registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 123 of registry matters. Larry, do you have an interesting story today to tell me about how your car works? Oh, by the way, how are you tonight?
Oh, well, my I’m not walking in a balanced fashion anymore.
Your tires are unbalanced.
No, my, my the weight of my
right pocket has changed dramatically since I left my house.
Okay. Now I understand now I understand what happened. Just give you the brief synopsis.
I was I was doing my social distancing. And I did my first order by click list. I went to the grocery store to pick up the order which they bring to your car. I didn’t bother to scope it out it wasn’t a store next door to our office but it was one that had only had to wait a week to get a slot and I would had to wait longer at my store. And so I I’m circling through the parking lot and I did a cut across and I apparently picked up a shroud of metal that gash my tire. So I ended up with a repair bill for replacement for two tires because it got a long ways it was not like a just a nail puncture hole, it couldn’t plug it so so my grocery turned into a trip but when I added the tires,
so that serves you right for ordering groceries online to go pick them up.
Unknown Speaker 1:42
Well, I did it certainly did. I hope that that I can get the weekly cost down a little bit lower than that what this week’s or
Unknown Speaker 1:49
that’s definitely not an affordable grocery bill.
Unknown Speaker 1:52
Well, hopefully, we’ll How many times can you run over a piece of metal infinite, I suppose.
Another thing in front of your tire on the next rotation.
Unknown Speaker 2:02
So but yeah, that was, but I checked my tires routinely before I start every trip. And then I got an indicator on the way from the store to the office that that I had low tire pressure. So I started circling the car trying to figure out which one was low and I couldn’t spot it by visual, but I put my ear close when I heard the hissing of the loss of air. So then I realized which one was leaking.
Well, I will introduce our guests for the evening. I don’t know that we’ve had two guests on here. At the same time, Larry, this is a this is a first for registry matters to have two guests at the same time, from opposite ends, the north and the south parts of the United States. Joshua, you are well known on the podcast and certainly doing your own podcast, Josh. Whoa. Doing decarceration nation and Twitter extraordinaire. How are you tonight? Pretty good thing. I’m so glad that you can join us as you’re always always welcome in a very excellent addition when when you are on Larry, can you do me a favor? Introduce King Alexander from Louisiana. Okay, we
have a person who has been with us occasionally both on Arslan action. And on registry matters. The King Alexander who is a supervising felony without parole attorney, and the State of the State of Louisiana, and it’s the calcasieu. Parish, welcome King. And this is really short notice I happen to see the press release that we’re going to talk about, and as I was doing show prep today, and I said, Well, I’m going to call him and he actually answered the phone. And he actually said he would join. So thank you for coming.
Glad to be here.
Thank you very much King. Let me start this up. I have this and everyone feel free to chime in with I came across something that was a national poll. So today, I learned a poll once included the question, have you ever been decapitated? 4% of the population said yes.
Random thought that sounds that sounds. Sounds about right. That’s about an error.
Unknown Speaker 4:01
I have a feeling
that they don’t know what the word means. But I find that to be hysterical.
I’d say about it’s possible that they read.
Unknown Speaker 4:09
I’d say about four out of every hundred people I pass or walk around. Hey, let’s let’s say that’s about right. Mike in chat says he has never been decapitated.
I just wanted to start things off lightly with that one.
They could also they could also be relatives of the head.
Unknown Speaker 4:24
Okay, that’s one in 25. That’s the exoneration rate from Louisiana’s death row.
Oh, all right, Josh, you are here, mainly for this. For this late breaking news. I believe that a federal judge blocks Michigan from enforcing state’s Sex Offender Registry until COVID-19 crisis has ended. This is this first article is coming from the appeal. What’s going on?
Yeah, so you know, the same judge that just handled the case that everybody’s familiar with the cloud does what’s called dose two or the class action V. Snyder was asked to more or less weigh in on the problems of trying to enforce the registry at the time of COVID. It’s the same. And so basically, he did several things. One thing he did was delayed the time for the clock to start on his recent ruling on the dose class action until the crisis is over. But more importantly, for people on the registry, he basically said that the registry can’t be enforced from the beginning of the crisis until the end of the crisis. And he actually has a particular definition of when the crisis ends, which is removed when the state of emergency gets lifted, and everyone gets notified, if I remember correctly. And then in addition to that, and this is what I thought was the most important part. He very explicitly said that prosecutors then can’t go back and enforce strict liability failure to register cases after the fact. And so it gives everybody an essence a Liberty, no amnesty until this crisis is over, because what you’re experiencing was a lot of people not wanting to have to go into police stations to register at a time when they’re not supposed to be at when they’re supposed to be socially, socially distant from people. And then we also had the problem where police stations were turning people away who were trying to register, which would have left them down the road potentially with having violated a strict liability law. And so it was, I think, a fairly good solution. And unfortunately, I doubt that that’s the case in most states across the country, but it really should be given the situation. Well, I’ve I’ve
Unknown Speaker 6:47
I do. Do note that I think that I saw an article that Michigan had had the state place had asked the local police already to stop to stop there in person. Did I read that correctly? I think Hills, Michigan are that the the state place?
Yeah, they were going to stop the in person registration for anyone who is before 2011. And that was going to happen relatively soon. But then there were some there was some infighting about that and it hadn’t. It had been announced. So it’s probably going to happen but it wouldn’t have covered everyone. This order covers everybody. Okay. At least until the emergency law. I find I find it so discombobulating to me and and I have trouble even understanding that these departments would even consider having in person reporting taking place because you would want to keep your officer safe even if you don’t care anything about two people. And it’s one of those things where you have an absolute defense where you don’t have an absolute there’s never such things absolute defense, but you certainly have an affirmative defense in my opinion, because if you’re under health quarantine and this is not one of the lists Have exceptions to the quarantine or that you’re supposed to stay home. But you know, the registry is not a grocery store. It’s not a pharmacy. And it’s not you’re not a tier one responder that’s going out to a job. So it seems like to me you have a very good affirmative defense that you could not comply because to do so would have been violating a directive. Therefore, I think that a case would go nowhere, even if a renegade prosecutor would bring such a case. That’s a good thing. We have a lawyer in the room because I mean, the way it was always explained to me and I could clearly be wrong on this one is that I remember literally sitting in my lawyers office, and when I sat down, when I first got arrested, I said, Well, I have a whole bunch of affirmative defenses. And he looked at me and said, you don’t really know don’t work so well, because it’s a strict liability law. And in the case of failure to register, most of those, as I understand it, are strict liability. And so you could have defenses till that, you know, as long as the day is and maybe it would work. I don’t know. But I think you’re my understanding at least is legally you’re still responsible to register. I could be totally Well, thank you. I think you’re diagnosing I’m describing a strict liability. There’s a little misunderstanding of strict liability offense is not what you described with strict liability is that that, that you can commit the crime without knowing and analogy, but we’d be like speeding, you could be driving down the road and be going 55 in a 35 mile an hour zone, and you can sell so I didn’t know. And it doesn’t matter that you didn’t know that knowledge is not a requirement. But in and for serious offenses and all felony level offenses with exception of sexual offenses and a few drug offenses in state of Florida, and I worked on a case in Florida, so I’m familiar with their strict liability. There doesn’t have to be any knowledge or intent to break the law you just simply by the fact that you’re not compliant, but your own orders. It’s not even the same analogy, your own orders to stay home. And I would just love to do the closing argument if a prosecutor brought a case. And I would say Your Honor, did LaserJet To jury, if it’s a jury trial, we had a situation where the person was complying with the governor’s or the whatever authority issue issued to say at home orders, and they could not go out without contaminating a risk and public safety. And therefore you should do this, this person should be acquitted, and I don’t think anybody’s gonna be convicted. But that doesn’t mean that someone might not get arrested. And that’s the fear. And they give a lot more faith in Judges, the
Unknown Speaker 10:28
king, what do you think do you think Larry or Josh is right?
Unknown Speaker 10:31
Well, I would just add this strict liability is one of the subject matters that the federal courts who have looked hard at registration have in in their crosshairs. strict liability is supposed to be for really low level type offenses like a parking thing and to apply it to very serious crimes where it doesn’t matter like lack of knowledge of the victims age shall not be a defense. That’s that’s almost universally, and that’ll Louisiana sex laws that deal with that. But I remember in putting together what I’ve done for the CLS that I teach on this that in the federal cases where this has been litigated strict liability is one of the subject matters that they look at it as a due process issue. And so it is kind of a sliding scale, whether it’s okay that you don’t have notice that you’re violating the law. I kind depends on what’s its stake with the law in question.
