[00:15] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West, transmitted across the Internet. This is episode 354 of Registry Matters. How are you tonight, Larry? I’m gonna go look at something real quick while you, ramble and babble for a minute.
[00:29] Larry: Alright. I’m doing awesome. It’s glad I’m glad to have the opportunity to be back on this fabulous program where we talk about such important issues of the day. And I can’t imagine how any family could overlook the opportunity to listen live to the registry matters as it’s being recorded. Who would not wanna be here with us?
[00:51] Andy: Well, clearly, all of the patrons that have are not here are those, but maybe they I I so, one of the listeners, I know he I’m pretty sure he works at this time. Well, another one. He’s here because he doesn’t do anything at his job. But, yes, my glasses do reflect pink, by the way, and I did not request that. So anyway, let’s dive right in. I’m I’m trying to look because we are really, really rapidly approaching our anniversary. And, I wanted to go double check when that is. That’s what I was, trying to get you to vamp for a minute. What are we doing tonight? Tell me that part, and I’ll and I’ll find this information. Well,
[01:30] Larry: another batch of sad news. Chance is not with us, and I didn’t hear from him this week. I thought he was gonna be back, but this means it’s just mister doom and gloom for this episode. Oh. And, but we have a discussion about your favorite topic, International Megan’s Law. That is frequently my favorite topic. Also, there’s a segment by Andy, the cohost. Who?
[01:58] Andy: Andy, the cohost. Did you allow him to make a segment? So
[02:05] Larry: and we have a segment of Larry’s general rules, along with a deep analysis that I will publish, regarding this particular rule. And then we have one article that I would like to cover from something that happened in Arizona.
[02:24] Andy: Alright. Well, I look, Larry, 10/22/2017 is episode one.
[02:33] Larry: That’s what I was thinking when I said eight years. So we’re eight years into this here in a in another month.
[02:40] Andy: Not even. Less than. Alright. Wow. Alright. Well, you guys have put up with us for that long. Hey. So please make sure that you like, subscribe, thumbs up, leave a review, become a patron. You know, what was the 14 how much was the the checks back in the day? Were they just 4 1,400 even? Well, that was the final stimulus. There was three. So there was 1,200, I remember, 600 and then 1,400. So we would prefer the 1,400. Prefer. But, you know, hey. Whatever. If you could maybe even add a zero to that, that would also be beneficial. And, then you can join the discord. We’re gonna be doing something really fun very soon. Maybe hey, you know, right around our anniversary, Larry, it would be right after the conference that we could, do my little surprise thing, and we’re gonna have a super fun thing to do with a Patreon special. Have no idea when we’ll do it as far as which day of the week, but it will only be open to patrons. And it might only be open to, like, $5 and up patrons. I’m not sure. But we will see how that all plays out. Well, shall we, just go right ahead then? I think it sounds good. Well, tell us about this general rule, first of all.
[03:54] Larry: Yes. Enough. FYP education does not condone anything illegal and certainly not what this person has alleged has been alleged to have done. But if you feel that you must create a fake release order to get out of prison And if it actually works, I would urge you not to remain in the jurisdiction.
[04:19] Andy: That seems like a reasonable idea. Okay. So so what worked? And I can’t wait to hear more about the details later. That’s what we’re gonna we’re we’re gonna cover that later? Yes. We’re gonna cover that later. People need to know about,
[04:33] Larry: like I say, don’t do this. But if you must do it and it does work, leave right away.
[04:40] Andy: Very well. Well, let’s do do this main section. And this is about International Megan’s Law. And, I posted this in Discord and there, somebody had asked, what is International Megan’s Law?
[04:55] Larry: International Megan’s Law was proposed by Representative Smith of New Jersey. He serves in the house, has for quite some time, and it took perseverance to get it passed. He first proposed the legislation in twenty o seven. It finally had passed in February 2016 and was signed into law by then President Obama. According to Representative Smith, it was created to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable populations, both in The US and abroad by addressing the international movement of PFRs. Except he didn’t say it that way.
[05:32] Andy: Did he use any, like, language we shouldn’t use on the on the seven on the networks of the seven words?
[05:38] Larry: No. He did not do that. But he did,
[05:42] Andy: most as most people do, has pejorative comments about people that have committed sexual offenses. I see. Well, where tell me where the name came from. What what is Megan’s law? International Megan’s law at that, but what is the Megan’s law part?
[05:55] Larry: Well, the law was named after Megan Kanka, who is actually from New Jersey, a seven year old, and who was murdered in 1994 by a convicted PFR who lived near her, who was no longer in prison. And Meghan’s death led to the creation of the original Meghan’s Law, which required public notification about convicted PFRs. And over time, this effort evolved because of international concerns. Due to the growing number of US citizens, and not only US citizens, but around the world, people who have affluence, do affluent people can travel more easily. I think you would agree with that. It’s generally easier to travel if you have some cash in the bank. And some of those people that have that level of of affluence or traveling to nations where they know that they can get boys, girls, or whatever they want. And it was trying to prevent or diminish that, in particular for those who have offended against children.
[06:58] Andy: What are the key provisions of IML?
[07:02] Larry: Well, I’ve got a list of bullet points that I think we’ll get go through having a time. It has notification to and from foreign governments. It deals with passport issuance and identification on the passports. It promotes international cooperation. It imposes penalties for violation of those travel restrictions that we’ll get into later. And it can the the whole framework can result in visa denials for people who are traveling. Can you do do you know what’s on the marking, what it says by chance?
[07:43] Andy: Yes. It’s, it is going to be covered downstream a little bit. Sorry. Then I’ve jumped ahead. So I I have heard people complain about this Angel Watch Center that it’s just like almost like a shadow agency, almost. And, so what is that?
[07:58] Larry: Well, the Angel Watch Center, which we’ll refer to as AWC, unless you wanna say it every time every time we it comes up, is headed by the immigration and custom enforcement’s child exploitation investigations unit. And IML provides specific statutory authority for AWC to engage in certain activities. Generally speaking, the Angel Watch Center receives information about the intended travel of individuals through Customs and Border Protections National Targeting Center. And my source from that is this SMART office, the Sex Offender Management Apprehension Registration and Tracking Office that they have a publication which I borrowed from. And they say the Danger Watch Center does not receive notice of international travel from individual vendors or even jurisdiction registration offices.
[08:55] Andy: But isn’t that directly at odds at what is happening?
[08:59] Announcer: No. It doesn’t. It’ll it’ll get
[09:01] Andy: covered more later. Okay. So then what is AWC’s authority? So that’s Angel Watch Center. What is their authority to do this?
[09:09] Larry: Well, the International Megan’s Law specifically authorizes, the Angel Watch Center to determine if any person who intends to travel internationally is a registered PFR because of a conviction for a sex offense against a minor. If AWC determines that a person fits that definition, it is authorized to send any relevant information about that individual to the destination country where the individual intends to go. As part of this process, Angel Watch is also required to consult with the National Sex Offender Targeting Center to determine if the individual is in compliance with their PFOA registration responsibilities.
[09:50] Andy: Now you just, mentioned the National Targeting Center. Like, I can’t I’ve never even heard of that one. What is that?
[09:58] Larry: Well, in 02/2011, the SORTAS Supplemental Guidelines, that was the second version, added a requirement to SORTAS baseline standards that jurisdictions were required to have their offenders inform them of any intended international travel at least twenty one days prior to the travel taking place. Per these standards, offenders are to provide authorities with information regarding their itinerary and intended destinations, among other items. And registration jurisdictions are required to provide the information to the National Sex Offender Targeting Center of the United States Marshals Service. So if the SMART Office knows what it’s talking about, that’s the flow, not from the offender or even in the jurisdiction. It’s from the US marshal service. But, folks, I’m not an expert on this, so I’ll disclose that I’m using public source information that should be reliable.
[10:54] Andy: Now is there is there a penalty for people who fail to provide the required advance notice? That’s the twenty one days. That’s what you’re talking about there?
[11:03] Larry: Yes. There is a penalty. IML specifically amended federal sort of, and that’s 34 United States code two zero nine one four subsection eight. It requires registrants to provide certain information about their intended travel outside The United States. Now this gets very blurry. Oh, I didn’t put this in the script because although the federal law requires you to give the notification, if your state has not adopted that and you’re not required to provide it, there’s no way to provide it. And that’s what drives everybody crazy. Yeah. There’s there’s no place to provide it to. But we’ll get like I said, I’ll get into more of that later.
[11:41] Andy: And so there is then a penalty clause to the the 34 US code you just cited above?
[11:49] Larry: Well, there is actually in the the, in the sort of portion that applies to the registrants, and that’s, 18 United States code twenty two fifty. And it, it criminalizes, under federal standards, under the federal law for which where an individual has failed to provide the best notice of international travel as required by federal law. And this scares people to death legitimately because even though their state doesn’t require it, they say, well, I looked up yonder, and it says in that federal law. But you ain’t got nobody to report it to, so you can’t do it if your jurisdiction doesn’t receive the information. And I’ve had this discussion over and over again. If your jurisdiction won’t receive it, you can’t file it. Yeah. No kidding.
[12:32] Andy: Alright. Well, then, you listed the points before. So can we take those in order? Yes. Alright. So what about the notification to foreign governments? Am I supposed to reach out when I wanna travel to France or whatever and go, yo, dog, I’m coming?
[12:49] Larry: No. You don’t do that. Under IMEI, US authorities are mandated to notify foreign governments when a PFR has traveled to their country. This is intended to allow the countries to take any necessary steps to monitor the offender’s activities and to protect community safety in their nation. Imagine that a nation wants to protect its citizens, just like we hear coming out of the United States administration about we wanna keep Americans safe. Can you imagine that?
[13:16] Andy: Yeah. I was I was just gonna ask, is there do you know of any reciprocity type things? Not not IML, but just do other nations notify us that so and so is on the way? Oh, absolutely. We have an extreme amount of data sharing with people that are coming from other nations. If you’re in Great Britain and you wanna travel The United States, British authorities
[13:38] Larry: cooperate with every bit of information that’s that’s releasable to American authorities about that person. So it’s it’s just so bizarre that people people are shocked that we want information about people coming here, but it befuddles them that other nations would want information about Americans that are traveling there.
[13:57] Andy: So, alright. Well, I I sort of spoiled this a minute ago, but what about passport issuance and identification? Is this where you’re gonna talk about putting markings on there?
[14:06] Larry: Don’t remember where it is, but it’s in here. The I the the IML requires that PFRs be flagged in The United’s in The US National Sex Offender Registry. If an individual has been convicted of certain sex crimes, their passport may have a specific identifier that marks them as a convicted PFR. This, obviously, would serve as a red flag to border control authorities in foreign nations.
[14:32] Andy: Do you mind if we dig into that a little bit? What is the national PFR registry? Since I know we have talked about this to the point where people are, like, pouring gasoline on themselves, that that there’s no such thing as a national PFR registry. You can have it both ways. There either is or there is not. It’s kinda like there is I’m not telling you the way it is be, it’s or the should be, and then the is be.
[14:55] Larry: There is. Actually, there is a national public I’m not national public. There is a national PFR registry, but it’s not a national public PFR registry. The national PFR registry, in my opinion, is the NCI system, and that system is non public.
[15:11] Andy: Oh, I see what you’re saying. So when you’re talking about the national PFR registry, you’re talking about the NCIC where they can look up that you had a conviction. This would cover anybody with a conviction, not just PFRs. Right? That is correct. And I believe with all of every bit of capability I have to believe that that is the source of where they get it.
[15:31] Larry: I don’t believe that they would use the public websites because there’s too much duplication. And there’s too and there’s too many people that are not listed publicly that are registered. So if that were their source, just think about that, there would be massive, massive gaps in the data because PFRs are not listed all across the nation on public websites. So just if you think if you think logically, I want people to think logically. If they were doing that, there would be massive gaps in the system. I’m with you. So you don’t believe that the NCIC that that that there is not a national PFR registry. Right? Well, I believe there is one, but it’s the NCIC system lists all registered PFRs. And the national public PFR website that many believe is a national registry is merely a website that cultivates and manages what’s publicly listed. That often doesn’t include juveniles. Often, it doesn’t include them the full gamut of adult offenders. Many states do not list all of their, registrants on the website. And just like I said before, there’d be vast gaps. So I I can’t see how that would work that way. I I get it. So, and I get this question all the time. Will my passport be marked? It could be, depending. IML IML provides the Department of State shall not issue a passport to a covered PFR unless the passport contains a unique identifier.
[17:00] Andy: So then who is covered, who’s a covered offender as described by law?
[17:06] Larry: Based on the SMART Office’s publication on their website, this provision is applicable to anyone who is, emphasize, currently required to register the PFR based on a conviction for a sex offense against a minor. The unique identifier is a passport endorsement that states the bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code section two one two b subsection c one. So, therefore, if you’re not currently required to register people call me all the time saying, I got, released from the registry three years ago. And, an attorney in California told me that I have to, file this. And I said, well, but you’re not currently required. Well, the attorney said and and it’s an attorney. And I said, but the attorney’s wrong. So you could either believe the doom and gloom attorney or you could believe what the federal, information that they put out to the public says if you’re currently required to register.
[18:10] Andy: Now now you also then listed international cooperation. Would you go into that?
[18:16] Larry: Yes. IML facilitates cooperation between US and foreign governments, allowing them to share information about individuals who have been convicted of serious sex crimes. Proponents, of course, say this information is critical in helping foreign countries monitor offenders who pose a potential risk to children or vulnerable populations. It is a fact that affluent individuals from Western nations do travel to foreign nations to secure sex. I wish people would quit denying that fact because it is a fact that does Sure. Now then what about the penalties for violation of travel restrictions? If a registered offender travels in internationally without informing US authorities or violates any conditions set by law, they can face serious federal criminal charges under that section twenty two fifty. So this is serious business. You do need to comply if you’re required to comply. But you don’t need to spend hours and hours awake at night if you’ve been released from the registry for fifteen years worrying about this.
[19:18] Andy: Alright. Well, then what about, visa denial for PFRs?
[19:22] Larry: That is definitely true. Countries deny visas once they get the background from The United States. Proponents of the law argue that international make up law helps ensure that foreign countries are made aware of PFRs traveling to, to their borders. And we have proof that this information has resulted in a denial of these applications for individuals with criminal histories, not just PFRs. In fact, some of our people have been turned away at the border. It’s similar to what The United States does. We turn away people at the border for having criminal histories. Folks get over it.
[20:01] Andy: Hey. What’s the difference? Be different? Yeah. Of course. But could you quickly go over what the difference between a passport and a visa is?
[20:09] Larry: Since I’ve never traveled internationally, I don’t know. The passport is issued by your government. Yep. And and it says let my citizen pass, but that is an order. It doesn’t have no authority. The the visa is the other government saying you may enter our borders as I understand it, but but I’ve never traveled outside The United States.
[20:30] Andy: Never. Not even like Mexico. You live right there.
[20:33] Announcer: Well well, but I wanna go. I I don’t need to go. What what would I see that I don’t see here?
[20:39] Andy: I think you can see a lot in Mexico that you don’t see here. I teach their own. I Mexico is a wonderful place. I’ve been there a couple times. Canada is a nice place too. But, Ain’t Goin’, I don’t think I don’t even though I’m off the register. I know I can’t go to Canada, but I don’t think I can go to Mexico with a fella maybe I could get into Mexico. You think I could get into Mexico?
[21:01] Larry: I think you could get into Mexico. You look too clean to have a felony.
[21:06] Andy: Alright. Well, let’s see here. So the law can have significant consequences for individuals who have committed such offenses such as their right to travel internationally. You call it a right to travel internationally? That’s what they call it. There is no prohibition on international travel. You can travel anywhere you wanna travel.
[21:22] Larry: There’s not a single thing in that international makeup law that says you cannot travel. The law essentially creates a global monitoring system, which can limit the travel and personal freedoms because since you’re being monitored globally, the country may not want you just like we don’t want certain people. The law also mandates that some PFRs passports be marked, as we stated above, with that specific identifier, which alerts foreign countries. So if you made it to the border and they see that passport, they may turn you back. Yep. They they identify or access a flag to border authorities. Allow them to take appropriate action. What would US authorities do if a person came here that we knew had a serious PFR conviction? Do you think we say, come on in?
[22:06] Andy: Y’all come. I I would imagine many other kinds of I don’t know. If you’re Al Capone, you’re not coming in. Especially if you’re coming from a shithole country, you’re not coming in. Not my words. I’m just repeating them. Okay? So don’t flame me. Now I know that many countries have strict laws in place regarding the entry of individuals convicted of PFR type crimes, particularly those who have committed offenses involving children or minors. In some cases, PFRs have faced denial of entry to these countries, or they may be deported upon arrival. In certain situations, PFRs may be detained until they can be returned to The United States. Did you have a list of those countries?
[22:47] Larry: Well, in yesteryear, before a certain person went to prison, there was a what was that website, that used to keep people informed about who was getting turned away that that our Well, there there there’s another one. And I’m I’m asking chat feverishly to give me the, travel matrix. But, so it’s the, yeah. But I know what you’re talking about. The, the tag, the travel action group matrix. There is another there are just taking it over. But I did a little bit of, FAR research and, so I got a list of a few countries so we can go to. So, Canada is one of the strictest countries when it comes to admitting PFRs. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows Canadian authorities to refuse entry to individuals with criminal records, including PFRs. Those convicted of serious PFR offenses, particularly those involving minors, may be permanently banned from entering Canada. However, vendors can apply for criminal rehabilitation if enough time has passed since their conviction, and they may be granted entry under certain conditions. PFRs may also seek a temporary permit to enter Canada on a case by case basis. And I think there’s also a a where you can travel. If you’re not wanting to visit Canada, you can travel from, like, Alaska to down to the to the Mainland United States. And I think you have to stay ask about that. Yeah. I think you have to stay warm. Because you hey. I would like to go, like, planning on retirement in the next whatever number of years and putting myself in an RV. Hey. Let’s go to Alaska. Nope. Can’t can’t get there. Gotta go via Canada. I think I think you have to stay within so many miles of the main highways, and you’ve or given a limited amount of time. But, again, I’ve never traveled, but I’ve heard tell of that. So maybe some of our vast audience can tell us if that’s true, but I think that’s what I’ve heard.
[24:36] Andy: I did find the link, but it that website called just facts not fear, and then there’s a link on there for international travel, and then there’s a a Google doc that’s embedded in it that will show you by continent which countries you’re allowed to get to. Now, this is all anecdotal. This is just someone tried to go to Cambodia. Did they make it? Did they not make it? Anyway, so that’s just facts, not fear. We had him on and that guy’s name is River. We had him on an episode, I think, was one ninety five. Hilarious episode. Go back and listen to it. But what about Australia then? Well, that would be a place where I think I’d love to visit, but Australia’s
[25:13] Larry: immigration policies are similarly strict to Canada regarding people with serious criminal convictions. Those involving PFR offenses may be refused entry or subjected to additional scrutiny. But apparently, the government has broad discretion to deny entry based on criminal history in general and visa applications must be carefully completed, including disclosing any criminal convictions. In some cases, USPFRs may apply for a waiver to enter Australia, but it’s not guaranteed according to my limited research.
[25:44] Andy: And then what about The UK?
[25:46] Larry: Well, The United Kingdom may deny entry to foreign nationals, including US citizens, with serious criminal convictions. While I can’t find that there is a blanket ban on US PFRs, those who have been convicted of serious offenses in general may face difficulties entering The UK, and particularly, PFR type offenses involving minors or exploitation are apparently are very heavily crudest scrutinized, and such individuals may be placed on The United Kingdom’s watch list.
[26:14] Andy: And then down there next to Australia in the in the New Zealand area? God, that would be another amazing place to go.
[26:21] Larry: Well, apparently, they have some stringent laws regarding entry of individuals convicted of of, sexual crimes. PFRs with such convictions may be refused entry outright or face additional scrutiny upon arrival. See, that’s the risk. You need to figure this out before you get there. If you arrive and they say, our scrutiny says you need to turn back, you wasted a whole bunch of money. So she need to find out before you get there. A visa application must be submitted in advance. Do that. If they ask for criminal history, provide that and see if you can if you’re gonna be admitted. But don’t spend $5,000 to take a trip where you’re gonna have to sit in a detention waiting to be returned back to The US. Yep. And then what about the all them countries to our south starting with the big one of Mexico? That’s the only one I did any research on. Apparently, Mexico is another country that imposes significant restrictions on PFRs. Although it does not have a formal nationwide ban, Mexican authorities may refuse if a US citizen has a history of serious criminal history that is, particularly if the offense involves minors. So Mexico may tell you you ain’t coming just because you have a criminal history that they view serious.
[27:31] Andy: Interesting. And then, over across the pond, a long way, how about Thailand?
[27:36] Larry: Well, a lot of people ask about that place. Thailand is known for having strict immigration policies for individuals with criminal convictions. Immigration authorities may also conduct additional background checks and refuse entry on a case by case basis, but it doesn’t seem like it has a blanket policy that I could find.
[27:56] Andy: And then moving over to Japan?
[28:00] Larry: Good luck. Japan is very clear about admitting people with criminal records of any type. USPFRs are gonna face extreme difficulties obtaining a visa or getting entry into Japan, especially if they have defense against a minor. And, apparently, they say while entry is not always outright denied, offenders are required to disclose their criminal history, and failing to do so can and will result in deportation. United Arab Emirates? Now wouldn’t you like to go to Dubai?
[28:30] Andy: I would.
[28:31] Larry: Yeah. Me too. But The UAE, particularly Dubai, has some very stringent entry requirements. Probably some of the most stringent in the world. Criminal records, including PFR offenses, can and often result in denial or deportation. Individuals with a history of serious crimes are likely to be detained until they can be returned to The United States. Don’t go there unless you’ve got advanced permission.
[28:56] Andy: And and your information here is a little off on the, the European Union. Most of the countries there, we we can get into. There’s a handful that we cannot. So, well, you wanna you wanna put what you have because that’s what I came up with my limited research. Yeah. I mean, I have it up on the screen and, let me try and get it to to post there. So this is Europe and The UK is, like, the problem child. But if Germany, if you’re a crime my understanding, totally anecdotal, but my understanding is if it’s older than ten years, they’ll ask you what it was and and have a nice trip. As long as you have, like, a return travel voucher on your way out and you have hotel information on where you’re gonna stay, the like, most of the countries there, they do not give you any grief. If you’re looking at the, YouTube, video then what you’re seeing there with all the greens is that they they’re, they’re not turning, sex offenders away. They’re not turning they’re not, there’s no registry there. So those all those green boxes let me get up to the legend at the top of it to see what it says. It’s also really small on my screen. But there’s just a series of of check boxes. So our RSOs denied entry, law barring RSOs, and the law I can’t remember I can’t remember what that one is. But almost all of Europe is just
[30:16] Larry: have fun. That’s my understanding. Well, that’s what I’ve sort of got here. Countries may refuse entry to individuals convicted of serious PFR crimes and probably criminality in general, but there is no blanket ban that I could find. PFRs in each country, they have the discretion. I mean, the country has the discretion and and they apparently do not arbitrarily deny everybody in the European Union. That’s what I could find them.
[30:41] Andy: So then, one question that I received prior to the show was that from so and this is a listener from Arkansas. Wow. I put that as Alaska. Sorry. What if a state refuses to honor the twenty one day notice and decided it wasn’t worth their time to basically take reservations for the federal government? What consequences could that cause? Do you have any do you have any sort of recourse for that? Well, when he says a state refuses to honor it, I I guess he’s saying that Arkansas doesn’t process it. Again,
[31:10] Larry: you’ve got to be able to comply. That’s an absolute defense if you cannot comply. So if Arkansas will not receive the information, I mean, I would want proof that Arkansas won’t receive the information because you’ve got a whole bunch of counties and each county may be may be operating differently. But if if they registrars will not accept information, there’s nothing more you could do. So
[31:35] Andy: and then another person asked and and we’ve talked about this before, and he was referring to it more of, like, in a business sense that you have business overseas and that you have to give them the the twenty one day notice. But we’ve talked about it in the in the frame of it being maybe, like, oh, a family emergency, a death that you’re trying to get overseas and, like, they’re not gonna hold the body for twenty one days for you while it’s decomposing. And you just might be SOL?
[32:03] Larry: That’s one of the sad things to me about the litigation that’s taken place here was that had the litigation been narrowly more narrowly targeted, that is an area that I believe is vulnerable because it doesn’t provide anywhere in the statute that I can see any situation, any exceptions for exigent circumstances. People have to travel for emergencies and people have to travel for employment. And that it just it seems like to me that would have been ripe for the picking. But the strategist that were way smarter than I could ever hope to be, they decided to to to challenge it facially saying that there’s no set of circumstances. I will absolutely guarantee you this is quite constitutional if it’s done correctly. And I would be happy to help them do it constitutionally because you could do such a thing for targeting to a small segment of the PFR population. And there would be a presumptive rollout period after they would no longer be subject like the ten year research you’re talking about at the European Union. And it would possibly be done quite well, constitutionally. I’m not advocating it, but if you’re gonna have this law, there’s a constitutional way to do it. It’s not being done constitutionally right now, in my opinion.
[33:18] Andy: One other question. So where do you get this form and who do you give it to? So how do you let’s say you’re living in New Jersey. Do you go to the post office and pick up a form? Who do you contact? There is no form. Where is where is that coming from? There’s no form for you. Yeah. But how do you initiate the process of
[33:36] Larry: doing this? Do you talk to your your your registry handlers? That is the only place you can file. It is with your registration officials. It is not designed in any way, shape, or form for an individual. That there is a form that, an attorney in California found somewhere, and she’s given it to people, but it’s not for individuals. It is submitted by a law enforcement agency with an operator reporter identification number, and it’s submitted electronically. If you if you waste your time with that form, if you go to that smart office document I have there, they do not take this type of information directly from individuals. If you if your registrar doesn’t collect this information, there’s nothing more you could do, in my opinion. You cannot do what can’t be done.
[34:20] Andy: Yeah. I’ve just people are asking how do you how do you do it? And I wanted to make sure that we covered it, that you would have to go you would have to bring you would have to have all of your planning in place. God, this would just be, and you have essentially purchased the tickets because you’re not gonna buy your tickets overseas in under three weeks. You’re gonna have all that stuff most likely, you’re gonna have that stuff planned out approximately two or three months in advance to get the right kind of deals. And then you start submitting this stuff and they drag their feet, and then you fall under that twenty one day notice, and then they say, sorry, we didn’t get to it in time.
[34:55] Larry: Well, but you first have to determine by asking I’m assuming most PFRs report in person. There’s only a few states where you get to go two or three or four or five years without reporting in person. But the next time you’re at your p f f r office, they usually have you sign an initial what the requirements are, and they say you have to do certain things. If that’s not on the list of things you have to do, then ask them. Say, well, I didn’t see anything on this list of responsibilities I have to do. If I were to travel international internationally, what do I have to do? And they’ll tell you, we don’t get involved in that. And if they get involved in that, there’s nothing else you can do. You just can’t do what can’t be done. So or you can follow the you can follow the advice of the California attorney. You can try to file something that can’t be filed as an individual, and you can go on that wild goose chase if you want to. But you if you can’t do it, if it were me, I would try to have something showing that I tried to disclose my attempt for international travel. I would probably sit down at the old fashioned typewriter, and I would type up an old fashioned letter, and I would send it in an old fashioned certified envelope to the old fashioned PFR registration office. And I’d say this is my twenty one days notice I’m told I have to give, and I’m traveling to Dubai on this date, and I will be staying at this hotel. Hopefully, you take care of the appropriate notifications that need to be sent to anyone else. Thank you very much. That’s what I would do. So
[36:21] Andy: Right. Okay. Man, what a pain in the ass. As well, how about can we do anything about this now?
[36:31] Larry: Well, we could file another lawsuit, but we would need to get over the fact that it’s not unconstitutional in all circumstances, and we would need to focus on where it is unconstitutional. It’s unconstitutional because there’s no room for exigent circumstances. It’s unconstitutional because there’s no way to review out of it, and it’s too broadly applied. And we would force them to litigation to to disclose to us who they apply it to, how they make the determination, what their databases are. We’d get a whole whole bunch of information we don’t have right now. But we in order to do that, we have to stay in court and not get dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, then we never get to go into discovery.
[37:10] Andy: I was gonna and then we should ask seek summary judgment too? Oh, yeah. Def definitely do summary judgment. Alright then.
[37:20] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app. Hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular registry matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to registry matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y p.
[38:08] Andy: Well, I wanted to cover a conversation that I had we’ve recently with you because it shows perfectly how the Dunning Kruger effect effect plays out in everyday debates and conversations that you have with people. The the what? The I knew you were gonna do that. The Dunning Kruger effect. The Dunning Kruger effect. Alright. I’ve never heard of it. Alright. Well, so from Wikipedia, the Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. Meaning, people that know a little bit about something will say, I know everything because I I did my own research. But it was first described by the psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999. See, that’s where the name came from. Now you know it all. Right? Yep. I’m an expert. Some researchers also include the opposite effect for high performers’ tendency to underestimate their skills. Larry, you are terribly guilty of that. God, I was raised in foster care, dropped on my head. Why can’t other people know this? So you, underestimate what your special powers are. So then in popular culture, the Dunning Kruger effect is often misunderstood as a claim about general overconfidence of people with low intelligence instead of a specific overconfidence of people unskilled at a particular task. It’s the idea that people with only a little knowledge about a subject tend to be the most confident. They don’t know enough to realize that they don’t know, so they speak with absolute certainty while the experts who know all of the complexities, tend to be more careful and cautious.
[39:50] Larry: Oh, now I I do deal with people that like that on a regular basis. They I figured you do. Are experts, and I start asking them just I will deliberately do this to people when they think they’re an expert. I’ll ask them something that an expert would know if if that is assuming I know about what they’re talking. And and I’ll ask them something, and I will trip them up right away because I I see and I conclude that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and I put them in a category of a nut, and I keep the conversation going. But I do I deal with people like that all the time.
[40:24] Andy: Well, the conversation started about voter fraud, and my friend insisted that there was widespread voter fraud in 2020. But when I pressed for proof, he admitted he couldn’t even really say what happened. He just felt like something was off. Meanwhile, courts, state audits, and even officials from the previous administration all confirmed there wasn’t fraud on a scale that changed outcomes. Now that gap between the confidence in a feeling and the reality of evidence, that’s Dunning Kruger.
[40:52] Larry: Well, so he’s absolutely sure of the claim, but the actual experts who looked under the hood saw nothing there. I would push back just a little bit on that. The the burden for staying in court does exist, the haphazard way the litigation was framed. And there was so little evidence put forward. Very few of these claims got deep analysis with the litigation. But they got deep anal they got deeply analyzed by election officials, particularly like in the state of Georgia. Yep.
[41:23] Andy: And they just couldn’t find it there. And believe me, Georgia was looking for it because they wanted to flip that election. But go ahead. Well, I mean, you you brought up Georgia, which is where I was headed. So let’s not forget that then president Donald Trump requested some 11,000 votes directly from the secretary of state of Georgia. A recorded phone call with the forever Republican, Brad Raffensperger, by no means a Democrat or a Biden supporter, wouldn’t cave, and Georgia recounted the votes three times. Then the topic topic shifted to guns versus cars, and he argued that since cars kill more people than firearms, we just accept those deaths. But that misses the nuance. Cars are heavily regulated through licenses, insurance, safety standards. Guns are constitutionally protected. Yes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from reasonable limits. Again, confidence without recognizing the complexity. Charlie Kirk even said, I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other god given rights. To which I say, we just have to accept that 20 children in an elementary school are going to have to be massacred. And in June 2025, Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband fatally shot and, and a state senator was wounded. Now as a child, I rode on our family station wagon standing up on that hump where the drive shaft was. Do you remember those cars, Larry, where the hump was there in the back seat? Actually, I designed those, but go ahead. Oh, there weren’t seat belts, no airbags, no nose not even seat belt laws. Forget the seat belts too. But but now you put your child in a person personal protection pod like Grogu in The Mandalorian to drive to the store. We heavily regulate how driving is performed to reduce the harm. But in the nineteen fifties, seat belts were introduced. Volvo invented the three point seat belt in 1959, which became the standard and greatly reduced injuries. Nineteen sixties, collapsible steering columns and side marker lights were mandated to improve crash safety and vehicle visibility. In the seventies, airbags began development. In the eighties and nineties, driver and passenger airbags became common. Nineties I I I mean, the list goes on of all the things that have been improved in cars to improve their safety, but you do have a constitutional right to a gun. And so this is just a short list of advancements in vehicle safety, but this is a civil regulatory c scheme, not a constitutional right. And religion came up too, I’m sure. Right? Oh, of course it did. And he asked, what can’t Christians do that others can? And I pointed out things like the efforts to mandate prayer in school, posting the 10 commandments in classrooms, and policies that allow federal workers to openly advocate religion at work. And his reply was that there’s no separation of church and state in the law because those exact words aren’t in the constitution, but decades of court rulings have built that principle out of the First Amendment establishment clause. And that’s another classic Dunning Kruger example, quoting one one line without understanding the broader and legal historical context. I would also then bring up, talking with the attorney that we used to work with there in your office, and she said that parental rights is a constitutional right and, like, it’s not enumerated anywhere. Did I did I reference that correctly? I believe so. Yes.
[44:38] Larry: And although the phrase separation of church and state does not explicitly appear in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court case law has long interpreted the establishment clause of the first amendment to encompass the the prince this principle. Key cases supporting this include: Reynolds v. United States, 1878. The Court referenced Thomas Jefferson’s letter about a wall of separation as an authoritative interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Everson versus the Board of Education, 1947. I was alive on both of those. The case explicitly upheld the concept of the wall between church and state, prohibiting the government from breaching that separation even while allowing certain accommodations. (Engle v. Vitale, nineteen sixty two) The Court ruled unconstitutional the official sponsorship of prayer in the schools reinforcing the prohibition of government endorsement of religion. And boy, that was controversial. And I remember that. And I that’s I’m telling the truth. Some of them I’m exaggerating, but I remember that. And then, Lemann versus Kurtzman, 1971 introduced the Lemann test to ensure that laws do not excessively entangle government with religion, maintaining a balance rather than total separation. So the common thread here is that overconfidence that comes from partial knowledge. We have almost, what, a hundred and fifty plus years of jurisprudence from the nation’s highest tribunal saying that’s actually what is in the constitution the way we’re interpreting it.
[46:16] Andy: And to to be fair though, it’s not really about intelligence, it’s about perspective. If you don’t know how much you don’t know, you overestimate your grasp of the issue. We see that in voter fraud debates, gun cop policy, and religion in public life. We also see it in registry debates. People think registries keep people safe, period. That’s the headline version. But once you study the research, you see how much more complicated the picture really is.
[46:43] Larry: So the lesson for our listeners is
[46:46] Andy: That the Dunning Kruger effect is everywhere, and it’s what makes debate so frustrating someone can be supremely confident while being supremely wrong. The antidote is humility, slowing down, checking sources, and being willing to admit that if all of the experts, courts, data disagree with us, maybe we don’t know how much, as we think we do. And I do have a quote to share from a book that I read while I was down, and it’s, from Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. And it’s one of the saddest lessons of history is this. We if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
[47:36] Larry: Oh, okay. Now can I go off script just a tad bit here? So the the, issue about where we’re fraught. I would be a complete idiot if I said the elections are perfect. Yep. We we rely on machines and machines, particularly the counting, chads in 2,000 Florida, the hanging chads. And, we had we had technological problems, and we still do to this day. There’s not an election system that can be designed that is perfect. So, of course, there will be human error, and there will be people who’ve moved out of the jurisdiction that come back and travel. They really shouldn’t vote there, but they didn’t update their address. And they come back and vote because that’s where they were last registered. And I’m not don’t think they drive across the country, but if you moved from Fulton County to Clayton County, and you moved to Clayton County after the cutoff of changing your voter registration and you wanna vote, you might go vote and you’d be voting in Clayton County elections because down ballot, there would be all those races that are local that don’t have anything to do with a Fulton County resident. So are you manipulating the re the election outcome by voting there? You are a legitimate voter or or or are you? So those those type of things happen. But for me to believe with all I know about elections, that there are people that are just going around the country, registering in multiple jurisdictions, and and just making that their daytime job to go out and vote, there is just no evidence to show that that happens.
[49:09] Andy: I read something There’s just In my preps for this, that the Heritage Foundation, which is a very right leaning, organization, they have found dozens of fraudulent votes over, like, decades of investigations. So, like, does it happen? Yes. Do hundreds and thousands of people are people being put on buses. If you ever saw the movie, The Gangs in New York, they would load people up on buses and they would go to the different districts. People in unions and whatever, they would load them all up so they could go vote and it was just a big thing. Almost almost like election rigging if you watch that movie. That was how that was per portrayed.
[49:45] Larry: Well, that’s where I was going next. Now, there are people here that won’t tell you what they really do believe. They don’t say it out loud. But what they believe is that people that have come here that are legally entitled to vote because they don’t look and speak exactly like they do, because you can become an American citizen and be entitled to vote, and you may still have a very thick foreign accent. And particularly if you don’t look exactly like people that you’ve lived around all your life, what they really are saying indirectly is that we don’t think these people ought to be voting. And then they want you to believe that there’s a whole bunch of people voting that do not have, the legal authority. They they want you to believe that people that have come to the country illegally, they’ve managed to go through all the process of getting registered through all the extensive screening that election officials do. And they don’t just take your word for it. You’re screened through a multiple plethora of databases. They want you to believe that all these people, particularly from south of our border, are voting and swaying elections in favor of the Democratic party. That’s what they want you to believe.
[50:49] Andy: Yep. Very well. Well, then let’s find let’s cover this little funny segment here to close out the show. An Arizona man was mistakenly released twenty two years early after the Department of Corrections say they received misleading court documents. The man, inmate David Kramer, and his family say they believe the documents legitimately ordered his release, citing a common law legal theory. Oh, boy. He’s not a sovereign citizen, is he? I don’t know. It’s funny because
[51:18] Larry: because court officials had previously sent warning letters about inappropriate and falsified documents being filed in Kramer’s cases. Arizona prison officials aren’t saying much about how the man was released by mistake twenty two years early. Twenty two.
[51:35] Andy: The documents delivered to the Department of Corrections central office also labeled release order cited a concurrent jurisdiction and directed the prisons to release David Kramer by June 4 and vacate his sentences.
[51:47] Larry: Now who signed the purport reported order? It was signed by Kenneth Bennett who was identified as, quote, deputy clerk, but also included an attached page with signatures from the former clerk of the court and the presiding judge. Those signatures were linked to innocuous statements. The clerk’s signature attested to the fact that the release order was a full and true correct copy of the original. The judge’s signature attested that that said, court is a court of record having a clerk, a seal. Oh, boy. This is fun.
[52:23] Andy: The documents weren’t real, but it worked anyway. David Kramer, who’s 54, was a free man for over two months. In an inter in an interview, He did an interview with the Arizona Republic. David Kramer and his daughters, McQueen and Paris Kramer, described why they believe the documents were delivered, and were legitimate. Now tell us about David Kramer.
[52:45] Larry: Well, David Kramer was convicted in 2013 of multiple crimes, including kidnapping, which stemmed from the use of his children as shields when police tried to arrest him on felony drug charges. He had prior felony convictions and was sent to prison with a release date of 2047.
[53:04] Andy: Now prison officials said it was a mistake based on a fraudulent court filing. Kramer and his daughter said the filing was legitimate. David Kramer contended he was released under a legal authority that the courts don’t want the public to know about. Oh, boy. Secret society shit here. And that his capture in mid August was unjust. Now what do you say about it, Larry?
[53:25] Larry: I do not know anything about such alleged authority. But, Tim, Eco, it looks like, a spokesman for the state bar, confirmed the matter was, quote, open and under investigation. And And the Arizona attorney general’s office also confirmed its investigating.
[53:42] Andy: Now McQueen and Paris Kramer, both of them his daughters, said their father was wrong by the justice system when Paris Kramer was not allowed to testify at his trial. She was seven when, she was the victim of David Kramer’s crime in 2012 according to the court records. And what’s the deal with her not being allowed to testify?
[54:02] Larry: Well, a witness who is only seven years old of age would not be deemed competent to testify in most court proceedings. In fact, I can’t even think of any proceeding they’d be allowed to be deemed competent to testify, and that’s just too young. Sure. And his family says he’s being held without due process. I do not agree with that. This would be a normal reaction. He was serving a sentence, and that sentence was in execution stage. It had not been stayed. Now in his mind, this the sentence had been aborted, but that was a fraudulent document. So the the sentence was an execution stage. So, therefore, they don’t need to provide due process. He already got that. Now if they file due charges, and they will, I’m confident of that, he will enjoy the presumption of innocence, and he will receive due process on the news charges. But he is not presumed innocent of the charges that already sent him to prison. But they’re gonna spend day and night trying to figure out what to charge this man with. And I didn’t have enough time, show prep, to figure out if he if this qualifies as an escape. I don’t think it would, but they will get him for falsifying, public documents and for fraud, and they’ll get him. And then the Arizona legislature will enact, legislation because of this one circumstance that’ll never happen again. It’s already been fixed. But they’ll pass a law that says it’s a super duper high level felony to do what he did and they subject to the death penalty or some crap like that. And this is fixing a problem that’s already been fixed, but that’s what they’ll do.
[55:33] Andy: Not only that, he was released twenty two years early. So he’s going to go back and whatever new charges, they may stack them on the back end after he finishes the twenty two. So he could have 22 plus 10 or something like that. That is exactly what he’s he’s really messed himself up. That’s why I gave my advice. If you’re gonna do this, which we urge you not to do that, he should have left the jurisdiction.
[55:57] Larry: But people do stupid things. I’ll tell a little quick story. I was, serving time at Boulder County Jail back in the nineteen eighties. The Rolling Stones were coming to Boulder and they needed jail space. That was a very, very small jail. I think it held, like, a 110, 120 people. And they needed they anticipated a lot of arrests and they needed to clean out space. And they they told people that we were gonna be people that were short termers or hella misdemeanor charges, that they had a new facility for us. They were putting us in what was once a fraternity house and it had been converted to a halfway house called empathy house. So the people that were in empathy house were given release temporarily and the people in jail were taken to empathy house. And Lieutenant Joe Gang, one of the fine people that served in the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department back in those eight that era, They had a fine sheriff, and they had just wonderful people working there. Joe Gang gave everybody a speech. It was on the bus. He said, my guys, there’s nothing we can do to stop you from leaving. He said, this is a halfway house. There’s no fence. He said, we’re not gonna shoot you. He said, we’re not gonna chase you very much. He said, but if you do leave, he said, what you’re gonna enjoy is a whole bunch of jail time because it’s an escape from custody on a Colorado law. And he said, even though most of you have short terms, he said, you’re gonna have a whole bunch of time stacked on it. Not a soul. Not one person out of the 40 or so that were taken out of the jail. Not one person dared to walk away with no security. They had one seal there who did have a sidearm, and he was instructed not to use it, but he had it just as a show of force. Nobody did anything other than cooperate.
[57:43] Andy: Now I don’t think we said anywhere in here. Did he make the order? Did he, like, somehow craft the paperwork? Did he sit there in the law library typing this thing up and go to the go to the mail room and send certified letter to get himself released? How did he execute this? It wasn’t completely clear on the story of how he was able to perfect this. And I suppose the investigation will show it. But guys, if you escape from jail,
[58:09] Larry: if you do that, you’re making things a whole lot worse because they’re gonna hunt you down if they really have a reason to. 22 Euros would that would be a global that would be worldwide extradition order would be on file for any nation that didn’t Unless there was a nation that didn’t have an extradition treaty, they would go anywhere to get you. Yep. And so he he had no hope.
[58:32] Andy: I understand. I want to make sure that we’re closing out. Right? We’re done? We’re done. We are done. An individual who is a very generous patron asked how to watch the show live. If you are a patron, we record almost always at 07:00 unless something weird happens. But 07:00 on Saturday nights, And if you show up on the Discord server then and you haven’t linked your Patreon account to your Discord account, so on Patreon that you would link the Discord account there. If you just, like, tag me, say, hey, then I will totally move you where you need to go if you, join one of the voice channels. But so that’s how you can do it. But if you just, if you set up the right linking, then the channels will show up to you in the discord server. But that’s how you can listen to it. So head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes, email registrymatterscast@gmail.com, leave an old fashioned voice mail message at (747) 227-4477. And again, support us on Patreon at patreon.com/registrymatters. And that’s all I got. Head over to fypeducation.org/shop for some swag. We sold another shirt, Larry, so that’s pretty awesome. And, without anything else, man, I will talk to you not at 05:00 tomorrow morning. 06:30. Okay. You say so. Have a great night. Good night.
[59:56] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.
Leave a Comment