Transcript of RM133: Torsilieri v PA and Legoo v IL

Andy 0:00
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 transmitting across the internet. This is Episode 133 of registry matters. Larry missed you last week I was sitting right here waiting for you to show up and nothing happened.

Larry 0:28
Well, I just couldn’t make it because I couldn’t meet your very high expectations that I come in by Discord.

Andy 0:35
I guess I do have my MMA culpas on. Last week. We just we just couldn’t put it all together and it wouldn’t have worked out so well. But no, I wasn’t sitting here waiting for him just totally picking on you.

Larry 0:47
Yeah, we’re considering

Andy 0:48
technology, traveling and so forth. We we just couldn’t put it together. But consider

Larry 0:53
doing a telephone interview. But we just rolled that out because we knew that that was a high quality expectation so that people will To sell

Andy 1:01
that’s what I would. That’s what I expect. I have heard this confirmed by some people there. I say it’s not just me.

Unknown Speaker 1:11
But did you ever get it off?

Unknown Speaker 1:13
We’re getting an echo now.

Andy 1:16
We are. Oh, that’s probably my fault. Did it go away?

Larry 1:24
Yes.

Andy 1:25
Okay, good. Um, well, very good. Um, did you did you enjoy your week off?

Unknown Speaker 1:32
Two weeks?

Andy 1:34
Two weeks, not too many records.

Larry 1:36
What a week we were off but I was off work for two weeks.

Andy 1:40
Oh, you got to tell me about any sort of extra equipment that you used you you drove a fair distance from the south to the less than south and you you had some extra equipment that you were wearing.

Larry 1:53
Are you talking about the shield?

Andy 1:55
Yes, I am talking about the shield.

Larry 1:58
So well. I have a plastic face shield in addition to the standard little mask that everyone wears, so if I hadn’t had double coverage on the airplane, I had six plane rides over the course of the trip.

Andy 2:15
And did anybody say that you were a nutjob for wearing all that?

Larry 2:19
I don’t think anyone said it. I’m sure some people’s minds

Andy 2:25
gonna be thank you for wearing it though.

Larry 2:27
No, no one thanked me but I did hear one guy arguing that he wasn’t going to wear one because he’s a American and he doesn’t have to know that was on the airplane and they were telling me he had to wear it required and he said I don’t have to do anything and and they relented and he was able to to bamboozle or badger his way on the plane.

Andy 2:48
So did you notice a difference between your neck of the woods in this neck of the woods on the people wearing masks and whatnot.

Larry 2:56
Notice a significant difference between the two Assume that that Americans were taking it seriously but when I was in the southeast, particularly Georgia and Florida didn’t didn’t notice that seriousness. I noticed

Andy 3:11
I don’t understand I don’t understand why like up in the northeast that like they have mandatory orders that if you’re in public, or you’ll be refused service by going into a grocery store or a restaurant without one on and down here, just just let it all hang out, man run around like nothing, nothing’s going on.

Larry 3:29
Well, I, I see that, that there was a barista at Starbucks that refuse to serve someone. And he’s got about ,000 last count of donations on GoFundMe for, for doing for doing for taking that position. But I just assume that that it was nearly identical. But I would say if one out of every three people in Florida was wearing a mask in public, I’d be surprised and here in my home city, I would say it would be very surprised if about seven I’ve 90% of the people are wearing them when I’m in public I would be very surprised if it’s less than that. So I definitely noticed a huge difference and in the people that were covering their faces there.

Andy 4:10
Hey, everybody in chat, just chime in and tell me what you observe being out and about how many people you see wearing masks and whatnot. Well, let’s uh, let’s, let’s start driving this bus Larry. And first thing I have to deeply deeply apologize to one of our probably almost longest time listener and Patreon supporter, Jeff from Tennessee, or Kentucky, excuse me. He left a voicemail and I dropped the ball. Larry last last time we recorded two weeks ago. And it is still very relevant. It just happens to be slightly less just, it’s related to Well, I’ll let Jeff tell you. So here is a voicemail from Jeff.

Unknown Speaker 4:47
Hello, Andy and Larry. This is Jeff from Kentucky, also known as caffeine crazy on the old Twitter. So I have a question and I know Larry likes voicemails, and I thought this was a good question. So the Constitution says I’m allowed to assemble for the purposes of protesting and whatnot. But Kentucky State law says that I am not allowed to go to public parks that have playgrounds. So there was recently a protest at a public park, in a playground in my city regarding the George Floyd and from there, and obviously, I wasn’t allowed to go to it. So what does Larry think about that? What would have happened if I had just gone anyway, and said, I’m exercising my right to assemble. Anyway, you guys have a good Saturday? And fyp?

Andy 5:35
Thank you for that. I think that’s a great question, Larry.

Larry 5:38
I agree. And this is the first time I’ve heard it, but i i agree that’s a really good question. And unlike lawyers, who will filibuster and and pretend they know something, sometimes the answer is we do not know. And truly on that one, we do not know what would happen if you did that. We could we could assume that if someone breaks cognized you, and will when we get to a case that we’re going to be talking about lm, Illinois coming up here and later in the podcast, this will make more sense to you, we can assume that there’s a possibility of prosecution because there will be prosecutors that will say, I put my hand on that Bible. And I’m going to do my duty, and that you would be prosecuted. But what we won’t know the answer to is what would happen if you raised a constitutional challenge within that prosecution. And saying that that was trampling your your rights under the Constitution to assemble and petition government for redress of your agreements. And I had that very same conversation with Robin from North Carolina today on something else, because he was saying that nobody can petition government for redress of their grievances, because everywhere where legislators meet, and in from committees and whatnot, and even in the capital that is within 1000 feet of something and I said, Well, you know, that I would never allow that to stay on. I would challenge that because it’s your fundamental Right. But in the process of challenge it as we need to reflect back on, on history, people have taken stands have been arrested. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you will not be arrested and prosecuted. So I do not know if you’d be prosecuted, nor do I know if you would win. But what I do know is I think you would have an excellent claim of a constitutional violation. And I would hope that that we would be able to muster some resources and support for such a challenge. If you were to feel inspired to do that in Kentucky.

Andy 7:32
I can see I can see a delineation of if you’re just trying to take your kids to the park to play that being different than going to some sort of gathering that happens to be at a park to protest the George Floyd stuff.

Larry 7:47
What do you see as the delineation of that, I mean, there’s a little slight deviation but what

Andy 7:52
you what you have the right to assemble for the redress of your grievances like with the government, so that would be the delineation, but does that have to be like a full formalised protest? Or I mean, you know, if you’re hanging out there with your kid and you’re pushing them on the swing or something like that, that doesn’t, I mean, is that assembling

Larry 8:11
without for the same same purpose? But, again, you know, that’s an area of still developing case law. And what the question that Jeff raises, as far as I know, would be a matter of first impression. I’ve never heard of anybody attempting to, to raise that issue. So a matter of first impression, we don’t know how it would come out. But But there is a there is a difference between wanting to simply visit a park and wanting to assemble and raise your voice in opposition to something that government is doing or should be doing or not doing. So. There There is a slight difference. I was just wondering what you saw the difference? Yeah.

Andy 8:45
Well, riddle me this. If it were you and say you were like 100 and something years younger than your picture depicts this evening. Would you go do it? If it were, if it were an issue, I don’t want to say specifically for this But if it were an issue that you were super stoked about.

Larry 9:04
It would be one one where I would have to be faced with the circumstances. And I would know, I would have to know in advance that we had, we had a plan in place to just arbitrarily say, I think we had a person said, I don’t take no polygraph test. You remember what I’m talking about? I do in Georgia. without a plan. I would not be likely to take that action. But if I had, if I had support, if I already do, we had a battle plan. And I was ready to be arrested like Rosa Parks was when she said I get I’m going to the back of the bus. If I do that I had all the pieces in place. And this this was very important to me. I would I would do it, but I just wouldn’t do it on a whimsical thing to find out what they would do because what they would do would probably not be something that you would enjoy.

Andy 9:51
Alright.

Unknown Speaker 9:54
So, tread lightly, Jeff, I think that would be the answer.

Larry 10:00
We don’t know.

Andy 10:02
We don’t know. I do understand. All right, well, then let’s I guess we should start tackling some of these articles. And first up, Larry is something that you wanted to bring up since the appeals court orders judge to dismiss Flynn charges. This is so confusing to me, Larry, that I, I didn’t follow it closely. But I know that so here’s a lieutenant general, I believe is what he used to be my little so he’s a three star general. And I thought they actually convicted him of lying to the FBI is what is that what it was?

Larry 10:39
Well, not quite right. He had pled to that. Okay. Yeah. But he has not he had not he had not been sentenced.

Andy 10:49
Okay. And but he, you’ve said before that if somebody recant their testimony, you know, they are a liar, and they have lied about either the statement that they made or the reason recantation that they have downplay or state, isn’t, this feels the same way to me.

