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, transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 117 of registry matters. It’s the weirdest thing in the world. This is actually a Saturday night where
it is and I’m glad to be here, but next week might be a different story.
Why? I don’t know about next weekend.
Unknown Speaker 0:30
It’s the state pre primary convention and I’m trying to think of a reason not to go while Dhamma delegates. Oh,
okay. You’re not going to have some sort of crazy caucus where everyone has to run to the other side of the room because that’s their guy and then when they’re guys not the guy then they have to go to the other part of the
room. We do vote on top candidates, but it’s not quite that crazy.
The Iowa caucus thing still kind of cracks me up. But today is the the South Carolina premiere, isn’t it? Do you have any ideas? Have you seen any stats of who’s winning what where?
What else? This one should be Biden soluz with with Jim Claiborne’s endorsement in the black population and that loyalty that he has from black community, the ship he has to lose.
I heard an interview with kleiber. He’s an interesting fellow.
Yes, he is. He is. And this this as far as I know, I don’t I don’t recall that Biden has ever won a primary before his in his various quest for President.
You are 100%. Right. I heard that that he has never won a primary.
I was thinking that I don’t recollect him ever been declared the winner of a primary?
Yep. Yep. Yep. All right, Larry, I have a surprise for you. And I came across this little it’s a one minute long video, and I hope that you’re you’ve maintained integrity and you have not watched this yet.
But how would I watch it? What if I haven’t, if I don’t know where it is?
Well, I put the link in there about a half hour ago. So you can click on and what I would like you to do, is I would like you to describe what you’re watching as it happens. So of course go To the show notes and find the link and you can you can see what’s going on and I would like you to describe what you’re watching it’s nothing bad nothing like that but it’s about wealth. wealth inequality.
Larry Okay, so that would be the Reddit link here correct Gregory where your cursor now was a people hear what I’m watching or what just me know and I’ve provided them with the link so I just want you to describe it so if you want to watch it at home while this one minute video goes on, you get you know, have fun with that. But no, they won’t here.
So I should I should have watched the entire minute and then described or watch
No, no as you’re watching it, and it’s going to go kind of quick, but I think you’ll be able to pull it off.
So it’s great. It doesn’t doesn’t play so I don’t have to watch it.
Unknown Speaker 2:42
It doesn’t play at all. I see how rice part two, and I see
Unknown Speaker 2:48
boys. Click on what?
Unknown Speaker 2:50
Click on the video in the Senate. There’s no color.
Unknown Speaker 2:52
There’s no video to click on.
Unknown Speaker 2:54
There is not that may close this at the top
here. I know I’m using this outdated browser.
Unknown Speaker 3:00
Yes, that may be the problem. One of these days Larry will get you fixed.
Unknown Speaker 3:06
Yeah, I can’t play it. So you’re gonna have to play it. But there’s no sound.
It’s totally like a video representation of the whole thing. Right? Well then I guess I will describe it. Alright, so I want you to follow along me, Larry. The scene starts were on a pee on a table. There is a piece of rice. And there’s a marker over in the end the rice that says that one piece of rice equals ,000. Sitting next to it are 10 grains of rice. And it represents a million dollars. I’m pretty sure you’re with me so far, because you’re, you’re smarter than the average bear. Okay, so far, so good. Okay, good. So then we move over to, I don’t know, it looks like if you kept your two hands together, you would have billion of rice. Then Okay, as the video goes on, we’re only at 10 seconds. The guy gets in his car and he goes to the local tarjay and He starts buying up some things to measure how much a million dollars of rice would cost. I’m sorry, a billion dollars of rice, or way I’m sorry, two. So it’s 215 grams is how much a billion dollars of rice would weigh. Then you see I’m going over to the dry goods section, and he buys a 50 pound or 35 pound bag of rice. And then there’s a tarp on the ground in his house, and he dumps out the rice and goes to measuring how much rice would be required to meet the net worth of Jeff Bezos. And I mean, I don’t even know how to describe it, but it is like you could probably like curl up in a fetal position and lay on I mean, it’s the size of someone like curled up in a ball. It’s gigantic to equal 120 billion dollars of worth in the in the arena of measuring comparative rice. The reason why I wanted to bring this up and the reason why I wanted you to describe this was because We have this whole disparity with some taxes and wealth inequality and all this stuff. And I wanted you to pontificate on the amount of money that that would be compared to the peons that us normal folks have. That’s all I was trying to do get out of this, from this little video.
What I did, I did switch browsers and it is playing. So I’m seeing what you’re what you’ve described, that
will do me a favor, Larry, can you start over from scratch? Even though I know that I’ve already described it, but I would I want it from your voice.
So well, I saw the same thing. You described these, these mountains surprise, and I don’t I don’t know that my comments are what would be would be what people would want to hear. I don’t I don’t have any problem with people accumulating wealth. I have the problem when they pretend like they’ve paid tax on it when they have and then they get angry at the thought that they might get taxed on on it. And and that’s that’s the problem. I have like I was hearing on a financial program. Just this past week about, about about tax tax deferment. Like when you do a 401k, you are raising the age from seven and a half where you have to start taking distributions to 72. Are you aware of that? Or you’re too young still, that doesn’t matter to you?
I mean, it’s still a ways off for me, but I understand that it’s happening.
Well, well, the issue I have with it, is that, that the program, the person doing the program, completely cast the situation erroneously, from how it really is. He said, there’s one thing that irritates me is the IRS telling me that I have to take money out of my retirement that I don’t need. And that’s really not what’s going on. What the IRS is doing is they’re saying, look, you citizen, the taxpayers have carried you for all these years, you’ve been able to shelter this money and it’s been able to grow for 3040 or 50 years. And the capital growth that you have earned on that is taxable. So therefore, The way we begin to tax it is to force withdrawals. Now, since people don’t want the IRS to force them to withdraw their money, then there’d be another way to do it. You could just say, well, you don’t have to withdraw any of it. Well, we just got back into tax it based on the present day value of the capital gains that you have. But they they completely spin a web, this completely different than the reality. And it’s like the Buffett Rule when he talks about that, that, that people who have entirely stock dividends and capital gains distributions, as in capital gains, where they where they sell a stock to type a share for ,000 a tenfold increase, that they that they pay a 15% capital gains rate, that’s the maximum rate. He’s saying that the person who derives their living doing that is paying a lower rate than the secretary who services that person because they’re paying a 7.65% Social Security rate which is exempt from it doesn’t get taxed because it’s not employment income, and then depending on their level, income, they may be at a 2025 28 29% tax bracket, where if you’re getting all your income from financials, you’re only paying a 50% rate. So you could be paying half the rate. I don’t have any problem with people having great wealth. I have a problem, but they’re pretending like that they’re paying taxes on it when they’re not.
I understand. That’s, that is 100% what I was looking for I don’t I don’t personally have any problem with him making all of the money under the sun too. But it’s it’s the other part of that that you were just describing. That is
what frustrate. They create they created they create this myth that it’s like, well, the conservatives are good at describing things with names that are offensive, like the death tax. It’s not a death tax at all. I mean, it’s levered at the time you die. But you’re you’re you’re appreciated value of those assets that have grown grown over your life, at some point get taxed minus the exemption which was gone up very high. Now, it’s not a level that I can even relate to, before there’s even any taxes. In an estate, I made this up to a couple million dollars maybe
I want to say it’s five. That’s the number they
say make it. But they they make it sound as if that the mere fact of your dying this causing you to be taxed because the IRS just can’t help getting your hands on a like the IRS is some monolithic entity that takes the money out to volcom. Somewhere, the IRS uses the money. The IRS uses no money to pay for the programs that we demand from our government, and in which we’re still not taxing ourselves nearly enough to pay for, for the services that we’re demanding from our government
taxes to pay for things like roads and schools and things.
Well, I’m saying that that the spending that we are not willing to cut, as at the last conclusion last fiscal year, just shy of a trillion dollars more than what we’re willing to impose in the way of taxes on ourselves. That’s what I’m saying. I’m not set producing a value system on whether all those things are worthwhile, but we don’t seem to be Cut.
I understand anything else. I want to move on to this next thing. These are custom and registry related.
This was trying to just trying to have me reveal my political leanings so that people can throw darts at
me that and also see if we can drive listenership all the way to zero as quickly as possible.
Unknown Speaker 10:17
But you’re doing a good job.
Oh, you’ve heard of the coronavirus. I assume?
I think I’ve heard of it. Yes.
Okay. Um, I wanted to first of all, I wanted to, like the news media. And I’m not really all into this fake news thing. But the media is pushing out there like, you know, this whole big epidemic going on. And I am not trying to discount that it isn’t an epidemic. But the number of deaths in the world is in the single digit thousands and by all means, that is a lot of people that have died. However, if you compare it to the number of people that died from just our normal flu season in 2018, and 19, which is 34,000 people yeah. 34,020 Death during the 2018 19 influenza season. So I just wanted to make that comparison just to like, just put the brakes on a little bit that we are not all of a sudden going to all die from this thing. But the bigger point is, is our government’s response to that. We’ve talked about delegation. This goes back to Gundy, and I’m just have the firm belief that our CDC and any sort of tangentially related agencies are by far the most equipped organizations to deal with this to set up triage to just, you know, just to set up like a game plan, versus having the 535 knuckleheads in Congress trying to set whatever the agenda would like trying to vote on, hey, we need to research this. I just think that the CDC would be the right organization which goes to delegation, and I was hoping that you would fill in the gaps on what I’ve just described.
I think that you’ve you’ve brought in something that’s so it’s kind of spot on for the for the analogy The Congress could not begin to have 535 members debate what needs to be done taking debate the price tag and decide if it’s a priority for the for the nation that you want to go deeper into debt to pay for it. But in terms of macro managing this potential, it has the potential according to the experts to be a significant to be a significant virus that affects a large number of Americans. Right now, it’s relatively contained here in this country were under 60 cases and something one case, one case that was not directly related to someone who had been exposed.
Unknown Speaker 12:37
That’s the spirit of
which which means it may become but it may be it may transmit itself and be way to call it beauty and health expert but but it is this delegation is that the national direction will be set by the president and and by the Congress in terms of how high we want to make this a priority. But in terms of the actual details of how they’re going to execute us, this will not be anything other than delegated over to the Public Health app apparatus, and they will figure out what to do. And that’s all the way it could work.
And and and to just to piggyback on top of that, that the the executive branch would be like, Hey, we need to do this, or he would have, I’m assuming he would have the ability to write an executive order that says this money is going to be allocated to do this thing, just like he’s doing with the wall. But I assume that that would be a correct so he could declare some kind of national emergency and start directing funding in an emergency fashion to go take care of things.
