*1 Fong, Miho, Honolulu, Choy Chuck, & FUKUMOTO, Shigeo H., Okrand, Edwin T. A. L. Wirin and Fred Los Appellant, Angeles, Cal., appellant. Barlow, Atty., A. William Louis U. S. Secretary DULLES, as John Foster Honolulu, Blissard, Atty., B. Asst. U. S. State, Appellee. Hawaii, Lloyd Burke, Atty., H. U. S. San No. 13708. Cal., Francisco, appellee. States Court of United Judge, DENMAN, Before Chief Ninth Circuit. Judges. ORR, BONE and Circuit 5,Oct. 1954. Judge.

DENMAN, Chief appeals

a suit under 8 U.S.C. Revi- [1952 § 1503], denying sion 8 U.S.C.A. § tition that he be declared national holding States, the United had re- nounced his American taining ob- nationality a restoration of his Japan after he had re- it, expatriated nounced and hence him- 801(a) self within 8 U.S.C. Re- 1481(a)].1 vision U.S.C.A. § alleges complaint that he May 6, 1921, Wailuku, was born on at Maui, Territory parents of Hawaii. His Japanese descent, are of virtue of parents Japanese descent, his birth of provisions under the Japan was born a national of in addition Bone, Judge, dissented. having been bom a citizen of the Unit- alleges ed States. It further while Japan September, 1941, plain- tiff renounced and abandoned his nationality. agrees Dulles allegations state the facts. Having solely thus become a citizen of States, complaint alleges Japan during that: “Stranded in war, September, 1943, the Plain- tiff made an for the Japanese nationality; applica- said tion was made the Plaintiff under mistake, confusion, misunderstanding coercion, and said not the Plaintiff’s free and act. pertinent portions “(a) Obtaining 801 are in a for- eign follows: state, either his own losing through “§ 801. General means of par- or the naturalization of a nationality: person having legal who is a custody ent of such » national naturalization, birth or shall lose his nationality by: *2 554 voluntary act, and his Said did not constitute constitute, by convincingly

