FYP Education

Listen to RM211: Stinging Defeat in Butts County
https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm211-stinging-defeat-in-butts-county/

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.

Andy 00:17
Recording live from FYP studios east and west. Transmitting freezingly across the internet. This is episode 211 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. Happy Saturday night. How are you?

Larry 00:29
Well, good evening. I’m just doing wonderful. Just finished having an MRI examination. And that was a lot of fun.

Andy 00:37
Oh, okay. Are you going to live?

Larry 00:40
They don’t tell you. They tell you that their radiologists will read it and then it’ll be turned over to your physician so I don’t know anything.

Andy 00:47
Are we going to be posting a job opening on the Registry Matters website shortly?

Larry 00:53
Possibly so. I’m still dealing with that accident back in April. Still having pain management issues. So yeah.

Andy 00:59
Oh, I didn’t know that. Okay. Um, well, um, I think we probably should dive right in. Because I mean, like, we’re just gonna call it short. It’s a 10-minute show tonight because there’s nothing going on?

Larry 01:10
That’s right. We will be out of here before you know it.

Andy 01:14
Can you give us the quick rundown?

Larry 01:17
We’ve got listener questions, we’ve got a comment or two, a voicemail. We’ve got an amazing victory to talk about from the 11th circuit court of appeals. I mean, you name it, we’ve got it. Hopefully if there’s enough time, Why you shouldn’t talk to the police. That series. I mean, we are just filled and ready to go.

Andy 01:42
All right, well, we should just dive right in, because otherwise we will be here all night. First thing up is that a question came in from David. It says on the podcast, you have recommended that people in chat rooms simply do not talk to possible decoys or plants that claimed to be underage persons. That’s a working solution. I propose a reverse sting. Go on to one of these sites that you know is being monitored and pretend to be a minor. Ignore all hits and see if anyone including the content moderator ever challenges you or tells you to get off or stop. If no one does, or you gather a sizable number of hits, then it will be possible to present those results to the media and to whatever law enforcement is protecting that site with the proposition that they are not only doing their job by allowing your presence on the site, they are purposefully baiting people instead of protecting minors. Interesting idea there, Larry. Okay.

Larry 02:39
I never thought of that. But it sure seems to intrigue me that you could do that. I have a suspicion that they would figure out a way to get you out of the site. But I don’t know that. We’ll have to find someone in the free world that has enough time and the skills to do a reverse thing. But they seem to become very popular here lately. You know that they’re doing those kind of like that To Catch A Predator stings. They’re doing that. They’re doing some rendition of that around the country.

Andy 03:05
Yeah, they seem to pop up and we get information about this from time to time of people doing their own little things. Yeah. So we should set up and put our own plants out there. And then, I mean, what would we ultimately do? He’s saying that we gather enough information that these sites… I mean, I’ve heard that the FBI is running half of the child porn websites out there. I mean, that means they’re in possession of it.

Larry 03:34
Well, I don’t know for sure if his theory would hold true, but it would certainly be an interesting test if you’re trying to protect minors. If someone goes on an adult’s website and creates a profile of a minor, we’ll see how quick they do anything about it. I think that’s the essence of his proposal, right?

Andy 03:53
I think so. Interesting. All right. We’ll flag that and come back around on that at some point.

Larry 03:59
Well, he will be writing to us from time to time. He’s one of our regulars. So I’m sure that once he finds out that we talked about this, he’ll have something else to add.

Andy 04:08
Very well. Then another question. This one handwritten. Says to the Legal Corner, Greetings. I live in Texas. And in three years, I will serve all of my 20-year sentence. I have close friends in Peru and a fiancée waiting for me in Latvia. Upon my release, I plan to visit one and live in the other country. My question is, if I’m abroad for several years, and I’ve returned to the United States, would I be arrested for failure to register in my home state of Texas or any state for that matter? I have family I wish to visit and do not want to risk going back to prison. Years ago you had published in the Legal Corner about passports You listed a website that has a matrix of countries that allow sex offenders in and those that do not. In prison, we do not have access to that information and it would be very helpful if you could list the matrix in your next issue of NARSOL. For those of us planning to get out, it will help plan if we can go to where our loved ones are. Thank you very much. Okay. So he wants RTAG? The Registrant Travel Action Group?

Larry 05:17
Yes, that travel matrix that they have. But his question in terms of would he be arrested? The answer would be, you shouldn’t be. Because when you’re outside the United States, there’s not an obligation to comply. So assuming that you complied with the process to leave the United States, which is to notify 21 days in advance, so that they can do that process to notify the country where you’re visiting. Then you would have no more obligation. You just can’t register if you’re going to be in these other nations for a long time. Where people get tripped up is they can’t stay in these nations permanently because they don’t have permanent residency or citizenship in these countries. So they end up having to return to the United States. So if you do return the United States, you will again have a registration obligation. It wouldn’t magically evaporate just because you were out the United States for three years.

Andy 06:14
I’m going to go out on a limb. And I think a letter like this is I don’t think the person plans on telling anybody he’s leaving, and I think he hops on a plane and splits. Or not necessarily a plane, he leaves.

Larry 06:24
Well, we don’t advise anybody to do that. I can tell you unequivocally what will happen if you do that. If you are registered anywhere in the United States, and you cease reporting in to your registration officials where you’re registered, they will put a warrant out for your arrest. I can’t say for sure what states would or would not extradite you, and whether the Feds would extradite you. We don’t have extradition agreements with all nations on Earth. So I don’t know if they would extradite you for that. But I can tell you this, when you come back to the United States, they will certainly prosecute you. So I don’t advise anyone to do that. It would just be very unwise if you have that thought in mind, because you will be arrested at some point. Certainly, if you reenter the United States.

Andy 07:16
Okay. All right. Well, Registrant Travel Action Group, if you search for Registrant Travel Action Group on Google, I believe it’s registranttag.org is the URL for it.

Larry 07:29
He’s wanting to know if we can publish it. I don’t know how long it is. We have very tight space in terms of the newsletter in what we can publish. But it could be possible depending on the size of it, FYP might provide that to him as one of the many services that we provide to our audience, because we recognize that you cannot obtain a lot of this stuff. We give you websites and we have sense enough to know that many of you can’t. You don’t have friends or you can’t get on the internet. We know that.

Andy 08:01
All right. Yeah, we probably could. It lists several countries, and it doesn’t efficiently use space very well. I don’t I don’t think that it would fit very well in the newsletter very well. And plus that’s a floating, moving target kind of thing. And that’s all anecdotal. Like if you Larry go travel and you make it in and you report, then maybe they list that as Yes. But I go over to the same country, and I don’t get it. So then what’s the results? Maybe? It’s not a scientific kind of thing.

Larry 08:30
That is absolutely correct. And I tell people that’s the same thing for registration requirements. FYP is providing the information from the KlaasKids Foundation. It’s a summary of registration requirements. It’s not the full statutes. The statutes run 20, 30, 40, 50 pages, and trying to find a resource where we can PDF 50 pages for each state… And they alter them and amend them almost annually, because the victims’ advocates think of something else that needs to be added in terms of things you cannot do. But we don’t have an easy resource. But we are providing those summaries. And they’re updated annually by KlaasKids. But we make it clear that these things are coming courtesy of KlaasKids. And so any beef you have about the accuracy will be directed to KlaasKids.

Andy 09:17
All right. And then we had a comment on our Patreon feed, said, Amen, Larry. The state intends for the treatment provider to be a trained set of eyes and ears for the officer and the state. We have to write out a relapse prevention plan. And that has to be included in a packet to the state whenever someone is released from treatment. My suspicion is that evidence for the future should someone reoffend. I could see that relapse prevention plan being introduced into evidence with the narrative, Mr. So and So identified his risk factors. He knew what they were, he listed four interventions for each risk factor, so Mr. So and So knew his risks and how to negate those risks and he chose not to do so. Do you think that’s how it would go down?

Larry 10:00
I’m certainly hoping not. I haven’t heard of it going down that way. But I’ve learned in this business, that when you start thinking that things can’t happen, they do. All you have to do is look at the New Mexico Department of Correction’s behavioral contract that they’ve forced the PFRs to sign. And if you look at the various iterations that I have going back approximately 20 years, they keep thinking up new things. But I would like to think that there is some confidentiality of this stuff since it was in a treatment setting. And I’d like to think that they would not try to introduce that, but I don’t rule out anything.

Andy 10:33
Yeah, no kidding. Okay, and just in the interest of time, we’ll keep moving along. Will also send us in a voicemail on a different subject. Let’s see how this goes.

Will (Voicemail) 10:43
Good evening, Andy and Larry. This is Will. I have a question I’d like you guys to discuss if you would. The updated Tennessee registry is displaying information that is not authorized by statute due to a coding error. The state has no idea when this error will be corrected. Criminal charges that were amended and reduced are being displayed under a criminal history heading. Is there any cause of action I could use to force the state to either take down the registry until the coding error is repaired and the unauthorized information removed from public view? Or at least post a notice conspicuously that says information is inaccurate on the registry due to a coding error. I would appreciate any advice you guys could give. And to all you people who think this registry is such a wonderful thing. You’re such friendly young people. Thank you. And good evening.

Larry 11:42
I’ve got a special clip I’d like you to play.

Andy 11:47
Oh, do you? Does it sound like this? Plays people laughing Is that the one?

Larry 11:54
Play the whole thing.

Andy 12:00
That’s all that I have on that laugh, Larry. They’re not gonna take down the website, that’s for sure.

Larry 12:08
Absolutely. I mean people have been murdered and they didn’t take down the website. The Governor Nikki Haley in South Carolina was governor when a couple was murdered. We being NARSOL wrote a letter to the governor. Of course, we didn’t expect that she would actually do it. And they didn’t. So if being killed- I mean, you just have to put it in context. If two innocent people- certainly one of them was innocent because it was the spouse of the registrant- if people being killed is not enough to take the registry down, the potential for inaccurate information is not gonna be able to take the registry down. I mean, that’s just the reality of the situation. But in terms of a cause of action, as a general rule – now I don’t know Tennessee law, so this is just generalities – most of the time, you need to show that you’ve been harmed. And some states have presumptive harm for information that’s not accurate and some states don’t. We don’t have presumptive harm in my state. So therefore, we’d have to show that we were actually harmed. And if Tennessee requires that you actually prove your harm, I can assure you the cause of action would go down like this: “Now show me how much money you were making before we had the inaccurate information on registry?” “I was making $12.20 an hour.” “How much are you making now?” “$12.20 an hour.” “And you were harmed how?” (Andy: Right.) And so you wouldn’t be able to show the necessary requisite harm. And then you would say you’ve suffered emotional stress, you’d say that. Well, everybody thinks that that’s an easy thing. So then guess what you get to do? You get to open up all your medical records to discovery when you put that into play about the emotional stress and how it’s harmed you. They get to depose you and ask you about all the treatment you’ve had in your life. And they can go back a long time to find out if there’s a preexisting condition that could be causing this anxiety that you’re claiming that’s because of the registry. So although it sounds good in theory, I would just about bet if he spent an entire week on the phone calling lawyers in Tennessee, he probably wouldn’t have a lot of receptive audience.

Andy 14:17
All right, then. Okay. Um, let’s see. We need to do the New Mexico letter that came in right? I think that’s where we are. Yeah, that’s yes, yes, yes. Okay, I had one tab out of order. All right. Um, so this came in from an email message and I forwarded it over to you. So here it goes. So I plan to move back to New Mexico and I fully understand my offense was not listed on the internet, etc. But I have to register every 90 days or six months. But I was looking up and it said if you have a deferred sentence, you do not have to register. I show this was updated as of January in ‘22. Now granted, I’m assuming that I have to register. But I do recall that my attorney told me over two years ago that an attorney told her I may not and I may have to. I’m not asking for legal advice. Just seeing if you have any insight on this, I’m asking you, because I will have to quit my job when I return since you have to get them to sign a form that you are a PFR. And my company will not have any of that. And I’m choosing to open up a collectible shop with my son. Thank you for your help. I look forward to getting home back in Rio Rancho and getting back to my family. P.S. I enjoy your podcast, and it’s helped me get through some tough times. Thank you for writing that. And, Larry, I think you are probably the expert on the New Mexico.

Larry 15:40
I think I come close to at least being knowledgeable. But I would challenge him to show me in our statutory scheme where it says you have to have an employer sign it. That just doesn’t exist. So that’s something that that either a law enforcement official told him, or he’s decided to read into what’s not there. What it actually says is that you’re required to notify your employer in writing of your status as a PFR. It doesn’t say your employer is required to sign it. Those are two different things. Now, the result is often the same. Whether they have to sign it or not is really immaterial if your employer… I mean, it certainly causes problems for people. But that is in the law. Since 2005, that has been our law that you have to notify your employer in writing. And we had a high-profile case in the Sunshine Theatre, and the Sunshine Theatre said that they wouldn’t have hired the person- his name is not coming to my mind- But they said they wouldn’t have hired the person if they had known he was on the registry. Well, the was online at the time, but they didn’t bother to check. So our current attorney general Hector Balderas, decided that he would sponsor a bill to make sure that never happened again. So our law has that clause in there that you have to notify your employer in writing. But there’s nothing that says the employer has to sign anything. But now here’s what does happen. Many sheriffs, including Bernalillo County, they tell you that you need to take our form and get it signed. And I tell them the law doesn’t actually say that. But that is somewhat of a protector for you. Because here’s the way that goes down. Say that your employer at the lower level- companies can have hierarchies where at the lower level, they like you and they hire you. And all of a sudden, he’s correct that most of the time your employment is going to be on the internet in terms of where you work, the address and whatnot. The statute is written poorly enough that almost everybody’s employment ends up listed. So when the people start calling the employer and complaining about the PFR working there, that gets elevated up the food chain, and the regional manager says “We’ve got a what doing what? Did you tell me that we got a sex offender working at that location? Who the hell hired him? Who approved that?” Well, here’s the way it would go down. The regional manager calls and the district manager says, Who put that person in unit number 212? And the store manager says, Well, I didn’t know he was a PFR. Well, if that store manager has signed that document, that serves as a protection for you because then they can’t weasel out and say they didn’t know. So in some aspects, that protects you because you’ve got it signed. And then since the statute requires that you have notified them, what would happen if the company said, “You mean to tell me he’s on the registry? He never told us that. I never would have hired the SOB.” You see how that even though they’re breaking the law, and they’re inventing something that’s not in the statute, in some demented kind of way, it can protect you. So back to the rest of his question, in terms of whether he’ll have to register here. I am not going to even go there in terms of his offense. Because we’ve learned in the years we’ve been doing this podcast that people tend to minimize and list only one of their offenses and the most favorable one. So what I can tell you is that when you come here, you have a right to a due process, the most robust one that I can think of around the country where you have a determination made if it’s equivalent and what is equivalent to. If he is correct, that it is only electronic solicitation, he would be correct that that would be one of our less heinous offenses. But if they translate that to an attempted criminal sexual penetration, that changes everything. So it’s all determined by how that translation takes place and what they say it’s equivalent to, and then he can certainly file an appeal If he doesn’t like to translation, but he very well may be right and he very well may be wrong in terms of that process. So when he gets here, that process will begin to unfold in terms of what his offense is equivalent to, what his Texas offense is equivalent to over here.

