Full opinion text
MOINET, District Judge. The defendants have contended that the case of Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 1335, 87 L.Ed. 1796, is decisive of this case. I do not so hold. Some features of the Schneiderman case are applicable, such as the procedural requirements. In the main, however, these cases which were consolidated for trial, and which we called collectively, the Bund cases, present to the Court a quite different situation from that which existed in the Schneiderman case. The suit to cancel Schneiderman’s citizenship was based solely upon illegality and not upon fraud. In the Bund cases the Government charges fraud, and the proofs in support of those charges show that the defendants practiced a fraud upon the naturalization court and upon the United States, by purporting to take a bona fide oath of allegiance to the United States when in truth and fact each secretly retained some measure of allegiance to Germany, and also secretly lacked attachment to American principles, as set forth in the respective findings filed herein. In the Schneiderman case the Court looked with disfavor upon the imputation of the teachings of an organization to one of its members. The Court recognizes the great force and full applicability of this rule of law. However, these are not the same kind of cases as Schneiderman. Even so far as the illegality of the procurement of citizenship by Schneiderman is concerned, entirely aside from fraud, the complaint there presented a very slender legal thread, when compared with these cases. The Schneiderman complaint charges that the certificate had been illegally procured in that petitioner was not at the time of his naturalization, and during the five years preceding his naturalization “had not behaved as, a person attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, but in truth and in fact during all of said times, respondent * * * was a member of and affiliated with and believed in and supported the principles of certain organizations then known as the Workers (Communist) Party of America and the Young Workers (Communist) League of America, whose principles were opposed to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and advised, advocated and taught the overthrow of the Government, Constitution, and laws of the United States by force and violence.” If the Government failed at any point to prove the chain of facts necessary to sustain that charge it had failed to prove its case. The Court found that Schneider-man’s beliefs did not show lack of attachment to the Constitution of the United States. The issue then depended upon whether membership in, affiliation with, or support of the Communist Party organizations amounted to clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the naturalization court could not have been satisfied that petitioner was attached to the principles of the Constitution when he was naturalized. It is admitted in the Schneiderman case that the evidence was conflicting as to what the organizations advocated, and the petitioner testified that he did not believe in those teachings of the organizations which were found to be reprehensible and in conflict with the Constitution. In that situation the Supreme Court held that where two interpretations of an organization’s program are possible, the one reprehensible and a bar to naturalization and the other permissible, a court in a denaturalization proceeding is not justified in canceling a certificate of citizenship by imputing the reprehensible interpretation to a member of the organization in the absence of overt acts indicating that such was his interpretation. In the Bund cases, there is no conflict of evidence as to the reprehensible character of the organization’s program. No one has even attempted to show that there is a permissible interpretation of its program. It is overwhelmingly shown that the German American Bund and its predecessor organizations were formed and carried on for the purpose of aiding Germany. Whatever benefits would accrue to the United States, according to their claim, were secondary and incidental to helping Germany. One can no longer doubt that the program of the Bund was deliberately designed to extend the authority, influence and control of the Nazi German government over German nationals, former German nationals and persons of German descent in the United States. The leaders of the Bund maintained contact with and took directions from high officials of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler was looked upon as the personification of their fondest hopes. The Bund assiduously taught the sanctity of the blood ties. They preached the doctrine that naturalization which resulted in expatriation of a German was a mere paper transaction. Assimilation into American ways of thinking was represented to be a corruption of German blood and culture. The idea of denial of political equality to non-German racial groups, as advocated by the Bund, is absolutely opposed to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, as are also other features of the Bund program. The practices in Germany of denial of political rights to racial minorities was applauded by the Bund. The establishment and maintenance of governmental authority upon the leadership principle — Nazi dictatorship — is repugnant to our principles of representative government. Democratic ideas of government of laws and not of men, with constitutional guarantees of individual rights and limitations, checks and balances in powers of government were scoffed at in Bund teachings as being decadent weaknesses. The Bund demanded continuous obeisance of its followers and required a repeated show of loyalty to the German cause in the use of the German language, the raised right hand Nazi-like salute, the display of German flags, the brazen insistence upon display of .the swastika, the celebration of German National Socialist holidays and heroes, the distribution of German propaganda, the adoption and use of uniforms patterned after those of German Stormtroopers, the use of German form of organization, the encouragement of frequent visits to Germany and the use of German books and methods to teach American youth. On the other hand, the Bund in its publications and by its speakers acted as a continuous detractor of American newspapers, people, political practices and general culture. Persons of German descent were pictured as victims of organized oppression in America. Germans in other countries were said to be suffering even worse oppression. Germany was upheld as a helpless nation who by super-human effort and inspired leadership had won the right to unify all German blood-brothers under one strong government. The use of force in international affairs was said to be Germany’s only chance of obtaining justice. The members of the Bund were exhorted by official Bund publications to resist compliance with American laws. Bundists were taught to prepare themselves for speedy, organized action under Bund leadership and authority in the event of future widespread disorder in America. Considering the overwhelming evidence