[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters. This is an independent production. Our opinions are our own. And we’re thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, FYP.
[00:20] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West. Transmitting across the internet, this is episode 390. I’m ten away from 400, Larry. This is 390 of Registry Matters. What’s up tonight? How are you?
[00:33] Larry: Doing awesome. I’m glad I could be with you this weekend.
[00:38] Andy: Yes, me too. Again, I had this list of, I don’t know, it’s probably in the hundreds of people. And I went down Charlie, I went down Andrea, I went down to Zach, and I kept going down. And then I was like, here we are again. I guess I’ll call Larry again. Hey, are you available? And you said, sure, I’ve got something cooked up.
[01:03] Andy: You wanted to go there, huh?
[01:09] Larry: Yes, and that was a result of my prayers being answered.
[01:07] Larry: Well, somebody had to provide the content.
[01:09] Andy: I guess so. All right, well then, what are we doing tonight? So let’s not go down that rabbit hole.
[01:17] Larry: For this episode, we just have one topic tonight because it was a little bit skimpy on content. But we’re going to circle back on the situation in the state of Michigan. Just coincidentally, the ACLU of Michigan posted a message to registrants explaining what is occurring and offering some guidance. And it seems like a good time.
[01:38] Andy: Well, you know, our role here at FYP is to help and answer questions. So this is sort of almost like just a baby in a basket delivered by a stork on our front doorstep.
[01:51] Larry: And what’s really troubling me is that some registrants are determined to spend money seeking answers from Michigan attorneys or whoever else they want to pay. The problem is nobody knows the answers about what’s going to happen in the future. So if you’re going to spend money on an attorney telling you what will happen, it might as well be dumping your money into a 55-gallon drum on fire. Anything they tell you is speculation. We don’t know what the future holds, but I’ll give you my political take on what I think will happen. And we’re going to go through what the professionals in Michigan are recommending. I think that’ll be helpful.
[03:07] Andy: All right. Well, then I will begin by reading from the ACLU’s announcement. And it says, greetings from the DOES III litigation team. We are so pleased that many of you have come off the registry.
Now, first question, how many have been removed so far?
[03:28] Larry: I’ve not been able to locate a precise count, but it’s clearly thousands, possibly as many as 20,000, whose conduct occurred prior to 2011. Now, I’ve found multiple sources. I’m listing at least one to back that up. But the link that I’ve got here from Fox in Detroit says 20,000 names have been removed as a result of the recent state Supreme Court ruling.
[03:55] Andy: Assuming that Fox called the Michigan State Police and asked for that number, do you think? Like, is that a reliable piece of information?
[04:11] Larry: I would consider it fairly reliable. I think that probably there was a statement released by Michigan officials. Nobody calls anybody anymore. Have you lost your mind? Nobody calls anybody.
[04:23] Andy: I don’t call anybody, and I don’t want anybody to call me. All right. Well, then the ACLU stated that we have challenged Michigan’s SORA for more than 15 years. As you know, although there were repeated federal and state court rulings that the 2011 version of the law, and that’s called SORA 2011, was unconstitutional, the state passed a new SORA that took effect in 2021. That’s called, wait for it, SORA 2021. These are very original names. And that was very similar to the unconstitutional SORA 2011. We are very happy to finally see relief from those of you who were retroactively subjected first to SORA 2011 and then to SORA 2021. Should they then reach out directly to the ACLU?
[05:14] Larry: No, I do not encourage that because that’s what the ACLU said. They stated, due to the number of people impacted by this decision, we cannot answer individual questions. However, in this post, we want to summarize what has happened so far and answer some of the most common questions we’ve received. So what we’ve done is we’ve plopped in their questions, their frequently asked questions, and their answers. So everything, unless I say it’s my opinion, is coming from the ACLU of Michigan.
[05:44] Andy: Very well. Then the first question listed is, what did the Michigan Supreme Court decide?
[05:53] Larry: On September 9th. The Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in People v. Smith, holding that SORA 2021 cannot be retroactively applied to people whose offenses predated July 1, 2011, when SORA 2011 took effect. The court held that SORA 2021, like SORA 2011, is punishment, and both the federal and state constitutions prohibit retroactive punishment. Now I can go off script a little bit. Legislators, government officials, victim advocates: listen to what they’re telling you, because all you’re doing is wasting a whole bunch of court time, money, and resources, because it’s going to keep coming back on you. But anyway, the federal district court previously reached the same result in those three cases. That’s the decision that the ACLU is currently working on. It held that retroactive application of SORA 2021 violates the federal constitution. However, relief in that case was stayed pending appeal, and thus the decision in People v. Smith took care of the problem.
[06:55] Andy: And let’s just stick there for a minute since you brought it up. Millions and millions of dollars—do you think we could speculate how much they even spent on our side, like legal fees for the Miriam Ackermans of the world? Are you thinking like 10 million plus?
[07:15] Larry: Easily $5 million.
[07:19] Andy: Paid back by the state?
[07:21] Larry: Well, I’m saying that’s what they’ve recovered so far. And I’m guessing it’s somewhere between three and five million dollars because this has gone on for 15 years. But that doesn’t matter. These people will fight to the end of time.
[07:36] Andy: All right. Well, then for the next one is how is the state responding to the decision?
[07:45] Larry: The Michigan State Police has recognized that under the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, SORA 2021 cannot be used to retroactively extend the registration requirements of anyone whose registrations were registered solely because of events that occurred before July 1, 2011. The MSP and state police are removing those people from the registry, and you can read the MSP’s official announcement, because we’re providing links to everything that we’re talking about here. So it’ll be however you provide the stuff; you can find it.
[08:19] Andy: Okay. And I will read the first paragraph of the updated statement. It says on September 9th, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court entered an order in people versus Smith finding the 2021 SORA to be unconstitutionally retroactive, meaning ex post facto punishment for any registerable offense committed before July 1, 2011. The effect of this one-page order is significant. Every offender actively registered or required to be registered solely because they were convicted of a Michigan registerable offense that was committed before July 1, 2011, will be permanently removed from Michigan’s sex offender registry. While the court’s order has no effect on the validity of the underlying conviction for any removed offender, which may still be evident in original court records, prosecutor files, police reports, or the offender’s criminal history, the court’s order nevertheless compels removal of every offender understood solely for offenses committed before July 2011, regardless of the previous duration of the registration term or the severity of their underlying offense.
[09:34] Larry: So, well, what I would caution now is this. You read from the statement where it says offenders will be permanently removed. If I had been proving this case, I would have discouraged the use of that word “permanently.” No one can guarantee you what will happen in the future and that you cannot be put back on the registry under any scenario. Other than that, I love the statement but um, further they say officers must know that any offenders removed from the SOR because of the court order have no further duty to register, report or verify PFR registration information in Michigan and are not in violation of any Michigan law by not doing so. Officers should also know that removal from the SRA as a result of the court’s order does not simply mean the offender’s registration information will be removed from the SOR public website but such information would be permanently removed and inaccessible to officers and registering authorities in the SOR law enforcement database. I don’t believe a word of that last sentence. Law enforcement never permanently gets rid of anything they possess, so that’s a bit of caution.
[10:52] Andy: Have you heard any of the recent stuff with Flock cameras on how long that data is sitting around and what they do with some of that data? Yes, so they’re tracking down ex-boyfriends or girlfriends. It’s most cops who are typically guys, so they’re tracking down ex-girlfriends and leaving pretty gross comments. So anyway, that goes along with what you just said—they’re not deleting anything or have copied it elsewhere.
[11:21] Larry: That’s exactly what I’m getting at.
[11:23] Andy: Right, so the next question is who is covered by the Michigan Supreme Court decision.
[11:32] Larry: According to the ACLU statement, you are covered by the Michigan Supreme Court decision if one, your offense was before July 1, 2011, and two, you have not been convicted of another registrable offense since July 1, 2011. If you satisfy these criteria, then the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision means that SORA’s 2021 cannot be retroactively applied to you. Now that’s the key word—SORA of 2021. What about SORA of 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030? We don’t know now.
[12:07] Andy: According to the info I got from Josh, something about the way this reads is that they can’t make anything similar to what this decision entails. If I worded that right, they can’t just regurgitate the 2011 one, which I think is pretty much what the 2021 one was. They’re gonna have to craft something new.
[12:30] Larry: But they can, and I think that they will. They can’t fall back on a previous version because it’s probably not going to be very funny to the court if they just simply plop that out there and say this is the SORA of 2027.
[12:44] Andy: Moving along, then. Who did I just read that one? I thought okay, I did, I did, I did. Do I need to ask so Larry, would you please remove me from the registry? Who do I need to ask to be removed from the registry if I’m living in Michigan?
[12:59] Larry: According to them, no action is needed on your part to be removed from the registry if you’re covered by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision. If you believe you should have been removed and haven’t been, contact the Michigan State Police PFR Registry Unit or your own criminal defense attorney.
[13:20] Andy: My experience with our guest from a couple weeks ago is that within a day of him learning about this, he was off the website. We talk a lot about the website; he was no longer on it, which is a pretty good indicator that he had been removed.
[13:38] Larry: From the public-facing side, but I don’t think they’ve thrown away a shred of anything they’ve gotten.
[13:47] Andy: God, Larry, you are continuing to hold true to Mr. Doom and Gloom. Okay, here’s a good question then: Should I still go and report?
[13:57] Larry: The SOR says yes; really, they say to be safe, you should check in with the police department where you register. There are many unknowns about how the Michigan State Police and law enforcement are implementing the removals so far. The MSP has not formally notified people who have been removed from the website that they no longer need to register, and they say we also do not have the contact details. So we ask what instructions the police departments and general police department give for me because I’m not taught to know whether to enter SORA or what they say to put my PFR0 against. But some teachers don’t know what to do with here.
[14:37] Andy: They didn’t tell me, so they don’t break their heart, or if I can fit through the Flint environment and quit the MSB, but if I don’t pick up Latino, I guess I’ll never get anymore. I’ll be back; they are the best right month were not allowed to move around in smart ways from the online registry, which I guess would just be the website because that’s not a registry. You go to the police station where you normally report and confirm that you no longer need to register. It is safer to confirm that you don’t need to report than to risk being arrested and prosecuted as a result of any confusion about your registration status.
[15:10] Larry: I can go along with that. And they also stated, “We strongly encourage you to document in writing the date and place where you went to report and what happened, and keep a copy for your records. You may also want to bring someone with you as a witness so that you can prove that you tried to report if there are any issues later.” I love documentation. A lot of cases could be resolved if people would document things and not rely on memory.
[15:40] Andy: Just as a quick aside, is your microphone super duper close? Because I’m getting a lot of vibration stuff from it. Let’s see if I can fix the problem. I see what it is. All right. That should fix it. Cool. And then the next question is, will I receive a letter confirming that the MSP has removed me?
[16:02] Larry: The response is, at this time, we do not know if the Michigan State Police will send you a letter telling you that you’ve been removed. So like I say, there’s some things that are unknown. I would like to think that they will. If their databases are capable of churning out 20,000 letters, that’s going to be, what, $20,000 worth of expenses?
[16:24] Andy: I mean, at least. Okay. So, I think the next question almost ties into what I was going to ask. But going back to, should I still go report? And if you go into report and they say you don’t have to register, is taking a selfie that has all the metadata that has your GPS coordinates on it showing that you were at the office, you’re taking a picture saying, my local sheriff’s department with their sign on the street there, and it’s you giving a peace out sign or whatever, is that going to be sufficient that you were there at that time?
[16:56] Larry: I think so.
[16:58] Andy: A judge would accept that as being that you made the effort, even though they’re trying to then harass you later?
[17:04] Larry: That would be as good as you can get, other than having a judge accompany you.
[17:09] Andy: I don’t think that’s going to be something you can do. No. Can I get…
[17:20] Larry: The answer so far is that the Michigan State Police has not provided any information publicly about how it will handle requests to confirm that a person is no longer required to register. I’d like to think you’re going to get a letter. If you need to document your removal, you can use the MSP’s statements and they’ve got links to both of them, and also print out a page showing that a search of your name on the registry produced no result. And then they suggest fine, finally consult an attorney if you need further proof that you’re no longer subject to Michigan’s SORA. I don’t really know what an attorney could do. I mean, I can’t argue with their advice that it’s being extra cautious, but what can an attorney do?
[17:59] Andy: So would this be that they have lawyerly powers to sign a document that says something more official than… Wouldn’t that be a notary? Could you get an attorney or a notary to confirm that they looked up your name on the Michigan State Registry and confirmed it was not there, and have them sign off on that? Would that be something? I suppose you could do that. It sounds a little excessive, and you’re having to go through all these extra steps to prove that you’re not going to get arrested tomorrow and go to jail, and that you did do some level of due diligence. This seems ridiculous.
[18:35] Larry: You can tell they have a lot of trust in the law enforcement apparatus.
[18:41] Andy: So my offense was after the 2011 SORA amendments. Will I be removed?
[18:48] Larry: The answer is no. The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision does not apply to people whose registrable offenses occurred after the 2011 amendments to SORA were adopted. What matters is the date the offense occurred, not the date of the conviction. If your offense was on or after July 1, 2011, the Michigan State Police will not remove you. Then they followed with, the ACLU of Michigan continues to fight for the rights of registrants who are not eligible for relief under the Michigan State Registry. The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision. Several of the claims in our Dose 3 lawsuit, which is pending on appeal in the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, are brought on behalf of all registrants, not just those who were committed before 2011. You can read more about the Dose 3 litigation, and we’ve provided their link to that. But that case has already been won, and it’s on appeal. They just can’t let go of this. That’s why I’m telling people, if we look at what we have in the court, we’re going to have what we know. And I’m not smart enough to read tea leaves. I’m only smart enough to look at what I can see. Well, litigation’s been going 15 years. They’ve been losing for 15 years. They were given time to come up with a new version, and they refused to do that because they were still operating under the old version. Remember that? And I told people, I said, they’re not going to do anything until there’s a date certain it’s going to go dark. So finally, the question is, how are we going to do this? And the court gave them a date certain it was going to go dark. But did they adopt a better SORNA? No, they did not. They adopted one that’s equally bad. But the things I can see, my analysis tells me that they’re not likely to do anything different now. They’re going to continue fighting, and they’re going to continue to try to enforce registration on people. I can’t see what would make anybody have all this optimism that there’s some epiphanization that’s happened.
[21:12] Andy: All right. Well, then what effect will the…
[21:21] Larry: The answer from the ACOU is that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision does not affect those three claims for registrants whose offenses occurred after July 1, 2011. The federal courts will have to decide what impact the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision has on the claims for registrants with offenses before July 1, 2011.
[21:45] Andy: I have a friend with a Michigan conviction. Now he lives in a different state and is on their registry. Will he be removed from that other state’s registry?
[22:12] Larry: I think that answers it, doesn’t it? Yeah, we don’t need to put the laugh track here.
[22:17] Andy: Go further.
[22:17] Larry: But yes, please. Every state’s registration law is different, and Michigan can only control Michigan. So the ACOU says as a result of how removal from Michigan’s registry will affect registration in other states depends on each state’s law. Contact a criminal attorney in the state where you live and talk to that state’s registration office. I can’t really fault that advice too much because Michigan only controls what happens within its borders. So if you’re in another state, you’ll have to figure out what that state requires and whether it applies to you.
[22:52] Andy: Like how Georgia law works, if you are required to register in another state, they don’t specify the nature of your conviction; they just say if you’re required to register. So if you move to Georgia from Michigan, where you were required to register, then you would be registered in Georgia as well. They’ve essentially passed the responsibility to Georgia. You’re now registered in Georgia regardless of what happens in Michigan. Yes.
[23:18] Larry: That is true. Several states have that provision and it’s designed to keep people from, of course, evading registration. If you do enough state shopping, some states have narrower lists and they have that provision and there is a catch-all to make sure that people don’t state shop. But what the terrible tragedy is that people read that and they misconstrue it. It’s not designed to say you don’t have a registration obligation in Georgia if you don’t have one in another state. It’s designed to be all-inclusive to catch you if you do, but if you don’t have, people read that and I say, no, it doesn’t say that. It does not say that. It says if you have to register in another state, you have to register in Georgia, but you have to read that in harmony with all the other provisions above that because that’s usually the very end that tells you what triggers the registration obligation in Georgia and it tells you being convicted of a registrable offense on their list or substantially similar equivalent or something in other jurisdictions. So they’ve already got you, but just in case all that misses you, they have this catch-all provision, but it doesn’t flip over and work the other way and you magically don’t have a registration obligation because you could still have a registration obligation in Georgia even if you didn’t have one in another state.
[24:29] Andy: And then you could try to game the system and go, well, I’ll just go back to Michigan and get myself off of the registry there. But I don’t know, you could end up screwing yourself twice over. And now you’re back on the registry in Michigan.
[24:45] Larry: Well, it’s been years since I’ve told this story, but something very similar happened a long time ago. I remember we did have a listener use the quote, air quotes of funny. So a person had been convicted and I believe it was in Wisconsin and they predated registration, but they went to Nevada and they have a further look-back period and they applied for their gaming license, which resulted in a background check in Nevada. And lo and behold, they said, well, you’re not going to get a license. We’ll give you a gaming license. You’re not prohibited, but you have to get registered. Well, they registered and they decided that registration wasn’t all that good. So then they went back to Wisconsin and Wisconsin had changed their law that said if you were moving to Wisconsin from a state where you had a registration obligation, you had to register there. Now, I know that you’re going to finally agree with me that this was funny. Not funny. What do you mean it’s not
[25:39] Larry: Not funny. Let’s move along.
[25:50] Andy: Do I need to do anything if I travel to another state?
[26:10] Larry: Well, the Michigan Supreme Court decision is only about Michigan registration requirements. You may very well be subject to registration requirements in other jurisdictions if you travel out of state, depending on the other state’s law, the nature of your conviction, how long you’re visiting the other state and other factors. So you should always research the laws of other jurisdictions if you travel out of state. If you’re unsure, contact a criminal defense attorney in that state. Now, honestly, if you’ve been deregistered and you have proof of that and you did travel and overstayed, let’s say you traveled to Nevada and Michigan. They do send out letters eventually. And you have that with you. And they run your name and come up. You know, you’ve got a conviction. You say, I got a conviction in 1993. I don’t have to register here. Well, you have to register here. I challenge anyone to show me a prosecution where somebody has been prosecuted for overstaying two days or three days if they don’t already have a registration obligation with them. So if they’re off the registry, I keep challenging, please show me a prosecution.
[27:22] Andy: I have a past failure to register conviction and my registrable offense was from before July 1st, 2011. Can I get that conviction vacated? Isn’t that a whole different question?
[27:35] Larry: It is. And I think it’s a good one. It says the contact a criminal defense attorney for individualized advice about your case. I say there’s a good chance that that would occur, that you would get that vacated. If the law that convicted you is unconstitutional, we’ve established over and over again, a conviction becomes null and void.
[28:00] Andy: And so then your failure to register because of the unconstitutional registration, then that would be a scrap too.
[28:10] Larry: I would say so. I don’t think there’d be any doubt about that. Interesting. But some of these people will still be serving prison time. Then we’ll get to that later. But some of these people will be incarcerated right now, potentially, and they will possibly get let loose fairly quickly, I hope. Would that be a tidal wave? I don’t know how many that would be.
[28:32] Andy: No, I mean, would that be a tidal wave of crime being released from prison?
[28:37] Larry: It would be.
[28:38] Andy: OK, I am serving a sentence. For another new offense. And my past failure to register conviction affected the length of my sentence. What should I do?
[28:50] Larry: I didn’t even think of that question because here in New Mexico, registration has no bearing on any sentence other than registration. But most states have a group together. So if you’ve got another crime here, it would have no bearing, so I would say their advice is not sound. Contact your criminal defense attorney in the new case right away for individualized and professional advice about how this decision could affect your case.
[29:22] Andy: Does this decision affect whether I have to wear a tether, which is a weird way to say GPS monitor?
[29:28] Larry: I was going to put that in there, but I figured you’d catch it. That’s what I think they mean. This decision is about Michigan registration law and does not affect whether you can be required to wear a tether under the laws as a condition of probation or parole. I would like to think that most people who committed a crime prior to 2011 are probably not connected to tethers right now, so I don’t think it’s going to be a big issue.
[29:52] Andy: So this is for the lower level of people, or is this for anybody, tier three or level three? Everybody. Everybody. No kidding. Okay. So you could be considered an SVP, whatever, and you are on GPS monitoring for life, and then this removed you.
[30:14] Larry: Well, see, I don’t know that to be the case. I don’t know if you can be on GPS for life in Michigan.
[30:21] Andy: We’ve talked about people like that, so that’s why I was bringing it up.
[30:24] Larry: Yeah. I don’t know if most people who had behavior prior to 2011 are off supervision, but there’s data out there that would validate whether or not there might still be people on it. Who knows?
[30:42] Andy: Yeah. Okay. Other websites still list me as a PFR. What can I do?
[30:52] Larry: Well, yeah. Is this one of those websites where you can contact them and ask to have the information updated?
[30:55] Andy: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss?
[30:57] Larry: Yes, they say to search online for your name and find any sites that still list you as a PFR. Contact the website, and contact information is usually at the bottom of the page. Is that true? Sure, maybe, could be. And tell them that you have been removed from the PFR registry and ask them to remove the incorrect information about you. If they don’t remove it, you can report the website to the website’s host. I am very dubious about private websites removing registration information. I don’t know what would inspire them to do that.
[31:33] Andy: The info… If you are a registrant, the website lists that you were on the registry but says nothing about your conviction being removed because this doesn’t change that you were convicted. It only changes the civil regulatory scheme of being put on a website and the conditions that come with that. You were still convicted.
[31:54] Larry: Yes. Well, and that’s what I would do. I’ve said this all along, and I made an attorney in California really angry. If you came at me with a lawsuit saying I can’t publish this information because it’s no longer true, I would say, oh, it’s not completely true, but it’s mostly true. And I would put in the smallest font that could be possibly created: “no longer subject to registration.” And I would suppress the address, because that could be penalizing somebody else who might be living at that address now. Everything else is a true statement. Assuming that the registration information—what you were convicted of and all that kind of stuff—is accurate. And I would say, go pound sand. If I can think of that, I’m quite confident that the people who run these websites can at least think of things I can think of.
[32:50] Andy: Because the only reason to set up that kind of website, Larry, is to then put ads on it using Google ad stuff and whatnot, and that’s how they would drive money from it. You go punch in your zip code and look for any PFRs that live near you. Also, 10,000 pounds. That’s how they make money providing that. They’re not going to be incentivized to remove the information unless there’s some kind of punishment for leaving that up there.
[33:16] Larry: And the United States is not big on punishing private entities who make money as sellers, resellers of information, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
[33:28] Andy: A chat says offenderradar.com has a form to tell them you’ve been removed. Don’t know if they actually do it or not. But… Your mileage may vary there. How about the whole passport fiasco with IML? Can I get the marker removed from my passport?
[33:44] Larry: Well, the ACLU stated that if your passport has a PFR marker on it, contact the Angel Watch Center for confirmation that you’re no longer required to have a marker on your passport. You will then need to pay for, I’m sure, a new passport. But they added a cautionary note: other countries’ laws vary regarding admission of people with past sex offense convictions. So it may not do you any good because the information is already in their system.
[34:16] Andy: Now, just anecdotally, my understanding is that Germany doesn’t care if your conviction is older than 10 years and, in some cases, up to 15 years. So, in the case of Germany, I believe they’re more lenient and you can have a nice stay there.
[34:31] Larry: I would love to hear that on official German documentation rather than just anecdotal information, but I hope that’s correct.
[35:04] Andy: And then… possibly the last one. Can I get a refund? Come on, Larry. I want a refund for the fees I paid while I was required to register or damages for being required to register illegally. Keep that thing up again. Oh, you want me to play that again? Okay. Someone already said in chat, we need a new laugh track. They
[35:29] Larry: The ACLU is not currently working on this issue and therefore cannot provide advice on that question. My response is it would be extremely unlikely, just shy of unprecedented. I don’t know of any PFR that’s gotten damages for being removed from the registry, but if it were declared unconstitutional, this would be an unprecedented move.
[35:53] Andy: Could you stretch out and make the case for it? I mean, isn’t this like something like reparations?
[36:01] Larry: You can make a case for it, but you’ve got to have the law on your side. And you’ve got to have jurors willing to award money. Now, think about this. If I’m the state—and believe me, if I can think of this, so can they—if there were such a vehicle that would allow you to get damages for being on the PFR registry, or even if you could twist something in the Michigan Compiled laws to provide for that, I would certainly demand a jury trial. And I’d go in there and let the jury… Let you try to convince 12 citizens that you want to penalize the taxpayers of this state for somebody’s behavior classified by most people as subhuman. The registry includes heinous crimes, so if they put your case back on trial again, you’ll walk away with zero and laughter, and then we’ll ask for attorney’s fees because we prevailed on a frivolous lawsuit. That’s what I can think of, and I’m sure they can think of that.
[37:17] Andy: Anything else for that? So you think that they’re going to come back around and the 2027 or 2028 legislature is going to introduce a new registration scheme that is going to claw these approximately 20,000 people back?
[37:31] Larry: Well, it’s just speculation. But what you’ve got is a 50% reduction in the registry from 43,000 to 23,000. I didn’t realize it was half. Okay. And you’ve got fewer resources needed to track half as many people. So arguably, if the state police manages the registry, they would want to keep their resources and not add more work for themselves.
[38:04] Andy: Maybe. But now they could really put the screws to the 50% remaining and monitor them closely.
[38:11] Larry: That would be the argument, but I should say it’s an argument. You’ve got the victim advocacy groups out there. And if I were trying to figure out a strategy, it’d be very easy. I would identify the 10 or 15 worst offenders with the most horrible crimes and appearances. Then I would start pressuring the legislature with that information. These are the types of people we’ve had to let go. You’re out of control. The Supreme Court did this, but you can fix it. And the pressure is going to be unbelievable. If this goes away and they just give up, I’d be shocked.
[38:57] Andy: I’m going to read something a representative sent me. Afterward, Larry, tell me if we should keep it. Okay? I won’t use his name. Cool. So this Republican state rep says, “We can’t override the court decision, but we can revisit the law.” He personally thinks it’s time to do that. We need to sit down and look at what works and what doesn’t work, what things the courts continue to attack in the registry or related laws. The representative said he would be interested in working on the issue and reviewing the registry pointing to public safety concerns. When you start looking at the numbers and research already done, these crimes have fairly high recidivism rates. There was a reason the registry was developed in the first place. People wanted to know who’s around their kids or living next door. Is that okay to leave?
[40:08] Larry: Yeah, that’s okay to leave. But it tells you where at least one legislator stands. There are 138 legislators in Michigan. So they’re coming for you? It’s fair if he’s indicative of a significant number, but even one can make a heck of a noise.
[40:26] Andy: And then the rest of them, the committee would then be somewhat on the record for saying, no, you’re a loony bin, or yeah, let’s run it up the flagpole?
[40:34] Larry: Well, he has every opportunity to introduce legislation. He’s telegraphing that he plans to do so. So it could be a short-lived victory. I can only interpret his words as saying that high recidivism is why we have the registry in the first place. That doesn’t sound like someone ready to abandon the registry.
[41:06] Andy: I would agree with you. That’s why I wanted to read it. And that was sent to me 10 days ago.
[41:13] Larry: So I would say that you, but no lawmaker can withstand the pressure, no matter how progressive they are. If the pressure doesn’t mount, I will be shocked because there’s no way you can let your registry go down by 50% and say, well, we give up.
[41:32] Andy: Maybe they’ll just make the laws that much tougher going forward and pad it back up to 40,000 people as quickly as we can.
[41:40] Larry: That would be one way. Or you could push for more felony charges.
[41:43] Andy: Jaywalking is now a registrable offense.
[41:45] Larry: Or you could pay me to draft you a constitutional registry.
[41:49] Andy: Oh, is
[41:51] Larry: it’s going to claw back any of the 20? It would
[41:53] Andy: claw back everybody, but they wouldn’t have any obligations whatsoever other than to register. That would be it. Like once or annually? Oh, they’d have a similar to draft registration. You’d have an obligation to register and you’d have an obligation to keep all updates done, just like you have to do with registration or draft. And contrary to popular belief, that violation of registration for draft carries up to five years in federal prison. It’s not a little misdemeanor summons where you get a $10 fine. I mean, nobody ever gets five years in prison, but you could. I was going to say,
[42:23] Andy: Remind me how many people have ever been convicted on this?
[42:26] Larry: I don’t have any way of knowing that. We’d have to ask the DOJ for statistics. But they do prosecute people. They just don’t give them five years in prison. They give you a really big slap on the wrist. Well, they mainly pressure you because it only applies to 18 to 26-year-old males. They pressure you with withholding college aid and all sorts of things when you can’t verify compliance with selective service. So that is an incentive for many people because they ain’t going to get no federal money. I understand.
[42:56] Andy: Okay. Well, Mr. Doom and Gloom, as usual. I’m glad you didn’t change your MO for the week.
[43:03] Larry: Nothing doom and gloomy about this.
[43:06] Andy: Other than that they’re coming for you, and you believe that they’re going to come for you, and they’re going to do whatever they can because they’re not going to let it go?
[43:13] Larry: Well,
[43:13] Andy: Don’t consider that doom and gloom. It’s not like rainbows and unicorns.
[43:18] Larry: But it’s also an encouragement to get better prepared, to have a plan. Have your own registration bill ready. Have amendments ready. Sitting behind your keyboard and watching will not get you the result you want. You’re going to have to be actively involved in the legislative process. You’re going to have to get connected with people who want this issue to be resolved, and you’re going to have to give them some reasons, not 40 reams of documents, but some reasons that they need to craft a constitutional registry to end this battle because I think they’re going to want to create another registration obligation. And if they do, would you rather the victims and the state write it, or would you rather PFRs write it? It’s not hard to figure out. It is not.
[44:10] Andy: Is there anything else you want to cover?
[44:11] Larry: Get busy. Get a bill together and put together a constitutional registry. And get over the fact that you think that they cannot require registration. They can require people to register who have pre-2011 convictions, as long as there are no disability restraints or punishment associated with it.
[44:33] Andy: I’m reading through a tangent. I’m reading through the articles that you’ve put in here that maybe we would cover. No showers, black mold, and clogged toilets. America’s jails are disgusting. And then at the bottom, starved in jail by private companies. Those are awesome titles to articles. Yeah, we should cover those one of these days. Please head over to registrymatters.co for show notes and links everywhere you need to go. You can send emails at registrymatterscast at gmail.com. Leave an old-fashioned voicemail message if you want to. You’re going to have to pick up the phone and dial some digits. And that’s 747-227-4477. And the dozens of people that joined us here from Patreon tonight over on the Discord server to listen to the live stream. That’s at patreon.com slash registrymatterscast. You were going to say something, Larry?
[45:25] Larry: I’m counting 27 people in here right now.
[45:27] Andy: Absolutely. I said dozens. Jeez. Well, stay out of trouble, my friend. Did you get your air conditioner fully tuned and fixed? Are you all good?
[45:38] Larry: We think we are. I’m getting ready to pronounce it a success.
[45:40] Andy: Fantastic. All right. Well, stay out of trouble. Have a great weekend. And I will talk to you very soon. Good night.