does with- un- not but it is so shown meaning in Code, U.S. and intent 8 contradicted evidence that the of. 801(a).” Section should have for him. been rendered Obviously, application does the mere Fukumoto himself took the stand testimony Japan. not naturalization in it is constitute from his However, by the case decided the is a truthful witness. candid and involuntary question an Amer- of the testified that is that as a Japanese ancestry, if nature of Fukumoto’s as ican born of by everyone response everywhere in had he was “treated Japanese passion been in fact a as an outcast.” In the of this nationality, purposes Japanese-American an analo- and for the of same war by gous accept of officers of decision we the district court’s treatment appears application. in treatment States of the 953, Murakami, Cir., 9 176 F.2d question The is Fukumoto main in of 903 It is well cases 8 U.S.C. case. proof of that he did tain his burden people of other motivation of human allegiance for, renounce psychol- races that ogy. consider our own we Elg, 325, in as 334, Perkins v. 307 U.S. stated 884, 889, 1320. 83 L.Ed. 59 S.Ct. appears orders In that it case “Expatriation renuncia is General, an carried out of American nationality and of tion or abandonment 70,000 officers, American and other allegiance."2 of the Pacific Nisei American citizens strongly be contends that indiscriminately con- States were Coast a citizen cause he was years in barbed wire fined for over two applica applied when he placed in over- stockades where Japanese citizenship his situa tion for pris'on-like This was crowded structures. analogous is to that Schneiderman sabotage though by any done act 122, 118, 63 320 U.S. v. Japanese less or much citizen 1335, it 1333, 1796, where 87 L.Ed. S.Ct. committed. been proceeding to denatural in a say, American officers like That is to citizen, law facts and the “the ize Japan, “out- the Nisei as those treated far is as reason be construed should word. in the full sense of that casts” ably possible the citizen.” in favor of They homes for out of their were cast points Co the District of out that sep- years, families often over two their has that in these held lumbia Circuit huge property arated, loss of with a plain proceedings, once the U.S.C. 903 pressure of under the evacuation sold time of .the that at the tiff has shown days notice, from one to ten destroyed renunciation businesses, their their estab- con “clear fact a citizen earning professions power lished required show g evidence” vincin t of mechanics laborers. Over four voluntary. Acheson it was tha v. thousand such Nisei under 85, U.S.App.D.C. Maenza, 92 outrageous gave up treatment their circuit 456. citizenship. supra, We held the case similarly in Monaco held has Columbia restoration, us for its that such before F.2d denaturalization were acts of necessary to consider it We think tary. that, appears since contentions testimony Fukumoto’s on ordi- applying them and without testimony two occasions proof, continues nary burden of gross subject brutality of that was contention only supports Attorney of United States General Similarly Camara ex rel. Dos Reis Ricketts, 860, 868, F.2d Nicolls, F.2d beatings by police. dence that to the Of one generally practiced Nisei was he states because a Nisei3 Fukumoto, police. who: *3 upon employed made his was Nisei, I a “When he found out was newspaper, Nippon An edi- a Times. the Harajuku just pulled down to me paper, Murayama, a tor on that Mr. Nisei. I a Police because was Station beginning testified that at the why I think of reason couldn’t police the war sta- he “was taken to the pull would me in. up kicked was beaten and where I “Q. happened A. there? What every police several one officers and station, At the the spy and a useless them called me a jailer was a there and think—I you every Nisei and can other term jailer especially punished the me on — think circumstances. under the face, head, slapped because me go midnight permitted Toward I to was huh,’ said, ‘Nisei, I was a Nisei. I to home with a condition that questions bang, and no and hit me step my no- out of home until I to stand behind asked. was made kept confined to his tice.” He was so for, hours. about two set of bars oh months, two and thus became home for And then I for. don’t know what jobless “a man.” go they to I went back let me concerning Murayama also testified my place my found that and home young Nisei as follows: everything and had been searched open, “Q. say you all Did I understand to was —the drawers clothing floor, put pressure papers all over the that certain give they up had come over to his American citi- and I knew that him something zenship, my place I while was stand- or was else? to search Well, pressure ing only A. certain station.” pressure beat- —terrible . police brutal- The second occasion kicking everything ing, else walking ity occurred Japanese police at Dair- officers under stated that his fiancee whom he en, I understand.” could who were held and of several other Nisei po- again marry. jail simply because had that liceman, he discovered who when status. part him. struck were not married leading motivating opinion purports to which court’s to escape ignores entirely brutal- summarize to the evidence his merely marry brutal conduct. It states ity and have to and to enable them suspicion Fukumoto “found the was the motivation children. Further' military police anese civil and card to be vexa- his full ration fear that as a Nisei F.Supp. him, tious.” It is 2.] we held from which would be taken proper F.2d the District Court realiza- in Takehara tion of what motivation drove Fukumoto denaturalization to make increasing apply Japanese citizenship. half tary, his his need clothing a full as a allowance Since uncontradicted evidence one. overwhelmingly supports tition, evi- is further there is no There evidence prior testimony.’? (Em as to is doubt stood Dulles contends phasis supplied.). after before or this occurred but filed holdings Uyeno similar Cf. Hichino testimony on this after D.C., F.Supp. Acheson, 510; Meiji Fu it was be was concluded jikawa Acheson, D.C., F.Supp. 674, was filed “that fore the 675; Murakami, bother him thereafter I had under of which F.2d 953. All contrary, reversed judg- to enter Court ordered Dulles, 2 ment for him. Monaco v. Judge

BONE, (dissenting). trial On the I think the whole record ap- judge right to conclude had a pellant abandoned citizenship. I would affirm *4 lower court. Petitioner, MARLENE’S, Inc., al., et COMMISSION, FEDERAL TRADE Respondent. No. Court of Circuit. Seventh 4, 1954. Nov.