better than another and the driver is more experienced and got better operational skills, 50 might be okay. The same street might might be safe for another driver with 50. I think you’d run-in the same problem trying to figure out who would make that subjective determination on how we would how we would do it. I don’t think that ever happens. Everyone else in the audience will get the reference. But uncle Buck in a in this character in a movie, his car was very bouncy. He had terrible, terrible shocks. You could see him driving down the road and the car is just, like like, riding on a cloud like on a sponge. And, you would not be able to drive that car very fast

[22:30] Andy: to support your claim. Alright. Well, then what happens next?

[22:37] Larry: Well, several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party. So folks listen. I had a listener here a few months ago say that I wish the Republicans stick stick together like Democrats do. The Democrats don’t stick together. But they vote broke with their party to vote with the Republicans, and they did that because of political necessity. Their districts probably are swing districts, as we referred them, and it could easily elect a Republican the next time around. So they did what they felt they needed to do. But Democrats instead backed an amendment saying that they plan to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16 and 17 year old victims. Assembly member Nick Schultz, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, said he’s committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue for, forward sometime this year.

[23:22] Andy: And what do you imagine will happen in this particular situation?

[23:27] Larry: The proponents and the victim’s apparatus will ultimately win. They will get their felony. We will have more felony sexual offend offenders in prison for behavior that just a few years ago was considered very minor, criminal behavior. And we will have more dysfunctional people. We will have more people who are tax burden on society, and we won’t have a clue why why this is happening. But but that’s what I predict. You know, we don’t seem to get a clue about things we do and the unintended consequences. The more people we put a felony jacket on, in particular a PFR felony, we diminish their earnings capacity dramatically.

[24:02] Andy: You you might be referring to a a do you know the the website The Onion? Yes. I’ve heard of it. Well, there’s a an article that they keep running every time there’s some kind of mass shooting. The only country in the world that can’t figure out how these mass shootings are happening. Has it happened to it again? They just keep running the exact same article and they scratch out the last date that it happened and they post the new date.

[24:26] Larry: Well, it’s it’s mind boggling to me because I have very little formal education and things that seem simple to me seem very complicated to people who have far superior educations. If we run a government where our tax system, revenue system is geared around the individual, then we want every individual to be able to produce at their maximum capacity, so they can pump as much money into that system as possible. And anything you do that will diminish their ability to pay taxes, you’re cutting down what goes into the common good pot and you’re diminishing how effectively we can pay for our wants and wishes if you put people earning one third or one half of what they would be truly capable of earning had they not have a felony conviction. I mean, that is not hard to understand, is it? Not really. I know there’s two people with us tonight that are earning less than they would three including me earning less than we would have otherwise.

[25:17] Andy: So I guess it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Well, you also then put this article, got another freaking liberal rag here, Larry, ABC News. And it says, Iowa’s top prosecutor is proposing an amendment to the state’s constitution to solve what one lawmaker called an interesting conundrum, weighing a person’s constitutional right to confront their accuser in the courtroom against the desire to protect traumatize traumatized children and vulnerable people. Is this related to the confrontation clause? Yes. It is. Your favorite Supreme Court justice named just Antonin Scalia was very, a big proponent of the right to, confront your accuser. The article says, some worry the proposal could hinder a defendant’s right in court.

[26:06] Larry: Now it’s the radical left pushing back. The funny thing is the radical left is in alignment with the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia that you just mentioned, who staunchly protected the confrontation clause and defended it through his entire judicial career. So maybe sometimes the liberals and the, right wingers are in alignment.

[26:26] Andy: The Iowa House approved the measure last week and it passed the Senate in March, though it would take years and several more votes by lawmakers and the public before the state constitution could be changed. Why is this an issue now?

[26:40] Larry: Well, apparently, the issue stems from a state Supreme Court decision last year that said Iowa Constitution requires people accused of a crime, and the trial witness testified and gives them to see each other. What a concept. That’s kind of what the constitution says. Holy mackerel.

[26:56] Andy: When now does that literally mean see as in in the exact same room? You couldn’t do this, by what’s, what would be the word? Were you under oath, but you’re just being interrogated by the attorney? What was that called?

[27:11] Larry: Well, I get what you’re saying, but we have to interpret things the way it would have been understood at the time. Remember? This is the Scalia doctrine. There would not have been any closed circuit video. There would not have been that. So when they composed this language, they never would have thought of you not being anything but coming into court and testifying in person. No one would have ever fathomed this. So, magically, I’m in alignment with Scalia. I magically think that we should interpret these words as they would have been understood at that time. I’m magically, a hypocrite when it comes to something that suits my purposes.

[27:47] Andy: Yeah. Someone tell me. It’s called a deposition. And, so all all of a sudden you’re a textualist and not you don’t wanna have the law and the situation evolve?

[27:57] Larry: I’m what it takes to win. And this I want to win the protection and confrontation clause. Whatever it I can latch my arguments around to secure the continuation of you being able to confront your accuser in court directly.

[28:11] Coach Bear Bryant: I’m trying to win the game.

[28:13] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to register matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

[29:02] Andy: Alright. Iowa attorney general Brenna Byrd argued we are the only state that has come to that conclusion, said Byrd, a Republican. It’s really important that we can protect kids in court. The that kids who have been traumatized can have the opportunity to testify outside the presence of the person that may be very that they may be very, very afraid of.

[29:24] Larry: I can sympathize with that. But don’t you think, for example, just say you’re not a kid. This is off script, but let’s just say hypothetically, you’re not a kid. Say you’re an adult and you’ve got, you’re testifying against a gang member. Don’t you think that maybe that gang or other members of that gang can come back after you? Don’t you think that they’re afraid as well? I mean, this is a part of our system. This is a part of our system. If you’re trying to put someone in a cage, you have to go testify against them. But the But this is also a significant burden as we’ve all seen in every mafia movie that if you go testify, then they’re gonna go put the meat, the muscle on you. And maybe your family gets hurt and you wouldn’t want your family to get hurt, would you? So then you don’t go testify. That’s correct. But the member would say that constitutional right may be limited by law for certain witnesses, those 18, and those with mental illness, including intellectual disability or other developmental disability. Both legislative chambers would need to approve this measure again in 2027 and again in 2028 to put put it before the voters in November 2028. So it has a lot of hoops to jump through. You people in Iowa, if you don’t like what you’re seeing here, you better get to work because this is gonna become a part of your constitution very soon in the next three years.

[30:42] Andy: The sixth amendment of the US constitution lays out the right of the accused in criminal prosecutions specifying the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and among other things, to be confronted with the witnesses against the against him. Them. I pick them, Larry.

[31:01] Larry: Well, except that’s what they what it said. That’s the way they wrote it in 1857 or wherever it was. Like, women didn’t even have the right to think back then. So our Constitution was adopted in 1857, also defines the rights of persons accused, including the same confrontation clause. But the US Supreme Court held in ‘9 a ’99 decision, Maryland v Craig, which I didn’t know anything about this, that the right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent of physical face to face confrontation when remote testimony is necessary and can be provided reliably. And that’s what we’ve heard Scalia criticized. Maryland’s interest in protecting child witnesses from trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of special procedures that decision said. And, the majority of courts across the country have aligned with the Supreme Court decision according to Colin Miller, a University of South Carolina law professor.

[31:56] Andy: The most common exception is when the state’s confrontation clause includes the words face to face. That explicit text led, the New York New Hampshire Supreme Court this year, for example, to say a nine year old girl’s remote testimony violated the defendant’s constitutional rights? Because, I mean, ultimately, don’t the accused and the accuser have constitutional rights and we shouldn’t necessarily put one above the other?

[32:21] Larry: The the accuser has very few constitutional rights. Oh, okay. Those were those were invented rights. You know? Fair enough. Passed with with with statutory, changes. We the constitution of forefathers put all the emphasis on protecting the accused because we don’t wanna put people in cages without a robust process. But anyway, a nineteen eighty ninety eight state law carved out the that exception for a minor needing protection from trauma caused by testifying and physical presence of the defendant, where it would impair the minor’s ability to communicate. Now, I’m not too stupid to understand that if you have a nine year old on a witness stand, there will be some communication issues. I get that. But if a judge allows a minor’s test if a judge allows a minor’s test where it could be televised to the jury and defendant in the courtroom, the only problem is that’s not what they would have thought about back in colonial times. Iowa’s confrontation claw clause does not specify face to face, but the court said still that it violated the constitutional right to confrontation, declaring that the state’s constitution affords more protection to criminal defendants than the federal constitution.

[33:30] Andy: The article points out that the amendment is supported by law enforcement and county attorneys, duh, as well as various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom told lawmakers that justice isn’t being served in Iowa if children are forced to face an abuser again and are too afraid to tell their stories. The thing that I sit almost daily, definitely weekly, and grapple with parents is when they have to decide, is the price of justice worth it for my child? Wendy Berkeley, a family advocate at Des Moines Area Child Protection Center told lawmakers in January, unfortunately, right now in Iowa, the answer is they often have is no.

[34:06] Larry: Well, that’s unfortunately one of the things that goes to our system. The opposition to the proposal has been concentrated, according to this article, among defense attorneys who cite examples of people people wrongfully accused and say these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jury that the defendant is guilty. That is a true statement. That’s what jurors think. The existing law looks similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Welborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Welborn suggested that changing the Constitution is a slippery slope. They’re basically futzing around with the Sixth Amendment, he said. I would argue that it’s dangerous, dangerous road to go down because when you start saying we carve out exceptions for someone’s confrontational rights, do we also carve out exceptions for the right to present a defense? I mean, that’s what’s gonna be said said next. They’re gonna say, well, you know, all this stuff is really traumatizing the victim that the defense is putting on. So we need to shut this down and short shorten the defense process. You know, that that’s what’s coming next.

[35:08] Andy: And Welburn’s concern was echoed by Republican state representative Charlie Thompson, who said the provisions open the door wide to mischief by future legislatures.

[35:18] Larry: And let’s give some bipartisan, kudos because, this says that he’s a Republican. But State Representative Stephen Holt acknowledged that the constitutionality concerns but said the Iowa Supreme Court didn’t offer any options. They struck it down but didn’t really give us any guidance on what to do, said, Holt. They left us an interest conundrum as we try to protect, children in the course, from against having been having them traumatized again. But they didn’t give you the guidance because it’s not their job.

[35:51] Andy: They tell you what you can’t do, but they don’t tell you what you should do. And there is something to be said. Forget the nine year old part, but someone that is has some level of of more maturity and faculties that you you you’re able to challenge them to the the cross examine and hold up on their story and try to poke holes in anything that’s available that might be an inconsistency.

[36:15] Larry: Absolutely.

[36:18] Andy: So I win? You win. Alright. Cool. Let’s go along. Now you have this thing in here from the Marshall Project. What a bunch of liberal radicals. And it’s from New York. It says, when New York corrections officers attack prisons and infirmaries, as has happened dozens of times in the past fifteen years, I think we’ve even played some videos here about that, it is nurses who must document and treat the resulting injuries because you know for sure there’s not a doctor in there. Their choices can save lives or cover up abuse.

[36:47] Larry: Now are you telling me that in a progressive paradise such as New York that prisoners get abused by guards?

[36:53] Andy: There’s no way that could be true. It would appear that they do. A prisoner at Green Haven Correctional Facility in the Hudson Valley accused a nurse of medically clearing him to be sent to solitary confinement to cover up a beating by guards that left him with life threatening injuries. A punctured lung, broken ribs, and a fractured hand. And you’re just gonna go then go sit in the hole? Come on, man.

[37:18] Larry: Well, I don’t see the problem with it. He should have thought about that before he got put in prison. About that before he went to prison. Right. But but but all the nurses are not like that. Like, contrast that in nearby sings thing, a man credited a nurse was saving his life by yelling at an officer to stop beating him.

[37:36] Andy: The article states how nurses handle instances of violence. Infirmaries gained wider attention in December when state officials released a body camera footage showing nurses peering into an exam room from a hallway while guards fatally beat and choked Robert Brooks at Marcy Prison. Nurse oh, boy. A bed in? Oh, come on, man. Really? What in the world? Nurse, a b e d I n, and then m e h m e d med oh god. Whatever. I’m sorry. I cannot say this name. Sorry. The nurse who works for a private nursing agency stands outside an infirmary while corrections officers beat Robert Brooks at Marcy Correctional Facility in December.

[38:17] Larry: And the photo shows nurses looking on as guards beat Robert Brooks. Brooks died from his injuries the following morning. Such situations put nurses in a tough position. Those who witness abuse may stay silent about the abused witness to avoid angering the officers who protect them as well as supposedly the inmates. Yet ignoring or covering up the assaults violates the nurses professional code of ethics, prison policy, and the law. Now isn’t that a conundrum? That would be

[38:47] Andy: they probably don’t make a super a lot of money either. And then if they go rat on the guards, then they could put their job in jeopardy too. And next thing you know, then they’re fired because they ratted out that someone was getting the shit beat out of them. The article states that in dozens of cases, nurses have been accused of helping to cover up beatings in New York prisons according to the Marshall Project review of court settlements, disciplinary records, and pending lawsuits. The Marshall Project reporters identified 61 allegations from 02/2010 through 02/2024 of medical staff concealing evidence of guards’ abuse, usually by foregoing examinations or not documenting injuries. During that period, the document fired just one nurse for neglecting these duties after a force of, use of force according to our view of state disciplinary data. Did you say document or department fired just one? Well, I probably misread it during that period. The department

[39:40] Larry: fired. How would a document fire you? There’s a, well, that there was one documented fire. Maybe that’s what you meant to say. Medical, staff’s propensity to cover up officers’ violence happens more frequently than these numbers reflect, experts say. Men are prisoners do not file complaints because they fear retaliation or not believed. Now, you’ve been in these settings. I’ve only been in county correctional settings.

[40:02] Andy: Would that be accurate in terms of prisoners don’t file this I would think it would be but but that comport with your experience. I I depending on yes. I would say that depending on the person and how much noise they wanna make, they might just kinda take it and just accept what they can get and move on. As in not filing a complaint because, you know, maybe maybe you were just maybe you’re just lightly beat or maybe they were just maybe they put you in the chains. I did watch this happen, Larry. That’s this wasn’t somebody being beat. But it was an old guy, and he was being put on a bus to get transferred to a new prison. And he’s got the leg, ankle irons on, and he freaking, like, face plants off the bus. Wow. And he’s like I mean, the cat was, like, 70. And, his glasses are then broken. So when you see him later, he’s got, like, a black eye and and I can’t it’s just it’s just shitty. The commissioner Daniel

[40:58] Larry: really? Another one? I did this to you I did this to you because I couldn’t figure out how to pronounce it. So that’s that’s Mar Martucello, I guess. Martucello? I

[41:08] Andy: don’t know. Martucello? I don’t know. Has pledged to reform the culture in New York prisons. In a statement, he said he is working with the people and organizations inside and outside the department to make impactful change to end this violence.

[41:22] Larry: Well, there is a violent culture in prisons and it puts nurses in a bind. Experts say the primary duty of nurses is to support the health and well-being of their patients according to New York Nursing Board, and that doesn’t change that because it’s a prison setting. Yet prison nurses also feel they do a loyalty to the guards to ensure their safety, several former corrections nurses and staffers said. In this way, it’s a blue wall that extends to prison life to the prison clinic. That that is similar to the blue wall. Medical staff go along. These cover us all the time, said Kevin Ryan, a retired internal investigator in the state prison system. If they wanna keep their jobs, they have to go along. Now that sounds, somewhat eerily familiar to things that happened back in World War two when people did things that they did because they had to do them, and yet we think that they that would never happen here. Absolutely.

[42:17] Andy: So then in 02/2013, officers at Green Haven Prison brought an incarcerated man experiencing psychosis to the medical unit to give him meds and draw blood. Video showed the handcuffed man talkative and standing normally according to state records. Then the prisoner strapped in a restraint chair, appeared to choke on water and pills and spit out spit some out. Officers pushed his head down on his chest to put on a spit hood and severed his spine. Goddamn, dude. Like, how hard do you have to push someone’s head down to sever his spinal cord? According to the report from the state commission of correction, video showed that his demeanor changed. Of course his demeanor changed. He was no longer babbling about in an almost listless state according to arbitration records. Seriously, if you severed his spinal cord, I bet she was like borderline like, well, dead. Maybe not fully dead, but very dead.

[43:09] Larry: I would think so. An officer’s carried the man back to his cell. Now this is this is God. This is this is so appalling to me. And video shows a nurse asking, are you hurting anywhere? Nothing hurts you. Okay? So apparently she answered for him. Nothing hurts you. Oh, okay. Before leaving the cell, according to state records. The nurse did do a physical examination or take his vital signs. The man soon slid off the cot onto the floor and complained that his bones were killing him. I imagine he would have been complaining about that. He lay motionless and unattended for more than twenty four hours before being brought to a local hospital. He died three weeks later.

[43:48] Andy: The article states that the department fired the nurse for not examining the mail and then telling investigators that he did. The state also fired a correction officer trainee who’d been observing the prisoner. The department did not attempt to discipline the officer or other medical staff involved. A prison spokesperson said the use of force was deemed to be appropriate. The nurse later testified at an arbitration hearing that it was Green Haven policy to forego physical exams and and assess an incarcerated person’s injuries by asking him if he is not injured. And that’s pretty much what we do. Other witness also testified that those actions were the norm at Greenhaven. Nobody speaks up for the abused.

[44:28] Larry: That is that is so realistic, to me, having not been there. But you’re so powerless. You know, the fear of speaking honestly about assaults is widespread. And at Wynn Prison, a nurse who witnessed a guard beating a prisoner in a wheelchair told investigators that an officer told her to say she saw nothing. She refused to identify the officer. In another case, investigators interviewed a nurse at Franklin Prison about an incident in which a guard broke a prisoner’s jaw in the infirmary. She later testified that she re she she received a call at work from someone calling her a rat. When she appeared at the arbitration hearing, she explained she was not testifying voluntarily but was being forced by subpoena.

[45:12] Andy: And I I’m sure in your breadth of knowledge, you have a solution for us here.

[45:18] Larry: Well, I really don’t. There isn’t one. This is the human behavior and the condition that we have. If we could be very selective about who we put in prisons, your job is only to confine these people. You’re not the judge. You’re not the jury. You’re not all these things that you wanna be. Your job is to keep them confined until they’re allowed to be released. And if you think your job is greater than that, if you think you should be the one who administers justice, you should run for district attorney, you should become a prosecutor, you should run for judge, you should do any number of things. But your job as a prison guard is not to decide what you think is appropriate and what these people deserve. Your job is to confine

[46:01] Andy: them. Just to play devil’s advocate, I have seen some insanely large humans and very violent people in prison. And guards come in all shapes and sizes. They’re not all donut eating four hundred pounders. Some of them are pretty narrow dudes or and and certainly many of them are women. How you would have you would have to employ some extreme measures to potentially restrain someone that has decided that they don’t want to be restrained and rational. I I mean, I can think of 25 different ways that you could handle this, but at the end of the day, somebody might not have all those resources available to them, and they decide to start while punching you in the face and breaking your jaw, as we just read.

[46:48] Larry: Well, I would tend to agree with you on that, that Prisoners have various levels of mental instability. They’re hooked on drugs that are being smuggled into the prison, some by guards and there’s all sorts of volatility in prison. So, I would never want to stop a guard from being able to defend him or herself. But, on the other hand, self defense is one thing. Learning how, I worked in my property management career in some of the most ghetto ish areas that, that we have in the city. And I never had any problem to speak of because I always treated people with the utmost respect even when they were losers. If I was evicting you, you never had any maltreatment from me because it was not personal. And I tried my best to shield the uncomfortable situation that was happening to you from anyone else knowing about it and treated people with dignity. When I was in the Boulder County Jail, I saw virtually no violence in the Boulder County Jail because that was their operating procedure. They treated everybody with respect and dignity. And violence was so rare, you know, that when someone needed to be restrained, it was a very odd thing that happened in that county jail. So I I don’t say that I have the all the answers, but I think having people that are heavily relying on their testosterone instincts to show that they’re manly is not the answer.

[48:19] Andy: I watched some cat. He was very mentally unstable when I first got locked up at the county jail. And he was just adamant that he wanted to drink the cleaning solutions like the Windex. And he just wouldn’t listen to the guards saying stop drinking the the Windex. So they tased him. So then you hear the the, you know, the the and then thump, and they carry the guy out.

[48:42] Larry: Well, see again, I don’t know that I would have reacted that way. I don’t know that I wouldn’t have because I had to be in the situation, but he’s only hurting him himself at that point.

[48:53] Andy: But isn’t it still the responsibility to keep him from doing that too?

[48:57] Larry: Yes. It is. If

[49:01] Andy: if you are trying to find a way to stop him from doing it, it might be that just getting the the object the substance away from him would be sufficient to stop doing it. Yeah. He shouldn’t be able to get gain access to it to begin with. When they brought in the cleaning carts, he goes over to a new guard or something like that and ask him sort of like, man, you wanna clean the windows? Great. Here’s the cleaner. Go clean the windows. And they glug glug glug glug glug. No. No. No. No. That’s not what I meant. Boy, do we have a fabulous, incarceration system here. Hey. Tell me about this thing with Harvey Weinstein standing a new trial. Is this, like, anything worthwhile?

[49:38] Larry: Yeah. Well, it’s it hasn’t been developed yet. I don’t have anyone been following it, but, they are gonna put him on new trial. It’s it’s not already underway, but this is the article I put in for a couple weeks ago. I know. So he may already be be on trial. I don’t know what the status of that is. And then he’s still convicted in California, I think. So even if he somehow wins this case, he still has to deal with whatever happened in California, I believe. Yeah. I think it’s the other way around. I think he was convicted in New York, and then it was overturned. In California. He’s waiting for him. They haven’t convicted him yet. Have they in California? Oh, I thought that well, okay. Something we need to cover then because I thought that that’s what what the deal was. Yeah. We’re eventually gonna get to it, but, he’s gonna die in prison. He’s already but ancient as hell and and the prison’s not gonna be good to him as far as, any medical care. I think you kinda heard that in the segment above. Yeah. They don’t they don’t treat you well there. Well, very good. He’s not he’s he’s not gonna make it. And we we threw this together because there’s a good chance I won’t be available next week. I’m getting a root canal Friday, and depending on how I feel, I may not be available. But there’s five Saturdays in the month of May. So the patrons will still get their four episodes even if I miss next week. Is it five? I thought we talked about there aren’t five. Let’s see. One, two hey. There are five oh, the thirty first coming into the last oh, gotcha. Alright then. So so

[51:02] Andy: Alrighty. Well, make sure that you head over to registrymatters.c0 and you can find the show notes and make sure that you email any questions. Any questions at all. And I will send them over to Larry. Registry matters you know, we didn’t cover that voice mail again. Registrymatterscast@gmail.com. And for those that are listening tonight, thank you very much. Thank you very much for being a patron. That can happen over at patreon.com. Oh, you know what? We did get a new patron. I gotta grab that real quick. Head over to patreon.com/registrymatters, and then I will thank the new patron who was super generous. And what is that individual’s name? I sent it to you, Larry. You should know.

[51:40] Larry: Do you expect me to remember at 83?

[51:42] Andy: I expect you to remember all of the things.

[51:45] Larry: I will tell you because it should be in my text messages.

[51:49] Andy: I believe it is.

[51:51] Larry: Saddam Hussein.

[51:53] Andy: I don’t believe so. I believe that that was, Sammy. So Well, thank you very much, Sammy, for becoming a patron. Thank you very much. It it came in at the,

[52:05] Larry: at the, what was it, the pandemic,

[52:08] Andy: stimulus rate? Yes. Stimulus was 14 and change. Right? Yep. And that’s what said maybe it did was 1,400 a month. And then we also have swag over at registry mad excuse me. That’s f0ipeducation.org/shop. You can go find t shirts and some cool things there, particularly the one of Larry and then there’s the one of the Kabuki machine. And without further ado, Larry, I bid you all ado. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and that you have a nice cool air conditioner now. And boy, do I hope that root canal goes well because that does not sound fun.

[52:39] Larry: Well, the whole story is not fun either because I may have brought it on myself by being stubborn, but we’ll talk about that another time. You brought it on because you’re stubborn? Never. I waited and waited because I had pain and I thought it was gonna fix itself and it fixed itself, alright, to a big old abscess. I bet.

[52:56] Andy: Well, I hope that goes well and I will talk to you soon. Good night, everybody. Have a great night. Good night.

[53:04] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

---

Introduction

The U.S. criminal justice system is no stranger to controversy, but a recent proposal reportedly floated by former President Donald Trump has set off alarm bells among legal experts, advocacy groups, and concerned citizens alike. The idea—suggesting that “homegrown criminals” convicted of violent crimes could be relocated to foreign prisons, specifically to facilities built in El Salvador—poses deep constitutional, ethical, and logistical questions. The scenario becomes even more concerning when viewed through the eyes of people with criminal records or marginalized backgrounds, who often bear the brunt of experimentations in policy.

Highly publicized by major news outlets, the proposed plan involves U.S. citizens being sent to El Salvador to serve their sentences for violent crimes, potentially on the basis that housing prisoners would be cheaper abroad. Legal experts have immediately decried the concept as both unconstitutional and deeply problematic for a host of other reasons. And for families of those incarcerated, the potential ramifications are devastating: how do you visit a loved one when their prison cell is thousands of miles away, under a foreign justice system? In this article, we break down what these proposals mean, examine the risks, and answer the central question: should Americans, particularly those labeled as “homegrown criminals,” be worried?

---

The Proposal: Sending U.S. Citizens to Foreign Prisons

The controversy centers around claims that President Trump, in conversations with El Salvador’s president, considered a plan in which Americans convicted of violent crimes would serve their sentences in facilities outside U.S. borders. While the term “deporting” was initially bandied about, more accurate descriptions use “relocation” or “transferring” prisoners.

Key Points from the Discussion:
– U.S. would pay El Salvador to build and maintain prisons for American citizens.
– The program would target those labeled as “homegrown criminals.”
– Legal experts immediately responded, calling the idea unconstitutional.

This proposal echoes a longstanding practice in some U.S. states, where prisoners are sent to out-of-state facilities due to overcrowding. For instance, Vermont’s overcrowded prisons have led to inmates being housed in Idaho. However, relocating prisoners to another country—especially U.S. citizens—raises a host of new challenges.

---

Constitutional and Legal Considerations

Can the U.S. Legally Relocate Its Own Citizens to Foreign Prisons?

At the heart of the debate is a constitutional question: can the United States government send its own citizens—born and raised on American soil—to serve prison time abroad? The U.S. Constitution and case law provide strong protections against involuntary expatriation or deportation of citizens. As legal analyst Larry points out, “You can’t deport your own citizens that were born in the United States.”

Key Legal Obstacles:
– Citizens’ Rights: U.S. citizens cannot be involuntarily banished from their country (see Supreme Court case Trop v. Dulles).
– Due Process: Any relocation would require due process and an opportunity for judicial review.
– International Law: Housing citizens abroad could violate treaties or human rights conventions.

Andy, acting as moderator in the original discussion, raises concerns about the speed with which such relocations could happen and the possibility that government officials might act before courts can intervene.

“I’m puzzled, curious, concerned that they could act so fast on this that you might not be able to get through a court system fast enough to get a judge to make them stop.” – Andy

Moreover, if the U.S. government were to ignore a judge’s order—such as in the real example where a person with legal U.S. status was deported against a judicial order—this could undermine the entire basis of legal and constitutional protections afforded to all Americans.

---

Precedents and Analogies: U.S. Prisoners in Other Jurisdictions

To further clarify, the U.S. already has a precedent for transferring inmates between states due to overcrowding. Prisoners remain under their home state’s jurisdiction, even if they are housed elsewhere. Theoretically, the federal government could adapt this model for international transfers:

• Custodial Responsibility: The prisoner stays in U.S. custody, even when housed in El Salvador.
• Prosecution Risk: If an American prisoner commits a crime while in a foreign prison, they would be subject to the host country’s laws as well as U.S. oversight.
• Logistical Questions: Who provides legal, medical, and social services? How do families stay in touch, and what rights do inmates retain?

Legal experts, including those in the original transcript, doubt the practicality or legality of this analogy on an international scale.

---

The Human Impact: Families, Access, and Dignity

Perhaps the most immediate concern is the impact on prisoners and their families. If a loved one is sent to El Salvador, what does that mean for visitation, support, and rehabilitation prospects?

“When you have to go to San Salvador to visit your loved one, I’m betting you won’t think it’s nearly as funny as you do right now.” – Larry

• Family Separation: Travel to El Salvador is costly, dangerous, and impractical for most families.
• Access to Counsel: Prisoners lose easy access to U.S.-based lawyers, advocates, and court systems.
• Rights and Protections: U.S. constitutional rights may not be enforceable in a foreign prison.

The idea is likely to disproportionally impact marginalized communities—people of color, immigrants, and low-income individuals—further entrenching existing inequalities. As Andy notes, it’s essential to recognize who is most at risk:

“I would worry more about the people that are less white… it seems that they’re more easily identifiable that way.”

---

Conditions in Foreign Prisons: Medical Care and Treatment

Even if modern facilities were constructed in El Salvador, there are significant concerns about the level of care and professionalism compared to U.S. standards.

• Medical Care: U.S. prison medical care is often criticized, but experts suggest conditions abroad could be even worse.
• Professionalism: Correctional officers abroad may be less trained or held to lower standards.
• Human Rights Oversight: International transparency and inspection of prison conditions are less robust.

Supporting data: According to the U.S. State Department’s 2022 Human Rights Report, Salvadoran prisons are frequently criticized for overcrowding and inadequate medical care.

“I would imagine that the care that you get in most U.S. prisons would be better than what you would get [in El Salvador].” – Larry

---

The Ethical and Political Fallout

The bigger question is: What are the broader implications of a U.S. administration ignoring the Constitution, court orders, and basic human rights? If such a policy were enacted, it could erode trust in the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent.

• Ignoring Courts: The original transcript references cases where the administration allegedly ignored judicial orders.
• Rule of Law: Flouting constitutional limits weakens the fabric of American democracy.
• Potential for Abuse: If the government can relocate prisoners abroad, what other rights might erode?

As Larry warns, those who support tough-on-crime policies now may feel differently if a family member is targeted:

“How are you gonna feel when… they flip the middle finger at the court and say, what are you gonna do about it? Are you gonna be okay with that?”

---

Conclusion: Should Americans Be Worried?

The proposal to send American citizens to foreign prisons is, at present, more of a thought experiment or political talking point than an imminent threat. However, the legal, ethical, and human harms are clear:

• It would likely violate the Constitution and established legal precedent.
• It would devastate prisoner families and worsen existing inequalities.
• It would represent a serious degradation of the U.S. commitment to rule of law.

While unlikely to pass constitutional muster, the very suggestion signifies a concerning authoritarian trend—one which all Americans, not just those with criminal convictions, should watch with vigilance.

---

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Follow reliable legal analysis on developments in criminal justice policy, not just headlines or political statements.
2. Engage with Advocacy: Support organizations working to defend prisoner rights and uphold constitutional protections.
3. Contact Elected Officials: Express your concerns about proposals to export American prisoners and demand respect for judicial rulings and human rights.

---

References

• U.S. Supreme Court – Trop v. Dulles (1958)
• U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: El Salvador 2022
• AP News Story on El Salvador’s Prisons
• Prison Policy Initiative: Prison Conditions and Transfers

---

Final Thought:
Even if the prospect of American citizens being sent to El Salvadoran prisons seems far-fetched, the conversation highlights the fragility of constitutional protections when faced with fear-driven policies. Remaining vigilant, informed, and engaged is essential to safeguarding everyone’s rights.

In the realm of American criminal justice, few topics spur as much contention and curiosity as plea bargaining. Often described as a “necessary evil,” this widespread practice forms the backbone of how most criminal cases are resolved in the United States—yet, it’s routinely misunderstood by the general public and sharply debated by legal professionals, reformers, and everyday citizens caught in its web. Is plea bargaining truly a “bargain” for those accused? Does it uphold or undermine the ideals of justice? And why do the outcomes in similar cases diverge so drastically, varying not only between individuals but across states and jurisdictions?

In this comprehensive article, we dive deep into the nitty-gritty of plea bargaining. Leveraging insights from a detailed conversation between Andy and Larry (hosts of the Registry Matters Podcast), we’ll unpack the realities, misconceptions, and moral conundrums of this pivotal institution. You’ll learn what plea bargaining really is, why it dominates our justice system, how it contributes to massive sentencing disparities, and where both the pitfalls and opportunities for reform lie.

What Is Plea Bargaining, and Is It Really a “Bargain”?

At its core, a plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecution and the defendant. In exchange for pleading guilty to a lesser charge, or only some of the charges, the accused receives a lighter sentence or reduced charges than if they risked a full trial—potentially facing far more severe penalties.

According to Larry, a legal practitioner, plea bargaining—when done as intended—can look like a lifeline for defendants facing overwhelming odds. “People are often facing decades or even life in prison,” he points out. “The plea process reduces their exposure, if it’s done correctly, and provides some level of certainty to the outcome.” The critical caveat is “if it’s done correctly”—an ideal not always met in the real world.

The Stakes: What’s on the Table?

To understand the stakes, consider this: Defendants are regularly charged with multiple counts for a single incident, each carrying hefty potential sentences. Prosecutors often “stack” charges, sometimes threatening cumulative sentences in the hundreds of years. As Larry explains, “If you have 45 counts, each carrying a maximum of ten years and can be stacked consecutively, that’s 450 years in prison. If I can cut that risk down to ten years, it is definitely a bargain.”

The logic is starkly pragmatic: reduce risk, gain predictability, and avoid life-derailing uncertainty. But critics argue this dynamic is ripe for abuse.

The Mechanics of Power: Charging Practices and Leverage

Prosecutorial Power in Charge Stacking

It’s no secret that prosecutors possess significant power to influence plea negotiations. By stacking charges, they can present defendants with a devastating “trial penalty”—the difference between the sentence offered in a plea and the sentence they’d face if convicted at trial. As Andy points out, this can feel coercive, leaving defendants little real choice.

Larry concedes that prosecutors often “embellish” charges, ramping up their negotiating leverage, though he draws the line at outright invention. “If they do [invent charges] and you can prove it, that’s a breach of ethics subject to sanctions,” he says. Still, the reality remains: The system incentivizes guilty pleas, even for individuals who may have credible defenses or have been overcharged.

The Role of Sentencing Guidelines, Community Norms, and Political Climate

In addition to charging strategies, a patchwork of sentencing laws and practices dramatically shapes plea outcomes. Sentencing practices vary not only between states but within them. Larry gives the example of a statutory charge for criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen. A seventeen-year-old who is two days short of adulthood can be charged and sentenced identically to a forty-five-year-old who assaults a much younger child. The statute doesn’t distinguish, despite the radically different facts.

Furthermore, community values color every aspect of the process. A defendant in a rural, conservative district may face far harsher penalties than one in a metropolitan area, even for identical crimes. As Larry observes, “People are different from state to state, and even within the same state.”

Why Do Non-Contact Offenders Sometimes Receive Harsher Penalties Than Violent Offenders?

One of the most controversial disparities in sentencing arises with non-contact offenses, such as child pornography possession. In many instances, non-contact offenders can receive lengthier sentences than those handed to violent or contact offenders. Why?

Larry’s explanation is blunt: “It’s what the people want. The citizenry is frightened by non-contact offenders, and we have made tough laws for those who commit such heinous offenses.” Lengthy, consecutive sentences result when each image or piece of evidence is charged separately. Sometimes, as Andy notes, authorities count individual frames from a single video as separate “images,” rapidly multiplying the counts and potential years of incarceration—leading, in one notorious Texas case, to a 300-year sentence compared to a far shorter term for a homicide.

Societal Fears and Legislative Responses

Public perception, shaped by media coverage and advocacy groups, plays an enormous role. Larry points out that, especially since the advent of the Internet, laws have grown stricter, fueled by a sense of urgency to protect society’s most vulnerable. Scarcity of legislative nuance means statutes often don’t account for level of harm or intent, resulting in harsh, sometimes unjust, outcomes.

State vs. Federal Court: Two Systems, Two Worlds

Federal Courts

Federal courts are widely regarded as more severe in both charging and sentencing. Congress, Larry notes, has all but eliminated parole and sharply restricted “good time” credits, with most federal prisoners serving at least 85% of their sentence. Federal sentencing is determined by a complex grid system that calculates “offense levels” and “criminal history,” piling on “enhancements” (aggravating factors) and rarely offering “reductions.” As a result, federal defendants have less negotiating room in plea bargains—the judge often cannot accept a deal that binds them to a particular sentence.

State Courts

In contrast, state courts have somewhat more flexibility. It’s not uncommon for state plea deals to be more tailored, sometimes specifying exact sentences or ranges, especially in busy, overburdened jurisdictions. However, latitude varies enormously from state to state, sometimes even county to county.

Is There a Folk Solution? Why the System Doesn’t Change

A frequently suggested “fix” is for all defendants to reject plea bargains and demand trials, gumming up the system so thoroughly that reform becomes inevitable. While logically appealing, Larry dismisses this as impossible. “Defense attorneys have an ethical obligation to seek the outcome that’s in the best interest of the client,” not to use cases as sacrificial pawns in the service of systemic change. Further, the American justice system—unlike some collectivist societies—revolves around individual, not collective, interests.

The Power of Political and Public Will

Ultimately, sentencing laws and justice policy reflect the priorities of lawmakers and, by extension, their constituents. According to Larry, most people do pay attention to criminal justice issues, especially around election time, and politicians have long competed to appear “tough on crime.” Efforts at sentencing reform, such as the bipartisan push in Congress in 2016, often wither in the face of political rhetoric and public fear-mongering.

Defending the System—With Reservations

Despite its flaws, Larry professes a degree of faith in the system. The core processes—proof beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence, neutrality of judges and juries—remain sound on paper, even though they’re endangered by external pressures. He’s acutely aware, however, that a powerful “victim advocacy industrial complex” wields enormous influence through media, legislation, and fundraising, making reform especially challenging.

When asked how to “claw back” justice from this imbalance, Larry concedes the difficulty: “Victims’ advocates have a lot of organizations. They outmatch our advocacy maybe 20 to one, a hundred to one in terms of fundraising… [and] easy access to the media in a favorable setting. I don’t know how we take away the hijacking because they’re extremely influential through the legislative process.”

---

Key Insights and Takeaways

1. Plea bargaining is the backbone of the American criminal justice system—resolving more than 90% of cases—but often operates in a gray area between justice, efficiency, and coercion.
2. Prosecutors wield enormous leverage through strategic charge stacking and the looming threat of severe sentences, compelling most defendants to take plea deals, sometimes regardless of actual culpability or fairness.
3. Sentencing disparities are systemic, influenced by legislative design, community sentiment, political climate, and technical quirks (like how offenses are charged per “image”), leading to wildly different outcomes for similar conduct.
4. Reform is politically difficult. Public fear and victim advocacy groups exert strong influence, making sentencing policy “tough on crime” and resistant to nuanced change.
5. While the ideals of justice remain intact on paper, their application is threatened by external pressures and a culture that often presumes guilt and favors punishment over rehabilitation or fairness.

---

Actionable Takeaways

• For Concerned Citizens: Stay informed about legislative changes and support organizations advocating for fair, evidence-based sentencing reform.
• For Legal Professionals: Advocate vigorously for clients within the existing framework, but also participate in broader advocacy to educate the public on the realities and ethics of plea bargaining.
• For Policymakers: Engage with diverse stakeholders—including victims, defendants, experts, and the public—to craft nuanced laws that reflect both public safety and proportional justice.

---

Conclusion

Plea bargaining remains an indispensable component of the U.S. criminal justice system, a product of pragmatism, expediency, and the realities of courtroom pressures and limited resources. Yet, its routine practice raises profound moral questions about fairness, equality, and the true nature of justice. As sentencing disparities persist and public trust in the system wavers, the need for thoughtful conversation and structural reform grows ever more urgent. The challenge lies not in dismantling the entire system but in recalibrating its priorities—balancing efficiency with equity, accountability with compassion, and safety with justice.

If you found this analysis helpful, consider listening to the Registry Matters Podcast for more in-depth discussions on criminal justice reform and related topics.

---

Further Reading:
– “Why Plea Bargains Are Even More Unjust Than People Think,” The Atlantic, 2017
– “Sentencing Disparities and the ‘Trial Penalty’,” National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2021
– “The Sentencing Project: The State of Sentencing 2023”

Introduction

When state governments consider changes to the management of people forced to register (PFRs)—often known as sex offender registrants—the implications ripple far beyond the text of a proposed bill. In Maine, Legislative Document 1215 (LD 1215) became a focal point for advocacy, discussion, and concern about local versus state control. While LD 1215 ultimately did not pass, the debate reveals much about the balance of power, the vigilance needed to protect the rights of marginalized groups, and how states approach public safety policy.

