Listen to RM208: Judge’s Excoriating Opinion Against Alabama Prison System
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 problems with these thoughts, fyp.
Recording live from FYP studios West and a wickiup in the northeast. Transmitting across the internet. This is episode 208 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. Happy New Year.
Well, thank you so much. And what is a wickiup?
I was researching the best way to handle massive amounts of rain. So it’s not exactly cold weather in the northeast, but it is raining like nonstop for a week. (Larry: I see.) Did you did you imbibe any last night for the new year?
Not really. The weather was our ally here. it rained when the fireworks were starting around nine. And everybody dashed indoors till about 11 when the rain let around 11-11:30. And then by then enthusiasm had, I guess, waned somewhat and there was far fewer and then we have ShotSpotter technology in Albuquerque and that has really diminished the number of gunshots fired because the police can zero in with just seconds when a shot is fired because of the sensors all over the city.
What do you live in like, like a cowboy town or something where everyone goes out at midnight and starts shooting out there six shooters or something?
Sure do. This is an open carry state. And in fact, they’re very irritated that those liberal do gooders in the legislature changed the legislative rules that they can’t come into the Capitol packing now. So they’re gonna have to go through a magnetometer. We were the last of three states according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. There was only three that didn’t have magnetometers and some sort of security, and it was New Mexico, Wyoming and Nebraska. And now we’ve left that list. You’ll have to go through magnetometer to get into the Capitol now.
That’s crazy. That’s totally crazy. Before we get going too far, I’m going to make sure that this gets put up there. Make sure that you press all the like and subscribe buttons. My little button didn’t work. I’ve been changing configurations around for the YouTube streaming. It did not play. But anyway, press like and subscribe. And that’ll tell the algorithm that you like this content, and maybe other people that are similar to you will then also get this content recommended to them. And then we can grow our audience, and everything is better when our audience is larger. Right?
Absolutely. We’re gonna make this into a YouTube channel that has 1000s of downloads every week. Not just hundreds, but 1000s.
That would be awesome. Do you want to do that quick appeal? We can do it at the end to about FYP education?
Absolutely. It’s FYPeducation.org right?
We’ve got our website built. It was built for a while, but it’s fully operational now with almost everything we’re going to put on it. And we’re going to start directing more traffic to FYPeducation.org. Because there’s a vast amount of resources there. I mean, it’s unbelievable what you’re gonna be able to find. Court decisions we’ve talked about, we’re gonna be able to our written transcripts PDF, going back to Episode 137. You’re gonna be able to find summaries of registration requirements from the states that we’ve borrowed from another organization, giving them proper credit for it. And it’s just going to be amazing what you can find on our educational website.
Awesome. I mean, it is a whole lot of stuff. It’s all the same stuff that you’ve been able to find, but we’re redirecting stuff over there because we are going to put together a nonprofit, and that will open up other avenues of success for us.
Absolutely. So what are we doing tonight anyway? It’s been two weeks since we recorded.
Yeah, but you’re supposed to answer the question. What are we doing tonight? I know that we’re going to talk about the silliness in Colorado with the name change, and then the redaction of it. And I shouldn’t say that; the overturning of that. We got something in Alabama, where they need to hire- What 3000? or something new prison guards and other personnel. Then we have some other questions and a couple voicemails and more questions.
We got several questions that we’re going to talk about, maybe just tangentially about the Maxwell case where the verdict has just arrived a couple days ago, and maybe a couple articles if we have time that we have here. It’s just going to be jam packed.
Well, very good, sir. Well, let’s uh, let’s get things rolling. This is super nice and very touching. This is a Christmas card that was sent in it says Merry Christmas, Andy and Larry Wait, I have something for this. plays music There we go. Merry Christmas Andy and Larry. I hope your Christmas is surrounded with loved ones and around a warm, cozy fire. May you find a piece that lasts, hope that guides and a love that lives always in your heart. You two and your podcast, the Registry Matters podcast have had a massive impact on JRCF facility in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. We have a large community that meet and discuss the transcripts from your podcast every week. Thank you from all of the active-duty service members incarcerated here for your continued support and guidance. We appreciate you. You’re giving, selfless ambitions do not go unnoticed. I will be released next May in 2022, and I will continue to be a part of the community with love and gratitude. Wow, that was super sweet Larry.
It really was. And we really appreciate that. We got a similar one related to the newsletter that’s published by NARSOL that it has very similar impact on folks. But this is just amazing. And we appreciate all of those members who are serving time there. It doesn’t go unnoticed by most of us that, for whatever reasons, they decided to wear the uniform and possibly risk being in a war zone. And those people also deserve credit for our freedoms today. If no one was willing to do that, we wouldn’t have the freedoms we still have in this country.
Absolutely. There was no military dorms where I was. I would have jumped on that in a heartbeat to have a veteran’s dorm where I was.
Well, this is the Joint Regional Correctional Facility, so this this only for military people there in this facility.
That’s true. Some prisons at the state level then also have some segmented out dorms for vets. But, you know, I wouldn’t necessarily say that vets are better people in general. Did I share with you on Veterans Day about the tipping? You know, this was just like, what six weeks ago . It was Veterans Day seven weeks ago. (Larry: I don’t remember if you did.) Oh my gosh, this drives me crazy. So there’s free food for veterans all over the place. So I go to a restaurant where I happen to know that one of the waitresses is the daughter of a friend of mine. And so she waits on me, and I get my check. And I knew that I’m getting free food. It was a whole combo meal, drink fries sandwich and all this stuff. And there was a guy next to me that was military. And he just walks out and she says that, MF He didn’t tip me. I was like, Oh my god. So people are coming into the restaurant, getting their free meal. And then just walking out. I was like, that is terrible. And she said two or three other people had done that. And I go to dinner to a nice sit-down restaurant where I was also going to get effectively a free dinner- like my dinner cost me $3. And when the waitress walked up, I said, Are people treating you okay? And she goes, No, not really. I was like, oh my god, this is so bad. It’s so bad. If you get a free meal, you should still tip what you were supposed to pay.
You know that that’s something that goes unnoticed and possibly part of the entitlement mentality.
All right. Well, then let’s move on to another question. Oh, this one’s fun. I like this one. Dear NARSOL, I was convicted in 2015 for a sex offense which a stepson alleged had happened in 2000 to 2004. But, no specifics, no DNA, no reporting, no telling a teacher etc. However, I was convicted by a jury without witnesses or evidence and sentenced to 50 years with 30 years suspended. If instead, I had killed him, God forbid, I would have gotten five to 20 years total with no registry. I was not offered a plea deal because I pled not guilty. Now, I watch younger inmates with multiple assault or rape convictions and even one or two bodies get paroled while I, who never had any other offence, rot in prison. I am called a danger to society while these drug crazed gun bunnies yo-yo in and out of the system for street credit. Something’s not equally weighed by the justice by the society. How do I subscribe to your newsletter? Sincerely, Dude, that drug-crazed gun bunnies had me laughing.
Well, I did pull the appeal record on that case. His argument is really not all that strong because the testimony of the accuser is evidence. I don’t know when people say there’s no evidence, what/how they come to that belief there’s no evidence because that is evidence. A person who witnessed you commit a crime when they testify, that’s evidence
Going back, how far would you say, it feels to me, Larry, based on what we know about what an eyewitness testimony means of it, to me, it has almost no value other than it does have value that you are listening to a person tell you a story. But you’re shorter than me, Larry so and not by much, but we would have a difference of opinion of whether someone was short or tall. And all these other various things are very colored by your own personal experience. Do most crimes require some kind of physical evidence? Have we always had to have forensics to convict or do we go back in far enough in time where it was just testimonies?
Pretty much it was just testimonies. As forensic science has evolved, I mean, juries are expecting more and more in the way of evidence. They’ve watched CSI and all these programs, and they believe it works magic and that there should be forensics. So some juries are very demanding for corroborating evidence. Unfortunately, for people accused of these types of offenses, their statutory language makes it clear because the victims advocates come in and say, you know, hey, we would not lie. I mean, forget McMartin preschool, but we would not lie. And there’s no reason you should start by believing us. So therefore, the juries are usually apprised of those reminders in their final instructions that they are to await the evidence of the testimony of the eyewitness, which in the case is the victim, you know, the alleged victim, and they can give it the proper weighting. Sometimes juries choose not to believe alleged victims, because they’re just so unbelievable. But the bias goes in favor of believing the accuser because “accusers don’t lie” when it comes to sexual offenses.
Hmm. So is there any hope for someone in this sort of condition Larry?
Well, clearly, he’s observing what he perceives to be significant unfairness. And our system is filled with unfairness. I mean, we could spend many episodes talking about- I mean, our state has, you can have consensual sex with a person 16 or over, as long as you’re not in any position of authority. But if you take a picture of those body parts, you’ve committed a felony. So can you square that one?
No, not at all. Not at all. That one has always bothered me. So I think in Georgia, you get 30 years if you have murder. So, for actually killing somebody, you end up at least with something where you’ll do equal amount of time, but you don’t have the registry on the other side.
Yeah, and Georgia, amazingly, at one time was one of the one of the lenient states in terms of… (Andy: Seven years!) Seven years, yes.
And then it went to 21, if I’m not mistaken… maybe it went to 14, and then you were still parolable depending on the crime depending on the conditions, but you could get out after a handful of years with a body count. So that’s crazy.
But yeah, I feel for the guy. But you know, he’s mistaken. There is evidence. That testimony is considered evidence, and apparently the jurors deemed it credible, and you don’t overturn jury verdicts because appellate review doesn’t include second guessing the trier of fact whether it be a jury or a judge in terms of how they weight the evidence. The people there at the trial are presumed to be able to better assess the demeanor of the witness, the believability. So you just don’t get that that type of review at the appellate court level. They’re not gonna to overturn on that basis.
Alright, then. Let’s move over to the next one on the roster. Dear sir or ma’am. I’m writing to you at this time to present a question. I believe registration was first established around 1995 and amendments such as restrictions of housing, employment, etc. were later put in place. My question for all concerned is would it be retroactive ex post facto for those convicted before 1995? I was going to challenge this after my release, and I would expect others to challenge this as well if they were convicted before this date. Spot on, easy to go question. I bet I know what your answer is.
So well I liked it because it presents me an opportunity to talk about the mere act of requiring a registration for some purposes is not unconstitutional in and of itself. But he goes he goes beyond that, he says and such as restrictions of housing, employment, etc. Those were later put in place. He’s correct. Most registries, I can’t think of a single one that had any such restrictions when they passed their first version. So these are additions. They didn’t exist when Supreme Court looked at registration in 2003 in the Alaska case. There were no such restrictions. There you’re running into the problems. And have we thought of it? Yes, most of the cases that have been won have been won on that very argument, that these are disabilities and restraints that cannot be imposed on a person retroactively. But just merely requiring registration, unless you have an ironclad constitution, like Maryland has for that within their declaration of rights, they have that provision that no disadvantages. So even though registration without any disabilities or restraints, it is been interpreted to be a disadvantage. So therefore, Maryland, that is unconstitutional. But he’s got an uphill climb here because the disabilities and restraints have been challenged all the way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Texas. And there was a case out of Lewisville, Texas, challenging, essentially, what is a banishment from the city of Lewisville? Like 97% of the housing stock in Lewisville is off limits. And the Fifth Circuit upheld that they said it’s not banishment in the traditional sense because you can come into town all you want to, you just can’t live here. I’m not optimistic about challenges in Texas.
No, I guess not. Um, but I guess we would even be comparing this almost to like the Smith v. Doe out of Alaska, where there were no living and work restrictions, etc, that you just had to go visit and update your information. Like that doesn’t sound that big of a deal. So everything after that, I guess is just an incremental thing, then you have to prove to the court that it is become something more akin to punishment.
Correct. And Smith versus doe, you actually had to mail in a form.
Okay, so you didn’t have to go visit Popo, you just mailed in something
Alaska is so vast, vast, that going in in person is just really not practical. But the test was at that time, the courts can’t look into the future and imagine what might happen. They only evaluating what’s before them. And at that particular time, and that particular challenge, there were no disabilities or restraints. But since then, there have been many disabilities and restraints imposed and the cases have been one all over the country regarding those disabilities and restraints. Unfortunately, we’ve not had a lot of luck in Texas. And therefore, I’m not optimistic that he’s going to be able to prevail until there’s a dramatic change in Texas judicial philosophy, both at the federal and the state court level.
Talk about that. There are- remind me, is it 12 or 13? Those are courts of appeal or circuit courts. The ones right below SCOTUS?
Yeah, they’re circuit courts and courts of appeals. They’re the same thing.
Okay. Okay. Um, and, roughly speaking, do you think that they are assigned at a federal level and they’re assigned by the president -those judges are nominated and the Senate confirms- do you think that they, the judges, roughly reflect their region’s political views?
In many instances, they do. In some, they don’t. We’re gonna be talking about a case tonight out of Alabama a little bit later on where clearly the federal judge, in that case, doesn’t represent the views of Alabama, but he’s in office in a protected position as an Article Three judge, meaning that he’s there for life. And, but it’s more reflective of the philosophy of the appointers. So the way the process works is the recommendations come to the President. And if you’ve got conservative senators where the recommendations originate from, you’re not likely to get a liberal recommendation. So it’s more of reflective of the executives’ ideology. And conversely, out of California being that the senators are more than left, you’re not likely to get a recommendation of a judicial appointment there that’s going to be ultra conservative, because that’s just not likely to work its way through the process and be recommended by a California senator to the President.
I understand. Okay, but and for the most part, I guess all the states around Texas are pretty conservative. So those all kind of fit. Ninth Circuit has like 14 states in it almost, including California. It’s a really big district. That one probably is, I think, that the circuit is kind of left leaning. But there are certainly some right leaning states in there.
It has shifted dramatically through recent years. I mean, there was a significant change during the four years of the previous president, because they had put all confirmations, they meaning the Senate had put confirmations on hold. And so that created many openings that they just refused. (Andy: And then they filled them all.) And then they went on afterburners during the four years. So the four year presidency, it was, I don’t think it was a complete record, but it was at the top in terms of judicial confirmations. (Andy: It was way over 400.) Because if you have control of the Senate and the executive branch, then that’s a recipe for rapid confirmation. And that’s what they did. And so that that ninth circuit is not nearly as… Stephen Reinhardt, who was one of the one of the liberals, he died during the Trump presidency, and he did not get replaced by anyone like him.
All right, well, then I guess we’ll move along before that upsets everybody. Let’s see, where do we go? I wanted to play some voicemails from here, Larry. We’ve received let’s play the longer one first. This comes from our super patron Mike out of Florida. This one’s a little bit long, but I hope you have some comments for it.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. This is Mike down in Central Florida. I wanted to come and leave a sort of a comment. I’ve listened to the show for a very long time. Very familiar with both of you. And I’ve heard you guys talk about many times how registries definitely are not all unconstitutional. And in and of themselves, they’re definitely not new. So I did a little research. And I was kind of surprised at what I found. And I took the time to look up a few things. And if you go to the US Department of Health and Human Services website, there are a large number of registries that are there for public consumption. And just to name a few, there’s the auto immune registry, there are the Children’s Health Foundation, there is the pediatric asthma registry, the development of infertility family registries, that’s a mouthful, the National Addiction and HIV data archive program, rare diseases registries. The vast majority of the registries that I found were healthcare related. And most of that’s probably a good thing. And one of the older ones I found kind of surprised me. I can’t believe I never noticed this before. Because you know, me and being a Christian and all. But I was reading through the Bible and found quite a bit of registries, and they do a lot of recording, obviously, in there. And one of the ones I found that was old and interesting was in Luke, second chapter verses one through five. And in that it’s the story where Mary and Joseph go down into Bethlehem. And he has to register. And it says literally in the scripture that they go down, because he has to register. And he’s part of the house of David, and I believe this one is related to taxes. But I just found it interesting that you go back over 2000 years ago, and you got registries. And obviously the registry that they were doing there was for taxes, and we still have those. But you know, to backup Larry’s statement, many, many times, I’ve heard him say that they’re not unconstitutional. And the more I researched them, actually, the more I thought they made sense. Obviously, the problem we have with ours is the intent and what they do with it. And just a little fun fact, the guy, Caesar Augustus that put the registry in place for everybody to register during the birth of Jesus, he was actually the son of a senator and he had an uncle that was a governor. So 2000 years go by and you still got politicians making registries, not much has changed. Anyway, just wanted to call and share that kind of fun fact with you guys. And I love the show. Really appreciate it. But do a little research man. There are endless amounts of registries and actually, if you do spend a little time looking at them, kind of takes the sting out of the word a little bit. Anyway, I hope you guys have a great New Year and sorry for any fireworks you hear in the background. And FYP.
Thank you so much for that Mike. You have a little bit of Bible history knowledge in your past.
I don’t believe I’m familiar with that but that’s awesome that he recognizes that the mere act of registering someone is not unconstitutional. We talked about an unconstitutionality. Something is facially unconstitutional if there’s no set of circumstances by which that could be done. And you can never find registers to be facially unconstitutional because there are dozens and hundreds of situations where the mere act of registering someone would be constitutional. So therefore, folks, we have to look at each registry as it exists, and determine if that registry is constitutional. A gun registry may not be constitutional, it may be. We’d have to look at and see what’s, who’s required to register and what the situation is. But the second amendment is not absolute. But most people will say, Larry, you don’t realize that all those registries, you opt into. Well, not necessarily, you don’t opt into the ones where young men over 18 have to register for the draft. You will do that. Or you will forfeit your financial aid. You will forfeit possibly your freedom because it’s a felony, carries up to a potential five years of incarceration. Now, I don’t think that I’ve ever heard of the person receiving that penalty, but it’s on the books. And you do not get to opt in to the registration, merely turning 18 opts you in. You have that obligation. But no one would ever argue that we’re trying to punish the young men when they’re required to register.
I’m gonna stop counting when I’m 17.
Yeah, it’s like no one has ever argued that. You could have a PFR registry that did not impose any punishment, and it would be constitutional. It may not be good public policy, you should play the Scalia clip, but good public policy, it is not required that something be good or effective public policy that it can be done. We have, in a free society, where we impose our own laws on ourselves. We have the right to impose things that are not supported by data and evidence. If I hear evidence-based, data driven one more time, I’m going to go to the gorge and jump. Hello?
Hello. Oh, did you not hear that? Did I not do the one button? I just played the stupid but constitutional one.
No, I didn’t hear it.
Why didn’t that one go through? I don’t know why that one didn’t go through. I know why that one didn’t go through. I’m gonna play it again just for you Larry.
Stupid, but constitutional. Stupid, but constitutional. Stupid, but constitutional.
There. You heard it that time right?
Now? Yes. And that is someone who’s revered reminding you that we can do things in a democratic society where we decide through who we elect what our public policy choices are. We can do things to ourselves that are not sound public policies, but they’re constitutional. An,, for some reason, after all the years I’ve been doing this, people say, well, Larry, there’s no evidence to support that registry. It doesn’t have to work. It doesn’t have to work.
You’ve used the example before. If we made speed limits 40 miles an hour, we would have way fewer deaths in cars. So it’d be stupid.
Well, it would certainly slow down commerce, and it would probably, I mean, I don’t know all the ramifications of it. But it would certainly not be a good public policy. But we could certainly do it. And you would not be able to argue to render that invalid with a constitutional argument. You have no constitutional right to drive at a particular speed. So that would be a public policy debate that would have to take place that the speed limit should be raised. And we had that public policy debate after the oil embargo in ‘73. We had a nationwide 55 mile per hour speed limit that lasted several years. And we had the public policy debate and we decided that it was not a wise public policy, and it was it was changed.
Let’s move over to voicemail number two, this is a quickie.
Hi, guys. I love hearing both of you and your candor and continually amazed at each episode with the new insights always given. I have a question for Larry and what his thoughts would be on Mrs. Maxwell found guilty recently, the one who was associated with Epstein. She definitely has the resources to be able to appeal her case several times over. What do you think they would appeal with? And with those appeals, would we be able to bend our cases that we have lost, either personally or as a group? Thank you, and of course FYP.
Laugh track plays
So what’s your answer to this one?
Where did that come from?
I got you all worked up and you’re like you can’t even respond because you’re giggling.
So well. In all candor, I have not follow that case as closely as I would have liked to, but I followed it close enough that I don’t see that an appeal is going to be very successful. We talked in pre-show about the Cosby case. There was a really, really significant issue with Bill Cosby’s case. And that’s whether people who had been so far separated in time from the events and they were not actual accusers, they were merely 404b witnesses that were able to testify against Cosby. And that that had such a significant prejudicial impact on the jurors when you have 404b evidence, there’s a careful analysis that has to be done in terms of its probative value versus prejudicial. And he had issues to appeal. I’m struggling with what I’ve seen in this case to see what there would have been that would gain traction for an appeal. No, we don’t have secondhand witnesses. These are witnesses that were very young at the time, but they were the actual victims. Now we can use that term because she’s convicted. So they were victims and no longer alleged victims. These victims were the actual individuals, not someone else. I think I read something about it may be that they wanted to recall prosecution, the defense wanted to recall witnesses that the prosecution had put on. The judge said they weren’t allowed to do that. That might be something that’ll gain traction. And then they wanted to go into the monetary awards, which they weren’t allowed to do, that came from the victim compensation fund. That might gain some traction. But this judge, she went over way overboard trying to be fair in trying to get an impartial jury and was very cautious and I just don’t think there’s a lot there for this appeal to gain an any attraction at all. It’s not like Cosby… so it’s a long shot. It 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 let’s move over to this two-parter question from Tim. Hi, it’s Tim from Texas. Again. I wanted to sincerely thank Andy Larry for the podcast for answering my letter and questions on episode 206. And for sending me the transcripts. I will be subscribing to the transcripts. Thank you very much for that. Question number one: part of NMCD, which I imagine is New Mexico code of something or another? (Larry: corrections department.) Corrections department Gotcha. Um, CD, whatever, whatever subsection b, whatever states that GPS monitoring, if available, will be required for at least the first six months for probationers, or the entire time of parole for parolees. So I’ve interpreted that to say that parolees must wear a GPS for the entire duration of their parole. Is this true? And is it typical? Want me to keep going or do you want to answer that?
It is true. And it is typical because it’s in our statute. So therefore, this is a requirement that cannot be waived. Now, just because it’s in statute, and just because humans are humans, is it possible that some people escape it because the PO decides to cut a little bit of slack or they have a shortage of equipment or whatnot, but it’s in the statute. It says in fact real time GPS monitoring for people or parolees. Now it has to be on that list of sexual offenses and every sexual offense is not on that special pro list. But if it’s on that special parole list, yes, for parolees, it is required by statute.
So he continues when I was granted parole here I was given my specialized conditions for here in Texas and was not given or imposed the conditions of a monitor, so I’m unsure if New Mexico would honor that or put me under their strict policy. I have 11 years to do on parole once I’m released and a GPS for that long sounds overwhelming. Texas is typically 90 days or six months on a monitor, and then it comes off as long as you’re compliant. Texas does things differently on a county-by-county basis and probation and parole are two separate entities. Those entities seem to be combined in New Mexico. Now in the NMCD policy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, section this, it goes on to say that after six months, the PO will consult their supervisor as to whether or not to continue with GPS monitoring. But that doesn’t seem to apply to parolees given what is stated in the previous subsection 1b. Hopefully, you can clarify this for me.
