Frederick Willard Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
332 F.2d 167
7th Cir.
1964
Check Treatment

*1 supervisory person that a can act in yet capacity not be liable the tax. charge anything, If more favor-

able to was warrant- the' defendants than

ed. clearly jury. This for the case including instructions, supple- The

mentary charge, were without error. repeated jury questions demon-

strated to understand a determination the law involved. verdict in this

type multiple defendant case—dis- agreement guilty one, with wilful- one, guilty ness as to without wilfulness guilty as to four and two—dem- de-

onstrates careful deliberation and

lineation. judgment is affirmed. THOMPSON,

Frederick Willard Petitioner-Appellant,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZA Respondent- SERVICE, TION Appellee.

No. 14054. Appeals

United States Court of Seventh Circuit.

May 21, 1964. Patner, Chicago, Ill., ap Marshall

pellant. Hanrahan, Atty., Edward V. U. S. Lulinski, Atty., John Peter Asst. U. S. Chicago, Ill., appellee. *2 168 Judge, giance HASTINGS, to and and the United States his will- Chief Before ingness upon SCHNACKENBERG, to bear behalf of this Cir- and DUFFY country. Judges. He certified for more than cuit years immediately prior ten to the state- “anarchy Judge. ment that he in did believe DUFFY, Circuit damage, injury or the unlawful or de- of the appeal an order is from This sabotage.” property struction of or Pe- peti- denying appellant’s Court District am, titioner “I certified and have been Appellant’s peti- for tion naturalization. during periods required by all of the open as in court de novo heard tion was provided law, principles attached to the of the by 1447. This 8 U.S.C. Title § Constitution of the and United States time. for the second case here disposed good hap- well to the order and petition for naturalization herein piness of the United States.” Nearly in 1946. fifteen was filed a in disclosed conviction Petitioner later, Examiner rec- the Naturalization pardon and a in 1940. He also 1923 against granting petition. ommended Cleveland, all disclosed three arrests hearing, District a de novo

After day, disputes; no in one “Over labor Court, April 18, 1962, entered an or- on sentence; fine no and no costs.” denying petition for naturaliza- der January 12, Immigration 1946, On days later, appellant tion. served Twelve (INS) and Naturalization Service certi- appear a notice that he would before entry Thompson’s lawful fied judge present This trial and a motion. per- and that he been admitted had a to motion turned motion out being residence, prerequi- both manent Findings Fact, strike amend certain of 1940 naturalization sites Findings certain for a trial. and new Act. Appellant's motion was not filed within days entry Thompson’spetition for naturalization of ten of the final order Act. As an alien of the 1940 District Court. was under the citizen, filed to an American married sixty 6, 1962, within On December August 28, in the petition 1946 on his post days mo- of trial of the denial 710(b). under 8 U.S.C. § District Court sixty days tions, of the within but not petition to and verified was sworn judgment, petitioner original entry of required stat- two witnesses appeal. a The Govern- filed notice following Thompson oath took the ute. appeal. dismiss the We moved to ment allegiance: jurisdiction, and did not have held we oath, hereby declare, I granted (318 “I F.2d the motion to dismiss entirely granted absolutely and 681). renounce Supreme and Court cer- fidelity allegiance abjure per curiam, four all tiorari and in a decision, five to state, foreign potentate, any prince, remand- reversed this Court and sovereignty I hearing or petitioner’s appeal whom which or a ed subject Immigra- upon Thompson heretofore been merits. have support citizen; and de- Service, that will tion and Naturalization 375 U.S. 397, 384, and laws the Constitution 84 S.Ct. 11 L.Ed.2d 404. fend against of America the United States Citizen, Petitioner, a Canadian domestic; enemies, foreign, and all 1922, he entered the In born al- faith and that will bear true Blaine, Wash- on foot at same; legiance and that immigration ington, prior to the time obligation freely without take the assigned guards to that border. were purpose reservation or mental petitioner applied January 30, 1946, On evasion; HELP ME GOD. SO under 8 U.S.C. for a arrival certificate acknowledgement have, whereof 1940, Nationality seq., of Act 146 et § signature.” my hereunto affixed preliminary form for and he filed January 1947, Examiner On indicated for naturalization. He questioned petitioner his- willingness about for INS of alle- his to take the oath gov- employment violence or of the the Industrial Workers voeated overthrow ernment; (IWW) opposed principles for the that he of the World editor party. paper. all Petitioner answered Communist He testified he IWW *3 opposed questions principles group was to the as to the IWW and stated a asked willingness supply pub- Examiner who and his to the the IWW had control by during pamphlets IWW, published the lished with Industrial Worker way. cooperate adopted in He stated 1950-1953. and The District Court to Findings arms on behalf the he would bear the Fact and Conclusions of in if the were United States even IWW Law the Examiner. enemy country. control of the granting objection Thompson’s to years inac- Then followed thirteen petition entirely almost on an is based why tion. does disclose The record not unusual To under- cross-examination. petition placed for this in mothballs was by the on stand answer relied the Gov- long period oral such of time. At the ernment, necessary it is that the exam- argument us, response before in question ination be forth in and an- set question bench, from the Government’s form: swer guess counsel could not hazard a even “By Mr. Freedman: lengthy period that the for this reason “Q. Thompson, you would Mr. waiting. petitioner kept was bear arms for the in July 18, 1960, a new Examiner On country the event this went war? However, questioning. resumed “A. Yes. present original par- and was Examiner “Q. time, petitioner all Under conditions and all ticipated. For the first circumstances? represented by counsel. principles of been referred tives tion. were petitioner pleadings been United States Constitution. The lish that he has been attached ment did that “the sented of the United States.” uralization Examiners. two witnesses ited its case to cross-examination Findings, son’s on behalf of the United States upon disposed to the ommended to the Court inAs Fourteen Thompson naturalization be supplied attached to do who had acted good The Government’s all naturalization petitioner Conclusions filed with petition and the Examiner’s and to documents which moral Examiner, May so; testified offer the Constitution who testified as to same two INS good character and that he after the examination, any witness, testified he never petitioner petitioner. order and has failed to estab- he would the District Court denied. He found and Recommenda- in principles that Naturalization cases, the case was petition had representa- bear happiness presented and well if but lim- Govern- Thomp- of the to the of the called Nat- only pre- rec- had ad- you suppose would Australia willing United declare war curring. country country ? the workers would be country. question. to take over the dent I can’t trol of the means of to take over the suppose [*] “A. That’s “A. You “A. “Q. “Q. “Q. production imagine That I would understand that If the I don’t want to know what to bear arms States, would fight declared my duty [*] same should country. is the answer. What is fact, are is for the United States. and answer IWW, correct. control of the means obligation such Australia take con- country, mighty hypothetical the United asking [*] by as a citizen of this I think I would be war production we will chance workers were you against situation oc- against yes, though me [*] and aas then happen say, States, if resi- [*] in it if 170 your you Findings answer? Would would We hold the of Fact of

you adopted court, not do so ? the Examiner the trial Conclusions, clearly and the er were my obligation “A. It is to defend Finding roneous. The as to the IWW is government country— of the Finding similar to the as to the Socialist “Q. obliga- I am not interested in Party disapproved Workers which we only asking you, tion. am would Scythes Webb, Cir., 307 F.2d you you or would not bear arms ? Honor, Thompson’s petition “Mr. Patner: Your natural granted. think that a fair ization should We witness has have been *4 difficulty here, hypo- in and remand with because the therefore reverse utterly question of naturaliza thetical is structions that a certificate so re- tion filed mote. I think he issue heretofore has been asked and by Thompson. has four or five answered times whether he would bear arms under Reversed and remanded. all circumstances on behalf of the answer a no conceivable iner Thompson replied: no doubt about that very provisions application the least. bear arms rected swered you A. bridge don’t want to answer the plication ice for over fourteen answered time to a States, finally which occurred. Act. He was entitled United ceptions charged Act 99 L.Ed. 615. He plicable here. United States were it to The trial court [*] These answers are Immigration Government’s getting away Well, not contained question [*] insisted: reluctant petitioner to answer the States, ? A. when Petitioner [*] with the contained therein considered in >> question question, of that Act. probability.” can’t, had been upon I I gave 348 U.S. after to bear would have to cross and Naturalization Serv- “You still haven’t an- savings came case. Furthermore, behalf from filed under the should, so remote from an extraordinary don’t intervened “Certainly, Would part.” The Exam- time that the real basis kept dangling by far-fetched to to it. Petitioner, equivocal to have his clause. arms and it, I of see question in no you and who had go Menasche v. 75 S.Ct. light are not the United how can to war. would be he would question. Q. or would there and di- way, The ex answer whose now? delay have 1940 it 1952 a that You 513, say ap ap be is which fend the United States tacked ican delays America. tralia and lant’s which be professed loyalty Workers whether he would take case should not pressed which United States. Yet plicant for several can gorically to World War might decision thereon. quiry based probing question of a man whose enemies. (dissenting). Germany might SCHNACKENBERG, way However, I pointed out in the might justified on that predict my opinion citizenship upon appellant upon as to where accompanied have been required equivocal from sources in the administrative overriding importance of the in- to answer evasive of the World he have What aligning court citizenship the “farfetched” When faced controlled the future gave I, do not believe been depend upon unexplained or answers. When he him to later considers farfetched asked court, to the United States answer It prior appellant an a final administrative simple question erstwhile conferring should be originating in Aus- argued that an majority opinion. ground. world events be several equivocal a similar state up (IWW), to World at war with when if it were at- Circuit to a premise stood years prior friends as fact, Industrial controlled Similarly processes of Amer- asking a question question question he answer, and de- War in this loyalty Judge appel- in his cate- who, have gave oath can ap- II, of being become when seeks is tested ? a citizen pledg- reservations harbors who One ing loyalty States United na- citizenship therein. entitled new from each to receive is entitled tion support loyalty and undivided citizen any fingers without his hands of both the order

being affirm would crossed. agreed court, with which district rulings. administrative relevant all of the judicially be would To do otherwise new class the creation

sanction conditional

citizenship, which would upon insecurely the aberra- based loyalty in that class. of those

tions *5 BURGE, Appellant, Murray

Thomas America,

UNITED STATES Appellee.

No. 17170. Appeals Court of Eighth Circuit.

8,May