In Re Gogal

75 F. Supp. 268, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1856
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 31, 1947
Docket148874
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 75 F. Supp. 268 (In Re Gogal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1856 (W.D. Pa. 1947).

Opinion

GOURLEY, District Judge.

Andrew Gogal, known as Andrew Gogaly and Andrew Gogil, filed Petition for Naturalization No. 148874 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August 14, 1946, under the provisions of Section 701 of the Nationality Act of October 14,1940, its supplements and amendments, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1001.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service admits that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements of Section *269 701 of the Nationality Act with the exception that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was lawfully admitted to the United States on Axxgust 12, 1928, as a United States citizen.

The petitioner was born in Walston, Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, in the year 1901. Although the exact date of birth is in dispute, the records in the office of the Register of Wills of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, indicate the petitioner was born on September 22, 1901. 1

It further appears from the records of St. Peter and Paul Greek Catholic Church at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, that the petitioner was born on the 22nd day of October, 1901. 2

In 1904 the petitioner was taken by his mother to Czechoslovakia and in either the year 1911 or 1912 his father went to Czechoslovakia with the intention to return with the petitioner and his mother to the United States, but his father died a short time after his arrival in Czechoslovakia. During the month of April or May, 1922, the petitioner received a notice that he was to be inducted into the Army of Czechoslovakia. No attempt was made to commxxnicate with the American authorities for the purpose of preventing his entry into the Army. The petitioner explains that he was unable to speak English; that he resided soxne distance from the American Consul, and believed that since he was born in the United States, it was not necessary for him to give any concern or attention to his notice of induction. On October 1, 1922, he received his formal call to enter the armed forces of Czechoslovakia, and no attention was given this notice. That on or about the 28th day of October, 1922, the gendarmes or police came to his home in Czechoslovakia and forceably delivered him to the military authorities of that country. That he had no choice or selection in the matter under the circumstances; a uniform was given to him; he was taken into a field with a large number of men who, he explained, comprised a batallion; that some distance away an officer was reading although he was not' able to hear or understand; he was not required to raise his hand to God or was any oath administered to him, and that an oath of allegiance to the Republic of Czechoslovakia was not taken by the petitioner previous or subsequent thereto. After he was taken into custody and compelled to enter the anned forces of Czechoslovakia, he served for a period of two years or until September 29, 1924. He married in 1925 and to the marriage union were born two children; Andrew in the year 1926 and Maria in the year 1928. On December 15, 1927, the petitioner decided to return ta the United States and requested a United States Passport from the American Consulate at Prague, Czechoslovakia, which was refused in February of 1928. The petitioner was unable to speak English at that time and talked to the American Consulate *270 through an interpreter. On or about April 10, 1928, he left Czechoslovakia and arrived in Canada on April 29, 1928. On August 11, 1928, he asked permission to return to the United States. He was examined by a Board of Public Inquiry of the United States Immigration Station, Montreal, Canada, who, after hearing the testimony, admitted him to the United States as a citizen. He thus entered the United States on August 12, 1928, at Buffalo, New York.

■ Petitioner has resided continuously in the United States since August 12, 1928. He was inducted into the armed forces of this country on August 20, 19'42, and received an honorable discharge on May 22, 1943. His discharge was based xm the fact that he was over thirty-eight years of age, and was agreeable to accept employment in essential industry.

No question was raised as to the citizenship of the petitioner until the year 1937 when efforts were extended by the petitioner to secure a, passport for his wife -and children to come to this country from Czechoslovakia, since which time the status of his citizenship has been in dispute.

The Government states that the passport which was issued to him on August 12, 1928, would not have been granted if it had been known that he had been denied a passport by the American Consulate at Prague, Czechoslovakia, and if he had correctly stated the date of his birth to be September 22, 1901, rather than October 22, 1901.

There' appear to be several questions of fact that are in dispute—

1. What is the exact date of birth of the petitioner ?

In rtfjfect to this question the birth records of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, indicate the date of birth to be September 22, 1901, at Walston, Pennsylvania. The baptismal record of St. Peter and Paul Greek Catholic Church at Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, indicates the date of birth to be October 22, 1901. Although this inconsistency appears, the date of birth as it appears in the official records of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, would prevail. In this connection it would be possible under the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the petitioner to have the birth records corrected, more particularly with the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since this has not been done, the Court is compelled to accept the date of the petitioner’s birth to be September 22, 1901. However, T do not believe it makes any material difference, under the facts in this case, as to whether the true date of birth is September 22, 1901, or October 22, 1901, for the reason that the petitioner was inducted into the Army of Czechoslovakia on October 28, 1922.

2. Did the petitioner take an Oath of Allegiance to the Czechoslovakian Government and, if so, what was the date when the oath was taken?

The petitioner was inducted into the armed forces of Czechoslovakia on October 28, 1922. The oath which a person was required to take, who was inducted into the military forces of Czechoslovakia on October 28, 1922, was as set forth in Footnote 3. 3 At the time of his induction petitioner was taken to a field, as he explains it, together with a large group of men; he was not required to raise his arm to Almighty God; he did not hear what was being stated, and was not informed that an oath was being administered. It is impossible for any person to swear before their God, or affirm, that certain things will be done or not done without knowing or hearing that to which the oath is being taken. In *271 view of all the circumstances, I believe that the petitioner did not take the Oath of Allegiance to the Czechoslovakian Government.

3. Was petitioner inducted into the Czechoslovakian Army under duress ?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Richmond
274 F. Supp. 43 (C.D. California, 1967)
Fletes-Mora v. Rogers
160 F. Supp. 215 (S.D. California, 1958)
Serizawa v. Dulles
134 F. Supp. 713 (N.D. California, 1955)
Lehmann v. Acheson
206 F.2d 592 (Third Circuit, 1953)
Scardino v. Acheson
113 F. Supp. 754 (D. New Jersey, 1953)
Gualco v. Acheson
106 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. California, 1952)
Revedin v. Acheson, U.S. Sec. Of State
194 F.2d 482 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Shigenori Morizumi v. Acheson
101 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. California, 1951)
Tomoya Kawakita v. United States
190 F.2d 506 (Ninth Circuit, 1951)
Federici v. Clark
99 F. Supp. 1019 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1951)
Cantoni v. Acheson
88 F. Supp. 576 (N.D. California, 1950)
Savorgnan v. United States
338 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1950)
In re Di Iorio
86 F. Supp. 479 (D. Massachusetts, 1949)
Ishikawa v. Acheson
85 F. Supp. 1 (D. Hawaii, 1949)
Podea v. Marshall
83 F. Supp. 216 (E.D. New York, 1949)
Doreau v. Marshall
170 F.2d 721 (Third Circuit, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 F. Supp. 268, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gogal-pawd-1947.