Well, the again, I’m not an expert enough to know what all he can move around with an executive agencies, but there are some always discretionary money that can be moved around within the various executive departments. And and the President can do that. But not only the President can do that. President has the bully pulpit to ask Congress for more money. And the President also has the entire government apparatus at his disposal and terms of Moving whatever personnel and equipment we need to move, and to prioritize that and breaking into a break any log jams that may be developing because sometimes agencies don’t work very well together that we learned that at 911, when we had, we had all these agencies that were responsible for various components of passenger safety, and that they couldn’t even talk to one another. In some cases,
I’m assuming that this has a similar profile to when a hurricane shows up, or 911, as you just said, I assume, you know, so that would whatever the other apparatus, the mechanisms, the tools that they have to do those things, all those would be able to be engaged anyway. All my whole point was this like, delegation, CDC, smart virus, psychologists, whatever those people are called, that are researching, trying to figure out how to keep us safe. They’re specialists in those fields. And I would think that we would want the specialist and the experts to be the ones that are driving that bus.
Unknown Speaker 14:51
Well, people who think that they don’t want any delegation but not really like the country, they would be living in it if everything had to be decided by Congress. They, they would find it a very inhospitable place to live. If that were
the case. And my closing remarks, wash your hands and cover your costs. And wearing a mask is probably not going to help anything. But that’s why
you can’t find you can’t find any anyway.
That’s true. The company I work for they happen to sell masks like that for like paint booths for automotive stuff. And yeah, they’re gone. cannot buy them. It’s not not a thing. All right, so uh, next up on the list would be I haven’t written down as Cobb County registered shenanigans. And so I will let you take it from here about some letter writing that’s going back and forth between un or not you but Arsalan, the county folks, and who is narshall. Anyway narshall would be the National Association for rational sexual offense laws if I’m not mistaken. And and registered matter has a fairly significant role there.
But registry matters is not affiliated directly with arsal That is correct. So well what to bring people up that may have not listened. Back in late January. We sent a letter to the Cobb County Sheriff Cobb County for those who don’t live in Georgia as a suburban Atlanta County, very affluent.
It’s It’s It’s a cosmopolitan melting pot. It used to be a conservative Bastion, it’s it’s a much more much more of a diverse county now. And I think the population is somewhere between seven 800,000 people it’s it’s relatively relatively large, urban County. They have they have about 600 people in the registry. And the the practices they have developed are very alarming now. We’re going to get emails telling us that they do this all over the country. And they probably do this just heck that George’s on my radar because we’re already fighting and butts county and Spalding. Kind of regarding Halloween signs. And I’m a lot more familiar with George and and some of the other counties that were were egregious things may be happening but the cop County Sheriff has decided that that they can visit anytime day or night. And we’ve heard we’ve heard rumors of the latest 11 3012 o’clock at night to do a residency verification. And we’ve we’ve we’ve been provided copies of the forms they leave on the door saying you must call within 24 hours and must implies something if you don’t make the call something has got to happen. Must is pretty straightforward. And and then they have required people to disclose their hours of employment, their exact work schedule, and and all these things that we’ve we’ve heard about are not in the Georgia statute. And we like fighting things when there’s not a statute that supports statutes can be invalid, but they’re they’re presumed valid upon enactment until they’re challenged on the constitution about but if you’re requiring someone to do something that’s not in statute your odds of winning the case go up exponentially, because that means it’s being imposed without legal authority. So you don’t have to get into the constitutional, constitutional ality of the law. You just simply have a renegade law enforcement agency that’s doing what they want to so called Chinese decided that you will verify more frequently that’s required. And it you will disclose your hours and that you will be available the Cobb County authorities anytime they feel that they would like to visit with you. So we brought him a cease and desist letter back in late January. They responded their county attorney responded, which was actually a surprise. Usually they ignore us. And I think maybe because they got TV attention. We did a press release saying if you don’t respond, the next step may be litigation. We got a response and the response was so disingenuous, they they sided, made up authority that they could do what they want to so we sent a second letter this past Friday, letting them know that what they cited and what they allege is authority, the Federal Adam Walsh Act Let’s not give them the authority that they claim that Cobb County has a separate jurisdiction can do what they want to but the only problem is Cobb County Sheriff’s Department is not a jurisdiction. Cobb County is not even a jurisdiction as far as federal SORNA Georgia jurisdictions for our federal Soren is concerned. But Cobb County is a political subdivision of the state of Georgia. So we told him that they were wrong on many counts. And they said they didn’t know what or what constitutes a reasonable hour. So we defined what we thought were reasonable hours. And we figured that if you go out and ask a person, what a reasonable hours are, you could probably get a pretty good consensus just by going asking Cobb County, if someone’s gonna knock at your door to visit, what would be the hours that you would want the knocks to stop and you probably get something in the neighborhood of between 738 nine o’clock at night, that they wouldn’t want anybody would want visitors knocking at their door unexpected, and probably not before, by the same time in the morning. I doubt most people want visitors before about eight o’clock in the morning. So I would say I’d say eight eight would be reasonable hours but so we We tried to help them understand what reasonable hours are. But we told them in the letter that we’re going to be reaching we asked them to join us in a joint letter, since they claimed that people are not threatened with prosecution if they don’t, if they don’t make the phone calls after these flyers are left, they said that that’s not a threat. That’s just simply a request, although it says must. So we asked them if they would want to join us in a letter to the offenders in Cobb County, saying that you’re not required to call and they would like to inform defenders that are not required to give their employment. They’re not going to do that in all likelihood. But then we tell them if they don’t respond to us within 10 days, we’re going to, we’re going to respond with a letter to everybody in Cobb County on the registry. And we’re going to ask people to keep diaries of their encounters with law enforcement. So that means if you’re listening Cobb County or any county for that matter, particular Cobb County, get used to the idea that you need to keep a diary of what your interaction is with law enforcement when they’re doing their so called resident verifications. You do not go to the paper shredder and take anything they leave and shred it. It may be valuable evidence that will use later in terms of demonstrating their overreach and their harassment and what they’re doing. If you shred the evidence, we will not have it available to us.
We can’t use the time machine to get back to that.
No. I’m boggled that so many people shred evidence that they say this stuff is just over the top there baliya by rights and I said well, what way was it came to my house seven times in the last two months? I said, Well, what was it? Were you not there? No, they weren’t I hope I did. They left a flyer What did you do I shredded it.
So this is not the appropriate activity to take what they leave something and you’re trying to say this is against my rights rules, whatever.
I don’t know how to I don’t know how you would be able to litigate. It seems like to me the the your memory would not be nearly as well would not serve you nearly as well as actually having that document, putting at least the time that you’ve received it to the best of your knowledge. Now some of you have cameras on your house and you’ll know exactly when they were at your house because you’ve got ring doorbell and the doorbell rang and you’d looked at your saw the uniform When you get home and you find the flyer if you didn’t chose not to talk to him through the doorbell app, you know what time they left it, but we’re going to need as much documentation as we can get in terms of how often they’re coming, how many officers are coming, what agencies they’re representing. If they’re being intimidating if they’re demanding to come in, if they’re somebody sitting out the yard with a with their hand on a weapon, if your kid starts crying because there’s seven people at the door demanding to come in to take a look around. We’re going to need to know know all that stuff. We can’t win a lawsuit if we don’t know what they’re doing.
I’m reminded I’m not really a big Judge wapner fan but you know, dumb dumb and I think the person that came to the table with the most documentation true or false one
that that would be a good analogy and and folks, you your memory is not going to serve you nearly as well as writing it down. If nothing else, get a five cents manila folder and call it registration for And if nothing else, pull off a piece of legal paper, would you have an encounter and write down? Who came to the door if you can get a name, what agency they’re from, or if there are multiple agencies that they come with the marshals, and they come with probation, parole, put all that down. And the funny thing is, technology is so good today that, that everybody has a cell phone, practically they’ll record. Everybody can record these encounters, if they choose to. There’s no log issue recording what’s going on in your house. You’ve got a camera outside, there’s so many people have cameras on their house, they can fire these things up. If they’re not already running. The documentation we can develop is far better than what we could have done 1015 years ago.
But Larry, all of this is so inconvenient. I was watching the football game or the tennis match, or I was playing dominoes, and these people came to my door. I can’t be bothered with all that. Well, if you can’t be bothered with
Unknown Speaker 23:53
it, then I guess we won’t be able to help.
But I need you to help like do something. it’s unconstitutional.
Well, in some cases it might be in Cobb County. We don’t know how far that they’re taking this. We’ve got enough antidotal complaints of people saying what’s going on. And it’s amazing the neighboring county of Gwynedd, but which is not far from Cobb. From all accounts, the same practices don’t even Gwynedd County, they take the attitude that if it’s not specifically in the registry, we don’t do it. But like people, people say, Well, I can’t go to park and I said, Well, is there anything in the registry that says you can’t do that in the statute? Well, if you’re under supervision, you don’t have any conditions on you you can go anywhere anybody else can go You just can’t live without within so many feet of the park if your conviction occurred after certain key dates, West Georgia best of date so depending on when you when your behavior occurred, and and there’s escalating levels of prohibitions of what you can do, the more recent your crime is, as far as the registry requirements, but, but Cobb County, hopefully they will negotiate with us and hopefully they’ll stop going out to people’s houses. Late at night, and hopefully they will quit threatening people with the rest if they don’t complete this registration process. I can only speak for myself. I never advise it by doing things. But I’m not going to come out of my house at nine o’clock at night and sign a form that a sheriff is holding with a flashlight. I’m not going to do it. It’s not required until you can fight in the statute that I have to sign your paperwork. I have to come outside with my PJs on a deal with you. I’m not going to I’ll do what I’m required to do, which under Georgia last visit to sex of it or office either once or twice per year. And is within 72 hours of your birthday. If you’re an annual red shirt and on this on the second time if you’re if you’re if you’re a predator, I don’t know when they went when they mandate the second visit. But but other than that you don’t have to. There’s nothing in the Georgia sex offender registration statute that requires you to sign their paper or enjoy engage them in conversation or to to invite them into your home.
That requires a certain level of I’ve got a new word for you chutzpah that you would have to just know the law inside it out and then perhaps talk to a Larry kind of person to go, Hey, not that you’re advising them legally. But you know, Hey, can you be my role model? They’re like, what would you do under these circumstances, if it were you just to get like you, you are going to encounter them and they’re not going to be friendly with you, but you are not going to be wrong. I’m not sure what a winner or not, but I mean, that’s something that someone has to be able to do to know whether they’re right or wrong and the condition, but by telling
people up front, I’m not advise them. I’m only telling you what, what I would do, but they’re going to retaliate also tell you that if you don’t take that clipboard, as that flashlight and sign that document, what they’re going to do is not going to be pretty in most cases, they they’re probably not going to put you in handcuffs because they don’t have anything to charge you with. There’s no law big vilely but what they are going to do is they’re going to sit there with a stopwatch and hope that you’re that you’re a few minutes late on your on your own. You’re 72 hours if you don’t get it within 72 hours or they’re going to come out They’re going to visit with your neighbors when you’re not home. And they’re going to go, say they’re going to imply by sitting there knocking doors that, you know, we haven’t been able to connect with. And he’s ignoring us with pretty sure he’s there. But he won’t answer it. But we haven’t heard from him. And he’s kind of come a little bit on spooky side a little bit. You know, we’re just kind of concerned. Have you seen anything that’s the least bit unusual? Yeah, here’s a special number to call it. That’s what they’re going to do. A lot of a lot of people are not going to want to go through that. So it’s easier just to open the door to sign the thing and have them be on their way.
God, it’s man, it’s so so hard that you know, just like when you get pulled over for a speeding ticket, your heart starts racing. And you either know you’re on the wrong and you’re gonna try and get out of it or you literally have no idea what’s wrong and you hope it doesn’t escalate. Obviously, we know that people are getting shot by police these days, for minimal reasons. And so you want to you know, put your heads above the stairwell you want to do everything that looks like you’re complying to keep them from pulling guns and weapons and so forth. It’s just very challenging layer like you’re describing, you know, they’re saying, hey, it’s 10 o’clock, two o’clock in the morning will knock on your door, we need you to sign this thing that verifies that you are here. And you’re going to stand your ground saying, I’m not saying that because you don’t have the authority to be here. And obviously, you have to do it in a super de escalating fashion. That would be very hard to do without training. Practice. It’s a it is a data. And
that’s a good point. Because I would start not by a study, but by data studying, I would say, Well, now, I just want to have a conversation with you about what you’ve knocked on my door and it’s 1145 at night, every dog in this neighborhood is barking. My family has been woken up by your by your intrusion. And I don’t mind you come into verify. You’re just doing your job because that’s what they’re doing. And believe it or not, people in America, follow their instructions and do what they’re told just like they do and other countries. And I appreciate that you’re just doing your job. But I would like for you to go back and tell your command staff that this is not the way to do their job because I’m being nice to this one time. But if you knock at my door again, this late at night, I’m not going to be nice to you the next time.
Are you threatening the police? Larry, I mean, that’s almost gonna be the response.
I’m telling you a reality of the situation. That knocking at my door 1145 at night is not appropriate. Every dog in the neighborhoods barking, there’s lights coming on all around us. This is spooky. The neighbors is spooky, my family. I’m telling you, if you come to the store again, 11 o’clock 12 o’clock at night. I’m not going to be nice to you. I would appreciate if you go back and tell your command staff that what you’re doing is not appropriate. And ask them if they will reconsider this because if you want me to interact with you appropriately, you’ve got to show respect for me because A, I don’t have to do this. I’m not required to interact with you at any time except in the sheriff’s office once a year or twice a year, whatever your obligations are. So I’m trying to be as nice as I can be. But I’m telling you that is a two way street. I need some respect from the Sheriff’s Department also.
Don’t you think they’re going to take that back To the mothership, and then they’re going to come back and be more as Holic. They probably will.
But that’s I’m saying I don’t want to try to start escalating. I’m trying to de escalate. Yeah, I’m trying to tell them. Look, I’ve want to be nice to you people. But I need you to show some respect from your side. Also,
Brenda says I would not have the brains to put that together at midnight. So I’m pushing back on you as hard as I can I 100% intellectually, and and rationally, agree and respect everything that you’re saying, real world that your hardest thumping, and you are in the fight or flight mode, and you’re going to actually tell somebody to fyp and you’re going to slam the door and things are going to get really bad fast from there.
Well, I’m hoping you don’t slam the door and I’m hoping that it doesn’t escalate. But escalation is coming from them if they choose to escalate. I’m trying my best to de escalate by saying here’s the problem you’ve created.
Yes, I agree. Understand. And yeah, I think I’m pretty sure that so they haven’t written you bad. The letter they wrote you back was to say Ill informed to put it mildly. It was a very
odd took it is a very condescending letter from from an attorney who knows way less about SORNA than what narshall would know. And, and the reason that this attorney knows anything about it, it’s because this letter was handed off by the sheriff’s department saying is there anything here and for them to cite stuff is just simply not the way it is and tell us that we’re not informed about sort of really irritated me I found it to be to be quite offensive. And I took a week to write the letter just so I could try to write it without being as irritated as rotationally wants. And but it was it was to be a letter feel with this a genuine either the person doesn’t understand it, or they were trying to blow smoke and mirrors against an organization that’s well equipped and it’s not going to take their smoke and mirrors and go away. In fact, we’re going to do just the opposite. We’re going to come back at them like we did, and we’re going to go to the next level if they don’t work with us, of contacting all the offenders in Cobb County, and seeing if we can get them to keep diaries and work with us. Now if it turns out, we can’t predict what 600 people are going to do, what does one thing I can’t predict? There will be some offenders who will take our letters to the sheriff’s office right away, and say, You’re not gonna believe this. Have you ever heard of these people that I know it’s going to happen? But in terms of how many keep how many people will keep diaries, I don’t know that. All I can tell you is if this behavior bothers you, and which we get enough complaints that we, we hear that it bothers you immensely, then you’re going to have to do a little bit of work because we can’t keep the diary for you. We will not know when they knock at your door. Therefore, if it bothers you, as much as you say it does, then we’re going to need a percentage of people a credible percentage of people in Cobb County to keep the diaries so that we can measure the magnitude of the problem. So we can figure out what the strength of our cause of action what our causes of action might be, and what the strengthen likelihood of succeeding might be. We won’t know that till we gather the information.
And your reply was a Did you have any help being restrained on snark?
Well, we were everything and parcels of team collaboration so we don’t we don’t ever have a person correspond by themselves to that’s one of the things we try to guard against as as as as an ill thought out piece of correspondence. So yes, I do but every that’s just a corporate culture at Arsenal. We do that with every piece that will take takes a bit longer. But yes, I can’t help but that’s what that’s the way we do things. I mean, it’s not anything unusual, you’re making it sound like that, but that that I had to be political restraint. We do everything and I think collaboration.
Now I get that I just referred to like she got under your skin with this letter. And so I’m just sort of trying to hint around that that you had not that was the not the collaboration part but you had helped keeping the tone a certain way.
I think the tone was pretty good when my first product I think that was that it was well restrained To start with, but we we organized it better through the revisions and communicated more more coherent message but but it takes us longer to do things because we do have a team collaboration rather than individual.
Sure. Anything else? I mean, we’ve been on this for like a half hour almost.
Unknown Speaker 34:12
I think we’ve covered this pretty well.
And you had something else. It was the 11th circuit decision.
The the Halloween case with our butts County, which is on appeal at the 11th. Circuit Court of Appeals. briefing is moving along with that the the brief by the sheriff was filed initially their their their their party taking the appeal undertaking the appeal. We filed our attorney filed our response and then narshall and Axel, the associate Alliance for constitutional sex offense laws. We filed a joint amicus brief last week on that on that case, so that that case hopefully will be decided by Halloween, the appeal of the judges injunction. So that’s what’s going on with the 11th circuit was Halloween
and you are still firmly in the camp that This is just a slam dunk. They don’t have they don’t have a chance of winning. This is butts county sheriff. Never
Never slam dunk, but it’s going to be hard for for turn around the the ruling that was one because the law is so much again. Georgia is not the only place where Halloween restrictions happen. The only differences in Georgia is that there are no requirements in the statute. We would like to go down our throat down the throats of the people in Missouri but they have the statute that provides for them. So we have a higher legal standard for there’s a statute in Georgia This was two Renegade sheriff’s who decided on their own that they were going to impose a requirement that that offenders on the registry all offenders and their counties put the signs up. That’s what makes it so different. So with with the the circuit appeal, they do not have to analyze a statute to determine If what level of deference whether it’s a rational basis, or whether it’s intermediate scrutiny, or whether it’s strict scrutiny, they don’t have to do any of that. And that’s what makes it difficult to imagine how we could lose the case. But since courts are unpredictable, the unpredictable could happen. But it’s very difficult for me to conceive how we can lose the case because the sheriff us acted without any lawful authority.
I am constantly reminded, Larry, that in this particular situation in the one with Cobb County, this is this is one of those cases where, and I don’t want to inflate your head so big that you can’t walk through a door. You just know this stuff. So well, the backside of your hand, the front side, whichever way you want to look at it, that when you see these things, you don’t even I’m sure you have to like engage some brainpower, but you’re just like, that’s wrong. That’s wrong. That’s wrong. It’s just instinctive and you can just pop these things out that you know, that they’re wrong. And then you can, you know, get the team is in place, the apparatus is in place to formulate a strategy to push back. And it’s just it’s just overwhelmingly me Amazing and inspirational that you’re able to put these things together this way.
Well, it would appreciate that and a good example. But the letter from the cop county attorney, she said that jurisdictions can exceed the the law. And she was talking about the federal law. And she’s absolutely correct a jurisdiction and can exceed federal law. If the jurisdiction passes tell us enhanced requirements, the federal law, as it pertains to the SORNA, for example, those are just minimums. That’s what the federal government would like you to do. If you want your free federal money, have a registry that does at least these things, you can do more than that list of things. You can register people for longer than what’s required. And you can register more offenders than what’s required. And, and when I looked at that, at first blush, I thought, well, gee, she’s on the right direction. And she’s done a little bit of research here. But she doesn’t quite understand what a jurisdiction is. A jurisdiction is as a as a State or Territory are certain or certain or certain Indian tribes are there recognize the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office is not a jurisdiction. That was so weird to me.
I still feel that it is a jurisdiction because you have county police running around doing things.
But the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office is not a jurisdiction itself. Okay. It is an entity. It is an agency of a subdivision. That is a jurisdiction, but for federal SORNA purposes, it’s not a jurisdiction. Cobb County is a jurisdiction. Right, but not for federal SORNA purposes. But But Cobb County didn’t impose these requirements. The Cobb County Sheriff’s Office did. The Cobb County Board of County Commissioners did not vote on an ordinance that says that we want our deputies out, collecting these verifications on a more regular basis than the state law requires. That would be a different challenge if they had but they have there is no jurisdictional authority, but for them to cite to the federal law said jurisdiction, if Georgia had passed a requirement that that rather than you coming in once a year, 72 hours before your birthday, say that you’ll come in 12 times a year, that Georgia could do that. And they’re absolutely correct. They could do that. And they could exceed the federal, the most identifies required to come in to meet federal requirements is four times per year. They say that once a year for a tier one twice a year for tier two and four times a year for tier three. And there’s no such thing, anything more than for federal purposes, anything more than a tier three. But but the state of Georgia, they are a jurisdiction for several federal SORNA purposes. They could say that you’re going to come in 12 times a year, Georgia could enact that to the legislature and that would be
a jurisdiction. Right, but that has to be in the legislature has to be part of the statute.
That’s correct. In Cobb County Sheriff is not it is not a jurisdiction. So that was like, for me it was a no brainer. It’s like she’s trying to she’s either healing from I’m the attorney, or she’s trying to obfuscate and Bs. But don’t I scott county sheriff’s departments not have jurisdiction.
Very, very interesting. I it’s just it’s just funny how you put those together. Just it’s just it’s like, you know, I could see something on computer and be like, no, that’s not right. I just I just know, because I’ve been doing it for 100 years, like you’ve been doing this stuff for 100 years. It’s just I would instinctively know that something is or isn’t right. And, well, you know, I did the rest of us mortals don’t have any idea. How well I didn’t know the section of federal
law. I knew it was there. But I had to look it up. I had to look at your federal law that defines what a jurisdiction is. But we put that in letter and we hopefully informing the county authority of what constitutes the jurisdiction of the cop Can I share psaltis is not what absolutely
ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters dot CEO. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message. 274722744771 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. We should move on. Let’s do it. As an individual in chat goes by the name of Nate dumped in this gave me this link to this bill that is going through his area and it is talking about where to go where to go where to go with Iowa legislature. Legislators consider criminalizing here’s the key word Larry. Creepy, adult relationships with teens. I can see right off the bat. I don’t Understand what the word creepy like we would know, the Supreme Court says, Well, I don’t know what porn is, but I would know when I see it. And this would be the same thing like you could kind of guess what creepy means. But how do you define that in the statute of what creepy is? And I wanted to get your your expert opinion on how this would, how you might combat this? Well, I would combine it by
by saying that what you’re what you’re trying to do, is you’re trying to micromanage people’s personal lives. And conservatives claim that they are post that and if I’m not mistaken, this is being led by conservatives, not not liberals. But this will be something where you’ll end up having a lot of your famous bipartisan support, because it’s it’s for protecting young from older predators. And there are people who find that the age of consent which permits a 16 year old, to have relations with someone of any age is creepy. And as they’re more valid, more values, and and and that’s not for us to do to impose our moral moral values on on on everyone else. an Iowa if I were there trying to fight that I would say, Well, this is it. This is an indirect way of trying to race age consensus what this really is
Unknown Speaker 43:09
that’s, well, if you’re trying to call a relationship creepy, because of the age of the person, what you’re really trying to do is reach the age of consent, you’re trying to say that a person does does not, should not be able to consent to have sexual relations with a person more than a certain number of years older than them, or else that’s creepy. Therefore, they should be allowed to do it, which is effectively raising the age of consent. I see.
It’s maybe worded differently. It’s an extension of the Romeo and Juliet thing just inverted, maybe, because Romeo Juliet says, you know, like a 21, and a 17 year old can still have a relationship. But if you extend that out to 60 year old enough, I don’t know 1720 year olds does that. Does that constitute creepy?
Well, that’s what this whole legislation’s about. This is this is what it’s about. But again, it’s trying to reach the age of consent. Oh, the the sponsors of that one I was quoted saying that he would have a shotgun. He was my shotgun will be out. Oh, yes
yes I see a 16 said if a 22 year old starts dating his soon to be 16 year old daughter my shot gun will be out.
But yeah, the age of consent is 16 in many states, right and this is this is trying to raise indirectly raised under the bill of person who engage in sexual activity, the person who is 16 or 17 would be guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor if they are not cohabitating with the consent of the teens parents, and the person is 27 years of age or older. So it so under this proposal, it becomes very creepy. If you’re more than 27 do you think that this has any legs on it to move anywhere? I sure I do. I believe it will absolutely the it’s hard to vote against protecting young people. This is this is one of those things why say your famous bipartisan support that you yearn for?
Yeah, they’ll be somehow
this is being led by republicans but yes, it’s gonna be hard for Democrats to vote against it because what’s going to happen is they’re gonna be vilified if they do vote against it and say, you know that Senator Solon sell voted against the bill that would have protected that that would have protected our young from old perverts. I mean that they would be that blatant what the campaign hit pieces. And if you’re if according to this bill, if you’re over 27, you’re an old pervert, that is kind of a bizarre number right there, man. But these are the people who claim that they believe in personal freedom. Now, I get it that the person’s not reached the age of majority. And I get that one might have reached the age of majority we got to have a little more input and influence and decision making about their personal freedom. So I understand that don’t make a whole bunch of email. But the These are people who claim that they want to keep government out of our personal lives.
That’s what they say doesn’t seem to be how they’re acting is a theme. You know what that sounds like? That sounds like hypocrisy.
Unknown Speaker 46:14
Well, I think we did hear Lester say that
Unknown Speaker 46:16
for you to come back and call bagless. Mind Mars is a farce. It’s an act of hypocrisy. It’s
Unknown Speaker 46:23
a terrible way to treat a guest on your show. And you know,
why don’t you introduce the Scalia clip force please? What are we talking about this time?
We’re gonna have we’re gonna have two clips of of Supreme Court tonight is going to be spread out. So hopefully people will listen to the entire podcast to hear the other half of this. It’s gonna be it’s gonna be played later. But this one is, is about. I think one of the toughest things I have to tell people is that not liking something doesn’t make it unconstitutional. And that’s not a part of the constitutional analysis. So we’re going to hit them with two clips tonight about about things that may not seem desirable that are done. And this one’s about the death penalty as it applies to young people. And and what Scalia thinks about the death penalty. And then we’re going to come back with a follow up in terms of what Justice Breyer thinks about, Justice Scalia, his judicial philosophy on the notion of evolving standards of decency. So roll this first clip.
Unknown Speaker 47:26
Well, let’s talk about a specific here to see how your philosophies actually work. The court divided four years ago when it ruled that the death penalty for juvenile offenders was unconstitutional. This is for people who commit crimes before the age of 18. Justice Scalia, why do you think it was wrong for the court to conclude that that practice violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment? Because I think what the ban meant in 1791 when it was adopted, it means today and For example, your why not say the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to everybody, not just people under 18? What stops you from saying that? And indeed, I’ve sat with four colleagues who said that, what stops you from and that would just be applying your own your own sense of what what the law ought to be rather than what the law is. What stops you from saying that is in 1791, when the Eighth Amendment was adopted? the death penalty was the only penalty for a felony. David, there’s no argument possible that it was unconstitutional. And it was the same for executing people under 18. There was a common law rule that you that you you would not execute. Execute someone for crimes committed before the age of reason. I think the age was 12. But after that, there was no prohibition it was rarely done, but it was left up to the jury Where the sentencing authority usually the jury so you know, it may be a very bad idea and nothing forces the American people to execute people who committed the most horrible crimes before they’re 18 year old nothing nothing requires them to do that if they if they think it’s a bad idea they can pass a law in their state which says no one will be executed for anything Don’t under 18 but for this court to my court to just say it doesn’t seem it was a good idea and therefore it’s unconstitutional I just don’t understand it.
I still continue with these clips that you provide I I don’t find wrong in his methodology and we can the people choose to not execute or choose to execute you know felony jaywalking as my The example I always bring up but you know, if we chose to do it, we could, we could make a law that says felony jaywalking, and you get nuked. So why don’t Why don’t we the people become more engaged to construct the laws that we that we want them to be constructed?
Well, and we did that just there’s an article somewhere which we can cover and clear it out here from Colorado, their legislature just passed a bill abolishing capital punishment in the state of Colorado. Now, the governor has announced that the bill will be signed, and they’re doing just exactly that. And that that says precisely, it. Have you heard some of Scalia’s language? It’s very similar to what I say about not liking something that doesn’t make it unconstitutional because you disagree with it. Bad public policy, does that somehow become unconstitutional? Because it’s bad from a policy perspective, it’s probably bad to do a lot of things that we do. And we’re the other clip will reveal some additional stuff about how bad it how how many laws we have that are bad, but they’re not unconstitutional.
Right? Because we the stupid people can make stupid laws.
So yes, so. So Colorado has about the death penalty. And if you think that the death penalty is a bad thing, then become active in your state. And let’s get rid of the death penalty. Let’s not ask the people who wear black robes to do for us what we can do for ourselves because it’s not really their role to be the super legislature that decides what’s the best public policy, they decide where the Constitution is being violated. And if we have five or more people like Scalia, on the court, which I think we do right now, that’s why the death penalty has not been declared unconstitutional. The court is not going to save us from ourselves. We’re gonna have to save ourselves if we object to the despot.
So the article that you just alluded to us from courthouse news, Colorado, lawmakers vote to repeal the death and that’s def Just kidding. Death penalty. They voted 3038 to 27 which still means a decent number of people up there. were in favor of nuking people for various reasons. I assume that you know, felony jaywalking is On their agenda, but like heinous murders and things of that nature, are still up on the docket for being executed.
Well, I don’t know what all we get you the death penalty would have gotten you the death penalty in Colorado, but but the death the death penalty, but if you believe and that original interpretation and this was no evolving standards of decency as society progresses, then since the death penalty was a part of colonial times the death penalty is not unconstitutional because it was widely used in colonial times, and they could not have been thinking about abolishing something that they were using as a punishment at the time they enacted the Constitution. That’s Scalia’s reasoning that could not have been cruel and unusual. But the reason I like to get on this cold unusual punishment because we get a lot of grief well area if you guys would just use your brainpower. Everybody knows that cruel, unusual punishment that being able to register is cruel, unusual punishment. I said Well, the problem is we haven’t even proved very many instances is the registers pm to much less that very high standard of Cruel, unusual punishment. If putting people in an electric chair and in a guillotine and at a gas chamber and on a gurney if that is a cruel, unusual punishment where you die It’s hard to imagine that any type of supervision or registration or anything short of that would be cruel, unusual punishment. I mean, I just can’t I just can’t see how that you can come up with but it’s such a high standard of what would constitute cold unusual punishment if the electric chair as what would be
and didn’t we talk about at some point that you being like locked in the stockade and have pulling poo thrown at your face like that wasn’t considered cruel and unusual punishment.
Unknown Speaker 53:36
I think that might be that might have been in colonial times I don’t think they did that and call your time so I don’t think they they did that where they use like that type of punishment back in those days. That was a little bit but but there was about 70 years before I was born.
That’s like the Salem Witch trial kind of 1500 1600s I guess. But if I’m if you’ll indulge me like if that were the standard, then just having your picture and name on there. History, then that certainly wouldn’t be considered unconstitutional?
Well, again, I’ll put the name in the picture on the registry is merely a dissemination of a public record. If that were all there was to being registered, nothing more. And I’m not advocating for anything like this. But since it has long been established, or 200 years of our history, that your criminal record, and since we’ve been taking photographs, the last hundred years that your mug shot is, as public is putting your picture and the fact you’re convicted. If I put that on the website and said, Go away, have a great life. Wouldn’t that be equivalent to putting it on the wall of the courthouse, which has always been permissible?