Larry 11:07
Well, it could feel that way. But it really isn’t. I mean, you could you could he filed a motion after in the plea to withdraw his plea saying that the government had breached the plea agreement. And then the months later the government filed some motions saying that they want to dismiss the case. This turns on something I said in previous episodes, I don’t remember which one, but I’ll always have insisted that the prosecution holds all the cards. Really, when it comes when it comes down to what a judge can do. The judge is a neutral arbiter. The prosecution decides what charge to bring. What, what if, if whether to charge or not. And if the prosecution decides that they do not wish to go forward with a case, they can discontinue, they’re going forward. It’s not so far fetched. That after a prosecution has ensued that you might want to drop charges even up until before sentencing, new information could surface that could cause you as your duty as a prosecutor to seek justice to want to dismiss the case. And judge Sullivan, for whatever reason, decided that he was the one who got to make that decision. And I think I said unequivocally, that prosecution rests entirely with the prosecution whether to go forward, the government decided it did not want to go forward.

Unknown Speaker 12:33
And therefore, they said we’re disengaging from this prosecution. Now, it’s a whole nother issue or not about whether anything was improper, and how they came to that decision. But it is entirely the prosecution’s decision. And when when a judge says I won’t accept a plea agreement. The prosecutor, all they have to say is well judge, you’ll either accept it, or we have the ultimate trump card. We’ll dismiss the case and you won’t have anything. So So so that was the point I wanted to make here was that

Larry 13:04
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals did exactly what I expected them to do was to order judge Sullivan to dismiss this case. I believe this is the proper ruling. And and I believe that it will be upheld. If there’s if there’s two avenues left for that they can take they can ask for a full on bike review by the full DC circuit, which is seldom granted, or they could follow cert petition with US Supreme Court. Either way, I believe they’ll lose.

Unknown Speaker 13:32
But if they if they fall, if if the if the if the circuit grants on bond review, I think they’ll affirm the three judge panel which was divided pal but that’s my pals are they’re not unanimous. You have to for what against the it turned out to Trump appointees for for, for dismissing the case and the Obama appointee was was was was not in favor. I don’t see this is a red or blue issue. I know people are just determined to make everything red or blue. I see this as entirely What the system is supposed to do, the prosecution can decide to dismiss cases or to bring charges or what charges to bring, per se it gets a little bit troubling for me is that the Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Barr has cried his crocodile tears about how the prosecution’s can be overzealous and how this prosecution was, in fact, overzealous and he wants to do the right thing. And I commend him for wanting to do the right thing and this one case, but as in rush limbaugh’s case in Florida, when the state prosecutors were all in his behind about his phony drug prescriptions he was having written back, what was it 15 years ago, remember? rush limbaugh forgot. He talked and ranted and raved on the radio about how the prosecution was overzealous in his case and how they have this enormous amount of power and he’s been ranting and raving about this case. Rush embar Why don’t you do something to try to fix the systemic problem we have here? It’s nice that you carry this one case but we have a systemic problem where we give the prosecutors way too much power. They can they can beat someone into taking a plea, even though the person thinks they’re not guilty and that’s what Flint’s that happened to him.

Andy 15:16
All right, because you know, CNN is running around saying that this is the most improper use of his power and foxes running around saying that, yay, this is what should have happened all along. And this was a bogus case to begin with.

Unknown Speaker 15:30
I’m not gonna I’m gonna pronounce where it’s bogus case, I have not gotten enough of sufficient information for that. But I will say anything I’ll do about the decision. This is exactly the decision that I would if I were sitting on the DC circuit, this is exactly what I would have done. Now it is a little bit peculiar that they did it through a writ of mandamus, which is merely a vehicle that he filed, he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus I think it was, and he could have done he could have done an appeal rather than a bent and bent mandamus is supposed to be seldomly used very My used an extraordinarily use, and when there’s no other remedy, and the panel had some disagreement about whether there were further yet other remedies available to him, but other than that, I agree completely with the ruling. So all the people out there who think I’m a lib tard. And I don’t know where they get that, because this is exactly what I would have done. If I were sitting on that court.

Andy 16:21
We have talked about let’s talk about that writ of mandamus for just a minute that good cases have been brought up with good evidence, but they use the wrong vehicle. What is the writ of mandamus? Like, what does that what does that mean? When should it be used not be used?

Larry 16:36
But it should be used when it’s appropriate, Andy?

Andy 16:39
Oh, of course, I should have known that. But what is it? What does that mean? Well,

Larry 16:48
a man mandamus is merely when when you file something in court, you’ve you you have a type a cause of action. The court is filled with causes of action and they’ll have have their unique set of rules of how and when they’re used. So when you’re gonna when you’re going to get a divorce, what do you file a

Andy 17:07
petition to divorce I guess

Larry 17:10
or might be routed as a petition for dissolution of marriage. Okay, and you and you file you file the right vehicle for the for the cause of action that you’re seeking. When when a mandamus is use, it’s, I have not seen it used in a situation like this. So I agree with the dissenting Obama appointee that this is an unusual remedy a mandamus is normally used for an agency that should be doing something that is not doing or an agency that’s not allowed to do something that it is doing. So you would you would seek to prohibit or compel the agency to do or not do something that’s doing. In the case of a judge the vehicle we would use in this state would be a we would file a petition for Superintendent control, we would ask the state Supreme Court that we have a If this had been a state case, and the judge was refusing to dismiss, we would have filed a petition in the state Supreme Court asking for Superintendent control for the Supreme Court to say judge dismissed the case. But but the mandamus was is an unusual vehicle. So to the extent they have a claim for anything, that’s where their claim is, because it’s an unusual vehicle remedy to use. And it’s important that you use the right vehicle. So if they were to gain any traction on their arguments, it might be that that was where the where the traction would be, would be that they used a vehicle that really was not appropriate for, for the situation that they should have taken an appeal ON JUDGE judge Sullivan, Judge Sullivan appointed this up. He he wanted to keep the prosecution alive. So he appointed Amicus, he appointed a basically another a parallel prosecutor and the parallel prosecutor was getting ready to move forward with the case saying that this this case should continue. And that’s that’s what it’s like how long should plan have to do it? Before it’s ended, and he had set a briefing scheduled to move forward. I mean, the panel said, This case has to because the government has moved for it and the judge, the judge doesn’t have the power to not dismiss the case.

Andy 19:15
So Celtic a prosecution can can dismiss.

Larry 19:19
The prosecution wants to in the case of the case of the US government, the Department of Justice is the president. People decided that the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the President. Right. It’s not like it’s not like in your state system where you have elected district attorneys were like the prosecutors from all across your state. And the US government, the the attorney general, is the Department of Justice and the Attorney General serves at the present presence leisure, and I didn’t design the system, but that’s the system we have.

Andy 19:53
But that but just to put a cap on that he doesn’t. He isn’t there to do the President’s bidding. He They’re

Larry 20:03
Well, what do you mean by that? I mean, he’s not there today. He’s supposed to be doing do it justice. But But if if if the President, I don’t know, say the president called him ask him anything. I don’t have any evidence of that. But

Andy 20:15
no, I’m with you on that. No, I’m not I’m not suggesting that. But he’s not all. He’s also not supposed to be going the other direction. what you just described, though, he’s not also supposed to then go be a hit squad, and Google the power of the Justice Department against people per the President’s request.

Larry 20:30
Well, I would agree with that. But does does the President forego any opportunity to call up one of his appointees of sound like a little concerned about this situation?

Andy 20:41
Yeah. Where does that start to get murky and the president having a hit squad in either direction of saying, Hey, we got to hit these people with kid gloves, but then we’re going to put on the mike tyson gloves for this?

Unknown Speaker 20:52
Well, I don’t know. But I’ll just say the president. If if we were talking about any other agency of government, you wouldn’t say the President could call it expresses concern, or why is it that the Department of Justice as president can’t say, gee, I’ve heard a lot about this case I find a little bit troubling. I mean, he ultimately he ultimately could have pardoned Flynn if he wanted to. Because his his power to pardon is absolute and people have gotten. I think we had some experts tell us on one of our episodes about the power depart as a no, it’s absolute president has an absolute power depart. There’s no restrictions and the Constitution on this power depart. And it’ll reference on the podcast, but someone was telling me that the President it. I mean, you could impeach the president if he started using the power clearly in an abusive fashion. But who is the president part zoning the President’s concerned?

Andy 21:41
Gotcha. I understand. All right. Well, then let’s move over to an article from Tech dirt or says more schools or any contracts with cops following protests over the killing of George Floyd. I, Larry, I did not have police in school. I don’t there may have been like somebody that would come by On occasion, I just there was never that I think there were like Hall monitors that, like adults that were that were making sure that kids weren’t running around when they weren’t supposed to. But we didn’t have law enforcement in the school. And this has always troubled me that there are actually like cops stationed at schools. And so I’m personally pleased to see that not not that I’m happy that this whole thing with George Floyd in the protests has happened, but I’m happy to see that this is a result of it, that the public schools are starting to pull back on having armed officers at schools. This seems I do not I do not like the idea that the cops are there to begin with. So that seems good to me.

