United States v. Osidach, Civ. A. No. 79-4212.

• Decision Date: 30 March 1981
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 79-4212.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Wolodymir OSIDACH a/k/a Wolodymir Osidacz.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

513 F. Supp. 51

UNITED STATES of America v. Wolodymir OSIDACH a/k/a Wolodymir Osidacz.

Civ. A. No. 79-4212.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 17, 1981.

As Amended March 30, 1981.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Neal Sher, Deputy Director, Rodney G. Smith, Atty., Norman Moscowitz, Atty., Office of Special Investigations, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Louis S. Konowal, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

BECHTLE, District Judge.

                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                GENERAL — statement of the case .................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                   (A) Events Prior to 1939 .............................................. pp. ___ _ ___
                   (B) Events From 1939 to 1941 .......................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                   (C) Events From 1941 to 1944 .......................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                   (D) The Rawa Ruska Ghetto ............................................. pp. ___ _ ___
                   (E) Defendant Osidach's Undisputed Activities From 1941 to 1944 ....... pp. ___ _ ___
                

                II. ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT ............................................. pp. ___ _ ___
                   (A) Unlawful Admission into the United States .................... pp. ___ _ ___
                      (1) Ineligibility as a Displaced Person ....................... pp. ___ _ ___
                         (a) Historical Overview .................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                         (b) Application of the Fedorenko Decision to § 13
                             of the DPA ............................................. pp. ___ _ ___
                         (c) Membership Under § 13 of the DPA .................. pp. ___ _ ___
                         (d) Constitutional Limitation .............................. pp. ___ _ ___
                      (2) Osidach's Ineligibility as a Displaced Person ............. pp. ___ _ ___
                          (a) Role of the Ukrainian Police Throughout Galacia from
                              1941 to 1945 .......................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                          (b) Role of the Ukrainian Police in the Town of Rawa
                              Ruska from 1942 to 1944 ............................... pp. ___ _ ___
                              (i)  Documentary Proof ................................ pp. ___ _ ___
                              (ii) Eyewitness Testimony ............................. pp. ___ _ ___
                                   (ii-a) Enforcement of Ghettoization of Jews and
                                          Enforcement of Other Degrading Laws
                                          Enacted for the Jewish Population by the
                                          Occupying Germans ......................... pp. ___ _ ___
                                   (ii-b) Guarding and Abuse of Jewish Laborers ..... pp. ___ _ ___
                                   (ii-c) Ukrainian Police Used in the Deportation
                                          of Jews from the Ghetto ................... pp. ___ _ ___
                                   (ii-d) Activities of the Ukrainian Police in the
                                          Final Action Involving the Liquidation
                                          of the Rawa Ruska Ghetto .................. pp. ___ _ ___
                          (c) Osidach's Version of the Role of the Ukrainian Police in
                              the Town of Rawa Ruska from 1942 to 1944 .............. pp. ___ _ ___
                              (i)   Administrative Necessity ........................ pp. ___ _ ___
                              (ii)  The Jewish Order Police ......................... pp. ___ _ ___
                              (iii) Defendant Osidach's Role as a Willing Member of
                                    the Ukrainian Police in the Town of Rawa Ruska
                                    from 1942 to 1944 ............................... pp. ___ _ ___
                              (iv)  Osidach as a Participant Under § 13 ........ pp. ___ _ ___
                   (B) Misrepresentation of a Material Fact Under § 10 of the DPA ... pp. ___ _ ___
                III. CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL
                     FACT IN SECURING CITIZENSHIP ........................................ pp. ___ _ ___
                IV.  CONCLUSION ........................................................... pp. ___ _ ___
                APPENDIX .................................................................. pp. ___ _ ___
                ORDER
                

Presently before the Court is a denaturalization action filed by the United States as plaintiff, pursuant to section 340(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a): to revoke and set aside the district court's order admitting defendant Wolodymir Osidach ("Osidach") as a United States citizen; and, to cancel his certificate of naturalization (number 8633492) which was issued pursuant to that order. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1421(a), 1451(a).

The Government stands on two major theories, each with several minor subcomponents, upon which it bases its case seeking the denaturalization of Osidach. Both theories are founded upon § 1451(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a) ("INA"), which provides:

(a) It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any court specified in subsection (a) of section 1421 of this title in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation, and such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order and certificate, respectively: Provided, That refusal on the part of a naturalized citizen within a period of ten years following his naturalization to testify as a witness in any proceeding before a congressional committee concerning his subversive activities, in a case where such person has been convicted of contempt for such refusal, shall be held to constitute a ground for revocation of such person's naturalization under this subsection as having been procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation. If the naturalized citizen does not reside in any judicial district in the United States at the time of bringing such suit, the proceedings may be instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United States district court in the judicial district in which such person last had his residence.

The two major theories advanced by the Government are: (1) Osidach illegally procured his citizenship; and/or, (2) Osidach willfully misrepresented and/or concealed certain material facts from the immigration authorities at the time he procured his grant of citizenship. The Government contends that it should prevail under either or both theories. It must be kept in mind that, despite the content of the allegations and counter-allegations, this case is not a criminal case but a civil case; accordingly, these theories are necessarily dependent upon common elements of fact which must be proven by the Government by what the United States Supreme Court has recently described as "clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence" which "does not leave the issue in doubt." Fedorenko v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 101 S.Ct. 737, 747, 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981), quoting Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1336, 87 L.Ed. 1796 (1943). See also Woodby v. Immigration Service, 385 U.S. 276, 285-286, 87 S.Ct. 483, 487-488, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966). As the Court in Fedorenko stated:

On the one hand, our decisions have recognized that the right to acquire American citizenship is a precious one, and that once citizenship has been acquired, its loss can have severe and unsettling consequences. See Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 269 81 S.Ct. 534, 536, 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961); Chaunt v. United States, supra, 364 U.S. 350 at 353 81 S.Ct. 147, 149, 5 L.Ed.2d 120; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 675-676 64 S.Ct. 1240, 1245-1246, 88 L.Ed. 1525 (1944); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 122 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335, 87 L.Ed. 1796 (1943).

* * * * * *

Any less exacting standard would be inconsistent with the importance of the right that is at stake in a denaturalization proceeding. And in reviewing denaturalization cases, we have carefully examined the record ourselves. See, e. g., Costello v. United States, supra; Chaunt v. United States, supra; Nowak v. United States, 356 U.S. 660 78 S.Ct. 955, 2 L.Ed.2d 1048 (1958); Baumgartner v. United States, supra.

___ U.S. at ___, 101 S.Ct. at 747.

This case raises a myriad of complex and difficult factual and legal issues based upon a series of events spanning nearly 50 years. The following constitutes the procedural chronology around which this decision will flow. In May, 1949, the defendant filed a resettlement and registration form with the International Refugee Organization ("IRO") in order to be certified as a "displaced person of concern to the IRO" under the IRO Constitution Ex. P-17. After being so certified, Osidach then applied to the United States Displaced Persons Commission ("DPC") in June of 1949 for classification as a displaced person, as defined under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, P.L. No. 80-774, 62 Stat. 1009 ("DPA"). After Osidach's application, the DPC issued its report Ex. P-20. The next step in the procedure was for Osidach to apply to the American Consulate — which he did in Munich, Germany, on July 6, 1949 — seeking an immigration visa to the United States as a displaced person. That entry visa was granted by a vice consul of the American Consulate Ex. P-21. Finally, on the authority of that immigration visa, Osidach entered the...