Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kuehn v. United States

Supreme Court brief1947

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

iLE COPY

In the Supreme C

United States ate

OcTOBER TERM, 1947

No. 416

FRIEDRICH WILHELM KUEHN,

Petitioner,

VS. _

THe Untrep States OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

and

BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

\ Casper A. ORNBAUN,

P. O. Box 15, Healdsburg, California,

Attorney for Petitioner.

Everett H. Roan,

1500 Central Tower, San Francisco 3, California,

Of Counsel.

p-WaALSH PrintiInG Co., San Francisco, CALIFORNIA

Subject Index

Page

PUReaene: HNP WUE OE CHUNG oi io ccc eakccs ions. 1

Summary statement of the matter involved.............. 2

se gesmceriimasnaate lee OE Oe ee, 4

capiuancurnnanh ee LTT Te CE POP on 4

Questions presented and reasons relied upon for the allow-

WE ET WHS wiv. ake edascndbaaciuscucnaciad calcu, 5

Brief in support of petition for writ of certiorari.......... 13

Statement of basis of jurisdiction ...................... 13

II.

Penney OE POI sins a hacanakinekndccccarevcece, 15

III.

WE WE SiN ok basen cpnenehhiiaee ch kick ee 16

IV.

Pee ME ON bcs kc kaaebhinck Ch wkkcc nce 17

Petitioner not linked to Bund leaders ................. 17

Statement of present case ......... 0.00. ccc cc ccc ce cece. 19

A. Issues raised by the pleadings.................... 19

ee ME husacev eandagecda be. cueec eri Coane 22

WA III 0 hb wRAEA SACL keke bl veracce ue 22

nk <n ee & 23

Petitioner's character witnesses .................. 28

Respondent’s witnesses ..........00. 00. cccceeee. 30

KE. The questions presented ................0c00cc05e 33

F. Point on which petitioner intends to rely .......... 34

ar -; EGE NIT ca recat s ueeenecereacue 34

SEG Un osc RCA RAEN CE AERTS OG aN EER wa ceees te 35

Point I.

The rights of naturalized citizens are the same as those

Oe Se I GI cs 66.0 bkckkccecanrencicoe 35

ii Sussect INDEX

Point IT. Page

In a denaturalization proceeding the burden is on the

government to prove its case by clear, unequivocal and

I GUID 5.55 5 pa ince dnc eed sen sexs wake nnn 37

Point IIT.

The evidence is insufficient to prove that petitioner pro-

cured the issuance of his certificate of naturalization

Table of Authorities Cited

Cases Pages

Baumgartner vy, United States, 322 U. S. 665, 64 S. Ct. 1240,

ihe he Th , ETS oa i reese Me oe 5, 6, 35, 56, 64, 65

Bergmann v. United States (C.C.A. 9th Cireuit), 144 Fed.

GY GOP sta cauhvy uecewas tb oweeetere en ce 7, 36, 56, 57, 64

Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 66 S. Ct. 1304, 90

EE eka er neve venbteaeubntecatic cae 41, 56, 62

Orth v. United States (C.C.A. 4th Cireuit), 142 Fed. (2d)

969, rev’g 51 Fed. Supp. G88... 2... 2... co.cc ccc ccccce, 37

Schneiderman vy. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 63 S. Ct.

1333, 87 L. Ed. 1796, 64 S. Ct. 24, 320 U. S. 807, 88 L.

Wo ME aan uenaheRaSU View uakekikes livckleaat 5, 6, 38, 55, 60

United States v. Hartmann (DC-Pa.), 51 Fed. Supp. 394.. 38

United States v. Hevmig (D.C.N.D. Ind.), 50 Fed. Supp.

FOP Sas var rena ssacherssBssbares bereibeerce laid ak: 38

United States v. Hugg (D.C.-Pa.), 51 Fed. Supp. 397...... 7, 35

United States v. Manzo (DC-N.J.), 59 Fed. Supp. 447..... 38

Codes

Judicial Code, Section 240 (a) as amended by the Act of

February 13, 1925 (United States Code, Title 28, Section

WE WNNE os cauxcnven ke edeeneceoax hse 5,15

Nationality Act of 1940, Section 338, 54 Stat. 1158 (United

States Code, Title 8, Section WEE oka tncrivauee ict 4,14

Iu the Supreme Court

OF THE

Rnited States

OcTOBER TERM, 1947

No.

FriepRicH WILHELM KvUERN,

Petitioner,

VS.

THe Untrep States or AMERICA,

Respondent. |

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit.

To the Honorable Fred M. Vinson, Chief Justice of

the United States, and to the H onorable Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United

States:

Your petitioner, Friedrich Wilhelm Kuehn, re-

spectfully alleges:

7 Be

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE MATTER INVOLVED.

Petitioner was born in Germany in the year 1901,

and came to the United States of America in the year

1921 or 1922, and has lived in the United States ever

since, never returning to Germany. In the year 1928

he filed a declaration of intention to become an Ameri-

can citizen at the Courthouse for the County of So-

noma, State of California, situated at Santa Rosa,

California. These papers, however, were lost at the

said Courthouse, and in the year 1933 he filed a second

declaration of intention and was admitted to citizen-

ship in May, 1935, the proceeding taking place in the

Superior Court of the State of California, in and for

the County of Sonoma.

Shortly after he was admitted to citizenship, peti-

tioner joined an organization known as the Friends of

New Germany, which organization later became

known as the German-American Bund.

On the 31st of March, 1944, almost nine years after

being admitted to citizenship, his citizenship was re-

voked and his Certificate of Naturalization was can-

celed by the United States District Court because the

Court found that it had been (a) fraudulently and

illegally procured in that his oath that he renounced

all allegiance to Germany was false; and (b) fraudu-

lently and illegally procured in that his oath that he

would support and defend the Constitution of the

United States against Germany was false.

hese findings were based upon the Court’s con-

clusions as to the tenets of the Friends of New Ger-

a 7

many and of its successor, the German-American

Bund, and of petitioner’s attachment to Said tenets

because of his membership in these organizations. The

views that the Court attributed to the petitioner were

not his views. The record discloses, without contradic-

tion, that petitioner was a member of these organiza-

tions for social purposes only, and that he knew noth-

ing about the so-called ‘‘leadership”’ or “‘blood’’ prin-

ciples attributed to the Bund and its predecessors, or

about National Socialism, until he attended the trial

of this action, and heard the testimony of Nazi con-

victs imported from the eastern part of the United

States for the purpose of testifying as to their own

practices in the Bund. Nevertheless, the Court attrib-

uted a knowledge of these principles to the petitioner,

and because of this attribution, found that petitioner

must have held the views which petitioner has dis-

avowed; and after imputing such views to petitioner,

the Court, on the basis of his holding the views thus

attributed to him, held that his grant of citizenship

would be canceled, Furthermore, the only definite

proof as to the conduct of the petitioner was with

reference to harmless acts on the part of petitioner

which occurred two or three years after he was ad-

mitted to citizenship, and could not possibly show

the state of petitioner’s mind when he took the oath

of allegiance,

OPINIONS BELOW.

The opinion of the District Court is reported in

54 Federal Supplement 63 at 73, and is also printed in

the Record at page 24, particularly at page 50. As

appears therefrom (54 Fed. Supp. 65, R. 25), solely

for the purpose of receiving evidence as to the prin-

ciples and practices of the Bund, the action against

petitioner was consolidated with a number of similar

actions, and thereafter the action against petitioner

was tried separately on all other issues.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Cireuit affirmed the judgment of the District

Court, on the grounds and for the reasons stated in

the opinion of the District Court, and the opinion of

the Circuit Court is printed in the Record at page 404.

A petition for rehearing by petitioner was denied by

the Cireuit Court of Appeals. The order denying a

rehearing is printed in the Record at page 406.

JURISDICTION.

The action brought for the purpose of canceling pe-

titioner’s citizenship was filed under the authority of

Section 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat.

1158 (United States Code, Title 8, Section 738), which

confers jurisdiction of such an action upon the Dis-

trict Courts of the United States.

The appeal from the judgment of the District

‘ourt to the Circuit Court was filed by the above

—

named appellant under authority of the United States

Code, Title 28, Sections 211, 225 and 230.

The opinion and decree of the Circuit Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were filed J uly 28, 1947,

and the order denying the Petition for Rehearing was

made on the 25th day of August, 1947. The mandate

was stayed until the 31st day of October, 1947, pend-

ing the filing of this Petition for Certiorari.

Jurisdiction to review this case upon writ of cer-

tiorari is conferred upon this Court by Section 240

(a) of the Judicial Code as amended by the Act of

February 13, 1925. (United States Code, Title 28,

Section 347 (a).)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND REASONS RELIED UPON

FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT.

1. The decision of the courts below disregards the

rules established by this Court in the cases of Schnei-

derman v. United States, 329 U. 8S. 118, 63 S. Ct.

1333, 87 L. Ed. 1796; Baumgartner v. United States,

322 U.S. 665, 64 S. Ct. 1240, 88 L. Ea. 1525; and

Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S. Ct. 1304,

90 L. Ed. 1195, Citizenship may be canceled only for

fraud and illegality, and the evidence for fraud or

illegality must be clear and convincing to a degree

that it satisfies the mind of the Court of the truth of

the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, Neither fraud

nor illegality can be predicated upon the imputation

of political and social views to a person, where the

views are imputed solely because of his membership

in an organization, and where he is wholly ignorant

of disloyal principles and practices advocated by cer-

tain members of far distant chapters of the organiza-

tion, with whom he has never been in contact, directly

or indirectly. Mere membership in the Bund is not

a sufficient ground for cancellation of citizenship.

(Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 68

S. Ct. 1333, 87 L. Ed, 1796, rehearing denied 64 S. Ct.

24, 320 U. S. 807, 88 L. Ed. 488; Knauer v. United

States, 328 U. S, 654, 669, 66 S. Ct. 1304, 90 L. Ed.

1195.)

2 The decision of the courts below—attributing to

an individual political and social beliefs and practices

solely because of that person's membership in an or-

ganization, adjudging him guilty of false swearing

and misrepresentation because of such supposed be-

liefs, and canceling his citizenship for the alleged

fraud—creates a precedent which makes provisional

the tenure and status of naturalized citizens, and sub-

jects their citizenship to revocation years after the

granting thereof because of said attributed political

and social beliefs. The decision of the lower courts

is contrary to the adjudicated cases, The cases de-

cided by the United States courts condemn the method

of proof by imputation (Schneidermann v. United

States, 320 U. S. 118, 154, 63 S. Ct. 1333, 1350, 87 L.

Ed. 1796), and recognize that a naturalized citizen

has the same rights as a native-born citizen (Bawm-

gartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, at 673, 64 S.

Ct, 1240, 88 L. Ed. 1525), ineluding the right of opin-

—_

ion together with the right to express it (United

States v. Hugg, D. C. Pa., 51 Fed. Supp. 397, 399;

Bergmann v. United States, C. C. A. 9th Circuit, 144

Fed. (2d) 34 at 38), as for example, the right to ex-

press his views on Communism, as the record shows

the petitioner did.

3. The decision of the courts below amounts to the

setting up of standards of citizenship by the Court,

instead of by Congress; and it actually establishes a

rule of naturalization which Congress deliberately re-

fused to enact.

4. When, in 1935, an applicant for citizenship has

fully complied with the statutory requirements, has

informed the naturalization Court as to all the matters

required of him, and the naturalization Court in com-

pliance with the statute thereupon grants citizenship,

from which no appeal is taken by the Government, a

Court cannot, in a cancellation proceeding in 1944,

cancel citizenship by substituting its views as to the

attachment of the applicant to the Constitution of the

United States for that of the naturalization Court.

5. The decision of the lower courts deprives the

petitioner of a valuable right without justification.

There is a complete absence of evidence that there

Was an imposition upon the naturalization Court, for

there was no evidence that petitioner held the abstract

beliefs or mental reservations which the Court now

holds he must have held and therefore must have

misrepresented or concealed,

6. The findings that petitioner's oath was false are

all based upon the assumption that petitioner held

as political and social beliefs those which the Court

attributed to him because of his membership in the

Bund. There is no foundation in the evidence for these

findings; and the Court in attributing to the petitioner

the beliefs and practices which it finds were misrepre-

sented or concealed from the naturalization Court, did

not make a judgment of fact, but imposed its own

beliefs as to the purposes and practices of the Bund

upon the petitioner. The Court in so deciding worked

a forfeiture of petitioner's liberty and property with-

out due process of law.

7. The only finding of the commission of a dis-

loyal act by petitioner is based upon the testimony

of the former mother-in-law of petitioner, who was

discredited by the trial judge himself; whose vindic-

tiveness toward petitioner was fully shown through-

out the trial of the entire case, and who called peti-

tioner vile names and threatened to ‘get even’ with

him. There is no credible evidence in the record which

sustains said finding. Further, it is apparent that the

trial judge was misled into believing that the testi-

mony of the mother-in-law was corroborated by an-

other witness. The record clearly shows that this was

not the case.

8. The record shows that at all times petitioner

was a loyal and law-abiding citizen of the United

States, and the evidence is insufficient to support the

findings or judgment of the lower courts.

Wherefore, petitioner prays that a writ of cer-

tiorari be issued by this Court directed to the United

States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,

—

to the end that the said opinion and judgment of the

said Court in the above entitled cause be reviewed by

this Court, and that upon such review, said judgment

of the Cireuit Court of Appeals be reversed and that

petitioner be allowed such other relief as this Court

may deem meet and proper in the premises.

Dated, San Francisco, California,

October 22, 1947.

CasPeR A, ORNBAUN,

Attorney for Petitioner.

Everetr H, Roan,

Of Counsel.

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL.

I hereby certify that I am of counsel for petitioner

in the above entitled cause and that in my judgment

the foregoing petition for a writ of certiorari is well

founded in point of law as well as in fact and that

said petition is not interposed for delay.

Dated, San Francisco, California,

October 22, 1947.

CasPeR A. ORNBAUN,

Attorney for Petitioner.

Iu the Supreme Court

OF THE

Anited States

OcToBER TERM, 1947

No.

FrrepRICH WILHELM KUvUEHN,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE Unrrep States or AMERICA,

Respondent.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

STATEMENT OF BASIS OF JURISDICTION.

On February 26, 1943, the United States Attorney

for the Northern District of California, Southern Di-

vision, filed a complaint against appellant, then a

resident of the City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma,

State of California, which alleged that the order of

the Superior Court of the State of California, in and

for the County of Sonoma, made on the 16th day of

May, 1935, admitting appellant to citizenship, should

be revoked and set aside, and that Certificate of Nat-

uralization No. 2368203 issued to the appellant pursu-

ant to said order should be canceled because of appel-

lant’s alleged fraud and deception in procuring the

same. (R. 2-6.) Authority for filing said action is

found in the provisions of Section 338 of the Na-

tionality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1158 (United States

Code, Title 8, Section 738; Appendix p. vi), which

confer jurisdiction of such an action upon the District

Courts of the United States.

Judgment in favor of the appellee was filed March

31, 1944 (R. 176), and on the 8th day of April, 1944,

appellant filed a motion for a new trial (R. 178),

which was denied by an order made and filed April

28, 1944. Thereafter appellant on the 27th day of July,

1944, filed a notice of appeal from said judgment and

his undertaking for costs on appeal (R. 180), and the

record in this case, certified by the clerk of the Dis-

trict Court, was filed with the clerk of the United

States Cireuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit.

(R. 201, 202.)

The said judgment rendered in this action is a final

judgment within the purview of Section 225, Title 28,

United States Code, and is therefore appealable. Con-

sequently the United States Circuit Court of Appeals

had jurisdiction to hear this appeal. (United States

Code, Title 28, Sections 211, 225 and 230; Appendix,

pp. Vii-vill.)

The opinion and decree of the Circuit Court of Ap-

peals for the Ninth Circuit were filed July 28, 1947,

and the order denying the Petition for Rehearing was

=—_—

made on the 25th day of August, 1947. The mandate

was stayed until the 31st day of October, 1947, pend-

ing the filing of this Petition for Certiorari.

Jurisdiction to review this case upon writ of cer-

tiorari is conferred upon this Court by Section 240

(a) of the Judicial Code as amended by the Act of

February 13, 1925. (United States Code, Title 28,

Section 347 (a) ; Appendix, p. viii.)

II.

IDENTITY OF PETITIONER.

As shown by the caption of the complaint filed

against the petitioner in the District Court, his true

name is Friedrich Wilhelm Kuehn (R. 2), although

he is also sued under various other names. When

called to witness stand the clerk of the Court ex-

amined petitioner as follows (R. 210) :

“The Clerk. Please state your full name to

the Court.

A. Fred Kuehn.”’

These two names Friedrich Wilhelm Kuehn and

Fred Kuehn appear throughout the entire record as

the true names of petitioner, and the only names used

by him,

This is respectfully called to this Court’s attention

in order that petitioner will not be confused with the

“Fritz Kuhn’ referred to in the findings of the

District Court, (R. 111.) As appears from said find-

ings, ‘*Fritz Kuhn" stood trial in New York City

and was described as one of the ‘‘National Bund

officials and prominent Nazis’’, Petitioner was never

in any way connected with the ‘‘Fritz Kuhn”’ in the

trial of this action or otherwise.

ITI.

THE RECORD.

The present case and twenty-seven others were con-

solidated for the sole purpose of receiving evidence

as to the principles and practices of the organization

known as the German-American Bund, its predeces-

sors and affiliates. (Opinion of District Judge, R. 25.)

The consolidated trial resulted in a voluminous rec-

ord consisting of the testimony of numerous witnesses

and of numerous exhibits. On motion duly made by

this petitioner, the Circuit Court made its order (R.

205), dispensing with the printing of the reporter’s

transcript of the testimony and the exhibits, the Court

to have recourse to the same, however, and said order

requiring the petitioner to print as an appendix to

his brief the portions of the reporter’s transcript and

the exhibits to which he desires to call the Court's

attention.

In the present proceeding, instead of attaching any

portion of the reporter’s transcript to his brief as an

appendix, petitioner has printed the entire reporter’s

transcript in his individual case and it appears in

the Transcript of Record, pages 207 to 399, inclusive.

_—

Accordingly the record on this appeal consists of

the following :

1. Transcript of Record, herein referred to as

“R", containing the Clerk’s Transcript and the Re-

porter’s Transcript in the separate action filed against

the petitioner in the District Court (United States v.

Kuehn, No, 22507G), printed in full.

2. Court Reporter’s Transcript and Exhibits in

Action No, 22398-G, entitled United States v. Bruno

Holtz and Twenty-Seven Others, not printed. (Con-

solidated trial.)

3. Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari and

brief in support thereof,

4. Additional matter, if any, presented by re-

spondent.

IV.

THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL.

PETITIONER NOT LINKED TO BUND LEADERS.

As stated above, the present case and twenty-seven

others were consolidated ‘solely for the purpose of

receiving evidence as to the principles and practices

of the organization known as the German-American

Bund, its predecessors and affiliates.” (Opinion of

District Judge, R. 25.)

This was the sole issue tried in the consolidated

action, It was a trial of the Bund itself, and not of

the individual defendants.

In the course of the consolidated trial, the respond-

ent (plaintiff) called a number of the Bund leaders

from the East Coast, among them Fritz Gissibl, Sev-

erin Winterscheidt, Fritz Kuhn and William Luedtke.

The record shows, and it is a matter of common know!l-

edge, that certain of these witnesses were temporarily

released from prison in order to testify in San Fran-

cisco.

Petitioner was in no way connected with any of

these notorious characters or with their subversive

practices.

At the beginning of the trial of the present case in

the District Court, the respondent (plaintiff), through

its attorney made the following statement to the Court

(R. 209):

“Mr. Patton. I wish to call vour Honor’s at-

tention at this time to the record in the consoli-

dated case of the United States v. Holz, et al.

reference to the testimony in the consolidated

ease concerning the defendant on trial here ap-

pearing on page 731 of the transcript, the testi-

mony which reflects the attendance of the de-

fendant at Bund meetings, and his appearance

in O. D. uniform, and also at page 738 of the

transcript, which shows the identification of Gov-

ernment’s Exhibit No. 340, which is a photograph

of a group of Bund members from the San Fran-

cisco unit, and the identification of the defendant

Kuehn in the photograph, page 739, showing

that exhibit was admitted in evidence; also, Ex-

hibit 338, which is a picture of a Christmas cele-

bration by the German-American Bund and the

Friends of New Germany in 1935 in evidence,

as reflected by page 708 of the transcript, and

Exhibit 354, which is the cash journal of the

German-American Bund and the Friends of New

Germany, which was admitted in evidence, as

reflected by page 649 of the transcript. ”’

This is merely evidence that petitioner attended

Bund meetings and was photographed with Bund

members.

Petitioner had an opportunity to hear speeches by

Herman Schwinn, described as the “West Coast

Leader’’ (R. 111), and Fritz Kuhn, East Coast leader,

but was not interested. He did not pay any attention

to Schwinn’s speeches, and when Fritz Kuhn was

talking petitioner left the hall without listening to any

part of the speech, and did not return until Fritz

Kuhn had left. (R. 224-225.)

There is no evidence in record in the consolidated

trial in any way linking petitioner with the witnesses

who testified as to the principles and practices of the

Bund at the consolidated trial, or to show that he

knew about such principles or practices, or subscribed

to them.

STATEMENT OF PRESENT CASE.

A. Issues raised by the pleadings.

The complaint alleged that on May 16, 1935, peti-

tioner, then a subject of Germany, was admitted to

become a citizen of the United States by the Superior

Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma,

and that Certificate of Naturalization No. 2368203 was

issued to him; that petitioner procured said Certificate

of Naturalization by means of fraud and deceit con-

sisting of: (1) false representations and concealment

of material facts; and (2) the making of a false oath

of allegiance; that without said fraud and deception

petitioner would not have been admitted to citizen-

ship and the said Certificate of Naturalization would

not have been issued. (R. 3-4.)

The complaint further alleged that on making said

oath of allegiance, petitioner made the following dec-

larations which were false and untrue: (1) that

he was attached to the principles of the Constitution

of the United States; (2) that he intended to become

a citizen of the United States and to renounce

allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,

state or sovereignty and in particular that he re-

nounced allegiance and fidelity to the government of

Germany of which at that time he was a subject; and

(3) that he would support and defend the Constitu-

tion and laws of the United States of America against

all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The complaint also alleged that said declarations

were false and untrue in that: (1) in truth and in

fact it was not the intention of petitioner to renounce

his allegiance to any foreign country, whether the

government of Germany or some other sovereignty ;

(2) the petitioner was not and is not attached to the

principles of the Constitution of the United States of

America; and (3) that petitioner retained and held

allegiance to the government of Germany, or some

other foreign government superior to that which he

recognizes to the United States of America. (R. 4-5.)

The said oath so made by the petitioner, the com-

plaint alleged, was fraudulent and illegal and was

made for the purpose of obtaining the rights, priv-

ileges and protection of United States citizenship,

without intending to assume the duties thereof ; there-

fore, charged, the complaint, petitioner's Certificate of

Naturalization is subject to cancellation. (R. 5-6.)

Petitioner’s amended answer admits the allegations

of the complaint contained in paragraph II thereof

to the effect that petitioner became a citizen of the

United States of America on the 16th day of May,

1935, and that Certificate of Naturalization No.

2368203 was issued to him (R. 17), but denies each

and every charge of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit

and illegality alleged in the complaint.

The amended answer also sets up the following

special defenses: (1) that the complaint did not

state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action;

(2) that the District Court did not have jurisdiction :

(3) that the action was barred by laches; and (4) that

the judgment of the Superior Court of the State of

California naturalizing petitioner was res judicata.

The issues thus presented by the pleadings are:

(1) was the petitioner guilty of fraud as alleged in

the complaint?; (2) did petitioner in 1935 procure

his Certificate of Naturalization fraudulently and

illegally ?; and (3) was petitioner’s conduct consistent

with his vath that he had in fact renounced all

allegiance to the German government, that he was

attached to the principles of the Constitution of the

United States, and that he would support and defend

the Constitution of the United States against all

enemies, foreign and domestic ?; (4) sufficiency of the

complaint to state a cause of action; (5) jurisdiction

of the District Court; (6) laches in filing action; (7)

res judicata,

B. Issues tried.

The issues tried are the first three stated immedi-

ately above, to-wit: (1) was the petitioner guilty of

fraud as alleged in the complaint ?; (2) did petitioner

procure his Certificate of Naturalization fraudulently

and illegally ?; and (3) was petitioner’s conduct con-

sistent with his oath of allegiance?

C. The findings.

Findings IV to XI (R. 159-162) are specific, but

are misleading in that they do not fairly state the

facts which they purport to cover. It is petitioner's

contention that these findings place the worst possible

light on his conduct, instead of giving him the benefit

of every doubt, as required by the authorities herein-

after referred to. Findings XIT to XIV (R. 162-163)

are general and are not supported by the evidence, as

will hereinafter more fully appear.

The conclusions of law are that petitioner procured

his Certificate of Naturalization fraudulently and

illegally. It is petitioner’s contention that the evi-

dence is insufficient to sustain the conclusions of law,

as hereinafter more fully appears.

D. Statement of facts.

The petitioner, called for cross-examination by the

appellee, testified that he was born in Germany in

the year 1901, and while there received a grammar

and high school education, the latter being equivalent

to two years in junior college in this country ; that he

had no military training in Germany and at no time

served in the German army; that he eame to the

United States in 1921 or 1922, and had remained here

ever since, never returning to Germany; that his orig-

inal declaration of intention to become an American

citizen was filed in 1928 but was lost at the county

court-house, and he again filed in 1933, and was ad-

mitted to citizenship in May, 1935; that he became a

member of the Friends of New Germany, predecessor

of the German-American Bund, in June, 1935, and

continued to be a member until the beginning of 1939:

that he signed a printed application for membership

which contained no requirement of ‘‘Aryan birth’? or

any reference to the “leadership principle,’’ and that

he did not know that these organizations were gov-

erned by the ‘‘leadership principle’? until he heard

witnesses testify at the consolidated trial referred to

above; that after he signed an application for mem-

bership in San Francisco, he and others formed a

‘**Petaluma Group,’’ which was a branch of the San

Francisco organization, and that he was chosen as

‘spokesman or head”’ of the Petaluma unit, but was

never referred to as a ‘‘leader’’; that he was never

told that he was required to obey the orders of the

leaders of the organization or of anyone else; that he

read very little of the literature published by the

‘*Friends of New Germany’’, and only glanced at

German newspapers; that the meetings of the ‘* Peta-

luma Group’’ were purely social, and he believed that

such gatherings would promote friendly relations

between the United States and Germany; that he

opposed Communism, and ‘‘never would stand for any

doctrine like that to overthrow our government.”

(R. 210-219.)

Petitioner further testified that he gave up his

allegiance to Germany when he left there in 1921,

that ever since he had been in the United States he

had been attached to the principles of the Constitution

and his attitude had never changed in this respect

(R. 219-220) ; and he testified that he had been classi-

fied 1-A for United States military service and would

freely and willingly go to Germany and fight against

Germany on German soil, but would prefer to fight

against Japan. (R. 221).

Petitioner testified that he attended Bund meetings

for social purposes only, did not listen to speeches

and did not hear the so-called **blood principle” dis-

cussed at any meetings (R. 222-225); that he did not

know anything or hear anything about the ‘‘leader-

ship” or **blood”’ principles attributed to the Friends

of New Germany and the German-Amercan Bund, or

about National Socialism, until he attended the con-

solidated trial referred to above in the vear 1943.

(R. 215, 222, 223, 348-352).

Petitioner testified on direct examination, that he

had been in business in Petaluma since 1929, being

——

associated with his former brother-in-law, Joseph M.

Skoff, since 1936, in the ice and fuel business, and

until excluded from California in 1942 by the “‘F.

B. I."; that in conducting this business he had 1500

customers (R. 329-331); that he always maintained his

credit with the banks. (R. 331-332).

Petitioner testified that he had always been a law-

abiding citizen, has never been arrested for any crime,

had been interested in seeing that the laws were

obeyed, for a time was a deputy sheriff, purchased

United States Bonds, and contributed to the Red

Cross and other worthy causes. (R. 332-3: ). He testi-

fied that he believed that Jews have the same rights

as other people and that some of his best friends were

Jews, but that he was opposed to certain Russian

Communistic Jews in Sonoma County who promoted

strikes among ranch workers and caused crop losses.

(R. 350-351, 369-370) ; in 1937 or 1938 petitioner pre-

pared a speech, which he read at a meeting of the

American Legion, which document is marked ** Plain-

tiff’s (Respondent’s) Exhibit 5° (R. 247), and which

is set forth in full in the appendix hereto, (Appendix

ix-xv.) Next to the last paragraph of this doeu-

ment reads as follows:

“LT am thanking you of having given me the

opportunity of speaking to you about the German

American Bund and I am sure, that you do un-

derstand the Bund lots better now, and this

would be the case, if everybody would know more

about the Bund. But should it occur, that the

Bund ever would change his euide-lines to any-

thing unAmerican or subversive, | would with-

draw my name from the membership-list immedi-

ately. I believe America for the Americans and

if these agitators see no matter what kind they

may be, see a haven in Communistic Russia, or

may these agitators be Fascists or Nazis, why

don’t they go back to Russia, Spain, Italy or

Germany? And if we do not have the laws to

get rid of them, let Congress enact laws at once,

that will do it.”

In 1938 petitioner wrote a letter to the Associated

Farmers of California which is marked ‘Plaintiff's

(Respondent’s) Exhibit +,°° and reads as follows:

**Petaluma, Calif.

Associated Farmers of California

Russ Building, 235 Montgomery Str. 6-17-38

San Francisco, Calif.

Gentlemen:

Received today your bulletin Vol. 1, No. 67,

and read the article: The Hammer, The Sickle

and the Swastika. As you frankly admit you

know very little about the German-American

Bund and would it not have been wiser to find

out more about the Bund, before writing such

articles?) I always believe to think first and act

then and not to act first and start thinking later?

Don’t you admit also, that is the best policy?

In regard to the swastika you can find it now

and hundred vears ago mn various types of our

every day life and most of this before there ever

was thought of a Herr Hitler.

For your information you will please find en-

closed the purpose and aims of the German Amer-

ican Bund, so you may look wright into the back-

ground. I am sending you this as a member of

the Associated Farmers and as a member of the

Bund also. For any further information of any

kind Mr. Schwinn, the Pacific Coast director, 634

West 15th, Str. Lee Angeles, will give you any

information you would like to have. I am sure

of that.

As a true American I not only say, like vou

write in your article: Away with both of them, I

even say, away with all them kind of Ism, and

for real democracy and let give America back to

the Americans

America first and last yours truly

F. KUEHN.”’

As stated in this letter, there was enclosed a docu-

ment setting forth the aims and purposes of the Ger-

man-American Bund (R. 373-374), which petitioner

testified, were the same as those appearing in De-

fendant’s (Petitioner’s) Exhibit *D’* (R. 346) read-

ing as follows:

‘“AIMS AND PURPOsEs:

1—Respecting and defending the Constitution

of the United States of America.

2—Honoring and respecting the Flag and the

lawful institutions of the United States of Amer-

ica and to Foster truly American ideals.

3—Creating of a commonwealth of all citizens

and prospective citizens of German extraction for

the purpose of promoting and maintaining such

cultural values as the German Language, Litera-

ture, Music, Sports and other physical acquisi-

tions, in order to hereby create and preserve :

spiritual contact between the native land and the

country of adoption.

4—Creating amongst our fellow citizens a bet-

ter understanding for the ideals of a New Ger-

many.

5—Furthering the friendly relations between

the United States and Germany, and resist with

all lawful means any attempt to destroy this

much needed harmony.”’

Petitioner testified that these were the only aims

and purposes he had seen. (R. 346.)

Petitioner denied that he had ever dishonored the

American flag or kissed Hitler’s picture, as he was

accused of doing by his former mother-in-law, re-

spondent’s witness, whose testimony is hereinafter re-

ferred to, and denied that he heard anything about

these accusations until after this action was filed.

(R. 328-329, 346-347.)

Petitioner’s character witnesses.

Petitioner called several character witnesses as

follows:

William Caulfield testified :

He had known petitioner about twenty vears; had

seen him often; had never known petitioner to say or

do anything disrespectful to the Constitution of the

—

United States; had never heard any one speak dis-

respectfully of petitioner as a citizen of the United

States. (R. 375-376.)

Joseph M. Skoff testified:

During all of the years of his association with pe-

titioner in business, his relations had been pleasant ;

that he had always found petitioner to be honest, re-

liable, and trustworthy. (R. 377-378.)

Carl Paula testified:

He had known of petitioner for a good many years

and worked for him; had never known petitioner to

do or say anything that would be against the Consti-

tution of the United States. (R. 387-388. )

Vito Diestel, brother-in-law of petitioner, testified:

He had known petitioner ever since petitioner came

to the United States; that he knew petitioner came

here for the purpose of becoming a citizen: that he

had never known petitioner to say anything contrary

to the principles of the United States form of govern-

ment or the Constitution; that he had never known

him to do anything disloval, or heard anything against

his honesty and integrity; that he had attended gath-

erings of members of the Friends of New Germany

and German-American Bund with petitioner and that

such gatherings were of a purely social nature. (R,

391-395. )

Sam Kinspel testified :

He testified to the same general effect as the other

character witnesses. (R, 389-390. )

Respondent’s witnesses.

Respondent called several witnesses whose testi-

mony was conflicting, and tended to confuse the issues

rather than to clarify them. Accordingly, the testi-

mony of these witnesses is not set forth in the ap-

pendix hereto. The names of these witnesses, and the

references to their testimony in the Reporter’s Tran-

script are as follows:

Hugh FE. Hampton—R. 251-258; 397-399;

Lloyd IT, Applegate-—R. 259-265 ;

Chris Knudtsen—R. 293-300;

Vera G. Sherman—kh. 310-314 ;

Andreas Peter Jesscn—R. 314-520.

The appellee also called:

Mrs. Evana Rahiunc, former mother-in-law of

the petitioner.

Mrs. Evana Rahunc testified (Divect examination) :

That in 1937 she was living in Petaluma with peti-

tioner and his wife, the latter bemg a daughter of

the witness; that in July, 1937, she, petitioner, and

petitioner’s wife were in a room used by petitioner as

his office in his home, and that during a conversation

between the three of them at that time and place the

petitioner ‘‘grabbed’*? a picture of Hitler, saying

“This is my god,’ and ‘‘grabbed” an American flag

and rubbed it on the seat of his pants, saving ‘This

is your government.”’ (R. 268-270.)

(Cross examination)

On cross examination Mrs. Rahune testified: To

the same effect as on direct examination and at the

time and place petitioner was talking to his wife: that

she, the witness (Mrs. Rahune) immediately told her

son (Joseph M. Skoff) about the incident “if he re-

members"’; that (referring to the day she appeared

in court in this trial) ‘*I told him today, do you re-

member,’’ and he said ‘I forget,’’ and that he then

told her **not to tell any lie’’; that she told “lots of

people’, ‘more than a hundred”’, about the incident

and conversation; that she told her daughter-in-law,

but could not remember any other name; that while

she was living with petitioner she had ** personal’

trouble with him and told Karl Paula (a witness in

the case) that she ‘twas going to get even with him”,

meaning the petitioner, (R. 282-288.) She also tes-

tified as follows on cross-examination:

“Q@. Isn't it a fact that the first time that you

ever heard of the flag incident was when some of

the government officers talked to you in the early

part of this year, 1943? A. Yes, they were talk-

ing, and lots of people were talking too.

Q. Didn't the government agents come to you

in the early part of this vear, 1943? A. Yes.

Q. Did they say anything about the flag to

you? A. Well, you know they asked me if 1

know anything, and [ told them all about it.

@. When did you talk to the government

agents about this? A. Oh. that was, | don't

know what month exactly it Was, this year—-I

don’t know whether it was in March or April;

it was on a Saturday morning,

Q. Who was it that came to you at that time,

do you recall?) A. There was two of them.

Q. There were two men? A. Two men, yes.

IT don’t know whether it was Mr.—what is his

name—both of them are here.

Q. Which gentlemen came to vou?) A. This

one and the other one in back, both of them.

