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, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 341 of registry matters. Larry, is that right? Is it three forty one this week? I can’t really keep track anymore.

[00:29] Larry: I do believe that’s correct. Fantastic.

[00:32] Andy: Well, how are you tonight?

[00:35] Larry: Improving.

[00:37] Andy: Did you did you have COVID, measles, a rash, allergic reaction? What did you have?

[00:45] Larry: It’s unknown. I had either an allergic reaction to amoxicillin or I had measles, but it was lovely.

[00:53] Andy: That, and and you had, what kinda looks like chickenpox. Right?

[00:58] Larry: It certainly has that appearance, but it’s clearing up. I’m 80% clearer now.

[01:05] Andy: Alright. Well, please head over and show your support by, like and subscribe, whether that’s in your favorite podcast app or even in your not favorite podcast app. Do it on YouTube. Thumbs up these videos. It all helps us make a difference and spread the word. We truly appreciate your love. And in return, we’re here to keep delivering content you’ll enjoy. And if you’re feeling generous, you can head over to patreon.com/matters, and that would also be incredibly valued. Thank you for being a part of our community. We have a bunch of people here in chat joining us tonight. And, so without anything else, what are we gonna do tonight?

[01:42] Larry: Well, we have a series of it’s a accumulation of stuff. We got, a couple of TV stories. We’ve got some listener submissions and an article or two if time permits. And I know that we’re gonna have fun.

[02:00] Andy: You know this. You’re confident. To what degree of confidence do you have that we’re gonna have fun?

[02:07] Larry: What was that movie where they said confidence is high when The United States was supposedly under attack? What was that called, War Games?

[02:15] Andy: You mean War Games? Is that what you said? You broke up for just the slightest. Yeah. The the they were announcing that there was confidence was high with those missiles were real. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, I I haven’t seen War Games. I watched it halfway recently, but it’s been a while. Yeah. WAPR, w a p r, is the name of the machine. Good good movie. Man, Matthew Broderick, good flick. I was doing that stuff back in the day, Larry. If you watch that movie and him doing the war dialing, I was doing that stuff. I like I like that movie. That was the last time I was at the picture show. I believe that. We need to watch some, prison slash lawyer movies. I think that would be we should start doing those for Patreon extras. Like, watch the, what is the the Lincoln Lawyer? We could watch My Cousin Vinny. We should start with My Cousin Vinny and do a response some kind, maybe, like, do a twenty minute something or another with the movie playing in the background while you talk about his lawyering skills? That sounds like a plan. Sounds like a plan. Have to do any work. You shouldn’t really have to do any work, really. And and it’s a it’s an incredibly funny movie. I mean, it’s off the charts funny. Alright. Well, so let’s dive into this first thing that I sent you was it this morning or yesterday? I don’t really remember anymore.

[03:31] Larry: I have no idea.

[03:33] Andy: Alright. Well, this comes in and says, perhaps you recall that when I sent my draft NARSAW Digest article to you for your review, you made a change, which was where I had said that for states that specify a time on their registry after which a registrant is supposedly automatically removed, it should be theory should be in theory be possible to ask that state for a determination that one has fulfilled their registry obligation there. You change that to say that no court would consider such a determination because there’s no case coming before them. I let it go because that change did no violence to my overall thesis. And I know that I sent you that violence and we talked about that. But what the what is violence?

[04:19] Larry: I think he meant it didn’t violate his overall thesis.

[04:23] Andy: Okay. Good. I kinda could’ve gotten there. But I was like, no violence? Did I miss something? Alright. Anyway, continuing. One thing about my theory is that my I can test it, Larry. My brother lives in Rhode Island, which famously has a twenty four hour visit limit. I wanna check that one in a minute. But they are also in this group of states, and have one of the shortest registry time periods in the nation, which is ten years, and they allow out of state service to count. I will have ten years in 2027, at which point I have every intention on testing my theory in Rhode Island. And guess what? If I’m successful in Rhode Island, I will definitely move on to other states so that I can gain my freedom in as many states as possible before I die. I have so many questions.

[05:11] Larry: Well, what’s interesting about this, and it’s gonna bleed into a second segment we’re gonna have, about whether being on the Internet is the same as being registered. But this person is currently registered in Florida. Now, what does that mean? What does that mean in terms of their theory? Just at first blush,

[05:32] Andy: since Florida’s, doesn’t remove you from the Internet even when you move out of state. But the way that I understand it is you would leave Florida and you would deregister there. But if you’re on the registry, they’re going to require you to register in the destination state. But they’re gonna remove you from Florida’s registry,

[05:49] Larry: but they’re not gonna remove you from the website. That is correct. They will remove the registration obligation once he joins up with a new state. But, his theory is really boggling my mind because if he gets to Rhode Island and they do give him €10 credit and they say you don’t have to register here, according to what everybody tells me, being on the Internet is the exact same thing as being registered. So, what would he have accomplished by moving to Rhode Island? And then beyond that, what would he accomplish by doing this all over the country? Because theoretically, according to his theory, being on the Internet is the same as being registered. So, therefore, he can get this determination in all 16 states, if that’s how many there are out there, that give you credit for a time registered in another state. What good will it do?

[06:44] Andy: There’s so many questions in there. So he would still be on the Internet. So let’s let’s talk about Florida that you you leave. If he does his nine years and change in Florida and then moves to Rhode Island, when he crosses that ten month window, excuse me, ten year window in a handful of months, they are going to proactively remove him from having to register, which means going to get your fingerprints and whatever, all that is. But Rhode Island probably doesn’t really do much of that to begin with. But, whatever. He’s not gonna have to do any kind of annual or quarterly registration, and he’s not gonna be on the Internet. What more do you want?

[07:22] Larry: Well, that’s what I put this in here for because he does doesn’t seem to have any problem with being on the registry, the website in Florida. But, he’s gonna go petition the rest of the country to get off of the registry. He says he’s gonna take it all over the country. Right? That’s against freedom. He he’s not.

[07:43] Andy: Are are there peep I I guess there are people that are registered in two states, particularly if they were, like, living in in a state where they happen to work in the other state. I guess you would be registered in two states probably in those kinds of circumstances. But otherwise, aren’t most people just registered in one?

[08:03] Larry: Yes. But in the smaller states, they’re they’re in border towns that overlap. Yeah. Yeah. They work in they work at they’re in multiple states, but I’m trying to figure out what good this will do him. If he’s right, that if being on the website is the exact same thing, and we’re gonna get to that in another segment, what will you accomplish by getting off the registry

[08:25] Andy: in every other state in The Union if being on the website is the same thing? I would agree. But, Larry, wouldn’t you have to be on the registry in that state to get off of it?

[08:35] Larry: Well, his theory is that you can ask for a determination. And the article that he referenced is different than what he put in this email. The article he referenced was about petitioning for removal. And he wanted to know if he could petition for removal. And I said, well, you really can’t petition because you’re not connected to those states. And therefore, there’s not what we refer to as a justiciable controversy. And it would be re a petition of that nature would be asking for an advisory opinion under hypothetical circumstances, circumstances, and courts don’t do that. So that’s what this whole came whole thing came about. And I asked him to modify that article to make it more consistent with reality. But this has gotten me so con so confused here. I don’t know what he would accomplish. We have tens of thousands of people listening out there, and I would urge them to write in and tell us what I’m missing because I know I’m missing something.

[09:34] Andy: What are you talking about? I’m trying to think. So he moves to Rhode Island and let’s just say he gets off the registry in Rhode Island. He is still on the website in Florida. And now he goes south a little bit and he ends up in Vermont. He’s gonna go knock on the Vermontian’s door and go, I would like to be removed from your registry. And they’re gonna like, you’re not on our registry. Would you like to be on our registry?

[09:57] Larry: Well, that’s beyond what I’m able to comprehend, but I’m trying to figure out what he would accomplish anyway if being listed on the website is the same as being registered. Like I said, we’re gonna get into that a little bit later. I’m gonna explain why it’s not the same thing. But if it is, then what would you accomplish? You would accomplish nothing. Yeah. I got nothing on this one. This one is confusing to me. Well, but we’ve got thousands of people. Someone will correct me because I’m I’m missing something. But I don’t know what you would accomplish. He would do exactly I mean, to me, his whole logic is flawed. Getting off the registry in Rorale would be, a great thing. But he maintains and so many people maintain that being listed on the website is the same as being registered. So therefore, under that theory, you would accomplish nothing. Right.

[10:46] Andy: Yeah. And then we could talk to super patron Mike who approximately every two to three months has to go visit the office to update car registration or just his quarterly stuff, and then they send the popo by his house all the time. That is being on the registry. That’s not the website. The website is just you being doxxed. But he is on the registry and is dealing with that garbage.

[11:12] Larry: Yes.

[11:13] Andy: Okay. I would invite the individual to write more information and be more clear.

[11:21] Larry: Okay.

[11:23] Andy: Well, moving along then, let’s go on to this. I’m sick and tired. Yeah. Okay. So I’m sick and tired. Did I oh, here it is. I got it at the wrong screen. Alright. I am sick and tired of hearing Larry’s bizarre claim that being listed on a state’s registry is not the same as being registered. I don’t know where he gets his wacky weed he smokes, but it’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard in my life. You could go out and poll a hundred people and probably all 100 would say if they found a person’s name on the registry, that person is registered. Is it the wacky weed or Kool Aid causing this craziness? Now, I think that that is true. If you went out and asked a hundred people, they would probably tell you that a person’s name being on the website is a person on the registry. I think that’s an accurate statement.

[12:11] Larry: I tend to agree with you. And when we get to the final segment from Utah, that’s gonna be confirmed. But just because people think that it’s not the same thing. So let’s talk about being on the registry. Now let’s talk about in the Deep South where this person is. The I don’t know who wrote this particular, but the Deep South where the previous person is is Florida. In Florida, you have to go in in person

[12:38] Andy: four times a year. Yeah. It’s like a it’s quarterly. And you have things to update.

[12:44] Larry: If you don’t go in those four times, you’re subjected to prosecution. K. When you’re when you leave the state of Florida, you no longer have that obligation. K. So that’s one difference. When you’re in Florida, if you’re in, Miami Dade County, you have a 2,500 foot restriction. In the rest of the state, you have a thousand foot restriction that applies to many PFRs. I don’t know if if it applies to all, but it applies to a heck of a lot of them. So they tell you where you can live and where you can’t live. And you’re subject to prosecution. You don’t have that prosecution threat. You don’t have to go in and give your butt print, fingerprints. You don’t have to do any of those things. You don’t have any prohibitions about where you can work that Florida can enforce or where you can live that Florida can enforce. They don’t have any travel restrictions where you have to give any plans for for travel, anything like that. All those things go by the wayside. So you have what is the remnants of a prior registration listed on the Internet, and it likely says after you’ve moved to the other state, living in the state, and it names the state. Sometimes I’ve seen it actually have that address where you tell them you were moving to, but then that address doesn’t continue to be updated. Is it ideal to have your stuff on the Internet? No.

[14:07] Andy: It is not ideal. And isn’t it static at that point that at that point you could tattoo your face and grow your hair long or whatever, and the picture that’s on there is gonna be what it was when you last had your picture taken?

[14:20] Larry: That would be correct. And so if you went to Rhode Island and you got off the registry, then you would have nothing approximating registration. So, therefore, I know the wacky weed and the Kool Aid that they’re talking about, but I don’t understand how they can equate it to being registered. It is a very inconvenient, disgusting thing, but it’s not anything approximating registration. Is

[14:49] Andy: it? Oh, it approximating. Yes. Approximating. Because your picture and your information is out there and someone can Google you and Google never forgets and they will find you and that could lead them to your local registration stuff if you happen to be in a place that might not have it published, but then you can find articles and stuff, and you can track down the person. So it’s approximately there.

[15:10] Larry: Yeah. I don’t think it’s anywhere close. There’s no risk of prosecution. There’s no obligations imposed upon you. And it is it is a doxing but I can’t see it as being registered. And there are people, they come at me from another angle to say, well, don’t you understand that the notifications to foreign countries come from the people on the website. And I said, well, let’s just work through this. Let’s think about this for a minute. Because I don’t understand that. If the public websites were how they linked the foreign travel notifications, then the people who are not listed on websites that are registered would magically become invisible. So that tells me by logical process of elimination that that is not how that system works. My belief is it works through the NCIC. That’s what I think happens, that the, notification is triggered by your NCI registration because each registered person is carried in one of the NCIC person files as a registered person. And I believe that for the comprehensive inclusiveness of travel notification, they would not rely on an incomplete out of date public website. I believe they would rely on the NCIC, which it would be far more complete, and it would be far more up to date. So that’s my theory.

[16:40] Andy: I I can’t really contest your theory.

[16:44] Larry: But I don’t know it for a fact because I don’t obsess about it the way some people do. I don’t know how for sure the foreign those green and purple and red and all those different notices they sent to foreign countries. I don’t know exactly how that works. But it puzzles me that after many years, I think this was signed in 2016, so we’re coming upon a decade. To my knowledge, no one has ever done a done a FOIA request to figure out what that process actually is like.

[17:13] Andy: I mean, it’s I think, Larry, you don’t obsess about it because you spent 90% of your life without the Internet. How old are you now? One eighty what? One eighty four. Okay. So the Internet came out, say, forty years ago. So you have spent a significant portion of your life without having Internet. And maybe that’s why you don’t really give two flips about it because you’ve spent so much time without it.

[17:42] Larry: Oh, I care about the Internet, and I know it’s a major inconvenience. But for people to say that they’re registered because they’re on Internet is nonsensical to me. But are they suffering an inconvenience and hardship? Yes. Are they being discriminated?

[17:57] Andy: Probably so. And is it a disability and a restraint? I think that would be one of the bigger ones that exist is having that information out there for everyone to track down and do something about.

[18:08] Larry: So but, yes, I will argue and argue that it’s not the same as being registered.

[18:16] Andy: Alright. Alright. Well, then here’s another one. I’ve got a question for you. I’ve heard people put forward the theory that if the state’s registration law has a clause that requires registration for anyone who has a registration obligation in another state, that he or she has an obligation in that state. The theory put forward is that the law also means that if they do not have a registration obligation in another state, they cannot be required to register in that state. What do you think of that theory? I turned down my volume for something else, and we didn’t get the full effect of the laugh track there. My apologies.

[18:54] Larry: Oh, well, I think that the laugh track is what I think. I don’t think too much of that theory, other than I sincerely wish that would be the case, but it isn’t. But I’ve heard that theory myself over the years. It’s somewhat logical, but it’s not the reality of the situation. The states that do have that provision in their law have put that in to close what they consider to be a loophole. And as you’ve heard me repeatedly say, statutes must be read in harmony. And that being said, take a look at the states that have such provisions, and you will see their state uses or throughout to describe who’s required to register. I think or is referred to as a conjunction, if I remember my English. And the law will list covered offenses. So it’ll say in the state of Arkansas, you’re required to register for these sexual offenses. And then they will say for a non sexual offense in some instances, if there’s been a, a separate judicial finding that that that was sexually motivated. And then they’ll go on to list out of state equivalence or they will have language like substantially similar out of state offenses. And then finally, they’ll have that clause, anyone required to register in another state. But they’re usually joined with ors. And or is a conjunction that includes any of the foregoing. So what they the states that did that, they were trying to eliminate the loophole. Because if you take a person who comes to New Mexico, and our long term listeners will have heard this before because I keep harping on Georgia because that’s the only state that comes to mind that registers obscene phone calls from adults to minors. And if you were to make obscene phone calls in Georgia and be convicted, you would have a duty to register. But if you came to New Mexico, since our law says, it says, equivalent, not even substantially similar, then that person would not have a registration obligation here. But if you went to one of the states that said or, then you could run into the same situation where you would have to register there even though they would not normally register that offense. But it’s intended to expand the universe of registrable offenses. It’s not intended as a loophole to get out. It’s intended to prevent a loophole from people coming to those states and not having to register because people state shop. And they said, oh, I got convicted of this. And I don’t see this on the list and and this state, so I’m gonna move there. And that’s the loophole they’re trying to close. Sure. Sure. State shopping. Right? Indeed. And the states generally don’t prefer shoppers. Then we’ll learn that more when we get to the end of the program, more when we have the Utah segment because, sex offenders are just not all that popular in most of the country.

[21:57] Andy: Yes. I’ve heard this.

[22:00] Larry: So I just don’t think that’s a viable theory. Now, having said that, I think there is a viable theory. I think you should throw that one in the garbage pail, and I think you should argue the equal protection clause. So if you come to New Mexico from Georgia and they tell you you’ve gotta register for making them obscene telephone calls, you say, wait a minute. I’m looking at your constitution, and it says that New Mexico and The US constitution has an equal protection clause. I’m supposed to be given the same benefits as a New Mexico resident. And if I brought my vehicle to New Mexico, my personal vehicle, you wouldn’t single me out for special treatment because I’m from Georgia and impose additional duties on me replicating Georgia’s vehicle registration system. You can’t do that, so you’re violating the equal protection cost. That’s your argument. But you need to put this one in the garbage pail because it’s not a good argument. And it’s a civil regulatory scheme like your car. It is indeed. And and that’s what I tell people if they would just think about it as the same as their vehicle. When you take your vehicle to New Jersey, you may have lived in open Wyoming, and they have never heard of Smog Inspections in Wyoming. And you take it there and say, well, I ain’t never had to do this in Wyoming. And I said, well, that’s nice.

[23:16] Andy: But that no longer applies. You’re here. Yeah. You can either return or don’t have a car.

[23:22] Larry: Or you can go in where Georgia, where they used to when I lived there, they level they levied an abelorum tax based on the car value. Okay. New Mexico levies registration based on the weight of the vehicle and the age of the vehicle. And if you came here with a new car, you would pay from Georgia. You would have paid three or four times the registration fee in Georgia. What if New Mexico said, well, try to keep them out of staters out there. We’re gonna charge what Georgia charged them. That wouldn’t fly. Because that’s not how our registration system is built for vehicles. You know? And it’s it’s it’s the same. You’ve got the same argument that I’m entitled to be treated the way any other resident of the state is.

[24:02] Andy: Alright. Would you, as we move along, would you set up this thing for this video clip from, New Mexico about this individual?

[24:10] Larry: Yeah. This is a relatively long segment that was aired here in the last ten days or so. And, it’s about a a PFR that had been previously convicted, adjudicated in the military. And, his military conviction didn’t, trigger a Internet publication in New Mexico. And so the law enforcement apparatus teamed up with the victim’s advocates abber apparatus teamed up with the media, and they’ve made this segment about how bad this situation is. This loophole’s gotta be closed. So New Mexico needs to close a loophole to protect children. So we’ve got what, 10 or 11 segments of that five minutes to go through here. Correct.

[24:55] Andy: Here comes number one.

[25:01] News Announcer: In the meantime, we, of course, teach our kids to stay away from strangers, to beware of the big van or the person offering up candy or even puppies. But predators are actually much closer than ever before. And for investigator Britney Costello discovered our own state law is helping keep some very dark secrets.

[25:22] Andy: Well, okay. So if that’s the case, so what is the actual risk?

[25:27] Larry: Well, the the risk that that’s being protected is this person had a previous conviction, And that conviction doesn’t trigger Internet, publication. The registration duties there, but that particular offense isn’t listed on the Internet. So that person was able to continue that behavior and pick up another offense here. And so this is the stranger danger that we’re talking about. This person was online and apparently has has been accused of propositioning a minor here.

[26:00] Andy: Do you think that even how the story opens by framing safety as something we manage by teaching kids to avoid strangers, do you think that’s even a valid concept?

[26:10] Larry: Sure it’s valid. I think kids are safer today than they were when I was a kid. I think they’re safer today than they’ve ever been. I think stranger or danger is very minimal, but teaching kids basic safety techniques, I don’t I don’t have any problem with that. But I think scaring people beyond, kids today don’t go out and exercise. They don’t ride bicycles. They don’t do the things that kids need to do to stay healthy and happy. Yes. That’s true, Victor. And and part of it’s, this imaginary boogeyman that’s on every street corner. And parents feel the need to shuttle their kids every place. I know I know a parent in in, another state that doesn’t do that, but most parents just are so paranoid about an imaginary boogeyman that they do And and, you got people like Leonore Skanese. I believe that’s how you pronounce her name. Correct. She she says the same thing I do. It’s it’s very minimal stranger danger. Of course, if it’s your kid, it’s one too many, but it’s so exceedingly rare. What is it? About a hundred kids or less annual in a country of 330,000,000 disappear as a result of strangers that’s exceedingly small.

[27:20] 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 d.

[28:10] Andy: And to to extend on that the way that I understand it, only maybe a single or dub a a small double digit number. Anything happens to them from that. Like, all the whatever they’re called. The the, oh, god. What are they called? The something alerts? Not red alerts. The amber amber alert. Thank you. All of that then goes out and the person’s got a hitman marker on them as they’re driving around. We’re looking for a 1987 Chevy Blazer whatever bred with this license plate. It’s not gonna take long to track the person down. Well, let’s, let’s move on to an an illusion of compliance. And here’s, segment number two.

[28:57] News Announcer: Maybe Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Deputies take a list of names and pay a surprise visit Hi, sir. To every registered sex offender in the county. Hello? Hi, Eric. Just doing address verification for you. All we need. Appreciate it. They’re making sure these guys are living at their registered address. Awesome. Thank you. Detective Glenn Metzger is with the sex offender registration unit. The point is to make sure that the community has the information.

[29:24] Andy: Identify so I it is is it an illusion of compliance?

[29:33] Larry: I don’t know if I would call that an illusion of compliance. The, story proves how much a registry is out and how misleading that peace of mind can be. But if you go knock on people’s doors, I think that it would inspire folks to make sure that their information is correct. I mean, I’m just guessing that. What do you think?

[29:55] Andy: I think that the overwhelming majority of PFRs are almost scared to be they’re scared of their shadow to the point that they will be hyper compliant that this is a public relations make the public feel good situation. Yes. You’re going to find people that are not compliant, but by far and large, 99%, I betcha, remain compliant. So having them you’re you’re you’re scaring the neighbors that somebody is getting knocked on their door all the time. Why is the sheriff constantly every quarter or six months knocking on this individual’s door? They’re either friends with the cops or they’re a bad person, so we should avoid them, like, but they they never have a chance to rehabilitate from that. I don’t think that the I don’t personally think that this would be all that valuable without identifying people that are problem people to begin with. Does that make sense?

[30:52] Larry: Yeah. I never thought about it the way you put it because let’s say, I don’t have them knocking on my door, but I’ll I’m an old white guy that lives in a neighborhood where I think I’m pretty much the only one. The old the old the only old man that was like me moved out and went to a nursing home. And the cops constantly knocking on your door and me being a hundred thousand years old.

[31:19] Andy: And that would I never thought about how that would make you appear to your neighbors. I never considered that. So super patron Mike, almost every time the cops come by, he lives in a very, very, very, very upper class neighborhood. And here it is, the cops with their freaking lights on at 08:00 at night, you know, lighting up all the neighbors houses, and he shows me his ring camera footage of the guy coming up knocking on the door. And as the video showed, hey. I’m just here to do the compliance check that you’re here. Great. Have a nice day. And they move on. But meanwhile, there’s the red and blue lights flashing the wee woo wee woo there in your neighborhood. Like, come on. What is

[32:01] Larry: I’ve I’ve not even seen them do that here. Are they doing that?

[32:05] Andy: That video showed them that that they’re doing it. The video clip that I just showed has them knocking on the door. I’ve not seen them doing that. I didn’t notice that in the video. Yeah. It was, just at the very tail end of it. I don’t know if I can kind of advance what’s on the screen as the video. It’s alright. I just didn’t realize they were doing that. Yeah. If you can if you can see the actual the video that I have up on the screen, there’s the sheriff or the officer, whatever he is, the deputy standing in front of someone’s door and he was incredibly polite. I’m not trying to bash them for their their professionalism and their demeanor, But he’s standing there with his tactical vest on, with a gun at his hip, and it he they had the recording of it. Hey, I’m just here doing the compliance check. And he’s like, great. Hey, thanks. And they move on. And they also say in this clip I don’t remember if we will cover it or not, but, like, he says that the majority of the people, they just wanna comply.

[33:01] Larry: So so yeah. Well, it’s, the they’re chasing the money. And, it’s interesting that most of the people in law enforcement tend to lean politically conservative, and they say government’s too big, but they sure they sure put in every request for federal dollars they can get their paws on. And they don’t seem to think the government’s too big when it comes to money for their their agency. Amazingly hypocritical.

[33:25] Andy: And and now we’re going to take a twist. We are talking about the hidden offender.

[33:36] News Announcer: But there is a name that’s

[33:41] Andy: What happened? Talk for a minute. Let me just see if I can’t make that clip play.

[33:47] Larry: Well, it’s related to the offender we were talking about and why this whole story came into existence. He’s not listed publicly, and that’s what they’re trying to change. And I’m sure you can make it play if you just take a hammer and bang your computer or keyboard.

[34:04] News Announcer: I probably can. Let me see what happened. There is a name that’s not on their Bernalillo County list or in any public databases.

[34:13] News Announcer: How is he a sex offender, but it’s not available to public? Jessica Paul lives in Southwest Albuquerque.

[34:20] News Announcer: She says she found out about 29 year old Jonathan Giacinto.

[34:25] Larry: I didn’t stop it. Jesus. That’s good that’s good enough. Only after he assaulted her 13 year old daughter.

[34:36] Andy: So but isn’t the registry supposed to prevent this?

[34:41] Larry: Well, that’s the whole point of the story. He’s not listed on it. Alright. But he he’s not listed publicly, but he is on the registry in the state. Is that the correct way to put that? Yes. He’s listed, but that doesn’t serve any notification purpose if only the cops know that he’s registered. That’s the whole point of the story.

[35:02] Andy: And is it in the other segment that I think it’s in another segment. I don’t wanna spoil that part of it. And should he be on the public side of the registry in that state?

[35:16] Larry: Not according to our laws, but he will be after if he should be convicted of this because he’ll become a lifetime registrant and they automatically revert to publication on all lifetimes or so. If he gets convicted, he’ll he’ll she’ll she’ll get what she’s looking for. I see. Alright. Well, then let’s move over to grooming in the digital age, segment number four.

[35:39] News Announcer: After months of what Paul calls grooming Showing her a lot a lot of attention and just constant, like, reassurance.

[35:49] News Announcer: Those explicit messages turned physical. In the middle of the night, investigators say Giaquinto drove from his home in Grants, New Mexico to pick her daughter up and take her to a park where they say he raped her.

[36:05] Andy: They also showed video in there, Larry, in that particular block. I believe that she’s knocked out of the house. It wasn’t like he abducted her.

[36:12] Larry: That’s correct. But he groomed her. I mean, you you really shouldn’t give a 13 year old the the, latitude to make such a decision to go out against I’m sure her parents didn’t want her to go outside. Her mother didn’t want her to go out with him. I I was then looking up some laws. There’s something called COPPA, which is the Child Online Protection Act, I think is what it’s called. And

[36:37] Andy: you’ve gotta do you gotta you’re supposed to jump through a lot of hoops if you want your kid to have an Internet presence under the age of 13 and then she is 13. I’m sure that her parents didn’t make this account for her sometime in the last twelve months. I I’d be willing to bet that she’s been online for a while. I’m going to point the finger a lot at parents and their ability to monitor and police what their kids are doing.

[36:59] Larry: But do all parents have the sophisticated, if I happen to have a child right now, I wouldn’t have a clue what to do to keep them off. You you’re very good at keeping your minor your previous minor, who’s now an adult, but you’re very good at keeping control.

[37:13] Andy: But I wouldn’t have a clue. I’d have to call in an expert to figure out what to do. And I hear a lot of tech podcasts talk about this particular subject. Do we want the government regulating it?

[37:26] Larry: I don’t think so. We don’t think we want the government. But what do we do when when parental supervision is not adequate? And that’s always the question I always ask conservatives who say, well, everybody should wear a mask or whatever. Well, we don’t need the government telling them to. Well, they don’t do it if the government doesn’t tell them to. Parents that are not required to supervise their kids oftentimes are not good supervisors of children. So what do we do? We should put them in foster care. Yeah. But we don’t wanna pay for that. That cost an awful lot of money.

[37:57] Andy: I know I’m saying that very tongue in cheek, and I knew that you that would be your answer. I but there hasn’t that been, like, time immoral and and what is the word? Time immortal? That the kids would go out and they’re away from home and they go in the woods and they set stuff on fire just mischievous being kids. And I’m I’m I’m not trying to really make a moral equivalency to this versus that. But kids go out and do kid things.

[38:25] Larry: Well, this needs to play out in court. And unlike others, I believe that this accused is presumed innocent, mister Giacinto. And the facts will unfold either by a plea or by a trial. And the state will be forced to put on evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape. Now if it was consensual, he’s beyond the age. There’s more than four years gap, so he’s gonna still have a problem. Because He was, like, 26, I think. 29. So he’s gonna have he’s gonna have a real problem with the law. But, yeah. Don’t know if he’s given a statement or anything about the case, but he’s likely gonna be very visible very soon.

[39:10] Andy: Alright. Segment number five, registered but unsearchable.

[39:17] News Announcer: Jonathan Giacinto is a registered sex offender, but his charges went undetected. While he was current on his registration in Cibola County, his information is not searchable by the general public. He’s not listed in the national database of sex offenders.

[39:35] Andy: Can what is the national database of PFRs?

[39:40] Larry: Well, it’s a it’s a tool that has has been put in place by the federal government. It links the state registers together. But if you’re not visible in the state registry database, you’re not visible in the national database, and that’s what she’s talking about. But in this particular case, we have a fair number of people. Probably, maybe, 15% of our registrants are not visible. And other states have not the full visibility. And that’s what I was talking about, the nonsensical nature of people saying about the public the, the green notice and the purple notice and all that comes from the registry from the public database. Well, if that were the case, this guy would go undetected because he’s not on the public website.

[40:23] Andy: I see. And, segment six is, would visibility have helped?

[40:30] News Announcer: Do you think that would have changed anything? I don’t. I don’t. I’ve thought about that. I’m like, okay. So this happened, and then still, my daughter’s not gonna look up a sex offender registry. She doesn’t even know that exists. I’m sure it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but then maybe it would’ve. Maybe he would’ve been

[40:51] Andy: more afraid to Oh, Jesus. I made I made the tiniest little noise, and it and it clicked over. So if this that’s the case, then what is the registry even good for?

[41:02] Larry: I don’t understand the question. The what is the registry good for? Well, she said it might have helped had he been visible.

[41:09] Andy: Right. So I like, but she also kinda talked herself around in a circle of whether no. I don’t think it would have helped because the daughter, especially if he’s using a handle, then she you could you’re not even gonna look up, you know, John Doe four five seven because that’s not what your real name is. You’re not gonna find the person on the Internet anyway.

[41:28] Larry: Well, but she didn’t know until this happened to her daughter that the registry didn’t include everyone. And now the whole state knows about it. But it certainly gives policymakers and law enforcement a talking point. I’m not so sure that it would have made any difference, but it’s one of those things trying to prove a negative. Would he have been more timid had his picture been out for the world to see? We don’t know that. And I don’t know how he would ever answer that.

[41:57] Andy: Could couldn’t you possibly compare the level of recidivism rates of people that are public versus those that do remain hidden?

[42:07] Larry: I suppose that would be one way of doing. I don’t know if that study’s been done.

[42:13] Andy: My point would be that I don’t know that registries protect the public. They could scare the potential offender from doing it, but we also know that the vast majority of these offenses happen by people that have no exposure. They they aren’t on the registry at all. They don’t have any involvement with law enforcement at all.

[42:32] Larry: Well, that would be true. There was a former speaker of the United States House named Dennis Hastert that was sexually offended for a number of years when he coached wrestling in Illinois. And, I would dare say, I don’t know. I don’t want to be too critical of him. He’s an old, feeble man by now. But had the word been out that Hastert was doing what he was doing, he probably would have cut back on doing it. I mean, it’s hard to say that people would continue to go their behavior would go unchanged if there was constant exposure of their previous behavior. I mean, I think that’s a nonsensical stance to say that it wouldn’t have made any difference. How much difference it’ll make is very difficult to quantify.

[43:13] Andy: Now we’ll move into the, military segment of it.

[43:19] News Announcer: Army records show a military court convicted Giacinto of sending sexually enticing messages to a child near where he was stationed in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The army discharged him for bad conduct and required Giaquinto to register as a sex offender for ten years.

[43:39] Andy: Now do you think that this is a a gap in the system that should be fixed?

[43:44] Larry: Oh, boy. I didn’t know you’re gonna hit me with that. I should’ve read the script. Well, first of all, her premise is wrong. The Army didn’t require him to register. The Army doesn’t have any way to require a personal register. If The States didn’t have registries, there’s nothing the Army could do. But, New Mexico required him to register because they equated his conduct to a solicitation of a minor because there was no I’m assuming there was no actual sex. And that’s a tenure non public registry registration obligation. But, the deeper question is, does it work in any form? And I don’t think we’re gonna be able to stop them from fixing this loophole, but I don’t know that it’s gonna do anything positive.

[44:34] Andy: Let’s talk about a, built in blind spot for a minute then.

[44:41] News Announcer: There are some crimes in New Mexico that require sex offender registration but are not subject to public disclosure. Giacinto’s conviction of child solicitation by electronic communication device is one of them. And in this digital age, those types of crimes are only getting more common.

[45:01] Andy: And I I kind of rehashing things a little bit. What are we supposed to do with that though? I like, does the person never get a chance to move on with their life and they’re always gonna have this boat anchor that they’re carrying around with? So I guess we should make everyone we should register everybody, Larry. That way, nobody is able to hide.

[45:21] Larry: Well, that’s the way we’re headed with this as result of this story. I don’t know what it makes no sense to me that the registry is being held up as the cure all end all. But, if you’re going to have a registry, and if you’re going to claim it does anything, they do have a credible argument that a person who’s not listed on it is gonna diminish the effectiveness to the extent that it’s gonna be effective. But I don’t think it’s gonna be effective no matter what they do. I don’t this guy, you mentioned a second chance. He got a second chance. If he’s guilty of this, he didn’t partake of that second chance, did he? He did not appreciate that he was given that that invisibility level.

[46:08] Andy: Alright. I’m gonna skip over to segment 10 because I think this one kinda touches a a different area.

[46:16] News Announcer: Do you guys see these these people reoffending?

[46:21] Andy: We have had people reoffend. Making the war. I didn’t touch it. So the point of this little block is that they see people reoffending, but they say that by far and large, the majority of them don’t reoffend.

[46:37] Larry: And you gotta give credit. They at least admitted that the reoffense rate is very, very low. But as I’m telling have been saying for how many years we’ve been doing this? Eight? A while. Doesn’t doesn’t matter how low it is. If I put, you’re out in the middle of a football field and and point a gatling gun at you with a hundred bullets and only one of them is live, I bet you won’t let me pull the hundred, you won’t let me fire those hundred bullets in you. And only one of them could hurt you. That’s very true.

[47:05] Andy: And I’m just gonna read this final one that so the registry didn’t stop him the first time, that he didn’t have any fear of it, and it didn’t stop him the second time. And so it it’s possible that there are other victims that this individual has had.

[47:22] Larry: I would say that that it’s certainly possible, to think that people get caught every time they engage in criminality is silly. When people come to our law office, they’ll say it’s my first DWI. And I did what you would expect me to do, knowing my personality. I say, no. It’s the first time you’ve been caught. Yes. Is it possible he’s committed other offenses that have been undetected? Well, I would say if he’s committed them in this state, now that he’s been on he was highlighted that those people will come out of the woodwork. Right. And, but it’s, might be time we stop asking how to have a perfect registry and start asking if it should even exist at all.

[48:07] Andy: Gotcha. Well, that’s all I got for this segment. Alrighty. Well, what what else are we doing? We have this, last thing from Utah that should pretty much close things out. You ready for that? Utah? Yes. What who who lives in Utah? Apparently, the college that I go to is in Utah and it is the largest college in The United States, which I had no idea, but I looked that up recently. They have a 50,000 students.

[48:32] Larry: Wow.

[48:34] Andy: Alright. Here’s the clip. It’s, just about a minute long. And I’m gonna try to not make any noise and mess it up.

[48:43] News Announcer: A bill proposing changes to Utah’s sex offender registry was met with both support and criticism on Utah’s Capitol Hill today. We do have team coverage of the biggest bills going through the legislative session today. First off, new specialist, Sherra Park, join us live with the latest developments on s b one fifty five. Sherra.

[49:02] News Announcer: Yeah. Mike, when s b one fifty five was first released by senator Todd Wyler last week, it was met with a lot of harsh criticism. Talk he talked about getting call after call emails from folks who did not wanna see this bill go through. So today, a substitute bill was presented, and that bill actually passed committee in a five to three vote, and it now heads to the senate floor for full consideration. Now the full version of s b one fifty five focused on moving certain criminal offenses with a lifetime sex offender registration to the list of offenses only requiring a ten year registration stay. But now this substitute bill

[49:39] Andy: Alright. What are we doing with this?

[49:42] Larry: Well, the point I wanted to show as far as I can tell from the Utah legislative website, this bill did not make it through. And I don’t know if they’re if they’re still in session or if they’ve adjourned. But it didn’t make it through, and it it appears to be dead. If you look at that room, there are people in that room and that hearing room, which is rare for a small legislative, legislature like Utah and New Mexico. You know, the rooms are generally empty. And there’s a lot of concern and consternation about making it easier for PFRs to get off the registry. And so I suspect that this bill died, but we’ve got listeners in Utah. Hopefully, that someone will let us know what happened, and we can report back. But when you propose something, and this was since there were no Democrats in Utah, I think there’s one in the whole assembly. This, of course, came from a Republican. But even with it coming from a Republican, there’s major pushback. You can’t make life easier for PFRs. The people are just not there and willing yet for that progressive type of change.

[50:52] Andy: I understand. And what would be the what would you say that the remedy to any of that is? Is it just that we need to let me ask it in in the way that I wanna phrase it. Do we still just have to fight by keeping bills from making it through crossover and out of committee and fighting legally with court cases like what they’re doing in,

[51:15] Larry: Michigan? Is that where we are? Those are important things. But somehow or another, we’ve got a break through with public opinion and I don’t know the answer to that of how we changed public because we are twenty years behind. We’re close to thirty years behind now since their registry passed. What was it? ’96 when the, ’94 when the Jacob Wetterling Act passed. So, you know, as we’ve got a long time with hype about how bad sex crimes are and how bad these people are. And the public has been conditioned, and I don’t know how that’s gonna easily change. You know, it’s gonna take some major major work to change that.

[51:57] Andy: Doesn’t isn’t there a a movement, a motion? Isn’t there like a little subcommittee that’s putting together to raise funds to start a campaign for public opinion?

[52:10] Larry: I don’t know anything about that. Who’s doing that? Oh, it’s a

[52:13] Andy: a a a selection of affiliates from Narsal. Like, they’ve made their own little offshoot group of people and key figures, not necessarily just affiliates to do something like that, to to do media buys, to create, unified messaging across things like that. I believe. I’m not following it that close.

[52:36] Larry: I haven’t I haven’t followed at all. I’m all for it, but money is gonna be always the critical thing. You know, we can’t do media buys because we don’t, you know, we don’t have the NRA’s funding. We don’t have the, Mothers Against Drunk Driving funding. We don’t we don’t have those type of resources. It’s kinda hard. And when you approach when you approach the Ford Foundation or the Gates Foundation for money, they just don’t tend to open up their wallets to our calls.

[53:01] Andy: Right. Yep. I feel you, man. Alright. Then can you quickly cover the hilarity hilarity of this, judge in, where is this? No. I got an I got another story I wanna do. I got news from Arkansas. Oh, tell me about the news from Arkansas. I did see that you wrote that there. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to skip that. Arkansas. Yes. The,

[53:25] Larry: the, Arkansas legislature has passed two bills that are, not all that good. One is to impose the death penalty for certain, type of offenses. And I suspect that the Governor will sign it. And that’s Senate bill three seventy five. And they passed Senate bill three ninety three, which, enacts Meghan’s law. And they’re spelling it M A I G H E N. I thought it was not spelled that way, but I think it’s as simple as M E G A N, isn’t it? That’s what I thought. But this is, this act shall be known and cited as Meghan’s law. And they’re, putting a lifetime registration obligation in for anyone who’s, let’s say it says at the time the offense was more than 24 years old and the victim of the offense was less than 15 years of age. So, that would mean that a lot of folks who would be eligible for our Arkansas removal will no longer be eligible one, once the Governor signs these two bills into law. So, you people that have put off filing because you didn’t have the money filing your petition to remove Arkansas registry after fifteen years, you may have waited too long.

[54:39] Andy: Gotcha. I was, just getting the links from, our Arkansas listener. Did you have the numbers? It’s, Senate Bill three seventy five and Senate Bill three ninety three. Three 70 five and three 90 three. Well, we’re gonna move on before I can put those up on the screen. Do you wanna cover this thing then from the judge and his, the arguments?

[55:01] Larry: I didn’t read the article, but the headline was pretty funny because, the judge is supposedly alien smuggling has cited the Donald Trump defense for official acts being exempt from prosecution. And you’ve got it met that if that’s a successful defense, that that’s funny. Right? Can you admit that? That’s pretty hilarious. Alright.

[55:26] Andy: I think we can then close out this show of all the chaos and silliness that we’ve performed here tonight. Any clop parting words?

[55:34] Larry: Look forward to seeing everyone next week because we got 37 people in chat here. It is, quite a good crowd as usual.

[55:43] Andy: Well, head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and email us as some people have, registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You can also leave some voice mail. Where did the phone number go? I haven’t I didn’t even notice that that was gone. (747) 227-4477. Again, (747) 227-4477. Support us over at patreon.com/registrymatters for as little as a buck a month. It really goes a long way to to keeping our spirits up and, that we will keep making podcasts for you people. And, you could also head over to registry matters that will get some swag at fypeducation.org/shop. You can find our Kabuki Machine shirt. And, also, it’s not punishment. It’s a civil regulatory scheme. And we’ll have these, this merch at a table at the NARSAL conference that’s in Grand Rapids in, just about five weeks or so.

[56:40] Larry: Sounds fantastic.

[56:42] Andy: Yep. And, so, Larry, I hope you have a fantastic night, and I hope everything you feel better and stop looking like a, like a dot matrix printout. And we’re gonna play connect the dots on you. Sounds good. Take care. Good night.

[56:57] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.