Listen to RM192: Q&A Episode | Homeless | Terms of Supervision | Treatment
Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts, FYP.
Hey everybody a quick announcement before we begin the program. We’re doing a special call-in show in partnership with Florida Action Committee about polygraphs. We’re going to answer questions about how it works and how your supervising authorities use this information. Head over to registrymatters.co for calling details. The Zoom info will be posted there. This is going to be Saturday night at 7 PM, our usual recording time again, head over to registrymatters.co. The call-in information will be posted there. Recording live from FYP Studios, east and west. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode 192 of Registry Matters. Larry, Labor Day weekend, what do you doing? We shouldn’t be doing a podcast on a holiday weekend.
That’s what I was trying to tell you. But it fell on deaf ears.
Oh, yeah. I’m a slave driver like that, I suppose. You got any big plans this weekend?
I’m going to go out doing some sightseeing once we get finished here if there’s any daylight left. (Andy: There should be. It’s like noon where you are.) Not quite, but four o’clock.
Give me give me an idea of what we got going on this evening.
We’re going to be talking about the case from Indiana. The one we talked about a couple episodes back. Touching on a couple of issues in that case that would be Hope vs. Indiana Commissioner of Correction. And we’re going to be taking a plethora of listener questions because we haven’t done very many lately. So, we’re going to be catching up on listener questions that have come in on the internet and through snail mail as they refer to it. I prefer to call it postal mail.
I definitely call it snail mail because it is not fast, Larry.
If you so say.
No, for real. Here’s a real-world example. I work for a company that is in a very rural part of New York. And where I happen to live is in a rural part of Georgia. And when they would send me my physical paycheck, I would not get it for seven days. That’s not speedy.
Well you shouldn’t live out in the boonies.
I totally agree with you. But that’s how long it took me to get my mail. And that was kind of important, because that’s how I got food and food is somewhat important to me. You know? (Larry: I’ve heard that.) Alright, um, you have a comment from Mark about civil commitment?
I’ve actually received a number of letters about civil commitment in recent. And the reason why is because of the protests that have been organized in Minnesota. And people want us to talk about civil commitment and some of the letters have said that they don’t understand why we don’t understand that it’s unconstitutional. (Andy: We don’t understand this?) And we understand that we wish that the courts would declare civil commitment as it is practiced for those who have been convicted or charged with or those related to our issues, we wish that they would declare it unconstitutional. But civil commitment on its face, just that the idea of civil commitment is not unconstitutional. All states have a form of civil commitment. Therefore, each civil commitment scheme has to be examined for constitutional deficiency on its merits. And the courts throughout the land, including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Minnesota, have not agreed with them. So therefore, I want to talk about civil commitment. I’d like to have an episode where we have significant discussion about PFR civil commitment. But not liking it does not make it unconstitutional. If anybody’s listened to this podcast for any period of time, simply disagreeing or not liking our law does not somehow transform that law to be unconstitutional. It’s not unconstitutional to commit people.
And you’ve described this before, so let me sort of paraphrase. You go stand up on the top of the water tower and you say I’m going to jump and provided you don’t jump and go splat, someone is going to come and when you do come down, they’re going to put you in a little paddy wagon, whatever. And they’re gonna put the little white jacket on you where you can’t move around much and they’re going to hold on to you for a few days.
That is correct.
And that is being committed, you’re being held against your will you’re not necessarily being charged with a crime, though you may get something like disorderly conduct or disturbance, whatever. But they’re going to evaluate your mental stability to see if you’re a danger to yourself or the public. And I guess after that, then they send you home. Forget all the other charges that may come after that.
Absolutely. The really sad thing about this type of civil commitment that exists in 20 states and the federal civil system is that it’s a disguised extension of incarceration. It’s not about help. The civil commitment you just described, the sole purpose of getting you committed is to get you the help you need so that you can be released. And that’s a real shortfall in this type of commitment. This is disguised incarceration, and they’re trying to hold on to you as long as possible. Now people do get discharged from civil commitment. They get discharged, but not in the numbers of what they do in the regular civil commitment. Even John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate the President of the United States, was released from civil commitment. And that’s a pretty significant undertaking when you shoot the president, and you shoot the press secretary, and you shoot three, I think there was a total of five people hit in that barrage of bullets by John Hinckley in 1981. But he was released. The travesty of this PFR civil commitment is that the goal is not to release these people. The goal is to figure out how to keep them in custody.
And they’ve built a model of saying that this is treatment, and we’re going to help you. But look, if they wanted to get you help in the x years that you spent before 510 20 years that you spent leading up to your release prior to this extra civil commitment, there would have been treatment of some kind, that perhaps maybe you could have, quote unquote, graduated from treatment before you were released.
Correct. And very little treatment happens in prisons as we know. (Andy: Yes. All right.) But we are going to talk about civil commitment when I find the right guest that can talk about it with some intelligence, and maybe even a person in civil commitment. They do have, in some civil commitment facilities, they have a significant amount of access to the internet and to communication so we may be able to reach someone in civil commitment. So we are going to talk about it at some point.
Okay. Um, let’s go and go reverse back in discuss the thing from Indiana from a few weeks ago. (Larry: Okay.) And it was Hope vs. Indiana Commissioner of Correction.
I believe I vaguely remember that case.
Yes. Okay. So the case was out of the seventh Court of Appeals. And it’s sitting en banc reverse the previous three judge panel. Tell me again what en banc is real quick.
That would mean all the judges in the Seventh Circuit heard the case with exception of one person that recused themselves because they had not been on the court when the case was being discussed. But yes, that means all the judges sitting as one court.
Okay. And then the panel had affirmed that the trial judge’s decision in favor of PFRs. I was reading it and noticed that the district court had granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on all claims, and enjoined Indiana from requiring them to register. And on appeal, a divided panel from the Seventh Circuit had affirmed the district court’s decision. I know how you cringe, Larry, when the cases are decided by summary judgment. Did summary judgment come back and bite us in the tuckus again, in this case?
Yes, it certainly did. The court noted actually on page 17, that quote, the prior out of state residency represents neither causation nor perfect correlation for the application of SORA’s registration requirements. And there is no evidence that anyone in Indiana intended to deter travel through the other jurisdiction provision. That was the provision that said if you have to register in another jurisdiction, so there was no evidence, but without the benefit of a trial, it’s difficult to have sufficient evidence. And that’s what you need to strike a statute. Remember declaring a legislative enactment unconstitutional is an extreme remedy. It’s an extreme measure, and it’s only to be used sparingly and when a challenging party has put forward overwhelming evidence and proof. In fact, the standard is the clearest of proof. If you don’t have a trial, the evidence record is always bare.
We’ve talked about before. It becomes more and more clear to me. I think that I learned best through like a drip method, Larry where like the same message gets repeated to me over time, and then I get time to fester and process it and then you say it again, and I get to hear it again. This always seems to me when we go through summary judgment kind of stuff that the attorneys were lazy. That’s how it almost always feels to me when this happens. Someone’s like, I can take the shortcut and take summary judgment and I don’t have to do all this extra work.
I would love to think that that’s not the reason. Remember, I’m in this business and I try my best to defend attorneys when there’s justification for defending them. And I think that that may be a small factor that they’re going to move the case faster and with less expense on their part. But folks, attorneys, I know we’ve got hundreds of them listening to us, these decisions are going to be appealed. You’re seldom going to win a constitutional challenge at a lower court. First of all, you seldom gonna win at the lower court. But if you do win, the state is going to appeal. Remember, you need the strongest evidentiary record behind you. But I think they do that because they want to get the case moving faster. I mean, it takes years and years to litigate these things as we saw with Michigan when they passed their law in 2011, 2012. And here we are almost a decade later. So I don’t want to say it’s laziness. I think it’s a lack of understanding what the consequences are going to be down the road. They want the victory now. It is nice to gloat about a victory. I mean, that was an awesome victory when the district court… I mean, we were ooing about it on the podcast. But the victory did not survive appellate scrutiny.
And even the way that you word that, I would then go, Okay, so they were lazy because they didn’t understand. We are hiring these people to be the experts. It’d be like, Hey, can I get this mechanic that just finished out of the mechanic school, he’s a lot cheaper, and but he’s not necessarily going to have all the experience and expertise and maybe not someone such as yourself that can not “see the future.” And I say that with all kinds of scare quotes. But you have a lot of experience that you could advise a very young attorney or one that you’ve worked with for a long time. Hey, you don’t want to do this because of watch out for this train wreck coming behind you that they wouldn’t do these summary judgment things. It still sounds like they’re being lazy, Larry.
Well, I can’t argue with you. I think that could be a component in there. But and also, you want the case to be moving. When you finish your discovery, when you exchange all the things related to what might come out in a trial. You want the case… there’s two choices. You can tell the court we need a trial. Or you can ask the court for summary judgment. Well everybody wants to ask the court for summary judgment. I guess the correlation would be when if you ever have watched a criminal trial. Have you ever watched a criminal trial, even though you may have only watched part of it? At the end of the criminal trial, the defense attorney will move for what’s called a judgment of acquittal. They’ll say that the evidence wasn’t sufficient. They move for that knowing it’s going to be denied 990 out of 1000 requests for summary judgment. It’s the same thing on the criminal side is that we accept everything that was said here is true. There’s not enough evidence. No reasonable factfinder could find sufficient evidence; therefore, we should get a judgment of acquittal. They’re never granted. But they ask for that. Well, the same thing. They finish discovery. And then they say, well, let’s just go for judgment. Because we’ve got evidence on our side. Yes, you’ve got some evidence on your side. You’ve got some stipulations, usually from the state. They don’t contest every single point of your pleading. But there are significant things that you need to prove out with evidence that are gonna bite you in the butt later if there’s no evidence, and this is one of those instances where it may have done just that.
Let’s keep going then. And I drew my own map, Larry, of where in my particular county where I could live. I used a Google Maps program where I could draw 1000-foot circles and every place that I could find that was a church, school, daycare, whatever all those things were, and I drew out circles. There were a lot of places where I could live. But none of them had any houses or places that seem appropriate for me to live. Like out in the middle of nowhere, nowhere where I didn’t want, like there’s no food around. But anyway, I can’t get over residency restrictions are not considered banishment, because you could end up in a highly populated area. I think of a place like downtown New York City, there have to be daycares on the 40th floor of one of those high rises, that you’re not just talking about 1000-foot feet out. You could be talking about 1000 feet up and down too. Like there would be no place somewhere in New York City. They could live you’re talking about a 360 degree, like a globe of 1000 feet.
So well, on page 26, the court stated the plaintiffs raised that issue. The plaintiffs also suggest that SORA’s residency restrictions are akin to banishment, but we rejected this assertion by evaluating the Illinois sex offender registration statute. and that was in the case of Vasquez, 895 F.3d at 521. They rejected that. We reasoned that although residency restrictions limit offenders living and employment options, they do not amount to banishment, which traditionally meant that persons could neither return to their original community nor be admitted easily into a new one. Okay, that’s the end of the quote. Now, is a very standard and reasonable interpretation of an originalist point of view. Remember, words are, by an originalist, words are to be afforded the meaning as they were understood at the time they were written. So banishment as it was understood in colonial times, does not extend to what you’re describing. Banishment was when you were told you can’t come back into town. Ever. And I’m not aware of any banishment that says you cannot be in the town. They just make it very difficult for you to sleep in the town, but you can shop and spend your money. You’re not totally out of town. So you are an originalist? Aren’t you, Andy? You do believe in strict interpretation. This is exactly what that point of view. And I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. I’m merely telling you, that’s how they got to that outcome. Because this block of conservative appointed judges. Remember, we went through the list, and only of the 11, only three were appointed by Democrat presidents, and eight were appointed by republican presidents. And of the eight that were appointed by Republican Presidents only one had any sympathy for the arguments of the PFRs. And of the three Democrats, two of them, both of them were in favor of the PFRs. The other one didn’t participate because she was just confirmed and she didn’t participate in the case. So therefore, she didn’t vote, but it wouldn’t made any difference if she did vote. But when you vote for people for president, remember, they make these appointments to the federal courts, to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and to the US Supreme Court. You’re voting for a judicial philosophy, and your senators and your states confirm these people. And we’ve had Mitch McConnell at the helm for four years with massive approvals with very little scrutiny of these judges. And a lot of these judges are of the very conservative political persuasion. That’s how they got there. If you believe and words are to be interpreted as what they’re meant at the time they’re written, this was a very reasonable outcome.
Okay, well. I get what you’re saying. Like you’re not forbidden from being here. You just can’t stay here for very long. That’s like banishment of a different word.
But that would be evolution. We would have to evolve what the word banishment meant at the time it was written, and we can’t do that.