Unknown Speaker 11:30
Unknown Speaker 11:33
I can tell you that in my point, there was that strict liability already was problematic when we didn’t have this pandemic emergency. Now, it’s crazy to require it in person reporting is a whole other area that is questionable, whether it meets reasonable basis test, you know, for for legislation and things that restrict Liberty, you know, should be subject to a little bit more than just the reasonable basis test. But where I live, it’s not uniform in Louisiana, a Jefferson Parish attorney recently chimed in to our lists are further for the Louisiana criminal defense lawyers that because I asked Are they still requiring in person reporting there and one lawyers client in Jefferson Parish, which is part of the Greater New Orleans area, which is a hotspot. They said that they had been allowed to report remotely Well, I’ve been told that here in calc Shu Parish, which is the 14th district. Jefferson is the 24th there in captured they’re still requiring in person reporting, and they’ve got the most boneheaded people that they could possibly have over that people that didn’t work out another detective squad. Is
what what are what what a surprise King you know, I He used to talk about that When, when, when the sheriff is is responsible. Unfortunately for us here in bernalillo County, the sheriff does run the jail. But in in the majority of jurisdictions I do and the people that end up on jail duty are usually not people who say, Sheriff, I tell you if you write me a deputy, I sure would love to work in the jailhouse. I mean, when you when you end up at the jailhouse, it’s because you failed usually at most other assignments, you’re on some kind of punitive detail because you couldn’t get your act together. Most people want to be able to patrol or be able detectives. They want to be on course secured. They’re not interested in working in the jailhouse. So you don’t have the cream of the crop of the sheriff’s department working in jails. But you do have some good people always put that qualifier in there because people say that I’m stereotyping everyone, but the cream of the crop doesn’t rise to the bottom of jail detention centers.
Unknown Speaker 13:50
Well, I could I could say how it’s done here and cashew they all start out in the jail. Everyone who works for the sheriff starts out in the jails, but if they’re still there after two years, that means they They cream didn’t rise.
Unknown Speaker 14:04
Alrighty. Do you want to move on to the article forking there there? Are we ready to go there?
Unknown Speaker 14:11
I think he’s ready to talk about his press release. In and your case King, your department filed a file some legal action. And my story says motion and I just want to let you explain it but but your your your department has undertaken some action front of free hundreds of people from custody. So tell us what you did.
Unknown Speaker 14:33
Well, the original reporting on k PLC, which is the NBC affiliate here, it was by Teresa Schmidt, who’s been there a long time I know her. And when I saw what she the way she had originally phrased it, she said that we filed a lawsuit. And I texted her and I said, we didn’t file a lawsuit. You know, it’s emotion. Our clients are the defendants, you know, and they want a hearing on this. And she said, Well, I’ll fix it on the online version. But that’s That’s what we did I have a copy of that. And then the district attorney’s reaction, oh, it was just kind of typical.
Unknown Speaker 15:11
And I crafted a rebuttal to it.
Unknown Speaker 15:14
He let me just click on the article for a second to see what he said. And this is pretty typical of when he talks to the media, this john de Roget de capital Oro si er. There’s a lot of press about him. The Washington Post has written about him for different things. So he’s, he’s, he’s being challenged. This is an election year, and the prior electorate elected district attorney Rick Bryant is running against him. The guy who handed it off to him in the first place, is now trying to unseat him because he’s just become ridiculous. And what he says in here with it rubbed me the wrong way. He says the public defender’s office refuses to recognize the difference with Those who have civic nificant violent criminal histories and those are currently charged with a non violent crime. Well, you know, he let me just say it’s it’s typical for him to start out his comments to the media by denigrating the defense function altogether. This time he falsely accused the public defenders of quote, refusing recognize that inmates aren’t all the same. Frankly, that’s just ridiculous. He goes on to say that there needs to be analysis and adjudication which of course that’s what we asked for. Sorting one inmate out from another is for the judges were advocates and the district attorney to Roget is an advocate. We filed a motion he didn’t that’s his prerogative, but he has no business saying we shouldn’t have filed. If he thinks it’s frivolous, then let him ask for sanctions. Don’t hold your breath on that. He’d rather just, you know, bash us in the media and unfairly it’s just you know, I wouldn’t be saying so much about it. If he didn’t do it, ever. Time. Now here’s the issue. The Louisiana Supreme Court issued emergency orders and guidelines for release of prisoners due to the corona virus pandemic. Now those orders and guidelines need to be enforced and calcasieu parish. Now that would be done at all only after a hearing on the record in the light of day. The da doesn’t want to motion file that way nothing happens on the light of day nothing really happens at all by mid the sheriff is not you know if the sheriff has a dog in this fight it is that he needs fewer people in his jail right now he has a not only a jail but his sheriff’s prison where he has State Department of Corrections prisoners. And it’s sad when the only limitation on the overcrowding in our local jails is because the fire marshal has to say something if the the defense attorneys are Filing motions, and they’re not doing what they should do. And this needs to be done with you uniformly across all the divisions of the court. There’s no unity in the court here, you have a couple of judges that don’t want to let anybody out for anything, they set million plus dollar bonds on every case case of a certain type, and so on. So what we’ve asked for is an on mock hearing. That way all the judge, if they grant this, all the judges would sit together in a single body, it would probably just convened by video from where each one of them happens to be. And they would all hear all the applications and they would vote on each one. And what that does is you would have maybe a reasonable more reasonable core or a majority among all the six districts that have adult felony cases going and he would get more you for uniformity result across the board instead of some judges that go light on everybody and some that go heavy on anybody. There’s no uniformity and that’s a problem and it goes without saying that time is of the essence on this. Look at the mounting deaths next door to us and Alan parish at the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility there. They were up to six dead in there as of this morning with the morning paper. Last time I looked at and there are many more inmates and employees sick with the COVID-19 Coronavirus. They’re, we’re asking our judges for a prop hearing before this disease gets into our jails or it may already be there. I mean, it they may not even be testing. We haven’t heard anything. Now. They say they don’t have any cases now. That’s great. That means you don’t have to fear them getting out and giving us the disease. But if you have it sweep through there and kill people, the level of care is notoriously low anyway all the time. And it
Yeah. You said a term that I’ve heard of legal podcasts to listen to us. Did you say on Bach
Unknown Speaker 19:59
well It’s French words in is the first one and the second one is bonk ba NC bank like in a panel. It’s like a panel of judges all ball competes in the Federal Courts of Appeal. For instance, we’re in the Fifth Circuit. Sometimes litigants may ask for a hearing are we hearing on Bach and that just means that all the judges or a quorum of the judges sit to hear the thing together. Instead of one judge Genet Courts of Appeal, it’s usually a panel of three but a non balk is a much larger panel that cuts across all the different little, well, three, almost,
I was wondering if we can zero in What did you ask for in your in your motions, because we’ve gone into a lot of detail about the what the prosecution said, but what are you seeking? So simply, what are you asking to be done?
Unknown Speaker 20:50
I’m ready summarizes motion for you. It’s just barely over two pages, and it’s very much along the lines of what Josh was saying. And really goes to what the work that Louise Supreme Court has already done because they categorized everybody into risk categories. And they made recommendations to the district judges, that what they should do is just that here, they haven’t done it or they don’t have any unity among the judges, they’re all doing different things. Basically, we’ve asked for an on box so that we have the whole deliberative body and there’s more uniformity in the result across the district, four categories of things judicial release persons, who are not a serious danger to the community, to meaningful Bond Reduction, so that which have been scarce. Three setting of detainer bonds, that is allowing people to bond out on something that would normally hold them in jail if we weren’t having a pandemic and you didn’t have to have social distancing. And then the last fourth thing is to reconsider sentences of people who were very near the end of their sentences if they’re within six months of release. Just go back, revisit that sentence and see if it doesn’t make sense to just cut that person loose. And get him out of there. Now, man, all this is just in line with what the you know, the top judges have already said go ahead keynote. So now we’re now we’re still discussing jails, right? This is not the Louisiana Department of Corrections. You’re talking about the
Unknown Speaker 22:15
local jails, but you have people serving State Department of Corrections terms in these jails as well. And you have parish jail term. So it’s all of the above. Okay.
So but it wouldn’t do anything for the actual Department of Corrections Frankel and places like that it wouldn’t do anything for them. You’d have to be on a local jail, correct. Right. Okay. Just Just for clarification. So the corrections department is a whole different it’s a whole different ballgame in terms of that, because they’re not doing
Unknown Speaker 22:40
a whole different thing. But the judge who was the sentencing judge who is in the division that sent it so on to the Department of Corrections Senate, so they are now authorized to revisit those sentences if they’re within six months of completion that’s across the board. And so if they’re here doing a DFC Senate’s most of those people will have been sentenced by one of our The judges in our district.
And so like in Michigan, you know, we have the situation where about it was about a week and a half ago where the governor put out an executive order on jails, and did a lot of the things that are similar to what was in that, that that letter and a few other things. We’ve been waiting patiently for well over a week now for her to also put out her executive order about prisons that we we’ve heard about, but it seems to be delayed. And it you know, as we were saying earlier in the politics of the thing, you know, what we, you know, we really like to see is what King just said a second ago, you know, a lot of times we get caught up in these discussions about what kind of crime category people were committed in, in my opinion, if someone’s a couple months away, and they’ve done a 20 year sentence, who gives a damn if they get out in April, or they get out in June? You know, I mean, if you really are that worried about the two months, then you know, I mean, I think you’ve got the wrong price. You know, and you should be trying to get out everybody who you can get out. That’s that’s, you know, either inevitably going to get out soon, which means the same risk of the, you know, same public safety risk, or people who are a low public safety risk. At the very least, we should get everybody who’s a low public safety risk, you know, people who are, you know, in for everything from you know, nonviolent offenses, low level offenses, you know, personal use drugs and stuff like that and then start working on a case by case basis to get as many of the people as out as you can after that. That’d be my Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 24:37
exactly. It’s just it’s just the comments that stuff cut down the population in there. It’s dangerously close as you said. And I remember meeting you now I want to say, Houston.