Larry 22:38
Well, I agree, but there’ll be those that are that are listening that will tell us that we’re completely out of touch because they will say you don’t remember but it was Hillary Clinton that talked about the super predators back in the 90s. And how kids were being so violent, and I have always had great consternation about a uniform in particular armed police all She’s in our schools. It’s bothered me. And it’s been a last 10 years that we’ve armed our school resource officers here. But until until that happened, they were there but they weren’t. They weren’t carrying sidearms, but now they’re they’re fully armed. And it’s bothered me. And I think that this was a good thing. I don’t know how far this goes. Because if there’s such a thing as Super predators out there, as Hillary referred to them, it may be that some schools need a higher higher level of security and armaments, but I just relate back to my own school. I mean, we would never thought of having such a thing was it’s it’s just so bizarre to me that you’re running up and down the hall with with cops in the school building carrying guns.

Andy 23:44
Mm hmm. Um, why couldn’t I’ve heard this is like the defunding the police but an alternative police model of you don’t need a cop at a school with a gun necessarily, but you need someone that can be Somewhat trained in incident response that can be a very trained phone dialer to alert higher end officials who’s in a better trained armed officials to come in for an incident. We could say Columbine, or Sandy nuts. Yeah, Sandy Hook and then Park Park Park. what’s the what’s the one in Florida Park Park line park? Shoot. Let’s do one in Florida that happened like two years ago. Remember?

Larry 24:27
Well, I was gonna I was gonna say that to people who’ve lost children in school shootings, they would they would possibly see it differently that unarmed response and an armed officer would be preferable to being completely protected. So I don’t I don’t know that. I don’t know that we we get agreement uniformly that there should be no armed officers in school. I just I just say I’ve been very troubled by it. Yeah.

Andy 24:52
But it’s got to be intimidating to the kids. They’re too I don’t know how they would look at it as do they revere the police is being the almighty saviors of everything that so that makes it a great things that a PR stunt almost like you know we have we have movies that paint the military in these really pristine lights like you know movies like Top Gun, like the recruiting efforts behind Top Gun were phenomenal numbers came out of that, you know, hundredfold something, you know some crazy number of them having higher recruiting numbers after that. Do you think that people kids grow up seeing cops in their schools like wow, that’s what I want to do. I want to go be a hall monitor.

Larry 25:31
I think we should get some of the teenagers that are in high school today and see what their take on it is. I think it’s too distant for us to even relate to

Andy 25:38
probably probably Yeah, cuz I mean you were going to school like you were like Little House on the Prairie running down the hill going to you it was in school.

Larry 25:47
It was in the mid 1800s actually early 1800s.

Andy 25:52
You guys are writing on stone tablets.

Larry 25:54
I was I was in government in the mid 1800s for I was in the liquor industry.

Andy 26:02
Did they have papers you were writing you were taking your notes by candlelight and a quill.

Larry 26:07
That’s what we were doing. And, and whenever that telegraph thing came out of that really changed everything.

Andy 26:15
You guys had news streaming across the country instantly. All right. So over the appeal, we have Miranda rights weakened by the Supreme Court how the Supreme Court has gradually weakened the legal protections you have when you are arrested. I would be willing to bet, Larry that it is just part of your like, just like you know, that you can say, I know my rights, and I don’t have to talk to you. But this is sort of like this is something that occurred in the 60s to like, I have to read you your Miranda rights. Before that. There were no protections and in reading this article, that’s pretty lengthy. You can see how things have been torn down since then. But what did people do like what would like come the place come to you before the Miranda case. And they would like lie to you, and you just had to deal with them abusing you and making you talk.

Larry 27:11
No, you’ve you’ve always had that. Right. The The, the issue is of whether or not the cops must apprise you of that. And then what distance they should place between when when you invoke your Miranda rights, should they stop? Or are they allowed to keep going? And when can they come back? If you’ve invoked your your Miranda rights, can they come back a few hours later the next day. And I’ll put this in here. It is a very long read. But we’ve got a conservatively audience who periodically chastise us for being too liberal, and they believe the conservatives are our salvation. And I would just encourage anyone who has that belief to read this article, and watch how the conservative majority of the court that replaced the liberal Warren Court Which adopted Miranda and the 1960s. Watch how they’ve chipped away at the Miranda rights, which is one of many things we could cover in the course of this podcast about how the conservatives are not our friend on most things, but they believe with all the the, of their heart. They believe that if we just had all nine conservatives that we would just have, we’d be in the promised land. So take the time read through this and then come back with your questions or your or your response next week. But this lays it out pretty succinctly about who’s been weakening Miranda, including judge Thomas, Judge, Rehnquist, judge. I mean, we can go on and on but Alito, and the liberals are trying to protect that and that conservatives have have launched all that war on on Miranda

Andy 28:54
and this comes from if we, to me, it seems if we would pull as far back as we can and just like the conservatives are very pro law enforcement that they should have as many tools as they can and that they would never break their oath to serve and protect. But they use some shady tactics to get you to admit to things or take things out of context after you’ve been interrogated for dozens of hours. I don’t know, that seems you’re at a very severe disadvantage when you’re dealing with the people with the guns and the tasers and the handcuffs. And that you don’t know like, hey, am I being arrested? Am I being officially detained that you could just walk out? And I don’t know that people feel that they can do that and what kind of impression that would make that would be very complicated. And you would have to have very big components to just say, Well, I’m done here. I’m out.

Larry 29:50
Well, take a take a look at the paragraph. Like I say people should read it that that come from the conservative persuasion. But today’s court unquoted looks nice. Unlike the one that decided Miranda is dominated by Dr. Mary conservatives, his movement, his movements fondness for Law and Order politics cannot be disentangled from the jurisprudence. Just Clarence Thomas, for example, is notorious for his indifference to the plight of the poor, incarcerated or otherwise vulnerable people. In 1992. He opined that Louisiana prison guards brutal beating of a prisoner was not cruel, unusual punishment because the injuries the man suffered weren’t serious enough. In 1985, serious enough would be I don’t know. In 1985, Justice Alito boasted that his interested whilst in frogman part, his disagreement with the Warren Court decisions, particularly areas of Criminal Procedure, among others, now as Justice he has the power to help peel back these two decisions himself. And and this is this has been very troubling to me that the the Warren Court was replaced by the burger port which in hindsight looks pretty liberal. To what has the the subsequent Rehnquist. And then the the the the court we have now. And at this area, we don’t get a lot of favorable decisions out of this conservative court.

Andy 31:14
Well, there you go. So, Larry, you hate conservatives. That’s what we can take from this.

Larry 31:20
I don’t think we could take that from it. Occasionally. Occasionally. Occasionally they do some good stuff. I’ve said like with with with the Confrontation Clause. We didn’t have a stronger supporter of the Confrontation Clause then than the late does Scalia. He was right on one thing. But he was wrong on so many others.

Andy 31:42
But somebody has the chat just before we recorded about I want to bring this up. Specifically someone asked in chat just before we recorded about what does anyone think about the restorative justice and I was just like, immediately channeling my inner Larry about confrontation in In due process when when thinking about that,

Larry 32:03
well, it doesn’t matter what I think about it, I’m going to tell you what to think about it. But it doesn’t matter because that’s not our system. We don’t have that model, we have the adversarial system. And if you want to tear down the country and rebuild it to your liking, that’s fine. There’s a process to do that. But in the meantime, we have an adversarial system.

Andy 32:24
I gotcha. How about we move over to an article from the Law Review, and then a subsequent article from CNET about the Constitution protects faces in crowds. And the other one from CNET is geo fence warrants how police can use protesters phones against them. And this all stems from the people going out and protesting. I guess, kind of related to Jeff’s question earlier, that the police could just get a request from a company like Google for all of the cell phone data and now they know where you were and that would potentially Create a problem of you having the freedom to assemble and I think you should be able to assemble anonymously and not have without without, like all of the processes for a judge to, to to give that data up have to get your whereabouts. But if you think that the police are watching you, then maybe you would have less of a willingness to go out and protest. And just wanted to put it on the radar if people aren’t already aware that your phone is the biggest. If you are trying to be anonymous, your phone is creating a huge paper trail of everything that you’re doing all the breadcrumbs that you can leave are being done with a phone for you.

Larry 33:41
Well, why would you tell them I put it in a Faraday bag. I think you said

Andy 33:45
you could put it in a Faraday bag you’re not going to be able to receive any phone calls.

Larry 33:49
Well, who the hell do who take phone calls anymore?

Andy 33:52
I see. I feel that way. Larry. I don’t necessarily ever want to answer phone calls. Like just send me a text message. Honestly. But I do find it problematic that even you know, if you do have a phone on you that you you have made an agreement with a Google company, or a Facebook company, you’ve made those agreements with them. And then for the government to come in and do a massive dragnet and just get all of the data of all the people that were within this sort of pretty narrow area for a specific time window. That’s that’s a whole lot of very innocent people that are being swept into a dragnet for finding somebody that was doing something not appropriate.

Larry 34:35
Well, daughter here of this article, Theodore Claypool, I’m going to have a go with it. He’s probably, he’s gonna, I’m gonna have to say he’s far more qualified than I am. And he says that you do have such a right to anonymity in a protest and I’m just not so sure you do. So I would like I would like for people out there. In chat that there are gurus in constitutional law to decipher the constitution and tell us where that right is derived to be anonymous, you have the right to petition government for redress of your grievances. But when you petition your senator, you generally tell your senator who you are. I know when I’ve testified and spoken, I was asked for a name and I suppose you could give them a bogus name. But, but I’m not so sure that that you have where where does that right in the constitution? How do they squeeze that right out? And say you have the right to do it anonymously?

Andy 35:33
riddle me that well, okay. So something that I heard along the way I don’t remember where it was, is one of the protections that would almost be like a search and seizure kind of thing. But on the First Amendment side, if you are, let’s just throw out something extreme. So you’re a white nationalist, and you are very against minorities. And when you’re going to little meetings in the woods where you guys were your little white hoods. You may not want a Have your neighbors and all those people knowing what you go do. Or if you are living in a very conservative part of the country and you are going to an abortion clinic, I don’t think that those people would want just the general public to know what they’re doing. But if you know that you’re being monitored, well, you may change your behavior just because you know that you’re being monitored and it would suppress your freedom of speech.

Larry 36:23
Well, I do agree with you, and they would do that very thing. But it depends on where you do it. At. Like Clinton said, it depends on the meaning what the word is, is. If you if you’re out in public space, where there’s no expectation of privacy, that is different than if you’re out on 40 acres of land that’s owned by a friend of yours and you’re having a hooded, get together. I think that that standard of an expectation of privacy would go up depending on where you are. And if you’re out on the streets or in a public Park, I’m not so sure you have the same protection that if you’re out on somebody lower 40.

Andy 37:06
But think about the problem that I have with the example is that we have surveillance cameras all over, that are being used for Hey, can we do traffic management? can we can we do better incidence response? If there’s a car crash, instead of waiting for someone that down on them, we can actually see it happen. Or we can see traffic happening, we can start controlling traffic lights and migrate traffic around to avoid that area. But if if if we rolled the clock back to when you were a kid, there was no ability for the government to surveil you in mass like that. And now you’ve made an arrangement with a private company. And they’re pulling you out of those data that you didn’t make an agreement with them to store your data for law enforcement usage. You did it for things pretty much like advertising. I mean, if you’re getting a product for free, like Google Maps, they’re doing something with the data. But I don’t think that they’re the design was not to give it to law enforcement. That design was to be able to analyze your particular behavior patterns. To sell you advertisements or sell advertisements to you not to be a, you know, a snitch to the police, by by hundreds of thousands or 10s of thousands of people.

Larry 38:13
Well, it gets very murky and like the answer to Jeff earlier, we just don’t know. Certainly, we truly don’t know this because the police generally, to go beyond certain boundaries have to have a particularized reason. So to merely go through video, and use facial recognition, which is what this article is about to figure out who someone is, is a bit like fish. We don’t know. The police go fishing if we allowed the police to knock at doors and randomly pick cars with though individualized suspicion and search cars. We would come up with a lot of contraband both at the doors and the homes and the vehicles we would do that but we don’t allow that. Even when they’re out in public. We don’t allow the police to intrude in a person’s privacy. But I’m having a little bit of trouble with your face in the crowd being an intrusive Trojan and your privacy because you’re voluntarily out in public. And we’re surveillance society. We’re almost as bad as London has been for the last 20 years we’ve caught we’ve caught up with them. You’re out in public. And anyone could be video you at any time now, the average citizen doesn’t have the ability to convert that to to an individual’s identity, but the police do. So the question is whether they should have to have a warrant to convert a particular image, should they have some articulable reason to convert an image to an identity that they have that they would have to go to a judge to ask for that? Or can they just do it because they have the technology? That’s what that’s the unanswered question. We don’t know.

Andy 39:50
Couldn’t be too like if we if we compare it to the TSA, the first things that they released like they were seeing your junk and now They have basic like very, you know, just anatomically sort of close cartoon figures. And it says that there is something that they have detected on your thigh. So then they go over there and they, you know, they hit you with the back of their hand on your thigh to see if something is there. They could take the faces that they can discern and run those through and only turn they don’t need to get every Tom, Dick and Harry that they see they could just get whether they like go in and say, we’re looking for this individually or looking for the Boston bombers. And they know the faces that they’re looking for, and only return the people that they that they get hits on and not get the identity of every person. They don’t need to know that every person was at that rally. Well,

Larry 40:46
again, I agree. I agree with you on that premise. But when suppose they’re using the video to try to identify a suspect. And they’ve they’ve got the video from either a private source or from it was on a pole in public that the government owns. And they, they, they see a person that looks kind of like that, and they want to run that person. This, this writer says that they should go to the court and get they should articulate the probable cause they should say what happened, and why they need to convert that to an identity. And that’s the answer questions, should they should they have to do that? Or should they be able to just do it because they can

Andy 41:25
come to me and they should have to get a warrant? To me they should for something with Institute the facial recognition stuff. But why don’t other stuff at this point?

Larry 41:35
Well, that’s what the writer saying that’s what Mr. Claypool says. And it’s that they should have to do that. And it’s not going to be the end all life as we know, but I can tell you one thing. The police will tell you be the end of all life as we know. Because they don’t want to give up any usage of any tool that they have. Yeah, so what that once they’ve been using this they’re not going to want to have to go articulate what they’re why they want They want to convert facial recognition to an identity.

Andy 42:04
What about forget about just an extension of that of the political side of that, not just for law enforcement, but then now we know your political rivals, and if we should happen to move somewhere closer to some kind of tyranny, and now we start bullying. You know, if you’re at these rallies, there’s probably some level that you could say that these people lean this way politically. And now, the other side could push against those people from a political point of view and intimidate to more voter suppression kind of things, just to keep those people from gaining any power.

Larry 42:38
Those are legitimate fears, and I think we’re already seeing at least allegations of that that that blue states are being punished for for for not going along with the program. Just like those allegations, I’m not pronouncing that that’s happening, but I’m saying those allegations are out there.

Andy 42:56
Yep. All right. Have we beat that dead horse far enough? We have ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. cast@gmail.com you can call or text or ransom message 27472274477 I want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, tied 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. The next thing is going to be from the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois. Did I pronounce it right there.

Larry 44:00
I think that’s right on the mark, Illinois. I liked it.

Andy 44:04
Oh, I

Unknown Speaker 44:06
was gonna I was gonna say Illinois, but I guess it’s Illinois.

Andy 44:12
All right, this is a case that is pretty recent winter this one June 18. That’s like, nine days ago. And I think this is related to parks again. Is that right?

Larry 44:24
It is and it’s a very, very troubling case. And in fact, narshall issued a statement that that was issued to the to a writer who contacted tarsal about what what their take on it was and we can post a statement of what we thought about it. This was a person who whose minor was at a park and it’s not clear the age of the binder but from all description, it looks like a pretty young kid because they’re talking about t ball. And, but the kid was at a park And the father went to the park to retrieve his minor. And a local police officer recognized him and went had a visit with him and he called the police department. He was off duty, but he called his department and reported it. And then the department went visited him. And then they decided to prosecute him for being in the park. And it was my opinion and I helped compose the statement that NASA issued. It was my opinion that that the Lord was the lawyering was not particularly good in this case. And we have the benefit of 2020 hindsight. But the defense that should have been perfected on appeal was the necessity defense and necessity defenses. Where were you where you say that you did something? Yes, I affirm. I did. It is one of the many defenses that are out there. Which means you can see the underlying conduct but you say that you should be forgiven and Santa did defenses, affirmative defense, self defense as an affirmative defense, you say, yeah, shot the sob. But I did it for these reasons. And I should be excuse. Well, he had the necessity defense, which was that his minor was in the park and he was trying to retrieve the minor. And the judge said he was overruling the necessity to finance that he did not brief that on appeal. So therefore, it wasn’t considered on appeal. He had these really clever defenses he was gonna, he was gonna use instead. And he said that because there were two sections of Illinois law 11 dash nine dash 4.1 11 dash 9.3. And he said that since one of them provided it offense, that the other one should have provided defense and he he wanted the court to incorporate into the statute a defense that wasn’t there by the legislative, the legislature had provided for. So he was asking the court to do a little bit of legislating from the bench. And all of our people that listen to this podcast, they do not believe in legislating from the bench, right?

Andy 47:13
Absolutely not. They have the black robes and they should only hear the evidence and rely on the evidence.

