registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west, transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 112 of registry matters. Saturday night, Larry, we are like on time recording. This is something kind of new.
Well, it’s not that new we’ve been doing here for 100 plus episodes.
Yeah, but for the last, like almost since Thanksgiving, it’s been kind of like a crapshoot of whether would be Saturday, Friday, Sunday in the afternoon, evening Mondays, you know, it’s been all over the place with traveling and all the other complications of everything.
That is true. We’ve had some variation. Did we do it on time last week, or we’re off schedule last week?
I think we were on time, but that was like the first time and no one knew and we were still sort of rusty from being on time. But so since we were all out of whack and traveling and whatnot. I need you to tell me a story like the Larry philosophy of travel of Why you need to get a rental car with the license plate from the state that you’re going to be in predominantly, I guess is the way to word that.
Well, it’s a it’s long since known but not only that people who were out of state had I been qualified that people who are from other states, unless you live with that conglomeration of states that are very tiny, where it’s more common to be out of state. If you live in Texas, you have to travel a great distance to get out of Texas unless you happen to live on the border, but you have to travel a great distance. So these large geographical states they love, they love to raise revenue from people who from other states, because they don’t have a political voice per se. They don’t have connections they don’t have anybody to call. And so therefore, it by life experience has led me to understand that you have a greater chance of encountering law enforcement when you have an out of state license plate. So therefore, when I rent a car I try to get, if possible, get a car that has a place in the state, or I’m renting.
I see. So you expect that if you’re in, you know, Delaware, like, I mean, if you sneeze, you’re going to end up outside of Delaware. So it wouldn’t be that big of a deal to have a Maryland or jersey tag. If you were in Delaware.
That is correct.
Gotcha. But if you’re in pretty much all of the southern states, and then all the way through like west of Kansas, those are big enough states that you wouldn’t have. Generally you wouldn’t have people crossing through the state unless they were from out of town.
That is correct. If you’re a Georgia and the county of Houston and a new mexico plate with the land of enchantment rolls through that officers kind of say, Wow, don’t reckon I’ve seen one of them before.
Now when you said how often do you actually mean Houston?
Well, if you were in Texas, but not in Georgia,
that sounds so strange to me.
But, but that officer is going to go on as an actor on a quota system which law enforcement westernized society such thing. But talents are under great pressure to raise revenue to pay for public safety. And one of the ways they raise revenues through their Municipal Court functions, which are traffic citations, I mean, it’s full ordinances, the fines associated with Operation Municipal Court. So therefore, if I’m driving in a town and I’ve got an out of state plate, and I’m going 40, in a 25, there’s a lot greater chance that I’m going to draw the attention of the officer, and I’m not going to be able to talk my way out of it. Therefore, it’s nice to not draw the attention to start with.
Yeah, I totally agree with that. I hadn’t really considered that avenue but that makes a lot of sense. Plus, I don’t really ever rent a car, but that’s just me. All right, let’s hear it. Here’s how this is going to go tonight. We have breaking news for the first time in quite a while. Tell me what these three like hot button items are going to be for the evening before we go on a cover some news items
was a breaking news. So really only two of them what qualifies do is I’m one of the one only be breaking news. The the Butts County Sheriff which is Sheriff Gary Long, which we that NARSOL found a legal team put together and sued regarding Halloween signs that that case is on appeal to the 11th circuit and the the butts county legal team filed their appeal which we’re going to try to dive into a little bit later on. So that’s that’s the new story number one out of out of butts county which the county seat for those of you have who are not familiar with but is Jackson. Jackson is a familiar city you like that’d be the capital of Mississippi.
That but this is a different Jackson.
This is Jackson, Georgia. Right County, a county about 20,000 people and then central Georgia. Yes. The the next Item is going to be the, the notice that’s going to be soon delivered to Cobb County, which is like metro Atlanta suburban Northwest County, formerly represented by Congressman newt Gingrich and us house representatives. That says they are going to be put on notice about some other indented requirements, which we’ll get into what the requirements are inventing, to impose on people who are required to register. And then the third one we’re going to get into is the case out of Illinois. Murphy versus Russell. And we’ve talked about that some months back when the decision came down is where people who have served the totality of their prison sentence are not being released because the supervising authorities who have the responsibility to supervise their period of mandatory it’s called MSR mandatory supervised release, they don’t like where the person would be going. So therefore, they can tell you to hold them in prison. So a federal judge who had already Found the statute to be unconstitutional has has issued a permanent injunction and the case so we’ll be able to go into that a little bit. So that’s going to be our deep dives tonight.
Unknown Speaker 6:09
Man. That’s a lot of stuff to worry about. Larry, you’re loading this up tonight. That is why I am here.
Oh, I think that is my cue, isn’t it? That is totally my view. We could we could do that later. I got I got it. It’s right here.
That is why I am here.
That is why I am here. So then, I guess we should dive into some news articles before we go into those deep dives. I also then have a news clip that I need a little sound clip from an article the first article comes out of the washington post that talks about why innocent people take a plea and I just grabbed a little piece of it. And because you’ve talked about this whole bunch of times, but let me play this clip and we can talk about it for a minute.
Unknown Speaker 6:56
Does either council know of any reason that I should not accept the defendants guilty plea. You want to shout? Yes, Your Honor. This please the product of an exploitive system of devastating mandatory minimums and lopsided access to evidence. My client faced an impossible choice. He is saying what is necessary to avoid the possibility of losing his life to prison? Instead, you reply,
No, Your Honor. So you is have you have you ever been in the courtroom defending somebody even like as a helper person to counsel or is that you would you’ve just been on the office side of the defense? No, I’ve been I’ve been in a courtroom enough time sorting guilty place accepted. Yes. Okay. Why for real, how the process counts? We I figured that part but I you know, you were you were handed like would you rather have the your Achilles tendon chopped off? Or would you rather have, you know, like, you know, like, you’re given an impossible choice and you have a disturbingly minimal amount of information that you are trying to make the best decision possible out of that whole exchange. And that seems to be when you are all sort of plea deal from the prosecution, that it just everything is stacked against you. And there’s almost like no right answer, and you don’t have a lot of time to make a decision and you certainly don’t have enough information to make a decision.
I guess I would take some, some disagreement with the issue of the time. You should have all the time you need I said should because oftentimes people are in custody, and they haven’t had regular communication with their attorney. The case may have been pending for 910 12 months, maybe even more, but they’ve had such minimal contact with their attorney, that that it’s been difficult for them to go through the options and to have but but time I would take some some disagreement that you’ve got a lot of time but what happens his reality. The attorney shows up, you’ve been in custody. They holiday You over in shackles, and the plea is offered to you right there. The prosecutor makes it sound like it’s a really fantastic plea offer. And it really often is considering the alternatives that could flow to you if you were to go on trial. And if you were to be convicted, it often isn’t attractive, please. But it’s based on a stacked deck. And they gave you a limited amount of time. Sometimes they want you to decide right then or sometimes you’re given a matter of a few days. It’s it’s set for a pre trial conference that you’re there on pre trial and they say this, this offers on the table for 10 days because they have to make the trial date set. 45 days later, they have to have fake witness preparations to get people there particular from out of town. And they they do they do have all the all the cards, but thanks to our victims advocates, and the the desire to make it impossible for a person to actually have any presumptions anymore of innocence and Ada presumptions that due process. You go into this with, if you if you don’t play guilty, you’re not accepting responsibility. So particular in the federal system, you get hammered for avoidance of responsibility if you don’t plead guilty. So if that if that was a response to a federal plea, you don’t plead if you don’t plead guilty if you if you go to trial, you get jacked up on sentencing, because that was not acceptance of responsibility. Isn’t that a great thing? It’s,
it’s amazing. But I was just going to ask you, well, if you didn’t do anything wrong, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about you. You shouldn’t have to worry about a plea deal. You shouldn’t have to worry about taking it to trial that you’re not going to be found guilty, even if you do take it to trial because you didn’t do anything wrong. Right.
But wouldn’t it be nice if it were that simple, but it’s not a question. This is what what defendants get very upset about. It’s not a question of what whether you did or didn’t do anything wrong. It’s a question of what can they convict you off, and they look at you and they roll their eyes and they put practically tip They’re chairs over backwards when you tell them that it is not a question of whether or not you did anything wrong. It’s a question of whether they can convict you of what they’ve accused you of. So you’re rolling, you’re rolling your eyes also?
Absolutely. I’m just I’m thinking about in the context of one of the stories that we dropped about the person that’s getting out after 43 years. And he’s probably going to get nothing. And I guess that the story got dropped, but he was going to get out after he got out after 43 years. And he’s, like, quote, unquote, suing I guess that’s the right term. And he would be awarded ,000 a year for every year for a wrongful conviction. But they passed that law in 2008. He obviously got locked up before that, so he doesn’t qualify for it. So he’s just going to get a pat on the button, say, Good game. Good luck. That’s correct.
But I thought it was because he had a prior conviction also that he wasn’t eligible under the under the criteria of that. of that law. A person who had another felony conviction couldn’t be compensated. But But when you when you go to trial, It’s not a question of what you did. It’s a question I can a secure conviction. Now, you’ve heard me talk about strict liability crimes. For example, many sex offenses are strict liability. But it’s not the only thing. It’s not the only thing. Drug Possession, particularly in state of Florida is as a strict liability offense.
So and quickly explain what that is. Is that where if even if you know even if you don’t know about the drugs in the car, you’re still guilty of them being in your car?
Yes, sir. There’s there’s no criminal intent, there’s no knowledge. So and state of Florida you have you have possession of drugs. So if the officer pulls you over, and all the hovercraft that’s focused on the car illuminates and then the dogs come in to sniff and they found by find drugs, they do, you are guilty of it because you had possession of that. And it could very well be that you didn’t know that you had possession of drugs and I can think of some scenarios where You might not know, for example, if it’s a family vehicle, another member of the family may have stashed drugs at the car. It could be that it could be that you bought the car and they were stashed because of the drug runners card and you had no reason to suspect that of a drugs in the car. It could be any number of reasons or it could be that you have you have something that you think is legal, that turns out that isn’t, but you weren’t intended to, to commit a crime. And but but that if if you go to trial on that, and a strict liability offense in Florida, and you can assert an affirmative defense where you have you have the burden of showing that you that that that you were not criminally responsible, there was no criminal intent. they’ve they’ve just shifted the burden to the accused. Well, you’re going to be convicted even though you didn’t do anything wrong because the people in the jury box unless they decide to do a nullification if they like you for some reason and decided they’re gonna be Renegade jury. They’re gonna be instructed to find you guilty unless you meet the burden of difference. Defense is to show that you did that you had no reason to believe that there were drugs, that and oftentimes they from your defenses beyond your reach, you can’t you can’t meet the burden for good offense is one of those offenses where you where you acknowledge it a drug for the car, but you put forth a theory of why you should not be held criminally, criminally responsible would be like it’d be like self defense. Yeah, I smashed him over the head, I sure as hell did. But I did it to defend myself was a burden is on you at that point. So you’ve acknowledged the state’s accusation that you took the crowbar and you Bash him over the head. So that’s no longer in contention. So you’ve affirm the state’s allegation. But you’re saying, Please absolve me of criminal responsibility. Because I was doing this. If I didn’t do this. He was coming on pretty fast was a blight. And I happened to Atlanta lucky blow, but a jury has to believe you and the bird nest your burden to carry. Wouldn’t it be great if you could just say that anything you did was selfless. Fans, we’d have a whole lot of people who’d get away with a lot of things. So therefore, an affirmative defense, it’s like not guilty by insanity. The burden is on on the person to carry that defense to its conclusion when they assert that and of course, it never works seldom ever works. But, but so you’re going to be convicted. So back to the point is not a question of what you did. A good Lori tells you, and I believe you. You’ve convinced me you didn’t do this. But if we put this on trial and Helston County, the jury is going to convict you. There’s a 95% certainty that they will convict you. And here’s why. Now, if you want to roll those dice, you can’t. Because you have every right to do that. You have every right to do that. But here we have a jury pool that’s not very sophisticated. And we’ve got all these constraints on terms of what we’re allowed to do. In terms of putting all the defense we’re not going to be able to we’re not gonna be allowed to go after The accused or the way you’d like to see us do it, the judge is going to shut that down. And so at the end of the testimony, when we rask, us, we’re not going to put you on they’re going to be, they’re going to be able to impeach you because of these inconsistencies. And the fact that you have a prior record, or whatever it is, they’re going to be able, they’re going to be able to, you’re not going to be a credible witness. So there you’re going to be convicted. And under the arrangements that we’ve gotten offered, they’re going to give you no more than three years in prison. And seven more years under supervision. If you goes up to go to trial, all options are off except the maximum penalties. And if you get convicted of the two offenses, which I believe you probably will, you’re going to be subject to 18 years of incarceration and based on the sentencing practices here in Houston County, there’s a very good chance you’re going to get most if not all of that. So that’s that’s my duty to tell you that but at the end of the day, if you want to go on trial you can but the point the commentators making their assess Exactly. Why the person pleads guilty? The person says, well, under that scenario, I’m going to be convicted. And I’m going to get three four times a harsher sentence. Even though in my heart I know I didn’t have any criminal intent. I have no choice.
Unknown Speaker 17:16
That’s a position you
circle back. What in the world is this hovercraft? What is that Kabuki stuff you’re talking about?
The hovercraft is the craft that watches two people in the registry. Every person has a hovercraft assigned to them.
Wait, we have individual there’s a million ish, whatever. 900,000 hovercraft flying around watching every one of us.
Unknown Speaker 17:37
Oh, holy crap. I didn’t know that. That’s amazing.
Yes. Well, that’s what I have learned because the people that are on the registry, believe that and in all seriousness, they are being watched a lot more closely than any other offender category. There’s absolutely no challenge your question to that. But there
that says it’s easy to watch everyone Since they’re emitting radiation,
but, but they’re not being watched quite as closely as sobered up to fear they’re being watched. What they are having done to them is very, very, very naughty. I mean, there be people putting a law enforcement putting transmitters GPS trackers on people’s cars surreptitiously doing that. And that’s not right. They’re putting cameras on public right away on the neighbors yards. That’s not right. They’re doing a number of things that are not right. That they shouldn’t do and they are they are gathering an awful lot of information. And they’re monitoring all the social media. They’ve got detectives are sitting there if you have social media they figure out they think they want they watch your social media so I’m not implying that there’s no watching but I just don’t believe they know that managed to cross the state line
yet. Let’s move over to an article from non doc no n d OC. I don’t know what that would be non doc. I don’t I can’t quite come up with that would be off at Anyway, Oklahoma pays 45 per hour for prison telemarketing, from a prison point of view that is probably eight times higher than, you know, if you’re in a institution that actually does pay in Georgia, they don’t pay. But that would be pretty kick ass money for a buck 45 an hour to and you know, some of the jobs in prison are kinda on the crappy side. And so I’m assuming telemarketing, you’d be sitting behind a desk. And you would have a headset on and you would just be answering phone calls or in this case, a marketing for someone. That would be sweet work. And I and I say that with quotes around it just to kind of diminish the my intent there. But you know, in comparison, why is this a bad idea?
Well, at first blush, that’s was my reaction. See, the governors of the governor of Oklahoma is looking into it, and he didn’t know anything about these contracts with these marketing companies, but they apparently run the game. There’s there’s k synergy partners as green wave concepts pro calm, and they have contracts that range from the dollar 45 to looks like 325 and our strong oh actually 375 and now that they’re paying, though the federal minimum wage is 725 where it’s been stuck since 2009. But the the some leadership, some lawmakers thought leadership, some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have questioned if this is exploitation,
because that is my question to you, as
well, I don’t know, because prisoners are not even covered by most protections of labor, that they are carve out for, for for practically everything when they’re when they’re in custody. So I guess the question would be, the state of Oklahoma is has to determine if they Want to make a labor pool available to these private businesses, which in essence would be a form of a subsidy to the businesses? And if they are receiving benefits for that subsidy that outweigh the cost of the subsidy. But the lawmakers are saying what GDS is depriving them of the opportunity to pay fines or restitution. And this is just horrible. And I’m not sure. I’m not sure it is horrible. If they didn’t have this job. I don’t know what Obama president pay if they have jobs across the board for everyone. I don’t I don’t know the nuances of the pay scale. But this is on the high side of the states who do pay. If you’re getting 45 to 375 an hour. This is some pretty good prison paid.
Let me let me throw this at you just I don’t know. I’m just thinking about this offhand. Our government has been criticizing other nations, let’s call them China for like currency manipulation where the government is almost like propping up the businesses in there, I want to say like the solar companies and then even like the steel manufacturers, so that they can bring a product to market that is significantly cheaper than anything that we can bring in, bring out there. So that makes us less competitive. Doesn’t this make those companies that are hiring the prisoners, doesn’t that make them have a better rate that they can offer to provide their product because they’re getting labor at a quarter, maybe even, you know, fifth or sixth of the rate that the public sector would be able to provide?
Well, if I’m understanding the article, they’re paying the state that minimum wage that just status just siphoning my account of blood, so when I use that term siphon, but states just siphoning off the difference,
and so that they can pay for room and board, essentially?
Well, it’s I’m guessing it’s being used to offset the corrections department was hesitant to make anyone available for comment for the story, but I’m guessing that they’re rolling this into the general fund always, never assume that it’s going straight to the we’ve got listeners who believe that the corruption, it’s going straight to some executive who made the contracts pocket. I don’t assume that without any evidence, I’m assuming that this was mine, it’s going back to the state general fund is being used somehow in the present budget. But that wasn’t the state of Oklahoma be benefiting from that? Because if they’re getting at least the federal minimum wage of 725, what wouldn’t they be getting money for these labor hours that are these people? Would they would not be recouping any money at all? Isn’t this offset to the state’s budget?
It seems like it might be then I was totally looking at it from a respect that they then the company was only paying the 370 45 an hour and so then they would be able to bring their product to market saying, you know, we only have to charge these much dollars less because we have these employees that are getting paid and grossly below the minimum wage number but if they’re using that, so I don’t know. Tell me what your your your liberal pointy head idea of this this this batter, would you vote for this if you were if they were coming up in your your legislative scheme?
Well if you if you look at the first paragraph of story and second line, it says the companies pay do say 725 per hour minimum wage for each of the more than 200 incarcerated individuals. But the prison telemarketing programmatically pays the workers at 145 an hour plus whatever bonuses. So which tells me that from a public policy perspective, you’ve got 200 inmates who are generating and 25 cents an hour. Isn’t that more than what most inmates are generating for the state?
Perhaps Yes. I don’t know the difference there. Isn’t that great there, Larry. The difference there is let’s call it five bucks an hour ish or you know, or 600. So that’s ,000 a year. That’s not what it costs you to be incarcerated.
No, but but this is the question I’m racing is how many of your inbox sale Oh has 12,000 inmates incarcerated? Would it be great If all 12,000 we’re bringing in and 25 cents an hour, to conservatives would be would normally be eating that up because that would be offsetting the cost of their whatever, to whatever extent to 725 races, if you’ve got 14,000 inmates and the other 13,800 are not raising anything, which is the better class, so it makes the half.
Oh, totally, I totally understand that. And those would certainly be like the cream of the crop with the better communication skills and not messing with the authority. I assume that these would be the cream of the crop. These would be like the quote unquote, good inmates?
Well, I would assume, I would assume they would not put the troublemakers in. I would also assume that they did. They would put people in who can speak clearly who have matters who who have patience. I probably wouldn’t make a very good person for this job for that job. But,
but don’t tell me why would you not make a good person for this job?
But I suspect there for but this seems to be a win win. And it’s always good. they’d ask questions and actually is it is the Republican leader asking one of the Democratic Leader ask a question. So just leaders, it says House Majority Floor Leader, john Eccles, and then Senator George, on who’s on democrats and such a minority and Oklahoma that you’d have a hard time finding more than one. But, but this, this seems to be a win win. Very well. So how would I how would I vote for it? Yes. Well, I would probably look at the totality of was, is this a policy that improve this proves the chance of an inmate reintegrating successfully? And if I can answer that in the affirmative, and if I could answer in the affirmative, is this is the revenue from this because revenue is a part of everything. It shouldn’t be in some people’s mind, but it is any type of expansion of program or opportunity behind the walls is going to have a cost tag. So I would look at this as an expansion programming that seems to have a positive income stream for the present. This is not one where we’re having to invest money. This is where we’re getting a check back. So it would seem to pass most of my idealism of getting people better prepared for release, because these are jobs that exist in the national economy. And you remember, I have a pontificate that people should be provided training and skills that would translate to the free world. These are jobs that existed the free world. So I would tend to want to I would tend to want to be deferential to such a program. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to hear the concerns, but I would tend to want to give this program a chance. And
one other thing before we move on to the next article is do you think then that this could create some kind of perverse incentive to keep people locked up past whatever their time would be to fill some sort of quota of, hey, look, you know, we’re short staffed now because these people got released. Can you hold on to these people? Can you put their paperwork Can you lose it for a week or whatever? So that we You can hold on to certain employee number you know XYZ because they do a great job or these employees that we need these numbers.
I mean, anything’s possible. I would be surprised if that being that there’s only 200 of people in the program and there are thousands of inmates something tells you that there’ll be qualified people I’ve I’ve been in communication with enough with enough prison and jail type administrators through my life and they never seem to have problems filling the the trustee roles particularly attractive ones now they have some right if you if you run like your power and you put them into dogpound you may have you may already know if he has trouble feeling down I just pulled out of my head, but there’s probably a proper kitchen duty would be one of the harder ones to fill because it’s hot and it’s early in the morning and yet you have terrible but laundry might be you’re not hungry, though. You’re not. But But my hunch is that there would not be any problem filling these I don’t think there would be a perverse incentive to hang on to people
and Since I said we were going to move on, I can’t go without Jen has now also said Isn’t that like Kamala Harris and the firefighters were the firefighters were fighting the California wildfires like a year ago, but then they weren’t eligible for these jobs upon release. So these guys and gals might be doing these telemarketing jobs and then they don’t hire convicted felons, but they were perfectly happy to hire them while they were actually locked up.
Well, I don’t know that that’s the case and that particular job. I would, I would like to, I’d like to get more information I know that telemarketing is a job that from from all that I’ve been told is more to the to do with your people skills and your dependability. And, and they don’t care so much what you look like they care what you sound like.
I was gonna say, you know, you always talk about having bolts and screws in your face and tattoos, these jobs, you can have all that stuff all over you.
Well, that’s exactly that. That’s the reason why when I was in broadcasting, it was radio because they told me that my face work best for radio.
I would agree that you have a face for radio
Right, you’re right, you and Gracie, you know,
be broken physically and mentally. And then over at the hill calm Michael avenatti should not be in solitary confinement. Isn’t he the attorney for? God, I can’t stormy Daniels and I don’t remember her real
high powered lawyers. I think he was connected to the Trump administration. wasn’t he? Or not?
i? I thought Michael avenatti was the one that was representing stormy Daniels. Okay,
maybe? Way wrong. So okay.
Yes. Jen says that, too. So Michael avenatti is like, I’ve heard many, many things about, I don’t know much more beyond that. But this is as far as I know, then he’s apparently gotten in trouble for maybe making some false things. And anyway, so why are you so against a solitary confinement?
Well, the evidence shows us on solitary confinement what, what it does to the individual and I am with avenatti Free Trial, that that makes it even more egregious. I’m not a big fan of solitary confinement, I believe that we ought to be able to manage our prisons in a way that we can keep most of our or population safe without having to put them in isolation. Of course, there will be exceptions, there will be people who have a need for isolation for medical reasons for contagious we have to do that. Because we can’t have an epidemic through the president, we have to do that. And we would have people who, who have committed a disciplinary infraction. And it might be that, that AIDS is I need long term segregation, or short term segregate segregation to modify their behavior. And we do we do that and those conditions where it’s really warranted. I have less objection. But what we have is, most prisons are, are overcrowded and when you when you design an institution, you design an institution for a lifespan of decades. You don’t design a prototype, I mean when you sign the When you look at correctional facilities, they have a very long lifespan. Okay, you get what I’m saying. You don’t design a prison for it to be here today and gone tomorrow. Yeah, when you when you design it, societal needs and the type of inmate housing is, is constantly evolving. So the population of what you designed it for a vault is hard to design a facility with the exact number of types of cells and housing units that you would need over the course of decades. And so you have to adapt your prison management to the facility that you’re stuck with. Because most of the administrators didn’t design the facilities. That’s the rare exception. Where is it whereas the people who administer it actually designed it. So you have to design you have to administer with the design you’re given. So therefore, if you have a prison that was designed was 100 isolation cells, and you’re desperate for space. The temptation is to put people in those isolation cells for the most trivial reasons because you’ve got a popular elation of a design capacity of 900. And you’ve got 100 isolation cells that was at the time that designed it, they thought that was the right number, and you’ve got excess people, and you need to put them somewhere. So it’s easy to plop a personality isolation cell. And and that that’s there therein lies the problem. So we end up putting people in isolation for not just the things I indicated that are well justified. But just because we don’t have any other place to put them. And we put them in there. And we forget that we haven’t been for a different reason. If we put you in there, because we can’t keep you safe. You’re such a hot commodity that you’re going to be harmed and exploited and possibly hurt physically, then you shouldn’t be punished like the person who threw feces at the guard, who should justifiably lose some privileges during a period of time to you don’t want them throwing feces and exposing themselves to the guards or whatever that got them put in isolation. You’re trying Modify that behavior. But when you put a person in because you don’t have a facility that is designed, and you don’t have the staffing to keep that person safe, you don’t strip them off all their privileges because of your failure, which is what we do. We put them in, we say, well, you’re in isolation, so you don’t get, you don’t get into reading material. You don’t get visitation when you’re in isolation. You don’t get to use the phone because you’re in, you’re in isolation. Well, that would be fine if I were in isolation for an infraction, but I’m in isolation because your system failed, and you can’t keep me safe. And you’re putting me here for my own safety. So therefore, I should be able to use the phone, actually be able to talk to my attorney, I should be able to read books, I should be able to have my legal materials, I should be able prepare for trial. And it can’t prepare for trial. Because you’re also
missing you’d like you’ve glossed over one like I mean, obviously you’re in solitary, but you also can’t interact with other humans, which is a critical component of us being a social species.
Well, that goes without saying but I’ll say it, yes, it It’s it’s very hard on the human being when they’re put in isolation and it’s not. And on all fairness, there’s there’s very few institutions for you’re not within earshot of a human being, you may have to yell. But But have you been on an institution where no one could hear you? No one at all? No, not being here. You
know, that’s a significant challenge in that world is trying to find a place where you don’t have to hear anybody to.
So So, but it can be a struggle to have a conversation. But But I’m more worried about this person who’s presumed innocent, who’s being punished is if he’s been convicted, and who cannot be involved in his defense can’t have access to the reams of documents. And he’s not he’s not being treated like an innocent person.
They say repeatedly in the article that he’s not El Chapo.
Yeah, like that.
He’s not for those who don’t know, El Chapo El Chapo is the biggest drug dealer of our time he’s killed witnesses and competitors and he’s he escaped. Oh, that’s right. He’s the one was roughly a year ago that actually escaped. It’s not like it’s not like he’s a you know Spry young dude that can go you know running the hundred yard dash quickly so he had some help I suppose he didn’t escape from a
US president It was a Mexico prison, wasn’t it?
Yes, I believe so. And then then they extradited him here, I believe I’m pretty sure that stride and follow that closely, I’m just sort of like, you know, on the fringes of my memory is what I’m remembering. Very good. So narshall has put Cobb County on notice. And as you described it to me, they are randomly harassing folks knocking on doors at two o’clock in the afternoon, two o’clock in the morning, and they’re going to visit somewhere between a few times to a very large number of times. So deal with it. We’re going to put
Cobb County on notice we’re composing the draft, which is for those who may be new to the podcast. We did the same thing to ourselves. The same thing with with the buds County, Georgia and the Spalding county Georgia Sheriff when they did their Halloween signs in 2018. And we just just followed it up in 2019 with the county have been Hill, that that, that that we put one notice this doesn’t come as a surprise. So we’ve learned from reliable sources in Cobb County, which is a North Metro county that that the sheriff has invented some requirements. And those requirements that the sheriff’s have invented are very troubling. Because they they the policy of articulated to the offenders who who are registered and calm is that after you present the address and that the department deputies will come to your house at all hours of the day, and the night and as late as 1130 at night and as early as like 5am in the morning and pound at your door and the band to see you to verify that you’re there. And that is Georgia statute doesn’t require that. And it’s very annoying to have someone pounding on your door at 11 o’clock at night. And in fact, in most jurisdictions I think Georgia as well. They don’t even allow warrants to be served a search warrant unless you have a have an exception for the hours they require the search warrants be served or reasonable hours to keep from disturbing the neighborhood and every every dog barking and having that kind of run. And they saw a search warrant will be served at three o’clock in the morning unless you get a no doc. special exception. So the sheriff’s knocking at three o’clock in the morning is dangerous. People’s dogs start barking and people that are there sound asleep, I’d be what would stop a sex offender. I know sex offenders are convicted felons in most instances. But what would stop someone who lives at the residence who’s not a convicted felon from having a weapon and pulling it and that can be a shooter. So it’s dangerous. So the Cobb County Sheriff is is is engaging in that we’d like to verify things from more than one source which we’ve done. And, and then they’re requiring the offender to provide the hours and schedule of their jobs. Again, that’s not required by the statute that we have to have to provide the location and the name of their employer, but not their hours that they’re working on what they’re doing. So we’re gonna let the sheriff know Go ahead.
And this is not a supervision thing. This is the the registry side the the the civil regulatory scheme side of the equation, where all you have to do is tell them this is the address they approve the address and that is potentially the end of that interaction. Maybe they actually come out and physically verify it, but after that, that’s the end of it.
That is correct. And this is for the registry. This is not for the Super fit for the supervised offender population. But but we’ve we verified their be required to write down two hours of their work on the registration form. And other details. And And again, that’s not required by statute. Have you did put your hand on the Bible Sheriff? Warren, I believe the same is and you said you were going to uphold the law, you didn’t say you’re going to invent the law. And as, as I believe that you have a duty, you have a duty to uphold the law, not to make the law. If you would like to make the law, you should surrender that badge. And you should run for the General Assembly in the state of Georgia. And you can have a seat in the legislature. And you can be a part of the law making process. But it’s not for you to invent your requirements just like it wasn’t for sure if Longton Ben has Halloween sign requirement, which we’re going to talk about in a little bit. But But this this here is very troubling. It’s It’s where do they stop when one day where they’re allowed unchecked, to invent their own rules, and put and put requirements on people and threatened them was incarceration, which, what they would incarcerate him for? He said, Look, I’m not gonna tell you what I was working on. Your business, if they can’t sign anything and the statute that that, that compels a disclosure that information, then there’s nothing legal that can be done. But the average offender does know that the average offender lays the deputies at the door to have guns on their side and arrest powers. And they say a paddy wagon parked up the street a little bit that they might find themselves sitting, if they don’t cooperate. And when the spouse opens the door at 1130. And I’m here to verify, I need to say, I need to say whoever right now, the spouse wants to end the encounter as quickly as possible before the kids start scraping before the neighbors start calling say what the hell is going on over here next door.
And I’m going to throw you a softball question there. Why are they doing this? Well, the
simple answer is because they can
and what would make them stop?
Well as we as we found out in Bucks County What What am Spalding county Spalding county and stopped because they were started the lawsuit and they decided that it would it would behoove them stop. butts county only stopped when the federal judge said you can’t do it and they have filed their ensuing appeal that we’re going to talk about later. But but that without being challenged without any pushback, they’re going to do it because it sells to the constituents. And if so, if so, if Sheriff mill Warren tells the citizens the cop can let me tell you what I do, what I got, I got 915 offenders registered in here in Cobb County. And we go out and visit with them 810 12 times and we don’t pay no attention to what time we go up. We make sure these people before they say they are cause we go keep you safe. Do you think they take the average Cobb County citizen is going to be more likely to vote for him or less likely when they tell him that?
Certainly certainly. It wouldn’t be okay for me to like break in and tell you a quick little story about a friend of mine in the northeast part of the state that dealt with not this issue. But something along these lines. Sure. Alright, so I get a call and he says that he is trying to get a new job. And he has conviction, the way Georgia works is your conviction, depending on when it was then you have varying degrees of your restrictions, you know, residency work restrictions, and what would be included. His actually happened at a time when there weren’t any. So he goes and says, Hey, I’m getting a job at this particular place. And they said, Well, you can’t work there, because it’s 1000 feet from, you know, Park School, daycare, whatever it was. And he says, that’s not part of the statute. And he goes, doesn’t matter. I’m telling you, you can’t work there. So he so he has to take them to court, which I think is, you know, forgive me bullshit, because he’s not obligated to follow those rules. But because they said you can’t work there. And, you know, I know you said he should have just said a few take the job and then deal with it afterwards. But he went out and spent 20 got an attorney and the judges like, you guys have misread the law and So now he’s going to go get this job. My point behind all of this is to go along with what you’ve just described is, we have to go step up and and, and throw tomatoes at them, and say, you guys have to stop doing this because otherwise, so many of us that already beat down, are going to let them do what they want to do.
That is That is correct. Now, I don’t know that I’ve done intend to direct a band that he could have done that that was an option. No, no, I don’t know that way. Yeah, that is an option he out on the table to consider if you’ve done your research, and particularly if you’ve, if you’ve had a competent attorney, validate your research. And you know, in Georgia, you’re correct, that, that the occurrence of your crime, not what you got sent us, but when your crime occurred, the the actual event that triggers are due to register. There’s there, there are progressive restrictions that are added based on what year so if you were convicted prior to 2003, I may feel your crime occurred prior to 2003. I don’t think I have any. And then as you go through those years succeeding, you have more more restrictions where you might not Be able to close to a school that it might expand to include additional things, school daycare and YMCA in places where children congregate. And it’s a more expensive list, the more recent your your event incident occurred. But he could have said, I know I’m right. And what I’m going to do is tell you people, that if you cause me any problems, I’m putting you on notice and you should have done in writing. I’m putting you on notice that these provisions these restrictions do not apply to me. I’ve accepted the job and I will be getting it getting work tomorrow morning. And if you do anything to hinder my ability to work in Cobb County is on notice or whatever county that was, is on notice that this, that this that there may be ramifications of a financial nature. And again, I don’t know if Georgia requires you to prove your ex with the actual damages. But say for example, he he was arrested and he lost the job because they paraded in there to take him away to teach him a lesson for being defiant and it put in shackles and paraded in front of cameras, and he lost the job. And it was a good job he might have been able to set himself up for for for some significant civil recovery.
Totally. Totally. So he
could and he could have considered that as an option as well but there’s nothing wrong with what he did. I agree
Yeah. And the path of least resistance might have been the path that he took just to try and rock the boat as little as possible to move forward to get the new job get the pay raise whatever is all going on with that. And I might have details of the story wrong. I was expecting from you
how many jobs how many jobs will wait for you to litigate? Correct Okay, can you imagine I don’t think these restrictions apply to me I’m quite certain they don’t. But I’ll get back to you after I go to court now it’s gonna take me probably three four months correct. But But will you hold a job for me cuz I know I’m the right candidate, how well would that work out and most of the way to get the job where it would work out? The way to be say? It’s like the church When people say they can’t go to church, I said, well, you wouldn’t never stop be if I want to go to church or go to church, I call them upset then hurt at First Baptist Church about middle road. And I dare you to come arrest me, which is exactly what they would do. They would come and arrest you, if you dare to do that. And then you would set up a constitutional challenge based on the facts, they would oblige you come arrest you, it would be very unlikely that they wouldn’t come arrest you. But we would find that answer to whether the government can intrude in a religious establishment and tell them that they can’t have someone in their pews that they’re okay with that I’ve made sure that the church was okay with me being in that Pew before I before sat there, because I wouldn’t want the church to be on the opposite side of the argument was from me, but if I could get the church on my side, I would do exactly that. Say it’s none of your business who’s a discuss sanctuary and affect the constitution prevents you from having any say so about what goes on in the sanctuary. But But I should say it really you can’t you can’t. You can’t break the law in the sanctuary but in terms of who is in the sanctuary, that’s the church’s business.
To say the layer that you must have some really big bonus. And I and I’ve been sitting here for like three or four minutes trying to think of the most politically correct way I can say this without sounding sexist or crude or anything like that. But I can’t think of any other way to word this.
You can’t say that you
are brave, you are brave, brave individual.
You need to strike that from the record.
family oriented program,
it is and somebody might translate that know what it means.
Yes, I’m sure the transcription and the transcription as well. Anything else about the Cobb County thing that you want to go over?
I’m hoping that the that they will actually considered the letter. based on our experience with the other counties, they’re not likely to do anything other than continue what they’re doing, which means that we’ll probably have to file another lawsuit.
Let me just just one other point. So there’s an organization that I tend to leave to follow and I Oh, and I hear about that organization having their staff attorneys and they file challenges against constitutional things. All the time and very often just by having a sternly worded letter from an attorney saying, These are the reasons why you are violating these statutes, laws, constitutional principles, etc. And almost always, the institution backs down.
Well, I don’t have enough experience to know if it’s almost always but instances I do. I know in some instances, I don’t I know that the city of bolian has told the freedom from religious Foundation. The city of Berlin is located in New Mexico, they told him they can pound sand about their nativity scene that they put. And I tell him that I got something to file the pilot and they can’t find a single person in Berlin to give them the standing so let’s see them from From Religion Foundation has not been persuasive at all, but a sternly worded letter that is backed up by previous action, and the previous action has been successful. It very much can be effective absolutely can be effective, but that’s where our hope is. And we’re hoping that we will, we will convey to them that we are the culprits on death on the Spalding and county and Bucks County case you might want to take us seriously because we told them in advance that we’re we’re coming for them and and now we’re we’re focused on you. Yeah.
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com You can call or text a ransom message to 7472 to 744771. To support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you we can’t succeed you make it possible.
Well, then the, you know, I saw I have the main segment here and we’re going to talk about the butts county appeal. And then I had the double main double main segment. So this is the single main segment about butts county appeal. This rolls back to where in Georgia, I guess it was last Halloween that we learned of them posting science. And so then over the previous year, through 2019, a lawsuit was developed an attorney was was brought on board. What’s the word I’m looking for the individuals in Bucks County with standing, they were brought in and it went to federal court. I guess it would have been like the second or third week of October, just like a week before Halloween even just days before Halloween. And the judge ruled in our favor saying that they couldn’t post the signs. The signs didn’t say sex offender. But we had a Facebook post from the from the sheriff, where he was like, Hey, I’m letting new people know that the sex offenders, these are going to have the signs in their yard. And so we want and so now they filed would you say 100? Something page appeal?
Oh, sorry. 71. Is this like double spaced was seven inch margins or something or is this like dense? copy?
It’s double spaced with an inch margin. So it’s it’s it’s it’s not as bad as it seems. But it’s a lot. It’s a lot of briefing. The the number of words is always in the end the certification at the end, how many words that the brief, it’s a lengthy brief.
So they are doubling down that a federal judge said that they couldn’t put the signs out, and they’re doubling down and didn’t long say he would carry it all the way to the Supreme Court if he had to.
That’s what Sheriff long butts county said. He said, I’ll take us to the Supreme Court if I have to.
Did he say it just like that,
pretty much like that. He said call it
call it um I kind of struggle with the idea. Yes. So it seemed that the judge because I was sitting there in court, it seemed like the judge was hyper rational to me. And he seemed to be asking to me some really excellent questions to both sides about, you know, to sharpen the various points, that they didn’t have the justification, the jurisdiction to post the signs that their intent was to humiliate to call out not just for the interest of public safety because they could have accomplished the thing in different ways other than posting the signs in the people’s yards. And they they went back to the positioning of the signs and what authority they have to to post the signs there, but they’re doubling down on on those points to then have their appeal.
That is correct. And just to bring the new listeners up to speed and some of the older ones who may still be confused. The hallway one was a was an injunction. The case has still not been tried. on merit injunction. Just means there’s like stop, don’t do that. We’re not saying you’re right or wrong, but don’t do that for now. Well, what in Georgia is a slight bit stronger than that the standard is that you have to prove to get an injunction that you’re going to likely prevail on the merits, and that irreparable horrible and Sue without the injunction. And there’s two other components that are less significant, but the two primary components are likelihood of success on the merit merits and the irreparable harm. And so you’re, you’re you’re you’re having relief given to you that you haven’t won yet. So you’re getting a preliminary order that says before this case goes to trial. I’m going to give you this really. So the relief that was given was the sheriff was told he cannot put the signs up for the plaintiffs and the lawsuit, and he interpreted it. As far as we can tell. They didn’t put them up anywhere. But It was really specific to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. And that’s what’s under appeal. And so the case is still hasn’t gone to trial, the parties had actually agreed that they would stay anybody, any any further proceedings toward trial until this granting of the injunction was appealed. And normally you have, you have the mootness doctrine that we kick you. But the mootness this is an exception to the boot mootness doctrine. And these lawyers that are representing the county of butts, if you look at the the page numbers are going to be walking depending on how you look at page numbers, because at the top of the pleading, the court gives everything a page number based on just simply when the computer stands it if it’s the first page, it’s page one, but then, since there’s table of authorities under table of contents, all the stuff does count. But if you start at page one of the more they’re numbered numerically, which is actually page 13 About the court, by the by the, by the way, the court number, they explain about the exception to to to to a Buddhist. And it says the enjoyed caught the enjoy and conduct relates to Halloween holiday and the 2019 celebration of the holiday has passed. Nevertheless, this case falls within a special category of disputes that are capable of repetition Polly baited review. And that’s one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine. The first condition is met and this goes on to the next page because Halloween 2019 occurred before a pillar of you could be had. And we agree with that and Halloween 2020 is approximately 10 months away. These time frames are too short for full litigation to produce the final judgment by the trial court and decision. So therefore, as a second condition is plainly met because Halloween is certain to recur every year so unless we declare Halloween not to be recognized no longer Halloween will occur again So this is one of those disputes that falls with AMD exceptions. It’s not vote because it’s going to repeat, repeat the same disputes going to be alive and well. So we get to the point of so they they’re saying, We want you to decide to send an appellate level and lift the injunction so we can do our thing. And death. They get it. They go pages and pages and pages of just spacious and total crappy arguments. I mean, I give them credit. They have put a lot of work into putting together arguments that really are
I mean, you’re you’re stretching. But if you look at the statement of issue is they’ve they’ve thrown everything at the statement of issues that there’s nine there’s nine they have nine contentions of where the trial judge got wrong. That’s bad when you have that many issues. It’s kind of like the way we talked about the case in Texas where we’re SD Todd tower threw everything up its kitchen sink, hoping something will stick okay. That’s kind of what they’ve done on their appeal here. They’ve challenged the court on everything. So they’ve made they’ve made nine contentions. And I’m not gonna try to focus on all nine, I’m gonna try to focus on just a couple of three of them in our analysis here, because they’re really big on, on what compels speeches. And they’re arguing that this that that that compelled speech is not that the defender is not being required to speak that this is this is government speaks. So therefore it’s not compel speech. And then they’re claiming this is the double specious argument. They’re saying that they as the defendants, that their first amendment rights is big, big trampled on, and which is totally, totally specious and bogus. For the the sheriff does have some first amendment rights but not in this context of the way he’s tried to frame it. So they sort of focus on that and then the standard Review words, which they’re saying it should be. It should be just a low level of rational basis where the where the district judge balanced strict scrutiny, it was the proper level. I happen to blaze a strict scrutiny, it may not be the proper level. I think intermediate scrutiny may be the proper level, but we won’t get a lot into that either because most people don’t have legal training are going to be their heads gonna be spinning. But but but the sheriff is arguing that the sides are being placed on public property and the sheriff was claiming that the signs are for 50 or 60 feet depending on which parcel he they analyzed each each plaintiff and deed and they say that either 50 or 60 feet belongs to the government, as the government can put whatever they want to on that 50 or 60 feet.
Wouldn’t the government owe me money for maintaining that particular part of the land if they owned it?
Well, that’s that’s what’s that’s what’s so troubling for me to the right of way and I profess no expertise in property law. Right away. And my knowledge is very basic. But my understanding of right away was that it was still the property owners property. But certain usages were authorized by, by the right of way, whatever that period, whatever that’s that that number of feet would be that, that that’s allowed for specific use, they may need to run a line to service somebody, and they have right away to run that line. Whether it be a telephone line or whether it be a water line or whatever, they have the right to run a utility line through through that area. They would have the right theoretically supposed to put speed control and traffic control devices on the right of way. But but the the the sheriff has taken the position that not only does he have the right to put utility, use it for utility access, that he can put His signs to carry his message and that that you as the owner of that property have been I’ll say so about what goes on the property. And it looks like from the admissions and stipulations that they they use the mailbox or people have mailboxes the stopping point. And of course in older neighborhoods, some people have mailboxes right by their front door, you know, they put they put, they put back in the old days, they put them on people’s homes. So if you look at a neighborhood that was built, probably before the 1970s, you’ll see those black mailboxes hanging outside their, their front door. You saw, I don’t know what he would do if you had your mailbox by the door.
Right. Um, and so what so when what is sort of like the timeline for it, so this has just been filed, how long does this then take to go through and you know, what’s the next step?
Well, the next step would be that the the, the party that took the Pl files the opening brief, so the winning Party, which would be all day Georgia, this is only a show under appeals injunction The case has not been tried yet. So the prevailing party will follow follow a response or request response brief I’ll get it right in a second here. they’ll follow response and they’re given X number of days. And since I’m not regular in federal court, I believe it’s 30 days, but that would be given a period between 2030 days to follow responsive brief. And then the the the party that followed the opening brief, Kim, Kim, Kim follow reply response to that brief. So then at the end of that, of that process, then the court will decide what it needs to do next. Now, they’ve asked for all argument. And I suspect, I expect our sides going to want all argument as well. But But they’ve in all likelihood with something this complicated form argument will be granted the chordal de minute this, that it’s helpful. So in terms of the timeline, I’m predicting, at least a year, maybe maybe a couple of years before this thing plays itself out. In court. I’m always hoping it’s faster, but but there’s a lot of briefing that has to be done before But like I say, we’ve got the brave to file that they have a reply to file the court. has to decide if it needs to develop anything else if the brief are not sufficient, they might order some special briefing in addition of what’s already been done. And then the oral argument scheduled, they don’t just sit those night, they don’t just schedule those and set them up for next week. I there’s a time lag for that. So they’re going to have to schedule oral arguments, get people to Atlanta to hold the arguments. And then after that, they may order depending on what happens on oral argument, they’ll order additional briefing. If something complicated comes out an oral argument that is confusing, they may and then the case will await a decision and there’s no timeline on when they can issue a decision.
They can take as long as it was right where I was going that so the injunction stays in place until this next leg of the court process goes through
the junction will remain until it’s dissolved. And and until until until until the court that issued an injunction dissolves it or to the appellate court says you got it wrong the junctions in place.
So if this took two years, as you just described, Then 2020 Halloween may already just be safe that we don’t have to worry about it at least in that county. Yeah.
Not necessarily the injunction only applied to the night. So if, if I’m sure if long, and I’m trying to make parts of my constituents, I’m all say, Well, I’ll tell you what I’m old do. I got a bunch of I got a bunch of liberals up there trying to keep me from doing my job keeping y’all safe down here. But I wish I could protect all of you. But the ones that sued me, I can’t do nothing about them. But I will put the signs up on everybody else’s house. And I would keep doing what I was doing because there was nothing in that order that precluded him from doing that. Now, the judge expressed and the District Judge expressed consternation, that even though it was limited, that the same that the same legal analysis would apply to everybody. But what what if I were the sheriff now sheriff, I know you, you’re listening to our podcasts, strategy, the strategy for you to do because You’re going to end up losing this at the end. But to maximize your political it, again was just what you’re after. What you would do is wait until the last possible moment, and then announce you’re going to do this in 2020. And don’t give us chance to give to gear up and come to get an injunction against a blanket injunction like stopping you for going to everybody. But now since I’ve already thought about that, I’m going to be encouraging our legal team to see if we can go ahead and seek seek an injunction to stop you from doing it to anybody but technically right now, he’s only restrained from doing it for the name planets. So he’s
just got to ask you, whose team are you on man?
Well, I’m on the team of of the offenders, but if I can think of it always, I have never seen myself to be more brilliant than the people that they are and paid big bucks. If I can think of this sitting here. I’m quite certain that they can think of this.
I was actually just like trying to channel that quote that you’ve given me about the I’m just trying to win the game. Why did you make that play coach? Well, that’s the fair, simple, we’re trying to
Unknown Speaker 1:06:02
win the game. We’re gonna have to put that one on two.
I know, I know. So I was like, why would you think of these things, Larry?
Because I’m trying to win the game. Gotcha. And and and if I can imagine it, Sheriff long would do it. I’m very comfortable and confident saying that I believe that Sheriff law in his mind is at least as creative as mine. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be in this position. What these high dollar lawyers are spending a lot of Bucks County money to fight what I view is going to be a frivolous appeal is frivolous, and for so many reasons. Hey, Steven, put forth a theory that, that that that is totally bogus about free speech. As a defendant, he says that he has the right to free speech and he does. He absolutely has the right to speak freely, but he doesn’t have the right to come under another person’s platform and feel afraid to play point. show up at a church and tell them that you have account Message you’d like to deliver. And you demand equal time from the pulpit to deliver that message and see what they tell you show up at rush limbaugh’s studios in sunny South Florida. And tell him that you have a counter message to what he’s doing, and that you would like to have equal time to deliver that message and see what they tell you. You do not have the right to a platform that you do not own what you have a right to the First Amendment as for the government not to interfere by either restraining your speech or compelling you to speak. And the sheriff is not being restrained from speaking. He can speak all he wants to about vile sex offenders. So that’s what he wants to say. He can say that he’s only being limited and using private property, and he’s arguing that it’s government property, but he’s only being limited in conveying a message on property that he doesn’t own does. It’s not pulpit, but he has the right to say anything he wants to say about sex offenders and that’s for the voters.
The judge told, like, couldn’t you put you know, if you had the staff Couldn’t you put an officer in front of everybody’s house to achieve the same thing? But that’s Yeah, that could
that’s addressed in the break. He said he’s got 57 hours of Bucks County that would cost him ,000. And then it would divert all of his manpower from from legitimate law enforcement functions. That’s what he said in the brief. But this
is literally a funny thing to say also, because there’s literally there’s literally no not no threat. There hasn’t been any reported problem on Halloween by any of our people to begin with that he has invented a threat.
Well, he addressed that brief he says that’s because his policies are working.
So there were so his policies are working nationwide then
well, I guess they would they would not worry about that but he says his policies are working. But But back to this to this speech thing. Cuz he’s, he’s hungry. Lot of his argument on his his speech rights he doesn’t have. He went out to the Ninth Circuit, which is the liberal do gooders based in California. And he cited a case out of the Ninth Circuit, the liberal runaways, ninth circuit that has no, no relevance in this dispute. And this is why this is complicated work, because if you look at it, this brief of the table of authorities, there’s page after page after page of table of authorities where they use federal US Supreme Court, federal district court, federal appellate cases, States Supreme Court cases, they’ve got all these cases and they all need to be read. I have only read one of them. I read the case he cited from the Ninth Circuit of Mulligan vs. vs. who’d had was the other It was a it’s in the show notes, but but he he sided he sided nickels. Yeah, but he he he cited a case where there was it doesn’t support him. position at all. When you’re a government employee, where the courts have protected speakers as when the government retaliates if you say, our meat Inspection Services not good, they sped the lines up too much. And it’s compromising food safety inspections, and then the person that gets fired, they have the right to speak that and they’ve been upheld on that. They have the right to that they have the right to speak. And you don’t you don’t lose. You don’t lose your rights to speak just because you’ve worked for the government. The government can’t suppress all your private speech. But But Sheriff long, you are the government of this case. Yeah, you are the government. You’re the one who’s trying to force the offender to carry your message. Although he makes great he takes great pains with pages and pages of arguments that this isn’t. This isn’t a message. This is a neutral message. It’s not about it’s not about a sex race. We don’t say their sexual matters and and, and aside, we just say no trick or treating here public service announcements from butts county sheriff. And he says therefore, there’s no endorsement by the by the the sex offender. He’s saying that can smell compel speech is only problematic if if a reasonable person believes that the person is endorsing the message. And he says it’s clear that the sector doesn’t endorse the message. So therefore, it’s it doesn’t qualify as compel speech. And that’s a bogus argument. If you put if you put a sign up if they put a sign up, which the sheriff has the right to endorse candidates, what if you put a sign up in front of your house that said he endorsed a candidate say what was that guy’s name that ran for governor of Louisiana? That was the clan David Duke. If they were david david duke and I’m trying to think of a Georgia equivalent that we could localize it someone JB stoner would be the Georgia well let’s go to JB google google JB stoner while I’m while I’m while I’m while I’m talking about this but but if You put a stoner we’re still alive and he’s thought but if you put a sheriff long said, Well, I got the right to boss three spades too. So I will put a sign up and dorsen jP stoner is on the gun but right away so therefore that would be everybody would logically conclude that you were for JP stoner so with with Sheriff long be entitled to put a sign up endorsing JB starter because he has free speech right? Of course not.
I understand and that is why you are here.
Oh, really? Well, there’s 71 pages here. There are a lot of highlights throughout the document for for folks to enjoy, who love to read. Hank, I know you’ll love to go through it. And there are others out there similar to Hank. We would have to spend far more time than we have on this but but the the the argument sit to the sheriff was put forward I think will largely File, I’m hopefully they largely will fail. I believe they’ll fail. But we still have to go through all this. We have to go through all this. And it’s gonna require a lot of work on the legal team. If they ask me for help, I will be glad to provide what help I can. But they’ve got a mammoth brief to respond to. And whether it’s 20 or 30 days. And, Dave, it’s a short duration of time because they also have another practice of law. They’re both they both have other clients. This is not their only case.
So see, and it’s the same attorney that was representing our side to follow through to the next step.
That is correct. That would be the same team but would be that would be honest appeal.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:38
Very good. Anything else? Are we moving on? Or we’re a move at all? We’re,
we’re, we’re having fun tonight.
Should we be like the Jeffersons and we’re moving on up? I think so.
Bob, finally, we are going to this is the double main segment. So that’s like the strawberry ice cream or something like that double main segment, federal judge in Illinois parole case issues, permanent injunction. And I know nothing about this case. So it’s all human. Well, we’ve talked about this case, this is the case of Murphy versus roll. And Adele, Nicholas and Mark Weinberg out of Illinois that won this case that the district court level in March 31 2019, there was a short term injunction order, which will be attached to the show notes with some highlights that what’s going on in Illinois and into Mexico, and possibly other states that we’re not aware of, but but clearly those two states as you serve your prison sentence, and those of you have federal convictions can relate to this. In the federal system, you have a finite sentence imposed on you, and you serve it less the 15% or the 54 days or the 48 days. And I think there was some dispute about what it was 52 days, 54 days or 48 days, but you serve that time, and then you go into a period of time. supervised release that can be a relatively short lifetime supervised release. But that supervised release period is outside the walls. So when you serve your time in the federal system, you will be released. When you when that when that when that 85% has been served, then that floodgate will open and you will go out and they usually go out a little bit earlier, because they start they start your transition to a halfway house release process before but on that 85% when you when you when you’ve served your time you You’re late. Well in Illinois, they have a very similar system they call the MSR mandatory supervised release. And when you serve your time, less your goodtime credits, and you’ve maxed out your sentence and then you you go into this period of post prison supervision and you’re under the prisoner Review Board. And to serve the MSR while the prisoner Review Board imposes conditions on you that you can’t meet because you can’t live within within distances. That makes so many things off limit. So as a consequence, the person sits in prison. And those who have more financial resources have been able to find have more options available to them. So this has turned out to be something that contains people that have have no resources at a higher rate, but it contains a whole lot of people. And so the judge found that unconstitutional, that they can’t do that. And that’s what inspired us to do similar litigation in Mexico. We’re going to litigate against our parole board, or they call it a prisoner Review Board. And we call it a period of parole where they call it a period of mandatory supervised release we have we have it artificially, called I call it parole, but it’s not parole in the literal sense because at Arkansas after you serve one sixth or one fifth or some arbitrary amount of your time, you’re eligible to be released on parole if you can meet the conditions of good behavior and acceptable homeland and people in Arkansas right to us damn well, he people don’t understand and it makes it How we’re sitting in prison to an architect because they won’t release as well. But see, the difference is you haven’t sorted all your time. Theoretically, when you serve all your time and Arkansas, you will be released in Mexico now, although you serve all your time, and you will not be released. Well, this judge has said, says March since his opinion finding that the that the the people’s constitutional rights were being violated their eighth and 14th amendments were being violated, that the state of Illinois has not been able to come up with a solution. So therefore, his different timelines on on what to do and what’s going to happen. So basically, he’s going to open the floodgates, which is what I said is all a judge could do the judge, the judge can’t force the state to appropriate money to create alternative housing. Judge can’t do that. All the judge can do is say, Well, I tell you, what I am going to do is that if you don’t do that, which I can’t compel you to do that, what you will do is you will release these people custody on this date, so that so the judges telegraphed to them that they have until January 2 2021, which is roughly a year to do what they need to do to get these people out of prison. And at that point, the court will consider releasing them, and I believe the court will release them. And the exception that they’ve telegraphed that they’re going to make is for the people who prefer not to because you’re are under mandatory supervised release conditions. And if you prefer to stay in prison, if you if you run those rare persons who says, Well, I’m not going to comply with all your crap, I’m not going to do polygraph, I’m not going to do this. I’m not gonna do that. And you can take your MSR and shove it, then you can they do have an alternate program for you. And the judges recognize that that if you fit in the category of you prefer to stay and present rather than comply with a mess, or you could do that, but otherwise, the floodgates are gonna open in about a year.