Unknown Speaker 24:50
When you when you mentioned having served
Unknown Speaker 24:54
Unknown Speaker 24:56
the edit this is a multi faceted approach at the Louisiana service. preme court is fashion and you got some judges just refusing to play ball. And that’s why we asked for on bonk so that a majority of judges might be able to out vote the outliers. And in this in some cases, this would be rehearing that we’re asking for but it’s the Louisiana Supreme Court has already laid out exactly the type of people that they think should be removed from the jail populations and we just have not been satisfied with the local action. Do you
Unknown Speaker 25:24
have any idea king of what type of time cuz every day is important? I mean, we went to court sir. courts are on distance, business conducting business at distance. Do you have any idea what’s the timeline of the progression of these motions?
Unknown Speaker 25:41
We asked for a hearing it to be said as expeditiously as possible but no later than Monday, April 6 2020. And that was Monday and here we are on Saturday. And we’re still waiting to hear if they’re going to set this for hearing at all. If they denied it. I mean, they they would have the right to the judges to decide whether they would grant it on bog hearing or not. But they haven’t even told us whether they’re going to do that much less than they’re going to give anybody any relief. It’s really sad. I think the priorities are in the wrong place.
Unknown Speaker 26:15
Well, I was the reason why I put the political article in there because I don’t want people to misunderstand this.
It’s easy to say do the right thing. But when you get vilified for doing the right thing, and it cost you your livelihood, judges of Louisiana are elected judges of Georgia and Florida, most of southeastern elected I don’t know about Michigan. Josh, you can tell us but but judges are elected. This is a dangerous step for these people to take. It’s very risky. As far as the way they would be looking at it from a political standpoint.
Unknown Speaker 26:46
They’re safer in groups and that’s that, you know, the arbok is another thing that plays to that, that it wouldn’t they wouldn’t be alone. And that’s why panel is better than a single judge sometimes.
Well, and that’s why I think it also helps for it not to be late. at the feet of judges, and that’s why, you know, I think it’s important. For instance, like I said, our governor did a jails order that has made it very easy, relatively easy for people to take these actions and have some political cover. It would be excellent if she used her emergency powers to do something about the princess. We’re very hopeful that that will happen. And I don’t know if it will or not, but she did do the jails order. So we’ll hope that she does the prisons order as well. Of course, were part of the reason I think there’s a delay is all of a sudden she’s become one of the shortlist people for the vice presidential nomination. And so there’s a lot of other considerations going on. It’s kind of unfortunate.
Unknown Speaker 27:43
Well, I’m envious, that you have a federal judge and article three judge who has jurisdiction over the overall situation because that’s that’s how you happen to have an order that does away with the in person reporting. We don’t have uniformity across the state on that and we don’t have a judge who litigating the overalls registration scheme Now unfortunately, although we have hopes of doing that in the future and Michigan, certainly as a guiding light for every jurisdiction right now.
Yeah, it’s certainly been interesting.
Well, for everyone to chime in if you have something to say from the appeal amid COVID-19 panic, Pennsylvania republicans warned governor against taking executive action to release prisoners. As I understand it, this is the governor trying to release like 15 1800 people. And I, you know, there’s 40 something thousand people in prison in Pennsylvania. So this is just a drop in the bucket, a couple percentage points of people that could be released. Obviously, there’s a whole bunch of people that would be excluded from this. Uh, I gotta think Larry gotta think that prison is certainly not designed to keep people separated from each other by any stretch of the imagination releasing 1800 people is not even any sort of significant number, but it’s something this is crazy.
Well, I only put this in here for one reason and it’s not to bash Republicans. It’s it’s an education. It just happens to be this the republicans who wrote the letter, but as to educate people about the political politicization potential, when we talk about why don’t they just do the right thing. And I was pretty, pretty adamant on the previous podcast last week or the week before, just do it. And I’m still saying, Just do it. But this is an example of just doing it what the consequences going to be. These Republican lawmakers have already fired a shot over the warning bell to Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania, if you just do it. We are going to vilify you when the time and opportunity presents itself. And so, so it’s mainly an educational opportunity for people Realize the republicans argue in their letter. This is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard that people in prison may actually be safer from the bar. So those are the general community. The social isolation inherent and operational state crushing institution is an advantage shielding our offenders from community spread of COVID-19 or Hillsborough. That’s a quote, apparently, from there later. That is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.
Unknown Speaker 30:22
I hear you chomping at the bit, Josh.
Yeah, I mean, I’ve been more or less working on this non stop for the last three weeks. So I don’t know. I guess one thing I might add is just, I want to read a little thing from this crazy radical journal called the New England Journal of Medicine. Ah, no,
Unknown Speaker 30:43
that’s not even peer reviewed. Just kidding. Well,
it is on it is Yes, it is. Okay. Therefore, we believe that we need to prepare now by decarceration releasing as many people as possible, focusing in on those who are least likely to committed crimes, but also for the elderly and infirm, urging police and courts to immediately suspend arresting and sentencing people as much as possible for low level Crimes and Misdemeanors, isolating and separating incarcerated people or infected and those who are under investigation for possible infection from the general prison population. It goes on but the point is, it’s not just the crazy radical it’s like I got an A big Twitter thing with a woman who worked as kind of the head person on Buda judges campaign yesterday was sort of made the same point that the republicans are making in that article. And it’s just, I mean, first of all, I mean, let’s just start at the tail end. Everyone’s scared Oh, my god, you’re letting people out Well, there’s all kinds of jurisdictions all over the country who have been letting people out. Most county jails across the country have been decreasing incarceration and letting people out. For weeks now jails are at their lowest rate in in decades right now because of this issue. As a result of that, a lot of police predicted there will be huge increases in crime. Well, there have been multiple stories that have come out in the last two weeks that suggests that not only are crime rates plummeting, but they’re pointing to historic lows, and that even in the major cities, where decarceration is happening, that crime rates are plummeting. That’s not entirely surprising, but that’s the opposite of what people predicted. You know, I mean, the truth is what you know, you’re right, Andy, that there’s a lot of people who are crowded in prisons, we both experienced this. And different prison levels have different levels of crowding. But you still want to try to ensure that the people who are most at risk get out you know, you need to test to make sure that they haven’t already been infected, but if they’re not infected, they need to, you know, get them out. By getting any people out. It makes it more possible to socially distance inside the prison. So every person who gets out is a benefit to it to the people who are incarcerated and so the more people that you if you’re going to keep people incarcerated, you want to let as many people out so there is more opportunity for social distancing. And on top of that, the more that COVID-19 spreads inside prisons and jails, and the whole idea that this, these prosecutors or whoever it is, the idea that somehow it’s more safe in prison is just insane. I mean, I was in a, in a pole barn with 160 people when I was incarcerated. And so we were in, you know, 160 people in one big room, that’s, you know, there’s no social distancing and that that’s not a place you’re gonna stay safe. So, you know, I mean, what you don’t want to do is have a whole bunch of people coming to work every day in a situation like that, where they can become infected and get taken it right out. I mean, even in a place like Michigan, where our Mr. Our department of corrections has been extremely proactive, like from the very beginning and extremely transparent and trying to deal with this. We have over two hundred cases and over seven deaths already. And you know, that’s likely to increase by quite a bit before this is over. And and just the idea that it’s better to keep people in prison just I’ve never heard anything as ridiculous as that. And that’s why I started with the New England Journal of Medicine articles because even even epidemiologists agree that that’s insane. And, you know, you just really, it takes a special kind of person to make an argument like that, in my opinion. It does. It does, indeed. And I would just add, I mean, that’s very well said, Josh. But I would add one point that when we talk about releasing people from prison, this doesn’t have to be a permanent release. Most people when they’re released from prison do not vanish into thin air. These releases can be temporary. We could release even Weinstein temporarily, because he’s doing great. I think he’s already in fact a tribe member. I think they’ve already announced that he’s already infected, but They act as if this is a get out of jail free card never to returned. No responsibility for your actions. No. We furlough people all the time in the United States of America, and they come back at the end of the furlough period.
Unknown Speaker 35:15
Michael avenatti is out. He’s out. But he’s, he’s convicted to but he has an obligation to report back when they say he should do it.
That’s an excellent point, Larry. You know, there’s also a lot of other powers that governors have under emergency powers in some of their other stuff that’s happened as a result of COVID that they’ve been extended powers. And so you can do things like, you know, like in Michigan, we have to everyone who’s been incarcerated in a prison has to be in a secure facility. Well, the governor could theoretically suspend that secure facility requirement and allow people to be in an area that wasn’t in the definition of a secure facility so that they could socially distance more. You know, you can move people to places that you know, the average gyms or whatever, and just have any, there’s all kinds of things governors can do within that power. And then there’s also like Larry saying, there’s lots of things you can do. You can send people to parole and probation, you can put them on electronic monitoring, you can put them out for a while you can, you know, there’s all kinds of ways that this could be dealt with. And, unfortunately, it is all bound up in the politics. We’ve seen, in many states, there are governors who have really stepped up and started to try to do something about this. And in other states, we we really have not seen much action. And that’s basically caught up in the politics.
How I assume this would put a huge burden. If we did that, you know, if we released that number of people, it would put a huge burden on the parole and probation departments. It does.
It doesn’t have to and if you don’t have to, I mean, this is so simple, that it’s ridiculously simple. You can tell people, you are furloughed until further notice. Call this number periodically to check in to save the furlough has been lifted. It’s your responsibility to know when when when when to report back to Listen, you don’t have to report anybody. Right?
Unknown Speaker 37:03
Right. If you don’t you’re getting a fugitive warrant or a bench warrant.
