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.

In today’s world, where public safety and individual rights often find themselves at odds, the structures put in place to manage offenders, such as risk-based registration systems, provoke meaningful discussions. A recent case from Massachusetts presents a critical examination of these systems, highlighting their challenges and inefficiencies. This article will dissect the key elements of the case of John Doe vs. the PFR Registration Board, exploring the implications of risk assessment on public safety, the rights of registrants, and the broader discourse surrounding these systems.

Understanding the Case: Setting the Context

John Doe’s case is pivotal, particularly in a state recognized for its liberal stance on various issues. Doe’s situation arose from severe allegations, which culminated in a classification as a level 3 offender—an indication of high risk. The offensive acts included the sexual assault of a minor, leading to his conviction for multiple counts of rape and abuse of a child. After a sentence of two and a half years, the case raises numerous questions: How do these classifications impact the individuals involved? What standard of evidence is used to categorize offenders? This blog post aims to answer these queries and dissect the ramifications on both public safety and individual rights.

The Nature of Risk-Based Systems

What Are Risk-Based Registration Systems?

Risk-based registration systems are designed to classify offenders based on their likelihood of reoffending, with the objective of enhancing public safety. The classification levels range from low to high risk, impacting how and whether offenders’ information is made publicly accessible. For instance, level 3 offenders generally face significant public scrutiny and the dissemination of their registration details, while level 1 offenders are subject to far less public disclosure.

The Standard of Evidence

To justify a level 3 classification, the PFR Registration Board must establish clear and convincing evidence of a high reoffense risk and a substantial danger to the public. This high burden of proof is critical; it is designed to ensure that individuals aren’t unjustly branded as high-risk offenders without substantial justification. The standard is so high that it resembles the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” creating a challenging environment for those defending against such classifications.

Key Insights from the Case

Offenses and Background

In July 2016, John Doe, at the age of 20, provided alcohol to a 14-year-old girl after befriending her on social media. The incident escalated into sexual assault, suggesting a disturbing pattern of behavior. Post-conviction, further reports emerged indicating Doe’s continued inappropriate behavior with minors, which factored significantly into the Board’s decision regarding his classification.

The Board’s Decision-Making Criteria

The hearing examiner relied on multiple aggravating factors to affirm the level 3 classification. These included Doe’s relationship with the victim, his substance abuse, and the predatory nature of his actions. Importantly, even though Doe’s criminal activities were past episodes, they played a crucial role in shaping the Board’s evaluation of his threat level to society.

Judicial Oversight and Administrative Deference

Interestingly, the court upheld the Board’s decisions, emphasizing the high deference granted to administrative agencies. This judicial restraint means that courts typically support the Board’s decisions unless manifest evidence suggests arbitrariness or a failure to adhere to established law. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that substantial evidence backed the Board’s decision deeming Doe a level 3 offender.

The Pitfalls of Risk-Based Registration Systems

While risk-based registration systems aim to bolster community safety, they come with inherent issues that warrant discussion.

Implications for Registrants

Missing the Mark on Due Process

Critics of risk-based systems, including Doe in this case, assert that there may be a lack of due process for those classified as high-risk offenders. The weight of past offenses can overshadow an individual’s potential for rehabilitation and change, especially when evidence does not substantiate current dangerousness.

The Challenge of Stigma

Being classified as a level 3 offender carries not only legal consequences but also long-lasting social stigma, affecting individuals long after their sentence. Such stigmatization can hinder their ability to reintegrate into society, further complicating their prospects for a positive future.

The Questions Advocates Must Consider

The complexities surrounding risk-based registrations raise a series of questions for advocates and policymakers:

• What benefits, if any, do registration systems offer individuals classified as low risk?
• How should varying circumstances impact the duration and nature of registration periods?
• What could a fair appeals process entail for those disputing their classification?

Towards a Fairer Risk-Based System: Recommendations

In light of the shortcomings observed in cases like Doe’s, proposed reforms could better balance public safety and individual rights:

• Streamlining the Appeals Process: Establishing a clearer, more accessible appeals process for offenders challenging their risk classification could ensure fairness. In Massachusetts, utilizing an administrative law judge to adjudicate appeals might streamline justice while relieving courts of overload.
• Access to Resources: Allocating funding for expert representation for indigent registrants can help level the playing field, ensuring all individuals, regardless of background, have an opportunity to present their cases fairly.
• Regular Reevaluation: Implementing periodic assessments of offenders, especially those previously classified at higher levels, can provide a more dynamic view of an individual’s risk and potential for rehabilitation.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Debate

The case of John Doe vs. the PFR Registration Board illustrates the ongoing struggles faced by those navigating the intricacies of risk-based registration systems. While public safety remains a paramount concern, the processes in place necessitate scrutiny and reform to avoid punishing individuals long after their past crimes. By fostering discussions about the efficiency and fairness of these systems, society can seek a more just resolution that ensures both public safety and the dignity of individuals striving for redemption.

In the quest for effective risk assessment and management, it is clear that we must tread carefully, balancing community safety with the rights of individuals—an endeavor that remains vital in our ever-evolving legal landscape.

In recent discussions surrounding the rights of individuals registered as persons facing registration (PFRs), the focus has shifted to the implications of government requirements on their freedoms. This dialogue, rooted in constitutional law and civil liberties, raises critical questions about whether certain requirements infringe upon the rights protected under the First Amendment and the broader constitutional framework. In this article, we will delve into a range of perspectives shared by legal minds and concerned citizens about the intersection of registry mandates with the fundamental rights to free speech and travel. Readers will gain insights into the constitutional debates that surround these issues, including the implications of travel reporting requirements, the nature of freedom of expression, and the potential avenues for legal challenges.

The Constitutional Debate: Can Travel Reporting Requirements be Challenged?

The conversation begins with the observation of recent legal rulings that struck down requirements for PFRs to disclose their Internet identifiers. These rulings were grounded in the assertion that such mandates discourage free speech—a fundamental right enshrined in the First Amendment. Mark, a thoughtful participant in this discourse, wonders whether similar parallels could be drawn concerning travel reporting requirements.

The Right to Travel

At the heart of this discussion is the right to travel, a right acknowledged by both the U.S. Constitution and various legal precedents. When individuals facing registration must disclose their travel plans, it raises concerns about the potential for unconstitutional constraints on their liberty. Mark argues that requiring PFRs to report their travel may constitute an undue burden on their ability to travel freely. If the courts recognize that compelled reporting can inhibit Internet expression, shouldn’t similar reasoning apply to travel, which is also considered a form of expression?

Considerations Under the Law

Larry, another speaker in the dialogue, responds with an intriguing counterpoint. He notes that while travel reporting is enforced for PFRs, courts have generally upheld such requirements as necessary for public safety rather than infringements on individual liberty. The key factor, he argues, is the reasonableness of the requirement in serving legitimate government interests. When discussing constitutional rights, this ongoing evaluation of reasonableness often shapes the outcomes of legal challenges.

The Parallels with Free Speech

The conversation takes a broader perspective as they consider the potential chilling effects of reporting requirements on free speech. The analogy is drawn to historical contexts, such as the McCarthy era, where public reporting on individuals’ ideological leanings served as a method of exerting social control. The fear of being surveilled or scrutinized for their beliefs may lead some PFRs to hesitate in exercising their right to free speech—this dynamic poses a serious concern in terms of First Amendment protections.

Hypotheticals and Their Implications

To further explore the complexity of these issues, Mark presents a hypothetical scenario involving a PFR wanting to travel to participate in a political rally. His rationale revolves around the notion that the requirement to report travel could lead PFRs to second-guess their engagement in activities that may be politically sensitive. This raises a pertinent question: Does the mere act of requiring individuals to report their travel plans create an environment of self-censorship?

The Informational Landscape

In defense of the reporting procedure, Larry questions the specifics of what PFRs must disclose to registry officers. He hypothesizes whether such officers inquire about the purpose of travel when plans are communicated. The unpredictability of this inquiry introduces a layer of complexity to the interaction between PFRs and designated overseers, especially when layered with the potential for subjective interpretations based on the PFR’s affiliations or activities.

Key Considerations:

• Self-Censorship: If individuals feel monitored, they may alter their behavior to evade scrutiny, inhibiting their rights.
• Purpose Disclosure: The legal requirement of reporting travel plans raises questions about the extent to which personal activities are subject to oversight.

The Role of Government Oversight

An important aspect of this conversation revolves around the extent to which government agencies monitor individuals and whether such monitoring creates an atmosphere of fear that dampens free expression. Mark draws parallels between tracking travel and the overall evaluation of a person’s activities—these requirements, while ostensibly protective in nature, may inadvertently contribute to a climate of surveillance that discourages engagement in constitutionally protected rights.

Voices of Reason

As they explore these constitutional implications, another speaker draws a compelling comparison with international travel, where certain identification markers are required. The restriction placed on the freedom to travel could be likened to the retroactive imposition of scrutiny based on past actions—an area ripe for legal exploration and commentary.

Ultimately, this entire dialogue informs the broader conversation regarding civil rights and government accountability, a tapestry of ideas that echo through American legal and political landscapes.

Moving Forward: The Path to Legal Challenges

While the discourse initially began with a specific inquiry into the ramifications of travel reporting for PFRs, it evolved into a rich examination of constitutional rights. Should a legal challenge be mounted specifically concerning travel reporting, it would require a careful selection of plaintiffs and the identification of pivotal legal arguments.

Key Takeaways for PFRs and Advocates

1. Understanding Your Rights: Familiarize yourself with the nuances of your legal rights to travel and expression.
2. Engagement in Dialogue: Participate in public discussions and forums regarding civil liberties; advocacy is essential for change.
3. Seek Legal Expertise: Consult professionals who can provide insights into potential avenues for challenging restrictive regulations.

Conclusion: Synthesizing Key Insights

As we conclude this exploration into the rights of individuals facing registration, it becomes clear that the intersection of these rights with governmental requirements represents a significant legal and ethical conundrum. The concerns surrounding travel reporting, freedom of speech, and constitutional rights are foundational to understanding the landscape of civil liberties in the United States. The conversation about the legality and ethical implications of such requirements has only just begun, and further dialogue is necessary as advocates and legal scholars continue to navigate this challenging terrain.

In the quest for justice and civil liberties, individual voices, like Mark’s, contribute to the momentum for change—a reminder of the importance of protecting freedoms that lie at the heart of our democracy. By continuing to examine these fundamental issues, we not only uphold the spirit of the Constitution but also galvanize efforts toward a future where rights are recognized and honored for all citizens.

Listen to RM327: Iowa Supreme Court sides with PFR here

[00:00] Announcer: This episode of Registry Matters is brought to you by our patrons. Thank you for your continued loyalty and support.

[00:09] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West and more West transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 327 of Registry Matters. Happy New Year, everybody. It’s the first show of 2025. Larry, how are you tonight?

[00:24] Larry: Well, I am recovering from some creeping crud, so hope I can.

[00:29] Andy: You got the corona virus again, didn’t you?

[00:32] Larry: I don’t know. I didn’t take any tests this time. I know it was worse than last year with COVID. So, it was fun.

[00:40] Andy: Do you recall a particular individual that said if we would stop testing, then we the numbers for the people with COVID would go down?

[00:46] Larry: Yes. And it was a true statement.

[00:49] Andy: It is absolutely a true statement. Well, how would we know if our tire is low on air if we never check it? I mean, you could just let it go.

[01:02] Larry: That’s right. We used to do that before we had the, the gauges that are built in the tires and people would run very low. And there was a president that was in office that was criticized when he told people to check their tire pressure.

[01:12] Andy: I recall that too. That was also very fun. He wore tan suits, and that was also very, highly criticized.

[01:19] Larry: Yep. So

[01:21] Andy: Well, I will do it. I will do it. I will do it. Where’s that button? There it is. Okay. So I haven’t said this in a long time, but make sure you press like and subscribe and ring the bell notification and all that happy horse stuff on, on YouTube and leave a 5 star review. Of course, if why would anybody hey, make sure you leave like a one-star review. Nobody would ever say that. But so, download it on a podcast app, Patreon support. Yeah. Go on. What are we doing tonight?

[01:51] Larry: tonight? Well, it’s me, mister gloom and doom. But for good news, Chance is back with a California corner this week. And I think he’s gonna discuss what we didn’t get to last week for audio problems on our last episode. Removal from registration. That there are so few taking advantage of this wonderful option. And we’re gonna be looking at a case from the Supreme Court of Iowa. And we have a question from one of our loyal patrons in North Carolina. And then you mentioned some gobbledygook that we might go off topic on, but, hopefully, we don’t do that.

[02:34] Andy: Yeah. I don’t know that we’re gonna do that one. Let’s kick right over to this question from Mike in North Carolina. It goes, first of all, happy New Year. Thank you, sir. Happy New Year to you too. He says, I am about to fill out and appear for my mandatory in person appearance here in North Carolina. I looked up the online registration requirements, and I have a question for you or Larry. Trust me, it’s not for me. In section b, it talks about commercial social networking. I’ve read it multiple times. That’s him reading it, not me. Does it mean sites like Registry Matters? Not sure if I even fall into the high-risk offender portion in section c-1. I’m going to report in person on Monday, hoping someone can take a look at it.

[03:21] Larry: Well, someone did take a look at it. Who did it? I followed his link, and I got the statue, and I plopped it in here. And we have a licensed attorney of the state of California, so that would qualify for North Carolina. Don’t you think? We could [Andy: I think so.]

[03:38] Chance: If I’m gonna commit malpractice it does. But go ahead. Go ahead. So, Take a shot.

[03:45] Larry: So we have so looking at the statute that he provided us and, just looking at the definition contained in section B. And it’s very crucial that section B says that meets all of the following requirements to be covered. And since I’m such a horrible reading reader, if someone would like to read 1, 2, 3, and 4, but I’m having my doubts that registry matters would qualify for those for all of them combined because it can’t be any one of them. It’s all of them.

[04:23] Andy: Alright. Well, I will read them. It says, it is unlawful for a high risk PFR to do any of the following online. So, 1, to communicate with a person that the offender believes is under the age of 16. Number 2, to contact a person that the PFR believes is under the age of 16. Isn’t that the same thing? It believes to communicate to contact. Isn’t communicate the same as contact? Yeah. You’re in section a, though. We were Oh. Yeah. [Chance: You you wanna skip down to b there.] You didn’t okay. Well, you said 1234. Alright. So here sorry. Sorry. Back up. Section b then says, we’re gonna come up with the definition of social networking websites. So here’s 1. Is operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the website. Now, you told me in pre-show that this would be a true, but we don’t run it here locally. It’s run through a third-party site. So does that make this not count for us? [Larry: Well, I think it would be one of the 4 possibly met, but then we’ve got more to go here because it has to be all of them.] Okay. And then number 2 is repealed by session laws 2019-245 section 3 a, effective December 1, 2019, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date. Number 3, allows users to create personal web pages or profiles that contain the user’s name or nickname, photographs of the user, or other personal information. I don’t think that applies. Like, you could leave comments on the Registry Matters website, but, like, that’s not a way for you to, like, be in contact with each other. And then you said number 4, so provides users or visitors a mechanism to communicate with others, such as a message board, chat room, or instant messenger. And that one’s a hard no.

[06:15] Larry: We don’t do number 4.

[06:18] Andy: I mean, again, if you left a comment, someone could reply to your comment. But, like, that’s not that’s not communicating with. I wouldn’t really call it that.

[06:29] Chance: So Yeah. Though, this is a very grey all these things well, with the exception of number 1, all these things are pretty grey.

[06:39] Larry: And if in my opinion, this is only an opinion of an individual, but in my opinion, these 4 are not met. All 4 of them have to be met. Not really, really clear on number 2. But, I don’t think all 4 of these are met in terms of this. But, when you say something’s in a gray area, then it gets sent to a rule of lenity. Right, Chance? When you when you have something that where there’s a lack of clarity, any doubt and ambiguity is supposed to be resolved in favor of the runner, the accused. And so, therefore, this seems very innocuous. I would be very surprised if he had any problems with it. But one never knows.

[07:31] Chance: Yeah. One question that arises, and you’re looking at 3 and 4 is whether you know, does this include Discord? Use of Discord?

[07:41] Andy: I mean, that that would be significantly closer to meeting these things. People don’t create profiles. They sure as heck communicate with each other.

[07:52] Chance: Yeah. That’s what I’m talking, but that’s why I’m saying it’s kind of gray. This is what makes it gray for me because I don’t know whether or not Discord would be included in all this. [Andy: Certainly.]

[08:03] Andy: And then I asked you this, also, and someone just in chat said, I thought the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to block us from social media.

[08:13] Larry: Well, they did say that, in in Packingham. That was a total ban. But they didn’t say that there couldn’t be reasonable restrictions that are narrowly tailored and targeted. The problem for the lawmakers, and I know that thousands of them listen across the country, you can do almost anything if you narrowly tailor it. If you’ll put your broad brush into the dumpster and you will figure out a small subset of the total PFR population, there’s almost nothing that you couldn’t do. But you just can’t help yourself because you listen to the victim’s advocates and to the law enforcement apparatus too much and you don’t think about how to narrowly tailor. I can think of ways you could narrowly tailor and get away with almost everything that you’d wanna do, but that doesn’t give the satisfaction of being able to pontificate that you’re being tough on all the registered offenders. That just doesn’t sound as well when we we’ve got it’s kinda like our 3 strikes law When we had a, Gary Johnson as governor of the 1990s, he insisted that we should have a 3 strikes law, and we passed one to satisfy Governor Johnson. Not a soul has ever been in 30 years given a life sentence under our three strikes law because it’s so narrowly tailored that you could I mean, Nolan Ryan could not have hit that strike zone when he was in his heyday of being a great pitcher. I mean, it is impossible. But you can do a lot of stuff if you narrowly tailor it.

[09:45] Chance: If you look at it, I think they’ve attempted to do that. I mean, just look at the title. Ban online conduct by high-risk sex offenders that endangers children. They’re banning conduct. You know, of course, this gets into social media, but, you know, the idea is that they’re trying to, you know, to nail it down to a very, very small and high-risk segment’s conduct. So, this, you know, it just it just goes into the mix in in in making this gray.

[10:17] Larry: But if you had been if you look at, subsection a in the 1234 there, again, you would need it to have narrowly tailored it even below what they’ve got it tailored here because you might have a biological child or someone you have legal custody of and you’re telling them they can’t communicate with any person. It doesn’t say. And, if you want to do this correctly, you will say except for and you would put those exceptions in there of biological children, children that you have legal custody of and so forth and so on. But they didn’t do that. [Chance: Right.] The contact person is at least to be at 60. [Chance: We’re talking about different shades of gray.]

[11:01] Chance: You know, do you wanna be the do you wanna be the person who has to litigate that is the question. [Andy: Mike, we need you to be our crash test dummy on this one.]

[11:12] Larry: Yeah. I think [Andy: We’ll see how he responds to that.] I think he’s not excited about doing that. That’s why that’s why he put this in there. Probably.

[11:21] Andy: But, he said no.

[11:24] Larry: But I don’t think he’s got anything to worry about. But if you look at the punishment down in section e, a violation of this is a class h felony. Now it sounds like a lower level felony in North Carolina because they probably go a through h, maybe for even further. But still, it’s a felony offense, and that could possibly subject you to a lot of incarceration time. If they if they can use it as a habitual enhancement and all these kind of things, it could be a very uncomfortable situation.

[11:53] Andy: Not to mention just at least even going to the county jail to be processed before you go off and do the rest of your time. Even if it’s even if it’s 3 months, it’s still enough of a pain in the butt. So, all right. Did we cover everything?

[12:11] Larry: It’s best I know how to do. And, Chance, you agree that it’s a bit iffy, but I I don’t think he’s got any potential threat coming his way. But you never know.

[12:26] Chance: Yeah. No. I you know, I’m it’s a bit iffy and gray to me, and I’m not sure I’d wanna be the crash dummy on that. But, you know, choices, choices.

[12:37] Andy: Well, I mean, he’s here on Discord too. He’s I think the conversation is a is about is he able to, like, download the podcast from the website to listen to it? Couldn’t that immediately collide with First Amendment of being able to receive information with the information to redress grievances with your government, etcetera, etcetera?

[13:00] Larry: It certainly could.. But, again, does he wanna be facing a $50,000 bond for a PFR if they try to make an issue of this?

[13:15] Andy: I think he’s independently wealthy, and I don’t think money’s an issue. And I’m just kidding. I know he’s gonna, like, rage type at me no again. Alright. Well, then, shall we talk about Iowa? [Larry: I love Iowa. So, let’s talk about Iowa. What you got in mind?] Alright. Well, there’s a case from the Iowa Supreme Court, and it’s John Feller versus the whole entire state, which includes about, what, 12 people? The state of Iowa. And it’s a win for us. So, what’s this case about?

Larry: How the heck would I know? That’s the reason why we have AI.

[13:54] Chance: Yeah. That’s okay, Larry. Let me help you out like kinda like manually with a brief discovery of the case, non AI. John Feller, required sex offender registrant, sought to modify his lifetime registration requirement. The Iowa District Court in, I think it’s called well, I don’t know. Anybody know how to pronounce that? [Larry: Dubuque.] I think it is Dubuque. Dubuque County denied his application, citing various reasons including his decision to testify by affidavit, his courtroom demeanor, and the letters he sent to his daughter. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed this denial. However, the Iowa Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors and not providing substantial evidence that Feller remains a threat to public safety. The Supreme Court noted that Feller had completed sex offender treatment, lived in the community without issue for almost a decade, and was evaluated as low risk to reoffend. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for an order granting Feller’s application to end his lifetime registration. I mean, how clean is that? It’s beautiful.

[15:09] Larry: Indeed. See, you did all this for me, so I can go home now. Right?

[15:16] Andy: Oh, you can totally go home. Well, according to Come on. According to the court, but for the state’s unusual procedural approach to Feller’s underlying charges, he would be off of the PFR list by now. Instead, he’s subject to lifetime registration unless a district court grants his application to modify his registration requirement. Did that happen?

[15:34] Larry: Well, it did as Chance, provide the summary as the district court denied his application provided reasons that we’ve already covered, ranging from his decision to testify of affidavit rather than personally and his courtroom demeanor to the letters he sent his daughter with permission from the daughter’s mother and his parole officer. The court of appeals affirmed the district court and the Supreme Court, fortunately for him, granted review.

[16:04] Andy: In the opinion, it states, we now reverse the district court’s ruling and remand for the entry of an order granting the appellant’s application to end his lifetime registration. The appellant’s evaluations demonstrate that he is at a low risk to reoffend, he has successfully completed PFR treatment, and he has lived in the community without issue for almost a decade since his release from prison. The district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors, and substantial evidence was not introduced that the appellant remains a threat to public safety. You’ve pontificated for years that abuse of discretion is a difficult hurdle to overcome, but he did it.

[16:46] Larry: It does occur occasionally, but while it’s a tough standard to overcome, would you agree me with me on that Chance? When you are Well going abuses of discretion, that is almost an impossible standard to meet.

[16:59] Chance: Entire I of course, I would agree with you. I mean, I’ve, you know, I’ve only achieved it once. It’s been recently in California, but it’s incredibly rare.

[17:12] Andy: And I’ll tell you, speaking of tough standards, did you know that the Iowa state bird, the American Goldfinch, is said to symbolize resilience? It’s almost as if the Fellers case embodies that spirit, don’t you think?

[17:24] Larry: Interesting connection. But, yes, it’s a unique situation where the Supreme Court saw fit to intervene. They did have to grant review, and they not only granted review, they slapped down both courts. [Chance: That’s pretty rare.]

[17:37] Andy: In April 2011, the state charged Feller by trial information with lascivious acts with a child and third-degree sexual abuse for his conduct between 2007 and 2011. According to the minutes of testimony, Feller admitted to doing a number of naughty things to JB we can’t read here. When he first started touching JB, Feller described it as their secret, and he told her that he had to keep it away from the family to stay together. He told police he did not touch LF because she was his biological daughter. Things went south for Feller. And then what happened next?

[18:12] Larry: A memorandum of plea negotiation shows the state agreed to dismiss the sexual abuse charge and substitute a second count of lascivious acts with a child. To the April 2011 trial information. I don’t know if we wanna get into the weeds of what a trial information is. Boy, it’s a charging instrument. It could be indictment, complaint. I don’t know how they do it in California. But here, when an information is filed, it’s usually without any cross examination. It’s the prosecution saying, here’s the probable cause. We’re saying that, and we’re filing this information. But, anyway, while Feller was awaiting trial, his attorney sent him a letter detailing how some temporary help in the county attorney’s office opened a new case file instead of amending the old case file. Because remember, they were they were, substituting the lascivious acts. According to Feller’s attorney, the state was going to amend the old case and dismiss the new one, but it never did. Since the state never altered its filings, and Feller pleaded guilty in 2 separate case numbers to lascivious acts with a child for what he did to JB. The district court sentenced Feller to concurrent sentences of 5 years’ incarceration on each count and 10 year special sentence committing him to the custody of the Department of Corrections. It also ordered Feller to register his PFR as required by Iowa law chapter 692 a.

[19:39] Andy: Upon entering prison in 2012, Feller submitted an application for determination to the Iowa Department of Public Safety to establish his registration requirements. The DPS informed Feller that he was required to register for a period of 10 years. Feller discharged his term of incarceration in 2014 and again filed an application for his SOR determination in 2016. This time, the DPS informed Feller that he was required to register, for how long, for the rest of his life. They wrote, you are required to register due to your convictions in October 24th 2011. I’ll try this again. Your convictions in October 24, 2011 for a lascivious acts with a child in violation of Iowa code section case numbers and lascivious anyway, it goes on and on and on. If committed against a person under such and such ages, according to this and that, the conviction of a second or subsequent PFR type offense to register for life. This sounds to me like a plot by the prosecution, Larry.

[20:49] Larry: It very well could have been.

[20:53] Andy: But he filed another petition?

[20:56] Larry: Yes. He did. In December 2021, Feller applied to modify his SOR requirements under Iowa code 692 a.128. The district court held a hearing on July 13, 2022, that included testimony from J. B. And Kayla opposing Fellers’ application primarily out of concern for LF, who was 15 years old at the time. They testified that Feller had been sending LF letters or cards almost monthly with permission from Kayla and his parole officer. The district court admitted several of these letters as exhibits. According to JB, the letters that were admitted “had the most manipulative tactics in them, that I wanted to show.”

[21:49] Andy: Now, the contents of his cards, they don’t really sound manipulative to me, but for example, one letter reads read as follows. Hope you’re doing good and have not heard from you in a long time. Be nice to get a card. I hope school went well. Be nice to know how you are doing. Have a fun 4th July. I love you with all my heart and always will, and I hope your summer vacation is good. Once again, it would be nice to hear from you. Grandma Feller misses you too. Love always, dad. Please send a card. That sounds like a father who misses his daughter’s contact while he’s in prison. How did the hearing go? Well,

[22:30] Larry: Feller did not testify, but as mentioned, he submitted an affidavit noting that he had completed PFR treatment while incarcerated and, again, while on parole. He stated that he has had no criminal charges in the 8 years since his release, including no sex offender registration violations, and only learned that he would have to register for life when he was discharged when he completely discharged his sentence in 2014. Further, Fellow declared that he has maintained full time employment for the last 8 years and is on apartment and vehicle. He also submitted a 2021 letter from the Department of Correctional Services documenting him as a low risk to reoffend based on their risk assessments. He appears to have been a good candidate for modification of his registration requirements.

[23:17] Andy: So maybe so, but the district court denied Feller’s application. In doing so, it found JB to be an extremely credible witness and accepted her unrebutted testimony as fact, giving weight to her belief, which is based on her own experience and Feller’s similar pattern with respect to his younger daughter that Feller’s obligation to register should continue. Other factors it considered in determining that Feller presents a significant enough risk to reoffend that he should continue to register as included Feller’s demeanor at the hearing, lack of remorse, and pattern of behavior. The district court did acknowledge that it was a difficult determination for the court. The court of appeals, while also admitting that this was a difficult case, affirmed.

[24:02] Larry: Yeah. He lost trial court at the court of appeals, so he got slapped down pretty hard.

[24:08] Andy: And, so, what is the modification process about?

[24:12] Larry: I’ve never seen this before. It’s under, 692A.128. And it says a PFR may file an application. And I just lost it. Where do I go here? Go ahead and read it since I lost my place.

[24:36] Andy: So part 1 is a PFR may file an application in district court seeking to modify the registration requirements under this chapter. 2, for an offender whose requirements to register as a PFR commenced prior to July 1, 2022, an application shall not be granted unless all of the following apply. A, the date of commencement of the requirement to register occurred at least 2 years prior to the filing of the application for a tier 1 offender and 5 years prior to the filing of an application for a tier 2 or tier 3 offender. B, the PFR has successfully completed all PFR treatment programs that have been required, c, a risk assessment has been completed and the PFR was classified as a low risk to reoffend. The risk assessment used to assess an offender as a low risk to offend shall be a validated risk assessment, approved by the department of corrections. 2 more to go. D, the PFR is not incarcerated when the obligation is filed. And then e, the director of the judicial district department of correctional services supervising the PFR or the director’s designee stipulates to the modification, and a certified copy of the stipulation is attached to the application.

[25:50] Larry: Wow. That was a long list. I’m glad I could weasel my way out of reading that.

[25:56] Andy: [Chance: A lot of stuff. It is. It’s a lot of stuff.] I always love when they put in there, make sure that you’re not in prison when you try to file the application. I always love that one. But anyhoo, the opinion states, here, the parties agree with the district court’s conclusion that Feller met the threshold mandatory criteria for modification under Iowa code section 692 A.128, and then in parentheses, 2. So the only issue on appeal is whether the district or court abused its discretion in denying modification. The court may modify the registration requirements under this chapter if the applicant meets the threshold, threshold statutory requirements, the district court proceeds to the second step, namely determining in its discretion whether the registration requirements should be modified. Now that says may, doesn’t say shall. How did he meet the abuse of discretion legal standards since it’s a discretionary act?

[26:52] Larry: Very carefully.

[26:54] Andy: Thank you, mister Snarky.

[26:56] Larry: I from the opinion, it says a district court commits an abuse of discretion in an SOR modification case, quote, when it fails to consider a relevant factor or considers an improper or irrelevant factor on the question of whether the ongoing risk of danger from the PFR justifies continuation of the registration requirements. And they cited a case called Fortune. And it’s 957 Northwestern Second at 707. In exercising this discretion, the district court must take care to ensure that public safety and not punishment provides the lens through which facts are evaluated. And that’s referring back to that same citation. Now, that’s pretty powerful. They’re being pretty clear in in the Fortune case. We have previously explained this requires a district court to consider only those factors related to whether the applicant is low risk to reoffend, such that extending the applicant’s registry requirements has no substantial benefit to public safety. To be clear, low risk does not equate to no risk and conclusory appeals to the public safety do not defeat the modification application. So this sounds like a very good outcome. And I didn’t read the fortune case, but it sounds like that they’ve got a good framework.

[28:19] Chance:. I’m sorry. I’m just gonna say that the spectrum here is moving in the right direction. You’re moving away from conviction based and punishment type analyses to risk analyses. It’s good. This is good.

[28:28] Andy: Yeah. That makes me think of the, what was the other case you said that we might cover, Larry?

[28:41] Larry: There was one from Massachusetts where the assessment board where they do a risk based system, he appealed their denial of his lowering of the risk, and that didn’t go so well for him. We’re gonna talk about that in a future episode.

[28:56] Andy: Right. Right. Right. Okay. And then in quotes, where only proper factors have been considered, we find an abuse of discretion only where there is clear error of judgment. Here, however, the district court considered improper factors that were either not supported by the record or not related to whether extending Feller’s registry requirements was a substantial benefit to public safety. These include Feller’s choice to testify by affidavit instead of personally. That was a critical factor.

[29:27] Chance: And speaking of which, the district court considered 2 really critical and proper factors. As Andy just mentioned, Feller’s choice to testify by affidavit instead of personally. And just as critical, his courtroom demeanor, both of which were not relevant to assessing his risk to public safety.

[29:45] Larry: Yes. That’s something, we fight with juries all the time, trying to get jurors not to consider irrelevant factors such as an accused exercising his or her right not to testify. In theory, a judge is trained to disregard irrelevant factors. Apparently, this judge did not follow that training. The high court found that the district court abused its discretion by relying on Feller’s demeanor to find lack of remorse. According to the district court, Feller’s demeanor was one of discomfort and avoidance as he did not make eye contact with the court nor with the witnesses who testified. Courtroom demeanor can be a valid factor, but the record in this case does not support the district court’s reliance on it. Nothing in the record suggests Feller’s demeanor was dismissive, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. And we fail to see how his apparent discomfort and avoidance during inherently comfortable court proceeding is evidence that he is a threat to reoffend. That’s powerful stuff.

[30:53] Andy: Let me ask you both the question then. How if you are going to demonstrate remorse and all of that, were you supposed to go in there, like, crying and crawling on your knees begging for forgiveness? And you’re in an incredibly uncomfortable situation, and you’re probably trying to, like, hold your head up high and have pride and whatnot and, you know, have armor up on your expressions and all that. How are you supposed to display this?

[31:19] Chance: Well, you’re not supposed to grovel. That’s you’re supposed to be sincere. Very, very sincere. And, you know, in showing that, you know, you’re sorry for this particular act or acts. And that takes a lot of sincerity. It’s just it’s just looking straight at straight at the court and saying, you know, what’s on what’s on your heart and what’s in your mind and expressing sincere regret. That’s it in a nutshell. But then if you don’t,

[31:47] Andy: But then if you don’t speak on your own behalf, then what are you supposed to do?

[31:52] Chance: You can do it by affidavit. You can do it by letter to the court. But it’s not just going up and saying, I’m remorseful. Like for what? That’s what gets you into the weeds. It’s expressing sincere and true regret for whatever, you did. You know, not for getting caught but for what you did. And it has to be sincere, and it can be sincerely expressed in an affidavit. It can be sincerely expressed in a letter. It can be sincerely expressed verbally. But it’s gotta be a sincere expression of that. And one thing I will say, and this happens a lot in court, people get nervous. They get distracted. They get overwhelmed. It’s a bad experience. It’s traumatic. And it’s not easy to get up and say anything in court. And when a judge is then looking at you and judging you by all these different nonverbal things that they’re studying, okay, that they do typically in in trial. They’re looking, you know, for all kinds of things that just don’t exist in this type of hearing. This is not that type of hearing. That’s this type of hearing. And so in this type of hearing, those things don’t matter.

[33:07] Andy: Gotcha. And he chose to testify by affidavit.

[33:12] Chance: That’s sometimes a very good thing to do because I think it’s easier, to express your sincere regret on paper, in a thoughtful way than to all caught up in the weeds, nervous, and overwhelmed, and have anxiety, and totally melt down in front of a judge.

[33:29] Andy: Absolutely. Well, okay. So, we need to wrap this up. And to end, the court stated, in this case, remand for a new hearing to reassess Feller’s application without consideration of the improper factors is unnecessary. The state acknowledged as much at oral argument conceding that there is not enough evidence that Feller poses a threat to public safety if we exclude Feller’s letters to LF from consideration. Thus, we remand and order granting Feller’s application. Now, does this mean it’s all over, like he can spike the football?

[34:04] Larry: It does mean that They also acknowledged, in doing so, we note that Feller would have been removed from the PRFR registry after 10 years if not for the procedural path that the state chose, which resulted in 2 separate case numbers instead of 2 counts that should have been part of a single case. And they cited the appropriate code section. This too speaks to the issue of public safety because the legislature determined that Feller’s crime should only require registration for 10 years as opposed to lifetime he is facing absent modification. Our decision to remand for the district court to grant Feller’s application aligns with the legislature as directive. If I could give one word of caution to judges, never tell the legislature what they meant because they will come back and they will tell you, no. That is not what we meant. All you have to do is look at Wisconsin when the attorney general issued that opinion that said that 2 separate counts within the same case represented separate conduct and that you were a recidivist. And the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said, no. That’s not what that meant. And the legislature came back and said, nope. You got it wrong. That is precisely what we meant. And they adopted that reasoning. So, at court, you need to be careful what you put on paper because you can’t tell the legislature what they meant.

[35:29] Andy: Alrighty then. Well, Chance, I completely botched. It’s been so long since you were here. I totally forgot to introduce you again and welcome you back to the program. So, hey, welcome back. I apologize again. [Chance: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And It’s good to be back.] Yeah. Thank you. I’m glad you’re back. Today’s, Chance is going to briefly discuss California’s tiered system of relief for PFR registration and why. I mean, like, seriously, does anybody need to ask why it’s so important to take advantage of it? But that’s what we’re gonna talk about.

[35:58] Larry: Yes. In 2021, California implemented a tiered system for PFR registration, a significant shift from their previous lifetime requirement. Yours truly was very critical. The new system categorizes offenders into 3 tiers based on the severity of their offenses with corresponding registration periods of 10 years, 20 years, a lifetime. But why is this change so important, Mr. Chance?

[36:25] Chance: Well, you know, first and foremost, the tiered system offers a path to relief for many individuals who have demonstrated rehabilitation and pose a low risk to public safety as we’ve said time and time again and talk about all the time. By allowing these individuals to petition for removal from the registry after a specified period, the system acknowledges their efforts to reintegrate into society and lead productive lives. At least, that’s the theory behind it. Unfortunately, not enough registrants are taking advantage of this opportunity. According to the California Department of Justice, and I’m talking as of May of 2024, 6, 7 months ago, the total number of people required to register is in California is 104,894. The number of petitions filed requesting termination of the requirement to register has grown to 8,646. Of that total, 6,704 petitions have been granted, a 123 petitions have been denied, and 491 petitions have been dismissed. There are about a 1,308 petitions pending review.

I think that the numbers pretty much lead to this. This underutilization means that countless individuals remain burdened by the stigma of their past, unable to fully reclaim their lives because they simply are not taking advantage of it. I mean, imagine being burdened. Yeah. Imagine. Everybody imagine being a burden with the stigma for life regardless of the nature of the offense or the progress made sense. You know, what are you doing? The tiered system provides a more nuanced approach recognizing that not all offenses are equal in terms of severity and risk. And this is a critical step towards a more just and equitable legal system. Something I just mentioned a moment ago, which is how the spectrum is moving from conviction based and punishment to risk. And that makes it a lot more equitable. Additionally, the tiered system helps law enforcement focus their resources on monitoring high risk offenders. By reducing the number of individuals on the registry, authorities can allocate more attention and resources to those who pose a genuine threat to public safety. This targeted approach enhances community protection and ensures that the registry serves its intended purpose of protecting the public. For those eligible for relief, taking advantage of this tiered system can be life changing. It opens doors to employment, housing, and social opportunities that were previously closed. It allows individuals to move forward without the constant shadow of their past mistakes. And most importantly, it offers a chance at redemption and a fresh start.

[39:18] Larry: And let me go off script here a little bit. When this system was developed, I predicted it would be minimally used. In my opinion, it is still too complicated. In my opinion, they could have done a better job of doing it and they would have more success rate. But, they had over a 100000 people on it, on the registry in California when they passed this two plus years into it, they’ve still got over a 100,000 people on the registry. 6,000 have gotten off. But the people have been removed, have been offset by new additions. So, the registry is just as bloated as it ever was. But, anyway, let’s not forget the collateral effects on the registrants’ families and their loved ones. The stigma and restrictions can deeply affect spouses, children, and extended family, often limiting their social and economic opportunities, suppressing your earnings for the rest of your life. Relief of registration doesn’t just liberate the individual. It breathes new life into the family unit, fostering a supportive and stable environment.

[40:17] Chance: Yeah. It you know, agreed. And, you know, if you’re someone who you know is or if there’s someone you know who is eligible for relief under California’s tiered system, and that and that means you or someone else close to you, it’s crucial to seek legal advice and begin the petition process immediately. This journey may be challenging, but potential rewards are immense. Remember, justice isn’t just about punishment. It’s about fairness, rehabilitation, and the opportunity for a second chance. Take advantage of it.

[40:53] Larry: Well, when you say take advantage of it, I know you can’t give specific pricing, but for those who are wanting a ballpark, is there any way you can tell them? I think the fear tactic of I gotta get a lawyer, not rolling in the dough. What would be, at least a range of pricing that you would be looking at for a removal petition?

[41:19] Chance: Well, there is all kinds of range of prices because there’s like zero range, which is the public defender’s office if you qualify. There are some people that are advertising doing it for a $1,000 to $3,000. Not exactly, you know, describing what the process is. So later they can charge maybe double or 3 times for a hearing if necessary. For me, I work on a sliding scale. And it’s anywhere from $2500.00 on up depending on what the complexity is. Depending on what the level is, and that type of thing. So, for me, it’s important that if someone contacts me, they’re able to talk about their case. They know what they’ve been convicted of. They maybe have an idea of what their tiers tier is because they’ve received a tier letter. If not, we gotta find out. And then a bunch of other factors that I look at and take into consideration as whether or not gonna get to a hearing and have to litigate this. So I can’t really say precisely, but I can say that, you know, starting around 25100 for the, like, the, you know, the most simplistic type things and working on that for me.

[42:31] Larry: [Andy: Couple, questions. 1 with go ahead, Larry. Did you wanna say?] I was gonna say that, Chance, that sounds very reasonable because if we had such a process here, I can’t imagine we would be as low as you as you’re saying that your simple case would be. So, I think that, certainly give your contact information at the end of the program and all that kind of stuff, but that sounds very reasonable. Go ahead with these questions that popped up.

[42:57] Andy: So, does this apply to specific tiers, or does it apply to everybody? 1, 2, 3, what tiers?

[43:03] Chance: Mostly, tiers 1 and tiers 2. There are some people that are up in tier 3 because their risk level is high. They can come out of tier 3, but otherwise, tier 3 is life.

[43:16] Andy: And then does it apply to people who move to California from another state? [Chance: Great question. And the answer is, yes.] Is there is there a time limit in state or anything like that? I mean, like, the person that’s asking this question has been on the registry since we invented the alphabet.

[43:36] Chance: A long time. It You’ve gotta You’ve got to determine, and this is why you wanna contact an attorney, whether or not there’s a state equivalent, what tier it falls into, and then it comes down to how much time you’ve actually registered. [Andy: He’s been on the registry, I think, since the ninety’s ish?] Yeah. So, the real issue here is what this particular individual is convicted of and where it falls on our tier system.

[44:03] Andy: And then, if was this put through in a recent bill in California to put all this together? And if so, what bill was it?

[44:11] Chance: It was I think it was AB 384, if I’m not mistaken. Anyways, it was a couple of 3 years ago, maybe. And, and, you know, the reason I’m discussing it today and I’m saying more people should take advantage of it is I think that, you know, as Larry rightfully said, you know, it’s not making much of a dent. Not enough people are taking advantage of it. And, you know, so not enough people are peeling off of it and not and it’s being refreshed by new cases and new individuals registering every day. But the option’s there to take advantage of it. And I do think that still a lot of people, 1, either don’t know about it or are too fearful to take advantage of it or think it’s too ominous in terms of finance or whatever. It’s not. You can get there.

[45:08] Andy: I know my life is different after being deregistered.

[45:12] Chance: Totally. Totally. Anything else? I think that’s it.

[45:21] Andy: Alright. Well then, before we go, do you have anything else, Larry? I know that you wanna get out of here because you’re all cranky and whatnot. [Larry: No. I think I’ve covered it as best I know how.] Very well. So, before we go, there’s something fun for you. We’ve hidden a small puzzle in today’s episode, something you might not have noticed the first time around. If you can figure out the answer, you’ll be entered into a drawing to one of our podcast t shirts that you can check out over at fypeducation.org

[45:48] Larry: So, here’s how it works. Go back, listen carefully, and when you think you figured it out, send your answer to regifreematterscast@gmail.com.

[46:04] Andy: And I will be nice to you and give you a clue, and it’s something tied to the Iowa section. And so if you have to go back and listen to it, you can speed it up, slow it down, all of those other things. And I will, we will announce the winner next week. So good luck, and I look forward to your emails. And, again, that’s registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Any closing words from anybody? Anybody have any just final thoughts before we, shut everything down?

[46:33] Larry: We may have scheduling difficulties next week, so don’t count on your normal arrival time because I will be in a strategic planning session at our normal recording time. So, we will be announcing some adjusted times for next, episode.

[46:48] Andy: Very well. Anything else, Chance?

[46:52] Chance: No. No. Just thank you for joining us for another show.

[47:00] Andy: And, so head over to registrymattersdot.c0 for show notes. And voice mail, 747-227-4477. I just gave the email address, but that’s registrymatters cast@gmail.com. And please, for all of the patrons that have supported us, especially like Mike who asked the question earlier, like, for years, I can’t thank you enough. It is incredibly generous. Even for a dollar, it just it it’s much, much, much appreciated. And that’s over at patreon.com/registrymatters. And, well, that’s all I got. So I guess, we will talk to you in a week or so depending on scheduling conflicts and all that jazz. Hope you all guys have a great night.

[47:40] Chance: Good. Thank you. Thank you. Good night.

[47:46] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.

California’s approach to managing the registration of individuals who have committed certain offenses has undergone significant transformation in recent years. The introduction of a tiered system for the registration of individuals under the Penalty for Failure to Register Offenses (PFRO) in 2021 marked a notable shift in how society views rehabilitation and public safety. In this blog post, we’ll explore what this tiered system entails, its importance in promoting rehabilitation, and why it remains underutilized.

A New Beginning: The Tiered System Explained

Before delving into the importance of the tiered registration system, let’s break down what this system actually is. California’s new tiered structure categorizes offenders into three tiers based on the severity of their offenses:

• Tier 1: Offenses that pose the least threat, with a registration period of 10 years.
• Tier 2: More serious offenses with a 20-year registration requirement.
• Tier 3: The most severe offenses, requiring a lifetime registration.

This system represents a significant departure from the previous lifetime registration requirement for all individuals, providing a structured pathway for those who have rehabilitated to have their registration requirements reviewed and potentially lifted after a specific period.

The Importance of the Tiered System

The introduction of the tiered system offers several benefits, particularly regarding the reaffirmation of personal dignity for rehabilitated individuals. Here are some critical reasons why it is crucial to understand and leverage this opportunity:

Recognition of Rehabilitation

At its core, the tiered system provides a recognized path for individuals to demonstrate rehabilitation. For many, this is about reclaiming their lives and reintegrating into society without the constant shadow of their past mistakes.

According to the California Department of Justice, by May 2024, 104,894 individuals were required to register in California. However, only 8,006 petitions had been filed to terminate registration, of which 6,704 were granted. This staggering contrast highlights the broader issue of underutilization and societal stigma that prevents many from pursuing the relief available to them.

Focus on Public Safety

The tiered system also allows law enforcement to focus their resources effectively. By categorizing offenders based on risk, authorities can prioritize their monitoring efforts on high-risk individuals while allowing lower-risk registrants the chance to reintegrate into their communities. This targeted approach not only increases community safety but also enhances the overall effectiveness of the registry.

Despite the apparent benefits of the tiered system, many individuals fail to take advantage of it, often due to a lack of knowledge or fear of the legal process.

Complexity and Stigma

The belief that the process is too complicated or that seeking legal representation is financially daunting inhibits many from taking the first step. While some attorneys may charge upwards of $1,000 to $3,000 for petition services, there are also options that cater to different financial situations, including sliding scale fees based on income. It’s important to seek legal counsel to better understand one’s specific situation and the relevant tier status.

Awareness and Education

Fostering education on the tiered system is crucial. Many individuals may not even be aware of their eligibility for removal or the existence of the new tier system. This lack of awareness can perpetuate cycles of stigma and disenfranchisement. Community outreach and legal educational initiatives can bridge this gap, offering support and resources so that registrants can understand their rights and available pathways.

What’s Next for California’s Tiered System?

As California continues to navigate these changes, several questions remain. How can the state encourage greater participation from those eligible to petition for removal? Are there systemic issues within the registration process that need to be addressed to improve its utility?

To inform individuals about the potential benefits of the tiered system, continued dialogue is necessary. Public forums, workshops, and direct outreach to communities affected can play pivotal roles in increasing the utilization of this option.

Actionable Steps for Those Affected

If you or someone you know is impacted by the PFRO registration in California, consider the following next steps:

1. Seek Legal Counsel: Contact an attorney specializing in PFRO registrations to discuss eligibility and develop a personalized action plan.
2. Educate Yourself: Familiarize yourself with California’s tiered system and potential pathways for petitioning for removal from the registry.
3. Reach Out for Support: Engage with community organizations focused on reintegration for those with criminal records. They can offer resources, support, and a sense of community.

Conclusion

California’s tiered system of PFRO registration is not only a legal framework; it represents a shifting paradigm in how society perceives offense, rehabilitation, and human dignity. By embracing the potential of this system, individuals who have made mistakes can begin to reclaim their lives and redefine their futures.

It’s vital to close the gap between the creation of this program and its effective utilization. Awareness, education, and community support are instrumental in ensuring that those eligible reap the rewards of a fairer, more just legal system. Remember, the path to redemption is paved with opportunities for growth and change—seize them.

The legal precedent brought into focus, in this case, is Schillinger versus Haworth, wherein it was decided that a breach of attorney-client privilege due to deliberate eavesdropping by the government leads to an automatic presumption of prejudice toward the defendant. This ruling was largely due to the structural error doctrine that presumes prejudice resulting from intentional intrusion into the attorney-client relationship.

Hohn’s defense team leveraged the Schillinger’s precedent, contending the breach of confidentiality caused prejudice. However, despite this plea for fundamental fairness, the court contended that Hohn couldn’t prove a realistic probability that the prosecution benefited from hearing his attorney strategize.

The Implications of the New Rule

The new rule set forth by the court, thus, drastically shifts the burden of proof. Going forward, defendants must not just claim a Sixth Amendment violation but must also demonstrate how this violation tangibly prejudiced their case. This aligns with Supreme Court precedents requiring demonstrable, actual prejudice. While this new rule might appear more justifiable, it poses a fierce challenge to defendants unable to afford high-powered legal counsel.

The Need for Legal Safeguards

This case highlights systemic flaws in secure legal communication, particularly within private detention facilities. With the rise of technology, there are concerns that these instances of breach of attorney-client confidentiality will escalate. It’s thus imperative to ensure that attorneys and clients can communicate securely and honestly, fostering a sense of trust crucial to any defense strategy. Strong safeguards must be in place to prevent further gratuitous breaches.

The Way Forward

On a concluding note, this case is an urgent call for a critical review of the attorney-client confidentiality parameters and for transparency, particularly within privatized prison facilities. Stronger safeguards need to be implemented, and the burden should not fall solely on detainees to navigate these complexities. As we move toward an increasingly digital era, the legal system needs to adapt and protect fundamental constitutional rights from being undermined by technology. The delicate balance between guaranteeing surveillance for security and preserving the privacy of attorney-client communication must be struck. This is an issue that deserves further scrutiny and discussion among legal professionals, policy-makers, and society at large.

https://fypeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/RM-326-Final-Print-Copy-v-2.pdf

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are those 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 FYP Studios east and west and possibly another west, maybe. We don’t know. Transmitting across the Internet, this is episode 326 this Christmas Eve Eve. Eve? Eve? I think I got that right?

[00:30] Larry: Maybe you did. [Andy: Larry, how are you tonight?] Alright. But you’ve already messed up the transcript because you said the way you did the episode number. You didn’t say episode 326.

[00:44] Andy: You know, it’s a good lesson for the transcription person to learn how to do it, like, right out of the gate in the first sentence. They have stuff that they have to work on. So, then you can know right off the bat whether the person’s actually listening and following along or not. I’m doing it for them for their training purposes, the training value.

[00:58] Larry: Well, I’ve learned that they don’t listen and follow along, and they miss these things in their opening paragraph. And so let me give Larry’s life lesson before you, before you move on.

[01:13] Andy: I’m not ready for this.

[01:18] Larry: Yes. Let’s do life lesson. If you’re doing if you’re doing work for me or just in general work, do your best in the first part of the job so that the person is less inclined to check your work. If you goof up in the first part and show slack, that is gonna cause someone like me to keep looking. So, if you want me not to look, impress me in the first part. And then you have to hope that I don’t start at the middle of the or the end of it, but you need to do it right up front.

[01:51] Andy: So, someone has made this much more concise. From Larry, the response is cheat late, not early. That’s really concise there. [Larry: Yes.] Well, please head over and show your support. Like, subscribe, 5 star ratings. If you leave a review, that would be fantastic. Please let me know because I don’t know if people leave reviews. But I would read it, and then maybe we read it on the on the podcast. We would read it on the show and all that. And then if you’re feeling generous, because it’s that time of year, it’s 501c3, this, Registry Matters, FYP education thing, you could go over there and you could make a tax-deductible contribution to support the program, and that would be amazing if you would do that. There’s also a donate button on fypeducation.org website where you could also buy merch, and there’s new stuff up there with some hoodies and some tumblers and a mouse pad. And they look awesome, And I will be decking out FYP Studios here with that, swag here shortly. What are we doing tonight?

[02:52] Larry: It’s me, Mr. Doom & Gloom again, for sure. But Chance is back with us if all the technological issues are resolved. And he’s gonna be doing a California coroner and he wants to discuss the removal from registration as it exists in California and that there are too few people taking advantage of this option. Either they don’t know, or they can’t afford those exorbitant fees that these attorneys are charging. We plan to take a look at the case from a case from United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That’s gonna be a blast. And then we’re teasing again about an upcoming episode we’re working on for international travel. And believe me folks, it’s gonna come together. There are some challenges because we wanna have 2 guests. 1 of them is on the other side of the globe in Germany. So trying to figure out how to set up all this and get to questions where we can do the answers for the things that we think we know. I can have something intelligent to say, I’m still working on it, but it’s coming.

[04:04] Andy: Well, very good. God, we got a bunch of people in here that I haven’t seen for quite some, some time. And I cannot remember who a couple of you are. So, welcome everybody that is here in chat. That is one of the perks of being a patron is to be able to listen to us do this whole thing live and, hear Larry off the cuff do life lessons. Life lessons. Shall we be shall we roll?

[04:28] Larry: Life lessons. I think we should have one of those every episode, but I need a scriptwriter to tell me what lessons I’m teaching each episode. But that would be good to have Larry’s lessons.

[04:38] Andy: We had one. We had one. Yes. And then also people get to make snark snarky comments. You probably don’t remember. This is a holiday episode, so I’m gonna try and have fun, Larry. But I don’t know. It was probably episode 20 or something like that, and the people in chat said, get Larry to say medulla oblongata and make it flow, and, like, I had to work this out. And I was like, do you think the attorneys are doing this because they have an enlarged medulla oblongata? And you were like, what? Yes. I got you to do that, and then people did that quite some time ago.

[05:11] Larry: Well, I still don’t know what it is, and I still can’t pronounce it.

[05:15] Andy: Right. Alright. Well okay. So here we have this thing that you put in here from the Tenth Circuit, affirms prosecutors listening to attorney calls. You know, Larry, this doesn’t sound right right out of the gate before we even go into it. But because I swear I thought that they can’t listen to you. That’s why they have, like, separate Hohn system. But anyhoo so a divided US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned its nearly 30-year-old precedent Monday in holding that a violation of the right to confidential attorney client calls occurs only if a defendant can show a realistic possibility the prosecution benefited from hearing the communication.

[05:55] Larry: That is correct. It’s not directly on point for PFRs, but it really is because a lot of PFRs are held pre adjudication of their cases. So today, in view of that, we’re discussing the United States versus Holland from the Tenth Circuit, and it rendered its opinion affirming the lower court’s decision. In fact, as Andy said, the Tenth Circuit overturned its 1995 decision in Schillinger v Haworth. And that decision was that a defendant is prejudiced and a Sixth Amendment violation occurs whenever the government deliberately and for no legitimate law enforcement purpose becomes privy to confidential attorney client communications. It was presumed prejudicial under Schillinger v Haworth.

[06:49] Andy: Are you ready to do a deep dive then?

[06:51] Larry: Not really. And that’s why we’ve utilized AI for this case. It’s 186 pages. And that’s too much for an old geezer like me to read. So, that’s what we did.

[07:04] Andy: Alright. Well, the AI says now to be fair, I wanna clarify this because, like, the AI did a lot of work for us, but I told it to not hallucinate, and I told it to only use what’s in this document and help us out. Help us out. Make it easier. Larry, can you mute your Hohn, please? It’s the not the Hohn, but I can turn off the computer. I hear what you’re complaining about, and I can turn that off. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Well, so the AI says it’s about attorney client privileges and whether the government can eavesdrop, just like it’s the net latest Netflix drama.

[07:40] Larry: Indeed. It, Andy, so you really don’t even need me. [Andy: We never need you, really.] Nonetheless, we’re discussing the court’s en banc decision in United States versus Hohn. And this case deals with significant Sixth Amendment implications, revisiting the precedent in Schillinger versus Haworth, I guess. And that’s h a w o r t h.

[08:05] Andy: Well, oh, goody. Another round of legalese. So, the government spied on some poor SAT and got caught? Tell me this isn’t as bad as it sounds?

[08:14] Larry: Well, I can’t tell you that because it’s worse in some ways. But let’s clarify. This isn’t just about spying. It’s about structural error and where the prejudice should be presumed when the attorney client confidentiality is breached.

[08:31] Andy: But let’s set the stage for this. Who is this? Is it Ho do you think it’s Hohn, h o h n?

[08:37] Larry: I would think so, but it could be a long o or a short o, but I think it’s Hohn.

[08:42] Andy: Alright. Well, I’ll call it Hohn. So, who’s the Hohn guy and what’s he accused of?

[08:51] Larry: Steven at Hohn was indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine

and firearm possession. While awaiting trial at a CoreCivic, which is a private detention facility, the government obtained recordings of his calls with his attorney. [Andy: And wait a second. They recorded his phone calls? How’s that even legal?] Well, it’s not. At least under the Sixth Amendment. The issue isn’t just that the calls were recorded. CoreCivic allowed detainees to privatize such calls. However, Hohn didn’t follow that process, and the recordings ended up in the prosecution’s hand. And I’m not sure what that means privatized. So what you did, you have to hit a button or something to say that this can’t be recorded? What does that mean? [Andy: Yes. I don’t well, could it be the Hohn systems part? I mean, I think all prison Hohn systems are privatized. That’s the only angle I can really see from that.] But it said it allowed detainees to privatize. I know that the correction facility privatizes because they make money. They get a flow back of, of, revenue. Oh. But it said it allowed detainees to deprive privatize such calls, and I’m not sure what that means.

[09:59] Andy: Yeah. I’m with you. Alright. Well, they were listening to his defense strategy, and that sounds kinda like cheating, which would sort of be the whole point of why you wouldn’t be allowed to have the prison people and the prosecution listen to your Phone calls with your defense attorney. So, did it affect this trial?

[10:15] Larry: Hohn admitted it didn’t. And the government didn’t use the call or, trial or during sentencing. But Hohn’s argument hinged on this 1995 precedent of Schillinger, which presumed prejudice for intentional breaches of the attorney client, privileged communication.

[10:36] Andy: Now, CoreCivic, aren’t they one of those for profit prisons? [Larry: Yes. ] Alright. And doesn’t that raise bigger questions about how these facilities handle detainee rights?

[10:49] Larry: Absolutely. Private prisons like CoreCivic introduce unique challenges. They contractually they’re contractually obligated to meet certain standards. But cases like this reveal systemic flaws, especially in safeguarding constitutional rights. And folks, based on the 2024 election results, you’re gonna see a whole lot more privatization of prisons.

[11:11] Andy: Yeah. I would imagine that. And then let me guess. So, this isn’t the first time that CoreCivic has been in hot water?

[11:18] Larry: Far from it. Private detention facilities like CoreCivic have faced scrutiny for years over issues ranging from inadequate healthcare to security breaches, inadequate training for their staff, horrendous turnover of their staff. I know that because we have facilities operated by them here in my state. And this case, though highlights how their policies or lack thereof could lead to constitutional violations.

[11:46] Andy: So, what should Hohn have done, differently? I mean, is it his fault for not privatizing the call?

[11:54] Larry: Well, again, that’s a bit of a gray area. CoreCivic had procedures to protect privileged calls, but the onus shouldn’t be solely on the detainees to navigate those complexities. I’m guessing off script here that he would have to arrange a scheduled attorney call, and he needed to, discuss with his attorney outside the protracted process of getting scheduled. And I suspect he used the regular phone system. This facility bears responsibility for ensuring robust protections are in place and they’re clearly communicated. Meaning that if I’m the prison administrator, I’m gonna tell you, you can use a regular phone system for your attorney calls, but you have no expectation of privacy, and I would have them sign that. So, you may end up hearing yourself record on those phone calls.

[12:43] Andy: I’m gonna go off script here for a second. I thought that you, you know, in the certain circumstances where you had to speak to your attorney, like, those numbers are registered in the phone system as being the attorney, and then they are, I guess, almost like in a best effort not recorded or they’re gonna be recorded, but then they’re not allowed to be used. Something like that that they’re somehow not available, whatever that would mean. But otherwise, you’d have to, like, fill out a request to be able to call your attorney and you go to a special room where there’s the special bat phone and that gets you in touch with your attorney that’s not on a recorded line. That’s what you’re supposed to do.

[13:18] Larry: And I’m guessing that’s what they mean that he had an option to privatize the call. He had the option to go through those steps. That’s my speculation. But again, due to short staffing that’s so common in these, prison facilities, both public and private, but more so in private, you don’t necessarily have 3 and a half weeks to wait for that approval to come down so they can schedule one of those. Totally.

[13:42] Andy: Yep. Yep. Yep. So, it’s but it sounds like though this is the blame the victim situation. Why aren’t these systems foolproof, do you think?

[13:49] Larry: It’s a great question. Many private facilities prioritize cost cutting over implementing robust legal safeguards. Remember, they owe their obligation to their shareholders, not to the people who are in custody. And when oversight is minimal, corners get cut as we see here, and we’ve seen oftentimes with private facilities.

[14:09] Andy: And what do we, what did the government actually do with these recordings? If they didn’t use them in court, then, well, who cares?

[14:17] Larry: Well, the recordings were reviewed by the prosecution team, which itself is a breach of the Sixth Amendment. Even if they weren’t directly used, the mere fact that the confidential strategy discussions were accessed creates a chilling effect on the defendant’s ability to trust the system. Imagine he’s having a conversation with his attorney about what plea offer he might accept. Wouldn’t it be a powerful tool for the prosecution to know how far he’s willing to go?

[14:45] Andy: Yeah. Totally. Totally. Totally. So, trust. So, it sounds like that ship has sailed. Do cases like this happen often, do you think? Or is Hohn’s case unique?

[14:57] Larry: Unfortunately, it’s not all that unique. There have been other instances where attorney client calls were improperly accessed. And we’re battling that here in my state. I see it on the listserv. Attorneys are reporting that they’ve they’re hearing themselves, and discovery that’s been provided. But this case is notable because it forces the courts to address whether these breaches automatically warrant relief or if defendants must prove, tangible harm. And it looks like based on the outcome of this case that we’ve got the answer that there’s no presumed harm.

[15:33] Andy: Alright. Well, then what’s the deal with this precedent? This is the case with Schillinger or whatever that that started this. What’s the legal equivalent of duct tape handy but not always reliable?

[15:45] Larry: Close. Schillinger established an intentional intrusion into the attorney client relationship without legitimate purpose constitutes structural error. And you’re gonna ask me what is structural error. So, I’ve used this opinion in simpler terms. It’s presumed prejudice, and the defendant didn’t have to prove harm. But quoting from this opinion, they are saying that the Supreme Court generally classifies an error as structural if, one, if the right at issue is not designed to protect the defendant from erroneous conviction but instead protects some other interest. Or 2, if the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure, this would fall with the number 2. We can’t measure the harm because we don’t know how it impacted them. Or 3, if the error always results in fundamental unfairness, so they that’s based on a US Supreme Court decision.

[16:42] Andy: That I mean, I guess that sounds like a solid rule. So why change it now?

[16:48] Larry: Well, the Tenth Circuit found that Schillinger, that decision, that precedent to be inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings like Weatherford v. Bursey. Those decisions require actual prejudice, a tangible impact on the defendant’s case that can be measured.

[17:06] Andy: So, what you’re saying is no harm, no foul? That’s a pretty high bar when your calls are being monitored.

[17:12] Larry: It is. But structural errors resolve for extreme cases like denying counsel entirely for prejudice is unavoidable. The court rule is, Schillinger as it as it was a precedent, it was far too broad, but no longer consistent with US Supreme Court.

[17:30] Andy: And what’s this new rule that you’re talking about?

[17:32] Larry: Going forward, defendants claiming a Sixth Amendment violation must prove how the intrusion prejudiced their case. And it’s a stricter standard, but it aligns with the Supreme Court precedent, which is ultimately who calls the shots. That’s why it’s important when you go in those polling locations, like on November 5, 2024, you take that into account when you pull the lever.

[17:58] Andy: I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a minute. Isn’t there a risk that this new rule lets prosecutors off the hook for intentional misconduct? Yeah. How would you know if they’re like, well, I didn’t mean to listen to them. Wink, wink, nod, nod. I totally did it on purpose.

[18:11] Larry: That’s a very valid concern. But courts still have tools to address intentional misconduct, sanctions, disciplinary action, or even barring the evidence, which is an extreme, remedy. But it used to be more common than it is now to bar the evidence altogether. It used to be referred to as a doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree, but then they started carving out the good faith exception for law enforcement. But the difference now is that the focus shifts to measurable harm rather than presumed harm and the burden is on the defendant. I’m doubting the prosecution’s gonna be straight with us telling us what they learned as a result of the phone calls. They’re just gonna implement what they learned and use it. I don’t see any reason why they would tell us.

[18:54] Andy: Yeah. They would they would have no reason to tell you.

[18:58] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the 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 FYP.

[19:48] Andy: Can we, diverge for just a second? What is the Sixth Amendment? Because I sure as hell don’t remember. I’m gonna look it up if you don’t know it offhand. [Larry: I never can align those with numbers, so you go right ahead and look it up. It’s in the Bill of Rights.] Yeah. Yeah. Of course. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a series of rights to criminal defendants including right to a speedy public trial, I’m gonna skip all the details, right to an impartial jury, right to legal representation, right to be informed of charges, right to confront witnesses, and right to compel witnesses. None of those things in there, Larry, say anything about having the prosecution record your Phone calls.

[20:22] Larry: Well, it doesn’t say that they can’t either.

[20:25] Andy: Well, that’s I mean, that’s what I meant. Doesn’t say that they can’t record your Phone calls and then use that information against you in court, whether they admit to it or not.

[20:42] Larry: But it would be my position that there was a very little recording happening in colonial times. So therefore, this is a technology that’s evolved. So, we would have to do what the late justice Scalia said. We would have to look at the overall trajectory of what that would have meant at the time when they wrote that. And over time, I don’t think that the, that the founding framers would have intended for the prosecution to have access to defense strategy. I just don’t see that that would have promoted fundamental fairness.

[21:06] Andy: Now I gotta press back on that though. If they wanted to make it so that the prosecution couldn’t listen to your phone calls, they could have written that.

[21:14] Larry: But again, there was no listening through, recording devices in the colonial times. But like I say, Justice Scalia said, we would look at what those clauses meant at the time, and then we would look at the advent of new technology, and we’d look at the trajectory over time of what new technologies, how it would be interpreted. Well, if the intent was to provide a robust representation of fairness without the government having an advantage to convict innocent people, the trajectory over time would have been as new technologies come along, that we would adopt that role to include those new technologies like recording phone calls, surreptitiously, enlisting in with electronic devices that would pick up. We didn’t have a whole lot of ways to eavesdrop in the in colonial times. [Andy: Sounds like an evolving standard, Larry, and it’s not what’s written.] But I’m going by Scalia doctrine. He said that with new technology, we have to look at what the trajectory would be based on what that clause meant at the time and what the framers were thinking. I’m thinking the framers were thinking that we were going to have a fair process that didn’t prejudice the accused. So over time, if you take that to the horizon with the evolving of technology, it would be that we would give those protections for all sorts of technology to keep the attorneys’ consultations confidential.

[22:42] Andy: Gotcha. Well, what about the defendants who can’t afford board high powered legal teams to prove prejudice? Does, does this tilt the scales against those folks that get, like, public defenders or less capable attorneys?

[22:56] Larry: It’s a challenge, no doubt. The decision raises the stakes for defense attorneys to meticulously document how breaches impact their client’s case. The only problem is you can’t document if you don’t know about it.

[23:09] Andy: But it also Right. This is like this there was a supreme court case where the police were putting trackers underneath your car. To me, this is vaguely similar to that that that’s I know that’s search and seizure. However, they’re now monitoring everywhere you go without a proper search warrant to do it. And then they’re, like, well, we saw you at this place and that place, but you didn’t do that with legitimate authorized techniques. That’s what this whole thing is. The same thing. [Larry: It is the same thing.] And I interrupted you, and I’m sorry.

[23:47] Larry: But it emphasizes the need for stronger safeguards to prevent breaches from happening in the first place. But, I don’t know how the attorney can meticulously,

record these breaches because you don’t know about them. The prosecution is probably not gonna call you and say, Chance, I hate to tell you, good old buddy, but I’ve got 17 recordings that we intercepted, through the corporation of the prison, and we’ve learned a, b, c, and d, and e, and f. I just don’t think that you’re gonna be able to document that. It doesn’t seem rational to me that you would be able to. All you’ll know is that it seems like the prosecution is clairvoyant, but you won’t know how they know.

[24:19] Andy: Yeah. Totally. Now, this isn’t just about reigning, in courts. It’s about putting more responsibility on everyone involved, defense, prosecution, and even detention facilities. Don’t you think?

[24:32] Larry: I do. Exactly. The Tenth Circuit’s decision reflects the shift towards shared accountability. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a step toward balancing constitutional protections with a practical enforcement. And I think it’s tipped the scales. I disagree with AI. I think that this is not balancing the scales. If you have carte blanche to listen in, you’ve not balanced the scales because you’ve put the accused to an unfair disadvantage. Because we don’t know what you know and we don’t know how to attack what you know and how much prejudice we’ve suffered, I don’t know that I wouldn’t have got a better plea offer except for you knew how my far my client was willing to go. Because you listened surreptitiously without me knowing that. So, I don’t know how I would prove this stuff. It it’s causing me consternation to try to figure it out.

[25:22] Andy: Well, can we unpack this prejudice thing? And what does this actually, what does a defendant have to prove now?

[25:27] Larry: Well, prejudice in this context means showing that the intrusion directly impacted the trial’s outcome. For example, if the prosecution used confidential information to gain advantage in court, that would qualify. But, again, how are we gonna know? [Andy: And without proof, the government gets a free pass?] Well, in my opinion, yes. But not quite according to this. It says courts will still scrutinize intentional breaches. But remedies like dismissal or sentence reductions are reserved for cases where harm is demonstrable. And, you know, we’ve got that standard already, which is derived from, I’m guessing, from Strickland v Washington, which is ineffective assistance of counsel. Yeah. Well, you have to show that the errors were significant, and you have to show that but for those errors, that it the outcome likely would have been different. It’s pretty tough standard. Ineffective assistance claims are difficult to show. I think this is gonna make it very difficult for anybody to get any relief. Basically, the prosecution’s got carte blanche.

[26:42] Andy: And no more automatic penalties just for bad behavior then?

[26:48] Larry: Correct. This decision ensures the legal system focuses on fairness rather than punishing theoretical risk. So, fairness means that if you can’t show that they benefited, then it was fair. And that is just so ridiculously absurd. It suggests to me that none of these judge judges that were in the majority have ever practiced in criminal defense. That’s what it suggests to me.

[27:16] Andy: I gotcha. Well, do you wanna cover some of this then about what the big picture might be? Why would anyone outside of a courtroom care about this?

[27:31] Larry: Well, this case is certainly something, even if you’re not inside the courtroom, you should care about because it’s raised several concerns and unintended consequences. Those unintended consequences have led to discussions about the balance of power between the judiciary and the litigants, and potential impact on the fairness and predictability of legal proceedings. Additionally, this decision has been criticized for several reasons. Number 1, overturning precedent. The court chose to overrule Schillinger v Haworth precedent, which established the structural error ruling, which presume prejudice when the government intrudes into attorney client communications. Critics argued that this move undermines legal stability and predictability. I agree. And the burden of proof by requiring defendants to show prejudice from government intrusion into attorney client communications. This decision places an additional burden on defendants, which some believe is unfair and contrary to previous legal standards. I agree. And judicial activism. This decision can be seen as an example of judicial activism where the court took action on its own initiative to respond to raising concerns about judicial overreach and the balance of power between judiciary and litigants. Now we don’t like judicial activism. Now do we, Andy? [Andy: I’ve heard that we don’t like that.] But we do like it. That’s the thing that I hope that I’ve communicated on this podcast. We do like these things when it suits our purposes. It’s just like legislating from the bench. If we can’t win something through the legislative process, every one of us likes to legislate from the bench. So, but also it will have potential impact on future cases. The there are concerns about the broader implications of this decision on future cases, particularly those involving attorney client privilege communication and government surveillance. I would not want to be incarcerated right now being held, waiting for trial because this would scare me to the point that I would insist on my attorney coming to the facility. But you know what’s funny? They’ll just go ahead and record it in the facility based on this ruling. They’ll still do the same thing.

[29:51] Andy: Well, then, give me your opinion on what happens from here. What is your, what is your opinion?

[30:00] Larry: Well, this decision certainly reshapes the balance between protecting attorney client confidentiality and preventing unfounded claims of prejudice. And it underscores the importance of concrete evidence in Sixth Amendment violations. And this is very troubling to me. It was posted on our listserv here when it when it came out because we’re in the Tenth Circuit and that’s where I picked up on it and I find it very troubling.

[30:28] Andy: And then what’s next? Does this, set any new precedents? Does this carry, weight? I mean, you know, I what better word could I use besides that to ask that question?

[30:47] Larry: It does. It’s green lighted everybody in the, runs correctional facilities in the entire Tenth Circuit, both for ruling Schillinger. The Tenth Circuit brings its standards in line with the Supreme Court and expect future cases to hinge on clear demonstrations of prejudice rather than any presumptions. So that means that there’s a whole lot. I think it I read in the opinion, there was, like, a 100 cases out of Kansas that were where they were challenging these intercepting Phone calls. It flushes all those cases and no telling how anymore.

[31:08] Andy: Someone in chat says that you are the legal Grinch, so to speak, and I think that you should have come here bearing presents and good news for us, on this Christmas Eve, Eve, Eve, whatever that is. And it sounds like we’ve entered a new era for legal accountability. Anything else you wanna say about this before we head out?

[31:31] Larry: Well, just this, the attorney client privilege remains a cornerstone or should be of our judicial justice system. This decision refines the protections while demanding accountability for all parties. I’m not so sure that I believe it’s demanding accountability. I believe it’s demanding a standard for the defendant that can’t be met and virtually no accountability from the prosecution. But that’s, that’s the way I see it.

[31:56] Andy: Well, on that, Larry, I’m going to introduce you to a new word that some of you that listen to some tech podcast will have heard, and this is the inshitification of the legal system.

[32:06] Larry: I think you could, justify it justifiably describe it that way. This is not the best Christmas news I could have, but what about we’ve got thousands of listeners who are in custody right now and they need to know this. [Andy: There would be more cell phones.

[32:30] Larry: Yeah. But they need to know about this. They need to know that everything that they say in prison is subject to being used against them even in what should be a protected conversation. They need to know that. So that’s why I chose to do it on Christmas Eve.

[32:47] Andy: I I don’t see how those 2 are related. I mean, I see the importance of airing this, decision. I don’t see how this is the Christmas Eve present,

[32:57] Larry: It’s not a present, but I’m saying I think that if I let someone not have this information that hangs themselves between now and next year when we did this, we would feel bad that they didn’t have this information. Like I say, we’ve got tens of thousands of people in prison listening to us.

[33:11] Andy: Absolutely. I’m sure that they do. Because, Deputy is broadcasting us. He, you know, he was doing that. Did you hear that? That he was broadcasting us into prisons for a little while? I never did. I know nothing.

[33:23] Larry: I know nothing.

[33:29] Andy: Okay. Do you have any happy news to fill in before we would head out?

[33:35] Larry: I take it that we have not resolved our tech issues.

[33:39] Andy: I just spoke to him, like, ever so briefly, and the answer is no.

33:47] Larry: Alright. Well, then we will just say that for all of our support that we’ve received over the past year and several years, thank you. We wish you the best of holidays however you celebrate them. And we look forward to returning to the airwaves after the New Year with more vital information that helps the PFR community.

[34:13] Andy: And in this particular case, all of the people that are accused of things.

[34:17] Larry: Indeed. This is not just for PFRs, but I suspect there’s a higher percentage of PFRs held in pretrial detention than most other offenses except for maybe capital crimes. So, this is gonna have a disproportionate impact on the PFR community because now the Tenth Circuit, it’s free to do anything you wanna do.

[34:38] Andy: Can you can you just explain that? Can you expand on what you just said about in pretrial detention?

[34:43] Larry: Well, I believe that since we’re so sensitive to setting high bonds for people who are accused of sex offenses, that more of them were unable to make conditions of release. So, therefore, I think that this is a disproportionate impact on the PFR community because they set such ridiculous bonds that a lot of people were held in jail. And, therefore, this is gonna be you’re gonna be more vulnerable. If you’re post-conviction, you’re a little bit less vulnerable because you’ve already resolved your case.

[35:11] Andy: I see. And as you said, because now you’re being held in jail waiting, like you said, pretrial. I gotcha. And because the bonds are not $500. They’re 10- and 20-thousand-dollar bonds.

[35:21] Larry: And 250,000. And no bond holds and all sorts of things that, you know, the bond is very difficult here because we don’t even use cash bond much anymore. But getting pretrial release, they have to do an evaluation on this grid. And you love computers. This should just make your heart palpitate. So, they give you a score based on criminal history, the severity level of your offense. It all comes out on a grid, and the computer tells the judge if that person is releasable. And, if the computer says you’re high risk, you don’t get released. They don’t set a bond for you. They don’t set anything for you. They’re just, the state moves for pretrial detention based on your history, the severity of the crime, and what the score says on that on that, lovely system we have to determine if you’re releasable.

[36:12] Andy: You are seriously no fun, Larry. Alright. Well, okay. Are we gonna head on out?

[36:18] Larry: Well, unless you have anybody that wants to do a quick question or so, because we got a couple of minutes. But I’m happy to head out.

[36:29] Andy: No one has offered much. We can hang out for a little while after we stop recording and wish everybody a merry Christmas, happy New Year. Hanukkah starts on Christmas day, which is I as far as I remember, is one of the latest days I’ve ever heard of. I don’t remember Christmas, or excuse me, Hanukkah rolling into the next year. All of the Hanukkah’s I did as a child.

[36:49] Larry: I don’t know anything about that stuff.

[36:52] Andy: Oh, it’s all about that crazy lunar town. Well, I thank everybody for being a supporter and, hanging out with us on these crazy Saturday night programs that we do. And if you’re a patron, I can’t thank you enough for making this a fantastic year and showing sport and all that stuff. And I wish you all a happy New Year, and we will see you, the 1st Saturday of 2025. Wow. 2025, Larry. It’s coming. It’s right here. [Larry: Right around the door.] Well, have a good night and I will talk to you soon. Take care everybody. Good night.

[37:38] Announcer: You’ve been listening to F Y P.

Speaker A [00:00:00]:

Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are those of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, F.Y.P.

Andy [00:00:13]:

Recording live from FYP Studios east and west and more west transmitting across the Internet, this is episode holy moly, Andy, I told somebody today, I think we’re on like 308 maybe, but it’s 315 this time. This is actually episode 315 of Registry Matters. Good evening. Has it cooled off yet over there?

Larry [00:00:35]:

Absolutely. It’s only like 85.

Andy [00:00:37]:

I mean, compared to whatever. What did you have? Like, what was the top that you saw? 110.

Larry [00:00:42]:

Well, not this season. Maybe 103, but it has been as high as 108 or 109 since I’ve lived here.

Andy [00:00:49]:

And have you gotten your heater fixed? Because you know that that’s coming soon. Are you going to still try to teach it a lesson?

Larry [00:00:56]:

No. Since natural gas is so cheap right now, I’m going to have it fixed because you can heat with natural gas for virtually nothing right now.

Andy [00:01:06]:

Wait, I thought inflation, everything. Wouldn’t that make all the things really expensive?

Larry [00:01:13]:

Oh, natural gas is dirt cheap right now. We’ve got a glut of it with all the oil. It’s a byproduct of production of oil. There’s so much natural gas on the market right now, it’s really cheap.

Andy [00:01:25]:

All right, well, moving over to the more west to Chance. Good evening, sir. How are you? That’s, that’s amazing. You know, I forgot to launch my other screen that will move the screen to your screen when we’re going. So, I’m going to, we’re going to start the show and I’m going to try and figure this thing out. But before I get all of that situated, make sure that you leave a five-star rating and show some love. There’s some goofy thing over on, on Apple stuff where in a podcast app, you have to do something with follow. Like, I don’t, can you go into your Apple app, whoever has an apple, and press that button that says follow this podcast so that it looks good on the numbers. And if you’re feeling super generous, head over to patreon.com and support the program for as little as a dollar a month. That would be most appreciated. And so, Andy, what are we doing tonight?

Larry [00:02:16]:

We have some good stuff for this episode, I think. We have a couple of listener questions. We have some clips from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sharing his wisdom. We have a case from the Illinois appellate court dealing with civil commitment, and Chance is back with us again this week. So we have a California court which actually extends beyond California because it deals with attorney selection.

Andy [00:02:46]:

Wow. All right. Well, then I believe that you have decided to give us another Andy’s general rules this week and shall I play the clip or shall I not play the clip?

Larry [00:02:59]:

Play a little bit of the clip, but I’ll set it up. People criticized me. I got an email saying that you’re always picking on dumb criminals. Why don’t you do something that’s funny? I said, okay, I’ll look for something funny. So, I think this is funny.

Andy [00:03:12]:

All right, well, tell me when you want me to stop and I’ll have to press lots of buttons to make it stop, but it’s only a minute long.

Larry [00:03:18]:

Okay, go for it.

Audio Clip [00:03:22]:

The Kroger executive admits to price gouging according to reports by Bloomberg and Newsweek. It happened in a hearing for an antitrust trial. Newsweek says Andy Groff told regulators that Kroger raised the prices of milk and eggs beyond the level of inflation. The report cites an internal email from Groff showing the price of those items were higher than necessary to turn a profit given the rate of inflation. In response, Kroger tells CBS News Detroit, quote, this cherry-picked email covers a specific period and does not reflect Kroger’s decades long business model to lower prices for customers by reducing its margins. It goes on to say retail prices include the cost to run a grocery store, including labor, transportation, advertising, and other costs. We work relentlessly to keep prices as low as possible for customers in our highly competitive industry. This is especially true for essential products like milk and eggs. Now this comes as Kroger is trying to merge with its competitor Albertsons, the FTC, and some states argue that would drive up prices. Kroger claims it would help them compete with retail giants like Walmart.

Andy [00:04:28]:

Now I just got to ask you though, this is not Economics Weekly. This is Registry Matters.

Larry [00:04:36]:

It was for the humor. I thought it would be funny because I’m always picking on dumb criminals with Larry’s general rules. So, my general rule for this episode would be very careful when you send an email. But beyond that, if you’re in the midst of an antitrust investigation where you have numerous challenges trying to block the merger, it’s probably not a good idea to send an email acknowledging that you’re recovering prices above inflation when that’s one of the chief arguments being used to block the merger. Therefore, that email should not have been sent. And so, mister Kroger executive, don’t send stupid emails.

Andy [00:05:25]:

Who’s the arbiter of what’s a stupid email or nothing.

Larry [00:05:29]:

If it can do something detrimental like this will have the potential to do. It’s not going to block the merger. It’s eventually going to be approved. They’ll probably have to do some divestiture if they’re going to have a large market share. For example, if Kroger and Albertsons are in markets where would have a huge, more than 50% of the market, after they merge, they’ll probably have to create a shell company and divest those stores. So, the merger is going to happen. Why did you want to bring extra scrutiny on yourself by putting out an email that admits that you’re raising prices above inflation? Don’t do stupid things, man. You’re paid good money to be smart.

Andy [00:06:06]:

Isn’t it because it’s the most efficient form of communication ever?

Larry [00:06:10]:

Well, I suppose it is, but the fallout is not so efficient.

Andy [00:06:16]:

Maybe it is efficient. All right, well, then move along. What is up with some Scalia clips?

Larry [00:06:24]:

Yes, we’ve had some people who misunderstand some of what is said on the podcast because we have new listeners and what we’ve played over the years is not really in their memory. We’re going to play just a couple tonight and maybe sprinkle in a few going forward for new listeners and new supporters. But we have this one here about the constitution is dead. Justice Scalia was one of those who believe that the Constitution does not evolve, that the words mean exactly what they meant 240 years ago when the constitution was written. And listen carefully, because this is not Registry Matters saying this, this is a conservative icon expressing what he believes about the evolution of the Constitution.

Andy [00:07:17]:

Very well.

Speaker [00:07:26]:

“The constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead.” Close quote, explain that one.

Antonin Scalia

Much of the harm that has been done in recent years by activist constitutional interpretation is made possible by a theory which says that unlike an ordinary law, which doesn’t change, it means what it meant when it was enacted and will always mean that. Unlike that, the constitution changes from decade to decade to comport with, and this is a phrase we use in our 8th amendment jurisprudence, we, the court does to comport with, quote, the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. In other words, we have a morphing constitution. And of course, it’s up to the court to decide when it morphs and how it morphs. That’s generally paraded as the quote living constitution. And unfortunately, that philosophy has made enormous headway, not only with lawyers and judges, but even with John Q. Public.

Andy [00:08:55]:

Well, first off, why do you put these things in here?

Larry [00:08:59]:

Well, I’m wanting the people to understand that we’re about to have an election here in less than 60 days. And if you believe that it’s important that the constitution be interpreted differently, then you’re going to have to elect someone who will appoint judges and justices who believe that way. The appointments that were made in the last administration would be in alignment with Scalia’s point of view. And if you believe that the Constitution does evolve with our standards of decency of a maturing society, then you probably would want to make a different choice. But if you heard the way he said that, there was just slithering sarcasm when he did the evolving standards of decency that mark maturing society, or whatever it was, he said, and I don’t know that I can fault his logic. I only wish that people who proclaimed that philosophy, if they employed it consistently, because there’s been plenty of activism from the court in recent years. It’s just activism in areas different than what, where we would like to see that activism. But there are plenty, plenty of activism, activist decisions coming out of the Supreme Court right now. So. But yes, we have another clip here of activist versus originalist, part two.

Andy [00:10:31]:

Can I ask Chance a question real quick, sir?

Larry [00:10:34]:

Sure.

Andy [00:10:34]:

Yeah. I’m just. I know that you’re from the super liberal, pointy-head state of California, but there has to be cases where you think a textual interpretation is the right way to go.

Chance [00:10:46]:

Well, you know, sometimes that’s true. I do think that. But, you know, that’s. That is part and parcel with the argument that the document’s dynamic. I am opposed to seeing that document as just sitting in place and stale, like over 200 and some odd years old society. It isn’t static or stale. It’s dynamic. And in order to make that piece of paper live and apply to what’s going on today, it has to move, too. And sometimes there are some very good precepts that need to be followed and precedents that need to be followed. And other times, because things have changed so dramatically, we need to move on. And that’s the beauty of that document. So, uh, I do not think the constitution is dead.

Andy [00:11:44]:

But there are mechanisms in place to change it, either by law or by amendment.

Chance [00:11:50]:

Not going to happen. And the reason it’s not going to happen is just take a look at where we’re living now. I mean, you know, no one can get anything done even in the, even in the most simplistic terms. That is a major heavy lift. So that document has to be dynamic. And anybody who says that, you know, the originalists stay original is wrong. And as Larry just said, you know, when it’s convenient for them to be active, they’re activists. And if it’s not, they’re originalists. I say, you know what? Get, you know, the middle and perhaps the edge is to agree on something that’s dynamic or apply a principle. But, you know, let’s be consistent in what we do.

Andy [00:12:32]:

Gotcha. All right. Well, then here is the next clip.

Scalia [00:12:35]:

You would think there would be some consensus on what we think we’re doing when we interpret the constitution. You know, I mean, these are wildly divergent views. Are we taking broad concepts such as equal protection and due process and asking, what should these concepts mean today? That’s one view. Or on the other hand, are we saying, what did these concepts mean when they were adopted? Now, as for the difficulty of figuring that out, the historical problem, yes, there is. I’m not pretending that doing it by text and the original meaning of that text is perfect, that it’s going to solve every problem, but it solves an awful lot of problems, especially the most controversial ones. It doesn’t take a whole lot of history to figure out that nobody thought the Bill of Rights stopped a state from prohibiting abortion. Nobody thought that the Bill of rights prohibited a state from criminalizing sodomy. Nobody thought that the Bill of Rights prohibited states from prohibiting assisted suicide. So many of the most controversial questions, it’s a piece of cake to decide it.

Larry [00:13:50]:

And that’s where I wanted to comment about this. I left the death penalty off because of the. It was too far out in the video. This is the conservative philosophy about things, including the death penalty. They say we should look at what the words meant at that time and that what people were thinking at the time, they put the constitution together. And you just heard him say that no one believed that these laws, the constitution would have, would have imposed anything that would prevent states from prohibiting abortion, prohibiting same sex relationships and all these things. He said that. And that’s what we will get depending on how you vote in 60 days, because there will inevitably be more openings on the Supreme Court. The nine we have serving now will not be serving indefinitely. If this is what you want, vote exactly this way. But this is what you’re going to get. So that was the whole point with.

Chance [00:15:01]:

One caveat, and that is that when it’s convenient and you want to lift somebody above the law. When you say nobody’s above the law, but you want to lift somebody above the law, even though the constitution or the Bill of Rights doesn’t say that, then you do that because it’s a tribal call. This is the inconsistency of it all, and that’s part of what you’re going to get when you vote a certain way. So, you know, I agree with you Larry. If you want things done and you want to make sure that they’re done with today in mind and what’s best for all of us, then that parchment’s got to be dynamic.

Larry [00:15:41]:

Well, since words don’t change, just out of curiosity, if you were living in 1974 and you said the word browser, what would the average person have thought in 1974 had they heard the word browser?

Chance [00:16:01]:

That would be referring to a peeping time, for Christ’s sake?

Larry [00:16:04]:

Well, the reason why that came up, because I was thumbing through a year-book from the 1970s, and I saw a furniture company that was advertising browsers needed looking for browsers. Now, the last furniture store closed about 30 years ago. Everybody does everything online. And I’m exaggerating, of course, but if words didn’t change in their meaning, how come browser, the way it’s used today, no one would ever think about someone browsing in a store. If you use the term browser day, what would come to your mind if you said browser today?

Andy [00:16:43]:

You obviously think of a computer web browser.

Chance [00:16:47]:

That’s a good point.

Larry [00:16:49]:

But Justice Scalia says what you would do is you would go look at what browser meant in 1974, if that was when it was written. And you would afford that document, that law, that provision, the meaning that it had in 1974. That’s what he says. That’s what you would do in his judicial philosophy.

Chance [00:17:09]:

Yep.

Andy [00:17:09]:

But we have the ability to go back and change them, so can’t we?

Larry [00:17:14]:

We could if. If we had the will. But amending the constitution was intended to be very difficult. That’s why it’s only been amended a small number of times.

Chance [00:17:23]:

Correct.

Larry [00:17:24]:

It’s intended to be very difficult, and passing laws is much easier, and that’s what’s happening. States are passing laws protecting the right to choice for women. They’re doing things as a result of Supreme Court decision. But that’s getting way off topic. The topic is that if this is the philosophy you like, vote this way. We don’t tell you how to vote. I’m just giving you information because we’re an education business here. This is what you’re going to get. If you vote the way that when they say, I’m going to appoint textless judges, I’m going to appoint originalists, this is what you’re going to get. And you shouldn’t be shocked when we don’t get the kind of relief we’re looking for on the litigation that we’re undertaking, because no one would have ever thought that merely providing your name to law enforcement would have been cruel and unusual punishment, as that term was understood back in colonial times. No one would have ever imagined that putting your name on a list of some sort would be, would be remotely cruel or unusual punishment. So, you never get where you’re trying to, trying to go.

Chance [00:18:31]:

And as Scalia says, there’s nothing, there’s nothing about that there in the bill of rights. So, you know, you’re out of luck.

Larry [00:18:39]:

So. All right, well, enough of that on Scalia. I’ve probably run off about half of our audience now.

Andy [00:18:44]:

That’s fine. All right, well, we can now move over to this listener question sent by a person named Richard? I was registered in New Mexico for about eight years. Then I moved back to California and was removed from the registry. I’m working with an attorney to have my felony dropped to a misdemeanor and then dismissed. I can’t get a straight answer from anyone, but do you think New Mexico would make me register if I were to move back after my felony has dropped and dismissed? Any info is appreciated. And then thank you. And that was, like I said by Richard. Interesting question. And it’s also interesting that it involves both of you.

Larry [00:19:26]:

It is interesting. I wonder what kind of quack attorney he had. But I think that was what he’s referring to as a wobbler that we talked about a few episodes back where it can be a misdemeanor of felony. Right.

Chance [00:19:39]:

He had a damn good attorney. Looks like he cleaned them up in California. Wow.

Larry [00:19:44]:

So. But I can answer the question. The answer would be, if you had to register in New Mexico eight years ago, there would be one determinative factor. Did they make an equivalency determination? We don’t have a substantially similar requirement. It has to be equivalent. Did they find your California conviction to be equivalent? If they did not do an equivalency determination, then you would have the option of coming, moving here, and thanks to our litigation and work that we’ve done here, we’ve got a protection in place for people who are not put on the public facing if they don’t believe that their crime is equivalent, or if they believe it is equivalent, but it’s one that doesn’t put them on the interface of the Internet. So, you’ve got all sorts of protections in place here, but if you are equivalent, you will register here. And that’s a two-prong analysis. They look at the offense first to see if this, if the statute language lines up with the out of state offense, if the elements are exactly the same, it’s equivalent. But if the elements are not the same, then we have to look at the conduct. I don’t think, regardless of how good your attorney was in California, that you’re going to be able to erase what the conduct was. So, the conduct, as Scalia says, would be the determinant factor. It was the same conduct that happened. Therefore, if it were something that was registerable, it would still be registerable today. You will not be able to erase the conduct facts. I don’t think that then the removal process, we’ve got a California attorney here. Do you get to go back and get a factual redetermination of what the underlying facts were that predicated that the plea rested upon? And you could, can you change those facts in a removal process or any of these processes? I don’t think so. But I’m asking the expert, without a factual change, you would have to register here. Can you change the facts, Chance?

Chance [00:21:53]:

Well, no, you really can’t. But here’s the caveat. The caveat is that it depends whether or not there’s any stipulated facts to begin with. Some pleas don’t have any. Sometimes a plea is done without that. I mean, it does happen. So, you know, you really have to look at what they’re going to look at in assessing that. Let’s just say the elements don’t line up and you don’t have any stipulated facts? That puts you into a different box. So, you’ve got to, you know, so that there’s, there’s a bit more, so it’s a bit more intricate. But, you know, as to your question letting you know, you can’t change the facts. The issue is, you know, what facts were exactly stipulated to or found as the foundation for the plea.

Larry [00:22:34]:

Well, in my decades of unauthorized practice of law, every felony plea that’s accepted, there has to be a factual basis, and the judge has to address the defendant in open court and determine that if those facts are correct and that if they’re doing the plea willingly and they go through all that stuff about drugs and stuff, are you telling me that judges in the great state of California are so lazy that they accept a plea without any factual basis to support the plea, whether it occurred in the jurisdiction or whether there were facts that would merit accepting a plea.

Chance [00:23:08]:

Well, most. Most of them have very good factual foundations for the plea, and they make sure that when the plea is given, they go through all this on the record and do that doesn’t happen all the time. Sometimes there’s mistakes made. Sometimes things are left out. Sometimes generalizations are made which. Where you can’t really determine what facts here are being stipulated to. So, you really need a close analysis of what you’re doing before you do it. And that’s why California, and I see this from other states as well. The states where, you know, those who’ve been convicted in other states want to come to California, and they get into the whole, you know, analysis that you just described with the California DOJ, same thing happens. It’s not something that’s consistent or automatic or always there. You know, there could be glitches or flies in the ointment. And that’s what I’m pointing out.

Larry [00:24:01]:

Well, once the California process is complete, if he wants to contact me for a nominal fee, I’ll be happy to help him with what he’s going to be facing. But I think I’ll probably know it as well as anybody here, since I had a big hand in developing our process. So, I know what. How we do it here.

Chance [00:24:20]:

Good.

Larry [00:24:21]:

How do you.

Andy [00:24:22]:

How do you do that?

Larry [00:24:24]:

How do we do what?

Andy [00:24:25]:

How do you have a big hand in doing stuff?

Larry [00:24:28]:

Because I’m an activist here.

Andy [00:24:31]:

Let me frame that a different way. You were just a moment ago talking about there’s an election in just. Did you say 60 days and just under.

Larry [00:24:38]:

Just under 60 days. Yes. So, I have served in the capacity of supporting an elected official here, but I’ve also been before that, I was decades in public policy formulation. It’s not just in the last decade or so that I’ve worked for a state senator.

Andy [00:24:55]:

And so along with that, though. But people, I think they generally think and Chance chime in, people think that once they go vote, their involvement in government policy pick all the terms after that, that’s the end of their civic duties.

Chance [00:25:17]:

They think that people believe. They believe that. Yeah, they do. It’s a generalization, but, yeah, I think in general, people do think that.

Andy [00:25:29]:

There was a NARSOL call during the week that I helped produce. And there was one particular individual, and he was adamant that Pennsylvania is a terrible place to be on the registry. And he’s wondering what anyone is going to do to fix it. And I’m just thinking to myself, first of all, check yourself. What are you doing? I mean, are you donating money to any of the advocacy organizations? Are you going down to the state capitol and testifying and doing those things like, what are you doing before you go call on everyone else to go help save you? But then I was like, holy moly. You think Pennsylvania is bad? You should go try, I don’t know, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.

Larry [00:26:08]:

Yep. Well, it’s all relative to what you people think, that Vermont is bad and Vermont is really not very bad at all.

Andy [00:26:18]:

All right, move along to this brochure.

Larry [00:26:21]:

Let’s do it. We have another question here.

Andy [00:26:23]:

Okay, well, and I’m sorry that if you can’t see what’s on the screen, I can’t help you. It’s very small letters. Would you describe this? Well, anyway, so I guess I’ll just start with this. I ran, I ran into this brochure. And so since Mister Doom and gloom, actually, I’m reading this as Jay. Jay wrote and he thought of Andy, mister Doom and gloom, and would love to pick this apart. This is the only state that I know of with a registry for other than SO offenses. Oh, a registry for other than SO offenses. I was offered, I was offered a paralegal job in Kansas. So, like always, I researched the laws, and I found this a bit disturbing, as always. FYP. Cause they’re even talking about some kind of like law enforcement person registry so that you don’t have some crooked cop going to a different jurisdiction. There’s domestic abuse. There are animal abuse ones.

Larry [00:27:16]:

Indeed, there’s, there are a lot of states. Montana has the sexual offenders and violent offender’s registry. It’s not unique to Kansas.

Andy [00:27:24]:

Um, so Jay has requested that you pick apart the Kansas registration act stuff. So, do you have any problem with their requirements?

Larry [00:27:34]:

Many.

Andy [00:27:35]:

Would you please? So, we like put a counter up on the screen. One, two, three. Would you begin?

Larry [00:27:42]:

Okay. All offenders must register four times a year in person at the registering law enforcement agency in any county where they reside, maintain employment, or attend school. This means that Kansas has far exceeded the very rigorous requirements of the federal Adam Walsh act. Only tier three offenders are required by that federal Adam Walsh act to register four times a year. Yet this is, you know, the feds get the bad rap for all these bad things. And here’s an example of your state did it, not the federal government. Next, they must report in the month of their birthday and every third and 6th and nine months thereafter. They must also be photographed, pay a registration fee of $20.00, and complete the registration form with all the information.

Andy [00:28:33]:

Out of curiosity, with something like this, what happens if you live and work in two different counties? Are you required to register in both?

Larry [00:28:39]:

Based on this brochure, it appears that you do.

Andy [00:28:42]:

Oh my God. So not only do you have to register four times a year, you have to register eight times a year?

Larry [00:28:47]:

Potentially that’s what it appears to be. But I’m not gonna, I’m not gonna say for sure because I don’t, I don’t live there, but it sure appears that way.

Andy [00:28:54]:

God. All right, well, so besides that, what else annoys you?

Larry [00:28:59]:

Well, the offenders must register in person at the registering law enforcement agency within three days of changes to the registration information. This includes changes of residence, employment and school attendance. This also includes such information as vehicles owned or operated, tattoos and license information. Now folks, we live in the digital era. Allow them to update electronically. This would be far more efficient.

Andy [00:29:29]:

I mean, if you can go to rocket mortgage or whatever and press a handful of buttons and submit enough paperwork to get a mortgage and sign your life away for 30 years, I would think that you could upload a photo and do these different changes on a web form and just press the button and go back to sleep on your Sunday morning and watch your cartoons or whatever, don’t you think?

Larry [00:29:49]:

Indeed.

Andy [00:29:52]:

So, could this in person requirement be designed to make it even more difficult?

Larry [00:29:59]:

Yes, there could be a sinister motivation behind this. Indeed.

Andy [00:30:03]:

So, you have extreme consternation on how states treat homeless PFRs, but what does Kansas do?

Larry [00:30:13]:

According to their brochure, if an offender is transient, they’re required to report in person with the registering law enforcement agency every 30 days or I emphasize here more often at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency. They’re also required to provide a list of places where they may be contacted and where they intend to sleep, and frequent during the period of time till the next registration date. This, more frequent than every 30 days at the discretion of law enforcement is probably unconstitutional because it’s void for vagueness. One of the primary considerations is the language has to be sufficiently clear for a person of ordinary intelligence to be able to conform their behavior to the requirements of law. So, this language says every 30 days. That’s pretty clear. We can 30 days as Scalia would tell you, hasn’t changed. 30 days is 30 days, but, or more often at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency is not clear. Does that mean every single day during the 30, does, what does that mean? And the other component of that constitutional test is whether it would lend a hand to law enforcement for arbitrary and capricious enforcement. I can visualize that this might very well if they didn’t like a particular homeless offender, and they wanted to run them to the next county and get them out of their county. They say, boy, you gonna have to come on in here even though the law says every 30 days, we need you in here every week. So yes, I think this is probably unconstitutional.

Andy [00:31:45]:

I just want to clarify that the reason why I laugh hysterically at these things because it’s just so awful and all I could, I guess the other thing I could do is pound my fist and cuss, but it’s just so over the top ridiculous. And that’s why I end up laughing.

Larry [00:31:59]:

Yep.

Andy [00:32:00]:

Well, what do you, what would you like to see challenged in all of this?

Larry [00:32:05]:

Oh, I’d like to see that provision challenge for sure.

Andy [00:32:07]:

And so how does, how does Kansas handle out of state convictions?

Larry [00:32:14]:

Well, this is even funnier. If an offender is convicted or adjudicated and required to register another state, Kansas will honor that registration requirement. The duration of registration will be the length of time the other state requires or what would be required under Kansas offender registration for a comparable offense, whichever is longer. Whichever is longer is quite funny to me. So, they don’t really believe in reciprocal treatment, although that’s what they’re trying to present here. They’re saying that we will honor the registration requirement, meaning we’re reciprocating. They believe in discouraging anyone from moving to Kansas. They don’t believe in the equal protection clause. Those people who pound that podium and say what conservative constitutionalists they are that run Kansas, which is a pretty red state, they really don’t believe in any of that stuff because we’ve got a serious equal protection issue here. If you move to Kansas because you were convicted of making obscene phone calls to a minor, Kansas shouldn’t register you because that is not a Kansas registerable offense. So, they’re giving you unequal treatment. If you came from Georgia and you had a car that you had to spend dollar 200 a year on an admission inspection, and they didn’t have that inspection regime in Kansas, they went and say, well, you came on in here, son, without your car, we don’t have to go ahead and get you to run the same kind of stuff here that you do in Georgia. You got to do that. That’s crazy. So yes, they missed. Kansas is all over the top in many ways with this. So, keep going.

Andy [00:33:44]:

All right, well, one of the bigger issues that people would have, I think, is marking licenses, driver’s licenses. So, does Kansas do that?

Larry [00:33:55]:

Yes, they do. PFRs are required to renew their Kansas driver’s license or state identification card annually. Remember, equal protection though, you got to do it annually where they, I’m sure they have at least a four or maybe eight-year license. The driver’s license identification card shall indicate that they’re a registered offender. In addition, if the PFR maintained their, maintains their primary residence in Kansas, he or she must surrender all other driver’s licenses and identification cards from other states, territories, and the District of Columbia.

Andy [00:34:28]:

Of course, if they’re putting it on your license, then what about your email and Internet restrictions? Do they exist?

Larry [00:34:35]:

Another potential constitutional challenge. Registered offenders must report to the registered law enforcement agency any and all email addresses, online identities, membership in any and all personal webpages or social networks and Internet screen names. So yes, I think this Kansas regime has got a lot of potential for challenge.

Andy [00:34:58]:

Does an expungement remove the obligation to register?

Larry [00:35:04]:

No, it does not. According to the KORA brochure, an expungement for the crime that requires registration does not terminate the registration obligation.

Andy [00:35:18]:

That’s insanity. Um, I, I, then I just have to ask. With all of Mister doom and gloom and the unshidification of the registry here, uh, in these rules, is there anything positive in Kansas?

Larry [00:35:30]:

Uh, not much, other than there are no residency restrictions or employment prohibitions in their law.

Andy [00:35:35]:

I suppose if you’re fearful of water, there’s not much chance of a flood if you’re in Kansas. Well, no, there are probably rivers that flood in Kansas. Never mind, I was just thinking of oceans.

Larry [00:35:45]:

So probably not much hurricane damage in Kansas.

Andy [00:35:49]:

But they do have tornadoes.

Larry [00:35:52]:

Indeed, they do.

Andy [00:35:53]:

Wasn’t that where wizard of Joliet? I can’t remember the name with. That’s definitely where Toto was from. Chance, did you happen to see the question I posted there to give you some heads up?

Chance [00:36:05]:

Yeah, I kind of did, but I’m not exactly sure what that all means, but explain it to me.

Andy [00:36:11]:

Well, that’s what I’m asking if you can explain it, because you’re the lawyer.

Larry [00:36:14]:

I just did. Did you not like mine?

Chance [00:36:16]:

No. I mean, I’m looking at this. And I’m saying explain voice for voice.

Andy [00:36:22]:

I’m sorry, I spelled it wrong there, there you go.

Chance [00:36:25]:

Yeah, Andy did explain that. But, you know, I can add to that rather than re explain what Andy said. Look, you know, it goes back to what Larry said originally and that is that, you know, in, in a state where, you know, there’s not much about this in the Bill of rights, you know, due process equals what, you know, your, your norms are going to be socially. And if that social dynamic doesn’t, doesn’t move or evolve, you know, then you know what you’re going to get these kinds of restrictions. So, you know, caveat emptor. You know, you’ve got, you’ve got a vote, and you’ve got a way of making a change and you can get involved and, you know, you can do something about this.

Andy [00:37:07]:

Gotcha. Well, anything else about Totoland before we move on?

Larry [00:37:12]:

No. Let’s get to Illinois. This is the main event.

Andy [00:37:15]:

Alright, well, the main event. All right.

Speaker A [00:37:18]:

Registry Matters Promo Deleted.

Andy [00:38:02]:

You have this article that you wrote for the NARSOL newsletter. The title is Hope for Civil Commitment Reform in Illinois. What is this about?

Larry [00:38:17]:

It’s a recent decision from the Illinois Appellate court, District One. The case is In Re Commitment of Johnny Butler, number 1-23-0567 the case offers some hope for those confined in Rushville. As a point of reference, the appellate court is the intermediate court of appeals for the state of Illinois, directly under the Illinois Supreme Court.

Andy [00:38:44]:

Well, let me set up the case, if you don’t mind. Shortly before Butler’s scheduled release from prison in 2008, the state filed a petition for commitment under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment act. The petition stated that clinical psychologist doctor Ray Quackenbush evaluated Butler in May 2008 and diagnosed him with a paraphilia not otherwise specified, non-consenting persons, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with antisocial features. The state alleged that Butler was dangerous to others as he suffered from mental disorders that made it substantial, substantially probable that he would engage in acts of sexual violence. The jury found Butler to be sexually. Excuse me. Found Butler to be a sexually violent person, and the circuit court entered a judgment on the verdict and committed Butler. Now, did I do it at least a remotely decent job there.

Larry [00:39:37]:

Yes, you did. Johnny Butler is now 70 years old and was committed to a secure treatment facility pursuant to the act from 2008 until he finally obtained conditional release in 2023.

Andy [00:39:50]:

All right, so finally, at age 70, he was finally released. So that’s good, then. What’s wrong?

Larry [00:39:58]:

That’s where it becomes funny.

Andy [00:40:00]:

And I. Yeah, there’s not going to be anything funny about this, but okay, in your terms of funny, tell us what’s funny.

Larry [00:40:07]:

Butler was granted conditional release under a plan approved by the circuit court of Cook County. The release plan included 68 enumerated conditions, including no Internet access. Butler’s failure to abide by the conditions could and likely would be grounds for revocation of his conditional release.

Andy [00:40:24]:

Now, for context, I had 23 special conditions of probation, and most of them were pretty ridiculous, but this guy’s got, like, three ish times more than that. 68. So, you said 68 conditions?

Larry [00:40:37]:

I did, and that’s where it’s beginning to be funny. Despite the fact he had been in a secure treatment facility for many years, the proposed plan provided that Butler will be referred to for specialized sex offender treatment and an initial assessment for alcohol and substance abuse treatment. Now, please admit that’s funny. You’ve been in a secure facility that only houses sexual offenders, and they’re referring you after 15 or16 years for specialized sex offender treatment? Can you please admit that that’s funny?

Andy [00:41:10]:

What was he getting during the decade and a half that he was in the secure facility?

Larry [00:41:15]:

That’s what I’m trying to figure out. So that’s why it’s funny. But among other things, the Department of Human Services and Liberty Healthcare established a case management team to manage and contain Butler during his conditional release, and he will be subject to global positioning system tracking and random home visits. Butler was required to agree to abide by all of the conditions, and failure to do so would likely result in revocation of his conditional release.

Andy [00:41:42]:

And you mentioned no Internet. No interwebs.

Larry [00:41:46]:

Correct. No Internet access. But Butler filed objections to the proposed conditional release plan. He argued that the specified conditions: A, operated as unconstitutional, prior restraint or free speech, and B, were unconstitutionally over broad or vague, and C, could punish him for inadvertent innocuous conduct, and D, did not comply with the mandatory versions of the conditions set forth in the act, and E, were unreasonable as they imposed additional restrictions beyond the Act’s requirements without demonstrating the need for such restrictions.

Andy [00:42:25]:

These appeals are generally futile. What’s the legal standard for this? What do you call that standard? What’s the standard of review?

Larry [00:42:33]:

Yes, that is generally true. The administrative imposition is usually reviewed with a very low, I mean, a very high tolerance, very low chance of overturning it. But the appellate court noted, when considering an SVP’s challenge to the imposition of certain conditions in his conditional release plan, the Illinois appellate court in the case of In Re Commitment of Holt, and that was a 2022 case from the same court, noted that noted the varying standards of review at issue. For example, a circuit court’s decision regarding conditional release should generally be reviewed for abuse of discretion, whereas a de novo standard review applies to determination of whether individual constitutional rights have been violated. And de novo means a brand-new review without any deference to the previous decision. But the abuse of discretion means that they’re looking at it with a high level of deference, and unless there’s a demonstration that the judge abused the discretion, it’ll stand.

Andy [00:43:34]:

Now, you know, as soon as you start saying the whatever page number and paragraph, my eyes start rolling in the back of my head, and then I know that legal mumbo jumbo is coming up, so I just kind of tune out. So, what constitutes a reasonable condition?

Larry [00:43:47]:

Well, that would be dictated by Holt in that decision that was in that mumbo jumbo. The Holt court held to be reasonable, a condition must not be overly broad when viewed in the light of desired goal or the means to that end.

Andy [00:44:02]:

And you told me in show prep that Butler had won, and you mentioned something about laziness contributed to the outcome. Is this laziness on his part, the attorney’s part, judge’s part?

Larry [00:44:13]:

No, it’s on the state’s part. The case appears to have been reversed due to sloppiness or possibly laziness. The appellate court stated, quote, “our concern, however, is that the conditional release plan prepared for respondent Butler in this case appears to be adopted almost verbatim from the conditional release plan of another SVP. The circuit court case number of the other SVP was typewritten and then crossed out by hand on the initial page of the respondent’s conditional discharge plan, meaning Butler’s plan. Respondent Butler’s plan also included a notation on each page that the plan was revised on 722, even though the circuit court herein did not order preparation of conditional release plan until August, which is the 8th month of 2022.” And that’s on page eight to nine of the opinion. They simply inserted the conditional release plan of another person rather than individually tailoring the conditions to Mister Butler. Now, please, I want you to. Can you admit that that’s funny?

Andy [00:45:13]:

Not funny, Andy. You know, I should go back to the live recording at the conference and capture where they say, not funny, Andy, and have that on a speed button.

Larry [00:45:23]:

It’s funny to anyone that has a sense of humor. But anyway, the appellate court stated, based on our review of the record in the instant case, we are uncertain whether the plan submitted by Liberty Healthcare and DHS and approved by the circuit court, was properly designed for the control, care and treatment of respondent butler in the least restrictive manner, consistent with the requirements, and in accordance with the commitment order. And that’s on page nine.

Andy [00:45:50]:

I see in the court’s conclusion where they stated the act requires DHS to arrange for respondents’ control, care and treatment in the least restrictive manner consistent with his requirements and the commitment order. What happens next?

Larry [00:46:06]:

Well, he gets to go back to the circuit court, and they must reexamine the case. And the appellate court stated, to the extent that it may be questionable whether respondent’s plan complied with express mandate of Holt and otherwise provided for treatment in the least restrictive manner consistent with the requirements and the commitment order, we are compelled to remand this matter to the circuit court for additional proceedings. Judge, circuit Court, do your job. Individually tailor a plan to Mister Holt. Don’t accept a cut and paste job that’s got scratch marks through it. They pay you good money and do your job Judge.

Andy [00:46:48]:

And ultimately, this is great news for those in Rushville.

Larry [00:46:53]:

Yes, but you missed a paragraph there.

Andy [00:46:55]:

Oh, that’s all? Oh, I did. I jumped down too far. So, we’ve not discussed the Internet prohibition. What did the appellate court have to say about that?

Larry [00:47:04]:

Well, they stated any provisions of the plan regarding respondent’s Internet access must comply with Holt. As the Holt court noted, respondent’s conditional team can monitor and limit his Internet usage in many ways while running afoul of his rights. Furthermore, as discussed above, the circuit court may impose conditions in addition to those explicitly enumerated in section 40 of the act. The conditions should be drafted such that the respondent may understand exactly what conduct the conditional release plan may prohibit, restrict, or require, and should be narrowly tailored to that desired goal. It’s not that hard, folks.

Andy [00:47:46]:

And now it’s great news for those in Rushville.

Larry [00:47:49]:

It’s good news. I think I’d tone it down a little bit. It means that if you are in the posture of possibly getting conditional release, they will not be able to cut and paste 68 conditions. They will have to abide by Holt. I don’t think that the, the appellate division is going to want to see another case like this. Chance, you could probably expand on that. But they’ve, they’ve decided Holt now they’ve remanded a case based on Holt. I don’t think they’re going to be amused if another case comes with a cut and paste job. What do you think, Chance?

Chance [00:48:23]:

No, no, I don’t think they’re going to be amused about that. The jack’s already out of the box here.

Larry [00:48:29]:

So, so, yes, they’re going to have to do their work. So, it means that these people are going to have a Chance to have an individualized, individually tailored release plan constructed for them.

Andy [00:48:41]:

Well, I guess we can now head over to the infamous California corner. Are you ready, chance, for some California cornering? All right, well, today we’re going to, today we’re going to discuss an important topic, the steps to take when selecting a lawyer for your criminal case. Now let’s dive right in. Chance, what’s the first step someone should take when researching and evaluating attorneys?

Chance [00:49:05]:

Yeah. Well, this section is how to avoid 68 freaking conditions. Let’s talk about the first step. Okay. The first step is to evaluate their experience. The more experience a lawyer has in criminal law, for instance, the more likely they are to succeed in your case. So experienced lawyers have seen it all and know how to handle even the biggest obstacles, from the pre-arraignment investigative phase to post conviction cleanup.

Larry [00:49:30]:

Well, that makes sense but how can someone properly assess an attorney’s level of experience? They don’t have that tattooed on their forehead.

Chance [00:49:37]:

No, they don’t. That’s a good question. So, you, as a good consumer, have to ask the following questions. For instance, is criminal law and this is what you ask them, you know, because you’re being a good consumer and you’re, you’re interviewing this attorney. They are. Chance: You should ask the following questions: Is criminal law one of the main practice areas they focus on as a lawyer? How many years has the attorney been handling these types of cases? Does the attorney have extensive trial experience. When I ask, does the attorney have extensive trial experience, especially if you have issues that may be or may end up going to trial, you want to make sure that they know how to, how to pull the trigger, because if they don’t have trial experience and you’re headed toward a trial, then you’ll get short shirted and often the worst deal in the whole world. And then you’ll be calling me saying, my attorney screwed me. So, you don’t want to do that. You want to ask that question. Also. You might want to ask, are they well recognized and well respected in the criminal law community? Now, not that that’s a necessary thing, but it’s always good to know. And you can do this by scanning the Internet, whether or not they’ve made some headway and have shown some, some leadership in some way and have, and have maybe carved out some things in the law that are seminal. I mean, if you’re looking for someone who’s going to do something for you and they have that kind of recognition, that is really good. And also, have they ever been disciplined by the state bar? If so, for what reason? I mean, you know, there’s all kinds of discipline. But look, if they’ve been disciplined for fraud or they’ve been disciplined for case mismanagement or they’ve been disciplined for, you know, commingling funds and doing those types of things, I think you want to avoid them like the plague.

Andy [00:51:44]:

Specifically on that last one, how would you do that? Is there like the lawyer registry, so to speak?

Chance [00:51:52]:

That’s a good question, Andy, and the answer is, of course, we’re in the California corner, and the California state bar provides all that information upfront and it’s easy to access it. So that’s the answer here in this state. And I’m sure other states have their ways, too, but that’s a big assumption. California puts it right out in front.

Andy [00:52:13]:

Well, okay, so with all those great questions that we just had, what’s the next step in the lawyer selection process?

Chance [00:52:19]:

Okay. The next step is to ensure that they have a strong track record for success. Experience alone isn’t enough. You need to know if they’ve consistently met their client’s objectives. So, review their evaluations posted online, if they have any, and ask yourself, have they consistently met their client’s objectives? Are their former clients satisfied with the results? And this is perhaps the most important thing because client satisfaction is, of course, a direct reflection of what the client wanted in the first place. And thirdly, would their former clients recommend them to others. Those are really important questions you have to ask yourself after looking at all the information you can glean on the Internet and anywhere else you can find it.

Larry [00:53:09]:

Well, I like where you’re headed with that. It is certainly crucial and important to know that attorney has history of success. We talked a little bit about newbies, but what should someone look for in terms of how an attorney engages with them? Suppose it’s a relatively new attorney, and so what would you look for in terms of how that attorney is engaging with you when you’re trying to make that decision?

Chance [00:53:33]:

This is probably one of the most important questions you can ask, and I think this is what I think. But, you know, everybody has their own way of assessing things, but you want to pay attention to how they engage you. Trust your own judgment. The attorney-client relationship is so important, so make sure you like the way you’re being communicated with and treated by that attorney. Consider asking these questions of yourself. Are they ready and willing to answer any questions you have. Are they friendly and professional? Are they strong communicators? Do they seem genuinely concerned about your well-being?

Andy [00:54:13]:

Communication is key in any relationship, especially with your attorney. What about understanding their payment model?

Chance [00:54:20]:

That’s a good question, too. And it’s an essential question because, I mean, that’s where the rubber meets the road. It’s essential to understand their payment model, which means read the fine print carefully to ensure there are no surprises later. Ask questions like, do they offer a free initial consultation? Do they work on a flat fee basis? What costs, if any, are not covered by that flat fee?

Larry [00:54:48]:

Well, and that’s good advice as well, because in this complicated era we’re living in with forensics and expertise needed in so many cases. So what additional resources should someone consider when selecting attorney? We’re not in 1967 now. We’re living in a totally different world. So, what else should they consider about the law firm or the attorney’s resources.

Chance [00:55:11]:

When you’re considering what additional resources they offer. Think about it this way. Some criminal law firms provide a higher level of assistance with various elements of the case, creating a smoother experience overall. So, ask, do they have professional, do they have a professional investigator they use to help you prepare a defense early on? This is really important in the investigative phase, pre-arraignment, and they help you find a psychological evaluator who is well respected in local legal culture. What do I mean by that? I mean that when you take that evaluation before a judge, the judge doesn’t just think it’s someone that, you know, you hired to write this thing, and you told them what to write. It’s someone who’s well respected for their opinion and is able then to be persuasive when you’re trying to work out some kind of disposition. Ask this, can they assist with referrals for additional services related to your case to achieve postconviction relief? That is vision, and that is the type of thing you need to ask upfront because you don’t want to be stuck with something that’s going to get you nowhere.

Larry [00:56:15]:

Well, I’ve got, I’ve got another question here. Is it better to have a lawyer that’s experienced with your type of case or a lawyer who’s more familiar with a specific court you’ll be heard in? I have my own opinion, but this is your show here. So, what do you think?

Chance [00:56:30]:

Well, I think that it’s kind of a hybrid of both. I think, one, it’s a necessity to have a lawyer who’s experienced in your type of case, because if you don’t, the outcome is going to go south and you’re going to call me and say, my attorney screwed me. What can you do to help me out? The other thing is that it’s nice for an attorney to be familiar with the specific court that the case is going to be heard in. Every court in every different place has a different legal culture. Those legal cultures exist in a way that outside lawyers coming into that culture don’t understand. But there are some lawyers who understand how to plug into those cultures and get that information through association so that they can step into that court and be familiar with it. So, you want to get someone who’s so experienced, one, they know, they know and they have handled your type of case. And two, they know how to plug into that legal culture no matter what court it’s in and get the best result possible for you.

Andy [00:57:36]:

To sharpen that question a little bit because this came off of discord, is that the person is trying to do a petition to remove for removal from the registry. I would think that you would want as local to where it all went down as possible. You don’t want somebody that in your case like lives, I don’t know, what, 700 miles north in the north part of the north part of the state?

Chance [00:57:55]:

Well, it depends who that is. I mean, there are some people who live 700 miles north that know exactly what to do in your particular case for your particular removal, and it’s worthwhile hiring them. [Andy: probably more expensive.] Not necessarily. And here’s, here’s the reason why, if we’re talking about California, we’re talking about the possibility of a remote hearing. And the most important thing in a removal process is all the pre-hearing stuff you do in order to get to the objective outcome before you have to have a hearing so that you don’t have one. Think about it.

Andy [00:58:31]:

I’m with you. I’m with you on that. Is there anything else before we close this out?

Larry [00:58:37]:

Well, I would just like to expand on that. I think it’s in my opinion, although Chance, you said it very well. It depends additionally. There are cases where you do not want to bring in an outsider because that community is so close minded and there’s an inherent bias, and you would railroad your client. And you’ve got to be mature enough to analyze that. If I come in here in this rural community as somebody who doesn’t talk the way, address the way these people do, that can be a problem. And on the other hand, if on a removal petition, the way the process works in most of the jurisdictions except California is somewhat unique. You’re kind of in a buddy system to some, at some level. An attorney who’s well connected to that local culture and how things are done and knows everybody might have a slight advantage, assuming you have good facts. If you have crappy facts, it’s not going to matter. But it’s one of those things where you have to evaluate whether an insider or an outsider would be better. And so there’d be instances where you could go either way, because it would be dependent on the facts of the case, whether an insider or an outsider would be better.

Chance [00:59:50]:

And, Larry on all fours, you are absolutely correct. That is a correct assessment.

Larry [00:59:58]:

All right.

Andy [00:59:59]:

As always, Chance, thank you for sharing these super valuable insights. And it’s so important how to select the right lawyer. And it’s a critical step in ensuring the best possible outcome for your case.

Chance [01:00:10]:

You are absolutely welcome. Well said.

Andy [01:00:14]:

Andy, you have like 400 articles here.

Larry [01:00:19]:

We’re doing none of them tonight.

Andy [01:00:21]:

I didn’t think so, and I did not have time. I got held up at dinner in a conversation with some out-of-town guests. And I’m putting together the new patrons because we had three, I think. Yes, we have a john. Oh, boy. Where was the other one? I think I’m trying to remember. I’m trying to remember. I’m trying to remember. And I’m sorry I don’t have your names super handy. But you’ve been recognized, and we appreciate you. Is that good enough? Andy?

Larry [01:00:56]:

We do indeed. And we need more of them because FYP is trying to grow, we’re trying to serve more people. And of course, it’s more inspiring when we have more income, but it’s also it’s inspiring to know that our reach is growing.

Andy [01:01:14]:

What could we do if we had more money?

Larry [01:01:18]:

We could party.

Chance [01:01:20]:

Yeah. Yeah, right.

Andy [01:01:24]:

So, there was a Michael, a JT, and I guess that’s it. The other one goes back far enough. So, it was just two, I suppose. I think someone changed their, their contribution. Yeah, that must be what it was.

Chance [01:01:36]:

All right.

Larry [01:01:36]:

Someone did.

Andy [01:01:37]:

Yes. Okay. And so that’s all we got, right? Are we done?

Larry [01:01:41]:

We’re done.

Andy [01:01:43]:

I’m a little discombobulated because, like, I had to get set up super fast and it’s just been kind of a whirlwind of a show and clips didn’t go right. Anywho, hey, we’re back. Thanks, guys. I appreciate you coming out and all the people in chat. We had a whole bunch of people in chat. Head over to registrymatters.co for the show notes. And then also, I never say this, but go over to FYP education for the transcript. And I post, I’ve been trying to but it’s hard to do. I post blog posts and some other things. And then there are extra YouTube clips that come out every now and then. You can leave a voicemail for us at 747 227-4477. Send an email to cranky Larry. Just kidding. It’s registrymatterscastmail.com. And then you again, I said it before, support us on patreon@patreon.com/registrymatters for just a buck a month. And you can listen to us live. And I will guarantee you that I will get you into ask Chance and Larry questions when we record live. So, without anything else, gentlemen, is there anything else that I can offer you and we could talk about for 10 seconds? Andy, 10 seconds.

Larry [01:02:51]:

I’m ready to say good night to the massive studio audience.

Andy [01:02:55]:

All right, well, your time’s up. Chance, you can take ten minutes if you want.

Chance [01:02:59]:

Concur. Thank you so much for joining us. That’s all I want to say.

Andy [01:03:05]:

Great. Thanks, guys, very much. I appreciate it. And again, thank you, everyone, for listening live, and we will see you in a week. Have a great night, everybody, and we’ll talk to you soon.

Announcer [1:04:05]:

You’ve been listening to FYP.