Download Transcript of RM217: 3 Questions About The Adam Walsh Act
Listen to RM217: 3 Questions About The Adam Walsh Act
https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm217-3-questions-about-the-adam-walsh-act/
https://fypeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/AWA-as-Currently-Codified.pdf
https://fypeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Substantial_Implementation_Checklist_2020.pdf
https://fypeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Adam-Walsh-ACT-as-Passed-By-Congress.pdf
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 across the internet. This is episode 217 of Registry Matters. Good evening, fine, sir. How are you? (Larry: Awesome. How are you?) Doing very well. PFR Soldier says we finally got above 30 degrees for the first time in a week. Wow. I guess it’s a little bit chilly in Colorado.
Larry 00:39q
Is not that bad. I could sleep outdoors at 30.
Andy 00:44
With nothing? I don’t see that happening. Not even a chance.
Larry 00:51
Alrighty.
Andy 00:52
I had a question I was gonna ask you. Oh, can you tell me- so tonight is daylight savings time. And I always forget. is it? It’s not attorneys general. So it’s daylight savings time. So we’re going to spring forward tonight. And why do we do this?
Larry 01:08
Because we have a law in the books that’s been around since 1966 that requires a changing of the time. The dates have changed periodically, since then. But there was a time change mandated by federal law that was called the Uniform Time Act, I think in 1966.
Andy 01:27
And you also just said that a state- so apparently some states have voted to stop adhering to it. And then they still need congressional approval, which I can’t imagine. So we can’t do what we want to do?
Larry 01:40
That is correct. My understanding, because I do have legislative connections here, we have not been able to pass such a law states have passed it and it goes to Congress then to be approved because it affects and impacts interstate movement of goods and commerce and everything. So therefore Congress has to allow the state to opt into a different time. Now my understanding is and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, you can opt to go to standard time all the time without congressional approval. But if you want to go to daylight savings time year round, I believe that needs to congressional approval for Eastern or any daylight time whether it’s Eastern or Central or mountain or Pacific Daylight Time. You have to you have to get congressional approval for the time change. And I think some states, Florida, and maybe even Georgia have passed that at the state level. But there’s been no congressional action, granting their requests.
Andy 02:38
So what you just said- So if we wanted to stay where we are right now, as we record this Saturday night, you can without approval. But if you want to stay where we spring ahead tonight at 2am, then you would need congressional approval?
Larry 02:52
That’s what I think I remember from the debates as I was listening into them. And we’ve had that bill debated a number of times in our legislature. We’ve got a senator from Roswell called Cliff Pirtle, and he’s been carrying that soon within a year or so after he was elected in 2012. He’s been proposing that. And people write in some of the wackiest emails they say it’ll mess up the cows milking and all this kind of stuff. Of course, the cow has no idea what time it is. (Andy: The cow does not care, haha.) But people submit data on both sides. The proponents say that it will save billions of billions of dollars in accidents, because people are so tired after the spring forward, that the accident rate zooms through the stratosphere. And the people that are against say that it messes up their- well the cows are one thing- but they say it messes up their bio rhythms. They don’t want to change. I mean, it’s like you get the most barrage of emails you can imagine of people with wacky arguments about why. would be okay with being one or the other. The change that doesn’t really bother me, but I’d be okay with stopping the clock on one of the time zones one way or the other.
Andy 04:13
I agree with this. All right. Well, since we’ve now talked about time, tell us how much time we will be spending tonight on the various different subjects that we’re going to cover.
Larry 04:22
Well, I don’t know what we’re covering. I know that we’ve got a couple things that I put in here. We’ve got a question from someone and it is quite interesting. So we’re answering it tonight pertaining to moving to the best state for PFRs. And we select these questions just, FYI, we don’t select these because we’re trying to help out an individual. We look at the questions trying to figure out if it will have impact beyond the questioner’s inquiry and if it would be something of interest to a large number of people. And we do have a large number of people who would like to state shop. And although we don’t encourage that, that’s what we’re going to get into is the nuances of his question. And we have, we have a course a clip or two to play as usual. We’ve got some articles. And we’re going to do a segment about the AWA where you are going to be driving the bus on that one.
Andy 05:19
I don’t know about driving anything. But I did try to start coming up with some questions to cover this thing. But before we get into anything too exciting, I need to remind myself to do this again. Here, you can press like and subscribe on the YouTube thing. There’s some even clicks that happen. How about that? I think that’s fun. For context, Larry, you found this clip of a particular president from 20 years ago. Do you want to set it up?
Larry 05:48
Sure. I’m just hearing so much stuff about how horrible the current president is in terms of this thing and Ukraine, about why he’s being so dumb to trust him and all this. So that, of course, you know, when you’re negotiating with an adversary, oftentimes, we do not get to select our adversary. They’re selected by other means beyond the United States’ control. But the first person I recollect making a comment about the trustworthiness- we’ll just play this and you can tell us what you think.
President George Bush 06:17
I’ll answer the question, I looked the man in the eye. I found it to be very straightforward, and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.
Andy 06:33
And who was that?
Larry 06:35
Well, that would be our second President Bush. And I think that happened in 2001. I think that’s when he made that comment. And I’m not condemning the former president. But I’m saying that we have recognized that he’s, Putin that is, has been in power for 20 years, and we’re stuck with dealing with him. He’s, for better or worse, by whatever mechanism they select their leaders, he is who they have dealt us. So that’s what we have to deal with, whether we like him or not.
Andy 07:07
I think I would call that those elections have been a little bit of a sham ritual. The elections in Russia?
Larry 07:17
Well, I have not information on that. But it certainly could be. But on the other hand, at the time he came into office, Russia was reeling from the breakup of the Soviet Union. And they were not regarded as a world power. And the population of that country had thought of themselves as a as a world power. And this was someone who reassured them that they would be treated as a world power if he were given the reins of power. So he appealed to their nationalist instincts. We’ve had Presidents and candidates do the same thing appealing to their nationalism here. In fact, very recently, we’ve had a president do that.
Andy 07:55
I don’t think we should go any deeper into that one. Um, let’s talk about this Jussie Smollett. Who was Jussie Smollett?