Larry 47:19
And so therefore his his assertion that, that there should have been a defense because under the more serious felony charge, there is a defense that you that you can assert it that excuses you, because you’re you’re accompanying a minor and you’re talking to a minor only because you’re accompanying a minor, and that minor is with you, but but in this just simply being present, there is no defense. And he said there should be at the fence. And the court said, Well, maybe there should be but it’s not our job to put it in there. And we don’t legislate from the bench here, which I hope and there was just this massive round of applause applause going in the audience now because since we’re so dead set on having textualist interpretation and allegedly on the bench, and this is exactly what you would want. This decision would be precisely what a textualist interpretation would yield. So that’s the main reason I put it in here because it’s another chance for me to say, well, they weren’t right by the text. The text isn’t against the law, and therefore, they didn’t legislate from the bench. he’s guilty of a misdemeanor. If he gets convicted of this again, it’ll be a felony. And, and his appeal was was not protected on the necessity of offense. Therefore, he loses.

Andy 48:35
I was reading through here that it also says that his wife I believe it was or at least the kids mom was out of town. The the event defendant testified that his fiance was at a time when no one else was available to retrieve CG from the park that night. Larry, like what are you supposed to do? Like your kid is now not home and you are now looking for sad kid and you have no other Adults that could act on your behalf to go retrieve that kid. So you just put your lunch like that now you got defects or whichever whatever you want to call those agencies. Now they’re coming after you for child neglect. This is all it Hobson’s choice. It’s not the right way.

Larry 49:13
It is indeed. And, of course, the court said he could have called the police and I would have retrieved the kid. But they also would have called protected excuse me, they would call Protective Services. But but but again, the court did say that the legislature should go back and visit this again. But it’s the legislative problem. I mean, the court the court didn’t, didn’t create this mess and they there should be a defense. And he should have in all fairness, the lawyer should have perfected that necessity defense, and he shouldn’t have dropped it on appeal. He should have he or she should have really hit that hard. Until the appellate court. Yes, he did go in the park and that’s exactly what any parent would do.

Andy 49:59
So you know, Law says it is unlawful for any child sex offender to knowingly be president, any public won’t get caught knowingly. That means you have to then know that you’re somewhere or Park building playground recreational area within any publicly accessible privately owned building, blah, blah, blah. Any public park when persons under the age of 18 are present in the building, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, you can’t be at a park, if you have some sort of child offense. And apparently he did that god dude, you have no ability to survive this one. Because I didn’t bring I didn’t think about the police one that they’re going to call defects to when that’s over.

Larry 50:35
Oh, yeah. You’re screwed because you call the police and say I’ve lost control my kid. They’re gonna, they’re gonna report that to

Andy 50:42
protect your services. So if you go you get arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, and if you just let the kid run around, then defects is gonna get called. And then if you try to call the police to try and retrieve them, they’re gonna, you’re screwed. There’s no winner on this one.

Unknown Speaker 50:58
There is no win and what This illustrates as to people out there that are so paranoid that they’re going to get prosecuted at the drop of a dime. That shows that those people are absolutely correct. Because this shows that, that that a police agency has so little to do that they had the manpower, the person power, can’t say manpower anymore, but they had the human resources and capital to prosecute this. It shows that the state’s attorney’s office in this jurisdiction had so much resources that they were able to perfect a prosecution. And this is exactly the reason why we’re trying to, in some way lessen the funding available for these agencies because they brought this case and if they had fewer resources, they would have had to have made a choice to bring this case. But officer Corrigan didn’t have any trouble.

Larry 51:51
He had plenty of time. This is called the Mendota police. I have no idea where that is, but it says La Salle county wherever that is probably near Chicago. But But he had, they have plenty of time, the state’s attorney’s office had plenty of time. And this is why when we say we’re not talking about abolishing law enforcement, we’re talking about reducing the reach of law enforcement. If they didn’t have the reach to this prosecution, they wouldn’t have done it. So the people out there that are so paranoid, they’re going to get prosecuted because the hovercraft there might be merited some of that paranoia.

Andy 52:24
Yeah, I was just I was actually going to bring that up. So the hovercraft was working on this because the officer rec recognized them. I don’t have any affiliation with any sort of law enforcement to have a relationship that they would recognize me. That’s me personally, I couldn’t I don’t think any of them would recognize because I avoid them like the plague. So how did officer Corrigan testified that he went to the defendants residence later that night, when asked about his presence in the park, defendant stated he was there. I’ve read something else somewhere in here that would like you recognized him.

Larry 52:53
Yeah, he recognized him at the park. Yes. But but it’s like, what’s the population of that town that can tell you But I would bet that people might recognize you you don’t think recognize them because because that’s their job is to recognize people. So I bet I bet you’d be surprised how many of them would recognize you in public.

Andy 53:11
That’s okay. Could be what am I looking up where my What’s our county?

Larry 53:17
I’m looking at Mendota to see how many people that the hill

Andy 53:21
sell county is 100 808,000 people that’s pretty decent place.

Larry 53:27
And the population This town is 7300. Today in 2010, it’s a default

Andy 53:32
everybody recognizes everybody.

Larry 53:34
It’s a five mile west of Chicago. I thought about being a cell that would be the the cows that so that’s the name is common in Chicago.

Andy 53:43
Hey, you remember that case? Two years ago where the kid threw himself off the the the garage after he got accused of doing naughty things? Yes, it’s that’s just to the northeast, that’s Naperville. Our neighbor was neighbor. So that’s just to the northeast of there.

Larry 54:00
But at least I’ve got people have gotten me admitting that their paranoia might be. not be so over the top because everybody’s worried about the hovercraft, like in this case, the hovercraft was there.

Andy 54:11
Absolutely. Anything else you want to point out on this one before we move on?

Larry 54:17
I think that that this is a tragedy. And I think that there needs to be a challenge again, and again, the legislature is not going to change the law unless they’re forced to. But I think there needs to be a challenge brought by anybody who is subject to this restriction, properly built, adequately funded, and people are going to have to bring forth the issue about that he tried to raise that that he was not able to parent his kid, that you’re not able to use publicly funded resources that this has to be hit every way possible. But just this this is ridiculous law.

Andy 54:56
Very well. How about we covered An article from the desert desert is desert. I’ve never heard of this word Larry desert. It sounds like desert desert desert anyway, Utah Supreme Court strikes down law allowing sex abuse lawsuits in case against federal judge. This thing says that there’s going to be like human we always talk about the U haul problem where everyone’s going to get a u haul van and move to Utah. They almost like said this in here says if I feel like they just want to put a welcome mat out for Utah on any predator who wants to abuse children. It’s a predator friendly state as long as this is the way we handle things and it’s not right.

Larry 55:39
So what’s your question?

Andy 55:40
I don’t necessarily a question but you put the article in here was a me that did it. Did I put this in here? I believe so. Anyway, why so I, I don’t ever think that this is how anything would go down anyway, even if it’s less bad than other places. I mean, like there’s still going to be a registry and they’re still Going to be monitoring of people. No one’s just gonna fall off the radar? I don’t think

Unknown Speaker 56:07
so.

Larry 56:07
Well. The reason I put it in I do recall putting it in the Supreme Court of the Utah Supreme Court that has struck down a law that allowed victims of sexual abuse to sue decades later, you know, where I am on this issue and anybody who listens regularly knows that that I have great problems with with with decades later lawsuits, I don’t I don’t think you can defend yourself. The standard of proof is so low in a civil case compared to a criminal case where it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. And I’m actually I’m okay, what’s really

Andy 56:40
surprisingly, so this is this is a statute of limitations things where they’re they’re rolling it back to making it to the I don’t even know that I saw a number in here of how many years like New York did 55 years or something like that. How long did they roll it back here?

Larry 56:53
I don’t I didn’t read a 22 page opinion. In fact, I couldn’t find it anywhere. So but but yes,

Andy 56:57
I see it in the article. I don’t see anything. Sort of a any number anyway, so they have rolled back some kind of statute of limitations to where umpteen bajillion years later that you can be sued for something that happened and no one can defend. Anybody houses don’t exist, evidence doesn’t exist, memories fail, and so forth. But someone says they made you feel squishy, and now they can sue you. And so you’re saying civilly Tell me what the difference is between a civil suit and a criminal suit?

Larry 57:26
Well, criminal prosecution, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt which it’s, it’s a little unclear. I mean, no one can know what constitutes reasonable doubt it’s different with each juror. But with a civil suit, they make it clear that it’s just 50% slightly above 50% the evidence so in order to prevail in a civil lawsuit, you only have to show that it’s more likely than not that it happened. And then a civil lawsuit, they’re generally going after the deep pockets, they don’t really care about you, unless you have deep pockets. You’re just the way to the deep pocket. So If you were a clergy person with the Catholic Church, or if you were this case, a federal judge, they’re going after the deep pockets. And you’re the judge might not have anything, but it’s a little paltry 139,100 50,000 salary. But the federal government has a limited printing presses that are running 24 hours a day, seven days a week right now. I don’t really know if they can keep up running that that much, but but that’s what they’re going after. And this is all about the money. And I know I sound very insensitive. But if you’re going to be forced to defend yourself against something that’s big, alleged that happened decades ago, no one can do that. It’s ridiculous. It no one can do that. I mean, do you have a diary for you were in 1997. On July 7, definitely.

