ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (11/19 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

ACSOL Conference Oct 1, 2022 

General News

Federal Court Stops Lawsuit Challenging Denial of Base Access

A federal district court judge has stopped a lawsuit filed on behalf of a registrant who is also a military retiree and denied access to a military base solely because he is currently required to register.  According to that judge, access to a military base is a privilege and not a right.  The judge also noted that a base commander has absolute authority to control access to a military base.

In addition to granting the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case, the judge denied plaintiff the right to amend the complaint.  The reason stated for that decision is that “Plaintiff cannot cure these defects via amendment as a matter of law.”

The court agreed with one argument made by Plaintiff, that is, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to this case.  That is because the lawsuit sought an injunction requiring the base commander to allow Plaintiff access to Vandenberg Space Force Base in Santa Barbara County.

“We are discouraged by the court’s ruling in this case,” stated attorney Janice Bellucci.  “There may, however, be opportunities in the future to challenge similar decisions made by base commanders in different states.”

 

 

Download the PDF file .

 

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Again. This issue stems from his “status as a registered sex offender.” If the registry did not exist. This status would not exist. Therefore, this disgusting discrimination would not be able to exist. All of these problems are caused by the registry. And it is not proper, in my opinion, to fight the effects of the registry but the very existence of it. I honestly think the best way to fight it would be to demonstrate all those crimes that occurred that the registry did not prevent (and that were crimes committed by those with no criminal history.) There is a plethora of cases which could be used from all corners of this country. It has to be shown what colossal waste of taxpayer dollars the registry system is. The objective and claim of the registry are “public safety.” If it can be overwhelmingly shown to fail at its core intent, then I think the whole system could be struck down. Just my current thoughts on this issue.

A militaristic police state armed and augmented with a DDI.

How many retired military veterans who have been convicted of drugs, DUIs, assaults, and robbery are still allowed on military bases?

Again, the courts see the registry’s impacts as collateral damage without regard to the person on it when it is beyond just informing the public as intended. RBG and Judge Matsch saw it for more than that as have other Judge’s and Justice’s now in other forums.

With that being said, the base commander does have the power to restrict the privilege to access the base regardless of retiree or other for the person who can access it. Chances are they are acting on the direction given to them by others above for whatever reason.

Last edited 22 days ago by TS

Does the fact that the Judge said that the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity doesn’t apply then open up the government to a tort claim whereby the former service member can sue for damages related to base access denial and their retirement benefit such as the difference between his costs for things he could have received from those privileges vs the cost required to obtain them elsewhere? For example free lodging on base is a benefit you are supposed to be able to use when traveling. If denied access to that lodging you would be entitled to a claim against the government for those lodging expenses?

The registry is a legal form of ostracization. It’s an obvious branding like the Scarlett Letter.

Ostracization is banishment and banishment is punitive.

The registry’s original intent was just to have one on a log and it doesn’t interfere with one’s way of life.

In this particular case, the registry is used as an instant red flag to prevent entry to a military base. The intent of the registry with base denials goes beyond the original intent of the registry. Registrants are effectively banished under the current military set of laws, which just recently happened. I wonder who made those laws and by which process?

Janice,
The retired nave man that was denied in Florida would probably be a great candidate to challenge this as that is where he also receives medical services he is active on FAC website

As soon as you’re marked as a “sex offender,” all that service to country, defend our freedoms and support the troop stuff goes down the drain. Veterans need to realize that. These politicians and vic rights people don’t care about your military status. One state has even sentenced a Navy Seal to years in prison for having underage material on his computer. I know it’s hard to swallow the fact that retired military veterans can’t get on base, but that’s today’s reality based on hysteria over a certain class of people

This shouldn’t be a surprise. “Judge” Philip S. Gutierrez has a 3/10 rating (aka 30 percent, or F- rating) on Robing Room. Three stars out of ten possible stars, 43 reviews, mostly giving Judge Gutierrez one-star reviews. Many of the reviews call Gutierrez “angry” and a “bigot;” it definitely shows in Gutierrez’ order.

What’s troubling is how this so-called judge refers to “sex offenders,” in general, with derogatory tone. It almost seems like this judge looks down on people the “government” has labeled as sex offenders, as he is somehow better (which I highly doubt). Gutierrez ignores the fact that many registrants have already paid the price for their crime, the fact that registrants, too, are American Citizens, as well as the fact that there are about one million sex offenders in the United States of America. Gutierrez swore an oath to the Constitution and the “duties of the office.” Gutierrez has failed miserably.

Judge Gutierrez also ignores the fact that this man held a secret security clearance, for many years, as a government contractor, after his decades-old conviction. Then arbitrarily, the base commander decides to revoke a 20-year, honorably discharged, officer’s retirement benefits? This shows that even if you’ve given your life to the American “government,” the feeling is not mutual. Our government does not care and it will screw you over when it gets the chance.

Personally, I wonder if ACSOL will appeal this to the Ninth Circuit.

Janice you talk about opportunities. In any battle domestic or civil there is always opportunities if one looks at them in constructive ways. Now many on here should be thankful that some didn’t have to be imprisoned by this registry and were given probation instead. Course its very sad that some go to prison. Was prison an opportunity?

Hey when people want to stop “actions” such being deprived of one’s liberty of entering a military base, school or government establishment even after their probation or penalty because of a label who is labeling themselves with this judgement. Who is judging who with their mentality and/or unethical moral “values.

My use of military facilities is not a privilege but an earned right. My doctor is on base, and my meds are received from an on base pharmacy. My groceries come from the on base commissary.

31
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.