Andy 0:00
registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 134 of registry matters. Larry, Fourth of July you got big plans tonight for all the crashing banging booming and all that stuff.
Unknown Speaker 0:26
Well, there’s there’s no doubt there will be plenty of that in my neighborhood. There has been the entire week and last night I had to turn on two fans to try to drown it out. And even even that didn’t work.
Andy 0:38
I don’t even know I don’t know that I can even expand on this one but I have heard that there are people that are doing this to to paint the image in the protesters minds that we are in a war zone or something like that. I did you hear anything like that? Or am I completely nuts? I have not heard that. Okay, maybe Maybe I just dream did it dream? Is that a right word dream did?
Unknown Speaker 1:05
I don’t think so. All right, I think any night. Go ahead. Thank you. I think it’s drempt or something like that.
Andy 1:14
Okay. drempt joining us tonight is a super longtime patron longtime supporter and a very, very compassionate, nice individual named Mike and he’s from Florida, and wanted to come on and asks some questions to Larry like directly, and just go over some things and maybe put some victories in Larry’s like the wind column just to confirm some some things that Larry has said. Anyway, Mike, how are you tonight? Welcome. I’m good gentlemen.
Unknown Speaker 1:43
How are you?
Andy 1:44
Fantastic. Thank you for coming. Thank you for coming on short notice.
Unknown Speaker 1:48
Hey, thanks for letting me be on here. Appreciate it.
Andy 1:51
Where do you want to be in Do you want to begin with the the Larry was right segment or do you want to talk about Alabama.
Unknown Speaker 1:57
That’s pretty much my entire segment. The Larry He was correct segment. Okay, well,
Andy 2:02
great. Thanks for coming and talk to you later.
Unknown Speaker 2:05
I just want to say Larry’s correct all the time.
Andy 2:07
All right. You know, so let me let me tell you a little backstory. Someone told me when I first got involved in all of this stuff, I was like, Man, you really shouldn’t listen to Larry so much. He’s not quite as right as you think he might be. And I’m like, I don’t have any frame of reference to even think that Larry is ever wrong. But I mean, I don’t know I don’t know what I’m doing or talking about. So I was like, okay, but a Larry will tell you when he is wrong, but I don’t really have a whole lot of accounts of when he is wrong.
Unknown Speaker 2:35
Yes, sir. He’s batting 1000 in my experiences, things that I’ve had the information I’m getting from it.
Unknown Speaker 2:42
They appreciate that but boy, I’ll blow it from time to time and and sometimes they things come by left field that you don’t expect them. But but a lot of this stuff is just really, if you if you analyze why it’s the way it is. It’s it’s really not as complicated as we make it out to be and that’s hopefully what we do on this podcast as we simplify what people believe to be very complicated issues.
Andy 3:10
It is complicated there. They use some crazy word sometimes there and they doublespeak and they they backflip themselves and they twist themselves in knots in a super complicated in my mind. Tell us about tell us about what you wanted to bring up out of Florida though. Like
Unknown Speaker 3:27
Yeah, what did what did I get right Mike? I got to hear this.
Unknown Speaker 3:30
Yeah, there’s a couple things I wanted to, to comment on. First of all, let me just say that I you know, I’ve been a fan of this podcast since the early days when it was was pretty bad. It was rough beginning. We were talking about sound quality, and I followed you guys closely. I’ve never missed an episode ever. I’ve listened to every minute of every episode, so kind of a fanboy. And so I learned a lot from the podcast. So over the last year or so I’ve took some Some steps to try to attempt to get myself off the registry in the state of Florida. Pirate have a very good attorney, one that has been successful in doing so. And as this happened, a lot of the things that I’ve heard, you know, explained on this podcast, mostly from Larry, you know, when he explains how things are going to work a lot, a lot of this started unfolding, and I was watching it, I wasn’t surprised by any of it. I’ll start with the petition that we did a few months back when I went to court here in Central Florida. And so basically, I’ve been on the registry since the day it started the state of Florida. I was convicted of a felony offense from I was 16 years old, but they convicted me as an adult. You know, fast forward, go to do my time in prison, get out, come home, done with everything. And then you know, all of a sudden Here comes the registry. Yeah, that wasn’t part Any deal that we made the beginning, but everybody knows about how that works. So that’s been, you know, they the, at one point, the registry removal process only had a 20 year time limit at the state of Florida. And at some point, they changed that in the past few years. I don’t know what year it was. But they changed it to 25 years. And then one of the requirements and I’ll bring up one of the stipulations in it, and it was really the one that kind of hung me when I went back on my petition was you can’t have any misdemeanor or any felony, since you were released from your probation, any kind of supervision. I had a failure to register in 2002. And it was from my ignorance. Back then I didn’t have a computer. I don’t remember if I had been on the internet or not yet. And things used to come on a postcard when they updated the legislation. Sometimes you’d get it Sometimes you didn’t. And so basically I moved residences and didn’t change my address within 48 hour timeframe. Didn’t at the time, and it’s my fault. I didn’t know what was the law. I didn’t realize it was a 48 hour window. So my home was burglarized while I was at work. I called the local police department, they came out, did their thing, realize that I hadn’t changed my address, and a few few days later came back and arrested me and that was how I ended up on this failure to register. So fast forward now to 2018, which was when we filed the petition. The attorney that I used, has had a lot of success in the state of Florida petitioning removal for people who have had a
Unknown Speaker 6:50
felony or misdemeanor since then. But what they’ve done is they’ve sort of post dated the removal date, and they’ve gotten court orders and I have seen many of them with my own eyes, I went over them, because I didn’t just hand my money over, you know, willy nilly to anybody that said they could do this. And the attorney was very upfront with me and explained to me that there was about an 80% chance that this could go through and there was a chance that it might not. So what I wanted to touch on, which is important for the listeners and people to understand is that Larry constantly talks about how people interpret the law. And that’s something I’ve heard him say many, many times, and I’m sure everyone else has to and he talks about the the textual Listen, the what is it the judicial activists, then he makes that distinction many times. Well, when I went to court, they read the judge that I dealt with, read the statute, exactly, verbatim word for word, the way it was written. And even read it back to my attorney. And my attorney argued with her and hey, there’s a plenty of other judges in the state that have already signed off on these and donees. And she said, Yeah, but this is how it reads, this is my interpretation of it. And this is what you know how I’m going to decide. So I’m sitting there watching everything and in real time, and I’m thinking about every time Larry’s brought this up, and I’m like, this is exactly, you know, what I was paired for. I knew that this could happen this way. She said, you have this, you know, felony conviction, it’s 18 years 1718 years ago. And I cannot do this, because this is what the law says. Now and the judges, the fence earlier, had mentioned the temperature of the judge and you know, before the show conversation, the judge was very, very friendly, I guess I should say, very kind. She did tell me there, that if this case was brought before her today, it would not be prosecuted. She’s said that I should have never been prosecuted. And she told my attorney this. And she said, I can’t get you off of this today. She said, but here’s how I want you to do it. Do it this way and come back to me. And I can do this. So she did give him a legal Avenue, you know, on how to do it properly. So the whole experience wasn’t negative. But the reason I wanted to share it with people is if, you know, if you’re considering this move, you’re gonna have to take into account that what he’s been saying all this time is true. One judge may not interpret this the same as another. how that’s possible. I don’t know. But I’ve seen proof of it. And you know, I witnessed it myself. So you know, what Larry’s been talking about for the past. Now, however long we’ve been y’all been doing this podcast for a couple years now. I guess. It’s very accurate. You got to take the notion out of it that you’re going to go to court and you’re going to explain to them Well, here’s what you know. Understand, here’s what happened. That’s not going to happen. They’re going to they’re going to look at the law read it the way it is, in my experience, and that’s what they’re gonna go by, you know, the only thing they did ask me, the judge did ask me my opinion on was what? Why was arrested for failure to register? And I’ve just explained to you know, I had no idea the law was what it was. I called the police to my house and they, they came back and arrested me and they argued that they never called the person that broken in my home. But, you know, they came back got me, they found me. So
Andy 10:35
I got somebody for something.
Unknown Speaker 10:38
They didn’t waste their money, you know, the taxpayers dollars went hard or they got a dangerous burglary victim off the street.
Unknown Speaker 10:46
So Mike, I ask a question or two I we haven’t done any pre show discussion of this. Just speak out. So what what I would what I would caution people when When I say please go talk to the prosecutor. I don’t mean you personally. But a judge can do anything that judge wants to do. If the prosecution is not going to appeal, the only thing that ties the judges hands? Well, actually, there’s two things I shouldn’t say like, one thing, there are two things that ties a judge’s hand. One is if there’s going to be on appeal. And if a prosecutor will agree not to object to something, then there’s not going to be an appeal on behalf of the State of Florida. So therefore, a judge could overlook the the waiting period if it’s not going to be on an appeal. So that’s why I say, Go take the temperature of the prosecutor find out if they will stand silent, find out if they’re going to strenuously object, what is their posture going to be on this in this proceeding, because you need to know that before you lay all your money on the table. And and and the other thing that would constrain a judge would be if the judge is elected, in particular in the southern states that tends to be more the norm than the exception. If we’re coming up on the decision of judges making in June, and they’re facing election in November, they’re going to feel the constraints of what you’re going to want to do. If you have a case scheduled an election year, you would you want to try to put that thing past the election. So you tell your attorney Well, you know, I’m not it’s hard to get off the register as much as I thought it was. And you’d want you’d want to, you’d want to get past the voter scrutiny, because if if the judge, in fact has an opponent, that would be fodder for the opposition to say he’s letting he or she’s letting these people off the registry and endangering the citizens of our county. So those are additional considerations that would come into play.
