# United States v. Peter Hanlon Irons > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · November 30, 1966 · 369 F.2d 557 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452339 ## Case - **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Hanlon IRONS, Defendant-Appellant - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** November 30, 1966 - **Citations:** 369 F.2d 557; 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4209 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Sullivan - **Judges:** O'Sullivan, Edwards, Mathes - **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452339 ## Opinion text O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge (concurring). I concur in Judge Mathes’ opinion. It is a correct and adequate disposition of the appeal before us, but in view of the dissent of Judge Edwards I feel it appropriate to add the following observations. The dissent assumes that Irons’ refusal to comply with the requests of his draft board was prompted by a belief that he would not be accorded a conscientious objector status. I do not so read the record. He persistently refused to seek conscientious objector status. That his resistance was not entirely the product of an unwillingness to accept “a Supreme Being” is portrayed by his trial testimony. “Q. In other words, your objection was not just to the supreme being clause of the selective service statute? Your objection was to the whole system of selective service as regards compelled duty of any sort; isn’t that correct, during that period of time? “A. Yes.” The District Judge, who tried this case without a jury, made Findings of Fact, two of which are as follows: “4. The defendant Irons did not claim for himself a classification of conscientious objector in his letters (which were placed in evidence) to the Board because such letters expressly rejected any such classification. “5. The statements and information in defendant Irons’ letters (which were placed in evidence) to the Board did not constitute a claim for a classification of conscientious objector, even if such statements had been made on the forms of the Selective Service System, because said letters expressly rejected any such a classification.” The evidence amply supports such findings. In 1958, appellant Irons registered with his Draft Board without claiming exemption whatsoever; ever since that year, through his final refusal to report for induction, he was careful to insist that he was not making, and would not make, application for conscientious objector status. The following extracts from communications which he addressed to his Draft Board are illustrative. In 1960 upon returning his draft card to his Board, he stated: “ * * * I have formulated what to me is a philosophy of life which enables me in good conscience to decide, on the basis of my deeply held moral convictions, that any cooperation with a system that recognizes the possibility of war is repugnant and incompatible with that philosophy.” (Emphasis added.) *560 On December 21, 1960, in refusing a duplicate draft card, he said, “I have thought long about applying for 1-0 [a conscientious objector classification involving certain kinds of civilian, non-combatant duty] classification, but this would tacitly assume that I recognize the validity of your jurisdiction.” On March 16, 1961, he made a statement in his own handwriting to representatives of the FBI, as follows: “I have no intention of carrying on my person a Selective Service card. “I belong to an un-named group, recently formed, of individuals from different colleges, who have started a movement to persuade other students (college and high school) to refuse to register for Selective Service, or if registered, to disassociate themselves with Selective Service. ****** “I do not desire to apply for the position of conscientious objector (C.O.). I feel that the requirement of an applicant as a C.O. is unconstitutional, since reference to religion is prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution. I do not feel that Selective Service is entitled to question me as to whether or not I believe in a Supreme Being. “Even if I were allowed to enter a C.O. status without submission of the applicant’s required forms relating to religious references, I still would be unwilling to accept C.O. classification since I disagree with the Universal Military Training Act.” (Emphasis added.) In 1962, after being advised that he was classified 1-A and had certain rights of appeal under the Selective Service System, Irons returned his notice of classification with a letter stating: “I am returning herewith SSS Form 110, Notice of Classification, as I do not wish to be considered a participant in the Selective Service System. * * * * * * “I have not requested classification as a conscientious objector since I feel that to do so is to accept the right of the Selective Service System to compel adherence to their authority. To work within the system, even as a conscientious objector, is to recognize the legitimacy of forced conscription, and this I cannot accept. While I realize that there are those who do accept this authority, I cannot do so.” (Emphasis supplied.) In 1963, after he had been notified to appear for physical examination, he replied that he would not do so and indicated that he objected to the preferential treatment accorded to believers in a Supreme Being. However, in a letter on February 4, 1963, he went on to say: “My basic belief that the draft is not a legitimate function of a state would be lessened, but not overcome, if the Selective Service System were to exempt all those who had sincere moral or philosophical objections to it.” (Emphasis added.) In April, 1963, he was ordered to report for induction on April 19, 1963. On April 9, 1963, he advised the Board by letter that he would not do so. His Draft Board, which had exhibited becoming patience with Mr. Irons, made a last effort to accord him exemption as a Conscientious Objector. They expressed a willingness to consider whether the philosophic views he had avowed in his many addresses to them might indeed be accommodated to a conscientious objector status. By letter dated May 4, 1963, the Board stated, “On February 4, 1963, we received an undated letter from you with respect to this order. [Order to report for induction] In reviewing that letter we note that among other things you stated T have come to consider myself a Quaker.’ This statement raises a question in our minds as to whether or not you may claim to be a conscientious objector, and this question is further supported by numerous other expressions that you have written that might indicate a claim of conscientious *561 objection. The Selective Service Regulations require that when a registrant enters a claim of conscientious objection it is necessary that the local board forward a Special Form for Conscientious Objectors, SSS Form 150, to him to afford him an opportunity to enter his claim in his file by completing and returning the form. It is our policy to liberally interpret statements of registrants with respect to a possible claim of conscientious objection as a request for a Special Form for Conscientious Objector. Because of this we are forwarding such a form to you in order that you may complete and return it to us to furnish information substantiating a claim that you may have.” (Emphasis supplied.) On May 17, 1963, defendant Irons replied that he could not “in good conscience avail (himself) of the procedures for exemption as a Conscientious Objector.” He felt the standards for exemption were “discriminatory and unconstitutional.” He stated further, “But aside from this I have a deeper conviction that the Selective Service System itself is immoral, in that service of any kind, if it is to be sincere, cannot be compelled. “Let me emphatically repeat that, your generous offer to interpret my answers to the form liberally notwithstanding, my firm conviction is that the mere asking of the questions, especially those about religion, is unconstitutional. ****** “I have here mainly raised technical objections to the Act. But aside from these objections, I firmly believe that the philosophy underlying the whole concept of conscription is a dangerous incursion upon the democratic values we cherish. Only if we abandon conscription can we effectively call on our youth to serve their country voluntarily.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Draft Board never refused, and had no opportunity to refuse, Irons a conscientious objector status; he carefully refused to apply for it. Appellant’s address to this court and the dissenting opinion are bottomed upon United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 , 85 S.Ct. 850 (1965). That such case is inapposite here is immediately disclosed by the recited fact that “He [Seeger] first claimed exemption as a conscientious objector in 1957 after successive annual renewals of his student classification.” 380 U.S. at 166 , 85 S.Ct. at 854 . Such was likewise the position of the other registrants involved in the Seeger case. The dissenting opinion states “The record before us also contains the following affidavit signed by Irons,” and then sets out Irons’ affidavit in which he avers his willingness to accept conscientious objector status. However, neither the time nor the circumstances of such affidavit’s entry into our record are identified. It was filed on September 27, 1966, after the case had been submitted to us for decision, in response to a question propounded to Irons’ counsel at the request of Judge Edwards. The dissent also states “Irons asserted a desire for conscientious objector status promptly after the Seeger decision.” (Emphasis supplied.) Support for this must be found, if at all, in the colloquy between members of this panei and government counsel upon the argument in this Court. There the government attorney stated, in substance, that up to the time of trial the government did not know that Irons would accept conscientious objector status. There is nothing in the record made in the District Court supporting a claim that after the Seeger decision Irons promptly asserted a desire for conscientious objector status. A stipulation of facts was filed and the trial was commenced after the Seeger decision. Neither in the stipulation of facts nor in the appendix furnished to us do we find any record statement by Irons’ counsel that Irons would then accept conscientious objector status. There is no evidence that he sought reclassification by his Draft Board. Appellant’s briefs in this Court neither assert nor rely upon *562 a claim that Irons sought conscientious objector status “promptly after Seeger.” I do not think Irons’ present attitude calls for setting aside his conviction, which followed clear and deliberate refusal to use any of the processes available to him to have his status clarified; and in all events such attitude cannot affect his conviction of wilful failure to report for physical examination, as charged in count one of the indictment. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452339. Public record. Not legal advice.