Court Opinion

ID: 9458806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:01:55.22397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:53.931180
License: Public Domain

GERALD McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The current court opinion here while in the essence of good faith, counte*458nances the miscarriage of justice which came about by the mistaken view of the attorney for the plaintiff before the Supreme Court to the effect that a prima facie case of conscientious objection had been made out by appellant. All of the reported case law on the subject is to the contrary. See our earlier opinion in this suit, 456 F.2d 627 (1972) which spread out for all to see that appellant never did present and never in reality claimed to have made a legitimate conscientious objector prima facie statement. He, his lawyers, and all of the-courts which had to pass upon the various maneuvers to keep appellant from being inducted into the armed forces of the United States, know that in Selective Service, a prima facie position has been developed “if a registrant has presented facts which, if true and uncontradicted by other information contained in his file, would be sufficient under the regulations to warrant granting his requested classification.” United States v. Burlich, 257 F.Supp. 906, 911 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).
No such prima facie situation was ever indicated by Jones or his attorneys. They have all known that at the very least “He must show that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form.” See all of the United States Courts’ opinions on that subject to date. The most that his attorney could obtain from Jones was “I cannot participate in an aggressive war.” (Emphasis supplied.) His lawyer addressed the trial judge as to that evidence under oath by Jones. The lawyer stated to the court “Well I think he has been frank Your Honor to say that he is not opposed to war in any form.” (Emphasis supplied.) The defense lawyer was asked by the United States Attorney “Is he (Jones) saying he has finally crystallized his views and is opposed to this particular war?” The lawyer answered “Yes”. The District Attorney questioned the defense lawyer “That is what his belief is?” The defense lawyer answered “Yes.” The trial judge said “He (Jones) earlier stated that.” The defense attorney said “That is right. That is in the record already.” (Emphasis supplied.)
There is no reported decision in Selective Service litigation on that particular issue that countenances the kind of barefaced statement before us, contrary to all the settled law governing conscientious objection. Throughout this entire suit there has been nothing by Jones-that could possibly have brought him under the conscientious objector umbrella. After the judgment against him in this court, he did not as suggested, promptly go to the Supreme Court. It was some appreciable time before he made up his mind to have application filed for certiorari.
Before the Supreme Court the attorney for the plaintiff sincerely said that Jones had made a prima facie showing as a conscientious objector; therefore that the suit should be returned to the circuit for further proceedings. The fact is that Jones never even pretended that he had complied with the Selective Service qualifications. The further fact is that no one advised the Supreme Court that the testimony of Jones had affirmatively disqualified him from being allowed a conscientious objector status.
As must be seen the assumption that Jones had a prima facie position as a bona fide conscientious objector was totally unwarranted. Because of the error submission, the Supreme Court was entitled to remand the appeal for reprocessing. It is regrettable that the extremely busy Supreme Court must be asked to rehear this appeal which representative of appellee had suggested remanding. However, under the circumstances it is not too much to request that this palpable and serious wrong to the Selective Service of these United States be remedied by a full rehearing by the United States Supreme Court.