United States v. Nowak, 12391.
| Court | United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan) |
| Writing for the Court | PICARD |
| Citation | 133 F. Supp. 191 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Stanislaw NOWAK, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | No. 12391.,12391. |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1955 |
133 F. Supp. 191
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Stanislaw NOWAK, Defendant.
No. 12391.
United States District Court E. D. Michigan, S. D.
July 15, 1955.
Fred W. Kaess, Dwight K. Hamborsky, Detroit, Mich., for the United States.
Goodman, Crockett, Eden & Robb, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
PICARD, District Judge.
Action to cancel defendant's citizenship pursuant to provisions of the Nationality Act of 1940, Title 8 U.S.C. § 738(a)1 on grounds that his naturalization under Nationality Act of 1906 was illegally and fraudulently procured.
I. As to Illegality
That:
(a) Defendant concealed and falsely denied communist party membership;
(b) he was not at the time of his naturalization a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States; and
(c) was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.
Note: This court believes that the facts required to prove (b) and (c) would be the same and therefore we treat these two as one.
II. As to Fraud
That:
(a) Defendant was asked by the naturalization examiners whether he had ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States to which he falsely answered, "No"; and
(b) answering question No. 28 in his preliminary petition for naturalization defendant denied he had ever belonged to, or had ever been affiliated with, any organization which taught or advocated overthrow of the existing government in this country, when in fact he was a member of the Communist Party with knowledge that it taught and advocated such violent overthrow of this government.
If plaintiff is to prevail it must prove at least one of its contentions by "`clear, unequivocal, and convincing'" evidence. Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1352, 87 L.Ed. 1796.
But before considering "all facts" or "degree of proof" required, this court immediately eliminates government's claim as to the first "illegality" as a ground for revoking defendant's citizenship because both parties agree that the Nationality Act of 1906, in effect when Nowak was naturalized, must govern this contention.
The prohibitions of the Nationality Act of 1906 were primarily directed at polygamists and anarchists; not communists. In addition to being captioned "Anarchist or Polygamist" the statute is couched in language definitive of the tenets of anarchism as opposed to communism. It covers "disbelief in" and "opposition to" organized government and the unlawful assaulting and killing of government officials. On the other hand, seldom, if ever, has dispensation with all government been considered a tenet of communism. Contrarily the very essence of communism is its complete subjugation of all persons to the will of the state — under that doctrine, a political leviathan.
This court concludes, therefore, that nothing contained in Section 7 of the Nationality Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 598, being Title 8 U.S.C. § 364,2 barred naturalization of one because he was a member of the Communist Party. But, while Illegality "a" is therefore erased, we still must treat subsection 4 section 4 of the Nationality Act of 1906, 45 Stat. 1513, Sec. 6(b) being Section 382 of Title 8 U.S.C.,3 separately herein.
This court further dismisses, as of itself a sole ground for revoking defendant's citizenship, plaintiff's first contention of fraud — to-wit, that defendant was asked by the naturalization examiners whether he had ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States to which he supposedly answered "No." We do this because in our opinion proof on this point is not "`clear, unequivocal, and convincing'". The two naturalization examiners, both testifying more than sixteen years after they had first interviewed petitioner, claim they remembered asking Nowak at the time of the original examination if he "was or had ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States." These witnesses gave several reasons for so remembering among them that they had previous to such examination heard he was a communist and that he was notorious, his name having appeared in the newspapers many times. This, they, in effect said, made them "primed" for Nowak when he did appear.
But, although both examiners had made written notations on the examining petition of Nowak's answers to certain questions that were not part of the written petition, still for some reason or other, this all important question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" is not even referred to in their written answers or their notes. These examiners have interviewed hundreds of persons seeking naturalization during the intervening years and it seems to this court inconceivable that after having seen and interviewed defendant only once that they could remember asking one specific question of one specific petitioner after all those years. If they had asked such a question wouldn't they have made a note of it some place as they did concerning many less important questions not included in the petition as a question to be asked? We do not seek to impugn the veracity of these two witnesses nor to imply that they deliberately gave false testimony. We simply feel that the lapse of years, fallibility of the memory, and information about Nowak received later had a tendency to influence their testimony at the time of trial. This evidence fails to meet the standard required in denaturalization cases.
Standing alone we dismiss the first fraud.
Findings of Fact
Defendant filed his petition for citizenship on December 15, 1937 and became a citizen June 13, 1938. From all testimony received, this court has arrived at the conclusion that defendant became a member of the Communist Party about the middle of 1935, that he continued as a member of the party at least through 1937 and 1938, knowing of its main aim and objective which was the overthrow of this government by force and violence; that he approved of that aim and objective before and when he became a member of the Communist Party of the United States; that so far as we have been able to ascertain, he still does to this day; and further that he intended to conceal such membership and such knowledge both when he signed his petition and when he was examined. This evidence came from many witnesses, some of whom stated they had attended closed Communist Party meetings from 1937 to 1943 at which defendant was present. Their testimony, with one exception, which we have ignored completely (Thaddeus Zygmont) was clear, straightforward,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. De Lucia, 56 C 1676.
...v. Roberson, 5 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 517; Daniel v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 102; United States v. Nowak, D.C.Mich.1955, 133 F.Supp. 191, Defendant urges that the unexplained failure of the government to present the testimony of the Designated Examiner conducting the hearing on ......
-
United States v. Marasilis, Misc. No. 127.
...Communist party is material and has been judicially held to be grounds for revocation of citizenship. See United States v. Nowak, D.C., 133 F.Supp. 191; United States v. Charnowola, D.C., supra, 109 F.Supp. 810; United States v. Sweet, D.C., 106 F.Supp. 634. When defendant Leokadia Marasili......
-
United States v. Matles, Civ. No. 13121.
...D.C., 109 F.Supp. 810, affirmed 211 F.2d 118, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 817, 75 S.Ct. 28, 99 L.Ed. 644; United States v. Nowak, D.C., 133 F.Supp. 191. In Knauer v. United States, 1945, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 1314, 90 L.Ed. 1500, it was held that fraud connotes perjury, falsification,......
-
Alexander v. Butterfield, Civ. A. 15534.
...273 U.S. 103, 47 S.Ct. 302, 71 L.Ed. 560; Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 34 S.Ct. 10, 58 L.Ed. 101; United States v. Nowak, D.C., 133 F. Supp. 191, affirmed 6 Cir., 238 F.2d Nor is it necessary for the Government to show under this section that the plaintiff knew the objectives of the ......