Andy 20:17
Okie dokie.

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.

Andy 21:07
Larry, we got to jump right into the feature segment. And I guess I’ll do this now plays breaking news sound Give us the 10 second version of what’s going on.

Larry 21:19
Well, I thought we had breaking news.

Andy 21:22
Did it not play for you? Did you not hear the breaking news? (Larry: No, it didn’t play.) Well, okay. It’s there anyway. So we have a case from Butts County. You know what Larry? I have a clip of him saying something that I want to share with you. I couldn’t find the one piece that I really wanted to but I found another interview with him. And I think this will kind of set things up.

Sheriff Gary Long 21:44
There’s some sex offenders that’s not happy. But I’m not really in the business of making them happy. I’m in the business of keeping safe communities and making sure our children is protected.

Andy 21:54
So this was about them putting signs in front of people’s yards leading up to Halloween, a handful of days before, and then through Halloween, and then something like that. And somebody took them to court, I believe?

Larry 22:09
You’re correct. We, NARSOL. This is a case from the 11th circuit court of appeals that was just decided two or three days ago. And we’ve got a smashing victory to talk about. So we’re diving right into it? Are we going into the interview cuz I am ready if you are.

Andy 22:29
Yeah, yeah, totally. Okay, so you people wrote an article titled NARSOL excited to announce that the 11th circuit court of appeals handed butts County Sheriff Gary Long a stinging defeat today. What case were you referring to and explain what it means to get a favorable decision from the 11th circuit court of appeals?

Larry 22:47
Awesome. This is the case of Cory McClendon. That was the lead plaintiff Corey McClendon versus Sheriff Gary long from level Circuit Court of Appeals No. 21-10092. This is a long running case based on events that began in Halloween in 2018. But it’s very important when you get a favorable ruling from a Circuit Court of Appeals. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is southeastern United States, Georgia, Florida and Alabama. And when you’re talking about a court of appeals decision, you’re talking about something that’s just one step beneath the United States Supreme Court. So this is now binding in the 11th circuit. And there will be cases that will launch based on this decision that will cite to this decision. So this case is huge.

Andy 23:42
So but I’m just going to ask. So the scope of authority here that they have- I know you’re saying the three states- but if I’m in Mississippi, and they put a sign in front of my yard, I can say the 11th Circuit said this, so you can’t do it?

Larry 23:55
Well, you can say that, but it’s not precedential- I mean, it’s not binding. It’s precedential/ persuasive authority. So you would file your suit in the District Court there in Mississippi, and the United States district court if you’re taking it federal, which that’s what we would recommend because elected judges in Mississippi are not going to be very hospitable to your arguments. But you would take it to a federal district court in Mississippi, which I believe is in the Fifth Circuit.

Andy 24:18
So that’s the same place as Texas, then.

Larry 24:22
Yes, you would say that you believe that this is unconstitutional. And you would cite to this as being persuasive, but they are not obligated to follow it over there. They might and they might not.

Andy 24:34
Okay, and as I understand the case back in 2018, two deputies from the Butts County Sheriff’s office placed signs in the front yards of the residence of all 57 registrants, PFRs, within the county warning “STOP” and “No trick or treat at this address.” They really had bad grammar too Larry. I don’t think that’s an accurate sentence. So what authority did they use to place the signs on their yards?

Larry 25:01
Well, that was the beautiful thing of the case. There was no authority in existence at that time, nor is there any now that would support the actions of Sheriff Gary Long. And as we prepared for the show, I mentioned that NARSOL sent a letter to Sheriff Gary long in 2018. And we had people in Georgia help us distribute those letters to two sheriffs in Georgia, Sheriff Gary Long and Sheriff Dix in adjoining Spalding County. And we told them unequivocally, that we thought they were breaking the law, that they lacked authority, they shouldn’t be doing this. And I think you’re even familiar with how those letters got delivered. You knew the person that delivered them, didn’t you?

Andy 25:45
Personally, a very tight relationship with this individual. If you are looking at the YouTube stuff, there’s one of them up on the screen now. Of course, my screen flips as soon as I do that. So there’s one of the letters go to Darrel Dix is his name. That’s a bizarre name. And then also, there’s the one for Gary Long. Yeah, those were delivered out, courier runner, whatever, they were delivered. And then wasn’t there another one delivered down into the southern part of the state too?

Larry 26:16
That happened later in Ben Hill County. But we tried our best to say, knock this off. You can’t do it. And particularly when you don’t have any statutory authority. Now, just because you have statutory authority does not render something constitutional. But there’s a strong presumption that it is. But in this case, this was an invented thing. He didn’t have any authority. So therefore, we asked him to stop and of course, he didn’t.

Andy 26:45
And I’m gonna flip the script on you just a little bit. Says how can you say that there’s no authority? (Andy plays funny Audio clip: I got my rights to do anything I want to do. I’m a police officer.) The police officers carry guns, can’t they make up rules as they go Larry?

Larry 26:58
Well, Sheriff Long says he could. And he did. And he has been stopped. So those that remember the sentencing of Dr. Jack Kevorkian after many, many assisted suicides, the judge when she imposed the prison sentence, she said consider yourself stopped. So Sheriff Long, consider yourself stopped.

Andy 27:24
I mean, Larry, can’t he still go do it?

Larry 27:29
Well, if he wants to be held in contempt of court, yes, he could.

Andy 27:32
I mean, does he eventually end up getting cuffed and put in one of his own little cells?

Larry 27:37
Well, not one of his own little cells, but that would be farfetched. He is stopped and he won’t do it anymore.

Andy 27:44
Okay. Um, Sheriff Long is a Publicity Hound for sure. After the warning signs were placed, he went on a media frenzy with Atlanta area TV stations and posted his message on his official Facebook page, along with a picture of the sign. In his post, he explained that the sign had only been placed in front of the homes of PFRs. His messaged also erroneously represented that Georgia law forbids PFRs from participating in Halloween. In its decision the court concluded, it is now undisputed, however, that Georgia law does not forbid PFRs from participating in Halloween. See opinion at 6. I very clearly remember this agitated you quite a bit Larry. We’ve covered this, I meant to go look this up, I’ll have to do that and put it in the show notes. But we’ve covered this twice or three times on episodes previous to this.

