FYP Education

[00:00] Announcer: Registry Matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the host and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have problems with these thoughts, FYP.

[00:17] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, transmedia across the Internet. This is episode three three six, three hundred thirty six of registry matters. Larry, it is another fine Saturday evening. How are things over in the, what is your state? The enchanted what is your state? The land of enchantment. I was close. I had at least sort of enchanting something anyway. How are things over there?

[00:40] Larry: Doing awesome except my air conditioner broke yesterday. Are you gonna teach this a lesson too, like your heater? There will be no lesson teaching but the air conditioning. I will I’ll probably have it fixed.

[00:53] Andy: Because you get, like, I don’t know, a few weeks of really miserable cold weather, but you get nine months of terrorizing heat.

[01:01] Larry: Well, I can tolerate the cold because I have auxiliary heat sources. I don’t have a lot of auxiliary cooling sources. And when it’s a hundred and two and a hundred and five, you need ventilation. So, no, I won’t I won’t be sitting on this one for very long. Put in a window unit.

[01:16] Andy: I already have that, but it doesn’t cool the whole dwelling. No. It would not. And I bet it doesn’t keep up with, a hundred and five. It does in the one room. It could probably takes the edge off, but it doesn’t make it, like, bearable. Hey, speaking of heat, I guess we have an article later talking about Texas. Tell me what we’re doing tonight.

[01:38] Larry: Well, it’s just mister gloom and doom for this episode. So everybody that’s in live chat, you can go ahead and disconnect. Chance is unable to join us because he has come down with a flu y things. Okay. Well, that’s unfortunate. Hope he feels better. I hope we have a case from from Michigan that’s a win for PFR. So the person who posted on YouTube that there’s never any positive news, I hope I hope they’re listening to this episode. And then we have a follow-up question about New Mexico from last week. And then we have a question that you found somewhere about from Arizona. And then we have a couple of articles if time permits, depending on how long that Michigan case takes.

[02:30] Andy: Well, very good. Let me let me start off with my own little personal one because there there’s an individual out there that seems to hate on anybody that if you, like, if you make an opinion about law of any kind, this person goes after you with a great amount of ferociousness of what is your attorney, bar number, whatever your, like, credentials, whatever that would be. You are not allowed to have an opinion about law, bills, decisions if you are not an attorney. And I wanted to get some clarification on this because I think you could tell someone that it’s probably not okay to take NyQuil and whatever kind of drug, like those are not gonna mix well. You’re you’re like, you are providing information. It’s not reliable necessarily, but you could do that.

[03:23] Larry: Of course, you can. And the person I don’t know who you’re talking about. I have no idea. I don’t know if that person is licensed to practice law. But you have to understand that things where there are licenses, occupations where there are license required licenses required, they’re very protective of their turf. And it doesn’t just happen in, the legal profession. It’s across the board. But since I’ve worked in this business for twenty plus years, I’ve taken great pains to be educated in terms of what you can and can’t do, and it gets very gray. It’s not cut and dry and black and white. But I have sat in on training, and I’ve talked to our chief disciplinary council about what I can and can’t do. And I’m very careful not to cross the lines of what disciplinary counsel told me what they would find troubling. We are allowed to have an opinion about the law, but the opinion is confined to our personal opinion. It’s not an opinion for you. I can’t say Andy. I advise you based on the law not to do x. But I can say based on the law, I wouldn’t do x because it will result in y. Yeah. And and so it’s it’s kind of nuanced. I don’t know who the person is. They may have too much time on their hand, or they may really think that we’re going beyond what what’s permissible. And it may be that the state that person’s in might have more strict requirements against what attorneys can do. But I’m not under the direction of all 50 states. I’m under the direction of one state. I do very my very best effort to not go beyond what I’m allowed to do. That’s why we have so many things we’re reading and quoting from courts rather than us saying it.

[05:15] Andy: And just to be clear, this person wasn’t going after us in this particular context. They were going after someone else who’s who had an opinion about whatever the context was, and I don’t remember and that’s not important. And the person, like, immediately fired back of, well, what’s your bar number? Like, Really? You can’t say that this ruling is really good because of X, Y, and Z? How is that any different than any news reporter you hear? Like every news station has some kind of judicial law kind of reporter and they tell you what the law will do or how may this might be interpreted, they’re not lawyers? Well, oftentimes, they are lawyers. Sure. Sure. I’m not saying that they’re never a lawyer, but, like, that they’re not there in the capacity of a lawyer either.

[06:01] Larry: But, yeah. I don’t know what the deal is with the person. They just may think that it’s overly strict. It’s they may be interpreting the the restriction to be greater than what it actually actually is. You can have an opinion. We are still in The United States. And for the next foreseeable future, we still have some right to speak freely. But you can’t advise people about the law because you’re not qualified, but you have your own opinion.

[06:30] Andy: Absolutely. Well, let’s move over first to this, question that I no. No. This is the follow-up question. Sorry. Gosh. I didn’t put that segment in there. Alright. I’ll leave it there. So you people went through this whole list of bills that we had we covered last night on New Mexico, and I I did I noticed this too, Larry. So this question is, is it merely a coincidence that the bills did not pass, Or did you have any direct impact on the process yourself? So did you make this happen? Or is it just like like flip of a coin, bad timing? Like, what was the deal?

[07:06] Larry: It’s actually a combination of of the of both of them. We did have some impact, and we also have some very intelligent legislators here that are not willing to pass every hammer down proposal that’s presented to them. And that’s a good combination because I strive to have good relations with key legislators. And and in fact, we’re facing a special session because the governor is very frustrated that so many of the bills that she supported and asked for did not pass. So if the governor is frustrated, I can imagine that the law enforcement apparatus and a lot of other people are frustrated. But, no, we don’t take credit for all those the, failure to pass bad bills, but we had a hand in it. But so did a lot of other people, the Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, the Public Defender’s Office. I mean, on and on, people had impact.

[08:01] Andy: Very well. Okay. Then there was a question that I found over on Reddit and it says, how do you get members of the legislature to sponsor bills? I live in Arizona and no one in the legislature has been open to sponsoring any bills that would advocate for people on the registry. We have one member who said this session, I made it my goal to be a living nightmare for PFRs. Do you have any advice on how to overcome these challenges?

[08:29] Larry: I do, but we should actually do a a significant episode segment on this because it’s more complicated that I can cram into an answer. But if I had to give you really easy advice is something that that’s not all that complicated. You’ve got to figure out what a legislator can do. And when I say what they can do, it depends on what their committee assignments are. If they’re on the agricultural committee and they’re from a rural part of the state and they don’t serve on anything that deals with PFR type issues, they probably are not gonna have the interest in it or the knowledge or expertise. They’re farmers. Right? Sure. So, you wanna find out what their backgrounds are. And also, more importantly, you wanna find out how long they’ve been in office and what their electoral margins are because that’s referred to as political capital. That tells you what they can do. If they’re winning by 50.45 to 49.55, they don’t have any political capital. They can’t do anything for you. And people are rolling their eyes right now. Well, they’re still a member of the legislature. Yes, they are. But they’re at a very vulnerable position. If they have either had no opponent and they’ve been in office for twenty two years, and the last time they had an opponent, they won by 67% to to 32%. They have political capital and they can do some things for you. So if you find that combination of a person who has the ability both by what type of committees assignments they have and what type of political capital they have, then you have made a great stride towards getting somebody who who might be able to help you. But beyond that, they have to know that they’re not the lone ranger. So this is the chicken and the egg thing. When you start going around trying to recruit support, the very first thing a seasoned lawmaker’s gonna ask you is, how much support do you have for this? Well, I don’t have none. You don’t have none. So let me make sure I’ve got this straight. You want me to draft a bill that you have absolutely no support for, and at first blush, it looks like that I will be hammered politically. Is that what you’re asking of me? You’re not gonna get a lot of traction like that. But if you say, well, mister representative, madam representative, I’ve actually been scouring around the cap the capitol talking to lawmakers. And I’ve found a lot of sympathy, but the people I’ve talked to seem hesitant because they were worried about worried about vulnerability. And they would prefer that someone who has a more senior status, a more safe seat be the lead, but they’re willing to cosponsor. That’s what they wanna hear. In Arizona, the margins, I think, are still in favor of the Republicans, but it’s not lopsided. In states like Alabama, Mississippi, where Democrats are nonexistent, except there might be just a small sliver of Democrats from the, urban areas, don’t waste your time talking to any Democrat because they can’t do anything for you. And in Minnesota, you might have the opportunity to talk to a Democrat because I think they’re more more evenly balanced over there. But are if if you live in one of those areas where there’s nobody on the judiciary committee that you could talk to,

[12:21] Andy: do you how do you then get a seat with one of them? I mean, if they’re not your representative.

[12:27] Larry: That’s not an absolute requirement. I’m saying that’s a good way to go. But if you find a twenty two year veteran that hasn’t had an opponent the last two election cycles, even if they’re not on judiciary committee, you can still go to them because, trust me, they know someone on judiciary committee. And that that’s kinda what I was asking. They can be a door opener and introducer? Absolutely. And if that twenty two year veteran that hasn’t had an opponent for two cycles says that he or she is willing to take the lead on this, magically, the judiciary committee will be someone on that committee will be much more interested.

[13:03] Andy: Well, let’s go now, Larry, to what everyone has been waiting for since when did this come out? Like, Wednesday or Thursday?

[13:10] Larry: I think it was Wednesday.

[13:13] Andy: Because you started blowing up my phone as soon as it came out. And this is obviously The United States District Court Eastern District Of Michigan, and the name of the case is John Doze et al. Versus Gretchen Whitmer et al. Now if I’m not mistaken, isn’t Gretchen Whitmer the governor that almost got, kidnapped?

[13:35] Larry: That would be correct. She was the person who was, targeted for bad things.

[13:43] Andy: The plaintiffs filed this as a class action. Oh, boy. A class action challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s PFR Registration Act. And I don’t know. This is Michigan

[13:54] Larry: comprehensive laws? What is c o n p? Compiled, but you can ignore all that where those references weren’t deleted.

[14:02] Andy: And, it’s as it was amended in 2021. So this is a challenge to the revised law that was struck down years ago by the sixth sixth circuit. That is correct. Why the hell do you even bother having me here? I I I struggle with that idea every every week. So I’m gonna read from the second paragraph. In accordance with the opinion, and this is not me saying it, and this is not you saying it, Larry, this is them saying it. With the opinion and the order regarding the party’s motion for summary judgment oh boy, here we go Larry, this is your favorite. A summary judgment issued on February, and the opinion and order regarding plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment issued on 03/26/2025. Holy crap. It’s just the twenty ninth, Larry. The court enters final judgment as set forth below, and I’m guessing this means the case was decided without a trial? That is correct. Summary jud judgment won the day. Hang on. We gotta stop there for don’t you always rail about summary judgment how bad it is?

[15:07] Larry: I have been known to do that for the last seven years, and I will continue to do that. But, in this particular case, if there’s enough solid, stipulations below, the body of evidence below, whether it be by adduced by trial or by stipulation of the parties or by the various ways we can get evidence into the record, the evidence may or may not be sufficient.

[15:29] Andy: So we’ll we’ll see. Alright. Well, do you think the judgment will be held upheld on appeal?

[15:35] Larry: I’m not ready to opine about the appeal and what the possibilities are because I don’t know how strong the evidence your record is below. But I can tell you that there’s very likely to be appeal. I cannot imagine that after them putting all the work in putting this new PFR Act on the books in 2021 that they’re ready to just say, yeah. We go home, get forget about it, give up. And, I I can’t see it, so I think there’s likely to be an appeal. And I can’t remember if if it was the first Atlanta or the second Atlanta conference that we had the attorney on during the conference. So, I mean, this has been going on for every bit of ten years. A long time since, since Michigan must been under attack with their registry from those bunch of left wing nut jobs out of Grand Rapids as a matter of fact.

[16:21] Andy: In that same paragraph, the court stated, any statement regarding the meaning or legal effect of the statute constitutes declaratory relief. Any direction to defendants to take action or refrain from taking action constitutes injunctive relief. Any direction to defendants also binds defendants, officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those in active concert or participation with them as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 d two. I have no idea what that means, and I need some explaining, Lucy.

[16:55] Larry: I’m not sure I can explain it. I’ve not seen that language previously, so I’m not certain. My guess is I hope I’m allowed to guess. You certainly can’t state that this is what it means, but you could certainly guess. Now now if we wanted to go read from that rule set, we can do that. The disciplinary counsel told me we can always read directly from opinions or rules, but I don’t choose to do that. But my guess is that it’s a directive, alerting everybody involved in this case that the court will not find it funny if they continue to operate by doing business as usual and claiming that this is a judgment against only the governor. That’s my hunch is since the governor was named as the defendant and then there is the et al, which is all others. But I suspect they’re trying to keep any finger pointing. People saying, well, I’ve never heard of that. Yes. You’ve heard of it. And the judge made it clear that the judge did not want you to do, this finger pointing and to continue to enforce the law that’s been declared unconstitutional and enjoined.

[17:59] Andy: Now now since we’re kinda on that track real quick, what is your fortune teller license number since you’re guessing?

[18:06] Larry: That would be license number 69. It was issued in 1891.

[18:10] Andy: Excellent. Excellent. Oh, and do you have tarot card reading license, by the way? Just curious. Asking for a friend. Yes. Now let’s look at counts one and two, which is the ex post facto challenge. It states, again, reading, the court awards summary judgment to plaintiffs on counts one and two, which challenged the retroactive application of SORRA twenty twenty one. And SORA twenty twenty one constitutes punishment and its provisions that retroactively increase reporting requirements and retroactively extends registration terms, violate the ex post facto clause of The United States Constitution. Number three: the constitutional provisions of Sora 21 cannot be severed from Sora twenty twenty one. Number four: defendants are permanently enjoined from requiring registration under Sora twenty twenty one or any prior version of Sora or enforcing Sora twenty twenty one or any prior version of Sora against Do’s ABCDE, G, Mary Doe, Mary Rowe, and the pre 2011 ex post facto subclass. Holy moly. Alright. Number five. Within sixty days following the effective date of this judgment, defendants shall provide written notice to all members of the pre-twenty twenty 2011 ex post facto subclass that informs them that they are no longer subject to SORA and have been removed from the registry. Hold on, let me like sixty days from, three days ago, four days ago, they are supposed to be provided written notice that they are off the registry. Is that what I’m reading? Yes. You’re reading that. Wow. Okay. That’s not a little bit of a win. That’s a huge win.

[19:55] Larry: It is, except for Oh, jeez.

[19:58] Andy: The

[20:01] Larry: sixty the sixty days, they will have figured out some way by either filing an appeal or filing something to make sure that they don’t have to send those notices. But, yes, it’s still it’s a win for PFRs, and we still have more to go. That’s just one a couple of the claims.

[20:17] Andy: Alright. And moving along. Sub paragraph three is very interesting. It states, the unconstitutional provisions of SORA twenty twenty one cannot be severed from SORA twenty twenty one. Now I I was gonna ask you before, but what does that mean? Well, it means that same thing happened

[20:35] Larry: when the versus Snyder, when the, there’s a principle of of severability, and lawmakers frequently include that severability clause. And if any portion of this is declared unconstitutional, the remaining shall, survive. But it means that with all those things that have been stricken, there’s no sort of left. So it means the legislature will be forced to legislate or Michigan will have virtually no registration requirements for any PFRs. Now can you at least admit that that’s funny? I don’t know that funny is the right word, but I would agree maybe it’s kinda funny.

[21:15] Andy: Well, it’d be funny if it came to fruition, wouldn’t it? That would be pretty amazing. And now could you can you pontificate and and guess? You said virtually none. What would be left?

[21:28] Larry: Well, it’s hard to say that what would be left because it looks like the 2011 version I mean, the 2021 version is is just as unconstitutional as 2011. So it seems like there would be no registry left. But since I’m not sure there wouldn’t be some people that would still be qualified to register, I’m gonna say virtually no registry left. Maybe something like an SVP. Maybe something like that? Maybe maybe something like that, but I’m not sure who would survive.

[21:53] Andy: Alright. Well, there were more counts than just the ex post facto stuff. So let’s, go into those. Count three asserted that Michigan must provide an individualized review of each PFR. Oh my god. So what did the court decide there?

[22:07] Larry: The court decided that, quote, defendants are granted summary judgment. Now that means the state on count three, which challenged the imposition of lengthy and lifetime registration requirements without any individual review or opportunity to for removal under the due process and equal protection clause of the US constitution. So that claim failed. Oh, okay. So that’s what that one okay. Alright. Well, womp womp. Alright. Court,

[22:30] Andy: number four was the unaccepted Count four.

[22:33] Larry: Look, man. I’m reading.

[22:36] Andy: Some goofy guy put I put that wrong. I’m reading, and you put wrong shit. Alright. Count number four was the unequal opportunity to petition for removal. What did the court decide on that claim?

[22:49] Larry: The court stated, defendants are granted summary judgment on count four for this challenge, similar situated registrants opportunities to petition for removal from the registry under the equal protection clause of US constitution. So that one failed.

[23:04] Andy: Man, that’s another wump wump. Okay. Then we’ll move over to count v, which is number five, which is the mandatory reporting requirements and compelled speech. What did the court decide on that one?

[23:16] Larry: Well, that one came out a lot better for PFRs. Defendants, quote, are granted summary judgment on count five, which challenged the mandatory reporting requirements of Michigan compiled laws as compelled speech under the first amendment of the US constitution. So a win. So people are keeping a tally sheet. That’s a win. I think that’s two to two.

[23:36] Andy: The court dismissed count six, the violation of plea agreements. I don’t even understand what that means. But why did they do that?

[23:45] Larry: Because the court has declared that retroactive extension of registration in terms of violates the ex post facto clause, the US constitution, and it’s a permanently and and joint enforcement of SORNA. So, therefore, I guess they didn’t have to deal with that claim. I was a little unclear about that also.

[24:01] Andy: Count seven deals with the registration of non PFR type offenses. This seems to be a no brainer to me. A PFR registry that has non PFRs on it does not at all make any sense to me. Now you’re talking crazy talk. Now let’s see. I’m aware. A sex offender registry

[24:19] Larry: that has people that are not sex offenders, why do you see that as illogical?

[24:23] Andy: I mean, I call me a renegade, Larry. Well Can you can you enumerate something that gets you on the registry? Is this like domestic abuse or violence with your spouse and because you were violent with your spouse in front of your kids, you end up on the registry?

[24:40] Larry: That’d be possible, but the most common thing would be like kidnapping of a minor. Okay. Like, if you if you if you’re robbing the liquor store and you take all the miners that work there, which it probably wouldn’t be, that’s not a good example. But if you’re robbing the grocery store that has a liquor department and you put the Robbing the Taco Bell. If you put the miners into the cooler, that’s a, you’ve taken their freedom away, and they’re a minor. So there was a lot of states at one time a provision that if you if you did a false imprisonment of a minor or a kidnapping of a minor, even if it was not a sexual motivation, you had to be on the sex offender registries. I gotcha. And if you put them in the cooler, do you tell them to chill out? I suppose you would I wouldn’t even need to tell them. Sorry. I need up a dumpster. Alright. So so the court the court, granted, plaintiff summary judgment on on that count. So they won that one. And they were, so if I’m at the right place Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You are. You are. So so so they they I I agree. And the courts, stated that the plaintiffs are granted summary judgment on count seven to their claims that requiring an individual to register as a PFR when their offense did not involve sexual, circumstance violates a due process clause on the fourteenth amendment to the constitution and requiring an individual to register as a PFR for an offense without a sexual element where there’s been no judicial determination that their offense was by its nature, constitutes a sexual offense, violates the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Which is kind of what you just said about if you if you do some kind of,

[26:17] Andy: withholding what’s I don’t want to say kidnapping. What did you call it in a minute? False imprisonment. False imprisonment. That would not constitute anything with a sexual motivation or sexual in nature, why why would you end up on the registry just because it happened to be an act against a minor? It should be the whatever the the offenses against minors registry or something like that. Right?

[26:35] Larry: Well, let’s don’t encourage them to think of that.

[26:38] Andy: If I can think of it, Larry. Right? That’s right. Alright. Well, the court also stated individuals convicted of an offense without a sexual element, including convictor convicted under Michigan’s compiled laws or a substantially similar conviction in another jurisdiction, must be afforded a judicial determination under statute 769.112, it that their offense, by its nature, constitutes a sexual offense before requiring to register under SORA. That is clear as mud too.

[27:11] Larry: Well, it just means it actually is, pretty straightforward. There has to be a judicial finding, like if you were charged in a situation with, contributing delinquency of a minor and your attorney was trying to avoid registration for you. And the, that is one of not one of the registerable offenses, but perhaps that state has a catchall provision that says that if there’s a finding of a sexual motivation, then the judge can say based on the allocation of what was going on, the judge could say that, I find that this was sexually motivated. Therefore, I’m already registered. And, that’s an example. But, but the defendants in this case are permanently enjoined from requiring registration under SORR or enforcing SORR against and the non sex offense subclass based on an offense without a sexual element, absent a judicial determination. So here that absent. If if they have that judicial determination, then it sounds like it’s okay that their offense was, by its nature, constitutes a PFR offense under Michigan law.

[28:20] Andy: Alright. Count eight dealt with the vagueness all throughout the statute. And how did that go? The list included phones, vehicles, employment, travel, education, aliases and nicknames, physical descriptions substantially similar, compelled admission of understanding, and reporting requirements restricting speech and association. Wow. That is a long list. What do you think would be the most significant? Can we focus on those?

[28:46] Larry: Well, the requirements for phones and vehicles was declared to be vague. You know, they asked they had so so so much verbiage in there about what constituted your phone. The requirements for reporting employment are not vague. They found that that was pretty clear what you had to report, including volunteer activity. The requirement under Michigan compiled laws to report within three business days if the individual intends to temporarily reside in another place other than his or her own residence for more than seven days is vague. Now you gotta admit that’s pretty pretty confusing there.

[29:21] Andy: Yes.

[29:22] Larry: So the requirement of Michigan is to report the name and address of a place of temporary lodging to be used for the individual during any period of which the individual is expected to be away from his residence for more than seven days is also has been found to be vague. That’s sounds Isn’t there who I don’t know who thought all this shit up. I mean, it’s it’s like ridiculous wording.

[29:44] Andy: Isn’t there something with the laws that it’s supposed to be plain enough language that a common human isn’t that why it’s called common law? That’s not but, no, that’s not why it’s called common law. But there there is a void to make this doctrine

[29:56] Larry: that it’s supposed to be drafted in a way that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand how to conform their requirements to to, to law and to prevent law enforcement. The second prong of that is to prevent law enforcement from being able to do arbitrary and capricious enforcement. When these laws were being drafted, I’m not in Michigan. I wasn’t in Lansing when the when 2021, SORA was adopted. But I’m betting the PFRs weren’t there either. And if they were there, they would have been saying, hey. This is too vague. This is too vague. It needs to be cleaned up. Here’s some alternative language. Folks, when it comes up again, get your butt over to Lansing and get involved and participate. Don’t just hope that it works out somehow. It’s, for the for the best because it won’t if you’re not there. Now and what about reporting school attendance? That was mostly a win for the state, but the defendants were permanently enjoined from requiring the plaintiffs and the primary class to report under Michigan compiled laws, blah blah blah, any educational activities that are solely through the mail or or the Internet, or from a remote location. So it sounds like that they largely won that except for for a narrow cut carve out. Okay.

[31:15] Announcer: 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 f y p.

[32:04] Andy: The court held the requirement to report any aliases, nicknames, ethnic or tribal names, or other names by which the individual is or has been known under Michigan compiled laws, whatever, with some numbers and letters, is not unconstitutionally vague. Now why was that even in the mix?

[32:24] Larry: I don’t know what their motivations were. So big as they want, I’m not gonna criticize them. But it does seem it’s fairly common that aliases are part as a part of your record, you know, to to have ways to identify you, that’s very common. So I’m surprised that they that they challenged that, but it didn’t go very well. I have no idea why they challenged it. What about the term substantially,

[32:48] Andy: substantial similarity? And I know that you hate that because the people in the great state of New Mexico require that the offense be equivalent to a New Mexico offense.

[32:59] Larry: I do indeed hate that term, and I’ve stated it over the years. I’ve argued with attorneys about it that are so proud of themselves. They said, oh, we were able to get a provision on our law that sells a you don’t have to register for an out of state offense unless it’s substantially similar. I said it’s not good enough. Our law protects the PFR from a bureaucrat’s determination. But the court agreed with me, and I know that this judge must be listening to registry matters, because they found that the term offense similar similar to, specified Michigan offense in Michigan Compile laws is unconstitutionally vague. So, I appreciate that the fact that the courts are taking their cues from us. I’ve oh, that’s pretty awesome. Maybe they should become patrons.

[33:43] Andy: Compelled a mission of understanding, which is count number IX or nine. How did that go?

[33:51] Larry: Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment on count nine, which challenged the requirement that registrants attest that they’re understand that the registration duties are under SORIP. Now I’m gonna ad lib here a little bit. I’ve always had a problem with that because you kinda have officers standing around with guns attached to their side, and they’re telling you to sign this. You understand to sign this. Well, you got guns standing there saying sign this. And if you don’t understand it, they said, well, you ain’t gonna go nowhere, son, till you do. But, anyway, rec the court said that requiring plaintiffs and primary class members to attest to understanding the registration duties under SORRA violates the protection against compelled speech of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants are permanently enjoined from requiring plaintiffs and the primary class members to attest that they understand their obligations. Now that’s gonna be funny as hell. That’s upheld an appeal because all those forms they jam at your face and say sign this that you understand and agree to it. The PFR can say, I I ain’t signing it, buddy.

[34:53] Andy: Alright. Count 10 is the challenge to reporting requirements restricting speech and association. I like so hold on. Can you can you explain what this even means before we we talk about what happened?

[35:08] Larry: No. Because I didn’t read the complaint.

[35:10] Andy: You are not useful. So, like, I you’ve I’ve read that a few times, and this says that you can’t

[35:17] Larry: speak and associate how you wish. But how did that go anyway? Well, it went well for PFRs. Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment on count 10, which challenged the requirement to report electronic, email addresses and to report Internet identifiers, requiring DOH and the post twenty eleven subclass to report electronic mail addresses and Internet identifiers violates the first amendment. I’ve not been a big fan of that claim in the past, and now I’m learning that I was wrong. Remember the the guy up in New Jersey that, brought the, claim to an arsenal, and I poo pooed it, and he ended up winning it. And they were escaping me. And now this is the second time. So I’m gonna have to recalibrate my opinion because I I was not a big, proponent of that claim, but it has been proven to be a winner. The defendants are permanently enjoying from required DOH and the post subclass to report their email addresses. So this is good news. And like I say, I’m I’m rethinking my evaluation of the validity of that claim. Alright. And count 11, which deals with non Michigan offenses, which, hey, Mike from New Jersey, this sounds like I’ll be talking for you, is, one of your favorite claims. How did that go? Oh, that went amazing. Plaintiffs were granted summary judgment on count 11 with respect to their claims that, one, defendant’s process for registering people with non Michigan convictions violates the due process clause of the US constitution, and two, imposing longer or harsher requirements on people with non Michigan convictions, than people with Michigan convictions violate secret protection clause of The United States constitution. They, the legislature, just can’t help themselves. If you had just not tried to have, total denial that there is an equal protection clause, you wouldn’t have lost this. So they intended to treat non Michiganders more harshly. The only problem is that we do have that equal protection clause, and then you did put your hand on that bible. Maybe you didn’t do it in Michigan, but you did at least raise your hand and affirm. And so defendants are permanently enjoined from requiring registration under SOAR or enforcing SOAR against miss DOE, Doji, and the non Michigan offense subclass based on the conviction of another state. So the legislature is going to have to I will make this prediction. This is one they can’t overturn on appeal. The equal protection clause is there.

[37:49] Andy: And, like, for for again, for the dumb people, if you have a conviction in another state and you move to Michigan, they have to treat you like other Michiganders.

[38:01] Larry: That’s always been my position, and I’ve even argued with my employer about that when he was in the senate saying that he was gonna propose that. I said, I will oppose you on it. If you win, I will litigate against you. Oh, you you feel that strongly? I said, absolutely. This is not something that we get to negotiate. We don’t negotiate the constitution. It’s the same thing. I’m not a big proponent of guns, but we have that second amendment. So, therefore,

[38:26] Andy: whether I would be carrying a gun is irrelevant. It is your right on the US constitution. If you don’t like that, go ahead and change it. So asking so injecting a question here from Big Mike in New Jersey. If he moved to Michigan, just, you know, fast forward, everything sticks in sixty days from now or whatever it is. This all goes down the toilet. He can move to Michigan, and since his crime is, like, 80 years old, he would be off the registry?

[38:53] Larry: Well, that’s highly speculative. First of all, I don’t think that’s I know. I don’t I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I think that there will be delaying tactics that we’ll get we’ve done this rodeo before, and we know what they’re gonna do because what they did in those versus spiders likely be the same trajectory that they’ll do now. So I don’t think that that would work. But they’re not saying you can’t be required to register for an out of state conviction. Read more carefully. They’re saying that you can’t be treated more harshly, and there just gotta be some process that that’s fair that determines if your crime is a Michigan offense. And they’ve said that similarity is not good enough, that that’s too vague. So I’m hoping Michigan has has to adopt New Mexico’s equivalent standard rather than substantially similar.

[39:42] Andy: Near the end, the court states as follows. This judgment will take effect ninety days after entry unless the State of Michigan, prior to the expiration of the ninety day period, enacts one or more new provisions of SORA. If any new provision is enacted within the ninety day period, the effective date of this judgment will be thirty days from the date of enactment. In such circumstances, any part may, within such thirty day period, file a motion to amend any provision of this judgment and request extension of the effective date of this judgment. If a timely request for extension is made, the effective date of this judgment will remain suspended until the court rules on the request. If the State of Michigan enacts any new provision for SOAR within the ninety day period and no party requests extension of the effective date within the thirty day period, holy moly, this judgment will become effective thirty days from the enactment of, I think I read the same sentence twice, from enactment of the SOAR provision. That seems to me to be a license to the state to delay implementation of the judgment by simply enacting something

[40:47] Larry: regardless of whether they believe it’s constitutional or not. I agree, but it’s also the court being fair to both sides. Remember, judges are supposed to be nonpartial, and they’re not supposed to favor one side or the other. And it is conceivable that the state could want to do the right thing. Not likely, but conceivable. And they have to allow an opportunity to do the right thing.

[41:10] Andy: So what happens next? A likely appeal to the sixth circuit just like they did before. And if, by sixth circuit, this is not being run just in Michigan, this would potentially go hit up to the top court?

[41:26] Larry: Yes. Well, remember, they tried to get the Supreme Court to hear it last time, and the Supreme Court refused cert. We’ve got a different Supreme Court now. Slightly. They they might grant cert this time.

[41:38] Andy: And based on your feelings, your your opinions of the court’s makeup at this point, would that would they be in favor of these constitutional claims, or would they be in favor of law enforcement?

[41:52] Larry: As thorough as this case has been developed, I’m not so sure I’d be ready to write this court off as being, able I think that there’s a good chance this that may withstand. But, again, I don’t know how strong the evidence is underneath. You know, a lot of stuff was done by summary judgment. I don’t know what the body of evidence is that supports what the court decided on summary judgment.

[42:14] Andy: Very well. I didn’t get I I think I asked all the questions as we were going through. Yes. Yeah, I didn’t I don’t think I have any other questions because we covered that they that would potentially go to the Supreme Court. Yeah. That’s all I got.

[42:30] Larry: Anything else? Well, congratulations to Michigan, and we’re gonna be there. The National Association for Rational Sexual Defense Laws will be there in June holding a conference. So it’s a good time to celebrate. Yeah. That would be. Alright. Now this would be something that I think you would qualify as funny. We have an article here that says,

[42:52] Andy: housing Texas prison inmates in sweltering facilities that lack air conditioning is plainly unconstitutional. This comes from the Texas Tribune. This is according to US District Judge Robert Pittman in a groundbreaking 91 page ruling, and I can already tell that this judge is a way left leaning radical, probably appointed one from our one of our socialist presidents, one that isn’t driving a Swastika car.

[43:21] Larry: You’re correct. President Barack Hussein Obama nominated Pittman June twenty six twenty fourteen to serve as The United States District Judge for United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. He received a hearing for United States Committee on judiciary, and he was confirmed, and he sits on that court. So, yes, a communist did appoint him.

[43:47] Andy: Communist? What I find interest you mean a communist that’s not trying to overthrow the entire government and not let any never mind. I’ll stop. What I find interesting is that the judge declined to order the Texas Department of Justice to immediately install temporary or permanent air conditioning instead of forcing the plaintiff to move towards a trial. Pittman wrote that the case will likely move to a bench trial and that the plaintiffs and defense must submit a proposal timeline for legal proceeding by April 10, so just another couple weeks away.

[44:16] Larry: Oh, yes. I found that surprising. But Marcy Marie Simmons, who was previously incarcerated and is among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, called the decision a win and said she hopes that the ruling pushes state lawmakers to fund air conditioning. At least five bills, including house bill two nine nine seven and house bill one three one five, have been filed this session that would require state prisons to be equipped with air conditioning, but none has received a hearing yet.

[44:45] Andy: Do you think any of those those proposals will pass?

[44:57] Larry: No. I do not think that they will pass.

[45:00] Andy: So this judge this federal judge is saying Texas is unconstitutionally housing people in these dangerous and deadly temperatures. Simmons said, I cried. I cried for my people on the inside. Does that not have any impact on the Texas lawmakers that a federal judge is calling them out?

[45:17] Larry: Not really. In fact, many Texans are happy to defy an unelected federal judge. I mean, who the hell does he think he is coming in here wearing that black robe telling us how to run our state?

[45:27] Andy: In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said the agency appreciates and respects the federal court’s decision to not require immediate installation of air conditioning. TDCJ, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is that what it is? Yeah, criminal justice, is fully committed to the safety of the inmate population and our staff, and that commitment is reflected in the TDCJ’s ongoing efforts to install air conditioning, identify inmates who are heat sensitive, and implement heat mitigation protocols. The statement read, TDCJ also very much appreciates the past and planned support of the legislature in making funding available to continue TDCJ’s ongoing installation of air conditioning in more units and housing areas throughout the TDCJ’s system. Now I gotta ask, do you believe them?

[46:20] Larry: No. I do not. And according to the article, about 85,000 Texas prison inmates reside in facilities that do not have air conditioning in most living areas. During the summer, high temperatures can create dangerous conditions that have been exacerbated in recent years by climate change. Oh, can’t say that. At least 23 individuals died from heat related causes in prisons between 1998 and 2012, according to court documents.

[46:50] Andy: According to a 2022 study, fourteen deaths per year were so were associated with the heat. And a Texas Tribune analysis found at least forty one people died in uncooled prisons during a recent record breaking heat wave last year. I did see that. Also, the story states, autopsy reports for several prisoners who died in uncooled cells mentioned heat as a possible cause of death. But a criminal justice agency spokesperson told the news organization that underlying medical conditions underlying medical conditions, not heat, caused those deaths. During an August 2024 court hearing, prison officials admitted that extreme heat contributed to those inmates’ death, but said heat was not the only culprit. It’s amusing that the Texas law requires county jails to be kept between sixty five and eighty five degrees, but other facilities such as animal shelters who also have heat rules, but not state prisons.

[47:45] Larry: And they’re not interested in having these prisons air conditioned. According to the story, state lawmakers did not put any money directly towards air conditioning prisons last year when they had a $32,700,000,000 budget surplus. So it’s kind of a little disingenuous to say you can’t afford it. The Texas House did budget 545,000,000 for prison air conditioning, but the more conservative center offered, how much? Nothing. The state did allocate 85,000,000 to the department, and the agency is using that money to pay for air conditioning units. The money should or will help about 10,000 inmates move into air conditioning facilities. So far, only 13,000,000 of that has been expensed. So they’re not in a big hurry either. Spokesperson Amanda Hernandez told the Texas Tribune in February.

[48:42] Andy: Lawyers and advocates said they hoped to prove the lack of air conditioning created conditions that amount to unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. What we are doing is overheating the body for long periods of time, which is detrimental to the body. We’re literally cooking them, said Mike Dominic, founder of the Texan Texas Prison Community Advocates, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. People don’t live when you cook them. Cruel and unusual punishment is has is a very high standard. Do you think they can meet that?

[49:14] Larry: No. Not according to the standards espoused by the Scalia doctrine. Because remember, we have to interpret these as the words were understood to what they meant in the time that the words were written. So, in colonial times, no one would have considered the lack of air conditioning to be within the zone of cruel and usual punishment. So, therefore, under that doctrine, if that is the

[49:40] Andy: judicial doctrine, you can’t meet it. Perhaps we’re just a bunch of softies now, and maybe we should toughen up.

[49:46] Larry: That’s right. There’s no reason why you couldn’t shouldn’t be able to stay perpetually in a 10 degree facility. I don’t that’d be just just shut up and do it. Just turn on a fan.

[49:56] Andy: The agency estimates that installing permanent air conditioning in every unit would cost more than 1,100,000,000.0 and would come with an annual operating expense close to 20,000,000 according to court documents. During a hearing last year, the department executive director Brian Collier said he wants to install air conditioning in every prison, but that he simply doesn’t have the funds to do it. Wow. Now remember, 32,000,000,000 surplus last year. Now how much would 1,100,000,000.0 be up 32? Wait. Yeah. Okay. So that wasn’t 1,100,000,000,000.0. So they had a 32,000,000,000. So let’s see. 32 minus one. That’s totally a negative number, Larry.

[50:38] Larry: What do you mean it’s a negative number? It’s a it’s a very small percentage. I I’m aware. I was being silly. So prison leaders also pointed out that there are heat protocols such as allowing inmates access to cool respite areas, making electrolytes, water, and ice readily available, and training correctional staff on the signs of, and treatment for heat, illnesses. They they’ve stressed that. They point out that they’re doing all they can. And I’ve been to been this rodeo because I was in a facility in 1980 in a record heat wave with no air conditioning, and it was funny.

[51:14] Andy: I was in a Georgia prison, and I don’t know about a heat wave, but it was freaking miserable.

[51:18] Larry: But, you know, that doesn’t really address the total issue. It doesn’t. They also said that inmates were screened for medical conditions would make them more sensitive to heat. Those with heat sensitivity get priority placement for air conditioned housing, a spokesperson said. And as of August 7, more than 12,000 inmates have have had a heat sensitivity score.

[51:43] Andy: So they they’re doing all they can. All of it. 12,000 inmates. But what would we said something earlier, like 80,000

[51:50] Larry: or something like that. Good grief. 85,000 don’t have air conditioning. Their their system has a hundred thousand inmates, I’m guessing. Cheapers.

[51:58] Andy: Lawsuits about heat in state prisons have also been filed in other Southern states, including, hey, Louisiana and Georgia.

[52:06] Larry: And the agency says if Texas is ultimately required to air condition its prisons, the state agency will face a large cost that lawmakers have previously not approved.

[52:16] Andy: Perhaps they could have fewer people that they would have to to cool fewer people.

[52:20] Larry: That is not an option in Texas. I see. I see. Okay.

[52:26] Andy: Then we have one other article, and this is from the Michigan Advance. This is about a proposal to prevent prisons to jam cell phones. Senator who, Larry? Tom Cotton of Arkansas, one of the senators who nurtured the First Step Act and, representative David Kustoff of Tennessee reignited their push Wednesday to prevent incarcerated people from using contraband cell phones through device jamming systems. The Republican lawmakers are reintroducing identical legislation in their respective chambers of Congress that would allow state and federal correctional facilities to use these systems, which disrupt and interfere with wireless communications. Now, why do they need this? Well, if you don’t mind fixing what above some nut put nurtured and it should have been neutered. He’s one of those eight that helped neuter the First Step Act. I thought you were being you were being funny, but so he is one of the senators who neutered the first act First Step Act. He is not one of my favorite people on the planet. No. He is not.

[53:28] Larry: Federal law currently prohibits the use of cell phone jamming equipment as they say the devices can interfere with 911 calls and threaten public

[53:38] Andy: safety. So Cotton also said within prison walls, contraband cell phones are very dangerous weapons. He said that at a press conference in the US Capitol regarding the bill, he went on to say, for too long, we’ve turned a blind eye to this glaring public safety threat as crimes are planned, facilitated, and ordered by convicted criminals already serving prison sentences. Do you know what he didn’t say though, Larry? Is that it costs a million bucks to call your family and you need to use a cell phone so that you can afford to call them instead of spending 25 or $50 a call.

[54:11] Larry: Let’s see. They’re not told that type of information. The prisons don’t tell them that they’re ripping them off for the calls and upper unless they’ve got a direct knowledge of that. They don’t realize that the calls are not free. So, I mean, you I should cut a little bit of slack for that because the prison’s position is if they were not doing no good, they would use our regular phone system. They don’t say that they don’t use our phone system because we’re ripping them off. They just don’t say that. But anyway, Cotton said that he would work with the FCC if the bill is passed to, quote, make sure that it’s implemented in a careful and deliberate way that solves the problem that our correctional leaders have inside their prison without having any unintended consequences, end of

[54:52] Andy: quote. The real problem for prisons, the Urban Institute surveyed state correctional administrators and found that in 2020, more than 25,000 cell phones were recovered in their facilities across 20 states.

[55:07] Larry: Well, how the heck do they get these phones into the prison is what I’d like to know. I so

[55:13] Andy: literally every one of them, minus a couple, comes from an officer, whether that officer gets it onto the property and then somebody like on a detail that has access to go in and out. So staff smuggling it in, certainly, like the direct smuggling it in, and then another one is suit casing. Come again. What is suit casing? I am not going over suit casing. Just imagine your body as a suitcase. And I cannot explain this on a family oriented program. Hang on though, I wanna, I wanna tell you something. Right as the, 2014 when I was getting out, Obama was in office and they had passed something to fix the cost of of these out of state phone calls in the prison system down to a reasonable number. And then thereafter, in the following administration, they reversed that and that went away. They know. Tom Cotton cannot turn a blind eye to this because that passed in Congress in the 02/2015 time frame 02/2014 time frame.

[56:17] Larry: That’s not completely true. What you’re saying is partially true. There was a change, but it was made by the Federal Communication Commission, not by Congress. And that that was a bunch of damn liberal lefties appointed by Obama. And when Trump came in, they appointed a more favorable commissioners that were more sympathetic to the business needs of the of the economics of business. And to their credit, the businesses, they put a lot of money in putting these systems into the prisons. They’d like to make a little bit of money back on that. But the question is, are these elaborate systems needed? I’m not a security expert. I don’t know that. But but, yeah, the the change of the Federal Communications Commission. But remember, folks, elections have consequences.

[57:01] Andy: And when you put someone in charge that doesn’t believe that business can do any wrong, you shouldn’t expect anything different than what they got. Here, I’m I’m gonna pull a Larry on you. The person that was in charge of the FCC at the time was named Ajit Pai.

[57:16] Larry: That is I remember that name. Yep.

[57:20] Andy: Oh, God. I hate this shit so bad. Alright. Well, that’s our show.

[57:26] Larry: Well, that was Anything else you wanna go over? No. We’re at fifty five minutes. Alright. We went a little bit longer than last week. Alright.

[57:35] Andy: Yes, that’s right. Ajit Pai was a former Verizon executive. I do recall that. We did get a new patron. His name is not Jake. His name is, Been Around Mark, and I’m fairly certain that his name is Mark from that. Thank you very much for becoming a patron and, look forward to seeing you around and all that. I’m pretty sure Larry, I’m pretty sure it’s next weekend. I had concert tickets thrown in my lap next weekend, is that right? I need confirmation because the date doesn’t line up. We might not be recording next weekend because someone had said, Here, have these tickets or else. And I said, Okay.

[58:12] Larry: You just broke my heart. Yeah, I’m sure, I’m sure.

[58:17] Andy: I thought it was April 6, but no, it’s April 5, and I will be going to a very hard, very, very hard rock concert, and I’m excited. Well, have fun. Thank you very much. So head over to registrymatters.co for our show notes and email registrymatterscast@gmail.com and head over to patreon.com/registrymatters to become a patron, which would be very much appreciated just like Mark did. I think his name is Mark. I’m assuming it’s Mark. And, without any further ado, I’ll we’ll see you in a couple weeks. And Larry, I hope you have a fantastic weekend, and get your air conditioner fixed.

[58:54] Larry: Will do. Adios.

[58:58] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.