Well, let’s move on to an article from ABC News. This is Mississippi court won’t undo a 12 year sentence for a jail phone. There was scant details here. But it seems that this person was picked up for a misdemeanor. So let’s just say he was speeding. And he ends up I guess he makes it through like the initial kind of Shakedown, whatever. Anyway,
we talked, we talked, we talked about this a few episodes back. We did. Yes. Yeah. Well, I think I was actually on that. Yes, way we talked about shows what I pay attention to. Yeah, well, this is a word guy. He he got booked, and they did not discover his phone. They did. They did a sloppy search. And he had a cell phone. And of course, it’s hard for me to conceive that you would know that you weren’t allowed to have a cell phone but he had the phone. He’s running around the jail that maybe since people don’t use regular phones anymore. He thought well, this is cool, bro. So he runs out. Electricity runs on a charge and as the guard says, Hey, bro, can I get some juice and they they prosecuted him for clearly had not been incarcerated for long. They they, they prosecuted run out of battery. They prosecuted him for having the contraband at a correctional facility. And and, and he has a prior offense that resulted in a mandatory sentence. And it’s, it’s, it’s the harshness of the sentence that that’s at issue here because he got he got 12 years for having the contraband. And the range of sentences was 350 years, he didn’t get back style. He got what was within the zone. And that’s within the sound discretion of the sentencing judge. And it’s whether the South discretion of the state legislature to set penalty scheme that’s not for the courts to determine. This appeal is likely to fail. The cert petition is likely to be summarily dismissed with their famous one line order. Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t support the appeal. Completely support the appeal. As a matter of fact, I’m thinking about trying to contact them to see if there’s anything we can do. But with the current makeup of the Supreme Court United States, that I don’t think they’re going to want to second guess the state sentencing of an offender for a penalty scheme that they set in place. And it’s been it’s within the sound discretion of a judge to send us within the sentencing zone. I just don’t see it happening.
Unknown Speaker 39:22
Well, you say two things. One, that is the state legislature has complete discretion on sentencing for an offense and the other is that you don’t see them granting cert now. You know, it’s rare for cert to be granted by the US Supreme Court in any case, but so that’s a different question. But as far as the power of legislators to establish any penalty, they want to there are constitutional limitations on that. It’s the eighth and 14th amendments and we saw that enforced. Last, well, a year ago, February 20. In Timms versus Indiana. Of course, that was they had to poke Through the fact that it was a civil forfeiture to get to the excessive fines clause but that was when they forfeited the guy’s Range Rover ,000 Range Rover that he bought with inheritance money because he had a little bit heroin in it that he might have been selling. Well, you know, the terms of imprisonment can be an excessive under the Eighth Amendment, which is provides against cool and unusual punishments and excessive fights and that sort of thing. And you have proportionality doctrine, which has grown up out of the Eighth Amendment. This could possibly I would, I would actually make the effort if it were a Louisiana conviction. With the sentence like that. We have actually code FIDE are our legislators to later I say codify not codified because it’s code not a cod that there is a state constitutional limitation, depending on the case if the Senate’s given even though it would be within the statute. range, it may be constitutionally excessive. And I’ve seen them start sending down cases for resentencing. Even in my life without parole cases, if the judge says, well, there’s only one sentence I can pose, it’s a mandatory sentence. And so I don’t have a choice, I oppose it, they’ll send it back to say you shouldn’t have said that you didn’t have any choice because there’s this constitutional escape clause that is now codified or codified. I don’t see that being granted a whole lot, but it’s there and they objected people saying that it doesn’t exist.
Well, in theory, you’re correct. I but when when the electric chair is not cruel, unusual punishment. It’s rare that you’re going to get a US Supreme Court just like anything. It’s cruel to use your punishment. And there’s just not a lot of guidance, the case law in recent decades that they found anything to be cruel or unusual or excessive. I hope he wins. I just I’ve just, I’ve just a hotspurs I’m looking at I don’t see it as being a case that I mean, they’re, they’re likely to grant the one line order saying, too bad. So sad. You’re 12 years?
Unknown Speaker 42:01
Well, I’m just saying last year, the US Supreme Court did hear such a case. And they ruled for the way. I’m familiar with that one.
Yeah. But but it was a slightly different issue. But, yeah, I mean, I obviously come at this from an entirely different direction, because, I mean, I understand that he’s likely to not have much of a remedy in the court. But I find all of these rules and laws on cellphone usage to be pretty ridiculous, in my opinion, do see should just like they do a tablets just like they do with a lot of stuff. You know, give the people the ability to communicate just the way that the federal government does with emails in federal prison. And the argument that people usually make against that, is that, well, they’ll, you know, people in prison will continue their criminal enterprises with people on the outside using the phone and let me tell you That happens now. It happens using the regular phones and using the mail. And it’s a little more difficult that way. And that’s unfortunate, but it does happen. And you know, there’s really not much difference. criminal enterprises are going to criminal enterprise. And the question really becomes, how important is it for people to have communication in prison now, in the kind of work that I do, almost every bit of evidence we’ve gotten in these places like South Carolina when the riot happened in the LA riots in Mississippi with parchman in, you know, pretty much every time that we come up against really brutal prison conditions, Alabama, you know, I mean, where the DOJ declared that it was had to go in and declare that it was unconstitutional, even though that obviously has to go to court to be determined. You know, and in all these places, the reason we know what happened in those places is because of the cell phones and that’s The reason the real reason why the DRC spike is so hard is the last thing they want is transparency. And obviously on my side of the street, we want as much transparency as possible.
Unknown Speaker 44:11
crickey as the senate says,
this sounds completely silly to me is given this guy 1513 years for this 12 year, so that’s 12 years.
Unknown Speaker 44:21
Well, he, he was he was a repeat offender.
I mean, this is the this is the classic debate about sentencing enhancements and, and and habitual ‘s and stuff like that. You know, there’s a guy in Michigan who is in prison for like 60 years and never know he says that he’s in prison for pot which is technically sort of correct. He was arrested for pot, but he also when they went to his house after they arrested him, he had a previous felony and they found a handgun in his house and they found ammo in his house. So he the combination of his previous felony, the new felony The handgun and the ammo gave him a habitual. So he’s actually in prison for the habitual offense, even though the the actual instigating action was selling marijuana. And this happens all over the place. I mean, people think that whatever you got arrested for is all that your charges. And that’s that’s just not the case.
Well, I’m not I’m not I’m not condoning to sin us, but I’m just telling you that in my assessment before the court is and in the Supreme Court, it’s unlikely they’re going to grant the guy any relief, and he has no other remedy that I’m aware of other than possibly executive intervention. Now, I would certainly do that as well. I would I would apply for executive intervention, but when you apply for criminal clemency any type of sentence reduction, it’s a long shot, particularly one that’s going to potential vilifying the executive is that that he’s letting a career criminal goal is committing the sentence of a career criminal. But But I’m all for So don’t misunderstand my position.
Ready to be a part of registry matters. Get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters firstname.lastname@example.org you can call or text or ransom message 274722744771 a 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 at your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting without you we can’t succeed. You make it possible. Well let’s move over to an article from the Marshall project federal prison factories kept running as Coronavirus spread. First off, I want to make a comment about this, I think it might be towards the end. Like if you’re going to be stuck in a dorm with a bunch of sick people may as well be stuck making stuck making uniforms and whatnot. I don’t, I don’t frankly see that there would be a difference between the two until you start showing symptoms and perhaps getting sick and you need further medical attention. But whether they’re in the dorm or make to go into work doesn’t seem like there’s actually a much difference, because it’s not like they’re going to be separated in the dorm. They’re just going to be all piled on top of each other like Josh was describing a minute ago.
Well, that was why I put the article in here because I wanted to raise that question from people who have been in prison. If you were trying to the both of you try to imagine that COVID-19 existed when you were in prison. And they asked you do you want to be continuing to go to your job at the factory? Or do you want to be sheltering in place here, which would you choose? Because I don’t even know how to begin to evaluate this.
I’m from my experience the beds if you’re in an open dorm, the beds if If you’re a very broad shouldered individual, you’re not even gonna be able to walk down between the bunks without turning sideways. And so I mean, they’re that close together, maybe they’re three ish feet apart. So you’re stacked on top of that. Some places will even have three three storey bunks. I mean, you’re just stacked in there like sardines. It’s literally insanity of how close everybody is together, you have 000 less than zero privacy.
I mean, obviously, it changes a little bit depending on your security level if you’re a very high security, but the vast majority of prisoners are at or people in prison or in a low security situation. They’re going to be warehouse like what Andy and I’ve talked about, you know, if you’re in a high security level, you’re probably going to be in a, you know, in a two person cell, but there’s very few people relative to the, you know, most people are in the hundred and 60 in the big warehouse situation that we were talking about. And so, yeah, I mean, when you’re in a warehouse situation, you know, I mean, being at work is probably much better than being in here. Yeah, I suppose depending on what your job is, I mean, so a lot of people’s job is to work in the unit. So there’s not really necessarily a break there.
Unknown Speaker 49:08
Well, this was specific about unit Corps. So I guess we should come in a barrel prisons for keeping your unit corps up and running. Because actually they’re keeping people possibly safer, perhaps, but
they’re not being the guards are coming into work. I think this is the one that says that they’re coming into work with face masks and gloves and whatnot that the workers are still be, you know, unprotected, so to speak.
We can’t afford to be buying those ridiculous expensive masks for people in prison for God’s sakes.
We have real people that need them, right.
Well, luckily, we have people like reforming Meek Mill who’ve been buying tons of masks for people in prison.
Unknown Speaker 49:46
Well, I you know, I just I just agree that space is what they need. We Louisiana’s got the highest incarceration rate in the world because it’s a first again among the states in the United States in the world. Yeah, yeah, very briefly, after some parole reforms and time counting reforms that we had in 2017, Louisiana dipped down below two third, actually, Oklahoma became first in Mississippi. Second, we were right behind, but now we’re back on top, and I didn’t get a lot of press. And so it’s no exception here. You know, Louisiana encourages sheriffs to build sheriff’s prisons rather than allocating funds centrally to build state prisons as other places do. And this was the subject of a very good, Cynthia Chang while she’s at the LA Times. Last I knew, but when she was at the New Orleans times Picayune, she did an eight part series on that called Louisiana incarcerated. And I was curious about what are the reasons why we have so much incarceration and it’s all the kind of social demographic reasons and so on and regional attitudes toward a lot of So on. But their, their ultimate conclusion was that it was a sheriff’s presence. You have the same people who have it’s like in the old days you had a cowboy who had a horse and a lasso and a corral and he ha round him up. You have the same thing now only it’s it’s the deputies and the handcuffs and the units and the same people who are making arrests on the street are also the one the sheriff who is trying to meet the bond indebtedness that he incurred to build this thing in the first place. And some of them are getting in trouble with that and the legislature is getting tired of of hearing about it really not not that much sympathy in the legislature anymore. That’s interesting. So they’ve got this perverse incentive to fill their beds and if they can fill keep them filled at the state right? Well, that’s the highest money they get as a February there’s a different bed rate for federal and then there’s a one for state and then the parishes below that and the city is the lowest so Once someone is actually sentenced, then that’s that’s the last time the local sheriff wants to see him get away because now they’re getting a higher rate for that bag because they’ve got to do so.
Let me let me throw this out there. There’s a there’s a sentence in there it says it’s a factory, social distancing is almost impossible in there as well. It’s no different than inmates working on the rec yard, or the dining hall, the rec yard, in my experience is where you could at least find some level of solitude, you could go find a corner on the fence or something like that you could find a place to be, quote unquote, alone.
Unknown Speaker 52:31
Absolutely. what’s our excuse for not giving them any PP,
a wallet, like Larry just said, we’re not going to spend I mean, we can’t get it for the people that are on the frontline working. We’re not going to get it to the quote unquote, civilians, we’re certainly not going to send it into prisons.
I mean, to be to be fair, hold on for a second. The feds have been there have been at least that I know for a fact that at FCI Elton, the people there did have masks at the very At least the incarcerated people that have masks, so I don’t think it’s universal that they don’t have at least masks.
I bet you everyone’s running around with a towel wrapped around their head.
Yeah, for sure. Yeah, they’ll do. I mean, one thing we do know is that, you know, people will come up with solutions on their own in prison. That’s which actually,
Larry, I wanted somebody emailed in a he may have copied you on it that I think there’s something in the Georgia code that says that, and I totally didn’t understand it, but you can’t wear a mask if you have some kind of conviction.
I think that was, I think that was in Louisiana, that code, but you can’t, but again, if the health authorities were telling you cover your face when you’re on in public, I would love to be on the defense end of one of those charges. I hope that no prosecutor would bring one but if they did, I would like to bring in a copy of the order and say well, or the recommendation because it’s not an order in most places yet, but, but I’d like to I’d like to say well, you don’t What are you? What do you want? These people are Doing what they’re being asked to do by governmental officials, officials,
you’re putting them in an impossible choice. I forget what the expression is, but you know, you’re being faced with, okay, I can keep my face uncovered and die or I can not comply and go to jail.
Well, you wouldn’t want to cast it that way. You’d say I’m trying to protect the public because they claim that it does more protection for the other sent does for you. Sure. But so you would not want a sex offender out recklessly jeopardizing the public health, but like so I would. I would. I would. If one of those cases ever comes here. I will sign up pro bono to help with the defense team on that because I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere.
I think you were looking for Hobson’s choice.
Your choice? Yep.
Unknown Speaker 54:44
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Blair, you put in another article from the appeal proposal inside Angola prison paints a troubling picture as Coronavirus scripts Louisiana, Louisiana. This is your your
wait. I spend a lot of time I’m just at this prison is that totally out of control in terms of what what they’re doing in every regard? Oh, Angola is a recipe for to outdo New Mexico with an IT data, right. That’s how bad it is and Angola.
And back to the thing that Josh was bringing up about the transparency side of things. I, I really think that there should be some way to protect the integrity, the security, the prison, but there has to be some sort of independent auditing that protects the human beings that are still in there. And I know that Americans generally don’t think of people that are inside the walls as human beings, but they probably still are considered human beings by most standards. And they should be protected from all of the abuse of treatment, including the over the top that the Coronavirus is.
Yeah, fam foundation and, you know, there’s something I suggested several years ago, but they’ve been suggesting that you know, that there’s independent you know, people who work in the prisons are independent of the DRC. And I’ve always thought that was a pretty Good idea that there should be almost like an ombuds that, you know, not just one, but a system of people who go in and are there throughout the day of the night to, you know, kind of walk through, you know, there are lots of ways that you could handle it. I personally, when I was in prison, I wanted more cameras, because cameras were our friends. They, you know, it was a lot of trouble for anyone to have to try to block the camera or stop the camera or whatever. But I just think the more transparency the better when you’re in a place where some people have absolute power and, and a dark corner can really mean death. And in the case of COVID-19, you know, I mean, transparency is really important because, you know, you really want to know what the situation people are facing is and you know, when we like I said in Michigan, we have over 200 cases in prisons right now, of people who’ve tested positive in about five or six facilities. I can only Imagine what it’s like in facilities like, you know, in a lot of the southern states like Angola or South Carolina or Mississippi where we had 28 deaths in the since December, in Mississippi in Mississippi prisons prior to COVID breaking out, you know, so these are some pretty just dire Florida’s another great example of places where we just some really dire conditions and really terrible place for a pandemic to happen. And I suspect, you know, a lot of people are really suffering as a result.
Always good news. Larry, over at NBC News, Kentucky man released from prison by ex Governor Matt Bevin arrested on federal child porn charges. My only question to cover on this particular thing, isn’t it double jeopardy if someone gets charged twice for the same crime?
Unknown Speaker 57:56
Well, if the same entity charges them, yes, if they’re charged by different sovereign now, it would only be double jeopardy if that sovereign had a law that says that, that if if the same conduct is prosecuted by a separate sovereign, we won’t allow to be prosecuted. But as far as constitution, I saw deficient to prosecute someone for the same conduct as long as as a separate sovereign who’s prosecuting them. And I know kings chomping at the bit to clarify my answer.
Unknown Speaker 58:24
Oh, well, yeah, there there are, you know, double jeopardy isn’t as broad as I wish it were. A lot of really similar laws have different elements. And the jurisprudence, at least in Louisiana, is that if it has different elements, that it’s not double jeopardy to charge over this other thing. And, you know, we saw that in the the police riots where Rodney King got beat up, remember the police in Simi Valley or they the feds went after him after they were acquitted in the state court system and People thought, you know what, why is it that? Why isn’t that double jeopardy? And the reason was because it was a different offense. It was a federal civil rights offense, which is how they took jurisdiction. But I agree that that kind of thing is subject to abuse. I wish there were more respect for constitutional protections for individuals.
So this this guy is he benefited from from Bevins generosity after he lost the election. But he was too high profile and he generated too much attention and the feds he came on their radar, they decided to bring bring charges and it’s unfortunate, but from a constitutional perspective, I don’t see him having any remedy. I mean, he could certainly reach out to President Trump and he could take care of it because he has the power.
That’s an interesting point. So I would say anything for anybody
Unknown Speaker 59:53
for that. Yeah, you know, but I don’t know. I was surprised that he pardoned our Pio before they could even do Anything doing?
Unknown Speaker 1:00:00
Well, I was able to find something. Yeah, guys,
I just want to make sure I understand something since we got multiple lawyers here. In this case, and I may be totally wrong about this. But if I understand correctly, they’re charging and they’ll say there were like 10 different things they could have charged him for in the original incident, the originating incident, and they charged him for a set of them, and then he got pardoned for those sets. And I think, as I understood it, they’re now charging and for the other set from that same period. And so even in the case where it was the same sovereign, it wouldn’t be the same crime right. I’m confused with your question. Your question but but in this case, it’s a different sovereign. It’s, it’s the feds come in, but so, so try to try to specifically because I didn’t quite get the king. Did you understand what he was asking?
Unknown Speaker 1:00:52
Not completely. I think it’s because I don’t really know the facts. I’ve been kind of looking I’m scanning this in a CDL aggregate to see if I can Find the link to the article that you’re talking about.
This is easy to explain. So say I committed a bank robbery. And you could charge me with robbing the bank, you can charge me with having a deadly weapon, you can charge me with threatening people with a deadly weapon. And you choose to discharge me with robbing the bank and then I get pardon for robbing the bank. And then the prosecutor because we’ll say there’s no statute of limitation or whatever decides to charge me for the other behavior that wasn’t pardoned. Isn’t I think that’s what happened here.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:30
That is really weird, because I can tell you that in Louisiana that if they charge you with one thing out of a set of circumstances, and you if you plead guilty to it, you have double jeopardy protection, was this person pardon before he was convicted?
Well, no, he wasn’t pardoned at all he had is not talking about
Unknown Speaker 1:01:57
our Pio was you know, Okay, go ahead.
That’s not what I was saying. I was saying that there. He what I’m saying he was pardoned on a crime and then they charged him with other elements of the set of crimes that could have been charged but weren’t.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:10
I know, but what the extra fact I was looking for was he convicted before he was pardoned. Yes, because I don’t.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:20
that to me double jeopardy should apply. And I don’t know.
It doesn’t apply because they went defense decided to charge him they had not previously charged him for the content.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:32
Okay. See, that’s the thing. It’s the whole Federal Way. federalism is turned into a gotcha. And that’s how they got those Simi Valley police.
Yeah. Yeah, like I said, he was too high profile and he came on the feds radar and they decided, well, if the Bevin is going to let him go long time served, he didn’t Park them, he committed him. If Ben is gonna let him go in a state, that’s nice, but we’re going to come and use our sovereign power so we’re going to prosecute him for the federal court. Which was the exact same conduct and they could do that.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:03
Yeah. And that’s that’s what happened with those police in California.
Now, my problem with this story wasn’t necessarily any of that. It was the way that a lot of the news media reported it because they tried to make it sound like, you know, after Bevin had pardoned him that he had committed a new crime and was getting arrested for it, which is not accurate. He was being charged again for the same crime set from I think was what was it? What was the year? 2014? Yeah, several years max. And that’s the unfortunate reality of the press seldom gets their reporting. Right. And it’s unfortunate, but there’s too often sloppy, worked out and and it’s, it’s, it’s the reality of the business. Yeah. Yeah. But it’s really unfortunate in this instance, because we’re at a time right now where we’re pushing across the country, for people to increase computations. And increase pardons. And so in these instances when the press tries to make previous pardons and commutations look bad by suggesting that they lead to recidivism when actually they didn’t. That’s, that can be really damaging to the move to try to push for more commutations, for instance, because of Cova. I agree with you, Josh, I agree with you completely. I wish I had more of a solution for the press. But unfortunately, like a capitalist system, there is no solution unless you want more governmental intervention.
Hang on, let me ask Mike, Mike in chat if he would like more governmental intervention. That’s an inside joke. He said.
Well, I think the other alternative is for people to you know, essentially vote with their pocketbook for which press sources they think are most reliable. You know, I mean, we do have some influence on the press because we’re the were the people who purchased their product, but no one knows that this was an inaccurate story. And that press outlet is not good until I mean, I would be welcome. If you could reach out to them and say you people got it all wrong. But they’re not likely to go back and say, whoops, we got this all wrong. And we presented. We We are the public that saw this as far as they’re concerned, the guy committed another offense. Yeah, but there’s hundreds of examples. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. They do that they do this all the time. They ruin people’s lives all the time. No, what I’m saying is there’s hundreds of examples of times where we have raised tackles and gotten people educated about what the issues were. I mean, there was that time, fairly recently. There was I care Oh, sorry. I forgot that the nature of the story, I think was one of those Halloween panic stories where a whole bunch of people jumped on someone for making that case, and then a lot more people in the public got educated as a result, you know, I mean, by bringing attention to something we do educate folks. And and I’m in agreement with that, but it’s, it’s gonna be a very slow process, because most people when they watch the news, or even if they use alternative means, they assume that what they’re watching is true. If you went out took a poll said, you watch the evening news tonight. How much of that did you consider to be untrue and unreliable? Most people don’t watch the news to say, Oh, I just got a bunch of unreliable information. I spent a half hour of my time watching junk. They consider it to be reliable information. That’s why they tune in.
That’s totally why they tune into that one. I happen to be behind somebody the other day and they said cnn is fake news. And, you know, I, I’m just baffled by those statements just baffled by it.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:28
I fired off an email to the online editor of our local NBC affiliate, the same one that that article was on. And the cat the heading is why have trials and I say when k PLC can simply declare the headline that a quote man beat his father to death and quote, we’re so far he’s only arrested for a second degree murder on suspicion of having done it with some pretty incriminating details and so on. But really, they shouldn’t say that he beat his father that They know that jurors break the rules about looking at media on the cases that they sit on. And you know, and other Western countries France, for example, which is a free speech country, that kind of conclusory reporting just isn’t done lots of times they don’t even name a person who is merely arrested or investigated for something because of the presumption of innocence. You know, our press enjoys first amendment speech rights, but they’ve become very complacent about it. When they do this kind of thing. They shouldn’t do it. They should strictly here to it’s alleged or they say what a person was arrested for. But they shouldn’t just declare the headline that the man beat his father to death. It’s a circumstantial case, I had everything in a confession. So I do that and they don’t ever answer, you know,
but I try. God. Since we’re starting to run up against the clock. Did you have a chance to review those two cases? The Supreme Court stuff because if you do We’re gonna drop the other articles that just and talk about the the death row case that’s gotten the attention and the and then sort of Ayers about their individualized articulable suspicion. And that’ll be about Yes. Okay,
Unknown Speaker 1:08:15
well, yeah, I read those and wrote some notes about them.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:19
Well, then then, Andy unless you have a particular liking to the other articles wicked wicked skipped, so we’ll have enough time. Perfect.
Yeah. So so the article is The Statesman is a second death row inmate. Excuse me, second tech, Texas death row case gets extra tension from the supreme court justice.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:37
Yeah, and I’m not really sure what’s going on here. So King filson.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:42
Okay, well, that’s the one Halperin versus de Davis and this is just I guess, the the warden because it’s a post conviction relief. This is a death penalty case the guy had that the robbery that was fatal. These are some guys who had escaped from prison and it’s in Texas, where They actually do succeeded executing people but this fellow’s issues are not done and I think that he will not be Halper will not be executed anytime soon while this plays out. This is the what about the comments by the judge with the Jewish fellow on Halperin on death row, right. This is a mimic that Okay, yeah, well, it was just really crazy. I wrote that I wrote just Wow, did they ever have the goods on this? former judge Vickers Cunningham. I mean, it’s it’s crazy. I mean, the thing ought to be read. It’s far more egregious than I thought it was going to be until I got into it. The things that this guy said on a regular basis that I guess that became known, and that’s why he maybe isn’t a judge anymore. I it’s got the Supreme Court did not grant cert. And it was interesting that Justice Sotomayor didn’t call What she wrote a dissent, she just called it a statement. And some of the things she said gave me possibly some comfort that this has some further channels to go through in the Texas State courts and I think probably to the US Supreme Court again and again I predicted predicted won’t be executed anytime soon. He’s got some due process to be gone through, which is part of the reason why they denied search Harare, they they look for things like that. And if something isn’t all the way done lots of times they just won’t take it until it’s in the right procedural posture. So, but I don’t know if you waited for the for your listeners to an example of some of the things this judge had said.
Well, we do But wait, wait, would you when you said Didn’t we weren’t careful? Did grant cert so just for the people who have not heard the term before that means that a petition is filed wanting Supreme Court review and it requires at least for justice. SR GRI that’s worthy of their time that there’s some territories it doesn’t meritorious that’s not the right word. There’s something compelling that they would like to hear that they grant cert. And then when you said it isn’t right, try to expand on that. Because what I interpret from that was that, that they might be interested in it. But the KC to further develop a four day the pre cert petition was pre material. Did you did you interpret it that way?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:26
Yeah, I interpret it that from what she said, I didn’t read what the other judges said. They may not have said anything but but search
Unknown Speaker 1:11:35
anything out of the cert denied?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:37
Yeah, search denied. Well, what what she said she pointed out that there were some state court proceedings that had not been completed in which he would be able to address these issues in before the judges in which the thing was originally tried. I mean, this is a judge that tried the case in which the man was convicted and condemned to death. And it was just as racially egregious and sectarian Lee egregious as you could ever imagine. So the idea that it won’t make any difference for this man at all, I’m not ready to say that they’re there yet. And I don’t think she says she’s pointing out that this can be taken up. And then that would be a reason for the Supreme Court not to. So first of all, they only they only grow they don’t grant cert just to keep someone from being executed unfairly. And if it were only about that, then it might not matter what they said. But then how can how can they say that there wouldn’t be prejudice in a proceeding in which these kinds of things were regularly done. These are things that that were openly racially and sectarian, the bias that he would say to political groups he addressed and so on, and to his campaign teams and so on the different things that he was in. But if the Supreme Court They don’t want to grant certiorari on cases that they ultimately wouldn’t need to hear. And if there’s something else that hasn’t happened yet, that may handle the case another way, then that’s a reason for them not to grant cert. And they also look for reasons why they should grant cert and I don’t think on the list. Well, they they always have a catch all that to, you know, to prevent a manifest and justice. But, you know, that would swallow up the rule. They’re really looking for times when they have to weigh in on something in order to settle the law on a particular point that will have a wide impact on other cases, and it’s hard for me to think that this case will be that I don’t think they’ll get very many examples that go as far as what this guy did.
This is just just horrendous judicial bias. But But yeah, you explain that very well, at least to be is something’s not right if there’s a remedy below the Supreme Court. It’s not your option, because you’d like a faster remedy.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:04
Yeah, no, not at all. No, they’re slow, slow, slow. And this guy, you know, is playing the long game? I would say he was. I think he was sentenced in 2003. The offense happened in 2000.
So well, that that was a point. I’ll put it in here for so. So this is this is a case of judicial bias. And the supreme court may give us some guidance after he, after he exhaust all this state remedies in terms of what constitutes judicial bias because people think, mistakenly, that if the judge gets angry with them, but that’s a bias, well, it isn’t necessarily biased. Judges are human so they can be angry and frustrated with a with a person but that doesn’t, that doesn’t translate to a bias, but this is pretty egregious bias with his judge hat, or at least final appearance.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:53
And I will say it’s not unusual for a death penalty case in particular to be before the The US Supreme Court repeatedly. And the one of the last things that Sotomayor says that if if Mr. Halperin is unhappy with the way that Texas courts ultimately rule, then he can still bring his claims back to the United States Supreme Court.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:16
so fantastic. Josh, did you have any doubt on that one? I don’t. I didn’t mean to cut you out.
Oh, no, it seemed like more y’all. So you’re all sweet spots.
Well, then y’all go do your legal thing there.
Yeah. Then let’s move over to reason calm with Sotomayor upgrades SCOTUS for a decision that destroys Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that requires individualized suspicion. The Justice filed a lone dissent in Kansas vs. Glover. I got nothing. So far above my paygrade I can’t even like make it through the title without like, no, I got nothing.
If I it’s a real surprise that the Supreme Court decided the Fourth Amendment doesn’t matter. cover something
Unknown Speaker 1:16:02
Unknown Speaker 1:16:05
It’s sad if the Fourth Amendment, no Fourth Amendment violation to stop a vehicle because it’s registered owner is under suspension, regardless of who is actually driving the car when it is stopped by police. Therefore a car registered to a suspended driver or any unlicensed driver is a no Fourth Amendment zone until the registered owners license is restored there there’s I almost have nothing to say it’s incomprehensible that mere registration to an unlicensed or suspended person is sufficient for a stop without when they could easily look a little further to see Well, does that person behind the wheel look like this suspended person, you know, and they’re and it’s a pretty record is new, they don’t care they’re not willing to impose a duty on the officer to try to get an idea whether the person driving is actually the one who’s on the registration. It just blows a big unnecessary hole in the fourth amendment protection in my view, and I’m shocked not that that didn’t prevail but that what shocks me the most is that there’s only one dissent myself and I was I was I was
gonna get their cake this is this is supposed to be for the liberals I would expect it more decisions so I mean, I don’t have a lot of hope for though for for the conservative side to do the right thing.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:40
Because this kind of thing does matter to him.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:46
But But I’m just I’m disappointed that the liberals didn’t do anything about this either.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:50
Yeah, yeah. Where Boyce ginsburg on this. So
Larry, we covered
the Fourth Amendment is so long and so deep And it’s been going on for so many years, that it’s even eroded what’s left of the of the liberals on the court? It’s just, I mean, it’s like a hollow show, in my opinion.
But last weekend, we covered an article about Sotomayor. She’s like, she threw her hands up saying, I’m not going to descend on these cases anymore, because no one’s going to stick with me. So yeah,
Unknown Speaker 1:18:19
I remember that. And that’s sad. You know, I was heartened to when Kevin Ah, and Gorsuch and Thomas, we got all of them in Tim’s versus Indiana, all that excessive fines clause thing and which was in the criminal setting. Even though the state of Indiana pretended it wasn’t criminal, it was just a civil thing. They cut right through that. And so that that was heartening. But then you know, what we see happening now is not so hard. I mean, now I wish we’re still waiting for unanimous verdicts in Louisiana. It’s been put out that’s Ramos versus Louise. It’s been put off and it’s been put off but that could come down maybe on April. The two 29th and if not, then then June 29 is the latest. It could be I preserve the issue, the constitutional issues in every case that I have to take to trial. And so I kind of welcome this hiatus that we have in criminal jury trials right now, because I don’t want any of my client anymore to be subjected to non unanimous convictions.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:22
So well, I’m disheartened about, about the whole whole thing. I mean, I can see how they got to that decision, if you want to be totally closed minded, but but it I would, I don’t know what to say.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:37
Unknown Speaker 1:19:38
know, if an officer can’t really get a good look at the driver, but if they could, but I mean, there was just no effort at all to impose any duty on them to ascertain that before pulling over the car, that the person driving it is the registered owner. It’s just an excuse to do something that they shouldn’t be doing. They did it for a completely different reason, most likely.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:03
Go ahead and do you’re trying to fire a question in here.
I actually I figured that we had a beat this one to death already as well. And we can we can go to a voicemail message if
Unknown Speaker 1:20:14
let’s do it.
But we before we get to that one, Larry, did you see that a link was posted about for the people that who’s eligible for the 1200 bucks. Can we can we cover that real quick?
Unknown Speaker 1:20:28
Sure, as far as I understand, we will have a link in the show notes. But there’s no there’s no prohibition on the of the direct payment on the on the 1200 dollars related to convictions for any type including sexual offenses, and then they’re supposed to be already launched. I think TurboTax is already launched where you can register if you don’t normally file a return, you can register your bank account. And I think the IRS, I’m not clear if they have launched or about to launch their website where you could go register your bank account information so you can get your stimulus payments. Esther, and I
don’t think the federal
Unknown Speaker 1:21:04
one is up yet. I’m glad to know TurboTax has it? I’m sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Josh.
Just to be clear, the small business loan part, however, does have requirements. There’s two parts. There’s one set of loans where if you’ve been convicted within five years or on parole and probation within five years you’re excluded. And the other section, I can’t remember what which what the names of the different sections are. You have to register if you’ve ever even have to essentially check the box. If you’ve ever been convicted, it’s not entirely certain. They haven’t explained if that means you’re excluded or not. So in theory, on one side, it’s a five year exclusion on the other side, it could be for every single person
Well, I guess it comes on the heels of a conversation that we had after the show last week with a very, very loyal listener who was he hasn’t earned enough income to file taxes in the last several years and he was worried or wondering and Larry being the know what all of all things and I mean that in a very positive way, I don’t mean that as a majority of at all, that you were explaining to him that, as far as we know, and here’s the evidence to support it that all of our people get the 1200 bucks.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:09
what I mean, there is an exclusion there, what did they get rid of? I think you get 600 bucks if you’re if you didn’t pay 10 Oh, no, no, you still get the 1200. But here’s the hypothetical. I’d like to propose. Social Security recipients are supposed to be included in this as well. With that are 2.3 million people incarcerated. If they’re serving a sentence, they lose their right to Social Security until they’re released until you can take your to your you can show social security as you didn’t escape that you were actually released. You’re reinstated to your benefits. So hypothetically, since you’re not receiving your Social Security benefits while you’re in prison, they’ve been suspended. But yet, you’re entitled to this because social security is going to give them the information. If you receive benefits in the previous year. They’re going to give up your 1099 and your banking information was the people in prison and I just shut the door. They won’t now, because of our millions of listeners, they’re going to pick up on this. What was the people in prison get a direct deposit of 1200 dollars while they’re suspended from receiving their social security benefits?
So there you go. So we all get it. Well,
I just a hypothetical. I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to it. But say you were sentenced in October of 2019. So you would be receiving a social security 1099 statement that you receive benefits through through October. They have that system where they reward correctional facilities for reporting numbers. So everybody reports social security numbers dutifully so they can get their intercept money. For for reporting, the person who’s incarcerated for understand that you don’t get it in pretrial detention on Social Security, you do lose on SSI, but on Social Security, so you get your 1099 so Social Security turns retention. 99 over to the IRS say that you collected umpteen thousand dollars of social security benefits. Well, clearly, until they suspended you you had a bank account, and you’re getting the 1099. So is the IRS got to also know that you’re in prison? And is there any preclusion even if they do know that you’re prevented from getting the 1200 dollars, that’s one that I just have to think about while we’re doing the program. You are
always in you are always looking for the how systems work and trying to see if there aren’t, I don’t want to say the loopholes. But you just want to see how the stress tests I guess
I cannot help myself.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:36
I had not heard of any such disability, but it wouldn’t surprise me because usually, you know, the people who are most in need are always excluded. You know, I get any reform that’s enacted in Louisiana always excludes violent offenders and sex offenders, even those that are non violent like the carnal knowledge. Well,
well, Social Security has already suppressed their monthly payment if they’ve been notified So they’ve already suppressed their their their their their monthly payment. But if this legislation didn’t create such a disability, it was saying like if they get the 1099 that says, this person received benefits out, suppose they’ve been in prison for eight years. Well, they won’t be getting a 1099 because they’ve been suppressed for the eight years. So they would be getting a 1099. And so I understand that that’s how they’re going to get the information for the benefits. But what about the people who who drew benefits in 2019? And who were in prison now?
Unknown Speaker 1:25:30
Yeah, I do not know the answer. One issue came to my mind as soon as they said they were going to do it this way. And I thought it was very slick on the part of the federal government, but they’re, they’re messing up by being so slow to get to provide a way for people to give their routing number and their account numbers. It looks like TurboTax that private sector again is beat them to it. But I have actually gone to great lengths if I owe the IRS . I would go And buy a money order for and send it by snail mail. Because I did not want them to have my routing number and my account number I knew an attorney who apparently he owed him a lot of money as a partner law firm where I worked and he sent them a check for less than they thought he owed him and they just suck the rest of it right out of his account. So I have avoided I haven’t wanted them to have that information. But now they’ve created a situation where even holdouts like me would want them to have that information. I’ve been looking for a way to apply it, I’m still waiting for them create the portal. So
I think it’s very closer it has been created, but certainly TurboTax has created the option. And as far as as far as we know, everybody is going to get that unless they’re dependent. And then they’ll get the person claiming as a dependent against for the dependent But otherwise, if you’re if you have a social security number that authorizes work, It’s not just a student something Friday purposes if you’re if you’re a citizen or resident you’re going to get your 1200 dollars
Unknown Speaker 1:27:07
right and even if you don’t you know provide the means for direct deposit then they eventually mail you a check.
Well, there you go. So that’s in the show notes for anybody that might come across this that anyway you’re getting your 1200 bucks almost almost assuredly.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:24
Okay, well, let’s let’s wrap this thing up. We are we’re long as usual. You got it.
You got a voicemail. I have to hear that.
Yes, and I haven’t edited at all but I listen to part of it and send it Okay, so I let it go and here we go. And I can guarantee you it’s not going to play the first time I do this. I can almost guarantee you. Nope, it is not give me one second to switch. So one sec.
Well, I can I can do a shout. You had one job.
I know. Right? I know.
I can. I can do a shout out to two very fine people that listen to registry myself. After commenting about not having face masks last week, I have received a homemade face mask from a listener. And I’ve received two face mask from another listener
and apparently they love you because I didn’t get a damn thing.
So I write
I appreciate I appreciate very much the facemask and I have been utilizing. I haven’t utilized I just got the ones in the mail today, but I got the homemade one. And I’ve been utilizing it already.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:33
I found that three in 95 among my tools, they totally astounded me did not expect it to be that but there was so I don’t have to use a red bandana anymore.
Alright, so hopefully this will work this time. Here is a voicemail from Charles.
Hi Andy and Larry with the corona virus restricting everyone’s movements and making life Very difficult. I’m putting people into the circumstance of virtual religious services, studying online and working remotely on the internet. Is there a argument a very important argument to the authorities to say registrants need access to the internet without restrictions and reporting their identifiers? And that social media networks like Facebook should lift the restrictions against registrants because this global pandemic has proven that life is not just in the physical realm, but also is on the online realm and being on the internet is very important, especially in times like these
things So great question.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:02
Thank you, Charles.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:03
Think I’m gonna let let the brighter people than me. So
Unknown Speaker 1:30:11
here’s where you can help Larry. What’s the name of the North Carolina case?
Unknown Speaker 1:30:16
Unknown Speaker 1:30:17
backing him. Yeah, that’s it. Packing him already said and it’s interesting it was it was. Even the dissenting judges agreed that the public squares the public square, they thought that the the majority of five, the conservatives didn’t dissent, but they didn’t subscribe to this part of the opinion that said that the internet is like the public square of today. Well, I I like it that even the conservatives acknowledge that you have to allow free speech and discourse and the right peaceably to assemble and all this to take place in the actual public street. In Louisiana, we’ve got Exclusion Zones in the criminal code that actually criminalize being on the street in quite a few places. So at least that, but five members of the court in packing ham said that the internet is the new public square. So yes, there is an argument. If they don’t immediately, you know, the powers that be don’t immediately succumb to rational arguments. They have to be hammered and sued usually and state legislatures, I find the only way that we can bring them to the table on any issue affecting registrants is to defeat them in a court and in this state that would have to be federal. Josh?
Yeah, you know, I mean, to me, the interesting thing is always the has nothing to do with this part of the story, but is that you know, yes, the digital The internet has become the Digital Public Square or whatever, but Most of the places you can gather in the Digital Public Square are actually corporately owned. And to me, that’s the interesting thing, because we usually think of free speech in terms of protection from government intrusion and into free speech, but like, for instance, with Twitter, or Facebook or Instagram, I mean, a lot of us who listen to this podcast are, you know, excluded by the company that owns Facebook and Instagram from being having accounts on Facebook and Instagram. And, you know, there’s that’s a whole different thing when you know that there’s no protection theoretically, against that. And it’s one of the real problems with the idea of moving to a Digital Public Square, because, you know, it’s not the same as an actual public square that’s owned by the city or whatever.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:50
Yeah, and that’s right. That’s an important point that I didn’t address it all that as far as the companies that provide these formats, they are not state actors. So There is no 1983 action that can be brought against them. We should try to win their hearts and minds. There is a little bit of precedent for making privately owned forums have the rights for public square. airports and malls have been there. There’s older precedent saying that these rights apply to those places. It’s still a problem, how do they make them be state actors? The matter might address itself to legislation and things other than just legal action that you can force somebody to stop doing something. But it is, I think that they they have become so pervasive it is reasonable to look at regulating these four men This is not the libertarian view, okay. But they are in some respects like public utilities except with a public utility. It’s heavily regulated, but they’ve got a got a built in profit and A captive set of customers, the internet companies, you’ve got some huge, huge actors that are about on avoidable. They’re not necessarily true monopolies. But I think that antitrust legislation that just doesn’t seem to be enforced anymore. But I think the if the government were of a mind to get these big providers to fall in line on things like this, they could certainly make it happen. But they have government for the most part doesn’t want to make these things happen. And so there they’ve got a good excuse not to require private actors like these platforms to to lighten up and let more people participate. Now, one of the things that the caller said was without restriction. Now that’s the part that I don’t think is ever going to fly for registrants.
He actually is now Doing follow up, could ISP exclude registrants since they are privately owned? I don’t, I can’t imagine that an ISP would exclude you. Like, I don’t. They don’t care if you pay your 50 bucks a month for your internet, they’re going to turn your lights on.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:14
But I do think they could be just like any private company could. Oh, choices. I mean, you could say it’s public accommodation. I think maybe, but I don’t know. What do you think Larry?
Well, depends on if you if you believe in that crazy notion of evolving standards of decency. Yeah, if you if you believe in that liberal mumbo jumbo, you would say yes, that for the founders would never have anticipated such a situation and of course, the Constitution would would cover private actors. But if you take a well, by golly, those words, they mean what they say and they may know more than what they say. Then then clearly, as a constitutional claim, you don’t have one But we can we can by statute make this a public accommodation, that that’s how we’ve got the public accommodations. We have now the laws that were put into statute back in the liberal era. In the 60s. We and
Unknown Speaker 1:36:12
it’s stretched a little bit out of shape for what it originally was public accommodation initially was limited to
Unknown Speaker 1:36:21
hotels, motels, and eating place.
But but we’ve actually been going backwards to the people that have argued from the religious side, they’ve argued that well, by golly, I shouldn’t have to make no cake for somebody I don’t want to not agree with what they do at spy right by religious freedom. And I asked him I said, Well, okay, I’m in that your religious freedom, how are you going to feel when you walk into a Middle Eastern old hotel and they say, but we do come to you because you do not have a male escort? Are you going to defend that person’s religious freedom and they magically do it a complete about face when you pose that question to them, they say, Well, this is a Christian. country so
Unknown Speaker 1:37:04
pissed off ever like heaven? I can
just see. Why would it pop? I hope you don’t have a very big listenership in New York. Why would that piss anyone off?
Unknown Speaker 1:37:16
The same reason?
Unknown Speaker 1:37:23
did that to illustrate the point. When you go into an establishment, this owned by someone who doesn’t look and talk exactly like you, and they have a religious freedom, now they express it in their dialect that they speak from. I want to know what your reaction is going to be. That’s a good one. Yeah. Yeah. Your point was a good one. I think what people would have checked to was the the stereotypical accent probably
Unknown Speaker 1:37:53
that senator from New York who did the judge Lance Ito imitation
Japanese Americans test the realistic picture of who owns the hotels of this country. I can’t help the reality but but most rodenticide hotels, the majority are saying that accent was a realistic accent. But you’re likely you’re very likely to encounter someone from India or somewhere in the Middle East that has a very different view of religious freedom than what you have. And if you are homeless,
with a great point,
if you’re all about if you’re all about religious freedom, then you would turn around and you would say yes, he should be able to say I will rent to you but magically you would not say that. And that’s why your argument is so flawed about religious freedom.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:45
And I think having a storefront is what makes those places more vulnerable. If it was a you know, wedding cakes made in my home by appointment or whatever, he probably have a stronger deposition.
All right, we got to shut it down. We’re done. We’ve killed it off. Josh. As always, you are a great friend and I truly appreciate you you coming on board. And please tell everybody you’re on the Twitter everywhere you are like 10,000 a day do you post how many times a day on Twitter do those? Same number stop. It’s an insane number. And where can they find you?
My Twitter is at Joshua B. Whoa. And my podcast is decarceration nation. We just have a new episode with strangely enough when we were talking about fake news and CNN. CNN commentator Abdul el Sayed was on this week’s does he speak with an accent like Larry just described? No, no, he does. Okay. But he does probably believe in religious freedom. So we’re real good there.
And King Alexander. How can people reach out to you and Do you have anything that you would like to plug or share any big cases that you’re working on that you could even divulge anything exciting, he doesn’t. He doesn’t want anybody to reach out
Unknown Speaker 1:39:59
to him. As a public
Unknown Speaker 1:40:00
Unknown Speaker 1:40:03
but but I do answer mail if people sent me they can email me at ek Alexander at PDO law.org.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:13
And Larry, as always, you are the master and I greatly appreciate and enjoy the time we spend. And that’s all I got. Thanks, everyone for joining tonight. Have a great night.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:24
Thanks. Thanks, Andy. Good night.