registry matters as an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts fyp recording live from fyp Studios, east and west transmitted across the internet. This is Episode 166 of registry matters layer we have hundreds and chat tonight. It’s a beautiful Saturday night. How are you?
Fantastic. It is beautiful here to this afternoon. It’s not even evening yet, but it’s approaching 60 or maybe even past 60 degrees here.
Man not like I have heard I just saw the news quote go by the people after this crazy weather in Texas. They’re getting ,000 electric bills. I didn’t dig into it at all. And I don’t know if it’s true or not. But I was like, how do you get a ,000? electric bill?
Especially 10 minutes after the storm passes?
Right? Good grief is so like is that maybe you’re maybe the meter froze or something and messed up and there’s some mix up in the building that can’t be giving people ,000 bills? Especially I haven’t heard that one for a week. Okay. I haven’t heard that. What? That’s nuts. Anywho. What do we have going on tonight? before but before you say that, make sure that you’d like and subscribe and share the podcast over on YouTube. All right, go ahead.
Right, yes, we’re getting hundreds of views on YouTube. Now. Have you noticed that we’re this week is just off the charts?
Yes, pretty stellar.
So we’ve got, we’ve got a couple of insider questions. And we’ve got some questions from the community at large. And we have a legislative analysis to do on a piece of legislation from Georgia. And a brief couple of articles to just pontificate about towards the end of the program.
Wow, that’s a lot of stuff. It’s a whole mountain of content. And we got a we got like a stopwatch, I need to like start a little timer, like 60 minutes, because we have a we got a lot to do in a short time to get there. I guess we should begin, we can start with a little bit of a message the the attorney from the Tennessee case that we talked about last week reached out and he wanted to provide just a teeny little bit of feedback on your covered you people’s coverage of the of your analysis last week and says looking at your q&a, I think you covered everything very well. The only point I would disagree with is whether the plaintiffs asked for removal from the registry. And the only points I could add would be about the scope of the injunctive relief. But since those points are all still the subject of litigation, I couldn’t comment on them at this point. Once the judge rules on these points, perhaps I can comment on them, it would be really great if we could get him on as a guest in the future. I really wanted to highlight that the that he thinks that we covered everything with I really should say you you covered everything really spot on. And it was a nice letter to receive from him to edify you of your accuracy and completeness.
Well, I appreciate that. And we are very much intending on having one or both of those attorneys on when they feel comfortable. They don’t want to violate the spirit of their local rules. They’re in the Middle District of Tennessee, and I can understand that. So they they want to do their litigating in the courtroom.
Is that I mean, is that the short answer? I was just gonna ask you why is that such a big deal about them coming on to talk about it, while they’re litigating it, like tip their hand like poker, like, hey, here are my cards?
Well, it’s a lot of old school thinking of not of not, you don’t want to say anything adverse about the judge or the opponent or anything like that. It’s like, all the litigation should be done in the courtroom. And it’s just old school like, like at the time when attorneys couldn’t advertise it. Of course, that was a great day for established attorneys in that era, because if you couldn’t advertise you couldn’t be established. So it was great for the old timers.
Okay. Let’s move over to the first question that somebody wrote in and says registry matters, guys. I have a couple of reader questions. First, in states where elements of the registry have been found as punishment, ex post facto means it can’t be applied to other crimes. But what about federal crimes? Can a state punish me if that state did not give me due process? I know for civil registration, they can. But aren’t the Fed and state considered separate sovereigns for criminal punishment? Shouldn’t ex post facto elements of registries also not apply to those without state charges? That’s a pretty unique question. I think
it was indeed. And he’s one of our subscribers to the transcripts service. And I would say that I am not real comfortable with the way he’s using the term punishment because registration. Registration in and of itself is not punishment. Right? What happens is the registration schemes evolve over time, to where they stack on so many requirements that they become punitive. Upon additional analysis as more and more litigation as we talked about it Tennessee last week, the same federal court, the same circuit had upheld Tennessee registry as being non punitive until they kept stacking. But to drill into his question, but I think he’s asking is if he has a federal conviction. If, for example, what just happened in Tennessee, declaring that, that that registration scheme couldn’t be applied, ex post facto, it would also apply to a federal conviction, because remember, there is no federal registry. When you go to when you go in Tennessee to register, you’ll be registering, not with a federal agency. So the federal law requires you to comply with registration, but it’s within the state. So if the state cannot register you because of a highest ruling from the highest tribunal in the state, or from a federal court, then there would be no, there would be nothing the feds could do to punish you for not complying. But now remember, this recent decision from Tennessee only applies to john doe’s one and two at this point. Sure, there will probably be additional litigation, there’ll probably be a class action, like there has been in other states. But right now, those are the only two eligible for relief. And we still don’t know if there’s going to be an appeal yet. So don’t jump too soon to say but but if it works, to result in a class action, and if the same outcome happen, then those of you with federal convictions that are older would be would be granted the same relief, there would not be an obligation to register at that point. But they’ll go back and they’ll create a do a lesson version of the registry that go back into Tennessee that go back and look at what they had when it was last upheld and cut shawl. And they would look at that as a starting point. And then I would ask themselves, how much more they can stack on and hopefully have it be declared non punitive. But they’re they’re not just going to give up and say we we realized there are ways and we’re not gonna have a registry anymore. They’re not going to do that.
Can you? Let’s I want to ask you a couple specific things. And it says Can I state punishment that that state did not did not give me due process? Any any idea what that is about?
Well, I think I think I think what he’s asking is that he’s considered the registry itself to be punishment. And since he didn’t have any particular process, his federal conviction did not afford him at a separate process. What he’s wanting to know is can they require him to register subject to that punishment? And the answer is yes, until the court says no. Right now, the court hasn’t said no. For anybody other than john doe’s one and two in the case of Tennessee. Now he has taught in Tennessee. He’s He’s in California, if I remember right.
Do you want me to read the the second part of the question, I know you wrote to defer the next week. Did you want me to read it? Just to put it on the radar?
I don’t. I don’t believe I’m sufficiently versed on that. Yeah, to answer the second part, but we are going to come back to it.
Okay, well, do we read it or skip?
Let’s just skip it. But yes, we know that you have a second question here. And we’re gonna we’re gonna come back to it next next episode.
groovy. And then if you missed
it, you missed it. You missed the final part. Thanks, guys. Great podcast.