Larry 08:04
Well, I don’t know enough about him other than he made sensational headlines when he claimed to have been victimized in a racial attack and had a noose and he was beaten up and think it was back in 2019. And I put this in here for a number of reasons. It doesn’t directly relate to us, but it does, because people are quick to jump to judgment. And we think it only affects our issue. Now, it affects our issue in a bad way. Because if you’re accused of a crime related to a sexual crime, there’s the presumption of guilt. And in this case, all the media that I’m aware of certainly the mainstream media assumed that this is true, that what he was saying was true. When a victim says I have been sexually assaulted, I push back against the victims’ advocates when they say we should have believed them, No, we should take the report. And we should investigate the report, as we would investigate any alleged criminality to see if in fact, that is borne out by the evidence, which is what the Chicago Police did. They investigated his report. And they found it to not be supported by evidence. And they asked him if he would like to recant it. He dug his heels in and said, No, he did not. So three years later, he has been sentenced last week. And I’m really interested in the sentence because I think components of it are improper. So we’ve got some interesting issues that come into play when you hear the sentence that the judge had posed.
Andy 09:52
So I’ll play the clip.
Judge 09:53
I’m fashioning the following sentence, and here’s your sentence. I’m sentencing you to 30 months’ felony probation and the probation is going to be to this court. You’re going to be allowed to travel wherever you want. You do not have to live in the state of Illinois. You can report by phone. I know that if you’re going to try to make a living and do some of the things you do, you may have to go to other places, New York and Los Angeles. You can do those things. You will pay restitution to the city Chicago in the amount of $120,106. You are fined $25,000, which is the maximum fine. And you will spend the first 150 days of your sentence in the Cook County Jail. And that will start today, right here right now. Mr. Smollett, the jury…
Andy 10:46
He’s getting 120,000 in restitution, a $25,000 fine, and just like 150 days in jail?
Larry 10:55
And the remainder on probation. The part that I zeroed in on was, you heard what the judge said about you’ll be permitted- you don’t have to live in Illinois. You’ll be permitted to travel. That’s really problematic in terms of a person who’s under supervision. He did not utter the words “supervised probation.” But he doesn’t have to. If you are sentenced to a probation term that has any reporting obligations whatsoever, the interstate contract for Adult Offender supervision kicks in. You cannot be allowed to report in by phone and live in another state. The state that you’re allowed to live in needs to know that you’re there. And they need to be able to supervise you. And, I mean, that’s the one of the driving forces behind this version of the interstate compact. It replaced the old compact where this was permissible. And people would allow their criminals to roam the countryside, unsupervised, because they were out of sight out of mind. And this sets up Illinois for liability if something should happen in the way of criminality and they’re allowing him to live in say- whatever city; Boulder, Colorado. They’re allowing him to live in Provo, Utah, where it doesn’t matter. And he’s not being supervised by those authorities there as long as he has reporting obligations. In my opinion- and I do have some knowledge on Interstate Compact- in my opinion, this violates interstate compact for Adult Offender supervision.
Andy 12:31
Interesting. Okay.
Larry 12:33
Well, so the question what will be done about it, if anything? And so, as we’ve talked about on this podcast, anything can be done until there’s a challenge come forward. To even challenge something, you have to have standing. So I can think of two parties that immediately have standing, that would be the defendant, and the state; the state’s attorney in Illinois, they would automatically have standing. Possibly the probation department has standing. But we can assume that the defendant is probably not going to file a challenge. Would you agree with me on that? (Andy: Probably, I’m sure.) He’s probably gonna enjoy having the freedom to roam the countryside. So he’s probably not going to file a challenge. I don’t know if the State’s Attorneys gonna file a challenge. But I’m thinking if I held that position of being the head of the probation in Cook County, and I know the compact has this provision in there that he cannot just run the countryside, unsupervised, and make phone reports, I might suggest to the judge that you’ve imposed a sentence that we cannot honor because it’s contrary… If he’s gonna live in Illinois, yes, you can give him as lax reporting as you want. But if he’s gonna live out of state, he goes under that state’s supervision regiment and judge, the only way you can get around this is to give him totally unsupervised probation with no reporting requirements. And then he can roam the countryside.
Andy 14:07
Interesting, okay.
Larry 14:13
We shall see. Yeah. All right.
Andy 14:16
We shall see. I don’t know what else to say to any of that. I have no comments to move that along at all. It’s just interesting. By comparison of what happens to our people, there’s nothing there.
Larry 14:32
What do you mean, there’s nothing there?
Andy 14:34
I mean, by comparison, like, people don’t get, necessarily, they have to pay fines and restitution and all that stuff. They end up with 7000 years in jail.
Larry 14:43
Well, but what about the ones that get put on probation?
Andy 14:46
We never talk about them because it doesn’t happen. So we will move along now. Um, you provided me with a question that was handwritten by someone but we haven’t written out. And it says, I don’t remember the name of the person. And can you tell me? Do you remember the name of the person?
Larry 15:06
Sure I do. I can tell you. This was from Anthony and Anthony is in Alamosa, Iowa.
Andy 15:12
Okay, so Anthony says I am a recent subscriber to your newsletter, and I am very impressed with the product you people publish. I have some questions which I hope you can answer. Do you have information showing which states provide the best quality of life for a person on the registry? In my case, my ex-girlfriend is my victim. So I don’t have that 1000 foot residency restriction. Don’t even see how that applies to here, Larry. Unfortunately, I do have lifetime registration facing me here in Iowa. In addition to my first question, my other questions are as follows. Are there states that do not have lifetime registration, and two, are there states that do not disclose the person’s registration on the interwebs, on the big tubes?
Larry 15:55
So well, I like this so much that I actually have written this as a Legal Corner for the NARSOL Digest newsletter. So 10s of 1000s of people will be reading what I’m going to try to explain here. Unfortunately, we do not publish a list of states due to the fact that it would be cited as a reason for the more reasonable states to become stricter. The result to the public of such a list would be detrimental of those who already live in those states. No state wishes to become a haven for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. But, as a general rule, the states in the southern part of the United States tend to have some very harsh registration requirements. And keep in mind that generalizations are not always the case, which means you must do your own research before you relocate. So now, let’s get into his other questions about…. So even though Anthony is not subject to Iowa residency restrictions because his offenses was not against a minor, no other state is bound by Iowa’s law. So if he or anyone similarly situated were leave Iowa, you may have such a requirement imposed on you in the state that you relocate to, because each state is free to set its own registration requirements, including if they have residency or proximity restrictions, the duration of registration, community notification and a process for removal if they choose to provide one. And I know that, you know, he’s confused as many people are, because he was informed at sentencing that he’s subject to lifetime registration, and he is an Iowan. And the judges do that because they’re required to apprise a person of all the known collateral consequences at the time of their plea or later sentencing if they’re convicted at a trial. And this is very crucial, because the immigration consequences can come into play and a person can be subject to deportation because of a guilty plea to a crime. So but just because that judge told you you’ve got lifetime registration, you may not have lifetime registration if you should move to another state, because you’ll be subject to their registration laws. Does that make sense so far? (Andy: I think so.) Yeah. Well, it’s very confusing to people. “I got lifetime registration.” Yes, you do in Iowa. But if you move to Vermont, unless Vermont has a clause in their law that says you have to register for the time that’s required in your state of conviction, you don’t in Vermont. The only state I know that has that in their statute where it’s unequivocally clear is Utah. They have it in the law that you register for the time of whichever is longer of what Utah would require or the state of conviction. But in most instances, you’re going to be subject to the time that that’s required in the state you relocate to. So therefore, Iowa is no longer in control, just like Iowa is not in control of your driver’s license fee. They’re not in control of your vehicle emissions inspection. They’re not in control of all those things that are deemed civil regulatory in nature. They are controlled by the state that you move to be regulated in. So then he’s got a question about do all states list on the internet? So all states do list some registrants on the internet, at least a portion of them. And the majority of the states, I think, list all adults who are registered on the internet. And a few states are those who have been deemed more likely to offend again, and they don’t deem those at lower risk. And this is very confusing because there’s a difference in risk-based levels and tier levels, which are applied categorically to the offense of conviction. And we’re gonna get into this a little bit later, the AWA. But a risk-based system looks at the offenders conduct along with the age and number of victims and it makes an individualized determination which results in a level being assigned. The character categorical approach is nothing more than the offenses are listed in the statute as tier one, tier two, or tier three, which cannot change over time unless the law is later modified. and they move from one offense tier level to another. So I think that’s covered everything. But I did want to pontificate a little bit more that since he’s talking about leaving Iowa, if he’s got supervision, there is a fee to apply. Last time I checked, they assessed as $100 fee. Many states assess a fee to apply to leave the state. So you’re going to encounter a fee in the process to be received in the other state if you’re under any type of supervision as you’re leaving Iowa or any state. If you if you want to transfer your state-imposed supervision, many states charge you for that privilege, because it’s not a right. It’s a privilege. It’s a privilege to be convicted in one state and be serving your sentence in another state. That is not a right you can assert. So that’s a privilege you have to pay for.
Andy 21:12
Um, can you go back to the part, “in my case, my girlfriend is my victim. So I don’t have that 1000 foot residency restriction” thing? Like I don’t see how that applies. And I’m not trying to get you to like, get into the whole case mechanics. But that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Larry 21:27
Well, in Iowa, the way I understand the law, and I hope I’m right, because I did do some research. That only applies to victims who are minors, so I’m taking that his girlfriend was of legal age, and therefore, it was not one of those subjected. Theoretically, this is protecting children at school grounds and stuff and daycare centers. So he didn’t have a minor victim. That’s my understanding of Iowa law. And, you know, we have 10s of 1000s of people. And so if I’m wrong, feel free… If you’ve noticed anything about this program, if we’re wrong, we come back and correct ourselves thanks your information. If we verify what you tell us is correct, that what you have is correct, the last thing we want to do is disseminate incorrect information. This is about getting reliable information out. But as I understand Iowa law, that only applies to those offenders with victims who are minors. So therefore, it doesn’t apply to him. And that’s what he was saying in his letter is it doesn’t apply to him because it was his girlfriend, and I’m assuming his girlfriend was of legal age.
Andy 22:28
You know, Larry, we’ve done the show for a few weeks, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard that little nuance of a handful of states have their laws that if your victim is not a minor, then you don’t have residency restrictions. I just thought if your state had them, you were on it.
Larry 22:46
Yeah, well, that’s a little bit of narrow tailoring. See, that’s what I talk about. If you do those things, you can have those statutes upheld as constitutional. Arkansas does a variation of that. Arkansas has a risk-based system. And the restrictions in Arkansas only apply to the level threes and level fours. I don’t think they’ve dropped them down to level twos, although I think they’ve had proposals to do that. So when challenges have been done against Arkansas residency restrictions, they say, Nope, no dice here. You’ve had an individualized assessment. And you have had the opportunity to appeal that determination of how dangerous you are to the community. Therefore, this has been narrowly tailored. You have had your due process in your leveling, and therefore, too bad, so sad. So if a state chooses to have these restrictions, if they will tailor them, they will be upheld as constitutional, but they can’t learn that for some reason.
Andy 23:44
And let me dig into that then. If he does move from Iowa, which where he doesn’t have these restrictions, and he moves to a place that does, that is then going to follow him there. He’s going to deregister from Iowa when he leaves there, but he’s going to then go register in the new state. And if the new state says, if you have one of these crimes, you’re gonna have the 1000-foot restriction, you’re going to have them.
Larry 24:06
Correct. That’s what I was explaining earlier. If he moves to Florida, Iowa no longer controls him. If you want the controls of Iowa, stay there. If you leave Iowa, your registration obligation will contour to the requirements of registration in that jurisdiction. If you’re serving any portion of your sentence of the punishment, and this is what confuses people, because the judge told them they have lifetime registration and they consider that a part of their punishment. You need to decouple that. The judge is merely informing you and apprising you of that obligation. Your punishment is the imprisonment if you’re in prison and the supervision that follows. That, when you go to the new state, it will not change. It will follow you to the letter. If you have 10 years of probation when you leave Iowa, you’ve got 10 years of probation when you get to Florida. But your lifetime registration does not follow you.
Andy 25:05
I see. So if Iowa has lifetime registration, you move to Florida, you get to have it twice. Well, I guess not twice.
Larry 25:13
Well, you’ll have whatever Florida has, which also happens to be lifetime. But if you were to move to Vermont, you wouldn’t have lifetime. You would be under Vermont’s registration scheme, and Iowa would be irrelevant in terms of your registration requirements. Now we’re going to get an email or something from people that register in Wisconsin, they’re going to say, Larry, I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a dozen times that we have to continue registering in Wisconsin when we leave. And yes, I do remember that. We’ve had that discussion a number of times. That is a state that, I believe, is violating the Constitution. And they continue to collect the fee. And they continue to track you when you’re in another state. But they don’t have any control over the requirements that are imposed, which just goes back to our previous episode when I explained that maybe Wisconsin has all these hodgepodge of residence restrictions, if you go to Vermont, they don’t apply. You mail your form back to Wisconsin and send $100 if you choose to, and you tell them where you’re living if you choose to, but none of Wisconsin’s requirements are valid in Vermont. Vermont doesn’t, to my knowledge, impose any restrictions on where you live. Therefore you can live wherever you want to in Vermont. Vermont doesn’t require you to come in very frequently. I think you still just mail in a form in Vermont. So you’re controlled by those requirements. So I don’t need the lecture, which inevitably will come anyway despite me saying that, but people are going to tell me I still have to register in Wisconsin. No, you’re mailing in a form. And some people may be paying the $100. But I know that they are sending those forms. I have one. I think we showed it some number of episodes back. We showed one that someone graciously sent us asking for their $100. So we know about that.