I can. We dealt with the parolee section previously. But for probation, here’s the way it goes down. It goes down according to you. Well, let me make it more clear. It has to do with how much funding they have, how many available units they have. It has to do with you as an individual. If you have no fixed location for where you work, and you’re going to be one of those who’s going to be smart and skate under the radar because you’re going to be self-employed. Well guess what, you’re a great candidate for a GPS monitor. Because if they don’t have a place where they can go drive by and see your vehicle there, or pop in on you to see where you’re working, they have a little device that will let them know what you’re doing in the course of a day, at least where you’re at during the day. So they will put a GPS on you if you’re on probation. And that GPS will stay on you until you become more stable in terms of predictability. So that is what they will do. And I don’t think that is all that irrational. Technology is an asset to be used to monitor people, not to punish people. And if you are a freelancer, and you’re out all over the community, and all over the county, and all over the state- which they won’t let you leave the county here, by the way, you have to have a travel permit to leave the county of supervision. (Andy: That’s so weird.) But you will find yourself on a GPS monitor here if you don’t have stability in your life. So you want to be as stable as possible. Now the other part of his question, will New Mexico honor… can you play the thing that you played after the last question again?
Oh, this, that one? laugh track
That one, yes. New Mexico will take all the conditions that the state of Texas has, and they will apply them to you because they’re obligated. And then they will look at your offense. And they will figure out how they would have supervised you here had you been convicted of that offense, which is basically in that policy that FYP education provided to him because we happen to have that for the state of Texas- I mean for the state of New Mexico. We sent it to him because he’s interested in locating here for the future. Hopefully after he hears this podcast, he may change his mind. But they will put conditions on you in addition to that. You are obligated to accept those conditions. Your agreement for transfer says that you will accept the special conditions that are applied to you by the receiving state. And the receiving state is free to do that. Now they can’t enlarge your probation term. So if Texas gives you five years, you’ll come here with five years. There’s nothing they can do about that. But if Texas didn’t put a curfew on you, and if Texas doesn’t have a curfew, that’s irrelevant here. That will not be honored here. You will have a curfew here. If they decide that your offense- if you’re on parole, for example, they will decide here is that your parole by New Mexico law they will say, gee, well, if he was a parolee here, we would supervise him with GPS. Therefore, to be consistent, We’re gonna we’re gonna have him on GPS monitoring for the entire time. And all those things are subtly intended to make sure that you don’t come here.
Alright, then. Hmm. I think that covers everything. Oh, wait, no, I’m sorry. I didn’t ask you question number two yet. Does New Mexico post your place of employment online with your other registration info?
In most instances, it is posted. The statute says if your employment requires or involves- I forget how it’s worded- direct contact with minors, it’ll be posted. The department public safety takes the position that practically any job unless you’re working out on an oil platform out in the eastern part of the state, southeast, where they extract oil. But if you’re doing anything that’s open to the public, unless minors are excluded, then they take the position that that is a qualifying disclosure. So the employment, the employer name and address would be listed on the website here. If you’re on the registry in all likelihood you’re going to be listed. There’s a small percentage of people that don’t have disclosure, but it’s rare and you have to really fight for that. You have to show them that your job doesn’t involve any contact with children. Even incidental, infrequent, that’s enough, as far as they’re concerned. Someone should challenge that. They might could win. But you know, it hasn’t been challenged yet.
Because someone in chat says I worked at a pizza place as a kitchen hand and they said, Yep, that includes contact with minors.
And that’s exactly the way they interpret that. The restaurants are open to minors. So theoretically, a minor could stumble into the kitchen, and the person could be snatched and never see their parents again.
Yes, and that happens “frequently.” And you just see headline news all the time reporting about all these children that are just snatched off the streets.
They’re snatched in polling places when parents go to vote. I mean, it’s I mean, I don’t know where you’ve been, but it happens all the time.
Clearly, I don’t listen to the news that you’re following. Alright, well, then let’s move over and move on to this thing out of the Denver area where it says Colorado Board reverses controversial change to sex offender label at urging of Governor Jared Polis and his appointee. So let me get this right. There was, um, I don’t know. What was even the nexus? There was some sort of like petition or something to change the wording of it, and then this went through. And then there was comment, something like that. And then they said, No, we can’t do that.
That is correct. They backtracked. They were going to name persons convicted of sexual offenses, they are going to quit using the name sex offender to describe them. But the article generated on the NARSOL affiliate list so much contact, so much interaction, and I thought it was just so ironic because there’s a paragraph in the article that explains what happened, but yet they debated this for three or four days and no one figured it out. It said Fox News, talk radio, victims advocates, and law enforcement pushed back and all of that is people that we hold dear and close to us. You know, we’re all victims’ advocates around here. We all watch Fox News. And we all tend to listen to conservative talk radio, but they whip the community up in a frenzy. And Colorado particularly in the Denver Metro area is fairly liberal these days. I mean, that metro area, there’s not a lot of conservatives left. But even within liberal Colorado, it didn’t take but a few 100 rowdy complainer’s saying that we think… you can read the quote from one of the victims there that they call it sh*t right?
If you want me to say it? I will say it. She was just… if I can find it really quick, but basically she was saying since everyone agrees that sex offenders an agreeable dictionary term for one who commits sexual offenses, let’s do the same with… That wasn’t the right one. Basically said hey, they deserve it. Something like that.
Yeah, and she said it was a bunch of itshe.
Yeah, well, you just say sht, really. I don’t care. They can say sht on normal television. Now we can say it on a podcast that pretty much is only adults listening.
We have 1000s of minors listening coast to coast.
I’m certain of that. Alright, well then let’s head over to this feature event. Mr. Larry, I think we are there and we got to chop this thing along. We got to hurry this along. You ready to hit the Alabama thing?
Oh, this is gonna be fun. You’ve done a lot of research on this one.