But there’s certainly you know, for that example, though, I mean, it’s you know, just just walking into your computer into your computer room or pulling up on your phone while you’re in your in your Speedo. That’s not hard for you to pull up and find the information about the people that live around you. Go into the courthouse, you know, you probably gonna have to cover up the speedo to walk into the courthouse or else they’re gonna get indecent exposure, there’s at least some barrier, you know, to not just have some passing interest to get to the information,
well, then we have to argue that the evolving technology was not something that we should allow to be used for in a modern society. So we would have to say that the founders intended that information that was public, but always require a journey to the courthouse, and that they never envisioned that anybody would get beyond the horse and buggy. Because I guess that’s what they were largely using in colonial times for transportation. So we would have to argue that and see if that if the courts would buy that that’s what they intended that, that access to public information, what all it you’d have to always go in and get it in person. I don’t know that. I don’t know that you could successfully make that claim.
There. I’m losing. I’m completely drawing a blank on the name of the company. But there’s a company currently running around scraping up images of everybody that they can find on all the social media platforms, and they’re building this huge database of it. And they just had a massive security breach. So I’m going to hypothesize us area where they have then gone around to all of the 50 states registry sites and snagged all the pictures. Now they have a collection of that. So now it’s left the hands of just law enforcement. And we you know, that the control of the government’s website, not that they have control over necessarily anybody can scrape it. But now it’s in a mass database, doing analysis and comparing and seeing who is with whom, and building associations and that data is then being sold. But now that data has been lost to hackers or whomever, you know, stole it. They had a data breach now now everything’s just out there. And even if you get yourself off the registry, even if you get your picture removed, it’s over. It’s done. You know, remember that
Unknown Speaker 56:39
I remember I think I’ll sent that to you in a link of a of a another data breach, but I don’t know what I don’t know what the I don’t know what the answer is all that stuff is above my pay grade in terms of securing data and what the consequences should be for breaches. I know one thing we can interfere with business because business always does the right time. But yeah, right. Okay.
We the People are going to have to decide to do some level of self regulating that it is okay, that all information isn’t available to all people at all times, sort of like the right to be forgotten that they’ve adopted in the Europe’s, so to speak, right? Yes. I mean, we’re going to have to decide,
as a people were going to have to decide at what point we can intervene and say information is no longer available. We’re going to have to have that discussion. It’s going to be a hard discussion to have, just like other discussions we have. We’re having a discussion, we just had a very painful gun discussion here. I think we’re like the 17th state of the 20 something state to adopt the red flag early warning, or the people can have their weapons taken under certain circumstances for a period of time to evaluate if if they are a threat. And those are painful discussions because it provokes an emotion. Big old bad governments don’t take my going, that I hadn’t committed a crime yet, as as the same things going When we start restricting access to information requiring that it be expunged, and companies can’t conduct their free enterprise, I mean, it’s gonna be it’s gonna be painful. There’s gonna be a lot of pushback. Hmm. All right. We are already
at an hour late and we got so much more to go so we could cut it whatever we need to cut it to finish out things. But so let’s move to the M d. j maryada. daily journal, Halloween warning signs for Georgia sex offenders trip up lifetime ankle monitoring bill. This doesn’t really seem related to me, but so I’m assuming this is the Butts County Halloween signs. And then we have talked recently about them trying to do something with the GPS monitoring for for offenders. Somehow those two collided and they’re not going to vote on the bill in Georgia. No,
not yet. I understand how that goes. No, not yet. Well, but they they the bill was in a subcommittee and of course I don’t understand why. It sends a judicial non non civil because the registry is a civil regulatory scheme. So therefore, I don’t understand why the non civil Judicial Committee would be assigned to bill. It shouldn’t be in the civil, because it’s several regulatory scheme. But that’s a discussion for another podcast. But what’s happening is that the the attorney who helped us with the Bucks County that and the Spalding county case, which is also pending in Georgia, he won a case challenging lifetime GPS monitoring for for the sexual predators in Georgia, which is a designation bestowed upon people by the sex offender assessment board, which is like 10 1215 years behind on on their assessments of people. And the cost and the inconvenience of having that search and seizure was declared unconstitutional and Georgia as most states are not going to just willingly give up on their laws are unconstitutional. So they’re trying to re impose some version of GPS monitoring on the what they say is the worst of Worst a sexually dangerous predator says the lawmaker refers to them. Well, while that lawsuit is pending, where we are likely, in my view to win the appeal, Georgia says, well, gee, maybe an arsenal has a point that since there is no law, okay, but we need to make a law. So they amended the bill. They wanted to throw in that that was science would be required for people who had multiple sex offenses. And those damn Liberal Democrats are pushing back which they’re irrelevant in Georgia because Georgia majority under republican control, but there’s enough democrats on this subcommittee that they push back and they were able to keep that amendment from from from going through. So right now, the bill, the bills and Limbo, my prediction is that they will get it out of limbo, and they will move it through the process because we just can’t have those sex offenders on supervised by GPS and we can’t have these trick or treaters go into people’s doors. So they’re going to try their best to pass a law that says certain sex offenders Can’t have signs and I can’t have trigger trading, they must have signs of their yards. That’s my prediction. That’s not what people want to hear. But that’s what I expect they’ll do.
Hmm. So then we need people in Georgia, to be at the legislator, and legislature watching for this to try and figure out all of the cool Larry techniques to gum it up to wreck the drain when it comes back around next year.
And we also need to be there which we will be there to we have been there to tell them that if you pass it, we’re going to come back to you again, because just because you pass it doesn’t make it constitutional and enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be constitutional. You could conceivably narrowly tailor Halloween. conceivably, I haven’t, I haven’t done it. But I think you could conceivably Taylor assign and apply to such a small sliver of people that it might be constitutional, but they’re not ever willing to do anything that so narrowly tailored, because that’s the part of the Kabuki show is to go out and take the cameras and go out To the community, and show that the sirens are everywhere. If you took the people who actually might pose a threat to a child on Halloween on the registry, it would be such an infinitesimally small number of people because nothing’s ever happened from a sex offender or Halloween that I’m aware of. So since nothing’s ever happened, that can tell that tells you in itself that the that the risk is very slim. But you could conceivably craft something that would apply in such a narrow way that it might be constitutional, but they’re not going to do they’re not going to be able to help themselves to do that, because it would not give them the glory that they need is we’re protecting the community. If you analyze a bill, then it’s only going to apply to seven people across the whole state with 38,000 registrants that does that’s not going to be very appealing to them.
But it still seemed to be so then we could go hit the conservative mindset like you’re going to spend XYZ money for seven people.
Well, there wouldn’t be a whole lot of money span if you just if you if you had if you had signs in seven people’s yards, but what would what would be accomplished nothing has ever happened on Halloween. We’re fighting imaginary Boogeyman.
Why do we Why are we so hell bent on blaming the boogeyman for all of the problems that we have in this world?
I don’t know what was Let’s start by asking these sponsors this legislation, why they’re trying. The courts have spoke at the Georgia High Court has spoken that said, You can’t do this to people. Why are you coming back? You, you live in a government people who believe in being fiscally responsible stewards of persons of the people of the People’s resources. So representative. I don’t know how to pronounce that. sains. Si. nz, you’d have to ask representative Steven sayings of Woodbine why he’s carrying this legislation. Of course, he’s carrying it because he was asked to by the law enforcement industrial complex, but why is he carrying this
election year political like points to stick it to the sex offenders right.
And the committed it move it to the chairman ed. stettner. Republican of Acworth said he wants to see some to Bill, but he expects us to eventually had the full committee. So So I’d like to say I tend, I tend to take him at his word, they’re going to get down the committee.
fairly good. All right.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:09
And with everyone, super.
No one will be.
We got to move over to an AP news story of Kansas legislation, rethink public offender registry rules. I didn’t put this in there. This all you man. It’s also short.
It’s very short. And it’s just that finally they’ve reached a tipping point where they’ve got so many different registries and so many people on them, and they’re realizing they’re realizing that they just might have a problem.
Oh, so the expression that there was a movie. You may have heard of the movie I know you haven’t seen It’s called The Incredibles. It’s a really awesome movie. But there’s this superhero. He’s a super villain runner, and it’s like, if everyone is super, then no one is super. So if everyone’s on the registry that no one’s on the registry. That makes perfect sense to me. They’re
Unknown Speaker 1:04:59
So that’s it. So they have decided that they have too many registries, whether that be domestic abuse, animal abuse, sex, offender, all that stuff. And then the drug drug point of all this. The other third rate thinking that because Kansas has been been in financial they, they tried to tax cut model with Governor Sam brown brown back. And like cut taxes and a thriving blooming economy that was going to ensue, of course, didn’t do it in Louisiana when gendell did the same, same thing. And of course, it never does. But they keep selling us that snake oil. But but they, they they’re so strapped for cash, that their Supreme Court declared them to be a violation of the Kansas constitution in terms of not adequate funding education. So they’ve had to go back and increase some taxes. I mean, that’s hard to imagine that they would do that they’ve had to go back and raise some of the taxes i cut under Brownback, but it’s just a fiscal reality that, that they’re dealing with it that they they’re having to rethink some of their ridiculous policies. But if you cut taxes enough to economy will boot you gotta remember that ain’t
Unknown Speaker 1:06:00
cut taxes slimy. Whoops,
couldn’t we cut it far enough? You know, and then actually surpass zero and then actually start making over the government pays us for everything and then it would be on fire?
Unknown Speaker 1:06:13
Yes, yes. Let’s try that. Okay, let’s try.
Wait a minute, hang on a sec, I just had a thought. Are those the same people that rail against the people that are getting some sort of stipend from and I know everybody’s getting one, but I’m talking about the people that are getting like extra extra and the very poor that are getting, shouldn’t their economy be like, off the charts?
Unknown Speaker 1:06:34
I’m not understanding that question.
Well, I’m like so if the rich people are paying taxes, and that’s what is siphoning growth, and the poor people are getting, you know, earned income tax credit and etc, etc, etc. Then shouldn’t their economy be frickin just gangbusters and then they would not be poor anymore?
Well, the people will tell you right now that the poor people are doing quite well. I don’t I don’t see
us now. Am I better than?
I don’t I don’t see it that way. But but they, they, they will tell you that.
But we saw in Houston at the conference that that didn’t look very appealing to me, not even one little bit.
Well, you’ve heard me rant about homelessness, we we have eradicated homelessness by 1970. And here we are 50 years later. And we have a chronic homeless problem in this country. So I don’t understand how we were able to come out of the Great Depression, in primitive times and by 1970, provide everyone who wanted to be housed housing, and we can’t figure out how to do it 50 years later, but anyway, let’s move on to the next article.
Yes, yes. So from the appeal, Alabama prepares to execute a man whose case is haunted by claims of police misconduct. Why am I not surprised right off the bat that this is Alabama, and also a young black man. And I bet you if we go through the article, it’s going to be like a an 11 person like 11 white people on the jury, I betcha. multiple people say That the one that they’re being is being executed, didn’t do it, and so forth. And but Alabama still wants to take him down.