Unknown Speaker 12:42
Yeah, I understand that. That makes a that makes a good point. And my attorney did actually reach out to them beforehand. And the prosecution was absolutely against it when we went in now after the judge made the comments in the The position known that she wanted to go with, she said, if you will go ahead and just withdraw your petition. Now, we will ask that the state lets you do it without prejudice. And you can come back and then come back and do it the way I told you to do it. And so that’s what we did. And you know, where that’s where we’re at now with it. So, you know, I’m not a legal mind, but I did. It was pretty. It was nice for me to go in, and I had a sense of what may happen. And I was very prepared. Believe it or not, I learned a lot from this podcast. So I wasn’t totally blindsided. When I went in a lot of things I heard I’m like, Okay, this makes sense. And the judge was very fair. You know, they did not treat me bad. They were very reasonable, which I know people probably want to say. I’ve heard so many stories about bad judges and things like that. But um, I didn’t have that experience. The prosecutor was pretty hostile. But after the judge made the position, known And that seemed to calm down quite a bit. And then she agreed to do what the judge wanted to do when we came back. She said she would have no problem with that. So that’s where we’re at with that. And I just wanted to, you know, let people know, a lot of what you’re saying on here is not just, you’re not just talking this, this is how it’s actually gonna go down when you get there. And I did have them. If you don’t I mean, if you have any more questions about this particular petition, feel free to ask because it was. I mean, it’s a quick process, it does not take long once you file it, you’re in court pretty quick. And well, as well, go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 14:38
I would say that that what what I would caution people to do is, if your state does have a removal process, be prepared to spend money. You’re going to need a psychosexual evaluation, even if the statute doesn’t require it. It’s good to have and and and if you don’t want to Judge to order the state assessment board to assess you because you might not like the outcome. So be prepared to spend some money. But your your preliminary work is the most important. You need to find out how many of these cases that the attorney has done successfully, particularly the jurisdiction that you’re forced to file in, because it’s generally going to be where you were convicted, because it’s a part of an ongoing criminal proceeding. If you if you move to a state that has a process, you’re convicted of another state, you may get to file it where you’re living. And that would give you the option to do a little bit of form shopping as we call it. But take all this stuff seriously. If the attorney can’t tell you they’ve successfully done these petitions, and they can’t tell you what the temperature level is that prosecution office, how they’re going to react, if they have a standing policies they that they vigorously oppose everything. If the attorney cannot give you these answers, you do not want that person to be your attorney. And you you want to you Want to have that information because if we had such a process in this state, that would be the first thing I would tell you, I’d say, well, you’re at your file that you’re forced to file in Socorro County, I just pulled that one out of the hat because we don’t have such a process. But there’s only two district judges of the Carroll County. And neither one of them have granted a petition in the last three years, not knowing what I’ve just told you. And knowing that you’re going to have to spend somebody to have a psychosexual evaluation for us to have any chance. Let me go talk to the prosecutor and find out if there’s ever a situation where they don’t vigorously oppose it. And if I come back to you and tell you, they’re going to vigorously oppose you. And these are the two judges have ever granted a petition. You all not want to give me your money. But the funny thing is, you will leave my office and you’ll go give some money to someone else. That tells you what I didn’t tell you but they tell you what you would prefer to hear
Unknown Speaker 17:00
Now that I made sure that I didn’t, I didn’t have a yes, man. Before I went into this, I actually saw quite a bit of history. Before we got this done. He showed me many, many cases that he had done recently as many as or as recent as the week before, the only thing that he couldn’t speak to and not and it wasn’t his fault was really in the the district where I ended up going back to court. He had never handled one there. But after the judge saw the charges and saw the case, and she she spoke on that she said that, you know, I told you what she said that she would have never I would have never been on it in today’s in today’s you know, criminal proceedings, whatever. She said that, um, I shouldn’t be on it and that she would have no problem taking me off of it. If we did the way she laid out and she laid that out for my attorney. And he and you know, I understood it. I’m sure he did. In the prosecution said that at the time they were in class. to agree with that, so we’ll see how it goes. And I’m glad to hear that. Yeah, that’s what she said, You know, this, we’ll see. And it wasn’t a horrible experience. And I have had, you know, I had that failure to register out of ignorance in the last 31 years. So it’s not like, you know, I was out there, ripping and roaring and, you know, committing crimes that they’d had it overlook a bunch of them. But unfortunately, that one felony is pretty much what hung me if it wouldn’t have been for that I would have been, it would have been a done deal. But well, biggest, biggest reason I called was just to let you know, you guys know that. Larry, what you’ve been saying is accurate when you get in there, and that’s good advice. And if, if someone doesn’t want to take this advice from you, they can take it from me, before you go and put down your 10 grand or whatever it is you’re going to spend. You better get some answers. You better figure it out, because you’ll be just throwing money away. You’d be better off putting that money in our solar FEC fraud Action Committee. Before you throw it away on a lawyer that’s just gonna gonna waste your money when you’re not ever going to be eligible, you know, or you’re going into a hostile environment, that’s not gonna let anybody off under any circumstances.
Unknown Speaker 19:08
Or maybe even putting it in registry matters podcast. Whoo. That’s what I did.
Andy 19:15
Also, but with that, you would also get your hopes up that something’s going to be effective. And you’re going to waste some time that you could spend putting your energy into something that may be effective or if you’re just dead in the water to begin with.
Unknown Speaker 19:27
Yeah, absolutely. It’s better to know, you know, it’s good to know that.
Unknown Speaker 19:31
Well, I will say this about if I don’t know what the offense, we’ve never talked about the details, but it’s exceedingly difficult to try a juvenile and adult court here. So chances are they would never have gotten an adult court here. And chances are you just would never have been a miserable part of your life for the last 31 years because we don’t we don’t put juveniles on the registry. And we don’t put juveniles in adult court. It’s an extremely rare circumstances.
Unknown Speaker 19:58
Yeah, well, welcome to Florida brothers.
Andy 20:02
trying to do and finish your sentence like,
Unknown Speaker 20:05
I’ve just in the state of Florida, you know if you can walk and talk and you can commit an offense or a perceived offense, yeah, they’ll they’ll take you to court. They’ll put you somewhere.
Andy 20:15
What do you what do you have going on in in Alabama that you’re trying to get some?
Unknown Speaker 20:19
Yes, sir. You have a father as an Alabama and he’s been pretty cool for quite a while. So last week, I’m making plans to go see him. So I called the Alabama State Police and said, Hey, you know, register in another state or one visit your state? I can’t find anything online. I need some information about visiting there and what you’re, you know, what it says about visitors and I couldn’t answer the question. She said, Well, what you need to do is you need to call the county where you follow the lives and and ask them what what they say. So okay. I thought it was an odd answer, but she couldn’t answer the question. So I called the county and the I think the population in that county somewhere around or that little town It’s probably 15,000 people, which is pretty small. So I get shuffled around a couple times and I get this. What you’d imagine a good old boy sounds like he kind of sounds like Larry’s impersonation of them liberal do gooders is how he came off on the, on the phone and I said, Hey, I want to come visit. I’m father lives here, and what is the requirements? And he says, Well, I need your name and your Yeah, your social security number and all that good stuff. And I said, No, you don’t you don’t need all that just to tell me what the requirement is. Well, what’s the requirement? He said, Well, it’s probably best if you just come by here on your way in and give me your driver’s license and tell me you’re here. And then you can just swing back home by when you’re on your way out and you can you can, you know, let me know you’re leaving. He says, I treat all my guys real good over here. And I told him, I said, I don’t have any experience with it being good just swinging on by you know, and let you know, I’m coming. And out, I said, Oh, I’m smart enough to read this for myself. And I don’t see anything we, you know, I don’t see any law that addresses this. There’s, they talk about moving there, they talk about moving there to work and go to school. But visiting the from what I understand is if you’re not there more than 30 days consecutively, you can visit. So, anyway, the guy was, he was just winging it. He was just like, Hey, you know, this is what I do. And I said, No, sir, I’m not gonna do that. I said, I’m from Florida. No, I’m smart enough to read the statutes and figure out for myself and you can’t give me a straight answer. So, and he asked me for my name several times, and I just said, No, we’re not gonna do that. So now I just said, Thank you and have a nice day and got off the phone. But, um, yeah, you just can’t, in my opinion, when you call these places, you just can’t trust what these people will tell you. You’re gonna have to verify it for yourself. And if you don’t have to, I am learning that I don’t recommend tell them you’re human. If you’re not if you’re not by law, supposed to do So I’m not telling them because I don’t emit any of that radiation that Larry talks about that I know of. So, as long as I’m not breaking any laws, I don’t see any reason to swing by and see this good old boy and give you my personal information and, you know, deal with that nonsense.
Unknown Speaker 23:16
That was my experience with Alabama.
Andy 23:20
Didn’t you tell me that he was a little bit more hostile to you and a little more condescending? It seems like how you can talk about this.
Unknown Speaker 23:28
He basically came off like a
Unknown Speaker 23:32
just kind of like an old stereotypical racist redneck you would see on these shows, like he was talking down to you, boy, that kind of thing. That’s how he came, right?
Unknown Speaker 23:41
Yeah, boy.
Unknown Speaker 23:43
Exactly. That’s that’s, that’s pretty. I’m being polite. That’s that’s what he sounded. And I told him, I said, Yeah, I don’t think so. So, he was he was trying to play some games. But I just wanted
Andy 23:56
what is what is the statute in Alabama then for you, visiting
Unknown Speaker 24:00
As far as I can tell from everything that I’ve read, I’ve checked wiki narshall. And I check their, their website. As long as you’re not there for more than I think it’s 30 days, you can visit as long as you’re not working or going to school, or show intent to you know, have an address. So in other words, if you go there, and you get a job, you better register or if you go there and you start going to school, you better register but if you’re just visiting, I think you have a set amount of days and I’m pretty sure it was 30 days or no more than 30 days and you know, in a year but that’s you know, from what I understood, that’s what it was.
Unknown Speaker 24:39
What do you think like, Mike pull the statute for Alabama, the complete total and it has, it has 75 pages. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen one that was 75 pages before and I did a I did a quick scan of it all before. We started recording. And I’m not so sure that I agree with you on that. But what I will say is that I don’t think they would be able to answer the question because I’m trained in this business. And I don’t see anything that addresses visitors
Unknown Speaker 25:20
at all, but
Unknown Speaker 25:22
I was promised people that, although they do have to cite to a section of law, if they’re going to do a successful prosecution, they have to put on a piece of paper and a charging instrument, what section of code that you violated. Because if they didn’t do that, you wouldn’t be able to mount a defense. You wouldn’t know what the elements are what what what you say they have to tell you when you did it, and what section of law you violated. And I can’t see a section of law that they could that I could cite to that would be sufficiently clear that would generate a conviction if to court for working Anything at all, in the way of trying to administer justice, I just can’t see it. See it here if you’re merely visiting. But I can see on the other hand how people would read this. And they could conclude that it says what they would like it to say, which is everybody seems to want to have an obligation to register when their interest isn’t state visiting. They believe somehow they should have to register. Because in their state, perhaps state they have such a requirement that if you’re physically present, but there’s a lot of states that that were the state does not have a provision that addresses temporary, physical presence. But if you’re if you are registered in Alabama, it’s clear that they’ve defined
Unknown Speaker 26:49
they’ve defined
Unknown Speaker 26:51
what living means if you’re if you actually are covered. What reside means that it this is this tops Maryland. I think that A marijuana user should get a kick out of this to be habitually or systematically present at a place, whether a PR whether a placement, or excuse me, whether a person is residing at a place shall be determined by the totality of the circumstances, which lends itself to a lot of subjectivity including the amount of time the person spends at the place, and the nature of the person’s conduct at the place. The term reside includes but it’s not limited to spending more than four hours a day at the place on three or four consecutive days, studying more than four hours a day at the place on Tinder work aggregate days during a calendar bot, or spending at about of time at the place occupied with statements or actions that indicate an intent to live at the place or to remain at the place for a period specified in the sentence. A person does not have to conduct an overnight visit to reside at a place. Now I love that like this business I have no idea what that means. Yeah, that’s insane.
Unknown Speaker 28:05
And what is the place?
Andy 28:05
Wow, you’re gonna sort of kind of stay at the place, but maybe not but sort of think about? Well, that’s that’s one of your people that writes these things.
Unknown Speaker 28:20
No, no this this would have come from law enforcement. This is something that they would have said, and since Alabama doesn’t have any advocates or didn’t have time to thought that they were missing the registry. The most draconian changes occurred occurred during the rally administration, which was, which was a number of years ago, Alabama at one time didn’t have too bad of a registry. But they changed it in the early 2000s. Somewhere in the early before, before we hit 2010. And I believe it was under Governor Bob Riley, but I don’t blame him for it because he only he only gets to decide what passes if you don’t if you can’t get it to the government or the government can’t sign it. Somehow our people lose track of that Governor’s could only sign presidents can only sign what makes it to their desk. But this this, I think the top Maryland Maryland has this. This four days, four hours, seven days or four days a random by no with more clarity what it says but I think it’s this I think this tops what Marilyn Has
Andy 29:18
she didn’t say in chat that it’s worse or worse. So a transcriptionist get that one.
Unknown Speaker 29:26
I do not believe that, that there, there are specific coverage for visitors. But that is not to say that they won’t tell you that there is because now you got to remember, you’re calling an elected official. These are local elected officials, sheriffs, and even police there. There’s political angle because they have to go through some process to become police chief and if you ship by a mayor or council appointment, but you’re calling people and you say I’m a sexual offender, I would like to visit your territory. They’re not Likely say, well, you just come on, stay here as long as you want, and have a good time. And we’re pretending like we don’t. We don’t know you’re here. I mean, they’re not likely to say that. So they feel like they have to tell you something. And beyond that, if they tell you what if you call and say, Well, I won’t know what the rules are, how would you respond if they said, Well, you know, we’ve had our legal team Look at this. And actually, we don’t think there really is anything that addresses a temporary visit. So, in our opinion, though, I’m not a lawyer that I’m not sure you have to do anything. Would you hang up the phone and be satisfied with that? Are you do you think they’re trying to lure you in so they could so that they can put the handcuffs on you? Would you be would you be trusting of that advice, where they said, I don’t think there really is a requirement? At least our legal people tell us that there’s not such a requirement? What would you say then?
Unknown Speaker 30:49
I wouldn’t trust it at all. That’s why I didn’t get my name. So I’m saying so
Unknown Speaker 30:53
so I think there’s a no win situation. If they say come on. We want all the sex winners to visit we can that’s a that’s a loser. If they said, Well, we don’t think there is a requirement, that’s a loser because nobody wants to hear that. And particularly the citizens of that county, they don’t Well, they would they’d be appalled if they do. There was no, there was no coverage for a person busy. So I think I don’t ever advise anyone to break the law. But if the law is not crystal clear that you have to re register after being physically present, I don’t know why you want to place an obligation on yourself that isn’t in the statute. That boggles my mind that that you want to go do something that’s not clearly defined. I only want to do what I know I have to do. If it says I have to renew, if it says I have to renew my driver’s license every eight years. Why would I go in every year?
Andy 31:42
Isn’t there some sort of like, like a blanket thing about the hovercraft if you know that the hovercraft is going to be following you then you should do extra things because you know, the hovercraft is coming about
Unknown Speaker 31:52
well, you know, we we talked about last week there hovercraft made it might actually be out there. But But Even if the hovercraft is there, if there’s not a particular section of law that you’re in violation of, I would hate to be. If I were working on the prosecution side, I would hate to try to draft a complaint, utilizing the language that I just read
Andy 32:17
about the place
Unknown Speaker 32:19
I would hate to have to do to put forth a complaint to try to secure a conviction based on that. I’m not saying they don’t do it, I’m sure they do it all the time. But I would find that so. so confusing that as a as a drafter, I wouldn’t be able to draft up the complaint.
Andy 32:38
Very interesting. Um, Mike, is there anything else that you wanted to hit before we send you on your way?
Unknown Speaker 32:45
Sure. I did have one more quick comment or question for Larry. Larry, last week, I called FB le I had a question about I don’t know a small business that I work on the side of my Yeah, it’s it’s But I call Plan B, for my full time job if it ever fails, I’ve got something hit the ground running with. And there were some questions about the legality of it. And so, and my registration requirements, so I called FDA Lee said, Hey, here’s my question. So the first person I helped to said, Well, here’s how I interpret it. But I’m not 100% sure, let me ask a supervisor. Can I call you back? I said, Sure. So a few minutes later, supervisor calls me back, asked me the question, I explained it to her. She goes, Well, here’s how I interpret it. She said, but what you want to do is call the local sheriff’s office where you live and ask them how they interpret it, because they’ll be the ones arresting you. And I said, let me get this straight. You’re, you know, you’re fbla and you’re in the registration department and you’re taking these calls, but you don’t understand this and I need to ask a sheriff behind a desk, or you know, it’s whoever works in the registration department, how they interpret it is They’ll be the ones who arrested me. I said, it’s a little sketchy. But so I called and I got someone there. And they gave me their interpretation of it. And I asked to speak to a supervisor, they accommodated that and I got explained it to me, and he interpreted it the same way. The upside to it was all four of them interpreted it the exact same way, which was fine. I was just trying to fact check something to make sure I was, you know, in compliance. And, but I just want to know what you thought of the FDA. Registration, people telling me to call the local Sheriff’s Department, because they would be the ones arresting me and how they interpret it. I mean,
Unknown Speaker 34:38
does that sound right to you? It does, and for those who are not in Florida, that’s the Florida Department of law enforcement. But But, but it does. Well, that’s one of the pitfalls of having a local administration of the registry versus State Administration. Because sheriff’s are elected in their own right and FDA can really not Tell them what to do. In terms of terms of use, you could not order a share not to prosecute someone if they felt they were in violation of the registry. Now, ultimately, it would be if you contested that violation and you took it to trial it would ultimately be up to a judge or jury if you if you decided to go to a jury of the only question, it would be up to a judge or jury or unless it was something where you could procedurally can it with with with emotion, sometimes you can concede every point of the complaint and say, but even if I did ever say they alleged, it doesn’t constitute a law you can get a dismissal without having to go to trial. But But I would, I would say that that does sound consistent with what you would hear in a state where the sheriff’s manage the registry. The FDA just maintains internet and they and they they get make recommendations, but but ultimately, the sheriff Is there a little fiefdom.
Unknown Speaker 35:56
Well, Mike, there you go.
Unknown Speaker 35:59
Well, I mean, It is what it is. Fortunately for me where I’m at in the county, I’m a down in Central Florida. The registration people that work there, whether it comes down from the top or not, I mean, I’ve gone through I don’t know how many sheriff’s I’ve been elected since I’ve been registered, registering the people that have been there have been they’ve been very cordial, very friendly. I haven’t, you know, they’ve, they’ve been treating us. They treat they’ve treated me very friendly, very kindly. And, you know, I’d like to say, you know, that they’re evil, and they’re mean, and they’re terrible, but that just hasn’t been the case. They’ve been some decent people. And I wanted to make sure I was in compliance, and I knew quite a few of them by first name now because I’ve been going for so many years. And But anyway, that’s really all I had, I just wanted to kind of bring to light some of the stuff that you know, Larry has talked about you guys brought on here. It’s very accurate and it’s good information if you mind it for what it’s worth. And, you know, take it and especially if you’re going to mount a legal chapter Listen to what Larry’s been saying about finding out about the judge about the prosecution. I did all that research before I went in, I found out who put the judge in office, what governor was there who, you know, what their political party was. I did as much research as I could to try to, you know, educate myself and my lawyer did as well. So, but I really appreciate you letting me come on here and bore people to sleep. But, uh, I love podcasts. And I really appreciate what y’all do. I’m, I listened to it till the last one.
Unknown Speaker 37:33
So, well, let me let me have your address, please. And I’ll mail you a check.
Andy 37:38
Right. I’m saying
Unknown Speaker 37:41
we’ll just make it out. registry matters cast. That’s fine. I’ll gladly give it to those guys.
Unknown Speaker 37:49
So well, it was very kind words. I really appreciate that and hopefully that the people that listen to the podcast will benefit from that wisdom of we really are trying to get You’re in the right direction. We hate to see you spend your money needlessly, unless you just have money to burn it. And most people don’t do it or in this situation.
Andy 38:11
Mike, I appreciate it. You’ve been a super longtime patron and a very generous one. And we text frequently throughout the week, and I enjoyed them and I also enjoyed pictures of your dogs very much. They’re very sweet. And I think that you you have a you have a pound puppy space. That’s awesome.
Unknown Speaker 38:27
Yeah, that’s how we roll.
Andy 38:29
Have a great fourth man.
Unknown Speaker 38:30
Enjoy your fan. Thank you. All right, good night.
Andy 38:32
All right, bye. 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 a ransom message to 747-227-4477 want to support registry matters on a monthly basis. We head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give a five star review at Apple podcasts or Stitcher or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting without you, we can’t succeed. You make it possible. There are you ready to knock out these cases. Let’s do it.
Unknown Speaker 39:28
All right, I’m ready. I’m ready. I’m ready for some first some explosions.
Andy 39:32
Some explosions. All right. Bam, bam, bam. Alright, the first one is uh, I’m happy that you send me articles so I don’t have to read all the legally so the first one is coming out of tech dirt. And it says Indiana Supreme Court says compelled decryption of smartphones violates the Fifth Amendment. I somehow have a feeling there that you put this in here on my behalf.
Unknown Speaker 39:54
I did indeed there
Andy 39:57
is a woman who had Phone and they said unlock it. And she said no. And then anyway, so a judge has said that she doesn’t have to do it. And I’m definitely gonna highlight some of the things that I think are important about it. But please give me your side of it before we dive in.
Unknown Speaker 40:15
Well, now, you know we have that segment of general rules. Yeah. I think that this one would belong in that segment of, of Larry’s general rules.
Andy 40:27
This is the general rules of criminality.
Unknown Speaker 40:29
Yes.
Unknown Speaker 40:31
Yeah, the, the lady in this she had
Unknown Speaker 40:36
called the police on her boyfriend. The only problem is that she was the one committing the crime and her phone revealed that she’d been making a lot of harassing phone calls to him. So as a general rule, I would encourage anyone who is stalking or harassing and doing naughty things for their telephone. You ought not call the police Get in a position where you turn your phone over to the police. I would strongly encourage you not to do that.
Andy 41:08
All right. I think that sounds fair you don’t call the Popo when you’re doing things that are bad.
Unknown Speaker 41:13
Well, especially if you’re going to have to if you’re by be asked for your phone
Andy 41:18
well, so Caitlin CEO of the game that they’re going to ask for your phone just sort of general practice.
Unknown Speaker 41:26
Well, let’s just read the facts procedural history. It’s not that long Caitlin’s the old contact her local Sheriff’s Department claiming DS had raped her to Texas bill Inglis met with CEO and told and she told him her smartphone I seven plus contain relevant communications with accused with sealskin said office was completed forensic download and returned it and so that so she initiated the contact with the police and then detective English learn that seals first contact with the from a proper phone number and then a then he learned that That that a DS had been receiving up to 30 calls or text messages daily, from different unassigned numbers, so he was spoofing. So so like I say, if you’re, if you’re if you’re gonna accuse someone of a crime, particularly a sex crime, you probably ought not have been doing anything naughty on your telephone. I would just say that as a word of advice, but I don’t
Andy 42:24
think that’s fair to start. I think though, that you’ve you’ve stated though, that you think that it and and I don’t, and I don’t disagree with you necessarily. But if you have a safe in your house that has all the bad stuff that you’ve been doing, and they’re going to either ask you for the combination, and they’re going to get into it or they’re going to break it open, which will take them longer depending on the safe but they’re going to get in they’re going to get your naughty stuff.
Unknown Speaker 42:48
Well, this is more confusing, and I’ve read the the opinion and and i think that that we need to talk about it briefly. Maybe come back to it in a future episode, but What what it seems to come down to is whether or not
Unknown Speaker 43:06
the law enforcement
Unknown Speaker 43:09
was wanting to go on a fishing expedition. And, and the they didn’t really know what they were fishing for. And if you’ve ever seen an affidavit for a search warrant, you don’t. You don’t have you shouldn’t have I shouldn’t say you don’t but you shouldn’t have a search warrant granted, that’s vague and devoid of specifics, you are looking for a specific item or items. And you you you state the reasons why you believe those items will be found within the contours of the area that you’re asking to have searched. This officer did not know what he was going to find. He just wanted to go fishing through the phone because the the dsx was saying that he was getting all these calls and text messages they could have been coming from her But maybe they weren’t. Hmm. And and so the what it seems to turn on is there was not sufficient precision in the request by the officer. He wanted to go fishing. But, but if you’re inevitably going to discover what you know, is there, it seems like the way I interpret this is the court. The court is more lenient, if you know what you’re looking for, but you can’t go fishing. And that’s what he was doing. He was wanting to go on a fishing expedition.
Andy 44:35
What about the part of this, this is the part that I’m interested in that I get that your phone can be used in the commission of crimes and you could be committing multiple different kinds of crimes. And so they’re looking for crime kind of a and while they’re looking at your phone, they find crime can kind of be they didn’t get a search warrant for crime be where does that where does It fit in the equation.
Unknown Speaker 45:01
Well, that’s that’s what’s confusing the court as well, they don’t know. But but it’s the same thing happens when you’re doing a regular search of a physical dwelling. When you when you’re looking for with specific items, and you uncover other items, you go back to court and ask for a warrant based on probable cause that you believe you’ll find it because the probable cause is pretty good, because you’ve already found it.
Unknown Speaker 45:24
Yep.
Andy 45:28
Some other points that were brought up, though, which I should have thought of, but I frankly hadn’t. Many people have, when they go to my website, it automatically logs on for them. So now that you’ve unlocked the phone, and now you have perhaps automatically logged into their bank, or, you know, or Facebook or all these other places that they didn’t get a search warrant for. And I know that organizations use Dropbox heavily. So now you’ve just granted them access to all of that data to I know that
Unknown Speaker 45:55
that’s into decision. Did you did you read that decision. That’s it here.
Andy 46:00
I didn’t read the decision letter that I read. I read the actual article though,
Unknown Speaker 46:04
on page nine. If you pull it up on the highlights page nine for example, if officers searching a suspect smartphone encounter an application or website protected by another password, will they need a separate motion to compel the suspect to unlock that application or website and with the foregone conclusion exception apply to that active production as well? Suppose a law enforcement. Suppose law enforcement opens an application website and the password puppets automatically, which is what you just said. Can officers legally read that information? Or Or what if a suspect has a cloud storage device like iCloud or Dropbox installed on a device, which could take contain hundreds of thousands of files, Campbell enforcement look at these documents, even though this windfall would be equivalent to identify the location of a locked storage facility and offices did not know existed, which is what would happen in your house. What would happen if they searched the safe and you had a key to a safe deposit box Okay, well, what they would do is they would go back to a judge or they would ask for a warrant. And they would articulate what they think they would find in the safe deposit box. If they just said we want to see it, that would be good enough. But they would say, based on what we found, and based on the notes based on blah, blah, blah, we believe in the safe deposit box, we will find this. So, so, so but this is this is an extremely exciting area of developing law, because we just don’t know the answers to these questions.
Andy 47:38
Can you go over the term that they use throughout this thing? foregone conclusion? I mean, I know what the term means that you sort of already know. But how does this apply in a legal sense?
Unknown Speaker 47:49
Well, the there are exceptions given for when law enforcement breaks the rules. I mean, the courts have granted if it’s something that they would have discovered any way through normal channels. investigative techniques, it’s a foregone conclusion. So therefore, you don’t get suppression on what they would have discovered. But some of the stuff they may have never discovered if they force her to unlock her phone. And that’s what the court pointed out that there was no foregone conclusion here that they would have that they didn’t know anything. They didn’t have the information there would have been a foregone conclusion they didn’t know what was on the phone. That’s why they wanted to go surfing.
Andy 48:26
And, and to get the search warrant, you have to present to the judge that you believe that you will find these things. So you have to tell them that we are looking for X, Y and Z. We believe that that we will find them there. Then they get the search warrant and they go execute they do or don’t find and move from there. They don’t just go and do like to take a look around and see what we do find.
Unknown Speaker 48:46
Well, in the course of searching, they will see stuff that’s in plain view of theirs to play view rule like I say they will if if they came looking for financial documents, because you were an embezzler, and your house was just filled Drug Paraphernalia, that was illegal in plain view, they would go back and ask for the judge. I mean, they would secure it. So you couldn’t destroy it. They would not let you destroy the evidence. So they would they would go back and tell the court that they believed they would find drug paraphernalia and illegal drugs based on what they observed in plain view. And they would they would, they would, they would get bored. And in some cases, they wouldn’t even bother to get a warrant, they would say with the plain view exception controls, it was in plain view. But if they went rummaging through drawers, and they went looking for it, and it fell out of a drawer, the safest thing to do, which I’ve always believed doing things, the safest way, the safest thing for the cop to do is to secure the location and go get a warrant. That’s the safest thing to do.
Unknown Speaker 49:45
Fair enough. Fair enough.
Andy 49:47
Should we move on? We’re ready for that.