Yes, and liberal do gooders are coming up. Right. So I’m reading excerpts from an article written by Kim Chandler and distributed by the Associated Press. Miss Chandler writes, a federal judge who previously ruled mental health care in Alabama prisons was horrendously inadequate on Monday ordered the state to make multiple changes in inmate care and extended a deadline till 2025 for the state to boost the number of correctional officers. The US District Judge Myron Thompson issued a sometimes scathing 600 Page opinion that often focused on the prison’s systems lack of progress in meeting an earlier directive to boost staffing and also the number of suicides that have occurred behind bars. Larry, I’ve done my homework on this judge. He’s a liberal do-gooder appointed by Jimmy Carter back in 1980. His most recent controversial ruling came in 2019. On October 29, 2019, Judge Thompson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the human life protection act from taking effect in Alabama. The Alabama law imposes criminal liability on abortion providers for nearly all abortions completed or attempted regardless of fetal viability. In essence, the court said, the Act imposes a near total ban on abortion. Judge Thompson concluded, the court is persuaded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that the act violates an individual’s constitutional right to obtain a pre viability abortion. And thus, that violates her constitutional rights. Back in 2014, in the case of Planned Parenthood SE Inc, versus Strange, also known as Planned Parenthood SE Inc. v. Bentley, Thompson ruled in Alabama law regulating abortion unconstitutional citing the undue burden standard. It sure seems to me, Larry, that the judge is outside the mainstream of Alabama for sure
Well, I can’t disagree with you on that. But his rulings are intended to protect the constitutional rights of those who are often unpopular. You would have to agree that prisoners are not particularly popular and I’m guessing that the providers of abortions are very unpopular in the state of Alabama. I hate to break it to you, but this is the type of judge that will most frequently protect the rights of those accused and convicted of crimes. This is the type of judge that you’re going to get this type of ruling from.
The Monday order spelled out corrective measures and came after Thompson in 2017 ruled that Alabama’s horrendously inadequate care of mentally ill inmates violated the US Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Do you expect things to improve dramatically in Alabama? Larry?
No, I don’t. So, I will note that Judge Thompson said what was true four years ago is no less true today. Alabama Department of Corrections does not have enough correctional staff to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to prisoners who need it. And Thompson went on to say the absence of security staff prevents people who need treatment from accessing it, stops those with mental health in deteriorating from being caught before they lapse into psychosis and suicide, you pronounce that, and fosters an environment of danger, anxiety and violence that constantly assaults the psychological stability of people with mental illness in the Alabama Department of Corrections. They’ve had for years already, does that not tell you that the political process is unable to deliver the necessary change? I mean, four years, doesn’t that tell you something?
Was that word psychosis or suicidality?
Suicidality? I couldn’t pronounce that. Thank you.
All right, Larry, I see your point. Judge Thompson said staffing has barely increased in three years, and the system has filled less than half of the positions necessary to meet the requirements of 3,826 full time equivalent officers. The judge had previously directed the state to meet staffing targets by February 20 of 2022 but wrote in his Monday order that it’s become clear that it’s out of reach. What can the judge do?
Not much because it’s a political decision for the elected officials in Alabama. Judge Thompson extended the deadline to July 1, 2025 for the state to fill all the mandatory and essential posts, but he also ordered creation of yearly benchmarks to measure progress. He ordered the state to make numerous other changes to mental health care, including ensuring that inmates get some time out of their cells, that security checks are regularly conducted, that assessments are properly done, that inmates who require hospital level care receive it within a reasonable period of time. And staff conduct regular drills on how to respond to suicide attempts. Thompson also ordered prior to discharge from suicide watch, an inmate must receive a confidential out of cell evaluation by a mental health professional and then follow up examinations for three days. He’s issued an awful lot of directives, but too bad.
But all he can do his issue them. He can’t make them comply.
Well, well, keep going.
Alright, I’ll keep going. Judge Thompson said in the four years since his initial ruling, at least 27 more prisoners have died by suicide. Come on Larry. That’s only in four years divided by 27. Like, like, nine? No, just not even nine. It’s like seven. Right? So seven per year. What’s the big deal? And he describes some of the incidents. Thompson wrote that 12 minutes passed, 12 minutes Larry, passed between the time one it was found hanging in his cell and the start of resuscitation attempts. It’s probably over after 12 minutes Larry. In the seven months before one inmate suicide the man rarely received the required five hours per week out of his restrictive housing cell because of staffing issues at the prison. Before his suicide, an inmate endured frequent pervasive sexual and physical violence and told his mental health provider he was being trafficked by a gang and forced to perform sex acts to pay off the gangs debt.
Yes, it’s terrible in Alabama prisons and I think we stated this numerous times on the podcast and audits found less than 20% compliance levels with the required 30 minute security checks in restrictive housing. Now that’s kind of what happened Epstein. One inmate Casey Murphree was not found for hours after his death until rigor mortis had begun to set in the judge wrote. Judge Thompson also ordered the state to tell him how an inmate died from hyperthermia in a climate-controlled cell during December 2020. I truly did not expect change to come easy for this state. My state had to endure a bloody ride in 1980, which ended up with 33 dead prisoners, which we read on a podcast episode as matter of fact I think on the 40th anniversary. They took that before we [New Mexico] decided to take prison management seriously. It’s just not something that you go out and win votes on when… folks I’m sorry to be the messenger here. But when you’re campaigning for office, when you’ve got all the competing things for funding that states are expected to provide in the way of services to their citizens, you just can’t go out and say, Well, I’ll tell you what we’ll do If y’all vote for me, we’re gonna divert a whole bunch more money to Alabama Department corrections. That just doesn’t sell.
So Larry, using the Advanced FYP education search engine and our vast staff and resources, I found that we’ve talked about Alabama prisons at least 10 times on 118, 122, 175, 113, 136, 124, 146, 148, 151, and 123. Judge Thompson order the court to address specifically how it happened that Tommy Lee Rutledge’s cell reached 104 degrees. How in the hell did it hit 104, causing him to die of hyperthermia? I guess it would be hypo, if it were okay in a unit that was supposedly air conditioned, and how the Alabama Department of Corrections will prevent that from ever occurring again. What will they tell the judge Larry?
They will invent an explanation about some issue with ventilation. And they’ll claim that the inmate had a history of being a chronic complainer. So that they mistakenly assumed that he was just simply exaggerating the situation because they don’t go into cells. You won’t you know, I don’t have to tell you that. But our listeners who have not been in prison, yeah. You can complain about something in your cell, that doesn’t get them to open the door and come in and take a look around. I mean, they just don’t do that. With rare exceptions, right?
That is very true. But how did you get it to be 104 in a climate-controlled dorm, Larry? I can’t even comprehend on how like you would have to turn on the heat.
It’s almost if something sinister was going on, isn’t it?
Correct? Correct? Like I mean, in Alabama, you certainly could have 100 degree temperatures. And it could be stifling hot inside but good grief. You’re at least under shade. You’re not exposed in the sun. I don’t see how that could get to 104 unless someone turned on the heat. Anyway, whatever. Judge Thompson wrote, The critical question is whether it can sustain that progress, given its severe shortage of correctional staff as it implements relief in other areas. Thompson wrote, he left open the possibility of additional action against the state if staffing levels do not improve. Larry, tell me, he can’t throw the state in jail. So what are his options?
Well, he does have options, but short of holding key elected officials in contempt, he has very few options. He can order the improvements, which he already did in 2017. This does not mean that the state will appropriate the necessary financial resources to effectuate those changes. So unless he’s willing to order federal marshals to confiscate funding from the Alabama Treasurer, and appoint his own director of Department of Corrections, he’s largely irrelevant. Part of what makes our court system work in this country if that we have the desire to respect the authority of the courts, and we get into a huddle and we say, look, the Court told us we’re going to have to do this, we’re going to have to do it. But if your determination is not to do it, the courts are very limited. I mean, could he send the marshals in to the treasurer’s office? He possibly could.
I think I heard Ruth Bader Ginsburg talk about this. And she says that the reason why judges are effective is because people just listen to them and they act. They have no military power. They don’t have power. You just respect that what they’ve told you to do, and you go do it.
That is correct. And the state of Alabama is not going to be dragged easily into dramatic prison reform because it costs money. And one of the ways you win office in conservative states is to promise you’ll never raise a tax. You almost have to make that pledge anywhere, but in particular in the South. Yeah, you know, the more conservative you have to take Grover Norquist’s Pledge that you will never raise a tax. I don’t care what it is. Yeah, gas tax, like for example, in our state’s been frozen for like 30 years at 17 cents a gallon and inflation has eroded that by 50% or more and fuel consumption has gone down because of the more efficient vehicles and electric vehicles and all these things that don’t pay a gasoline tax. But we can’t even think about raising it five or 10 cents a gallon to make up for that inflation. So Alabama’s gonna have a hard time because they just don’t have the money with all the other things the state’s responsible for doing, and they cannot impose any additional taxes. So this is where they’re gonna be stuck. I mean, I don’t expect the judge to visit this issue in the next two or three years and see any dramatic improvement. The labor shortage is chronic. And that would mean they’d have to boost salaries dramatically. And I don’t see that happening.
I bet you they would have to bump up like five bucks, something bucks an hour to get them in there. Finally, Larry, I noted that a spokeswoman for the Alabama Department of Corrections said the department could not immediately respond. And the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represents inmates in the class action civil lawsuit did not immediately comment on the ruling, either.
So well, I suspect we will be following this case for years to come because it’s going to take a long time. And I hope they don’t have a riot, but that’s what it will… took. I shouldn’t say what it will take. That’s what it took here. We were well aware of prison conditions. We were well aware of the poorly trained, poorly paid, overcrowded conditions. We knew all of that stuff, just like Alabama knows this. But we didn’t do anything,
Wasn’t Parchman Alabama or was that Mississippi?
Oh, crap. See, I was like, Oh, my God, didn’t they just have that big riot a handful of years ago. Okay. But that is only one state over. And you’d have to agree that they’re similar in most of those respects- politics, precarious situation, all very similar.
Yes. But actually, actually, Mississippi at one time, was under a lot more progressive leadership than it is now. I mean, comparatively, you know, it’s kind of like comparing Gerald Ford with the modern day party of what kind of nominee it would produce. Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan are fairly liberal by today’s standards.
Alright, then. Well, that closes that one out, Larry, um, can we tease… we’re gonna, we don’t have time to cover it now. But something happened in Pennsylvania. I can’t even really speak to what it was, but can you give me like the 30 second version of what happened in Pennsylvania in the last month or so?
It was more than a month or so. But the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional amendment that established enshrined a Bill of Rights for victims in the Pennsylvania constitution was unconstitutional. And therefore we’re going to talk about that and one of the my colleagues in Pennsylvania posted it on the national listserv saying how wonderful it is and how what a strong opinion it was. It was six to one I believe, but the problem is he missed and we’re gonna get into it is that that wasn’t based on the merits of the case. It was procedural stuff so but yes, that victims Bill of Rights was declared unconstitutional, but it will come back.
Alright, okay. And I will leave it there. I won’t ask you any questions about it. Do you feel we’ve been recording for 57 minutes that we have time to cover any one of these articles?
So probably the Spirit Airlines.
Okay. I will pull this one up. I will pull up the Spirit Airlines one. So this is from the Washington Post. And this is woman accused of groping Spirit Airlines passenger attacked… oh no, the frickin’ stupid paywall thing, I’m gonna have to read it from another page. Give me one second. This is ridiculous. I won’t be able to put it up on the screen. Woman accused of groping Spirit Airlines passengers attacking flight attendants faces federal charges. Qoman whose 43 was arrested Tuesday and released by a federal magistrate. What happened here, Larry?
Well, apparently, maybe she was tipping the bottle a bit too much. But two male passengers had accused of being groped and asked to be reseated. And she was arrested because she got belligerent with the flight crew. And the magistrate judge released her apparently pretrial, which I’m not going to take any disagreement with that. %hat’s what I want magistrate judges to do is to release people with a careful review of the charges and their connections and their likelihood to appear in court, their connections to the community- ties to community I should say, rather than connections. I’m all fine with that. But I’m just wondering if the public reaction would be the same if we had role reversal, because we have a little bit of sympathy apparently, for this woman. Clearly, she was experiencing some difficulty at that moment. And I’m all for addressing people who are experiencing a difficulty maybe because they’ve tipped the bottle too much or maybe have a psychological trauma or whatever. But I just wonder if we would be as sympathetic if we had males who were groping or not. That’s why I put it in there because I think it would be a little bit different.
I think what you’re trying to say is this.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:22
For you to come back and call bigots my admires is a farce. It’s an act of hypocrisy. It’s a terrible way to treat a guest on your show. And you know it.
It’s a little hypocritical, Larry?
Well, at first blush, it does look like… I would like for anyone who’s experiencing difficulty, we make decisions to intoxicate ourselves. Yes, it’s a voluntary thing. But I’m not sure what kind of decisions making power we have when we’re in a state of intoxication since I’ve never been intoxicated. So I can’t really attest to the rational decision making. But also people have mental health issues that cause them to make bad decisions, you know, that they would not make normally. And I’d like for I’d like for those kinds of things to be taken into account for everybody. Everybody’s not a maniac just because they make a bad blunder. I’m sure she has not been groping passengers before. She probably won’t do it again. She doesn’t need 15-20 years in prison to get the message.
Gotcha. Okay, Larry, well, then I think we are at the point of Who is that Speaker. And last week I played:
Warren Buffet 1:01:27
And it’s very important to surround yourself with people who are the better than you are. You are going to move in the direction of the people you associate with.
And Jonathan wrote in at 8:15, while we were recording. So we, I think, had just barely pressed the stop button on record, and wrote in. That was who Larry?
Oh, that would be Mr. Warren Buffett.
And he’s sort of up there as a wealthy individual.
Yes, he he’s, like in the top 10. I think globally, maybe.
Probably. And what kind of comes to mind is that he got probably a decade ago, they said that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Probably not an actual dollar figures. But the tax rate.
Yes, that is his position. He believes that people who earn passive income such as investors, that their tax rate is favorable at 15. And people who are employed, their rate can easily go over 15%. And he sees that as an issue of fundamental fairness. Yes, that is a position of Mr. Buffett.
All right. Well, thank you very much for Jonathan for getting that answer so quickly. I think he said he cheated. And he looked it up on the Google and typed in the words, but I like don’t do that. That’s not fair. But this week, Larry, we have one that only the person who submitted this one will be the one who knows who it is for sure. If anybody else knows who this is, I will be shocked. And I don’t know, I may send you a gift card or something like that. FYP and Registry Matters will contribute to send you a little prize. But so here we go. So this is for episode 208. Who is That Speaker? This is from a 1980. And it’s very muddy sounding, there’s a lot of noise in the room. And I’ll play it a couple times.
Who’s that Speaker?
I want to call my lawyer right now….
I certainly would not have been able to have gotten that one. So it’s gonna be a challenge. I had no idea who that was. I mean, I know the incident when you told me, but I had no idea from the voice who that was.
Okay. Let’s see, we did get a new patron signed up all the way last year, Larry, that’s the most recent one that we’ve had was all the way back last year. That was Josh signed up. And thank you so very much, Josh, for signing up. Did we get any snail mail subscribers, Larry to the transcript service?
We did, but I don’t remember their names. But welcome all of you people. Welcome.
Thank you all very much for joining.
You expect me to remember names of people?
I just expect you to write them in the document so we could speak them and acknowledge their existence.
So all right, I’ll try to do better in 2022.
Yeah, I think I think I have that one I can play too. There it is.
Audio Clip 1:04:34
I don’t have to tell you who gets hurt first when this sort of thing happens, do I?
It’s been a clip playing night, hasn’t it?
We’re going to promote our newly reinvigorated Education website one more time.
Absolutely. So FYP education. I have spent a bunch of time moving transcripts over, getting them indexed, they’ve got all kinds of keywords so that people can search for. Whatever you’re looking for even how many times we’ve said you people, you should be able to find it there as well. I did put in a search engine so that I can find things like Alabama and prison and not said an hour apart of each other, but within so many words, it’s pretty slick. And but that is going to be the nonprofit arm for the podcast so that people can find resources to find the laws. When people write in, they say, Hey, can you send me all the laws for, I don’t know, New Hampshire. Fine, we will have those available to send those in. If you want transcripts where we’ve talked about parole or probation violations where it wasn’t covered like in a case or something like that, you can find that over at FYP education. People can, if you want to, you can go download the PDF and mail it to your loved one, or you can subscribe to it for a very nominal fee. And then we will take care of that for you. And I think that covers it all Larry.
That does. We’re looking forward to getting our application in for 501c3 designation in the first month of this year. And I would expect the decision by mid-year at the latest.
Very cool. Awesome. Well, Larry, I think that is all that we have for this evening. We are at 1:05. So that’s pretty good time for Transcript Production. You can find all of the show notes and everything like that over at registrymatters.co and that will link you over to FYP education for the transcript. You can leave voicemail at 747-227-4477, firstname.lastname@example.org And then of course support us on Patreon at patreon.com/registry matters. Again, Larry happy New Year. It’s January 1st. We have 365 days. Is this a leap year? (Larry: It is not.) OHOh, I guess not. Right, nevermind. So 365 to go until ‘23. You ready for it?
So I am I am ready for it. We’re gonna we’re gonna have a fourfold increase in our audience this year.
That sounds like a great goal. Very good, sir. I hope everyone has a great New Year prosperous, registry doesn’t mess with you too bad. I hope you have great victories in the year coming up and I bid you adieu, sir. And have a great rest of your evening and weekend.
You’ve been listening to FYP.