United States v. Goldstein

Decision Date14 January 1921
Docket Number5427.
Citation271 F. 838
PartiesUNITED STATES v. GOLDSTEIN et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Stone Circuit Judge, dissenting.

On January 2, 1914, the United States of America filed its bill in equity in the District Court of the United States within and for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, under section 15 of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (Comp. St. Sec. 4374), against Shloen Layzor Evel Yokovich Klubok, alias Sall Glubok, by which the government sought and prayed the cancellation of the letters of citizenship granted to said Glubok by the said United States District Court for the division and district last aforesaid on the 7th day of October, 1910. In its bill the government alleged and charged, among other things, that said Klubok had fraudulently and illegally obtained and procured entry of the said decree or letters admitting him to American citizenship by reason of fraud, perjury, deceit, and imposition committed and practiced upon the court by him and his verifying witnesses, Nat A. Goldstein and William Sacks, appellees in this matter, in this, to wit: That the said petitioner had falsely and fraudulently represented himself to be a man of good moral character, and to be fully qualified to be admitted to American citizenship, and that the said witnesses, Nat A. Goldstein, and William Sacks, had been guilty of the commission of fraud, deceit, and imposition on the court, in falsely asserting and stating under oath, in the affidavit executed by them as part of the petition for naturalization of said Glubok, that they knew of their own personal knowledge that said petitioner was a man of good moral character, and had conducted and behaved himself as such for the period of time requisite under the naturalization statute, and that he was in all respects qualified and eligible to be admitted a citizen of the United States of America, and that said witnesses had further been guilty of the commission of fraud, deceit, and imposition on the court in falsely and fraudulently representing and testifying in open court on the final hearing on said petition for naturalization of said Glubok that they of their own personal knowledge knew said petitioner to be a man of good moral character, and to have conducted and behaved himself as such, as required by the naturalization statute and that they knew him to be in all respects qualified and eligible to be admitted to American citizenship.

The bill of complaint then alleged further that in truth and in fact the said Klubok was not a man of good moral character and had not conducted or behaved himself as such, as required by the statute in such matter made and provided, and that the affidavits executed by said witnesses, in which they stated that they knew of their own personal knowledge that the petitioner for naturalization was a man of good moral character and had conducted and behaved himself as such was false and untrue, and that the testimony of said witnesses, given under oath in open court on the final hearing on the petition for naturalization of the petitioner, in which said witnesses had falsely and fraudulently represented that they of their own personal knowledge knew the petitioner for naturalization Glubok, to be a man of good moral character, and to have behaved and conducted himself as such for the requisite period of time as demanded by the naturalization statute, was false and untrue, and that in truth and in fact the said Glubok, for a considerable period of time previous to his naturalization, had lived with and off the illegitimate earnings of his wife, Annie Glubok, alias Lizzie Greenstein, who during all of said time had been a common prostitute and keeper of houses of prostitution at various addresses in the city of St. Louis, Mo. The affidavits attached to and forming part of the said bill of complaint, executed by various officers of the metropolitan police department of the city of St. Louis, Mo., as well as others established the fact of the bad moral character of the said petitioner for naturalization Glubok as alleged in the government's bill.

On February 26, 1914, the defendant Glubok filed a joint plea and answer to the bill of complaint, in which he alleged and claimed compliance with the statutory requirements in obtaining grant of the letters of citizenship, and denied that he or his verifying witnesses had been guilty of any fraud, deception, or perjury in obtaining the entry of said decree or letters of citizenship. The cause was heard by Judge Pollock of the district of Kansas, who had been duly assigned to the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On June 16, 1915, the defendant failing to appear, the case was heard and submitted to the court upon the petition of the plaintiff, the answer of the defendant, and the proofs adduced. On the 18th day of June, 1915, two days subsequent to the date of the hearing and submission, a final decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, the United States of America, which is as follows:

'This cause coming on to be heard on the 16th day of June, A.D. 1915, the United States appearing by its District Attorney, and the defendants being in default, and the court being fully advised in the premises, finds: That a bill in equity in the above-entitled cause was filed in this court on January 2, 1914; that a subpoena duly issued was served on said defendant January 7, 1914; that on February 26, 1914, defendant filed plea and answer in said cause; and that on June 15, 1915, by leave of the court, defendant's counsel withdrew from the case, said defendant having fled the jurisdiction of the court.
'The court further finds that the subject-matter of this action is a decree of the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri; that the defendant at the time of the institution of this suit, was a resident of St. Louis, Mo., within the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri; and that on July 1, 1910, said defendant, under the alias of Sall Glubok, filed petition for naturalization No. 883 in the aforesaid United States Circuit Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, and was by said court on said petition naturalized a citizen of the United States on October 7, 1910, certificate of naturalization No. 148771 being issued to him as documentary proof of such naturalization.
'The court further finds that the naturalization of the said defendant was granted on the testimony of Nat A. Goldstein and William Sacks, who declared on their oaths that to their personal knowledge said defendant was a man of good moral character, etc., and a proper person to be naturalized a citizen of the United States.
'The court further finds that the naturalization of the said defendant was a fraud upon the court, and upon the United States, in that the testimony of said Nat A. Goldstein and William Sacks that defendant was a man of good moral character to their personal knowledge, was false, and contrary to the facts; that said defendant petitioned for and secured naturalization under a fictitious and assumed name, to wit, Sall Glubok, and not under his true name, to wit, Shloen Layzor Evel Yokovich Glubok; that said defendant named in his petition for naturalization, one Anna Glubok, as his wife with whom he was living in lawful wedlock; that said Anna Glubok was one Lizzie Greenstein, a public prostitute and keeper of houses of prostitution; that said defendant shared in and derived profit from the prostitution of said Lizzie Greenstein; that said defendant had shared in and derived profit from the prostitution of said Lizzie Greenstein for many years prior to his naturalization; and that said defendant committed a further fraud upon this court, and the United States, through reciting in his petition that he had two children, to wit, Isidore, born April 10, 1905, at New York, N.Y., and Sam, born May 23, 1906, at Grodna, Russia, when as a matter of fact said children were born some six or seven years prior to the dates given, and both were born in Russia, and neither in the United States.
'That for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, the court finds that the qualifications and right of said defendant to become a citizen of the United States were not proved or made to appear to the court in any true or lawful manner; that said decree of naturalization was procured by and based on false and fraudulent testimony, misrepresentation and deceit; that the court was induced to render said decree of naturalization by and through mistake as to the true facts, as well as by the fraud, perjury, imposition, and deceit practiced upon it by said defendant, and his witnesses; and that by reason thereof a fraud was committed by said defendant upon the court, and the United States; said defendant unlawfully and fraudulently obtaining said decree naturalizing him, and conferring the status of a citizen of the United States upon the said prostitute, Lizzie Greenstein, and children, Isidore and Sam.
'It is therefore by the court ordered and decreed that the decree of said United States Circuit Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, entered October 7, 1910, admitting said defendant to citizenship, be and the same is hereby vacated, set aside, and held for naught, and that the said certificate of naturalization No. 148771 be and the same is hereby revoked and canceled; that said defendant is hereby directed and required to surrender to this court for cancellation said certificate No. 148771; and the said defendant be and he is hereby forever enjoined and restrained from claiming any rights, privileges, or immunities
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Osage Oil & Refining Co. v. Continental Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 14, 1929
    ...to events which occurred subsequently to the decree. Issues not raised by the pleadings cannot be determined. United States v. Goldstein (C. C. A. 8) 271 F. 838, 845. A decree, in so far as it undertakes to decide issues not made by the pleadings, is void. Jorgenson Co. v. Rapp (C. C. A. 9)......
  • Shubert Theatrical Co. v. Rath
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 16, 1921
    ... 271 F. 827 SHUBERT THEATRICAL CO. v. RATH et al. No. 170. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. February 16, 1921 ... [271 F. 828] ... ...
  • Larkin Packer Co. v. Hinderliter Tool Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 20, 1932
    ...of fact in the decree. Putnam v. Day, 89 U. S. (22 Wall.) 60, 22 L. Ed. 764; McClaskey v. Barr (C. C.) 48 F. 130." United States v. Goldstein (C. C. A. 8) 271 F. 838, 844. That the decree in the present case is general in terms does not change the rule; with a decree like this, resort to fi......
  • In re Associated Gas & Electric Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 4, 1936
    ...order for drawing grand jury. See Apgar v. United States, 255 F. 16, 18 (C.C.A.5), order for drawing petit jurors; United States v. Goldstein, 271 F. 838 (C.C.A.8), expunging certain findings in a decree. In Horn v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (C.C.) 151 F. 626, 638, the appointment of a receiver......
  • 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