Oh, yes. Okay. Thanks, guys, great podcasts and fyp, etc, etc. Yes. And so the next one comes from the narosa legal corner who we like how do I politely How do I put this most succinctly like partner with friends with and to provide a way to answer questions easily, I guess instead of having to write it out and limited publication space and so forth. It says I have been an avid reader and subscriber since I first heard about the publication two plus years ago. And this month’s issue october november 2020. The legal corner discussed interstate transfers for those under supervision by the state. My question is very similar, but as it applies to federal military inmates. MSR which is minimum supervised release released I believe, for military is different from the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and other federally sentence intervals individuals to MSR which follows the completion of their adjudicated sins. In the military MSR is seen as a mandatory release date and the courts have ruled numerous times that it is a form of parole. The question and issue surrounds the acceptance of the US probation office in our cases, many inmates have been told that the officer responsible for the region they provided denied the request. The denial reasons have ranged from the obvious of the housing not meeting the requirements of the code to close to a school to close to a park other similar reasons. The reason that is most troubling and it’s not really understandable is no or not enough ties in the local community, ie friends, family, etc. How is such a reason permissible? what options are available to those given this reason, thanks in advance for your support and insights you can provide regarding this issue and I’m going to add fyp that’s Yeah, how do you if you don’t? Like perhaps you get locked up in a place where you’re not from, and they want to release you to Timbuktu, Egypt and you don’t know anybody there and they go, Well, sorry, you don’t have any ties or family here. So we’re not letting you go.
Well, fyp education has minimal understanding of all the intricacies of the military. But I believe that’s meant for supervised released. But But I’m not absolutely certain. It’s a period after they serve their sentence that they have to serve on supervision. And the answer is, yes, it’s permissible. But they, their their theory, is it? I mean, maybe you were stationed in Guam before your offense, and then you did your time in Fort Leavenworth, Fort Leavenworth. And then you want to go to a place that you don’t have any ties to their argument is that your odds of success go up exponentially if you have a support structure. So if they just dump you out in a place where you’d like to be and let you live there, and you have minimal ties, the the chances are greater of failure. So So the answer is yes, it’s permissible. It’s done all the time. And, and to my knowledge, I do not know of any successful challenges on that. But like I say, fyp has minimal, experienced and military. So therefore, I can’t actually answer the second part about what options are available given given this reason. Others it’s to talk to him to an attorney who does practice with the Uniform Code of Military What is it ucmj and, and people who are on who are on this MSR and how it’s handled, and if they are aware of anything that I have not on earth in my first quick glance, and I apologize for this being so late, it got filed incorrectly on my desk. And I just found it a couple of days ago. And I had attended to answer it a long time ago. But but it just it just bubbled up today.
Not to there’s got to be so few people that would be in this condition. It’s makes it very esoteric, as far as a person trying to practice law in this respect. It’s in DUI cases, ambulance chasers, there’s they’re a dime a dozen, because it’s a very, you know, there’s a lot of supply and demand to handle. But this is a very limited number, I bet you there’s a very few number of people that are in this condition.
Well, my intent was the reason why I got misfiled was that we had an attorney on the board who actually had been in the military at one time. And I was going to send it to him, and then it never got sent. So therefore, I don’t have the feedback I was looking for, but but I will attempt to actually, his name had escaped me. But now his name has come back to me and I know who it was, but but I don’t I don’t feel any qualification other than to say, yes, they can restrict where you do your supervision. And the courts have been very lenient with them doing that.
Very well. And just as a side note, Deputy HMF IC has arrived, Larry.
Well, hello there. Glad you could join us.
All right, a couple more questions to go. Since I’ve been listening to you people since the beginning of the podcast, you keep on talking about the so called probable cause hearings that are required for those on Interstate compacts, supervision. I’ve been violated twice, and never got one of these. Suppose at hearings. They’ve just taken me before a judge. And I’ve been asked if I wanted to waive extradition. Each time the public pretender on duty in the courtroom has advised me to waive extradition. Now that you all have explained this difference in scope of an extradition hearing versus a probable cause hearing. I wish I had understood that, then I think I could have avoided being sent back. Thank you so much. I still don’t know how to get one of these hearings, since nobody has ever mentioned until I heard it on the REM podcast anyways. Cheers and fyp.
Well, this is our question buried in there.
I don’t think there’s really a question other than I guess just thanking us for providing some level of clarity to having the different kinds of hearings, whether you have the probable cause, and whatnot. So maybe there’s no question unless you want to provide a teeny little bit of comment on it.
Well, I do appreciate the the submission. I think that what he’s saying is if this should happen again, since I’ve never heard of it, how would I go about getting one? And the answer is we don’t know. The closest thing I’ve recommended that we do here in my state is recommend that the attorneys file a notice of a demand for a probable cause hearing in the court closest to where the person is taken into custody. So if they were to take the person in custody in Albuquerque, bernalillo County, you would file it in the court of general subject matter jurisdiction, but to be a district court, and you’d file it under a miscellaneous case number because the person doesn’t have a state charge here. You’d file that notice and serve it on the corrections department their counsel and say you’re entitled this. But whether that’ll trigger a hearing or not, I can’t vouch for that. And then I don’t know what the processes are in other states. But I know one thing, that if you’re armed with the information, when you meet with a public defender of the courtroom, right, if they’re, if you’re lucky enough to where they happen to have one assigned when you’re taking on this extradition hearing, with that information of knowing that you’re entitled to a probable cause here, and you can tell that public defender I’ve already waived extradition, in my application to be in this state. This is not an extradition, this is a retaking, and I want my retaking probable cause hearing. And that’s what I would like you to know, for the quarter, as I’m exercising my right to have a probable cause here. And now I will not waive extradition, because this is not an extradition, this is not an extradition.
I’m pretty sure what I have traveled out of state, that there’s something in there that I’ve waived the right to extradition, just by getting the travel permit. Correct. And which I’m like, I don’t know what the hell I’m signing, like, hey, I want to travel. So I’m going to sign almost whatever they tell me like here, you want my firstborn here have my firstborn. So then there’s this thing in there that says I have waived the right to extradition, which sounds. Again, I think I had to explain it when we talked about this, I understand waiving the right to remain silent, that type of thing, like I am accepting that I am not going to remain silent and answer your questions. And so I’m waiving the right to extradition, I don’t understand why I would waive that, right. When I’m not even trying to get an extradition, I’m trying to get a retaking probable cause hearing.
But say you’ve already done it. When you both cross state lines on Interstate supervision, you’ve already waived the extradition. That’s one of the forms in the packet of stuff that you will find voluminous forms. And that’s one of them. So extradition is already off the table. The only time extradition would come into place would be if you have scouted, if you were if you were sentenced in Georgia, and they transferred you to Colorado, and you skipped out from Colorado, and they discovered you in Hawaii, that would be an extradition because you didn’t have permission to be there. So then the only issue would be are you the identity of the person who sent the fugitive warrant that have scouted from supervision. But if you’re in Colorado, there’s no fugitive you’re on a fugitive status. That’s what extradition that process is to is to recover a fugitive. When you’re in Colorado, under interstate compact, you’re entitled to a process that determines if you have if you’ve committed an infraction of a severe severity that would merit you having to be transported to Georgia. Because in Georgia, you wouldn’t have access to the Colorado witnesses that might be helpful to you. So that’s why you’re the Supreme Court said in 73, that you have the right to this preliminary determination close to where the violations occurred. And so extradition is not what you need to be talking about to your public defender, you need to say I have already waived extradition as a condition for being here. I bought my probable cause hearing.