Unknown Speaker 49:49
Well, I think this is just totally exciting. I wouldn’t I wouldn’t have expected this out of Indiana. But but the Indiana supreme No, this is not the Supreme Court. What is this before it may Speak this Yes, it is supreme court of Indiana, the Supreme Court of Indiana. So this is the law though of the state that Who’s your state? This is they they will not be able they will not be able to force you to unlock your phone.
Andy 50:13
Tell me which district that is and who also that would impact?
Unknown Speaker 50:16
Well, this is a state decision. So it only affects but it only affects the state of Indiana. But it’s it’s powerful, persuasive arguments for other states. Like if I had this issue arise, I would go cut and paste as much as I could from this analysis into any argument here because I’d say this is just very fine. Fine analysis here. Will they appeal? There’s really no word appeal to
Andy 50:41
they couldn’t move it. They couldn’t move it to one of the districts.
Unknown Speaker 50:46
Well, this is this is a state question here.
Andy 50:47
Okay, so this is just this is the end of that question. They’ve just as
Unknown Speaker 50:52
well if they could, if they could invoke some constitutional if they could vote up, yes, constitutional, but for This is this is the end of the road here this go and this court cited US Supreme Court two cases of the US Supreme Court that helped them come to their to their decision so I don’t see this going any further This is if you’re in hooser land you’re protected then they’re not going to be able to force them to be able to force you to open your phone with a password and you you’re gonna have to articulate with precision what it is they’re going to find and what they’re looking for but just telling you to unlock your phone Not gonna happen. So if you if you if you’re if you’re doing naughty things, you might want to go to Indiana.
Unknown Speaker 51:33
Oh, very well. Perfect.
Andy 51:36
Let’s move over to la.com reimagine the role of police a gradual process of strategically reallocating resources, funding and responsibility away from police towards community based models of safety, support and prevention will go a long way towards bettering our society. We don’t have to spend a lot of time here, Larry, I but I reading through this article. I I I personally, don’t find flaws in the idea of if you have this kind of issue, direct that kind of resource towards it. And if you have that kind of issue this one over there, then you direct that kind. You don’t always have to have police with their badges and their guns and their tasers and the radio blaring and the lights like, you don’t always have to send those people to solve all problems. And this just, you know, not not even much of a framework of anything, but just starts talking about the concept of different organizations that could possibly handle situations differently. And I liked.
Unknown Speaker 52:33
I like it too. But I would just say one word, a couple of words of caution. When we talk about this in the abstract, then there’s the reality of the practice. Now, when when you’re dealing with people who have all these various issues, they can be very volatile. And, and and I don’t wish this to be an outcome but it’s just inevitable there will be an outcome where a person was being dealt with by a mental health professional. That will escalate, despite the fact are no police there, and then someone will get hurt. And then we’re going to be stable while we’re at the cops there. So just be aware that when we when we have the the beauty of looking back to the rearview mirror, let’s don’t be critical critical of the police. If we don’t want the police there and something happens.
Andy 53:24
We always want them there with their guns and escalating and all that which we will have a article coming up here that will make that rather and I’m just being you know, tongue in cheek on that.
Unknown Speaker 53:35
So well, we don’t want them they’re escalating. But we also if something happens when a situation escalates, despite every effort of the professionals to calm it, and 14 people get taken out. Then we need to cut the police just a little bit of slack if we’ve invited them out. Right.
Andy 53:52
Yeah, I know. I was somebody forwarded me like a book from Facebook that was in there. The larger comment of things of was, hey, if you don’t like the police, that’s fine, but they make me feel safe. And I was like, the key word there is make me feel safe where it’s like, I don’t I don’t I don’t having them run around the way that they are. I don’t necessarily. I don’t think everyone feels safe. I don’t think they are necessarily safer. Just an interesting way to phrase it.
Unknown Speaker 54:22
Well, I agree. But and when I said take 14 people out at that stop, I don’t mean that literally. But if you’re if you’re if you’re if you’re dealing with someone who has a mental health issue, perhaps without the police presence, there wouldn’t have been a full body search of the of the individual. And then if the if the person escalates, and they they pull out a blade, and they and they walk to people, and there’s no police presence, are we going to be patient and understanding that this happened because we were trying to handle it in a non confrontational way, and we didn’t have the police there. Hope that we don’t have that happen, but when we do, we need to remove realized that it happened because the police weren’t there. Because we invited the police out.
Andy 55:05
If you if you remember back to I want to say it was this episode we had the the individual, Nick Durbin, I believe is the name. And we were talking about a person on the registry with autism. And the person’s sort of like just hanging out outside, and they have a person guarding them. And I mean as a guardian, and things kind of go south and the police show up and a bullet ricochets off the ground and kills the person. I may have those details slightly sketchy, but the police show up and escalate things so it could end up just being sort of like a wash of while these people didn’t die, but these people did die. Not that that’s good. Just like it could just end up to be moved numbers from one column to another one.
Unknown Speaker 55:48
Or it may be we have to adopt a hybrid approach where that seems a secured like we do a fire and rescue there. There’s there’s places where Fire and Rescue won’t go until the police pronounced the secure It may be that we, we have to, we have to make sure that they’re not weapons in play, and then we’ll bring the professionals in to handle and I’m not by any means professing to be an expert in an innovation, innovation for the police. I’m merely acknowledging that what we’re doing now isn’t working to its optimum for society, but I don’t have all the answers. I know that we’re killing too many people. And I know that police escalate to my situations. I know that suicide people do not need guns drawn on them. That’s not very helpful towards talking them down from the ledge. But I don’t know what all the answers are.
Andy 56:36
So lately, and from courthouse news, I love 11th circuit blocks order allowing felon voting at Florida law. This has gotten confusing, complicated, keeps going back and forth, back and forth. The citizens voted to repeal the fourth amendment that allowed felons to vote than the Republican legislature put in, blah, blah, blah, blocking felons from voting because of fines fees. And other things, then some judge I think said it was okay. And now another judge says no. Kinda I think that’s the order.
Unknown Speaker 57:07
Kind of Yeah, the the citizens pass the pass the amendment for and then the, the legislature decided to the citizens of what they meant, although it wasn’t specified that all obligations related, all obligations meant fees and costs. So the legislature passed Senate Bill 7066, which required that they, before they could be restored, they had to pay all those monies, which in many cases had escalated exponentially because of the years that had passed. So so the republican dominated state of Florida decided that that despite the fact us overwhelmingly passed, we want you to have paid everything because the wording has I mean, I have to agree with them that the wording What did say all and I guess it depends on what the meaning of all is. And and these Addition of all or is is or
Andy 58:04
so this is Bill Clinton about some definitions.
Unknown Speaker 58:07
So then then the the batteries taken to court in federal court, a US District Judge Robert Hinkle, a liberal appointee rule that was unconstitutional that that that that legislation that was passed by the state of Florida passed the governor sign was unconstitutional. There was an appeal to the 11th circuit, which Levin circuit is Florida, Georgia and Alabama, small circuit of only three states. And the three judge panel said, the trial judge got it right. And then what we hear you we you hear us talk about on bank review, which is the review of the full court, which is seldom granted. The scientists and and the republicans in Florida weren’t happy with the three judge panel and I think I predicted that they would probably continue to fight this. I don’t remember what I said verbatim, but I think I predicted that They asked for unblock review and it has been granted. So that means that this is going to be decided by the full 11th circuit, not just a three judge panel. And in the meantime, in the meantime, the the the order was stayed, meaning that the felons are not gonna be allowed to vote until distance decided, and this probably will not be decided until after the election because the 11th circuit is notoriously slow and controversial stuff.
Andy 59:30
Well, that sucks. I and you are fairly convinced that it would probably just be a split 50 ish or so percent without one way versus the other way. So in the end, it probably doesn’t necessarily make much difference in the end of having these people vote.
Unknown Speaker 59:46
Oh, no, no, no, I don’t believe that. I believe that the republicans would benefit handsomely. If they’re allowed, do you think Oh, absolutely. Oh, no. I think the republicans would win this handset. I think they’re too dumb to realize that But I believe I believe that if you listen when you’re in prison, listen at the politicking that you heard about. conservatism runs rampant behind the prison walls. I believe that outside the minority communities, that the republicans would get an astronomical amount of former convict votes. So I think that they’re shooting themselves in the foot. I really do. I don’t think it’d be a 5050 split. I think that the minority vote would largely go to the Democrat Party, but I think the republicans would win would have the death benefit of having having these people vote.
Andy 1:00:36
prison population, at least in the south is not quite 5050. But close.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:42
Well, and I’m granting us that within a minority community that that that that the democrat party would, but we’re we’re not talking about just a minority do shopping Florida has their entire census of prisoners online, find out what the racial makeup is.
Andy 1:00:57
We’ll do that
Unknown Speaker 1:00:59
in chat I’m not I’m not doing internet research,
Unknown Speaker 1:01:01
whatever. So but I think the republicans are being short sighted, but they believe that they’re doing the right thing. They believe. I mean, I think that they’re being short sighted dumb was too strong of a word, but I think they’re being short sighted. But they believe that that the law, the memo was clear that all obligations includes that and they’re fighting for what they believe in. Okay. Five what you believe in it. I mean, there’s nothing really wrong with that. They’re they’re fighting for their position that
Andy 1:01:31
there is a they say they say it and it says Florida does not have a statewide database for those who owe restitution and fines and the state’s Byzantine patchwork of record keeping prevented many felons from learning about outstanding financial obligations before registering to vote. Well, if there’s no sort of easiest way to figure out what you owe, how do you figure out what you owe?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:51
Well, that was part of what the district judge pointed out. They’ve said that this was an impossible thing, but then you’ve got to go back and figure out what to do about it because I mean all. So what’s the meaning of the word all is?
Unknown Speaker 1:02:08
I got you.