And how many people would be affected by that?
Well, according to this document, there’s there’s about 290 I believe, it said it’s But despite two parts good faith effort, more than 290 class members remain in prison beyond their completion of their present terms due to inability to satisfy the host site requirement. The class has continued to grow larger as additional individuals complete their prison sentences have become eligible for mandatory supervised release and are unable to secure and approved host site. So it’s gonna get worse. Right. And I think we probably have well over 100 here, that is certainly approaching 100. I’d be very surprised. We don’t have 100 they’re in prison simply because they want to prove their, their where they want to live. But they’ve done their time.
Yeah, so they’re being held past their their time of their original sentence. That is correct. And as far as I know, how like to, can we scale the degree of constitutional violation like this, this seems like this would be false imprisonment, this would be a pretty high thing of violating the Constitution.
I would I would take so my opinion and in fact, I would, I would be delighted to see that legal team in Illinois seek economic damages ABAP these people because they’ve been harmed, their productive potential has been stifled. Some of these people have been sitting in prison for years, not days or weeks. But years. As I read that complaint and the judge, the judges ordered it back last year, March, that those people have been sitting in prison for years.
That would really suck that, you know, like, Hey, I’m getting out of prison tomorrow. Oh, no, not, not today. Not tomorrow, not next week. I’m just you’re just in permanent Limbo, you’re like in Groundhog Day, for some sort of indefinite period of time. So and this
is this is tragic, because happening here and we’re hoping to ride the coattails that that case is not binding, but analysis that that was done by the court there in Illinois, the Northern District is so good, that we feel like that that that we will be able to benefit from the work that courts done and laying the foundation For our last
I’m fill me in on something and hopefully I can reclaim this thought, Oh, we we cover I want to it was like the first episode of The New Year of building a body of case law to support these things. I assume this goes into the mix of building a body of case law to support all of these, like, you know, obviously these people, these attorneys aren’t representing people in Oregon or Washington or other places where people are are being held past their time. But someone could use their arguments and expand on them and tailor them to their specifics and to help pave the way that their their their, their road has been plowed, so to speak.
That is correct, as long as you understand the difference between persuasive and binding authority. This District Court in Northern Illinois, it is not binding anywhere outside of Northern Illinois. And if it goes up on appeal, which it has, but if it went up on appeal, then it would only be the appellate would only be bonding and that jurisdiction, but we could cite to a district court level decision as personally If authority and us what sold the body of case law every time there’s a well written opinion, that is cited as persuasive authority, but but you disclose to the court you say this case is from the Northern District of Illinois. And it parallels our circumstances here in New Mexico that we don’t we don’t call it MSR we call it parole. You’ve actually served all your time before and then we do same parallel, there’s only one halfway house except sex offenders. They have a three year waiting list and it costs thousands of dollars to get in, which means that people without resources are not even able to get on the waiting list. And we we we draw the analogy to essentially what they did in Illinois at that was a debtors prison for the people who don’t have money because the people who have money can put forth to the to the prison Review Board other options that a person without without any funding can put forward. So we would we would side to that and say, of course, you’re not bound by this, but it certainly is persuasive. And that that’s what I mean by the body of case law.
Yeah. Well, that that covers it. I guess I don’t I can’t think of any other questions I’m you know, these people are being held in prison past their time just because there isn’t some place that they can be housed. It’s not much more complicated than that.
Well in theoretically, this is where as conservatives and liberals would come together, it doesn’t seem to happen. But the conservatives who are the guardians hold, are they the guardians of the financial purse? They
say that with such contempt, Larry?
Well, because it’s such hotpot hot policy, that they are the guardians, they’re actually they’re actually the ones who go on spending sprees every chance they can, but they claim to be such guardians of the purse. They would not want this money to be spent, because they would recognize being fiscal stewards and such wise managers, that keeping people incarcerated is more costly than community options. Well, the liberal do gooders should also say, gee, we’re all about rehabilitation, and reintegration and family rehabilitation only feel good things. So you should be able to To get some sort of consensus but that all falls apart when it comes to sex offenders for some reason they all agree that we won’t touch that class of people and and and all that stuff just doesn’t doesn’t come. In fact they’re carved out for exceptions for everything that that’s supposed to be moving. criminal justice reform forward. There’s always a carve out which causes great consternation for our affiliate up in in Connecticut.
I do understand.
Yeah, she’s, she’s on the warpath, she’s on the warpath about the about carve outs.
And yes, be talking about Cindy
Shamim. I don’t know if we need to, but yes, our Connecticut Connecticut affiliate is on the warpath about cartels and I agree with her. I agree with Cindy.
She cracks me up.
But see that you’re, you’re in a political dilemma. You’ve got legislation that that can’t make it to the finish line without the carve outs and so you end up helping no one if you if you stand on your principle belief that that Well, okay, I could get relief for some people or don’t know people Which
is better? I do understand that. I personally think that we should try it. Like, of course, we’re trying to save everybody. But if we could save one, wouldn’t that be better than saving? None?
Well, I thought you should use the Titanic. You know, I tell people Well, according you’re not there. For some reason there weren’t enough lifeboats, I think, because they believe that the vessel was not sinkable. But they weren’t enough life of boats. And then they did deploy them correctly at the time. But it would make no sense to say, well, we got enough boats to save about half of us I guess we’ll all go down together. Now the difficulty was figuring out which half but it makes no sense for everyone to die because you can’t save everyone. To me that was that would make no sense for everybody. Well, the same thing. If prisons are as bad as we say they are, and I do believe they are absolutely as bad as we say they are. And I do believe that people should be out of prisons and if I can’t get everyone out of prison, I believe should be out what I want to be able to get as many Nowadays I can
completely agree. completely, completely agree. So
well put that in your pipe for this week.
And then I will smoke it. Larry, we record this show live usually Saturday nights around 7pm. Eastern. You can join the discord server and listen live. But if you can’t listen live, you can always do it on demand, which is the whole point anyway, to listen on demand. We want to make this available to you at your convenience. If you do me a favor and subscribe. This is doing yourself a favor to subscribe in your favorite podcast app, Google, Apple, Stitcher, slacker pocket casts overcast whatever. Even we have a YouTube channel. By subscribing you do two things. One, you make sure that you’ll get the episode The minute we post it, it’ll come right down to you on your device. So you can have it plenty of time for your Tuesday drive to work. But you can also you’ll send a signal to those apps that certain people like this program, and then that’ll help other people find it. And we need some questions, Larry, how could they dial in and ask you a question but
747-227-4477 and I think I know what’s happened. I think that since we’ve done 111 previous episodes, we’ve answered every question that people have had been thinking about.
That is quite quite possible. It is also possible that we answer anything in anticipation of any question they could have that they can’t even ask a question that Larry has already answered this question for me, so there’s nothing for them to even say.
But as we pick up new listeners, as we do, there will be new questions from people. If you started Episode 111 you haven’t heard some people go back and listen to previous episodes, but some people just start from today. That is very true.
And then ultimately, since it’s tax season coming up, what is the best way to support the program?
That would be to become a subscriber and wait, we have to meet that hundred goal by 2020 by Christmas 2020. Because hundred is such a magic number of supporters and even if it’s the dollar level, it’ll explain The rubric but the more people support it, the more popular we are in the more search people. The search engines pick us up and all these good things happen if we have more supporters So, so absolutely Patreon go to patreon.com slash registry matters. And, and and it’s tax season. And did we talk about what they could do? Since they could have a refund coming? Yeah, they could they could drag
a sign that they could send their return over to us that would be amazing kinds of support.
Do we have a special account number that they can deposit that check into? No, I don’t think I suppose
if someone wanted reach out and give them my personal paypal account, but you know, short of that, just just send send a check. You can send a check.
And on a serious note, yes, there. There’s there’s no expectation that you do that. But any level of support would be appreciated. And we do appreciate the supporters we have. You’re also awesome.
And follow us on Twitter, follow us on YouTube and That’s all I got Larry, and anything else you got?
Well, if you want to send Andy a naughty message, send it to register matters. email@example.com Yes, registry matters firstname.lastname@example.org
that is all I got. And I hope you have a great night, Larry and I’ll talk to you soon. Good night. Bye.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai