Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Myers v. United States

, DIBRARY :

SUPREME COURT,’ U. &

Ps SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER ‘TERM, 1967.

103¢

Julius C. Myers 7

mas Petitioner,

vs |

The United States

a

‘PETITION FOR WRIT OF CER TIORARI .

TO THE _ ay

UNITED STA TES COURT OF CLAIMS _ -

a

; 2 0. | } ~

(/ Péeti titioner ale

-

STATEMENT .

QUESTION PRESENTED

REASON: FOR- | |

GRANTING WRIT

' - QUOTATION

Scheafer, Féderalism and

State Criminal. Procedure

Harvard L. Rev. 1, 8 (1956)

ate le slo

OR

CASES CITED

Powell v. Alabama.,.. .

287 U.S. 45 (1932) |

Johnson v. Zerbst,

304 U.S. 458 (1938)

Gideon v. Wainwright

(decided in Supreme Court

on March 18, 1963)

>

PAGE .

.

i

Rea Ot to

ee a —? . ee ee ee BF aes a ee Pee ‘ Pore ee

— eat ee ee ee ee

.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

| OCTOBER. TERM, 1967

NO. _-

Julius C. nies.

- Petitioner .

vs.

’ The United States | ay

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

‘ TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF*°C LAIMS

To the Honorable, The Chief Justice and

Associate Justices of. the Supreme Court:

of the United States:

The petitioner, Julius. = Myers, acting

pro se, respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari

issue to review the decision of the United States

Court of Claims entered in the above case on :

‘ February 10,1967, (Re: Julius C. Myers vs.

: The United States, No. 100-66).

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

Title 28,°. United States Code, sections 1255(1),-

1651(a), and 2101(c);and on the grounds that the

Court of Claims sanctioned such an extreme

‘departure from the accepted and usual course of

_ judicial proceedings by a lower tribunal as to

call for an exercise of this Court's power of

supervision.

Petitioner, because of family illnesses,

_and through the Honorable Mr. Justice William J.

Brennan, received from this Court permission to -

file the requested writ within a ten day extension

‘period of the expiration date of January 11, 1968

a?

0 eh

of his normal filing time; said extended filing

date being January 22, 1968. : .

Petitioner, on August 25, 1967, filed.

with the said Court of Claims a motion for

relief from said judgment. and same was duly

entertained and denied without comment on

October 13, 1967.

24,

STATEMENT

This ease concerns petitioner's March >

1966 (and as amended on Sept. 30, 1966)

complaint petition against the United States

cognizable. by the United States Court of

Claims under title 28, United States Code,

Section 1491 and2501. It presents the question

whether the failure of petitioner to exhaust

his available administrative appeal rights in

respect to his April 4, 1960 involuntary

removal from the Pittsburgh, Pa. Post Office

“<precluded consideration of petitioner's com-

plaint by the United States Court of Claims in

view of the following circumstances of peti-

tioner's administrative case:

|

Petitioner on April 4, 1960 was

dismissed from his position of

-employ at the Pittsburgh, Pa. Post

Office on a criminal charge but was

deprived of his constitutional right’:

to advice and assistance of-counsel :

in defense of said charge.

Petitioner was dismissed on the strength —

of a charge that was so vague as to

permit variance in its ifiterpretation

thus violating petitioner's constitutional

a

right to know the charge.

against him. 4

£,

The petitioner, on January 27, 1969 while

employed as a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Post.

Office Distribution Clerk, received from that

United States Postmaster a letter of charges in

which said Postmaster accused him of a vile and

serious crime and proposed to sever his liveli-

. hood therefor subséquent to administrative adju-

dication thereon. Via said letter, said Post-

master instructed petitioner to defend himself

personally and in writing but failed to advise.

petitioner of his civil right to the advice and

assistance of counsel for said defense. (Re:

Exhibit A appended to Petitioner's paper entitled

"Plaintiff's Motion for: Relief from an Order",

Court of Claims 100-66). Immediately subse-

quent to administrative adjudication, said post-

master on March 28, 1960 notified petitioner of

his pending dismissal and advised petitioner of

his right to appeal same to the Regional Civil

Service Commissioner, but still said postmaster

i . made no mention to petitioner of any information

concerning the assigtance of counsel, ;

i seis

Petitioner on April 12; 1960, and without

the assistance of counsel set forth a first level.

appeal to the Regional Civil. Service Commission |

and was duly entertained and denied on July 16,

1960 with the stipulation that he might further

appeal his dismissal to the Board of Appeals and

Reviews, Washington, D.C., within seven days. .

Petitioner!s appeal to that Board was belated and

for that reason refused consideration on

October 5, 1960.

.

RLS OT NG Se 0 0S ne LAN NY MOLE SWS

-3-

~~?

‘° Petitioner on January 27, 1960 posses-

sed little or no knowledge of judicial or- quasi-

judicial procedural rights hencé he became

the inexperienced accused; therefore defend -

ants failure to advise petitioner of that _

procedural right which guaranteed to him to

have the advice. and assistance of counsel for

-his defense of said accusation, in effect,

represented a deprival- of that procedural

right.

Consequently petitioner's reply to the

charge, and his appeals were set forth with-.

~ out the advice and. assistance of counsel

because of defendant's, denial of same. And

-there was in force and effect the sixth consti-

tutional amendment which demands of the

defendant:

"In all criminal. pronecetions. the

accused shall enjoy the right to.

have the assistance of: counsel

* for his’ defense. =

Petitioner says that it is s quite concéiv-

able that under the guidance of experienced |

counsel sophisticated in the ways of govern-

ment tactics: petitioner would not have set

forth a belated second level appeal--or at

leasttodo sowould have been unusual; there -

fore, defendant's act of depriving petitioner

of that counsel in effect contributed to peti-

' tioner's untimely appeal. Consequently, the

Court of Claims' dismissal order of February

10, 1967 is based on a defndant alleged

. administrative defect by petitioner to which .

the defendant ‘itself contributed significantly ©

_by depriving petitioner of counsel,

6 -4-

5

ee

Il,

Defendant specifically accused petitioner

as follows: | , 3

"You performed outside employment ‘in a

Pennsylvania State Liquor Control Board

. Store when you applied for and was

granted-sick leave with pay from the «

Postmaster, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, |

on the dates: shown:...."'

Thus defendant, in effect, accused ‘petitioner of

the performance of outside employment during or

at the same time as his scheduled postal hours

of duty. (Re: Exhibit B of petitioner's paper

entitled Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From an

Geter, Ct. Cl. 100-66).

‘Said charge by postal rule 745. 44a (1960

edition of United States Postal Manual) had to be=

set forth specifically and indetail, and defendant

‘did set forth details. But said details clearly

showed that petitioner performed outside employ-

ment at a time other than his scheduled post

office hours ''on the dates shown". Re: Exhibit

A appended to petitionér's paper entitled, ede

"Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From an Order,"'

Court of Claims 100-66). Furthermore, said

details were set forth as a part of the same and

only sentence embodying” the ‘specific accusation, ~

thus imparting to the chargean air of vagueness.

-Exemplatory of said vagueness are the following

quotations. (Verification tobe sent or requested

from the proper agency if court desires.)

Said Postmaster February 29, 1960 in a

letter to the Regional Postal Director wrote in

part:

~5. A

“oe

} complaint Petition to Ct. €l: 100-66).

- The Regional Postun ster on May 1, 1962, in

-

<>

"It is recognized that the hours

clerk Myers worked at his outside

. employment did not coincide with

his post office hours .:. a

(Re: Para. 10, petitioner's original

Petition to Ct. Cl.°100- 66).

The Regional Appeals eand on July 16,

1960, in sustaining petitioner! s Giomisgg!

wrote, in part:

"We find that there is no ‘cities that”

the agency acted in an other than

expeditious manner subsequent to

its discovery that the appellant was

employed at an outside job coinci- ,

'. dental with his taking of sick leave."'

(Re: Para. 23, petitioner's original

f

reply to petitioner's request for reinstate -

ment claiming he did not perform coincideén-

tal acts stated:

"Please look again at the charge

against you. It does not state

that you worked for the Liquor

Control Board store at the same

time you asked for sick leave."

* (Re: Para. 25, petitioner's original

complaint Petition to Ct.Cl. 100-66). .

Therefore, said Pittsburgh Postmaster’ in

confidence adm.tted that petitioner did’ not.

perform coincidental acts (as charged); none-

‘theless, he recommended removal. Yet the ©

Regional Appeals Board sustained petitioner's

sid

‘ss

7

ri

removal on the basis of: said Postmaster's

. written charge of-coincidental acts. But said

Regional Postmaster later. refused to consider

petitioner's reinstatement claiming that said

charge did not accuse petitioner of coinciden-

talacts. And there was in force and effect to

prevent acts of variange in respect to criminal

charges the VI-Constitutional Amendment which

states: :

"In all criminal prosecutions, the

accused thall enjoy the right to be

informed of the nature and cause

of the accusation,"

QUESTION PRESENTED

This case presents the question whether

failure of. petitioner to exhaust his available

administrative appeal: rights in res‘pect to his

administrative complaint against the United

States Post Office Department precludes con- |

sideration of that complaint in the United States .

Court.of Claims if in the course of petitioner's —

administrative case he, being the defendant, had

_ been deprived of the advice of counsel and, in ~

respect to said case, is the victim of variance

by the United States Government,

REASON FOR GRANTING WRIT

Years ago, in the case of. Powell vs Kiowa.

this Court made’ known its feelings in regards to

counsel for the defense. This Court reiterated

those feelings in Johnson v. Zerbst and again in

Gideon vs, Wainwright. As reason for granting

said writ, petitioner will quote those who. are

proficient at law. ;

Judge Walter V. Scheafer of the Supreme

Court of Illinois has, a :

‘2.

‘ww s e Saline tinal Oat at i net cnt Sieh BIEES thse ls V2 ahead Paci Rian he tin satel niin ensianit

"Of all the rights that an accused

person has, the right to be repre-

sented by counsel is by far the

most pervasive, for it affects his

'. ability to assert any other rights

- he may have." et .

The Honorable Justice Sutherland in the

ease of Powell vs. Alabama stated:

"The right to be heard would be, in |

many cases, of little avail if it did

not comprehend the'right to be heard

by counsel, Even the intelligent and

éducated layman has small and some-

times no skill in the science of the law.

. If charged with crime, he is: incapable,

generally, of determining for himself

whether the indictment is good or bad.

He is unfamiliar with the rules of

“evidence. Left without the aid of

counsel he may be put-on trial without

a proper charge, and convicted on in-

competent evidence, or evidence

_irrelevant to the issue or otherwise

inadmis sible.

He lacks both the skill and knowledge

to prepare his defense, even though

he have a perfect one. He requires

the. guiding hand of counsel at every

step in the proceedings against him.

Without it though he be not guilty, he

faces the danger of conviction because

he does not know ‘how to ontannen his

innocence, ....''

~

Wherefore, wetthenne senpeatldlis

prays that writ of certiorari be issued out of ~

and under the seal of this Court, directed to

the Court of Claims of the United States,

sitting at Washington, D.C. to the end that

this case may be reviewed and determined by

this. Court; thatthe judgment of the Court of

Claims be reversed; and that petitioner be

granted such other and further relief as may

seem proper.

Respe sini submitted,

6 (i -. rae

I Goce C a Ae Mow Kio

Julius C. Myers,

v7 Pe titioner

ad .

- . i

t ‘ sj

: ~ .

°

“ °

. e 7

¢ » <

.

. “= ;

. * ¥ i :

. .

. °

. ** _

. C

r . -

£

z .

a ‘

a <

‘ 5 “s

= ;

“~ ; > =

. >

rs .

‘ &

. : 7

e

- .

: ~

- . i

.

.

4 P

* «

.

:

: ; >

.

* .

.

’ -

; Ss meee

‘ ————

.

. * ie

ee

d : ; :

_*

; ¥

‘*

°

. bad ¥ >

- g¢ .

. ‘

.

: ,

“ - +

.

. .

*,

‘

. . ‘ ,

8 .

«

o

- bi ’

13 rs

‘ ri

e :

.

.

.

. .

.