United States v. Marasilis, Misc. No. 127.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 127. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Leokadia MARASILIS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Wendell A. Miles, U. S. Atty., and Roman J. Snow, Asst. U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., for government.
Charles W. Gore, Benton Harbor, Mich., for defendant.
This matter came on to be heard upon the government's motion for a summary judgment based on the ground that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the government is entitled to a judgment for the relief prayed for as a matter of law. It appears that the defendant and her counsel were given proper notice of the hearing on the government's motion, and the United States attorney stated on the record that defendant's counsel had informed him that neither he nor the defendant would be present.
On March 24, 1953, the government filed a complaint and on May 4, 1954, an amended complaint, in pursuance of § 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451(a), whereby it petitioned the court to revoke and set aside the order admitting the defendant Leokadia Marasilis to citizenship, and to cancel and declare null and void the certificate of naturalization No. 5685183 issued to her on June 4, 1943. The government alleged that the defendant had procured her certificate of naturalization through concealment of material facts and by fraud and wilful misrepresentations. The defendant answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint and amended complaint relative to her alleged concealment of material facts and alleged fraud and wilful misrepresentations, and denying the government's right to the relief sought.
On August 19, 1955, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the government filed a request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents, and the defendant filed her answers and admissions under oath. In her answers to the request for admissions she admits as follows: (1) That she was a member of the Communist Party of America during the period from 1933 to 1935 and from 1940 until 1950; (2) that she received membership cards indicating her membership in the Communist party; (3) that she was a member of the sixth ward club of the Communist party located on Champlain street near Sixty-second street in the city of Chicago, Illinois, from 1933 to 1935; and (4) that she did for a period of time between 1933 and 1949 believe the United States government should be overthrown.
On June 1, 1956, in pursuance of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the government filed a motion for a summary judgment. This motion was based on the allegations of the government's complaint and amended complaint and the defendant's answers thereto, and upon her answers and amended answers to the government's request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents. In support of its motion the government contends that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
It appears that on April 20, 1943, the defendant executed an application for a certificate of arrival and preliminary form for petition for naturalization in which she was asked the following questions and to which she gave the following answers:
On the same date defendant also executed a petition for naturalization, in which she made the following statements under oath:
As hereinbefore stated, defendant has since admitted under oath in her answers to the government's request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents, that she was a member of the Communist Party of America from 1933 to 1935 and from 1940 until 1950, well knowing that the Communist Party of America is an organization which at all times since 1933 advised, advocated or taught the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States. Defendant has further admitted under oath that she did for a period of time from 1933 to 1949 believe that the United States government should be overthrown.
The court recognizes and is deeply conscious of the value and importance of citizenship in the United States of America, and that the cancellation of citizenship is a serious matter. The court recognizes that citizenship obtained through naturalization carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our government and society, including the right to speak freely and to criticize and promote changes in our laws. The court also recognizes that ill-tempered expressions, extreme views, and even the promotion of ideas which run counter to our American ideals, are not to be given disloyal connotations in the absence of convincing evidence of intended disloyalty. Great tolerance and caution are necessary in order that a person, once naturalized, should not be unjustly deprived of that cherished status. Any other course of action would be contrary to our American traditions of freedom and liberty and would make denaturalization proceedings the ready instrument for personal and political persecution. See Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1500. Once citizenship has been granted, the courts must jealously guard its revocation, and evidence upon which revocation can be based must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 670, 64 S.Ct. 1240, 88 L.Ed. 1525; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 63 S. Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Sweet v. United States, 6 Cir., 211 F.2d 118, 120; United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial