The Known Infirmities: Civil Proceedings This section provides an overview of the lack of safeguards in the design and operation of the civil denaturalization statute. The concerns raised by the dual criminal and civil statutes are explored above, but it is important to note how those ambiguities are exacerbated by the fact that the civil statute itself offers underwhelming protection of basic procedural rights, given the proceeding can result in loss of nationality. Burden of Proof Technically, the burden of proof when attempting to revoke a person’s citizenship is substantially the same whether pursued criminally or civilly. For criminal revocation, the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”390 For civil revocation of citizenship, the burden of proof is “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence” that does “not leave the issue in doubt.”391 This civil standard “is substantially identical with that required in criminal cases—proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”392 Despite this, current civil denaturalization cases have resulted in judgments employing “clear and convincing,”393 not clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that does not leave the issue in doubt. “Clear and convincing” is a lesser level of burden of proof and a less rigorous standard to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Under the “clear and convincing” standard, the government must only “prove that the contention is substantially more likely than not that it is true.”394 In cases reviewed for this report in which this lower standard was used, the defendant was rarely represented by an attorney. Fifth Amendment Protection against Double Jeopardy The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits persons from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. Similarly, res judicata is the principle that an action may not be litigated once judged on the merits. According to the DOJ bulletin, OIL “can also take advantage of the evidence, statements, and testimony generated during the criminal investigation and trial without violating double jeopardy or res judicata,” citing to a district court and Fifth Circuit case from 1936 that was decided nearly two decades before the enactment of the criminal and civil denaturalization statutes. The publication surmises, “A civil case can provide another avenue to achieve a practically similar result.”395 A review of denaturalization cases for this report found the government repeatedly using this tactic. As recommended to prosecutors by DOJ, “if the U.S. Attorney’s Office declines to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. § 1425 and proceeds with a plea agreement to a lesser charge, the case agent and the Assistant U.S. Attorney should consult the ICE attorney who would be responsible for handling the civil case and attempt to reach a stipulation to civil denaturalization as a condition of the criminal plea agreement so that the civil denaturalization case can be more efficiently resolved.”396 II. Denaturalization: A Radical Measure in the Hands of Zealots 91