Q. Those two gentlemen came to vou? A,

Yes, those two gentlemen came.

Q. That was along in April, you think, 1943?

A. Yes, I think it was in April, it was on the

27th, it was on a Saturday, I put it down, but I

forget.

Q. What did they say to you about the flag?

A. They just asked me questions, if 1 know any-

thing about it, and I told them everything I

know, and I said [ could prove that, but I could

not prove more.

Q. What questions did they ask vou? A,

They asked me if I saw anything Mr. Kuchn had

done with the United States.

Q. With the United States Government? A.

The United States flay, I told them all about it.

Q. They asked you first if you ever heard Mr.

Kuehn say anything about the United States flag,

is that right?) A. Yes, if I know anything about

it, and I said yes.” (R. 284-285.) (Italics ours.)

Joseph M. Skoff, son of the former mother-in-law

of petitioner, testified:

That the first time he heard anything about an inci-

dent in which appellant was accused of dishonoring

the American flag was in the vear 1943; that at that

time there was “Quite a bit of hard feeling between

the family and him (petitioner),”’ and that his mother

(Mrs. Rahune) ‘twas against him (petitioner) ”’ very

much. He further testified that he did not remember

having any conversation with his mother (Mrs. Ra-

hune) about the incident of petitioner and the Amer-

ican flag, and that he had no recollection of any con-

versation with his mother on the subject until the

*“F.B.I."’ contacted her in the vear 1943; that all of

the matters, both concerning the kissing of Hitler's

picture and the flag incident were related to him in

the carly part of 1943 for the first time. (R. 278-285. )

Mrs. Mary Theresa Ronsheimer, daughter of Mrs.

Rahunc, and former sister-in-law of the petitioner,

testified :

_ That she lived with petitioner for about a year and

a half (1936 to July, 1937); that petitioner kept a

small picture of Hitler on his desk; that petitioner

said Hitler had done a lot for Germany; that when he

referred to Germany he would not say ‘our country,”

but would say *sback home’’; and that “in front of

me and my sister’ he kissed Hitler’s picture once.

(R. 301-306.)

E. The questions presented.

1. Was the petitioner, upon being granted citizen-

ship, thereafter entitled to enjoy all of the constitu-

tional rights and privileges of native born citizens ?

2. Did the respondent, the Government of the

United States of America, sustain its burden of prov-

ing that petitioner obtained his Certificate of Nat-

uralization on May 16, 1935, illegally and by means

of fraud?

3. Did the petitioner obtain his Certificate of Nat-

uralization on May 16, 1935, by fraud?

4. Did the petitioner obtain his Certificate of Nat-

uralization on May 16, 1935, illegally ?

F. Point on which petitioner intends to rely.

The evidence in said action is insufficient to justify

the judgment and/or the findings of fact and/or the

conclusions of law.

G. Specifications of error.

1. The lower Courts erred in making the following

numbered findings of fact in that the evidence is in-

sufficient to justify said findings and the implications

they cast upon petitioner:

a. Finding No. [IV CR. 159)

b. Finding No. V (R. 160)

¢. Finding No. VI (R. 160)

d. Finding No. VII (R. 160)

e. Finding No. VIII (R. 161)

f. Finding No. IX (R. 161)

g. Finding No. X (R. 161)

h. Finding No. XI (R. 161)

i. Finding No. XII (R. 162

j. Finding No. XIII (R. 168)

k. Finding No. XIV (R. 163)

l. Finding No. XV (R. 163)

2. The lower courts erred in making the follow-

ine numbered conclusions of law in that the evidence

is insufficient to justify said conclusions of law:

a. Conclusion of Law No. II (R. 164)/

hb. Conclusion of Law No. IIT (R. 164)

3. The lower courts erred in rendering judgment

that the order admitting petitioner to citizenship be

revoked and that Certificate of Naturalization No.

2368203, issued to petitioner, be cancelled and sur-

rendered, in that the evidence is insufficient to justify

said judgment.

ARGUMENT.

POINT I.

THE RIGHTS OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS ARE THE SAME AS

THOSE OF NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.

It is well settled that a naturalized citizen has the

same rights as a native born citizen, including the

right of free speech, In Baumgartner v. United States,

322 U.S. 665 at 673, 64S. Ct. 1240, 88 L. Ed. 1525.

the court says:

**Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen

stands on an equal footing with the native citizen

in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presi-

dency.” Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22."

We quote from United States v. Hugg (D.C.Pa.),

dL Fed. Supp. 397 at 399:

“Once a man has been admitted to citizenship

he must be accorded exactly the same rights as

every other citizen of the United States. Other-

Wise the process of naturalization itself becomes

a fraud, These rights include the right of free

speech and the right to criticize our government

and to disagree with its policies. They include

the right to read about and study any forms of

political or social activity anywhere in the world

and to form opinions upon them.’’ (Italics ours.)

To similar effect is Bergmann v. United States

(C.C.A., 9th Cireuit), 144 Fed. (2d) 34 at 38:

“The courts have been meticulous in announc-

ing over and over again that there are not two

different sets of rights to be enjoyed by two dif-

ferent kinds of citizens. The constitutional right

of opinion together with the right to express it

possessed by every citizen would, in truth, become

unreal and academic to the naturalized citizen if

his citizenship would be cancellable because of

opinions held and expressed as to current events

happening after his admission to citizenship. No

such condition is imposed upon native born citi-

zens. The inference of fraud in procuring the

status of citizenship can only be drawn from

facts clearly, unequivocally, and convincingly

shown to establish the existence of fraud in the

taking of the necessary steps toward naturaliza-

tion. ‘Citizenship, once bestowed upon proceed-

ings in the federal courts, should not be lightly

taken away.’ United States v. Woerndle, 9 Cir.

288 F. 47, 49.’ (Italics ours.)

POINT II.

IN A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING THE BURDEN IS ON

THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS CASE BY CLEAR, UN-

EQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

Recently numerous cases have been decided placing

a heavy burden of proof on the government in de-

naturalization cases such as the present one, requiring

the government to prove its case “beyond a reasonable

doubt.”’

The burden is on the government to show fraud or

illegality in obtaining citizenship by clear, unequiv-

ocal and convincing evidence. Orth v. United States

(C.CLA. 4th Circuit), 142 Fed. (2d) 969, rev’g. 51

Fed. Supp. 682; United States v. Sotzek (C.C.A, 2nd

Circuit), 144 Fed. (2d) 576, rev’e. 49 Fed, Supp. 407.

In a denaturalization proceeding the evidence must

be clear, unequivocal, and convincing to support judg-

ment for the government, and the Court must resolve

all doubts in favor of the defendant. United States v.

Sotzck (C.C.A, 2nd Circuit), 144 Fed. (2d) 576, rev’g.

49 Fed. Supp. 407.

In an action to cancel certificate of naturalization,

plaintiff has the burden to ascertain the state of mind

of the defendant upon the date when he took the oath

referred to in the petition and received his certificate

of naturalization. United States v. Schuchaardt (DC-

Ind.), 48 Fed. Supp. 876.

In denaturalization proceedings the facts and the

law should be construed as far as possible in favor of

the citizen and especially is this so when the attack is

——

made long after the time when the certificate of citi-

zenship was granted and the citizen has meanwhile

met his obligations and has committed no acts of law-

lessness. United States v. Hartmann (DC-Pa.), 51

Fed. Supp. 394; United States v. Manzo (DC-N.J.),

59 Fed. Supp. 447.

In the course of its opinion in the leading case of

Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. at page 125,

63 S. Ct. at page 1336, 87 L. ed. 1796, the court says:

“Assuming as we have that the United States

is entitled to attack a finding of attachment upon

a charge of tlleglity, it must sustain the heavy

burden which then rests upon it to prove lack of

attachment by ‘clear, unequivocal, and convine-

ing’ evidence which does not leave the issue in

doubt. When the attachment requirement is con-

strued as indicated above, we do not think the

government has carried its burden of proof.”

(Italics ours.)

In the recent case of United States v. Hevmig

(D.C.N.D. Ind.), 50 Fed. Supp. 566 at 567, the Honor-

able Judge, after reviewing a number of decisions,

sums up as follows:

‘From these excerpts from decisions by other

Federal Courts it seems clear to me that the rule

not only should be, but is, that the evidence for

fraud must be clear and convincing to a degree

that it satisfied the mind of the court of the truth

of the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt.”

(Italics ours.)

POINT III.

THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT PETI-

TIONER PROCURED THE ISSUANCE OF HIS CERTIFICATE

OF NATURALIZATION BY FRAUD.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the gov-

ernment did not sustain its burden of proving that

petitioner procured the issuance of his Certificate of

Naturalization by fraud; that there is no credible

evidence in the record to show that, either prior to

or subsequent to his being admitted to citizenship in

the United States of America, petitioner committed

any act of disloyalty; that to the contrary, the evi-

dence shows that at all times since petitioner’s entry

into the United States he has been attached to the

principles of the Constitution, and supported the

Constitution and laws and the democratic form of

government.

Following is an analysis of the findings of fact,

conclusions of law and judgment, in connection with

the opinion of the honorable trial judge:

(1) Finding No. TIT (R. 159) reads as follows:

“That defendant joined the Friends of. the

New Germany in March 1935, before he became

a naturalized citizen of the United States in May

of the same year, and continued as a member of

said organization after its name was changed to

German-American Bund until the latter part of

1938 or the beginning of 1939.”’

The evidence is in conflict as to the date on which

petitioner joined the Friends of New Germany, Peti-

tioner testified that he joined in June. The govern-

ment put in evidence a record purporting to show the

payment of dues on March 22, 1935. In any event,

either shortly before or shortly after being admitted

to citizenship on May 16, 1935, petitioner joined the

Friends of New Germany, the predecessor of the Ger-

man-American Bund.

It is quite apparent from the opinion of the honor-

able trial judge, in the consolidated case, that he im-

puted to every member of the German-American

Bund an adherence to the principles of Naziism—the

leadership principle, the blood principle, and National

Socialism, and that, in his opinion, in order for the

government to sustain its burden of proof, it was

necessary for the government to prove very little

more. The opinion reads in part as follows (R. 45):

“In expressing the view of the Court in the

Schneiderman case, Mr. Justice Murphy pointed

out: Our coneern is with what Congress meant

to be the extent of the area of allowable thought

under the statute. (Emphasis supplied.) The

holding of the Court was, in effect, that belief in

and adherence to the vicious principles of Nazi-

ism is not within ‘the area of allowable thought.’

‘“‘Hence Schneiderman v. U. S. does not guide

us except as to the rules governing denaturaliza-

tion proceedings and the character and degree of

proof required. The facts there are not the facts

here.

“Tt is my conclusion that the aims, purposes and

practices of the German-American Bund, its pred-

ecessors and affiliates, were clearly an-American,

Evidence that any defendant substantially par-

_—

ticipated in the practices thereof may therefore

be taken into account in determining the issue of

denaturalization. However, the facts concerning

the membership and participation of each of the

several defendants in the Bund, its predecessors

and affiliates, must be carefully examined and

only upon that basis, plus other pertinent cireum-

stances, can decision be justly made with respect

to each of the defendants.” (Italies ours. )

These statements by the lower court ignore the fact

that the aims and purposes of the Bund, so far as

known to the petitioner, were those set forth above

(Defendant’s Exhibit ‘*D’’), in brief as follows: To

defend and support the Constitution; to honor and

respect the Flag; to promote culture; and to promote

friendship between the United States and Germany.

Petitioner further testified that he knew nothing of

the leadership principle, the blood principle or of

National Socialism.

Under the authorities, mere membership in the

Bund is not a sufficient ground for the cancellation

of citizenship. :

Kuauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 66 S.,

Ct. 1304, 90 L. Ed. 1195;

(United States v. Sotzek (CCA. 2), 144 Fed.

(2d) 576.

There is no evidence whatever connecting petitioner

with the four questionable witnesses imported from

the East Coast to testify ino the consolidated case.

Petitioner testified that he knew nothing of their

principles or practices until he heard them testify in

court.

In making this finding the honorable trial judge

imputed to petitioner a knowledge of the principles

and practices of Naziism and an adherence to the

same. This is contrary to the evidence, and is also

contrary to the law established by the Supreme Court

of the United States.

(2) Finding No. TV (R. 159) reads as follows:

“That during the entire period of defendant's

membership in the Friends of the New Germany

and the German-American Bund, he was_ the

leader of the Petaluma Unit, or, as he testified,

the General Chairman, and as such was active in

the preparation and distribution of notices of

functions under the sponsorship of these organi-

zations; that invitations or notices of this type

were prepared by defendant on an oceasion in

1938, announcing a speech to be made in San

Francisco by Hermann Schwinn, Western leader

of the German-American Bund; and on another

occasion such notices were prepared by defend-

ant, announcing the showing of a German film

at the German-American Bund meeting place in

Petaluma in 1936.”’

Petitioner testified that the Petaluma unit to which

he belonged was purely a social organization. ‘The

activities described in this finding No. IV, were purely

social, Petitioner sent out Invitations to people to

attend parties and dances, in one tistance to hear a

speech, in another instance to see a moving picture.

_—

There is no evidence that any of these acts were sub-

versive, but the finding imputes subversiveness to

petitioner.

(3) Finding No. V (R. 160) reads as follows:

“That on June 17, 1938, defendant wrote a

letter to the Associated Farmers of California at

San Francisco in regard to the German-American:

Bund, stating that further information could be

obtained from Herman Schwinn, who was termed

as Pacific Coast Director at Los Angeles. In said

letter was enclosed a circular of some kind rela-

tive to the aims and purposes of the German-

American Bund, and defendant also stated in

part that the swastika had been used a hundred

years ago—before there was ever a thought of

Herr Hitler.”’

The letter referred to in this finding (Plaintiff’s

Exhibit 4) is quoted in full above. Enclosed in the

letter was a statement of the ‘*Aims and Purposes”

of the Bund, which petitioner testified were the same

as those of the Friends of New Germany (Defend-

ant’s Exhibit **D*’) quoted in full above. These aims

and purposes were. briefly, to support the Constitu-

tion, honor the Flag, and to promote friendly relations

between the United States and Germany. The finding

imputes to petitioner the sending of subversive litera-

ture. This letter commented upon the swastika being

an ancient emblem. This is a fact.

“Swastiha, a decorative and symbolic oma-

ment consisting of a cross with equal arms, to

the end of each of whith is attached a line run-

ning at right angles to it, all these extensions

occurring on the same relative side, so that all

four extensions have the same rotary direction

in relation to the center. The swastika is one of

the most ancient and widespread of all orna-

mental forms, appearing in both hemispheres. It

is generally interpreted as a sun symbol. It oe-

curs in Aegean and archaic Greek pottery and

in certain types of fret, found in Egypt and

Greece. In some examples it appears as two

identical S-curves, intersecting in the middle and

set at right angles. Occasionally three arms are

found, and the hearaldic symbol of three running

legs set radially, may be a development of the

swastika.”’

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 21, p. 633.

The letter concludes:

‘*America first and last yours truly, F. Kuehn.”

Certainly petitioner was not distributing Nazi

propaganda by this letter.

(4) Finding No. VI (R. 160) reads as follows:

“That in 1937 or 1938, defendant made a

speech before the American Legion in Petaluma

wherein he defended the German-American Bund

as an American organization to promote good

feeling between Germany and the United States,

made a strong attack on Communism and _ the

Jews, and ‘themed’ that Communism was fostered

by the Jews.”

In this finding a knowledge of and adherence to the

principles of Naziism is again imputed to petitioner.

He indicated one of the purposes of the Bund was to

promote friendly relations between the United States

and Germany. Such a purpose is not subversive. He

attacked Communism and Communistie Jews. As a

citizen of the United States he had the right of free

specch and was entitled to make these comments. His

testimony at the trial was to the effect that he had

many friends among the Jews; that he was not against

Jews in general, but was against ‘Russian Com-

munistic Jews,’’ who came into Sonoma County pro-

moting strikes among ranch workers and causing crop

losses. He concluded his speech by saying he would

withdraw from the Bund if it became ‘un-American

or subversive.” He did withdraw in 1939. (R. 353.)

(5) Finding No. VII (R. 160) reads as follows:

“That defendant kept swastika flags in his

office in his home, had at least one picture of

Adolf Hitler on his desk, and for a period of

time likewise had in his office a plaque or a frame

of a type upon which to lay hot plates and upon

which was inscribed representations of the Swas-

tika, the colors of the Italian government. and

the Rising Sun of the Japanese government. ”’

This finding specifies certain flags and emblems

owned by petitioner, but does not describe all of the

flags he owned.

He testified (R. 326):

“Mr. Ornbaun. Q. What flags did you have

in your possession Mr, Kuehn? A. 1 had two

American flags, one Swastika flag, I had a

Mexican flag, and | had a little Chinese flag, and

for a period of time I had a little plaque, like

Mr. Patton called it, where there were on, the

Swastika, the round ball and the Italian colors;

it was about 4x4.”

Petitioner, as a citizen, had a right to collect the

flags and emblems of any and all countries.

(6) Finding No. LX (R. 161) reads as follows:

“That defendant has been seen to kiss the pic-

ture of Hitler and has been heard to say, ‘This

is my God’; that he referred to the United States,

in conversation with others, as ‘your country’;

and that he referred to Germany as ‘our country.’

On one occasion the defendant was seen to take

a small United States flag and draw it across the

seat of his trousers, at the same time saying,

‘This is your government’—speaking at the time

to witnesses with whom he was conversing.”’

Petitioner contends that there is no credible evi-

dence in the record to support this finding,

Prior to the trial petitioner propounded certain in-

terrogatories to the government, in accordance with

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for

the purpose of ascertaining the basis of the fraud of .

which petitioner was accused. (R. 10-12.) ‘The answers

to certain of these interrogatories are as follows (R.

13-14) :

‘*Interrogatory No. VI,

The names and addresses of the witnesses who

will be produced by plaintiff to prove the allega-

tions contained in Paragraph LIL of said com-

plaint.

‘‘Interrogatory No. VII.

The names and addresses of the persons to

whom it is claimed defendant made any state-

ment or statements relied upon by plaintiff to

sustain the allegations contained in Paragraph

111 of said complaint, and the time and place of

the making of said statement or statements.”

“Answers to Interrogatories Nos. VI and VII.

In response to paragraphs VI and VII of de-

fendant’s interrogatories, affiant states that the

following statements and acts were made and per-

formed by defendant:

A. In July, 1937, Kuehn picked up an Amer-

ican flag, turned to his wife, wiped the flag on

the seat of his pants, and said—This is you’,

meaning— This is your country (America) and

immediately thereafter he picked up a picture of

Hitler and kissed it, and said— This is my God.’

Several times during 1936 and 1937, he stated—

‘You can't beat my government,’ meaning Ger-

many.

All of the foregoing was stated and done in the

presence of Mrs, Evana Rahune, whose address is

327 English Street, Petaluma, California, and

Mrs. Ronsheimer, Route 4, Box 494, Petaluma,

California.”’

In commenting upon the evidence introduced to

sustain the above answers to the interrogatories, the

trial judge, in his opinion states (R. 53):

“Tis former mother-in-law and former sister-

in-law testified that in July, of 1937, he kissed

Hitler’s picture in their presence and said: ‘This

is my God,’ and rubbed the American flag on the

seat of his trousers and said to his then wife:

‘This is your government.’

It is clear to me that the mother-in-law and

the defendant were not on friendly terms and

some doubt as to the credibility of her testimony

may exist. However, the sister-in-law’s testimony

upon the same subject appears to be truthful.”

(Italics ours.)

he honorable trial judge was confused as to the

testimony of these two witnesses.

The testimony of Mrs. Mary Theresa Ronsheimer,

the former sister-in-law, was as follows (R. 306) :

“Q. Did you ever see him with Hitler’s pic-

ture in his hand? A. Why, yes, I have.

Q. Did you ever see him do anything with

the picture, or anything unusual? A. Yes in

front of me and my sister he kissed his picture

once.

Q. He kissed Hitler’s picture? A. Yes.”

(Italics ours.)

The said former sister-in-law did not testify that

when, as she stated, the petitioner kissed Hitler’s pic-

ture, he said, ‘This is my God;”’ nor did she testify

as to any incident in which the petitioner dishonored

the American flag.

Mrs. Evana Rahune, the former mother-in-law,

testified on direct examination (R. 270):

“Q. She said that to Mr. Kuehn? A. Yes,

and then he grabbed that picture, vou know, like

that, from where he got that picture, and he said

exactly like that, ‘This is my God,’ and this was

Hitler’s picture.

Q. He exhibited the picture and said, ‘This

is my God’? A. Yes, and grabbed the American

flag, grabbed the little flag from the desk and

rubbed it on the seat of his pants.

Q. He grabbed the American flag from the

desk and rubbed it on the seat of his pants ?

A. Yes, and put it back again,

Q. What did he say at the time he rubbed the

flag on the seat of his pants ?

Mr. Ornbaun. I object to that on the ground

assuming he said something.

Mr. Patton. Q. Did he say anything? A. He

said, **'This is your government.’ ”’

And on cross-examination (R. 280) :

“Q. You say that he took one of these flags and

Wiped it on his trousers? A. Yes, that is true.

Q. That is the truth? A. That is the truth.

Q. What flag difl he take? A. This small

one, the United States flag.

Q. That small/one? A. Yes, that is honest,

that is the truth. \.

Q. What was said at that time? A. Well, he

said, ‘Here, this is vour government.’

@. Whom was he talking to? A. He said to

his wife.

Q. Whom was he talking to at that time? A.

His wife.

Q. Who else was in the room? A. T and his

wife, and he said, ‘Look here, this is your govern-

ment,” you see, and he wiped it on his pants.

Q. Was there anybody else in the room? A.

No, nobody else,

Q. Who is Mrs. Mary Ronsheimer? A. Tt is

my daughter, my first daughter.

Q. That is your first daughter? A. My first

daughter.

Q. But his wife was present on this occasion?

A. Yes, his wife.

Q. Was there anybody else present? A, Well,

nobody else at that time in the room, only the

three of them.”* (Italics ours.)

We have this situation:

(a) The honorable trial judge in his opinion re-

ferred to the testimony of these two witnesses, stating

that it showed that petitioner kissed Hitler's picture,

saying **This is my God,” and dishonored the Amer-

ican flag, saying **This is your government ;" that he

(the judge). seriously doubted the veracity of the

former mother-in-law, due to ill fecling between her

and the petitioner, but that he believed the former

sister-in-law to be truthful.

(b) The former sister-in-law testified merely that

on one occasion in her presence, her sister, former

wife of petitioner, also being present, petitioner kissed

Hitler’s picture.

(ce) The former mother-in-law testified that the two

incidents took place in her presence, and in the pres-

ence of the former wife of petitioner, no one else

present; that she immediately told Joseph M. Skoff,

her son, about these incidents.

(d) Joseph M. Skoff, former brother-in-law of

petitioner and business associate of petitioner, testi-

—

fied that the first time he heard anything about these

incidents, which, according to the testimony of the

former mother-in-law of petitioner, happened in 1937,

was in the year 1943, when the ‘“F.B.I.’* talked to

these witnesses.

(e) Jane Frances Kuehn, the former wife of the

petitioner did not testify.

Petitioner contends that the only disloyal act of

which he was accused, the dishonoring of the American

flag, was testified to by one witness only, the same be-

iny Mrs, Evanna Rahunc, his former mother-in-law,

who had threatened to “get even” with him, and whose

credibility was doubted by the trial judge.

Petitioner contends that the evidence is insufficient

to justify finding No. IX; that there is no evidence in

the record to sustain said finding. Very definitely, the

Government did not sustain its burden of proof as re-

gards this finding.

(7) Finding No. X (R. 161) reads as follows:

That defendant assisted in the collection of food-

stuffs for shipment to Germany in 1935 or 1936,

and prepared labels to be attached to the pack-

ages, Which labels bore the swastika and rising

sun emblems of the Friends of the New Germany.

We ask if it was disloyal of petitioner to collect food

to send to hungry people in Germany in 1935 or 1936 ?

(8) Finding No. X1 (R. 161), reads as follows:

That in May 1939 defendant wrote to Herman

Schwinn in Los Angeles telling him that if he

did not do something to hold San Francisco, then

to forget all about local groups north of Los An-

geles; and that if he could not come up himself,

to send some other person because there was a

lot of good material in San Francisco which could

still perhaps be held.

