Andy  0:00  
registry matters is an independent production. The opinions and ideas here are that of the hosts and do not reflect the opinions of any other organization. If you have a problem with these thoughts, FYI p recording live from the Marriott Hotel in Houston, Texas at the nozzle 2019 conference, this is Episode 80 of registry matters. Larry, I wouldn't say Happy Saturday night, but it's not it's it's it's Friday night. So here we are recording a podcast on a Friday night face to face with real microphones and an actual live participating audience.

Larry  0:34  
I never thought that would happen

Andy  0:36  
about that. Right. And we also have joining us tonight is Brenda Jones, who is the executive director of an arsenal. Welcome, Brenda,

Unknown Speaker  0:43  
by to be here,

Andy  0:44  
I think. And then we also have hundreds, hundreds of people in the audience. Is that an exaggeration?

Larry  0:54  
Larry, what are we going to talk about tonight? We're going to talk about the conference and decision we're waiting for from the US Supreme Court. And we're going to we're going to have Justice Scalia on the law. Constitution, that that's about a two and a half minute segment.

Unknown Speaker  1:11  
Okay, sounds good. Where do you want to start? So

Larry  1:14  
while we've got all these people here, so we probably ought to entertain them.

Andy  1:18  
All right, do you want to let's see. So we're just one day into the conference plus the introductions last night, right?

Larry  1:24  
One day end of the conference today and have to go,

Andy  1:26  
I heard I said it on a blitz a day and a half, we still have Sunday to don't have to go. I said in on a session with Paul dribbling. And he was talking about, like the framework behind challenging these laws from a constitutional point of view. And from just my observation, I'm the dumb person over here. He has a way of framing the arguments and the process to bring challenges into the legislature that I it's like 40, chest to me, he seems to have an incredibly savvy point of view of how to challenge these things from either of left or right point of view. If you're talking to a right leaning court, versus the left court, you present your arguments of what you're trying to challenge in a different context.

Larry  2:17  
That is correct. Mr. doodling is a brilliant when it comes to strategy. We don't get to pick our courts, we only get to pick our cases. And we pick our cases around what we think we're going to be what court we're going to be and and what what their what their disposition may be. Sometimes we get us wrong. But we've got a pretty good idea. When we look at the Supreme Court of a state or the United States of where they're coming from, on their judicial philosophy. They tell us a lot in previous writings, and their decisions and interviews that they give. And and those tend to be rare, but we do everything we can to figure out where they're likely to go. And Paul, this is a genius at out and figuring out what kind of arguments and what type of case to make. Depending on the venue. He's making the arguments. So I didn't get to sit in on that. But but I've heard good, good reviews.

Andy  3:07  
Want to so at the end of it, I asked the question of how do we then I mean, can we duplicate in 49 times

Larry  3:16  
may not be possible to 49.

Andy  3:18  
And if it even short of that, that I asked him? Is it financially viable? vehicle that he's trying to ride down? I mean, we're generally a broke group of people. And I'm sure he makes a very healthy sum of money. And I like I'm sure he doesn't do it just out of the kindness of his heart. So he wants to get paid. What is what do we have to do to make it worth him or the Paul Doom dueling replicas, so that they'll get involved?

Larry  3:50  
Well, we wish we had the answer, we're developing that model. Little by little, what we're doing, what we're doing is trying to figure out a way to take some of the risk out of the attorneys side, because these cases were complex. And they're long drawn out, and they devour a lot of labor hours, and they devour potentially a lot of investigative resources and expert witnesses. So at Marshall, we're trying to we're trying to leverage their willingness and their heart to not have to lose their time and their the out of pocket cost. And, and in some cases, were able to actually to provide some small amount of the attorneys fees in advance because we picked very carefully on the cases that we deploy our resources into. And if we can, if we can get that message out that we have, we have some small seed money, for the right type of challenges, we are hopefully will grow more and more attorneys, we're going to launch a case in Georgia, where I'm headed headed next and the student in the state of Georgia. And we're using that very model where we're providing a small amount of what would be a potential of attorneys fees up front, and a small bucket of cost up front, so that they're not absorbing all that risk themselves. But these cases is there, they're not easy, because the states, if it's a state challenge, if it's a federal challenge, they have vastly superior resources that they're going to fight back with. Their Their job is to fight back. And people shouldn't be angry about that the the laws that are duly enacted, it's the job of the Attorney General to defend those laws. And and they're not supposed to pick and choose, they're supposed to defend the laws that are doing that. So they're going to fight back. Brenda, do you want to

Andy  5:25  
fill in any gaps there?

Unknown Speaker  5:27  
How many do you think how many attorneys do you think we need? Obviously, 49.

Andy  5:32  
a lofty goal, but don't we need? I mean, don't they have to be certified whatever the right term is licensed to be an attorney in that area. And then state they do not. So Paul could come to Georgia and fight the case, he could

Larry  5:47  
and he is on the team. What that process work through an admission limited admission, it's called pro hug vj. And that's a Latin term. So an attorney that's not not licensed in a jurisdiction can practice there. Bye bye pro HAC featured mission and each state is a little bit different. Sometimes there's a large fee of a couple hundred dollars. And usually a local sponsor that's going to be responsible for seeing to local rules are followed. But But Paul can practice practically anywhere through that limited mission. Do you

Unknown Speaker  6:15  
think we need to have like if we Is there a certain number, do you think I mean it like say if we're trying to take something to the Supreme Court, ultimately, is there some minimum number of cases that are all kind of targeting the same thing, or? I didn't sit in on it either. So I was in a different room. But, you know, to in order to get something to Supreme Court, as Larry has instructed me, there needs to be some conflict between lower court decisions. And then ultimately, that the that attracts the attention of the US Supreme Court. He wants to try to settle those differences. So do we need just to have those? Do we need to have three you do any dab? 15?

Larry  7:01  
I don't think we know the answer to how many attorneys Wendy? I think the one answer window for certain is we need more of them. We need we need we need more of them. But it depends on what we're trying to do. We're actually getting a lot better case law, the state Supreme Court then we are the US Supreme Court will get some guidance when when Gundy is released before the end of this month of June. If they if they dodge that delegation issue, then we'll get an idea that even though there's a great deal of desire to roll back the administrative state, if they figure out a way to duck it and deal with it later with Gundy, that'll tell us a lot about where their mind is on registration issues because they they're not interested in revisiting it just yet. Being that they get to pick and choose what cases they hear, then that will tell us that we need to continue to work in the state Supreme Court. So I'm trying to get it where there's where there's a an inclination and the state, for example, in Maryland, the state constitution provides greater protection than US Constitution does. That was a nice place to litigate because we knew that in advance. Well, Maryland's not the only state where the constitution of the state provides greater protections in terms of ex post facto than the US Constitution. Marilyn has in the in their constitution. Any What is it? What was the specific wording of that of that Declaration of Rights? Any diminishment of a person's Yeah, any disabilities or any

Unknown Speaker  8:25  
disability? Yeah.

Unknown Speaker  8:28  
disability that occurs?

Larry  8:30  
Oh, so so we may, we may find ourselves litigating more in state courts, depending on where the gun D case goes. If they take a broad sweep at the administrative state, then that's going to tell us a whole different message, because they'll tell us that sarin is on the table that if they were willing to touch that, that they might be willing to touch the more some more issues related to registration. So we'll know a whole lot more by the end of the month in terms of how this decision comes down, and how they help we need to be litigate, because the US Supreme Court, of course at the ready to overturn a Smith versus doe that would have national more national implications. Otherwise, you're trying to cobble together a growing body of states supreme courts, were you were you when you're litigating. If we were to be litigating in my State of New Mexico, we would say, Well, look what they did in Indiana liquid they did in Maryland, look what they did in Oklahoma, look what they did. And we go on and on. But nonetheless, binding, it's only persuasive. The New Mexico supreme court can say that's nice, doesn't apply here. But it begins to build a persuasive effect when they when they look at all the well written opinions from around the country. When the same thing happened. The US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is clearly right now, their position is that every registration case they've looked at, which has been few, but its administrative, they have not looked at any cases dealing with all the evolution of the second and third generation registration schemes. So we don't know what they would say, what we do know, as I said, in 2003, that sitting on a card, confirming your residence, they said that wasn't punishment, but they didn't say that no matter what you do to defeat that it won't be punished what they just said, This is what that's all they could look at. That was all that was before them. So so we'll we'll have to wait and see how they get to it. When we do our podcast after Gundy comes down. After we've had a chance to analyze it, because we'll have a whole week from the time it comes out on a Monday, we'll be able to tell you more where we think that's my head.

Andy  10:26  
You just went down a path that kind of blew my brain when you said, I think that you have said in the past that Dundee will have almost no impact on us as a whole. I think

Larry  10:37  
I have said that. Yes. Okay. So you have heard me correctly.

Unknown Speaker  10:40  
And it feels like you just said the opposite?

Larry  10:43  
Well, I'm in an audience where I'm supposed to be giving hope. No. And there

Unknown Speaker  10:47  
I don't care about

Unknown Speaker  10:50  
the F t people.

Andy  10:54  
What you just said said something radically different than that it could have it

Larry  10:58  
could be it could happen. I'm not I'm not betting on that. I'm betting on this court being that what the wild card is that there are a lot of conservative justice that want to roll back the administrative state. But they don't want to roll back Florida. And so that's where the conflict is. So if you've got a if you if you put if the liberals hanging together, and they get two conservatives to join them for whatever reasons it is, then you've got you've got you've got a majority, but But what are they going to do with course generally look for if they hold to their conservative beliefs. And this is a conservative court, they hold to giving the most limited relief possible to solve the question is before them. So they're not looking to do a broad sweep. But sometimes people deviate from their principles, but it suits their purposes. So we've truly anybody who claims I know if what's going to happen in Gundy's, they're just smoking something funny, because we don't know. But we do, we do know that we're going to get a lot of of guidance in terms of where the court is in our thinking. When we read all the dicta which has done this stuff in the decision, that's not actually the decision itself. Like, for example, in the case dealing with dealing in North Carolina with the GPS monitoring. And then with the packing him case for the social media, there was a lot of runaway dicta in there that said that suggested that the Supreme Court is becoming concerned about all these, all these conditions, particularly on people who pay their debt in full. So we got a little bit of where they were in packing him, which was the social media ban. They didn't say you couldn't have a social media ban, that what they did say was you can't have a uniform social media ban. This applies to everyone. And a particular two people have paid their debt to society. That that is a green light to North Carolina to go back. And narrowly, more narrowly Tabor, a social media band, and that's exactly what they're doing. There's a bill pending, I forget the number 1299 or something, the house bill is going to do that very thing. And so so the courts can't tell legislators to quit legislative that that's the their role. The legislature can go back and try to come up with some kind of constitutional,

Andy  13:04  
that was something that he brought up was. So he goes, however, the case got initiated that he was speaking of Forgive me that I don't remember. But he goes in there, and there's clear language, that they are overstepping their bounds. So he goes in there and kicks their nuts. And they're like, what happened? And then they did it again. So he goes back and kicks in, its again and like, wait a minute, whoa. He said, the third time maybe was the fourth time they came back and said, what could we do different and he's like, I'm a litigator. That's not my job. My job is just to come in here and kick you in the nuts. But the legislature is now tired of getting their face punched in. To some degree. I don't know how much degree of hyperbole he's speaking. But it sounds like he is creating some level of scare tactic that they are flinching

Larry  13:51  
that that is correct. Now, we all have a different philosophy, I have a slightly different philosophy in terms of when you kick them in the chin. And you you you beat him down. And he I believe that you should come back and have a solution because it's technically not your job. But I believe that I'm, you'd rather me write your legislation than them. And if you don't, and they're going to produce if they want a social media ban, would you rather I write it? Or would you rather they write it. And I think you should trust me slightly more to write to social media band, because I can write one so narrow that will apply to virtually no one.

Andy  14:26  
Can you describe you told me maybe a couple of weeks ago about something that you helped re craft? Is that okay to talk about?

Larry  14:34  
I think we talked about it, but we can talk about live. We had, we had a social media ban proposed to 2013 and my state were that people were going to be banned from social media. And the our legislature at that time was almost balanced. We had in the house, we had a 3633 majority of the republicans now we got a 46 to 24 majority, but we had had more. And the the Republican leader said I got it, I got to do this. And I said, Well, you can't do it Indiana. case just came out of Indiana, it says you can't do that not a total ban. And and he says Well, what can we do? And I said of very strategic band, if you want to know what you can do. I'll tell you what you can do. I'm not telling you what you should do. But I can write you something that will withstand constitutional muster. And, and he says, What will you will you support? I said, No, but I want to pose it if we write something very narrowly tailored. So he had his original version, I believe was House Bill, 58, 2013, five, five member, right, but he had his original version. And we went in and we told him this is going nowhere, because we don't have a three sigma majority, but we're going to kill it. And so so he he said, All right, well, then give me something you'll pass. So we've narrowed it down to one offense. From the whole universe of segments, we narrowed it down to just one offense, and that was electronic solicitation, then the band only applied to you communicating with an eye with a minor not being on social media, but you could not knowingly communicate with a minor that wasn't related to you. You had a prohibition against communicating knowingly with a minor that was not a child, or figure out how to find, but I gave a little scope for family members. But otherwise, that was the crime. And I said, Now, this is not something I would spend a lot of time doing. But if you're determined to go out to tell your constituents you've protected them, here's your social media, bam, it applies that that was a big convicted electronic solicitation, it applies only to Bria but then from knowingly reaching out to a miner to engage in a relationship. And it's for the period of their registration, or 10 years, no more than 10 years or the period, their registration if they have less than that. And that's that's the look of it. And as a distal pass constitutional muster. And I'll stand down. Well, that is better than lighting the law enforcement apparatus, right? There's because they won't narrow it down to one defense. And they won't say you can you can pray but conduct because a person who has a pre does predisposition to solicit a minor, you're prohibiting their conduct that got him in trouble in the first place. So there's nothing constitutionally defective about restricting conduct that might lead to a crime, because they have the predisposition, having done that crime before, but just because you did any accidents, doesn't mean you have any inclination to tell them, there's a pass constitutional muster. Well, then he had a junior member who he claimed had nothing to do with it. He didn't know anything about it. She put them in but on the floor, which which is acceptable parliamentary procedure, she added offenses to the registry that they've been trying to add. And I said, Well, that's not the deal. And they said, we're going to have to kill the damn thing. So hard for men was passed, and then we referred it to you to share it. On our side, we got enough votes to refer to judiciary, and we just let it sit there again, and it went nowhere for the rest of the session. But my point is, Paul believes that you just stand back and let them make mistakes. I believe you offer alternatives. We have a slightly different view. But I believe I would rather I write it than them. So it depends on who you trust.

Andy  18:17  
And I just hit you, you can't go File a challenge in court because you're not a lawyer. But he's also not a lobbyist. I don't think

Larry  18:27  
he's not a political junkie.

Andy  18:28  
Right. So I mean, it seems like you two together in the same place at the same time would be a formidable team. Please donate

Larry  18:36  
possibly, but North Carolina should should develop its own talent, because you know, you can't be one person can't be in the capital of 50 states. But but that's the type of thing where I take a lot of grief for doing that. Larry, why are you working with the opposition? Or you'll sell out? Not say no, I would rather write it than them write it. I guarantee you look at my bill, and you look at their bill, tell me which one you'd rather live under?

Andy  19:02  
Well, let's move on to I guess we've had, so we had Alyssa. Ackerman doing a presentation, she couldn't make it for I think a medical reason. But then, so we brought her in over discord or Skype, whichever you want to look at that. What was your opinion of that first presentation to start off the conference?

Unknown Speaker  19:22  
Well, I thought that that it was a very moving presentation, she talked a lot about, she told a lot of stories and described, restorative justice was the main purpose, which is getting to be very popular these days in criminal justice circles. As an alternative, obviously, to criminal justice, where you're, you know, convicted of something, you're immediately separated from the person you did the crime against, you know, if you committed one, and you're not allowed to ever find a way to reconcile either directly with the person that you harmed, or even in, she also described vicarious, just vicarious restorative justice, which would mean somebody who harmed somebody, somebody who got harmed, but they're not, you know, each other, and then they get a chance to talk. And the person who, and and there's just an opportunity there for healing, she talked a lot about how that, you know, it's not 100% replacement, that, you know, people who commit a crime still need to be punished. There's, there's still other issues. But if you want healing, and if you want prevention, she saw that as a real positive way to look for prevention and kind of good conversation to have in our own circles. And she mentioned that, which was a nice lead into a lot of what else was going on in the rest of the day, she kind of closed by saying, you know, I used to be a reasonable just researching, I used to just focus on that one thing. But people weren't listening to just those facts, they did listen to the stories. And so she started telling her story, as of it, as I shouldn't say just victim, she uses that term, but as a survivor, and, and how she is kind of come out as that and working on the restorative justice angle. And she said, people are listening now. And they're getting that message. And so that's why she's been moving forward. So that kind of set the stage actually, for a lot of the workshops and things that came after. There's my quick summary.

Andy  21:37  
Mr. Harris, you have a question. This is our first live in person question, I think I think it

Unknown Speaker  21:43  
is.

Unknown Speaker  21:44  
Yeah. I'm Michael from Indiana, with Indiana voices. And I was at the Miss sacraments talk today. And I was interested in how she spoke about the fact that, you know, so many things that happened within the criminal justice system, or are that people think are going to be healing for them? Or and I just want to amplify on that a little bit more, if you would?

Unknown Speaker  22:07  
Yeah, you're right. I remember that you that so often, even the person who is a survivor, that the focus is all on? Well, it'll all be better if we just punish them harshly harshly enough. And that's going to be the you know, that's going to be the solution. And yet, it turns out that it's not it isn't even for the person who's been harmed. It's not and then clearly, of course, it's harmful for the person that's being punished. There's, there's and so that's part of the desert need be punishment. Yes. But harsher and harsher punishment is not working for the is not working to actually, you know, improve situations decrease, you know, do the public safety. So that, that addresses a little bit more, Michael. Yeah. That that was a good point. I kind of glossed over, didn't want to completely read it.

Unknown Speaker  23:02  
And then I guess closing out the day was I'm going to lose his name the individual from the Paul Ryan. Paul, right from prison legal news. Yeah, he closed the day. Any comments on that?

Unknown Speaker  23:14  
I have a feeling that neither of you were there.

Unknown Speaker  23:16  
I don't think either when I was there a lot of time talking about civil commitment. I would like to the audience there that would like to share a little of what he said

Larry  23:25  
I'd like I'd like to address what what Michael says.

Andy  23:29  
We're back to what

Unknown Speaker  23:30  
we did find somebody who Michael session. So

Larry  23:33  
your your point was I didn't hear the entire presentation. But I think I got your point. And the the victims who are advocating for harsher and harsher penalties are not getting the satisfaction they want was those penalties imposed that that I think was your point. And that's universally true. And one of my favorite people of all time, I don't have many favorite people in corrections and in the prison side. But one of my favorite people of all time was Dr. Alan Alda, if anybody wants to Google him, it's a you healthy. Dr. All was the Commissioner of corrections and Georgian Commissioner corrections. I think Mississippi may be correction corrections Commissioner in South Carolina, Dr. All gave execution orders because all those states were death penalty states, he interviewed many victims of of I mean dozens of his career. And he said that of all those people that the death penalty, did not give them the closure and the satisfaction that they thought it would give them that they were still lacking being made whole. And he has come out and done. He's done at about 80. And he doesn't want anything to do with the death penalty. And this was a guy who gave execution orders for its entire career. So the vengeance the vengeance that people think it's going to give them the closure it does not.

Unknown Speaker  24:45  
Yeah, that was definitely part of Alyssa is that we did find somebody if you want to.

Andy  24:49  
Do we want this particular individual?

Unknown Speaker  24:51  
I don't know have to think about this looks fun. He does talk funny. He's from he's from a really

Andy  24:56  
weird place. Give us your name and where you're from.

Unknown Speaker  25:00  
Ricardo.

Unknown Speaker  25:02  
Where's the blame?

Unknown Speaker  25:03  
The bond with the plane, the plane, the plane? The plane? Richard from New Hampshire, New Hampshire, New Hampshire. You talk funny. I do. Thank you. I didn't think you'd notice.

Andy  25:15  
No, no one would ever notice that. And also, as always very loud when you're on a conference call? It is okay. It is.

Unknown Speaker  25:24  
Paul right. I thought it was fascinating and interesting. We first we have a man who was convicted of murder standing before us sharing his story. And it was fascinating. I know a little bit of the background. But the details he filled in I thought were just interesting in terms of this is a guy who started in 1990 writing prison news. And before that he was writing from prison itself. And he he created a network of people within prison who was reading his newsletter. He was saying it out to have it mimeograph and copied and sent to his 75 inmates different prisons at the time. And now he's got a publication that's distributed nationally. And I don't know how many prisons it goes to. I'm sure it's hundreds, if not thousands. And he gave us an insightful history of his standing up, along with others, but speaking out against the injustice system in the criminal justice system. I was truly fascinated by

Andy  26:40  
Are you done? Hey, do you want to sit back? You actually taken a nap at night was it was and then somebody threw a blue ball at you?

Unknown Speaker  26:48  
That's what hit you. In case you did? That's what it was.

Unknown Speaker  26:50  
Yeah. And what did he wake me?

Andy  26:53  
I don't think so. I don't know that. That's all

Unknown Speaker  26:54  
over here and started talking. That's That's for sure.

Andy  27:00  
Are we ready to move on to potentially first article, and I will give you a synopsis because I have done what Larry refers to as a certain name read. I have skin this as thoroughly as I possibly can. And I don't see a problem with this. Which one are you start, I'm on the first one for the appeal. I

Unknown Speaker  27:15  
don't bet on whether I've got them in a sort

Andy  27:16  
of order. They go in order of how they are listed in the Google Doc. So New Orleans police appear to use surveillance to initiate investigations. Here's the synopsis you go do a naughty thing. And the police don't actually present themselves to investigate. They use all the cameras around no one ever steps foot and that prompts them to initiate the investigation and they'll call it the canines and all the things then you get punished for their never being an investigator like a the initiation of an investigation in person. Only with surveillance cameras.

Larry  27:52  
What Why is that a problem?

Andy  27:55  
I can see can't can't a camera be a sex similarly for being present?

Larry  28:03  
Well, but yeah, cameras Don't lie. So why

Unknown Speaker  28:06  
acknowledged dating their privacy layer?

Larry  28:09  
No. privacy, no serious note in public, there is no right to privacy. So

Andy  28:13  
let's suppose you're in a shop store, or in a storefront and shop, whatever. And you know, you're in a convenience store. And something looks suspicious. And then no one even calls and says the person has shoplifted done anything of the sort. And they're watching the cameras. And that initiates the investigation.

Unknown Speaker  28:31  
It looks here like in the story. A police officer was watching a fellow getting out of his Volkswagen Beetle carrying a small package. She was somewhere far away. And she was watching this. And they watched him carry his the small package from one place and going to another and then come out without the package. And that was what they used to initiate the search was just by her no longer having the package we have, obviously we have on a drug deal. Because what else would you be carrying packages? How would you get out of go to the other place? Come out without the package? What else could you have been doing? What else could you possibly have been doing but a drug deal?

Larry  29:12  
Well, what level of what level of freedom of suspicion or probable cause of needed?

Unknown Speaker  29:18  
I honestly don't know the answer the question. I'm an attorney. How about you?

Unknown Speaker  29:21  
Can you help us with us?

Unknown Speaker  29:25  
Absolutely.

Unknown Speaker  29:25  
Well, if they if they got

Unknown Speaker  29:29  
a box of kittens box of kittens? Well, no, this was a very small box. So unless it was

Larry  29:36  
on a serious note, though, I didn't read the article. So I don't feel fully versed. But looking. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I can tell my Greyhound story about where the they want to look in my package of rocket go on a bus like 35 years ago, and I said no. And I had only soft drinks in my in my chest. But it was the principal thing. The cops, the cops when they ask you, it's it's all about how we grew up in our life experience and what we think of officers, if you're from a minority for poor community, you're less likely to be trusting. And if you're from from affluence and not have any experience with the cops, you think they're overworked and underpaid, and they would never, they would never invade your privacy. So they must have had reasonable cause. And if you have nothing to hide, the average middle class person has nothing to hide, just go ahead and cooperate with a cop? So it depends on how you're looking at it. If if you've got nothing to hide, why would you mind? That's That's a lot of people share that view until Can

Andy  30:33  
you? Can you elaborate on the inverse of that? So the the, what you just said the average middle class white person when like, I have nothing to hide, and then just just lay my chips out on the table? Why should even those people protect their privacy? Why should that be of their interest?

Larry  30:50  
Well, because you you could, anytime liberty is diminished, and law enforcement allowed to do things without following the due process, which we all have support, but that are attending this conference. without due process, we have very little in this country. That's what makes us special, we cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. And you can be deprived of all those things, including life with due process, but for them to deprive you of your personal time, every freedom of movement, without at in the various levels of from from beyond reasonable doubt all the way down to reasonable suspicion. Without is reasonable suspicion, watching a video of someone doing what could be totally innocent behavior, does that constitute reasonable suspicion? Well, I suppose that if you ask the average person who had no negative experience with wall, they would say, Sure it is what else would they be doing? I mean, I wasn't being totally facetious. But it is all related to our life experience.

Unknown Speaker  31:48  
Well, there's actually a, it looks like Larry, did you win the silver dollar in this one, because apparently, the judge agrees with you. Because the judge says that the officers lacked probable cause. Because police are not allowed to guess all that they, they they need a reasonable suspicion, they need actual indicators. And reasonable suspicion did not exist to support that he'd committed a crime. So even though actually once they did the search, they did find some drugs in his car. But they they couldn't do the search because they had not established probable cause. Just watching somebody get in and out of Yeah.

Larry  32:25  
Yeah, that's the lowest level of legal.

Unknown Speaker  32:28  
Right. So so

Andy  32:31  
we have an audience question for we did as I'm sure it's not for me,

Unknown Speaker  32:33  
now are me there, I'm sure.

Andy  32:36  
john smith.

Unknown Speaker  32:39  
What do you think about the sneak and peak warrants, also known as delayed notice warrants that they're executed, he was originally supposed to be just part of the patriot act against terrorist. And what's happening is more than four fifths of them are for drug investigation, and less than a handful are now terrorists investor. And in the beginning, you know, the prosecutor said, trust us, we won't expand this. And what do you know about this? And how does it pertain to the situation in northern New Orleans?

Larry  33:12  
What what I know, is not specifics on that question. But what I know is give me a chance to pontificate which I love to do.

Andy  33:23  
That's why this podcast,

Larry  33:24  
the Patriot Act was jammed down our throat after 911. And even those who helped with the jamming down our throat, have expressed reservations after after passing it. Because we were told if we didn't, that's why they called it a patriot act. If you don't vote for it, you're not paid. That was what they said.

Andy  33:43  
about branding to a large degree. Right? Yeah.

Larry  33:45  
So it's all good name. The the the administration at the time was George W. Bush, and the Bush administration, push this through a Republican Congress. And some of those Republicans have said, Hey, we never be realize this. But see, the problem. Why they did they didn't visualize it, is because they have the trust in the law enforcement apparatus, which typically middle class people have, because they've had no reason not to, they've never encountered any adverse experience with law enforcement. So when a prosecutor tells you I'm overworked and understaffed now, but never bring a charge against a kid that had a picture of themselves and texted it, you're inclined to believe that most of you, even still to this day, a lot of you can find to believe that. But it's not the reality. And I bragged about our state because we in 2016, we made it unlawful for prosecutors to prosecute kids and that make movies of themselves. We don't give them that discretion. And because we found out they weren't able to responsibly handle it. So back to this patriot question. What I know, is that, that a lot of stuff to the Department of Homeland Security, which I think is it's either the first or second largest department and government, they put all these 31 agencies or agencies together, and they created this massive bureaucracy, which was the epitome of what conservatives say that they oppose, that created this massive bureaucracy to deal with with this. And it's grown even since the since the creation, and they're doing so many things that I never would have visualized had anything to do with terrorism. When you hear the department, they're involved in every federal porn investigation. They're involved in every internet solicitation case, you hear department Homeland Security. And we thought when we heard that if we didn't vote for this, that we were that we were detect, we were protecting the country from terrorist threats, primarily external, but internal threats, that would be that would be of magnitude that would impact the lives of many. That's not what's happening here. But I don't know about the sneak peak warrants particularly and the statistics on that, but I know it's a bureaucracy, it's out of control. I know that there's a lot of stuff that told my security would be would be, we would be shocked and dismayed that they're doing these things.

Andy  35:59  
You help me one thing I encounter, I do a lot of computer security work. And I encounter people who consistently forever push back saying we're not going to do encrypted text messages. And why what would be the argument to get normal law abiding citizens to appreciate the reason behind securing, you know, not having so much digital leakage?

Larry  36:23  
is for someone like me, that's a question for me.

Andy  36:27  
This case is not

Unknown Speaker  36:29  
actually not

Larry  36:30  
a question for people like me, for sure. It's, it's laziness, and we don't understand the dangers that we're facing. Like most people don't understand. These agencies and what they do are so complicated, and they're into so many things we, so I pushed back simply because it's extra work I have to do, and extra complexity, and I don't want to do it.

Andy  36:51  
But the example that I'm referring to is just what we spoke up before they have nothing to hide, therefore, I don't I'm not doing anything illegal. I'm not doing anything suspect, whatever. But there's still an argument that you still shouldn't be spied on without some kind of process for your information to be exposed.

Larry  37:10  
Well, there again, we we fall into that trap, I fall into it that why would they care about what I'm doing? They've got all these people out there that should be watching that are printing things up. And like who's interested in what I'm doing? I think I'll have a boring life. So why would anybody be watching me? So I don't believe in for the government's watching me, well, maybe I'm wrong, but but

Unknown Speaker  37:28  
they don't gathering up all that data. And if they decide if they if they decide they want to look at you, they've got your past history for the last 20 years. Everything you've ever tested in point x, by golly, they can go on

Andy  37:41  
it up. Now, isn't that one of the core arguments that the NRA uses to not ever let any sort of gun information be in a database, so that then bigger government couldn't then have a record of where to find all of

Larry  37:54  
the guns, that is precisely a very effective argument they make. So

Andy  37:57  
then there shouldn't be any sort of gay people registered, because then we could go track down all the gays and nuke them, because they're all the bad people, and, and on and on to make all these different kinds of data collection elements. So that maybe sometime in the future, we don't end up with something of tyranny, that the information is available for someone to use an appropriately.

Larry  38:20  
So I don't think we connect the dots. I know I don't. Okay, so

Andy  38:25  
I have a hard time, like expressing the passion and the importance of it to anybody, and no one follows it. But this just goes along with what we were just talking about prior to that, of Well, I don't do anything wrong, I don't speed I don't take shortcuts. Why would the police be interested in me, I don't mind if they look at my stuff, it's this, it's the exact same thing just in a digital perspective versus in a real world perspective.

Larry  38:46  
So government doesn't need to collect that data. Google already has it all.

Andy  38:50  
But there's a difference of intent there. And I and I, and I get that but like Google used to have the philosophy of Don't be evil, they've actually removed that now. But from Google's point of view, you at least know that their intent is from a marketing perspective, they do get you probably know about Canary warrants. And so what Google and other companies will do is they'll they'll release quarterly or whatever piece of information is, up to this point, we have received no request for information from, you know, 434 letter government agencies, and then all of a sudden, that information is removed from the next press release, because they they are bound to not not to, to squelch the information that they have been served a warrant of some sort. So by ignoring the information by squelching the information, now, they have affirmed kind of in the assumption that they've now done it. But so at least from the Google point of view, I don't agree with the Facebook side, but the Google point, they are just 100% interested in the economy of it. But if they get served a warrant, they have all of the data, they have all of it. We have another question.

Unknown Speaker  39:59  
11 sorry, a

Unknown Speaker  40:02  
brain fart there. I just wanted this is Michael Kay, I just wanted to address the whole idea that if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. And I talked about this a lot with people. And I always use the example right, where were you Wednesday night? 7pm in 1979. Not only do you know, but can you prove it? Because Oh, by the way, we have this crime that has no statute of limitations. And we're thinking about charging. Yeah. So just tell us everything you know about what you were doing that particular hour and Time went after Supreme Court nominee? Yeah, exactly. And the Jews. Another thing is that just because you don't believe you've done anything wrong, doesn't mean somebody else doesn't believe you've done anything wrong. So you can very easily, you know, they'll say, Can I look at your phone? And you'll say, Sure, I've not done anything wrong. And I and they'll say, well, who's this and you'll say the last my friend 22 years old, and they'll say surprise, she's only 16. So you don't think you've done anything wrong, but you can end up in prison just as quickly. And here's an example that I use. If they come to you and say, Where were you last Wednesday night, and you think yourself, I've done nothing wrong. I was, you know, in the next town over in Greenville. And they go great, because we have this murder that just happened in Greenville, you know, last Wednesday night, and you just now put yourself at the scene of the crime, even though you think you've done absolutely nothing wrong. So you know, this, this, this idea that I have nothing to hide, is what puts a lot of people in prison, and I just wanted to throw that out there. Just because you think you're doing nothing wrong, doesn't mean they think you're doing nothing wrong, they will find any way to verify their suspicions.

Larry  41:49  
I love I love that, because I can expand it. And when the criminal defense business people come to us all the time, and oftentimes they've done something wrong, but occasionally they haven't. And the ones who who insist that they haven't done anything. And then I'll break the news to them. Well, it, it doesn't really matter what you've done. It matters what they can convict you off. And they still Hmm. So it doesn't matter what you've done. It matters what they can convict you off. And, and then they roll their eyes. And then when they when they get through that they said well, what do you mean by I said, well, as we look at the at the at the elements approved, and the erosion of the Confrontation Clause, the the shield laws and all the things that we cannot do anymore in our trial, and the makeup of the jury pool that's going to come in your jurisdiction and all the the restraints we have. They're going to be able to convict you of this. But I didn't know they're going to be to convict you of this. They have the evidence that's going to convict you because so little is required? Well, they don't have a date. They don't need me. Well, and they go, they don't need that either. And that will that was what when I said whatever they got, I said the person said you did it. And that's all that's all they need, if they're credible. And if the jury decides that the Fact Finder decides that they're credible, and I say, Well, you know, this witness looks to be credible, based on the statement that was given to the police and sometimes police coach people to write a statement, but it looks to be credible. And when we do the pre trial interviews, we'll find out how credible he or she is how well they're going to come across and hold up on a cross examination. But then they their hands get tied on cross examination, you can ask him so many things because of the shield laws in place that the victim advocates have put in place. So we tell him, we're not going to ask him Nope, not gonna ask him that. Nope, we won't be able to that. Nope, not that either. And they say, Well, what I said, Well, these are the rules that you made through your legislative process that we can't do all these things. And that so they're gonna be able to convict you. And and then you have burden shifted, Mike was in Arizona, which went up to the ninth circuit where burden is on the accused to to rebut what what it normally should be that the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of intent to commit a crime, while the sexual battery statute in Arizona doesn't require that the owner required that the derby touching, no sexual intent required. And the accused had to show that wasn't for sexual motivation. So that's that was a burden shifting. And we didn't get an answer on that, because they resolve the case without needing to decide that issue. So you may not be able to be you may not be guilty of anything, but they can convict you of something. And they get really dismayed about elements. The question is what can they convict you out? Not? What did you do? And they said that just say, rasa? Yeah, it's not right. But that's the question before it says, What can they fucking conviction on. And if they convict you on all the charges that you're subject to a maximum of 37 years, they've offered you a plea deal, where you'll get one year in county jail and a five year probate sentence, you want to 37 years, and sometimes they roll the dice? And more often than not, they don't?

Andy  45:06  
Well, on that happy positive note, the next article comes from the New York Times, US requiring social media information from visa applicants. I can't see how this would go wrong at all. Hi, I'd like to get my visa. And can you give me all of your Facebook, your Twitter, your Gmail accounts, all those things, so we can just sift through them and find out who your friends with? I don't see a problem with this?

Larry  45:29  
Well, actually, I'm going to surprise you. I didn't read it thoroughly. I did a skim read, and kind of system with our president who wants to do extreme vetting. Coming into the United States, there's a privilege and I can't be inconsistent and claim that people should have a right to come here at will. And that we have the if we don't have the right to I mean, it's a two way street. So if we're going to extreme vet people, and want to know everything about them, that are coming here, then we're shocked when we get extreme vetted. We're going other places, but

Andy  46:01  
exceptional. Shouldn't we have different rules for us than them? Of course we should.

Unknown Speaker  46:05  
So that he's got some bridges he can sell.

Larry  46:08  
So but since you don't have a right to come in the United States, but conversely, United States citizens do not have a right to go to other places. But since you do not have a right to enter United States, I'm not sure that that that's that's off limits. It may be a bad taste, but I'm not so sure that there's a constitutional defect there.

Andy  46:25  
And there you will anybody want to read that? Anybody? Going once, twice, Brenda? Nothing, no. Now Now we're ahead of where I had read up to Henry McComber, he paved the way for other juvenile lifers to go free now 72, he may never get the same chance. This is from the intercept. And the intercept is known for basically producing novels. Larry, did you read this one to know what's going on? Because I didn't put this in there.

Larry  46:52  
That's all put it in there. But I didn't get a chance to read it.

Andy  46:55  
Do you know what's going on now? All right, then we're gonna have to skip that.

Larry  46:58  
So hope

Unknown Speaker  47:01  
that wasn't lining you up.

Larry  47:06  
I was planning to have an extra day for preparation.

Andy  47:09  
Somebody said we're going to record tonight. Who wants to throw just a random subject out for Larry to do the deep dive on the fly? Who's got something to throw at layer? Mr. Harris, please hang on one second, we'll get a

Unknown Speaker  47:28  
it's kind of along the same lines as what we've been discussing about. But I got an interesting email. Before I came down, and I do a lot of genealogy, and I've gotten into the DNA jail genealogy thing. And I got a email from one of the peer network sharing groups that said that they did they were that the FBI had been using the DNA data to do cold case saga cases. And that they wanted, they encouraged you to opt into allowing the FBI to use your data. But as a general rule, they were going to opt you out until you opted in, but they highly encouraged you to work with law enforcement to help them solve cold cases and the like.

Unknown Speaker  48:22  
That sounds really helpful.

Larry  48:26  
Well, I can't, I can't imagine why if you had a recollection of something you've done that you would opt in.

Unknown Speaker  48:34  
What what boost the bright person that thought of this?

Andy  48:41  
The Golden State killers was like the biggest high profile case around this.

Larry  48:45  
But there's been a number of them. But

Andy  48:47  
why would the biggest high profile?

Unknown Speaker  48:48  
Why would somebody who knows they've got something in their past? Because the only reason you'd submit your DNA? So they could catch you? I mean, you know, what other purpose

Andy  48:58  
would there be? Maybe you just don't think that they're using it this way. You want to find out who your ancestors Michael said that you could opt in,

Unknown Speaker  49:05  
right?

Unknown Speaker  49:06  
Yeah. Okay.

Unknown Speaker  49:10  
Here's how it's working is the first of all the companies like Ancestry. com, and 123. And me, I think, is what it's called there should they've been sharing this information with the FBI, first of all, without the knowledge of the people who put their saliva samples into their their service. But the way the FBI is using it, is that they are testing it and narrowing it down to they're using mitochondrial DNA to narrow it down to who your matriarchal DNA DNA line is. And so in other words, they're basically narrowing it down to people within your family or people within a specific genome. And so what they can do is they can test your DNA and say, well, there's a one in a million chance that this DNA is similar. familial, to the person who committed this crime problem is there are 325 million people in the United States. So that means even with that DNA, there's 325 people in the United States that fit that profile of which your son or your uncle or your daughter or whoever, there, they have under suspicion, because they're using your DNA to put your son or your other blood relative in jail is what's happening. And they're doing it on a one in a million chance, which sounds great until you realize how many hundreds of millions of people are in the United States. So even a one in a million chance means that there's a chance that 300 people have done this crime, but they're targeting your son, or your father, or whoever happens to be in your family. So it's in and people don't realize this when when I put my DNA into Ancestry. com, I don't realize the FBI is going to use that sample to convict my son of something which he may or may not have, he might the chances are one in a million, but there are 300, over 300 million people in the United States. So that narrows it down to 300 people in the United States, but he's probably still going to go to prison on those odds, because a jury thinks that those odds are really good. So that's that's how that's work.

Larry  51:13  
This is this is bizarre. Why? Well, I have such a paranoia, I would never get my DNA voluntarily.

Andy  51:22  
But this is this is the novelty, this this novelty of the novelty here. But there's also the idea that you could have that super duper specific condition, whether it's kind of innocuous, or whether it's something kind of severe. And if we can crowd source, if we can collect a monumental amount of data and cross check every kind of pattern, maybe we can custom tailor that fixed for you. So wouldn't you want to potentially have that weird thing that has the seventh year growing out of the side of your head? Wouldn't you want that cured?

Larry  51:57  
Well, yes, but but I don't trust government, I don't trust business. I'm uniform, I mistrust. A business has a profit motive. And they're going to do whatever they can do to make money. So So if business collects data, they're going to use it in whatever way they can maximize and optimize whatever they've collected. So I'm doing everything I can including putting bogus information in my Kroger card, in terms of who it belongs to, because all it needs is to give you your credits for your for your discount. So I would not voluntarily surrender my DNA. I've been voluntarily surrendered. But I wouldn't voluntarily surrender, because that could use it to target you for insurance discrimination. I mean, they could do so many things with it. There's an interest of business and I know businesses pure if the wind driven snow in some people's eyes, but it's not in mind. I don't trust business any more than I trust government. And so therefore,

Andy  52:49  
this recharges a ton of money to ancestry is something like 30 bucks a month. I mean, it seems like it would be I don't know, a couple but I mean, it's just a database of people, but they're collecting a monumental amount of data. And all under the auspices of they give you sort of like heat maps of where your family came from. You can pay extra, yeah, you pay extra when you do your DNA sample to get a medical check to Well,

Larry  53:14  
let's just say I don't have any idea about fifth in terms of, let's say ancestry has DNA on 100 million Americans, I pulled that out here, maybe 30 million in battle, have no idea. But aren't there other businesses? Who would really love to have that that would be in there to their benefit to have that? So they could tailor their whatever it is their product or service particular in medical? Would you trust? ancestry not to provide that as I wouldn't. So therefore, I'm not going to give it to him. I just not wired to do that. So so it doesn't relate to me because because I'm not wired to go. I don't care. What difference does it make? What about all that ancestry stuff? I have no idea of what I'm 10% of this a 40% of that, or anything else? I didn't nothing. And it doesn't change a thing. But for some people, it's very important. So to those people there they're doing it but not to me, it's not

Andy  54:08  
these 3 million paying customers.

Unknown Speaker  54:11  
Well, I want I want how many profiles that have

Andy  54:14  
3 million. So they have 20 billion records. They have more records than there are humans alive. That they could sift through to cross compare pollinate whatever you want to call it to figure out that you're 17 for move cousin committed this crime in 1897? Because the DNA matches I don't

Larry  54:34  
know. Yeah. My paranoid doesn't let me do that.

Andy  54:38  
I can't imagine that I improved your situation paranoid either by those numbers. That I didn't realize that they were that big. That is a 1600 employees eight offices worldwide. That is that is a force that is a force. Just let's just take the to go the other direction. Sergei brain is one of the founders of Google and his wife is a geologists biochemist, I forgot the exact term. She's started I believe, 23andme. Because somewhere along the lines in their marriage, Sergey Brin tested positive for some fairly rare, I don't know if it was type two diabetes, something along those lines, but something that later in life, he's going to have massive complications. This is a person that's worth what $50 billion, he can buy his way out of anything, except for these rare medical conditions. And so through all of that, like 23andme turns into this massive powerhouse of data collection and, and all that and we could end up in our in our future have to go to the extreme of can't think you'll you'll remember the movie what's the what's the movie where we're like gene editing kids Gatica? Is that the right name of the movie, something like that anyway, if you want your kid to have blue eyes, if they if you want to be six, seven, if you want them to be super duper awesome at basketball, if you want them to be a one at IQ, you could tell your kid to be that. Let's pull it away that type two, type one child type diabetes, get rid of it, eradicate cancer, why aren't those the good things that we should go after?

Larry  56:09  
Well, there are the good things we should go after. But you

Andy  56:11  
have to give up the data to get there.

Larry  56:12  
Well, that's the thing. But they need technology that we that we we surrender where there's there's negative with the positive,

Andy  56:19  
you just want to be left out.

Larry  56:22  
I would like to be left out of this. Yes. So but yes, there's, there's good, there's good. All the stuff that you when you swipe your card with your debit card, there's not a soul in this room that's not using a debit card, except me and I use occasionally. But you're surrendering a whole trail that can put you in bad places of where you might be to prompt the government to come ask you about your business. I would rather not the government have that trail about me. So I don't provide it. But if I didn't have anything to hide, why did I care? But I care? Because I know. Oh, well, I record show that you were in Houston, Texas on this day.

Andy  56:57  
You're You're Mr. Consistency, right? Not Mr. Consistency, will you try to like I'm going to be intellectually honest on this subject. So therefore, I have to make time for it. Okay. You don't want to release that information. But you'll text message freely in the clear. I'm done.

Unknown Speaker  57:12  
Yes.

Andy  57:14  
I freely,

Larry  57:14  
I freely admitted that I didn't understand the consequences. When I when I give it to the US government, which the banks are basically a function of the US government. I know that they're federally regulated, I know that the examiners can shut them down. And I know that they carefully respond to anything the government asked about a customer. I know that I don't know that about the phone companies to the same degree. I know that phone companies are largely compliant. But I also know that there's some pushback on what the phone companies are giving them. So so I just don't understand. If you convinced me that the same things happening, I'll probably just as paranoid.

Unknown Speaker  57:49  
This is done. I have

Unknown Speaker  57:51  
to agree with Larry. Because we have repeatedly seen examples in the recent past,

Larry  57:58  
of companies really releasing voluntarily or intentionally releasing people's private data, with no repercussions whatsoever, they have faced no accountability for these. So you know, the practices going to continue. And they're going to use this data in any way that they can. And we're at a point in our society today, where if you believe that businesses are going to act ethically,

you're a fool. Because they're going to vote, they're going to behave in the way that makes them the most money. And that's the reality of our world today. And they don't give a damn whether what they're doing is ethical or not.

Unknown Speaker  58:40  
Surveillance capitalism.

Larry  58:43  
You're starting, you're starting to sound like a liberal pointy head.

Andy  58:49  
Ready to be a part of registry matters, get links at registry matters.co. If you need to be all discreet about it, contact them by email, right? History matters cast at gmail. com. You can call or text or ransom message to 747 to 274477. Want to support registry matters on a monthly basis, head to patreon.com slash registry matters. Not ready to become a patron, give a five star review at Apple podcasts for Stitcher, or tell your buddies that your treatment class about the podcast. We want to send out a big heartfelt support for those on the registry. Keep fighting. Without you, we can't succeed. You make it possible. Um, we do have an article from the Washington spectator. It apparently is a.org. So therefore it's a nonprofit. It's what the Washington spectator Never heard of it. The last article in the in the list. It happens to go over civil commitment. And several commitments. Good. I love civil commitment. Do you think? Is it allowed it

Larry  59:59  
that? Well, I don't know the article, but I love talking about it. I know you do.

Andy  1:00:02  
I'm going to try and like find points out of the article and pepper you with questions to try and get one liners out of you. I'm just making sure I'm looking at the right article. So it's I'm I'm hitting all the big lag in the golden

Unknown Speaker  1:00:13  
era. Yeah.

Larry  1:00:14  
So and this little button right into the Supreme Court thing next right?

Andy  1:00:18  
It doesn't say back in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice known as civil commitment was legal. This meant that 20 states which had passed laws permitting the ongoing incarceration of sex offenders could continue to keep the men confined, even after they completed the prison terms.

Unknown Speaker  1:00:35  
And what's the problem?

Andy  1:00:36  
What would be I think there was a woman who stood up at the end of the final session today. And she described that there was no process for her brother in law to get out. He was just trapped there. And he'd been there for 20 plus years.

Larry  1:00:51  
I was in that part of the presentation that was

Andy  1:00:53  
unfair. And how do we have something in the United States where not only is there like not due process, this is like the anti due process, and you are just locked away and the key is thrown away. And there's nothing you can ever do. And they constantly move the goalposts for you to to find any sort of get out

Unknown Speaker  1:01:12  
of that, that moving the goalpost. I caught that part of the presentation. So well. I mean, one of the things she was describing was how the day we're constantly setting up well, here's the routine you have to follow. And you jump through these hoops. And then he would get through the hoops and oh, well, well, the law has changed or, you know, we've we've added this new component or whatever it was, you know, and just constantly. And that's, that seems to be the mind is like you cannot win. So

Larry  1:01:41  
when I talk about civil commandment, I'm very much opposed to the sex offender civil commandment system that exists in 20 states. But what I what I tell people is that each civil commitment process in the 20 states that have that has has to be examined on its merits, whether it is constitutional, because civil commandment in of itself is constitutional. It's it's something that I think every state in the Union does. We have these 20 states have a different process by which they commit people for sexual offenses, that's far less rigorous, in terms of the due process that's afforded to the to the person, regular person, it's very difficult to confine a person, you might be able to get a 24 or 48 hour hold up to have an observation. And then a person could possibly have that hold extended through another process to a longer hold. But the the goal of those civil commitment is to restore the person so that they won't be a threat to themselves and primarily to others. We don't really care if people threaten themselves anymore, as long as that's the only person that but that's a component of the official test is the person who's danger to them, brothers, what if we committed everybody as a danger themselves, we would have so many asylums that we couldn't build them fast enough, because a lot of the homeless population, they're dangerous to themselves, and they would qualify it, they would have qualified in the old days to be committed simply because they're not able to care for themselves, and are not able to keep themselves safe. But no, we don't do that anymore. Because the institutionalization started in the 70s, probably probably more so in the 60s, but we accelerate through the 70s and 80s. And we had a convergence of liberalism and conservatism, the liberal said that you have the right to be different, odd just because you act weird. And you do the things that would get a person committed, you go go to get a medical doctor and a couple family members say this person's acting nutty, and that could be committed and sometimes they'd be committed for a very long time. Well, is that evolved with the psychotropic drugs, the Thorazine and whatever different drugs they use, civil commitment became less and less us and we have a very, very small number of people civilly committed the United States, very small number, you have a state like an Arkansas, they might have 200 people in civil commitment, the whole entire state. But then the sex offender civil commitment is less robust. It doesn't even take a mental disease or defect, it usually takes a mental abnormality. And then the person is already served a prison sentence. So they're stone broke, and they have no money to fight. And then these petitions to simply commit them are filed, saying this person should be locked away, because they have a mental abnormality that makes them have a propensity to have urges, they cannot control what urges that they can't control. And they lock these people up. And then the goal is not to get them out. The goal was to keep them there. And the goal is, is that the vengeance that they got from the prison sentence is not sufficient. And society wants to continue to impose a restraint on their liberty. So they create something that that has the very minimum necessary to qualify as treatment. In some cases, they can't even disguise it as treatment. They've, they're locked in a prison board. They, they they're not doing anything, but just serving additional time. But in some cases in Minnesota, they are actually in facilities that provide something that that's called treatment, but they they're trying to keep these people there for for for a long period of time, because the bureaucracy is built, and the the apparatus has to be fed. So the goal is to keep them there. Well, you remember john Hinckley, everybody heard the name john Hinckley was the goal with john Hinckley. He was simply committed. After after his trial, he found not guilty by insanity, he was simply committed. The goal was to raise Mr. Hinckley, after he was rehabilitated. Now the goal was keep him in prison to President Reagan passed away. But after he passed away in 2004, the goal was to get him out of battle civil commitment. The goal was to figure out how we can restore him to a level that he doesn't pose any threat to anyone because he shot five people 19 1981,

and that is the tragedy of the sex of interest of commitment, civil commitment, in and of itself, is an acceptable thing to do. If you provide due process, remember, nope deprivation of liberty, property, without due process. So conversely, with due process, a person can be deprived of their liberty, but the Liberty has to be deprived through that process. And with a civil deprivation, Liberty has to be with the goal of returning them to the citizenry as quickly as possible. So civil commitment has to be fixed. But the problem is every case that's gone into the court, they have found like in the Minnesota case, they found that there was enough due process there, even though no one's ever gotten out or head at that time. I don't think anyone who got now I think maybe a handful have gotten out says, but but no one had gotten out. But they said that doesn't mean that you can't get out that just means that you haven't gotten out. And it was a poor selection of plaintiffs, because one person who had been in there hadn't even been there long enough to go through the process to get out that existed. So so it it civil commandment is a tragedy. But we we can't expect the courts to fix it because it's not unconstitutional necessarily on its face. It may be unconstitutional as its applied in a particular situation. The courts cannot say civil commitment is unconstitutional, because you can deprive a partial of liberty with due process.

Andy  1:07:07  
It says here in the article says each year Coalinga, which is not when the woman's foot stood up, and she said that when she was talking, I was like, hey, so here the irony, the coincidence of here, so each year cooling the hospital's operating budget spirals upward in 2017. Wait for it $280 million budget the next year 322. And this year, it's 333 2953, SVP sexually violent predators, 10 370 non sex offenders called mentally disordered patients, they spend 330 $3 million a year that would fix California is legit.

Larry  1:07:40  
And I don't think it would fix their budget. But it's a hugely large amount of money being spent. And those people do not want to give those jobs up. That's what people lose sight of once the bureaucracy is created. Can anybody raise their hand show hands of people who worked for anything that wants to see their job go away? And it doesn't have to be a government? It can it can be private sector? Does anybody? No. of four, they've advocated the abolition of their job. It doesn't happen.

Andy  1:08:05  
Well, hang on, let me escalate. So nozzle is in business to try and strike down the registry doesn't mean you guys are going to give up your salaries.

Larry  1:08:12  
Well, first of all, there's there's no salary, but there will, there will that they will never stopped coming for you. So when when I'm long since gone from this effort, there will be victims advocates, law enforcement apparatus, advocating for bad public policies, there will always be a need for an arsenal, just like there's always a need for the aclu. 100 years after its creation, there will always be a need for for what we do. Because as long as our citizens who are willing to propose bad public policy alarms or law enforcement who are willing to propose bad public policy, we need to be there, because otherwise it'll pass. It is going to keep passing until we're better prepared to deal with each proposal. And we're not adequately prepared, nowhere near adequately prepared, were marginally prepared and a handful of states and Well, I'd say fairly well prepared and handled face marginally prepare, have another half full face. And there's a whole bunch of states where we have no preparation to deal with what the bad proposals are coming down.

Andy  1:09:08  
I heard a person stand up during one of the presentations today and was like, visibly shaking, saying how bad he hated the ACLU. I didn't hear the context behind it. I just caught that. And I immediately reference to you that we brought up and then we've actually gotten a decent number of people on the podcast saying, I donate money.

Larry  1:09:26  
Well, I've not ever been able to see an ACLU card up on the thing for and so they buy remember, they feel you and here I am. So we got one.

Unknown Speaker  1:09:36  
Okay, so.

Larry  1:09:39  
So what I say in response to that is the ACLU is a business. It's not a government entity, it's a business that tries to stay alive. And it has to have funding capital. And it relies on its members, for a big portion of that capital. And it relies on winning cases is another big portion of its funding as a prevailing party. So they focus on things that a priority for their members, and be that they think they can win. They need funding, either as a winning party, or from there if it's something that their members are passionate about. Well, most of the things that our members are passionate about are things that conservatives are not passionate about. And therefore, since our group tends to lean more to the conservative side, politically, we're not going to have a lot of people, they're going to be a member of the ACLU. And because they're for things that conservatives don't support their their, their their that's just I mean, reproductive rights, marital choice, things that progressives are for, that's not what conservatives are so so we end up with our audience being primarily conservative, wanting something from an organization that that, that they're just so diametrically opposed to practically everything they stand for, they're taking God out of the schools, they're putting gaze into the scalps. They're doing all these evil things to the United States, so therefore, I hate them. But then I hate the fact that they don't do anything for me. And, and I find that very confusing, because I would never think of calling on a conservative organization that I despise, to be my Savior. But that seems to be what happens here. They say, where's the ACLU? And I said, Well, you need to be a supportive day. So you and then you get because I send out questionnaires, what are your priorities, you get the structure. And they look at those and they they look at where their memberships positions are, and they look at, they look at that as a significant part of how they prioritize their resources. And then winning litigation brings money to your coffers. They don't see this is a winnable thing. They will they'll take on the First Amendment stuff like like on social media bands, they'll take an ACLU, Michigan went beyond that. But the things they see that they can win, they'll jump on, because that's what it's about. We're the same way. We're looking at cases we can win because we have a small litigation part, and we're trying not to have it evaporate, right. So we're in our flow, we're looking, can we win this? Do we have a reasonable probability of winning this? Are we just gonna, we're just going to waste this money so we can feel good that we tried. And so that's that's what keeps the ACLU is that they don't have the resources. They they're gargantuan Lee larger than us, but they don't have the resources to tackle all this stuff. You'll have to use it have no staff attorneys at all. They'll have one staff

Unknown Speaker  1:12:23  
in Maryland. I know. The ACLU there does have a core staff, but most of the litigation they do in my state is done by volunteer attorneys for birthday parties.

Unknown Speaker  1:12:33  
Yes, yeah.

Unknown Speaker  1:12:34  
Yeah. Well, they may be actual attorneys that work with them. But they'll say they'll call up attorney number three and say, hey, we've got this case, we'd like to file were you willing to work with us on it? Is this

Larry  1:12:44  
called a cooperating attorneys? Okay. So they'll have they'll have, and they'll they'll share the field board if they if they prevail? Yeah. So but but in terms of having a vast apparatus, they don't have that. They really don't. I mean, they're mammoth larger than us. But they're still there's still a speck of what it would take to challenge all the things that are being done wrong. You can devour the legal fees and the Michigan case. Not not the new case. But the one that went to those verses Snyder. Number one, we're on number two now. But number one, it when it was all tallied up, and all the hours that they had from the law school and from the ACLU, Michigan, and expert cost, the settlement with the state of Michigan was $1.8 million. Very few law firms can afford that. That's the risk you've got. And of course, I'm sure that some of those fees could have been trimmed back, they might have charged for some hours a day didn't work. And they might have charged 350 on our verses, you might charge a private party $200. But when you're getting the government, so But still, those are those are hugely complex, and expensive pieces litigation. So the ACLU just can't do all the stuff that people would like them to do. And they didn't ask me to do this. I said this long before that we're over here. So this is stuff I've said, since the get go, that you can hate the actual you but they do what they think is in their interest.

Andy  1:14:04  
Larry, I just received a question from chat.

Larry  1:14:07  
There's nobody in chat.

Andy  1:14:08  
There's one person in chat. I have a question for you. Do you bring your shower head?

Larry  1:14:14  
Of course I brought my shower head.

Andy  1:14:16  
Can we can we take a poll from the audience? How many people packed a shower head? Everyone I'm looking across,

Unknown Speaker  1:14:24  
every hand went up.

Unknown Speaker  1:14:27  
shower heads to do anytime you go to a hotel?

Andy  1:14:30  
How about a wrench? No, no for your head? No, nothing held

Larry  1:14:35  
the shower head itself to shout out to drew fan. I had a fan broad I didn't bring it. Okay, blender.

Andy  1:14:42  
Blender blender, because you're flying right here. So Tim, can we do we need we need an abacus to do the counting of the audience to see how many people raise your hands again.

Unknown Speaker  1:14:57  
00. And as you zero and

Unknown Speaker  1:15:00  
zero nobody here. So now we have a scientific study that has been done to prove to Larry, he's done everybody. So we now have it in stone. No one here, Rochelle.

Larry  1:15:14  
I don't I don't I don't believe what I'm saying because I expect that every hand to go up.

Andy  1:15:20  
Would you like to talk about Antonin Scalia.

Larry  1:15:22  
So I do that I carry towels also. And I asked people not to grab my hands because I have this condition that my bruise and even a rough. If you've dealt with hotel tower, you might as well pull out a number 40 grit sandpaper, as far as my skin is concerned, I don't know about yours. But if I start rubbing a hotel towel, I'm going to start tearing my skin on my hands where the problems

Unknown Speaker  1:15:45  
are. So he's not a good excuse all the time

Larry  1:15:47  
I carry towels. And then when I take a shower, I use some therapeutic shampoo. And I'd like to get all of it out rather than leaving the residue. And most of the hotels, not necessarily this one. But most of hotels have gone on why conservation so you end up where's the water. And rather than going up against a block wall of of arguing about there's no water pressure I just removed there's put mine in have all the water I need that I put theirs back in. And it goes it goes with me. So to me it says perfect solution to a common problem, the water flow. So, so let's we're going to have Scully on the Constitution.

Unknown Speaker  1:16:26  
People that criticize you for this say a lot of the Constitution was phrased in a deliberately vague way that they realize when they framed it, that in generations to come, things may change, which may put a different impression on a particular piece of text. Why are you not prepared to accept that that means you can move with the times to evolve it i but i do accept that with with respect to those vague terms in the constitution such as equal protection of the laws, due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment. I fully accept that those things have to apply to new phenomena that didn't exist at the time. What what I insist upon, however, is that as to the phenomena that existed, there meaning van is the same as their meaning now, for example, the death penalty. Some of my colleagues who who are not textual lists are not original list at least believe that it's it's somehow up to the court to decide whether the death penalty remains constitutional or not. That that's not a question for me, it's absolutely clear that whatever cruel and unusual punishments may may mean with regard to future things such as death by injection or the electric chair, it's clear that that the death penalty in and of itself is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. But more and more Americans come around to thinking the death penalty is an anachronistic thing. You know, 50 years ago, even when you began your longest serving Supreme Court Justice when you began, majority of Americans big majority, we've been in favor of death penalty that is beginning to change. And you're seeing it in over one of the better phrase going out of fashion. One of the reasons being the introduction of DNA. A large number of people on death row didn't commit their crimes. How do you equate that as a man of fairness and justice? How do you continue to be so pro something which is so obviously flawed, I am the pro people. I don't insist that there be a death penalty, or they insist upon is that the American people never proscribed the death penalty never adopted a Constitution, which said the States cannot have the death penalty. If you don't like the death penalty find some states of abolishing you're quite wrong, that it's a majority. It's a small minority of the states that have that have abolished it, majority still was still permitted. But I'm not pro death penalty. I'm just anti, the notion that it is not a matter for democratic choice that it has been taken away from the democratic choice of the people by a provision of the Constitution. That's simply not true that the American people never ratified a provision which they understood, abolish the death penalty when the cruel and unusual punishment clause was adopted. the death penalty was the only penalty for a felony. So and all we have to do is amend the Constitution. I mean, it can be amended. So it is changeable. But it's changeable by process, not by asking the judiciary to make up something that is not there in the text,

Andy  1:19:08  
I find his position to be incredibly fascinating that he, it has nothing to do with what his opinion of whether this is good or bad, it doesn't matter to him. He's just reading the text and saying, it's just not defined in there. So because it's not defined, we can do it.

Larry  1:19:27  
And that's why I have have, he's got to be a regular segment till I run out of that good segments on him, which will take some time, because there's a lot out there. But a lot of things I say a similar to him, not that I'm philosophically in agreement. But when you're interpreting the law, if you are a text lyst which are people, many of them say they are? Well, he's just saying that that's what he doesn't see a prohibition in the Constitution. And we decided not to go with the second part of that, which was about abortion, and we'll do that another time. But it's the same thing with with laws that you don't agree with just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it unconstitutional. And I talked about a Marilyn case from her state where they they prosecuted the person for texting of image themselves. their personal is only 16. I think at the time, well, it's not an unconstitutional to have that as a crime. It's bad public policy, but it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like 16 year olds being prosecuted for possessing porn, then you have to change the law. Don't ask the courts to save you from bad public policy. And and that's that that's that's the point I'm making. If you're strictly by the text, the Nebraska case we've talked about multiple times on the podcast where a person moved from Colorado to brassica, and he was a required to register in Nebraska based on his Colorado conviction. They don't register juvenile thing Colorado in Nebraska. And in but the law says any person who relocates to Colorado, who's required to register another state, so the Nebraska Supreme Court said, well, let's take a look at this. You are a person? Yes. If I'm a person, you did move to Colorado, I'd be fed to Nebraska from Colorado where you were required to register? Yes. Well, that's what it says. It says a new person. And we're going by the text. Well, there are people who believe that it did, you will get more into purpose of Islam and and and, and and results of the decision. There are those who believe that you should look at the purpose when Nebraska their purpose of their registry is not to include juveniles. That's their purpose if you have a Nebraska conviction. But that's not the way they amended the law that says if any person saw the rascals trayport says while your person you did move here, and you do have to register in Colorado source sure looks like us, you have to register here. We end the inquiry there. We don't get into whether it's a good that's clear. There's there's he doesn't get into the policy of about it. He says, Well, if the people want that, that's what they can have unless it flies in the face of the Constitution. And he doesn't see that growing unusual punishment. violates the constitution may not like it, it may be unsound. It may cost millions of dollars to put people to death. And you may make mistakes. But the constitution doesn't guarantee you a perfect trial. It guarantees you a process. That's called due process, but your life can be deprived, you can be deprived of life after the process of complete, even if it's wrong,

Andy  1:22:15  
is that a case in this specific case where we need to be at the table aware of these things to point out where that gap is where the Venn diagram doesn't line up, right for us to go, hey, these people may move in here, you've already have this in place. But if this happens, they're not compatible, and you're gonna end

Larry  1:22:34  
up with a product is correct. And in Nebraska, there was no one there when they were drafting that law. It never occurred St. Not at the time that drafted the law. But but there was no one there telling them with this language, you need a person who's very zeroed in on policy, and you try to imagine bad things. So someone has to imagine how that it could be misused, because if it can be it will be and saw the law enforcement apparatus is looking at it saying, well, he moved here does, it does seem to fit. So the law enforcement apparatus, they're not even call attention to that defect, they may may have noticed it. But without an advocacy group in Nebraska, that's effectively tracking legislation and offering an alternative language, then that got through because no one spotted it. No one thought anything about it. Now they're thinking a lot about it about 85 kids are in jeopardy of having when I say kids, people that were convicted as a dedicated juvenile, about 85, I think are in jeopardy of having to be eliminated, because of this ruling. And I think there's some kind of stay in place because they they cobble together some kind of federal claim to stop the different taking those people live. But the point beyond Nebraska is that if you're attached lyst, you should be for a literal interpretation, you should not be for the courts, substituting your judgment for what would be a better public policy. That's for us to decide, as citizens. And if we don't like our public policy, if we don't like it, it's a reflection of the public. Don't ask the courts unless you're a judicial activist who believes in legislating from the bench. Otherwise, it's our job to stop this stuff through the legislative process through expressing the will of the people. I agree with Scully on that. I don't want people wearing robes, what if they start deciding things that I don't want is public policy. I don't want those robes deciding public policy. I want those robes to decide when we've gone beyond for the constitutional levels to go. So I believe in a pretty limited judiciary, and it's our job to prove unconstitutionality. It's not our job to run to say, well, that's bad public policy, you can do it a better way, the red should be more effective. If you if you did it. That's not the courts role. The court rules to tell you if you can register people under that particular scheme, the courts role is not to tell you the most efficient way that Michigan they're not going to come up with the courts are going to end up having to to strike the things that are no longer constitutional and apply to everybody because the legislature in all likelihood, is not going to come up with something. It's politically suicidal. So my prediction is that the courts will end up having to say, well, you just can't do these things. But they've not got rewrite, that was not their job either. So they're going to strike the things that they're no longer able to do. It's called several buildings. So they're going to they're going to decide that that the provisions of Michigan law they're unconstitutional, they're gonna decide that they're several, they're going to separate those out of the law. And they're the remaining law that I think it's going to stay a stand. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't see a legislative fix in the works.

Andy  1:25:24  
There we are coming like right shy of 90 minutes. So I think it's time

Larry  1:25:27  
for us to thank our audience and and where is we've lost some of them,

Andy  1:25:32  
they have sort of escaped. Well, it's been a long day, Larry,

Larry  1:25:36  
we've only been going 12 hours. Some of us longer,

Andy  1:25:39  
some of us for much longer than others much longer. Brenda, thank you so very much for joining in. I was happy to do it. And Larry, of course, as always

Larry  1:25:47  
you and thank you, everyone

Andy  1:25:48  
and Michael again. And Don, those are the ones that I remember asking a question and I don't know your name. john smith, no one will ever figure out who john smith is. Forget. Don't

Unknown Speaker  1:25:59  
forget Richard. Richard.

Andy  1:26:03  
Richard, thank you, audience so very much for joining us.

And before we head on there, how can we grow the podcast? What's the website?

Unknown Speaker  1:26:18  
I don't remember

Andy  1:26:18  
it's registering matters, does he? Oh, yes, I remember now. And then there's a phone number. I'm sure you remember the phone number 7472 to 74477. Awesome. And do you know the email address or don't have to do that one to

Larry  1:26:32  
registering registering matters cast at gmail

Andy  1:26:35  
outstanding, and of course, Larry King is the best way to support the podcast.

Larry  1:26:40  
That That one is that donate your entire gross paycheck, gross paycheck

Unknown Speaker  1:26:46  
to paycheck patreon.com slash registry matters. And with that, I bid you all do have a great night everybody. Thank you for coming out.

Unknown Speaker  1:26:54  
You're listening to FYI p

Transcribed by https://otter.ai