[00:00] Intro: Ladies and gents, let’s swing the spotlight onto our fabulous lifetime patrons for this episode of Registry Matters. Justin, Brian, Michael, Chris, and Paul. A massive shout out to these stars. And remember folks, FYP.
[00:18] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios east and west, Transmuting across the Internet. This is episode 349 of Registry Matters. Good evening, sir. How are you? I’m nice and toasty. Thank you. Toasty. So, Larry, just let’s just dive right in. After after everyone has pressed like and subscribe and go over to YouTube and press the little thumbs up thing for the bell rating and all that good stuff. What are we doing tonight?
[00:45] Larry: Well, the bad news is Chance had a last minute situation arise, and he’s not able to be with us. So it means it’s just Well, that’s unfortunate. It means it’s just mister doom and gloom for this episode. But we have some upbeat news from the Indiana Supreme Court. It’s a huge win for PFRs, at least for the moment. And also we have some questions from our supporters. And I have at least one article I wanna cover about Arizona from Arizona, I should say. And it’s it is about Arizona as well, so we can dive right in.
[01:22] Andy: Fantastic. And this is Rolfe, like Rolfe I guess that’s Dolph never mind. Anyway, Rolfe. Right? That’s who this first one is?
[01:31] Larry: Yes.
[01:32] Andy: Alright. So quick question. Will your newsletter, NARSOL, be addressing that APFR and that I you know, the way it is spelled, I don’t I’ve heard it’s Jelaine Maxwell. And so please forgive me. You know, it’s spelled very odd. But has this has miss Maxwell been sent to a camp? Now, I thought that PFRs, most of whom, like myself, have camp eligible points, but due to a public safety factor, aren’t able to be, designated to camps. From a legal, precedent setting standpoint, does this open the door for that to eventually happen? As I have no available funds right now to afford NARSOL, I am paying my own schooling. If, if you did have the time, a brief paragraph response would be awesome. And if not, no worries. Thank you for your advocacy.
[02:26] Larry: Well, Rolf has been a long time supporter of both the podcast and, NARSOL. And that is really a good question. And the answer is we don’t know yet whether it will or whether it will not. I will say that without being on the inside, that clearly when you have the Deputy United States Attorney General go visit you in prison, you have attention at the highest levels of the Department of Justice. Therefore, if the Department of Justice, which the Bureau prisons, reports to the Department of Justice, It’s, it’s a part of the Department of Justice. If the DOJ asks that someone be assigned to a camp, being that that’s your boss, that’s gonna happen. Very few people are gonna flip the middle finger and say, No, sir. We can’t do that because we have this policy, the of the public safety factor. Ms. Maxwell is 900 years old, probably doesn’t pose much threat, and probably an override was, allowed, authorized, or even ordered by the top administration at DOJ. Will that result in PFRs being to go to camps that they will take the safety off because they’re afraid that a PFR might offend while they’re at a camp because camps don’t have fences as a general rule. A person could just walk away and they could PFR all they wanted to. Right? I suppose so. So, therefore, that’s the reason why they have that policy. They don’t wanna have to defend why that BFR was able to walk away from camp and do naughty stuff. In normal times, I would say one answer, but we’re not in normal times anymore. This administration has learned and taught us that whatever it says or whatever it does, it can break the mold on public opinion. It’s done so many things I never thought possible I would see in my lifetime. I don’t want off any prediction. But if Trump is pro PFR, like a lot of the PFRs that voted for him, think he is, perhaps maybe he will suggest strongly that the DOJ ask the Bureau of Prisons to take that public safety factor off so that more PFRs could be in camps. But I don’t know if it’s gonna make any difference. It may just be a one, and you’re done. And we’ll have to wait and see, Ralph.
[04:57] Andy: She was born in 1961, by the way. So she’s 63. She’s not a thou what did you say? A 100 years old? A thousand years old? 900 years
[05:05] Larry: old. She’s not that old, man. But anyhow alright. Well, at that age, most people are beyond their typical crime prone years, and I’m not convinced that she had as much to do with this. I didn’t sit on the trial, so I don’t know what the evidence was. But I’m not convinced of anything other than I think that she was scapegoated because Epstein’s dead. Somebody had to pay for his sins. And I think she got, she was unlucky at the wrong place at the wrong time.
[05:34] Andy: Reasonable. And the reason why I cannot figure out how to pronounce her name is she’s French and it’s it looks like it’s Ghislain, g h e e l a y n is the pronunciation. So that’s like Ghislain. Alright. Beyond my pay grade. Moving along, sir? Let’s move along. This one alright. So, this is from Jeff. Now I have subscribed to NARSOL through my incarceration and during the four years I have been out as of 07/21/2025, I have two questions that I hope someone can answer for me. A long while ago, I remember reading in NARSOL about a fundraising effort to challenge Florida and the registry regarding, now I believe, them not taking people off their registry once they leave from a visit or whatever. There may be other items challenged as well, but I don’t recall those. NARSOL even had a running total on their in their newsletter. Now what happened to this challenge?
[06:33] Larry: I believe my recollection is that the challenge was unsuccessful. Florida has every right to keep records of criminals on on display. As I recall, that’s what the court ruled. So there was no nothing unconstitutional about reporting that a person has been a PFR in the state of Florida. So I believe that that litigation died with an unsuccessful outcome. That’s my memory. I know we’ve got probably hundreds of Floridians listening. They can correct us, and we’ll put it on the air next week if we’re wrong, but I believe that’s what happened with that litigation.
[07:06] Andy: Very good. Alright. And then the second question is more personal in nature, but I would say it’s one that runs through the minds of PFRs quite often. Is there any hope of a better life, registry, set of, consequences, etcetera for us? Now I’m so tired of grasping for straws in this ocean of constant punishment. It seems that what little victories, NARSOL Registry Matters announces, are later overturned or only applied to a few people or a particular state or area. To be honest, I am about to give up. In the four years I’ve been out, my state has enacted just about as many laws to restrict me more. Pretty soon, I’ll need permission to leave my home or walk in my own yard. I’m just so tired and it looks like, as if there will be no end. Please send hope. And that’s from Jeff.
[07:53] Larry: If you scroll down, I believe he’s in Kentucky. Right? On down the Road. Well, I I didn’t really wanna do that because I didn’t wanna dox the guy. Oh, well, don’t dox the guy, but I believe he’s in Kentucky. So I guess, I will start by saying, I don’t know if he’s under supervision, if he can vote or not, but he could certainly support people whether or not he can cast a vote.
[08:12] Andy: Can you hang on. Can you stick around that specific subject? Because I had a I was involved in a conversation with someone that was like, well, I didn’t vote or I can’t vote. He’s in Florida. Can can we dig around that for just a minute on what can you do even if you can’t vote on how much impact you can have? Well, I think we did on the last episode, but if we could do it again. It was recent. Yes. We you can. Well, let’s see. Having been in the political arena for decades,
[08:37] Larry: you can distribute literature. Candidates need that. You can donate money. Candidates need that. Phone banking is becoming less and less relevant because phones are unanswered anymore. But people, older school candidates still phone bank. You could, that’s called get out the vote. You could drive people to polls. I’m assuming you have a driver’s license. So people get campaigns offer rides to polls. Yeah. There’s there’s so many things you can do. You can help, candidates be informed on issues. They’re not experts on everything. You can do research. You can, I mean, we can go on and on the things you can do that can have an impact on an election? And you may not be able to vote in certain states, but that doesn’t mean you can’t influence public policy.
[09:29] Andy: Alright. I’m with you. And, so then what else I know you just gave a litany of things. But back to his back to his question, there’s there is hope.
[09:39] Larry: My recollection is the Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled many years ago when it was under leftist regime and control. I believe that they were one of the earlier states that ruled that, residency restrictions could not be imposed retroactively, meaning that PFRs couldn’t be forced out of their home if a daycare or something popped up after they had established residence there. I don’t believe that has changed. So that’s one thing that hasn’t changed, in terms of Kentucky. But if you don’t take any interest in the political arena and you sit idle on the sidelines and you let people who, espouse hammer down, hammer down, crack down, crack down, more time in prison, tougher on PFRs. Don’t be surprised when you get that. So, I would say that, Jeff, you need to spend some time trying to influence public policy even if you’re not a voter because of of of what is it called? Disenfranchement disenfranchisement.
[10:39] Andy: But but, Larry, I look at the total picture. PFR issues are only one.
[10:44] Larry: Oh, I know. Because see, the I’ve heard that for quite some time now. You’re so shallow to only focus on one. Well, but see, the problem is most of those issues run hand in hand. The people who are hammered down on PFRs are also hammered down on criminals in general. And they’re also, not in alignment with me on most other issues. When I’m out of alignment with my team, I call my team out on it. I think you’ve you couldn’t even document how many times I’ve criticized my team in the course of the years we’ve been doing this program. I would need new math. We don’t give them a pass. The other side gives their team a pass, but I do not believe in giving my team a pass. If you’re wrong, I do everything I can to change your mind and persuade you. If you’re wrong on too many issues, I do everything I can to defeat you. So it’s that simple. Yeah. And that means going out working for your opponent, In some cases, if you’re if you’re wrong too many times, but you’re never going to agree with people completely on everything. So I take the 80% rule. If I can get 75, 80% in agreement, I’m for someone.
[11:50] Andy: I dig. Yeah. And the the conversation that I was having with the person we were talking about, the person the particular, health and human services secretary? Is that d yeah. Department of Health and Human Services? That guy is just a tragedy.
[12:05] Larry: Now, you shouldn’t say that. He was appointed by the president of The United States and confirmed by The United States Senate.
[12:12] Andy: Absolutely. And most of the things that were talked about during his, confirmation hearings have not been held to true. He’s a freaking environmental lawyer. He’s not a a medical doctor of any sort.
[12:25] Larry: Indiana Supreme Court. Let’s go here. What do you wanna talk about from this who the hell lives in Indiana?
[12:31] Andy: I don’t think anybody lives there. There’s there is a big racetrack there, but it is a win. And and look, Larry, I I wasn’t doing lawn work today. I was actually, like, we we filed tax extensions, and I was, working on our taxes. But while I was doing that, I was reading it multiple times. I’m not sure why you’re so excited. What’s got you so giddy?
[12:49] Larry: Because the Indiana Supreme Court adopted my legal analysis. And how could you do that? Well, easy. Read the language. It didn’t come if it didn’t come from FYP, where could it have come from?
[13:03] Andy: Perhaps they performed their own legal analysis, like, they they they they played three d chess the same way that you do. Did you consider that?
[13:12] Larry: No. Actually, I never thought about that.
[13:15] Andy: Okay. Well, here’s the case. And and this this guy should not be named Gage Peters. It should be Cage Peters because that would be a perfect supervillain name, Cage Peters. But, so this is Cage Peters versus Dennis j Quackenbush in his official capacity as Hamilton County Sheriff and Lloyd Arnold in his official capacity as commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections. The case was decided on June 19. So that’s just a a couple months ago. Are you ready? I think so. Alright. The question facing the court is whether such a person must register for the period required by the other jurisdiction even though they committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement. The court said, we answer that question in the affirmative. Now I’m not seeing the reason why you are so giddier.
[14:03] Larry: Well, I see the reason because it affirms what I’ve been saying about being listed on a website versus actually being registered. They ultimately held because Peters is not currently required to register in another jurisdiction that he need not currently register in Indiana as a sex or violent offender. They reversed the trial court and remanded for interest summary judgment in Peter’s favor. So that’s why I’m giddy. Alright. And you said they reversed it? They did. They actually reversed the, court of appeals, but the trial court had been, upheld by the court of appeals.
[14:39] Andy: Alright. Well, then here’s some background on how we got here. In October 2013, k, Gage I was gonna say Gage. Gage Peters was convicted of criminal sexual abuse in the state of Illinois. This conviction came with ten year POF registration requirements in that state, a period beginning on 10/15/2013. Then in August 2016, Peters moved to Indiana and complied with his duty to register. Then soon after he settled in the state, the Department of Corrections advised Peters of his ten year registration requirement under SORRA. This obligation, the department added, was subject to modification should the registration requirements change. Now this is all from Illinois. Now how did Florida come into this whole equation? Well, it got a little bit muddy, but as best I could figure out from,
[15:28] Larry: September 28 through 10/04/2021, after Peters moved back to Illinois in in January, he vacationed for that brief period of time in the state of Florida. And Florida requires an offender to register in that state if they take up, quote, a temporary residence for a period of three days or more. In compliance with this law, Peter signed a notice of sexual predator and sexual offender obligations from which he agreed to maintain registration for the duration of his life. This form also advised Peters that his registration would be published on the state’s BFR website.
[16:05] Andy: Now I see. Okay. So he’s, quote, unquote, only listed on the website, the Florida website, even though he no longer resides there?
[16:13] Larry: Correct. He’s listed on the website, and everybody insists that that’s the same thing as being registered. And we’re going to get to the point where the court agrees with FYP. In May 2022, Peters moved back to Indiana and registered with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department. That office’s PFR registration form initially listed the end date as 10/15/2023, which was ten years from the start date. But in February, the sheriff’s department notified Peters that he had a had to register for a lifetime as a PFR due to state of Florida registration laws when he resided there during his vacation. In response, Peter sued for declaratory judgment against the Hamilton County Sheriff and Department of Correction seeking relief from the change in his registration requirement. I’m guessing that the state of, Indiana did not agree with his position with his petition. Well, how did they respond? Yeah. So, well, the state moved for summary judgment, which was converted from a motion to dismiss, and the trial court granted the motion after finding no issue of material fact as to whether Peters is required to register for life in the state of Indiana, because he is required to do so in the state of Florida. So they just did did the minimum work possible. The trial court could not be bothered with the nuances of Peter’s argument. Well, I looked yonder that former. You signed that thing, and I went here in Florida and it said you gonna register for life. How come you’re taking up this call with time? That’s what that’s what he did.
[17:46] Andy: Well, then then Peters, it it seems that he appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Is that their version of the Supreme Court? Is that still one step below? That’s one step below. That’s the intermediate court. Okay. And so what happened there? Well, the panel, it was split,
[18:01] Larry: but they affirmed holding that the plain language of the code, and that’s in Indiana code 11 dash eight dash eight dash 19 subsection F. And that’s the jurisdiction statute. It compels registration for individuals with out of state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations. And that case from down below, is cited as Peters versus Quakenbush, two forty three, northeast third, at 11:45 to 11:51. And that was just decided last year at the Indiana Court of Appeals.
[18:38] Andy: Alright. And then I see that on page four, it says, in so holding, the majority expressly disagreed with and declined to follow the decision in Merroquin versus Regal. What is that case about?
[18:51] Larry: Well, I had to do some work to figure that out. But it in that case, the defendant had been convicted of a class d felony of sexual misconduct with a minor, an offense that did not and apparently still does not require registration in the in Indiana. After moving to Virginia, Virginia required him to register for ten years, but was later that was admitted to lifetime, based on the Indiana conviction. Well, he didn’t he didn’t like that lifetime obligation too much. So he moved back to Indiana and the sheriff informed him that the Indiana jurisdiction statute required him to register now for life in Indiana because Virginia had required him to register for life. He sued, arguing that the jurisdiction statute doesn’t apply when the requirement to register another jurisdiction is based entirely on the existence of the Indiana conviction. And that is when there is no independent requirement to register in another jurisdiction. The court of appeals agreed in that case, reasoning that the purpose of the jurisdiction statute is to ensure that a person who is required to register another jurisdiction because of a BFR type offense in that jurisdiction cannot avoid registration by moving to Indiana. Well, that reminds me of a guy that moved to, he was convicted in Wisconsin pre registration and he moved to Nevada and got into the gaming industry. Nevada used to have mostly a private registry and then they went AWA compliant and everybody ended up on the Internet and he didn’t like that nearly as much. So he went back to Wisconsin and they said, well, now not so fast here. You didn’t have to register when you left, but you’re coming from a state where you have to register. So now you have to register.
[20:35] Andy: And this is some garbage. I mean, if if if you haven’t done anything other than change your location, it doesn’t seem that that should be the way that that works. I know we’re gonna talk about should be and ISB. I I understand that. But if you didn’t do anything to activate the registration requirements, it doesn’t seem like you would. Okay. But here’s you a chance to call out intellectual dishonesty.
[20:59] Larry: My conservative friends that are listening. You guys say that you like to keep the cost of government down and you like to waste no money and you claim law enforcement is overworked and understaffed. How is it that you let them create extra work by inventing requirements as absurd as this to boost the number of registrants while at the same time they claim that they’re underfunded and they can’t perform basic law enforcement functions? Why do you give them a pass on that? I don’t, but you do.
[21:33] Andy: Alright. And then this seems to be already settled case law?
[21:37] Larry: It was already settled in Marroquin, but they chose to ignore their own precedent. The court stated in rejecting Peter’s claim that his departure from Florida relieved him of his obligations there, the majority pointed to his subject to registration status on Florida’s PFR website, which it does say that. I looked it up myself, adding that it matters not whether he needs to report in person there, but he’s subject to registration. But that’s only if he’s there in Florida connected by employment or living. Can you admit that that’s funny?
[22:08] Andy: Not funny at all.
[22:10] Announcer: Are you a first time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us a part of your daily routine and subscribe subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snort from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others of you people to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say f y d.
[23:00] Andy: So then in dissent, judge Mathias would have adopted the reasoning set out in Merriquin to find the jurisdiction statute inapplicable when there’s no independent requirement to register in the other jurisdiction. Judge Mathias, invoking the absurdity doctrine, concluded that the legislature could not have intended the results here based on a one week vacation in another state. Judge Mathias had a point, did he not?
[23:26] Larry: I think Judge Mathias was looking at it correctly. He did indeed have a point, but a visit to a state does not alter the underlying conviction details. Indiana took the position that you visit Florida, so poof, you’re now lifetime PFR based on a brief visit. I’m trying to get you I I wanted this is this is funny, isn’t it?
[23:50] Andy: Now now look, the next time we all get together, I will ask all the Floridians that I have access to to see if it’s funny. And if they don’t find it funny, I will offer them tomatoes to throw at you. How about that? Sounds good. Now, it would be funny if it wasn’t so absurd. Now, can we move on to the Supreme Court’s analysis? What is the standard of review there? This is where it’s strict scrutiny and those things. Right? Yes. This is a good question about standard review.
[24:19] Larry: The court stated when reviewing summary judgment, a summary judgment ruling, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Now, they left out the part that all any doubt is resolved in favor of the non moving party, which is what tripped up the people in Smith v. Stowe in Alaska. They couldn’t understand that. But when, when like here, a challenge to summary judgment ruling presents only questions of statutory interpretation. The court says, we review those issues to noble, meaning there’s no difference to the decisions made below. They’re totally at liberty to do whatever they wanna do without deferring. So they took a fresh look at it, in in the in the
[25:12] Andy: alright. And then so in 1994, the Indiana General Assembly adopted Zachary’s law, requiring a person convicted of certain PFR type offenses to register. And then since its inception, Sora has undergone several amendments. Of course, they have. Under the law today, a person must register and that’s report in person to local law enforcement. Now if that person is a, PFR or violent offender who resides in the state, works for or intends to work in the state, attend school or plans to attend school in the state, and that’s, what is IC? Indiana code, I guess. Yes. And that’s, you you gave that one before. That’s eleven eight eight four. Now, how broadly is the registration requirement applied in Indiana? Pretty broadly.
[25:58] Larry: Sex or violent offender refers to a person convicted of one of many enumerated Indiana offenses, including various PFR type crimes or substantially similar offenses committed in another jurisdiction. The term also includes a person who is required to register as an offender in any jurisdiction. And that’s in that same code section, sub subsection B one. Defining a PFR can include a person who is required to register as a PFR in any jurisdiction. So that’s where they were trying to rope him in here. But see, he ain’t required to register in another jurisdiction. He’s gone. He poofed and he vanished. And that’s what people don’t understand.
[26:38] Andy: Indiana is one of the and and I guess a bunch of, Eastern Seaboard cities are that way too. But Indiana is one of the, states where a lot of people live just over there in the other state next over that you would end up with where where it’s talking about if you intend to work here or live here, the that really kicks in where someone in your state, there’s not much likelihood that someone lives right next door to the other states around it. You think? I think so. But I could be I do you have a major city on your border?
[27:10] Larry: Not especially a major city. No. We do have some That’s my point. Yeah. So Alright. Well, but how long must they register in Indiana? Well, I think, basically, the registration is ten years. But if a person is required to register in any jurisdiction, then that person must register for the period required in the other jurisdiction or the period described in this section, whichever is longer. That’s where they were wanting to deviate from the ten years because he was required to register in Florida for life. But the court noted by opposing such a requirement, Indiana avoids becoming a safe haven for PFR type offenders attempting to evade their obligation. I tell you guys that’s a real concern of people doing state shopping.
[27:51] Andy: Now I noted that the court stated the parties here dispute whether its requirement rep applies to a person residing, working, or attending school in Indiana, even though that person committed no offense in the other jurisdiction that imposed the triggering registration requirement.
[28:08] Larry: They did say that. Correct. In part one of the opinion, they concluded that it does, require that it does apply. But whether the jurisdiction statute applies to Peters is another question that was addressed in part two of the decision. And they held that because Peters is not currently required to register in any other jurisdiction, the jurisdiction statute does not apply to him. This means that being listed on Florida’s website does not in and of itself constitute being registered as a PFR. He couldn’t have won. Sure. He couldn’t have won this case if they looked at it the way most PFRs look at it. They say, well, I’m on the registry. I’m registered in Florida. I said, wait a minute. Are you registered anywhere? Well, no. I got off in in, Vermont, but I’m registered in Florida. I said, no. You’re not. You’re on the website. They said, no. You’re not. You’re an idiot. I’m on the registry. Under your doctrine, he would have lost this case. But under my doctrine, he won this case because he is not registered in Florida. He’s got residual information on the website. They concluded that he does not have to register in Indiana due to the short vacation in Florida. In essence in essence, they recognized and adopted FYP’s analysis that being listed on the Florida website is not the same as having a registration requirement.
[29:26] Andy: Then the Court of Appeals majority declined to follow Meroquin explaining that the plain language of the jurisdiction statute compels registration for individuals without of state registration obligations regardless of the source of those obligations. What did the supreme court say about that?
[29:44] Larry: Well, Peters argued that once he left Florida, he no longer had a duty to register there because he no longer maintains a temporary residence there. Peters admits had he admitted that Florida maintains and has no obligation to remove his public profile, and that was addressed in the question previously because that case was lost. They have no obligation to remove his profile from the online PFR registry. But he distinguishes the state’s obligation to notify the community of registrants in the state from an offender’s duty to register in the state. So I’m starting to like this Peter’s guy more and more. I think he must have been listening to registered matters.
[30:18] Andy: You never know. The state acknowledged that Peters might not have to update his information personally in Florida while living and remaining in Indiana. But the duty to personally update registration information the state submits is the only obligation terminated by leaving the state of Florida, not the duty to register. They argued that a PFR’s registration requirement does not terminate when the offender moves to another jurisdiction. And what did the court say about that?
[30:45] Larry: They said, we hold that the jurisdiction statute applies to a person with out of state registration obligations regardless of the source’s obligations. But because Peters is not currently required to register in Florida, we hold that the jurisdiction statute does not apply to him. We thus reverse the trial court and remand for entry of summary judgment in Peters’ favor. I’ll just finally make it clear that being listed on our website is not the same thing as being registered.
[31:13] Andy: Interesting. I’m sure it makes it clear, like, what what would be the way to word it? Like, in statute, it makes it clear. But with all the people that are being doxxed on the Florida website with the way the Internet the pervasiveness of the Internet is at this point, I think that’s a it’s just a non starter kinda argument. You can’t argue that people don’t have disabilities and restraints. And I know that’s not what this is about, so don’t go into all that. I realize that, but people are experiencing a lot of, pain and grief from being on the websites. Indeed. There would be people that would be denied housing in other states. They would say, I found you. Is this you, Yondra? Look at a picture. It looks like an old picture, but it sure looks like you. Did you used to live in Florida? Wow. And and And your name is so oddly similar. And that would that that would actually be happening to people. Then you have actual damages if you can if you can document when that happens. That’s part of the point goes wrong in these cases. Nobody can ever prove that they were denied anything because of the registry.
[32:09] Larry: They can’t document the the volume of their monetary losses. But if you can get someone on video saying, hey, I would’ve hired you, but I found this old stuff on the Florida website. I think you’ve got something that will keep you in court beyond the the 12 b six motion for summary judgment.
[32:28] Andy: Alrighty then. Any final words on this?
[32:32] Larry: So well, I wish that the well, Indiana Supreme Court would send us payment for our services, don’t you?
[32:39] Andy: How much do you think that’s worth?
[32:41] Larry: Well, I know that that they would have to done a lot of work somewhere, so it would be easier just to get it from us and pay us for the work we’ve already done.
[32:51] Andy: Alright. Well, which publication is this from? Where did where did the the AZ Capital Times? So this is the Arizona Capital Times. They don’t have, like, a logo at the top of the page, man. Arizona’s two hundred ninety year sentence was a failure of justice. Now, we have this article out of Arizona and it says Katie governor Katie Hobbs recently denied clemency to Carl
[33:14] Larry: Bousk. How would you pronounce that? I would have a clue. That’s why I’ll always give you these hard I would say buzk, but it could be buzk. I was gonna say he probably Buski. Buski or buzk.
[33:27] Andy: A man serving a how long, Larry? This guy has got a longer sentence than you’ve been alive, which is two hundred ninety year sentence. Holy crap. Two hundred ninety year sentence in Arizona for possession of CP. The author stated, I want to be clear from the outset. The offense is serious and deserving of accountability. But two hundred ninety years for a non contact crime? That’s not justice. That is vengeance disguised as a law. Now, do you agree with that? I do. So mister Busque, Busque, mister Busque’s case is well known to those who have followed Arizona’s sentencing pattern. Even the judge who sentenced him bound by law to impose ten year minimums for each of the 29 counts to be served consecutively, acknowledged at the time how extreme the outcome was. The original prosecuting attorney agreed. And most recently, the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency voted unanimously to rec recommend his release. Now can you admit that a consensus like that among the judge, prosecutor, clemency board is virtually unheard of? Yet, governor Hobbs rejected the recommendation. Now what kind of spin can you put on this?
[34:33] Larry: Oh, that one’s easy. The governor is facing reelection in 2026 along with 35 other governors in the same cycle. She’s attempting to remove the issue from the Republicans as as they’re likely to raise it. That she, she’s fearing that she would be perceived as soft on sex offenders and that’s not a good thing in an election cycle. So I would, I would surmise based on my political experience that that’s what’s, driving her to intervene.
[35:03] Andy: The author pointed out that this denial isn’t a disappointment. It’s a missed opportunity to affirm what Arizona Department of Correction, Rehabilitation and Reentry claims to stand for, rehabilitation and reentry. Mister Busk has served over eighteen years in prison. He’s got a long way to go on that two ninety, though. He has maintained a clean record, completed all programs available to him, and aged into a low risk category by any standard. I pose the same question. If this man is not eligible for a second chance, well, then who is?
[35:33] Larry: Well, I’ll agree. And all you have to do is convince the opposition. And right now, the governor Hobbs that would be coming from the Republican side out to stand down and not criticize and use this as a political issue in 2026. Now, I know all the vast audience we’ve got in Arizona, a lot of them would be inclined to be Republican. Try to get in touch with your party apparatus, the chairman of the party, the candidates’ managers, because there’s a couple of candidates I think already announced for for governor on on that side of the aisle. Try to get them not to politicize this. That’s what I would urge you to do.
[36:09] Andy: The article states clemency exists precisely for cases like this when mandatory sentencing laws produce outcomes so disproportionate that they violate basic notions of fairness. Arizona’s laws tied the judge’s hands. The clemency board exists to untie them. And the governor’s office, as the last safeguard, is supposed to ensure that justice is not merely legal but humane. In this case, that system failed. I’m certain you agree.
[36:35] Larry: I do. The writer pointed out that all governor Hobbs had to do, was only one thing, is to let the clemency take effect. She had to do nothing. In a literal sense, that is probably true. She didn’t have to endorse Mr. Buskey. She didn’t have to issue a press release. She simply had to allow the board to exercise this judgment that was, has been entrusted to them. Instead, she chose to rule them without providing a public explanation against the advice of every professional who handled the case. The only problem is that it ignores the political reality. I think Governor Hobbs, if she’s not old enough, she would remember Willie Horton and how the governor of Caxachusetts back in 1988 who was running for president, was so vilified for Willie Horton getting a weekend furlough. And he was the governor and he didn’t even have any idea, I’m quite certain that even there was such a thing as a furlough program because governors don’t get involved in the minutiae of prison operations. But he was vilified relentlessly for turning loose that type of individual. Governor Hobbs just barely won her election by a fraction of a percentage point and it stayed in contest for weeks and her opponent never did concede to my recollection. And Arizona is a Republican leaning state, and she just doesn’t have any political capital to waste on a PFR. I mean, I don’t make the rules. I’m just relaying to what she was likely thinking.
[38:04] Andy: Arizona ranks near the top of the nation in incarceration per capita and near the bottom in education. The author pointed out that he supported governor Hobbs. He said, I believe she would bring balance and compassion to Arizona’s justice system. I believed we were turning a corner. But today, I join a growing chorus of citizens, faith leaders, professionals, and justice advocates who are tired of watching rehabilitation denied in favor of political calculation. Now based on what you just said, your response to that?
[38:33] Larry: Well, my response is simple and similar. As the article states, Republicans there was a second article. Republicans see a prime pickup opportunity next year in Arizona’s governor’s race. For Democratic incumbent, Katie Hobbs faces a tough reelection and a state president Trump won by five points just last year. Two Republicans so far have entered the race, developer Karen Taylor Robeson Robeson, who ran for governor in 2022 but lost to Carrie Lake, and Representative Andy Biggs as chair of the House Freedom Caucus. That doesn’t sound like a particular progressive caucus to me. But without Governor Hobbs, you guys that are wishing that she was gone, without Governor Hobbs, there’s no check and balance on extremism. She’s vetoed some stuff. I can’t give you a whole list, but she’s vetoed some stuff. She’s taken some crazy stance. But I agree that mister Buskey’s sentence was extreme. His rehabilitation is probably real. And the decision to keep him in prison indefinitely is neither just nor defensible. But we live in a democracy. People made those laws of Arizona that he was able to get two hundred ninety years. They forced the judge to enforce that to impose that two hundred ninety years sentence because it was mandatory. So Gary, who I respect, he used to correspond with us, before he was out in the free world. I respect him. But I don’t think he has the political savvy to understand that this is political survival here one zero one. That’s what’s happening.
[40:07] Andy: And then you said there’s another article. Is this one free for fifteen years?
[40:11] Larry: Yeah. I didn’t really get that one prepared, but, yeah, he he did find a good company. When you said we had it. Well, we’ve got we could we could just chew the fat for a few minutes if anybody has a question and then then I’m gonna get out of here.
[40:25] Andy: I wanna ask you about gerrymandering. Just kidding. No. We can get out of here. We can, call it from there. Does anybody have a question that they wanna throw at Larry? No one has asked any, and I have been chatting the entire time. All I have to say is that elections have consequences. Well, okay. Mike, Super Patriot not Super Patriot, Mike. Big Mike just asked this, that do you think the Supreme Court got the, analysis wrong of a civil regulatory scheme back back back, you know, in 02/2001?
[40:59] Larry: I do not. Did they get it wrong based on the situation at the time? I I do not think they got it wrong at the time.
[41:05] Andy: I agree. That’s what I was just saying to him. I was like, given the state of the Internet, given what they said, it’s like you just gotta go in and and talk to the Popo once a year or whatever. Like, that’s not really that big of a deal. But So do you think if a similar case came up now, do you think that the Supreme Court would, rule differently?
[41:26] Larry: It’s always scary when you look at the type of rulings that were coming out of this particular court. But, we have the court that the people gave us. If a case is properly developed, where you actually spend tens of thousands of dollars proving down below, no summary judgement lawyers, no summary judgement, trials, evidence, experts, witnesses that are highly credible, that don’t testify contrary to what what your assertions are.
[41:59] Andy: That’s awfully specific, Larry. Are you referring to something? Maybe something written by someone recently even?
[42:05] Larry: But but as as the registry existed in Alaska in twenty o three, there was really not much more to it than sending out a form. And Right. The Internet was relatively in its infancy. And people didn’t rely on the Internet like they do now. So the Supreme Court is not supposed to be clairvoyant. They were not supposed to embed evidence that it didn’t exist. That case was decided on summary judgment because the challenger at the time felt that he was in the driver’s seat. He says, Everybody knows that this is the next post facto, addition. Well, everybody did know that. But everybody didn’t bother to read the Kennedy versus Mendoza case from 1963, Kennedy versus Mendoza Martinez. Those seven factors that determine whether a civil regulatory scheme is actually civil and regulatory. Because you can impose civil disabilities or restraints after the fact. You just can’t impose criminal penalties and sanctions. So, therefore, they they got arrogant and they moved for summary judgment, which meant that the state of Alaska was not given the opportunity to put on their defense. And summary judgment is resolved in favor of the non moving party. Any inferences that need to be made, any doubts are resolved in favor of the non moving party. Alaska said in their response, we have this because recidivism is frightening and high. Well, without a trial, that has to be assumed true. Right? Under the rules of civil judgment. So, therefore, so the parties below handed the Supreme Court facts that they had agreed to that recidivism was frightening and high. Then they they dump on the Supreme Court for the last twenty five years about something the Supreme Court did not decide. It was decided by the parties who agreed in their summary judgment. I think it was actually a counter motion made by both parties. But you do the same thing in both when a party moves for summary judgment. Any facts that are in dispute that would benefit the other side are given, they get the favor of those resolved in their favor and vice versa. So so anything that the PFR said was resolved in favor of whatever Alaska said what their defense would have been. And anything that Alaska said about the PFR was resolved in the PFR’s favor. But the Supreme Court got it completely right at the time. The lawyers have gotten it completely wrong in intervening years by not building proper cases, by not having enough money invested, by not going to trial and by not proving out their facts. The burden is on you, counselor, to prove that the registry is inflicting punishment. You don’t get any benefit of the doubt. You have to go in with solid evidence, credible evidence. And you haven’t done that and you’re going to keep losing until you do that. Well, very good. Play play that clip. Close out the show. Play that clip about what’s going to happen when you keep losing. Do you get something through your head?
[45:12] Andy: Oh, do I have that one? I don’t know that I have I have that one somewhere else to play. I don’t have it immediately. That’s alright. Yeah. We’ll play it one season. Hang on. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Wo
[45:25] Larry: So But anyway, yeah. You’re gonna keep losing until you get that through your thick effing skull. So well, and I agree with Megan Kelly on that. If if lawyers keep doing the same thing, they’re gonna keep losing. And if they keep criticizing the courts rather than examining what they’re doing wrong, they’ll continue to lose.
[45:41] Andy: Understand. Well, alrighty then. So head over to registrymatters.c0 for show notes and links to everywhere, which includes the shop, which has fypeducation.org, merchandise, t shirts, sweatshirts, etcetera. I’m holding one up on the screen right now that is the, it’s not punishment. It’s a civil regulatory scheme. You can send email @registrymatterscastatgmail.com. Phone, voice mail message stuff at (747) 227-4477. And, of course, for those that have joined us, in the chat tonight, those are all patrons, and I thank you guys so very much. That’s patreon.com/registrymatters. And if you would like to show support for the show as these ones have done, it is it it certainly makes it an easier venture for us to, take the time out to do these things. And, without anything else, you wanna say any parting words, Larry, before we head out? I’ll see you people in what is it? Seven days from now. It’ll be seven days. Take care, my friend. Have a great night. And everyone in chat, thank you guys for all coming. And you guys have a good safe night and weekend and week ahead. Take care. Good night.
[46:51] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.
Leave a Comment