Petitioner did so write. It is apparent from the

entire record that he did not believe that member-

ship in the Bund, as he understood its aims and pur-

poses, was incompatible with citizenship in the United

States. This finding, as do the others, carries only

implications, and there is no proof whatever, that

in writing this letter petitioner intended anything dis-

loyal to the United States. Further, it was written

long after petitioner was admitted to citizenship, and

does not in any way show the state of his mind when

he was admitted to citizenship.

(9) Finding No. XII (R. 162), is to the effect that

petitioner’s oath of allegiance to the United States

was false, fraudulent and illegal, in that (a) he did

not in fact renounce allegiance to Germany, (b) that

he did not intend to support and defend the Constitu-

tion, and (¢) he did not intend to bear true faith and

allegiance to the United States; finding No. XLII (R.

163) is as follows:

That prior to, at the time of, and at all times

subsequent to his naturalization, the defendant

was acquainted with, sympathized, and agreed

with the aims, purposes and doctrines of the

German-American Bund.

Finding No, XIV (R, 163), is as follows:

That on the date of defendant's petition for

naturalization, at the time of his naturalization,

_—_

and at all times subsequently, the defendant’s al-

legiance has been to Germany rather than to the

United States, and his attachment has been to

National Socialism rather than to the principles

of the United States Constitution. His lack of

allegiance to the United States and his lack of

attachment to the principles of the Constitution

have not changed or varied in the interval since

his naturalization, and his attitude in these re-

spects was the same when he was naturalized as in

subsequent years up to date of the trial.

Finding No. XV (R. 163) is as follows:

That the Findings of Fact with respect to the

consolidated common issue hereinabove set forth

are incorporated herein and made a part hereof

by reference.

Conclusion of law No. IT (R. 164), is as follows:

That the Certificate of Naturalization, granted

as aforesaid, was illegally and fraudulently pro-

cured by the said defendant, and should be re-

voked, set aside, and canceled.

Conclusion of law No. III (R. 164), is as follows:

The Conclusions of Law with respect to the

consolidated common issue hereinabove set forth

are Incorporated herein and made a part hereof

by reference,

Petitioner respectfully contends that all of the above

findings of fact and conclusions of law are based on

unjust imputations and implications which have no

foundation whatever in the record; that to the con-

trary, everything in the record shows that from the

time petitioner arrived in the United States he in-

tended to become a loyal citizen, and that at all times

since he was admitted to citizenship he has been a

loyal citizen. At no place in the record of the con-

solidated trial or in the individual trial of petitioner

is he connected with the Nazi convicts, directly or in-

directly.

At this point we desire to apologize to this Honor-

able Court for the lengthy quotations from the opin-

ions in adjudicated cases which follow, but we do feel

that such quotations are warranted in view of the

fact that there is here an unjustified aftempt to de-

prive the petitioner of the highest privilege and honor

which can be conferred upon a human being—Citizen-

ship in the United States of America.

In the case of United States v. Sotzek (C.C.A, 2nd

Circuit), 144 Fed. (2d) 576, at 578, 579, the Court

in the course of its opinion says:

‘The district court in this case found as a

fact that the principles of the German American

Bund were incompatible with the philosophy of

the Constitution of the United States, yet we can-

not believe that that finding is enough to establish

fraud on the part of this appellant in accordance —

with the Supreme Court’s decision in Schneider-

man v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 65 S.Ct.

1333, 87 L. Ed. 1796, disapproving the method of

what it called proof by imputation. 320 U.S. at

page 154, 63S. Ct. at page 1350, 87 L. Ed. 1796.

It is true that there the court held that the

government had failed to prove that the Com-

munist party, of which the petitioner was an ad-

mitted member, stood for the overthrow of the

government by force; and since the whole case

against the petitioner rested upon his member-

ship in the organization, this holding would have

been enough to dispose of that issue. But the

court went further and implied strongly that the

principles and objectives of an organization and

of its more vocal leaders cannot be imputed to a

member of that organization merely because he

is a member. The leadership principle on which

the bund is based may impose its tenets upon him

so far as discipline with that order is concerned,

and to that extent reduce him to the status of a

pawn in a game of power politics; but he is,

nevertheless, entitled in the courts of a free

country to be treated as an individual who can

and does think and act for himself in accordance

with his own conscience and to be judged as one of

a body of men who are free. In reliance on prin-

ciples given effect in the Schneiderman case, we

hold now that whether or not the German Ameri-

can Bund was opposed to the principles of the

Constitution, the fact of Koehler’s membership

in it does not prove with the requisite certainty

that he himself was so opposed that his oath was

false or fraudulent when he was admitted to

citizenship. If it be evidence of such falsity or

fraud at all, it is far less than the clear, con-

vincing and unequivocal evidence required.”

(Italics ours.)

It is petitioner’s contention that in the present case

the government adopted the method of “proof by

imputation”? disapproved of in the Schneiderman

case, and in Solzek v. United States, supra; that the

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the judg-

ment against him are based on imputations and im-

plications, and that the evidence is insufficient to

justify them.

POINT IV.

SUMMARY OF FACTS.

Petitioner contends that a comparison of the facts

in the present case with those in adjudicated cases

in which the Courts refused to cancel citizenship

shows that the evidence is insufficient to establish

fraud, and that instead of giving him the benefit of

every reasonable doubt, the honorable trial judge re-

solved every doubt against petitioner.

We desire to call attention to the case of Baumn-

gartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 64.5. Ct. 1240,

88 L. Ed. 1525, in which the Supreme Court of the

United States determined that the evidence was in-

sufficient to prove fraud, and reversed the decisions

of the lower Courts. The facts in the Baumgartner

case are well summarized in the case of Bergmann v.

United States (C.C.A. 9th Circuit), 144 Fed. (2d) 34

at 37, as follows:

“On June 12, 1944, the Supreme Court of the

United States decided the case of Baumgartner

v. United States, 64 S. Ct. 12-0, reversing a deci-

sion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, 8 Cir., 138

F.2d 29, which latter court had affirmed the judg-

ment of the District Court, 47 F. Supp. 622, in

eancelling Baumgartner’s certificate of naturali-

zation upon the ground that it had been pro-

cured by fraud. The cited case and the instant

case run parallel. In the cited case Baumgartner

was extremely critical of President Roosevelt

and of the national administrative policies. His

statements were that he admired Hitler and the

Nazi program. He indulged in Hitlerian racial

prejudices, and kept a diary in which he had

made many entries of pro-German sentiment, His

wife and daughter were in Germany, and he said

with sarcastic or ironical meaning, that is to say,

with his tongue in his cheek (64 S. Ct. 1243):

‘Edith has done a very un-American thing, she

has joined the Nazi Youth Movement.’ He said

‘he would be glad to live under the regime of

Hitler.’

Having compared the record in the instant case

with the statement of fact in the Baumgartner

case, we have no hesitancy in saying that Baum-

gartner’s conduct after he had obtained his citi-

zenship was much more critical of America and

much more praiseful of Germany than Berg-

mann’s after his certificate had been granted.”’

(Italics ours.)

In the Bergmann case (supra), 144 Fed. (2d) 34, 36,

38, the evidence showed that the appellant therein

was a law-abiding citizen and had shown generosity,

but, in the language of the Court:

‘The evidence reveals that a number of neighbors,

associates and acquaintances of appellant testi-

fied to statements they say were made by appel-

lant some three years after the issuance of his cer-

lificate of naturalization. These statements re-

/erred in vile terms to the President of the United

States and severcly condemned the present na-

fional administration and the institution of

democracy. The statements indicated hatred of

the Jews and contempt of Americans. The wit-

nesses further testified as to appellant’s remarks

that America was a good place to make money,

that Hitler and the Nazi policies were commend-

able, and that the Japanese were ‘nice people’

who had to make the attack upon Pearl Harbor.

There is testimony that appellant had been seen

to give the Heil Hitler salute, that he approved

of Hitler and Nazism, and that he expressed de-

light over the sinking of the British capital ships

Repulse and Prince of Wales.’’ (Italics ours.)

The judgment of the trial Court canceling citizen-

ship was reversed.

We also quote from the opinion of the Court in

United States v. Sotzek (C.C.A., 2nd Cireuit), 144

Fed. (2d) 576, at 577 and 578, where the Appellate

Court, reversing the judgment of the trial Court,

reviewed the findings and the evidence, and made its

own conclusions :

‘In the case of Sotzek, the court found that he

emigrated from Germany to the United States in

1928, filed his petition for naturalization on Sep-

tember 20, 1935, and was admitted to citizenship

on March 2, 1936. Several months later he became

a member of the German American Bund in New

York and for the nert four years took an active |

part in its affairs, being appointed a member of

the Ordnung Dienst, or O.D., a uniformed group

of men patterned after the Nazi Storm Troopers

in Germany and organized as a military unit of

the bund. At meetings which he attended, there

were celebrations of the anniversary of Hitler's

rise to power and of other events which by the

appellant’s own admission no American organiza-

tion would celebrate. He denied, however, that he

—_7_"

ever heard National Socialism discussed. In

1940 he was expelled from the German American

Bund for ‘undisciplined conduct,’ though he says

he had previously left the organization.”’

* _ *

* * * ca

“Aside from this evidence of the appellant’s

membership and activity in the bunds, there was

considerable other testimony adduced to show

his state of mind with respect to an adherence

to principles of government. On the day of his

naturalization he asserted, ‘I am an American,

but don’t forget that I am a German too.’ He

was quoted as endorsing Hitler’s anti-Semitic

purge of occupied Europe, and as approving as

xood for workers the sort of socialist government

which Hitler was imposing on Germany. In his

own behalf Sotzek denied having done anything

inimicable to the welfare of the United States,

explained his bund membership on the ground

that he had joined for purely social reasons, and

asserted that he left the organization when he

began to realize that there was something wrong

about it. He testified that he opposes the present

German government because of its persecution of

religious minorities and he recognizes that there

is a conflict between the tenets of the German and

the American governments. He claimed to value

his citizenship highly and asserted a disposition

to do anything to retain it, including a willing-

ness to fight for this country against Germany.

There was evidence that Sotzek had a commend-

able record of performance as a tool maker in a

factory engaged wholly in the production of war

materials. ”’

* * * * * * _

“The fact that appellant Sotzek joined the

Bund shortly after his naturalization and became

a unit leader about two years later is the most

damaging evidence against him, but we think

that it is insufficient to support the judgment.

The court rejected testimony to the effect that on

one occasion Sotzek expressed contempt for the

American flag, and the other evidence shows

merely the sort of talk which is commonly heard

uttered by native and naturalized citizens alike,

to the effect that this change or that one ought to

be made in the government. Such talk does not

reveal an unwillingness to abide by the constitu-

tion and laws of the country; it is at most the

expression of political opinion regarding changes

which ought to be made—and the freedom to ad-

vocate change is one of our most cherished con-

stitutional rights. Many of Sotzek’s remarks, and

certain of his actions, may have been imprudent

in one so recently naturalized, and it may be

thought that they displayed a poor brand of

gratitude for the great privilege of having been

granted American citizenship but they fall short

of proving clearly and convincingly that when he

swore allegiance to this country he fraudulently

entertained any mental reservation or otherwise

swore falsely. The judgment must be reversed.”

(Italics ours.)

In Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118,

63 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1333, 87 L. ed. 1796, the Supreme

Court of the United States says:

“This does not mean that once granted to an

alien, citizenship cannot be revoked or cancelled

on legal grounds under appropriate proof. But

such a right once conferred should not be taken

away without the clearest sort of justification and

proof. So, whatever may be the rule in a naturali-

—,

zation proceeding (see United States v. Manzi,

276 U. 8, 463, 467, 48 S. Ct. 328, 329, 72 L. Ed.

654), in an action instituted under §15 for the

purpose of depriving one of the precious right

of citizenship previously conferred we believe the

facts and the law should be construed as far as is

reasonably possible in favor of the citizen. Espe-

cially is this so when the attack is made long after

the time when the certificate of citizenship was

grauted and the citizen has meanwhile met his

obligations and has committed no act of lawless-

ness. It is not denied that the burden of proof is

on the Government in this case. For reasons pres-

ently to be stated this burden must be met with

evidence of a clear and convincing character that

when citizenship was conferred upon petitioner

in 1927 it was not done in accordance with strict

legal requirements.”’ (Italics ours.)

It is true of the petitioner in this case in joining

the Friends of New Germany, as it was said of the

appellant in the Schneiderman case by the Supreme

Court of the United States:

“He considered membership in the Party com-

patible with the obligations of American citi-

zenship.”’ (Italics ours.)

In the cases quoted from above the Appellate Courts

determined that the evidence was insufficient to war-

rant the cancellation of citizenship, and reversed the

judgments of the trial Courts so ordering. This pe-

titioner contends that the same is true in this case,

und that the judgment of the Honorable United

States District Court should be reversed. In the

Knauer case (328 U.S. 654, 66S. Ct. 1304, 90 L. Ed.

1195) the defendant was a ‘‘*thoroughgoing Nazi bent

on sponsoring Hitler’s cause here.”

We summarize the facts in the present case as

briefly as possible:

Petitioner was born in Germany in 1901, and came

to the United States in 1921 or 1922; in Germany he

received an education equivalent to two years of

junior college in the United States; he had no mili-

tary training and at no time served in the German

army; he did not return to Germany after arriving

in the United States; he first applied for citizenship

in 1928, but his papers were lost, and he again ap-

plied in 1933 and was admitted in May, 1935; he be-

came a member of Friends of New Germany, suc-

cessor to the German American Bund, either just

before or just after (either in April or June, 1935)

he was admitted to citizenship, and continued to

be a member until 1939; he assisted in the organiza-

tion of the ‘‘Petaluma Group’’ and was chosen as

‘‘spokesman or head’’, but was never referred to

as the ‘‘leader’’; he knew nothing of the Nazi prin-

ciples of ‘‘leadership”’’ and ‘*blood’’ and knew noth-

ing about National Socialism; so far as he knew the

only aims and purposes of the Friends of New Ger-

many and German-American Bund were those set

forth in a printed form, a copy of which he mailed

with a letter written to the Associated Farmers of

California, and which were (1) to support and de-

fend the Constitution, (2) to honor and respect the

American flag and foster American ideals, (3) to

promote culture in literature, music and physical ac-

tivity, and (4) to promote friendly relations between

_—_

the United States and Germany; the activities of the

‘‘Petaluma Group’? were purely social; he attended

Bund meetings in San Francisco, but was interested

in the social side only, and did not listen to any of

speeches given by guest speakers; at some meetings

he wore a uniform distinguished by a cap, arm band

and belt, which articles he burned in 1938; for many

years he had owned, and at times worn a swastika

ring, which he threw away in 1938; he did not know,

and was not directly or indirectly connected with cer-

tain criminals imported from the East Coast by the

government to testify in the consolidated trial as to

the principles and practices of the Bund; he had a

collection of small flags in his home including two

American flags, one or more swastika flags, a Chinese

flag and a Mexican flag, and a hotplate showing the

swastika, colors of the Italian government and the

Rising Sun of the Japanese government; in 1937

or 1938 he made a speech before the American Legion

in which he attacked Communism and communistic

Jews; he was not against Jews in general, but was

opposed to communistic Russian Jews of the type

who came into Sonoma County promoting strikes and

causing crop losses; he gave up his allegiance to Ger-

many when he left there in 1921, and had been at-

tached to the principles of the Constitution at all

times since he entered the United States: he had been

classified for United States military service and would

be willing to fight against Germany on German soil,

but would prefer to fight Japan; he had been in busi-

ness in Petaluma since 1929, had a good reputation

for honesty and integrity, and maintained a good

credit at the banks; he had always been law-abiding

and had never been arrested for any crime; he con-

tributed to the Red Cross and other worthy causes,

and purchased United States bonds; in 1935 or 1936

he collected food to be shipped to Germany; in 1939

he wrote to Herman Schwinn, West Coast leader

about holding together the local groups of the Bund;

he was accused by his former mother-in-law with

whom he had quarreled, and who had threatened ‘‘to

get even’’ with him, of in 1937 kissing Hitler’s pic-

ture and of dishonoring the American flag; his wife,

said to have been present when these last mentioned

incidents were said to have occurred, did not testify;

his former brother-in-law, did not ‘‘remember’’ hear-

ing about these incidents until 1943, whereas his

mother, the said former mother-in-law of petitioner

testified that she discussed the matter with him when

the incidents occurred, as she asserted, in 1937; the

former sister-in-law of petitioner testified that he once

kissed Hitler’s picture in her presence; petitioner de-

nied that he ever kissed Hitler's picture or had ever

dishonored the American flag.

We respectfully request this Honorable Court to

compare these facts with those in the Baumgartner, |

Bergmann and Sotzek cases, as appearing from the

opinions in those cases and quoted above, in making

its decision.

We further respectfully request this Honorable

Court to review the evidence in the present case to

test its sufficiency as a basis for the findings of fact,

and in connection with this request quote from the

opinion of this Honorable Court in the case of Baum-

gartner v. United ‘States, 322 U. S. 665 at 670, 671-

672, the following pertinent language:

“That the concurrent findings of two lower

courts are persuasive proof in support of their

judgments is a rule of wisdom in judicial ad-

ministration. In reaffirming its importance we

mean to pay more than lip service. But the rule

does not relieve us of the task of examining the

foundation for findings in a particular case. The

measure of proof requisite to denaturalize a citi-

zen was before this Court in Schneiderman v.

United States, 320 U. S. 118. It was there held

that proof to bring about a loss of citizenship

must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot escape

the conviction that the case made out by the

Government lacks that solidity of proof which

leaves no troubling doubt in deciding a question

of such gravity as is implied in an attempt to

reduce a person to the status of alien from that

of citizen.

* 7 * * * * =

“Suffice it to say that emphasis on the im-

portance of ‘clear, unequivocal, and convincing’

proof, see Schneiderman v. United States, supra,

at 125, on which to rest the cancellation of a

certificate of naturalization would be lost if the

ascertainment by the lower courts whether that

exacting standard of proof had been satisfied on

the whole record were to be deemed a ‘fact’ of the

same order as all other ‘facts’, not open to

review here.

“The gravamen of the Government’s complaint

and of the findings and opinions below is that

Baumgartner consciously withheld allegiance to

the United States and its Constitution and laws ;

in short, that Baumgartner was guilty of fraud. |

dence calculated to establish only the objective ~

ing else was offered to show that Baumgartner |

was aware of a conflict between his views and the —

new political allegiance he assumed, But even if

objective falsity as against perjurious falsity of —

the oath is to be deemed sufficient under §338 (a) —

of proof which must be applied in this case,” —

(Italics ours.)

PRAYER.

Wherefore, it is most respectfully submitted a writ

of certiorari should issue out of this Honorable Court

to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

to review its decision herein, and that upon review

the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and

such other and further relief be afforded the peti-

tioner as this Court shall deem proper.

Dated, San Francisco, California,

October 22, 1947.

CASPER A. ORNBAUN,

Attorney for Petitioner.

(Appendix Follows.)

Appendix

Statutes.

Naturalization Proceedings in General.

United States Code, Title 8:

*§372. Proceedings for naturalization. An alien

may be admitted to become a citizen of the United

States in the manner indicated under sections 372 to

394 of this title and not otherwise.’’ (June 29, 1906,

¢, 3592, §4, 34 Stat. 596.)

‘*§373. Declaration of intention. He shall declare

on oath before the clerk of any court authorized to

naturalize aliens, or his authorized deputy, in the dis-

trict in which such alien resides, two years at least

prior to his admission, and after he has reached the

age of eighteen years, that it is bona fide his intention

to become a citizen of the United States and to reside

permanently therein, and that he will, before being

admitted to citizenship, renounce forever all allegiance

and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, State, or

sovereignty, and particularly, by name, to the prince,

potentate, State or sovereignty of which the alien may

be at the time of admission a citizen or subject. Such

declaration shall set forth the name, age, occupation,

personal description, place of birth, last foreign resi-

dence, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel, if

any, in which he came to the United States, and the

present place of residence in the United States of said

alien. No declaration of intention or petition shall be

made outside of the office of the clerk of the court.’’

(June 29, 1906, «. 3592, $4, 34 Stat. 596; March 4,

1929, c. 683, §1, 45 Stat. 1545.)

‘*§379. Petition for naturalization; when required

to be filed; allegations; verification by citizen wit-

nesses. Not less than two years nor more than seven

years after he has made such declaration of intention

he shall make and file, in duplicate, a petition in writ-

ing, signed by the applicant in his own handwriting

and duly verified, in which petition applicant shall

state his full name, his place of residence (by street

and number, if possible), his occupation, and, if pos-

sible, the date and place of his birth; the place from

which he emigrated, and the date and place of his

arrival in the United States, and, if he entered

through a port, the name of the vessel on which he

arrived; the time when and the place and name of

the court where he declared his intention to become a

citizen of the United States; if he is married he shall

state the name of his wife, and, if possible, the coun-

try of her nativity and her place of residence at the

time of filing his petition; and if he has children, the

name, date, and place of birth and place of residence

of each child living at the time of the filing of his -

petition; Provided, That if he has filed his declara-

tion before June 29, 1906, he shall not be required to

sign the petition in his own handwriting. — i

The petition shall set forth that he is not a dis-

believer in or opposed to organized government, or a

member of or affiliated with any organization or body

of persons teaching disbelief in or opposed to organ-

ized government, a polygamist or believer in the prac-

iii

tice of polygamy, and that it is his intention to become

a citizen of the United States and to renounce abso-

lutely and forever all allegiance and fidelivy to any

foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and

particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state or

sovereignty of which he at the time of filing of his

petition may be a citizen or subject, and that it is his

intention to reside permanently within the United

States, and whether or not he has been denied admis-

sion as a citizen of the United States, and, if denied,

the ground or grounds of such denial, the court or

courts in which such decision was rendered, and that

the cause for such denial has since been cured or re-

moved, and every fact material to his naturalization

and required to be proved upon the final hearing of

his application,

As to each period of residence at any place in the

county where the petitioner resides at the time of

filing his petition, there shall be included in the peti-

tion the affidavits of at least two credible witnesses,

citizens of the United States, stating that each has

personally known the petitioner to have been a resi-

dent at such place for such period, and that the peti-

tioner is and during all such period has been a person

of good moral character.’’ (June 29, 1906, e. 3592, §4,

34 Stat. 496; March 2, 1929, ¢. 536, §6(a), 45 Stat.

1513.)

‘*§381. Oath renouncing foreign allegiance and to

support Constitution and laws. He shall, before he is

admitted to citizenship, declare on oath in open court

that he will support the Constitution of the United

States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces

and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign

prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particu-

larly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sov-

ereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject;

that he will support and defend the Constitution and

laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign

and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the

same.’’ (June 29, 1906, ¢. 3592, §4, 34 Stat. 596.)

‘*§382. Prerequisites to admission to citizenship;

residence; character: attachment to principles of Con-

stitution; proof. No alien shall be admitted to citizen-

ship unless (1) immediately preceding the date of his

petition the alien has resided continuously within the

United States for at least five years and within the

county where the petitioner resided at the time of

filing his petition for at least six months, (2) he has

resided continuously within the United States from

the date of his petition up to the time of his admission

to citizenship, and (2) during all the periods referred

to in this section he has behaved as a person of good

moral character, attached to the principles of the

Constitution of the United States, and well disposed

to the good order and happiness of the United States.

At the hearing of the petition, residence in the county

where the petitioner resides at the time of filing his

petition, and the other qualifications required by this

section during such residence, shall be proved by the

oral testimony of at least two credible witnesses, citi-

zens of the United States, in addition to the affidavits

required by Section 379 of this title to be included in

the petition. If the petitioner has resided in two or

more places in such county and for this reason two

witnesses cannot be procured to testify as to all such

residence, it may be proved by the oral testimony of

two such witnesses for each such place of residence,

in addition to the affidavits required by section 379

of this title to be included in the petition. At the

hearing, residence within the United States but out-

side the county, and the other qualifications required

by this section during such residence shall be proved

either by depositions made before a naturalization

examiner or by the oral testimony of at least two such

witnesses for each place of residence.

