Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

437 F.2d 897

Docket No. 20451.

United States v. Lee

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Feb. 5, 1971.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1971-02-05

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1971

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“I, Thomas G. Arneson, on this 5th day of February, 1969, refuse induction into the Armed Forces of the United States of America. My principal reason for taking such action is my firm belief in the brotherhood of mankind, an irrevocable bond among men of all races and nations to live in peace and understanding, a bond which entails the responsibility of recognizing ones own individual identity and of crediting that recognition to every member of the human species. Mankind’s brotherhood can in no way, if the race of man is to survive, be superseded by the ambitions of individuals or groups interested in the destruction of the individual primarily for personal or collective gain. For too many years, many citizens of the United States have deluded themselves into thinking that they were far superior to any other people or nation on this planet. The subsequent, and logical conclusion to this type of thinking has been the imposition or attempted imposition of what is thought to be the superior way of life on the poor unfortunates who were unlucky enough to be cited by the collective opinion of the United States as misguided or heretical in the true way of life. Thus, in the name of freedom, nations are toppled, people are slaughtered; people whom American opinion calls “the enemy” in order to smooth over the ignorance of deluded patriots. The American Armed Forces have been the principal servants of those who embrace the philosophy which might be termed America uber Alies, people w”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States v. Arneson

Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3811

Relies on United States v. Seeverts

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1971-02-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1William I. Kampf, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

¶2Robert G. Renner, U. S. Atty., Peter J. Thompson, J. Earl Cudd, Asst. U. S. Attys., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

¶3Before CLARK, Associate Justice,* BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and HARPER, District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Selective Service registrant David Lester Lee appeals his conviction under 50 U.S.C. App. § 462 for failing to comply with an order of his local board to report for and submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States.

¶7The evidence discloses that Local Board 25 ordered the registrant to report for induction on May 7, 1969. Thereafter, the registrant requested status as a conscientious objector. The board postponed the induction, sent the registrant an SSS Form 150 upon which to state his claim, and invited the registrant to appear for a personal interview on May 14. Lee neither completed the form nor appeared for the interview. Subsequently, on June 10, 1969, the board ordered the registrant to report for induction on June 24,1969.

¶8On June 11, 1969, Lee notified the board that he had decided not to apply for conscientious objector status because his objection to service in the armed forces rested “not on recognized religious grounds but on my own moral and political beliefs which I in no way, in good conscience, can construe as being acceptable religious beliefs.” Lee further stated that he would not comply with the induction order. He did not report for induction and he was subsequently convicted.

¶9On this appeal, Lee contends that, notwithstanding his failure to make a formal claim to the local board, he qualifies for conscientious objector status under the statute and his claim should have been considered by the local board.

¶10The district court ruled that this contention lacked any merit. We agree. The registrant’s claim to be conscientious objector, offered for the first time at trial, affords no defense to his conviction. United States v. Seeverts, 428 F.2d 467 (8th Cir. 1970). This court’s decision in Seeverts, supra,is controlling here.

¶11Affirmed.1

/437/f2d/897 · .json · Public domain