Larry 28:31
It did agitate me quite a bit. This whole case agitated me quite a bit because contrary to popular belief, we are not looking to try to just file lawsuits for the fun of them. Litigation is serious business. And we file lawsuits when we feel like there’s a likelihood of success on the merits and we feel that there’s an egregious violation taking place. And this agitated me because there was no authority. Sheriff Long, is it clear to you now that you do not have the authority to do this? And we told you that in 2018. But for some reason, your stubbornness and your bullheadedness, you just didn’t want to believe it. Now, a three-judge panel unanimously has told you that you can’t do it.

Andy 29:23
I actually attended the hearings. I went there with another individual and we listened in on the hearing. On the the issue of the preliminary injunction in Macon, Georgia, the trial judge did grant the injunction against the sheriff which prohibited him from posting the signs in 2019. What happened after that?

Larry 29:42
Well, what happened after that was that the 2019 Halloween came and went. And then we needed a decision on the merits and I kind of skipped over part of it above but it irritated me so much we did search for an attorney. And we settled on a guy named Mark Yurachek who’s an Atlanta-based attorney. And he had challenged the GPS requirement that was imposed on PFRs after they completed their sentence, and he had won that. And we felt like that you kind of know the territory of what you’re challenging. So we reached out to him, and he was the lead counsel in this. We had another attorney, but he was the lead counsel. And both parties moved for summary judgment, which is something that always causes me great consternation, because often there are facts in dispute and a trial is necessary to resolve those disputed facts.

Andy 30:36
Tell me one of the disputed facts. I’m thinking of one specifically about does the sheriff have the authority to put that in that easement area, like the handful of feet that’s between your house and the road?

Larry 30:51
That is the biggest dispute of fact. What constituted right of way and what are the permissible uses of the right of ways and who gets to use those? None of that was really developed below. And we can get to it later. Were saved from our summary judgment by the court. But that was a very, very risky summary judgment.

Andy 31:12
And so then summary judgment was granted?

Larry 31:15
In favor of Sheriff Long, yes. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Sheriff Long. And Sheriff Long, he explained in his briefing- I mean, he’s not doing the briefing- but he explained, the county explained in their response that the signs are imperative to warn the public about the residences of registered sex offenders. But he also admitted that prior to 2018, the sheriff’s office had provided flyers that they had asked to be placed on doors. And he said he believed that placing the signs out of the road would be more effective, because it would prevent the children from actually taking that risky walk up to the door of a PFR.

Andy 31:58
I see because the mere act of walking up to the door like spontaneously behind bushes and doors, like they’re going to be accosted upon the arrival to the door?

Larry 32:10
sarcastically That could happen. I mean, we’ve searched the Internet, high and low. We just can’t find anything until just this last year, I think something happened in Utah with a PFR under supervision. But up until then, I mean, we just could not unearth anything that would support any fear of Halloween.

Andy 32:25
And correct me if I’m wrong in chat, that person just like opened up the door in his birthday suit.

Larry 32:31
That was one of the things he did, yes. And then allegedly, he invited trick or treaters to come in. And that was against his terms of supervision.

Andy 32:40
Okay. Um, then the court noted that Sheriff Long had been sheriff in Butts County since 2013. And he admitted that during his tenure, he did not know of any incidents in Butts County involving registrants on Halloween. In fact, during his six-year tenure as Sheriff, there were no issues with any registrants in Butts County having unauthorized contact or reoffending with minors at any time. Did that admission help him or hurt him?

Larry 33:05
I believe it did indeed help us and hurt him. The sheriff was addressing an imaginary problem. And I believe it was obvious to the court that the problem he was alleging doesn’t really exist. And also I believe that his publicity-seeking worked against him. The court realized that he’s a media hound. They made note of him posting the stuff on Facebook. Again, Sheriff Long, FYP education tries to help with everybody. We know you have to be a media hound to get elected. We understand that. But you got to be careful when you’re too much of a media hound because it could come back to haunt you. And it did in this case.

Andy 33:45
Did the Court of Appeals ruling mean that the signs were unconstitutional, like full stop? They can’t do anything of the sort?

Larry 33:52
Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean that. I’ve seen a lot of comments out there that people are reading that into it. But the decision should not be read that way because they did not say that.

Andy 34:06
So what did they say instead of that?

Larry 34:09
Well, first, they applied strict scrutiny as the standard of review, which is the highest standard of scrutiny of review that something does. And that’s primarily applied in First Amendment and strict scrutiny does not presume that anything’s constitutional simply because it exists. And most statutory schemes only receive that rational basis review, which really causes our people a lot of consternation, because they believe the rational basis means that the result has to be perfect, and it has to be the most efficient, best way. Rational basis just means their attempt at remedying a real problem, is there rationally a problem? And I think everybody would concede that we do have some problem with offending. So just a rational basis review would do it, but they applied strict scrutiny and that is the proper standard in my opinion, because speech was involved. In order to place the signs, they would have to narrowly tailor the placement of the signs. This means that they cannot be placed on all registrants’ homes simply because they’re on the registry. And that is so hard for law enforcement. Sheriff Long again, I’m speaking to you, I could help you draft a statute that would be constitutional. But, see the problem is they wouldn’t get you the glory you’re looking for, because there would be virtually no one that would be prohibited because it would have to be so narrowly tailored that you wouldn’t get to parade the cameras around with you on Halloween saying that you’re checking on all the PFRs in Butts County. Maybe you might get to check on one or two. And that’s the whole problem. You know, they don’t want anything narrowly tailored. And plus, it costs a lot of money to narrowly tailor things.

Andy 35:45
And somebody actually has to then think too.

Larry 35:49
Yes. A risk assessments scheme that’s properly done would address that problem. Not just simply a categorical approach like the AWA does. But a risk assessment would be the solution. And Georgia has a risk system. The only problem is they haven’t leveled anybody. They don’t have the budget for that. So I think we had our Georgia leadership had accumulated the statistics and maybe like 15-20% of the people been leveled in Georgia.

Andy 36:19
So there’s so 23,000 on it, and 16,000 have not been leveled. Somebody can do the math for me that way.

Larry 36:25
Yeah, yeah, it’s about a 20% of the people maybe have been leveled. And Georgia doesn’t want to spend any money on this. This is an expensive proposition to do an individual assessment of people. But that would be the way that they could do this constitutionally would be to individualize. I’ll go off script for a little bit. Signs can be used to warn people of danger if there has been an individual assessment done. For example, every person who has a warning on their driver’s license if corrective lenses are required. That is because you have had a brief, individualized determination that your vision is not sufficient without those corrective lenses that you can drive and operate safely. So therefore, they are allowed to mark your license and notify others, primarily law enforcement, but they can make that notification that you are a risk. Earlier in the 20th century in the United States, signs were put on people’s homes all the time regarding quarantining. But those signs were placed after there had been an individual determination made that you had a communicable disease, and that you needed to be quarantined, that no one should be coming to your door. It wasn’t just put willy nilly under a theory that you might do something, which is what Sheriff Long’s theory is. That you’ve been convicted of making a mistake in your past, therefore, you might be dangerous. Sheriff Long, it doesn’t work like that. You just can’t do that. But can you put signs to notify people of danger? You absolutely can constitutionally put signs on people’s property. But it would be the extraordinary person that you could do that to constitutionally. You just can’t go around throwing signs up and announcing danger without some determination that there’s a real danger posed by that individual.

Andy 38:12
And just to reiterate, so some sort of due process, if you have, perhaps committed an offense in this way, like the guy we were just talking about in Utah or whatever, like maybe that would be, he has proven that he’s willing to do those kinds of things. So that would be narrowly tailoring it to him that maybe you don’t want to go knock on that dude’s door. But then the strict scrutiny thing, because it’s the first amendment, like that has to be applied with the most intensive standards?

Larry 38:39
Absolutely. It has to be very narrowly tailored. They have to show that they’re attempting to address a real legitimate problem and this is the most narrowly, least restrictive means that they can apply to do that. And putting this requirement on all 57 registrants in Butts County is no narrow tailoring at all. And that’s what law enforcement is fond of doing. Because it’s the easiest way, the simplest way. What you could do…. So the question was whether this means signs are unconstitutional? No, it doesn’t. But it means that only the rarest of situations would it be possible, constitutionally, according to this three-judge panel to do this.

Andy 39:20
I noted that, in the opinion, it says the 11th circuit concluded that the district court erred in two ways. First, it determined that a compelled government speech claim requires a finding that a reasonable third party would view the speech as endorsed by the plaintiff. Second, the district court erred by determining that the plaintiff’s ability to place their own yard signs disagreeing with the warning side could cure the original violation. Yes, I would like to put my competing sign up that says I’m not a terrible person. They went on to say this ignores that the harm here is the forced display of a government message on private property in violation of the right to refrain from speaking at all. This is on pages 12 and 13. We have some questions that have been posted on the NARSOL website. And are we at a position that you want to take those?

Larry 40:07
I can surely do that. But this is part of what messed up the sheriff with his arguments. He tried, as he realized when he lost at summary judgment, he realized that his case was not as strong as he originally had hoped it would be. So, he started what law enforcement does. They start trying to invent a way out of how to dig out of the hole they’re in. So he started trying to dream up arguments about that they could have put their own sign up. But nobody suggested that. But the evidence from the affidavits that were entered in the testimony at the injunction hearing was contrary to that. And the panel saw through that. That this is a sheriff trying to talk his way out of pretending that they would have been able to put a competing sign. And he also said something to the effect that they could have taken the signs down. You know, that there were no threats made. You know, that this was this was a voluntary thing. But yet the testimonies showed that it was all but voluntary. They were told that they’d be destroying County property. So Sheriff again, you are a law enforcement officer. Try to start telling the truth and not try to invent things and you won’t find yourself in this situation as frequently. The truth will do you a lot more good. You know, when you tell your suspects, you know, y’all better just come clean with us. Try to remember that yourself as well.

Andy 41:33
I have no sympathy for the position that he’s in. However, I will just offer up that the people that elected him were rallying behind him and like “way to go Sheriff, thank you for keeping us safe” and all this stuff. So he’s under immense amount of pressure to do the thing. He’s an elected official, so he’s trying to garner votes and be that person but at the same time, he has certain restrictions. And if he pushes back, I mean, that could be some level of political suicide for him.

Larry 42:10
Certainly, I don’t think it’d be suicidal, but he probably has greater ambitions. I mean sheriff is a prestigious role. (Andy: In Butt’s County?) Sheriff is a prestigious role regardless because of the immense power that they possess. My understanding is that the GA Sheriff can basically write their own budget in terms of what they’re obligated to do, and they’re very powerful individuals. But he probably would like to be something. He’s a young fellow, I’ve seen his billboard signs in Butts County, and he’s a fairly young guy. And he probably has ambitions. So he wants to he wants to be on the right side of these issues. But, you know, NARSOL, we’re really extremely gratified by the decision. And we believe it validates our mission in challenging law enforcement when they choose to invent requirements that are not part of statutory scheme. You know, this case took quite some time. You know, it’s been in litigation, and it went exceedingly fast at the court of appeals. But this took time, even though it was summary judgment. And a huge amount of legal bills had been run up on both sides. So Sheriff Long, the ball’s kind of at your court. Do you want to keep spending your county’s money on what is probably a futile expedition, or do you want to agree to a permanent injunction to bind the sheriff’s office from putting any more signs up? And we’ll be happy to call it quits, and we’ll resolve this impasse, but we’re not going to give up. So if you want to go Supreme Court, we will be there with you.

Andy 43:33
Alright, so some questions that have been provided by different people. Some people in chat and then from the NARSOL website. Says, does this ruling address these Halloween warning signs as a whole? Or does this specifically target the fact that the signs were posted by the sheriff without statutory authority?

Larry 43:50
Well, it was launched with the facts alleged that it was without authority. But the way that the panel wrote the decision, it is broad enough that you can interpret beyond it technically only applies the way we framed the arguments was that he lacked the authority. But had he even had the authority, this is pretty clear without narrowly tailoring, that these signs would have been unconstitutional. But specifically, that wasn’t alleged. So in a general answer, yes, it does go beyond that. But that wasn’t where the allegations were. We went after Sheriff Long because he invented the law. And that’s not his role. He put his hand on that Bible, and he’s supposed to enforce the law. So we went after him because he was inventing the law. If they were to pass a law at some point requiring Halloween signs, we’d be after them again because we still believe it’s unconstitutional. I think that decision makes it quite clear that it would be the most rare circumstances where you could constitutionally place these signs.

Andy 44:57
I believe you mispronounced the word. You meant to say Biiible.

Larry 45:02
I forgot that, yes.

Andy 45:03
Okay. Moving along, if the ruling addresses the sign issue as a whole, this could at least be used as a convincing argument in other appellate districts in new challenges to state who mandates such signs by law, wouldn’t it?

Larry 45:17
Absolutely. We’re anxious to, we’re going to be looking around- we being NARSOL- we’re gonna be looking at other states that have done this around the country. I think Missouri may be one, but we’re going to be looking where signs are a problem. And we may even expand beyond just the people who have paid their debt to society because these signs, even if the person’s under supervision, are very problematic. So therefore, we’re looking in your direction, wherever you are. As a prime minister Rabin said when he was a defense minister back in the, I believe it was in the 80s, he said, Let terrorists beware wherever they are, they are not beyond the long arm of the Israeli Defense Forces. So law enforcement beware, wherever you are that if you’re going to invent requirements, you are being watched, and we’re looking for opportunities to shut you down?

Andy 46:16
Related to that question, I think is in chat says I can only imagine how the children of the PFRs felt. I often wonder if the law enforcement think about the children’s safety, I’m happy, those folks won’t have to deal with that garbage anymore. So like one of the plaintiffs, if I’m not mistaken, he lived with his parents. So, it would be one thing if you live on your own little farm out in the middle of nowhere, and they put a sign like that it’s pointing at you. But if you live with your spouse, and your kids, now you have the sign in your yard and like well, who’s the one that we should be quote unquote, afraid of? What is their rights to protect their speech from what Sheriff Long had done to that house?

Larry 46:55
That was a convoluted question.

Andy 47:00
Sorry. But what about the people that live at the same address and then have a sign in their yard?

Larry 47:06
Yeah, I get the gist of it. Yeah. And that’s part of what’s going to happen with this. Again, there’s a lot with Sheriff Long right now. Two of our three plaintiffs ended up- they were living in parents homes, they did not own them. So those cases have been remanded. The panel didn’t make a decision because standing was part of the issues raised by the sheriff that they didn’t have standing. So therefore, we may have to go back to the district court and amend those complaints, and then let them proceed because the owners would have the standing and the very thing that you’re asserting there about how it impacted them to have that sign placed in their yard. But again, Sheriff Long could end this by saying I won’t do it anymore and cease all litigation. So I implore him to end this endeavor. And let’s stipulate to a permanent injunction and let’s be done with this.

Andy 47:59
So Mr. Cynical here says, but if the ruling specifically targets the signs in this case due to the lack of statutory authority for the sheriff to post them, couldn’t the state make such a mandate in state law and render the court’s ruling useless?

Larry 48:15
Well, they could possibly try. And I’ve already been… I try to imagine everything in the worst possible scenarios that could come down. And you know, we’ve had people threaten to jump off of bridges because of that. But I’ve tried to imagine if I were a cynical individual, what I would do and I’ve come up with several scenarios, and one thing they would do- part of what messed the sheriff up was that even though he didn’t really have his argument cogent, he tried to he tried to invent on the fly. But the Georgia statutory scheme, even though we didn’t fully establish what is right of way and what isn’t, because we did summary judgment. There’s a statute in terms of who can place signs on right of ways. And the sheriff doesn’t have that authority. So the court picked up on that, and I don’t believe that was in our in our briefing. If it was, it escaped by eagle eye. But the court picked up on that. If it was in our brief briefing, I’ve got to give credit for that being there. But what they would do if they’re going to be cynical, they would try to give the sheriff authority to place signs on right of way. And then they would come back and say it’s cured. But that doesn’t cure it because even though you would diminish our thing about whether it was right of way or not, the signs themselves don’t magically become constitutional just because you have authority to place something in a right of way, so that won’t get them completely out of the woods.

Andy 49:43
Because you can see an example some road workers, they come in, they’re doing work, they’re in front of your house, and they place a sign that says some sort of road hazard ahead. Like I don’t want that on my property, but they have the authority to do that in respect of doing the maintenance on the road.

Larry 49:59
Correct. So like I say that’s, it’s a long shot that they would change the law to give the sheriff the right to put signs on people’s property on the right of way. But that would be something that they could do. We’ve already thought about that. I’d like to think that we thought of everything that they could do. I mean, they could conceivably just say, well, we’ll adopt the AWA tier system. And that way, you’ll have a level. But unfortunately, that doesn’t work because that’s a categorical approach. And that is stagnant. It is based on what you did. And that doesn’t ever change. Because what you did, unless the tier level is changed, it doesn’t change by the dynamic factors that cause you to be less of a risk. So that would be another thing that they could try to do and say, well, we’ll just make sure everybody’s leveled. We’re not going to spend all the money to level the 16,000 people. That won’t save you. But that’s something we thought about that they could try to do.

Andy 50:45
I can tell you about an article I just saw on the AJC about that specific subject too. It’s funny.

Larry 50:50
But if we always spend our time worrying about what they might do, we would never litigate anything. Because you heard King Alexander say when we were having him as regular guest, every time the defense lawyers win anything in Louisiana, they just simply go the legislature, the prosecution does, and change the statute. But then we should just give up and throw in the towel and you can do anything you want to do? We can’t do that. We’re gonna fight you. And if they try to make these changes, if they succeed, we’ll have to come back with new challenges. But I mean, everything that I think could be imagined, I’ve already imagined it.

Andy 51:26
Another one is, as I stated in the comment on the Florida Action Committee website, this logic can and should be used against the registry itself. If posting a sign is compelled speech, then so is the registry. I’m assuming they’re talking about the website, the registry.

Larry 51:43
I don’t see the same comparison there. I mean, I’m having trouble tracking with that.

Andy 51:49
I’m going to extrapolate out Larry. I’m going to say that people are saying… so if a sign is placed in front of my front yard that says that I’m the bad person, then that indicates that they have published the information. I know where you’re going to go. But so then having the Public Registry website is publishing the same kind of information, saying that this person is dangerous. The difference is going to be where is that information hosted? I can post stuff that says that Larry’s a very dangerous person all I want. I might end up with slander problems. But I can post that all I want. But if I post that on your yard, that’s a problem.

Larry 52:27
Well, that’s one distinguishing thing. But the registry is historically, if you look at the registry, there’s very little in the registry that says a particular person is dangerous. In fact, they say just the opposite. They say that this is not intended to tell you what level of threat this person poses. The few states that that actually level people with a risk assessment, they may have that on their website. But again, a lot of states don’t do risk assessments. I think more don’t than do. Yeah, as we said, a tier level is not the same thing as a risk level. And you may be a tier three. And the public may perceive that that’s a dangerous person. But the state is not saying that you’re a dangerous person by putting that tier three on you. That’s something that the public has through lack of understanding what tier three means, they’ve decided that you’re dangerous. But in this particular instance, the public service announced that Sheriff Long, every inference was from the sheriff’s official that this individual is dangerous on this property. You shouldn’t go near this place. I can see some tangential relationship the argument they were trying to make that that the registry itself is compelled speech. But I don’t think we’re there yet. In terms of making that argument, I don’t think we’re there yet.

Andy 53:52
I think this is along the same lines. It says with the advent of the World Wide Web, all you need to do is type in someone’s name, and if they don’t have any criminal history, no results of criminality will appear. If they do have a criminal history, you’ll easily be able to click around and see what they were charged and convicted of along with how much jail time they did, if any. So with that, there’s no need for registry. Searching for someone’s information is not compelled because you aren’t being forced to give that information. It’s being sought. But the registry is forced on you requiring all sorts of information outside of just charged and conviction. So the registry and any licensed branding, including passport branding, is compelled speech. It needs to be argued

Larry 54:33
It has been argued. The Alliance for Constitutional Sexual Offense Laws argued that twice on two different federal courts

Andy 54:43
Alright, then we’ll move on.

