of facts in these documents to suit his convenience at the
various times that the statements were made. His only explanation
for the discrepancies as to his place of birth, which ranged from
Lodz, Russia-Poland, to Zdunska, Russia, Hull, England, and
Chicago, Illinois, was that at some time in 1918 or 1919, after
taking out his first citizenship papers, his family informed him
that he was not born in Russia, but rather that he was born in
14. Plaintiff testified that he wrote his brother, who also
lived in Hull, England, in 1919, and that his brother sent him
the affidavit of Solomon Schultz, referred to above. The
plaintiff stated that after 1918 or 1919, he knew he was born in
Hull, England, and so claimed whenever he was asked.
15. The plaintiff testified that the first time he ever stated
to anyone that he was born in Hull, England, was about 1918 or
1919, but he never made that statement in writing or made a
statement of record until he obtained a British passport in
Canada in 1920.
It should be pointed out, parenthetically, that the plaintiff
was not a citizen of Russia at the time of filing this complaint,
because the Court finds that the law of Russia required that all
persons who were subjects of Russia by virtue of being born of a
Russian father under the reign of the Czar, and who left Russia
prior to the 1917 Revolution, had to notify the Russian
government of their intent to become citizens of the U.S.S.R.
within certain stipulated periods of time. In Factor's case,
since he was residing in the United States, it would have been
necessary for him to have so notified the Russian government in
1933, after the United States and Russia established diplomatic
relations. The evidence is clear that the plaintiff never took
16. The application for a second marriage license made on
February 6, 1925, sworn to by the plaintiff, stated that he was
born in Chicago, Illinois, in 1892 or 1893. This application was
made long after the plaintiff testified that he knew he was born
in Hull, England.
17. Since the plaintiff testified that it was difficult to
remember events that occurred many years ago, and since he placed
his reliance on statements his family made to him as to the place
of his birth, plaintiff was questioned as to the order of birth
of his brothers and sisters. The plaintiff testified that he was
the youngest child in the family. He testified that the next
oldest was Denah; he did not know when she was born, but he
believed that she is either two or three years older than
himself. Plaintiff also testified that he has one other brother,
Frank, still living; he was unable to say when Frank was born,
but thought he was perhaps four or five years older than the
18. I find that the plaintiff Factor was a wholly untrustworthy
witness and that the frequent and repeated impeachment of his
claim that he was born in Hull, England, makes it impossible to
believe either his claim in Court that he was born in Hull,
England, on October 8, 1892, or his statements made in the
various documents summarized above to the same effect.
19. The plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proving
that he was a citizen of the United Kingdom at the time of filing
Conclusions of Law
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action.
2. The plaintiff has failed to sustain his burden of proving
that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
case in that plaintiff has failed to prove that diversity of
citizenship exists between the plaintiff and the defendants.
3. The plaintiff has failed to prove that at the time of filing
the complaint, he was a citizen of the United Kingdom, and
therefore, the diversity jurisdiction of this Court does not
attach to this case.
4. The plaintiff was at the time of filing the complaint a
stateless person, and a stateless person is not a citizen of a
state of the United States or of any foreign state for purposes
of satisfying the diversity of citizenship requirements.
It is ordered and adjudged, on the basis of the foregoing
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that the motion of the
defendants to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted, and the
complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff
is ordered to pay the costs of the defendants in this suit.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.