United States v. Costello

• Decision Date: 21 May 1956
• Citation: 142 F. Supp. 290
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Frank COSTELLO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

142 F. Supp. 290

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Frank COSTELLO, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 21, 1956.

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., for Southern District of New York, New York City, Alfred P. O'Hara, Earl J. McHugh, Edwin J. Wesely, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Jack Wasserman, Washington, D. C., George Wolf, New York City, for defendant.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

This is an action to denaturalize defendant. He moves to dismiss it on two grounds: (1) failure of the Government to file, at the time of filing the complaint, the affidavit of good cause required by section 1451(a) of title 8 United States Code; and (2) insufficiency of an affidavit of good cause filed more than three years after the filing of the complaint.

The complaint was filed on October 22, 1952. The affidavit of good cause, though verified on September 25, 1952, was not filed until November 17, 1955.

A motion previously made by defendant to dismiss this complaint on these same two grounds was denied by Judge Dawson in a memorandum dated December 9, 1955. D.C., 142 F.Supp. 325. The motion has been renewed to determine whether a different decision is required by the recent Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Zucca, 1956, 76 S.Ct. 671, 677. It is conceded by both parties that, at the very least, that case held that an affidavit of good cause must be filed in denaturalization proceedings.

Defendant contends that the Zucca case holds that the filing of an affidavit of good cause is an essential condition to jurisdiction. If this interpretation is correct, a later filing of an affidavit would not cure the defect, for jurisdiction would never have been obtained. In support of this interpretation defendant points to the closing paragraph of the court's opinion, where it is stated that

"We believe that, not only in some cases but in all cases, the District Attorney must, as a prerequisite to the initiation of such proceedings, file an affidavit showing good cause."

The question is thus presented whether the Supreme Court meant that filing was a jurisdictional prerequisite or merely a procedural prerequisite. Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group, 311 U.S. 579, 61 S.Ct. 331, 85 L.Ed. 364. I can find nothing in the opinion which would indicate that the Supreme Court regarded the requirement as jurisdictional. There is no suggestion that a denaturalization order would be void if the affidavit had not been filed with the complaint. There is no suggestion that a court could not, upon proper terms, permit the late filing of the affidavit in a pending proceeding. On the other hand, in five places in the opinion, the word "procedural" is applied to the requirement.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint because of late filing of the affidavit of good cause must therefore be denied.

The second ground for dismissal propounded by defendant is that of insufficiency of the affidavit of good cause.

Defendant contends that the Zucca opinion requires that the affidavit set forth evidentiary facts and be executed by one who has personal knowledge of those facts. Defendant refers to the statement in the majority opinion that

"the affidavit must set forth evidentiary matters showing good cause for cancellation of citizenship."

The dissent interpreted that statement, as does this defendant, to mean that

"`the Government must furnish the Court with sworn statements by persons having personal knowledge of the facts'".

I disagree with this view that an affidavit made up of hearsay is insufficient. The Supreme Court met the argument that the complaint took the place of the affidavit by saying "The complaint, under modern practice, is required merely to allege ultimate facts while the affidavit must set forth evidentiary matters showing good cause for cancellation of citizenship." The court thus contrasts "evidentiary matters" with "ultimate facts", not with "hearsay". The statute in requiring the affidavit in addition to the complaint seeks to accomplish the same end that is served by the familiar requirements that affidavits in support of a complaint be furnished where provisional remedies like attachments and preliminary restraining orders are sought. The purpose is to give the concrete facts behind the charge as distinguished from its abstract theory. The defendant's property should not be seized or his freedom of action curtailed on the mere statement of a theory. I believe that the Supreme Court referred to this principle when it said in the Zucca case: "The mere filing of a proceeding for denaturalization results in serious consequences to a defendant. Even if his citizenship is not cancelled, his reputation is tarnished and his standing in the community damaged. Congress...