* x» * » * * "9

(June 29, 1906, ¢, 3592, $4, 34 Stat. 596; March 2

1929, ¢. 536, §6(b), 34 Stat. 1513.)

‘*§399. The United States shall have the right to

appear before any court or courts exercising jurisdic-

tion in naturalization proceedings for the purpose of

cross-examining the petitioner and the witnesses pro-

duced in support of his petition concerning any matter

touching or in any way affecting his right to admis-

sion to citizenship, and shall have the right to call

witnesses, produce evidence, and be heard in opposi-

tion to the granting of any petition in naturalization

proceedings.’ (June 29, 1906, ¢. 3592, §11, 34 Stat.

599. )

Denaturalization Proceedings.

**§738. Revocation of naturalization.

(a) It shall be the duty of the United States dis-

trict attorneys for the respective districts, upon affi-

davit showing good cause therefor, to institute pro-

ceedings in any court specified in subsection (a) of

section 701 in the judicial district in which the natu-

ralized 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 can-

celing the certificate of naturalization on the ground

of fraud or on the ground that such order and certifi-

cate of naturalization were illegally procured.

(b) * * 7

(d) * a a

(e) * 7” =

(f) = 7 =

(g) * * ** (Section 338 of the Nationality Code,

Oct. 14, 1940, c. 876, Title I, Subchap. ITT, §338, 54

Stat. 1158, U. S. Code, Title 8, Sec. 738.)

**§701. Jurisdiction to naturalize.

(a) Exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize persons as

citizens of the United States is hereby conferred upon

the following specified courts: District Courts of the

United States now existing * * * in any state

The jurisdiction of all the courts herein specified to

naturalize persons shall extend only to such persons

* * #

vii

resident within the respective jurisdiction of such

courts * * *

(b) . * 7

(d) * * *” (Oct. 14, 1940, c. 876, Title I, Sub-

chap. III, $301, 54 Stat. 1140, U. S. Code, Title 8, Sec.

701.)

Appeals,

‘*§225. (Judicial Code, Section 128, amended.)

Appellate Jurisdiction.

(a) Review of final decisions. The circuit courts

of appeals shall have appellate jurisdiction to review

by appeal or writ of error final decisions—

First. In the district courts * * *

. = = = * * *

(d) Circuits in which reviews shall be had. The

review under this section shall be in the following

circuit court of appeals: The decisions of a district

court of the United States within a State in the

circuit court of appeals for the circuit embracing

such State * * *

+ = = = = = >:

(U. S. Code, Title 28, See. 225.)

*§230. Tome for making application for appeal on

writ of error. No writ of error or appeal intended to

bring any judgment or decree before a circuit court

of appeals for review shall be allowed unless applica-

tion therefor be duly made within three months after

iii.

the entry of such judgment or decree.’ (U.S. Code,

Title 28, Sec. 230; Mar, 3, 1891, ¢, 517, §11, 26 Stat.

829; Feb. 13, 1925, ¢. 229, §(c), 43 Stat. 940.)

“§211. (Judicial Code, Section 116.) Circuits.

There shall be ten judicial circuits of the United

States, constituted as follows:

* * 7 * * 7 *

Ninth. The ninth circuit shall include the districts

of California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Idaho,

Montana, Hawaii, and Arizona.’’ (U.S. Code, Title

28, See. 211.)

Certiorari.

“*§347 (Judicial Code, Section 240, amended.)

‘*(a) In any case, civil or criminal, in a circuit

court of appeals, or in the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia, it shall be

competent for the Supreme Court of the United

States, upon the petition of any party thereto,

whether Government or other litigant, to require by

certiorari, either before or after the judgment or

decree by such lower court, that the cause be certified

to the Supreme Court for determination by it with

the same power and authority, and with like effect,

as if the cause had been brought there by unre-

stricted appeal.”’

(U. S. Code, Title 28, §347.)

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5.

Mr, Chairman, Gentlemen, Fellowcitizens:

Dr. Snow knowing me, and knowing, that I am a

member of the lately so much talked about German

American Bund, has asked me to come up here to-

night and tell you something about the unamerican

and subversive activities the German American Bund

is supposed to be doing. First of all, as I am not

accustomed to public speaking, I have made these

notes, and on the other hand I always have proof

to the words spoken and I have been careful to make

no statements in the following for which complete

proof is not available or I can prove myself.

It can’t happen here. What is ‘‘It’’ and can it or

can’t it happen here? It sums up the horrors which

Communism has perpetrated upon untold millions of

Christian human beings in Russia, Hungary, Ger-

many, Mexico, is perpetrating at the present moment

in Spain, and is ready to perpetrate upon American

Christians. Can it happen here? The answer is in

the affirmative. IT CAN HAPPEN HERE because

all preparations for such happenings are well under

the way.

The strategists of Sovietism, which is imposed upon

a nation by a bloodthirsty minority, are plentiful in

the United States. Murderers all, they have been

made welcome in America. For their benefit, the

former law, which debarred criminals from entering

this country was conveniently altered, and they were

received with open arms under the complimentary

label ‘‘political refugees’.

And the organization, which I belong to and which

is build up out of patriotic citizens, would not be the

center of attacks and slanderous lies, ete., if it was

not for the fact, that the Bund has always dared to

state openly and honestly, that Communism is Jew-

invented, Jew-directed and Jew-controlled, both in

this country as in Russia, Hungary, Mexico, Spain,

China and formerly as it was in Germany.

I, as most of the Bund-members, have seen Commu-

nism in Germany and I tell you, Gentlemen, no-one

who has not seen the dangers of Communism can not

realize it. You have seen pictures of Spain and

China, where innocent women, with babies in their

arms are coming down the streets and are shot at,

but you have not seen the machineguns behind these

women, who are only used for shields and that’s only

a little part of Communism and then talk about hu-

manity. What would you do, just ask yourself. But

I was there at that time in Germany and that’s why

I will fight to the last drop of blood in me to beware

my fellowcitizens and my community for any hap-

penings like that. And everybody else would, if we

only realized the danger, which is lying over us, But

most of our fellow citizens do not take enough interest

about what is going on, and when the house is burn-

ing, they wonder how it could catch fire.

But as citizens of the United States now, we have

the duty, to make use of our knowledge and expe-

rience of Communism, we have seen it over there and

we certainly want to prevent this our country now,

to go through the same terrible happenings, which

took place in Russia, Hungary, Germany and are now

taking place in Spain and China.

In our fight against Communism in this country we

have been and are always attacked as ‘‘Nazis’’. This

however is an old trick of Communism to spread a

scare of Fascism, in order to detract attention from

their own subversive, un-American activities. That

is why we are today charging Congressman Dickstein

with the persecution of upright, loyal American citi-

zens as ‘‘Nazis’’, making unwarranted charges, while

hiding behind his congressional immunity. We charge

him, by spreading this ‘‘Nazi scare’’ to give his Rus-

sian friends more time for their communistie under-

mining of American principles. We charge, as I

said before, Mr. Dickstein, as a member of the immi-

gration committee of opening the gates of the United

States to foreign agitators, now traveling all over this

country, spreading race hatred and class hatred.

German Americans in the past have always shown

their loyalty to the United States in any emergency.

It might have been under George Washington and

Abraham Lincoln and again it was in the last world

war, Where in many a case brother has fought against

brother, but they were loyal to the United States.

Today another emergency has arisen. The German

American Bund is calling all patriotic citizens to the

colors, in order to fight side by side with many other

patriotic societies against the widespread red network

in the United States, fight against Communism, An-

archism, against lawlessness and Godlessness and for

real democracy, for the benefit of this our country

the United States of America.

The German American Bund, being a nationwide

American organization, is not defending the policies

of the new German Reich, because we feel that the

laws passed in Germany are none of our business.

We merely present the other side of the story, which

has been presented in our press rather one-sided. We

do not try to help Germany, as they are getting along

lots better and very nicely without any help and

advice from us. But we do try to promote good-will

and friendship between the U. S. and Germany, as

they always have been friends and only got plunged

in the world war through the drums of propaganda

and this propaganda is spread worse today than ever.

May | show you a few samples from both sides.

Treatment of the Jews in Germany, etc., is as little

our business, as Germany pays any attention to the

fact that we have laws in this country prohibiting the

intermarriage between Gentiles and Orientals, or hav-

ing social clubs in America, which do not permit Jews

to become members. Or having resorts where on the

entrance are signs placed: Gentiles only. Or having

grounds where Jews can not enter or even buy and

this is right across the bay in Burlingame. Or having

street cars, where the negros have their special com-

partments, etc., so why shall we kick about what

Germany is doing when they pass certain laws. Lots

of these things look funny to us but if we were there,

we probably could understand things a lot better too.

May I just mention the church situation, by coming

xiii

right to the point. Here church and state are sep-

arate, and nobody thinks anything about that, and

that is just what they are trying to do over there, and

that’s why all the big squealing and church fights are

going, because al] those ministers and priests and

clergymen will be losing their nice fat government

pay checks. And through all their erying they are

trying to arouse public opinion.

And now may I in short present the case, of which

Dr. Snow has spoken to me about too, which hap-

pened just a few days ago in New York between

Bund members and the American Legion. You may

not like it, the way I will bring it out to you, but the

way I think, I can not change it and I am always

right straight from the shoulder, whether you like it

or not. It may not be uncommon for fists to fly at a

political rally, overcharged with wine, whisky and

beer, but when a peaceful assembly of men with their

wives and children, which was the greater part of

the audience, is invaded by a score of uninvited guests,

whatever honorable designation they may claim, for

the specific purpose of starting a riot, and then in the

last minute, clapping on American Legion caps on

their heads, and blood flows as a consequence of this

riot, then it is time for law-abiding citizens to con-

sider ways and means of suppressing the kind of

agitation, that leads to such results.

This riot apparently was instigated by Jews and

scheduled for this certain day. And even our Repre-

sentative Samuel Dickstein must have known about

this ahead of time. According to press reports he

X1V

recently declared in Congress, that there would be

bloodshed at this scheduled meeting.

You gentlemen as members of the American Legion,

I do not think, would approve to tactics, as just

explained and I am confirmed in the belief in the

Legion’s fairness and honorable aims in the report

that J. F. Cross, state commander of the American

Legion, said that of all the names mentioned in con-

nection with the disturbance, only two at any time

were members of the Legion, according to the records

*** Thomas F, Dugan, Kings County commander of

the Legion, said investigation had been started. He

added that the members of the Legion who attended

this meeting in Legion caps were in clear violation

of the mandates and orders of the national organiza-

tion, and must be punished. Investigation of the

disorder was started by the police department and the

American Legion heads. He also warned them, that

if they did not take disciplinary action against the

guilty legionnaires, he recommended to the state ex-

ecutive committee that the charters of their posts be

suspended or revoked.

Gentlemen, all American patriots, Legion members,

veterans and others are welcome as our guests at any

time, open or closed meetings. We desire and intend

to attain the friendship of all patriotic American or-

ganizations, determined with us to maintain or recon-

stitute these our United States a sovereign and inde-

pendent, morally and ethically clean, socially just and

God-fearing nation, and hence the uncompromising

enemies of international, atheistic, Jewish Marxism

in all its guises and disguises. Let white people run

this country, as they did before the Jewish invasion.

Over one-quarter million European Jews are coming

to the United States to throw white American workers

out of jobs.

In closing I will read you a couple reports on the

Bund from here and there.

* Portland Police, Congress Investigation, General

Robinson Santa Rosa Celebration, Purpose and Aim.

I am thanking you of having given me the oppor-

tunity of speaking to you about the German American

Bund and I am sure, that you do understand the

Bund lots better now, and this would be the case, if

everybody would know more about the Bund. But

should it occur, that the Bund ever would change its

guide lines to anything un-American or subversive, I

would withdraw my name from the membership list

immediately. I believe America for the Americans

and if these agitators see no matter what kind they

may be, see a haven in Communistic Russia, or may

these agitators be Fascist or Nazis, why don’t they

go back to Russia, Spain, Italy or Germany? And

if we do not have the laws to get rid of them, let

Congress enact laws at once, that will do it.

America is a great and hospitable country, but it

should have no room for conspirators, traitors, in-

grates and fools. And that is why most any national

thinking American, no matter what nationality he

may be, may he even be born here, is today called a

Nazi or Fascist.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.