Andy 27:01
That was funny. All right, well, then let’s move along. This one came in just before we started recording the show. And I think it was last week where we talked about the person who has their son living with them, and then they have a home-based business and is probation gonna have problem with computers, even if there’s passwords, blah, blah, blah? So the question is as follows. I have a question to the Reddit comment about someone having their loved one living with them and how they had a home business and the issues with the business computers and the loved one being on parole or probation. Could the loved one divide the home into two apartments? That way the home business is separate from the registrant. I used to live in a rented room above a garage. In the middle of the house, some other tenants lived. In the basement, some other tenants. So I’m guessing it would be possible to divide the home into apartments. That’s an interesting question that I wanted to bring into the to the fold because where we do the secret recording for the bunker, or the super-secret bunker, that’s divided into an apartment.
Larry 28:03
It absolutely is. It has its entire separate driveway. It has his entire separate carport area. It has it’s entire separate bathroom, kitchen. It’s an apartment. So in my estimation, that would work. But it might not work as well as you would hope if there is a relationship between the two parties that lived there. If it’s totally hands off, what they call arms-length transactions, if you’ve just gone and found yourself a lower unit of a house like that, if that person was just renting that unit out… But if there’s a familiar relationship, and there’s access back and forth between the two units, the probation people might not buy that. They might say, well, this is just a hoax here to avoid supervision. We still want to see. We still want to have that access. But I think it would be an interesting thing to try to do if it’s feasible to have a separate operation for the business and say he doesn’t have access. That’s my business. You do not have access to my business. I’m not on probation. We already know from last week what the inevitable outcome of that be if they want to play hardball. They’ll say, “well, you’re right. We can’t force you to give you access to your business to us.” But you know what the other half of that is right?
Andy 29:22
Yeah, the other half is gonna be Well, I’m sorry, he can’t live here.
Larry 29:25
That’s the other half of that. They’ll say this is no longer an approved residence because we don’t feel like we can adequately supervise this person. Because we feel like there’s a relationship, and that this may be deliberately a plot to undermine our ability to supervise. And there’s a really good chance the courts would uphold that. There really is.
Andy 29:46
At some point, if you hung up a sheet between the two sides of the house, like no, that doesn’t count. But eventually, how do you end up with a delineated separate living space? When does that actually qualify? To the point that there’s drywall and studs up, and you actually get it- there’s a word in there that I’m looking for that it would be identified at the county level or something as a separate property. Somewhere between hanging a sheet and that point, you end up with a separate living environment.
Larry 30:18
I don’t think that’s going to be enough if there’s a relationship of family.
Andy 30:22
I see. Okay, yeah.
Larry 30:23
I don’t think that’s going to give you the protection. Like I say, if it’s an arm’s-length transaction, and the person can say, I rent this person this space. We don’t interact. Don’t tell me your problems with him. I don’t want to deal with you. But if your father, brother, relative, it’s very plausible that you’re interacting a lot, and that he’s in the other unit, even though it’s a separated unit, like the super-secret bunker, they leave the door open. I go upstairs whenever I want. (Andy: Yeah, yeah, I gotcha.) Okay. Well, if probation knows that we have that really tight relationship, they might just want to see what’s going on in the area upstairs. If they know that you’re family, there’s a good chance that you’re having a relationship beyond arm’s length.
Andy 31:13
I gotcha. Okay. So I just thought it was an interesting question. But you still think if it’s family, they’re still gonna frown upon it?
Larry 31:21
They could. It depends on how bad they want to get you.
Andy 31:25
Right. And that’s something that I even described that if you have a really poor relationship, they’re not going to go for it pretty much under any circumstances. But if they, to some degree, trust you, and so forth, then yeah, maybe they’ll go for it.
Larry 31:42
There’s something that’s very complicated for probation that doesn’t seem complicated to me, but offenders make it very difficult on themselves. These people, by and large, do not want to do any more work than they have to do. They’re very similar to you and me. We like to do- most people like to do what it takes to get through the day. There are workaholics out there that work more than what they have to do. But the average person, they show up, if they’re clocking in at eight o’clock, they’re there at 7:59. If they’re clock out time is five o’clock, they’re ready to walk out at 4:59. And they want to put forth the minimum effort they can to get through the day. Well, that’s the way the probation officers are. Not all of them. There are some people that they have lots of energy, and they want to spend their spare time, because they don’t have a life, as it’s called. But the average probation officer just simply wants to get through the day. The harder you make it for them to get through the day, that’s going to come back to you. The more difficult you make it on them to supervise you… They have boxes they have to check off. They have rules of supervision that are applied, and usually they get more lax, and you get more freedom, usually, as time goes along. If you make it hard for them to supervise you, it’s not going to go well for you. The best thing for you to try to do… Go ahead.
Andy 33:11
You want to become invisible to them that they when they wake up in the morning, they go, “Oh, I got to deal with so and so again.” You don’t want to be that person. You want to be a chameleon.
Larry 33:22
You want to do the things that check the boxes. You have to figure out what the boxes are. I can tell you what a lot of them are. They do not want you to be using drugs. Now some states are more rigorous about testing. Mine is one of them. Some states are cheaper, and they don’t want to do testing unless they have a cause to. But they don’t generally want you to do drugs. So make sure you can pass a drug test if you were to be given one. They want you to be employed, if at all possible, if you’re within the age range of employment, because they believe that a busy mind is less likely to have idle time. So be employed if you at all possibly can. And that means at a job where they can find you if they need to. If you say I’m going to work remotely, and I’m going to travel in the field, and I’m going to be my own supervisor, and no one knows where I am, you’re likely to find yourself on GPS monitoring because they’ll see “Well, if you don’t have a job where we can find you during the day, we’ll fix it to where we can find you.” So figure out what the boxes are. They don’t want you to have a dirty urine. They want you to be gainfully employed, they want you to be paying your supervision costs, in most states. Almost every state I can think of imposes those. They want you to be going to the counseling and treatment and they want you to report as directed. And if you can do those things, by and large, your supervision should lax up quite a bit. If you can do those basic things because that gives all the boxes checked. When a supervisor comes in and says, says Miss Jones, we’re going to look at your caseload today and see who’s doing well, and who’s not doing well. Give me your tracking sheets, whatever they call it, where they report- there has to be some summary of how each client is doing. When they say let’s take a look at your tracking list, if they can show that of their caseload, 93% of them have all those boxes checked, that supervisor doesn’t have to spend a whole lot of time with that PO, because they’ve only got two or three that are given them compliance issues. The secret is complying. Help them check their boxes. You’ll find your life will be a whole lot better under supervision. It’s really not that complicated. (Andy: I am with you.) You did a few years under supervision. Did you do those things?