Larry 54:46
And they lost on both of them. I think I made the example; compelled speech is not as cut and dry as people want to make the argument. When you go into a restaurant, and I know they’re gonna say, Larry, you don’t understand. A restaurant is a voluntary thing that you that you choose to be in. You go in a restaurant, I’ll use our state as an example, our city in particular, where we use the red and green system of tags on restaurants in terms of whether it’s good to go in and whether that restaurants experiencing problems. If they have a red tag, they may be operating on a downgraded status where they’re gonna be shut down in 10 days if they don’t come into compliance. Do you think that they endorse that speech? (Andy: They probably do not.) Okay, but it’s being compelled. If you want to continue to operate, you have to have that on your front door. It gives you an incentive to come into compliance. They’re compelling you to speak, and they’re doing it for public safety. So a compelled speech can be done, but it’s most narrowly, narrowly tailored. Like I said with the driver’s licenses. And people are gonna say, well, Larry, you don’t have to drive. You don’t you don’t understand the difference. Yes, I understand the difference. The people who got sick, who didn’t choose to get sick, when they had those signs placed on their house, they were being compelled to speak. But they were being compelled to speak because it was narrowly tailored, that they had a contagious disease that could be damaging or fatal to the community if that house wasn’t quarantined, so they were compelled to speak. The government can compel you to speak. So people need to get over that argument. But it’s in the most limited of circumstances where the government can compel speech. I mean, with the passport markings, I think that that one probably is going to stand until it’s changed by law or by statutory amendment. I think that marking on the passport is here for the foreseeable future. I’m sorry, I regret it. But I think it’s here.

Andy 56:45
Just to noodle around on the First Amendment. Like you can’t run around and say certain words in airports and movie theaters. I mean, you can. There’s consequences for it. But like, there’s restrictions on any of these amendments, you don’t have an absolute right to do any of these things. They just have to be severely limited in their application.

Larry 57:08
Correct. When you start intruding on speech, either prohibiting speech or forcing speech, it has to be with the utmost of tailoring and precision. But it can be constitutionally done, just like Justice Scalia said on the clip we’ve played before. You can have limitations on gun ownership. He just says we don’t know where they are yet. But there are limitations. There are limitations on speech, on enforcing speech. There are limitations, but it can be done. But the right circumstances have to exist. This was not those circumstances where you could compel a person to speak. There are ample alternatives. And that was pointed out in the ruling for people to get the information. There are ample alternatives for them to know about people in the registry. They don’t need to have a sign in front of their house, particularly those who may not pose any threat whatsoever.

Andy 58:02
This one is similar, but I want it because more negativity. That’s excellent news. However, my only assumption now would be that in the near future, this sign issue will be pushed as a way to grab votes and put forward as an ordinance, which will then render all of this moot, and simply add another law to the books. It saddens me to know that all we ever seem to get accomplished is the poking of the bear.

Larry 58:26
I don’t agree with that.

Andy 58:30
We have seen where challenges have been filed, and then they turn around and go place in a new law. Okay. So by that logic, then we should just sit down and let them do whatever they want and we’ll just take it? That’s not the right attitude, either.

Larry 58:46
That sounds like our friend in Clayton County, Georgia that would write that, but I don’t agree with that. They will have great difficulties putting a broad Halloween restriction in place unless this ruling is overturned. Now, I think you’ve got something to read about what Sheriff Long promised to do at the onset of this case.

Andy 59:09
I know. Seriously, I was trying so hard looking through hours of clips trying to find him going “I’m going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.”

Larry 59:17
Sheriff Long vowed at the onset of this case that he would take it all the way Supreme Court. So it’s in his ballpark now. He can file a cert petition if he so chooses. But this is written by three conservative judges. All I think appointed by Republicans. But the chief judge is on the three judge panel. And there’s a Trump appointee and a George W. Bush appointee, and I don’t remember who appointed judge Pryor. But this is a solidly written opinion. One of the things you argue when you file a cert petition is you argue that there was a dissenting opinion on the panel. There’s no dissenting opinion on this panel. I mean, this is one of those cases where I generally don’t like for things to go the Supreme Court. But I would feel okay if this one does go. Because Sheriff long, what you’ll do is you’ll help us take this nationwide. I’m giving you a little pointer here. If you take this to the Supreme Court, and I do believe we will win, then you will have made what was kind of like what the people did they didn’t want same sex marriage, you will have made something nationwide that right now is just confined to three states. So, it’s what do they say? Make my day. I believe that that we would prevail in this very conservative Supreme Court. And then we have a nationwide precedent. And you’ll also run up a bunch of bills for your taxpayers to pay. And if that’s your choice and your voters still support you after you’re spending a whole bunch of money that you could be putting in police vehicles and new technology and things to make the citizens of Butts County safer, that’s your choice. But we will be there if that’s where you choose to go.

Andy 1:00:56
The fact that no one really offended in his district is actually not the best argument for us, because he could easily claim that it was his efforts and policies that prevented any real offenses.

Larry 1:01:08
He could do that. But he only did this for ‘18 before he was stopped. And has been sheriff for many years now. So it’s gonna be hard for him to really just say that, but you know… Certainly politics requires people to do things that they might not do because they’re catering to the masses. He knows his constituents; he knows the citizens of Butts County. And he knows what resonates with them. And this is our system, folks. I mean, you can’t be all that mad at it. The ones you need to be mad at is when you look at the mirror in the morning. The reason why they do this is because it works. If it quits working, they’ll stop doing it. It’s really that simple. This type of grandstanding only works because you the voter vote for these people.

Andy 1:01:58
Oh, you know the elections are rigged, Larry.

Larry 1:02:00
Right.

Andy 1:02:03
Okay, moving along. Wouldn’t the signs in theory be the same thing as a deputy or sheriff instructing a registrant that they must stand out by the road of their house where the sign would have been placed and keep repeating out loud, Stop, stop no trick or treating at this address? It’s an interesting way to frame it.

Larry 1:02:20
That’s a very, very good, good comparison. That’s pretty close to what it would do. And again, some judges when they’re punishing people, they do put in some really creative things or requirements. I have seen people have to pronounce their criminality as part of their community service. I think that our former Secretary of State here has to do that and go around as part of her hundreds of hours of community service. She has to tell people about why you shouldn’t embezzle. You know, but you know, that that can be done as a part of punishment, but not as part of the civil regulatory scheme. So you got to remember folks. Utter these words: civil regulatory scheme.

Andy 1:03:00
Civil regulatory scheme. I’ve seen where the judge would impose that someone has to wear like the sandwich sign thing. They’re wearing the sign and then have to walk around.

Larry 1:03:09
Yeah, some of that may be over the top. But, you know, say if I’m a judge, and I give you a creative sentence like that, you know, I can tell you, you may have a constitutional challenge on this sentence. So I’m going to give you a choice, and I’m going to have you decide on the record if you want the sentence. I’m torn between option A, which is to give you this amount of jail time, or Option B, to give you a very creative sentence that’s going to require a little bit of embarrassment, but it’s trying to help better you as an individual, so that when you are finished with your debt to society, then you won’t think about reoffending again. So I’m gonna let you make the choice. Do you want Option A or Option B? And then you might have a better chance of that sentence holding up on appeal because the person has knowingly decided that you realize as a judge that you’re being a little bit creative. And that you may, in fact, have a constitutional challenge on this. But I’m, I’m really struggling on this. And my inclination is to incarcerate you, but I’ve got this really wild idea for a sentence. Would you like this rather than the alternative and see what the person says?

Andy 1:04:19
Sure. Couple more questions. Um, was there a payout on this win?

Larry 1:04:26
Not yet. This case is still active. There has to be a lot of things happen. It’ll be a year before there’s a payout or maybe longer. If there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, that’ll stay everything if there’s a cert petition filed. But if there is no cert petition filed, the mandate has to come down. The District Court has to have to receive the mandate and to reinstitute proceedings pursuant to the mandate, and there’d have to be a fee petitions filed. And the county would get to argue why that that fee petition was exorbitant and put their objections to it. And then the court would conceivably hold a hearing, or maybe rule without a hearing. So the fee petition- I mean, that’s months away, but there very well will at some point be fees awarded for this. Yes.

