Posted on 01/23/2012 5:53:17 AM PST by jdirt
AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases. This morning, I filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases. The brief complies with all Rules and procedures of the Administrative Court. The brief is 54 pages, and the appendix is 155 pages. The Rules of Court require attachment to the brief of all legal authorities, other than those issued by the federal government, or the State of Georgia. There’s some very esoteric law attached thereto.
I seriously urge everyone to familiarize themselves with Lord Coke’s Report from Calvin’s Case, as well as Chancellor Ellesmere’s argument, also in Calvin’s Case, for this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law that has been completely misunderstood in this country for too long now. Calvin’s Case is universally recognized as the common law precedent relating to jus soli, but it is so much more fascinating than you can imagine. And it will forever revolutionize understanding of the words “natural-born”.
This book contains all of the relevant arguments and reports. But the original text of Lord Coke’s Report is the proper starting point. (This document is also in the appendix to my brief.) And here’s another source with slightly modernized English and extras.
You may download the AMICUS BRIEF here.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
PING
Leo Ping ~
ping
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Thank you
EL
I don’t know if I’ll understand it, but I saved the Amicus Brief to my computer and I’ll TRY to read and understand. Leo is a genius - and moody, sarcastic genius, but a genius nevertheless. Godspeed to him in this endeavor. He’s doing what our legislators should be doing.
Ping
cross examine ping
Ping...
Seems to be fairly complete though with numerous typos.
It contains a discussion of precedent versus dicta for Minor v Happersett.
bookmark and ping
"AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases."
Leo Donofrio
Ping
Bravo
Been biting my tongue since I found out about it. I am reading it very closely right now. That man is brilliant.
Unfortunately, Leo didn’t address Chief Justice Cockburn’s 1869 treatise, “Nationality”.
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
And
“The law of the United States of America agrees with our own. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, with the original settlers carried with them.”
He also didn’t address the statements made by William Rawle and St. George Tucker in their respective legal treatise on the U.S. Constitution.
And he should have explained why the Founders continued to use the term “natural born subject” up into the 1790’s.
But he is right that the early English versions of Vattel did screw up the translation and that the US Constitution influenced the later version of the book.
Unfortunately, Leo didn’t address Chief Justice Cockburn’s 1869 treatise, “nationality”.
Chief Justice Cockburn’s word will have a lot of sway in a courtroom.
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
And
“The law of the United States of America agrees with our own. The law of England as to the effect of the place of birth in the matter of nationality became the law of America as part of the law of the mother country, with the original settlers carried with them.”
He also didn’t address the statements made by William Rawle and St. George Tucker in their respective legal treatise on the U.S. Constitution.
And he should have explained why the Founders continued to use the term “natural born subject” up into the 1790’s.
But he is right that the early English versions of Vattel did screw up the translation and that the US Constitution influenced the later version of the book.
Well, there's the trouble right there: The Resident is a Muslim, therefore Christian concepts do not apply to him.
You don’t know how right you are.
Show me a Muslim that understands and agrees with the constitutions original intent, and I’ll show you a fish with four legs living in a tree.
On Cockburn, what matters more would seem to be US (and to some degree English) common law at the time the Constitution was written and adopted, not an English judge’s imprecise and secondary summary of English common law 100 years later that you excerpted, yes? As Leo stated, English common law was actually changed in 1772 which is not reflected in the excerpt. If as Leo claims natural born subjects were held distinct from natural born citizens from the start, then putting this in by him would be irrelevant.
On the other guys, maybe they just did not know how to use google (jk).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.