United States v. Ackermann, Civ. No. 132

• Decision Date: 07 December 1943
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 132,133,150.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ACKERMANN (two cases). SAME v. KEILBAR.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

53 F. Supp. 611

UNITED STATES v. ACKERMANN (two cases).

SAME v. KEILBAR.

Civ. Nos. 132, 133, 150.

District Court, W. D. Texas, Austin Division.

December 7, 1943.

Ben F. Foster, U. S. Atty., and James McCollum Burnett, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Antonio, for the United States.

E. M. Grimes, of Taylor, Tex., for defendants Hans Ackermann, and others.

R. C. Wilson, of Austin, Tex., for defendant Frieda Ackermann.

KEELING, District Judge.

The three above-styled actions were consolidated for the purpose of trial. Each action is brought by the United States of America under the authority of 8 U.S.C. A. § 738, seeking the revocation of the order admitting the defendant to citizenship and cancellation of the certificate of naturalization on the ground of fraud and the illegal procurement of said certificate by reason of said fraud.

The allegations contained in the complaint in causes numbered Civil Action No. 132, United States of America v. Hans Ackermann, and Civil Action No. 150, United States of America v. Frieda Ackermann, are substantially the same in that the complaint avers that petitions for citizenship were filed in this court on January 25, 1938, the oath of allegiance was taken on June 14, 1938, and that the certificate of naturalization was issued by the clerk of this court on June 17, 1938. In Civil Action No. 133, United States v. Max Herman Keilbar, the complaint alleges the petition for naturalization was filed on October 14, 1932, the oath of allegiance was taken on November 14, 1933, and the certificate of naturalization was issued on November 17, 1933. The complaint in the Keilbar case differs from the complaints in each of the other two in that all proceedings were had in the State District Court of Williamson County, Texas. The allegations of fraud and of the illegal procurement of the certificate are substantially the same in each case.

The complaints each allege in substance that the actions are brought by the United States Attorney for and in behalf of the United States of America seeking the cancellation of certificates of naturalization. Complaints further allege that the defendants, and each of them, were born in Germany, that each filed a declaration of intention and, thereafter, each defendant filed his petition, took the oath of allegiance, and was issued a certificate of naturalization, as is set out above. It is further alleged that each defendant represented that he was attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, and that each stated in his petition that it was his intention to become a citizen of the United States of America and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich. The complaints further allege that each defendant took the oath of allegiance on the dates heretofore set out. Each of the allegations alluded to heretofore are admitted by each of the defendants. The complaints next aver that the petitions filed by each defendant were false and fraudulent in that they were not attached to the Constitution and did not intend to renounce all allegiance and fidelity to the German Reich. The complaints then allege that at the time each defendant took the oath of allegiance, he took the same falsely and fraudulently, in that he did not intend to absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance to his native land, that he had a mental reservation that he would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that he swore falsely that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States and he swore falsely that he took the obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, in that he had a mental reservation in connection with the entire oath. The complaints then allege that by fraudulent misrepresentations, declarations, statements and oath in connection with the petition and oath of allegiance, each defendant, with fraudulent intent, acquired his certificate of naturalization. The last allegations are expressly denied by each defendant and it is upon the issues raised thereon that a decision in these cases hinge. Undoubtedly the complaints are sufficient and the court has so ruled.

The decision of this court rests as a matter of fact upon what each defendant had in his mind and heart at the time of the filing of his petition and of the taking of the oath of allegiance. The question is: Were the statements in the petition truly or falsely made and was the oath of allegiance honestly taken, or was it tainted with a mental reservation?

Citizenship (in the United States of America) is a priceless possession and only on the basis of clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence should the court take away that which the naturalized citizen has obtained. If, however, the proof is such that the court feels bound to act upon it, he should unhesitatingly erase all evidence of fraud which had been perpetrated upon the courts.

The law is well-settled, and I hold, that the intent of a person at the time of the filing of the petition and of the taking of the oath can be determined by statements and actions of said person made and committed prior and subsequent to said dates. Especially is this true in times of stress or threatened war between their native and adopted countries, for it is then that the fidelity and allegiance come to light in the form of words and actions disclosing the real intent which had been fostered in the mind all the while.

Adolph Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and had usurped the total powers of the Third Reich by 1936. In each succeeding year, the relationships between this country and the Third Reich became increasingly strained. These factors have a very important significance when viewed in the light of the evidence introduced during the trial of these causes.

Hans Ackermann and his wife, Frieda Ackermann, were married in Germany in 1923. In 1925 they emigrated to America and Hans Ackermann obtained employment as a printer in Giddings, Texas. In 1926 Hans Ackermann purchased a one-half partnership interest in the Taylor Herold, which was published in Taylor, Texas. The paper was a German-language newspaper of long standing. In 1926 Max Keilbar, the brother of Frieda Ackermann, came to this country, and has lived with his sister and brother-in-law until the present time. He was immediately employed by the Taylor Herold, which employment continued until he became a partner with Hans Ackermann. Beginning in 1938, Hans Ackermann and Max Keilbar each owned a full one-half partnership share in the paper and retained such interest until the paper ceased publication. The very close relationship of all three defendants by blood and marriage, the community of interests in connection with the conduct of the printing business and their living together beneath the same roof for a period of over sixteen years, is of great weight in the consideration of their individual cases.

At least since 1932 Hans Ackermann was a publisher of the paper, and from the early part of 1938 Max Keilbar was the editor and co-owner thereof. As editors and/or publishers, Hans Ackermann and Max Keilbar were responsible for the utterances published, at least during the time so connected with the paper. United States of America v. Albert Orth and Anna Orth, District Court of South Carolina, 51 F.Supp. 682. Keilbar's purchase of a partnership share in the paper is evidence that he supported fully its pro-German principles. His connection with the paper began in 1926 and this fact, together with his close business and domestic ties with the other defendants, lead to the inescapable conclusion that he heartily agreed with its policy. Regardless of the official responsibility of the editors and publishers for the articles contained in the paper, I am convinced that the expressions of the paper were those of each of the named defendants. Frieda Ackermann testified that she alone was responsible for the articles written by her and others published in the paper in the column headed "Plauderei".

The paper originally was the Taylor Herold. It later became the Taylor Herold-Waco Post. In 1937 the name of the paper was changed to the Texas Herold, which name it bore until it ceased publication in June of 1942. The paper was a weekly and was published in the German language. The government introduced into evidence all weekly publications of said paper from December of 1935 until the middle of June of 1942. The Government produced an expert translator who testified in English to the content of articles written in the German language. There were more than one hundred and fifty different articles introduced.

Because of the connection of each defendant thereto, it is important to arrive at the principles and aims of the paper.

Throughout the period of time from 1935 until December 7, 1941, the paper extolled the virtues of Hitler and Germany.

In the issue of October 1, 1936, a published article read in part, "We German-Americans can be proud of the Germany of today and its glorious Fuhrer whose honor and deeds no one has been able to dispute. He is a man who knows no equal in the world. Heil Hitler."

In the issue of May 26, 1938, the paper published an article declaring that "Hitler and Mussolini are the vengeance of the most high on the criminal nations". Frieda Ackermann testified that she wrote said article and that by "criminal nations" she meant England, France and Russia.

In the issue of March 13, 1938, there was an article which compared...