Di Girolamo v. Acheson, Civ. 4163-49.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. 4163-49. |
| Parties | DI GIROLAMO v. ACHESON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Abraham Kaufman, New York City, Pearson and Ball, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Harold Bacon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Mario Arnaldo Di Girolamo, seeks a judgment of this court declaring him to be a National of the United States.1
He was born in Italy on February 20, 1913. He asserts that at his birth his father was a naturalized citizen of the United States, and by virtue thereof plaintiff became a United States citizen.
The government disputes the claim that plaintiff's father was a naturalized United States citizen, and further asserts that even if plaintiff did become a citizen of the United States, he expatriated himself.
Plaintiff denies that he ever intended to relinquish his citizenship in the United States and contends that the facts do not justify a finding of expatriation.
1. The first issue whether plaintiff's father was a naturalized United States citizen turns on a question of identity of parties. It is plaintiff's position that his father was naturalized on November 2, 1904, in Marshall County, Illinois, under the name of Giovantino Di Giolamo. Defendant concedes that one Giovantino Di Giolamo was naturalized at that time and place, but claims that the person named in that proceeding is not plaintiff's father. The government concedes that the misspelling of Di Giolamo in the naturalization papers is an obvious error as the signature of the person naturalized is clearly Girolamo. The given name of plaintiff's father is Sabatino, whereas it appears as Giovantino in the naturalization proceedings. This discrepancy is not explained in the record, and does present some confusion. Yet it seems fairly clear to the court from the facts established by the evidence that the Giovantino Giolamo mentioned in the naturalization proceedings was plaintiff's father. The American Consul at Rome in a letter to plaintiff's attorney dated March 29, 1949 conceded this to be a fact.2
2. Having concluded therefore, that plaintiff became a United States citizen because of the naturalization of his father, the next question is whether plaintiff lost his citizenship by expatriation. The government supports its claim of expatriation by asserting that plaintiff took an oath of allegiance to the King of Italy when entering the Italian Army as a minor, and that plaintiff confirmed that oath by subsequent service in the Italian Army after reaching his majority. Further the government claims that plaintiff's subsequent failure to take proper steps to protect his United States citizenship resulted in his expatriation.
Defendant frankly acknowledges it to be well settled law that a minor does not expatriate himself by taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign government.3 But the government argues that plaintiff confirmed this oath by subsequent military service after attaining his majority. When plaintiff took the oath of allegiance as a member of the Italian Army, he had dual nationality. There seems to be no statutory provision requiring an election in any form on the part of a person who has dual nationality.4 However, there is a line of cases holding that an American National who commits certain acts during minority, which are otherwise expatriating, may confirm those acts after reaching majority.5 But the facts in these cases are clearly distinguishable from those in the case at bar. No doubt, a minor may by clear and unequivocable acts, after reaching his majority, indicate a desire to confirm certain acts committed during his minority and which would be expatriating except for his minority. The instant case does not present such a situation. There cannot be expatriation because of the confirmation of such acts unless the intention is clear to relinquish the citizenship in the United States.6 Each case therefore must be judged by its own facts and circumstances in order to determine whether there was a voluntary relinquishment of one's citizenship.
The government contends that after pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tomoya Kawakita v. United States
...886 887; Hamamoto v. Acheson, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 904, 905; Boissonnas v. Acheson, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 138, 147, 151—152; Di Girolamo v. Acheson, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 380, 382; Coumas v. Superior Court in and for San Joaquin County, 31 Cal.2d 682, 192 P.2d 449; Doyle v. Ries, 208 Minn. 321, 293 N.W......
-
Lehmann v. Acheson, 11035.
...166; Federici v. Clark, D.C.W.D.Pa.1951, 99 F.Supp. 1019; Toshio Kondo v. Acheson, D.C. S.D.Cal.1951, 98 F.Supp. 884; Di Girolamo v. Acheson, D.C.D.C.1951, 101 F. Supp. 380; Yoshiro Shibata v. Acheson, D.C.S.D.Cal.1949, 86 F.Supp. 1; Kanno v. Acheson, D.C.S.D.Cal.1950, 92 F.Supp. 183; Minor......
-
Soccodato v. Dulles, 12108.
...does not so provide, and we cannot read this into the law. See Pandolfo v. Acheson, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 38, 41, and Di Girolamo v. Acheson, D.C.D.C., 101 F.Supp. 380, 382, the latter holding that in the absence of a showing of intent to relinquish American citizenship military service after at......
-
Perri v. Dulles, 10906.
...ex rel. Baglivo v. Day, D.C. N.Y.1928, 28 F.2d 44; Tomasicchio v. Acheson, D.C.D.C.1951, 98 F.Supp. 166, 174; Di Girolamo v. Acheson, D.C.D.C. 1951, 101 F.Supp. 380, 832. 6 Savorgnan v. United States, 1950, 338 U. S. 491, 70 S.Ct. 292, 94 L.Ed. 287; Dos Reis v. Nicolls, 1 Cir., 1947, 161 F.......
-
Febtors, Creditors, Default Judgments, and Discretion: Why Rule 62(b)(4) Will Become One of the Most Important Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
...the expiration of the time for filing a motion for new trial."). 60. See Donellan Jerome, Inc., 270 F. Supp. at 999; see also Butler, 101 F. Supp. at 380. 61. See Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir. 1963) (default judgments are valid until set 62. See generally Gen. Star Nat'l......