Andy 58:44
Definitely at 8pm. I knew it. I knew it. I knew it. I have to tell you, Larry, that prior to my involvement with this whole issue, I’ll be like, yes, you should always be able to go back and charge somebody and bring them and try to get restitution and all those things. You should always be able to go do that no matter when, because how do you serve justice? If you know if there’s a timeline for it? I’m pretty sure I would have felt that way going the other direction.

Larry 59:10
You would you would have and it’s it’s it’s one of the talking points. They say justice shouldn’t have an expiration date. Sure.

Andy 59:18
But I would say it’s probably it’s probably an at least it’s probably an ill conceived like, it sounds good. Like, hey, this person had these bad things happen. JonBenet Ramsey, like you, we should always be able to go get the killer of JonBenet Ramsey, and, but you know, start scaling things back that someone made me feel squishy, whatever that. But how it’s never looked at from the defense side that you could be accused and you could be innocent of it, and you need the ability to defend yourself. And that’s, that’s a hard, that’s a really hard pill to swallow there. I just, you know, just to be honest with you, it’s harder to swallow that one.

Larry 59:56
Well, I mean, no one is saying that a federal judge should be abused. Anybody that that’s not the issue here. The issue here is how do we preserve our beautiful system of due process of law and fundamental fairness? We don’t want no one wants. Anybody was power abusing anybody?

Andy 1:00:15
Yeah, I yeah, the victims advocates just have a much easier tugging at your heartstrings narrative to pull on that one too, to roll back any sort of protections without considering constitutionally protected processes.

Larry 1:00:29
Well, it’s it’s they don’t relate to it could happen to them. And they don’t really they don’t, they don’t realize the importance of the people fought and died for these protections of our Constitution. And they’re so willing to just give them away. Know that this is if we actually adhere to our Constitution. It’s a beautiful creation.

Andy 1:00:52
I understand completely my friend Um, so let’s go over to our almost last article. This is from it. The name of it is d cyst is the name of that publication, but it’s a DC list. And it says Virginia democrats hope to drop mandatory minimum sentencing. Wow. So that would be probably a good thing. mandatory minimums are a very troubling thing that if you want a judge to be a judge, then Shouldn’t they be allowed to go and look at you and your totality of your situation and your life and, and all that go, I don’t want this person to have a 10 year minimum or five year or 20 year minimum. I think that maybe they should only get a couple years and then some probation and just sort of like, you know, use the expression hit him with kid gloves. But if you have mandatory minimums, then the judge can’t do anything and he just has to hand you the 400 years that you get,

Unknown Speaker 1:01:46
you know, thankfully played a clip some number of episodes backwards judge said that I didn’t impose this on you. Yeah, yeah. Well, that. But this I mean, we we should all have to be asked at the end because this is a bunch Liberal Democrat Party activist in Virginia. And they’re trying to I mean, they’re opening a floodgate of criminality by taking the tools that the prosecution away, and they’re trying to assert their left wing agenda into this. And I can’t imagine that you could support such nonsense as this. Take away mandatory. Oh, that’s how I feel. Right.

Larry 1:02:28
So well, do you think it’ll pass

Andy 1:02:30
though?

Larry 1:02:32
I do. I think it’ll pass on a party line vote. It’ll be one of those blue versus red. Thanks. Unfortunately, I don’t think many Republicans will want to build away I hope I’m wrong. But I don’t think many Republicans that want to do away but I don’t think that the Democrat Party will get demagogued for for for for their actions. They’ll be accused of turning loose the tidal wave of a wave of crime. But I do I do think it’ll pass and I think the governor will see And, you know, isn’t it interesting this governor, they’re not that long ago they were calling on him to resign

Unknown Speaker 1:03:05
for his face.

Larry 1:03:07
Yes. And he said, I’m not going anywhere, you know, like, there’s nobody calling for his resignation. At least I’m not hearing about it nationally. Maybe they’re calling going on that regard. So,

Andy 1:03:17
by the way, it’s well, I wonder why that went away just that seemed to almost just evaporate. Maybe it was a I don’t know. That was a year ago that that was going on. What What happened to that got squashed out of the media. So very quickly,

Larry 1:03:34
gets a conspiracy of the left wing, Democrat party control media. See, you don’t understand this stuff. It’s very obvious that the drive by media’s leftist control by the Democrat Party.

Andy 1:03:51
You know, you’re saying all that stuff, and I’m very sensitive to the emails we’ve gotten. You’ve told me that I should not worry about But I do consider it. I even went and took one of the articles that we dropped and I went looked for the same coverage from one of the right wing nutjob places just so I could so we could be bound?

Larry 1:04:10
Well, I would say that that I listen to talk shows I don’t agree with it, I would never listen to JK ob and rush limbaugh and the conservative crowd over there. If I expected to agree with him. I listened to them to be informed and to understand their perspective, and to try to give them the benefit of the doubt that I don’t believe that people I disagree with are trying to destroy America. Now unfortunately, they say that that about us if we’re trying to tear down the country, I believe that they’re misguided. But if you’re listening to us, you’re not gonna agree with us on everything that we talked about here. But hopefully you’re we’re given a different perspective that you may not have considered. But But if you’re expecting to agree with us, you probably should just turn the podcast off.

Andy 1:04:49
But it’s so I mean, we were accused of like purporting like a conspiracy theories of the left and I was like I I’m still trying to figure out what that relates. To Exactly.

Larry 1:05:02
Well, I don’t I mean, I have I have bashed the left quite a bit. So anybody who listens regularly knows that I tried my best to cut it down the middle and this democrat stuff, I’m doing this talking cheap because I resent the term Democrat Party. That’s not the name of the party. And I wish they would say the Democratic Party, and I don’t think they should be afraid if I say the Republican Party third ago, they’re not going to pronounce the party correctly. But the Democrat Party is not always right. And I say that. I wish the people who are members of the republican party would say our party is often wrong. Our party, our democratic party, we’re not right about everything. We’re right, in my view, more more than I think we’re right more than they are. That’s why I’m in the Democratic Party. But but we’re wrong about things. I’ll give you an example of the the extra unemployment benefits, there was dissension about that extra benefit. What whether it would discourage work. The Democrats were right, in one regard that if you force employers to close down and allow them to work, that they should be compensated at a level consistent with what they would have been earning, had they allowed them to work. Republicans are right when they say, well, that’s nice, except for two people who are getting the extra . In many Astros instances are receiving more than what they were earning working, therefore, it disincentivizes work. They were both right. Sure. It’s like,

Andy 1:06:31
incentivize work, we had to disincentivize work so people didn’t need to go out and go do things that they would do otherwise, that would help promote spreading of the virus.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:44
But I don’t know that that was a major consideration. I think it was trying to keep the purchasing power up of what the people that were not allowed to work would have been spending. I think that was more of a consideration but the republicans are right that if you if you were earning a week, and no particular interest instance where a person was earning less than 200. Now it’s getting close to 800. Coming to 600. Adam, that person has absolutely no incentive to go to work. The Republicans are right. But the democrats were right that the people who were earning a week, since most state unemployment benefits are usually the a week or less range. We shouldn’t cut them from 900 a week to 400 a week and not allow them burn anything else without making some comp. I mean, both sides were right.

Andy 1:07:28
Here Yeah. Well, let’s, let’s let’s go over something that we probably should have covered last week using crappy old telephone technology, but this is from tour similary whatever. That’s the name of the appellee from Pennsylvania. This is a I don’t even know what this is about there. What is this whole case about?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:51
stuff?

Andy 1:07:52
stuff. All right, cool. And then we’re done.

Larry 1:07:57
Oh, well, this is This is Theresa with us tonight. I haven’t looked.

Andy 1:08:03
I have not seen her She is not here.

Larry 1:08:06
Okay, so this is this is the ongoing saga of registration in Pennsylvania. And just for any first time listeners that people have missed previous episodes where we’ve talked about Pennsylvania, there has been so much litigation and and that state and the the law changed in 2012. They adopted what they consider to be their version of the Adam Walsh Act. And in 2012, it took effect December 20, I believe 2012. And that, that changed the system altogether and put in the 1525 and lifetime registration. And it made it retroactive and the the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania decided in 2017 and mo now, so that was unconstitutional for those whose crimes predated 2012 and so the legislature decided to do a fix. So they came up with a with a with a version of the registry that was less onerous for people whose crimes predated 2012. And they came up with what they left the, the previous version, they left what they had passed in 2012. In effect for people. This guy’s this guy’s conviction occurred in 2017. So he was subject to the more onerous requirements of the of the, of the law. And, and he he contested that within his criminal case. He said that, that the the register registration applied to him was unconstitutional. The trial judge agreed. I wish I could find the 70 something page opinion. That’s why I was hoping Teresa was here, because I’d like to read the 70 something page opinion, but he the trial judge agreed he or she The registration requirements of the newly enacted law was unconstitutional. And this, this is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on on the trial judge. And I like this decision. I wish they had affirmed. But I see this decision as leaning towards the farmers later they they’re giving this the state of chance to, to, to prove that this this recidivism is frightening and high. And they didn’t do it in a criminal case. And they’re giving them a chance to defending justice here said that they shouldn’t be allowed that opportunity. But the the they’re given, they’re given the sitting back for the trial judge to develop the record. But the fact that the trial judge wrote a 72 page opinion, at least because I see, I see references all the way up to page 72. So you couldn’t reference 72 pages, if it was only 20 pages, so I’ll see references. So it’s at least seven Ad pages, the trial judge is going to come up with the exact same outcome after the Commonwealth is allowed an opportunity to present the non existent evidence. And we’re going to be right back where we are with it at some point in the future. It’s just unfortunate. It’s going to take many more months because we have to go back and we have to have a trial, take evidence, and then the state will undoubtably appeal again, because the judge is going to decide the same thing he decided the first time. And this is going to go up on appeal. Again, it’s going to cost more money. But ultimately, this is going to end well for for for the people of Pennsylvania. And so I’m encouraged by this.

Andy 1:11:38
And what is so you said it’s going to end well for the people of Pennsylvania. Does that mean somebody with a conviction prior to the date you said they won’t have these registration requirements?

Larry 1:11:51
Well, this this was for, for I believe a person who had after that date they’ve got they pass they passed a two prong registry after the after the monasticism they passed act in and then I think act 29 doing this from memory act, they re re enacted, basically acted on but act 29. And they’ve tried to make it more or less punitive, rather than having to come in there trying to get away from the disability to restrain the of the registry by just one of the seven Kennedy Mendoza Martinez factors. And they said that since you got the report in telephonically, that it’s not the same and the judge just poopoo that I’ve highlighted for the judge. The trial judge just said that’s just nonsensical. You’re still under the under the the revised law you could petition after 25 years for removal. And the state argued, well, that’s enough. You get some due process of the judges but your life is ruined after 25 years, what good is being able to petition off after 25 years so, so that the Supreme Court called them Battle some of their bogus arguments in this in this. They and I love it every time the state gets called out for their duplicity, their nonsensical arguments.

Andy 1:13:10
What about the Pennsylvania piece that comes up every now and then about their reputation that they have something of a constitutionally protected thing of the reputation

Larry 1:13:20
that applies here but the the the Supreme Court said that that wasn’t fully developed everything that was that the trial judge ruled on. They sent it back for for for evidence, they relied entirely on the on the Apple II what’s his name here that we’re talking about? What?

Andy 1:13:41
Tor Tor sir the area

Larry 1:13:44
they relied on, they rely on giants to they relied on him entirely and his experts and the the state didn’t bring in any anyone. And now the state is saying that you got it wrong. So they’re giving the state a chance but I don’t see that changing. I think I had highlighted something on 13th. I was going to quote and see if I can figure out what it was. So nonetheless, we’re unable to conclude based upon the record currently before this court whether Apple II has sufficiently undermine the validity of the legislative findings supporting revised subchapter h registration notification provisions, especially in light of the contradictory scientific evidence cited by the Commonwealth during this appeal, which may refute Apple ease experts. It’s not the role of an appellate court, I’m still voting determine the validity of the reference studies based on mere citations rather than allowing the opportunity for the truth developed through a hearing on the merits of the evidence accordingly, a remand is appropriate to allow the parties to address whether a consensus has developed to call into question the relevant legislative policy decisions impacting offender’s constitutional rights. So so the record is just not enough as it existed, but, but there’s there’s a lot of good highlight highlighted portions in here, where The or the state got called out for their for their BS.

Andy 1:15:04
BS. Is that a legal term? No. Is

Unknown Speaker 1:15:08
it says the court opined it’s all about the trial judge I post deprivation process that provides for a hearing concerning the deprivation of fundamental right that occurs 25 years after the injury is a Kanto provision of no profit process at all. The court emphasize that during the intervening 25 years, the adult offenders will have effectively placed out of the job market ostracized from from Pro social resources and unduly stigmatized for the majority of their most productive years. I mean, this judge clearly gets it

Andy 1:15:39
definitely and then how long would it take before this ends back up at the for some sort of decision?

Larry 1:15:47
Well, it’s hard to say I would be surprised if it’s less than two years but that the judge is going to have to conduct a trial. And a state of course, it’s gonna wind that we we’ve got, they’re gonna drag their feet The judge depending on how busy the docket is, it’s going to have to schedule block out some time for trial. And then and then the the appeal will take whatever amount of time it takes to work its way back up to the court. So I was saying a couple of years before we have the outcome.

Andy 1:16:16
Final and in the meantime, it’s just a, it’s just in limbo, it runs the current state. Yes.

Larry 1:16:24
It is important to note so it’s, I keep highlighting, about declares to prove can override legislatures. When the legislature passes something is presumed constitutional. And when the legislature makes a finding, as I’ve highlighted on page 19, the course is we emphasize that only the clearest of proof of punitive effect can override the legislature stated intent that the statute be construed as non punitive. So so you you’re starting out with with the legislature gets the benefit of the doubt.

Andy 1:16:57
So you’re already and then you have to prove them wrong. And and does that have to be at a constitutional level? Because we can we can make bad laws that are stupid but constitutional to quote somebody? Yes. So you you would have to then prove to the court that what they are doing is then unconstitutional for them to have a judge push back and roll back?

Larry 1:17:18
Yes. You don’t

Andy 1:17:20
want to circle back they just say you can’t do that.

Larry 1:17:22
Yes, you people, people can completely misconstrued. The courts don’t exist to save you from a bad choice you Bay to elect people who passed bad laws from a policy perspective. The courts can only intervene when there’s a constitutional right being trampled. And I keep bringing up the 55 mile per hour speed limit. They could bring that back tomorrow if they wanted to. It’s a bad policy. We’ve learned that it would be detrimental to our economy and to society as a whole but we have the right to have a bad policy.

Andy 1:17:53
I gotcha. I Are we done with this one?

Larry 1:17:57
Yeah, we’re gonna finish within 90 minutes. Cuz cuz we I doubt it. Oh, do you have more?

Andy 1:18:03
I doubt it. Because there’s there’s a, there was an email question that I don’t remember where I pulled it from I think I pulled it from somebody asking a question to one of the one of the organizations. And it says, so I actually had it says what I’m interested in mostly is the rights to practice my Christian duties to the Church says I am interested in working with you in any way possible to foment desperately needed changes to these blanket policies, which judge and punish all by the canon of the worst. This violates our constitutional guarantee to due process. In my case in which there is no physical victim, I possessed 14 images, blah, blah, blah. I am forced to live under restrictions which among other things, infringes on my rights to practice my Christian duties to the church. I am writing a book to expose the horrific prison conditions and practices as well as to expose dozens of violations of the law and criminal procedures committed by the police prosecutor and judge in my case, is being fought in court. The state rules by fear not by common sense this Only a cursory overview of my position an issue and I would like to discuss it more in depth. Sex laws are largely based on fear and political pandering and ignore the driving force behind many of these crimes and pseudo Kratz. Please email me when you can blah, blah, blah. So my question to you is, in regards to this is when you get all of these restrictions put on you, doesn’t that infringe on your again, first amendment rights to be involved in church and your right to like, do all of those religious things? And hasn’t anybody tried to push on that button?

Larry 1:19:35
Well, and I know you hate it when I say this, but I don’t have all the information that would be necessary for this question. So we can we can develop it further. What we don’t know is whether he’s still being punished if if he’s, if the writer is still serving a part of his sentence, many of these under any supervision. You have fewer rights when you’re under supervision, than when you’re under supervision when you’re paying a debt to society, their friends into your space can be more now it’s not unlimited, but there can be more infringement. So we don’t know if he’s being punished, or if he’s just simply a part of the civil regulatory scheme. So it’d be helpful if we knew that. And it would be helpful if if we, if we, if he is being punished, it would be helpful if we would, if we could know if there’s anything that I can articulate, individually, you can impose a lot of conditions on offender supervision if they’re uniquely tailored, narrowly tailored, and unique to that offender. So the convicting offense, we’ve got the part about the 40 images. But what we don’t know is there’s the rule of four four be what we don’t know if there’s anything in his background that came out in his PSR of any onshore conduct, or anything he was under investigation for that was dismissed as a part of this case, to induce the plea. They, I mean, they sometimes tell you, your veterans vestigation for blah, blah, blah, and we’ll wrap that up and conclude there’ll be no prosecution. We don’t know if they could articulate an individualized reason for not allowing him go to a particular church. But what we do know is I can’t tell him he can’t go to church at all. If if he is being forbidden to worship, that’s going to be extremely problematic in terms of the Constitution. You have that right.