Evolution. That’s a that’s a taboo word on its own Larry. There is no evolution.
That’s an evolving standards of liberal mumbo jumbo, evolving standards of decency. And we’ve played Scalia’s clip a few times on this podcast, where he says that the reason why he doesn’t bide to evolving standards is because things that can evolve in a positive direction, can also evolve in a negative direction. Therefore, and he cited his example, I’m trying to be fair, his example was that the Confrontation Clause had all but evolved its way out of the Constitution until he and some fellow conservatives restored it to its original meaning, which meant the person shall come into court, and they shall be confronted. He said, if you buy into evolving standards, evolution can be both positive and negative. That’s why he didn’t buy any, any such evolution. The words mean exactly what they meant at the time.
Okay, I’ll let you have that one. I’ll come back and beat you up on this one later.
Oh, this one came in through an email message that I have channels to. And I thought I might throw it your way to get some clarity on at least your interpretation. Again, we are like a legal policy podcast. But neither of us have any authority to give you like the specifics. We’re not attorneys to give you the specific legal advice. But here’s some big brother advice, so to speak. And here’s a question. My son is on the registry, but not on probation, in Washington State, and has decided to move back home to Georgia. He would like to live with us until he’s able to secure employment and a place of his own. My husband is a hunter, and we have guns in a locked safe in the house. Would it be in violation of Georgia law for him to reside with us with guns in the home if he has no access? I thought that was kind of a neat question, Larry. So if he’s not on any sort of supervision, just on the registry, obviously a convicted felon. I believe felons can’t own firearms. At least at least you’d have to go through some sort of petition policy to get that right back.
That is correct. Here’s the nuance. We would have to look at Georgia law. First of all, the registry itself does not have any prohibition. I can tell you that. I’ve looked at Georgia registry over and over. There’s nothing that says you can’t possess a weapon as a condition of registration. But it kind of goes without saying, since the overwhelming majority of sexual offenses, bar a handful, are felonies, you would be barred from possessing a firearm, federally, and in most states. But here’s the rub. When you’re merely registering, and you’re not subject to any intrusions of a supervising probation or parole officer, they would have no basis to enter your house to find you in possession, even though there may be in the house. So there’ll be two questions. What does the Georgia case law say in terms of what constitutes possession? Is possession, has it been construed to include being in a proximity where they’re not your weapons? If they’re in your parent’s room, are you possessing the weapon? I wouldn’t know the answer to that, in terms of what how Georgia law has evolved. I would tend to want to guess that Georgia law, being that Georgia is one of the more conservative southern states, not as conservative some, but I would guess that it has not evolved to be that broad. But the probation department would be able to come into your house and do such a search. The sheriff where you’re registering will not be able to do that. So the second problem for law enforcement would be although they know you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, in most instances, because of the prohibition, they would have no basis to determine if you have a weapon or not. Because they don’t have any basis to enter. Unless, of course, when they say can we come and look around, if you say yes, and you have guns hanging on gun racks, which is very common in rural areas. It is very common. I grew up in rural Georgia, and they would probably put their long guns up on the wall on a gun rack. And she said in a locked thing, but it would be very common that they would hang their guns up, and they would be readily visible. So if they could get into his home. And if they saw evidence of a weapon, here’s what they would do. They would go down, and they would secure a warrant to do a complete search. And they would come back and they’d say we saw evidence of weapons. And we would like to do a thorough search. And then when they got into his area that’s directly under his control, they’d ask him which room do you sleep in, and they would go looking in that particular room. If they were out to get him, that’s what they would do. So I would tell you this, make sure that the weapons are far from him as possible, and they’re clearly in your possession and under your control. Because as a convicted felon, he’s not allowed to possess a firearm.
Very good. And that is relevant to a friend of mine and his fiancé is going to get her I think concealed carry even. She’s going to get her permit on a handgun. And I was like, to me, that just seems like really just tempting fate of getting in trouble. But they wanted to go that route. So like, I mean, it sounds roughly similar, so he’s not on supervision anymore. And she wants to carry a gun for personal protection. Okay, so what is she gonna do? Slip it under the pillow, therefore you don’t have access to it? I can’t see how that works out well at all.
If she’s living in an urban center in Georgia, they probably are not going to have a huge amount of interest in this because of just the sheer volume of offenders they are monitoring. If you go to Cobb County or Fulton County, they’ve got so many offenders that they’re just not going to have the time to do that. But if they have any particular angst with you, individually, they will find time to try to get something on you. So I can’t tell you that they would not try to get something. I mean, it could be just a one thing you tell them when you’re registering if you question one thing, even if you’re in a more liberal County, like Fulton, which is Atlanta itself. If you were in Fulton County, and you start giving them what they consider a hard time, and a hard time includes questioning anything that they tell you to do. They might give you the type of scrutiny that would cause that to become an issue. So, I would say that it would be a long shot. But I would check if you want to be really safe with a Georgia practicing attorney and find out what the case law interpretation is on what constitutes possession of a firearm.
All right, then, from our conversation that we had last week, we had a question over on the YouTube channel. It’s says I’m not sure I understand this correctly. The courts have made the decision that the registry is not punitive. Yet many registrants are forced to undergo polygraphs, mandatory counseling and even have to pay registry fees. Why aren’t these mandatory services that require out of pocket expenses on a regular basis considered punitive and/or debilitating?
So well, that was a great question. I forgot who it was from. But it’s a great question. And of the things he listed, none of those – well, one of them is. The paying registry fees. There are states that impose a registration fee. But the mandatory counseling, that’s not required. That’s not a registration requirement. Polygraphs is not a registration requirement. Now you can be registered and be under supervision. And you have to take a polygraph or you have to do counseling. But it’s not in the registration law. That’s in your conditions of supervision. So therefore, that’s comparing apples and oranges. We get to do intrusions in your life when you’re under supervision. We get to require counseling while you’re paying your debt to society, because theoretically, counseling is designed to help you improve so that you don’t do whatever unlawful thing you did previously. Now, we all know that PFR counseling with the exception of the state of Maryland, which is pure as the driven snow, but with the exception of Maryland, we know that PFR counseling has a lot to be desired in terms of how they carry out the counseling. But those things are not conditions of being registered. The registration fees, arguments have been made and to my knowledge, they have not been successful, because the fees are so modest, they’re saying that it doesn’t really constitute punishment yet. But give it time, it will because as we’ve talked about, for the last, how many years we’ve been doing this – almost four years. (Andy: Yep.) They can’t help themselves. So if they’re if they’re getting fee, at some point in time, someone’s gonna say, well, why not ? And there will be a point where it will be clear that litigation could argue that this fee is a form of punishment, but see that will not get rid of the registry. They will declare that component… they will say the registry has evolved, remember the 2006 and 2011 amendments in Michigan?
Of course. Like the back of my hand.
Yes. Well, that would be what would happen. So the state that tipped the registry to have a punitive component of fees, all they would do is they would remove the fee or peel it back to where the last time it was held to be constitutional. So that would not rid you of the registry. But if they all of a sudden start charging a annual fee, that would look an awful lot like punishment, because that’s a number that is very consistent with what’s imposed with fines. But a fee, maybe a fee, that’s not at the level yet. And then, theoretically, these states have provisions to avoid paying that fee if you’re indigent. I’m not really clear if those provisions are satisfactory in terms of a constitutional standard, because they seem to be very haphazard. They don’t they don’t seem to have any clear guidance of how you apply for that waiver. But theoretically you can avoid paying the fee if you don’t have the financial resources. That’s what I hear anyway.
Well, let me relate, like mostly anecdotal, is I heard it personally. And I trust the individual. He was in treatment. Now I understand the difference that you just described between supervision and then just quote, unquote, the registry. So, this person was under supervision at the time. And he was being told by the treatment provider, another fee, that he had to go take a polygraph, another fee. It was right at Christmas time, he had just bought gifts for his daughter’s and whomever else he had bought it for. And because he didn’t have money at the time to go pay the – for the poly, the treatment provider says, Well, if you don’t take the poly, I’m going to kick you out of treatment. And that will be a probation violation. And that will send you back to prison. How’s that not debtors’ prison.
It is debtors’ prison, but it has to be challenged.
So he would have to then go up the river. And then while sitting there in the tank, then file a challenge to show that this is the debtor’s prison.
Well, here’s the catch 22. He might not have to go to prison if he had the resources to do a preemptive strike. There are some things that can be challenged without you going to prison if you do it preemptively. So I’d have to know the jurisdiction and what type of challenges might be available on the front side. But most people that if they can’t pay the fee, that’s the whole problem to begin with. If he doesn’t have the to pay the polygraph fee, how’s he going to go out and find an attorney and pay them -,000 to do the challenge? He can’t.
Absolutely. I knew that’s where you were gonna go with that.
Yeah, so I mean, theoretically, it’s there. But when the court does the analysis, they say “well, you didn’t challenge it. So therefore, it’s constitutional.”
Right. Okay. All right. So the difference though, just to recap is that while you’re still under supervision, you can have different kinds of fees. I guess an equivalent would be if you have some kind of DUI thing and they make you go to DUI classes, safe driving classes, whatever. You might have to pay for those and that would be the equivalent of going to PFR treatment stuff?
Absolutely. And it is a racket in many instances and we’re going to have a question that comes up in this series of questions where they talk about what a racket is. There is an element of sleaziness about it. But when you disguise something as treatment, and you tell the world that we’re treating these individuals, it’s really hard to gain a lot of traction in a legal setting because the court wants people to be treated. They want the community to be safe. And they want the PFR not to be PFRing again. So there’s a lot of deference to treatment, there really is.
Are you a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.
Then I guess we can move on to our other battery of questions. And these ones you can see up on the YouTube screen if you want to follow along. The first one comes from Eric. Says:
I live in the state of confusion. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, the state of Virginia and was on probation for a sexual offense I committed against a family member who lives with my family still today. I couldn’t live with my family and have no other family to live with in the area. So I became homeless while on probation. Is it the responsibility of the probation officer to help the probationer or client to find a safe and secure place to live when all other options are used up? Keep in mind sex offenders who are homeless cannot go to homeless shelters because of the many women and children being housed there.
Yeah, this is another one that like you’re just doomed to go find the nearest bridge, it seems
I really liked this question because it brings to light the philosophical issue. Remember, folks, corrections departments are funded by states by and large. I mean, the federal system has its own process for funding. But you’re going to have to approach your legislature for funding for supervising authorities. Well, it’s most difficult from a political standpoint to make the argument… I mean, I agree with him. So I’ll get that off in the very beginning, get that out there. I agree with him. It should in an ideal world be the responsibility of a probation officer to help find a safe and secure a place to live because that enhances and improves the chances of success of the person. But when you say secure place to live, tacked in there, there’s the inference that you might have to have some public funds to pay for that place to live, right? Because if you didn’t need funding, then you could have found it yourself. So what we have here is inadequate funding. In a country where we have so many homeless already, have you noticed how many homeless… I mean, you live even in a rural part of Georgia, but there’s homeless, even in places like that now. When you can’t get funding for homeless services for people who are not paying a debt to society, it’s very difficult to convince legislators to grant funding to provide housing for people in his situation. So, he finds himself in a catch 22 with 1000s of others out there. They have no place to go because everything that they would do with family or friends is off limits. Those options are not on the table. They have nowhere to go and no money. So then they end up homeless and then they get violated eventually because of various reasons when you’re homeless that you have difficult to comply with everything else. If you have no home, you lack stability. So it’s a vicious circle. It’s tragic. I wish I had a better answer. But in a political system, it’s very difficult to secure funds for people that have broken the law and particularly something as sensitive as the issue that we deal with.
Just how this whole thing cascades. So you’re potentially homeless, which means you probably aren’t keeping up with your hygiene very well. A job potentially opens up at the nearest, whatever, factory or fast-food joint, whatever, and you possibly don’t have a phone because you can’t really get it charged because the bridge doesn’t have a power outlet. How do you receive a phone call? How do you clean up before the job? How do you go present yourself in a condition that you can be a reliable employee? Like everything just within days of this, you would cascade into almost an, what’s the word you, uh, you’re inside of a hole that you cannot get out of. It’s just unbelievably crappy.
