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, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 340 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. Did your air conditioning get fixed?

[00:27] Larry: It did indeed.

[00:30] Andy: Did you say the guy was literally as old as Methuselah?

[00:34] Larry: He wouldn’t have been much less than Methuselah. He was older than I am as far as his appearance, but I think in reality, he was not as old as I am. But he the years haven’t been good to him. Because no no offense, Larry. You look pretty pretty old. Yeah. But he made me look younger. Wow. That’s pretty rough.

[00:54] Andy: I think we have a a an unusual episode this evening. Do you wanna tell us what we’re doing?

[01:01] Larry: Well, we didn’t have any major cases that came up on my radar, so I picked some articles that I thought might be of interest to the PFR community. Some of them are directly on point, and some of them of the four, there’s some that are a little bit less on point. But for those who have in-depth analytical skills, they’ll be able to possibly figure out why I’ll put at least one article in here. But, yes. That’s all we have. And then, if time permits, if we don’t if we go through these too fast, we can talk about an attempt to, scam a PFR here in Albuquerque last week.

[01:41] Andy: Alright. Well, first of all, you put this one in here from courthouse news, and it says Kentucky law banning some PFRs from using aliases on social media sites does not violate the first amendment. A county attorney from the Commonwealth of Kentucky argued Wednesday before an appeals court panel. Wait. This does sound kinda familiar, though.

[02:03] Larry: It does indeed. I sound very familiar. This seems to be a fad around the country that, they don’t want PFRs having full access to to the Internet. But Kentucky Senate Bill two forty nine requires people convicted of a PFR type crime involving a minor to use their full legal names on all social media platforms. Directly from the article, the Republican legislature passed a bill which was signed into law by Democratic governor Andy Brashear in 2024.

[02:33] Andy: And what’s one such offender claim the law violates his first amendment right to anonymous speech and is overly broad? Do you think that this is a good challenge?

[02:44] Larry: I’ve learned to be more cautious after the Cornelius case out of Connecticut, but, it’s not it’s not one that would have resonated with me had the person contacted me first. But according to the argument to the article, it’s an argument that’s held significant weight. And it held weight with, The US District Judge Greg Stivers, and he was an appointee by that communist Barack Obama.

[03:14] Andy: I’ve heard people call him a communist before. I’ve heard this.

[03:17] Larry: Yes. But in addition, there are some appellate level decisions that have proclaimed the practice unconstitutional. One was, I just mentioned, James Cordelio from Connecticut. And I told him the same thing when he reached out to us. I wasn’t warned for his case, and ultimately, his case was successful. So I gotta be careful. I might be wrong. This is although the anonymous plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in federal court was denied class certification,

[03:42] Andy: Stivers granted his request, for an injunction. The narrow relief granted to plaintiff John Doe prevented enforcement of the law only in Davie’s County and did not apply to any other convicted PFRs in the state. I’m guessing that Kentucky is defending the law?

[03:59] Larry: They are indeed, and that’s their job. I would caution people not to get too mad about the law being defended, when you put your hand on the bible. You know, we criticize people. They take an oath to defend the laws of the of The United States and of the state. So, but attorney Jeff Hayburn, who’s the principal duty solicitor general of Kentucky, and I’ve never heard of principal duty, but I guess that means something, argued Wednesday before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Davies County. And what’s this? John Burlow? Where does that come from? Anyway, Haberne pointed out the challenge made by Dell was a facial one that required him to establish a burden on the speech of non parties. And that’s very legalistic, but but a facial challenge means that you’re challenging on behalf of others. You’re saying there are no set of circumstances, and that’s a heavy, heavy lift to say something is facially unconstitutional.

[04:55] Andy: I mean, it I I thought that you had a right to be anonymous, though, that you could go make your account say, you know, doomaflatch102@gmail.com, and you don’t have you don’t have to release what your real name is.

[05:11] Larry: Well,

[05:13] Andy: but maybe under narrowly tailored circumstances. You know, you’ve heard me say for years that if you narrowly tailor something, you can do almost anything. And I and I the example would be that you used that not that alias, but used an alias to then do naughty things that got you in trouble? And perhaps that’s the narrow tailoring? Well, that might be a little too narrow. But, yes, with proper tailoring, I think this might withstand constitutional muster. Based on the article, US Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee, cited the 02/2017 US Supreme Court decision in Packingham versus North Carolina in which the court struck down that the state’s social media ban for all PFRs. Is there a first amendment right to use social media? Murphy said Murphy asked.

[05:58] Larry: Well, he did ask that. But keep in mind, this situation is very easily distinguishable from Packingham. Packingham was a total ban on social media where the balance of the government’s interest and the burden on speech was way out of whack. That’s what Haybird answered. And he went on to say there’s significant interest here to protect children and this ever evolving Internet age. So this is not the same. So let’s don’t get ourselves to what is it? The Allen Green spends it overly, exuberant irrationally exuberant because this is not the same type of challenge as Buckingham was. So then, judge Murphy stated everyone agrees that’s important, but doesn’t the law need to be tailored? And he’s correct. Judge Murphy is correct, but the state agreed emphasized that the law only applies to people convicted of PFR type problems involving minors. That’s their position. That’s the narrow tailoring. He said they don’t have to use their legal name as their username and can simply include it in their user profile. So that means that there is some there’s some flexibility there. If it’s in your profile, does every who who reads the entire profile of someone?

[07:10] Andy: Probably someone like you, I would imagine. So then moving along. Attorney Guy Hamilton Smith from Washington, DC argued on behalf of John Doe and took issue with that interpretation. Senate bill two forty nine is a categorical ban on one category of protected speech. The facial analysis is very straightforward, he told the court. It simply imposes massive burdens on PFRs, and our and our overbreadth argument assumes injuries to third parties. What do you think about that? Well, are you familiar with that name, Guy Hamillah Smith? It rings a bell. I’ve heard of him. We may have had him on the show at least once, if not twice.

[07:49] Larry: So, well, what I think is he’s going further than what I would feel would have felt comfortable going had I been in that courtroom because, to say that he’s saying that the people that that are not involved in litigation that, that he’s wishing that were involved because he’s saying it’s facially unconstitutional. He’s saying that it, it, we’re assuming injuries to third parties. I don’t think that in First Amendment jurisprudence we assume article, are injuries to third parties. Now Guy has a law degree, and I don’t. But I’m not sure that we can assume injuries to non named parties. So that’s my thoughts. But anyway, Judge Murphy asked about the offender’s ability to include their legal names only within their pro user profile, but Hamilton Smith quickly dismissed that idea. It’s a distinction without difference, he said. On social media, people click through the profile and there it is. Is that true? Do you click through every profile and and see there it is? No. I do not. But I don’t I am the non social media person to begin with. I don’t really find a lot of value in it. So, Hamilton Hamilton Smith reiterated his client’s first amendment protections were spelled out in the Paggingham decision, in which the court had free speech rights supply to the modern town town square. This is like social media. The First Amendment safeguards choice. By not speaking on a certain date, PFRs don’t forfeit their First Amendment’s right to speak.

[09:20] Andy: I’m thinking he’s a little bit on thin ice, but we’ll see. Judge Stivers, the federal judge who issued the initial injunction, honed in on free speech in his opinion. Kentucky may criminalize the use of social media platforms to commit sexual and enticement crimes against minors, but may only do so consistent with the first amendment. And okay. So that’s some legal babble there. What do you what do you say about that?

[09:45] Larry: Well, I’m gonna let Hamilton Smith, answer. He he said, he argued requiring Doe and other persons on the Kentucky PFR registry to use their full names for all communications on social media platforms, it permissively infringes upon their first member rights because the law mandates the use of their full legal name for all communications on these forms, not just the targeted danger. And such conduct is also prohibited by other statutes. He’s right that it’s already against the law to do these things to minors. But that’s not what’s in the challenge here. The challenge has to do with having to disclose your name in this somewhat narrowly tailored group of PFRs who’ve committed crimes against minors. So I think he’s stretching, but we’ll see.

[10:29] Andy: Hamilton Smith asked the court to expand the scope of the injunction granted by Stivers to include all of Kentucky, pointing out that his client could be arrested if he violates the law outside of Davies County. Do you think they would extend it?

[10:43] Larry: I’m thinking that they will not. In his rebuttal, Haber and the attorney for the state requested that the injunction be vacated and defended the law as exceptionally important and narrowly tailored. I don’t agree that it’s exceptionally important part and I don’t agree that it’s really narrowly tailored, but it’s somewhat tailored. So I think he kind of overplayed his cards his hand as well. The article states senior US circuit judge Julia Smith Gibbons and senior US circuit judge Helene White, both George w Bush appointees, also sat on the panel. How large was this panel? It’s it’s a three judge panel. When you go up on on appellate review at at the first level, it’s usually a three judge panel. And then if you don’t like what the panel decides, then you ask for a blank review, which gets the entire, circuit if they grant full court review. And then the next step is the the, cert petition to US Supreme Court. When do you think that we will hear back on this?

[11:42] Andy: Well, the court, of course, didn’t set a timetable, but there is no timetable. They’ll decide when they decide, and it could linger for some time. Do can we can we dig around for this in this just a minute? So you you can make up mister Jingles whatever username you want to, but somewhere in your profile, you have to say, I am mister Jingles, and I am Andy whatever?

[12:03] Larry: That’s what it appears to said in the article.

[12:08] Andy: Just I I mean, does that does that make it sufficiently like, I mean, can you run around and then go bash your your favorite hated politician, be it Marjorie Taylor Greene or, I don’t know, Nancy Pelosi, take your pick. They can then still fairly easily track you down and you don’t have the ability to just remain anonymous.

[12:26] Larry: Oh, I totally understand where you’re coming from. And I think additional narrow narrow tailoring would have been preferable than than no more tailoring that they did. But, the fact that they did some narrow tailoring by not applying it to everybody like what started packing him, I think there’s a strong risk that that may be sufficient.

[12:47] Andy: But, you know, time will tell. Tell me what the negative impact is. Is there since this is already in place, if they lose, it just sets precedent that you can’t challenge this for some period of time without something new and earth shattering.

[13:00] Larry: Well, it was certainly for the that would green light every state in the Sixth Circuit that they can expand their Internet limitations. But it would also set up a cert petition to the Supreme Court because there’s conflicting, decisions amongst the circuits. And, so this would be one where we would very carefully look at on the Narsal side whether we’d wanna get involved in it because this would be contrary to, like, the Cordelio case. I see.

[13:27] Andy: Do you wanna even speculate what the Supreme Court would you would say?

[13:32] Larry: Gosh. That would be a long, hard one to do, but they’ve been fairly consistent on, protection of speech. I’d like to think they would, come down on the side of PFRs, but I’m not convinced that they would.

[13:45] Andy: Well, very well. Let’s move over to the very ultra liberal rag called the Associated Press. Just for the record, the Associated Press is like just a smidge left of center and listed as like one of the most accurate source of information available. And then, so what do we got? We have this article from the left coast and it says a debate over whether to create harsher penalties for soliciting and buying naughty behavior from 16 and 17 year olds exploded in the California legislature this week. Republicans and some moderate Democrats were pushing for a new tool to help law enforcement go after those who sold older minors for naughty behavior. But some said they worried the measure could be misused and weaponized by parents upset about interracial or LGBTQ relationships to target older teens teens involved in relationships. I know how you feel about this. Now have you referred, to such laws as solicitation in search of a problem?

[14:44] Larry: Yes. And I think you meant solicit older minors not sold, above there. But, yes, I have referred to this as a solution in search of a problem because there are very few incidents of adults acts, actually soliciting real minors for sex online. It’s just such a rarity. But the issue came to head Thursday after Republicans in the assembly argued for the policy on the floor. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected the effort but vowed to bring a new proposal to address the imaginary issue.

[15:19] Andy: Now there is some merit to your argument. The article states, under current law, contacting a person 18 to engage in naughty behavior in California is already a felony. So are crimes like soliciting a child who is a victim of human trafficking, sexting a minor, engaging in sex with a minor, if the age gap between the parties is more than three years. That’s like Romeo and Juliet kind of laws. Right?

[15:43] Larry: Right. Precisely. And as the article points out, it’s also a serious crime in California to traffic minors. Anyone convicted of at least three serious felonies in California places a sentence of between twenty five years in life under their three strikes law. In addition, California leads the nation with some of the toughest laws against trafficking. This was quoted from Assembly speaker Robert Rivas, a liberal pointy headed, communist sympathizer.

[16:12] Andy: We need McCarthy back for those guys. Now do you have any idea what the actual problem is?

[16:18] Larry: Well, according to the article, those who are 16 or 17 years old were not included in a bipartisan legislation, signed last year by governor Newsom, dealing with, sexual trafficking. The law which took effect this year allows prosecutors to charge those of solicitor bisexual minors 15 or younger with a felony. It left in place the existing law that permits penalty for soliciting older teens to a misdemeanor. Apparently, the issue is that we can’t have any PRFR offense that is only a misdemeanor. That that is apparently the issue. I see. So assembly member Maggie Krell, another pointy headed person

[16:55] Andy: looking looking for the McCarthy era issues, With a background as a prosecutor wanted to expand the law Newsom signed to include older teens. Children 18 who are are bought for sex are considered victims of human trafficking under federal law and should receive the same protection under California law, she said. Hardwatch.

[17:15] Larry: That’s what she went on to say. If you’re 70 years old on the street corner and an old man comes up and purchases you for sex, that’s rape. That is so ridiculously absurd. Just listen to what she said. If an old man comes up to you on the corner and purchase you for sex, that’s rape. Now how can that be?

[17:35] Andy: Because you’re not 18 and you cannot consent to some kind of exchange in a contract and shake hands and all that.

[17:41] Larry: And and she says that should be treated as a felon. Now this is coming from the person who identified as a liberal pointy head, but she’s a pros former prosecutor. So keep in mind, the Democrat party is not monolithic as people believe it is. Here’s a example of extremely divergent views within the Democrat party.

[17:57] Andy: Why do you think that some Democrats oppose the change?

[18:01] Larry: Well, Democrats on the bus Assembly Public Safety Committee amended Krell’s bill to drop the provision that would make it a felony to solicit sexual malarities. They agreed with Krell’s goal, but worried that their approach would have unintended consequences. Lee La Chapelle of the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking told lawmakers at a hearing that the policy could be used to target 16 and 17 year olds who are in relationships with other minors. I don’t quite understand that, how that would be used to target them, but that was a direct quote. If they’re target if with if they’re targeting other minors, wouldn’t that be illegal? I mean, what does she mean by that? Yeah. I don’t even know. And I did see that. So then it says, LaChapelle says they are worried about the ways the criminal legal system can be utilized by parents who are upset about interracial

[18:53] Andy: interracial? Interracial and LGBTQ relationships.

[18:59] Larry: Now wait a minute. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Now you’re telling me that in a state like California, there would be a single person upset about interracial and LGBTQ relationships in California, the paradise of of perfection?

[19:11] Andy: I have to think, Larry, that while California is considered this blue bastion, once you move outside of your major population centers, as is the regular rest of the country, It’s gotta be very rural. It’s very farmy. And I bet you, you know, a lot of very conservative kind of mindsets kick in. Granted, I’m gonna tell you a story from when I moved to Georgia, and this is a very racist story, but I would like, a friend of the guy I was sharing with an office with, he was very upset that his daughter was interested in dating a black kid. And he’s like, zebras date zebras? Horses date horses? I was like, are you serious, man? And this is just before the year February. Granted, that’s Georgia, but that mindset is not that far removed.

[20:00] Larry: Well, I agree with California does have a lot of conservative areas, in particular in the in the more rural parts of the state and where a lot of agriculture is dominant. So, yes, that would be true. But the proponents argue the law should treat all sex predators who solicit minors the same as a felony regardless of the intended victim’s age. That again is hogwash because a 17 year old is much better equipped to evaluate what he or she wants to do with his or her body.

[20:32] Andy: Hey, Larry. A hypothetical, like, some little, brain exercise. People don’t mentally mature at the same rate. Do you see a world where there is ever a way to more objectively measure someone’s maturity and give them autonomy. I guess it’s the, a word that we could use to describe that. Just because you turn 18, you are literally only one day older than you were yesterday when you were 17. And all of a sudden, all these rights and privileges are are bestowed upon you just because of that one day difference. Whereas, you could have a very, very, very young emotionally, intellectually individual who will not become, quote unquote, of age until they’re well into their twenties and be cognizant of their actions. Do you ever see a world where we could figure out a different way to do it than just say, 18, you’re legit? Because you could be 15 and be very, very savvy about the world.

[21:25] Larry: I I get your argument. I don’t see that happening because we have to it would be highly subjective. It’s like this guy that, used to be a a leading advocate in New Mexico. He wanted to us to have a speed limit that was speed would be, judged by conditions. I said, you realize how subjective that would be? Sure. Conditions are variable. And each driver’s skills and the safety of their vehicle and how it handles those conditions is variable. So to say that one driver is driving a vehicle that handles much better than another and the driver is more experienced and got better operational skills, 50 might be okay. The same street might might be safe for another driver with 50. I think you’d run-in the same problem trying to figure out who would make that subjective determination on how we would how we would do it. I don’t think that ever happens. Everyone else in the audience will get the reference. But uncle Buck in a in this character in a movie, his car was very bouncy. He had terrible, terrible shocks. You could see him driving down the road and the car is just, like like, riding on a cloud like on a sponge. And, you would not be able to drive that car very fast

[22:30] Andy: to support your claim. Alright. Well, then what happens next?

[22:37] Larry: Well, several moderate Democrats, including Krell, broke with their party. So folks listen. I had a listener here a few months ago say that I wish the Republicans stick stick together like Democrats do. The Democrats don’t stick together. But they vote broke with their party to vote with the Republicans, and they did that because of political necessity. Their districts probably are swing districts, as we referred them, and it could easily elect a Republican the next time around. So they did what they felt they needed to do. But Democrats instead backed an amendment saying that they plan to adopt the strongest laws to protect 16 and 17 year old victims. Assembly member Nick Schultz, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, said he’s committed to bringing a new proposal on the issue for, forward sometime this year.

[23:22] Andy: And what do you imagine will happen in this particular situation?

[23:27] Larry: The proponents and the victim’s apparatus will ultimately win. They will get their felony. We will have more felony sexual offend offenders in prison for behavior that just a few years ago was considered very minor, criminal behavior. And we will have more dysfunctional people. We will have more people who are tax burden on society, and we won’t have a clue why why this is happening. But but that’s what I predict. You know, we don’t seem to get a clue about things we do and the unintended consequences. The more people we put a felony jacket on, in particular a PFR felony, we diminish their earnings capacity dramatically.

[24:02] Andy: You you might be referring to a a do you know the the website The Onion? Yes. I’ve heard of it. Well, there’s a an article that they keep running every time there’s some kind of mass shooting. The only country in the world that can’t figure out how these mass shootings are happening. Has it happened to it again? They just keep running the exact same article and they scratch out the last date that it happened and they post the new date.

[24:26] Larry: Well, it’s it’s mind boggling to me because I have very little formal education and things that seem simple to me seem very complicated to people who have far superior educations. If we run a government where our tax system, revenue system is geared around the individual, then we want every individual to be able to produce at their maximum capacity, so they can pump as much money into that system as possible. And anything you do that will diminish their ability to pay taxes, you’re cutting down what goes into the common good pot and you’re diminishing how effectively we can pay for our wants and wishes if you put people earning one third or one half of what they would be truly capable of earning had they not have a felony conviction. I mean, that is not hard to understand, is it? Not really. I know there’s two people with us tonight that are earning less than they would three including me earning less than we would have otherwise.

[25:17] Andy: So I guess it doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Well, you also then put this article, got another freaking liberal rag here, Larry, ABC News. And it says, Iowa’s top prosecutor is proposing an amendment to the state’s constitution to solve what one lawmaker called an interesting conundrum, weighing a person’s constitutional right to confront their accuser in the courtroom against the desire to protect traumatize traumatized children and vulnerable people. Is this related to the confrontation clause? Yes. It is. Your favorite Supreme Court justice named just Antonin Scalia was very, a big proponent of the right to, confront your accuser. The article says, some worry the proposal could hinder a defendant’s right in court.

[26:06] Larry: Now it’s the radical left pushing back. The funny thing is the radical left is in alignment with the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia that you just mentioned, who staunchly protected the confrontation clause and defended it through his entire judicial career. So maybe sometimes the liberals and the, right wingers are in alignment.

[26:26] Andy: The Iowa House approved the measure last week and it passed the Senate in March, though it would take years and several more votes by lawmakers and the public before the state constitution could be changed. Why is this an issue now?

[26:40] Larry: Well, apparently, the issue stems from a state Supreme Court decision last year that said Iowa Constitution requires people accused of a crime, and the trial witness testified and gives them to see each other. What a concept. That’s kind of what the constitution says. Holy mackerel.

[26:56] Andy: When now does that literally mean see as in in the exact same room? You couldn’t do this, by what’s, what would be the word? Were you under oath, but you’re just being interrogated by the attorney? What was that called?

[27:11] Larry: Well, I get what you’re saying, but we have to interpret things the way it would have been understood at the time. Remember? This is the Scalia doctrine. There would not have been any closed circuit video. There would not have been that. So when they composed this language, they never would have thought of you not being anything but coming into court and testifying in person. No one would have ever fathomed this. So, magically, I’m in alignment with Scalia. I magically think that we should interpret these words as they would have been understood at that time. I’m magically, a hypocrite when it comes to something that suits my purposes.

[27:47] Andy: Yeah. Someone tell me. It’s called a deposition. And, so all all of a sudden you’re a textualist and not you don’t wanna have the law and the situation evolve?

[27:57] Larry: I’m what it takes to win. And this I want to win the protection and confrontation clause. Whatever it I can latch my arguments around to secure the continuation of you being able to confront your accuser in court directly.

[28:11] Coach Bear Bryant: I’m trying to win the game.

[28:13] 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 register matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYP.

[29:02] Andy: Alright. Iowa attorney general Brenna Byrd argued we are the only state that has come to that conclusion, said Byrd, a Republican. It’s really important that we can protect kids in court. The that kids who have been traumatized can have the opportunity to testify outside the presence of the person that may be very that they may be very, very afraid of.

[29:24] Larry: I can sympathize with that. But don’t you think, for example, just say you’re not a kid. This is off script, but let’s just say hypothetically, you’re not a kid. Say you’re an adult and you’ve got, you’re testifying against a gang member. Don’t you think that maybe that gang or other members of that gang can come back after you? Don’t you think that they’re afraid as well? I mean, this is a part of our system. This is a part of our system. If you’re trying to put someone in a cage, you have to go testify against them. But the But this is also a significant burden as we’ve all seen in every mafia movie that if you go testify, then they’re gonna go put the meat, the muscle on you. And maybe your family gets hurt and you wouldn’t want your family to get hurt, would you? So then you don’t go testify. That’s correct. But the member would say that constitutional right may be limited by law for certain witnesses, those 18, and those with mental illness, including intellectual disability or other developmental disability. Both legislative chambers would need to approve this measure again in 2027 and again in 2028 to put put it before the voters in November 2028. So it has a lot of hoops to jump through. You people in Iowa, if you don’t like what you’re seeing here, you better get to work because this is gonna become a part of your constitution very soon in the next three years.

[30:42] Andy: The sixth amendment of the US constitution lays out the right of the accused in criminal prosecutions specifying the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and among other things, to be confronted with the witnesses against the against him. Them. I pick them, Larry.

[31:01] Larry: Well, except that’s what they what it said. That’s the way they wrote it in 1857 or wherever it was. Like, women didn’t even have the right to think back then. So our Constitution was adopted in 1857, also defines the rights of persons accused, including the same confrontation clause. But the US Supreme Court held in ‘9 a ’99 decision, Maryland v Craig, which I didn’t know anything about this, that the right to confront accusatory witnesses may be satisfied absent of physical face to face confrontation when remote testimony is necessary and can be provided reliably. And that’s what we’ve heard Scalia criticized. Maryland’s interest in protecting child witnesses from trauma of testifying in a child abuse case is sufficiently important to justify the use of special procedures that decision said. And, the majority of courts across the country have aligned with the Supreme Court decision according to Colin Miller, a University of South Carolina law professor.

[31:56] Andy: The most common exception is when the state’s confrontation clause includes the words face to face. That explicit text led, the New York New Hampshire Supreme Court this year, for example, to say a nine year old girl’s remote testimony violated the defendant’s constitutional rights? Because, I mean, ultimately, don’t the accused and the accuser have constitutional rights and we shouldn’t necessarily put one above the other?

[32:21] Larry: The the accuser has very few constitutional rights. Oh, okay. Those were those were invented rights. You know? Fair enough. Passed with with with statutory, changes. We the constitution of forefathers put all the emphasis on protecting the accused because we don’t wanna put people in cages without a robust process. But anyway, a nineteen eighty ninety eight state law carved out the that exception for a minor needing protection from trauma caused by testifying and physical presence of the defendant, where it would impair the minor’s ability to communicate. Now, I’m not too stupid to understand that if you have a nine year old on a witness stand, there will be some communication issues. I get that. But if a judge allows a minor’s test if a judge allows a minor’s test where it could be televised to the jury and defendant in the courtroom, the only problem is that’s not what they would have thought about back in colonial times. Iowa’s confrontation claw clause does not specify face to face, but the court said still that it violated the constitutional right to confrontation, declaring that the state’s constitution affords more protection to criminal defendants than the federal constitution.

[33:30] Andy: The article points out that the amendment is supported by law enforcement and county attorneys, duh, as well as various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom told lawmakers that justice isn’t being served in Iowa if children are forced to face an abuser again and are too afraid to tell their stories. The thing that I sit almost daily, definitely weekly, and grapple with parents is when they have to decide, is the price of justice worth it for my child? Wendy Berkeley, a family advocate at Des Moines Area Child Protection Center told lawmakers in January, unfortunately, right now in Iowa, the answer is they often have is no.

[34:06] Larry: Well, that’s unfortunately one of the things that goes to our system. The opposition to the proposal has been concentrated, according to this article, among defense attorneys who cite examples of people people wrongfully accused and say these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jury that the defendant is guilty. That is a true statement. That’s what jurors think. The existing law looks similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Welborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. But Welborn suggested that changing the Constitution is a slippery slope. They’re basically futzing around with the Sixth Amendment, he said. I would argue that it’s dangerous, dangerous road to go down because when you start saying we carve out exceptions for someone’s confrontational rights, do we also carve out exceptions for the right to present a defense? I mean, that’s what’s gonna be said said next. They’re gonna say, well, you know, all this stuff is really traumatizing the victim that the defense is putting on. So we need to shut this down and short shorten the defense process. You know, that that’s what’s coming next.

[35:08] Andy: And Welburn’s concern was echoed by Republican state representative Charlie Thompson, who said the provisions open the door wide to mischief by future legislatures.

[35:18] Larry: And let’s give some bipartisan, kudos because, this says that he’s a Republican. But State Representative Stephen Holt acknowledged that the constitutionality concerns but said the Iowa Supreme Court didn’t offer any options. They struck it down but didn’t really give us any guidance on what to do, said, Holt. They left us an interest conundrum as we try to protect, children in the course, from against having been having them traumatized again. But they didn’t give you the guidance because it’s not their job.

[35:51] Andy: They tell you what you can’t do, but they don’t tell you what you should do. And there is something to be said. Forget the nine year old part, but someone that is has some level of of more maturity and faculties that you you you’re able to challenge them to the the cross examine and hold up on their story and try to poke holes in anything that’s available that might be an inconsistency.

[36:15] Larry: Absolutely.

[36:18] Andy: So I win? You win. Alright. Cool. Let’s go along. Now you have this thing in here from the Marshall Project. What a bunch of liberal radicals. And it’s from New York. It says, when New York corrections officers attack prisons and infirmaries, as has happened dozens of times in the past fifteen years, I think we’ve even played some videos here about that, it is nurses who must document and treat the resulting injuries because you know for sure there’s not a doctor in there. Their choices can save lives or cover up abuse.

[36:47] Larry: Now are you telling me that in a progressive paradise such as New York that prisoners get abused by guards?

[36:53] Andy: There’s no way that could be true. It would appear that they do. A prisoner at Green Haven Correctional Facility in the Hudson Valley accused a nurse of medically clearing him to be sent to solitary confinement to cover up a beating by guards that left him with life threatening injuries. A punctured lung, broken ribs, and a fractured hand. And you’re just gonna go then go sit in the hole? Come on, man.

[37:18] Larry: Well, I don’t see the problem with it. He should have thought about that before he got put in prison. About that before he went to prison. Right. But but but all the nurses are not like that. Like, contrast that in nearby sings thing, a man credited a nurse was saving his life by yelling at an officer to stop beating him.

[37:36] Andy: The article states how nurses handle instances of violence. Infirmaries gained wider attention in December when state officials released a body camera footage showing nurses peering into an exam room from a hallway while guards fatally beat and choked Robert Brooks at Marcy Prison. Nurse oh, boy. A bed in? Oh, come on, man. Really? What in the world? Nurse, a b e d I n, and then m e h m e d med oh god. Whatever. I’m sorry. I cannot say this name. Sorry. The nurse who works for a private nursing agency stands outside an infirmary while corrections officers beat Robert Brooks at Marcy Correctional Facility in December.

[38:17] Larry: And the photo shows nurses looking on as guards beat Robert Brooks. Brooks died from his injuries the following morning. Such situations put nurses in a tough position. Those who witness abuse may stay silent about the abused witness to avoid angering the officers who protect them as well as supposedly the inmates. Yet ignoring or covering up the assaults violates the nurses professional code of ethics, prison policy, and the law. Now isn’t that a conundrum? That would be

[38:47] Andy: they probably don’t make a super a lot of money either. And then if they go rat on the guards, then they could put their job in jeopardy too. And next thing you know, then they’re fired because they ratted out that someone was getting the shit beat out of them. The article states that in dozens of cases, nurses have been accused of helping to cover up beatings in New York prisons according to the Marshall Project review of court settlements, disciplinary records, and pending lawsuits. The Marshall Project reporters identified 61 allegations from 02/2010 through 02/2024 of medical staff concealing evidence of guards’ abuse, usually by foregoing examinations or not documenting injuries. During that period, the document fired just one nurse for neglecting these duties after a force of, use of force according to our view of state disciplinary data. Did you say document or department fired just one? Well, I probably misread it during that period. The department

[39:40] Larry: fired. How would a document fire you? There’s a, well, that there was one documented fire. Maybe that’s what you meant to say. Medical, staff’s propensity to cover up officers’ violence happens more frequently than these numbers reflect, experts say. Men are prisoners do not file complaints because they fear retaliation or not believed. Now, you’ve been in these settings. I’ve only been in county correctional settings.

[40:02] Andy: Would that be accurate in terms of prisoners don’t file this I would think it would be but but that comport with your experience. I I depending on yes. I would say that depending on the person and how much noise they wanna make, they might just kinda take it and just accept what they can get and move on. As in not filing a complaint because, you know, maybe maybe you were just maybe you’re just lightly beat or maybe they were just maybe they put you in the chains. I did watch this happen, Larry. That’s this wasn’t somebody being beat. But it was an old guy, and he was being put on a bus to get transferred to a new prison. And he’s got the leg, ankle irons on, and he freaking, like, face plants off the bus. Wow. And he’s like I mean, the cat was, like, 70. And, his glasses are then broken. So when you see him later, he’s got, like, a black eye and and I can’t it’s just it’s just shitty. The commissioner Daniel

[40:58] Larry: really? Another one? I did this to you I did this to you because I couldn’t figure out how to pronounce it. So that’s that’s Mar Martucello, I guess. Martucello? I

[41:08] Andy: don’t know. Martucello? I don’t know. Has pledged to reform the culture in New York prisons. In a statement, he said he is working with the people and organizations inside and outside the department to make impactful change to end this violence.

[41:22] Larry: Well, there is a violent culture in prisons and it puts nurses in a bind. Experts say the primary duty of nurses is to support the health and well-being of their patients according to New York Nursing Board, and that doesn’t change that because it’s a prison setting. Yet prison nurses also feel they do a loyalty to the guards to ensure their safety, several former corrections nurses and staffers said. In this way, it’s a blue wall that extends to prison life to the prison clinic. That that is similar to the blue wall. Medical staff go along. These cover us all the time, said Kevin Ryan, a retired internal investigator in the state prison system. If they wanna keep their jobs, they have to go along. Now that sounds, somewhat eerily familiar to things that happened back in World War two when people did things that they did because they had to do them, and yet we think that they that would never happen here. Absolutely.

[42:17] Andy: So then in 02/2013, officers at Green Haven Prison brought an incarcerated man experiencing psychosis to the medical unit to give him meds and draw blood. Video showed the handcuffed man talkative and standing normally according to state records. Then the prisoner strapped in a restraint chair, appeared to choke on water and pills and spit out spit some out. Officers pushed his head down on his chest to put on a spit hood and severed his spine. Goddamn, dude. Like, how hard do you have to push someone’s head down to sever his spinal cord? According to the report from the state commission of correction, video showed that his demeanor changed. Of course his demeanor changed. He was no longer babbling about in an almost listless state according to arbitration records. Seriously, if you severed his spinal cord, I bet she was like borderline like, well, dead. Maybe not fully dead, but very dead.

[43:09] Larry: I would think so. An officer’s carried the man back to his cell. Now this is this is God. This is this is so appalling to me. And video shows a nurse asking, are you hurting anywhere? Nothing hurts you. Okay? So apparently she answered for him. Nothing hurts you. Oh, okay. Before leaving the cell, according to state records. The nurse did do a physical examination or take his vital signs. The man soon slid off the cot onto the floor and complained that his bones were killing him. I imagine he would have been complaining about that. He lay motionless and unattended for more than twenty four hours before being brought to a local hospital. He died three weeks later.

[43:48] Andy: The article states that the department fired the nurse for not examining the mail and then telling investigators that he did. The state also fired a correction officer trainee who’d been observing the prisoner. The department did not attempt to discipline the officer or other medical staff involved. A prison spokesperson said the use of force was deemed to be appropriate. The nurse later testified at an arbitration hearing that it was Green Haven policy to forego physical exams and and assess an incarcerated person’s injuries by asking him if he is not injured. And that’s pretty much what we do. Other witness also testified that those actions were the norm at Greenhaven. Nobody speaks up for the abused.

[44:28] Larry: That is that is so realistic, to me, having not been there. But you’re so powerless. You know, the fear of speaking honestly about assaults is widespread. And at Wynn Prison, a nurse who witnessed a guard beating a prisoner in a wheelchair told investigators that an officer told her to say she saw nothing. She refused to identify the officer. In another case, investigators interviewed a nurse at Franklin Prison about an incident in which a guard broke a prisoner’s jaw in the infirmary. She later testified that she re she she received a call at work from someone calling her a rat. When she appeared at the arbitration hearing, she explained she was not testifying voluntarily but was being forced by subpoena.

[45:12] Andy: And I I’m sure in your breadth of knowledge, you have a solution for us here.

[45:18] Larry: Well, I really don’t. There isn’t one. This is the human behavior and the condition that we have. If we could be very selective about who we put in prisons, your job is only to confine these people. You’re not the judge. You’re not the jury. You’re not all these things that you wanna be. Your job is to keep them confined until they’re allowed to be released. And if you think your job is greater than that, if you think you should be the one who administers justice, you should run for district attorney, you should become a prosecutor, you should run for judge, you should do any number of things. But your job as a prison guard is not to decide what you think is appropriate and what these people deserve. Your job is to confine

[46:01] Andy: them. Just to play devil’s advocate, I have seen some insanely large humans and very violent people in prison. And guards come in all shapes and sizes. They’re not all donut eating four hundred pounders. Some of them are pretty narrow dudes or and and certainly many of them are women. How you would have you would have to employ some extreme measures to potentially restrain someone that has decided that they don’t want to be restrained and rational. I I mean, I can think of 25 different ways that you could handle this, but at the end of the day, somebody might not have all those resources available to them, and they decide to start while punching you in the face and breaking your jaw, as we just read.

[46:48] Larry: Well, I would tend to agree with you on that, that Prisoners have various levels of mental instability. They’re hooked on drugs that are being smuggled into the prison, some by guards and there’s all sorts of volatility in prison. So, I would never want to stop a guard from being able to defend him or herself. But, on the other hand, self defense is one thing. Learning how, I worked in my property management career in some of the most ghetto ish areas that, that we have in the city. And I never had any problem to speak of because I always treated people with the utmost respect even when they were losers. If I was evicting you, you never had any maltreatment from me because it was not personal. And I tried my best to shield the uncomfortable situation that was happening to you from anyone else knowing about it and treated people with dignity. When I was in the Boulder County Jail, I saw virtually no violence in the Boulder County Jail because that was their operating procedure. They treated everybody with respect and dignity. And violence was so rare, you know, that when someone needed to be restrained, it was a very odd thing that happened in that county jail. So I I don’t say that I have the all the answers, but I think having people that are heavily relying on their testosterone instincts to show that they’re manly is not the answer.

[48:19] Andy: I watched some cat. He was very mentally unstable when I first got locked up at the county jail. And he was just adamant that he wanted to drink the cleaning solutions like the Windex. And he just wouldn’t listen to the guards saying stop drinking the the Windex. So they tased him. So then you hear the the, you know, the the and then thump, and they carry the guy out.

[48:42] Larry: Well, see again, I don’t know that I would have reacted that way. I don’t know that I wouldn’t have because I had to be in the situation, but he’s only hurting him himself at that point.

[48:53] Andy: But isn’t it still the responsibility to keep him from doing that too?

[48:57] Larry: Yes. It is. If

[49:01] Andy: if you are trying to find a way to stop him from doing it, it might be that just getting the the object the substance away from him would be sufficient to stop doing it. Yeah. He shouldn’t be able to get gain access to it to begin with. When they brought in the cleaning carts, he goes over to a new guard or something like that and ask him sort of like, man, you wanna clean the windows? Great. Here’s the cleaner. Go clean the windows. And they glug glug glug glug glug. No. No. No. No. That’s not what I meant. Boy, do we have a fabulous, incarceration system here. Hey. Tell me about this thing with Harvey Weinstein standing a new trial. Is this, like, anything worthwhile?

[49:38] Larry: Yeah. Well, it’s it hasn’t been developed yet. I don’t have anyone been following it, but, they are gonna put him on new trial. It’s it’s not already underway, but this is the article I put in for a couple weeks ago. I know. So he may already be be on trial. I don’t know what the status of that is. And then he’s still convicted in California, I think. So even if he somehow wins this case, he still has to deal with whatever happened in California, I believe. Yeah. I think it’s the other way around. I think he was convicted in New York, and then it was overturned. In California. He’s waiting for him. They haven’t convicted him yet. Have they in California? Oh, I thought that well, okay. Something we need to cover then because I thought that that’s what what the deal was. Yeah. We’re eventually gonna get to it, but, he’s gonna die in prison. He’s already but ancient as hell and and the prison’s not gonna be good to him as far as, any medical care. I think you kinda heard that in the segment above. Yeah. They don’t they don’t treat you well there. Well, very good. He’s not he’s he’s not gonna make it. And we we threw this together because there’s a good chance I won’t be available next week. I’m getting a root canal Friday, and depending on how I feel, I may not be available. But there’s five Saturdays in the month of May. So the patrons will still get their four episodes even if I miss next week. Is it five? I thought we talked about there aren’t five. Let’s see. One, two hey. There are five oh, the thirty first coming into the last oh, gotcha. Alright then. So so

[51:02] Andy: Alrighty. Well, make sure that you head over to registrymatters.c0 and you can find the show notes and make sure that you email any questions. Any questions at all. And I will send them over to Larry. Registry matters you know, we didn’t cover that voice mail again. Registrymatterscast@gmail.com. And for those that are listening tonight, thank you very much. Thank you very much for being a patron. That can happen over at patreon.com. Oh, you know what? We did get a new patron. I gotta grab that real quick. Head over to patreon.com/registrymatters, and then I will thank the new patron who was super generous. And what is that individual’s name? I sent it to you, Larry. You should know.

[51:40] Larry: Do you expect me to remember at 83?

[51:42] Andy: I expect you to remember all of the things.

[51:45] Larry: I will tell you because it should be in my text messages.

[51:49] Andy: I believe it is.

[51:51] Larry: Saddam Hussein.

[51:53] Andy: I don’t believe so. I believe that that was, Sammy. So Well, thank you very much, Sammy, for becoming a patron. Thank you very much. It it came in at the,

[52:05] Larry: at the, what was it, the pandemic,

[52:08] Andy: stimulus rate? Yes. Stimulus was 14 and change. Right? Yep. And that’s what said maybe it did was 1,400 a month. And then we also have swag over at registry mad excuse me. That’s f0ipeducation.org/shop. You can go find t shirts and some cool things there, particularly the one of Larry and then there’s the one of the Kabuki machine. And without further ado, Larry, I bid you all ado. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and that you have a nice cool air conditioner now. And boy, do I hope that root canal goes well because that does not sound fun.

[52:39] Larry: Well, the whole story is not fun either because I may have brought it on myself by being stubborn, but we’ll talk about that another time. You brought it on because you’re stubborn? Never. I waited and waited because I had pain and I thought it was gonna fix itself and it fixed itself, alright, to a big old abscess. I bet.

[52:56] Andy: Well, I hope that goes well and I will talk to you soon. Good night, everybody. Have a great night. Good night.

[53:04] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.