FYP Education

[00:00] Intro: Welcome to Registry Matters, an independent production. Our opinions are our own, and we’re thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. And always remember, FYP.

[00:16] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, transmitting across the Internet. This is episode 361 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. How are you? It’s Saturday evening. We’re back on a normal schedule. How are you?

[00:30] Larry: I’m doing awesome. I’ve just been here slaving over this hot stove for the last three and a half hours. Hot stove. It’s like 40 below zero where you are. I know, but I’m working in this hot office trying to prepare this quality content for our vast audience.

[00:45] Andy: And it is all prepared by hand.

[00:49] Larry: Almost all of it.

[00:51] Andy: Please remember to show your support by hitting like and subscribe or a five star rating. Send it out to all your friends. You guys know the drill. They say that if you hit the like and the subscribe button, it influences the algorithm. And if somebody else similar to your demographic presses those buttons, then they will also get, notification about it. So maybe we would find somebody new. And as the dozens of people that are listening to us live record tonight, if you head over to patreon.com/registrymatters, you can also become a valued member of our community. And then you can listen to us record it live and hear all the, what should I call it, hot takes and on, what’s the word? Oh, oh, standing on a soapbox. That’s what I wanna say. Of of Larry behind the scenes. And, so without further ado, sir, what are we doing tonight?

[01:44] Larry: Well, the bad news is we don’t have any gorgeous attorneys, any smart attorneys or gorgeous attorneys. It’s just mister doom and gloom. Oh. We have a case from the great state of Pennsylvania. Or is that a common that’s a commonwealth, isn’t it? It is a commonwealth. And, this case is from from what I’ve been hearing, is driving you bonkers, but it’s a good win for PFRs. And, also, we have a hot topic about the cost of registration and what arguments can be made against this waste of resources. And if time permits, we have, something that you’re gonna roll out. I I think it’s about a fabulous new tool that you’ve created.

[02:31] Andy: That is correct. Well, then let’s do this main event thing. And, so it’s from the trial court. Tell me where in the hierarchy a trial card court is, please.

[02:42] Larry: It’s at the very bottom of the hierarchy. There’s only one lowercase, and that would be your courts of limited jurisdiction that are restricted to, like, hearing small claims below a certain dollar threshold. But a trial court would be one of general subject matter jurisdiction, and that would be the first level of where you would take a dispute to a court of general subject jurisdiction, not to a court of limited jurisdiction. And this is where most of us have some kind of familiarity with, isn’t it? Yes. You would be. Everybody that’s listened, this their case was resolved in such a court.

[03:15] Andy: Very good. And so this is from the a trial court in Pennsylvania, and I have personally read it. I was on the, the the public transportation today. I was going through this, they call it a a bar crawl. 70 different places with food and drinks, and I don’t drink, but all kinds of different foods to sample. But I was reading it while I was doing this. And, I thought we would, I thought we should use FYP’s time more valuable than to than to review appellate decisions, but you’ve this is not an appellate decision. Why are we discussing this garbage?

[03:47] Larry: Because it’s very important and it’s a win.

[03:50] Andy: Oh, well, wins are important. Alright. Well, this is the case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Michael William Diebold. Do you agree with Diebold? I think you could go with Diebold or Diebold, either way. Alright. And then in the opening paragraph, it says, before the court is defendant’s omnibus pretrial motion and amended omnibus pretrial motion, What is an omnibus pretrial motion?

[04:16] Larry: I was afraid you were gonna ask me that, so I I did some research before beforehand. And, well, an omnibus pretrial motion is a procedural tool that’s used, and you were probably aware of it. You’re not aware of it, but it was happening in your case, because it’s very, likely to be been used in a criminal case. And you address any pretrial issues within this omnibus proceeding because that can narrow the case down considerably, and you can get administrative and legal, rulings out of the way before the case comes up, later down the road. So it’s it’s it’s just a procedural thing. But you probably had an omnibus hearing. They may not have called it that, but there was probably one in your case. Yeah. I have absolutely no idea what that means. So then,

[05:08] Andy: then what type of pretrial motions are common?

[05:12] Larry: Well, some examples would be, like, if you want to do a motion to suppress, an accused might challenge the admissibility of evidence that they believe was obtained through illegal means. You would do that in your omnibus, motion. You could do it in your omn you could also do it in a separate motion. But discovery request, you could seek, an accused would be seeking access to evidence or information held by the prosecution, motions to dismiss. An accused might ask the court to dismiss a certain charge based on legal grounds, meaning that, yes, this charge is in the in the indictment. It’s in the information or indictment, but it’s not it doesn’t fit the the facts that are alleged. Therefore, it should be dismissed. And then there’s the famous one, motions then, limiting. An accused might ask the court to exclude certain evidence from being presented at trial because it’d be be too an example would be something that’d be very prejudicial. And, so you would ask that that not be the the the prosecution be ordered not to talk about a certain thing, so you’d file a motion in limine. So those are some examples that come to mind. And the purpose of these omnibus motions is to enhance judicial efficiency by consolidating related issues, saving time for both the court and all the parties.

[06:27] Andy: Okay. And this case has its origin in another case involving mister Diebold. Both cases involve the registration requirements of the PFR Registration and Notification Act called SORNA, and the case is number a whole crap ton of digits, but I’m just gonna leave you at the end with the 2020 because that’s probably what matters. And Diebold pled guilty on 10/06/2021 to failing to provide accurate registration information. He failed to register a particular username and email address. He was sentenced on 02/22/2022 to eighteen to thirty six months of incarceration. What happened after that?

[07:06] Larry: Well, nothing immediately. But about two years or more later, Diebold filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, charging his conviction, challenging his, conviction and sentence on several constitutional grounds. As part of the argument, Deepold challenged the requirement that an individual must report specific websites used. The petition was summarily denied as a matter of law and is currently on appeal at the next level of courts in Pennsylvania in the superior court.

[07:38] Andy: On this case is really interesting though, and I my bet is that you will say it’s funny. Of course, you will. And it says that during the 11/21/2024 hearing on this petition, Diebold produced a list of 66 websites that he had used, and one of which was craigslist.org. He also produced an email exchange with another Craigslist user regarding a brush cutting job. His production of these documents prompted the Commonwealth to charge defendant in the instant case on 01/09/2025 with failing to provide accurate registration information. In the affidavit of probable cause, Pennsylvania State Police, PSP, trooper Anthony Vaccaro stated that he was contacted to verify that Craigslist was on Diebold’s Internet identifiers. Dum, dum, dum. So was it?

[08:31] Larry: It was not disclosed and provided to Megan’s Law or the Pennsylvania State Police. Only one site had been registered. Troop, Trooper Vaccaro consulted Megan’s Law and determined that every site and every app that is used for the identifier is to be registered and a person is required to update within three business days any removal or addition of information. As of 12/05/2024, Diebold had yet to register any of the 65 sites and apps. Why can’t you admit this is funny? Because his own litigation caused him to get charged with new crimes. Please admit it.

[09:10] Andy: I’m trying to, like, I I’m trying to figure out in my own personal context of I have somewhere around a thousand passwords. And I mean that literally. I have something of a thousand and somebody else on the Discord server for, registry matters. They they they blew me away and they have, like, 1,500 passwords. I have an insane number of passwords. So I’m just supposed to, like, hey, Pennsylvania State Police, here’s my 47 page document of my email addresses that I have registered at all these different websites that I logged into once, maybe ordered a pair of shoes, and I’ve never been there again, but I have to go register because I registered at a website. It’s just stupid. And so I don’t think it’s funny. What? How how can it not be funny that he was trying to get relief and he got new charges that it doesn’t come any funnier than that. Oh, it doesn’t come any funny. So, Diebold asserted seven grounds for dismissing his case. Are you ready for the seven? I think so. Alright. Motion to dismiss charges for lack of prima facie evidence. I don’t know what that means.

[10:15] Larry: It’s diff it’s one of those Latin terms, obviously, and a prima facie case means that just on the face of it. That if you look at the complaint, it doesn’t state anything that’s, you know, that that breaks the law. So you’d say, judge, look at prima facie of the complaint. It doesn’t state, it doesn’t state a legal violation.

[10:32] Andy: Alright. Well, then violation of due process, and that’s a motion that was a motion to dismiss charges. Number three is motion to dismiss charges due to Commonwealth’s failure failure to establish the necessary mens rea. I’ve heard that term before. I don’t remember what that means.

[10:48] Larry: Oh, that one that one’s easy. It means, means knowledge.

[10:51] Andy: Oh, okay. And then motion to dismiss fourteenth amendment due process violation for vagueness. We all know what vague means. Motion to dismiss charge filed, de minimis violation. God, I know what de minimis is. I can’t remember. Oh, that has to do with the tariffs, doesn’t it? Yeah. And I don’t know how to explain that in legal context. I don’t I have never seen that phraseology before. The de minimis thing with the tariffs was like that if it’s below $200, then you don’t have to pay tariffs on something coming in. That’s the way that I think I could have that wrong. Yeah. Well, I I know what de minimis means, but calling a violation of the law of de minimis, I’d I’ve never seen it. I’ve never seen it, put this way. We need we need to get someone that has expertise in legal matters, Larry. How about a motion to dismiss failure to comply with order of court and then lastly, motion to dismiss due to the Commonwealth’s malicious prosecution of the defendant. So did the court address each of these seven motions?

[11:51] Larry: No. The court did not. The judge stated, quote, the court need not address each ground, defendant asserts, because one issue is dispositive. The meaning of the term Internet identifiers or more specifically designations used in Internet communications or postings. Designations are monikers used for self identification in Internet communications or postings. And designation designations used by the individual for a purpose of routing and self identification and Internet communications or postings as used in the registration statutes. And I’m over my head. I have no idea what that means, but that’s what the that’s what the judge said.

[12:26] Andy: I I see all the words, and I it seems like if you have a Gmail address and so, you know, monkeyman@gmail.com, you only have to tell them about monkey man, I think. But it says Internet communications or postings. And if you’re gonna go post on Craigslist, then you need to tell them about your Craigslist. So that would to me, that’s what they’re getting to there. Oh my god. So the statute under which the the defendant was charged reads as follows. An individual who’s subject to registration under 42 PACS subsection set nine seven nine nine point one three relating to applicability commits an offense if he knowingly fails to provide accurate information when registering under PA statutes. Same things again. A registrant must appear at an approved registration site within three business days to provide current information relating to an addition, change in, or termination of email address, instant message address, or any other designations used in Internet communication or postings.

[13:29] Larry: Oh my god. I I know it’s getting already complicated. Two categories of information were are pertinent were pertinent in this case. The primary or given name, including any aliases used by the individual, nickname or pseudonym, ethnic or tribal name, regardless of the context used, and any designations or monikers used for self identification in Internet communications are posted. That’s what the court was looking at. Designations used by the individual for the purpose of routing or self identification and Internet communications are posted. I have no idea what that means. Maybe you can tell if it’s important.

[14:03] Andy: I mean, I’m just like, so, Larry, what is your tribal name? You live there over in Native American land. What’s your, tribal name?

[14:11] Larry: I don’t reckon I have one. And what is your gang name?

[14:16] Andy: Oh, that would be odd. You know in prison, no one ever people use, like, their area code if they’re kind of from a people where I was, they would be like, yo, Savannah. Like, I wonder where that guy’s from. Oh, wait. He’s from Savannah. So weird. Except for, you know, there are gonna be a lot of people from Savannah. So if you say Savannah and 12 people say, what? But that’s all they’re saying, and you didn’t see the movie The Matrix, but the guy the main character, Neo, that was his online hacker name. Neo. So they’re telling you to tell you what, tell them what your your pseudonyms, your hacker name, and all that stuff are. So alright. But let let’s move along and get into the meat of the case. Trooper Vaccaro testified that Internet identifiers is a tab on Megan’s law that all Internet registration is put. It can be emails, websites, accounts, apps, anything that has to do with going on the Internet and a self identifier. Now while Trooper Vaccaro Vicaro, I think it’s Vaccaro, believes that a registrant must register every website visited, the Commonwealth has acknowledged that is not the case. In its opposition to Diebold’s petition for habeas corpus in the first case, the Commonwealth stated that the statute does not require registrants to register every website they use and does not require registrant to register every online account identifier they create. Rather, they must only register identifiers they use to actively communicate or post. The Commonwealth confirmed this during the habeas corpus hearing and the, and the court. Then they did an about face, it seems, didn’t they?

[15:54] Larry: Yes. They did. And this case, the Commonwealth, in the current case that this court’s reviewing, not the one that’s on appeal, seems to argue that registering every website is required. But during the hearing on this omnibus motion, the Commonwealth stated, but the sites for which he has a username does not need to say what sites the those usernames go to, and the Commonwealth believes that he does. You have to say, that what website that username goes to for it to have any meaning for the state police to actually be able to verify anything. The judge stated that the Commonwealth cannot have it both ways. Again, I was having trouble trying to understand what the judge was saying. But it looks like the judge called him out for trying to have it both ways. Right. And the judge stated it was obvious to the court that the Commonwealth

[16:42] Andy: struggled to explain just what a registrant is required to register when it comes to Internet use. The judge went on to say, the court too is at a loss as to what the statutory language or the term Internet identifier, to use the Commonwealth’s terminology, means. And what did the court decide?

[17:01] Larry: Well, they decided that the Internet registration requirements are unconstitutionally vague, both facially and in their application to mister Diebold.

[17:10] Andy: Now I’ve heard you for years pontificate that void for vagueness is a credible constitutional argument. Now what makes a statute void for vagueness?

[17:20] Larry: Oh, that’s one of the easier ones. Yeah. A statute is constitutionally void. It’s narrow, but it’s also easy to understand if it is so vague that people of ordinary and common intelligence must necessarily guess because the language isn’t clear at its meaning and differ as to its application. Meaning you should be able to look at the law and it should say the same thing no matter who reads it, if there was reasonable and ordinary intelligence. The judge stated that that the court believes that it’s safe to say that a person of common intelligence would think that under these statutes, an individual’s email addresses and perhaps usernames would have to be registered. Beyond that, a person with common intelligence would have to guess what else is required. And that’s not what the law is supposed to it’s not supposed to be I got you. You didn’t do something I think you’d have to do. It’s supposed to clearly delineate what you’re required to do and what you’re prohibited from doing.

[18:12] Andy: Now the judge also said to prosecute someone for failing to register all websites visited and gibberish relay emails that he or she did not generate, such as the gigs email created by Craigslist as the Commonwealth urges is absurd. Now, what is a gigs email? I have no I like, I mean, I guess if you’re trying to get a gig, I use the term gig. I got a gig going, you know, I got a gig to play in a club this weekend, or I got a gig to go write some code for someone. To me, that’s I use the term gig, but it’s like a thirties term. So You know, it’s just like people the gig economy, I’m sure you’ve heard that. Oh, I’ve heard that. Okay. But I’ll just come context of email. But the judge saying it’s absurd. Now can you admit that that’s funny? I don’t think it’s funny at all. And I found it ironic that on page 14, it says, the court’s independent research has uncovered uncovered no uniform definition of the Internet related language in the SORNA statutes or the Commonwealth’s Internet identifier term, and neither defendant nor the Commonwealth has cited any authority defining those words. As one commentator put it, does Internet identifier just mean an email address or a username with or without a password? Does it mean the IP address or the original source of, where the online activity is coming from? What about someone who sets up a smart refrigerator, which connects directly to the manufacturer through the Internet for twenty four seven support? And what happens if one must create a new Internet identifier for work, school, or other legal personal purposes, such as a workplace online username, which can only be accessed at the job site?

[19:49] Larry: Those are good questions. Yes. They are. The judge went on to say to illustrate the absurdity of the Commonwealth’s position, a registrant visiting multiple discreet websites every day would likely have to appear in person every day or at least every third day to register those websites. A registrar is spending two weeks on vacation in California. Who wants to visit websites for information on sightseeing tours would would not be able to appear in person to register those websites within three business days, that three business day window, thus exposing himself to, prosecution. Please admit that the judge is definitely funny. Oh, yeah. Hilarious.

[20:27] Andy: Let me read the first paragraph of of the conclusion. The Internet identifier language in its various forms in the SORNA registration statutes is unconstitutionally vague. Persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Indeed, even the Commonwealth is not consistent as to its meaning or application, as evidenced by the testimony of Trooper, Vaccaro during the 01/22/2025 preliminary hearing compared with the paper papers and arguments by the Commonwealth in both the both the first case and this case.

[21:04] Larry: So, yeah, that is, pretty funny. Is that mine or yours? Well, I mean, you did Andy twice, so I changed it to Larry for you. Okay. Yeah. Because, that that goes into the next, article that that doesn’t belong there. That paragraph goes into the the, to the, Yes. It does. Hey. We’re done then. So yes. And, I forgot to put one question in. What what do you think is gonna happen next? That’s the question you’re supposed to ask me. Well, I would agree. What what would happen next? The state’s going to appeal. Right? In all likelihood, they’re going to appeal. But even though I only spent a couple hours with this case, this judge has done such a good job. I don’t think they can overturn this on appeal. I am I have such a problem with this, though. This is an amazing amount of work for a trial level judge to put into a case. It is just phenomenal. Having been in this business for just shy of a hundred years now, I don’t see many trial judges put this kind of work for in a in a case.

[22:03] Andy: Maybe he’s, something of a not, you know, octogenarian kind of judge and has a clue about how technology works and realizes how ridiculous this would be. If this were, I don’t know, the year 2000. Right? You have your AOL username and password and I you know, maybe you have your bank account information, maybe. But today, you know, you go to bkjobs.com and you’ve now you filled out an account and they’re saying you have to, if you’re going to post, which that would be posting, you’re going to submit a job application. And, well, now you have to go give them your BK jobs account information. Or you’re setting up a will and you’re using, LegalZoom or whatever, you know, one of those online places to you gotta give them your account information so they can go check your legal Zoom account?

[22:55] Larry: Well, things have changed dramatically, certainly, in the last twenty years or or so. And is the judge has a darn good, paralegal aide or the judge is extremely, extreme workaholic?

[23:10] Andy: Unbelievable. Alright. Well, hey, look. I think it was on Sunday. I think I got a wild hair up my butt and, talked to you about building some kind of tool where we could search our stuff. And, so what I put together is a searchable database. I wanted to, like, do this as as a release announcement for the general population, the general public. And what you can do is you can go to fypeducation.org. And then in the top right, there’s free tools, and you’ll see a list over there, that shows you how to get to it. And it says ask registry matters. And you’ll get this little fancy search box which would let you find where we discussed things about a specific topic. And it’s all stuff that we’ve been frustrated with. Now where’s that episode about interstate compacts? Or did they talk about getting a polygraph while on probation? So or or how about did we ever talk about shower heads? And why does Larry think everything is funny? Or why doesn’t Andy think anything is funny? You can totally ask it all those questions. And so why would you even think that kind this kind of resource would be necessary for PFRs?

[24:18] Larry: Why would I think it? Yes. I don’t know. I didn’t I didn’t think of it. You thought of it. Well, that’s why you’re gonna read the second paragraph. So for folks who don’t know, finding information on the registry issues could be overwhelming. I’m sure most people know that policies change fast. Rules are convoluted and and all, off often no two states, not even two counties in the same state, do things the same. When someone is dealing with registration, probation, or reentry, they face unique challenges, sometimes daily ranging from residence restrictions to travel limits. And even just understanding which laws apply to them. That’s why, having a way to research through, I don’t know if I could call myself an expert, but through informed discussions that we have here on real world experience is huge. It connects people to actual answers without reinventing the wheel every time.

[25:12] Andy: And, you know, you hear so many people ask, am I the only one going through this? But if you wanna know about, say, how someone handled a probation officer making up conditions, there may be a dozen older podcast episodes, but who has the time to sift through all of that, for just that one little bit?

[25:31] Larry: Exactly. And after we’ve released the tool, one person engaged with you already. Right? Yes. And, and we may, we may feel alone, but no, we’re not alone. That’s one of the most important messages. The isolation can can really be an impairment and feel real, but people have already tackled most of these issues that you’re facing. Plus, with this new tool being directly tied to what’s been said on the show, it brings discussions into one place. Now I do want to set realistic expectations. As you mentioned, your mileage may vary. Every PFR’s journey is different, and the advice you may find may not be gospel, but it’s just a starting point of reference.

[26:16] Andy: Because I, you know, as you just said, you don’t quote unquote consider yourself an expert. But, hey, Larry, I got I got depending on your point of view, I got good news for you and bad news for you. You’re an expert. Okay? Just accept it. And so the way that the tool works, Larry, is it takes the transcript. So it takes the things that have been said, which in many cases is literally copied and pasted from the decision as we did tonight. You know, you’re you’re you’re you’re an expert at the legal analysis and the political strategy and so forth. However, you take the judge said and then we put quotes and we say what the judge said and we cite the statutes and the things that were said and it takes those transcripts and then when you ask a question, it will release. It will it will give you that information back. So what I’m gonna do is I I made up three little ones that I I could run through here and I think maybe I’ll try to run another one through. But how can I talk to family and friends about being a PFR? That’s what I asked it. Right? So this is asking registry matters. And, says talking to family and friends about being a person forced to register can be challenging because the term itself is often misunderstood or carries negative connotations. And, so this gave, I don’t know, 500 word answer, but it tells you that at episode one seventy, at approximately the twenty six minute twenty three second mark, I really need to get some, like, kind of music, soft, sobbing music. Oh, that’s for me, like, picking on you, Larry, where, we needed to say something like, ah, but gives you ideas of where you might find information about where we talked about that subject. And so I wanted to spot, like, like, a case that, someone brought up on, on Reddit where I released this. A person searched for which states have options for legislative release for focus folks who are incapacitated or disabled. And suddenly, bam, multiple episodes and some summaries right there. A kind of targeted search is groundbreaking for advocates and families.

[28:26] Larry: Right. That demonstrates what happens when the community builds resources based on actual needs. People have been listening to the Register Matters shows for years, And it’s like an ongoing support group with legal commentary, strategy and practical advice. But if someone else mentioned, it’s been possible to remember. It’s it’s been possible to remember which episode discussed. For example, job hunting or the ins and outs of polygraphs. Now you type in what you need and and you get the reference. So it’s, it’s not been possible to remember those. I can’t remember them, so I don’t think anybody can. Yeah. But you’ve got the memory of, of an elephant.

[29:06] Andy: And so here’s another one that I searched for. I said residency restriction laws, which can be extremely confusing. That’s all that was typed in. And it says, here’s the answer it gave. Residency restriction laws for people convicted of PFR type offenses are complex and vary widely by state. Generally, these laws prohibit registrants from living within a certain distance, often 1,000 feet of places like schools, daycare centers, parks or playgrounds. However, the exact rules in their application can differ. For example, some states, some states only apply these restrictions if the victim was a minor, Iowa, while others use risk based systems that apply restrictions only to higher risk offenders, Arkansas, and so on and so on. So we can pretty much drop out of this segment now, Larry, to be honest with you. I think, that’ll give everyone the information they need to use this tool. And as I said, you can find it over at fypeducation.org. Look under the menu under free tools, and you will find the information. You’ll find the links there to use where it says ask registry matters.

[30:16] Larry: Awesome. I can’t wait to hear that our FYP website is gonna be getting hundreds and hundreds of hits every week now. Definitely. Definitely. Alright. Well,

[30:27] 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 FYP.

[31:16] Andy: Let’s move over to this that is titled hot topic on the NARSOL listserv.

[31:22] Larry: Hot topic. It better be hot if you put this in here.

[31:27] Andy: So, like, the topic was brought up about this many new offenses attributed to people forced to register are not new PFR type crimes. They’re administrative or technical violations of registry rules. Often, just paperwork mistakes, but they’re counted as recidivism. So just like, the thing that we just talked about a minute ago where maybe you didn’t oh, man, I forgot to register that one email address at that one website and poof. Now you’re doomed.

[31:54] Larry: That is true. And, most of what gets labeled as reoffending is actually failure to comply with some aspect of registration, no compliance errors, or or not understanding or just that the, not doing it. But these are non sexual. You know, it would be like, you know, you having a restaurant and you, not having your food temperature or your, parts per million right on your, on your cleaner. You’re not deliberately poisoning the food, but you may be indirectly. But these are non sexual offenses. But, and they’re often very minor, like missing an email address update, like we talked about, late address verification, fault re fault interpretation of vague restrictions, you know, or instructions. But the public generally believes that these are sexual offenses. And because that’s how the numbers are presented to them, as you know, that like this guy, Mr. Diebold, as far as the news media, if he if he made any political, if he made any news, they’ll be saying he will he’s a very bad offender because he just refuses to comply. He keeps reoffending. Well, he’s not reoffending.

[33:01] Andy: Now, if accurate data existed, it might show that an overwhelming percentage of new crimes for PFRs are administrative faults. No harm to the public. But from a legal perspective, why do, FTR, so failure to register charges, get lumped into recidivism statistics?

[33:18] Larry: Well, that’s actually an easy one to answer because it scares the public into believing that this nonsense is working to keep them safe, and it justifies the the existence of a huge apparatus

[33:32] Andy: that makes a very good living arresting and prosecuting these technical violations. That’s one of the easiest questions you’ve ever given me. I didn’t mean to send you such a softball. Now what would happen to public perception if recidivism rates separated technical from real new crimes?

[33:49] Larry: Well, I I believe that that were to be the case, it would probably put place funding at risk because I think public support would gradually be eroded if they found out that the people on the registry are largely compliant with not reoffending. And that the only way that they can put these people on the news is for some minor trip up that they make on sometimes invented requirements like, Trooper Vaccaro did in Pennsylvania. And I think it would place funding at risk because public support would would decline.

[34:22] Andy: I see. And, so do do you know of any states that report this distinction accurately?

[34:29] Larry: None are coming to my mind that they that they do. I think they all the states I’m familiar with, they make a lot of political hay out of, doing the, PFR roundups

[34:41] Andy: that they do going door to door with the cameras. 62 people arrested and 61 of them were just, like, they didn’t update their driver’s license number or some stupid shit like that?

[34:51] Larry: Yep. That’s what they do.

[34:54] Andy: Now how does an inflated recidivism number how does that affect legislation and public fear?

[35:00] Larry: Well, as I stated earlier, it it affects it immensely because if the public is afraid, they want to spend money to protect one another from this perceived threat that they’re being told about by the constant drumbeats of the victim’s advocate apparatus, the law enforcement apparatus, the prosecution apparatus, the, you know, the media apparatus. And it keeps the money flowing. So it makes it very difficult for anybody who wants to legislate a change in policy to be able to do that because it’s all driven by panic and fear. And this would be the PFR industrial complex that we refer to occasionally? Yes. All those things I just named. That’s all that’s the industrial complex that has grown up over the last thirty years or so. Now if you ask me, Larry, this would be a misallocation of law enforcement resources.

[35:52] Andy: Police spend thousands of hours on registry compliance checks, tasks that don’t reduce sexual violence, while clearance rates for real crime crimes remain low. Sexual assault clearance rates hover around thirty percent, meaning most reported cases go unsolved. Meanwhile, police departments devote time to home visits, verification paperwork, minor detail updates, and cross checking databases. That sounds like amazingly useful, aspect of their time.

[36:23] Larry: It’s a sad commentary on where we are, but that’s exactly what happens. We’ve got, I don’t think I wanna name any names because the, the former Bernalillo County sheriff was running for mayor and the election’s Tuesday, the runoff. But when he was sheriff, we lost a deputy because his sheriff’s department that he was in charge of was spending time, a lot of time, on one particular high profile PFR that had made, crank telephone calls. He was such a dangerous individual. And they, a a deputy man named James McGrane was shot down dead doing a pullover of a person who was wanted for murder, but they were so busy checking on this high profile PFR and bringing charges bogus that were all dismissed in, multiple settings. The charges were dismissed by a Metro Court judge. They were dismissed by a grand jury, found no probable cause, but they were wasting their time on this individual while a good, family man deputy was shot dead because nobody had time to walk to to get the murder warrant that was issued the day before that that stop. He would have thought that they knew who he was, but the deputy didn’t have any idea. They thought he thought that, you know, he was he was pulling over a guy. He had no idea that he was wanting for murder because it wasn’t in the NCIC at that time or he would have approached using a felony stop. But the deputy is dead because the sheriff’s department under former sheriff White was busy doing this kind of stuff.

[37:58] Andy: So do you believe that there’s any evidence that compliance checks reduce PFR type crime rates?

[38:05] Larry: I’ve not seen any compelling evidence that it does.

[38:10] Andy: I’m just kinda spinning around in my head. How how would you even test that and measure it where because you it’s hard to it’s hard to do the inverted. Well, we didn’t do any compliance checks, and here’s what the rate was. But then when we started, here’s what the rates were. I don’t that would be really hard to do.

[38:30] Larry: Well, I would make the observation that compliance checks probably do work in terms of keeping people in compliance. I would make it comparable to young men who are supposed to register for for the draft when they’re age 18 and above until age 26. Some young men never register. Nothing bad happens because they don’t ever apply for student financial aid or anything that, that, would trigger their alertness, you know, or or alerted the system. So the PFRs that are found to be in compliance, it’s working in terms of keeping the compliance rate high. But as far as keeping the reoffense rate low, it’s already astronomically low. So I I can’t imagine any evidence I’ll ever surface that that it’s keeping the reoffense rate low because they’re not reoffending anyway.

[39:18] Andy: Yeah. I mean, what you you said is is is gonna be very accurate that you believe that the compliance checks make sure they stay compliant, but that doesn’t mean that they’re they are or are not committing the offenses because if they committed the offense, then they would get trapped up for doing the offense.

[39:36] Larry: Right? Isn’t that what you just said? That’s what I just said. They they it keeps people compliant with the bureaucracy, but I’m not sure that it stops reoffending. If a person’s determined to reoffend, I don’t think that a weekly or a monthly check by law enforcement pounding at the door with bull horns yelling, come out with your hands up. I don’t think that stops a person if they’re gonna go and capture somebody and defend against them. I’m almost reminded that while,

[40:01] Andy: what I hear is that locks keep honest people honest. And that’s almost sounds like what we’re saying here is that if you are in compliant, then you’re just in compliance, but that doesn’t mean really much else beyond that. So do you think if the the compliance, work disappeared tomorrow, do you think that, there would be a tidal wave wave of crime perhaps?

[40:22] Larry: I I do not. I believe that probably more PFRs would be a little more lax about reporting stuff if they didn’t think anybody was checking. But I don’t think that sexual offending would go up, astronomically or if at all. I don’t I don’t I think it’s difficult to prove one way or the other, but I don’t think it’s gonna make much difference. And what do you think about reallocating

[40:40] Andy: these hours for the, law enforcement people to improve the the rape kits and those other kinds of reports of sexual assault? What do you think that do you think that that would be better dedicated hours?

[40:55] Larry: I do indeed. And I think that it would have kept, deputy, McGrane alive had they not been so obsessed with a certain PFR.

[41:04] Andy: Courts insist that, the registry is civil and regulatory, but violations carry criminal penalties and some sometimes they’re pretty severe. Unlike in Georgia, a failure to register is one year and I’m I’m pretty sure I’m right on this. And then a second time is five and then a third time. So just failure to register. You just show up past the seventy two hour window around your birthday, and you happen to do it on the third time. You’re gonna get thirty years. Like, seriously? So the registry is legally justified as non punitive, but missing a minor detail, like renewing a license plate or not reporting it, can be a felony in some states. Does any other civil regulatory c scheme system punish clerical errors with prison time?

[41:49] Larry: Yes. Some do. But the PFR registry violations are punished much more severely than any other thing that can gain you jail time for failing to comply. It’s, an astronomical amount of emphasis they put on this particular regulatory scheme compared to others.

[42:04] Andy: So I I met somebody once that had, like, improperly handled, materials that have an MSDS, the material data safety sheet. I can’t remember the actual acronym. And they ended up with, like, a couple years of fed prison time for mishandling let’s see. Like, I’m thinking about toxic chemicals, and they got dumped improperly or they were just, like, put into a shed or something like that. And then maybe they would leak and then kaboom, perhaps people could get hurt? I’m I’m thinking, like, that’s a civil regulatory scheme. Correct?

[42:37] Larry: Correct. And the young men who don’t register for the draft, that’s punishable up to five years in federal custody, but nobody ever gets to five years. And I was gonna say, since you are so very old, have you ever heard of anybody being prosecuted for this? For for failure to register for the draft? Yeah. I think I’ve heard of it, but it’s usually a probated outcome. Yes. It’s it’s pretty significant, but they usually track you down through your failure to, to be registered because you have to certify you’re registered for college aid and some others. I don’t know what all you have to certify for, but there’s different federal benefits that you have to certify you’re registered with selective service, and they they flush them out that way. They don’t have to go out looking for them. They flush themselves out by applying for something.

[43:20] Andy: And now I have a very serious question for you. Larry, have you ever seen the tag on your mattress that says, you know, under penalty of law, don’t remove this or whatever?

[43:28] Larry: Yes. What happens if you remove it? Do they does, like, the the mattress police come and arrest you and put you in jail for twenty years? Well, I’ve dealt with that applies to the not being removed before it’s in the purchaser’s possession. But anybody purchase that, they can know what they want to with it, but that’s what I’ve been

[43:45] Andy: told. Okay. So how do courts justify felony level punishment inside a quote, unquote civil regulatory system?

[43:52] Larry: Oh, that’s another easy one. You’re being easy tonight. Yes. I’m trying to Because We The People decide how seriously to punish criminal behavior. And We The People have decided that failure to comply with registration is not, a minor offense. We’ve decided that it carries,

[44:10] Andy: significant penalties in most states. So it’s we, the people, that decided how serious that we wanted to punish this behavior. Isn’t that though isn’t that also not really fair, though, Larry? Because it’s a poison pill. If anybody is seen as being, quote, unquote, soft on PFRs, then they’re they’re gonna be nuked out of their position. You saw what happened to Ketanji Brown Jackson with her confirmation hearing that she what was like, she went outside of the guidelines or gave the the people she gave them minimum punishment from what the guidelines were, and they freaking roasted her. So isn’t it just a bit of a, like, they can’t do it because of the punishment to the politician for doing it?

[44:48] Larry: Well, but it if the politicians weren’t hearing from the people that we want these people punished severely, they wouldn’t be doing it, but they’re reacting to the communication. And, you know, having served the senator for the last twelve years, I picked up on some of that. And although our state’s not as harsh, but people do want these folks punished.

[45:09] Andy: Do you think that this contradiction creates any sort of vulnerability under ex post facto clause?

[45:15] Larry: Yes. In some situations it can and it has.

[45:20] Andy: Do you have any examples?

[45:23] Larry: No. On some of the cases that we’re winning on the ex post facto clause violation, we’re winning because they’re trying to impose these conditions retroactively on people who had no idea that there was a registry. And and if they were if they were just simply imposing what would be easily a regulatory scheme without severe punishments, the judges, I think, would have looked at those very differently. When you’re looking at a scheme that carries five years up to life in prison, it’s clearly a serious thing. So, I think it’s made a difference in how the ex post facto clause victor victories have gone our way because the courts are looking at how seriously this is, you know, how it impairs your life.

[46:02] Andy: So, if, failure to register incarceration is extremely expensive, but and it does not contribute to public safety. You know, if you if you fail to update your driver’s license information, I somehow don’t understand how that means that some child is going to be abducted off of the corner somewhere. But annual incarceration rates exceed like, $35,000 is really the bottom of the barrel there, like, the Southern states, the Georgias, and the Mississippi’s. They they are down there in the $35,000 a year, year range. And then states imprisoned people for missing a phone number update, missing a vehicle registration renewal update, failing to report weekly if they’re homeless. Some states even mandate minimum prison time for repeat FTRs.

[46:48] Larry: That is correct. And some even utilize their habitual sentencing schemes to impose decades or even life in prison. And that’s what’s funny when you get lifetime in prison for a regulatory scheme.

[46:59] Andy: That makes me think back to Larry Krasner, the the prosecutor in, Philadelphia that if the his prosecutor, if his DA was going to ask for more than I don’t remember what the time was, like, three years, then he needs to write an IOU to the city or whatever for, you know, $50,000 a year times the number of years that you’re asking for? And is the crime that the person committed worth that amount of money? And I don’t wanna put monetary values on crimes because it’s not really fair you’ve committed a crime and it’s not really a monetary thing. However, is not updating your driver’s license information, is that worth a $150,000 to put someone in prison for three years for not updating their driver’s license? Seriously? Are are you familiar with any legislators that ever consider the cost side of FTR enforcement?

[47:47] Larry: Oh, yes. Quite a few I’m familiar with. I hear it all the time, but they always end up backpedaling because the people want these punishments. They want this class group of people. The voters want these people punished severely for not complying with the rules. And the people are getting what they want.

[48:09] Andy: So I and I it also seems, Larry, that the advocacy groups struggle to reach mainstream audiences and need consistent messaging. What do you think about that?

[48:19] Larry: Oh, I agree. I I agree completely. Strong messaging, could include explaining that failure to register, in and of itself, those violations are administrative, not sexual. I don’t ever hear any advocates saying that very seldom if I’ve ever heard anybody. Yeah. Again, emphasizing that the wasted resources, and comparing them against a very low clearance rate for real offenses where there has been a live victim, using first person language PFR instead of labels. The, the, because they hear, you refer to them as a sex offender. You’ve already lost most people. When they hear that, they’re done. Yeah. And, and, major, atlas, across the political spectrum rarely cover the real issues, with registration. They fall prey to this, this boost ratings, viewership, listenership. That’s what they go for. And, state level stories can be powerful when legislators actually see them. And I push people vehemently to bring their minor children to the Capitol and let them tell the story about how the government is separating families, that we preach about how we want families to be together and have a mommy and a daddy, and we don’t allow them to come to the PTA meetings or to their sporting events or to anything else. Those stories would be powerful, but people that have children won’t do it. And I’m a 192 years old. I can’t bear any more children.

[49:53] Andy: Well, you as a male, you can do it all the way until probably even post. It’s it’s the ladies that have those limits, Larry.

[50:01] Larry: Right.

[50:04] Andy: I wanna bring up, Larry, that there is an incredibly popular podcast called Freakonomics. They probably get somewhere of I’m just gonna throw out a number. I think they probably get a half million downloads a week. And, episode two zero eight, and this is back from maybe 2015 or ’16 or somewhere in that ballpark, making sex offenders pay and pay and pay and pay. That program has incredible reach, and they went through and they covered how much PFRs end up paying typically with all the treatment and probation fees and extra, extra, extra that they end up paying something about $10,000 on average. And that they had all kinds of different criminology kinds of people, sociology and so forth. Like, does it make any difference? And they’re like, no. They have a very low recidivism rate. So this is just the sex offender industrial complex at work. But why do we do it? It’s because we want to do it. Right? Correct. So then let me ask you this question. Do you think that we could ever get, like, Sandy on Fox News to talk to Hannity and have her explain the the situation?

[51:14] Larry: Can’t imagine that happening. He would he would eat her alive.

[51:19] Andy: It was rude. So what messaging do you think resonates with, the public? Fear, facts, cost, constitutional principles? I can see people’s eyes roll in the back of the heads on the constitutional principles.

[51:30] Larry: Clearly, fear works well for the other side, but I think op eds would be worthy of considering. And then we’ve gotta have a whole lot more money on our side so we can begin to have a fraction of what the apparatus itself has so that we can actually buy media. So we can actually get out there with our message. And I think that might work, but it’s a long term endeavor because of the cost.

[51:57] Andy: Do you think that maybe, the registry itself distracts from addressing the real causes of sexual violence?

[52:05] Larry: I have no doubt in my mind that it does. But I’m not saying it’s the cause, but it certainly takes away from the investigative resources and the solving ability for those cases. If we’re spending all our money fighting an imaginary boogeyman, it’s really hard to identify the real boogeyman.

[52:22] Andy: Now, I only have two questions left. So this is the second to last. Now, what would lawmakers do if they genuinely wanted to reduce sexual harm?

[52:31] Larry: Well, I take issue with that. They do genuinely want to reduce it. But the problem is they’re trapped in a system that they cannot control either.

[52:38] Andy: Can you can you say that again? They can’t control the system? Aren’t they the ones that are actually in control of it? They’re the ones that are writing laws and voting on them, etcetera?

[52:47] Larry: But the people, again, the media smears them. Their opponents take them out with false and misleading advertised campaign campaign advertisements. And the system itself, they can’t take on the the law enforcement industrial, complex prosecution and all the resources. So they’re trapped in a system that’s beyond their control as well. And I don’t know how to gain control of the system because the people seem to be happy with the status quo. They seem to be happy that we’re the incarceration leader of the entire world. But by a large, large factor. And that information is widely known. Yes. And it doesn’t change the American perspective at all.

[53:30] Andy: Hang on. I didn’t know that that was a thing until I was in prison reading a magazine that actually had an interest in this kind of subject. It was Reason magazine, very libertarian magazine. And the The US I I wanna say it’s sec excuse me, first. The number two nation per capita was Russia, and they were, like, half per capita what we are?

[53:56] Larry: I have no doubt because we are far and above the incarceration leaders. So, that tells me something. Either Americans are extremely predisposed to commit criminal acts, or we are we are people are extremely dis, disposed, predisposed to be harsh with people with penalties.

[54:16] Andy: I think it’s probably the latter. I think I agree with you. Alright, man. Anything else you wanna say to this?

[54:24] Larry: No. I I think I’ve done enough damage for tonight then. Probably.

[54:29] Andy: Well, I I did hear someone say, Larry, that there is the possibility to, father children post mortem. And, so you can definitely make kids old guy. That’s what they said. So even at a 192. If you were ever worried say again? Even at 192. I believe that you could still father some children, Larry, if it really were important to you. Well, everyone, thank you for joining us. This has been episode what are we? Three sixty one of Registry Matters. Head over to registrymatters.co for the show notes. And for links to all the places that you can go to find the show, you can email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You can leave an old fashioned voice mail message, (747) 227-4477. And please consider, especially during, like, Giving Tuesday last week and, through this giving season, that if you could head over to patreon.com/registrymatters, chip in a buck or 2 or stimulus check level money, that would, help support the program and all the work that we do here. Does that sound fair, Larry?

[55:38] Larry: Yeah. You left off one other thing. The, year end giving. It’s tax time, and a lot of folks have had a prosperous 2025 because Donald Trump has brought us an amazing amount of prosperity this year. And and, sorry. Did you say that with a straight face? Oh, I did. And, so those of you that have been blessed and fortunate, however you wanna look at it. If you’re looking for a tax option, FYP Education, the the Registry Matters podcast, which is a part of FYP Education as five zero one c three, and you can use that as a vehicle to eradicate some of that tax liability.

[56:19] Andy: Fabulous. You would have explained that way better than I ever could. So

[56:24] Larry: Well Well well I hope everybody has a great night. Larry, what Go in. You can put a cue card up there to showing people how to get there and and say it’s tax time. So reduce your tax liability for 2025.

[56:35] Andy: I will I will make that happen for the rest of the year. Sounds good. So take care, everybody. Larry, thank you as always for putting all of the things together, and I will talk to you not at 05:00 tomorrow morning. No. I’m gonna start waiting to six on Sundays. Perfect. Thank you so very much. Take care, everybody. Have a great night, great weekend, and we will talk to you soon. Take care.

[56:57] Larry: Good night.

[57:00] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.