Andy 1:02:10
We have a handful of articles relating to Corona and don’t really want to spend a lot of time on it, because I’m sure we all have Corona fatigue, it’s not possible for us to just let it go. And the first one that we have is from the intercept. And the title is prison officials in Kansas ignored the pandemic, then people started dying. There’s a video that goes along with it. It’s about 10 ish minutes long. And I think it’s a stellar thing to look at. Because what ultimately happened is a prison guard quit and and he’s leaking all the tragedies that are going on in the inadequacies of the handling of it. And I totally you know, Larry put it in there and I didn’t want to let it slide by because I just thought it was an incredibly well done 10 minute video that I think people need to see.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:54
Did you listen to him as well? Because I didn’t I didn’t finish it. I did you listen to it. So you can you can tell me what I’ve missed.
Andy 1:03:01
Well, I don’t know where you stopped the, the guard. They’re there. They’re just almost like saying, Hey, you know, nothing to see here, keep moving. And you know, at first note is Do you not have Corona in your town because nobody has it or because no one’s being tested. And it looks like that’s how things went. Then eventually, like a couple people test positive, then more people test positive, they even show as the clip goes along of how many people at different time intervals, you know, it goes for like one and then there’s two and then there’s five and then there’s 10. And then next thing you know, over like the span of 30 days, 900 people have it. So is that just from testing that they had a clear picture of it, but still, people are in bad shape man, and being stuck in these places. It’s just horrible. Did you see the segment in there about the person that had I think like 80 days left?
Unknown Speaker 1:03:53
Yep, sure did.
Andy 1:03:55
So we to reference back to your your Riot thing in New Mexico. The you know what you would have been great to get released on the 28th. But on the 29th, you would have in bad shape. So here’s a guy that’s got something of three months left in prison, and all of a sudden now and he’s actually contracted it. And no one’s trying to let anybody go home early, which I think is also pretty shitty in the grand scheme of things that you could take people that are three months, six months a year out, you could start letting them go with people with more medical problems like it seems that there would be ways to handle this if we were willing to and we’re just not willing to we’re not we’re not willing to. And I think that makes us kind of crappy. There’s another article from the appeal Coronavirus in jails and prisons. And this one is about a nationwide report of all 50 states. The best state I think got a D minus.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:50
And let me guess the best the best state was Alabama or Mississippi, right?
Andy 1:04:54
Um, which one were the best ones? So Massachusetts Michigan, Tennessee, West Virginia and Vermont were the best ones they they had tested everyone which one Wyoming Wyoming scored the second lowest and Tennessee score the highest which I’m kind of surprised at Tennessee score the highest.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:15
So
Andy 1:05:18
so so there’s that just again as a reference point to somebody This was done by the ACLU. So, you know, hate on those people if you want to that for trying to go out and figure out where people’s civil liberties are being violated. left leaning crackpots? Right, Larry,
Unknown Speaker 1:05:31
that’s what they are a bunch of liberal do gooders.
Andy 1:05:34
All right. And I think this is This is the Georgia case that you you put in there as well. So this is from law calm again, an appeals court says state can prosecute charges dropped as part of federal plea deal. Larry, this always feels like flip flop to me were like, Hey, we’re not going to prosecute you. So you’re free to go Oh, wait, another group says we are going to prosecute you so you’re not free to go. So always confuses me.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:00
That’s not exactly what happened. The feds did prosecute him. And he made a plea agreement which which the drug charges were dropped. They decided that as part of their doucement to play that they would drop. And the state of Georgia decided that they were going to file the charges. And the Georgia Court of Appeals has got this actually precisely correct. In my opinion, the it’s a very textural decision, but the Georgia statute, keep in mind that the feds and the state are two separate sovereigns and there’s no double jeopardy the feds can prosecute you for the exact same facts that a state can prosecute you for. You can you can commit a crime and if it’s a federal crime, the feds can prosecute you for transporting that dope across the state lines to Alabama. And the state of Alabama can prosecute you for bringing that dope into Alabama, the same dope Defense prosecutors you for so so what what Georgia did is Georgia has a provision and their statutes were that if you are acquitted of the crime, then the feds can’t pick it up. But that isn’t what happened. He was not acquitted the statute the statute reads, or course if you’re convicted also that but but but Georgia’s official code of Georgia 16 dash one dash eight. A prosecution is barred if the accused was formally prosecuted for the same crime based upon the same material facts if such former prosecution resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal. But it didn’t do either. His his he did get convicted nor did he get acquitted. The charges were dismissed.
Andy 1:07:52
So therefore best is not being found guilty or not guilty that we just said, Hey, we’re not playing Paul anymore.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:58
We’re not moving this person. Take your charge forward, which charges are always generally dismissed almost always in a plea bargain. Why would you play everything in the indictment? So so the fans dismissed, a charged at the state of Georgia decided that they that they were going to move forward with. So the Georgia Court of Appeals said, well, gee, we had issued a very an artfully crafted decision some years back. And we’re clarifying that, that that if if it is for a dismissal, because it’s a plea bargain, that’s not an acquittal, and you can’t argue with it by dismissal is not an acquittal. We’ll get back to what the meaning of the word is, or what is the meaning of the word all. Georgia law says it has to be a conviction or an acquittal. It wasn’t either. Okay. And you Texas out there that listen to the podcast. You should be applauding every time we get a textual decision because this is exactly what you’re facing. As far as for a court to look at the text, enter, interpret the text. And the text is very clear. It doesn’t give them any latitude for them to invent Well, they must have meant if also if it was dismissed. That is what it says they’re smart enough to put the result of either conviction order acquittal are the charges were subject to dismissal. They didn’t say that.
Andy 1:09:24
So I’m thinking back to maybe it was the early 90s. And there was the DC sniper was like, the name john Lee Malveaux, is that the right? Yes. Okay. And so they committed the crimes in the entity of Maryland and also in the entity that also happened like in my, almost in my neighborhood that happened in the county that I grew up, like right up the street, but that’s another story. But they committed those crimes in probably the DC and then also in Maryland, and also in Virginia, and they were like prosecuting them in those specific districts. And I’m just saying that to give another point of reference to what you’re But entities state but but
Unknown Speaker 1:10:02
but those were still state courts. They weren’t they were I don’t believe there were any federal charges. In my recollection, we’re talking about a case that was in federal court, Middle District of Georgia, and we’re talking about a Georgia picked up. Now, when you have crimes that state crimes that are there’s no federal jurisdiction, then, and they go across jurisdictional lines, the jurisdictions have to work on a plan of prosecution who’s going to have first bite, who’s got the strongest case, what you what you want to do, if you put your ego aside, what you want to do in a case like that, is you want to give the first bite, it’s a state that has the strongest case, that that has a slam dunk, because then you have the conviction and you have the person locked away. And then you can keep stacking time on there. Or you can decide that the first day gave them enough time that you’re just willing to do the play and give them concurrent time with what they’re serving and the other state and then you don’t have to pay any money to incarcerate them. You don’t have paid money to try them. But but the prosecution when there’s multiple states involved, if you take the Eagles out Which I don’t always do. They look at blood, which which state can secure a conviction? Which state has the strongest case? Where can we win and make sure this person is locked away for a long period of time?
Andy 1:11:13
Are there any highlights in the Georgia one that you made? I’m thinking
Unknown Speaker 1:11:19
I didn’t really. I don’t think I made any did let’s see state vs. Adams. don’t see any.
Andy 1:11:25
Yeah, it was anything that you wanted to highlight and point out.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:29
Yeah, I think I pointed out it succinctly that it’s it’s really a textual decision, and I’m not always a textualist but I can’t follow their logic that they followed the law.
Andy 1:11:43
Very good. Um, let’s see. What about Mississippi bill would give thousands chance at parole. This is Mississippi doing something that is like pro criminal justice reform. How can that be?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:56
Because it’s republicans doing it and they won’t get vilified. That’s how Anything else?
Andy 1:12:02
All right, then we should just move on to the next article. Isn’t this a case for when, you know, in the last couple of weeks, we got slammed for being so lefty, like we’re falling off the lefty bridge and lib tardes? What can I come up with the democrat party like so here you’re giving credit where credit’s due for a baby doing the right thing?
Unknown Speaker 1:12:21
I didn’t I didn’t do a lot of analysis of it, but it looks like it will result in a significant drop in people that are incarcerated and the amount of times they’ll be incarcerated. And I think that’s a good thing. And I think that that is I say over and over again. This is one area where you don’t have to worry about the Democrat Party. vilifying you they will feel for you for other things you do as a conservative, but they will not vilify you for criminal justice reform. So you have carte blanche if you if you’re a republican to do as bold as you want to take on reform and you don’t have that carte blanche or other things. Okay. But on criminal justice reform, if you’re going to make things better, make sure I clarify reform if you’re going to lessen the amount of time that people serve, because reform can also be making it more difficult to oppose the more time but if you want to make the criminal justice reforms that result in fewer people to prison, and shorter sentences to Democrat Party will not vilify you for that. So you have all the freedom you need
Andy 1:13:29
in reading it, so if you’re on the low end of the spectrum, that you could, you could be eligible for Perl after 25%. And on that the scale then after 50%. And then I think after on the high end, you can be eligible at 75%, I think is worth stacked up at. But that means you could get you know, maybe something like four years for a minor kind of drug charge and you’d be eligible for parole after a year, which sounds sounds good, but I think the key word there is eligible.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:58
Well, that would be the key If it’s if it’s if it’s a discretionary act, because depending on who exercises the discretion, if that decision maker is that within the purview of an elected official that has to be accountable for any bad decisions, of course, they’re going to exclude anybody with a sex offense in certain certain communities sensitive offense offenses, they’re gonna exclude those that were just not even considered those. That’s just a reality of it. It’s not a rule that I make but I’m telling you that that that’s what the political reality is.
Andy 1:14:32
And it says in the end of one of the paragraphs is habitual offenders pf RS and inmates sentence for capital murder would not be eligible for parole. So what a flat
Unknown Speaker 1:14:43
What a surprise.
Andy 1:14:45
I know, right? I know. I know. I know. I know. Um, I guess we can move over to the New York Times. What do you call that one there?
Unknown Speaker 1:14:53
The New York Times I think I’ve heard rush call it the New York slimes
Andy 1:14:56
got it got it got the black officer who detained George Floyd had pledged to fix the police. This is a kind of an interesting little profile of Alex King is how it’s pronounced. It looks like it’s young, but it’s a pronounced king. He had been on his third shift. And he’s kind of been like, denounced from his community. He tried to join the force of trying to get in there to change it from the inside. And there he is standing there, he had the opportunity to perhaps pull back the officer that had his knee in church fluids, but back, I do have to say I cut the guy, some level of slack that it was a third shift, I would imagine that you’re probably still like trying to figure out what the ropes are. forget forget learning the ropes, but like you don’t even know where the ropes are. And I got to cut the guy the teeniest little bit of slack in that regard. However, when someone is saying, I can’t breathe, and it’s eight minutes like, humanity should probably kick in and act anyway. So here’s that article.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:56
That was what I took from the thing. I didn’t read it thing but you know you got a rookie officer or a veteran with How many years did he have with a force it’s gonna be very difficult
Andy 1:16:07
yeah you would you would be scared to death to make a move that then you end up getting your ass beat or you know getting reprimanded fired whatever but in the end he could have saved a life I you know, that’s a that’s a whole conflict of problems to try and figure out at the time see only level of slack that’ll give the guy in that regard. So another one from the New York Times This one is a nice little video also that I have already played. So I don’t remember what is this one? I’m trying to remember. I’m trying to remember I’m trying to remember. What is this when Larry helped me
Unknown Speaker 1:16:38
tear gas?
Andy 1:16:40
Oh, this is the Philadelphia tear gas with this one’s awesome. Protesters start marching down the highway and the police blocked they they boxed him in they came in from the front they came in from the back would appear to be kind of peaceful. I will say I will cut the police of slack that they were blocking the interstate at this time to think Started should tear gassed it. Did you watch the whole video?
Unknown Speaker 1:17:02
Oh yeah, it was fun.
Andy 1:17:04
Oh my god. Yeah funny in in certain terms they they will like go up to you and be interest from you pull down your mask and squirt tear gas directly in your face. There was one other guy who ended up with like a tear gas canister something that shot him and hit him in the chicken. He’s got like a, like a stamp like an embroidery stamp like right on his cheek. And towards the end of it were like the protesters. They had been boxed in and they only had one way to go out. They go up this hill and there’s this like eight foot fence. They’ve got a scale so then they start going back down right down the hill back into where the cops are with the tear gas and all that stuff. It’s
Unknown Speaker 1:17:41
what do you think do you have to admit it if you don’t pull the mask off the tear gas, it’s not going to be nearly as effective.
Andy 1:17:47
It would not be nearly as effective. It did seem a little odd that there were guidelines that they should be using tear gas against peaceful protesters. There was a clip of the police captain, whatever you Want to call her? And she was like, Well, once they got onto the highway well now they were violent protesters. That’s your definition of violent protester?
Unknown Speaker 1:18:08
Yep. So well, you know, Andy, you people always second guess. We’re in a pressure cooker situation, trying to keep all the citizenry safe and all you people do is sit back in your ivory towers. You’ve never been out in the trenches. And all you do is criticize and second guess I mean, these men and women are working, give sacrificing putting their life on the line every day. And all we get is this continuous criticism. What is it? What is it with you people?
Andy 1:18:42
I struggle with the posture, I suppose that they you know, they’re they’re in all the black, they’re in the tactical gear. They’re in gas masks, they’re like you can’t see the people these are these are the people that are charged with our safety and our security and not They’re looking, frankly, like a terrorist organization to me. And they have all the weaponry, and they have the tactical control and radios and equipment. And these are just people that are walking down the street. Yes, some of them were doing some vandalism. So you could figure out who those are. And I don’t know, I just I, this seems to be extreme excessive over the top. Send me hate mail for being a lib tard blah, blah, blah. I think this is excessive and well, and we should hold them accountable to it. Well, wait,
Unknown Speaker 1:19:29
thank goodness people like you are not making the rules.
Andy 1:19:36
Yes, because if I were making the rules, there would be worse way worse, which is possibly true. I don’t think I’m qualified for this stuff. But I think this is really just crappy over the top stuff.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:45
So Well, thankfully, we’ve got more sane rational decision makers out there trying to keep us safe we’d be at archy with your kind.
Andy 1:19:54
Yes. And then over the Daily News, what can we learn from Rashad Brooks reform of parole and probation is just as important as police. This is the the GA one and Wendy’s situation that happened a month ago when you were here.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:08
Yeah, I put that in there because people lose sight of probation parole how that, that that was supposed to be a system to aid the offender to to educate and mentor the offender rather than than the way it has evolved to being something I got you and how can we put so many hopes up that you that you’ll fail? probation and parole is supposed to be rehabilitative, particularly probation, but even parole that directly You’ve done enough time that you deserve a chance to be reintegrated into the community, as a parole officer probation officer supposed to be pulling for you?
Andy 1:20:44
Right, not not setting up trip traps for you. While you’re on your way? I heard a little segment on on his record. And how when when you read it as what the charges were what he was convicted versus what the scenario was. It paints an entirely different picture. You know, if I see you and I’m driving down the street layer, and I come and I screech up, and I pull up, like, get in a car, and you like, no. And now I’d like reach out and grab your hand. Now I have attempted kidnapping. And it’s like, so he was in some sort of argument with his wife, girlfriend, I forget which one it is. And he, like, grabbed her arm and moved her which is now like lawful detaining. What’s the you know, like? imprisonment, I forgot what the right word is. So you know, he has I’m not saying he’s clean, but he’s also not like a terrorist either. And this all gets painted in the media at times as him being this terrible hardened felon. And maybe he deserved what he got kind of thing, but it does. I don’t think that the scenario that he was actually in paints that, that really that extreme of a picture.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:52
Well, the the media tends to do that with anybody who has any type of record and they have police instigation, helping them When the cops provide the rap sheet, they provide a commentary with it also. And I suppose people since most people don’t understand the title statutes, statutes, inevitably have evil sounding sound to the, you know, criminal sexual penetration.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:19
That sounds sounds pretty heinous, doesn’t it?
Unknown Speaker 1:22:22
It may be only criminal it may be it may be only criminal because you because the person was not of age to give the consent that they gave. So you commit a
Unknown Speaker 1:22:33
criminal sexual penetration.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:36
Rob straw Rob Rob robbery.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:40
You go going on with the cops. So the cops will provide their commentary in these reporters are reporting on 1000 things in the course of a year. Do you expect they actually will do all the research to figure out what the statute means what the elements are, and how to be objective, when that’s not what the viewers are? listeners or readers are wanting,
Andy 1:23:02
and at the same time that you’re saying that, that they are competing against the other three or four broadcasters to have the most up to date, compassionate, you know, not compassion, compelling, interesting, bleeding, leading all that stuff. So they don’t necessarily even have the time to or that nor are they incentivized to be superduper fact checkers, they’re just in their favor. Even if they make a mistake, they’re not going to go back and retract it and correct it. It’s very,
Unknown Speaker 1:23:27
very infrequently, but they’re in the business of making money, we lose sight of that, and we we bemoan this, and in our capitalist system, they are not in the business of doing anything other than making a profit. Right, except for the PBS, which we described. I think we the total support for PBS in this country is like less than per person, or per per American. per year. My understanding is it’s something of one or 2% and it happens either before or after election cycle so that it’s not they’re not politically motivated. All my understanding but but but we’re harsh on the media but they do what they do in a capitalist system they’re trying to drive ratings, they’re trying to sell magazines they’re trying to sell papers and and fast and big being first all those things are important if you don’t like that, then perhaps we ought to look at some of the things that would give us an alternative to that and those things will cost money and and that that when people when you start talking about Well, I mean, when you say what do you want to restrict what they can want? No, we can’t do that that violates the First Amendment clearly would. Well, do you want to put more money in public? No, we can’t do that damn liberal do good stuff. We can’t do that. Well, do you want to bring the Fairness Doctrine equal a we can’t do that. Do you want to decentralize ownership? Do you want to make the buy maybe we have these big media conglomerates Do you want to do you want to break them up so that we have more local owners? Now we can do? There’s nothing no matter what option you put on the table. You can’t have a rational discussion about it. So the media is going to be what the media is. Unfortunately they vilify everybody and they make this guy sound like he was the most awful criminal that ever was because that’s the cops playbook. When someone dies, hands with the cops. This is a nationwide thing they do. They take every little incident their life and they make it sound like that person was a horrible human being that justifies what they did.
Andy 1:25:27
I understand moving over to an article from NPR, how authorities can use the internet to identify protesters, what is your take on things like this, Larry, before we get into the details?
Unknown Speaker 1:25:42
Well, I struggle with it because there’s no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public. On the other hand, there is an expectation that our government doesn’t track us and catalog and and Chronicle our movements. So I have I have a lot of struggling with this.
Andy 1:26:02
It’s really easy for the police for the government in general to gain access to huge amounts of processing power to gain cell phone data to gain Google records and paint a very accurate, very detailed, not necessarily accurate, detailed picture of your whereabouts and your associates. You probably pretty easily remember the metadata conversation that was happening probably around 2010 or so like it was really big in the news about not knowing what your conversation was about, but by knowing who you called, and how long you called them. You can probably discern a lot about an individual based just on that level of detail, a couple that in with other things and some more artificial intelligence analysis and you end up with the government having a very close watch on what you’re up to.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:52
That’s the scary part about it. Because like I say, there’s no expectation of privacy, but there’s also expected there’s thanks regulations the government’s going to catalogue and Chronicle your movements.