produced to show that the Bund program was of the un-American, subversive character indicated above, it is understandable that no one has arisen to say that the program of the German-American Bund was anything but reprehensible. It follows, therefore, that the logical difficulties encountered by the Court in the Schneider-man case, are not presented to the Court in this case. There are additional distinctions between the cases, which have been urged by the Government here, and some of them are also substantial. For example, in the Bund cases, in addition to evidence of membership and activity in the organizations, there is evidence of statements and conduct on the part of the individual defendants which shows that they believed and acted in accordance with the Bund program and in some instances, independent of the organizations, the defendants spoke and acted in ways inconsistent with unqualified allegiance to the United States and attachment to its principles. Accordingly, the orders admitting the defendants to citizenship are respectively set aside and canceled. MOINET, District Judge. It seems to me that the Findings, of Fact, with respect to the activities of the German-American Bund and its predecessor organizations, are necessary to an understanding of the decision of the Court with respect to each of these defendants. In re BAECKER Findings of Fact. 1. The defendant herein entered the United States as an immigrant in October of 1928. 2. Prior to September 9, 1935, the defendant was a native and citizen of Germany. 3. On May 9, 1935, defendant herein filed a petition for citizenship No. 92351 in the United States District Court, Detroit, Michigan, in which he alleged under oath as follows: “I am attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. It is my intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich, of (whom, which) at this time I am a subject (citizen) and it is my intention to reside permanently in the United States.” 4. On September 9, 1935, this court entered an order admitting the defendant to citizenship, and the Clerk issued Certificate No. 3915633 on the same date the defendant took the following oath of allegiance: “I hereby declare, on oath that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to Germany, of (whom, which) I have heretofore been a subject (citizen); that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.” Although Baecker and his family resided in the United States since 1928, none of the family have, with the exception of the defendant, voluntarily obtained United States citizenship. His wife and his children, with the exception of those who were derivative citizens, made no effort to apply for citizenship until recently. Baecker had a father and mother residing in Germany until their deaths in 1940. In addition he has a brother, sister and other relatives, including a cousin Willy Van den Bruck in Germany. The defendant has two brothers living in the United States. 5. The defendant herein was a member of the German-American Bund and its predecessor organization, The Friends of New Germany, from 1933 until 1939. 6. The defendant held the position of contact man in the German-American Bund from 1936 until September 24, 1938. The position of contact man was that of representative of the Bund to other German organizations in the City of Detroit. T. The uncontradicted testimony of Scott and Neumann, who were former Bund members, is that the defendant herein attended closed officers’ meetings of the Friends of New Germany and the German-American Bund from 1933 until 1938 at which meetings policies and programs of the Bund were discussed. 8. In May, 1935, the defendant herein attended a Regional Convention for the Middle West District of the Friends of New Germany in Detroit. A program, called Deutsche Tag, was issued in connection with this convention which contained a clear exposition of the purposes and aims of the Friends of New Germany, its adoption and belief in the principles of National Socialism and its loyalty and allegiance to the New Germany as represented by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. This program also contained a facsimile reproduction of a dedication by Adolf Hitler on a copy of Mein Kampf which Adolf Hitler had personally sent to the Chicago Teutonia in 1924. This program was found in the defendant’s possession in 1941, and he admits that he had attended this convention and received this program. Anyone who read this program would have no doubt of the true aims and purposes of the Bund which was then known as the Friends of New Germany. 9. There was also found in the defendant’s possession a copy of the Yearbook of the German-American Bund for 1937. From the excerpts from this book read to the court, there can be no doubt that the Bund stood for National Socialism and Germany. There was also found in defendant’s possession Bund paraphernalia such as membership applications, a program of Bund celebration held on July 4, 1938, and a notice of a meeting. 10. Defendant claims that as far as he knew, the Bund was a social organization, but the evidence dearly and convincingly discloses to this court that the defendant was fully aware of the true aims and purposes of the German-American Bund and its predecessor organization. The defendant admitted under questioning that National Socialism was one of the main topics of discussion in the Bund. He admitted that the Horst Wessel Song and the Deutschland Lied were sung as a regular part of the meetings. He admitted that the swastika flag was prominently displayed and that he participated in giving the Nazi salute of the raised right hand at the close of meetings, together with the oral salute of “Sieg” or “Sieg Heil”. Defendant claims that he resigned from the German-American Bund because it was too radical and that they emphasized National Socialism too much, and yet, in earlier portions of his testimony defendant claims that he did not know what the Bund stood for. The court finds that the defendant was well aware during his entire membership in the German-American Bund that it stood for a system of government diametrically opposed to the system of government in the United States. The defendant’s claim that he resigned from the Bund because it stood too strong for Germany cannot be maintained because the uncontradicted evidence disclosed to this court that within a few months after his alleged resignation he began a recruiting program to furnish Germany with workers which it needed to build up its industrial and war factories. Within two months before the time that Germany launched its invasion of Poland this defendant who had been a skilled munitions worker in the Krupp Plant in Germany, and who still maintained correspondence with friends and relatives close to that plant in Germany, received word by letter from his son August in Germany that Herman Goering, Reich Marshal of Germany, said Germany needed 3,000 more workers from America in the Fall. 11. The uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses produced by the government on the activities of the National Bund disclosed that the Bund was connected with the recruiting of workmen to return to Germany. The testimony of Kapfer and Weiler showed that they filed their applications with Baecker for return to Germany and the applications were made at a Bund meeting in 1939. The court finds that Baecker was a member of the Bund at least until the middle of 1939. In any event, the court finds that the defendant’s recruiting program was a continuation of his efforts on behalf of Germany and National Socialism which had commenced with his joining the Bund Friends of New Germany. His testimony on the witness stand that he resigned from the Bund because it was too radical is completely rebutted by the letter of resignation as contact man in which he states: “It has always been a pleasure for me to work with you as well as with all of the comrades.” • Signed “With German greetings”. This letter clearly demonstrates to the court that the defendant was on the best of terms with the then leader and with all the comrades and enjoyed doing the work of the Bund, which consisted in voicing and spreading the theories of National Socialism and allegiance to the New Germany. It is significant to note at this point that the defendant signed the letter, “Mit deutschem Gross.” A witness on behalf of the government, Joseph Morgan Roland, who qualified as an expert on National Socialism, testified that this greeting in National Socialist philosophy had the same meaning as “Heil Hitler.” It is exceedingly significant to this court that a person who claimed to be an American citizen and practiced American ways should use a greeting which was peculiarly a symbol of Nazi Germany. 12. The court finds that the defendant never intended to reside permanently in the United States, and at all times intended to establish at a future date a permanent residence in Germany. (1) ' Significant in this regard is the maintenance by the defendant of his old age pension which he had started in Germany in 1902. (2) In 1937 Baecker prepared for his eventual return to Germany for permanent residence by purchasing $3,500 of Rueckwanderer marks which represented all the money he owned. I find as a fact that Baecker was aware of the German law which prescribed that Rueckwanderer marks could only be used in Germany by those who intended to return to Germany for permanent residence. I find as a fact that the defendant, when he executed his application for Rueckwanderer marks, stated that he intended to return to Germany for permanent residence. In furtherance thereof, I find that the defendant obtained a certificate of acceptability on the part of the German government to the defendant’s reimmigration to Germany. (3) I find that the defendant in furtherance of his plan to return to Germany for permanent residence, purchased a building containing six flats and business space from which he would derive an income to support himself in Germany, and since he did not pay the complete purchase price, he gave a mortgage for the balance. The fact that the defendant did not remain in Germany for permanent residence in 1937 is explained by himself that he knew that under the German laws a mortgagor could not take up permanent residence in Germany until three years from the date of the giving of the mortgage, which three-year period would expire July 1, 1940. Baecker admits that when he returned to the United States in 1937, he initiated efforts by correspondence with his cousin, Willy Van den Bruck, who was Baecker’s agent in Germany, to obtain from the German authorities special permission to return to Germany before the three-year period had expired. Van den Bruck, on Baecker’s request, did attempt to obtain this special permission from the Herman government, and he advised Baecker that he could obtain such special permission for him to return to Germany by obtaining certificates from the N.S.D.A.P. and the German Foreign Organization showing that it was upon their request that he had changed his scheduled return to Germany. Van den Bruck further advised Baecker in this connection that this should not be difficult for Baecker to do in view of the document which Baecker had had in his possession and had shown to Van den Bruck at the time Baecker was in Germany in 1937. (4) Baecker testified that he had been advised by his parents in 1932 that they expected him as the oldest son to take the parental estate in Germany, valued at 15,000 marks in 1937, and make provision for the other heirs in Germany or elsewhere. The proceeds of this estate likewise could not be used outside of Germany. If the defendant continued to reside permanently in the United States, it was unnecessary for him at any time to take Ms money to Germany to take over the parental estate and provide for the other heirs. (5) The defendant on the witness stand repeatedly denied that he had corresponded with various people in Germany and on other occasions where the proof was almost irrebuttable, he testified that he could not remember any correspondence. I find as a fact that the letters received by Baecker from Germany and saved by him clearly and convincingly show that he carried on continuous correspondence with those persons relative to the matters mentioned in the letters. (6) The correspondence from friends and relatives in Germany to Baecker in Detroit show clearly that those persons in Germany were expecting the return of Baecker and his family to take up residence in Germany and that they had received the information upon which they based tMs expectation by correspondence from Baecker and Ms family. Even correspondence from defendant’s children, Anne and Augie, while in Europe in 1939, indicated that they expected the family to return to Germany. Correspondence further shows that Baecker had considered the place in Germany where he was to reside. He had formerly lived in Essen, and had worked in the Krupp Munitions Factory there. The correspondence shows that he was considering to resume residence in Essen unless conditions upon his arrival in Germany would make it more advantageous to him to take up residence in another industrial city in Germany. 13. Beginning in 1938 Baecker had close connections with high officials from Germany who were launching the Volkswagen Works and had discussed with Dr. Dyckhoff, the head of Volkswagen Works, the opportunities which that industry would afford for skilled workmen in Germany. Baecker had assisted in obtaining employment in the Volkswagen Works in 1938 and 1939 for approximately sixty workmen from Detroit, Michigan, including his son, August, Jr. The correspondence between Baecker and Ms son, August, Jr., shows that his son was aware that Ms father was not acting in conformity with the United States law in recruiting these workmen when the son deliberately lied to the American Consul in Stuttgart about his connection with his father’s activities, stating to the Consul that he had come from Flint, Michigan. Baecker Mmself testified that.the reason Ms son must have lied to the Consul was because he was afraid of getting his father into trouble. 14. Baecker subscribed in 1938 to a magazine, “Joy and Work,” published in Germany, which was the magazine of the Arbeits Front, the official German government labor union. 15. WMle the defendant denied that he had knowledge of the National Socialist government in Germany, the court finds that from his numerous contacts with officials of that government, and membersMp in the Friends of New Germany and German American Bund, he did have knowledge of its orgamzation and operations. 16. The court observes from the defendant’s demeanor on the witness stand, his attitude, Ms hesitancy in answering questions, his failure to give direct answers to questions propounded by the government and alleged lapses of memory, that the defendant has not fully and truthfully replied to the questions asked of him by the government attorney. 17. Baecker maintained an inactive bank account in his personal bank in Essen, Germany, throughout the time that he was in the United States, and resumed active banking connections in 1937 to the point where he had at least fbur bank accounts which he was using for his current purposes in Germany, both business and personal. 18. In 1937 Baecker had calling cards printed for his use in Germany, and on this card he represented the address of his former home as his residence in Germany, which he said was in accordance with the German custom. 19. On October 24, 1941, an indictment was filed in this court charging the defendant herein with having acted as an agent of a foreign power, to-wit, Germany, without having been duly registered as such with the State Department of the United States, and defendant later pleaded guilty to this charge although the defendant claims now that he did not know he was doing wrong or acting for the German government at the time when he actually committed the acts. This is rebutted by the uneontradicted testimony of William Scott, who testified that in 1938 Baecker told Scott, “If the authorities knew what I was doing, I would go to jail.” His present beliefs are also rebutted by his daughter, who wrote, “Father worked so hard for Germany in America, and his son gets nothing for it,” in complaining about the lack of recognition given to Baecker’s son in Germany. This is also borne out by Baecker’s resignation as an officer of the Bund wherein he stated, “I definitely feel I have done my best for Germandom.” The defendant even now admits that he had some doubt as to the legality of his activities in recruiting skilled labor to go to Germany since he testified that he asked Hagemeister, who was also engaged in this recruiting work, whether or not it was legal, and, furthermore, consulted an attorney in Detroit about it, who_ told him that it would be illegal. He further testified that he at no time took this matter up with competent officials of the United States government to determine whether or not his actions were legal. 20. In 1938 Baecker made several contacts with a Mrs. Theresa Behrens who was then connected with the YWCA International Center in Detroit, Michigan, as a result of which she referred to Baecker prospective reimmigrants to Germany for assistance in obtaining jobs in Germany. Only German workers were acceptable. While some records were found in the International Center of these interviews, no corresponding records were found in the possession of Baecker. The circumstances strongly indicate that this was a secret arrangement. Mrs. Behrens has subsequently been convicted upon her plea of guilty of the offense of conspiracy with seven other persons to commit espionage in violation of the laws of the United States to send information of value to the German government. 21. On June 30, 1934, Baecker obtained a German passport which was valid until June 30, 1939, and was in his possession until he was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on August 11, 1941. 22. On February 27, 1937, Baecker obtained a United States passport which was valid until February 27, 1939. 23. In 1937 and 1938 Baecker contributed money to the German winter hilfswerk, which money was to be sent to Germany through the German Consul. 24. In 1941 Baecker made a $10.00 contribution to Kyffhauser Winter Hilfswerk Fund, the proceeds of which were sent to the German government. 25. On August 11, 1941, August Baecker had in his possession lists bearing the names of German war prisoners in nine different prison camps in the Dominion of Canada which he admits he had obtained from the restaurant of Max Stephan, the convicted traitor. 26. Baecker stated that he made no records whatever of his transactions in assisting the return to Germany of numerous workmen sent from the Detroit area. Correspondence and records which came to him as the result of such transactions were not found in his possession on August 11, 1941, although he admitted that he had received replies from the New York office after submitting the names of such men to the German agents there. 27. In the spring of 1939 William Kayser, a tool and die maker of German descent who had been employed for many years at the Dodge Motor Company in Detroit, received a letter from August Baecker, in response to which he went to see Baecker at the German-American Bund meeting place in Max Stephan’s Restaurant. At this time Baecker asked Kayser if he were interested in returning to Germany to work. Upon being advised by Kayser that he was not interested in returning to Germany at all, but that he would like to know how Baecker got his name and address, Baecker recovered the letter from Kayser which Baecker had written, and at the same time Baecker told Kayser that he had obtained his name and address from Germany. 28. Baecker had in his possession at the time of his arrest a quantity of isolationist literature. 29. Baecker attended a lecture by an isolationist speaker at an America First Rally held at Cass Technical High School, Detroit, Michigan, in 1940 or 1941. 30. Baecker made a visit to Germany in the summer of 1932 and again in 1937.' 31. Baecker was very much interested in having his son, August, Jr., prepare himself for an engineering career by working in German industries, and it was for this reason that August, Jr. went to Germany in the summer of 1939. August, Jr., had been attending school in the Ford Motor Company Apprentice School for tool and die makers, as well as working in the Ford Motor Company at Dear-born, Michigan, up to June, 1939. 32. Baecker admitted that the outbreak of the war in Europe in September, 1939, disrupted his plans. 33. The court finds that the defendant’s membership in the German-American Bund and its predecessor organization, The Friends of New Germany, immediately prior to his naturalization is convincing proof that the defendant was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, nor that he was well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. His continued membership and activity in the Bund after his naturalization can lead only to the conclusion, that the defendant at no time intended to become a citizen of the United States, but intended to retain his allegiance to Germany. This was further borne out by his admitted activities on behalf of the German government and efforts to develop German industry by the recruiting of workers to return to Germany. 