In this article, we’ll break down what LD 1215 was, why it generated so much attention, what it says about Maine’s legal structure, and what advocates learned from this legislative episode. Along the way, we’ll touch on comparisons to other states, the importance of state-level preemption, and actionable steps for anyone invested in fair registrant policies.

---

What Is LD 1215? Decoding Legislative Jargon

Understanding the “LD” Designation

Legislative jargon can baffle even invested citizens. In Maine, “LD” stands for “Legislative Document”—essentially, a formal bill or proposal submitted to the state legislature for consideration. While other states use designations like HB (House Bill) or SB (Senate Bill), Maine sticks with LD, emphasizing the document’s role in the legislative process.

Key Point: LD 1215 refers to the 1,215th legislative document introduced in a session—not a cryptic code, but an official designation unique to Maine’s process.

The Purpose of LD 1215

At its core, LD 1215 proposed allowing local governments in Maine to enact their own restrictions and regulations pertaining to individuals required to register under sex offense laws (PFRs). Currently, Maine maintains strict state-level preemption: only the state can set such rules, preventing a patchwork of local ordinances.

Why does this matter? Local control often leads to inconsistent, sometimes more punitive laws, making life unpredictable and challenging for PFRs and complicating enforcement.

---

Advocacy in Action: Community Response to LD 1215

Recognizing the “Sort-of Win”

Andy, a local NARSOL (National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws) contact in Maine, called attention to the proposal, highlighting a not-quite-victory, but a positive outcome: LD 1215 did not pass. The bill’s defeat is a relief for those worried about overreaching local regulations, but as he notes, “it’s definitely a sort of win […] and one worth taking note of.”

Even more remarkable was the active opposition documented in a letter from the Sex Offender Management and Risk Assessment Advisory Commission (SOMRAAC). The committee, led by Kent Avery, openly argued against LD 1215, asserting that it offered no benefits and posed serious risks of confusion and potential unfairness.

The Value of State-Level Preemption

Larry, another advocate and commentator, notes that Maine’s strong state-level control over PFR laws sets an important precedent. Many states, he adds, only established similar preemption after court challenges—not through legislation directly.

Why is this important?
– Consistency: Uniform rules ensure clarity for both registrants and law enforcement.
– Protection: Preventing localities from imposing harsher penalties shields already marginalized populations.
– Responsibility: State preemption centralizes legal responsibility, making advocacy and reform more manageable.

Larry underscores that “for so many states that have all these restrictions, the fact that Maine has a PFR board that advocates against this and is willing to put that in writing […] is fantastic.”

---

Lessons From Other States: The Case of Texas

To better understand the significance of Maine’s approach, Andy and Larry compare it to Texas’s experience—a state where local control has led to a constant push-pull over jurisdiction.

Home Rule vs. State Oversight

Texas permits “Home Rule” for cities over a certain population threshold (historically 5,000), allowing them to enact their own PFR restrictions. However, even in Texas, the tension between state and local authority led to frequent legislative updates, especially following court rulings. As Larry points out, after a pivotal change related to COVID-era legislation, Texas standardized authority, dissolving the exclusive right previously held only by larger cities.

Maine stands out for preserving state control from the outset—a function of legislative action, backed by engaged advocacy.

---

The Crucial Role of Advocacy: “Watching” Is Not Enough

The Need for an Action Plan

Advocacy doesn’t end at monitoring bills—an insight Larry stresses passionately. While volunteers in Maine—and elsewhere—play a vital part by staying informed (“watching”), real impact comes when monitoring is paired with a concrete plan of action.

Questions every advocacy group should consider:
– What steps will we take if a bill gains traction?
– Who will contact legislators?
– Are there prepared statements or testimony?
– What networks can we mobilize?

As Larry puts it: “Watching won’t stop [a bill] from passing if you don’t have a plan. You could just watch the train wreck—or you can try to stop it.”

A Model for Other States

Maine’s advocates, with support from SOMRAAC, moved quickly to organize and voice their opposition to LD 1215. This not only contributed to the proposal’s defeat but also showcased an effective model for others: rapid response, collaboration with official commissions, and ongoing vigilance.

---

What’s Next? The Ongoing Battle Over Local Control

Status of LD 1215

At time of discussion, LD 1215 was considered dead—meaning it was not advancing through the Maine legislature. However, advocates know the issues are perennial; similar bills can reappear, particularly if local officials seek more autonomy in shaping residency or employment rules for PFRs.

Why Local Control Remains Controversial

Allowing local governments to enact their own registrant laws often leads to:
– Legal Confusion: Differing restrictions city by city.
– Unintended Consequences: Registrants may be forced out of housing or employment, heightening instability and risk.
– Possible Constitutional Challenges: Federal courts have sometimes struck down overly punitive local ordinances.

Maintaining centralized, evidence-based policy remains a best practice recommended by legal advocates, social scientists, and organizations like NARSOL.

---

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

For Advocates, Legislators, and Concerned Citizens:

1. Stay Informed, But Prepare Action Plans
   – “Watching” legislative proposals isn’t enough. Design a step-by-step response if problematic bills advance.
2. Champion State-Level Preemption
   – Use Maine as a case study to promote clarity, fairness, and effectiveness in PFR policies across other states.
3. Build Partnerships With Official Commissions
   – Collaborate with advisory boards and experts for powerful joint opposition or support on critical issues.

---

Conclusion

The saga of Maine’s LD 1215 offers more than just a local victory; it’s a lesson on vigilance, effective advocacy, and the potential perils of fragmented public safety laws. Through committed advocacy and clear legal structure, Maine avoided the pitfalls experienced elsewhere—and set a benchmark for sensible, rights-focused policy.

Advocates nationwide can glean lessons from Maine: combine monitoring with action, engage official bodies, and defend sensible, centralized lawmaking. While LD 1215 may be dead, its legacy is a stronger, more connected movement for rational public safety policy.

---

Actionable Takeaways

• Join or support state advocacy groups (like NARSOL) to monitor and respond to bills swiftly.
• Search for and read your state’s legal codes: Know where authority lies—state, local, or a mix.
• Educate your community and legislators about the risks of fragmented local ordinances and the benefits of unified state preemption.

Want to stay updated or get involved? Reach out to local advocacy coalitions, subscribe to legislative alerts, and share credible analysis like this with your network.

Introduction

Navigating the criminal justice system is a daunting task for anyone, especially when the charges are complex and the legal process is anything but transparent. The interplay between law enforcement, prosecutors, and defendants often confounds outsiders and leaves even those directly involved scratching their heads. In a recent listener submission to a legal advice podcast, a South Carolina resident recounted his cousin’s journey through such a convoluted process—a scenario that shines a light on the critical role of procedural clarity, statutory language, and the sometimes blurred lines of accountability among legal actors.

In this in-depth blog post, we dissect the layers of this listener’s story: from misunderstandings about who initiates prosecutions, to how nuanced statutory language can determine guilt or innocence. We will walk through the real-world case, clarify common misconceptions, and highlight takeaways that anyone facing a similar situation—or simply interested in the workings of our justice system—should know. By the end, you’ll better understand the importance of knowing your rights, how statutes are interpreted, and the significance of having a vigilant legal defense.

---

Section 1: The Listener’s Story—A Case Study of Process Confusion

The story kicks off with a common scenario: a listener’s cousin is facing prosecution in South Carolina, with the trial looming just days away. The defense attorney, meanwhile, appears uncertain about whether any actual laws were violated. To further muddy the waters, the state law enforcement division claims reporting wasn’t necessary—despite not being the actual prosecuting agency.

This confusion is far from unique. Many people grapple with similar uncertainties when interacting with the criminal justice system. Is law enforcement responsible for pressing charges, or is it the prosecutors? What obligation do agencies have once an investigation begins? These are questions at the heart of this case—and many others like it.

Key Questions Raised:

• Who actually initiates a criminal case?
• How is statutory ambiguity handled by law enforcement and prosecutors?
• What roles do different agencies play in pushing a prosecution forward?

The podcast hosts provide a candid look at how these processes can play out in practice. Andy, the host, reads the listener’s submission and fumbles to make sense of the process, while Larry, his co-host with legal expertise, cuts to the chase—a situation he finds both amusing and revealing about the justice system’s inner workings.

---

Section 2: Who’s Responsible? The Blame Game in Prosecution

Larry points out a critical observation: law enforcement often distances itself from the prosecution, suggesting that it’s not responsible once a case moves to the prosecutor’s office. In reality, he explains, the process is far more intertwined.

Behind the Scenes:

• Initiation: Law enforcement investigates the case, gathers evidence, and, if they believe a statute has been violated, drafts affidavits and requests for prosecution.
• Handoff: These materials are then passed to the prosecutor’s office, which technically files formal charges.
• Deflection: Should things go awry, law enforcement might imply their hands are clean, blaming the prosecution for any negative outcomes.

Larry illustrates this with an analogy: if someone fails to register with the Police Force Registration (PFR) office, it’s law enforcement that drafts an arrest affidavit and requests a warrant—not the judge, not the prosecutor out of the blue. Yet when the paperwork is complete and a warrant is issued, officials may act as though responsibility lies elsewhere.

Why This Matters:

Understanding this interplay is crucial for defendants and their families. Knowing who actually sets the prosecution process in motion empowers defendants to ask pointed questions and address the right parties. This knowledge can also prevent misunderstandings that may impact the defense strategy.

---

Section 3: Misunderstandings and the Importance of Legal Literacy

Andy, attempting to clarify, wonders aloud if the listener simply doesn’t understand the process. Larry pushes back, suggesting that law enforcement sometimes intentionally obfuscates their role to avoid blame. This recurring theme—passing the buck—creates confusion for defendants and their supporters.

Common Points of Confusion:

• The assumption that only prosecutors are responsible for legal actions
• Underestimating the influence and initiative of law enforcement agencies
• Unclear communication from officials, leading to misinterpretations

This blend of procedural complexity and occasional opacity can leave those entangled in the system feeling powerless and frustrated. Therefore, it is essential to demystify the stages of criminal prosecution, which typically follow this trajectory:

1. Investigation: Conducted by law enforcement, determining whether sufficient evidence exists.
2. Referral: Law enforcement prepares affidavits and requests prosecution from the DA or prosecutor.
3. Charging Decision: Prosecutors review the case and decide whether to proceed.
4. Prosecution: If charges are filed, the case proceeds to arraignment, pre-trial motions, and potentially trial.

By understanding each phase, both defendants and the public can better navigate the system and advocate effectively.

---

Section 4: The Power of Statutory Language—and Finding Loopholes

The case takes a dramatic turn with the judge’s decision. The judge finds the cousin not guilty, citing a lack of evidence that he “owned” the online account in question; the law specifically references the offender’s account, not that of another person.

Legal Nuance in Action:

• Statutory Specificity: The statute required ownership of the account, not mere use.
• Burden of Proof: With no concrete evidence of ownership, the prosecution’s case falls apart.
• Role of the Defense: The defense attorney identifies the absence of this key proof and builds an argument accordingly.

Larry explains this elegantly: The crux wasn’t whether the defendant benefited from the account, but whether he owned it, as per the explicit language of the law. If statutes refer to ownership, and prosecution can’t demonstrate it, a not guilty verdict must follow. Defense attorneys are trained to spot these details, and in this case, it was a game-changer.

Why These Details Matter

This scenario highlights two pivotal legal principles:

• Precision in Statutory Language: Laws mean what they say—no more, no less. Courts cannot convict individuals based on what a statute should have covered, only on what it does.
• Strategic Defense: A vigilant attorney who scrutinizes these details can make all the difference, potentially even securing a complete dismissal of charges.

---

Section 5: Celebrating (and Understanding) Defense Wins

As the story closes, Larry emphasizes his satisfaction with the outcome, irrespective of personal beliefs about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. For defense attorneys, a win is a win—especially when the prosecution falters due to lack of evidence or statutory precision.

Why Defense Victories Matter:

• They uphold the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
• They ensure the prosecution meets its full burden of proof.
• They act as a check on overzealous law enforcement or prosecutorial action.
• They reinforce the necessity of legal accuracy and fairness.

Even seasoned legal professionals like Larry take pride in outcomes where the state’s case collapses under proper scrutiny—a vital part of a balanced justice system.

---

Actionable Takeaways and Next Steps

Whether you’re navigating the criminal justice system yourself, supporting a loved one, or simply aiming to be an informed citizen, here are key lessons you can apply:

1. Learn the Process: Understand each agency’s role in criminal prosecutions to better advocate for your (or your loved one’s) rights.
2. Read the Statute Closely: Statutory language is crucial. Ensure your attorney combs through the law for any defenses or loopholes.
3. Ask Questions: Don’t accept vague answers from law enforcement or prosecutors. Push for clarity on who initiated proceedings and why.
4. Prioritize Legal Representation: Competent legal counsel can spot and leverage critical details that might escape untrained eyes.

---

Conclusion

The criminal justice system is a world of nuance, where procedural details and statutory language can dictate destinies. This real-world South Carolina case powerfully illustrates the importance of diligently unpacking the charge initiation process, demanding precise language adherence, and securing robust legal defense. Whether you find the system’s machinations amusing or frustrating, one thing is certain: understanding the interplay of all actors—and the specifics of the law—can make the difference between conviction and acquittal. Stay informed, stay vigilant, and always insist on clarity.

---

If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges, consult with a qualified defense attorney. Legal outcomes often hinge not just on facts, but on understanding the process and the letter of the law.

Introduction: The Heated Debate Surrounding Cell Phones in Prisons

The use of contraband cell phones in prisons has ignited a fierce debate in recent years, with lawmakers and correctional facilities grappling to address the growing risk these devices pose. Some argue that these phones enable incarcerated individuals to facilitate crimes, threaten public safety, and circumvent traditional prison regulations. Others counter that the exorbitant cost of prison phone calls—which can run as high as $50 per call—leaves prisoners with no alternative but to smuggle in phones to maintain critical contact with loved ones.

Recently, Republican lawmakers, led by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Representative David Kustoff of Tennessee, reintroduced a bill to allow state and federal correctional facilities to use cell phone-jamming technology. The proposed legislation has reignited debates about public safety, the ethics of prison phone costs, and whether such measures truly address the root cause of the issue.

In this blog, we’ll dive into the specifics of the proposal, the controversies surrounding it, the broader implications for prisoners and their families, and the deeper systemic issues that are often ignored in such debates. By the end, you’ll have a clearer understanding of whether this solution tackles the real problems or merely skirts around them.

---

What Is Cell Phone Jamming, and Why Is It Being Proposed?

Cell phone jamming refers to the use of technology that blocks or disrupts wireless communications within a specific area. The goal of the proposed legislation is to prevent incarcerated individuals from using contraband cellphones, which have been linked to criminal activity both inside and outside prison walls.

At a press conference, Senator Cotton emphasized the danger these devices pose, noting that “crimes are planned, facilitated, and ordered by convicted criminals already serving prison sentences.” According to an Urban Institute survey, correctional administrators reported recovering over 25,000 contraband phones across 20 states in 2020 alone—a staggering statistic that highlights the scale of the problem.

Proponents of the measure argue that jamming systems would give correctional facilities a much-needed tool to clamp down on contraband phones and enhance public safety. However, critics raise legitimate concerns about the unintended consequences of such technology. Federal law currently bans the use of cell phone jammers due to their potential to interfere with emergency 911 calls, public communications, and even authorized prison communications.

---

The Hidden Costs of Prison Phone Systems

One glaring omission in discussions about contraband phones is the high cost of prison phone calls, which plays a significant role in the contraband phone epidemic. For incarcerated individuals, staying connected with family and friends is critical for emotional well-being and successful reintegration into society. However, these calls come at a steep price.

In many prisons, making a single phone call can cost upwards of $25 to $50, making it financially prohibitive for many inmates and their families. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has attempted to cap these rates in the past—most notably during the Obama administration when FCC commissioners sought to reduce the financial burden of prison communication rates. However, these efforts were rolled back during the Trump administration under FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who was a former Verizon executive. Critics argue that the reversal of these reforms prioritized corporate profits over basic human rights.

For many prisoners, smuggled cell phones provide a much cheaper alternative to staying in touch with loved ones. While these phones may be considered contraband, they also serve as a lifeline for families torn apart by incarceration. As one observer noted, the narrative seldom highlights the fact that prisoners often resort to cell phones out of necessity rather than malicious intent.

---

Smuggling Contraband Phones: The How and Why

The prevalence of contraband phones in prisons raises an obvious question: how do these devices make it behind bars? According to corrections officials, many contraband phones are smuggled in by prison staff. Staff members may sneak phones into facilities directly or pass them to inmates who work in roles that allow them to leave and re-enter certain areas of the prison.

Another method, albeit uncomfortable to discuss, involves “suitcasing,” where individuals smuggle phones into facilities by concealing them in their bodies. While this method is less common than staff smuggling, it underscores the lengths people will go to ensure access to communication in a system that makes phone calls so costly.

Addressing the supply chain for contraband cell phones is undoubtedly a challenge. However, experts agree that jamming technology alone will not solve the issue. Instead, re-examining the systemic flaws that make contraband phones attractive to inmates in the first place is crucial.

---

Understanding the Broader Implications

While the proposed cell phone-jamming legislation seeks to address immediate safety concerns, its broader implications warrant careful consideration. Critics argue that jamming devices could have serious unintended consequences. For instance:

1. Interference with Emergency Services
   Cell phone jammers disrupt all wireless signals within their range, which could interfere with critical 911 calls. This poses a risk not just to inmates but to everyone in the surrounding area, especially in rural areas where prisons are located near small communities.
2. Impact on Rehabilitation and Family Ties
   Communication with family members plays a vital role in reducing recidivism. Limiting access to communication—either by driving up costs or restricting cell phone usage—could alienate inmates from their loved ones, making reintegration into society even more difficult. Instead of promoting rehabilitation, these measures risk creating a more disconnected and disenfranchised prison population.
3. Costs and Resource Allocation
   Implementing jamming systems would require significant investment in monitoring and maintenance. Critics question whether these funds could be better spent addressing underlying issues, such as reducing phone call costs, improving prison security, or enhancing rehabilitation programs.
4. Erosion of Accountability
   Some argue that introducing jamming technology could embolden prison facilities to continue exploiting incarcerated individuals through overpriced phone systems. Without addressing the root causes of the contraband phone problem, prioritizing jamming technology may only serve as a stopgap measure.

---

A Better Path Forward? A Case for Reform

The cell phone-jamming debate touches on larger issues within the American prison system, including privatization, economic inequality, and over-incarceration. To truly address the issue of contraband phones, a more holistic approach is needed—one that goes beyond technology and tackles the systemic issues at play.

Some potential solutions include:

• Lowering Phone Call Costs: Implementing reasonable caps on prison call rates could reduce the need for contraband phones while maintaining transparency and accountability in the correctional telecommunications industry.
• Investing in Security Measures: Improving staff training and monitoring programs could help deter employees from smuggling contraband into facilities.
• Prioritizing Rehabilitation: Programs that focus on skill-building, education, and family reunification have been shown to reduce recidivism and improve public safety over time.

---

Conclusion: Addressing the Core Issues

The push to jam cell phone signals in prisons is rooted in valid concerns about public safety, but it risks addressing the symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem. The exorbitant costs of prison phone calls, the underinvestment in prison security and rehabilitation, and the lack of systemic reform are issues that must be addressed alongside any efforts to combat contraband phones.

As this issue continues to evolve, it remains vital to strike a balance between ensuring safety, protecting communication rights, and fostering rehabilitation. Without that balance, attempts to clamp down on contraband phones may only exacerbate the deeper flaws in the prison system.

Sweltering temperatures, uncooled prison cells, tragic inmate deaths, and steadfast resistance from lawmakers—these are the hallmarks of a fiery debate that has been heating up in Texas for years. At the center is a federal ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Pittman, who declared that the conditions in unairconditioned Texas prisons are “plainly unconstitutional.” Now, the state’s correctional system and government officials face mounting pressure to address what some are calling a humanitarian crisis. But is relief on the horizon, or will bureaucratic and cultural resistance continue to leave Texas prisoners in dangerous, oppressive heat?

This debate is far more than a question of temperature regulation; it delves into morality, constitutional law, and fiscal responsibility. Let’s unravel the controversy, discuss the stakes involved, and explore the broader implications for prison conditions nationwide.