Andy 1:05:14
And can we talk really quick? We’re getting close on time. But can we talk really quick about the settlement that happened in the neighboring county?

Larry 1:05:23
Spalding County? Yes, there was a settlement on that. The people in Spalding County, they saw the light. After the judge granted the injunction in Butts County- And these were two different districts. One was in the middle district. Butts County, even though they’re parallel, was in the Middle District of Georgia. And Spalding is in the northern district. So it was two different trial courts, but they decided, based on the actions taken by the trial judge in the Butts County case that they wished to negotiate a settlement. So that case was settled. So that goes down as a win. And part of the settlement would have been fees. And I don’t know what the amount was, but there were fees as part of that settlement.

Andy 1:06:08
Um, I mean, is it fair to even like speculate?

Larry 1:06:12
Oh, I would speculate that it would be in the neighborhood of $30,00 – $50,000 of legal fees on our side. But that doesn’t take into account the other side, because they have fees also. You know, the smaller counties typically don’t have a staff attorney. They do contract with lawyers. And so there’s a county attorney, but that county attorney often has a law practice independent of their county attorneyship. And a county contract is good for, say up to $120,000 per annum for legal fees, and stuff. So and of course, they try to milk that bill for everything they can. I mean, our great capitalist system is trying to get all you can. So if they get into a case like this, they want to do as much as they can to the max they can under their contract. I mean, I don’t make the rules. I just tell you what they are.

Andy 1:07:02
Um, would there be any reason that Butts county would then go request an on bonk hearing?

Larry 1:07:08
Well, they, they could. And they may, but it’s not likely to go anywhere. They don’t have anything to cite to on this because it was a United unanimous panel. So that’s an argument you would make. You’d say, hey, you know, this is a split decision, you know, and this eloquent dissent… I mean, everybody loves the dissent when they are on the losing side. I mean, they just think how brilliantly written the dissent. And that would be a case where you would really concentrate on the dissent. But there is there’s no dissent here. So the the chances of an en banc being granted in this case would be very slim. You’ve got the Chief Judge Pryor, I believe he’s chief judge. And I just don’t see that they would be granted. I mean, they can certainly file for it and run up more legal bills. Because we’ll have to file a response saying you shouldn’t grant further review, is that this is over with, but they could do that.

Andy 1:07:59
Larry, that is all I have. Is there anything else that you have before I close the segment, and we go on to Who’s that Speaker?

Larry 1:08:06
I think I’ve babbled enough. I just want to remind law and law enforcement officials that you are elected to enforce the law. And if you truly do want to make the law, that you should probably surrender the badge. And you should run for a different type of office. And usually it’s going to be a legislative seat, but you should run for the branch of government that makes the laws. But you take an oath and we need you to respect that oath and follow and merely enforce the laws. And you can even lobby as a sheriff for laws that would be stronger than what you have. But you don’t get to just invent them. And as I say, someone is watching

Andy 1:08:47
And I’m going to close things out with this Larry. sound effect Alright, so that’s that was me closing out the segment. You probably don’t get that

Larry 1:08:56
I didn’t hear anything. Something came through. I just wasn’t able to process it.

Andy 1:09:04
Okay, there’s a song called I think it’s the 80s it could be the early 90s And it’s called Doing the Butt. Alright, so I figured that somebody suggested that I play that because it would be very cute considering we’re talking about Butts County.

Larry 1:09:18
Alrighty.

Andy 1:09:20
We got to move right over to Who is that Speaker? because we are really short on time. We’re short on time. We’ve been doing this for an hour and 10 minutes almost. Last week, I played this clip.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:33
It was through a direct message on the application Twitter. I just sent him a nice message just Hello. I’m a huge fan. I knew that Hillary Clinton would be running for president in the year 2016. And I wanted to see if was still up to the same antics. I knew that it was going downhill and really fast. I was disgusted. That’s part of the reason that I came forward.

Andy 1:10:02
And so I still don’t know who the name of the person is. But Al from Maryland wrote in, he says, Andy, I was just listening to the podcast, and I sort of got this one right away. I say sorta because I don’t know her name. But that is the woman that Anthony Wiener was sending junk pictures to. Do I have to get her name right? So and I still can’t find her name. But yes, that is totally correct. It was a teenager. And so yeah, he, I found some of the pictures blurred out of what he was doing. And so they were not so savory pictures.

Larry 1:10:33
So now when you say junk, that would be his anatomy, of his private parts, right?

Andy 1:10:38
Yes. Not, not the literal junk in his trunk but the figurative junk in trunk.

Larry 1:10:43
So alright, just so we’re clear. All right.

Andy 1:10:46
So yes, Al is a very astute, aware individual. And he keeps getting all these right and yells at me when we make easy ones. Like “I did not have sex with that woman” over there. And, but so this one, I hope nobody gets it. But you got to tell me who this one is. So this is for episode 211. Who’s that Speaker?

Who’s that Speaker? 1:11:06
A lot of people who go into prison, go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay. So did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that.

Andy 1:11:14
Alright, so if you know who that is, send an email message over to registrymatterscast@gmail.com with who you think that individual might be. Anything before we close out Larry? Any final parting words?

Larry 1:11:28
Just thanks to our wonderful group of new patrons. We have three this week.

Andy 1:11:32
And we have four actually, I even missed one. I didn’t even see this one come in. But yeah, so we have Maurice, Steve and Stephen. And I can’t thank them all enough. Stephen just joined up a couple hours ago, which I thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Larry 1:11:50
They’re all at the $1,400 month level, right?

Andy 1:11:53
100% Yes, they all send in the tax refund money.

Larry 1:11:57
So and we’ve got to get people going to our new education website, FYPeducation.org. We got for those who do not want to be a regular patron, there is a donate button if what we do is sufficient enough that you feel like you want to do a love offering. And we’re hoping in the near future to have it where you can actually order transcripts and different things. I mean, that’s still in works. But we’re trying to get… All this stuff is way complicated more than I can explain. But we’re trying to figure out how people can order various things that we offer. It’s all free if you want to print it, but if you want us to distribute it to you, there’s a cost involved. But we’re going to have just a plethora of free resources up there. Transcript, PDFs that you can send to your loved ones. Summary of the state statutes, cases we talk about, we’re gonna put PDFs of cases like this one on the website. So there’s gonna be a plethora of free stuff.

Andy 1:12:48
Very good. You can find all of that stuff. Links over at fypeducation.org. Leave voicemail questions at 747-227-4477, registrymatterscast@gmail.com If you want to send in some communications of some sort, and of course, we were just talking about new patrons. patreon.com/registry matters. And you can find all the same resources, similar resources over at FYPeducation.org. Larry, that is all we have for the night, and I thank you as always for coming in. And that was good case. Great win and I will talk to you very soon. Have a great night.

Larry 1:13:23
Thanks. It was exciting news this week.

Andy 1:13:26
Very good, sir. Good night.

You’ve been listening to FYP.