I do understand what you are saying, sir. All right, then, let’s move over to this other question. says I’m serving a 20 year sentence for a crime, that there was no evidence whatsoever. I self reported the crime and hoped to get treatment. My victim nice, does not want me to be in precent prison, and it has asked that I be released and that the charges be dismissed. How is it that they can keep me in prison for a crime when there was absolutely no evidence? This sounds like a lot of wordplay that we we have quote unquote, a victim just because they don’t want the victim doesn’t want them to go to prison. But anyway, please continue, sir.
Well, I love it when they say there was no evidence. And there there was there was quite a bit of evidence. But it gives me a chance to talk about the the real, the real key of what I want to talk about it, which is a Latin term called actus. Reyes, there has to be, there has to be independent evidence of the crime that will support the plea. So he did a plea, he would have gone out and self confessed and then gone to trial. So he did a plate. So first of all, we have his self report of disclosure, he would have made a statement to the police. So that is evidence I would have to put us they write it up, it has all words and they would head and put his name on it. So so that that is the evidence. That’s the first batch of evidence. Then they have his plea that he did in court. Where were the that there would have been an establishment of the basis for the police. So the the court, the judge would have asked the prosecution to to set forth the basis for the plea and that’s where they have to have some Subject Matter jurisdiction, and they have to have evidence of a crime independent. Can you imagine how great the country could be if we could just go corchorus confessions, without independent verification of a crime? I mean, that would be a great system, it’d be a lot more people convicted if we had a system that way. So there has to be independent. So if you go and say, I embezzled a whole bunch of money from such and such a business, they certainly can approach the business and say, do you have any unaccounted for funds. But if the business says, No, we cannot identify any unaccounted for funds, you don’t have a crime, because you don’t have the actus Reyes, but you have not got the independent verification of the crime. So the guy would be able to walk out the door go free, even though there was a confession, because there’s no independent corroboration of the crime. So I’m guessing when he self reported that he told the identity of the nice, and they went to the nice, and they asked the nice in a nice confirmed that what had been reported in the confession was consistent with with her recollection. So that would also constitute evidence. We’ve got his confession, we’ve got we’ve got her recollection. And we have his pleat. And assuming that Denise was of an age to where that? Well, I guess it’d be a crime because of the incest regardless of the age, but I’m assuming that that was a crime within the borders of the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. So that would probably would have been proper for to accept. So I guess the question I would ask was, I hear this a lot, the truth will set you free, get it.
And so he admitted that I have heard Larry, please. And I know that you’re not a lawyer. And this is not legal advice, blah, blah, blah. But I’ve heard that if you would go do that. Maybe go talk to a counselor, and you do everything up to admitting guilt and don’t reveal the name of the person. That that keeps them in a position where they don’t have to report it to anybody officially, and then you could then go get treatment. So you could just say, I have done these things with a person not saying nice, like whomever this person is. But if you leave that off the table, that it doesn’t engage them to be required to do some kind of reporting.
I don’t know that that’s true. I think the admission of criminal conduct triggers the duty to report. At the time they did the report, it would be vague enough to where they wouldn’t have an identity of anyone, but they would, they would certainly put you under surveillance. If they deem that report credible, they would try to figure out who that person might might have been. And you may have given us enough detail that they can figure it out. If you said Well, I go to the I go to the local high school and hang out at the football field every Friday night. And I victimized one of the players or cheerleaders or whatever you want to pick, they might be able to figure out who that was. By you’ve just narrowed down the whole student body from about 2200 down to the members of the football team or the cheerleading squad. So all of a sudden, you’ve gone from 2200 down to a couple dozen. Yeah, so
I met while I was gone. He told me that that what he went and told somebody and he learned that had he not revealed that holds that the name of the person that it could have been very much left off the table and could have done treatment, whatever, without ever getting involved in the whole criminal justice system.
Well, I would not be bold enough to say that because I would say that the reporting would be based on admission of criminal conduct. The more specific you get, the more the more you’re going to put yourself within a zone of prosecution. But what what a person would need to disclose this, they have urges to do something. urges are not reportable. If you haven’t done it yet. As far as I know, the fact that you have that you have particular urges when you say I’d like to look at, I’d like to look at rage porn. Well, you can have, you can have those urges. Like, I’d like to I’d like to have all the abundance in the vault at the local bank.
Of course, of course, of course.
I have an urge to have all that in my pocket. But until I formulate a plan to transfer that money from the bank vault to my pocket, there’s nothing illegal about having that urge. So I believe you can get treatment, as long as you do not admit that you have committed crime. Wouldn’t it be great if you could just simply commit a crime and want to get treatment now? Yeah, well, that would that would absolve you of the criminality? I’d be wouldn’t everybody all of a sudden want treatment after they’d committed a crime if that was the way it worked?
I mean, I get I guess, in this particular instance, when this person would go admit the crime without saying nice, maybe they would put him in lockup and try and go investigate and start querying wives and other people that might be in the circle maybe.
Well, yeah, he he was when you identify, hey, clearly identified every every detail of it, and signed a confession but but if you if you just simply say that I’ve had urges for inappropriate conduct that I’d like to get some help. The therapist is going to probably say, Don’t tell me too much, because I’ll have to report it a good therapist that I want to, I want to help you, some therapist is going to say, some are gonna say, tell me more, because they’re anxious to report you because they have kids and grandkids and blah, blah, blah, and they’re gonna want to get you off the streets as quickly as they possibly can.
Okay, and then I guess we will cover the final one before we hit the feature event. Sounds good. All right. When I was on probation in New Mexico, they imposed a restriction on romantic relationships cue romantic music here. I was violated for an undisclosed relationship. I fought back in one, but I’m curious if they can actually limit romantic relationships, I wouldn’t because of the vagueness of their wording of the policy, not on the merits of the policy.
So Well, I think we’re gonna have a guest on that one to join in just a couple of minutes. But the answer is, can they restrict undisclosed relationships? Yes, you’re still being punished for a crime that you committed. And they have very, very broad powers of how they can limit your your behavior, your movements, your travel, your your, your personal friendships? I mean, they have they have such broad powers of what they can, what they can do. What happened in this particular case, was they had a policy that was so vague that nobody understood it, including the people who actually tried to administer the policy, but in terms of actually can can they can they prohibit you from a romantic? Think about that? Can you think of any sexual offense where that where that where it would clearly be appropriate to limit a person’s access to to additional potential victims, I mean, can’t change
their mind? My conditions would say that it could not be a romantic relationship with someone that had children under the age of 18. So hey, if they don’t have children at the age of 18, like Have at it have fun?
Well, that but but again, but but their posture is going to be that they want to review the relationship before you get into it, because we’re going to save you from having trouble later. So if you’re going to be in a romantic relationship, let us check the person out. And that would that would be their posture. And so but I’d like to hear from from our guests in terms of terms of specifics of what the policy said at the time, and if they’ve made any changes to that policy. So let’s bring him on here.
All right. Well, joining us now is Andreas and this would be Larry’s legislative, and we had a whole big discussion about what words we would use. And we’ve resolved to just say, Larry’s legislative assistant. So on today’s Welcome to the registry matters podcast. How are you tonight?
Unknown Speaker 27:48
Great. It’s wonderful to be on here with you guys. Cool.
Let me go at it.
So understand, understand the basics of the question. And I’m wondering, when when this happened to you, how did they become aware of the relationship? And then what was the cascading effect when they became aware of it? So I had them come aware of it.
Unknown Speaker 28:11
They became aware of it partially because they found a text message from my phone from somebody that I refer to as my significant other. And then they said, Oh, well, you have a significant other. And that pretty much triggered an investigation where I was incarcerated for a period of time while they did their investigation. So the biggest issue that they had with it was that I didn’t disclose it. But then the other part of it is, is that my significant other did have a child under the age of 18. But that’s a separate condition. On top of that, and the either of those two conditions, outline the reporting process, how you go about doing it, if I said to him, uh, you know, for my one probation officer might say, it’s okay for you to have friends with people who have children under the age of 18, that you cannot be unsupervised with children under the age of 18. And then another officer can come in and say, Well, I don’t want you to have be friends with anybody who has children under the age of 18. Because of kind of like, the lack of specificity, and the application of either it kind of just created this whole thing where it was like, well, let’s throw him in jail. And we’ll figure it out in court.
Okay, so I’m assuming you had contact with a probation officer and they looked at your phone, it was either an office visit or a field visit and they saw your phone. And they saw that that text message and then at that point, did you go into custody that that very day, write down the date that they handcuff you up and take you to jail right there?
Unknown Speaker 29:51
Yes, they did that same. less than five minutes later, there was no well don’t have any contact with this person. Or don’t do this, they didn’t even know at the time based on that text message that she even had a a daughter. At that point, they just said, well, you’re going to jail today.
Okay, now I want to I want to educate our audience because New Mexico is unique. In terms of this, most states require sub level event of involvement on a probation violation of the court in this state. They they grant, the probation officer arrested detain authority, so all they have to do is to issue an arrest of holder. So in a matter of moments, he was in custody. So they take they take you to jail, and then they put you on the PV calendar, which I’m all too familiar with. And the first time it came up, it got probably continued. But anyway, you finally get to a probation hearing. And and you don’t agree with it. And you end up winning this what what was what was the, what was the build up to this to this victory? Because you said, I don’t agree with you with what you’re doing to be because I don’t feel like violate this policy. Your attorney said, You’re, you’re full of crap. You did violate it. How did you? How did you manage to win this with your attorney, saying that you’re wrong? What happened after after you got your return? And you had you had to have the discussion? And attorney says, Well, just go ahead, admit to the violation, they’ll let you out. Right?
Unknown Speaker 31:19
Um, yeah. So what happened is New Mexico’s I’m sure is that you know, but I’m not sure too many listeners know, what happens is they put you on the PV calendar. But the PV calendar isn’t within a week or two. They specifically delay it for a whole month, because you are to be have your hearing heard in front of an initial judge, who is basically assigned for that period of time to listen to probation violations. So in other words, it’s almost like a meat factory. You’re all lined up inside the courtroom with another, you know, 3020 people in housed in and out. And first hearing that I had was with not my sentencing judge is a judge who has no idea who I am. All he did was look at my piece of paper that says what I’m alleged up having done. And to be frank, the the violation report that they gave us none too flattering, of course, because that’s their job is to write a report supports me violating and being sent to prison. Oh, we actually asked for a continuation. One, we wanted to get conditions of release first, which is not very common when violation matters or hearing, waiting to be heard. We did first was we said, Alright, well, am I going to get out of jail today? Can we you know, admit to the violation and get time served? The answer was no, the DA wanted to go for the full revocation. So it’s like, okay, what’s the second step? So what we did is I had talked to the attorney right then and there and said, well, let’s get a continuation. And let’s get my sentencing judge was heard, you know, this case before that point, we said, okay, we went to the judge, and we said to him, Hey, is it all right? Can we get back on the calendar, wait for his sentencing judge to hear this, and he says, I have no issue with it, if she wants to take it. That’s a whole other month on top of that. Then finally, you are two months in at this point, you finally get the judge to grant me conditions of release. And then on top of that, we have two more hearings. So this whole thing stretches out a whole six months.
Wow, that’s a long time for a PV and what was the issue that you were arguing with your attorney about? Because your attorney wanted you to bet. So what what what what did you say? What did you tell your attorney that cuz sometimes attorneys are not correct. So what what was your attorney telling you versus what you were telling the attorney,
Unknown Speaker 33:40
my attorney was telling me was pretty much that there is no precedent for any of this. And on top of that, your that they had me dead to rights, which in terms of, you know, terms of just like the concept of failing to disclose the lack of lack of specificity about who is disclosed to whom, as far as the therapist and the probation officer, because in two separate parts of the actual behavioral contract, specify that you’re supposed to disclose to your treatment provider, one thing, and then another section, you have to disclose to your officer another thing? Oh, there is no disclosure clause anywhere with to whom or when or how a romantic relationship. But that point, that’s what I brought to my attorney, I said to him, Hey, there is nothing here that says with whom, to who, to what, and when am I going to disclose that I have a romantic relationship? And on top of that, I said, well, what’s the definition of romantic relationship? Anyways?
I bet he loves that.
Unknown Speaker 34:43
Very angry with me. He’s not very happy when I brought that up to him and I’m sure you may know who he is. But the thing is, he’s he was pretty high up there. They put the the big the big dog on my case. And he was very angry and says, you know, you could go sit there and wait in jail while we figured this out. I said no, I think this is gonna work. So was actually what is the big reason why the violation was not sustained in the eyes of my sentencing judge? Because there’s no you went
you went, you went, you went had a hearing? And And And how long did the hearing last? It was like a half day hearing, right?
Unknown Speaker 35:18
That’s it lasted altogether, probably about five hours between two days.
And you had you had this hearing, edited of them of the state color and other witnesses, they were not able to come up with clarity that satisfy the judge. Do I have that right? is correct. So the judge did not sustain the violation. So did you were you were you? Were you already out of jail. So they just basically, they put they repeated you to supervision?
Unknown Speaker 35:46
Correct. They had already been on supervision at that point. And they had put me on an ankle monitor. And they just said, unofficially, you know, my officers said, Well, I wasn’t on an ankle monitor before then. But then they just had me with an ankle monitor for the remainder of my supervision.
Now, well, that would have been the retaliation for for taking them to trial. So you should have admitted in their eyes. And so therefore, since you didn’t take responsibility, you need additional supervision, that would have been their justification.
Unknown Speaker 36:13
That is correct. But you know, it’s just kind of one of those things where, you know, it’s it, the big question is, is exactly how is it going to play out in court and public defender, you know, he’s better equipped to answer the probability of it going the wrong way. And this is, no, this was a on a lodestar, you know, risk calculation, the fee was pretty high for him.
So well, you know, the same people you dealt with, we had a case, a decade ago. And we couldn’t, we couldn’t get them to budge, because they wanted the guy to go to prison so bad, and he ultimately ended up going to prison, but not of that particular violation. But but they, we stretched out and stretched out, because we didn’t want to go to prison, didn’t think he would do very well in prison. And he he, they said, Well, if he would just admit to the violation, this will all be over. And it made me so irritated. I said, Well, of course, anybody would be all over if they just did it as a violation. But your violation is bogus. So why should they admit to it? Well, of course, when you’re sitting in jail, you’re being punished anyway, you’re sitting in jail on PV, very few people get out on conditions of release, you were extremely lucky to get out.
Unknown Speaker 37:23
So I was extremely lucky. Um, you know, I had already been in contact with them regarding some questions I had about probation prior to that, you know, in some ways that can be mis interpreted as retaliation, you know, by into that whole retaliation thing. It’s just that, you know, they the officers have dealt with people who are more in more cases, the rule rather than the exception, and the judge recognized. For my particular case, I was the exception, not the rule in terms of a danger to society and all of those factors, you know, I had a slave, I had a job lined up when I got out, you know, I was very, very lucky, blessed all of the above. This thinks that, no, it’s really it. I’ve said this to people before, it’s really hard to fight. When you have something hanging over your head, it’s a lot easier for other people to, you know, tell people, I’ll just take the plea, just take the plea. It’s just so difficult. And I’m just very lucky that I got on the other end of that.
Well, and that that was the point of having here. But when you when you’re facing these people, when they when they impose something on you, oftentimes, it’s a matter of first impression, you took something to a judge who took the time to hear testimony. And at the end of the testimony, I said, Gee, I can’t even agree with this, because it’s not clear to me. And I’ve heard four different versions from four different people for probation. And, and so they can, they can impose things on you that you might could win if you challenge them. And you may not fare too well. When you challenge him, you may end up getting a dose of a lot bigger dose of punishment than what you would have gotten it’s a whole crapshoot. It really is. So and if you have anything else, otherwise, we want to move on.
So I don’t I appreciate thank you on today’s that was really awesome. Maybe we can gain later.
Unknown Speaker 39:19
Oh, absolutely. I look forward to getting attacked by pirate ships on the high seas.
Unknown Speaker 39:26
I really appreciate you. So you submitted that question.
Unknown Speaker 39:31
Oh, of course, it’s, uh, you know, I think that I have my answer now, based on a lot of what you guys have already said earlier. And I just really appreciate the hard work that both of you guys do.
Appreciate it. So thanks very much.
Thank you. Well, thank you for thank you for what you’re doing for the cause.
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get linked set registry matters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email registry matters. email@example.com you could call or text a ransom message to 74722744771. A support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron. Give us 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. Larry, it’s time for a drumroll so we can cover this shenanigans going on in Georgia. This is a House Bill 347. It showed up on on the radar this weekend. We’ve been talking about the legislative process recently, we wanted to kind of dig into it a little bit more in this one showed up in Georgia be a great opportunity to continue. Like I said, it’s House Bill 347. It’s recently introduced in Georgia. And are you ready?
I think so I’ve I’ve looked at the bill. And it’s short. And it’s actually easy to analyze. So let’s do let’s go forward and see see what we can do. All
right. Like I said that there was a lot of discussion about it came up on the narwhal affiliates. As the first one. The first question I want to ask you is what what is the nozzle affiliates list?
Well, that would be a listserv of all the people who either have a recognized affiliate agreement with with narwhal, or they have an advocacy or what has put us all the versions, they have an advocate, they have these levels, and I’m on the board and I can’t really cite all three of them. But but it’s it’s it’s people who do who do advocacy on behalf of docile. And
somewhat it’s a private list and disclosure. What’s like a non disclosure agreement gets signed to be on there as well.
Yes. And and it’s it’s theoretically, to help one another, with situations as they arise. So situation at Georgia has just popped up. The question would go out, hey, this is what we’re dealing with. Do you have any insight on this? And that that’s why it popped up on the affiliates list. And actually, our communications director caught it first. And then it started generating a lot of feedback once she posted it.
Alright, and then. So what does this proposal proposal do? And like, why was it introduced?
Well, like I say, this one didn’t require an extensive analysis, because it’s really just changing one word. And the existing law, the proposal would require a 10 year minimum period for any person before they could follow removal petition. And under current Georgia law, some are immediately eligible for removal once their sentence is completed. For example, a person who’s disabled under I forget all the definitions, they have a disability, then that level ones under Georgia risk based system to remember folks, risk basis, not the same thing as tiers. This is a risk based system that Georgia does. So don’t come in here and say, Well, I’m a tier one. And this state, will we’re not talking about a Tier or we’re talking about a level one. And now everyone needs to realize I’m not connected with any of the sponsors. So my response about why they’re doing this a speculative but I don’t have to speculate much because the sponsor said stated the motivation and and a newspaper article, he stated, The benefit, quote, The benefit of this bill is that it will help sex offenders stay on the registry longer. And
all the things that I want to do in my life now that I am off probation is to stay on the registry longer. Larry, I really would like to stay on longer. Can you help me?
Well, well, what he means is, is it would help us keep people in the registry, if you follow the rest of this quote, he says now they’re able to get off after three years if they’re level one. So if you’re if you’re taking the length of time up to 10 years, it’s clear what the motivation is. So I don’t have to speculate, but normally, I wouldn’t speculate, but I’m just going to use his words. He stated why he wants this. He wants people to have to rebate on the registry for at least 10 years before they can file their petition.
Okay. Yeah, I would like they would like to help people stay on the registry for longer I read that and I’m just like, you asshat Ah, okay, uh, and then does it matter what the party affiliation is with the with the sponsors of this bill?
I hate to do that, as you know, I hate casting Team Red versus Team Blue. But keep in mind that Georgia’s heavily Republican, so it should not surprise anyone that this would be a republican sponsored piece of legislation. And in fact, to my knowledge, all the Georgia elected officials are Republicans. I’m not talking about people who serve in the US Congress because they do have. They do have representatives from Georgia, they elected to represent them in the nation’s capitol. And they have to recently like the senators, but all the officials in Georgia, the governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, all the people who run statewide, they’re all Georgia and liked it. from Georgia statewide as Republicans, there are no democratic statewide elected officials. The Senate is 34 republicans and 22 Democrats. So that’s a substantial margin. And then the house is 133 103 republicans and only 77 Democrats. So if you could do math, you can figure out there’s nothing the democrats can do to stop it. And there’s nothing the democrats could do to pass it by themselves. So this is this is, unfortunately, this is a republican show, because of the way the state of Georgia is is the way that party alignments are right now.
I was having a conversation with someone earlier. And just briefly, politics came I’m like, well, Georgia went blue in January, which like, I mean, is true ish, the two senators, but the entire, like you were just describing the internal structure that the state level representation is very heavily read.
Absolutely. And like I say, every statewide office is is controlled by the republicans and the margins, and the House and the Senate are substantial. And it’s been that way, mostly for about the last 20 years before that it was just the other way around the there was substantial democratic control in Georgia. But that flipped in the early 2000s. Roy Barnes with less governor of the Democratic Party. And I think the legislature changed shortly after Barnes got elected, he managed to alienate everybody.
And in the past, we have talked about the like, you can’t pick that that you want to speak to your, your, your ideal party person to represent you, but you have to work with what you’ve got. And can we dig into that a little bit, and you and your little pointy headedness, I’d like to hear what you suggest as a strategy.
I didn’t realize that my head was at that point, it was my head point. Oh, dude,
seriously, like when you go through doors, it’s almost like we’re looking at a Saturday Night Live episode, and you’re one of the coneheads you probably have no idea what the senate live is,
well, if if I were tasked with this and restore Georgia had a whole bunch of money, I would begin with attempting to find out what’s behind the legislation, you can rest assured that the sponsors, the primary sponsor, and the co sponsors, they didn’t wake up in the light and say, I want pfrs to sell the registry longer. The motivation is driven by either an advocacy group, or something happened in that particular sponsors district and something that that we don’t know. And when I say advocacy, it could be a victims group, or it could be the law enforcement apparatus itself. And it’s of the utmost importance that we would know which or if it were, if it’s both. For example, you’ll sell what could have been released from registration at subsequently committed new offense in this legislators district. And the first call that that that that he would have made in this case, it was him, he would have called the sheriff and said, this person was registered. And then they re-offended come to find out they weren’t on the registry. Sheriff. What happened? Why did you let him go? And the sheriff would have said, well, because he petition for removal, he wouldn’t say he did what? Because he wouldn’t have even had any idea that there was a petition process so that he would have either done the research himself or he’d had this legislative team there in Georgia, he would have had whatever resources they would provide to a lawmaker dig this out. And they told him Well, after X amount of time these people can file and this person was the level one and he got off. And, and that’s so the sheriff would have said I didn’t have any choice. My hands were tied. And at that point, the sponsor would have said, well, gee, Mr. researcher, tell me about the surrounding states. What do they do in Alabama? Well, they can’t get off in Alabama, what about in Florida, but they can’t get off in Florida? What about in North Carolina, but they can’t get off in North Carolina until they’ve been on at least 10 years. And he had to say, nine, let me see if I got this straight. So all of our bordering states, they either can’t get off at all, or they have to be on at least 10 years, and we let people fall immediately. Something ought to be done about that. And that’s how this would have come about in all likelihood.
Unknown Speaker 49:34
yeah, I just, again, I go back to that. Let me phrase it this way. When I went to court to have my probation terminated, the judge stood there or sat there and said, the previous governor, Nathan Deal I think it was he said that he was about like, second chances. And here we have someone that has been following the rules. Let’s move forward and give the person like they have earned the opportunity to move on. And here you have these two legislators that are proposing legislation of like, Hey, we would like to keep you on there for longer just because we may it makes us feel good. And I’m, I’m really bothered by that it wasn’t because someone violated being a level one and went back and re offended. It wasn’t for any other reasons, it seems other than this is something of I guess the term would be feel good legislation.
But say, we don’t know that that’s what we asked me, What I would do that would be the first thing I would do is to try to figure out what’s driving this, I need to know that I can be far more effective, but I know what’s behind it. So I’m going to do my best to find out what’s driving this, this this legislation. And it could very well be that the law enforcement apparatus jumped on, it could be that there’s been a bit of a rear fence. And the sheriff said, Well, you know, one thing I tell you, I’ve never been a fan of this law that allows them to get off like that. And if you could do something about it, I’d be mighty grateful to you if you could, and all of a sudden, he’s got law enforcement support. And the victims are always going to be in support of keeping people on the registry longer, you don’t even have to breathe a second breath to know that they’re automatically so all of a sudden, you’ve got if there’s if there’s been a real offense by someone, you’ve got potentially the victims advocates, the the the person who had the horrible thing happened by a person who had been released from the registry, and you’ve got the law enforcement apparatus itself, all for it. And so that, that that could be that could be a real problem, in terms of fighting it, but I need to know that so I can tell you about I can charge you a whole bunch of money, and I’m not gonna be able to help you. Or I can charge you a whole bunch of money and I think I can help you but I’ve got to start by finding out why this is being proposed.
Um, but why would law enforcement and be in behind it, I thought they were understaffed, overworked, underpaid, all that silliness.
Well, that is the general myth that they they’d like to portray. But the reason our law enforcement itself might be behind it is tied to funding, in addition to the SE GA, like most states runs on this hybrid model of registration, meaning that the the local law enforcement, primarily sheriff’s are tasked with doing the actual registration and tracking, and the state operates the website. And so so the law enforcement apparatus itself has funding at stake. So you take, for example, Fulton, Cornell, which I think is the largest population in Georgia, those sheriffs need to go to their county commissioners every year and say, I need X amount of money. And the large counties have segmented units where they do sex offender registration tracking, and they have a budget that’s line item dealt for that. And they would say we’re tracking 14 120 offenders, well is easier to justify funding for 1400 20. Then if you’re down to 980, that takes several that takes several full time equivalents all for the justify justified staff level. So there’s there’s potential funding and tied to it. And then there’s federal funding from the SMART Office, which is still a sex offender monitoring, apprehension registration and tracking office, which is a component of the DOJ. There’s money available for registration, tracking and monitoring from the Fed, you know, from the government that people claim that they hate so much, that there’s there’s federal funding available as well. So that would be a one of many reasons. It didn’t just the hybrid model makes it politically politically popular. A Sheriff can say and I’ll tell you one thing, one of my priorities as your Sheriff is I’m going to put a lot of emphasis on tracking these pf ARS and making sure they follow the rules. And that is a very popular stance with voters.
Yeah, I definitely like a sheriff Gary long in Georgia about the putting the signs up at Halloween. Like thanks, Sharon, for keeping us safe. That was all over it sounds good page,
Unknown Speaker 53:53
though. That was the butts count a case to the parcels involved in
its bit but if you think is being driven by every offense of some sort, and law enforcement, FRS supporting it, then how do you like if someone actually does the deed after they’re off? Like that? doesn’t even seem like there’s a there’s a way to try and get in there and do anything about it. What do you do?
