# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Myers v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1201%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1968 - **Citation:** 390 U.S. 981 ## Text , 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 “ "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 ¢ » = . > rs . ‘ & . : 7 e - . : ~ - . i . . 4 P * « . : : ; > . * . . ’ - ; Ss meee ‘ ———— . . * ie ee d : ; : _* ; ¥ ‘* ° . bad ¥ > - g¢ . . ‘ . : , “ - + . . . *, ‘ . . ‘ , 8 . « o - bi ’ 13 rs ‘ ri e : . . . . . . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385603_1201%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.