Well, the reason why I zeroed in on is because he turned down a plea offer, based on his advice of his attorney, which set told him that that Alabama could not gain a conviction of a sufficient sufficient severity that would expose him to the death penalty. And he said no, and the lawyer was wrong. and subsequent to that, in 2012, the US Supreme Court decide and the left for case which I have put in the end, the show notes for those legal Google’s who want to read it. They’ve, the Supreme Court decided that I went on attorney gives you advice. That’s wrong. that constitutes ineffective. It’s one of the narrow slivers of this left of ineffective assistance of counsel. So this This guy has the potential for getting a reversal. If the courts will pay an intention if they actually believe in what the Supreme Court decided and left or back in 2012. He’s got a clemency case. Some sort of executive clemency will be by releasing him but some sort of stay. He’s got a petition for governor Riley. Well, being that she signs castration bills, I would not expect her to do anything that would, that would that would be helpful to this to this man. But he was sentenced to death before lafleur. And he refused a plea deal because its attorneys told him this is an article that the state had to prove that he pulled the trigger for him to be convicted of capital murder. This was not true under Alabama law, but what’s trusted his attorneys word, according to his 2017 habeas petition, so if they if they if they follow lafleur, the habeas court should be able to grant him relief, but the problem is, it’s like random relief that they started silence conviction. Can they can they convict him again? And if they can’t convict him again? Does a cop killer go part person who was a part of a cop killing team? Does he go free? It’s a tough case. I I’m reticent to say I don’t expect good things to happen. I’m sorry to say but but a laughter appears to give him some hope.
Okay, I’m just like, I don’t even know that even in a Jeffrey Dahmer case, I’m pro capital punishment. 911 I’m just I don’t think that I’m able to get there. But certainly not for for something less than that. Just my personal my personal opinion on where we are. And I think the Alabamians I don’t know if that’s the right word to pronounce that the population of Alabama they’ve got they’ve got work to do.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:46
Well, I sat on spec the governor grant him a relief. I would be delighted to come back and say that she did but I don’t see her doing anything to it or be
fair enough. Let’s move over to the crime. report.org can tomorrow’s prisons look Like this Larry, there’s an ottoman in this guy, his prison cell, he’s got like something that looks like a couch. Maybe that’s also his bunk, but it’s sort of like a, you know, just a very low back couch and there’s a coffee table. This is never ever in a billion kajillion bajillion years going to happen in the United States.
I tend to have that kind of pessimism. But me we can always, we can always have hope that our country will realize that the freedom loss of freedom is what the punishment is not trying to see what kind of horrible conditions we can subject people to to to destroy their health, which I think there’s an article in here about what what prison life does to people how it takes such a toll on the psychological and the physical health.
Here, here’s one for you not that I’m a big fan of vitamins but not the nutrition level and the prison food is not all that great either. So, you have to prove the silly, you have to prove that you have some level of deficiency before you can get a prescription. So that you Got a pill call to get your either a pill pack whatever, of just some sort of basic, you know, Centrum kind of vitamin. It’s it’s just unconscionable to me that the way that we treat the people in prison. This isn’t just you know, parchment is certainly the worst of the worst of the worst that we could expect to have in the American prison system. But it is so atrocious how we treat people and and as you just described that the loss of liberty and freedom, the loss of access to your family and going to movies and eating pizza and all of that stuff. That’s the punishment. You’re not supposed to be put under some auspices that you’re going to have your life threatened every day. But I know the people that were harmed, why is this person being treated so well they should go to the be buried under the prison they should have that threat every day of being sliced by a dagger, whatever. We are not a very humane society here in the United States.
American people are the most compassionate, gentle people on earth. I am appalled that you would say something like that.
We are accepted. Larry,
Unknown Speaker 1:13:00
that is correct. So that was my long dress we were running.
Let’s go over to the new york times and it will be really quick here but full coverage Harvey Weinstein is found guilty of rape. The piece of this that I just find so overwhelmingly bizarre is and I certainly can’t speak for the women that are in the position that that then take on these acts, but after the the act of rape, the alleged act of rape, that they then continue a relationship with the person and then to have consensual sex, that one just blows my mind that that’s how the situation some of them came down.
Well, it doesn’t blow my mind quite as much as it blows yours because the and I’m trying to think of a gentle way it’s never there’s never a gentle way to say what, what what I’m trying to trying to communicate, but people who have immense amount of power can persuade people to do things that they would not want to do, given given normal circumstances. Well, Harvey Weinstein had an enormous amount, amount of power in terms of people’s career. So then the question for me becomes, we we trade our entire life, trying to jockey for position and trying to align ourselves with people that can help us. Very few people align themselves with people that are going to harm them harm them normally. I mean, if you’re trying to get ahead and try and advance your career, you generally don’t look to the telephone book, if you could find one and say, Gee, I wonder who could stall my career? Let me call them and align myself with them. So you’re you’re making a calculation of who to align yourself with, alter your life trying to achieve your goals. So then the question becomes, if if part of achieving your goals is to volunteer to do sex, is that a decision that you got to have buyer’s remorse about later if you don’t achieve your goals? Now that is not the same thing as somebody Who has grabbed and groped and as forcibly engaged has someone forced themselves on them. But there is a lot of sex that happens because people are trying to work themselves into better positions. And I’m not so sure that we can turn around after and call that rape. We can call it inappropriate behavior. We can call it abuse of power, but I’m not so sure what’s right. If you’ve got consenting adults, I’m just struggling with that. Hmm.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:33
I agree and understand.
Alright, so we weren’t going to stick on that for very lot. But he is getting 25
Well, he hasn’t been sent us yet. But he’s exposed I think either 25 or 29 years. to point out put it in and it was a useful for be witnesses, meaning people who say that he did similar things to them as a part of the trial. They weren’t they were not the victims of this case and they got to testify. If you can get that type of evidence, Sam. You can have someone come in who has not been who their case is not before the court and they can say that that person has a pattern of gross behavior you can convict anybody practically anything so the four or four be the propensity evidence is is dangerous and it’s like a ship that they didn’t convict him on the predatory the monsters yes oh chances but they’ve got enough that he’ll die in prison. Certainly that and the four four B thing that you’re talking about that is the The Cosby issue for all the Cosby he has a propensity evidence where a person they can use a testimony of other accusers who were not charged who he was not charged with a sexual crime against them, they were able to testify against him because of the similarity and the allegations. And with any other high profile cases that have come up recently like that, that’s the only one that I can think of a hand. I want it all for be as a as a as a as a common thing particular and Sex cases, but I’m not thinking of any other high profile cases, but it might have come up in NASA or it might have come up in some of these where there’s been serial accusations. It’s It’s It’s dangerous stuff. Yep. That is why I am Yeah.
But then over the hill, why prosecutorial discretion must be less discreet. For criminal justice. Larry, I’ll be honest, I read it and still kind of went over my head. That’s why you’re here. I think I need that clip. That’s why are
the reason I played it in here. And it doesn’t require a lot of time. It says another case where I like to harp about where the conservatives say that they’re in favor of local control. But this is this is a case of, of legislators say, wait a minute, we don’t like the fact that you’re not prosecuting these things. And we want a second guess you’re playing this game out of Indiana. So it’s just it’s just a little bit that hypocrisy that we talked about cracy
again, we need to get more new people’s. That’s what we really need.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:56
I don’t I’ve done you people tonight.
have heard it and then the check goes crazy with all the subsequent new peoples are just this echo reverberating around a chat. Hey, thank you everyone for showing up in chat. We have a monster Full House by the way there.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:10
Oh, really? I haven’t even looked.
Yeah, I’m over there chatting constantly.
Well, I’m not I’m not capable of doing what you’re able to do as I can’t participate leader. So, I completely I completely turn that screen off when I’m doing this.
I don’t blame you. Um, let’s move over to the appeal. And we got a quick little snarky little article. It says in a Florida courtroom, people charged with probation violations face humiliation from the judge. The case that they the story that they profiled was a woman who had she I guess she had started maybe beating up her husband a little bit, but maybe she was having some sort of mental issue breakdown, something like that. And I don’t I don’t want to. I don’t want to be insensitive to the actual like the terms to be used. But so she has a probation violation based on Having an episode and the judge says well you know even considering all that you’ll be sentenced according to the guidelines, which is 24.9 months and Florida State Prison for probation violation as I understand it, which is and he says once that is over, hopefully you can live your life and be crime free. Have a good day. And the judge banged his gavel that seems really harsh man
well that this woman does appear that she has some significant mental issues with the drug Celeste, I don’t understand what all these are but she she or victim was there pulling for her not to be set to the president and of course, that’s the other side of that coin. You know, when when people say the victims, they like to give them they like to give them credibility and they like to when they when they want harshness, but when they want lenient say it’s amazing. It’s amazing. That didn’t carry any weight on the sentence like the judge say okay, but this is a bigger story of Hillsborough County, Florida Tampa area to the digital Apparently has some real issues with being polite, courteous and considerate, and following due process and is not just known for being for being very, very obnoxious. And so, of Hillsborough 7900 violations 69% did not allege in a condition of any new criminal offense. And despite the lack of new offense, 40% of those technical violations resulted in jail or prison time. In addition, according to Florida’s office for economic demographic research imprisonment rates for technical violation statewide fail from 33% and 2014 15 to 31.9% 2018. But the 13th circuit which is Hillsborough County, constitutes a disproportionate number of those people that get sent to prison for for for technical violations. So there it is, again, you know, the state is so much smarter because they have, they have all the conservative leanings to know how to decipher government waste, they’re able to send people to prison for long periods of time and have what the high incarceration rates in the nation because of people like this judge.
Gotta love it. Gotta love it. How about back over the crime report says prison life or numbers now exceed 1970 incarcerated population? So, I mean, should we just look at this, Larry, that, obviously the population is increased? I think so in, you know, we had 200 million people roughly in 1970. And now we’re in the 330s. This isn’t just a scaling thing that eventually the number of people with life sentences would be over the the prison population from a previous time
now, because the prison populations increased about seven fold since 1970. And then fold and we’ve only had about a 50 ish percent, a little bit more than that. So that population total.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:46
Yeah, that’s, that’s that’s the point I was making is that the rate of incarceration in 1970, we would, I don’t think that we would say that the crime was so rampant that you were so that you were having to scurry for cover and most parts of the country So 1970 we incarcerated at one cell at the rate we do today. And somehow another we managed to make it through 1970 Okay, and and now we have the 700% increase in our conservation rate and more people incarcerated for life than the entire incarcerated population in 1970 that that’s quite remarkable
doesn’t it? Say one in seven so the number of people serving no no where’s it says one of every seven people in US prisons is serving a life sentence that is a disgusting number.
Well, states that have done that have decided that in some cases that they’ve gone too far they’re trying to back away from it but it’s hard to undo these things when when you got people sentenced to life because trying to figure out who you can win when you say they were sounds to live your present the reaction to the to the to the average person would be slimmer to a level three sex offender use the term level three sex offender that sounds bad. Well, life are sounds bad to itself. They might have had three relatively minor felonies that might have
been have been Those three strikes or outlaws, right?
Right. And so that doesn’t necessarily apply for doesn’t necessarily translate to a really bad person. But it does translate to is that if you actually keep the pro life, you’re going to have a very expensive invite as the years go by, and you’re going to have a decreasing threat to society if ever was a threat to society. Because once I get past a certain age, the propensity for criminality drops so precipitously that you could turn most of those people loose after they’re 35 and probably wouldn’t have any more problems. But so that’s what you that’s what we learn from that but we haven’t learned that we know it but we haven’t learned it and implemented the, the changes we need to do to stop at warehousing these people for their for their entire lives.
What is the disconnect in understanding what how am I how do I want to work this? The population just wants them off the street I think and but what is the disconnect and then rehabilitation to not recidivate so now we just make sentences longer and longer and longer. We just get them out of sight out of mind for forever, essentially, like, what’s the disconnect there of don’t? Why don’t we understand that? We do want these people back in society, I would think that we want them back because it is somebody’s loved one. And we would want them living some kind of productive, prosperous life and so forth. Where’s the disconnect? I still don’t quite get that.
Well, I think that people do want folks back in society. But But once you’ve been labeled a lifer, the point I was making is that, that the perception is that’s a very bad person. That would be someone pro President Trump would refer to as our bad home race.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:37
Unknown Speaker 1:24:39
Not always said embrace once Larry, but we have some bad embrace here
and we’re going to get them out. No, so that but the people it’s a lack of understanding who’s in prison who constitutes an order to understand some of these complex issues you actually I have to give up Afternoon, have something that you would enjoy. And, and most people don’t want to want to do the study to figure out, the average citizen knows that we’ve got lifers in prison. And they know that that as far as their hear on the news, that they’re not saying that crime is running rampant, although it isn’t. And they want to feel safe. That’s what the average person knows you have to be above average in terms of your taking the time to understand the criminal justice system to no more than 10 the average person All they know is they
say they feel unsafe. And we have a companion article that goes with that one from the appeal that says life sentences lock away too many people in too much potential, just just covering the same thing but from their point of view, and it is a massive amount of human capital wasted to do all sorts of things, whatever those are two, you know, super high end computer programmers to whatever job you know, even down to like your local grocery store bagger and you know, there’s just just a lot of wasted potential just sitting behind the walls. tragic, but
Unknown Speaker 1:26:01
hopefully that’ll change in my lifetime. We are we are making progress towards the there’s a lot of lot of support for, for for what does it call the massacre in mass incarceration. sure that that’s, that’s a movement that is actually gaining traction.
So I have a lot of
Unknown Speaker 1:26:20
it. I do. I do have hope that, that we will recognize that we’re lighting up too many people in your lifetime. I think I think in my lifetime, we could see that. Okay.
And second to last year, we have a California bill that would seal 2 million criminal records. This is from AP news. I gotta think that this is a good thing, but someone’s not going to be happy about like, damn it. I need to know that this person did a bad thing so many years ago, because I need to know all the things about people.
Well, it’s gonna, it’s gonna face a tough process to get through but the pro proposal would automatically for records dating back to 1973, but I’m not clear the nuances of the Who all will be clear, I’m fairly certain the sex offenses would be excluded. I mean, they always do manage to exclude that from everything. So, but at least it’s a positive. I always tell people if we, if we can’t get everything we want, we take the steps to get as much as we can. And if Armageddon doesn’t happen, we can come back later and say, See, and 2020 we sell 2 million records. And the crime rates in California have not gone through the roof. All life is we know it didn’t end. So let’s go back and look at the remainder of people who have records that talk about who else’s we can see if we can get it all why not get as much as we can. And the other side of that people say, well, you’re throwing everybody under the bus, Larry, you’re just throwing people under the bus. And now I’m, if a criminal record is as bad as it is, I think it is. And if it hampers your productivity, and does as much damage. I want to save all I can If I can’t save everybody, I want to save as many as I can if we can, if we can make 2 million people’s life better. Isn’t that a good thing? Brenda wants to know, why do you list when you’re quoting people?
Unknown Speaker 1:28:14
I learned it from rush.
Oh, is that right? Your he’s your idol. Right?
Well, I wouldn’t say that. But he has 30 million listeners a week. We were just slightly under that number.
We’re slightly under that I got. I didn’t total I totally didn’t mean to skip this article. But the Did you see all the rage about this little six year old girl that got cut handcuffed?
Unknown Speaker 1:28:38
I did and I
think that it’s it’s remarkable that an adult individual that wears a badge of any law enforcement agency cannot figure out a way.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:51
That’s not traumatizing to restrain a six year old even if restraint is even needed. I don’t know that. That’s what the six year old was doing. It’s a six year old school. Crazy. But if a six year olds going crazy, and adult has enough strength to hold a six year old to the six year old completely runs out of energy, and then and then if the six year old restores the energy and most of fights, the more you would use the softest restraint you could find, you would pull off your bandana your headscarf or something. And you would tell the six year old now I’m going to have to do this because you’re, you’re you’re wailing and you’re going to hurt yourself with somebody and I’m gonna have to, I’m gonna have to tie your hands until you run out of energy. And when you agree to quit being combative, we’re going to take we’re going to take the scarf off your hands, that’s all you would do. You would never take the plastic wraps that you’d put on when you run out of handcuffs. When you’re when you’re doing a drug raid. You would never put twist ties on a six year old for heaven’s sakes.
This is so bizarre so the video you’ll find it you’ll find it probably all over the internet these like almost like I almost feel bad for the police officers because they’re probably getting their houses are probably being tomatoes and whatnot. But the Girls like what are those like? Well, those are some costs and like, well, who were there for there for you and she starts wailing. She’s like, just crying, right? And they walk around, they put her in the back of a police car. She’s six years old. Someone also told me that she has some sort of disability of some sort. So she’s not a what’s the right word to normal? I forgot what what did what did Nick Dublin, Dublin say about? I think he called us cognitive normals or something like that. I forgot the term he used. But this girl has some sort of disability
or clearly, but I don’t know why we did we were going to end up having a mega law, because the agencies that that the command staff of these agencies can’t just simply say, Don’t handcuff don’t put any type of restraint of on a child below a certain age. And if you do have to use the Salafis restraint that you can find,
this is like the pregnancy handcuff thingamajigger the restraining restraints for the pregnant ladies.
Yes, I probably will have to pass a law because Thank you. Not use their, their brain to do that. You should you shouldn’t ever find the need to handcuff a six year old.
It could couldn’t the cop like you know, he’s got the radio there on the shoulder like a dispatch, can I speak to the captain? Do I really? Do you really, really want me to put cuffs on the six year old and he’s like, damn it. I said put cuffs on anybody that’s acting disorderly and, okay. And this is a media shitstorm for him.
Well, if I were the officer, if I got that command, I would refuse to follow it. Todd say sorry, Captain. I’m not gonna do that. I’ve got a child that I’m not gonna I’m not going to put restraints on child. Sorry. Yeah, I’ll save her and hold her if I have to, but I’m not going to do that.
Yes, there. Are you ready to move over to part two of the scalli eclipse?
Unknown Speaker 1:31:43
Scalia? Is that how you call it?
Well, I do that off the air but not on the air.
I think you told me that it was being being super disrespectful to a Supreme Court justice, correct.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:55
Well, a friend of mine when he got appointed, he asked me that he’s said what do you know about this Scalia? Oh, real I had no idea what he was who he was talking about.
He said, this is appointed this guy named Scalia. He said, Do you know anything about it must have noticed what they’re saying. And to me was and I said, but I didn’t hear it pronounced that way. I thought it was Scalia. Oh, okay. That’s what that’s all that it goes back to like a friend of mine from the 1980s. I think he got appointed 86. If I remember,
and this is part two, this is a conversation. This is a moderator, I guess, having a conversation between Scalia and then Brian, is that correct?
Yeah, this is justice Briar. And this is this is going to enlighten us again on whether or not the constitution evolves. And also whether or not if you don’t like something that magically transforms it to be unconstitutional. That’s the point of this of this clip is is to contrast the rigid ideology of a Scalia versus what what Brian This is a 57 minute clip program. So we’ve only played a few minutes between these two clips. So you guys want to watch it go watch the entire 57 minutes. It’s a it’s a great, it’s a great clip as a great exchange between the two at etiology.
And this is about three minutes long. So here
Unknown Speaker 1:33:18
we go. I don’t know the exact details of what everybody in the 18th century thought was cruel and unusual. But they didn’t enact that. They enacted into law, cruel and unusual punishment, which man, a set of values, not a specific set of 18th century circumstances. So for me, the question would be how do those values that they enacted, then apply to our circumstances today? Now, I think most people, don’t forget everybody. But I think you get a pretty broad consensus that you should not execute people for robbery today, or for them, or for old felonies you’re doing I think everybody today would say it’s fine to execute a 13 year old. So when we look around the world and look around the United States, and we see, there’s hardly anybody that executes a child, even one over 12, the question becomes where do we draw the line today? Not where they drew the line in the 18th century. But where do we draw the line today in terms of the values, but they enacted into that constitution in the 18th century? And I’ll tell you, that becomes a difficult question. Should it be 1817 1615? I don’t think anybody’s gonna go down to 12. But how to do that and figure it out and try to do it in a way that has some objective appeal, and not just what I subjectively feel. That’s why the job is a difficult job is a job. This is difficult job for judges. But that’s the point of disagreement. I say, how you do that in a particular case.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:56
What circumstances have changed Death was
Unknown Speaker 1:35:00
death and death is death now.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:03
He was 18, mid 18 is 18. Now, you’re talking about applying different values. I agree with you that they were enacting a value judgment. But it was a value judgment of that time. You do not have to adhere to that value judgment if indeed you think you shouldn’t execute people under 18 fine pass a law. But once you abandon what they meant, by cruel, unusual punishment, and say, Oh, yeah, even though they didn’t think it covered that pebble, we think it does. You are at sea and it is as you say, a difficult job. I Steve, I don’t know how you do it. I’m just glad that I don’t play that game.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:47
I would lie awake at night.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:51
What are you going to get
Unknown Speaker 1:35:53
to do people for embezzlement? Are you going to execute them? I mean, you won’t parking tickets.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:02
What about sure you make the example the less likely it is to occur here
Unknown Speaker 1:36:08
Oh, I would like to kill people for embezzlement but but but it’s but it’s not unconstitutional What about practices that were followed at the time of the founding year notching the pillory? If what if cases like that arose? Would you find likely that their constant I find their constitutional and stupid listen a lot of stuff that is constitutional and enormous amount of stuff that’s constitutional is stupid that that cannot be the test no they’re really stupid
Unknown Speaker 1:36:35
constitutional but stupid right
and we’ve played a similar level before and I I use that for helping people understand not liking something does it transform it to be unconstitutional that’s not a test it’s it’s seldom a test and it really shouldn’t be a test because the courts do not exist they did not create the that branch of government To be a super referee of what we impose on ourselves through our elected officials. It’s a super referee. to, to, to stand guard for when we do things that do violate, clearly what’s in the Constitution. And we don’t have a lot of things that we think are in the constitution or not in the Constitution, people argue all the time they have the right to free speech. Well, you do to the extent that the government is interfering with that, right, but you don’t have a right to commandeer someone else’s platform to use it to convey your message. And I say, Well, why don’t you go to church on Sunday and tell them, Hey, I kind of don’t really agree with what comes out his pulpit every Sunday. And I’d like to have your microphone this week because I have a counter message. Find out how much free speech you have. You have you have absolutely. You have absolutely no constitutional right to their microphone. But now on the other hand, if government comes in and says you cannot be in that facility on Sunday morning, because the government doesn’t want you there. Then you have a constitution. Why? Because government doesn’t have any, any business interfering in your exercise of religion, or how you choose to speak if the church chooses to let you speak, or whether that’s up to them. But some things that we think are constitutional rights are not constitutional rights. It’s the way what he said in the first clip about where the way it should be versus the way it is. And that’s where I get should be versus is be. Blessing should be a certain way. But they’re not because we haven’t made them that way.
I know you don’t know inside the brain of Mr. Scalia. But it could be construed that he’s actually trying to go about it like, Hey, man, I want to just go about this the easiest, laziest way possible. And I don’t want to if it doesn’t fit inside of this mold of what is or isn’t constitutional. I don’t have to think about it.
That’d be one way to imagine him. I think that I wouldn’t be quite as sinister. I think that he believes he’s protecting the Constitution. He believes that it can evolve both ways. He believes that they have Loving standard of decency can’t become an evolving standard of tyranny. And he cites he cites to the erosion of the Confrontation Clause which he is credit, helped restore the Confrontation Clause during his term on the court. But he believes that if the constitution can evolve, it can evolve in a dangerous way. So I believe that lazy may not be his entire motivation. I believe that he he paced he’s fearful of evolution. I braugher says that he’s he’s not seeing evidence of evolving in a negative way. But theoretically, if the constitution can evolve, what would stop it? It certainly way if you have a strong enough, if you have the victims advocates, who if they gain sufficient power, why can’t we evolve out a bunch of constitutional rights? That’s what the people want in large numbers. Why wouldn’t why wouldn’t Scalia be right to be afraid?
It seems that Briar would probably sit there and have the same sort of argument that he’s just protecting what he believes is the purpose of the Constitution just the same huskily is Absolutely. And that’s the whole point that
these clips make is that legal minds can disagree. And that appeal that’s going on in Georgia 11th circuit right now. We’re both arguing the mootness doctrine. And we’re both right. Both sides are arguing the mootness doctrine, saying the cases boot for different that we’re saying it’s boot for our reasons, because we don’t want a decision that reverses the injunction. And the sheriff is saying that Islam, this is an exception to the mootness doctrine. And here’s why. And their arguments for what they have properly cited, what the exceptions are going to start, right. And that’s an issue that’s capable of reputation, but there wasn’t sufficient time for it to be reviewed because of the compact time. Well, they had a very compact time to respond. We filed a lawsuit in October. It was it was decided, in a very short turnaround time. There were so time for an appeal. The injunction was issued on the 29th they’re absolutely correct the head Two days I could not possibly perfect an appeal. So they’re saying that they should be able to have their blatant appeal down there. They’re accurately and correctly arguing the exception to the mootness doctrine. We’re citing the damn things moved the judge granted, it was good for 2019 Halloweens over, the injunction is now dissolved. And the cases over it should be dismissed where you can you can be looking at the exact same situation, and you can completely rationally disagree in terms of what the how the law should be applied.
One final question that I have for you here is, why is it that only the right leaning folks are considered like constitutionalist originalist pick your term there and the lefties are trying to destroy the constitution? Isn’t there some sort of ground to say that I’m trying to protect these things like the Confrontation Clause, but I have left leaning politics, but I still respect all of the principles that are there secondment, why doesn’t that exist, it doesn’t seem that it does. Does that exist?
Well, I resent that when people say that it’s kind of like when they say that they vote for a candidate because they look at the bigger picture, to say that the people that come from from a from a more liberal ideology somehow don’t love this constitution a cherished values and love this great country is so absurd and offensive. It is so absurd. I mean, the right wingers love to say that that Obama was trying to destroy the country. He was doing no such thing. He was a very patriotic even though all the rest of the list hit it. Senator McCain said that to one of his supporters that came up to him when he was running against Obama. And she said, I’m afraid of this man. And he thought a patriotic something to that effect. And he said, No, ma’am. He’s a very patriotic that people who say that, that the left is to try and restore the Constitution, that it’s ridiculous. We cherish the Constitution. We cherish the constitution as much as you did. We just happen to believe that the Constitution does different things and different ways than what you believe.
Finally, Larry, we are almost ready to get out of here. I have a voicemail from Super patron Mike in Florida again, and has another question for you. Are you ready to go? Let’s do it.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:10
Hey, guys, it’s Mike again this week down in Central Florida. I had a question in a in a request. My question is in the state in the near future when some of these laws or these restrictions that we have are overturned and deemed unconstitutional, the things change, such as stuff that we’ve been talking about Michigan for some of the registrants who were from pre 2000, you know, six and way back, if any of those people get released, and it’s in there, you know, dropped from the registry. Here’s my question. If they had any technical violations during those years that they were on the registry. Well, those technical violations stand or will they have grounds to go back and have those sealed or removed I’m not sure how that works. I’m sure I’m using the wrong terminology. Anyway, I was just thinking about that this week. And would they have a leg to stand on a table and say, Hey, listen, this was never legal in the first place. Could we go back and, you know, get something like that baby expunged, or whatever the case may be. But anyway, that was my question. And my statement is for the other 50,000 listeners that listen to this podcast every week, I need you guys to call in and let’s get some voicemails on here and save the voicemail. You know, Larry likes the voicemails. And he’s a big part of what we’re doing here. So we need you guys to step up and help me call in with some good questions. Other than that, I appreciate what you guys do and a big ol fyp to anybody who don’t listen to this podcast.
How about that from Mike? That is actually a fantastic question. And it is going to be on the list of questions that that will come up on the nozzle and action. National litigation review by denied. And, to my chagrin, I was not the thinker of the question. It has been one. It’s been raised several times through through the ACLU, to the ACLU, to our contact that works with the ACLU there in Michigan. And he submitted to me as a proposed question, and I love it. So it’s going to be asked, I don’t know the answer to it. It stands to reason that, that they would be able to if the greater question within that, what he’s wanting to know, what about the people that are serving prison time right now for violating that because Michigan, Michigan may not have the the many states work count that as a habitual felony, we don’t exempt because it’s simple regulatory scheme. So it’s not a felony that’s eligible for for enhancement in my state. But what about the people who that may have been their third, second, third, fourth, felony conviction? What about those people who are either still in prison or still in supervisory control? What happens to their conviction? We should when they Would they be able to be released? What would they? I don’t know the answer to that it seems like they would but and on the other hand, what about when, in the case of Gennaro Wilson and Georgia where they were they a young man who had sex with a with the he was 17. She was 15. And it was consensual. That was a felony. And he got the Georgia Supreme Court declared that to be a cruel unusual punishment under the under the state constitution. It only applied to him all the hundreds of young men that were in prison. The State of Georgia have fought vigorously to keep them incarcerated and Attorney General Baker at the time. Old Thurber, his name was Thurber it said that that’s what exactly where they belong. So if Michigan would follow that model of Georgia, they would try as hard as I can to keep to secure those convictions they have. And they would fight tooth and nail not to let anybody have the abunda that would be my expectation.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:56
All right, then. What about
a second part the statement of God sorry.
Yeah. It’ll be it’ll be on the podcast and on the on the dorsal action. And we’ll ask that to the attorney. And what the second part of the question I’ve got old timers?
Well, he had just said that I think the statement was basically we need to keep the voicemail system going because you’re all about some voicemails and fyp to all those that don’t listen to the podcast.
Well, I agree with the voicemails. They’re there. They’re great. particular one there well thought out questions. And that was that was a great question.
Mike’s a pretty sharp cat. Larry, I’m going to tease this that I have something pretty exciting that I’m going to release very soon on the YouTubes. It may happen this week. I don’t know if I will, if I will finally make it through. But I’m going to try and kick it over the the goalpost. You’ve seen it. What do you think? Should I do it?
I think so. I think it’s a stellar job that you’ve done on that video. And I wish I could speak as stutter proof as you did in there.
A lot of practicing. So yeah, I might be able to, I might be able to release that and then maybe with your assistance to try and come up with something on a, I don’t know, weekly every other week, once a month, something like That to try and release something so there’s your teaser and I think that can close out the show Larry How do people find us on the internet?
Unknown Speaker 1:48:08
Very carefully. Of course always carefully very very carefully though. It was very gotcha
so isn’t it registered matters dot CEO
it is it is registering matters dot CEO and again Don’t ask me why is the CEO not I mean why it’s a CEO not a.com I have no idea what I was thinking when I did that. But it is a dot CEO not a cop. How about your favorite thing a phone number? How do people reach us by the old school stringing two cans together with a with a
string. If you still have a working phone call 7472 to 74477 I started to say dial but no one dials habits anymore.
even know how to dial anymore. So yeah, we are standing by 24 seven. And for the low low low of 1995. You can have your But anyway, and then you can send us an email If you’d like to register your matters email@example.com fantastic. And of course we love all of our patrons but if you would like to, and we would love it if you would get together put together a million dollars and you can support the podcast and the efforts and all the brainy Agnes that Larry is. People go where Larry?
Oh, that would be patreon.com slash registry matters.
Fan freaking fantastic. You know what, though, we also get a ton of people listening to the show on YouTube, go over there and subscribe. And that would be amazing. And you could find us on Twitter. And these are all registry matters at these different places. I think other than registering matters cast because I was a dumb, dumb and forgot the password when I created the email account. That’s another story entirely as well.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:44
So you can’t you can’t check the
email. I can check this one but I had an original one and I forgot the password. But that’s two and a half years ago.
So well. What about Spotify? Can they find us there?
Unknown Speaker 1:49:57
Yes, you can find us on Spotify, iTunes, Google. Play, Spotify, Pandora everywhere.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:03
I hope you have a splendid Saturday night.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:07
Well, while I’m in the chat room now it’s packed to the gills
it is we had a bunch of people and I so very much appreciate chat. You can find a link in the show notes if you want to come join us over on discord and you can harass me and talk to all the other people’s. And yes, and somebody in chat is saying the okay and then the G word play registry matters. I’m not going to say that because all my stuff would fire up in here. So but you can do that. Yes. And the a word to it is on all of those platforms. Larry, I hope you have a splendid night and I will talk to you soon. Good night. Night.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai