Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rawdon v. United States

Supreme Court brief1967

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

EMRE: rat WRT. UN Be DEC 19 1966

z=. F - DAM, GLERK

a the niin Gout

OFTHE -

Ruited States . as

a. Ta 1966 — rd

No. 8 ¢. 8

Geng Rawopon, coe, , i

: wc _ Pétitioner,

-. omens ei Fae 2. *

‘Untrep States or AMERICA,

Respondent.

_ PETYTION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

to the United tates Court of Appeals —

for the Ninth Circuit —

\ a -

Genz Rawoon, i

5088 Esther Drive,

_ > San Jose, California 95124, ,

Petitioner in Propria Persona.

PERNAU-WALSH PRINTING GO., SAN FRANGISGO.

LOS MELE OIL: Pa a alan rey

ion

. .

° ;

wee

arcing

; a

Subject Index

(a) Reference to opinions eee ee eet tp eeceee Fives eenstas « 61

(b) Grounds for jurisdiction of US. Supreme Cuert’ onene 2

_ (e) Questions Presented for review :...... Gude unaeena wed 4

(d) The constitutional . Provisions, statutes and regulations -

involved PEE Oe ee cet vae'en es eepesreovesa 2

~“(e) § Statement of the-case ........... ieee dakéeeds abe eit 11

Summary of argumetit .\.....00. Pererrrr Terre eee eeceeeene 20

Improper actions of federal officials .....:..........2..0005 23

Relief sought by petitioner El MAR ae pie eaeanen cae

+. f

mtd _ Table of Authorities Cited

é of . Constitutions |

‘United States Constitution : | . Pages

BOS T, BON © as se scvccsesvesgeectscccevescoss 10.

Article I, Section 9(3) ........ jesecuniodael eiaeauce ae

pO, Pe ee LS am venincin been met he

RE FE bcckeeees avidenaetoues eeeceeteeeeesces 10

Br ~ | =" | ‘ —— <s

Civil Air Regulations: —-— ssi . &

Part 18:30 ........6.. eeakisbestiies lneeuseses err: ied

Federal Register Regulations: He’

BUG TS ws dcccneccsvcedscctesecacdthes peeeesenests 6, 15

NEE 6nd oC tare exanedeiudcesckéen ts Jeena Hieeetee 15

| \ Rules - on

Rules of the United States Supreme Court, Rule 23°....... 1

7 , \C Statutes Dare.

| “Administrative Procedure Act: . AW eas ad

“SE: © isco cece vywess Weaweueskeeun Veumews eevee: a

Section 8(b) .. cnayesees eepupedekbane. visehweaduenxse -

- Title 5, U:.S. Code:

Section 609 ............... gob teueceeweud eceeb es 3, 14,17

‘Section 903...........- iE ene eee aC eRe . -—s

Section. 10065 5 ......scscceee Crrerrre He Rese Pret ee 7,15 :

I ME as okigst 00 560enss dense ehuneqeencerseene © 6

; i 2 vei dhnccae Madeadesteress ae bess = oe

re cea nade daeaue wh ween eased eians 3,6

Section 1008. ..... icaqhaveseeWaudetoeneccsoerserss 8.

Section 1009 .......s. see eeeeteceeeeeeeeece Seucuue 8

Section 4011 ...2....0.sececeees ara ie teeta} 10

Section 1040 sbeecetteneeeeceseces Fimenrarys seen tgeeees 3, 10

Title 28, U. 8. Code: ree |

I CE bo bine s.cs wecucdenceperVendeseedeesne 3

SN saat ae z

° °

‘@eneRawoon, = . | ae

7 Petitioner,

_ UNITED States oF Amenica,

Bias concen

* PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit .

1. This petition for writ of certiorari has been

drafted to comply with :the order and detailed re-

quirements contained in Rule 23 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the United States.

(a) REFERENCE TO ‘OPINIONS:

The opinions ‘in Deen case making up the : matter

at issue:

1.. Fed. Avision Agency Order suspending cd Ss

_ for 80 days, dated August 17, 1960.

ey ete en See ee ee

peseneieeelllimmemeeiemenmmmrnmmmeiememmmmnmentommmememerenn eer g eee ascii

, - . : : 7 DAE GEL at wei ies

c. ~. 4 3 <

’ or. : \ - ‘ . , °

._* CAB Examiner’s Decision’ No. SE-137 dated

* January 30, 1961.

; 3. Civil Aeronautics Board Order No. 8-1132 sus-

; -,pending license 15 days, dated September 27, 1961. .

4, US. Couxt order for jury aaiel Pecnpies ec

Sas, dated September 28, 1962, °°

; 5. U.S. Court order denying relief, Burke-N. Calif,

dated July 16, 1963. e

6 U.S..Court order denying. prosecution’s motion

for judgment without trial, March 16, 1964. -

7. .U.S. Court Summary’ Judgment without trial,

Burke-N. Calif., dated: June 25, -1964.

8.. Denial of motion for injunctive relief, Burke- . .

. N. Calif., Ref.: Transcript Record August 2, 1965.

| 9. Decision of Appellate Court N 0. 19492, dated :

August 12, 1966. ,

10. Denial’ of Petition, for rehearing by US.

Appeals Court, dated September 20, 1966.

) GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION OF

Wg RB US. SUPREME COURT

This i is an . appeal for review of Federal Agency and.

related U.S. Court decisions concerning an alleged vio~.

‘ lation of FederalgAviation Regulations and a Civil’ -

_ Aeronautics Boar@#Order.. ia on

These. matters are subject’ to U. S.. Court enforce-

_ ment and review by jaw. The final judgment of ‘the

U.S. Court of: Appeals in.stch matters is subject ”

review by the U. si ‘Enpasene Court, : 4

The U. 8. Appeals Osiast has sanctioned ‘stich a de-

parture from thé’ decepted and -usual course of: ju-_

_< dicial proceedings by the lower court- and by the

_ Federal Aviation Agency in this case, as to call for an.

exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of supervision

ee to protect Appellant’s Dag 8) esa and lib-

erty.

(i) U. S. Court of pers Grier in to192 dated plat

August 12, 1966.

Petition for rehearing filed Seniesber 9, 1966."

Gi) Petition for rehearing denied by US. Court

of. Appeals, September 20, 1966.

Petition for Writ‘ of Cdl filed icuailie ..;

1966 in the United States | Court of Appeals, San

Francisco.

(iii) The fig) | judgment | at. the U.S. Court of

Appeals in such matters is subj ect to review by: the

U.S. Supreme Court, under Section 1040, Title -.

U.S. Code and Section 1254 (1) Title 28, U: S. Code -

and other U.S. statutes conferring general right of ©

court review for final Agency Actions/“Right of re-

view by the U.S. Supreme Court is- also provided by

Section 1006 (£) of the Federal alan aes =_— |

avihewibees: uae | i Ae cg lee See

ie 4 Taw J

All the following points are at issue in this case:

' 1. That liberty and property may ‘not be taken

_. without due process of law?

. 2 That due process. requires that federal officials :

must obey the law in all particulars? —

3: That legality and due. process are a matter of —

law not simply a matter of power which permits no -

‘challenge to its duthority ?

_. “4 Bhat federal officials must observe and respect 7

ns the xights of defense provided by law for the accused? .

-‘@ °

~ 5. -That an individual charged with a civil offense |

has the right toa presumption of innocence until

legally proved guilty ? | }

6. That the burden of proof is sil ie law en-

— tirely upon the prosecution ? | oe.

7. That the accused does ” have to prove any-

thing? . 4@

8. That proof of violation. must be established .

beyond any reasonable doubt prior to punishment?

‘ g That all doubts must necessarily be resolved in -

favor of the accused? |

10. ‘That any feancnsble doubt constitutes “lack of

.. proof and therefore maintains the innocence h..; the

accused 9

il. | That the oreneeution. is visa to. fallow ™

rules of evidence in developing proof ?

" 72. That propf of guilt means proof by substantive

- and probative ee

13. | That no law, regulation, or order is legal which °

‘ earries automatic punishment without the rights of:

_ notice, trial or hearing, and appeal. for the accused #

_ 14. That Federal officials may not enforce their

own. will and opinion in place of the law?

Due process, we believe, requires an_ affirmative

__ answer to all of the above questions. A careful review

-of this case will show that Federal officials have vio-

lated every one of these basic tenets of due process

on one or more instarices in this case.

All these violations are supported by the sii

record in this case and they will be specified and set —

out in Appellant’s petition, under part. (e)..

(d) THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES

- AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED

Federal Aviation Law, Public Law 85-726, Sec. 609:

“Prior to .. . suspending or revoking any...

certificates, the dministrator shall advise the

holder thereof as to any charges or other reasons ~

. for his proposéd actions and except in cases

of emergency, shall provide the holder. of such a

certificate an opportunity to answer any charges __~

and be he~rd’as to why such a certificate should -

not be ... suspended\or revoked. Any ‘person

whose certificate is affected’ by such order of

the Administrator . . ..may appeal. the Admin-

istrator’s order to the Board. . ... The filing of

appeal with the Board shall stay the effectiveness

of the Administrator’s order unless the Adminis-

trator advises the Board that an emergency exists

and safety in air commerce .. . requires imme-

6 °

diate effectiveness of his order, in which case the

order shall remain effective and the Board shall

finally dispose of. the appeal within sixty days

after being so advised by the Administrator.”

- See. 903: - ,

- “(a) The trial of any offense under this Act

shall be in the district in which such offense is

committed.” .— '

. “te G) pom civil penalty imposed under this

Act may be collected by proceedings . . . against

the person subject to the penalty. . . . Such pro-

ceedings shall conform as nearly as may be to

civil suits in admiralty, except that etther party

may demand trial by jury of any issue of fact, if

the value in = exceeds $20.” :

See. 1006 (Public Law 95-726) :

~“(a) Any order .. . issued e the Board or Ad-

ministrator under this Act, shall be subject to

review by the Courts of Appeals of the United

States . . . by petition, filed within sixty days

after the ‘entry of such order.”

. “(f) The judgment and decree of the court

- affirming, modifying, or setting aside any such

ordér of the Board or Administrator shall be sub-

ject only to review by the Supreme Court. of the

United States. |

Federal Register Regulations: Paxt 2.2. of these reg-

ulations under heading Documents required to be filed

and... published in the federal register, —

“(4) All documents oc a penalty.”

“23 Documents determined ... to have general

apHbtiy and legality.”

)

“Title 5, of the United States Code, Sec. 1005:

“(a) ‘Every Agency shall separately state and?

currently publish in the Federal.Register: = —

“(3) Substantive rules adopted. as authorized

by law . .. no person shall in any manner be

required to resort to... . procedure not -sd_

_ published.” | “ops

“(b)° No process, requirement or . ... demand

all be issued, made or enforced in any manner

for any purpose except as authorized by law”.

“Every Agency shall publish or .. . make avail-

able for public inspection . . : all rules. -

“(e) Matters of official record shall ... be made

available to persons properly and dire reetly con-

cerned, except information held confidential for

good cause énicson ws

Sec. 1006:

* “(e) ... The proponent of an... order shall have

- the burden of proof... .. No sanction shall be im-

posed ... or order issued except upon consider-

- ation of the whole record or such portions thereof

as may be cited by any party and as supported by

... reliable, ‘probative, and substantwe evidenee.

| Every person shall have the right to present his

' ease or defense by oral or documentary evidence,

to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such

cross-examination as may be required for a full .

and true disclosure of the facts.”

“(d) the transcript of testimony and exhibits to-

gether with all papers and requests filed in the -

_ proceeding, shall constitute the ren record

. for decision.”

1008 (U.S. Code, Title 5):

_+“(a) No sanction shall be imposed . . . or order ~

- issued —_— within jurisdiction delegated to the

' agency... by law.”

“(b) ...No withdrawal or suspension . . of any

license’ Shall be lawful unless, prior to the in-

stitution of agency proceedings thereof, facts or

conduct which may warrant such action shalt have

been called to the attention of the licensee by the

Agency ‘and the licensee shall have been ac-

‘corded opportunity to demonstrate or achieve

compliance with all lawful requirements.” :

“No license with respect to any activity of a con-

_ tinuing nature shall expire until such application

Sec.

of any. agency action or adversely affected or :

shall have been fully determined by the — ¥e

1009: | Ns eles ates a ene

“(a) Any person suffering legal wrong because

? aggrieved by | such a shall’ be entitled to ju-

dicial review.”

“(b) _ Agency action shall be subject to judicial

review in civil . . proceedings ; for judicial en-

forcement... .” .

“(e) Every final. agency action for which ae

is no:other adequate _— in any court shall be

subject to judicial review.”

“Any preliminary procedure or intermediate

agency action or rule not directly reviewable

Shall be subject to review upon final review of |

the agency action.”

™

““(d)' Relief Pending Review:

“Pending judicial review any agency is authorized

... to postpone. the effective date of any action

taken by it.

“Upon such conditions as may be snared and to

the extent necessary to prevent irreparable in-

jury, every reviewing court ... is authorized to

issue all necessary and appropriate process to

postpone the effective date of any agency action |

or to preserve status or. rights pending conclusion |

of the review proceeding.”

“(e) The reviewing court. shall .

(A) - Compel agency action unlawfully with-

held or unreasonably delayed ; 7

(B) Hold unlawful and set aside ‘agency

action, findings, and conclusions found: to be |

(1) Arbitrary, capricious, or abuses of dis- ,

cretion, or otherwise not in | accordance with

law, A

(2) Contrary to Constitutional right or im-

munity, |

(3) In excess of shit mladhiieas au-

thority, or limitations, or short of statutory

right, * ‘

(4) Without observance of procedure re-

quired by law,

(5) . Unsupported t by wohehuaitis evidence, .

The court shall review the whole record or such-

portions thereof as may be cited by any party,

_ and due account Pam be taken of the tule of

prejudicial error.”

i 3 | ‘10

Sec. 1011: -

“Nothing in this chapter shall be held‘to diminish

the constitutional rights of any person... . Except

as otherwise required by law, all requirements or

privileges relating to evidence or procedure shall

apply equally to agencies and persons.”

. No subsequent legislation shall be. held to

— or modify the provisions of this chap-

ter except to the extent such legislation shall do

; sO eqreny. | 7

See. 1040: 3 a ara |

— “The final judemenit of the court of appeals... .

shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court

of the United States upon writ of certiorari... .

An aggrieved party may file uch petition for writ

of certiorari.”

. Section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act: re-

_ quires that: :

_ “Agency officials who perform investigative or

prosecuting functions in that ..: case may not

participate in the making of decisions. 9

Article I; Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution:

(3) No*bill of attainder or ex post facto law

shall be passed.”

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

Article V:

“No person shall be. ... “depacived ... of liberty or

_ property. without due process of law.” the

Article VITT:

Roaciar Ss: “Excessive bail shall Sle tel saeitoll nor exces-

sive fines:imposed, nor cruel. or unusual punish- ,

ment inflicted.”

on ;

(e) STATEMENT oF THE CASE |

On August 17, 1960 the Federal Aviation Agency,

Kansas City Regional Office, issued an order in letter

form suspending for 30 anys the mechanic’s license of ae

—

‘this Appellant. - ave | ee

eee ai

No hearing was. held and no defense was allowed

fhe accused prior to this suspension.

\ This suspension was imposed by the FAA | as a

F result of their investigation of an accident to a

. Champion Aircraft. in May, 1960. This was a non-

injury accident resulting in only nominal damage

to the aircraft structure. ,

This accident was due to the failure of the landline

gear while the aircraft was taxiing at relatively slow

speed. Be eee

This accident occurred only a few weeks after this’

_ Appellant had inspected this aircraft and certified .

that it was mrworthy.

It was alleged by the FAA in their suspension order

that the aircraft was wnairworthy at the time it was

_ inspected, and that the aircraft had been improperly

~ inspécted by this Appellant.

This suspension was appealed’ by Registered Letter ©

to the CAB, staying effectiveness of the FAA nena

sion. .

An appeal hearing was held before a CAB i.

amine? and a decision was rendered on Jz anuary 30,

1961.

Ke Examiner found 3 in part: against the FAA in his"

decision. In’this decision 8-137, the Examiner found

‘..

; ; followed.

that it had not been proved that the arcraft was un-

arworthy at the time tt was inspected and — 7

to be airworthy by this Appellant.’

The Examiner said that “the aircraft had tint ees.

inspected in accordance with ... any procedure or

method which was prescribed by or acceptable to the

Administrator . . .-contrary to provisions of Section

18.30 of the Civil Air Regulations.”

. his decision suspended Appellant’s license for 15

days only, without surrender of certificate. _

. This susperision. was appealed | by registered letter

to the Civil Aeronautics Board, thus . ais the

effectiveness of this suspension.

In mid-summer 1961 the Civil Aeronautics Board |

confirmed the Examiner’s decision of January 30, ‘

1961, in CAB Order S-1113.

This Appellant told. the Board that he would like

to appeal their decision to the U.S. Court and asked

- them by registered mail the da wassacal procedure to be

They replied only that it wail be necessary to seek

. further administrative remedies by asking for a re-

- hearing. This was promptly done by registered mail,

staying the effectiveness of their order of suspension.

On. October 4, 1961 Appellant received CAB De-

_ cision , S-1132, dated September 27, 1961. This de-

cision “not ‘only confirmed the previous decision. but

added to it. The suspension was to become effective.

October 7 and remain in effect, for 15 days after sur-—

render of Cartiliete

(

i October 5, 1961 this Appellant gave ‘the CAB .

Notice of Appeal by registered mail.” The Regional

Office of the FAA, in Kansas City, was also given

notice by registered ‘mail on the same date. _

Both letters. were received by the addressees anit

registered) receipts returned to sender.

The Agency and the CAB were informed on five oc-

casions that this Appellant wished to appeal the CAB

_ decision to the Court, Registered Letter, July 5, Reg-

istered Letter, July 10, Registered Letter, July 29, .

Registered Letter, August 15, and Registered Letter,

October 5, 1961. ;

The Federal Aviation Agency iii the work

and records transmitted to them subsequent to Octo-

- bef’ 7, 1961 and did not reject or xeturn’them to this |

Appellant. This constituted acceptance. of Notice of

Appeal and proof that the suspension had been meee

_ by the enforcing agency, the FAA. :

The FAA’ continued to accept Appellant’s work

without return, rejection or notice to Appellant for

a period of some,five months after October 7, 1961.

' Then on March 1, 1962 they \ filed charges in the:

U.S. District Court in Kansas. against this Appellant

asking a possible $3,000 in fines for operating without

a valid mechanic’s license.

_ The primary penalty decision of the a Avi-

ation Agency, of August 17, 1960, suspending Appel-

lant’s mechanic’s license for 30 days, lacks essential.

legality and due process because it was imposed. with-

out a, hearing and without allowing defense by the

accused. :

\ <?

_ ‘This is not in socindanea with the requirements of.

Section 609 of the Aviation Law .(Pub. Law 85-726) .

which requires that, the holder of.a license shall have '

“An opportunity to answer any charges and be heard”. :

* This penalty was imposed arbitrarily by prosecuting

attorneys for the FAA, without hearing, and subverts

the requirements of Section 8 of the ‘Administrative

Procedure Act which requires that “Agency officials --

who perform investigative or prosecuting functions in

that .°. . case may not nner in the = of

dei.

found a lack of evidence to support the FAA decision -

on the first alleged offense.

He supported the second charge by the FAA, but ~

reference to the record will show that these’ two

charges are so closely ‘related that a lack of evidence

on thé first chargé imposes serious doubts upon the

validity of the second charge. .

_ In reading this decision the Examiner’s conclusion

against the Appellant was based primarily on Appel-

lant’s refusal to testify and thereby establish his

innocence. However, under the law the accused is not

- required to testify in a penalty hearing against him-

self, and any determination of guilt on this premise

is contrary to the requirements of the aviation law.

Civil - Aeronautics Board Order No. S-1132 sus-

pending license of Appellant for 15 days,. dated

September, 27, 1961, does not comply with basic re-

quirements of adnfinistrative law. |

mre en —

_CAB aaa eatin: dated January 30, 1961, ae

(i) It seeks to punitively enforce an arbitrary

_ requirement by the FAA that had never been officially 3

adopted as a regulation nor published in the Federal

_ Register.

This is éontrary to the Federal Register Act ie

requires under Part 2.2 that: .

“All documents presc bing a penalty

are required to be filed - and published in the Federal .

“All documents determined . . . to isis pia

applicability and er aa pc ae

* Dader! Title 5, U.S. Code, Sec. 1005: Hn |

“No person shall in: ‘any manner be required to

resort to. . procedure not.so published”.

“No process, requirement or . . demand shall be

issued,-made or enforeed in any manner for. any

purpose except as authorized by law”.

“Every Agency shall publish . . . all rules.”

CAB Order §-1113. (1st Paragraph)’ lacks essential

specificity as to the alleged violation. However,*this ~

‘is required by the Administrative Procedure .Act.

— 8 (b) requires:

. opinions must indicate the agency’ S jiithinan |

. with such specificity as to advisé .. . any.

reviewing court of their retord and legal basis.”

The Board’s aie to Part 18. 30 of the Regu-

lations is niot to a specific requirement concerning the

alleged ‘violation (as would normally be:expected). _

Part 18.30 of the Civil Air Begulationg’is the title to —~

16.

- the whole book of FAA Regulations concerning main-

tenance of aircraft,‘and actually covers hundreds of

_. detailed sections.. It has no more specificity. than the.

words: Traffic Code, Ue. Code; Fed. Register Act, -

ete. Part 18.30 is not a specific procedure. 3 6

Nowhere do these regulations contain the ate

requirement which the CAB. was seeking to enforce,

with ‘the indefinite statement. “any procedure or, -

‘method . .. prescribed by or acceptablé to the Admin-

istrator.” av best this was only-an attempt at ex-post >} -

facto -legislation- by the prosecution. No specific

method was prescribed by the regulations in 18.30

for the inspection .of this aircraft’s landing gear.

The final determination in CAB Order S-1132 (page

2, paragraph 2), was special legislation setting forth .

requirements for future conduct of: the Appellant.

This -was legislation not adjudication, and had little

if any direct bearing on his past conduct.

However, this portion of the decision was used by

-, the FAA as a cover of legality to impose a penalty

without a legal determination of guilt. ‘This is, by

‘definition, a Bill: of Attainder, unequivocally pro-

hibited by ‘Art. I, Sec. 9 “) of the United Raatee

. Constitution. :

. The record will show that the FAA enforced Yin

Bill of Attdinder secretly and without notice to this

Appellant, and without hearing or trial.

The FAA accepted Appellant’s notice of appeal and |

‘publicly accepted his. work as a mechanic while se-

eretly suspending his license, and ultimately rejecting 2

his work ex ~— facto.

It was not until March 20, 1962 that Appellant was -

- served with notice in writing that he had violated

- regulations and that his license~had been indeed sus-

_ pended for some 5 months. This was ‘in the form of a

Court Summons to answer cial filed by the FAA:

in the U.S. Court.

Section 609 of the Av. Law & the Admin, Wiceailion ;

Act require written ‘notice prior to suspension.

Appellant found on reading thjs libel that the FAA

had been publicly’accepting his work while privately az

and_seeretly- rejecting |

This fact is abundantly clear:

“They could not legally do both.”

Appellant also learned that they had accepted part

of his work and rej ected his other work.

This fact is abundantly clear:

“They could not boih legally accept some of hie

- work and legally reject the rest.” ' <+°

_ An atreraft mechanic is not a free -agent.. All his |

work of any major nature must be recorded on various -

FAA Forms and sent in to their local offige for FAA

review and approval. of the work described, and for. |

their transmittal of this work record to the Aircraft ne

Records section at. Oklahoma City.

_ If these papers and repair records are not in order

for-any reason whatsoevér, the FAA office will return |

.them to the mechanic for correction: or amplification

before they will be approved. Or if the. matter is

involved, the FAA will bring the papers back in per-

i”.

son and demand inspection of the aircraft and work

_ by themselvés before they will give their approval.

Every mechanic is called on from time to time ‘to

make certain corrections in the paper or his work

before the aircraft on which ‘he has done such work

‘is. considered property licensed and its certificates in

order.

If a mechanie does not receive any notice from the

FAA or receive his papers back he knows that his .

work has received local approval and that these papers _

have been forwarded to the records section at Okla-

homa City for the permanent file kept on each licensed

aircraft.

The papers and exhibits of the prosecution on

ing the show violation by: this Appellant, beginning -

- October 7, 1961, show instead just the opposite.

The prosecution’s Exhibits B(5) and B(6) show

that the FAA did not know until some time. after |

| January -18, 1962°that this Appellant had not per-

fected his appeal. This was supposed to be done by

filing a petition for review within 60 days after the

: effective date of the order (unléss good yeason could

» shown for not doing so). ;

- Such petition was not filed, for ‘the simple reason.

that Appellant was unable to determine what was

- required. He was unable to get a copy of the Aviation

Law’at that time in spite offrequests made to the CAB,

to the FAA andsto the Government Printing Office.

_ (All claimed to be out of copies or to have none e for

: distribution. |

‘hee at a local law office ‘revealed that they did

not know the. procedure and could not give advice .

until they could research the matter. Their advice was

to settle the matter for the penalty, that it would not

‘be worth the price of contesting.

- Refer to Prosecution’s Exhibit B(8), Repair and

Alteration Form 337, dated October 12, 1961. This ex-

hibit shows that this doctiment was not signed by the

FAA office in the space provided, it shows that 1t was

neither approved nor rejected. It was not returned

to the mechanic as unsatisfactory or improper Or _

illegal ‘nor was it forwarded to the official Aircraft

Records File in Oklahoma City. It-was merely held

in abeyance indefinitely. This is a clear.departure from

Due Process. i

_ Such repair and alteration records and certificates

are usually forwarded by the local FAA office to the

- Aireraft Records Center in Oklahoma City immedi-

ately (within a’ week or two).

The official files in Oklahoma’ City on this aircraft, '

Licenge No. 9423B, show that a Form 337 replacing

the one executed by this Appellant on October 12, 1961 .

and designated Prosecution Exhibit B(8), was. not

forwarded to Oklahoma City until months later.

The official files on this aircraft Show that the FAA

- went through the subterfuge of’ getting this aircraft

reinspected in another state (without notice to this

Appellant) and that the record of this work was not

received in Oklahoma City until February 23;- 1962,

200° - r

Evidently this record was not forwarded. unti’t the °

FAA was ready to spring their trap on Appellant -

which they did by filing suit against/him on om i,

- * 1962 asking $3,000 in fines.

The FAA files in this case were bee by this

Appellant for his defense by every conceivable means.

This file shows complete lack of due process on the

part of the FAA.

Requests for this file for use by the aecused in n his

defense were made directly to the J ustice Department

‘arid fo the FAA on-many occasions but they were not

honored. Four or five motions by the accused to the

U.S. Courts to subpoena this file for the defense under

his rights of discovery were subverted or denied.

. Prior to the judgment without trial handed dons

in June 1964, in. favor of the prosecution, not a single |

document was allowed in the record for the defense.

In this case not a single piece of defense was allowed

* the accused. Not a single witness, deposition, cross-

examination or impeachment. document was allowed

the defense, and his affidavits denying important alle- |

gations by the prosecution were ignored.

_ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT | :

1.. This Appellant has not been guilty of ary legal x.

offense in this case. |

2. He-has not been careless, negligent nor ineompe- |

tent, nor has he used bad. judgment in the inspection

’

n RSE a . —

of aireraft—and it has not been eae d so eecicnae

in this case. . a ha

3. He has caused no damage to dircraft nor injury

to any person—and this was even agreed to by the

Prosecutor 3 in his brief to the CAB in which he said:

‘We are not now and. never have contended that

Respondent’s inspection had anything to do with

the accident to the aireraft.” .

And even though the charges grew out of the FAA’

— investigation of the accident to this aircraft he stated

further: that’ any attempt by the’ Respondent to de-

fend himself on the basis of the accident to the air-_

eraft were irrelevant to the issue. .

4, Appellant has not been guilty of violating any

legally executed order of a Federal Agency.

In carrying on a continuing function for which the

licensee has been fully qualified no offense as the one

_ charged is legally possible unless it i is’ committed with

_ knowledge and intent. 7

5. This Appellant had no knowledge of the FAA |

actions against his license because of their failure to

properly notify him and their secrecy and overt efforts

“to hide their actions from him. x

6. When this ‘Appellant was notified in writing,

in. March 1962, the suspension’ was made retroactive

to October 7, 1961.

‘But under the Administrative Procaduve Act no

retroactive punishment is legally possible. .

7. When Appellant: was notified in March. 1962

of the FAA aétions he was ac cates to a retroactive

Ct? es

Ps 7

: oo ois

ea already 10. times the. original suspension.

: assessed.

~—«88. ‘Appetit was held for trial, under threat of

a $3,000 fine for some 28 months, with a continuous

penalty suspension eOY enforced for this entire

- period.

9 All pleas for stay, amnesty or reprieve while

this matter was awaiting trial to determine guilt were

~ denied.

' 10. After this case had been docketed and sched-

uled for trial by jury, under provisions of the law,

the U.S. Court in San Francisco issued a summary

judgment without ‘trial, in favor of: the prosecution,

in June 1964.

11; This decision was rendered without allowing

any defense or impeachment of the Government’s case,

and. in spite of the fact that the Prosecution had

_ been denied a-decision without trial on three separate

oecasions by three different federal judges.

12, And while this judgment has been under ap-

peal for approximately 214 years the FAA, the Justice

- Department and the U.S. Courts have denied all plead-

ings and motions for relief from continuous and un-

limited. reine

IMPROPER ACTIONS OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS

~4,—- Federal officials knowingly denied rights of ap-'

peal to the accused when he was seeking to exercise

these rights. at sd °

2. Rights of appeal must . respected unless they ~ }

are knowingly waived or defaulted. These rights were

denied by official subterfuge.

3. The Government has ignored the facts.

4, It has misrepresented its case.

5. It has endeavored to conceal a full disclosure

of the: truth. | e

6.. It has circumvented rights _ of the accused to |

discovery and subpoena of documents for his defense.

7. It has denied the rights provided by law for

trial and defense.

8. It has acted with extreme prejudice,

' 9, Excéeded its privileges and prerogatives.

10. Abused its discretion. | J

11. Exceeded ihe legal limits set by law. °

12. Acted without authority of law.

7 13. Violated express provisions of statute and a

|. ministrative law and circumyented legal procedures.

; | ‘ 14. Improperly denied relief.

| 15. Taken liberty and property without due

_ process.

ae Violated Appellant’s constitutional rights and

‘their own oath of office.

24.

. RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER _ .

For good and sufficient‘reasons set forth herein

Petitioner is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to set

aside. (with prejudice): — i

1, CAB decision ah ee suspending Petitioner’s

| mechanic’ s license. / .

2. U.S. Court’s decision’i ‘ni 41427, of June 25, 1964,

imposing fine.

. 3. The US. Court of Appeals’ decision in No.

19492 of September 20, 1966, upholding fine and

denying rehearing.

It is also requested that the Court issue mandatory

relief to Petitioner from the FAA’s continuous and

unlimited punishment.

That full operating rights be immediately restored .

to Petitioner which are normally conveyed by Me-

chanic’s License No. 12642, made out in his name. .

Dated, San Jose, California,

December 14, 1966.

GENE Rawoon,

Petitioner in Pro pria Persona.

ta * a :

| (Appendix Follows) _ a +

™.,

"Appendix _

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

No. 19,492"

i | ‘

a Gene. Rawdon, “ . ;

2 Appellant,

vse «6 QU Cerone ae .

. United States of America, | | : | er

Se } a

meunt 12, _— : .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

| Northern District of California,

Southern Division.

Before CHAMBERS, POPE “a HAMLEY, Cir-

cuit J udges.

PER CURIAM. —

On and prior to the Th on of ‘aii 1960, the

appellant Rawdon held an airman mechanic certificate

issued to him pursuant to the Federal Aviation pro-

_.gram authorizing ‘him to perform periodic inspections

on civil aircraft as provided in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1429.

On August 17, 1960, the administrator of the Federal

ii -

Aviation Agency issued an order suspending his air-

"man mechanic certificate for a period of thirty days.

Following Rawdon’s appeal from that order, and after

e * hearing before a hearing ex er of the Civil

Aeronautics Board at’ which Rie saga hick and

- defended himself, the hearing examiner issued an

7 initial decision ordering suspension of said dirman —

“quechanic certificate for 4 period-of fifteen days. Upon

review of that initial decision by ‘the full Aeronautic

Board it was affirmed.

Rawdon petitioned the Boked dex Ancisdeatide.

- On the 27th day of September, 1961, the Board denied

his petition.and issued an order suspending his airman

mechanic certificate for fifteen days. Said - order fur-

ther provided that “if Rawdon failed to surrender his

certificate to the Regional Counsel, Federal’ Aviation

, Agency, Kansas City, Missouri, on or before October

. 7, 1961, the suspension order would continue: for an

additional period of fifteen days subsequent to the. .-

Mie actual date of surrender. Such surrender has. not been

‘made.

‘Following the Board’s order no petition for review

. thereof was ever filed by Rawdon as authorized by 49~

US. C, Sec. 1486, and in consequence thereof the same

deena final and by reason of the circumstances above ~

- mentioned this certificate remained and still remains

"_-s@spended and inoperative. te

On Maik x 1962, the United Sines, filed in the

ns District Court of the district wherein Rawdon resided

and wherein he had held his ai mechanic certifi-. -

‘cate wre of information and et alleging that: .

f < ts

fi Rath b

Tis,

= .

- .

notwithstanding the suspension of his certificate in the

manner above described, Rawdon on October 11, 1961,

and on October 12, 1961, and on. February 4, 1962,

performed periodic inspection on three described civil

_ aircraft and certified that the same were then in air-

worthy condition. It was alleged that thereby appel-

laht violated Sec. 1430(a) (2) and hence was subject

to the civil penalties provided for in Title 49 Sec. 1471

U.S.C. The prayer was for a decree for recovéry of

* appropriate penalties to’ be fixed by the court.

After service of process on the appellant and after

answer had been filed by him, it was made to appear

to the court that when the action had been filed that

Rawdon had removed his residence to San Jose, Cali-

fornia, in. the northern district of California, and an

order was made changing the venue of said action to

the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California at San. Francisco. Thereafter

the United States filed a motiqn for summary judg-

ment with supporting affidavits and exhibits. After

-an initial order granting this summary" “judgment had

been set aside, the motion for summary judgment was

renewed and granted and the civil penalty was fixed

- in the amount of $100 on account of each of the three

violations alleged in the complaint, making: a total of

$300 awarded as civil penalties, together with costs ee

of action, and judgment was entered Sener: This |

‘is an appeal from that judgment.

- As the motion for summary judgment was supported

by proper affida’ vit showing and disclosing all the facts

herein warns stated, that the certificate referred to

ee ee ee ee ees

had been suspended “ie had: on suspended’ and

no petition for court review of the order of suspension

had ever been filed; that the inspections referred to

were actually mad¢g and certified by the appellant

after his certificate ‘had thus been suspended, and as

no countershowing as required by Rule 56 of the

Rules of Civil Procedure was made by and on behalf

of the appellant; it is plain that the entry of the sum-’ »

_ mary judgment was proper and accordingly the same

a affirmed. :

During the course of the proceedings in this ak

-. appellant: made application to have the record ampli-

fied by requirement that all the proceedings before the _

Civil Aeronautics Board ‘be incorporated’ in this

record. In view of the circumstances above related it

is obvious that appellant was ‘not entitled to have such

: matters added to. the record here.

. me ee

United States Court of Appeals

afew For the Ninth Circuit

No. 19;492

Gene Rawdon, ) |

= Appellant,

| a Upton aan ge SUE ;

NY " - United States of America,

7 Appellee. :

JUDGMENT

Appeal from the United States District Court for °

the Northern District of California, Southern Divi-

bocce sion.

This Cnase came on to. be heard on the Transcript

of the Record from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California, Southern

Division and was duly submitted.

On Consideration Whereof, It. is now here audeeed

and adjudged: by: this Court, that the judgment of

the said District Court in this Cause be, and hereby is

affirmed. os

oRiled and entered August 12, 1966,

ey E

dh mratan vibe. NY o>) 1mm.

wt. alto

Registered - on

5088 Esther Drive,

San Jose 24, Calif.”

; os. May 31, 1963

- James P. Welsh, Clerk ,

United States District Court,

San Francisco 1, California

SUB:. Motion for Judicial Relief

Civil “Action No. 41427-DC ND Calif.

and No. W-2589-DC Kan.

Dear Mr. Welsh: - . .

In connection with the above action this respondent

has been subjected to unnecessary and what he truly

believes to be illegal abuse by the Federal. Aviation

Agency. By. this letter respondent is officially present-

ing to the court a motion on his own behalf for relief

in this matter. |

For well over a year now he has been prevented from

pursueing his vocation in the aviation industry, one

which he has actively followed thruout his entiré adult |

life (over 25-years) till summarily prevented from

doing so by the Federal Aviation atti The follow- .-

ing is self-explanatory. ?

1. Whatever the merits of the. Government’s iin ,

maybe, no charges that any injury or damage was.

~ caused by this respondent have been. made by the

Federal Aviation Agency, much less proved.

respondent has been made by the Government,

much less proved. wee

62 POET RES

Se he pyle Lb bie ile sil ale i Gi ee Wes BIE Ea ht mse 0

competence has been made or proved.

4, ‘The continued withholding of respondent’s operat-

ing rights in his Aircraft Mechanic’s Certificate,

.while this case is waiting adjudication by the

court, constitutes’ ‘punishment before a | determina-

tion of guilt.