34. The Court finds that defendant Baecker became a member of the Friends of New Germany, Detroit Group, in 1933, and continued as a member of the successor organization, German-American Bund, until 1939. That although defendant claims he was a Bund member from 1934 to 1938, the testimony of his fellow defendants and other Bund members clearly shows that defendant was a member from at least 1933 until 1939. Paul Gies, who was leader during 1933 and January, 1934, testified that Baecker was a member while he was leader. Baecker made much of an alleged resignation from the Bund dated September 24, 1938; yet, the testimony of the then leader of the Detroit Unit, John H. B. Schreiber, the recipient of the letter, shows that this was accepted by him merely as a resignation as contact man. Louis Jaenichen, Jr., on whose farm the Bund maintained a camp and held meetings, testified that when the Bund built its pavilion in the summer of 1939, Baecker was one of those who helped to construct it. It was testified by several other Bund members that the pavilion was built in 1939. Baecker also admitted that members of his family attended Bund affairs after September 24, 1938. Weiler and Kapfer testified that they attended Bund meetings in 1939 in connection with their efforts to return to Germany through Baecker and met Baecker at those Bund meetings which were held in Max Stephan’s Restaurant. Further letters in evidence from son Auggie written in Germany on the day after July 4, 1939, inquires of the Baecker family as to their attending the camp on July 4, 1939. 35. The court finds upon a consideration of all the evidence that the testimony of the defendant could not be relied upon with respect to several points in issue. 36. The court finds from a consideration of all the evidence that Defendant was for several years attached to and supported the National Socialism theories, known as the Blood Theory, the Volk Theory, the concept of the “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer”, and the leadership principle — all as advocated by the German-American Bund. The defendant identified himself with the German Volkdom. 37. The court finds that defendant Baecker came to the United States in 1928 and brought his wife and five children here in order to make a better living and to enable his children to become educated in this country. As soon as the youngest child finished high school, the evidence shows that the plans of Baecker to return to Germany began to appear, as indicated by his trip to Germany in 1937 and the purchase of Rueckwanderer marks. Conclusions of Law. 1. The defendant at the time of making and filing his petition for naturalization, was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. It was not his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich, of which he at that time was a citizen and it was not his intention to reside permanently in the United States. 2. The oath of allegiance which the defendant took at the time of the order admitting him to citizenship was false and fraudulent in that he did not absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to Germany, of which he had theretofore been a citizen; it was further false and fraudulent in that he did not in good faith have the will to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and he did not have the will to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and he did not take this obligation freely,. without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. 3. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of allegiance had a mental reservation of allegiance to Germany. 4. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of allegiance had a mental reservation that he was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. 5. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of allegiance had a mental reservation that he was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. 6. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of allegiance had a mental reservation that he did not intend to reside permanently in the United States, but would in the future return to Germany to live. 7. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of allegiance had a mental reservation that he would not support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but would reserve to himself the right to determine who or what he would treat as an enemy of the same. 8. The order admitting defendant to citizenship was procured by fraud. 9. An order should be entered setting aside the original order admitting the defendant to citizenship and cancelling his certificate of citizenship. ORDER CANCELLING CITIZENSHIP At a session of said Court held in the Federal Building, in Detroit, Michigan, on March 10, 1944. Present: Honorable Edward J. Moinet, District Judge. The above entitled cause having come on for trial, pursuant to notice, and both parties having appeared, given evidence and crossexamined witnesses, and the plaintiff having submitted proof in support of the allegations in its complaint to revoke the naturalization of defendant, from which it appears to the Court, after carefully considering all of the evidence and arguments of both parties, that the allegations in said, complaint to revoke naturalization are true, and that the defendant procured naturalization by fraud. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the order heretofore entered admitting the said August Baecker to citizenship, upon petition number 92351, be and the same is hereby revoked and set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Certificate of Naturalization Number 3,915,633 heretofore issued to August Baecker be and the same is hereby cancelled on the ground of fraud, and the same shall be delivered and surrendered to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and transmitted by him to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan forthwith transmit a certified copy of this order to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In re EBERT FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Fritz Bruno Ebert was born in Zwickau, Saxony, Germany August 5, 1882. He migrated to the United States in June 14. 1923 and has resided in the United States since that time. 2. Defendant Ebert made and filed his petition for naturalization in the U. S. District Court at Detroit, Michigan on April 24, 1929 in which he represented as follows: “I am attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and it is my intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich of whom at this time I am a subject, and it is.my intention to reside permanently in the United States.” 3. He was thereafter admitted to citizenship of the United States by an order of the court based upon his petition No. 41941 on July 29, 1929. On the same day defendant took an oath of allegiance to the United States as follows: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich of whom I have heretofore been a subject; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” 4. The representations made by the defendant in his petition for naturalization were false. 