[00:00] Intro: This episode of Registry Matters is proudly brought to you by our amazing pledge patrons, Justin, Brian, Michael. Your support makes this podcast possible. Thank you. And don’t forget FYP.
[00:14] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and only one single West this time, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 353 of Registry Matters. Larry, how are you this evening?
[00:26] Larry: Doing awesome. I think you should have a question for me because I think we’re at our eighth anniversary right now. We’re very close.
[00:33] Andy: We are still a month away, aren’t we?
[00:36] Larry: Oh, okay. I was thinking it was September.
[00:38] Andy: I thought the first episode went out in October. I could have that wrong. We could be at that time. So no. Hey, Larry. So do you have a like, are we at our it’s not our eighth year, is it? We’re starting our eighth year? No. We’re I think we’re finished eight years.
[00:56] Larry: Oh my god. That’s not possible. Really? You got a you got a question for me on on a on a clip that you need to play?
[01:04] Andy: Oh. Oh, I now I know what you’re asking me.
[01:07] Larry: Then How much longer are you planning to stay? A long time. Get used to me. We haven’t heard that one for a while. That is very true. Who is that, and why and what were the conditions that that person spoke what he spoke? Oh, that was the former postmaster, the first Trump appointed postmaster. And, really, that’s not fair. He didn’t appoint the postal board. Governors did. But he apparently had connections to Trump in the first term, and he was before congressional panel after after Trump lost in 2020. And that was a Democratic representative trying to paint him as a political appointee. And what are you gonna leave? And, he was making it clear that he had no intention of leaving because we he’s not a holdover. He was appointed by the postal board of governors.
[01:54] Andy: I see. What does that person do?
[01:58] Larry: Well, they’re, the CEO of the postal service.
[02:01] Andy: And that is that that is a private public company?
[02:05] Larry: No. It’s a it’s a United States operated. It just operated as an enterprise fund since 1970. They reorganized the post office department, it was called, and made the US Postal Service with a mandate that it provide universal service and also not the taxpayer subsidies. And that’s running huge losses right now. And I don’t know how they’re masking those losses because they’re very, very large losses. Something to the tune of 2 to $3,000,000,000 annually.
[02:32] Andy: Does it have anything to do with, like, all the pension funds of the postal service people?
[02:36] Larry: It does, but it also has to do with collapsing of mail volume. The, the Internet has destroyed their bread and butter, which was first class mail. Nobody uses first class mail anymore.
[02:47] Andy: Why would anybody’s other than a greeting card and I get packages from different whatever mail order, I don’t I have no interest in mail. But hundreds of millions of bills and payments of bills used to go through first class mail. Absolutely. Totally. Totally. I’m I’m 100% with you. And as soon as like fax machines started, like that was the, that was the writing on the wall that the postal service needed to reinvent themselves into some other form or fashion.
[03:15] Larry: But that’s very difficult to do that because of the universal service mandate. You have to serve all recognized addresses, and only the postal service has that mandate. Any other private company does not. And the Postal Service can’t just pick and choose which customers they serve. And, when you try to close rural post offices that don’t generate revenue, the people who pretend that they believe something should be run like a business, they magically forget what they believe because then they claim that it would separate them from access to medications and they would be disconnected from all humanity. And all of a sudden, they don’t believe in that business mandate being when it’s gonna cut their service.
[03:54] Andy: Completely understand. I think we should tell people to head over to, like and subscribe on whatever podcast app you’re using or make sure that you have subscribed to us on YouTube and make sure you hit some thumbs up. From what I hear from everybody, this really helps the algorithm. It will help us get discovered into other people’s platforms and whatever else, whatever at all. So then we would grow our listener base, and we can do this for forever. You ready to do this forever?
[04:20] Larry: I don’t think so. Matter of fact, I think that my time is running out despite what I just said about for a long time.
[04:28] Andy: Well, before you depart, what are we doing tonight?
[04:33] Larry: Well, I have to break bad news. Chance was not able to join us again today. So that means it’s just mister gloom and doom for this episode. But we do have a case from United States Supreme Court. And we have an update on the Halloween case in Missouri, which is pending in the eighth circuit court of appeals. And we have one or two articles if time permits. But since chance is not here, those of you who are having withdrawal, you better click off because it’s just gloom and doom this episode.
[05:03] Andy: Well, very well. So let’s, jump right in. You, you people want to discuss a recent case from the United States Supreme Court and I’ve read this over and over including while I was riding a, let’s see. Where did it go? I need to put this somewhere. Here. Yes. While I was riding a roller coaster. But while I was reading it, Larry, I didn’t see any connection to this issue. You so is the well running dry or have you gotten too senile, to know that this podcast is about registry issues?
[05:38] Larry: Well, probably both. I’m definitely senile. And the flow of interesting cases has slowed to a trickle recently. But this case does tangentially relate to an upcoming episode I’m working on about junk science.
[05:52] Andy: Junk science. You should know that I’m all about some junk science. And I can’t wait for that. So this case is Barnes individually and as a representative of this estate of Barnes deceased versus Felix et al. And it was decided on 05/15/2025. Before I get into this case, tell me about the upcoming junk science episode. What’s that about? The the is the Kabuki machine involved with that one?
[06:16] Larry: No. It’s not about the Kabuki machine. It’s about the bigger picture of how the prosecution industrial complex invents and then perpetuates the make believe science. And they do it in a number of areas. But it’s similar to the to the victim industrial complex in many ways. In fact, I would not be surprised if they work hand in hand with the prosecution industrial
[06:39] Andy: complex. So let’s see. Where are we? So I’m all ears. Well, tell me more than, please.
[06:47] Larry: Well, if you don’t mind, I want to borrow a few points from of an explanation from our upcoming guest, and his name is Andrew Garrett. Alright. Now, oh, go ahead. And he’s, he’s an expert, that that, generated credit to chat on the National Defense Lawyers List served this past week.
[07:08] Andy: And, so, what can we share? What did he post publicly?
[07:12] Larry: Well, I will share the first dozen or so points he made about junk science, how it comes to be. And, so folks, I’m not nearly smart enough to have invented this, but he did. And, here’s the typical playbook according to mister Garrett that the government follows to push their agenda. They invent a pseudoscience from scratch, and then they establish a specialized training academy for that pseudoscience, And then they limit enrollment exclusively to law enforcement officers. And then they issue their own proprietary certifications. So, I mean, isn’t this sounding good so far? Perfate to pseudoscience. You only enroll law enforcement officers and then you issue them a certificate or certify them. They get this beautiful certificate. Then they recruit former cops to develop software that automates the process. And then they create software certifications restricted only to law enforcement. Now why would they do that?
[08:09] Andy: It’s almost just like the homeopathy industry.
[08:13] Larry: Then they deploy this pseudoscience and less sophisticated US court systems where scrutiny is minimal. And then when they have some successes, they publicly boast about their successes. And then they gradually allow select ex cops who align with them into the program, some experts who’ve never testified, producing reports that always find defendants guilty. Now, that sounds a little bit rigged, doesn’t it? Ever so slightly. And then they argue in court that both prosecution and defense rely on the software, even though it’s not true. They say that the software performs, no actual sign. He says that the software itself performs no actual scientific analysis. And then they insist that only certified individuals can testify while blocking uncertified experts through the secret training requirements. And they do that at the Dalbert hearings for certifying and approving an expert witness. So they’ve shut off the floodgate where you can’t be certified if you’re not a certified person. And then they rebrand what’s normally just raw data into proprietary names tied to a software company. And they turn, cell call detail records and they call it, I’ll quote, cell hawk data. And then they have law enforcement
[09:38] Andy: dominate the so called scientific working groups. That’s what he says they do. Would you go back to number seven and they what what would you call a less sophisticated US court system? How does that actually exist?
[09:52] Larry: Yes. Well, first of all, the federal courts are fair far better funded than any state court system. So I would think that his book have this question for him at at the, podcast, but I would suspect he would say that they start developing this junk science in state courts and probably even more rural areas where the state courts don’t have a lot of funding because not all state court systems are funded by the state. In my state of New Mexico, they are the funds for the operating state courts are all doled out in Santa Fe. But it may be if you were in Arkansas or Mississippi, they might be locally funded. So you’d be at these court systems where there’s not a lot of high level sophistication, not a lot of funding available to challenge this stuff. And that’s would be my guess as to how they do that.
[10:41] Andy: Interesting. And if you then get it certified in a court even at a much lower level, it is still certified by a judge that this expert witness used this technology, technique, whatever with the pseudoscience, and that would be how you would end up having, citations leading back to it to authenticate that that stuff exists and is valid. It’s kind of a self fulfilling prophecy I was telling you in pretty sure. I’ve been I’ve been certified twice as an expert witness, and the second time was easier than the first time because I’d already been certified as an expert. Well, it’s kinda like your it’s easier to get a job when you have a job because, obviously, someone’s willing to to work with you at that time after you’ve been out of work for some period of time while someone’s in prison. Like, why do you have this big gap? What has happened to you? And it makes it much harder. So it’s very similar. Anyway, so then he said, welcome to the magic show. The courts swallow it swallow it as whole and undeniable truth. And this is a rigged system we’re, we’re up against and it, takes a united front to push back. Okay. Now let’s get on to the case. What is this case about?
[11:46] Larry: Well, my attention was, was drawn to this case because the opinion was unanimous. The communist left sympathizers on the court were joined by the radical right flatheads in a nine Isn’t that backwards? Well, the flatheads. I thought that, with the point I guess that pointy heads, the opposite of pointy heads would be flatheads. Sorry. Please continue. Yeah. The communist left liberal pointy head were joined by the radical right flatheads, and that doesn’t happen often these days. No. But it’s about law enforcement officers who deliberately escalate encounters, and then they deploy lethal force in response to the situation they themselves created. But the respondent, who was the officer, Roberto Felix, pulled over Ashley Barnes for suspected toll violations. Now you gotta admit that’s a serious crime. Oh. That that’s almost like felony jaywalking. And Felix ordered Barnes to exit the vehicle, but Barnes began to drive away. As the car began to move forward, Felix jumped on the door seal and fired two shots inside. Barnes was fatally hit, but he managed to stop the car. About five seconds elapsed between when the car started moving and when it stopped. Two seconds passed between the moment Felix Felix stepped on the door seal and the moment he fired his first shot. So he the officer was performing a law enforcement function for something that had or a law that had been broken. But he created the situation, and that’s what the junk science that’s how I tie these together. The junk science, they create the junk science, and then magically, poof, it works. And officers escalate stuff all the time. And then they say, I felt threatened, and they created the escalation. Okay.
[13:29] Andy: Alright. Well, then your position is that officer Felix did not have to place himself in any kind of danger?
[13:36] Larry: I don’t think so. Not for a toll violation. I think that radios were fine. Violation. I I think I think that they could have radioed up ahead, and they could have had a blockade. There’s a number of things they could have done. So, great. But Barnes’ mother sued Felix on behalf of on Barnes’ behalf alleging that Felix violated Barnes’ fourth member rights against excessive force. The District Court, being the trial judge, granted summary judgment to Felix applying the Fifth Circuit’s Moment of Threat rule. And then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed explaining that the Moment of Threat rule requires asking only whether an officer was in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in his use of deadly force. And they held that under the little events leading up to the shooting are not even relevant. Here, the precise moment of threat was the two seconds when Felix was clinging to the moving car that he decided to cling to. Because Felix could then have reasonably believed his life was in danger, the panel held on the fifth circuit that the shooting was lawful.
[14:42] Andy: For for a toll violation. I’ve always heard the expression, Larry. You can’t outrun Motorola.
[14:47] Larry: Do you get it? I have heard that many years.
[14:51] Andy: Now I’m reading from page one. So this is Andy reading, and this is Andy’s opinion. It states, the question here is whether that the framework permits courts in evaluating a police shooting or other use of force to apply the so called moment of threat rule used in the courts below. Under that rule, a court looks only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot. Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment. That makes a lot of sense to me.
[15:34] Larry: Yes. And can you believe it came out of a nine to zero court? It’s pretty bizarre, especially this court. Yeah. Well, that that’s why we get glimmers of hope. The trial court had granted summary judgment to Felix. The court explained that to prevail on her claim Ms. Bars needed to show that Felix’s use of force was objectively unreasonable. In the usual excessive force case, the court noted the inquiry into reasonableness would involve considering a variety of circumstances. But when an officer has used deadly force, the Court continued, the Fifth Circuit has developed a much narrower approach. Then a Court could ask only about the situation existing at the moment of the threat that sparked the fatal shooting. The trial court identified that moment as the two seconds before Felix fired his shot when he was standing on the door seal of the movie vehicle. And that would be true. He was definitely in jeopardy at that point. Absolutely. He also didn’t really have to step up there.
[16:36] Andy: And the theory of the trial court was an officer could reasonably think himself at risk of serious harm?
[16:42] Larry: Yes. That was their theory, and he was at risk of harm. But the only problem was he created that risk himself. Yes. But under the fifth circuit’s rule, that fact alone concluded the analysis. The court explained it could not consider what had transpired up until those last two seconds, including Phillips, Felix decision to jump onto the seal.
[17:03] Andy: So, so then the court appeals, court of appeals oh, god. The court of appeals affirmed I was gonna say a a feels anyway, explaining that it was, it’s too bound by this circuit’s moment of threat doctrine. Under that rule, the panel agreed the inquiry is confined to whether the officer was in danger at the moment of the threat, the result of in his use of deadly force.
[17:30] Larry: And I can see that the courts below really had no wiggle room. The the moment of threat rule applied in the courts in the fifth circuit, and it prevented any any additional analysis of the context. Recall that the district court and the fifth circuit both limited their view to the two seconds before the shooting after Felix had stepped onto the door seal of Barnes’ car. The courts believed that under the Fifth Circuit precedent, they could not take into account anything proceeding to that final moment. They were doing their job as they saw it. So I’m not I’m not down on the Fifth Circuit or even the trial judge.
[18:02] Andy: Sure. Now as I was rounding that, like, the last little curve of the of the roller coaster, I saw that it states on page seven that they could not consider the reasons for the stop or the earlier conduct of and interactions between the suspect and the officer. And because of that limit, they could not address whether the final two seconds of the encounter would look different if set within a longer time frame. They went on to say, a court deciding a use of force case cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has put on chronological blinders.
[18:32] Larry: That was that was a funny quote. That is a funny quote. The court did not go as far as I would have liked. They stated, we do not address here the question Felix raises about use of force cases, whether or how the officer’s own creation of the a dangerous situation factors into the reasonableness analysis reasonableness analysis. They held that issue as not properly before us.
[18:57] Andy: I’m sorry. Wait. Can you can you dig into that? I don’t understand.
[19:01] Larry: Well, they stated that the courts below never confronted that issue precisely because they limited their inquiry to that to those two seconds. They were looking only at those two seconds before the shot and they excluded from the view any actions of the officer that allegedly created the danger necessitating deadly force. This is because the port, the courts below did not address the relevance of any of Felix stepping onto the door cell of Barnes’ car. And because that issue was never considered below, it was not the basis for the petition for certiorari.
[19:34] Andy: Okay. Well, that makes a little bit of sense. The issue was not developed in the, trial court below?
[19:40] Larry: That is correct. The the, US Supreme Court doesn’t develop cases. They take what’s handed them. And so you the final, analysis was they had to limit to what the case was about, and it was about those two seconds. But they said you can’t just look at those two seconds.
[19:57] Andy: And then so the outcome in this was good. They stated accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. What does that mean?
[20:09] Larry: It means it now goes back. It’ll work its way back down to the fifth circuit. It’ll ultimately get back to the trial judge, and they will have to consider the estate’s claims under this newly adopted framework, which will not confine the limit to those two seconds. They will get to argue these things about how the officer escalated the event and how the officer made a poor choice. And then I can tell you what they’re gonna say. They’re gonna say, this is blaming this is a bad guy shifting the blame. I can hear it now on the Dan Bunch, you know, show if he were still there. But it’s not Shifting the blame. Hold on. You’re talking about this guy has toll violations, and this is like some crazy hardened criminal, you know, the the the the thick calves of carrying drugs across the border like one of these guys? That’s but that’s what they’re gonna do. So now it’ll be it’ll be, the Vince show, but it’ll be on Vince Colonnades and he’ll explain that this is what’s wrong with the country now. We’re going down the crapper. It’s because we’ve got out of control judges and he’ll probably even condemn the conservatives that voted with the with the liberals. But, but the trial judge will have to consider the totality of the circumstances leading up to the shooting of Barnes. We may still have the same outcome, but it won’t be by summary judgment. Now, judge, you get to do a trial.
[21:25] Andy: Can you do you have any history on where that two seconds comes from by chance? Well, it was how long it took for the for the time he jumped on the car before he fired. No. No. No. No. I mean, like, the idea that the only time that that in a court case can be considered with the police officer is those final two seconds where the person is now where the officer is now in imminent danger? Where that that specific requirement came from? Well, it was a case that I didn’t choose to talk about it from the fifth circuit, but it was it’s not just the two seconds. It’s you can’t argue
[21:57] Larry: about the officer from the point they feel they in danger. That’s where the calculation stops. The officer may be in danger for more than two seconds. Sure. But the officer creates the danger like I was telling you in preshow. Mhmm. A suicidal person can be, quite a distance from an officer. And, the officer will continue to close the noose tighter and tighter and get closer and closer, and then the person will eventually move in a sudden manner. And, then the officer will say that escalation may have been developing for ten minutes before the officer got that close. And then the officer said I had to shoot. I felt threatened. He lunged at me.
[22:35] 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.
[23:25] Andy: Now, I’m just imagining the alternative scenario, Larry, where if we had a, whatever you wanna call it, a back off approach where, okay, this guy’s got toll violations and he’s being a jerk resisting whatever. So the cop backs off and radios in. We have the license plate, we have the car description, etcetera. And if he now goes on some kind of rampage and somehow either hurts or kills somebody after the officer releases, then all hell would break loose.
[23:54] Larry: You’re correct. That’s exactly what would happen. But despite that, many departments have policies, rigid policies don’t to engage in dangerous pursuit. So their command drills that into them and they have to discontinue dangerous pursuits when they’re weaving it out of a residential area and they’re gonna hurt someone. But downstream, if that person gets away, then the Dan Bonginos of the world will do exactly what you said. They’ll say, see, if the police officer’s hands weren’t tied, they would have been able to apprehend the guy before he did that. That’s precisely what will happen.
[24:29] Andy: And then on the other side of that, you end up with, the Freddie Greys and all those with being being killed just in the hands of some kind of benign, the guy, on the on the streets of New York selling the cigarettes, and he gets choked out and die. That’s the other side of that too. Indeed. Alright. Well, let, shall shall we move over to this, Florida article?
[24:52] Larry: Well, I I hope that was entertaining because I think it’s really remarkable that the Fifth Circuit really got slapped pretty good at this decision by the US Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion that you’re narrowing the analysis to just those moments when the officer felt threatened without giving any consideration to why the officer felt threatened and what the officer may have done to create the threat. This is a monumental decision. Doesn’t have a whole lot to do with PFRs, but it’s it’s amazing that none of them agreed on this.
[25:22] Andy: Yes. Definitely. Alright. Well, then you put this article in here from the AP. I know an ultra left leaning. I know. I know. I know. And it’s, it’s definitely the most communist news source other than Pravda. Pro Pravda? What is Pravda?
[25:39] Larry: Pravda is a publication. It’s kinda like the official Soviet news agency, TAS. Pravda is one of the used to be a publication. It may not be, head business anymore, but I put it in there for the old geezers that remember Pravda and TAS.
[25:52] Andy: I see. Oh, someone says it’s the Russian New York Times. Alright. Well, I think we should call it Russia Today. Anyway, it says a Florida man convicted of killing two women whose bodies were found in a rural pond in 1996 is scheduled to be put to death in October under a death warrant signed by governor Ron DeSantis. That’s my favorite person. Did you know that, Larry? I did know that. It notes that Florida continues to set a record pace for executions. Lee’s, Samuel Lee Smithers, 72, is scheduled to die by lethal injection October 14 at Florida State Prison. Smithers would be the fourteenth person set to, for execution in Florida in 2025 with, DeSantis overseeing more executions in a single year than any other Florida governor since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.
[26:37] Larry: Go run. Man, that’s like, you should get a plaque, you know, like one of the YouTube plaques that you see people have. He should totally have one of those. Well, but but I don’t wanna say what you’re getting yourself what we’re talking about. What’s your point? The people of Florida support the death penalty. The governor’s doing his job. It’s the law of Florida. DeSantis signed the death warrant because that’s his job. Just a few days before the execution, there was one scheduled for David Joseph Pittman. It notes that another convicted killer, Victor Tony Jones, is set to die on September 30. The man is doing what the people of Florida want him to do.
[27:10] Andy: I know. I don’t I don’t wanna be in Florida either. In the Smithers case, court records show he met his two victims, Christy Cohen and Denise Roach, on different dates at a Tampa motel to pay them for, Horizontal Mambo. At the time, he was doing landscape maintenance on a 27 acre property that included three ponds in a rural plants excuse me, in rural Plant City, Florida. On 05/28/1996, property owner Marion Whitehurst, who had met Smithers in church where he was a deacon, stopped by to find Smithers cleaning an ax in the carport, which he claimed to be using to trim some tree limbs. They were limbs alright. Well, they they they were. That was actually the murder weapon. I was trying to keep this clean for a family program. I understand. But it it states that both Coward and Roche were severely beaten, strangled, and left in the pond to die.
[28:03] Larry: Swithers confessed to the murders and he was handed two death sentences after his trial in 1999. I’m at a loss to understand how you could execute someone twice.
[28:14] Andy: Two death sentences.
[28:17] Larry: Oh, two death sentences. His convictions and sentences were have been upheld by the Florida supreme cult.
[28:24] Andy: Now according to the AP, 30 people have been executed in The US in 2025, with Florida leading the way behind the flurry of death warrants signed by governor DeSantis. The lack last ex execution in Florida was on August 28. Leasional injection for 59 year old Curtis Windham convicted in the 1992 murders of his girlfriend, her mother, and another man.
[28:48] Larry: Yeah. Well, I mean, these these sensationalized cases, they sound very awful. And people I mean, when you hear that, you’re gonna want that person dead. But the previous record of executions in one Florida Europe was eight. So DeSantis is gonna easily break that. And that was back in 2014. That was the record since 1976, but it’s being eclipsed.
[29:11] Andy: What do you see as the future for the death penalty?
[29:14] Larry: I see more and more executions. In fact, PFRs are in the crosshairs. Some states, including Florida, have targeted those convicted of some sexual offenses for the death penalty. This is in line with surgical and chemical castration. It’s primarily a conservative agenda moving forward, thanks to voter support. You showed me a quote on Reddit that I think is fitting for this situation. Is is that quote really appropriate for a family or any program such as this podcast?
[29:43] Andy: Likely.
[29:45] Larry: You think it is? I mean, yeah. Sure. Okay. Well, I was afraid you would say no, but, there was a nice quote about what happens and there was something about do you just wanna paraphrase it? I don’t wanna say it, on the line, but about about looping up and then being complaining about about your booty hurting.
[30:07] Andy: That that’s paraphrasing enough. That is totally paraphrasing enough.
[30:11] Larry: Yeah. The the people, they keep voting for the same people. Then I say, if you keep voting for the same people, you will soon be crying foul when your family members are sentenced to death for a PFR offense. And you’ll be calling Narsil and everybody saying, what happened? What the what happened is you. You did this.
[30:37] Andy: So there’s a second article, about what explains the rise, and it says it’s probably not public support. Recent polls show around half of America’s favor executions, but the best evidence of what people really think is found in courtrooms, where jurors have increasingly rejected the punishment. Across the country, juries have sent 10 people to death row this year compared with a high of 315 in all of 1996.
[31:03] Larry: I think whoever wrote this article, I respect them, but I think that they’re really off base because courtrooms are different than the general population. Yes. They the juries are derived from citizens. But I’ve sat on a jury, a grand jury anyway, for three months. And we hear from experts. Jurors hear from experts. They hear a lot of stuff that regular population would not be in a position to consider. But nonetheless, I’d say half of the population is significant public support. Sure. As the article notes, it’s it’s prisoners like those from a generation ago who are now facing execution. You know, these crimes are old because these people have been on death row fighting their upcoming execution for a long time.
[31:45] Andy: Experts on the death penalty have four interconnected theories to explain the rise in executions this year. The Trump effect, Trump wants to refill federal death row. Last month, the president vowed to execute everyone who commits murder in Washington DC. His attorney general, Pam Bondi, has pledged to seek the punishment more often in federal cases nationwide, including for famous defenses like Luigi Mangione, and it’s too soon to tell if, his administration will deliver on these promises. But legal experts say some state attorneys general and governors might be revving up their execution chambers to align themselves with the president’s priorities in a bid for his and his supporters favor. No. Yeah. I know. No.
[32:26] Larry: That’s gotta be a typo. Now, folks, listen to what you heard. This is this is not us making this up. This is the attorney general of The United States promising to seek the death penalty in more federal cases nationwide.
[32:42] Andy: Including defendants like what was that? Luigi Mangione, whatever it is? Yeah. Luigi Mangione. He’s the one that shot the, CEO of, UnitedHealthcare, I believe it was. It’s probably six months ago. Maybe even longer than that.
[32:55] Larry: Yes. But it, at the article point, it only takes one Trump aligned leader and a state to restart executions of people who have been on death row for years. And that was a quote from Laura Porter, executive director of the Eighth Amendment Project.
[33:11] Andy: And then in the last few years, attorney attorneys general Todd Rokita of Indiana, Liz Murrell of Louisiana, and Derek Brown of Utah have all been key figures in pushing a return to executions in their states after long pauses. Governor Ron DeSantis has overseen 11 executions, more than a third of the national total, and more than any year in Florida since 1936. In the last few years, DeSantis also promoted new laws seeking to expand the death penalty to allow it in cases of people who sexually assaulted children. For instance
[33:44] Larry: Yep. That is really sad, but it and it’s also my fear. We as a population, we’re being desensitized to the death penalty, which will also make it easier to expand its usage. And my phone would be ringing off the hook if I’m alive five years from now. People say, how come my poor little 20 year old got sentenced to death? Well, he did a heinous offense under Florida law, but he’s only 20 years old when he did it. Yep. He got the death penalty.
[34:12] Andy: Just like that lady when we first met who said, my son’s not a PFR.
[34:16] Larry: Just adamant all the way up and down. But did he commit an offense? Yes. But he’s not. She just was adamant that her son was not using the s o word. But but what was sad about that one is that particular case, it was exactly what would be viewed as the worst of the worst. It wasn’t like they were, like, two days apart in age and one was 18 and one was 17. It was like there was single digits versus an adult, as I recall. Yeah.
[34:41] Andy: Perhaps. I don’t remember the details. I was still very, very, very, very green at that point. I had no idea what was going on. Well, then you put in this from courthouse news, we have this update, and it says Missouri is trying to revive a mandate for PFRs to post a sign in Halloween stating they don’t have candy or treats at the residence after the law was blocked last October. Now there was a funny comment during oral argument. Do can you, go through that for us?
[35:08] Larry: Yes. That was funny. An eighth circuit judge, on the court of appeals compared a Missouri law requiring PFRs to post signs on their Halloween saying that they don’t have candy to a North Dakota law requiring landowners to post signs warning if there’s quicksand on their property during the hearing on Tuesday, challenging the sign laws constitutionality. In North Dakota, if there’s quicksand, we’re required to post it, said U. S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson, a Donald Trump appointee. Obviously, the cattle don’t understand it’s quicksand. But you know the theory, somebody is wandering up if they see is there’s no one has ever asserted that it’s being too complicated, being too compelled speech. He’s saying this is already telegraphed where this particular judge is. I think if he says, hey. Posting signs is okay, and it’s not compelled speech. And he drew that ridiculous absurdity of the cattle don’t understand that, it would be true. But I bet humans on the property might understand it. They might still clear up the quicksand.
[36:14] Andy: Wouldn’t that be who that’s for? It’s not for the cows unless you’re trying to equate children with cows because kids, depending on their age, won’t be able to read the sign or understand its impact. Maybe. Well,
[36:26] Larry: well, see, I’ve always I wish they wouldn’t even make the argument that compelled speech is unconstitutional because it is not. But it has to be specifically and narrowly tailored to the most least restrictive means possible, and there has to be a determination that it is something that you need to report as an individual, not as a collective group. But, folks, if when you make these laws, if you’ll listen to me, you won’t handle these constitutional challenges because it would be eminently constitutional. We require people to speak all the time, but we require when you get your driver’s license, if your vision is not good enough, you will speak that your vision needs correction for you to drive safely. You won’t carry that message because that’s the law. If you run a restaurant, you will carry the message. If your restaurant’s been downgraded, that you will speak that message to the public that you’re no longer safe. And you’ll we’re shut down fairly quickly. And I can go on and on with things where you where you must speak if you had contagious diseases back decades ago. They quarantined your house, and you did speak, but but you were compelled to speak because you had been examined. You had been determined to be a threat to public safety. They could compel PFRs to speak about Halloween if they had the requisite narrowing that that person might be a threat to minors on Halloween, but not all PFRs. Folks, if you’ll do what I tell you, you won’t have these problems in court.
[37:58] Andy: No. The analogy hit at the heart of the arguments as Missouri attempted to revive the sign requirement after a lower court blocked it last October, stating that it violated the first amendment guarantee of speech by compelling PFRs to post a sign on their private property.
[38:14] Larry: Well, the state was very creative for sure. William Sedlock of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office told the three judge panel, quote, this requirement is not requiring the sex offender to disclose the fact that they are sex offender. He now, I don’t know what it’s requiring because he’s saying just because it says no candy or treats here, that that’s that that’s not conveyed. They’re a sex offender. He added, That makes it the least restrictive means for the sign such as that he is listening to some point of, because it does need to be least restrictive, but see, like you’ve got a problem. You’re applying it to everybody. You’ve gotta narrow it down who you apply it to, then you can get away with this.
[38:54] Andy: Sanderson’s attorney, Janice Bellucci, pushed back on that idea, pointing out that all PFRs and their addresses are available to the public on a website. That’s what Bellucci said. And, excuse me. Bellucci said, if a family is concerned about going to the home of someone who’s required to register, all they have to do is look at the public website and they’ll know ahead of time where a person who is required to register lives, which, Larry, I would add, is the whole point of the list. Right? That’s the point is so that the public can be notified. You don’t have to put a sign in someone’s yard to extra notify, do you?
[39:26] Larry: Well, I would push back ever so slightly on that. Everybody who’s required to register is not on a public website. So, Baluchi, you’re wrong about that. But your the spirit of your argument stands. But just because a person let’s say if you’re not on the website, but you’re registered, I’m assuming this still applies to you. Now the question would be, or any Missourians registered that are not on the website? I don’t know the answer to that, but Baluchi cited an earlier ruling from the eighth circuit in Wilson versus the city of Belnor in which she said the court recognized the right to speak for one’s own home is especially significant and protected by the First Amendment. The courts have also recognized that placement of a government mandate to sign on a person’s home exposes all who live there all who live there the danger of significant physical harm and possible damage or destruction of their property.
[40:20] Andy: Since 02/2002, Sanderson has hosted large Halloween displays at his home in Hazelwood, Missouri with animated figures, lights, music, and fog machines. He said it attracts hundreds of visitors and has become a neighborhood tradition in the Saint Louis suburb. Sanderson was convicted in 2006 of felonies, whatever, involving a 16 year old family friend during a sleepover. The conviction which Sanderson claims has no connection to the Halloween festivities requires PFR registration.
[40:47] Larry: Well, now see now what we’re missing here is we don’t know how Sanderson was twenty two years ago. I didn’t do that kind of research. But if you if you take his age now, say he’s 45 now, well, he was 35, 25, 23. Well, that kind of contact with a 16 year old would be unlawful, but it wouldn’t be so heinous. If he was 91 back then, it would be somewhat more disgusting. But it’s noteworthy that Sanderson, who hasn’t been accused of any PFR type offense in twenty two years since the incident with a 16 year old, visited the Saint Louis Police Department and the Hazelwood Police Department to inquire whether the sign requirement applied to him. He claims he was told that it didn’t because he was grandfathered in since the requirement wasn’t, made the quire requirement was made after his conviction. Nevertheless, Sanderson says Hazelwood police officer swarmed his residence on 10/31/2022, and he was charged with and convicted of one misdemeanor count of violating the sign statute, which prompted this lawsuit.
[41:50] Andy: Missouri argued in its brief that the law is common sense. Of course, I hate that expression, Larry, because, like, that makes no sense to just say, well, it’s common sense. When a child is already on a PFR’s doorstep, it takes little effort to lure, come on little kid, come on inside, child inside of the home, or to start or further a grooming relationship with the child. The brief states, good grief.
[42:13] Larry: Well, what if I find so amazing about that? Now I I can’t speak for all 50 states. But on Halloween here, I do not believe I’ve ever seen a group of children, young adults, adolescents, trick or treating without adults stand off in the distance, observing. Absolutely. Not at any time recently. No. Yes. It’s not like it back in the thirties when I was trick or treating.
[42:37] Andy: You mean the eighteen thirties?
[42:40] Larry: So so, but it’s like you’re crazy to to even put forth that argument that you could lure the child into the house. Yes. You might be able to do that, but it wouldn’t be too long that there’d be adult company. But anyway, US circuit judge James Logan, who was a George Bush appointee rounded out the panel, which took the case under advisement. There was three judges and the other one was appointed by Barack Hussein, communist Obama. So we’ve got we’ve got, I didn’t I didn’t I took out his votes, but there’s there’s a three judge panel. So you’ve got Bush, Trump, and the communist. He he hated he hated America. He wanted to destroy America. I heard that every day for eight years from Russia. I’ve heard it. I’ve heard it. I’ve heard it. God.
[43:32] Andy: Yeah. I don’t so, like, even in my neighborhood, like, there’s maybe 10 knocks at the door at Halloween. Maybe? There’s, like, there’s almost no activity. And all it is is eight year olds and 10 year olds and mom and dad or, you know, mom, whatever, they’re at the street sending the kids up. And I’m pretty sure that after the two or three or four kids come and knock on the door, mom is taking roll call to make sure that none of them have accidentally been lured into the person’s house.
[44:00] Larry: Yes. And the last question everybody wants to know is when will the decision be made? There is no timetable for the decision. I would like to think that if they’re going to overturn the injunction, that they’re gonna do it by in advance of October 31. If they’re gonna let the injunction and stand, I would think that they’re gonna do just the opposite rather than having their secretaries and their court personnel happen to be bombarded. But why did you bunch of liberal pointy heads have to not protect the families? I would
[44:39] Andy: understand. Anything else before we, head on out of here?
[44:44] Larry: No. I think we’ve got a pretty good episode for putting us together in twenty four hours.
[44:50] Andy: Absolutely. Well, I wanna make sure that we thank Mel Joel r Joel was here and then he had technical difficulties. He couldn’t hear me on Discord, but he could hear you just fine, which is unusual. Anyway, we tried to troubleshoot. Sorry, Joel. Couldn’t get you to listen to the show. Then there was James and John T. Welcome to the Registry Matters team. Yay. Thank you very much for joining.
[45:12] Larry: So, well, I was praying we’re gonna get some new patrons.
[45:16] Andy: Well, prayers answered, of course. Head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes, and you can email me and I will send it to wherever it needs to go to, possibly to the circular file if it needs to go there at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. And you can send a voice mail message at (747) 227-4477. And as these other fine people have done, you can head over to patreon.com/registrymatters if you would be so very generous and become a patron for as little as a buck a month and you get the podcast early, and you get to hang out with us and joke and try to distract me from the podcast, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And definitely head over to fypeducation/ excuse me, fypeducationorg/shop. Somebody did buy a shirt, another, another Kabuki machine. Obviously, our best seller, Larry. The Kabuki machine.
[46:03] Larry: Well, I’m waiting for someone to send a picture of their PO’s office so I can
[46:10] Andy: That would be absolutely amazing. Somebody said that they would do it. They would totally go to the p f the the, polygraph and wearing the kombu. Do you think do you think that would cause them grief? Like, they might not even get it. They probably think it’s real.
[46:26] Larry: I suspect that they would laugh about it, in many instances, but those that are die hard believers of the polygraph would probably find it offensive. But but I think we should I think we should award a prize to the person who does that. And then let’s hope that they don’t get in any trouble. But so be care carefully analyze the psychic makeup of your, of your officer, you know, their psychological tolerance. And don’t go running in if you’ve got a real a hole as a PO. But if you’ve got a, somebody who’s reasonable in most instances, like, for example, your PO, you could have done this and nothing would have happened. Likely.
[47:04] Andy: But Yes. Yeah. We had a very, very, very not even cordial. Like, I don’t know, forthcoming. I don’t know. She was just, like, wide open. She’s like, I hate the people I work with.
[47:15] Larry: So but in my instance, I would have had just the opposite. If I had worn this, they would have found a reason to try to violate me.
[47:21] Andy: Yeah. I understand. Well, thank you everybody for listening, and I hope you have a fantastic week. And we will see you next week. And, take care, Larry, and I will talk to you soon. Not at 05:00 tomorrow morning. Don’t say it. I’ll give you the 06:30 tomorrow. Oh, thank you so much. Have a good night, my friend. Good night.
[47:45] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.
Leave a Comment