Andy 35:54
I did everything possible to be ahead of them so that when they showed up to check a box, it was already done. And they can just check it and move on. If I knew that they were in the area, I would like almost be waiting outside for them. I would meet them at the street, so they didn’t have to come in.
Larry 36:10
So if they want paycheck stubs, which that’s not uncommon, if you don’t have paycheck stubs, that’s leaving a box unchecked. “Well, Larry, you don’t understand I can’t get a job.” Well, I did understand that in years gone by. But right now, with 11 million unfilled jobs, I’m having some difficulty accepting that you can’t get a job right now. It may not be the most ideal job that you would want at the pay level you would desire, but I’m having some real reluctance to accept that you can’t find a job right now. “Larry, you don’t understand. There’s all these restrictions where I can’t work jobs, because it’s within 1000 feet.” Yes, that does do some limiting of the opportunities that you should have. But if you want your probation to go well, find a job. Even if it’s not your dream job, find a job. Do the things they want you to do and probation will get much better. You’ll run into a jerk from time to time that’s looking for a problem that has energy, but most of the time, they’re just like you and I. They don’t want to do any extra work. And if you’ve got everything checked off in the box, you’ll find that they won’t be nearly as hard on you to deal with if they have the things they need to make them look good. It’s all about them looking good.
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 38:19
Well let’s move over to- we’re going to do the final segment of don’t talk to the police. There’s still more stuff in the video, but I just I clipped it off where the end of this particular segment seemed to flow. And so, like I said, here is the final segment. This is number seven.
Regent Law Professor James Duane 38:40
Even if your client is innocent and only tells the truth and doesn’t tell the police anything incriminating and the entire interview, questions and answers, are videotaped, even his truthful answers can be helped to crucify even an innocent man. If the police, through no fault of theirs, end up in the possession of any evidence, even mistaken and unreliable evidence that anything your client told them was false, even if in fact, it was true. Again, going back to this example from a moment ago. Let’s suppose I go ahead and I meet with the police. I get nothing to hide. I tell them I was in the Outer Banks last night officer. How can that be used to convict me? By itself, it cannot. It cannot help at all by itself. But what if I later find out to my horror after I put my cards on the table, that they’ve got a witness a girl that I went to high school with. An unimpeachable witness. We’ve never been enemies. She’d have no reason to lie. She swears she thinks she saw me in Virginia Beach last night, a couple of blocks away from that store about an hour before it was robbed. Now her testimony by itself isn’t going to help the prosecutor help. If she’s all they’ve got, I’ll get this case thrown out before trial. But if, like an idiot, I talked to the police and I told them the truth. I told them I was in the Outer Banks. And now lo and behold, tragically, it turns out they’ve got a witness. A false mistaken, confused but sincere and credible witness who can testify that I was here at Virginia Beach. Now they are likely to get a conviction. Because what they’ll do, I’ve just turned this cop and this woman into the government’s star witnesses. They’ll put her- Hell, they’ll put officer Brook to testify about how my client lied to him about being in the Outer Banks. And then they’ll put on this girl, this girl who otherwise would have not even helped to the case at all, who will testify, “No, that’s not true. That was a lie. I saw Mr. Duane’s client here in Virginia an hour before the robbery, not so far from the store.” By herself, she would not have helped the government in any significant way. But what I have just done, you see, is given them the other part of the puzzle. And now I’m doomed.
Andy 40:20
So, explain this to me, that you say you went to whatever, the Outer Banks, I guess he used in the example. And then they get someone to say that they have an eyewitness that recognized you. You’re kind of doomed now?
Larry 40:42
Yes, because you have put yourself in the location. So we trust that if you say something that’s adverse to your interest, that is deemed credible testimony. So you yourself told the investigator that you were there, because you’re being truthful. Remember, you’re trying to help the police. You don’t have anything to hide. That’s what people say. Well, I had nothing to hide. Sure, I was at the Outer Banks, but I wasn’t robbing whatever. But you’ve all of a sudden have this witness surface that says, yep, within 10 minutes of that time that establishment was robbed, I saw him there. All of a sudden, you’ve got a much stronger case. It’s still somewhat circumstantial, but it’s an eyewitness. You know, she didn’t see the robbery, but she saw you there. And therefore, when people come into our office, when they say their innocent, we start by looking at the evidence. Can they convict you of this? “Well, how can they convict me?” Well, we have to see the evidence that they’re going to put on and that’s how we can determine if they can convict you because we have to look at the elements that would need to be proven. And we have to see how that evidence could be spun against you at trial. “But, but I can’t plead guilty to it. I didn’t do it.” Well, but they can convict you of doing it. People just have a real hard time understanding that. “Well, how can I get convicted of something I didn’t do?” You can get convicted things you didn’t do all the time.
Andy 42:07
Yeah, which I don’t know if we’re actually going to it, but the article at the end with 3000 exonerations. So these are clearly the people that ended with a crap ton of time for things that they ended up actually not doing. I’m just baffled at how many people we lock up that. Do you want to posit, just speculate how many people do you think are locked up that are legit innocent?
Larry 42:30
I’ve always wanted to believe it’s a very small number that are legitimately totally innocent. But what happens more frequently is they get convicted of things more serious than what they actually did because they get forced to plead a something that they didn’t do, but the evidence would have convicted them of doing that. They would have got a harsher sentence had they gone to trial. And that that’s difficult for people to understand. But just because you didn’t do it, doesn’t mean you can’t be convicted on it. Doesn’t that sound ridiculous?
Andy 43:06
It really does. In our early days, I remember us covering something where people with similar names- like if you have a super common name, we’ll just say John Williams, or something along those lines, that puts you in great harm, that someone could say, well, yeah, John Williams did it. And there’s 400 John Williams in the phonebook. And they just find somebody that lives roughly in the same neighborhood that looks similar to you and the same name, and you’re doomed.
Larry 43:33
Correct. But like in the the lawyer’s case he was talking about there, that case would get far stronger than what he described if the suspect that was reported to the police had a remote or striking similarity. The more similarity, the better. But if just so happened that if that suspect that committed that robbery was in similar age, ethnicity, and so forth, that would make the eyewitnesses testimony that he was an area much more credible, would it not? (Andy: Totally, totally.) Yeah. If the suspect was black, and he’s white, of course, you can kind of rule that person out. But people, when you’re talking to the police, I hate to tell you, you cannot know all these things that may come into play later. And something that you say that is completely truthful can hurt you. So take the Regent law professor’s word for it. Ignore what I say. Because I’m just I’m just the guy on the podcast, but take his word for it. Don’t talk to the police.
Andy 44:41
Definitely not. All right, moving right along. I thought we had, I guess I’ll say blatantly, that we had, I guess kind of like a light news week so to speak. And I thought we should start circling and digging into the AWA and where does this whole mess come from? And I don’t know; the foundation for it and noodle around and look at some of the specificities of it. And so, I created some questions for you, the expert ,answer from me, the imbecile of the program. And Alright, so I mean, we’ll just dive right in. And so we often talk about what does being SORNA compliant state entail? Do you know what the minimum standards would be for a state to be minimally compliant?
Larry 45:32
That list is far too long for us to ever cover on this program. But we can certainly throw a link in there to it, the checklist, the implementation checklist of what you have to do. And I think I’ve got that link in the Word document. There is checklist of things you have to do. But I can give you the broad overview of it. The Adam Walsh Act was passed in 2006. And it was done to plug gaps in the registration that existed prior to 2006. There were alleged to be 100,000 PFRs that had obligations to register that had moved from one jurisdiction to another. And they had gone off the grid, because the state they had moved from had no desire to interact with them anymore, because they celebrated their departure. And the state they had moved to didn’t know they were there. Now, do you understand why you would celebrate a departure?
Andy 46:37
I totally know why you would celebrate a departure. We have one less that could potentially commit a crime in our region in the future.
Larry 46:44
I had a national advocate that got really mad when I tried to explain that.
Andy 46:49
Doesn’t sounds hard to explain.
Larry 46:52
I’ve never understood what’s hard to understand about it. But the States, prior to Adam Walsh Act by and large would celebrate the departure. But on the other side of that departure, there were unknown arrivals. And those were the ones that bit them in the rear because they didn’t know they were there. And yes, they were not all reoffending. Probably very few of them were. But some work committing new offenses. And that’s what caused the federal government to take a look at what can we do to make sure that we have a registration that works better than what we have now. Because we’ve got 50 registries that barely communicate with one another. They have varying standards of who they register. They have varying standards of coverage in terms of what’s required and collection of information. The terms of registration were all over the map in terms of how long a person was required to register. So we had a hodgepodge with very little similarities. And that posed a problem from a national policy perspective. So what do we do? Well, we looked at- when I say we, I mean the country. I mean, you and I are part of this country. So when I say we, I’m not saying that I was in congressional halls, but we were looking at, as a national policy, what should we do? And they’ve tried to figure out what they could do that would make the registry more effective. They were not interested in dismantling it just because it wasn’t as effective as desired. 100,000 people had gone off grid. The first thing that came to their mind was not let’s just go ahead and abolish that thing. I mean, that did not come to anyone’s mind. Can you guess why that wouldn’t have come to people’s mind? If you’ve got 100,000 people missing, would the first thought be, “Well, let’s just forget the whole thing?”
Andy 48:49
We should totally forget the whole thing.
Larry 48:51
Did you think that that was a realistic thought that anyone suggested to just forget the whole thing? (Andy: No, not at all.) The question became, how do we find the 100,000 that have gone missing? And how do we prevent 100,000 additional ones from going missing? So, they passed the Adam Walsh Act. And there is a sex offender registration notification component in the Adam Walsh Act that encourages the states under the threat of losing money, losing a percentage of their federal assistance. If they don’t meet these standards, they were given three years to meet the increased tougher standards of their registries and then they would lose funding. So that’s, in a nutshell, why it came about. Now what it does, is it creates what was purported to be a stronger registry. That means that more offenses recovered as the federal definition of a sex offender enlarged the universe of registerable offenses. It broadened the reach to include juveniles of aggravated offenses if the juvenile was over 14. They needed to be a part of the registration process to be deemed substantially compliant. The collection of information for the Internet was expanded. The timelines for initial registration and updates were shrunk to three days. And the exchange of information between jurisdictions… there’s all these requirements to do these things. The states have this huge list, which we’ve got and we can make available in the show notes. But there’s the list of the universal sex offenses, the duration of registration. There’s a tier level assignment. The states have to meet a certain tier level, and you can have everybody in tier three if you like. But the Adam Walsh Act recommends that there be three tier levels, and it’s based on the offense itself. And as you went through the AWA, you probably saw the definitions in there of a tier one, tier two and tier three. Did you not? (Andy: I did.) Yeah, you see how narrow that tier three is? It has the shortest list of all. But it doesn’t end up that way in implementation because you can put everybody at tier three. These are merely recommendations. But the internet needs to be displaying all the offenders that are tier two and tier three, for example, and tier one, if it’s a targeted offense against a minor. Those need to be displayed publicly. You can keep the tier ones off the internet if it’s not a target offense against a minor and you can keep the adjudicated juveniles off the internet. That’s one thing that the state’s misunderstand completely. It is kind of good that they misunderstand that. But the lawmakers have not been able to figure out there’s a provision in there that you have to register the adjudicated aggravated offenders over 14, but you don’t have to put them on the internet. And they say “well, we’re not gonna do the Adam Walsh Act here cuz we don’t register our kids here.” There’s some states that say that and I tell them, you know, you actually could do the registration and not put them on the internet. And then you would still deal with leakage. Because if you register them with the adult authorities rather than having them registered with juvenile authorities, there’s inevitably going to be leakage because the adults that are monitoring compliance checks, they’re going to go door to door knocking, just as they would do, I’m assuming, for an adult offender. And that way you would have leakage because if the person’s not home, they leave a flyer, they talk to neighbor; have you seen this person? So I’m not saying that it would be a panacea to have the juveniles registered. I’m just saying you don’t have to put them on the internet. And you don’t have to register all adjudicated juveniles over 14. It’s only the aggravated offenses. And that’s a very small universe of offenses. But we’ve got states who put the juveniles on the internet. They don’t have to, but they choose to. But they’re not required to get this to get their precious funding from the federal government. So hope that gets the conversation started in terms of where we’re going with this with this discussion.
Andy 53:19
Let’s move on down further in the question list because this one, like jumped out at me when I was reading this last night. The language says “habitually resides” when we’re talking about like registering an address. So if you lived at your house, and then you spend a lot of time over at your mom’s house, and then maybe your parents are split up and you spend a bunch of time over there at your dad’s too. And it didn’t have a clear definition of something like more than X days per month, but it says “habitually resides.” And I don’t know what that means.
Larry 53:49
And I did not find and don’t recall that being defined with any precision and AWA itself. But the states that have incorporated that, they’ve come up with own definition. And I think the most creative one was from Maryland. And I think that we could even open the mic and the Maryland person could probably explain it better. But I think it’s any place a person spends five hours or more five times a month in any one month that becomes a habitual live living for Maryland. So each state that wishes to be compliant sets up their own definition of what habitually lives is. And my state, I think- I didn’t do enough research before show- but I think ours is 30 days more in a calendar year is habitual, or 10 days or more consecutive, but I don’t remember precisely. But in in the AWA, there was no precision given so there is some vagueness there. But if you can get Brenda on, I think it’s five hours or more, five times in a month, some crazy stuff like that.
Andy 54:56
She said that in chat: five hours, five times in a month. So that’s 25 hours at a place, non-consecutive, whatever. But if you spent every week over at mom’s house, and you hung out and had dinner and maybe watched a movie and watch Jeopardy or something like that, and you were there, there would be a month, like March, where you end up there for more than the five hours, because there’s a fifth week there. And then poof, now you habitually reside at mom’s house. But otherwise, it was only on Mondays, and you only have four Mondays in a month.
Larry 55:34
Well, now honestly, how would you enforce that? (Andy: I don’t know.) You would have to assign a detective to it. Now, they would have to really want to get you to do that. But this was an example of somebody contacting a lawmaker. Some, I’m sure it was a high-income area, they had somebody who was dropping in. – Matter of act, if she wants to explain how this came to be, I’ll be happy to open the mic. But this is an example of special interests getting their way. And I can be looking up New Mexico while we’re figuring this out.
Andy 56:05
Oh, we can move on. Because the point that I really wanted to get was that it’s vague. And then your state gets to pick how much they want to how they want to define what that term means. Whether it’s like, like Maryland being five hours five times a month. But some other state could have it be if you’re there for three weeks or something like that.
Larry 56:25
Yes, our “habitually live” means any place where PFR lives at least 30 days in any 365-day period. Now, since we didn’t define that- and I’m somewhat guilty for that language. I was involved in that intimately when that was put in the statute in ‘13- I would argue, whichever suited my client’s interest. If it being a calendar, this is where I would argue whatever suited my objective. If my client would benefit by saying it was in a calendar 12-month period, I would argue that. If it was a rolling 365 days, I would argue that. But it’s vague enough to where you could argue either way and force the trial judge to rule either way. I’d say well, you know, yes, he did spend 30 days there in December of 2021. But that was the calendar year 2021. And here, we’re in 2022. And he’s only spent 17 days there. And that would not be advantageous to argue that it was rolling because you’d have more than 30 days if you did a rolling 365-day period. So magically, I would be for a calendar year. And if I needed to argue the other way, I would argue the other way. Sometimes we do things this way for this very reason. You know, we think about it, but we write it this way so that there can be some wiggle room depending on what you need to argue later.
Andy 57:48
Do you have an opinion of how it would be worded to provide them… I mean, of course, we could say that if they spend less than one year at someone’s house, then they don’t live there. But I mean, like if you’re hanging out at your girlfriend/boyfriend’s house a couple nights a week, I guess that’s habitually live there. I mean, anything could be habitual, even if you do it once a month.
Larry 58:10
Well, therein lies the problem. And that’s why we put this definition in here because my fear was without doing this, we had the enforcement authorities, sheriff’s in our case, they know about habitual living being in the AWA. And they were telling PFRs when they came in register, you got to tell us all the addresses where you habitually live, and they were making up what they thought habitual meant. So to put an end to them making up their definition of what habitual meant, I wanted a clear definition that we had decided. I continue to believe that I can write better law than anybody else.
Andy 58:44
I agree with you. I’d rather you write it than anybody else.
Larry 58:47
If something has to be written, you’ve got a choice a law enforcement writing it or me. You can pick whoever, but I would think you would rather me write it than them. So this was what I came up with in terms of trying to do the best I could to protect people from arbitrary and capricious imposition of what habitually live means. Because they’re telling people- they’re still breaking the law here. They’re telling people that are homeless that they have to come in every week. I know we’ve got hundreds of homeless people listening to us on their podcast app, you do not have to come in every week. You absolutely in this state do not have to come in every week, unless you’re changing your location every week. There is no provision that requires any enhanced reporting by virtue of the fact that you don’t have a permanent home.
Andy 59:34
My last question for this evening is the AWA discusses something they term as the National Sex Offender Registry. And I’ve heard you and others debate about the national registry and it goes back and forth if there is or there isn’t. So what gives?
Larry 59:52
Well, it depends on what you mean by national registry. If you mean is there a place where you go register at a federal office, there is no national registry. If you consider a search engine that looks into all the state registries and will reveal you if you’re on a state registry, if you consider that a national registry, yes, we do. And I’ll have a link to it here. It in the United States Department of Justice Drew Sjodin- however you pronounce it- Website. (www.nsopw.gov)
Andy 1:00:25
Yeah, I was gonna ask you to pronounce it over me doing it.
Larry 1:00:29
So if you consider a website, a registry, we have one, but the only way you can be revealed at that national lookup is you have to have been on or currently on a state registry. If you’re not there, it cannot see you. For example, if you’re in a state where they don’t list everyone who’s on the registry, that national registry website does not see you if you’re not visible. It can’t dig below what the state is choosing to reveal. Does that make sense?
Andy 1:00:59
Totally makes sense. I gotcha. It’s just funny, because you have told me certain very well informed attorneys argue with you over this.
Larry 1:01:14
Well, what’s happening is that there’s the case law out of the Sixth Circuit with Willman. That says there’s an independent duty to register separate from your state law. And that’s compelling to some attorneys that there is a national registry. Now, there’s another registry that you can be on that is not public. And it’s only available to law enforcement. And that’s the NCIC. When a person is registered the registry entity does a flag in the NCIC. It’s much like issuing a warrant. When there’s a warrant, how do you think the NCIC- when the when the cop pulls you over and says, there’s a warrant out for you, it’s because the NCIC, when the cop pulls you over, and you’re sitting it by the middle school with your binoculars trained on the playground, and the cop runs you, you’re in that national list of registrants. But the public doesn’t have access to that. So if you consider that a national registry, yes, there is one. But that one doesn’t do anything to you except for give law enforcement information. You’re only in there if a registering entity puts you in there. Now, you’re still in there when you get deregistered. They just do the same thing they do, as I understand it, with a cancellation of a warrant. The warrant was issued for you. When it’s served and you’re arrested and taken into custody, the warrants cancelled, but it’s not eradicated from the NCIC system. They can see the warrants that have been issued on you that are not currently in active status. My understanding is they can see that you are formally registered, even though it’s not an active registration. So if a person gets deregistered and they notify the proper authorities, which cancels that active registration, it’s still visible to the cop that pulls you over. They can say, well, I see you were once registered. And that would really potentially be a problem for you if you were once registered in Georgia, and you got off in Georgia, and you say you went to PA, and a cop pulls you over and PA and they do a background check. And they say oh, you once registered in Georgia. I think you might have a registration obligation here. I’m gonna tell detain you and do double check on your criminal history. So I’m not saying any of these things are good. But there is no national registry that I’ve been aware of- I challenge everybody to show me the registration office where you can go file for information. And no one has shown me an address or a phone number of a national registry office. The only thing they can show me is that there’s the Sex Offender Management apprehension registration and tracking, the SMART Office in DC. But I can’t find anybody who can show me a national registration office where it’s worse run by the federal authorities anywhere.
Andy 1:03:46
All right, Larry, you have burned up all of the time. I didn’t even think that we were going to be able to fill up and we were going to be covering articles tonight. But nope, you killed it. You rambled for so long on the AWA, which shows that you know everything about it. Anybody can ask any question about the AWA, and you know the answers.
Larry 1:04:05
Well, I would hope that they would actually ask more questions, because this is a very comprehensive tool. In the in the folder tonight, you notice we have the checklist, we have the link. We got a couple links in there that people can follow that’ll be helpful to them for those who want to do their own research. And if I’ve got anything wrong, come back or shoot us a message and we’ll certainly clean it up. Because this is old stuff. There’s been amendments, and the one that you worked from was “as originally passed.” And I don’t think that anything we said tonight has changed. But if there have been changes, we will certainly- we’re not like some other people who do programs that’s all about the ratings. It’s really about the accuracy. We like ratings as well. But we want you to be able to count on what we’re telling you.
Andy 1:04:52
Very good sir. We are going to move into the Who’s that Speaker? section and last week I played this. And I remember when this came out. I got a big kick out of it.
Christine O’Donnell, 1:05:06
I’m not a witch. I’m nothing you’ve heard. I’m you. None of us are perfect. But none of us can be happy with what we see all around us.
Andy 1:05:19
So for those that don’t know, that was Christine O’Donnell, and she was responding. She was on one late night talk show because someone I guess on that late night talk show had said that she was a witch. Because, like, who doesn’t play with silly little like Ouija boards or something in school, and someone had said that she’d done this. She was responding to a clip from the 1999 campaign that was incorrect. So she was a Republican person during the Tea Party era. So that’s who that was. It was Christine O’Donnell. You didn’t know that was?
Larry 1:05:55
I had no idea. You stumped me.
Andy 1:05:58
Oh my god. I feel proud here. Alright, um, you think people are going to get this one don’t you?
Larry 1:06:05
Oh, this one’s gonna be figured out before we get off the air here.
Andy 1:06:11
Here we go. This is 217.
Who’s that Speaker? 1:06:13
[T]o save a dog that looked as if it, to them, it had been abandoned and here they get thanks from you people.
Andy 1:06:24
She says you people. So if you know who that is, send me an email message.
Larry 1:06:29
Maybe you better play that again. I like the way she ends that. Play that thing again.
Andy 1:06:36
That’s funny. I’m gonna lower the volume. I bet I blew some people’s ears out
Who’s that Speaker? 1:06:13
[T]o save a dog that looked as if it, to them, it had been abandoned and here they get thanks from you people.
Andy 1:06:53
so there you go. So send me an email message to registrymanagers ast@gmail.com telling me it’s a WTS 217 or Who’s that Speaker 217; something like that. And I will find the first person that responds and you get your 15 seconds of fame on the podcast.
Larry 1:07:10
I want to apologize for last week. We had some technical glitches. We had some echo. We had to pull the YouTube down and reupload it. We had dozens of comments that went away because that one was removed.
Andy 1:07:25
They were all comments about the echo.
Larry 1:07:29
Yeah, but it still dozens of them.
Andy 1:07:34
Yeah, well, when I do the editing, I left part of the audio track. Like six different copies of everything gets put together, and part of them got duplicated over. So it wasn’t really an echo, but it was two audio tracks playing at the same time. And it should have been muted, but it wasn’t. So, sorry about that.
Larry 1:07:53
We still had 1000s of views despite that.
Andy 1:07:57
Of course. We’re at 1:07. So we are going to shut it down. Any parting words before we close it down Larry?
Larry 1:08:07
Well, I’m looking forward to those testimonials I keep asking for. If you guys don’t send some, we’re going to disconnect you from this end.
Andy 1:08:14
That is totally what is going to happen. I can’t thank you enough, sir for all the information you have. I thank everybody that decided to come along in chat. I thank all of the patron subscriber peoples that that continue to support the program and all the work that we’re doing here. And so find all the show notes over at fypeducation.org. And phone messages can be sent at 747-227-4477. Funny thing, Larry, is I was having a conversation with someone and he asked a question and I said, Well, you could just like phone it in and he goes, Is there a number? And I’m like, How many times do I have to say this phone number before it would click in? But he’s like, Oh, I’ve never really paid attention to it. So there you go. There’s a phone number that you can send stuff into. And or you could record it on your phone and then just email it to me too. But that would be registrymatterscast@gmail.com And of course for Patreon, which patreon.com/registrymatters. That’s all I got man.
Larry 1:09:13
Alrighty. Good night.
Andy 1:09:15
Thank you. Have a great night. Talk to you later.
You’ve been listening to FYP.
Leave a Comment