---

The Legal Landscape: A Groundbreaking Ruling with Lingering Uncertainty

The saga began with a pivotal decision by Judge Robert Pittman, an appointee of President Barack Obama, who stated unequivocally that housing inmates in dangerously hot facilities violated their constitutional rights. Pittman’s 91-page ruling, which highlighted the dangers of excessive heat in Texas prisons, was significant but far from the final word—with the judge declining an immediate mandate to install temporary or permanent air conditioning.

Instead, Pittman announced that the case would likely proceed to a bench trial, leaving the ultimate outcome uncertain. This ruling follows decades of advocacy for better prison conditions and multiple lawsuits asserting that the extreme heat in correctional facilities amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

For the plaintiffs, including formerly incarcerated individuals like Marcy Marie Simmons, progress, no matter how incremental, is cause for optimism. Simmons referred to the judge’s ruling as a win, expressing a hope that Texas lawmakers might finally act to fund air conditioning in state prisons. “I cried,” she said, “for my people on the inside.”

Yet, skepticism remains widespread—both inside and outside the courtroom—as many Texas officials and advocates believe the road to reform will be long and contentious.

---

A Deadly Reality: The Heat Crisis in Texas Prisons

The danger of extreme heat in Texas prisons cannot be overstated. With record-breaking temperatures becoming increasingly common due to climate change, the risks to inmates in facilities without air conditioning are mounting. As of 2022, approximately 85,000 inmates in Texas resided in facilities without air conditioning in most living areas. In just the summer of 2022, a Texas Tribune investigation found at least 41 heat-related deaths in uncooled prisons.

These figures add to years of grim statistics. Between 1998 and 2012, at least 23 people died from heat exposure in Texas prisons, with many more suffering severe heat-related illnesses. Advocacy groups argue that these deaths are preventable, often referring to the practice of housing inmates in extreme temperatures as “cooking” them alive.

Texas prisoners are often housed in facilities that can reach oven-like conditions during the summer, with temperatures inside rarely dipping below 100°F (38°C). Autopsies of inmates who died from heat exposure frequently note contributing medical conditions, but even prison officials have admitted that extreme heat exacerbated these deaths. Yet, critics argue that the official narrative often downplays the dangers, attributing tragedies to “underlying conditions.”

---

The Cost of Reform: Funding Crises or Policy Priorities?

Opponents of air conditioning prisons often point to the cost as a reason for inaction. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), retrofitting all prisons across the state with permanent air conditioning would exceed $1.1 billion in upfront costs, with an additional $20 million annually for maintenance and operation.

While these figures are substantial, critics note that Texas had a $32.7 billion budget surplus in 2022—more than enough to cover the cost of installing air conditioning. However, no significant funding was allocated for prison cooling systems during that period. In fact, while the Texas House of Representatives approved $545 million for prison air conditioning, the more conservative state Senate countered with zero funding for such measures.

Advocates argue that this lack of funding isn’t a reflection of financial limitations, but rather political priorities. And they’re not wrong: Texas has consistently resisted efforts to reduce inmate populations, invest in rehabilitation, or improve prison conditions despite repeated legal challenges and media scrutiny. Even when presented with evidence that air-conditioned prisons could mitigate health risks and ultimately save lives, lawmakers have balked, citing cost concerns.

---

Resistance and Controversy: Why Texas Won’t Budge

At its core, the debate over air conditioning in Texas prisons is as much about cultural values and political identity as it is about money. Many Texans—lawmakers and voters alike—bristle at the idea of federal judges or outside advocates dictating how the state should run its correctional facilities. This defiance is part of a broader “Don’t Mess with Texas” ethos that views such mandates as an affront to state sovereignty.

As one commentator put it, “Many Texans are happy to defy an unelected federal judge. Who the hell does he think he is coming in here wearing that black robe to tell us how to run our state?” Such sentiments underscore a widespread belief that prisoners—many of whom are serving time for violent or serious offenses—do not deserve “comforts” like air conditioning.

Others argue that failing to provide humane living conditions stands at odds with constitutional protections. Critics contend that ignoring the health risks of extreme heat while funneling billions into other areas of the budget reveals the state’s indifference to prisoner welfare.

---

Alternative Solutions: Mitigating the Heat Without A/C?

While air conditioning seems the most obvious solution, TDCJ has attempted several stopgap measures to address the heat issue. These include “respite areas,” where inmates can cool off, providing ice and electrolytes, and training correctional officers to recognize signs of heat-related illness. Inmates with medical vulnerabilities linked to heat sensitivity are theoretically given priority placement in air-conditioned cells.

However, these measures come across as half-hearted to many critics. As of August 2023, only 12,000 of the state’s 85,000 inmates housed in scorching conditions had been screened for heat sensitivity. And while TDCJ highlights ongoing efforts to install air conditioning with an $85 million allocation, progress remains slow—with only a fraction of those funds spent so far.

The truth is simple: these interim solutions fail to address the systemic issue. They’re seen as band-aids on a gaping wound, barely scratching the surface of what is needed to ensure the safety and dignity of Texas prisoners.

---

Broader Implications: Extending the Conversation Beyond Texas

The prison heat crisis isn’t unique to Texas. Across the Southern U.S.—states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida—prison systems face similar lawsuits over extreme heat in correctional facilities. The debates often mirror those in Texas, with advocates framing the issue as one of basic human rights, and opponents citing costs, practicality, and “tough-on-crime” policies as reasons not to act.

These cases collectively raise larger questions about prison reform in America. How much weight should we give to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? At what point does the lack of basic accommodations breach constitutional boundaries—and, more importantly, moral ones?

---

The Path Forward: Action is Long Overdue

The heated debate over Texas prisons clearly illustrates the tension between fiscal conservatism, state sovereignty, and human rights. But as temperatures rise alongside inmate death tolls, one fact remains indisputable: change is long overdue. Whether through federal mandates or state-driven reforms, Texas must reckon with its responsibility to provide humane conditions for its incarcerated population. Ignoring the issue, or resorting to stopgap measures, risks not only more lawsuits but also more lives lost.

Key Takeaways:

1. Constitutional Debate: Judge Pittman’s ruling highlights the complexity of applying the Eighth Amendment to modern standards of humane treatment.
2. Policy vs. Priorities: The financial costs of air conditioning are dwarfed by Texas’s budget surplus—a sign that this is more about priorities than money.
3. Larger Implications: The issue in Texas is part of a broader national conversation about prison conditions in the U.S., particularly in the South.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to install air conditioning in Texas prisons—it’s whether we can afford not to.

Introduction:
The legal landscape for those impacted by Michigan’s sex offender registration laws has experienced a tectonic shift thanks to a pivotal class-action case that challenges the constitutionality of the Michigan Public Sex Offender Registry Act (SOR). This decision, handed down as part of John Doe et al. v. Gretchen Whitmer et al., wasn’t the product of a dramatic jury trial but rather a summary judgment—essentially a legal decision made based on the presented evidence before the trial stage could even begin. Here’s a deep dive into the major takeaways, what this means for registrants, and what to anticipate in the coming months. If you’ve been affected by SOR laws or are fascinated by how constitutional challenges play out in real-time, this is a groundbreaking case worth following.

---

Summary Judgment: No Trial Necessary—But Why?

Perhaps one of the most interesting elements of the decision is that it was reached via summary judgment rather than a full trial. So what is a summary judgment? Simply put, it’s a court ruling made when there’s no substantial dispute about the facts of the case, allowing legal matters to be resolved without a jury. Here, the District Court in Michigan reviewed the evidence presented by both parties and decided the legal issues were clear-cut enough to rule without the need for testimony or further dispute.

While some, including legal experts like attorney Larry from the prominent Registry Matters discussion on this topic, often critique summary judgments as bypassing vital procedural storytelling, it can simplify cases where the facts are indisputable. In this instance, strong stipulations of fact seemed sufficient for the judge to move forward.

What’s groundbreaking here is not just the decision itself but the clarity it provides on how SOR laws—particularly controversial provisions—measure up to constitutional muster.

---

Key Provisions Declared Unconstitutional

As with many class-action lawsuits of this nature, the plaintiffs in this case raised several specific arguments about why Michigan’s SOR laws overstep legal and constitutional bounds. Below are several critical issues addressed by the court:

1. Ex Post Facto Violations

At the heart of the court’s decision was a ruling that retroactive application of SOR laws imposed unconstitutional punishment. Plaintiffs argued successfully against amendments made to Michigan’s registry law in 2021, which retroactively extended reporting requirements and registration periods. The court determined these provisions violated the “Ex Post Facto Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents after-the-fact punishment.

This ruling calls for the immediate removal of certain registrants who were subjected to retroactive penalties. Within 60 days of the judgment, the state is required to notify affected individuals of their removal—a monumental decision in itself.

2. Severability Challenge

Another critical finding was that unconstitutional portions of the SOR law could not simply be “cut out” while leaving the rest of the law intact. The court ruled that the offending provisions were so integral to the act that a meaningful registry cannot continue to exist without them—leaving Michigan legislators in the precarious position of potentially rebuilding the law from scratch.

3. Registration for Non-Sexual Offenses

Perhaps one of the more head-turning elements of modern registries is the inclusion of individuals who commit crimes that do not have a sexual element—such as kidnapping a minor without sexual intent. The court ruled this practice a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision immediately invalidates the requirement for individuals with non-sexual offenses to appear on the registry without a clear judicial determination that their crimes fit the registry’s purpose.

---

Wins & Losses for Plaintiffs

Not every claim raised in this sweeping case was successful. Some key victories, however, stand out:

• Mandatory Registration Restrictions Upheld as Win: Requirements to list temporary lodging, secondary residences, or email addresses were determined to be vague and unenforceable.
• Non-Michigan Offense Discrimination: The court struck down language treating individuals with non-Michigan convictions more harshly than native Michiganders.

However, not all counts went in favor of the plaintiffs. For instance, claims related to “unequal opportunities to petition for removal” and “registration without individualized reviews” failed to gain traction.

---

Next Steps for Michigan and Registrants

The court allowed a 90-day window before the judgment officially takes effect. This opens the door for Michigan lawmakers to revise the challenged statutes. As Larry from Registry Matters noted, this could easily become a delaying tactic, with the state enacting placeholder provisions to buy time. Historically, similar cases (as in Does v. Snyder, also in Michigan) demonstrate the state’s reluctance to implement changes until every appeal path has been exhausted.

Additionally, an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is almost certain. If the case progresses, it could even attract the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the evolving makeup of the court and growing national interest in the constitutionality of sex offender registries.

---

What Registrants Should Do Now

1. Understand Your Current Standing Under Michigan Law

If you or someone you know falls into one of the overturned categories—such as registrants with non-sexual offenses or retroactively applied penalties—it’s important to consult legal counsel about how the judgment may apply to you.

2. Watch for Legislative Developments

The court left room for Michigan legislators to amend the SOR laws to address their constitutional defects. Advocacy groups and impacted communities should monitor these moves closely to ensure that any revisions comply with the court’s guidance.

3. Prepare for Delay Tactics

As history suggests, states rarely give up on SOR laws without a fight. Registrants should anticipate appeals and consider contributing to legal funds or joining organizations actively involved in litigation and reform efforts.

---

Concluding Reflections

This case represents a massive win for those challenging overly punitive registry laws. The court’s acknowledgment of constitutional overreach underscores the importance of fairness, due process, and individual rights—even when dealing with controversial topics like sex offender registries. However, with likely appeals, potential legislative tweaks, and potential Supreme Court involvement, the fight is far from over.

For now, registrants impacted by Michigan’s current SOR laws can celebrate this symbolic victory while staying vigilant about future developments.

---

Actionable Takeaways:
1. Stay Informed: Keep tabs on updates around appeals and legislative reforms in Michigan.
2. Seek Legal Advice: Individuals impacted by SOR laws should consult experienced attorneys about how this case might alter their status.
3. Advocate for Change: Use this momentum to push for broader reforms in laws affecting registrants throughout the U.S.

This victory might be in Michigan, but its ripple effects could reshape registry practices nationwide.

The legislative session in New Mexico has officially wrapped up, and it was anything but quiet. Over the course of 60 days, a flurry of bills was debated, challenged, and either passed or defeated—all while stirring public discourse around criminal justice reform and public safety. For advocates working to prevent overreach in laws impacting certain populations, this session was particularly momentous, with significant battles fought and, in their eyes, victories achieved.

In this blog post, we’ll break down some of the most hotly contested bills of the session, provide insights into the legislative process, and highlight the broader implications of these decisions. Whether you’re tuning in as a policy enthusiast, legal professional, or advocate for criminal justice reform, this article will deliver both substance and context.

---

How Legislative Sessions Work in New Mexico: A Primer

Before diving into the specific legislative successes and failures, it’s important to understand the mechanics of New Mexico’s legislative process. The state operates on a biennial schedule of alternating 30- and 60-day sessions, with this year being a full-length 60-day term. During this period, proposals must navigate various stages, including committee reviews in both chambers, floor debates, and final votes.

Bills that fail to pass within the session’s time limits are considered “dead,” meaning advocates for or against specific legislation often find themselves racing the clock—a theme that emerged repeatedly this year.

---

Key Legislative Battles: Bills That Shaped the Debate

New Mexico’s 2025 legislative session saw numerous proposals aimed at reshaping criminal justice policy. Here’s a closer look at the most talked-about and controversial bills—and their ultimate fates.

1. House Bill 73: Eliminating the Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Abuse Cases

• Proposal Overview: This bill sought to eliminate the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits in cases of personal injury stemming from childhood sexual abuse. Currently, the statute of limitations hinges on the victim’s age or when the abuse was first disclosed to a medical provider.
• Outcome: Defeated in the Senate. Despite passing the House unanimously, the bill failed to gain traction in the Senate, where it ultimately died.
• Analysis: Advocates argue that removing the statute of limitations would empower survivors to seek justice, even years after the abuse occurred. However, concerns were raised about balancing justice with fairness, particularly for cases relying on decades-old evidence.

2. House Bill 86: Expanding the Definition of Human Trafficking

• Proposal Overview: This bill proposed a broader definition of human trafficking to capture activities indirectly linked to exploitation and abuse.
• Outcome: Defeated in the House Judiciary Committee. It never made it to a full floor vote.
• Why it Matters: According to experts, bills like this can inadvertently cast a too-wide net, penalizing individuals who may not have engaged in trafficking but were loosely associated with its key players.

3. House Bill 87: Clarification of Nonconsensual Touching Laws

• Proposal Overview: This bill aimed to clarify legal definitions and tighten restrictions around nonconsensual physical contact.
• Outcome: Died on the Senate floor calendar. While it made substantial progress, time ran out before the Senate could take a final vote.
• Legislative Process Insight: This bill’s death highlights one of the challenges of the legislative process: A limited session means time management becomes a make-or-break factor for many proposals.

4. House Bill 322: Increasing Penalties for Serious Crimes

• Proposal Overview: In response to concerns about rising crime rates in New Mexico, this bill proposed harsher penalties for specific offenses, including the reinstatement of the death penalty in cases of severe sexual violence and human trafficking.
• Outcome: Killed in its first committee hearing.
• Bigger Picture: Advocates against the bill argued that introducing harsher penalties does little to address root causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of educational opportunities. Critics also labeled such measures as overly punitive and misaligned with evidence-based criminal justice reform.

5. House Bill 385: Chemical Castration for Offenders

• Proposal Overview: This highly controversial bill proposed allowing chemical treatment to suppress sexual urges in specific criminal cases.
• Outcome: Dead on arrival. The proposal didn’t even receive a hearing, aligning with predictions that the measure would fail to gain support.
• Public Response: Bills like this often ignite impassioned debate, with supporters describing them as tools for public safety and opponents condemning them as inhumane.

6. Senate Bill 74: Removing Statutes of Limitations for Certain Crimes

• Proposal Overview: Among its provisions, this bill proposed eliminating limitations for prosecuting offenses like human trafficking and expanding definitions of the crime to include terms such as “harboring” or “maintaining.”
• Outcome: Defeated. The bill faced significant criticism for its vagueness and potential to criminalize vague or indirect associations with illegal activity.
• Why Advocates Opposed It: Expanding the definitions of human trafficking and related crimes can create unintended consequences, such as unjustly ensnaring individuals in criminal proceedings based on circumstantial evidence.

---

Advocacy Efforts That Made a Difference

The successful prevention of these bills didn’t happen by chance. According to Larry, a longtime advocate and expert in legislative affairs, victories were a result of collaborative efforts among multiple organizations. Groups such as the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the State Office of the Public Defender contributed data-driven insights to legislative committees, helping decision-makers understand the potential impact of proposed bills.

Larry also emphasizes the importance of presenting compelling, factual data rather than relying purely on emotional appeals. “We come in with reams of recidivism data and cost-analysis reports,” he explained. This approach has proven effective in stark contrast to well-intentioned but less persuasive emotional rhetoric often employed by advocacy groups.

---

Factors Driving Crime in New Mexico

A recurring theme throughout the session was New Mexico’s elevated crime rate. While certain lawmakers advocated for stricter punishments, critics pointed to deeper societal issues as contributing factors:

1. Economic Challenges: High levels of poverty correlate strongly with elevated crime rates.
2. Educational Disparities: Persistent underperformance in education—a ranking near the bottom nationally—limits opportunities for upward mobility.
3. Substance Abuse Rates: New Mexico also struggles with high rates of addiction, particularly alcoholism, further exacerbating criminal behavior.

Understanding these root causes creates opportunities for systemic improvements that go beyond simply increasing penalties or expanding definitions of crime.

---

Concluding Insights

New Mexico’s 2025 legislative session proved to be a significant battleground for those advocating against overly punitive criminal justice measures. By preventing the passage of multiple controversial bills, advocates demonstrated the power of collaboration, data, and strategic legislative engagement.

Key Takeaways for Advocates

1. Timing is Everything: Legislative time constraints can often derail even comprehensive proposals. Effective advocacy means monitoring the calendar closely and strategizing accordingly.
2. Evidence over Emotion: Policymakers are more likely to respond to solid data and reports than solely emotional appeals.
3. Collaboration Works: Success frequently hinges on partnerships between advocacy groups, defense associations, and state-level organizations committed to justice reform.

New Mexico’s legislative process offers a valuable blueprint for advocates nationwide. As emerging challenges and debates around criminal justice continue to evolve, the lessons learned here will undoubtedly resonate beyond state boundaries.

---

For Readers: Are you an advocate working in your state to push for or challenge important legislation? Share your experiences with us in the comments or email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. We’d love to hear what’s happening where you live—and how you’re making change happen.

Introduction
Navigating the world of politics and legislation can feel like venturing into a maze. For individuals and organizations seeking to introduce or influence policy changes, especially in areas as contentious as criminal justice reform or registry-related issues, the challenges can seem insurmountable. How can one gain legislative sponsorship for a bill when the odds are stacked against them? How can you build enough momentum to overcome skepticism and political risk?

Such questions often arise for advocates and reformers, especially in politically polarized environments. In this article, we’ll explore pragmatic strategies to navigate the legislative process, build relationships with key decision-makers, and secure sponsorship for your proposals. By understanding the nuances of political capital, committee structures, and coalition building, you’ll be better equipped to make your voice heard—even in the most challenging of circumstances.

Is It Just Coincidence, or Can Advocacy Really Make a Difference?

One common question posed to political advocates is whether their actions truly influence legislative outcomes, or if success is purely coincidental—a result of timing or external factors. Answering this question requires an honest assessment of both advocacy strategies and the broader political environment.

Take, for example, legislative battles in New Mexico where a slate of contested bills failed to pass. These were not mere accidents. According to Larry, a political advocate heavily involved in the process, success often results from a combination of strategic efforts and the environment created by informed legislators.

While advocates like Larry work to cultivate relationships and educate lawmakers, the presence of intelligent legislators willing to thoroughly scrutinize proposals also plays a vital role. “We don’t take credit for all the failure to pass bad bills,” Larry explains, “but we had a hand in it.” This collaborative effort highlights an important takeaway: policy successes rarely result from individual efforts alone. Advocacy matters, but it must work in tandem with allies—whether they are other advocacy groups, defense associations, or policymakers themselves.

The Biggest Obstacle: Gaining a Legislator’s Support

For those seeking legislative sponsorship for a bill—especially one aimed at criminal justice reform or registry-related goals—the challenges can appear daunting. Politicians are inherently risk-averse, particularly when engaging with polarizing topics. A Reddit user’s inquiry about gaining legislative sponsorship in Arizona starkly emphasized the difficulty: how do you convince lawmakers to support a cause that’s politically sensitive or unpopular?

Larry’s answer sheds light on the process. He emphasizes the importance of understanding what a legislator can do and tailoring your approach accordingly.

Decoding Political Capital

Political capital—the influence a legislator holds based on their tenure, election record, and position—is a critical concept for advocates to grasp. A legislator with years of experience and a history of landslide victories has significantly more latitude to support controversial issues than a freshman lawmaker barely scraping by in tight races.

“Find out how long they’ve been in office and what their electoral margins are,” Larry advises. “If they’re winning by 50.5% to 49.5%, they don’t have any political capital. They can’t do anything for you.”

By contrast, a veteran legislator who has served multiple terms without facing a challenger—and won by comfortable margins—can represent a golden opportunity. These lawmakers have the political leverage to take risks and lead on controversial initiatives without fearing for their electoral future.

Identify the Right Committees

Another factor determining a legislator’s ability to champion your cause is their committee assignments. If your issue ties into criminal justice, targeting legislators on judiciary committees is far more productive than approaching someone on committees unrelated to your cause (such as agriculture or transportation).

That said, a legislator not currently serving on a relevant committee can still be a valuable ally. “A 22-year veteran who hasn’t had an opponent in multiple election cycles may not serve on the judiciary committee,” Larry notes, “but trust me, they know someone who does.” Such legislators can open doors—either by influencing others or securing sponsorship from someone with the right jurisdiction.

Building Coalitions: The Power of Strength in Numbers

Advocacy is rarely a solo endeavor, and successful initiatives depend on mobilizing support among multiple stakeholders. One key stumbling block for advocates is addressing lawmakers’ inevitable question: “How much support do you have for this bill?”

Without an existing coalition or backing from other groups, persuading a legislator to champion your cause is an uphill battle. As Larry points out, no seasoned politician wants to sponsor a bill with no visible public or institutional support—especially if the issue carries political risks.

To avoid this pitfall:
1. Do the Groundwork: Before approaching lawmakers, engage with community members, advocacy groups, and other organizations that align with your cause. Their support will serve as valuable evidence of a burgeoning campaign.
2. Focus on Networking: Broaden your reach by meeting with legislators, their staffers, and other elected officials. Highlight initial signs of support to build momentum.
3. Develop a Strategy of Appeal: If direct and visible legislative support is limited, frame your pitches to highlight indirect support. For instance, some legislators may opt to cosponsor rather than lead a bill but can contribute to its legitimacy.

By presenting yourself as a credible advocate with a coalition of support, you can mitigate the political risk individual lawmakers might perceive in endorsing your proposal.

Navigating Partisan Politics

Advocacy strategies often differ depending on local political dynamics. In states dominated by a single party—like Alabama and Mississippi—it’s typically unproductive to approach legislators from the minority party. Conversely, in more balanced states like Minnesota or Arizona, there may be a broader range of lawmakers willing to engage.

In red-dominated states:
– Focus efforts on moderate or influential members of the majority party.
– Use shared values or common goals to establish rapport before broaching contentious topics.

In purple or evenly balanced states:
– Seek bipartisan sponsorship when possible—this signals broader support and reduces the risk of partisan backlash.
– Tailor messaging to address both progressive and conservative concerns, creating a narrative that appeals across party lines.

Practical Takeaways for Advocacy

Navigating legislative sponsorship requires persistence, strategy, and foresight. As you set out to advocate for your policy goals, consider the following actionable tips:

1. Research Lawmakers Thoroughly: Understand their political capital, committee assignments, voting records, and electoral history before making your pitch.
2. Build Relationships First: Advocacy is relational. Before asking for sponsorship, spend time building rapport and demonstrating your understanding of their priorities.
3. Leverage Established Support: Strengthen your case by showcasing endorsements or support from other groups, community leaders, or constituents.
4. Strategize Committee Engagements: If a legislator isn’t directly connected to your issue, identify their connections to relevant committees or use them as intermediaries to reach others.
5. Adapt to Local Politics: Tailor your approach to fit the political realities of your state or district, avoiding wasted efforts in unproductive areas.

Conclusion

Securing legislative sponsorship for a bill is no small feat—especially when your issue is politically sensitive or controversial. But as Larry’s insights reveal, success lies in strategy, research, and relationship-building. By understanding the playing field, using political capital wisely, and mobilizing coalitions of support, advocates can navigate around obstacles and create meaningful change.

Advocacy isn’t just a matter of chance; it’s about careful planning and relentless perseverance. With the right approach, even the toughest legislative battles can be won.

Introduction: The Complexity Surrounding Pennsylvania’s Recent Court Ruling

In a case that has sparked intense debate, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled on the appeal of Joseph Davis, a man convicted of distributing child pornography and using a communications facility for criminal activity. While cases involving such subject matter are inherently sensitive and controversial, the crux of the issue lies in Davis’s contention that his mandatory life sentence without parole violates constitutional protections.

Davis’s case underlines the intersection of recidivism, sentencing laws, and constitutional challenges, sparking critical questions: How does society strike a balance between punishment and justice? Are mandatory life sentences proportional when applied to non-violent offenders? This article dives into the case, the arguments raised, and the court’s reasoning, providing a thorough and insightful exploration of the legal and moral dilemmas surrounding the ruling.

---

Understanding the Background of Joseph Davis’s Case

Joseph Davis has a long history of convictions for offenses related to child pornography, dating back to the 1980s. His recent charges stem from incidents in 2014 and 2015, when investigations conducted by Pennsylvania’s Office of the Attorney General uncovered his continued involvement in distributing explicit material online. Despite a prior conviction in 1987 and another in 1991, Davis returned to similar behavior decades later, causing investigators to deem him a high-risk habitual offender.

When law enforcement searched Davis’s residence in 2014, Davis was found to be the sole user of his computer. Investigators obtained substantial evidence linking him to the distribution of illegal material. To complicate matters, a second investigation in 2015, while his initial case was still pending, revealed more of the same conduct. Davis openly admitted his past convictions to authorities but failed to grasp the severity of his situation, even making statements reflecting a lack of remorse and a belief that his actions should not be illegal.

After his conviction, the Commonwealth sought two concurrent mandatory lifetime sentences under Pennsylvania’s recidivist statutes—legislation designed to incapacitate repeat offenders.

---

The Legal Challenge: Proportionality and Cruel & Unusual Punishment

On appeal, Davis made a central argument: The mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon him were unconstitutional. He cited both the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution’s equivalent provisions against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Specifically, Davis contended that his punishment was disproportionate to his crimes, as his offenses did not involve violence, physical contact, or the creation of illegal material.

Davis raised several key points in his appeal:

1. Non-Violence and Context: Davis argued that his crimes, though undeniably serious, were non-violent. He maintained that he did not produce child pornography, meet with minors, or engage in violent behavior. His actions were confined to digital possession and distribution.
2. Time Gap: His previous convictions occurred decades ago, in 1987 and 1991, with no intervening offenses until his arrest in 2014.
3. Disproportionate Sentencing: Davis highlighted discrepancies between his lifetime sentence and Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines for similar offenses, which would have resulted in a far shorter prison term (36 to 48 months for each count, according to the standard range). He also noted that crimes like third-degree murder result in significantly lighter sentences than his own.

Davis sought to advance a precedent set by Solem v. Helm (1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a life sentence imposed on a defendant with a history of minor, non-violent offenses. However, the Pennsylvania court ultimately rejected Davis’s arguments.

---

The Court’s Rationale: Why Davis’s Appeal Was Denied

The Pennsylvania Superior Court relied on several factors in upholding Davis’s life sentence. At the heart of its decision was Davis’s recidivism and his apparent disregard for the law. Here’s how the court addressed the core issues:

1. Grave Nature of the Offense:
   – Although Davis’s crimes were non-violent, the court emphasized the serious harm caused by possession and distribution of child pornography. Such activities perpetuate the sexual exploitation of children by creating ongoing demand for such material.
2. Legitimacy of Pennsylvania’s Recidivism Statute:
   – Pennsylvania law stipulates that individuals convicted of three enumerated sexual offenses, arising from separate incidents, face mandatory life imprisonment. Davis’s convictions in 1987, 1991, and the recent two incidents (2014 and 2015) clearly met the statutory criteria.
   – Unlike in Solem v. Helm, Davis’s series of crimes were interconnected and reinforced his status as a repeat offender, leaving the court to conclude that incapacitating him was in the public interest.
3. Proportionality and Federal Precedents:
   – The court rejected Davis’s argument that his lifetime sentence violates the principle of proportionality embedded in the Eighth Amendment. It cited Ewing v. California (2003), which upheld a recidivist “three strikes” law imposing a harsh sentence (25-to-life) even on a less serious third offense.
   – The court deemed Davis’s sentence consistent with Pennsylvania’s legislative goals of incapacitation and deterrence. His lack of remorse and continued engagement in the crime further solidified the appropriateness of the punishment.

---

Balancing Justice and the Constitution: A Broader Look at Recidivism Laws

1. Are Mandatory Sentences Fair?

Critics of mandatory minimums argue that they remove judicial discretion, potentially resulting in unfairly severe penalties. In cases like Davis’s, some may feel a distinction should be made between violent offenders and those involved in less direct harm. However, proponents argue that habitual offenders like Davis demonstrate a chronic inability to abide by laws and thus justify strong, consistent penalties.

2. The Role of the Judiciary: Legislating from the Bench?

Davis’s appeal can be viewed as a request for judicial activism—asking a court to limit the application of a law in a way that the legislature had not intended. Pennsylvania’s sentencing framework reflects the collective will of lawmakers and the public. The court’s refusal to deem the statute unconstitutional demonstrates deference to the state’s legislative authority.

---

Key Takeaways and Lessons from the Case of Joseph Davis

1. Recidivism Laws Can Be Unforgiving:
   – Pennsylvania’s three-strike statute harshly penalizes repeat offenders, even for non-violent crimes. The rationale is simple: offenders who repeatedly commit serious crimes pose a greater risk to public safety.
2. Constitutional Challenges to Mandatory Sentences are Rarely Successful:
   – Courts presume the constitutionality of state laws, and challenges based on proportionality or fairness have a high bar to clear.
3. Serious Crimes, Serious Consequences:
   – Davis’s long history of possessing and distributing illegal materials shaped the court’s ruling. Despite the non-violent nature of his crimes, his lack of remorse and repeated offenses led to an outcome many might consider unsurprising.

---

Conclusion: A Case of Strict Justice

Joseph Davis’s case exemplifies the strength of Pennsylvania’s stance on habitual offenders, particularly when it comes to crimes of a sexual nature. While opinions may vary on the fairness of the law’s application in this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in upholding legislative intent.

For advocates of reform, the case raises broader questions about the effectiveness of harsh sentencing laws. Do such penalties lower recidivism rates, or do they reflect a rigid punitive approach? For now, Davis’s case serves as a sobering reminder of the long-term consequences of criminal acts—and the unyielding nature of laws designed to protect society’s most vulnerable.

In a world increasingly influenced by legal interpretations—whether it’s a breaking Supreme Court decision or the implications of recently passed legislation—having an opinion about the law has never been more relevant. Yet, for many, expressing legal opinions without holding an official attorney’s license can prompt an onslaught of criticism. Some argue that only licensed practitioners are “qualified” to talk about the law, while others emphasize the democratic right to free speech and the importance of accessible legal discourse.

This brings us to a debate that’s both timely and nuanced: What are the boundaries for non-lawyers when it comes to offering legal commentary? More importantly, are accusations of “stay in your lane” really valid in this context?

In this article, we’ll break down the nuances of expressing legal opinions as a non-lawyer, discuss the ethical and professional concerns surrounding such statements, and explore how our society balances free speech with professional expertise. Whether you’re someone dabbling in legal analysis or an audience member curious about the authority behind certain legal opinions, this article will provide clarity and much-needed perspective.

---

Why Are Legal Opinions So Controversial?

Legal analysis isn’t solely reserved for courtrooms or academic spaces—it infiltrates our daily lives in the form of news coverage, blog posts, and social media commentary. But what happens when someone not formally trained in law wades into such discussions? This is where the controversy begins.

On one hand, any discussion of legal concepts—whether from professional journalists, activists, or ordinary citizens—has value in fostering public understanding of issues that often seem opaque. On the other hand, critics argue that unqualified individuals may unintentionally mislead others, especially when analysis crosses the line into giving perceived legal advice.

Protecting Professional Turf Versus Informed Discourse

As Larry, an experienced contributor to legal discussions, astutely points out, many licensed professions (including law) zealously guard their turf. It’s a natural defensive mechanism. After all, professions requiring licenses—whether engineers, doctors, or lawyers—exist in part to uphold standards and ensure public safety.

However, there is an important distinction between having a personal opinion and providing formal advice or guidance. In legal contexts, this distinction becomes exceptionally critical, as misinterpreting the law can lead to serious consequences.

“We are allowed to have an opinion about the law, but the opinion is confined to our personal perspective,” Larry clarifies. “I cannot advise you on what to do legally, but I can say, ‘If it were me, I wouldn’t do X because it might result in Y.’”

The takeaway here is that while the law should not be “gatekept” to the extent that everyday citizens are discouraged from discussing or critiquing its implications, there’s a fine line between public discourse and professional overstep.

---

The Rights and Limits of Free Speech

As both hosts correctly highlight, free speech is a cornerstone of civil liberties in the United States. Citizens not only have the right to express opinions on a variety of subjects but are also encouraged to have these conversations in order to foster civic participation. So where does free speech end and unauthorized legal advice begin?

Non-lawyers aren’t barred from interpreting legal decisions, offering critiques of judicial processes, or engaging with others about potential outcomes. This is, in fact, how much of the public stays educated on unfolding legal matters. Many non-lawyer journalists, activists, and commentators help bridge the gap between complex legal jargon and an audience that lacks formal education in law.

Still, free speech does not grant impunity. The distinction lies in whether someone crosses into giving actual legal advice or guidance—an action restricted to licensed attorneys within their jurisdictions. Giving legal advice could push unlicensed individuals into dangerous territory, leading to accusations of practicing law without proper authorization.

Larry shares a practical example: “You can tell someone it’s probably not a good idea to mix NyQuil with another drug. That’s sharing information, not advice. Similarly, sharing your opinion about a court decision is fine. But advising someone on what precise steps to take within the legal system? That’s overstepping.”

---

Nuances in Professional Authority

Andy introduces an interesting dynamic: Many professionals who comment on legal matters in the media, such as legal analysts or judicial reporters, hold law degrees but are not necessarily practicing attorneys. However, these professionals don’t deliver hard-and-fast legal “advice;” instead, they offer educated insights based on their knowledge.

From a viewer’s perspective, that raises an important question: Do credentials matter if someone is offering relevant, intelligible insights rather than direct advice? To some extent, yes. Expertise and training can add credibility to someone’s interpretation of a legal event or ruling. Yet, opinions from non-lawyers or even those without formal legal education shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand—especially if backed up by thoughtful research and analysis.

Larry adds nuance to this, noting that state-specific laws also shape the boundaries of what licensed and unlicensed individuals can and cannot say. For example, some jurisdictions may take a stricter stance on restricting legal commentary, while others offer a more relaxed approach.

---

Why the Fear of Overreach?

Often, accusations of overreach come down to misunderstanding the difference between law-related commentary and legal advice. This misunderstanding may even stem from some people erring on the side of caution, interpreting legal speech restrictions as more restrictive than they actually are.

Take, for instance, the case Andy presents where a critic snaps back with, “What’s your bar number?” whenever someone offers a legal opinion. Such lines of questioning, while intended to uphold accountability, may instead intimidate everyday citizens from participating in important legal discussions.

As Larry points out, maintaining a clear line between opinion and advice is crucial both for ethical and professional reasons. But there’s no need for law to feel like a sacred object only accessible to licensed experts. On the contrary, public discourse improves when individuals engage meaningfully with laws that affect them and their communities.

---

Three Key Takeaways for Contributors of Legal Dialogue

If you’re interested in participating in legal discussions but want to avoid ethical or professional pitfalls, here are three steps to consider:

1. Clearly State When You’re Sharing Personal Opinions
   Avoid language that suggests you’re providing explicit instructions or formal recommendations. Phrases like “In my opinion” or “If it were me” help demonstrate that you’re speaking personally rather than authoritatively.

2. Back Up Your Position With Facts or Sources
   When expressing opinions about laws, rulings, or legislation, cite reputable sources. Bring in court cases, publicly available statutes, or professional commentary to support your position. This adds credibility and ensures your interpretation is rooted in fact.

3. Know Your Limits and Redirect When Necessary
   If you find yourself tempted to provide guidance that crosses into legal advice, stop and redirect any questions to a lawyer or appropriate professional. Transparency about your own limitations builds trust.

---

A Balanced Perspective

The debate over who “can” and “should” talk about legal matters boils down to balance. Individuals must exercise care to avoid presenting their opinions as formal advice, while critics should avoid policing conversations unnecessarily. After all, it is through open, informed dialogue that we collectively learn, question, and hold institutions accountable.

As Larry wryly observes, “We’re still in The United States, and for now, we have the right to express our opinions.” Let this serve as both a reminder and encouragement to engage thoughtfully in ongoing legal debates—mindful of the boundaries but never afraid to explore new perspectives.

---

Closing Thoughts: The conversation around legal commentary from non-lawyers is about more than qualifications; it’s about fostering trust, clarity, and a well-informed public. By navigating these conversations with nuance, we can promote legal literacy for everyone—whether or not they hold a bar number.

The American judiciary system, a foundational aspect of the country’s democracy, is currently amidst a heated debate surrounding the potential expansion of the federal judiciary. As significant changes loom, understanding the nuances of this proposal becomes critical for every citizen aware of their rights and the complexities of the legal system. This blog post will delve deep into the implications of adding new federal judgeships, the underlying politics at play, and the consequences such changes could have on caseloads and legal proceedings across the nation.

Context: Why Judiciary Expansion Matters

The proposed legislation, which aims to add dozens of new federal judges to courts nationwide, has reignited a longstanding conversation regarding the efficacy and reliability of the American judicial system. With an already existing backlog of more than 700,000 pending cases, the call for more judges has been echoed by legal experts and representatives from various states. The need for responsive judicial services isn’t merely a matter of political posturing; it directly impacts citizens seeking timely justice, whether through civil complaints, criminal cases, or constitutional challenges.

Yet, the bill’s introduction has also sparked controversy, particularly surrounding claims of partisan motivations. Democrats have criticized the initiative, suggesting it serves as a guise for appointing judges loyal to former President Donald Trump. This position raises essential questions about the intersection of law, politics, and judicial ethics. As we dissect the proposal’s ramifications, we will explore both sides of the argument and provide insights into what this may mean for justice seekers across America.

The Proposal: Overview of the Judges Act

The Judges Act aims to address the judicial understaffing by proposing an expansion of the federal judiciary through the addition of more than sixty judgeships across a dozen states. This measure was initially presented as a bipartisan solution to the growing workload facing current judges. According to representatives from both parties, the act was crafted in alignment with recommendations from the U.S. Judicial Conference in 2023, which highlighted the pressing need for additional judicial manpower.

Notably, the suggested approach to staggering judicial appointments over a twelve-year period would ensure that various presidential administrations have the opportunity to influence the makeup of the federal judiciary indirectly. However, despite its initial bipartisan support, the act underwent significant transformations as partisan tensions resurfaced.

The Partisan Shift: From Bipartisan Support to Disagreement

Initially, the Judges Act was lauded for its bipartisan appeal; however, as the political landscape shifted, resistance arose. Representative Hank Johnson underscored the increasing skepticism surrounding the bill, arguing that Republican motivations were more about solidifying a legacy tied to the former president rather than genuinely addressing judicial needs. Democrats contend that the timing of the bill’s consideration—post the 2024 election—reflects an opportunistic approach rather than a sincere commitment to mitigating judicial delays.

Conversely, GOP members staunchly defend the measure, asserting that apportioning judges across various administrations would not undermine the judicial branch’s integrity. They argue that the delays in discussing the act stemmed from a busy legislative agenda rather than deliberate political obstruction.

The Backlog: A Crisis of Justice

The implications of an understaffed judiciary are dire. Current estimates suggest a case backlog of over 700,000 cases, significantly impeding the judicial process. Cases languish for years, giving birth to a host of frustrations for litigants, ranging from increased legal expenses to prolonged detentions for defendants awaiting trial. The concept of justice, fundamentally tied to timely resolution, becomes distorted when courts are unable to manage their workloads efficiently.

Judge Timkovich from the 10th Circuit highlighted that such delays compel some litigants to forgo federal court altogether, opting instead for state courts or deciding against litigation to avoid the drawn-out process. The ramifications of this trend are substantial, as choosing to sidestep federal jurisdiction can unavoidably deny parties the legal advantages that federal court typically affords—such as the potential for recovering attorney’s fees in civil rights cases.

Political Motivations and Concerns

One of the most contentious aspects of the current legislative proposal involves allegations of motivations rooted in political maneuvering rather than the pragmatic need for judicial expansion. While GOP lawmakers argue that the expansion would serve both parties over the long term, critics question whether the current push is merely a tactic to amplify Republican influence in the judiciary.

President Biden’s veto of the previous version of the Judges Act in December signifies a critical juncture in the debate. The administration pointed to unresolved key issues about allocating judgeships and alleged that the concern for alleviating judicial caseloads was secondary to political considerations. This introduces an essential layer to the ongoing dialogue: to what extent is political ideology influencing what should be a fundamentally impartial legal system?

The Importance of Judicial Integrity

The integrity of the judicial branch and its appearance of impartiality is vital to maintaining public trust in the legal system. Any perception that judicial appointments are being orchestrated for political gains can erode confidence in judicial decisions. Ensuring fair and unbiased judicial processes must remain paramount, regardless of the political landscape.

Furthermore, the encroachment of politics within judicial appointments calls into question how court decisions may be influenced by the ideology of those appointed. This can lead to inconsistency in rulings that ought to adhere strictly to the law rather than prevailing political sentiments.

A Path Forward: Bridging Bipartisanship and Judicial Needs

As the discussion over the federal judiciary expansion continues, finding common ground will be essential. Potential partnerships between Democratic and Republican lawmakers could facilitate a balanced approach that genuinely addresses the complexities of judicial understaffing while minimizing partisan influences.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Keep abreast of discussions surrounding the Judges Act and any repercussions it may have on the judicial process in your locality.
2. Engage Politically: Contact your representatives to express your views on the legislation and its potential impact on the justice system.
3. Advocate for Reform: Support initiatives that promote fair and transparent judicial processes to ensure that the integrity of the judiciary remains intact.

Conclusion: The Future of the Federal Judiciary

The proposed expansion of the federal judiciary presents a critical opportunity to address long-standing issues surrounding judicial overload. However, the substantial partisan discord reveals the complexities that make genuine reform challenging. As debates continue, it is imperative for citizens to remain engaged, advocating for a judiciary that prioritizes impartiality and upholds the principles of justice without partisan interference. The evolution of this dialogue will shape not only the judicial system but, ultimately, the fabric of democracy itself.

The complexities of legal systems often point towards the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights. One recent pivotal ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court involving the case of State vs. Jason Bryant McSwain underscores this contention, particularly concerning the rights of those on the sex offender registry. This blog post delves into the nuances of the ruling, analyzing the new tiered classification system of the South Carolina Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), its implications on the lives of individuals classified as Peeping Tom or PFR (Persons Found Registered), and the broader discussions surrounding judicial processes and legislative intent.

The Context: Background on SORA

The South Carolina Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) has undergone significant revisions in recent years, particularly after a 2021 court decision known as Powell vs. Keel, which identified critical flaws in the previous lifetime registration requirements enforced on individuals convicted of sex crimes.

To briefly summarize, up until the 2022 amendments, SORA mandated lifetime registration for all sex offenders without offering them a chance for judicial review of their risk of reoffending. This requirement had raised substantial constitutional questions, particularly concerning the rights of those individuals and their ability to reintegrate into society. The court’s ruling in Powell vs. Keel emphasized the necessity for a more nuanced approach to registration, ultimately leading to the creation of a new tiered system.

The New Tiered System: An Overview

In 2022, the South Carolina General Assembly reformed SORA, establishing a tiered classification system aimed at categorizing offenders based on the severity of their crimes. This system includes:

• Tier 1: For individuals convicted of relatively less serious offenses, allowing for the possibility of removal from the registry after 15 years.
• Tier 2: For those with more severe convictions, who must register for a minimum of 25 years before becoming eligible for removal.
• Tier 3: The most serious offenders, who must wait a groundbreaking 30 years and bear the burden of proof to demonstrate they no longer pose a risk to society.

While the new classification aims to alleviate the rigidity of lifetime registration, it also brings forth debates about its fairness, especially regarding the lengthy mandatory waiting periods.

The Case of Jason Bryant McSwain: Facts and Legal Arguments

Jason McSwain is a former teacher who pleaded guilty to serious charges, including criminal sexual conduct with a minor. Under the tier system, McSwain was classified as a Tier 2 offender, which required that he remain on the register for a minimum of 25 years before applying for removal. However, his appeal for early dismissal was denied because he had only been on the registry for approximately 19 years.

McSwain’s legal team contended that the tiered system was arbitrary and violated his substantive due process rights by imposing mandatory waiting periods without the opportunity for a judicial review of his risk of reoffending. His argument relied heavily on the premise that people in his position should have individualized assessments rather than be subjected to rigid categorical classifications.

Judicial Review and Legislative Intent: A Complicated Relationship

The South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling highlighted several critical points. The court ruled against McSwain’s arguments, affirming the constitutionality of the new tiered system. In their analysis, they mentioned that the General Assembly’s decisions regarding the classification and the length of time required for registration were well within their legislative powers. The court emphasized the need for caution; they detailed how, despite appearances, the tier system did better align with public safety goals than the previous lifetime requirement.

The ruling also addressed the burden of proof needed to prove loss of status. Unlike Tier 1 and 2 offenders, who the law states do not need to prove they are a low risk for reoffending to be removed from the registry, Tier 3 offenders must provide clear and convincing evidence of their reformed status, making it significantly more difficult for them to navigate the legal landscape.

The Court’s Stance: Presumption of Constitutionality

Another cornerstone of the court’s analysis was the presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislative acts. As stated in their ruling, the court maintains a reluctance to overturn statutes enacted by the legislature unless there is a clear and undeniable constitutional violation. This presumption places a heavy burden on those challenging the provisions of such legislation to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate its inadequacies.

In this context, McSwain’s arguments lacked the necessary evidentiary support to illustrate that the tiered system posed substantial constitutional issues, thereby meeting the threshold defined by the court.

Potential Implications for PFRs

The ruling sets a precedent for how future cases involving PFRs will be handled in South Carolina, especially concerning the classification and removal processes associated with SORA. While the tiered system aims to create a more flexible framework than the previous law, critics argue that it still lacks adequate individualized due process, particularly for those who may have demonstrated significant growth and rehabilitation over time.

Moreover, the requirement for Tier 3 offenders to wait 30 years and prove they do not pose a risk to society raises questions about the fairness of such conditions. For many, this creates a seemingly insurmountable barrier to reintegration, leading to continued stigmatization and isolation.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

1. Awareness and Advocacy: Individuals affected by the PFR registration laws should be aware of their rights and the legal landscape. Engaging with advocacy groups can provide crucial support and guidance.

2. Potential for Reform: Continuous review and reform of registration laws may be necessary to ensure that they adequately balance public safety with the rights of individuals, particularly regarding rehabilitation and reintegration.

3. Legal Counsel Consultation: Those seeking relief or facing legal consequences under SORA should consult knowledgeable legal counsel who can navigate the complexities of the law and provide tailored advice for their specific circumstances.

Conclusion: Navigating Complex Terrain

The State vs. McSwain case illuminates the intricate dynamics at play in sex offender registration laws, particularly the impact of legislative changes on individual rights. It underscores the need for a thoughtful review of how laws are constructed and enforced, ensuring they align with the principles of justice and due process. As the legal landscape evolves, both lawmakers and the judiciary must continue to consider the nuances of individual circumstances, striking a balance that prioritizes community safety while respecting the dignity and humanity of all individuals.

In the world of criminal justice, the complexities of legal processes can lead to significant ramifications for individuals, particularly those labeled as sexual offenders. A recent case in Illinois, Illinois Voices for Reform and Joshua Hale Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated Plaintiffs versus Brendan Kelly in His Official Capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, has shed light on an urgent and contentious issue: the lack of an effective process for correcting erroneous information on the Illinois Sexual Offender Registry. This legal battle raises critical questions about due process rights and the responsibilities of state agencies to maintain accurate public records.

In this article, we will delve into the pivotal aspects of the case, examine the implications for registrants like Joshua Hale, and analyze whether the claims of procedural due process hold up against the scrutiny of both the law and public sentiment. Readers will come away with a deeper understanding of the legal landscape surrounding registries and the vital importance of safeguarding individuals’ rights to accurate representation.

Understanding the Case

The case originated when plaintiff Joshua Hale, a resident of Aurora, Illinois, claimed that the Illinois State Police (ISP) failed to implement an effective process for registrants to correct erroneous information on their registry. According to Hale, his record inaccurately depicted him as a lifetime registrant, while, by law, he was only required to register for ten years. This mislabeling not only constitutes a legal error but also has dire consequences for Hale’s personal safety and public reputation.

The Allegations

The crux of the case lies in the assertion that the ISP’s failure to create a robust mechanism for correcting these errors violates Hale’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically the guarantee of procedural due process. The complaint highlights that individuals labeled inaccurately on the registry face substantial harm with no remedy available when they endeavor to rectify these mistakes.

For example, a registrant misidentified as a “bad PFR” may be subject to severe social stigma and possibly violence, exacerbated by the public nature of the registry. Similarly, the case implies that incorrect registration periods can lead to unjust penalties, with individuals facing charges for failing to comply with registration requirements that may not even apply to them.

The Legal Landscape

Jurisdictional Considerations

One of the core legal questions arising from this case is whether federal courts have jurisdiction to mandate improvements to a state-run registry. This question touches upon a broader debate regarding the role of federal courts in state matters. Proponents argue that when state actions infringe upon constitutional rights, federal intervention is not just warranted but necessary to protect those rights.

Conversely, some argue that states have authority over their own registries, which were implemented to secure federal funding but tailored to the states’ specifications. This creates a nuanced debate around state rights versus individual rights, particularly regarding public safety policies.

The Question of Due Process

A pivotal aspect of the discussion centers on whether individuals on the registry possess a right to due process concerning the accuracy of their information. While Hale and his co-plaintiffs contend that due process applies, the legal landscape is ambiguous. Some regions, like New Mexico, provide a limited form of due process for registrants, but it appears Illinois has not established a similar precedent.

The Implications for Registrants

The Risk of Inaccurate Information

The repercussions of remaining on the registry past one’s legal registration period are significant. In Hale’s case, being falsely categorized impacts not only his legal standing but also exposes him to potential physical danger. The mislabeling could lead to lethal encounters, given the charged public sentiment regarding sexual offenses.

Moreover, the binding constraints placed on individuals labeled as “bad PFRs”—such as restrictions on where they can be present within public spaces—compound the difficulties they face when seeking employment, housing, and community reintegration. The importance of accurate information cannot be overstated; it is inherently tied to the quality of life and safety for registrants.

Seeking Remedies

The plaintiffs are pursuing class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, aiming to compel the ISP to implement effective error correction processes. However, as discussed by legal analysts, the current complaint may be challenging to advance—especially if the underlying constitutional claims are not robust enough to support federal jurisdiction.

Alternative Legal Strategies

As commentators suggest, a declaratory judgment might provide a more appropriate avenue for addressing these grievances. Such a ruling would clarify the legality of current registration processes and the responsibilities of state police, potentially impacting all registrants’ handling across Illinois. However, navigating these legal waters requires both clarity in the law and support from advocacy organizations.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The ongoing case of Illinois Voices for Reform and Joshua Hale serves as a crucial juncture in the exploration of due process rights for registrants. While it raises essential questions about the accuracy of public records and the responsibilities of governmental bodies, it also highlights the potential fallout for individuals who find themselves unfairly categorized.

As the discussions evolve around legal representation, due process, and public safety, it is essential that any changes in policy consider the human stories behind the legalities. Individuals, especially vulnerable members of society, deserve to have their rights protected and their voices heard amidst the clamor of legal proceedings.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Educate Yourself on Registry Laws: Understanding the specifics of local registry laws can empower individuals to advocate for their rights more effectively.

2. Support Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on reforming registry laws play a vital role in protecting rights for registrants. Providing support via donations or volunteer work can help promote necessary changes.

3. Engage in Community Dialogue: Open discussions about registry issues can reduce stigma and encourage community support for individuals affected by inaccurate designations.

The complexities of the legal system should not overshadow the fundamental rights of individuals to be accurately represented and treated fairly under the law. Time will tell if the courts deliver justice for those affected by administrative shortcomings, but the case is an essential call to action for reform and reformists alike.

In recent times, legislation surrounding residency restrictions for individuals labeled as Person’s Found Responsible (PFRs) has attracted considerable attention, particularly in the context of community safety and individual rights. A noteworthy case in this realm is Donaldson v. City of El Reno, recently adjudicated by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This case emerged from complex legal arguments that challenge the constitutionality of retroactive residency restrictions. In this article, we delve into the essentials of the ruling, the implications for PFRs, and the broader legal principles at stake.

Context of the Case

At the center of Donaldson v. City of El Reno is Kelly Patrick Donaldson, a man with a criminal past related to a sexual offense against a minor. After serving a portion of his prison sentence, Donaldson found himself subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), as mandated by Oklahoma law. The pivotal issue in Donaldson’s case arose when, after expressing interest in a new residence, he was informed by the El Reno Police Department that he could not live within 2,000 feet of a city park—an amendment made to SORA after his conviction.

This residency restriction, enacted long after Donaldson’s crime, raised significant legal questions about ex post facto laws, which prohibit retroactively imposing restrictions or increasing punishment for past acts.

The Legal Framework

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision revolved around the interpretation of the ex post facto clause found in both the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. This clause safeguards individuals from laws that criminalize actions that were legal at the time they were performed. The court had to assess whether the residency restrictions imposed on Donaldson could be deemed punitive in nature and, therefore, unconstitutional under the ex post facto provision.

Key Arguments Presented

Donaldson’s defense argued that when he was convicted in 2005, the prevailing law did not include any residency restrictions related to parks. Consequently, the application of 2019 amendments retroactively would violate the ex post facto clause. His position leaned heavily on a previous ruling—Starkey v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections—which found the effects of SORA registrations punitive.

Conversely, the City of El Reno contended that the residency restrictions were civil and non-punitive, thus not subject to the ex post facto analysis. The city’s stance was that the amendments to the law were regulatory measures designed to enhance community safety, specifically to prevent PFRs from residing near areas frequented by children.

Supreme Court Findings

After extensive oral arguments and deliberation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against Donaldson, concluding that the 2019 residency restrictions did not retroactively increase his punishment. The court held the following:

• Jurisdictional Intent: The legislature clearly intended for the amendments to apply to all PFRs regardless of when they were convicted, thus applying them retroactively.
• Nature of the Restrictions: The residency restrictions were deemed civil regulations designed to promote public safety rather than punitive measures. This classification allowed the restrictions to remain in effect without violating constitutional protections.

Evaluation of Punitive Effects

The court applied the intent-effects test, established in prior case law, to assess the legislative intent behind residency restrictions concerning their punitive nature. Under this test, several factors were considered:

1. Affirmative Disability or Restraint: While the restrictions imposed a significant limit on where Donaldson could live, the court found these limitations did not reach the degree of incarceration or banishment that is typically associated with criminal punishment.

2. Historical Perspective: The court determined that residency restrictions had not historically been viewed as punishment. Instead, they were aligned with legislative duties for community protection.

3. Purpose of Restrictions: The court reiterated that the primary goal of these laws is to protect the public, especially children, from potential reoffending.

Ultimately, the court concluded that while residency restrictions limit individual freedom regarding housing choices, this limitation does not equate to punitive punishment in the legal sense.

Implications and Significance

The Implications of this ruling extend beyond Donaldson’s case. It underscores a significant trend in legal practices regarding PFRs as states increasingly pursue safety measures that can be enforced regardless of when the initial offense occurred. This ruling has critical ramifications for individuals labeled as PFRs who may face mounting restrictions as laws adjust—questioning the balance between community safety and individual rights.

Moving forward

For individuals grappling with similar issues, the ruling emphasizes the need for strategic legal representation capable of navigating the nuances of statutory language and constitutional protections. As this case demonstrates, presenting substantial evidence to support claims of punitive treatment or restrictions is crucial.

Actions for Stakeholders

• Awareness and Education: Legal teams and advocacy groups should work to educate PFRs and their families about their rights and responsibilities under the current laws and potential repercussions of recent rulings.
• Evidential Support: When challenging residency restrictions, presenting solid evidence that demonstrates their impact can make a compelling case in future proceedings.
• Civic Engagement: Advocates for those affected by such laws should continue engaging in dialogue with lawmakers to find a balance between public safety and civil rights.

Conclusion

In Donaldson v. City of El Reno, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reinforced the prevailing legal framework regarding residency restrictions for PFRs. Despite the outcome that didn’t favor Donaldson, the case raises essential discussions about the legislation’s implications for individual rights and community safety. For those affected by such laws, understanding these dynamics and the legal implications of recent rulings is vital for navigating this complex landscape.

By examining this ruling, we can gain insights into the broader legal environment shaping the lives of PFRs and continue advocating for fair treatment while supporting community safety initiatives. As we advance, it will be crucial to stay attuned to changes in legislation, judicial interpretations, and the ongoing dialogue surrounding the rights of those designated as PFRs.

Navigating the legal landscape can be downright daunting for many individuals. With complex terminologies, intricate processes, and a myriad of regulations, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. In a recent discussion among seasoned legal professionals, Chance provided insightful clarifications that emphasized the importance of understanding legal concepts for both laypeople and those working within the system. This article aims to break down those insights into digestible pieces, helping readers grasp essential legal knowledge and the best practices for seeking assistance.

The Importance of Clarity in Legal Matters

In a world where laws govern interactions, disputes, and personal affairs, having clarity is vital. Chance aptly illustrated this sentiment by highlighting how certain legal matters can seem “clear as mud.” This phrase encapsulates the confusion many people face when confronted with legal issues or terms. Not only does this ambiguity lead to misunderstandings, but it can also result in significant problems if left unaddressed.

To combat this confusion, discussions around legal topics can provide much-needed insights. Engaging in conversations with professionals who can break down these complex concepts is paramount. That’s where experts like Chance come into play, acting as bridges to understanding.

Why Professional Guidance is Essential

As Larry pointed out during the discussion, if even seasoned individuals struggle to understand certain legal situations, newcomers or those facing such issues for the first time surely will. Here are a few key reasons why reaching out for professional assistance is not just beneficial, but often necessary:

• Expert Knowledge: Legal professionals have the education and experience to navigate the intricate details of the law. They can offer accurate advice tailored to individual circumstances.
• Stress Reduction: Legal matters can be stressful. Knowing that a knowledgeable person is guiding you through the process can alleviate some of that burden.
• Informed Decisions: Professionals provide clarity, enabling clients to make informed decisions rather than guessing their way through legal complexities.

Reaching Out for Help

When faced with uncertainty, it can be challenging to know where to turn for help. Chance encouraged listeners to reach out directly and not hesitate to ask for clarification. His open invitation to call him underscores the importance of accessibility in legal advice.

If you find yourself tangled in legal questions, here are some steps you can take:

1. Identify the Right Contact: As Chance mentioned, calling a specific number for legal assistance can put you in touch with someone who can clarify your situation. For instance, feel free to contact Chance directly at (949) 365-5842 if you’re looking for guidance.
2. Prepare Questions: Before making a call, write down specific questions or points of confusion you have. This will help the conversation be more productive.
3. Don’t Be Shy: Many people hesitate to ask questions out of fear of appearing uninformed. Remember, lawyers and legal professionals are accustomed to addressing your concerns—no question is too small.

Ending the Conversation: A Call to Action

As the discussion concluded, both Chance and Larry highlighted the importance of continued dialogue and learning. Just as they shared their insights, readers should also strive to engage with the legal community and seek clarification on challenging topics.

Key Takeaways:

• Seek Professional Help: Don’t hesitate to call a legal professional when in doubt. Having an expert on hand can make all the difference.
• Prepare for Your Consultations: A list of questions can maximize the efficiency of your discussions with legal experts.
• Stay Informed: Engaging with ongoing conversations around legal matters can help demystify the law and empower you in your interactions.

In summary, while the legal system can often feel overwhelming, proactive engagement, clear communication, and a willingness to ask questions can significantly ease the navigation of legal challenges. Remember, no one is alone in their quest for understanding; the resources and professionals are available and ready to help.

The criminal justice system in the United States is a complex web of laws, regulations, and societal norms that affect countless lives. As discussions evolve around various elements of this system, one area that remains particularly controversial is the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. Advocates for reform, like Brian—who has spent over two decades grappling with the implications of his own classification as a “person facing registration” (PFR)—are raising their voices. Brian’s relentless pursuit of legislative changes aims to establish a more equitable system that recognizes the nuances of individual cases rather than painting all offenses with a broad brush.

In this blog, we’ll delve into Brian’s journey as a PFR advocate and explore the potent implications surrounding mandatory minimum sentences. We’ll analyze their effectiveness in deterring crime, discuss the broader impacts of incarceration, and suggest steps towards a more humane approach to criminal justice reform.

The Challenge of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum sentences impose a fixed minimum incarceration period for specific offenses, leaving judges powerless to consider unique circumstances of individual cases. While proponents argue that such laws create consistency and deter crime, the reality is more complicated. Brian’s recent advocacy efforts focus on House Bill 25-1073, targeting mandatory minimum sentences for sexual offenses against children. Such legislation threatens to escalate the severity of penalties without addressing the core issues of crime prevention and community safety.

The Expense of Incarceration

The financial burden of mass incarceration is substantial. In states like Colorado, it costs approximately $40,000 per year to house a single inmate—a figure compounded when mandatory minimums lead to longer sentences. With state budgets increasingly constrained, as Brian notes, pushing for laws that aggravate state expenses could result in critical losses in funding for schools, rehabilitation programs, and victim services.

1. Cost-Brain Drain: The methamphetamine of the justice system, growing prison populations sap valuable resources. The diversion of taxpayer money to adhere to punitive laws raises the question: Shouldn’t we instead invest in preventative measures and services that address the root causes of crime?

2. Opportunity Costs: Extended terms in prison not only drain funds but prevent individuals from reintegrating into society, thereby reducing their prospects for employment and rehabilitation. Brian himself notes how he benefited from being outside the prison system, emphasizing that productive engagement within the community is essential for personal growth and transformation.

Empirical Evidence Against Deterrence

Research consistently challenges the deterrent value of mandatory minimum sentences. Studies conducted by the National Research Council and legal scholars such as Eric Luna demonstrate that these kinds of sentences do not serve their intended purpose. Many offenders do not contemplate potential sentencing outcomes when choosing to commit a crime, rendering such laws ineffective. In fact, they may lead to harsher offenses as defendants face a lose-lose situation and the realities of prison sentences.

Amplifying Voices for Reform

While facing these systemic issues, Brian emphasizes the importance of organizing and advocating for change. Over the years, he has cultivated relationships with local legislators—an essential strategy that many advocates may overlook in their quest for reform. Building such connections allows for more productive discussions and a chance to emphasize that many criminal offenses are not black-and-white, but rather, deeply nuanced.

The Power of Coalitions

Brian’s work underscores the importance of creating coalitions and enlisting partners with different skill sets. The more hands involved in advocacy, the lighter the load. Each additional person can provide unique insights and leverage connections that can further amplify the movement’s message.

1. Building Bridges: Like Brian, individuals seeking change can strengthen political ties through personal engagement, contributing to campaigns, and being present at events. A strong network bolsters advocacy efforts and allows for developing deep relationships with representatives.

2. Strategic Communication: As Brian has learned, systematically framing discussions around cost and preventative tactics rather than punitive measures can resonate more with some lawmakers. Emphasizing financial implications, alongside advocacy for rehabilitation, builds a compelling narrative that can sway legislative minds.

Addressing the Underrepresented Voices

Brian’s commitment to highlighting the less visible consequences of incarceration—including the indirect impacts on families and communities—is crucial. The emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on families with incarcerated members often goes unnoticed. Policies that force long sentences without judicial discretion may leave children without parents, leading to a cycle of poverty and trauma that society must bear.

Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Minimums

The rigidity of mandatory minimum sentencing can inadvertently encourage defendants to reject plea deals and push for trials, resulting in longer case backlogs and increased court costs. By altering how we approach sentencing, lawmakers can help alleviate pressure from overcrowded court systems while promoting more tailored justice outcomes.

Moving Towards Reform: Practical Steps

For those like Brian and others aiming to dismantle ineffective punitive systems, advocating for change requires persistence and strategic planning. Here are actionable takeaways to facilitate the reform movement:

1. Educate and Engage: Inform constituencies about the financial stability offered through justice reform and the societal benefits of compassionate legislation.

2. Leverage Evidence: Use researched data to counteract misconceptions about crime rates and recidivism. Directly challenge the narratives reinforcing punitive measures that fail to deter criminal behavior.

3. Foster Community Awareness: Tap into local community events to hold informative gatherings where discussions around criminal justice can take place. Engaging the community at large builds a collective voice that can be heard in legislative halls.

Conclusion

Brian’s story illustrates the challenges and complexities of navigating the criminal justice landscape while advocating for reforms that might seem daunting. The fight against mandatory minimum sentencing is emblematic of a broader discussion around legality, morality, and the best paths to justice. This battle is necessary not only for those directly affected by these laws but for the social fabric of our communities, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

As advocates continue to rally for evidence-based reforms, it’s essential to remember that lasting change requires determination, education, and resilience. Together, through shared passions and collective action, we can reach a more just society—one that places value on understanding, growth, and community.

Advocacy is a vital force for change, particularly for individuals facing significant societal challenges like those affected by the registry. Engaging in advocacy can take many forms, whether it involves direct action, financial support, or simply raising awareness about critical issues. This blog post will explore these avenues in-depth, providing you with insights and actionable strategies to help support the advocacy movement effectively.

Understanding the Challenges of the Registry

To grasp the crucial role of advocacy in this context, we first need to understand the multifaceted challenges faced by individuals on the registry. Many of these challenges are akin to mounting disabilities that stem from the restrictions imposed by the registry system. Individuals often experience severe limitations—not only on their freedoms but also regarding employment opportunities, housing stability, and social interactions.

The Restrictions Weigh Heavily

Larry, an informed advocate, highlights the far-reaching implications of being on the registry. Individuals often grapple with limitations that prevent them from living fulfilling lives—these pressures can be overwhelming. For example, many lives are “doxed” online, exposing personal information that brings undue scrutiny and can lead to harassment. Such public exposure goes beyond the constraints of one’s conviction, greatly complicating the possibility of leading a normal, successful life.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: A Lens for Understanding

In navigating the complexities of the registry, it’s helpful to apply psychological frameworks, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This model illustrates that basic needs—like safety and psychological well-being—are foundational. Individuals facing these hardships often prioritize the daily elements of survival, leaving little room for advocacy work. The stark reality is that without addressing these underlying needs, effective advocacy can become an uphill battle.

The Two Prerequisites for Advocacy: Time and Money

Andy identifies two critical components for successful advocacy efforts: time and money. These resources are often in short supply for those who are most affected by registry restrictions.

The Dichotomy of Resources

There exists a disparity among those affected; some may have the financial means to fund change efforts yet lack the time to engage directly. In contrast, others may possess ample time but hardly any monetary resources. This dichotomy generates an important tension within advocacy groups. For example, a person may want to fight against registry restrictions but feel overwhelmed by their precarious living situation. Conversely, individuals with stability and resources may not fully grasp the urgency of these struggles.

Mobilizing Support: A Call for Action

Advocacy efforts can benefit from individuals recognizing their strengths—whether they be financial resources or available time. Larry emphasizes that constituents can contribute meaningfully to advocacy movements, helping those who may not be able to engage directly. Support could include drafting informative updates, mobilizing funds for campaigns, or contacting legislators on specific issues.

Practical Steps for Advocacy Engagement

For readers interested in getting involved, this section outlines actionable steps you can take, whether you have time, money, or both to contribute to the movement.

1. Stay Informed

An advocate’s first step is staying up-to-date with legislative changes affecting the registry. Many states have organizations that closely monitor these developments. Dedicate time to reviewing legislative materials and spotlighting bills that may negatively affect those on the registry.

2. Communication with Lawmakers

Engaging with your local representatives can be incredibly impactful. You don’t have to reveal your status on the registry to effectively communicate your concerns. Prepare to explain why certain legislation could be damaging and advocate for policies that promote fairness and understanding.

3. Support Organizations and Candidates Financially

Even modest contributions can significantly impact advocacy organizations that work on behalf of those affected by the registry. For state candidates, a contribution of a few hundred dollars can elevate you in their eyes, granting you access to the political process. Consider pooling resources with others in your community to maximize impact.

4. Volunteer Your Time

If you cannot financially support advocacy efforts, there are numerous ways to volunteer your time:

• Phone Banking: Making calls to mobilize support for advocacy efforts can help raise awareness.
• Literature Drops: Delivering leaflets that promote alternative narratives about registry-related issues is a great way to connect with the community and increase visibility leading up to elections.
• Attend Meetings: Engaging in discussions at local advocacy meetings can provide valuable insights and allow for networking opportunities.

Navigating Challenges to Find Your Role

While engaging in advocacy, individuals may encounter challenges such as fear of exposure or uncertainties about their ability to contribute meaningfully. Here are some tips to navigate these hurdles:

Creating Safe Spaces for Advocacy

It’s crucial to establish supportive environments where individuals can share their experiences without fear of stigma. Online forums, private groups, and community meetings can offer safe spaces for discussions, enabling individuals to connect, learn, and organize.

Leveraging Relationships

Utilize existing networks to talk about causes that matter to you. Personal connections can yield significant influence, potentially leading to more engagement within legislative bodies and community outreach.

Concluding Thoughts: Every Action Counts

Advocacy for those affected by the registry is complex but not insurmountable. By employing strategies rooted in understanding the unique struggles faced by individuals, supporters can make a real difference. Whether you have time, money, or a combination of both, your contributions are vital to promoting change at multiple levels.

Actionable Takeaways:

• Educate Yourself: Keep up with local and national issues.
• Engage Wisely: Use your resources effectively, whether through financial support or direct advocacy efforts.
• Build Community: Connect with other advocates to amplify your efforts.

Together, through committed advocacy, we can notionally erase the stigmas of the registry and work toward a more inclusive society. Each step—big or small—can catalyze change in the lives of those who need it most.

Introduction

In recent years, the topic of post-sentencing monitoring in the United States has garnered significant attention, particularly as it relates to civil liberties and individual rights. One notable case currently under scrutiny involves Missouri’s unique approach to lifetime monitoring via GPS tracking, which has raised critical questions about due process and privacy rights. In this blog post, inspired by discussions from a recent podcast episode, we will delve into the implications of such monitoring systems, particularly as they relate to a recent legal challenge in Missouri. Through exploring real-life narratives and the complexities of the law, we aim to provide clarity on this often-contentious topic.

Readers can expect to learn about the nature of Missouri’s GPS monitoring program, how it aligns with constitutional rights, and the potential implications of the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision on individuals subjected to these monitoring systems. By the end of this article, you will have a deeper understanding of the legal, ethical, and personal dimensions surrounding lifetime monitoring programs.

The Context of Missouri’s GPS Monitoring System

In Missouri, as in several other states, individuals convicted of certain crimes are subjected to perpetual GPS tracking even after they have served their sentences. This policy stems from a lifetime monitoring program that categorically applies to specific felony charges, regardless of an individual’s risk assessment or behavior post-conviction.

A poignant narrative from an active podcast listener—who, after a two-year imprisonment, has picked up the thread of these conversations—highlights the human element at stake. The listener expressed deep appreciation for the podcast’s content, which has helped them process their own experiences while serving a three-year sentence for a relatively low-level felony. Moreover, they shared insights about the case currently before the Missouri Supreme Court, which challenges the constitutionality of this lifetime monitoring requirement.

The Underlying Legal Concern

At the heart of the listener’s concern is the distinction between risk-based monitoring and blanket surveillance. In Missouri, individuals can find themselves subjected to lifetime GPS monitoring based solely on their guilty pleas, such as in the case of a Class E felony, defined as the lowest felony classification in the state’s legal system.

As highlighted in the podcast, the pertinent legal argument revolves around whether such categorical applications of tracking devices infringe upon constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court’s previous rulings on similar issues, especially in landmark cases involving GPS tracking, may hold vital precedential significance as the Missouri Supreme Court deliberates.

Exploring the Implications of Lifetime Monitoring

Consider the implications of having GPS monitoring applied without individual assessments. The podcast hosts discussed how this practice effectively imposes a perpetual search warrant on individuals based solely on their past infractions.

The Potential for Unconstitutional Practices

Larry, one of the podcast hosts, articulates the concern that such blanket policies could lead to a systemic violation of civil rights. He draws parallels to earlier Supreme Court cases where the court ruled that invasive tracking—like placing a GPS device on a vehicle—required a justified basis. If Missouri allows indefinite monitoring without tailored evaluations, it raises profound questions about fairness and the principles of justice.

Moreover, the listener’s experience emphasizes the lack of informed consent regarding the collateral consequences of a guilty plea. It was only after the fact that they learned about the lifetime GPS monitoring—raising ethical questions about legal representation and the responsibility of attorneys to ensure clients understand all potential outcomes of their pleas.

Key Perspectives on Monitoring

In discussing these issues, it is essential to examine the differing perspectives from legal experts and the broader community. While some may argue that lifetime monitoring serves as a deterrent and a means of enhancing public safety, others contend that its effectiveness is unsubstantiated and that it punishes individuals long after they have served their sentences.

These discussions take on added importance considering how technological advancements in tracking devices have evolved. The potential for misuse and overreach has prompted advocates for reform to challenge existing practices that may disproportionately impact marginalized communities already under strain from systemic inequalities in the criminal justice system.

What Makes a GPS Monitoring Program Sustainable?

To be effective and just, any system of monitoring needs to incorporate a principle of individualized assessment based on risk. The podcast highlights that blanket applications fail to account for varying levels of threat posed by individuals based on their specific circumstances and rehabilitation progress.

Necessary Reforms

There are several actionable steps that can be taken to reform monitoring practices:

1. Risk Assessments: Implement rigorous assessments to evaluate the risk levels of individuals before imposing lifetime monitoring conditions.

2. Periodic Reviews: Establish a system of regular reviews to reassess monitoring requirements based on behavior, rehabilitation efforts, and contribution to the community.

3. Clear Legal Framework: Create a transparent legal framework that clarifies the criteria for implementing and lifting monitoring conditions to protect individual rights.

Mitigating the impacts of unjust monitoring is vital not only for the individuals directly affected but for the integrity of the justice system as a whole.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding lifetime GPS tracking in Missouri exemplifies the larger conversation about redemption, individual rights, and the potential for systemic reform within the criminal justice system. The potential outcomes of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling could set significant precedents impacting how monitoring practices are executed across the nation.

As we reflect on the personal stories of those affected, like the listener from the podcast, it becomes clear that the implications of policy decisions extend beyond legal theories—they resonate deeply within families, communities, and the fabric of society.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Engage with ongoing discussions around criminal justice reform to understand how policies may affect you or your community.

2. Advocate for Change: Support initiatives aimed at reforming monitoring practices to ensure fairness and justice in the system.

3. Explore Rights: Familiarize yourself with your rights concerning legal representation and understand the implications of legal decisions that could affect your future.

By advocating for thoughtful reforms in monitoring systems, we can aspire to build a justice system that not only holds individuals accountable but also respects their dignity and rights as they reintegrate into society.

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

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

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

[00:56] Chance: Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10:56] Larry: Come again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[21:56] Brian: Twenty six years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[38:11] Brian: Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[43:01] Brian: I’ll wait. Yep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[58:42] Chance: Larry.

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

[60:02] Larry: Kansas City.

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

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

Transitioning from prison to life on the outside is a journey fraught with challenges and uncertainty. As former inmates carve their paths back into society, navigating the complexities of parole and reintegration can be daunting. This article explores the relationship between incarceration and housing options, particularly for those with past convictions, shedding light on personal stories, expert insights, and opportunities for building a new life.

Introduction: The Liberation Journey

Michael’s recent letter vividly encapsulates the bitter-sweetness of nearing release from prison after years of confinement. With just a few weeks left in a rehabilitation program, he eagerly anticipates stepping into a world that feels, by his description, like a paradise compared to the grueling confines of multiple state prisons. However, the shadows of his past loom large over his future endeavors. He poses important questions about finding sustainable housing, especially for returning citizens, and the complexities that come with legal stipulations regarding property ownership and rental arrangements.

This article delves into Michael’s inquiries, offering insights from experienced voices in property management and parole supervision. Readers will gain a better understanding of the unique challenges faced by individuals re-entering society, the potential for entrepreneurship in housing, and the legalities that accompany these aspirations.

The Landscape of Re-Entry: Challenges and Opportunities

In the context of Michael’s situation, several hurdles come to the forefront. One of the most pressing matters is the challenge of securing stable housing upon release. As many former inmates can attest, last-minute housing scrambles are commonplace. The need for transitional housing such as halfway houses can often become complicated due to restrictive regulations, market saturation, or community opposition.

Why Stable Housing is Crucial

Stable housing is a fundamental pillar of successful reintegration. Research shows that individuals with stable living situations are less likely to re-offend. Key issues include:

• Mental Health: The stress of homelessness or unstable living conditions can exacerbate mental health issues, making it difficult for individuals to focus on reintegration.
• Employment Opportunities: Many employers conduct background checks and may be hesitant to hire individuals with records, which can limit job opportunities significantly.
• Social Connections: Stable housing often facilitates better social interactions and community connections, crucial for support systems that aid in reducing recidivism.

By exploring the potential of property management geared towards reintegrating citizens, we can unlock doors to opportunities previously thought impossible.

Michael’s Vision: Investing in Housing for Returning Citizens

Michael proposes an innovative idea: purchasing land and renovating single-wide trailers to lease them out specifically to returning citizens, including those required to register due to past offenses. This concept reflects a growing recognition of the need for dedicated housing solutions tailored for individuals with criminal backgrounds.

Legal Considerations in Texas

In exploring this venture, Michael raises pivotal legal questions regarding the Texas penal code, particularly Chapter 62. Larry, one of the hosts responding to Michael’s letter, provides valuable insight:

• Ownership vs. Residency: In Texas, the law typically mandates that registered individuals must report addresses where they reside. If Michael owns properties in which he does not live and does not conduct business, he may not be obligated to register them. This could provide a way to maintain an investment without triggering registration requirements.

• Supervised Releases: Those on parole face strict scrutiny when it comes to financial transactions and business ownership. Rentals and property management can be seen as major financial activities, requiring disclosure to parole officers. Thus, before initiating his plan, Michael may need to uphold transparency and commit to responsible management practices.

Finding a Market

Considering the restrictions many individuals face when re-entering society, the market for supportive housing is significant. Transitional housing that understands the unique needs of returning citizens can facilitate second chances and empower individuals to rebuild their lives. Statistics indicate that supportive housing programs can lead to improved outcomes, with 70% of participants in such programs finding stable employment compared to a mere 38% in non-supportive settings.

The Reality of Starting Anew: Expert Opinions

As Michael embarks on this journey, it’s essential to recognize the varied perspectives on returning to civilian life. Larry and Andy, seasoned professionals involved in property management and parole supervision, shared a wealth of insights during their discussion:

• Start with Stability: Larry recommended that new parolees focus first on traditional employment opportunities to establish a foundation of accountability and stability. Securing reliable income should come before ventures involving real estate management.

• Organizational Strategies: Andy’s experience illustrates another avenue for managing rental properties discreetly via an LLC, which can protect the owner’s personal identity from scrutiny while navigating the sometimes turbulent waters of parole restrictions.

Life Beyond Prison: Building a Community

Integrating back into society is about more than just securing a roof over one’s head; it’s about fostering a sense of belonging within the community. Successful reintegration often calls for the development of support networks, education, and skills training.

• Form Community Outreach: Individuals looking to invest in housing for returning citizens could collaborate with local organizations focused on rehabilitation. Their shared insights can help bridge gaps and improve resources that support newly released individuals.

• Advocate for Change: Engaging in advocacy to promote fair housing policies for those with criminal records can also have lasting impacts on systemic barriers faced by returning citizens.

Conclusion: Carving a New Path

As Michael edges closer to his release, his vision of creating housing solutions for himself and his fellow returning citizens reflects a powerful determination to not only change his life but also to give back to the community. While navigating the complexities of parole restrictions and property management may seem daunting, successful entrepreneurs can carve their paths by harnessing available resources, knowledge of the legal landscape, and a steadfast vision for sustainable living.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Research Local Regulations: Understand the specific housing laws and regulations in your area regarding property ownership and rental agreements for individuals with a criminal past.

