United States v. Tuteur, 11040.
Decision Date | 19 August 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 11040.,11040. |
Citation | 215 F.2d 415 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. TUTEUR. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Pearl M. Hart, Edmund Hatfield, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Robert Tieken, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Anna R. Lavin, Asst. U. S. Attys., John M. McWhorter, Dist. Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and SWAIM and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.
By this appeal we are asked to review a summary judgment canceling respondent's certificate of naturalization, which had been issued under an order of the Superior Court of Clark County, at Vancouver, Washington, on January 2, 1945.
to which he replied:
He also was asked:
(17)
His answer was:
The petition alleged that said testimony of the respondent was false, fraudulent, and untrue, in that:
The petition charged that said false testimony "was given for the purpose of deceiving the Immigration and Naturalization Service, preventing a full and proper investigation of his qualifications for citizenship, and of procuring and obtaining naturalization in violation of law."
The petition alleged that respondent was admitted to citizenship by order of the Superior Court of Clark County, Washington, and a certificate of naturalization was issued to him, the said court having relied upon the truth and good faith of the testimony given by the respondent herein in the course of the said naturalization proceeding. It further alleged that the naturalization was illegally and fraudulently procured in that respondent "deliberately and intentionally made false statements in the proceedings leading to his naturalization, concerning his subscription to and receipt of various publications, for the purpose of obtaining naturalization in violation of law, as is more particularly set forth in the preceding paragraphs." The petition prayed that said order be revoked and set aside and that the certificate of naturalization be canceled, etc. By his amended answer to the petition, respondent admitted the questions and answers set forth in the petition and as above quoted, but denied that said testimony was false, fraudulent and untrue, and denied that such testimony was given for the purpose of deceiving the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and denied that he deliberately and intentionally made false statements in the proceedings leading to his naturalization, concerning his subscription to and receipt of various publications, for the purpose of obtaining naturalization in violation of law.
On January 7, 1952, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment in favor of the United States on the ground that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, pursuant to rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
This document is not sworn to in any way. It is not an affidavit. Respondent contends that it is not proper to consider it in support of the motion for summary judgment. We agree. Rule 56 provides:
"(c) * * * The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
We, therefore, do not consider the transcript.
In a naturalization proceeding the court, before it can enter an order for naturalization, must find as a matter of fact first, that certain indispensable legal requirements for naturalization have been fulfilled and, secondly, if such requirements have been fulfilled, whether the applicant for citizenship should be granted naturalization in view of his beliefs, background, etc. As to the requirements in the first class, if compliance therewith does not exist, an order of naturalization is subject to revocation on the ground of illegal procurement2 regardless of whether it was based upon false statements given by the applicant intentionally or unintentionally. As to the court's exercise of its discretion, in the second class, in order to set aside an order of naturalization on the ground of fraud3 because of false testimony given by the applicant to influence the court in its action, it is necessary for the government to prove that the said testimony of the applicant was intentionally false. In other words, the government in the latter situation must allege and prove fraud, in which an essential element is intent.
In the petition in this case the allegations in reference to false statements alleged to have been made by respondent fall in the second class. To be actionable they must be connected directly with allegations of intent on his part to deceive. The respondent in his answer expressly denies that the testimony under attack was false, fraudulent and untrue. He also denies that it was given for the purpose of deceiving the Service, and he denies that he deliberately and intentionally made the false statements attributed to him in the petition. Thereby he created a distinct factual issue as to intent, which was a necessary element of the petitioner's case. Summary judgment procedure does not apply to such a situation, because a question of intent is a question of fact.
For these...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Of Wash. v. Breitung, 38869-3-II.
...communicated to a person by an authorized person, or actually derived by him from a proper source’ ” (quoting United States v. Tuteur, 215 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1954))). Here the requirement of both oral and written notice of the firearm possession prohibition is clearly intended to impart......
-
International Trading Co. v. U.S.
...a fact, actually communicated to a person by an authorized person, or actually derived by him from a proper source." United States v. Tuteur, 215 F.2d 415, 418 (1954). Commerce sent two different e-mails to Customs following the removal of suspension.11 On February 13, 1996, the day followi......
-
Gunville v. Gonzales
...F.2d 157, 161 (7th Cir.1963) ("an uncertified copy of testimony is inadmissible in a summary judgment proceeding"); United States v. Tuteur, 215 F.2d 415, 417 (7th Cir.1954) (an uncertified copy of testimony is inadmissible in a summary judgment proceeding).7 A number of cases, for instance......
-
United States v. Jammal
...and the intent to deceive.”) (citing Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 90 L.Ed. 1500 (1946) ; United States v. Tuteur, 215 F.2d 415 (7th Cir.1954) ; United States v. Pellegrino, 155 F.Supp. 726 (S.D.N.Y.1957) ); see also United States v. Okeke, 671 F.Supp.2d 744 (D.Md.20......