And I like the fact that as a middle-age, white guy of middle-class status that you can grasp all that stuff you just articulated, because very few middle class people can do that so well. That’s exactly the problem. And in addition, a couple things you left out is whatever struggles they may have that caused them to be in the position. I mean, they may have substance issues that they’re dealing with, which would be compounded by being on the streets. They may have health issues that are compounded. Being on the streets takes a significant toll on your physical and your mental health. All those things cause you a snowball of continuous downward spiral. And very few people, they always say pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Well, we don’t have the ability to do that. We’re in a very sophisticated world we live in now. This is not the old days of the 1800s where you could go knock at a ranch house or farmhouse and say I need some work. And they would say well, you can sleep in the bunk house out there and be up at six o’clock in the morning, we’ll start tending to the to the animals and tending to our crops. Those days are largely gone. Even the farms that exist are heavily commercialized with heavy equipment, very sophisticated computer technology. I mean, the amount of grunt work… there’s still stoop labor out there. I mean, there’s crops that have to be retrieved by hand. But we’re not in that era anymore. So people in a modern economy, when you go down that spiral, the employer doesn’t have the resources. It’s not their job. When you go to a Wendy’s, that management team at that store, they have one job, and that’s to prepare fast food, keep the business running. They’re not in a social service business. They do not have the time or the expertise to figure out how to get you properly dressed, to teach you how to interact with the guest appropriately. All that stuff is not what they do. So all they’re going to do is turn your application down, because they don’t have the resources to deal with all the special needs you have.
Okay, I think that horses been beat to death. And I’m like, I don’t know to tell what the Virginia person to do outside of like, I just don’t know. I mean, I’ve personally tried to help somebody that was, like coming up against these kinds of issues. And I tried to support them financially. It is expensive to try and put somebody in a hotel every night to try and help them keep, like food coming in their face. And then especially if they have some kind of dependent. So this person had like a two-ish year old person. It is impossible. I don’t know what people are supposed to do. I have no suggestions for the person in Virginia. And I have an immense amount of sympathy, but I have no answers.
Well, prayer was one.
Okay. All right, well, then we should move on. This next question comes from Paul. And we’re gonna just cover the question here. So I guess we’ll just jump down to issue one. But I do want to read the title it says, Dear Mr. Espero which I assume that’s Vivante Espero. (Larry: Correct.) All right.
Issue one. What would be the restrictions and terms of my probation if I moved to Pennsylvania or New York City.
Now without any context, like, where are we coming from? But is this person on probation? Or are they just on the registry?
They’re going to be coming out of the correctional system in Florida. So that one is an easy one, your conditions of supervision will be everything that Florida imposed on you, in addition to what Pennsylvania or New York may want to impose on you. But those conditions in Florida will go with you. So that’s an easy one. Everything that Florida would require you to do, either by judicial order, or by when you sign your parole certificate. If they have parole in Florida, I don’t know under what supervision he’s going to be leaving, but if he’s leaving under any probation or parole supervision, those conditions will follow him to Pennsylvania or to New York. So that’s an easy one to take care of.
Okay, well then issue number two. Is there an alternative to ankle monitoring such as I read about an app on your phone or such device? I think is what that says.
That one is almost as easy. If Florida has it specifically as a condition of your supervision that you will be GPS monitored, Pennsylvania and New York have no choice. Well they do have a choice. If that technology had not evolved and was not being utilized there, they would tell Florida that we don’t have that service here. And therefore, we can’t supervise this offender unless you removed that condition. But since, as far as I know, practically all states have evolved to where they’re utilizing GPS technology, it’s not it’s not such new anymore. It’s not anything novel. If it’s required, if it’s in the documents that you signed for your parole, or if it’s an order of the probation the judge put on you, that will go with you, and you will have that ankle monitor on you in whatever state you go to. That’s, unfortunately, that’s, I mean, as I said, on the podcast, wouldn’t it be a fantastic world if you could be sentenced in one state, and you could extinguish the requirements of your punishment by going to another state? Wouldn’t that be a great setup we would have?
Another thing about issue two there is that it’s almost like would you like an ankle monitor? Or do you have a smartphone that we can install this app on? Like, I don’t think they give you an AB choice?
Well, I think that’s that technology with smartphones is being used. I hear about that, that people are being… but again, it might be that he could not have the earlier generation GPS, but if tracking is a part of his conditions, he will be tracked by some method that satisfactory to the state of Florida if that’s a part of his supervision requirements. It will go with him.
For whatever this is worth, I have no idea if this individual in Pennsylvania or New York will end up with this as their supervision technique, but a friend of mine, the same one that his fiancé is gonna have the weapon. He had to do, like there was an app on his phone, and they would call I don’t know, Larry, it was, like 10 times a day, a handful of times during the day, but then it would call like three or four or five times at night. And he had a static code that he would have to give like, here’s my serial number of abcfg. And then there would be a number up on the screen that he would have to read so that they knew that it wasn’t some kind of recording that they were playing back. So it was something that happened now. And he would have to take a snapshot of himself, like take a selfie to send back in. And obviously the phone is reporting GPS coordinates. They always knew where he was. And he obviously had to answer the call, even to the point that he lives pretty much out in the boonies where he doesn’t get cell coverage, he had to get something installed in his house called a femtocell, which is where you are paying to have a satellite, not a satellite, excuse me. A cellular signal broadcast out of your house, so that he could then extend out the cellular range in the property within the umbrella of his house.
Well, we created a new button today. And this is a great time for you to use that because I would love to hear the new clip. Fits perfectly for what that story was you just told.
Oh, where did I put it? I must have moved it. Give me one second, Larry and I will find the new sound bite. How about this? Here we go. (Audio Clip: That’s about the funniest thing I’ve heard in a while.) There you go. There’s a new button. I don’t have my button pusher with me, Larry. So I couldn’t, I couldn’t just press the button.
Now that that is a sad funny though, but having to be distracted. Okay, but remember, you’re trying to hold a job. You’re trying to convince an employer to give you a chance. And you’re trying to be a productive employee. And you’ve got a half dozen phone calls coming in a day where you have to stop what you’re doing. Remember they may be lined up to the meat counter, and you’re on a cash register or whatever they are, at the front of a rental car center. And you say hold on, Madam, I’ve got to take care of my probation officer. I got this code to put int. I gotta make a picture. You just be patient. I’ll be right back. What employer would put up with that.
I agree. And what about at night if you’re trying to get something close to eight hours of uninterrupted sleep but four times during the night you got to do that bulls***. Yeah, that’s gonna mess up your sleeping. Your boss be like, Hey, man, why are you so tired today? Um, well, I get these phone calls during the night so I can’t get a full night’s sleep. Every two three hours I get woken up.
Well, I have never heard about all the overnight calls but I have heard about people being continuously interrupted in the daytime. So this is a new one about the continuous interruptions overnight. I think, No, I actually have heard about it from one person that they got overnight calls but I haven’t heard that it’s been a big issue.
You remember the attorney that used to work with Georgia, the older lady? (Larry: I do.) Her son was one of the people that had something along those lines. Alright, and then the final question is can you suggest an attorney that has the guts enough to help my situation and I guess his end of sentence is 7/20/29. So the person has like eight more years which is a lot more time to go man and I’m sorry to hear that.
Well, I’m not so sure that its guts. Here’s what it really is. It’s the expertise. And also it’s the ability to be paid because the challenges that would have to be asserted are going to be extremely complex as we talked about in previous episode about the challenges. One thing that’s always lacking for our cause is sufficient money for people who want to do challenges. And I suspect he doesn’t have a lot of it.
Probably not behind the walls. There’s not a lot of people making a whole lot of money back there. Alright, let’s move over to question number three. I can’t believe that we were going to do a short program tonight. We’re already like, almost up to the time where we got to cut and run. But:
Long-Time Listener Question
Mr. Larry, and Mr. Andy, it’s Sean from Wisconsin again. I have a few questions about sex offender treatment. I was rereading my transcript from Episode 161, where you had a guest, Teresa Robertson, licensed psychotherapist in the private practice area. My question is how do I go about finding a licensed therapist in southeast Wisconsin, Milwaukee area, that does individualized sex offender treatment. I’ve been in prison for about five years now on revocation for only rule violations. I had two romantic relations ships without an agent approval, and I get released in five months. I am nervous about being released as my support and closest family members, my grandma and grandpa, have both passed away since getting released with nothing to a city I have no one in. All my family is in England. Anyways, I don’t want to go back to the sex offender group I was in last time, all they did was shame and blame and collect your money. In my county, Washington County, the first 15 minutes of our hour-long weekly group is spent passing our money orders down the table and the treatment provider enters in the payments received in his computer. Some days, the probation officer sits in on the group and one guy gets grilled and attacked by his PO and the other 10 to 15 guys about a rule violation or something. Then you never see the guy again, probably got revocated. Most of the time, you don’t progress in treatment, because you’re put with one of the two guys in a smaller group and told to help the other guys that just started. Week, after week, after week, , , . I was completely finished with all of my work and assignments and finished my relapse prevention plan. But I couldn’t ever present it because I had to help the other people. But of course, I get to still pay a month. I was in the group for like two years before I was revoked for romantic relationships. Anyway, I feel like maybe I’d be more successful with a fresh start and with individualized treatment. And P.S. enclosed is my yearly letter. Just wanted to confirm Larry’s right about Wisconsin registry charging 100 bucks a year. You even pay it and get charged while serving prison time. As you can see, I’m not paying them.
You didn’t send me a copy of that part of it. Larry, I would like to see that letter.
I’ll send it to you. I didn’t want the whole world to see his letter from the DOC.
We could have redacted it. But it would have been fun to see them say, hey, owe us our 100 bucks or whatever it is, because that’s ridiculous. Even while you’re locked up?
Yes, they are assessing it. And I think he was like now, if I remember right. But in terms of individual treatment, I’m only going to speak for my state because I don’t know about Wisconsin. But here, they would not let you pick your treatment provider. Will Wisconsin allow him to pick his treatment provider? I don’t know the answer to that. But here, they have to be cleared and approved by the corrections department, which means basically the provider has to be willing to jettison some of their ethics and engage in the game that they want to play like what he just described in his letter.
The same here, by the way. I’m pretty you have to go to an approved treatment provider in Georgia.
So I don’t think he’ll have that option. But if anybody out there knows differently, we’ll certainly bring it up again. But I suspect he’s going to be restricted to just who they offer. And the group therapy is the model they prefer. Because see what happens in the group, the dynamic of the group, you help each other out. And see he’s helping each other out in the group he’s sitting in. They’re proving exactly the point about the group dynamic but I’ll tell you, the fact that they’re spending a big part of the first part of the group collecting money. That’s a godsend. (Andy: I know right.) You want to burn up as much time as you can. So I would be delighted. So count that as a blessing.
I agree with this. Okay, so, Sean thinks that treatment is for the object of treatment to figure out how you can then not reoffend again. Which of course that’s what the public wants is for us to not reoffend again. I totally get that part of it. That doesn’t seem to be what the treatment part is about. The treatment part is about the sex offender industrial complex and just collecting a crap ton of money. He’s probably… he said 10 to 15 guys, so 10 to 15 guys times 40. That sounds like 6000 bucks a day, Larry.
It’s a nice business plan, business model. It really is.
From people that probably can’t afford it by far and large. A handful of people in there don’t have any worries about the 40 bucks a session. Most of them have issues with it.
But you actually are thinking kind of crazy. You think that treatment should be about making people better? Where did you get that notion?
Oh, sorry. Sorry. I thought it was called treatment. So when you break your leg, so you had your car accident six months ago, you have gone to some kind of treatment to heal your bruises, bumps, scrapes, and trauma? That’s treatment. Isn’t this the same thing, Larry?
Well, it should be.
Yeah, I know. It’s really, really, it really like gets my hackles up?
I don’t know about you people.
Anything else on Sean’s letter before we move on?
Thanks, Sean. He’s also one of our subscribers.
Sorry to hear about your grandparents as well. And that was your place to land when you get out. More people have problems with getting out Larry? It’s just ongoing. (Larry: Yes, it is.) Um, let’s see here. So dear Registry Matters. This is another letter. This one is from Scott. And we’re just going to cover the first part of it. Says:
I’m writing with more questions. Any insight you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Issue number one. I already asked about the situation before you indicated you’d come back to it in a future show. (Andy: But we dropped the ball Larry and we haven’t heard anything and he hasn’t heard anything yet.) Currently, I’m in prison serving six years’ incarceration. I’ll have six years’ probation afterwards. Four years ago, when this current charge was made by one county, additional charges could have been made by my home county. So far, my home county has not charged me with anything. After four years of waiting, I’m nervous. Why would a DA wait so long to bring charges? Is it possible they’re just letting this prison term end before pouncing? If that’s the case, don’t statute of limitations eventually kick in? And if I am not allowed to contact the DA, who can when I can afford an attorney? Or am I better off letting sleeping Das, I see what you did there, letting sleeping DAs lie. After four years, could it be their choosing not to act since the six years I got would be more or less what I get with the other charges.
