United States v. Ritzen, Civ. A. No. 881.

Citation50 F. Supp. 301
Decision Date19 May 1943
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 881.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. RITZEN.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Douglas W. McGregor, U. S. Atty., and Miles L. Moss, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

Merrill & Scott and William H. Scott, all of Houston, Tex., for defendant.

HANNAY, District Judge.

This is a suit filed by the United States of America, as plaintiff, under the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., for the purpose of canceling the naturalization certificate of the defendant, John Henry Ritzen, born Johannes Heinrich Wilhelm Ritzen. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant was, prior to the 12th day of April, 1933, a native and citizen of Germany, and that he entered the United States on or about January 16, 1926, and that on or about the 11th day of November, 1932, he filed his petition for naturalization in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under the oath required by law, and that on the 12th day of April, 1933, the defendant took the oath of allegiance and thereupon certificate of naturalization was issued to him.

Defendant was born in Germany, where he was reared and educated. He remained in Germany until on or about 1900, when he went to New Guinea, then a German colony, where he remained until the beginning of World War No. 1 in 1914. While in New Guinea, he worked for private interests and for the German government. He acquired interests in New Guinea, which he claims were subsequently confiscated by the British. At the time of the beginning of World War. No. 1, defendant had just married a German girl, and had returned to New Guinea with his bride. (He is still married to this wife, who is still a German citizen, and as a result of this union three children were born, — all three being born in Germany.) Immediately after the beginning of hostilities in 1914, the British and Australians took over New Guinea, and the defendant and his wife were sent back, via America, to Germany. Soon after the defendant returned to Germany, he entered the armed forces of Germany, where he remained until February, 1919. Defendant and his family came to the United States in January, 1926, and to Houston, Texas, in February, 1927, where he has resided continuously since.

It is claimed by the government in its petition that the defendant received his certificate of naturalization through illegality and fraud, which charges are strongly denied by the defendant. A great amount of testimony was introduced bearing upon the actions and attitude of the defendant since his arrival in America. The government has introduced testimony to the effect that the defendant, from the beginning of the rise of Hitler in Germany, agreed with Hitler's utterances, actions, doctrines and methods, and frequently, proudly and enthusiastically approved and loudly applauded same. This means, as was well said by Judge Otis in the case of United States v. Baumgartner, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 622: "Hitler's principles are diametrically opposed to those of the United States. Hitler believes in dictatorial rule, not in government `of the people, by the people and for the people.' Hitler despises and has destroyed, where he could, representative government. Hitler asserts the Nazis are superior to other men, entitled to superior privileges, that America's doctrine that `all men are created equal' is the raving of idiots. Hitler, by his tools, puts to the torch cathedrals, synagogues and churches; desecrates the lodges of Free Masons; burns libraries and books; imprisons priests, rabbis, clergymen; tortures the old, the weak, the young, if they are not of his so-called `superior' race; robs helpless individuals of minorities of their property, sends them penniless into exile, murders hundreds of thousands of them in cold blood. Hitler enslaves millions, tramples under foot peoples who were free, who asked only that they might live in freedom; perverts and debases the minds and souls of young men and young women. Baumgartner has approved in his own handwriting, either expressly or by inference, all these infamies. He defends them. He says that Hitler's end justifies Hitler's means."

The defendant was in deep sympathy with and in constant communication with Germany and things German as his opportunities would permit, meeting the German ships at the port here in Houston just as often as possible; seeing and being with the officers and crews of such vessels, exchanging information and courtesies with such persons; he read, approved and distributed German literature of a propaganda nature, which had for its purpose the teaching of the doctrines of Hitler and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Knauer v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1946
    ...For similar findings respecting the nature of the Bund see United States v. Schuchhardt, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 567, 569; United States v. Ritzen, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 301, 302; United States v. Haas, D.C., 51 F.Supp. 910, 911; United States v. Wolter, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 417, 418—425; United States v. ......
  • United States v. Bregler, Civ. A. No. 3197
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • June 16, 1944
    ...53 F.Supp. 417; United States v. Haas, D.C., 51 F.Supp. 910; United States v. Schuchhardt, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 567; United States v. Ritzen, D.C.S.D. Tex., 50 F.Supp. 301. The case of United States v. Rossini, D. C., 52 F.Supp. 816, decided recently in this Court, is cited in support of the de......
  • United States v. Jogwick, 33-F.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
    • August 24, 1943
    ...of citizenship was cancelled after a lapse of more than 35 years; United States v. Wezel, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 16; United States v. Ritzen, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 301. Walter Emil Albert Jogwick, age 48, came to this country from Danzig with his wife in 1926 at the age of 31. He has a mother and six ......
  • United States v. Knauer
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 28, 1945
    ...States v. Sautter, supra; United States v. Wolter, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 417; United States v. Haas, D.C., 51 F.Supp. 910; United States v. Ritzen, D.C., 50 F.Supp. 301; United States v. Schuchardt, D.C., 49 F.Supp. 567; United States v. Baumgartner, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 622; United States v. Kuhn, ......
  • 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