Bechtel v. United States

Decision Date05 August 1949
Docket NumberNo. 12093.,12093.
Citation176 F.2d 741
PartiesBECHTEL v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Wayne M. Collins, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., Edgar R. Bonsall, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges.

POPE, Circuit Judge.

The appellant Bechtel was born in Germany in 1900, served as a private in the German army during World War I, left Germany when 20 years old and spent 5 years in Sweden, then, in 1925 migrated to the United States and ultimately made his home at Oakland, California. In 1927 he filed his declaration to become a citizen. He was granted citizenship by judgment of the Superior Court of Alemeda County, California on February 23, 1934.

These denaturalization proceedings were filed against him on December 22, 1942, in the court below, under the authority of section 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 738, charging that his naturalization was procured illegally and by fraud in that he was not, as he represented a person attached to the principles of the Constitution and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, that he did not truly intend to become a permanent citizen of the United States, and that his oath of allegiance then taken was false in that he did not absolutely and entirely renounce and adjure all allegiance to any foreign state or sovereign, but retained allegiance to Germany and did not intend to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States, or to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Judgment canceling appellant's certificate of naturalization was entered March 31, 1944. The only question raised upon the appeal which we need notice is the contention that the judgment is not sustained by the "clear, unequivocal, and convincing" evidence required in such cases.

Because a number of other denaturalization cases were pending in the same court, in all of which, as in this case, there was evidence that the defendants were at some time members of the German-American Bund, these cases were consolidated for trial of the common issue of the purposes and organization of the Bund, which separate trial afforded each defendant upon all other issues. This was done in the same manner as that adopted by the district court in Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, and described in the footnote at page 662, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1504.1 The court then made findings and conclusions as to the Bund and separate findings and conclusions as to each defendant.

With respect to the Bund, its findings may best be summarized by stating that they conformed to the description of the Bund given by the Supreme Court in the Knauer case, as follows:2 "The Bund taught and advocated the Nazi philosophy — the leadership principle, racial superiority of the Germans, the principle of the totalitarian state, Pan-Germanism and of Lebensraum (living space). It looked forward to the day when the Nazi form of government would supplant our form of government. It emphasized that allegiance and devotion to Hitler were superior to any obligation to the United States."3

Upon this issue the court's conclusions were as follows: "In carrying out the activities hereinabove described, and in seeking to accomplish its real aims and purposes, the Bund demonstrated itself to be a German militant `fifth column' organization in the United States, antagonistic to the democratic form of government and to the Constitution and laws of the United States, un-American and subversive. One who believes in the National Socialist philosophy and form of government cannot at the same time be loyal to the United States nor attached to the principles of the Constitution and laws of the United States.

"The principles of German National Socialism are opposed in all respects to the principles of democracy and to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

As to Bechtel, the court found:

(1) He joined the Friends of New Germany (the Bund, by an earlier name), about September, 1934 (seven months after he became a citizen) and attended Bund meetings thereafter through 1938 and into 1939.

(2) He subscribed for the Bund paper and read it for at least one year.

(3) During this period of membership Bechtel was on numerous occasions clothed in the uniform of the Ordnungs Dienst, or O. D. (the uniformed group within the Bund organized to act as color guards, ushers, distributors of phamphlets and literature and to protect members from attack during meetings.) He attended meetings of the O. D., where he wore its swastika arm band and assisted in its various activities such as marching and carrying the swastika banner. In 1938, at a Bund picnic, he kept watch over the fire while a large swastika was burned on the hillside.

(4) At numerous meetings of these organizations he engaged in giving the "Heil" or "Sieg Heil" salute and in the singing of the "Horst Wessel" song.

(5) He accompanied the Bund leaders and others when they organized a Bund unit in another county.

(6) In May, 1938, Bechtel attended the Bund's Western District Convention where the district leader and Fritz Kuhn, national leader, spoke.

(7) Between 1934 and 1939 Bechtel stated to various persons that he approved of Hitler's economic and social policies in Germany, and approved of his treatment of the Jews.

(8) He stated to various persons that he desired and intended to return to Germany.

(9) On December 14, 1942, he stated before a Board of Army officers that he honored the swastika flag equally with the American flag.

(10) About 1939, he burned his Bund uniform, knowing that two Bund leaders had burned theirs.

(11) On his tenth wedding anniversary Bechtel gave a party at his home at which time he displayed a swastika flag on the ceiling.

(12) He ceased attending meetings of the Bund because of personal disagreements with Hein, the local leader, and not because of any disapproval of the Bund's policies.

The foregoing findings are, with one exception,4 amply supported by the evidence. The court proceeded to make additional findings, not based upon any direct evidence, but which the court must have arrived at by way of conclusion or inference from the evidence upon which the other findings are based. These additional findings were:

(a) Bechtel knew and understood the leadership principle as enunciated and subscribed to by the leaders and members of the Bund.

(b) At the time of his naturalization, and at all times subsequently, his allegiance has been to Germany rather than to the United States, and his attachment has been to National Socialism rather than to the principles of the United States Constitution.

(c) Bechtel knew the character and connections of the Bund and was in sympathy and agreement with them.

(d) His oaths and statements in his petition for naturalization, and his oath of allegiance, were then and there false, fraudulent and illegal.5

There are other aspects of the case, not mentioned in the findings, which we must consider if we are to re-examine the facts, as it is our duty to do. In a case of this kind we are not bound by the trial court's findings even although they may not be "clearly erroneous". Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796. As stated in Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 657, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 1307, we must "reexamine the facts to determine whether the United States has carried its burden of proving by `clear, unequivocal, and convincing' evidence, which does not leave `the issue in doubt,' that the citizen who is sought to be restored to the status of an alien obtained his naturalization certificate illegally."

Outstanding is the fact that there is no evidence whatever of Bechtel's views or opinions prior to the time he joined the Friends of New Germany, some seven months after he took the oath of allegiance. The dangers of reliance upon such retrospective proof of lack of allegiance at an earlier date were stated in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, at page 675, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525, and in Knauer v. United States, supra, 328 U.S. 654, at page 660, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1504.

Whether Bechtel's later membership and activity in the Bund sufficiently evidenced a state of mind at the time his naturalization certificate was issued which was incompatible with his oath and representations of attachment to the United States Constitution depends in part upon the circumstances and conditions of his membership. His enthusiastic participation in the pro-German nonsense of the Bund is clear enough. No doubt he wore his O. D. uniform with much pride, and shouted "Heil" and "Sieg Heil" as loudly as any of them. There is solid evidence of his admiration for Hitler, and for Hitler's economic and social program, including his treatment of the Jews.

But the doubts which now assail us arise from our question whether all this evidenced a prior lack of sincerity when he took his oath, or whether the true inference is that Bechtel, apparently by nature a "joiner" (he had belonged to the Sons of Hermann and the Redmen) had newly found another order, attended by fellow Germans, where the marching, the "heiling", the uniform, and the laudation of the Fatherland, appealed to some latent love of regimentation and which he accepted without any real appreciation of its inconsistency with American loyalty. Many a native-born American would have to plead guilty to wearing uniforms, participating in parades, and reciting strange and weird language under the guise of lodge ritual. If, as has been said, membership in the Bund is not in itself sufficient...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Mondaca-Vega v. Holder
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 25, 2013
    ...obtained, we are not bound by the district court's findings even if they are not clearly erroneous.” (citing Bechtel v. United States, 176 F.2d 741, 744 (9th Cir.1949))). Both Lim and Bechtel relied on Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1500 (1946). There, the Su......
  • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Jones
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • October 12, 1949
    ...176 F.2d 737 (1949) ... PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO ... United" States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit ... August 2, 1949 ... Rehearing Denied October 12, 1949. \xC2" ... ...
  • U.S. v. Delmendo, 73-2707
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 16, 1974
    ...fraudulently obtained, we are not bound by the district court's findings even if they are not clearly erroneous. (Bechtel v. United States (9th Cir. 1949), 176 F.2d 741, 744.)3 Act of June 29, 1906, ch. 3592, 15, 34 Stat. 601. Although we do not reach the constitutional issue, we note that ......
  • Fix v. United States, 12094.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 5, 1949
    ...an appeal from a judgment of denaturalization. The proceedings and issues are the same as those in the case of Bechtel (Bechtel v. United States, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 741), a general summary of the district court's findings is set forth in that court's opinion. United States v. Holtz, 54 F. Sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT