# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Rawdon v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0180%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1967 - **Citation:** 386 U.S. 909 ## 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. 4 LOS MELE OIL: Pa a alan rey . _. . ion . . . . ° ° ; . : . . o * wee ry 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 ~ | =" | ‘ —— } - 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. he ? :. 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.” ' ) 1mm. wt. alto em 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. 2. No allegations of any overt act on the part of this © 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 8. Also no allegations of any lack of ability, or © 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. a / / 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 was invoked. without a hearing and from which I had © “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. | oy Ses | Ppa -No,_19492 A ‘MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF It i is respectfully requested that the Court require the © _ 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» ee “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 . of his business and in the -proceedings before the © 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_0180%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.