Well, I would be if Georgia hardened me, for example, I would be more restricted because I don’t have the relationships I would have but but you your best strategy on a case like that being that Georgia sessions, I believe, are 40 days, you’re going to want to run you’re going to run a stalling strategy as best you can. as I’ve stated many times before, we’re in the killing business were seldom in the passing business. And this is a prime example of what I mean by wearing the killing business. I don’t think that most people out there that that live in within the boundaries of Georgia would be excited if they’d been leveled or if they have the hope of being level that they would want this three year. He had it wrong. I don’t believe there’s a three year rate Wait, but I don’t think they would want to have to wait 10 years when the current law doesn’t require them that so what you’d want to do is you would want to try to figure out who the key people are, they can make the machine run a little bit slower. And a few days can make a big difference when 40 days are counting down, and something has to pass both sides of the rotunda, an identical bill. And if there’s any changes made, see, sometimes you get you get something you can’t stop, and it has to pass the House, if it’s a house bill in the case of this, and it’s going to have to go over to the Senate side of the rotunda. It’s going to pass the Senate, if you can pass it on men, but on the Senate side, then guess what is the long run identical bill, and it has to go back to the house, it has to go back while the time clock may kill you. So the senate gets disabled, we passed it by golly. And we made it even tougher than what it was when it came over here from the House of Representatives. And the house gets it back. And their first choice is what can they accept the amendments, which is called concurrence. And they usually would, but it has to do with pfrs. As we saw with the with the international Megan’s Law, when the when the when the passport marking was added in the Senate, on to what was a house bill, they probably would accept it. But even if they do, it takes time. But if you can somehow stop the concurrence from happening, but it goes back to the originating chamber, then they have to appoint a conference committee. And they have to see if they can get an agreement between the representatives of the two chambers and they. So you’ll you’ll appoint the leadership will appoint an equal number from each chamber. And they’ll come up with an agreement. And then the only vote on that is to accept that that agree, but you don’t get to change it, you can debate it all you want to but you don’t get to change it. This was a conference report, though the report of the conferees is either accepted or rejected. All that kind of stuff takes time. So so I would get into the parliamentary business, if I were in Georgia, try to figure out how to wreck the train. Because wrecking the train is the best strategy. Because you’re not going to get people to vote no on this, you’re really not, the Democratic Party is not going to vote no, because they are going to realize that this will be used against them in the next election cycle. So you’re going to have a hard time mustering a lot of democratic opposition, the only democratic opposition you’re going to get would be from, from areas where it is such a safe, democratic seat, that the carpet feels that they don’t have anything to be worried about, because they can’t be primary dealt, you know, they have the love with the community. But even if it if it’s not even going to flip parties, you could be knocked out in a primary because your primary opponent could come in and say, and my opponent voted to protect sex offenders and keep them invisible to you people. And if you’re like me, I’ll make sure they have to register.
And speaking of wrecking trains, I know that I asked you this not too long ago, but I don’t remember the answer. There’s something called crossover day in Georgia. And I thought my question to you was do all most how many states have that? And I want to say your answer was no, but I don’t know.
They don’t all have it. And that’s another thing if you if you can in a state that has said if you can prevent crossover, that is a that is an asset, but it isn’t necessarily, it isn’t necessarily going to kill it. If you say well wait a minute, it doesn’t cross over. So House Bill 347, may not cross over. So you, you do all the right things and you keep it from crossing over. All you have to do is find a piece of legislation that has crossed over, that people want to have passed, and you offer this as an amendment. And the person who doesn’t want their legislation has crossed over to die, they’ll often accept this as an amendment. And that’s something that I had a hard time getting Texas voices to understand when what they were doing the small town giving the small towns the same authority as the larger cities, you know, the humbrol cities and and and they were very effective at preventing it from crossing over. But then it was it was placed in as an amendment on another piece of legislation which they wanted to see passed, which dealt with how people under supervision, their travel restrictions, because they had these goofy rules that that they couldn’t drive on the bus direct route to where they were going because they might cross a path of something that was an exclusion zone. And they wanted that to pass. So they ended up putting it on something self crossover won’t save y’all together. But it it’s it’s a part of a viable strategy that that would be in your theater of options that you would use.
Okay, um, and going back a couple steps if we if if we can’t get the build to be killed with relationships and few days here and there, what other options would what how what else could be done? What else would you recommend? Should other states communicate with Georgia lawmakers maybe
I can’t see how that would be a bit of a assistance of other states do that, because that’s exactly what we play on to the sponsors hands. He would say, in committee hearing, as I’ve gotten dozens, has gotten dozens of phone calls from other states that I’ve confirmed what Legislative Counsel told me that would be something similar to the to the people who do the research for lawmakers. It’s like that confirms what legislative councils told me that we’re the softest state in the region, and perhaps in the nation, where we allow people to petition right away. And and that would not that would not be a viable strategy that I can think of that that that you would use to have people call from other states, I can’t see how that would be helpful.
And if would you think then, since it’s such a heavily republican Lee controlled legislative body, then what other suggestions would you have with arguments that would resonate with those people?
Well, that would be that would be all you’ve got. And we don’t get to pick who the citizens give us for lawmakers. So if I were doing that, which I’ve occasionally meant successful dealing with Republicans, you know, they they tell their fiscal responsibility. So one of the most compelling strategies, unless they course flip on this, as you would argue that level ones have been thoroughly vetted by Georgia’s risk assessment process. And that forcing a minimum tenure will bloat the registries, which is an unfunded mandate on local governments, you remind them that the counties are actually paying the officers time, and they’re having to hire up more and more deputies. And, and they generally love that term unfunded mandate. So use that to your advantage, you got to talk to them in language, they understand it, remind them that you agree with them on this, it’s not nothing sarcastic. Give us I know that you’ve been big against unfunded mandates. And these people were about efficiency. And I’m a big believer in governmental efficiency. And these people have been thoroughly vetted, they’ve been risk assessed through a rigorous process and forcing them to wait 10 years, it’s gonna blow the registers, particularly the urban areas, and then these law enforcement agencies are dealing with with with with higher crime rates are not going to have the resources to deal with this. And it’s going to be an unfunded mandate, because they’re gonna have to employ more people and tax their citizens more heavily, so that they can track all these offenders that pose very little risk, that would be a strategy that I would use. And then if if, if I’m not getting traction with that one, I would try the the diminishing the earnings potential, you know, that they’re, they’re about taxing, and, and the ability to pay taxes. And it is not even a disputed fact that people with felony convictions, and particularly those on the registry, have diminished ability to pay taxes, because they’re so underemployed. And I’d say these people, if we get them off the registry, they still have a felony conviction that will haunt them for their life, but they won’t have so many exclusions, they can actually work and they won’t be a tax consumer to burden on this state. And we want these people paying taxes and supporting the vital services. And I would try that. And and and then finally, if nothing else gains that attraction. I would argue that, that I would argue that a bloated registry dilutes the available resources, because there’s so many extra monster track that have been vetted and pose very little threat to the community no more than the general population at large. And that that can result in the community being less safe, which is not in anyone’s interested on know how committed you are to the public safety. And this is going to be contrary to that. I mean, that that would be the type of strategies that I would use, I don’t think I’d have a lot of phone calls coming in from other states.