2. Focus on Employment First: Prioritize securing stable employment as a means to build a solid foundation before delving into property management ventures.

3. Build a Support Network: Connect with local housing organizations, advocates, and community support groups aimed at aiding individuals in reintegration.

In closing, while the journey from incarceration to reintegration is challenging, it is not insurmountable. With determination, planning, and support from the broader community, former inmates like Michael can find their footing and contribute positively to society once again. The freedom to embody change and establish new beginnings lies just ahead.

In a pivotal court case currently making headlines, the state of Florida is grappling with the implications of mandatory markings on the driver’s licenses of individuals convicted of certain offenses. This legal debate raises complex issues surrounding public safety, individual rights, and the First Amendment’s protections against compelled speech. As we delve deeper into this controversy, readers will gain an understanding of the legal arguments at play, the historical backdrop, the potential implications of court decisions, and how these developments could affect citizens’ rights moving forward. Whether you are a legal professional, a concerned citizen, or simply interested in civil rights, this article aims to clarify the nuances of this legislative matter and its broader societal impact.

The Core Issue: Government Compelled Designations

At the heart of the debate lies a law requiring the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to affix special markings on the driver’s licenses or ID cards of individuals with certain convictions. Proponents argue that these designations enhance public safety by allowing law enforcement to quickly identify individuals with serious past offenses. However, opponents view this requirement as a form of punishment and stigmatization that infringes on constitutional rights, specifically the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The Legal Battle

The case began with Michael Crist, who challenged the compelled marking on his driver’s license after being found in violation due to its presence. The appeal courts are assessing whether such a policy is legally sound and whether it violates Crist’s rights under the First Amendment and other constitutional protections.

Compelled Speech vs. Public Safety Claims

1. Supporters of the Marking
   • They argue that distinguishing these individuals prevents future crimes and enhances community safety. By alerting law enforcement officers to a person’s criminal history, they believe it allows for more informed and potentially cautious interactions.
2. Opponents of the Marking
   • Critics assert that this is akin to branding, which imposes undue stigma on individuals who have already served their sentences. They argue that it violates the core principles of equal protection and due process by subjecting certain individuals to public scrutiny based purely on their past convictions.

This clash of opinions illustrates how this legal issue straddles the line between individual rights and the state’s responsibility to ensure public safety.

Judicial Review and the “Hybrid” Nature of Driver’s Licenses

The legal discourse surrounding Florida’s driver’s licenses hinges on identifying the nature of the speech involved: is it government speech, personal speech, or a mixture of both? Understanding this distinction carries significant implications for judicial scrutiny levels.

The Speech Spectrum Explained

• Government Speech: If deemed purely government speech, the laws involved undergo a “rational basis review,” meaning they need only a cursory justification to uphold.
• Personal Speech: If characterized as personal speech, the challenge would meet a much stricter standard known as “strict scrutiny,” requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the regulation.

The Florida appellate court must determine whether the markings constitute public expression or if they are an imposition on individual freedoms. The court notes that a Florida driver’s license embodies both government-issued information and personal identifiers, which adds complexity to this assessment.

What Constitutes Personal Speech?

The court highlighted that personal information such as home addresses, organ donor status, or military service notation constitutes individual expression. Individuals voluntarily include these designations to communicate aspects of their identity. Conversely, mandated markings would compel speech that reflects a government determination rather than the individual’s choice.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

The outcome of this case is likely to set a precedent in Florida’s legal environment.

Possible Outcomes

1. Affirmation of Current Policy: Should the appellate court uphold the mandatory designations, Florida would not alter its process. Critics argue this would perpetuate a system of public shaming even after individuals have completed their sentences.
2. Reversal of the Policy: Conversely, if the court rules against the mandated markings, Florida’s legislature would be required to reevaluate how it handles the marking of driver’s licenses, potentially eliminating the required designations altogether.

Broader Political Context

This legal question reflects longstanding tensions between public safety measures and individual rights—particularly for those with felony convictions. The past decades have seen a rise in punitive measures, such as registration and notification laws, aimed at tracking offenders. Critics argue that these measures often go beyond the sentence imposed, serving to belittle the rehabilitative efforts of those who have paid their dues.

Potential Changes in Legislative Policy

While ongoing court proceedings will determine the immediate fate of these markings, it is worth noting that Florida lawmakers retain the power to revise the policy. Possible legislative actions might include:

• Narrowing the Scope: Defining which specific offenses should carry markings instead of applying the requirements universally.
• Enhancing Due Process: Allowing individuals the right to contest or seek the removal of said markings based on personal circumstances.
• Sunset Provisions: Implementing timelines for reviewing the effectiveness of these laws regarding public safety and the impact on former offenders.

Such policy revisions would aim to achieve a better balance between community protection and a fair treatment of individuals seeking to reintegrate into society.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The ongoing court case concerning Florida’s mandated marking on driver’s licenses brings to the forefront important discussions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. The outcome not only influences the individuals affected but also speaks to broader societal values regarding rehabilitation and stigma.

As citizens, it is crucial to stay informed about these developments and engage in the discussion surrounding civil rights, especially as they pertain to those who have served their time. By keeping an eye on legal proceedings and legislative actions, we can contribute to shaping policies that uphold fairness and justice for all individuals, regardless of past mistakes.

Key Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: Follow updates on the court’s decision, as it may set a significant legal precedent in Florida.
2. Engage in Advocacy: Support legislative initiatives that aim for fair treatment of individuals who have served their time.
3. Understand the Issues: Recognize the complexities surrounding public safety and individual rights in the context of criminal justice.

As we await the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, it remains imperative that we foster discussions around these critical issues to ensure a just and equitable legal framework moving forward.

In the realm of criminal justice reform, few topics ignite as much debate and concern as the issue of sex offender registries. While these systems are designed to enhance public safety, they can also inflict significant, long-lasting consequences on individuals who have served their time and worked towards rehabilitation. In June 2023, North Dakota took a significant step forward by passing House Bill 1231, which aims to provide relief for low-risk offenders from the burdens of mandatory registration. This blog post delves into the specifics of HB 1231, exploring its purpose, qualifications, potential impact, and the controversies surrounding it.

Contextualizing House Bill 1231

House Bill 1231 is a legislative proposal in North Dakota that seeks to alleviate the registration requirements for certain low-risk offenders who have demonstrated compliance with the law for an extended period. As states across the nation grapple with the balance between public safety and the rights of rehabilitated offenders, North Dakota’s approach highlights an evolving understanding of these issues.

In essence, HB 1231 is not merely a legal reform but a cultural shift towards recognizing that some individuals, after a lengthy period of compliance and rehabilitation, should not be shackled by the stigma of a registration label. The bill opens a critical dialogue on how to manage the interests of public safety while fostering the reintegration of individuals into society.

What Does House Bill 1231 Entail?

The bill proposes that low-risk offenders, who have completed at least seven years of registration, will have the opportunity to petition the court to end the registration requirement altogether. This provision indicates a major policy shift, affirming that rehabilitation is achievable and that punitive measures need not last a lifetime.

Key Components of the Bill:

1. Eligibility Criteria: Offenders must be classified as low-risk by the Attorney General and have a clean record for a minimum of seven years.
2. Petition Process: Offenders can file a petition with either the sentencing court or the district court in the county where they currently reside. This flexibility allows those who may have been sentenced in less favorable jurisdictions to seek relief in a more amenable court.
3. Clean Record Definition: To qualify for petitioning relief, offenders must not have been convicted of any felonies or sexual offenses during their registration period and must have successfully completed all mandated treatment programs and supervision without incidents.

Navigating the Petitions: The Court Process

The process of applying for relief under HB 1231 involves more than just submitting a form. Once a petition is filed, it is served to the state’s attorney, who is tasked with notifying the victim if that individual can be reasonably located. This structure places victims in a position to present their perspectives during the court hearing, ensuring their voices are heard in decisions that may affect their sense of security.

The court will consider the offender’s clean record, along with victim statements, to make a determination on whether the continuation of registration is necessary for public safety. The judge has the discretion to grant or deny the petition, weighing public safety needs against the offender’s rights to reintegrate into society.

The Implications of HB 1231

As with any significant legislative change, the introduction of House Bill 1231 raises important questions about its effects on various stakeholders:

For Offenders:

Low-risk offenders who abide by the law and successfully complete their treatment programs stand to benefit significantly from this bill. By offering a path to end mandatory registration, the bill acknowledges their efforts toward rehabilitation and allows them to move beyond their past offenses, lessening the stigma associated with being on the registry.

For Victims:

While the bill provides a mechanism for offenders to petition for relief, it also recognizes the rights of victims. The ability for victims to have a say in the process is crucial for their emotional well-being and sense of security. Nevertheless, concerns may arise about whether the timeline for granting relief is too short given the nature of the offenses involved.

For Public Safety:

The broader public safety debate is encapsulated in the bill, which invites discussions about the efficacy of sex offender registries. Advocates for public safety may argue against easing restrictions, fearing that it could lead to increased risks. Conversely, supporters assert that many individuals can be rehabilitated and that long-term registration does not correlate with increased public safety.

For the Judicial System:

The bill also places an administrative responsibility on the courts that may, depending on the demand for petitions, strain resources. While the total number of eligible individuals is quantitatively manageable, each petition will require careful consideration, deliberation, and potentially lengthy hearings.

Controversies and Challenges

Despite its potential benefits, House Bill 1231 is not without its controversies. A couple of critical points that may challenge the bill’s implementation and reception include:

Geographical Disparities: The provisions allowing individuals to file in their current jurisdiction indicate a welcome flexibility, but could also lead to disparities based on local judicial attitudes towards offenders. Counties that are more punitive may adopt stringent practices, while others may embrace rehabilitation

Determining Low Risk: There may be disagreement regarding the criteria for classifying an offender as “low-risk.” This ambiguity can lead to inconsistencies in the application of the law, as various stakeholders interpret the guidelines differently.

Victims’ Rights and Transparency: Advocates for open government may push back against provisions allowing certain hearings to be closed to the public. Central to their argument is the principle of transparency in the judicial process.

Looking Ahead

House Bill 1231 represents an important step in the ongoing pursuit of justice reform. It opens up avenues for low-risk offenders to regain their freedom from a lifelong vestige of punishment while acknowledging the importance of community safety and the experiences of victims. As this legislation proceeds, it will be crucial to monitor how effectively the different stakeholders engage with the law’s provisions.

In conclusion, North Dakota’s passage of House Bill 1231 could potentially reshape the experiences of many individuals bound by the sex offender registry. How successfully the new law balances the needs of offenders, victims, and society as a whole will ultimately determine its legacy.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Stay Informed: If you or someone you know is affected by registration requirements, keep abreast of developments related to HB 1231 and similar legislative proposals.
2. Engage in Dialogue: Participate in discussions surrounding criminal justice reform, as public opinion can influence future legislation.
3. Seek Legal Advice: Individuals considering applying for petition relief should consult with legal experts knowledgeable in the nuances of the law.

With the implications of HB 1231 still unfolding, it is imperative that communities engage in thoughtful and informed conversations about how to achieve justice in a system designed to protect us all.

In recent years, discussions surrounding sex offender registries have garnered significant attention, particularly concerning their efficacy, the stigmatization of those on the list, and how these laws intersect with our broader societal norms. In one thought-provoking voicemail, a listener poses a contentious question: should we reconsider these laws in light of perceived contradictions within our political landscape? This inquiry raises essential points about the nature of justice, public safety, and the moral complexities of our legal systems.

This article delves deep into the nuances of sex offender registries, the implications of public figures on these discussions, and the responsibilities of citizens to engage thoughtfully with the laws that govern them. Readers will learn about the origins of these registries, the arguments for and against their existence, and potential pathways toward more equitable regulations that serve the interests of both public safety and justice.

Understanding Sex Offender Registries: Historical Context

Sex offender registries were established in the United States in the 1990s as a response to high-profile cases that highlighted the risks posed by repeat offenders. The goal was ostensibly to protect communities by ensuring that law enforcement and the public were informed about the whereabouts of individuals convicted of sexual offenses.

However, over the decades, these registries have morphed into complex systems with significant implications for those included. The legal framework often leads to public shaming, which can hinder rehabilitation efforts and stigmatize individuals who have served their sentences. Critics argue that the blanket policies fail to account for the vast differences in the severity of offenses committed and do not necessarily correlate with the safety of communities.

The Comment That Started It All: A Call for Change

In a recent discussion, a listener left a voicemail asserting the need to eliminate sex offender registration laws, citing frustration over perceived inconsistencies in accountability, especially regarding public figures. The voicemail opens a can of worms concerning the credibility of those shaping laws aimed at public safety. The responder to the voicemail took a clear stance against the inflammatory accusation of having a “sex offender in the White House,” stating that it was crucial to maintain intellectual honesty in these debates.

This moment serves as a microcosm of a broader societal issue where hyperbole can cloud the serious discussions necessary for reform. The emotional weight of the voicemail highlights a crucial disconnect between individual experiences with the law and the political context in which these laws are enacted.

Debunking Myths: The Role of Public Discourse

One of the most critical responses to the voicemail revolves around the importance of distinguishing between civil and criminal accountability. The discussion highlights how misinformation can perpetuate confusion about the severity and implications of someone’s past. For instance, accusations may arise from a civil court ruling, but these do not equate to criminal convictions.

The conversation also reveals a phenomenon often seen in public discourse: individuals making blanket statements without proper understanding or context. This can lead to a cycle of misinformation, where fear-mongering overshadows rational discussion about the implications of sex offender registries. More than just harming reputations, such discourse can skew public opinion, prompting stricter laws without understanding their impact on rehabilitation.

The Responsibilities of Voter Engagement

An important aspect of the discussion emerged as the speakers pointed out the need for citizens to be critical consumers of information and engaged voters. The sentiment that people are often surprised or disappointed with the outcomes of their votes underscores a significant issue in political engagement: the need for education and awareness about the policies being enacted.

Citizens must take responsibility for understanding the implications of the laws they support. Voter behavior can often lead to contradictory outcomes where individuals call for leniency in legal standards yet vote for representatives who advocate for harsher laws. This dissonance further complicates any potential for reform in the realm of sex offender registries.

Rethinking the Future: Reforming Sex Offender Registries

The conversation surrounding sex offender registries begs the question: how can we create a system that balances public safety with the rights of individuals? Thoughtful reform is essential to addressing many of the criticisms leveled against current laws.

1. Reevaluation of Offenses: Differentiating between varying degrees of offenses can lead to a more equitable registry that doesn’t employ a one-size-fits-all approach. For instance, there can be significant legal and ethical distinctions between a juvenile offense and a more severe adult conviction.
2. Focus on Rehabilitation: Laws could also emphasize rehabilitation more than punishment, allowing for individuals to reintegrate into society without being permanently branded. Programs that support this transition could be prioritized.
3. Public Awareness Campaigns: Increasing awareness about the purpose and function of registries can help reduce stigma. Educating the public about the facts of sexual offenses, recidivism rates, and rehabilitation can foster a more informed and compassionate community.
4. Policy Advocacy and Legal Reforms: Citizens can advocate for legal reforms that allow for periodic reviews of an individual’s status on the registry, thus providing opportunities for those who have demonstrated rehabilitation to remove their names from the list.

Concluding Thoughts: A Call for Intellectual Honesty

As the discussion highlighted, calling for the elimination of sex offender registries requires a nuanced understanding of their implications and the societal context in which they exist. The complexities of law, public perception, and the reality of rehabilitation must be addressed thoughtfully.

Actionable Takeaways:

• Educate Yourself: Take time to understand the laws surrounding sex offender registries and follow local legislation to stay informed.
• Engage in Dialogues: Participate in community discussions or forums focusing on justice reform and share your perspectives.
• Advocate for Change: Connect with local advocacy groups that work towards criminal justice reform to get involved.

Revisiting and reforming laws around sex offender registration can lead to a more just system that values both public safety and individual rights. It is crucial for individuals to engage thoughtfully with these issues and advocate for meaningful change.

In today’s complex legal landscape, the intersection of law enforcement practices and individual rights can provoke intense debate and concern, especially surrounding proactive stings intended to combat child exploitation. While these measures are firmly rooted in the desire to protect vulnerable populations, their implementation often raises significant questions about due process, accountability, and civil rights. In a recent discussion, Kathleen Hambrick, a passionate advocate for justice and founder of Cage (cage.fyi) (a comprehensive resource for victims of the legal system), brought attention to two crucial bills being introduced in Washington State that aim to address the shortcomings in how proactive stings are conducted and their consequences. This article delves deeper into their implications, highlighting legislative reform, the balance of oversight in law enforcement, and ways for concerned citizens to take an active role in enacting change.

The Proactive Sting Dilemma

Proactive stings are operations where law enforcement officials set up scenarios aimed at apprehending individuals who they suspect may be seeking to exploit children online. Initially designed to deter predatory behavior, these operations can sometimes morph into problematic practices. As Kathleen Hambrick shared, in her advocacy work highlighting the complexities of these legal measures, one significant concern is the incentive structures that law enforcement agencies may face when performing these operations.

The Case for Advisory Oversight

One of the most pressing elements of the proposed bills is the reestablishment of an advisory board associated with the Missing and Exploited Children’s Task Force (MECTF). This board is essential because without proper oversight, law enforcement agencies can deviate from their intended objectives. Kathleen recounted an alarming reality: during her son’s wrongful arrest in a proactive sting operation, it became evident that the police were not adhering to their own stated goals, as confirmed by a police officer’s testimony during the trial.

This disparity highlights a need for an independent board that includes not only law enforcement representatives but also defense attorneys and legal practitioners who can genuinely evaluate the efficacy and adherence of proactive stings to established guidelines. Having legal experts present on this board would ensure that police actions are appropriately monitored, reducing risks of wrongful targeting and civil rights violations.

Legislative Changes: Bills 5282 and 5312

The bills currently under discussion—5282 and 5312—have the potential to reshape the landscape surrounding how proactive stings are carried out and how individuals found guilty of these victimless crimes are treated.

Bill 5282: Establishing Vigilance

This bill focuses on restoring an advisory board for the MECTF, which is paramount given past abuses in the system. Kathleen emphasized that under the newly proposed structure, the inclusion of defense attorneys will lead to more balanced oversight, preventing law enforcement from solely dictating the terms of engagement without transparency. Furthermore, with public meetings subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), transparency will ideally become a standard practice, allowing community members to hold law enforcement accountable.

Bill 5312: Changing Sentencing Standards

Perhaps more groundbreaking is Bill 5312, which seeks to amend the current sentencing standards for offenses related to proactive stings. Historically, an individual could be sentenced to lifetime registration and parole for attempted crimes that didn’t involve any hands-on offense, which raises significant moral and ethical concerns. The proposed changes would scale back these harsh penalties for individuals with no prior sexual offense history, thus treating these cases more appropriately by recognizing the distinction between actual offenses and implied intent.

In the words of Kathleen, “This is a huge difference,” emphasizing the critical nature of distinguishing intent and action within the legal framework to avoid unfair and debilitating consequences for individuals mistakenly caught in these operations.

Advocacy and Community Involvement

For readers who wish to support these vital reforms, there are several avenues available. Both bills are scheduled for legislative hearings, and community voices are essential in amplifying their significance. Kathleen highlighted the need for at least 1,000 pro votes to demonstrate public support for these proposed bills. By utilizing links on her blog, individuals can declare their support, regardless of whether they reside in Washington State or beyond.

On the ground, citizens can help by:

• Visiting advocacy websites like Lady Justice Myth
• Signing petitions supporting the bills
• Sharing information on social media platforms to raise awareness within their networks
• Contacting local representatives and urging them to back the proposed legislation.

Conclusion: A Step Toward Justice

The recent dialogue surrounding these new legislative bills represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing quest for justice reform. By striving for accountability in law enforcement practices and advocating for humane treatment of individuals entangled in proactive stings, advocates like Kathleen Hambrick shine a light on the importance of due process within our legal system.

Ultimately, whether or not these bills pass into law, the dialogue they generate serves as a critical reminder of the continuous need for reform to ensure that justice is equitable and serves all members of society. Advocacy brings communities together, empowering individuals to stand against injustices within the legal framework—together, moving toward a more just and fair society for everyone.

As the journey for reform continues, every voice matters. Join the conversation, lend your support, and actively participate in shaping the future of justice in your community. Together, we can foster a legal system that prioritizes protection without sacrificing the rights and dignity of individuals.