Interesting, Larry. So where do we go with this?
Well, the reason why we haven’t done it yet is since Ashley was a former prosecutor, I was going to let her discuss this. But we haven’t been able to connect a time and a weekend for Ashley to be on with us. But I’ll tell you that there’s a lot of unknown – what did he say? Unknown unknowns. So we don’t know what the statute limitations would be in Wisconsin on that particular offense. That’s an unknown to me. It’s knowable, but I don’t know it. Because I’d have to know exactly what charging options they would have, you know what the allegations would be, and what they could bring and what the statute of limitations would be. So we don’t know that. We don’t know if his home county prosecutor has any particular anxiety with him. We don’t know that. If they do, then his first theory would be more likely. They would want him to ride out to his prison sentence. And then they would want to come back. Kind of like in civil commitment after you get to the end of your sentence. 90 days prior to the end of your expiration of your sentence, they file a petition for civil commitment. It could be if they have particular angst with him in his home county, they may be waiting. There’s no prohibition against him contacting the DA, The only problem is the DA is not going to talk to him. First of all, he’s in prison, he’s gonna have a really hard time getting through because of the phone restrictions. It’s probably going to be very difficult to get them on the phone list. So he’ll have to resort to a cell phone, you know, that the prisons are filled with and I’m not encouraging to do that. But I know, I know that they’re in there. I know. But he wouldn’t have an easy access by calling through the legitimate phone system. But his hunch is correct. The last thing you’d want to do, if they have decided that six years is enough, and they don’t wish to bring any charges. It could be that six years ago, a person decided that. But that person is no longer in office now. And the person, when you remind them that you’ve got this case that’s potentially sitting there, they might say, well, let’s take a look at that. And they may assign that file that’s in a dead file right now. So we don’t know that information if personnel have changed since this case. And we don’t know who the victim may have been connected with in terms of what kind of standing they may have in his home county, if they can apply any pressure. There are just too many things that are unknown. But with all those unknowns, I would not be inclined to contact the DA’s office. That cannot go well for you. Even if he can use his prison’s illegal cell phone to contact them. That’s not going to go well for him. If you call the DAs office when you’re in prison…
Hahaha. Yes, I can’t Imagine that that would go well. I’m calling you from prison on an illlegal cell phone. I think they may come find you right away.
How long do you think it would take the prison to get word of that?
I think they would get him before he got off the call, they might hold on to him and then the troops are gonna come in and snag him while he’s still on the on the phone sitting on somebody else’s bunk.
So don’t call the DA’s office.I can fairly with confidence, a significant amount of confidence, say that’s a bad move to contact the DA’s office. If you had an attorney, and you don’t, but if you did, and you had an attorney who had great relations with the actual DA or the deputy over that particular unit, because in large jurisdictions, they’ll be a prosecution unit that specializes in that type of crime. So if you’re at a place like Fulton County, you’ll have a unit that handles crimes against children, you’ll have units that do economic and white collar crimes, and on and on and on. So if you had a great relationship, you could ask them and that person, as a friendly gesture to you might check out and say no, we’re not gonna do anything with this case. Or you may still prompt him to do something on the case, it’s just not a wise move to ask what’s going to happen, I would be inclined to let it go. But I can’t guarantee they won’t hit you up with charges when you get within a reasonable period of being released. They can hit you with charges up to the day before and put a detainer on you.
Excellent. Let’s move over to the final question. We have some highlighted sections that I will read for you to ponder about or pontificate. The first question is:
which state and or county is the least restrictive is regards to the registry laws for PFRs. (Andy: Hey, this is a person that listens to the program. UCMJ, we obviously have somebody that is from the military.) UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, convicts in a federal court out of state level, and it is my understanding, we may choose whichever state we wish, as long as we have a residence, offer employment and are accepted by the parole officer. Military is in a unique position where we may choose which state we initially register with. Most states adopt the verbiage of the conviction that is substantially similar to their own elements. It is my understanding that this is done through a matrix or selection of criteria at the state’s discretion. My conviction is sexual assault and specifically penetration without consent. (Andy: Boy, do I not like reading these things.) We believe Washington and Oregon are the least restrictive.
Well, I would say this, that based on his disclosure about what his conviction is, it’s going to be, every state is going to have enough of breadth to the registry, that that’s going to be an offense that would trigger a duty. You see what I’m saying? I mean, that’s your basic universe of generation one registration. So if you do a sexual penetration without consent, that is in your basic universe of sex offenses. So I can’t think of a state you would go to to escape that unless the conviction was old that you might be able to have a state where it was so long ago that it wouldn’t be covered. But if you’re still in custody right now, that’s not likely because you’d have to go back a very long time. So I would say that the matrix won’t be important to him, because this won’t require a whole lot of analysis. He’s got a basic, serious conviction, even though it might have been unjustified. But he’s got that conviction. So he’s gonna have a duty register. So then the question becomes, which state is friendliest. There’s no state that’s particularly friendly. But there are states that are less harsh. And they tend to be outside the southern United States by and large. They tend to be in the Northeast Corridor. And they tend to be some states in the western United States like he mentioned. Washington state for example, you don’t find yourself on the internet. In Oregon, they’ve gone to a risk-based system and I think that they’re using the static-99. And how he would score on the static 99 would determine what level that they would deem him to be. But he’s got to have a registration obligation. I can’t think of any way around that. He’s gonna have a duty to register.
And just for a point that you made about maybe it’s an old one, if he’s in the military, he can’t be that old. If he was in the military, he could, you know, maybe he’s 30 years old. Like I mean, roughly around 40 is about the end of it, so you can’t be anything older than 20 years.
Yeah, he’s not likely going to have one of those convictions that so long ago. So he’s probably going to have to register. So he’s going to be looking at states that would that would be less harsh. Everybody that’s listening. Don’t go to the deep south. There’s no place you want to live in the south. I mean, I know they do it all the time. We hear case after case after case. We talked about one the other night that I’m moving to Georgia. Yep. Georgia, Georgia is not the worst. Georgia is not the worst southern state. Its way up the food chain from being the worst.
But even it depends on where you are in that regard too. You could be in a super duper, duper, duper southeast corner where the person’s having all kinds of problems. And then maybe you’re in my area where it doesn’t seem to be that bad Larry. Maybe?
So yep, that’s true. But the state statute of Georgia is not nearly as bad as the state statute in Louisiana. If you must be, if you’re obsessed about being in the south, Georgia is probably about as good as it can get in the South.