Can we go back to the one argue that being on the registry diminishes a person’s earning potential, I may be worded differently to say that they would be they would be less of a drain as in, they’re not going to be trying to claim food stamps and housing benefits, even if whether they qualify for them or not. But all of those kind of social welfare programs that they are so hell bent on removing that if they earn over X amount of dollars, and they don’t need them and don’t qualify for them. So wouldn’t we want them to make as much money as possible? because republicans also seem to be very hell bent against taxes to, oh,
that’s a good point. You don’t want them consuming services that if we, if we force people to either be unemployed, or minimally employed, and predict versus Georgia has such a low minimum wage, they have not raised their state minimum wage because the feds has been stuck at 725 since 2009. And you you would have people that would be eligible for full time employed in Georgia that would still be eligible for a plethora of services. And, and you would make that argument. That’s a good one that should resonate with conservatives. And those are the type of arguments I would make if if I if I can’t derail it. That’s what I’m going to argue with with the people that I would be dealing with in Georgia.
I’m going to throw something to you sort of out of left field. Someone chat just said it says in my humble opinion, neither party cares. They will vote to make things harder. To which I replied, I said, I think that short sighted some of them are forced to vote a certain way by the population, but many don’t support it behind the scenes.
That would be correct. He is he is correct in a political sense, they, they don’t care because it’s risky to care. What people lose sight of is these people. The sex offender registry is just one of hundreds of things they deal with FICO. Look at, I think Brandon and Georgia put out how many bills are already pending, and it’s in the hundreds. And nobody can be an expert in all these things. And particularly at a part time legislature, where you have very few resources to help you, you’re basically just a citizen. And contrary to what so many people the horrible opinion that have most of these people, they have areas that they care deeply about, that they want to change policy for the better. And you can’t do any of that if you’re voted out of office. So the political reality is that if you stand up for this hated population, you’re not likely to survive the next round of elections. And that means that all the things you care about are no longer within your purview of being able to change or improve. And that’s the that’s the reality of the situation. Until we change the people’s hatred. We’re not going to have these people reflect public opinion. And the public opinion, if you if you went out took a poll to Georgia right now you ask people, do you think folks should be eligible to delta registry in such a short time? I doubt you’d find a whole lot of yeses?
You would definitely find everyone saying no. That’s, I would also say that if you worded that question a different way, saying should someone have to do some low level offense? Do they have to stay on the registry? like asking them the question, should they? Or should they stay on the registry for life? You may find different answers based on how those questions get worried. And we got to move on. We’re running low on time. We’ve been at this for almost like 30 minutes as it is. Is there anything else you want to want to cover on this one before we we knock it out of the park?
I think I’ve done the best I can.
Outstanding, which is which is really quite fantastic. Larry, um, there was a comment while we were going through chat of like, what are your credentials? How is it that you know so much are you like, the professor of law at some prestigious college, I was like, hey, see, and I and I don’t mean this in like a really diminished. I was like, he’s just a dude. He’s like, Yeah, but I’m just a dude, too. I was like, No, you don’t really understand. I’m like, he’s just, you just know your shit. That’s really kind of what it comes down to.
doing this for a very long time.
Yeah, I know. Like, since since law was invented back in the Greek, Roman times, whatever. It was way back when I did forget to play this. This. This came in on my personal side. And so it’s a it’s sort of a general question. But this is from Chris.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:45
My question for you is, how does it feel? After you’ve been off probation now for a couple of months? Does it feel surreal? Or just what are your thoughts and feelings on this, as always enjoy the program, thank you very much, and fyp.
And I just, it took maybe two months or so for me to like, kind of like set it and figure out what’s going on. But like, no one comes and visits me anymore, Larry, twice a month, I don’t have any bills to pay. And what took me a little while long to realize is they can’t come search my stuff without any sort of extra muscle as far as like a search warrant or anything like that. I can kind of come and go as I please, I can move out of this not move out of state, I can travel out of the state with asking for permission. So it’s pretty fantabulous on those fronts.
And you can actually move out of the state, you just have to check in with new people, but you can move out of state anytime you want to. That’s true.
Yeah. And I don’t have to ask for permission. Like they can’t stop me from moving. Maybe they would then say you can’t live here or there perhaps if they have living restrictions in that other state. But yeah, I can just pack my crap and go somewhere else. It’s pretty neat. Thank you for that question, Chris. You’re good, dude. I’ll catch up with you soon. We are running short on time. Are there any of these articles that you wanted to cover in particular?
Oh, no, I think we should cut it off and recognize our patrons, our new patrons on our existing patrons and tell people how to contact us so
Yep. Okay, so for patrons, Christopher increased to support of the podcast by three fold. I need to get like an applause thing on my little button pusher thing that decided to fail me a minute ago. But thank you very much to Christopher. And then we also had two new patrons this week, a john and a Don and wow, that’s quite sad. I didn’t pay attention to that they rhymed. And Don is a good friend of mine. And I very much appreciate that. All the patrons that support us and to the new ones this week. Thank you so very much. Anything to add before we shut shut the whole thing down?
So So Chris went from from 70? No, from 1400 bots to
14 plus 14, what’s at 42.
So he’s, he’s at 4200 a month. Now.
That’s That’s absolutely right. That’s funny my retirement plan.
So absolutely, well, the only thing I have to add is we’re getting closer, we’ve got our fyp education site up, and we’re making the final touches on it. And hopefully we’re gonna forget to have our 501 c three in the, in the coming weeks.
That would be really cool. And what is the objective there? What are we really trying to do?
We’re trying to get the donor community that would be more receptive to supporting us to give more money. And that will translate into more services like right now we’re, we’re sending out a few dozen transcripts weekly. I see that growing quite exponentially once more people find out that we’re doing it. And I see that a model similar to what narshall has where that we can reduce the cost even further, and maybe even down to zero for people who are indigent. And, but but you know, the cost doesn’t go away just because you don’t charge so that that would be one avenue that where people would be able to justify doing something that’s actually having a charitable purpose and and information is what people are lacking. And the more we can disseminate information, the better.
All right, well, go over to the website at registry matters.co. To find show notes and places to contact us and reach us. voicemail, you can dial 747-227-4477 Larry’s getting lonely, no voicemail messages. So send those in there. registry matters firstname.lastname@example.org if you want to send me hate mail, and of course, all of our listeners are very important to us. But the patrons help support the show. And that is patreon.com slash registry matters. It’s the same name over on Twitter, and you can find us over on YouTube. And I would say like and subscribe and share on YouTube and in your favorite podcast app and so forth and so on and so on. Larry, with that I bid you adieu and thank you to everyone in chat that joined us this evening. And I hope everyone has a great rest of their weekend. Take care of their
Thanks. Good night, everyone.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:04
You’ve been listening to f Y p