Andy 1:21:20
And Christian duties to the church. So I mean, he could be volunteering as the bookkeeper. And, you know, so you know, if the the 14 images were allegedly taken at the church, then I could see everybody tailoring all of things saying that you can’t do church, because you obviously have done something involving the church. But if you just happen to end up with them on your computer from random internet places, I have no understanding of how why they would then restrict you from church if that’s not related to it.

Larry 1:21:50
Well, but but let’s say again, the the Christian duties he’s being a little bit vague. What are those Christian duties that he’s talking about? Does he think he has a Christian duty to leave To find a school class that’s composed by lessons way, if we know that if he’s in trouble for images, I had to be under age because we don’t prosecute people for looking at adult porn. It’s contrary to my knowledge. So we know that we know that there is a relationship to underage individuals that that would that would constitute the base for the prosecution. So is his Christian duties is, is he talking about sweeping the floors when the church buildings empty? Or is he talking about having having more responsible role in the church? He’s a little unclear on that as well. So we don’t know what he’s asserting that he should have the right to do. And we don’t know whether he’s being punished or not if he’s simply being prohibited by the registry so that we would need to develop this a little bit further.

Andy 1:22:40
A friend of mine was even told that he couldn’t be the god I’m gonna forgive me for not knowing the term, the person that collects the tithing. I don’t know what the person’s title is, but he couldn’t even do that, because that could possibly expose them to interact with children. which, to me seems completely ridiculous because it’s not like you’re going to go collect tidings from Like a roomful of children there are going to be many other people in the room that would be not supervising you but be observing you doing that and if you tried to do something naughty with a child while nobody is looking there’s 100 people sitting in the room or thousand people sitting in the room with you that seems ridiculous.

Larry 1:23:17
Well, again as as that person may punished, or is that a registry requirement he’s he’s currently being punished and and and they now I agree with you that I think it’s ridiculous to say a person I think they would call that an usher and most most churches but at the same person can’t be an usher. You know, I think that would be ridiculous. But on the other hand, can you imagine you got to remember all this was political. Can you imagine? I mean, I’m guessing like that whatever church it is, there’s at least one cell phone camera, would you?

Unknown Speaker 1:23:50
totally okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:23:51
I can only imagine that if a cell phone camera where to capture a registered sex offender a PFR. Yep, going down. The aisle collecting tidings at a church and posted that on Facebook. What would be the reaction in that community? about that? What would put it? Would you think the congregation would be supportive?

Larry 1:24:15
Or do you think that that

Andy 1:24:16
I think we could find we could find enough that would go on either side of that you would find some that would want to roast the person and be like, No, we know his situation, and we love this person, and everything’s great. So continue on an f2 for being stupid. I can see we could get up both ways.

Larry 1:24:29
Now, Brad, does the transcript is he gonna be able to put spacebar in the transcript or should he put Facebook?

Andy 1:24:35
I think he should put space book because that’s what you said we should have it be exactly as you spoke it and not as a as a to be written.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:44
So but

Larry 1:24:46
but but you see the dilemma that the church the church would find themselves in, and the probation people would find themselves in because in many states that the fact that persons under supervision would be a public record. website have supervised offenders. So when the camera rolls into the probation department says, The citizens of this county would like to know why there’s a registered sex offender serving as an usher in the First Baptist Church, which the First Baptist Church may not be a good example. But you know, pull that out of thin air what what would what would the reaction be? of the community?

Unknown Speaker 1:25:23
I yeah,

Andy 1:25:24
I mean, if it comes out on on that time, yeah, then everything’s gonna go south probably pretty quickly. Because you know, like the sheriff and buts county for putting the signs out for keeping O’Shea from these terrible people. It’s going to be that same kind of reaction.

Larry 1:25:38
Yep, that’s, that’s what that’s what I’m afraid of. And I think that although I hate to sound like I’m defending these people, I’m not. You have to, you have to get in their head and understand how they come up with this stuff. That doesn’t make you agree with it helps you understand how they get to where they are.

Andy 1:25:59
It’s funny that I have conversations with people. And thank you, Larry, that you’ve actually, like, ruined many relationships that I have with people. Everything is political. Someone says, Well, I don’t like how this regulatory board does this. And I’m like, that’s politics because that regulatory board was put forth by some governor or some city thing. And without, you know, if we voted differently than those regulations, we’d be different. I’m not saying that they are good or bad. But I’m just saying if it’s because of how we vote, that we have these, you know, hair cut regulations, or real estate regulate, we have all of these things that are controlled by politics. Well,

Unknown Speaker 1:26:34
but as we sign off tonight, people explained this to me. Next episode. How is it that you can live in a country, this very system is designed, we live in a political system, we have parties, we live in a representative system where people have to go out and compete for votes and be attractive candidates. everything that’s happened, whether it be at the local level, in terms of whether you’re gonna get a sidewalk paved and a street paved versus going to get it on a load of gravel and a grading where you’re going to get a library built, or whether we’re going to get 18 more Nimitz class carriers or if they still build those, all those things are political decisions. All those things are whether we’re going to have an extra a week in unemployment benefits. How is it that you can claim that you’re not political, but we live in a system where everything that happens is determined by a political process? Would you guys please explain it to me?

Andy 1:27:33
I wasn’t interested in it. 15 years ago, there, that’s the only thing out of this that I can explain to you.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:39
But our whole system, every every decision that’s made is political.

Andy 1:27:44
And some somewhere I don’t know where it is, but people immediately say something like, ah, I hate politics. And that’s just the end of it. And it just becomes almost like math and people either like math or they hate math. There’s probably not really very many people that are in between. And somehow politics ends up to be kind of sort of the same thing. They just hate all of it. And I’ve become kind of like fascinated by it. You know, I listen to politics, podcasts, like almost exclusively to just hear about all the meanderings and the jockeying back and forth and who says what, and whether this is constitutional or appropriate and whatnot. It’s pretty fascinating to me at this point. Thank you for ruining my life.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:22
Well, do you prefer an authoritarian regime to prefer a dictatorship? I mean,

Andy 1:28:25
what’s the alternative? I think North Korea would be way better. Kim Jong Un would be way better and he can just say, Nope, you messed up. I want to kill your family and your grandparents and then your kids do something like that. Sounds way better.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:37
How we run this nation is a battle of wills for the soul of the people to win the people over to your way of thinking or at least enough of them to prevail. That’s our system. I don’t know why that is so shocking to people. That’s what we do. We govern ourselves, my butt buds majority, as long as we don’t trample the constitutional rights of the minority our systems designed so that the minority does not get get totally trampled. But it is designed to do exactly what it does.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:09
I agree

Andy 1:29:10
I understand now. I didn’t understand then you should have talked to me like 15 years ago 20 years ago and I would have punched you right in the face were you and your you and your silly politics.

Larry 1:29:22
You people are too dumb.

Andy 1:29:24
Anything else? I’ve one shout out to make before we sign off.

Larry 1:29:28
I think we’ve done we’re done unless someone else in chat has another question. I see questions here.

Andy 1:29:37
I wanted to bring up that there’s a new podcast out there by Dr. Alyssa Ackerman and then also she is co hosted by Alexa Sardina. I hope I pronounced that right. I’ve been listening to them. They’re all they’re just getting started there. It’s called Beyond fear. It’s the sex crimes podcast. It’s pretty good. And I like it. And you will hear from two doctors about how the PF RS and that whole Industrial Complex around how it’s kind of garbage. And they are advocates on our side and they are talking from the PhD side of things.

Larry 1:30:10
Well, I will check that out on my podcast cache. So be sure that you will I actually Actually, I actually will.

Andy 1:30:18
Really Did you know, you got a new phone? Did you put a podcast app on there?

Larry 1:30:22
Of course I did. I’m moving up in the world.

Andy 1:30:25
Oh, my God. I’m shocked. I you know, prior to what did you What was your response when I asked you about doing a podcast?

Larry 1:30:32
I don’t remember. Your answer was like, what’s the podcast? Oh, that was years ago.

Andy 1:30:39
All right, well, we could sign off so find the podcasts you can find show notes at registry. matters.co. And, of course, like Jeff did, you can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477 email registry matters cast@gmail.com. And of course, we love all of our listeners, but I want to send out a special superduper thank you to our patrons. patreon.com slash registry matters. And I will tell you that tonight, we did some content before we started recording. And if you are not a patron, you will not be receiving the extra content this week. So you should go sign up even for a buck a month and you can get the Patreon extra that I’ll be releasing this week. And without that, Larry, I bid you adieu and I hope you have a splendid Saturday evening and I will talk to you soon.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:24
Thanks, Andy. Take care bye bye.