Because if depending on your conviction, I think there’s… we talked about this not too long ago about registry removal. And that is actually his next question. So we’ll go there, and then we’ll jump right back. What state is the friendliest for attempting to petition to be off of the registry? We are taking into account not only the least restrictive for quality of life, however, the most friendly in our continued to fight to be removed off of the registry. Is there a more friendly state than Washington or Oregon? Then they may be a smarter option. So Georgia, if I’m not mistaken, depending on how things go, it’s 10 years. Right?
It’s less than 10 years if you can get yourself leveled as a one.
Okay, very good.
Or if you have a disability. You know, if you’re, if you’re disabled, you don’t have to wait. But the disability requirements are not going to likely apply in this case, I don’t imagine that at his age that he that he’s disabled. He’s not going to be confined to a skilled nursing or a hospice or anything like that. So he’s not going to be physically incapacitated. So that’s off the table. But then if he can get himself leveled as a one, he can petition without waiting the 10 years. But I don’t like petitioning. I prefer petitioning versus no option at all, which in my state, there’s no option to get off. You have to you have to serve your life of registration. But I prefer to go to a state where you automatically term out. Your specific time is done. Because if you could go to Georgia, and you have to wait 10 years to file a petition. And Georgia has an advantage that’s similar for the states that actually have a removal petition process. You can as an out of stater with a non-Georgia conviction, you can pick your county where you live in. You can file it in the county you live in. So that gives you a leg up. You can figure out which county within Georgia would be more favorable disposed to releasing. You can look at statistics and talk to attorneys about statistics. But if I had to choose between that… if I had to do 10 years before I could petition, and I could go to Vermont and do 10 years and be done, which would you do? I would not want to have to wait for 10 years and then I might get off. Now, there’s a caveat to what I just said. People in Vermont do not want an influx of PFRs from all over the country. So the more we talk about this and the more people that show up in Vermont. I’ve moved here because your registry is not as bad as the rest of… those law enforcement people keep those documents. They document that. And all of a sudden, several legislators in Vermont are hearing that we’re getting an influx of people from around the country that are coming here because our registries are more laxed. And first thing you know, there’s proposal in the Vermont assembly to change that. So, if you’re going to go to another state, don’t go in and say, Oh, I came here because this is a better state. There are more lax on PFRs here. All you’re going to do is shoot the whole system and blow it up when you do that.
Yeah. Right. Okay. We are very close to running out of time. We got a few minutes left. We can close things out unless there’s other things you want to do before we close out. Anything else?
I think that’s everything I had on the list. Right?
It is. It is. It is. We had one article that we’re not going to have time to cover so we will close things out, get to Who’s that Speaker? I want to remind everybody that if you are interested in going to the conference, the NARSOL Conference is in Houston, and it is October. So it’s just a month away. And it’s the eighth, ninth and 10th if I’m not mistaken, and we had a very generous patron of ours and offered to pay someone’s way to go to the conference. That includes ticket and airfare and also hotel if I remember correctly, and so he stepped forward to offer. We haven’t had any takers yet. If you are interested in this, please please be someone that is in need and we can see if that works out beneficial to everybody. So shoot me an email message at firstname.lastname@example.org to see if we can send some love your way. Anything to add to that, Larry?
I’ve already put that money into my personal account. So everything he just said, strike that.
Very good. Um, then. So last week, actually it was two weeks ago because we didn’t Who’s that Speaker? last week. But last time we played this clip, and it is this. Let’s see play with this.
CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite (Audio Clip) 1:05:37
And that’s the way it is Monday, September 11, 1972.
Nobody wrote in Larry. How could nobody write in. Who was that. Larry?
That was the legendary CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite. That was his tagline
How come nobody wrote in for this?
Well, it’s a long time ago. He left broadcasting in 1981. So you’d have to be kind of up there. But he signed off. The part that we didn’t play was of course, he would say this is Walter Cronkite, CBS News. Good night. If we put that in there, there’d be no point of having the clip. But yeah, that that was Walter Cronkite.
Okay. And then actually, so we have to do next week’s. We have sort of a twofold. I’m going to, so we’re gonna play this one. And but I want to ask you a question. We did sort of a special podcast last week where we went on to a program with a guy named TJump that does, like morality kind of debates. And we so I want to ask you a question is what do you think about how things went last week, Larry?
Who’s that Speaker? 1:06:37
Run but the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes since the advent of a Third Reich.
All right now that is your Who’s that speaker? And Larry, do you have anything that you want to tag on the back of that?
Oh, I will be very surprised if we don’t have multiple people get that voice. So but that was a funny one. We had that doctored up just a tad bit. We took one word out that we didn’t want people to hear but that is the person speaking. What you’re hearing. that’s the real voice of the person.
That is the speaker that is speaking. Very good. All right. Well, then I guess we can close things out. We did get a new patron this week. Thank you so very much. We are getting so very close to reaching our goal where I will be like the saxophone player in charge. I guess we. I can change my tagline in discord too. And that was Al. That was just yesterday. Thank you so very much. I really, really appreciate it. Did we get any snail mail subscribers, Larry?
We did. But his name is escaping me at the moment. But we did welcome in a new subscriber. And we’ve got, I think I sent out like five sample in the last week. So we’re getting more and more requests for samples. I’m confident that those samples are going to translate into subscriptions, because people are like, wow, this is good stuff.
Excellent. I appreciate that, that you do all of that. Larry, with all of that, I think that’s everything that we can cover for the evening. And we’re right at the right time limit and all that stuff. Find all the show notes over at registrymatters.co. Leave voicemail, if you want to at (747)227-4477. You can also record a voice memo and email that in if you want to. That makes it sound much more gooder. I don’t really, I’m not a fan of how the telephone sounds, especially not for releasing it on the podcast. You can send email over at email@example.com. And the best way to support us. We’re trying to reach that 100 subscriber goal is patreon.com/registrymatters. That gets you early access to the podcast. When we release podcast extras, you can come join us in the discord server and hang out while we record it live if you want to go there. And I think that’s it, Larry. It’s Labor Day weekend. You got big plans?
I do. I’m gonna go out and do some sightseeing.
Outstanding. And I think everyone that decided to show up in chat. Labor Day weekend on a Saturday night that you decided to spend some time with us, really appreciate it. I hope you have a great weekend. Larry and I will talk to you very soon. Have a good night.
You’ve been listening to FYP.