[00:00] Intro: This episode of Registry Matters is proudly brought to you by our amazing lifetime patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael, John t, John d. Your support makes this podcast possible. Thank you. And don’t forget, f y p.

[00:17] Andy: And Joey says he’s ready, so we are off to the races. Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 351 of Registry Matters. Larry, fine, sir. How are you this evening?

[00:32] Larry: Doing awesome. Glad you could have me back for this one final episode.

[00:36] Andy: One this is the last one. I’m telling you. That’s it. We’re done. Lights out. Head over to, YouTube and head over to your favorite podcast app. Make sure that you press like, subscribe, do all those happy happy joy joy things to help improve. Share the podcast, make the algorithms happy. Do all that stuff. Helps it makes a difference for us that we can grow the audience. We even got a new patron today. That’s awesome. And, so what are we doing tonight?

[01:06] Larry: Well, being that it’s a holiday weekend, I was trying to keep it light. But as the day progressed, I made it heavier and heavier with different stuff that I added at the last minute. Chance is unable to join us because of the holiday. That means it’s just mister doom and gloom. But with mister doom and gloom, we have a case from United States court bills for the sixth circuit, and it’s not a huge win for PFRs, and it’s not even directly related. You’re gonna probably snarl about that, but it has to do with treatment needs and courts delegating those decisions to the probation authorities. Also, we have some late breaking news from the eleventh circuit, and it’s likely not good. And we have a discussion about the AI revolution, which was gonna be the prime topic for this Labor Day weekend because of the dramatic changes that are happening in the labor market. And, also, we have one situation that’s relatively common from a patron and we’re gonna analyze it and it deals with treatment amazingly.

[02:20] Andy: Well, let’s, let’s dive right into this one. Let’s see here what I can do. I’ll press this button. You’ve got some, late breaking news here. Right? Tell us about what’s happening here. Yes. I haven’t heard that in a long time. I know. I wanted to see if I still had it, and poof, there it was. So

[02:38] Larry: that is that is all, archaic stuff. I don’t think anybody that’s less than 50 would have even heard that kind of sound in the background. This is a long running case that we’ve been discussing on the podcast. I think we discussed it maybe in April or May, regarding Alabama’s law. A three judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the district judge in late April. And then this past week, a few days ago, there was a vote by the full court to hear the case en banc. And that means all the judges, I think there’s 22 to 24 judges in that circuit. And the previous opinion ended with some good stuff. It says we conclude that section 15 dash 28 dash 11 d four violates Henry’s fundamental right to live with his child as a parent, to care and the custody of his child because his conviction alone does not prove he’s a danger to his child. And that was, a huge win at the time, but it may be in jeopardy. And it goes on to say, but we conclude the district court abused its discretion and facially adjoined the state, from enforcing the law because they found facial invalidity. We talked about how that would, you could never get there because there has to be no set of circumstances where something could be done for a court to declare it facially invalid. And Henry did not meet that, burden. And the case is Henry versus Abernathy. And, so that’s what the late Ricky News says. And we really don’t have any more new news other than, a one paragraph order from the eleventh circuit saying that they have voted, polls of judges, and they have voted to hear this case en bloc. And if you go to the eleventh circuit’s website or any circuit, if they have a listing of their enboc cases, you’ll see they’re far and few between. So this is rare, and it’s usually not good.

[04:45] Andy: Alright. So just to backpedal just real quick. This was a decision that was good for us, and now they have sort of internally overruled the judge to go back and hear it en banc?

[04:59] Larry: Not quite. The it was already at the eleventh circuit, and a three judge panel held upheld the trial judge, finding that it was unconstitutional. Right. And that was back in April. But normally, a party makes motion. One of the parties that loses makes a, motion to hear it en banc or to reconsider. And this, the the one paragraph order says that the court pulled itself, and this was done suis ponte, meaning that on the court’s own initiative without a motion from the parties. That is pretty unusual in my hundred and ninety one years now of existence. I’ve not seen this more than a handful of times.

[05:41] Andy: And if I may, the we we often people often think, well, I sure wish the supreme court would go back and read blah blah blah this particular thing. They don’t ever can’t do it that way. This is what you’re describing is happening. Like, the Supreme Court can’t go Smith versus Doe from 2002 or whatever it was. Oh, yeah. We had that all wrong, and we will redecide. They don’t ever do that. A case has to be brought to them, but that sounds like what you’re describing here.

[06:09] Larry: No. Not exactly because this is a case that’s in the court. The court has just decided it in April with the three judge panel, which is how they decide appellate cases. You can’t. If you tried to run all the cases through all 24 judges, you would only you’d reduce the capacity of the court dramatically. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. I understand. So, therefore, this panel has been overturned by the full court. But it was not by motion of a party. It looks like it was suisbante. And that means that, to me, it’s very dangerous because that means somebody, and likely a powerful judge, possibly the chief judge, which is, we got a future segment I’m building for the chief judge of that, circuit, is the former attorney general of the great state of Alabama, William Pryor. Okay. And his confirmation to be on the eleventh circuit was so contentious. It took a long and torturous route for him to get to the position he’s in now. But my suspicion and listen, I’m saying suspicion. I have no proof. My suspicion is that judge Pryor or somewhat of his magnitude of those 24 judges decided that they don’t like this. And they went around him and built support to revisit this decision.

[07:32] Andy: So what would you just, you know, read in the tea leaves, Larry throw some dice, see what you think. What how’s this gonna come out in the end?

[07:42] Larry: I think they’re gonna narrow the decision from where where it was a really fine win. They may narrow it. I’d hate to think it’s hard for me to imagine that they could find the basis to completely overturn it because it it was a 111 pages and we we couldn’t even cover it all. It I mean, they covered they did a very good job of documenting their reasoning behind their decision. So they may narrow it, but they certainly could overturn it altogether. But then that would definitely create a a circuit conflict because in Tennessee, they have a almost identical law. And, so I think you would have a split with the circuits and then this would get to go to where everybody wants it to go to the Supreme. And

[08:23] Andy: Ashley, the attorney that we have had on a bazillion times says that you do have a constitutional right to be with your children, provided they’re not the the victims in this, which I totally understand that. But otherwise,

[08:35] Larry: she said that you have it’s it’s an unenumerated right if if I’m not mistaken. That was in the opinion. Yes. It’s one of the most fundamental rights that that a parent has. And it’s interesting coming from the state of Alabama, where they profess that they’ve so much believed that a child needs a daddy and a mama.

[08:55] Andy: You’ve heard that. Right? I believe I’ve heard something along specifically, a male dad and a female mom. Nodes what is it? Even what is it?

[09:06] Larry: Adam and Steve yet. Not Adam and Steve, and I don’t know what the inverse of that would be. None of that none of that hanky panky. This is so ironic, and it’s one of the many things of hypocrisy that gets to spew from the right, and they don’t get held accountable by their voters. And I keep begging the audience, please, someone, say that you’re willing to come on and criticize this hypocrisy and we will open our FYP mics to you because I’m begging. I want someone who sees the hypocrisy to criticize it like I do. I criticize hypocrisy from my team all the time. But this is one of those things that drives me up the wall. They claim that they believe that a child needs both parents, and that they pass a law that says you can’t be a part of it. And they have all these laws where you can’t attend school, you can’t do all these things, and yet they get to pretend that they want children to have both parents. Isn’t that funny? It is. I have something to play for that.

Lester Maddox: For you to come back and call bigots my admirers is a farce. It’s a act of hypocrisy. It’s it’s it’s a terrible way to treat a guest on your show, and you know it. Hypocrisy.

[10:11] Andy: Hypocrisy.

[10:12] Larry: Who was that like it? That was, governor Maddox, Lester Maddox of Georgia in the nineteen sixties.

[10:19] Andy: Very well. What was the name of that show?

[10:22] Larry: What? Was that was that Cavett?

[10:25] Andy: I believe so. The Cavett show? I don’t remember which one it was. That’s I’m pretty sure that’s what it was. Well, okay. Move along. This is a a letter from, JT that came in I don’t know. I was, like, sitting at dinner, and, I was like, I should send this over. And it says, JT said, I messed up on probation. I have been an SOT, which I guess would be, PFR treatment, and on probation since February 2023 for indecent material involving a minor with prison stayed and jail time imposed, but not executed subject to successful completion of my treatment. My probation officer claimed to have received a report of me accessing inappropriate sites. Now I was not placed on device monitoring, although it was ordered by the court. I did slip and access a particular website on a couple of occasions on an account created prior to sense sentencing. I have a problem with like, I kinda, like, accidentally did it kinda sorta thing. Like, you don’t accidentally do it. But, anyway, I denied it and was threatened with a polygraph. Upon notification that I was about to complete the main phase of treatment and enter the six month post treatment phase, my PO told my group therapist about her suspicion. He discussed it with me. I didn’t admit it, but he told me if I did access access the site, he wasn’t really concerned enough to hold me back because the site was not related to anything illegal content or nonconsensual behaviors. Now what’s your take on that?

[11:58] Larry: Oh, that’s a pretty easy one to have a take on. The probation officer wants him to fail. Now that I can’t tell you why. And I’d certainly be curious as to reasons why, but my suspicion is that the PO feels that the original sentence was way too lenient and they like to substitute their judgment for that of the courts. And also, he has a job that causes him to travel. And, certainly, in this state, they’re not fond of you moving around outside the county. And it looks like that he’s traveling according to what we’ll get to later. They don’t like that because the probationer has too much freedom. And and there could be other reasons why they want you to fail. They could just have pegged him as a screw up, but I suspect they just don’t think he got the punishment he deserved. And they’re looking for a way to tell the judge, see, you’re wrong. Judge, look at here. Look at what he’s doing. That’s what I suspect.

[12:51] Andy: Alright. He went on to say also, he said since she failed to place monitoring on my phone, he wasn’t interested in her accusations. He also told me I may be subject to polygraphs, but a polygraph is only a minuscule part of their consideration. To put things in perspective, I’ve been extremely active, successful, and truly shown great progress, and he believes in me despite knowing I may have slipped. He was more critical and skeptical of her actions than anything. He wrote her an email telling her he wouldn’t hold me back or take any action even if her axe accusations were true, and the lack of monitoring was even more reason for an action. What do you think about that, mister doom and gloom? Oh, that would have gone over like a lead balloon.

[13:39] Larry: The appeal would not have wanted a treatment provider to say anything like if that’s anything approximating on a an accurate recount of what the treatment provider said, they would be trying their best to get that person decertified as treatment as a treatment provider here. That’s how much that would’ve gone how well that would’ve gone over.

[14:03] Andy: So then, I guess this is JT. He stated she called me in for a meeting a couple days later and restated her accusations and her intentions. I, again, denied, and she said their investigation will continue, and she has already confirmed a resource with law enforcement to investigate further to get the truth. She said they only want to get me help if I need it if I’m struggling. And that sounds like we’re from the government and we’re here to help, doesn’t it?

[14:29] Larry: It sounds exactly like that. It does. And unfortunately, he said, quote, I cracked and admitted accessing the site. She documented my statement and asked approximate dates and printed it out.

[14:44] Andy: Now JT realizes his mistake already. He said, I guess I should have known better, but she filed a formal probation violation with the court and said I’ll have a court date set. She then said, although she knows I’m in love with my current provider, she’s going to refer me to an in person treatment rather than the Zoom treatment. She knows I’m unable to use my current provider in person because, they are over 200 miles away. And I believe it’s retaliation because my therapist doesn’t agree that it’s as serious as she does. My current provider is highly regarded as the best of my state, and I switched to them, due to them having the resources to provide treatment directly related to my offense. I begged her to work something out with my current provider, and she said she would discuss it with her supervisor, but doubted it. Now this sounds like a farce to me.

[15:34] Larry: It’s likely indeed a farce. And that’s the reason why I refer to most PFR treatment. The arrangement that they have is merely a collaborative fishing expedition because she was fishing for something, and she’s not getting it from that provider. So what do we do? Well, we got two choices. We give up and say, let’s just let the guy graduate or we send him to someone else. And she’s not willing to let go of it because she wants this guy violated. But there’s a bright side to this. If he were in this state, he would already be in jail Because probation officers here possess, arrest and hold powers. They issue they’re, like a mini court when it comes to probation. They issue a detain and hold order. So they come out, lock you up, they take you to the jail, and they lodge you, and that that arrest and hold order is the same as as if a warrant had been issued. And in many states, most states, I don’t think allow that, but New Mexico does. So look at the bright side. He’s not in jail yet.

[16:53] Andy: He said she also forgets phone calls and accuses me of not reporting things, so I switched to email. She then fails to read a reply and berates me for not being forthcoming until I find the emails that include replies, and I show her. She has taken two leaves of absence for two plus months since my probation started and returns uninformed. I know you will say, don’t rock the boat, and I probably shouldn’t have admitted anything to her. This is getting long, so I’ll wrap it up. Feel free to contact me to clarify. I tried to be as detailed and concise as possible. Also, I’m in the state Of Minnesota. So, just just to push this out there, somebody in the chat said, rule number one, admit nothing. Rule number two, deny everything. He broke both rules.

[17:35] Larry: Yeah. And I hate to I hate to be that direct, but that’s one of the prime rules here. It doesn’t matter if you fell a polygraph. You cannot gain anything from these people by admitting even if you did what the deception is showing on your Kabuki machine. You can’t you can’t better yourself by doing that. I don’t know of a single instance. Now there may be one somewhere out there, but I do not know of a single instance where a person has admitted to something and then it going well for them. I just I wish I could say it works out that way, but I don’t have any evidence that it does.

[18:17] Andy: Okay. So since we’ve already, let the barn, the horse out of the barn, what does he have anything to stand on now, or is it just, like, just get your affairs in order and be ready to go?

[18:29] Larry: I think he’s got a pretty compelling case, actually. The, assuming that the court is not out to get him. And if it’s the same judge that sentenced him, one or two things are gonna happen here. The judge is gonna say, I told you when I sentenced you, I had a zero tall tolerance policy. And the lawyer if the if the lawyer is thinking, the judge is that’s gonna say, judge, well, you did have a zero tolerance tolerance policy, and he’s adhered to that. This, this event happened prior to sentence being imposed. I think that’s where you read it. Right? It does happen. And so he has not violated, and he takes us seriously. And so I think the judge having, having sentenced him leniently, there must have been a compelling PSR in his favor. He’s likely has very minimal or no prior history with the courts and was a stable, productive member of the community. And the judge isn’t likely gonna wanna violate him for something he did prior to being on probation. I would find that highly unlikely. So if she’s filed a violation report, I expect the judge to do very little with it except hold it in abeyance unless they come up with something stronger than what he’s conveyed to us. And abeyance would be put it just off to the side in case something else, and then we’ll stack everything on top of it? That’s what I would expect the judge to do. The judge would say, I’m really disappointed this case has come back before me, but it really doesn’t rise to level of meriting revocation because that was before you were you in fact, legally, I don’t think you can revoke for somebody for something they did prior to being on supervision. But I’m telling you this final time, I don’t wanna see you again. Could you could you go over that again, something that you were doing? So this guy was into whatever he was into that was legal, and he was doing that prior to? Well, whether it was legal or not, it doesn’t matter. He he broke the law prior to being under supervision. So it’s not a violation of his supervision. I see. I gotcha. Okay. Yeah. If he even if it was illegal, I don’t know what that site is. You didn’t call it by name. I don’t know if it’s a good site or a bad site. But It’s just it’s a fetish site. It’s a site that adults would go to to find like minded adults to do whatever though they wanna do, consensual and legally. If he’s been going to that site subsequent to being on supervision, that’s gonna be a different situation.

[20:59] Andy: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[21:03] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.

[21:52] Andy: Alright. So let’s talk about this decision from the Sixth Circuit. Now you have this in here from the Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals and I’ve read it. I was doing the grass again there and I had that push mower thing going. And I’m struggling to see the connection to PFRs. You do this all the time where you like, let’s see how far we can twist and mangle this and contort my face to see how you want this to fit into something that’s PFR related. So what is your brilliant readers reason for wanting to discuss this? Well, I have some brilliant reasons. It has to do

[22:26] Larry: it it has to do with the treatment and the delegation. Some believe there should not be any delegation and the Supreme Court in, ended delegation when they overturned Chevron deference. I said then, it’s going to have minimal impact on how things operate because we have to have delegation. So therefore, this is another example of, you know, delegation is not gonna end. Folks, get over it.

[22:52] Andy: Alright. Well, then I’m gonna set this up, and this is the case of The United States Of America versus Daniel Lockridge. Lockridge is a decorated combat marine and a convicted methamphetamine trafficker. He claims that after he returned to this country in 02/2009, he turned to meth. First to manage his post traumatic stress disorder, then to make some extra money. He soon became his supplier’s supplier. That sounds like something out of a bad gangster movie. Sourcing meth from Atlanta, Georgia and reselling it to a supplier turned customer among others for distribution in Chattanooga, Tennessee. By the time law enforcement caught him, Lockridge had sold over seven kilos of meth in the volunteer state. I have no idea. I don’t even know how much a kilogram is, like like, visually, and I don’t know how much that’s worth. Did did you say he became his supplier supplier? Now please admit that’s funny. I did say that. That’s why I’m saying it’s like someone even wrote in chat. It’s like that’s that’s like Breaking Bad. That’s like almost exactly the same storyline of the TV show Breaking Bad. Phenomenal show, by the way, Larry. If you wanna watch a show that you might I think you would actually like that one. Now so I do agree that there’s a certain amount of irony here. And in 2024, Lockridge plead guilty to aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute meth. The district court sentenced Lockridge to two hundred ten months in prison and three years three years of supervised release. Two condition of Lockridge’s supervised release require treatment for his mental health and substance abuse challenges. The first is a special condition that requires him to participate in a program of mental health treatment as directed by the probation officer until such a time as he is released from the program by the probation officer. The second is a special condition that requires Lockridge to participate in a program of testing and or treatment for drug and or alcohol abuse as directed by the probation officer until such a time as he is released from the program by the probation officer. Now I take it that Lockridge didn’t really dig those conditions too much? He he did not. At sentencing, Lockridge objected and argued that the district court must, pre authorize any inpatient

[25:07] Larry: as opposed to outpatient treatment under both conditions and set a frequency for drug testing under the second condition that required to be drug tested. I’ve never heard of that argument before, and I’ve been doing this a long time. The district court, Lockridge, argued, may not constitutionally delegate these decisions to the probation officer. The court overruled Lockridge’s objection. Lockridge appealed to the sixth circuit contesting these features of his sentence.

[25:35] Andy: Now I recall when SCOTUS issued their ruling overturning Chevron deference, you pontificate it that it would have little or no impact on how things operate. Now how can you not recognize that people should do their jobs and not shirk?

[25:51] Larry: Well, I don’t know how I can not recognize that. I just recognize the reality of the what the situation is. Article three of the constitution requires courts, consistent with congressional statutes, to exercise any discretion in imposition of punishment, but it does not require courts alone to propose the initial conditions of a sentence. The district court may use the assistance of non judicial officers as it does for other exercises of its judicial power, such as calculating damages. The judge doesn’t sit there with a calculator and say, now let me see that picture. What do you reckon that car would cost to put it back in order? Uh-huh. The judge doesn’t do that. They cited Thorne v. Carson, decision in 1813. Now, we’re not talking about something recent. Analyzing When you’re in your Ute? Yeah. That was about three years after I was born. That that decision was analyzing common law claims tied up in bankruptcy. What makes this assistance permissible is that article that the article three court does remain in charge. It reviews and accepts, modifies or rejects the non judicial officers recommendations. Now that’s a little bit of a stretch for the court to say that the what the reality of it is the probation department and The US, Probation Service tells you that you’re gonna do this and there is no review. You sign the document. You if you disagree, you’re facing consequences. It’s signed under duress, and you have to take them to court if you don’t like that. But but they’re putting the best spin they can on it to justify their decision.

[27:31] Andy: Why can’t judges decide if the treatment is needed and issue the order?

[27:36] Larry: Well, they they did. He decided, this judge decided that it was needed. But it would be terribly expensive and time consuming. This type of collaboration between article three courts and non article three officers is common in criminal sentencing. District courts regularly look to probation officers, who would like an Article three commission to report on each defendant’s background, to propose the guidelines, the sentencing range within the guidelines, and to make other re recommendations about conditions of sentencing and victim impact and all that kind of stuff. What while the probation officer’s proposals benefit the court, they do not bind it. Judicial power is still with the court. Punishment remains with and the final decision is made by the court.

[28:20] Andy: Now, as usual, Larry, you are pretty much impossible. And I say that the probation officers should not hold all the power.

[28:28] Larry: I agree. And they don’t hold all the power. They just hold most of it.

[28:32] Andy: Yeah. They do seem to hold quite a bit.

[28:35] Larry: And as often in the case within the future conditions of supervised release, remember, he got two hundred and forty months. So 15% off of that doesn’t take off much because this is a federal sentence. And the district court in this instance, did not spell out precisely how these conditions would be implemented years in the future. It’s hard to know what conditions the person would need two hundred and ten months out. He maybe he gets better. Maybe he gets worse. The probation officer’s gonna see him when he when he walks out the gate of prison. The federal judge is not gonna see him. I mean, this is just silliness.

[29:10] Andy: Now I memorized page four. And so the parties agreed that the district court could decide at sentencing whether Lockridge must undergo treatment, here mental health and substance abuse treatment, during his term of supervised release. And the parties agreed that the district court permissively exercised its discretion in saying some treatment was an order. What separates the parties is whether the district court was required to specify the features of the treatment program programs two hundred month two hundred ten months in advance. Now by finally not deciding whether, inpatient or outpatient treatment was required at Lockridge’s sentencing, In other words, did the court abdicate its authority to make that that decision? The district court did delegate.

[29:55] Larry: No. It did not delegate that authority. If Lockridge does not want to go undergo treatment when he’s out, he can go back to court and ask that the probation officer be overruled. That’s not gonna happen. Now that would be funny. How often does that happen? It doesn’t happen, but he can do that. So the court stated we have no reason to think that the district court relinquished its authority to select Lockridge, Lockridge’s treatment programs to the probation officer by not making that choice at sentencing. And we have every reason to think that the court merely delayed making that choice. Almost two decades will pass before Lockridge begins supervised release, during which time he will attend five hundred hours of substance abuse treatment while in prison and undergo any number of personnel, personal changes that a lengthy sentence will bring. No one, not the district court, not the probation officer, not even Lockridge himself can predict at this stage whether Lockridge will require inpatient or outpatient treatment when he begins supervised release. I mean, you people need to get over it.

[30:57] Andy: Five hundred hours while he’s locked up? That is a lot.

[31:01] Larry: So

[31:03] Andy: so on this record, it thus makes sense to read the sentence as reserving for the district court discretion to choose treatment programs at a time closer to Lockridge’s supervised release. At that point, years into the future, Lockridge’s probation officer can can assess his treatment needs and recommend inpatient or outpatient treatment to the district court. With enough time for Lockridge to object with the help of appointed counsel before he sets foot in any program. Yeah. That was what the court said and it makes sense to me. And they concluded with, quote, then and only then will the district court weigh Lockridge’s

[31:38] Larry: need for inpatient treatment. If such a need exists against Lockridge’s slippery interests before these interests are compromised. They’re gonna, he’s gonna have an opportunity if they try to put him in inpatient treatment and he is as needed, he can contest it. The court not the probation officer will ultimately decide whether the lockbridge must be involuntarily committed or must attend inpatient treatment. Does that say inpatient? Yeah, inpatient treatment against his wishes. You don’t really get to attend it. If you’re inpatient, they lock you up. All of this ensures that decisions regarding Lockwood’s treatment will remain where article three requires with the district court.

[32:19] Andy: Now what about his other challenge on drug testing?

[32:22] Larry: He didn’t do so well on that either. Lockridge’s second challenge fared no better. Lockridge argued that the district court needed to specify the number of drug tests required by the substance abuse special condition. They stated, the court did, the problem for Lockridge is that we already have held that district courts may collaborate with probation officers on this feature of a sentence. The district court may allow the probation officer to take the first pass of the number of tests required by special condition. So as long as the court remains free to modify that choice, put its own initiative, or responds to a claim by the defendant. So he lost. And folks, you’re gonna have to live with the fact that the judges are not gonna be the ones who make the decisions initially. And probably 90 of the time, they’re gonna go along with probation. So if they tell you gotta do something, you’re more than likely gonna have to do it.

[33:19] Andy: So I just wanna point out something that I think is a little messed up with this. And let’s see. I’m trying to trying to put the timeline together that so he he came back to The US. I’m assuming he, you know, he was a decorated marine combat veteran. And he returns back to The US, and he turned to meth first to to manage his PTSD. I’m pretty sure that I I I’m not positive, and I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be something that was prescribed to him for that. He would have been prescribed something else. I just wanted to try and make a connection that we sent him someplace, and he comes back with PTSD, and then he can’t get the help he needs. So he ends up turning to illegal drugs to deal with it. And then he gets all screwed up because he’s addicted to a drug because of something that we essentially caused for him. Well, now that’s making a lot of assumptions that we don’t have any evidence. Well, there’s only one piece of that that I’m making the assumption is just where what was the primary reason he started using meth? Was that because it was prescribed to him for his PTSD?

[34:21] Larry: Well, we don’t know he wasn’t using it. We don’t know that he wasn’t using it all all along, do we?

[34:26] Andy: While we don’t know that, that’s true.

[34:29] Larry: Alright. Well, anyway So but yes. Had the PTSD from being in combat. That’s really where I’m going with that. Well, but the the what you ought to do, if you believe in what you’re saying, you ought to get a hold of the conservative members of congress and say, look. Yeah, you guys are the big supporter of the military and of our veterans, and you don’t believe in them ever being mistreated. And here’s an example of a person who went, defended us and put his life on the line. And we’re spending, $50,000 a year to keep him in prison for the next twenty years when all they need is help. And I guarantee the conservatives will just line up down the block to help.

[35:08] Andy: Absolutely. So I I do need to ask you a question. Can you elaborate more on what the heck does this have to do with PFRs? I know you said delegation, but could you elaborate and, like, break it down for my pea brain?

[35:21] Larry: Well, it’s very common that PFRs are ordered into treatment. And the treatment you’re gonna have to do is gonna be exactly what your probation officer tells you. You’re gonna have very little judicial review. And if you argue for judicial review, you’ll end up like what happened in the first segment that we did. Okay. I hope that covers the question from chat. Yeah. This is this is, very common that, when you get, supervised for a BFR type of offense, you’re gonna be are ordered to undergo treatment. And if you push back, you’re gonna end up in in jail. Yeah. No doubt. Well, you can refuse the treatment. You have that option. You absolutely do.

[36:04] Andy: And, did I ever tell you when when, I’ve like, I was out for it could have even been a year that I was out and they’re like, have you started treatment yet? I was like, no one told me to go to treatment yet. They’re like, you probably should start treatment. And I’m like, I’m not going until you tell me to go, and even then, I’m not really excited about going. But so then the guy, I’m sitting there across from the PO, and he hands me this piece of paper and he’s like, I’m not telling you which p, which treatment providers to see. And he’s got two really, like, circled 12 times around. It’s like, I’m not saying which ones you should call, but these are the ones that you should pick from. And he hands me a list of, like, 10 people, and two of them are, like, multiple times around. I was like, wink, wink. Got it. I understand what you’re saying. Now there are people who would not have chosen those two, and they would have gotten off to a bad start from the get go, but you had a sense enough not to do that. I chose one of those two and I called the first one and I kinda don’t remember the reason why I didn’t stick with them. And I called the second one. I had two questions for them and I was like, do you push polygraphs? And they’re like, only if we feel you need one. I said, cool. Do you have some kind of statement about faith, religion, anything of that sort? And he’s like, nope. We don’t do that here. I was like, sign me up. And that guy was on his way out, and he was retiring soon. So I was in treatment for eleven, eleven months. And, like, he was like, okay. You’ve passed through the whole book, and I’m retiring. So let’s get you out of here. Sweet. Eleven months. And I know people go to treatment for years and this is just another somehow luck of the draw, bullet dodged, whatever. I know. I understand.

[37:41] Larry: That was, it was divine intervention.

[37:44] Andy: Yes. It could have been that for sure. All right. Well, happy labor day. So it is Labor Day weekend. Today is what? August 30, and Monday is the Labor Day weekend holiday. Do give us a quick little history. What is Labor Day?

[37:57] Larry: It’s it’s a celebration of organized labor and all the achievements for better working conditions.

[38:02] Andy: And this would be like yeah. I went toward a coal mine a couple years back, and they had, like, five year olds with with candles on their forehead. And all they did was operated a door, and that would let them have housing for the family because they’re the only male that could go work in the coal mine. Like, that’s the kind of labor conditions you’re talking about, I believe. Yeah. Back in the days of Samuel Gompers. I’ve never heard that name before. Well, Google it real quick. Samuel Gompers? Yep. G o m p e r s. I’ve never heard this word before. Samuel Gompers, was a British born American cigar maker and labor union leader, a key figure in American labor history, and this was 1924. He was born in nineteen eighteen fifty. So one of your contemporaries.

[38:53] Larry: Yes. We we had dinner together many times. And why am I looking up that dude? Just, he’s well, the father of the organized labor movement.

[39:03] Andy: I thought you were gonna tell me, like, some schmuck that was doing terrible, terrible labor practices.

[39:07] Larry: Alright. No. Not at all.

[39:09] Andy: So the reason why we’re like, this is a perfect time for us to do that is we’re gonna dive into something that’s been rattling rattling around in my head, and I know yours too, Larry. So this whole AI revolution. I have told you a bazillion times. I was like, truck drivers, it’s over. When they can figure out how to make them drive on the highway, Larry, it’s over. 4,000,000 truck drivers, you’re only gonna need them to drive, like, around the town areas to do the the pickup and the delivery on the highway. It’s over. So and I know AI revolution sounds like some sci fi headline, but really it’s not because it’s, like, right here. This thing is moving fast. And here’s the part that gets under my skin. For folks like us, people who’ve got, say, you know, some kind of blemishes on their record, so to speak, a conviction. We might be the first in line when pink slips start flying. And that’s not just me being paranoid, and that’s kinda how the world works. So tonight, we’re gonna we’re not gonna tiptoe around it. We’re gonna dig in what’s happening, why it’s happening, and more importantly, what, if anything, can you do to not get shoved off the cliff first? Larry, if you and I are standing on a cliff next to a cliff, I’m going to like, kind of nudge you a few times pretty hard. Just saying.

[40:19] Larry: No, I wouldn’t be surprised, but what you said is right. And I want to emphasize something. This isn’t some hypothetical prediction about what might happen in 02/1935. It’s already happening. The data tells a story. Major tech firms and we’re talking household names have already eliminated more than 77,000 jobs in 2025 alone. And the driver a lot of the time is automation and AI That averages out to roughly four ninety five people every single day losing work. Think about that every day, 500 people have been displaced. And surveys confirm it. About 14% of the workers believe they’ve already lost a job to a machine or an algorithm. This is not the future. This is now.

[41:09] Andy: So then here’s a kicker. So who gets smacked first? Oh, you already know. It’s not the CEOs. It’s not the guy in the corner office. No. No. It’s the folks already at the bottom of the ladder, the economically disadvantaged groups. That’s how the reports phrase it, which translated from corporate speak means, yeah, that’s probably us. People with records, people with gaps in the resume, people without all the fancy credentials. And it’s not just those white collar high-tech roles. I read about an ecommerce outfit that straight up canceled its entire customer support team because the bot was, I love this number, 85 more efficient. 85%. What about Microsoft? Thousands of cuts. Software engineers, not just software engineers even, marketers, even lawyers. How about IBM? Proof. Excuse me. Poof. 8,000 HR staff gone. And let’s not forget, MSN. Way back in 2020, they thought, who needs human nuance and replace their human reporters with AI because apparently humans don’t bring any spec thing special to the reporting. Right. And the shocker of shockers, it’s always the entry level jobs that get whacked first. Junior coders, designers, call center staff, the folks in data entry. You know, the people who are just trying to climb to the first rung of the ladder, They’re the ones standing under the ax.

[42:27] Larry: Precisely. And what stands out to me is how quickly the ground is shifting. The pace of this change is extraordinary. And yet, if you look around at the coordinated societal and government response, you won’t find one. You won’t find much. There’s no real plan for re for retraining, no serious strategies for cushioning the blow to vulnerable workers. In practical terms, the burden falls to the individual, to us. If we want to survive in this new landscape, we can’t wait for a rescue mission from Washington or Silicon Valley.

[43:03] Andy: So here’s where I want to pause and say, now don’t crawl under the bed just yet because, yeah, it’s grim, but there are slivers of good news. Or maybe silver linings is better. The World Economic Forum, bless their optimistic little hearts, they predict AI will destroy about 92,000,000 jobs, but then magically also create a 170,000,000 new ones. That’s their math anyway. And here’s the surprising part. They’re not all those high-tech sci fi technical jobs you’d think of. Their own report says there’ll be a boom in fields like delivery driving, construction, agriculture, food processing, and nursing. Basically, things that still need humans in the loop. Places where AI can’t, at least not yet, haul bricks or take care of grandma. So maybe the future isn’t all coding and algorithms. Maybe it’s a little more hammers and hard hats.

[43:53] Larry: Yeah. That’s kind of ironic because one of our community colleges has its origin here and being a technical school, they are reinventing themselves with bringing back more focus on trades. But which leads to the central question, how do you make yourself indispensable in the kind of world that we’re facing? And the answer is both straightforward and challenging. Focus on the skills that AI cannot easily replicate. These are human centric skills, communication, leadership, teamwork, empathy, judgment, the qualities that make us uniquely human. Very few counselors are gonna be replaced. I don’t think people are gonna sit in front of a screen and talk to, the computer. Maybe they will, but I just don’t see that. So you’ve gotta you gotta work in something in your resume that cannot be easily automated.

[44:50] Andy: So you’re talking about the the the squishy kind of stuff, the messy unpredictable stuff, things that robots still can’t really fake, at least yet. Keyword being yet.

[45:02] Larry: Correct. Because robots are doing things I never thought I would see them doing. Some companies are are experimenting with retraining. Ikea, for example, gave this place call center workers the opportunity to become interior design advisors. But these programs are thin on the ground. They’re exceptions and not the rule. We cannot count on employers or even government to hand us new skill sets. Now, of course, we wouldn’t want the government to do it because everything the government touches, they screw up. So we wouldn’t want the government we would want the private sector to do that. Right? Yes. But it’s up to us to invest in ourselves, whether that’s through community colleges, online courses, or even volunteer work that builds the kind of human skills that we’ve been describing. You just you’ve gotta have something that you’re you that’s unique.

[45:49] Andy: Which is why I want to make a shout out to a website. There there are other places like this, but one of them that I frequent is called freelearninglist.org. This isn’t a paid spot, so I just happen to like it. It’s, I’ve I’ve encountered it through multiple different channels. They have a just a metric ton of resources, math courses, language courses, like Duolingo, critical thinking, you name it. There are a bunch of podcasts on there, some of which I even have without. I knew about them before I saw them on the list. It’s the kind of stuff that can actually help you level up without tuition bill attached to it.

[46:22] Larry: Well, that’s an excellent illustration. Freelearninglist.org is the type of resource that can make a difference because the reality is large scale retraining programs remain largely theoretical. Regulation is stalled, and it’s likely to stay stalled in the current political environment. The clearest, most actionable path forward right now is self directed learning and and get on with it.

[46:48] Andy: And look, I joke about it sometimes. Here’s the free website. Good luck, not getting yourself automated. But seriously, that’s smarter than waiting for Uncle Sam or some corporation to roll out a grand retraining plan because let’s be real, those are thin on the ground. Free learning list calls itself the Internet’s best education resource, teaching how to think, not what to think. Now that is act exactly what we’re talking about when we say human skills. That’s critical thinking, that’s problem solving, that’s learning how to adapt, which is the survival skill of the AI age.

[47:21] Larry: Exactly. And to be clear, we’re not just talking about soft skills. There’s also tremendous value in becoming AI literate yourself, Unlike me, that’s, dodging most of it. Learning how the how tools work, learning how to use them effectively. So the recipe is both human, centric skills that AI struggles with and AI proficiency so that you’re not left behind as the tools advance. Like, I’m trying to figure out how to do research with AI and I barely can scratch the surface because I’m doing everything the old fashioned way and I’m not using my time very wisely.

[47:59] Andy: I think we could, give you a couple level up sessions, and you would find it to be overwhelmingly helpful. Just a handful of different tools that you you just end up collaborating with it, and it would help you immensely. I use it literally all day every day. As a coder, I say, write me this kind of function. And not to say that I can’t do it, but why spend even if it if it took me a minute to write it and this thing can write it in ten seconds, I’m now fifty seconds ahead of schedule. So that gives you fifty seconds of time to waste. Oh, I mean, why we could do that. But, Larry, like, seriously, you probably grew up did you do it like hand washing of laundry with a scrub board? Is that even of an era for you? Yes. I’m familiar with that process. So why wouldn’t you have a washing machine at this point? If it’s gonna take you seven hours to sit there and go scrubby, scrubby, scrubby, scrubby for all of your clothes one by one, you You just throw it in the laundry machine and you go do something else. And and I’ve made it clear. I’m a big believer in technology,

[49:01] Larry: but I’m also a believer in making sure the accuracy is there. And if we rely on technology that’s not completely accurate, we’re serving we’re not serving ourselves well. But if if it’s 90% accurate, 95% accurate, there’s no technology. I don’t care if the machinery that that packs your boxes of cereal. It doesn’t get every single box right. Nope. There’s some where it doesn’t it it goofs up. But it’s probably 99.5% accurate. Would you guess?

[49:28] Andy: Probably. And and but they also then have the the systems in place to check it. And I I remember at the tobacco place, they’re shooting boxes of cigarettes down the line at this speed, and there’s a camera taking picture of it. And if there’s a defect on the box, it kicks it up. Well, and that’s the way I wanna use technology. If I can validate

[49:48] Larry: the accuracy, but I don’t wanna put something out that I have not, don’t do not have confidence in. Based on our AI translation of the podcast, the accuracy is not there yet, at least on the voice to, text recognition.

[50:05] Andy: Just on that subject alone, though, that was never the intent was to have a complete product. But it was also, at least from that point of view, even at a 100 words a minute, what do we what do we speak if it’s 200 words a minute for sixty minutes? Is that 12,000 words? If you type 60 words a minute, 12,000 words is still gonna take you a long time to get through.

[50:26] Larry: Oh, I agree. Take, like, four hours to type it out. I love the technology. I just wish I could have found someone who would actually pay attention and listen to the podcast and and make sure that they correct all the mistakes because it wasn’t accurate. That conversation again. That’s not the point. The point is is that it was faster to go through it and do it that way than to have, to to go type it by from scratch. No. This there’s no debating that. That not even that is not even worth your debate because everybody agrees with that. It’s a tool that helps you get to the finish line.

[50:55] Andy: So at the tobacco place, like, moments after I got hired there, they announced that they’re gonna close and move to a new location. And all kinds of people were like, I’ve worked here for thirty years. What do I do now? It’s like, you probably should’ve thought about that weeks and weeks and weeks ago instead of becoming comfortable on your laurels and just try to ride things out and get a pension and all that, keeping your skills somewhat up to date. This isn’t what I’m really getting at is this isn’t something specific to PFRs. This is to as people age, they cost more for employers, because of health insurance reasons. They probably make more. It’s easier to hire the dude that’s right out of college or just new on the the job front. You can pay them half as much, and they’re cheaper in all aspects. They may have more energy. They’ll stay late, whatever. And they shit can the old people.

[51:47] Larry: The what? The old people? People they shit can. Okay.

[51:51] Andy: And if if you don’t bring something addition to the table, which could be you have extra life skills, you could bring better soft skills, This is what I’m trying to ultimately talk about as those things here anyway.

[52:05] Larry: Well, I’m hoping that our audience understands that you could likely be on the chopping block if you have a job that’s readily convertible to technology. So you need to be thinking about this because if you wait for the government, you may be waiting for something that never happens.

[52:22] Andy: Can we can we talk about a particular person in abstract that that is kinda almost like the nexus of the segment?

[52:29] Larry: I don’t know who that person is, but go ahead.

[52:33] Andy: Well, there’s a there’s an individual who is in our sphere, who is a little bit on the older side, who has kind of put back himself into a corner and not evolved with the time. This has almost nothing to do with AI. This just happens to do with a changing job market and what services he would provide, and the market shifted out from underneath him. And now he’s kind of in a in a shitty spot.

[52:56] Larry: No. I think I now know who you’re talking about.

[52:59] Andy: So I would imagine you do.

[53:01] Larry: And, yes, as a a prime example, and I’ve done the same thing. If I were to be looking for a job in the profession I’ve been in for twenty two years, I would be worthless largely, except for strategy and analyzing. I have no idea how to review discovery in the modern era, the way it’s distributed to us because it’s changed so much since we were in in that business defending people and getting discovery. I would have to be completely retrained, or they would say, well, gee, we can’t afford to pay you what you’re looking for because you’re only one dimensional. We don’t need just, just the fields that you currently have.

[53:45] Andy: Yep. Alright. Well, that’s a happy way to end up the Labor Day segment. I think the the point of what we’re trying to tell you is that you you ultimately want to make it where somebody else gets canned before you poop canned before you do, and you would do that by having additional skills that your job isn’t specifically asking for. Soft skills, those would be if you’re doing this this kind of job and you can have something that’s, like, a cross pollination, if you know more about math, if you can speak a second language, anything along those lines, they’re going to make you a more valuable employee that has less of a chance or at least someone else getting canned before you do. That’s really all I’m ultimately trying to say.

[54:33] Larry: And I think we should start a FYP education. We should start a retraining program for those who are gonna be eliminated by AI. And

[54:41] Andy: I will offer services to people telling them how they can have less chance of getting canned.

[54:48] Larry: Sounds good. So the FYP provides a broad array of services.

[54:53] Andy: Absolutely. Alright, man. Anything else before we go, and have a great weekend?

[54:59] Larry: I think we’re done. This one, fifty four minutes.

[55:03] Andy: Right right on time. And I I wanna definitely make sure that it was TJ that that, we did the email from earlier. Correct? Yes. Or JT? TJ or JT? JT. And thank you very much for becoming a patron. And, yeah. So make sure that you link your Discord account, and you can come hang out with all the crazies that talk in there all the time about jelly fin and so forth. Head over to registrymatters.co. Email, registrymatterscast@gmail.com. Voice mail Larry loves voice mail. (747) 227-4477. And, of course, if you are so inclined, head over to patreon.com/registrymatters to support us directly. And that is most, most, most appreciated. And I hope you guys have a great holiday weekend, and, I will talk to you very soon. Have a great night, Larry. Good night.

[55:53] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.