Andy 1:27:04
Do you know about the huge data warehouse facility in Utah I this was an article I read so long ago, it’s a 10 year old article that I read about the state of storage facility in Utah
Unknown Speaker 1:27:15
doesn’t ring any
Andy 1:27:16
Bell with it with it. I’m going to assume that the information is right. I know that I read the article in Wired Magazine. And it is a facility that will capture for, for lack of a better term, all internet traffic would get stored. That means every Skype phone call you’ve made every internet search you’ve done all of that data is stored at some warehouse facility in Utah, that when they do get the processing power to go scrape it, they will employ that maybe they have it by now that you have no sense of privacy and that they want to go do a dragnet and figure out what you’ve been up to for the last 610 you know, number of years, they can just go pull the archive and figure out what you’ve been up to
Unknown Speaker 1:27:58
tragic tragic it’s not to work. But yeah, it is it is discombobulating that they can they can do that. But that’s the world we live in with technology and you tech gurus are all for this.
Andy 1:28:10
Some of us but at the same time, there are other tools that you can employ to mask a lot of that you use some encryption app with your with your boss, I use encryption apps, most people are like, I don’t care about that. No one’s reading my stuff. I’m just sending puppy pictures across the internet like, Yeah, but there’s probably stuff that you don’t want everyone to know about or that they don’t have any right to know about either. Even though you’re in the public they shouldn’t be cataloging and tracking and watching all the all the whereabouts that you go to. So Oh, no, just it’s just kind of an interesting thing that you threw her in here this week. I think he always like to poke fun at me for internet like technology stuff.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:44
Well, because I do that because I like to have the discussion about the downsides and how we how we structure our, our society where that that there’s no incentive for these voluntary controls. So we’re going to have to use The powers of the big old bad government to place limitations on how this technology is used. And that means that we have to have an engaging debate. We can’t just let the companies decide that they own everything that they capture from people and they can’t be allowed to do with it what they please.
Andy 1:29:15
So you probably I think we covered it, at least, you know, just in passing that Amazon said that they would stop selling their facial recognition technology to law enforcement, they would do a moratorium for a year and are willing to step up and help government right policy, whatever, pre draft the laws, and that probably is so that they can figure out how to secure their position and have a profitable endeavor and possibly block different players from getting into it. No. And, and but that reminded me directly of things that you have brought forth that hey, I will help you guys write it and you, you described something where you wrote it that basically no one would ever be charged with this kind of Prime. And I guess to cover that in a different way, you know, these different removal from the registry processes, no one would ever qualify because they’re like so narrowly tailored that you’d have to patch your head and full moon on this time when the whole thing occurred, blah, blah, blah, never get off the registry.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:14
Well, I do it to try to make it constitutional, because if they’re determined to have a law, and in many instances, they are determined to have a law. I trust me to write it better than I trust law enforcement. And once I accepted that a law is inevitable. And I would accept it in example, in Michigan, they’re not going to just let those people disappear. So I would have been busily writing a registry that I believe would be constitutional. I know it goes against everything we talked about, but would you rather they write it or me writing
Unknown Speaker 1:30:50
them for surely.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:52
So, so look at it if I know something that evitable I would prefer that that I drafted because I’ve got to make sure I guard the Constitution, and I’m going to make a registry. It’s constitutional. My registry would be so benign, that most people would like it. But I say, look, this is constitutional. They can gripe all they want to, but you can do this. But you can’t go beyond this because you’re going to find yourself right back in a constitutional confrontation, because you can’t do all the things you’d like to do. You can’t punish people, but you can. You can have people on lists, we have hundreds of lists that people are on, and being on a list doesn’t make that list unconstitutional.
Andy 1:31:31
It doesn’t even make it that bad to be on the list depends on where that list is then presented.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:36
Well, I don’t worry too much about the list. I worry about what the list discloses and what you’re required to do while you’re a member of the list. You’re on the list for the Selective Service when you’re from 18 to 26. They don’t do anything with the list. They don’t in any way humiliate you. They don’t. They don’t do anything that impairs your ability to live love your life. A registry of sexual sexual offenders would be you Could do such a list. You don’t require them to report it. You don’t require them to have any prohibitions about what what, where they can live, where they can work, what they could do, who they can engage with. And you simply say congratulations, you’re on a list. Like you tell young men between 18 and 26. Congratulations, you’re on a list. If you don’t put your name on this list, you’re subject to forfeiture of a whole plethora of government benefits in addition to a five year period of incarceration. I doubt anybody’s ever been in been incarcerated for five years but it is on the books it could be imposed
Andy 1:32:32
with you so then we move over to courthouse news judge grants bond For ex Atlantic cop charged Rashard Brooks killing Come on, Larry, you can’t be in favor of taking this guy who like gunned this dude down? Like almost in cold blood he shot him in the back. You can’t be in favor of this
Unknown Speaker 1:32:52
action I am. Oh, because that we have this presumption of innocence. A person is entitled to that presumption that it follows them to the conclusion of the proceedings. It doesn’t that doesn’t revert to a presumption of guilt. Again, as I said dozens of times I only wish the police would say the same thing. When when someone’s arrested, this officer is entitled to be presumed innocent through the duration of this proceeding until he elects to plead guilty or until he’s convicted by a jury. And and while he’s while he’s proceeding to trial, he is entitled to be free. As long as the restraints are sufficient to secure his participation. I think the bond was ,000 wasn’t it? It’s either 500 at the top I’ve heard it’s 500. Okay, well, that’s probably enough to encourage an average person to participate if you can raise 500
Andy 1:33:48
Yeah, I didn’t want to I didn’t want to split the difference between that 250 like I’m thinking 507 50 would be hard to come up with 500 rupee just slightly as hard.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:56
So yes, he’s entitled The pot and he can he can Put together but best defense that he can afford. And he may even qualify since he’s been fired, he may even qualify for indigent defense. Who knows. But But, but I don’t, I don’t, I don’t feel any differently about him than I do any other accused person. I’m just waiting for one weekend invite a police officer on this podcast that will say the same thing about someone other than a police officer, please, if you’re listening, come on. We’ll be nice to you. And we want you to save what I just said.
Andy 1:34:30
innocent until proven guilty, right. And this person’s entitled
Unknown Speaker 1:34:33
that presumption to follow them through the duration of the proceeding.
Andy 1:34:41
All right, then we’ll go over to Clarion ledger ready for him to come home family says Ms. prison reform bill should be retroactive. That would be Mississippi I assume. Yes. And advocates for reform in the Mississippi prison system sit down with the Clarion ledger to discuss their concerns after a wave of violence and deaths. Tonight. We did you send me Was there a video out there that we had about a riot breaking out in Mississippi is that
Unknown Speaker 1:35:08
there’s a video with this article, but I got confused with this article. I thought we had already covered it.
Andy 1:35:14
I don’t recall recover covering this. Okay. Well, I mean, I guess this goes with the Mississippi at the parole bill. Yeah, I have a block these together. There’s a same thing, just two different sources. Yeah, I think so. All right. Well, then I guess we could just move on to the five
Unknown Speaker 1:35:31
they wanted. They wanted to be retroactive. How dare them want something to be retroactive. Now, you could, you could you can make things less or punitive. The Constitution protects you against making it more punitive. But you can reduce sentences. Right, right. There’s no constitutional infringement there.
Andy 1:35:54
Okay, yeah, yeah, no, I understand. I understand. I’m sorry. So I think isn’t that everything?
Unknown Speaker 1:36:01
That’s everything we just have will here with his. We have?
Andy 1:36:06
We have we have a question. This was a comment that he left last week in reference to our M. 133. Says with regard to the expectation of privacy, there was a case in 2015, where a PFR was arrested for taking pictures of children playing in a public space, the judge ruled that the children were out in a public area where there was no expectation of privacy and therefore the registered citizen committed no crime by taking non obscene pictures. We You know, this is on the heels of the protests and the government tracking and all this stuff that you have no expectation of privacy. wanted to bring that to the fore.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:39
I’d like to see that ruling. And I agree with it. And I’ve said the same thing. Many times. These laws you can pass anything and they’re presumed constitutional, you can say a PFR is not allowed to take pictures anyway in a park. But I’ve maintained they’re allowed to take pictures anywhere that anybody’s allowed to take pictures if there’s no provision, a general population of PFR can take pictures like anyone else. But if you pass a law that says they can’t, well, they can’t until the court says they can. And this person decided that they wanted to challenge it. And apparently at least it’ll chalkboard level the there’s a decision that says that they take it, they could take pictures. Now the state will have an answer for this. They’ll say, Well, if you could take pictures at a park, we’ll just make it where you can’t be in a park. And then you won’t be taking pictures that will be the that would be their logical moves that they would make.
Andy 1:37:27
Then, on the heels of that, they could say you can’t have any sort of camera technology, which is hard, but you could you could find a camera you can find a phone that doesn’t have a camera on it.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:36
It’d be hard but you probably could. I think the last one was made actually about 10 years ago.
Andy 1:37:44
Any any closing comments before we shut it all down there?
Unknown Speaker 1:37:46
Was this about restored Georgia?
Andy 1:37:49
I think that’s leftover from Yeah, that’s
Unknown Speaker 1:37:51
okay. I said last week, yeah. Okay. All right. Well, now that we’re we’re we’re ready to close down shop and everybody Have a wonderful Independence Day. I know that only a few people were here that are hearing it now. So those of you that are hearing it all the early release, I hope you had a wonderful Independence Day and weekend and ready to get back to the grindstone next week.
Andy 1:38:17
Outstanding. It was a short week. So that was a that was a nice little treat. And thank you all very much. You can find show notes over at registry matters.co and all the other things you can find it with if you want to contact us. With that, Larry, thank you so much for joining me yet again. Mike. Thank you for being a guest for the while. And Take care everybody. Good night. Good night.