5. His oath of allegiance was false. 6. Defendant at the time he took his petition for naturalization lacked an intention to reside permanently in the United States; he further lacked attachment to the principles of the Constitution of The United States; he did not renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to Germany of which he at that time was a citizen or subject. 7. Prior to the 29th day of July, 1929 defendant Ebert was a native and citizen of Germany. 8. At the time of taking his oath of allegiance, defendant Ebert did not absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to Germany of which he had theretofore been a citizen or subject; he did not have the will to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; he did not have the will to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. He did have a mental reservation of allegiance to Germany; he did have a secret purpose to evade his obligations as a citizen of the United States and to serve the cause of his native country Germany. 9. Defendant resided in Germany from the time of his birth until 1923 following the oceupation of clerk in a candy manufacturing company. He served in the German Army during the first world war from 1915 to 1920 having the rank of a corporal at the time of his discharge. He was a member of the Kyffhaueser in 1923, an organization of German Army Veterans of the first world war. During his residence in Germany he was a member of the German Clerks’ Union Verband Deutscher Handlungsgehilfen. In 1923 defendant was one of the twelve co-founders of the Detroit Unit of the Stahlhelm which was a German War Veterans’ Organization in the United States. He is not shown to have been in disagreement at any time with the purposes of the Stahlhelm, but was excluded because he critisized one, Ziegler, for the manner in which he replaced Karl Leonhardt as President. 10. Defendant has a brother-in-law named Wilhelm Grimm who is an official of the Nazi party and with whom the defendant corresponded. During part of the time that the defendant corresponded with William Grimm the latter was stationed in Helsingfors, Finland as a representative of the Nazi party for the German Government, or both. The defendant also has a friend named Hans Stephan whom he describes as his closest friend since boyhood who lived in Zwickau, Germany, and from whom defendant received information concerning the activities of the Nazi party in Germany. 11. Defendant has been employed in the United States for many years as an attendant in the Power House of the Ford Motor Company. 12. Defendant was divorced from his former wife in 1930 and since that time has lived as a single roomer in one rooming house and another. He has few personal friends or visitors who have had intimate contact with him in Detroit, Michigan. 13. Defendant claims to be a stamp collector and, as such, has written many letters to persons whom he describes as friends interested in his stamp collecting, some of whom were in Germany and other European countries, also in South America. By means of this correspondence messages concerning matters other than stamp collecting have been transmitted between the defendant and persons in Germany, sometimes through an intermediary in South America or a third country. 14. Defendant is not a photographer and does not show any inclinations toward photography, but has on occasion collected photographs of installations in the Plant of the Ford Motor Company, some of which he admittedly sent to his friends in Germany. 15. Defendant had in his possession many German medals. Several of these medals were awarded to him for his service in the German Army. A large number of the medals were issued by officials of the Nazi Government and party in Germany for various services to the party and for honors bestowed by the party upon individuals for noteworthy adherence to their cause, all of which were prominently decorated with the swastika symbol of Nazi, Germany. 16. Defendant sent information to Germany through his personal friends and correspondents which was important to Germany and which was said by those correspondents in Germany to have been transmitted by them to high Nazi officials in Germany. He had been informed that Germany wanted to know what was going on in the United States. 17. The defendant habitually wore a swastika design on his watchcharm. He also displayed swastika pennants on the fenders of his automobile. He kept swastika flags on the wall in the room in which he lived. 18. While the defendant admitted having written to Germany and sending information and having received Nazi medals from Germany, he claimed that the medals bearing swastika designs were sent to him merely to satisfy his curiosity as to what the Nazi party was doing in his old home town in Germany. There is no indication, however, that the defendant maintained any general collection of medals nor that he had in his possession any medals or souvenirs evidencing an interest in American institutions, customs, life or progress. 19. The defendant falsified in his testimony upon the stand concerning his possession of American flags in the room in which he lived. It was apparent to the court that the defendant was making a clumsy effort to impress this court with some attachment to the United States whereas, upon all of the evidence in this case, it is most convincingly apparent to the court that the defendant had a deep and abiding interest in Germany to the exclusion of matters in the United States. 20. The defendant requested and received large amounts of pro-Nazi propaganda entitled “Bundles from Britain,” some of which bore photographs of American soldier dead of the first world war. Ebert’s purpose in obtaining those was to aid Germany by keeping America out of the war. 21. Defendant received German propaganda from Germany, from the Fichte Bund and from his personal friends in Germany. The Fichte Bund is an official German propaganda agency with headquarters in Hamburg, Germany. 22. Defendant received much printed matter explaining and propagandizing in favor of the principles of German national socialism. 23. Defendant was requested by an official of the Nazi party to supply certain particular information from the United States about the attitude in the United States toward the Nazi program and the defendant complied with this request by furnishing him information. 24. Defendant sent information to two of his personal friends in Germany with knowledge that officials in Germany desired to obtain such information from the United States. It is significant to the court, in view of the quantities of printed matter, medals, insignia, etc. that defendant collected, that there is nothing in the evidence indicating that the defendant was interested in the principles of American Government. He had nothing in his possession indicating a patriotic American attitude. 25. In 1939, while the German army was fighting in Poland, defendant stated to a witness that Poland was “getting what they deserved because too aggressive”. He stated “anyone could see that they were suffering from some kind of neglomania, jumping on Germany.” He also stated that “one German is worth ten Poles.” The defendant justified the action of Germany against Poland and said he believed that Poland would become better under German rule. The defendant had a picture of Hitler on the wall of the room in which he lived. He also had small swastika ornaments around the room. In conversation with one witness, defendant spoke about having the courage of his convictions. He was speaking at the time in favor of the principles of Hitler and the National Socialist Regime in Germany. The defendant told one witness that, although this country had been very good to him, he still believed that he would go back to Germany and that everything in Germany would be better than it had been before. On one occasion defendant described Adolf Hitler as a genius and a superman. On an occasion in 1940 Ebert stated that Germany would win the war; that the United States would not intervene, and that even if it did it was too late to change the situation in Europe. Ebert justified the program of Hitler, including his actions against the Jews, depriving them of life, liberty and property. He stated that was the only way Hitler could get rid of the Jews and that was to kill them. In about 1937 Ebert condemned the Versailles Treaty as being unjust to Germany and stated that Germany had a right to re-arm, also that Germany had a right to take other countries of Europe, such as Czechoslovakia and Austria because there were in those countries people who spoke the German language and who were of German origin. He also believed that Germany was justified in drawing in skilled laborers “because Germany would need them in the coming war.” Ebert also believed that Germany was entitled to acquire colonies in order to get raw materials and to provide living space for her people. 26. The testimony of the witnesses as to statements made by the defendant Ebert were entirely undenied and uncontradicted by any evidence. 27. Among the fellow members of the Stahlhelm in Detroit, which was a German Nationalistic Organization, were some who were closely associated with Paul Gies, and defendant Ebert Karl Leonhardt was associated with Gies and Ebert both in the Stahlhelm and in the Friends of the New Germany Organization. Leonhardt had subsequently been convicted of conspiracy and to commit espionage against the United States by attempting to send information of value to Germany. 28. The evidence disclosed that between 1931 and 1933 the defendant participated in the meetings of the Nazi Party Unit in Detroit which met at a house which was known to the defendant as the “Hitlerheim.” The evidence is uncontradicted that the Nazi program was discussed and espoused. Nazi Party members such as Walter Hentschel, Hans Strauss and Heinz Spanknoebel who were in direct communication with the Nazi Party in Berlin, directed their meetings. The defend-' ant does not admit membership, but admitted knowledge that there was a unit of the Nazi Party and that he believed Hentschel, Strauss and Spanknoebel were Nazi Party members. He admits attendance at these meetings. 29. Knowing that the Friends of New Germany was the successor organization of the Nazi party in Detroit, the defendant admits and the testimony of witnesses definitely shows that defendant became a member of the Friends of New Germany and continued as an active member until at least August, 1934. Further, the testimony shows that he continued to attend meetings and celebrations of the Bund as' late as 1939. In his statement to the F. B. I. on February 19, 1943 he gave as his reason for leaving the Bund was because of the manner in which the organization funds were handled and not because of any disagreement with the Nazi policies of the Bund. The defendant’s interest in the Bund was not transitory. As in 1937 he corresponded wish people in Germany concerning the Bund and its Fuehrer because he believed the Nazi Party should act as to the manner in which Fritz Kuhn, the Bundesfuehrer was behaving in his personal life. From defendant’s statements to agents of the F.B.I., from the literature found in his home, from his admission on the witness stand and from his evasive, hesitating and uncooperative attitude on the witness stand in regard to the Nazi Policies and the Bund, it is apparent to this court that the defendant had a clear knowledge of the Nazi philosophy and program and its extension into the United States through the Bund organizations. At the time of the defendant’s alleged withdrawal from the Bund he did not lose any interest in German nationalist organizations. In 1934 defendant joined the Deutsch Nationaler Handlungsgehelfenverland, an extension in the United States of the clerks’ union to which he had formerly belonged in Germany. He belonged to their organization until 1936. 30. In 1937 the defendant joined the Deutseh-Amerikanische Berufsgemeinschaft knowing that such organization was affiliated with the Arbeits Front of the Nazi Party, and knowing that dues he paid to such organization would be credited to him in the Arbeits Front in Germany, the defendant continued to pay dues to such organization until June, 1939 and received the propaganda of such organization until June, 1939. 31. The defendant’s interest in Germany is further shown by his correspondence with friends in Germany in which he gave information concerning public opinion in the United States concerning National Socialism, knowing the same would be communicated to high officials of the Nazi Party for the Nazi Party’s use. 32. The defendant’s further personal regard for Adolph Hitler was so strong that he personally communicated with Yon Papen, the notorious Nazi diplomat, concerning the Fuehrer’s health. Defendant went so far as to attempt arrangements to have a Detroit doctor, described as a “pure aryan,” to go to Germany to save Adolph Hitler. In correspondence with friends, the defendant was commended for his efforts on behalf of Germany. Even his friends with whom he had correspondence and whom he still calls his best friends state “because you always believe in our great Fuehrer even beyond the ocean and caE him a ‘fighter for the old cause’.” 33. In the correspondence received by defendant in answer to defendant’s letter and his membership in the Deutsch-Amerikanishe Berufsgemeinschaft which the defendant knew would provide him with social and financial protection only in Germany, this court finds convincing evidence that defendant intended to return to Germany for permanent residence shortly before the outbreak of war in Germany. 34. In statements given to agents of the F.B.I. in 1943 the defendant approved of Hitler’s program of conquest throughout, his National SociaEst Program, his disregard of the YersaEles treaty and desired a German victory over England. He was against Lend Lease in 1941 because he did not wish to see Germany defeated. Defendant admits in his statement to agents of the F.B.I. that his opinions as given in statement to the F.B.I. in 1943 have been his opinion since about 1920. This court concludes that these were his opinions at the time he took the oath of allegiance to the United States in 1929 and under such circumstances this oath could not have been honestly and truthfuEy taken since he did not absolutely and entirely renounce allegiance to Germany and that he did not intend to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against aE enemies. This is strongly supported by defendant’s statement to agents of the F.B.I. on June 10, 1943, one and one half years after war was declared between the United States and Germany — “due to my training in Germany and my training in the United States I have a conflict of interests which mixes up my mind as to my opinion in the present war and I would Eke to have no opinion about the war at present.” CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In addition to the conclusions of law heretofore reached and announced in connection with the findings about the Bund in this cause, the court reaches the foEowing conclusions of law: 1. The defendant, at the time of making and filing his petition for naturaEzation, was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and weE disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. It was not his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and forever aE aEegiance and fideEty to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich, of which he at that time was a citizen, and it was not his intention to reside permanently in the United States. 2. The oath of allegiance which the defendant took at the time of the order admitting him to citizenship was false and fraudulent in that he did not absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure aE aEegiance and fideEty to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty and particularly to Germany, of which he had theretofore been a citizen; it was further false and fraudulent in that he did not in good faith have the wiE to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against aE enemies, foreign and domestic, and he did not have the wiE to bear true faith and aEegiance to the same; and he did not take this obEgation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. 3. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of aEegiance had a mental reservation of aEegiance to Germany. 4. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of aEegiance had a mental reservation that he was not weE disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. 5. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of aEegiance had a mental reservation in that he was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. • 6. The defendant at the time of taking his oath of aEegiance had a mental reservation in that he did not intend to reside permanently in the United States, but would in. the future return to Germany to Eve. 7. The defendant at the time of taking, his oath of aEegiance had a mental reservation in that he would not support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but would reserve to himself the right to determine who or what he would treat as an enemy of the same. 8. The order admitting defendant to citizenship was procured by fraud. 9. Let an order be entered setting aside the original order admitting the defendant to citizenship and cancelling his Certificate of Citizenship. ORDER CANCELLING CITIZENSHIP At a session of said Court held in the Federal Building in Detroit, Michigan, on March 10, 1944. Present: Honorable Edward J. Moinet, District Judge. The above entitled cause having come on for trial, pursuant to notice, and both parties having appeared, given evidence and cross-examined witnesses, and the plaintiff having submitted proof in support of the allegations in its complaint to revoke the naturalization of defendant, from which it appears to the Court, after carefully considering all of the evidence and arguments of both parties, that the allegations in said complaint to revoke naturalization are true, and that the defendant procured naturalization by fraud. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the order heretofore entered admitting the said Fritz Bruno Ebert to citizenship, upon petition number 41941, be and the same is hereby revoked and set aside. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Certificate of Naturalization Number 3,124,304, heretofore issued to Fritz Bruno Ebert, be and the same is hereby cancelled on the ground of fraud, and the same shall be delivered and surrendered to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and transmitted by him to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan forthwith transmit a certified copy of this order to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In re GUENTHER FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Defendant Guenther was born near Kassel, Germany, on August 15, 1894, and immigrated to the United States in July, 1923. 2. Guenther resided in the United States from July, 1923 until 1939 except for trips to Germany in 1935 and again in 1939. 3. Guenther filed a petition for naturalization in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on September 24, 1929, representing under oath as required by law as follows: “I am attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. It is my intention to become a citizen of the United States and renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to the German Reich, of which at this time I am subject, and it is my intention to reside permanently in the United States.” 4. Upon his petition for naturalization an order was entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on December 30, 1929, admitting the defendant to United States citizenship. On the same day defendant Guenther took the following oath of allegiance in open Court: “I hereby declare on oath that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to Germany, of which I have heretofore been subject, and I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the 'United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; So Help Me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.” 5. Prior to December 30, 1929 defendant Guenther was a native and citizen of Germany. 6. Defendant was married in Germany to a native of Germany, who has at all times remained a citizen of the German Reich. He has had a son, Rolf Heinz, and a daughter Katherine, both of whom were born in Germany. He has a brother presently residing in Stuttgart, Germany, as well as other family connections of himself and his wife, also residing in Germany at the present time. He has no relations in the United States. 7. Defendant came to the United States through the assistance of a friend and fellow musician, who had preceded him to this country, because economic conditions in Germany at that time were unfavorable for a musician. His wife and daughter followed him to the United States some months later. His son Rolf remained in Germany to finish his elementary education there, being at the same time very ambitious for a German career as a Professor of Languages. 8. Defendant followed his profession as a musician in the Uni