United States v. Matles-Friedman
| Decision Date | 06 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 13121. |
| Citation | 115 F. Supp. 261 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MATLES-FRIEDMAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Leonard P. Moore, U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff.
David Scribner and Donner, Kinoy & Perlin, New York City, Arthur Kinoy, Frank J. Donner, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
This is a motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to make the complaint more definite and certain, and to strike certain designated paragraphs from the complaint as immaterial.
In this action the United States seeks to revoke and set aside the order admitting the defendant to citizenship, and to cancel his certificate of naturalization, as having been procured illegally and fraudulently. The action is brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 338(a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 738(a).
The defendant was admitted to citizenship on November 27, 1934. Naturalization was granted under the Naturalization Act of 1906, June 29, 1906, c. 3592; 34 Stat. 596. The 1906 Act provided that the petition for naturalization shall set forth:
"* * * that he is not a disbeliever in or opposed to organized government, or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief in or opposed to organized government, * * * and that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he at the time of filing of his petition may be a citizen or subject, * *."
The action was instituted on December 16, 1952. An amended complaint was filed on September 16, 1953. Attached thereto is an affidavit showing that good cause exists for the institution of the present action.
In substance, the amended complaint alleges that the defendant in his petition for naturalization and in the proceedings conducted prior to his naturalization made certain allegations under oath, and that these allegations, set forth in the complaint, were false and untrue, and were known by the defendant to be false and untrue.
More specifically, the amended complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Communist Party of the United States, at all times material to the complaint, advised, advocated or taught the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States; that since 1929 and at the time of his admission to citizenship, the defendant was a member of the Communist Party of the United States and gave complete obedience to its dictates and commands, without regard as to whether such dictates and commands were contrary to the laws or interests of the United States. It also alleges that the defendant was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States; that the defendant deliberately made false statements for the purpose of preventing the making of a full and proper investigation of his qualifications for citizenship; and that he was not a person of good moral character at the time of his naturalization because he made false statements in the proceedings leading to his naturalization.
All but one of the grounds raised by this motion to dismiss the complaint have been passed upon in one or more of the following cases recently brought in the Southern District of New York: United States v. Ronch, decided February 2, 1953; United States v. Lustig, decided March 19, 1953, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 806; United States v. Radzie, D.C., 14 F.R.D. 151, decided April 3, 1953; United States v. Jerome, D.C., 115 F.Supp. 818, decided June 17, 1953.
In each of these cases the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. Nothing presented on this motion requires a different conclusion.
The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Matles
-
United States v. Candela
...291 F. 129, affirmed, 9 Cir., 1924, 299 F. 571; also see Zurini v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 722; United States v. Matles-Friedman, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 261. (If a court passes on the question of whether or not good cause is presented a fortiori an affidavit must be pre......
-
United States v. Kershner
...212 F.2d 878. On occasion, this uniformly broad interpretation has led to a result adverse to the alien. See United States v. Matles-Friedman, D.C. E.D.N.Y.1953, 115 F.Supp. 261; United States ex rel. Circella v. Neelly, D.C. N.D.Ill.1953, 115 F.Supp. 615, It should be pointed out that the ......
-
Yanish v. Barber, Civ. A. No. 29013.
...Application of Shomberg, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 115 F.Supp. 336, affirmed Shomberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 82; United States v. Matles-Friedman, D.C.E.D.N. Y., 115 F.Supp. 261. One further indication of congressional intent may be found in the language of the section which creates the new......