-5. Article V. of the Bill of Rights to the os

tion guarantees the individual against the taking

- of his liberty or his i without due Ktuaee

of law.

6. This continued punishment before a ietuivadiialiais

of guilt, indefinite and unlimited in extent, consti-

tutes an excessive fine and punishment hy any ~~

reasonable definition of the term.

7. Article VIII of the Bill of Rights to the Consti-

tution guarantees the individual against excessive

fines or punishment.

8. Therefore, this respondent dake the court to order

the Federal Aviation Agency, Third Region,

Kansas ‘City, Missouri to restore respondent’s full

operating rights to his Mechanic’s Certificate No.

12642 without further delay because of this grave

_ injustice to him that is done by the Federal Avi-

~ ation Agency’s. continued denial. to him of his

normal means of a livelihood.

This respondent has -officially petitioned the Federal

Aviation Agency directly on several. different and

distinct occasions for this relief. No consideration

- whatever has been granted.

Ral

“sn

wilt | é

There is no Moubt whatever about ‘the FAA’s legal

authority to modify, mitigate, suspend, or withdraw

any such order which they have issued without in any

_-way impairing their cause in the above action ‘but

there is a very grave doubt about the legality of their

actions in this continued denial of.a fundamental right

to liberty and property.

In the ‘abscense of positive and compelling govern-

ment evidence tothe contrary the truth of these state-

ments and this injury are self-evident. |

It is this respondent’s understanding that the primary ~

duty of the court is to establish justice and in-so-far-as

possible to protect aa ea 8 rights both private and

public.

Therefore, a-deeision in favor of this respondent - on

this motion is earnestly asked in the interests of

equity and justice.

‘ Very truly yours,

* Gene Rawdon,

Respondent

GR/g |

Copy :Served on U.S. Atty. Robt. N. , Ensign by

registered mail June 1, 1963.

—s- = . a . ‘iia

‘Original Filed

July 16, 1963

Clerk, U. S. Dist. Court

- San Francisco

‘ In the. United States District Court —

for the Northern District of California, .

Southern Division

- Civil No. 41427

United States of America, } : oe

| i - Libelant,

Vs. eee : :

‘Gene Rawdon, - : | oe

Libelee. i

ORDER .DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION

| By letter dated “May 31, 1963 addressed to the Clerk

of this Court, purporting to be, and treated as, a

Motion, defendant asks the Court to order the Fed-

eral Aviation Agency to restore his rights under the .

Airman Mechanic Certificate referred to in the com-

plaint.. The Court having ‘heard and considered the

motion on July 15, 1963, but lacking power to: make

such order in this proceeding,

It Is Hereby Ordered that the motion is : denied.

Dated: J uly 15, 1963.

, * Lloyd H. Burke

United States District J udge

Original Filed .

_ April 7, 1964

Clerk, U.S. Dist. Court.

— San Francisco

In the United States District Court.

- for the N sont District of California,

Southern Division

Civil No. 41427

United States of America, eae

. Plaintiff,

~~. | ae

Gene Rawdon, 6

Defendant. ;

ORDER DENYING MOTION: FOR “

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment me ¢

been heard on March 16, 1964, and the court having

reviewed the memoranda, supporting’ affidavit and

exhibits filed herein, and it appearing that there is

a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendant re-

ceived timely notice of the Civil Aeronautics Board’s

Suspension Order No. 8-1132, dated September 27,

1961;

It Is Ordered that plaintiff’s Motion For aneennary

“Judgment be, and the same a is, Denied, without

prejudice.

Dated: April 6, 1964 Bee se ;

| —*, Albert C. Wollenberg /

United States District J nudge.

P) cat

In the District Court of the United States

for the Northern District of California

Southern Division: —/

Before: ‘Lloyd H. Burke, Judge

No. 41,427

United States of America, |.

a Plaintiff,

Gene Rawdon,

| . Defendant. |

_ MOTION} FOR 4 AUGMENTATION OF THE

: RECORD ON APPEAL - °

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT ie

. August 2, 1965 |

_ Reported by: ee

Eldon N. Rich :

Mr. Rawdon: How will I get it in‘ the(record?

Do I have to make another trip to San Fran and

' miss a day’s work just to get it in the record? rs

_ Mr. Ensign: I will be glad to draw up an order -

which’ will cover that. |

_ Mr. Rawdon: Okay, that’s agreéd, then. There’s

another thing I would like to ask, and I would like

to move for injunctive relief from the Federal Avi- -

ation ‘Agency for imposing an additional penalty upon

me other than what they asked the Court for and

collateral with the punishments that you meted out,.

* but which 1 is now on appeal

_ The Court: What. was my disposition ?. |

Mr. Ensign: On summary judgment, Your Honor.

' The Court: Minimum fine, was it not? |

Mr. Ensign: “Yes, it was. a very modest civil

penalty.

The Court: I think that part of. the confusion in

" this situation, Mr. Rawdon, arises from the fact that

as a layman you do not appreciate the very limited

function of the District Court in connection with the

review of action by an administrative ‘agency.

_ Mr. Rawdon: Well, I know that—pardon me.

know that courts do and have, when a matter like this

comes up for review, they do correct an \neqnity or

an, injustice, and you cannot always get it before a_

Court, I realize that, but this matter was . properly

before the Court and it should be enjoined from an

illegal penalty, illegally imposed. It’s a penalty which

“no right of defense and no right. to submit evidence,

and it’s continuous and unlimited, and any penalty

. that’s continuows and unlimited is illegal. ;

The Court: - ‘Well, of course it’s no more than

stating in a little different way your position at the

time the action was taken by the Government in con- —

nection with the « action of the Civil Aeronautics |

Agency.

Mr. Rawdon: ‘Isn't it perfectly obvious an un-

‘Limited penalty ts illegal?

' The Court: Well, I don’t know, Mr. fr aon

_ That's why you are taking your appeal, and

going to be the question that you will have to deine

to the Court of _— :

No. 19492

a ‘

‘in the

United States Court of pene

For The Ninth Circuit

' at

San Francisco, California

Gene Rawdon, ; i

“4 a Appellant,; 9 « *

VS. - ce

” United States, tusks ;

Appellee. |

MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF

FROM EXCESSIVE AND ILLEGAL

PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE

FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY —

sok alias Submitted by Certified Mail

- No. 132544

_, This 25th Day of May, 1966.

ie | By: /s/ Gene Rawdon

( Gene Rawdon S

Appellant in- 19492

5088 Esther Dr. |

. a San J ose, Calif.

~ Copy by Gert. Mail :

No. 132545 to: 5

Robt. Ensign, Asst US. Attny

450 Golden ‘Gate,

San Francisco, Calif.

May 25, 1966. |

Ses | Ppa -No,_19492

A ‘MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF

_ Fed. Aviation Agency, at Kansas City, Missouri,. to

restore full operating rights in Appellant’s. Airplane

and Powerplant License, Airman Certificate N Qe

12648,

’ These’ operating rights were ; a hie Appel-

lant without due progess of law by the Federal Avi-

ation “Agency, at Kansas City, Missouri. .

This represents: colatteral and additional puhishment |

‘over and above. that determined by. the Court for the

same offense.

: | Therefore, these operating riglits in r pone

"+ should be restored without further delay, | :

a By: /s/ Gene Rawdon

ee ahs Gene Rawdon |

7 4 a ~ Appellant in 19492

tod ae a nn aso

. . .

- . °

. ‘

. ‘ este ot = as a z itis abs

Sewer eet ee i I ea esr Oo = NP eebeot Cope ncn 08 an i 7

- e

e . ‘

» .

* +

> °

- . j -

’

ee ee Te

5088 Esther Dr

San Jose, Calif

ee Jae oS May 25, 1966

~ ° Wm. B. Luck, Clerk

United States Appellate Court -

- San Francisco, California nee ee

94101 ae ee a ee

Sub: Motion for Mandatory Relief |

_ Dear Mr. Luck:

"This Appellant wishes to submit the enclosed ‘motion

before the Court for mandatory relief, from penalty

se unlawfully ‘imposed: without due process.

This penalty was capriciously. inflicted: by the Fed-

eral Aviation Agency and represents additional pun-

ishment to that determined by the Court for the same

offense. saeee as :

| Veuy truly yours,

/s/ Gene Rawdon

Gene Rawdon

ce Agee in 19402

GR/e :

P.S.—Please set this liearing for Minion: June 6,

1966. Will you also please — this setting

to tae —"

(Letterhead of

Civil Aeronautics Board

Washington, D.C. 20428)

a May. 5, 1966

Mr. O. G. Sanders

Riverside Airport —

‘Rural Route #7

Wichita, Kansas —

Dear Mr. Sanders:

Upon my return to the office after a hearing trip

"and period of leave, I find your letter of April 11, .

1966 regarding Mr. Gene Rawdon. You ask me to.

, ascertain whether I know of a letter which Mr. Raw- —

* don wrote to the seseiae hor jaapevina a desire “to appeal

_ the C.A.B. suspension.” You also ‘state ‘that, relative

to .the merits of the proceedings involving Mr. Raw-

don’s certificate, you have subsequent to the proceed--

ings discovered that. the manual for the airplane: in

question in listing procedures for lubrication ¢on-

tained additional information which might have’ had

a bearing in his favor, had the evidence been intro-.

duced. You do not believe in. any event that Mr.

a Rawdon deliberately disobeyed an order.

The record file of the proceeding in question is not

available in the Board’s files since it has: been.sent to

the government’s Archives. While it might be pos-

sible to.recover the file, it would be my personal re-

action that Mr. Rawdon’s case would be just as strong

to the Court on the basis of his statement of what

you imply, if that is the fact, that. he thought the de--

cision was stayed either because it was under appeal

AP HELSEAED DOLE LED AE»

“or being held pending a notification which would later

formally institute an appeal. He, of course, is not a

lawyer and in the controversy in question was accus-

_ tomed to the very informal manner in which the

- Board’s rules. allow stays of order’ during appeals

of them in air safety enforcement proceedings. I do

not see how the presence or absence of his letter re-

‘questing an appeal, whether in the Board’s file or not

in that file, would substantially ‘help his case before the

Court. .

If I should happen to be wrong in my conclusion

and such a reference to the file would be regarded as

helpful by the Court, a request should be made to the

Board’s Chief Hearing Examiner and to the Secre-

tary of the Civil Aeronautics Board, under whose

jurisdiction the Chief of the Docket Section (Mrs.

Jane Mandell) operates. The name of ‘the Chief

‘ Héaring Examiner is Mr. Francis H. Brown and of

the Secretary, Mr. Harold R. Sanderson. A letter

addressed to both will be received if addressed to the

Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D. C. 20428.

It was unfortunate that Mr. Rawdon, particularly >

if he was trying to vindicate his own rights and those

of others, did not retain legal counsel in the conduct .

Board which led to his present difficulties. Although _

undertaking to represent’ himself was his free act,.

a reviewer of his case should know that good lawyers °

experienced in the specialty of air safety enforcement

are, while, available, not always easy to find, and that

Mr. Rawdon had. been successful in a previous pro-

Sonat 5h. ao en

x 111.

° ceeding without legal representation. My knowledge

of ‘him is confined to the proceedings before me, ‘but

wt might possibly be helpful for me to state that in

them he appeared to be a man of very strong opinions,

not always legally well founded, but nevertheless a

man who was capable as an aircraft (““A & E”) me-

chame and definitely had a thoroughly respectful

_ regard for the -public safety,—preferring : his own

. methods and: procedures to those of the Administrator -

in some instances, but not hypocritical, blindly recal- -

citrant, or unreflective. By character and disposition

he appeared to be a man of . integrity and good will,

very definitely not to be the sort of man who is con-

temptuous of law or orders.

Yours very truly,

‘-3 /s/ H. G. Moorhead

PS +. HL @. Moorhead

Hearing Examiner

PS. TL am returnirtg the manual which -

you forwarded in your letter of April 11, 1966.

ee: Mr. Gene Rawdon |

5088 Esther Drive | | | > Hes

San Jose, California =

. oe

iat ait lets i et RN nt Lea Ae es 8 Ne edh

7h,

INP nt Cer Sa

oe wore)

| United States Court of Appeals I

Ninth Circuit

” No, 19,492

| - Gene Rawdon, : ) ‘

4 Appellant,

| | vs. en

: United States,

he , Appellee.

| On Petition aaa Rehearing

“Before CHAMBERS, POPE and HAMLEY,

4 Circuit Judges.

‘The Petition for Rehearing: i is denied.

| 49 a2 _ Richard H: Chambers

t | | Walter L. Pope

. | ‘ _ -Frederick G. Hamley ag

.° United States Circuit. Judges

Filed Sept. 20, 1966

Wm, B..Luck, Clerk

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.