Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AMICUS BRIEF-Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/ ^ | Jan 23, 2012 | Leo Donofrio

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: certifigate; donofrio; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; obama

1 posted on 01/23/2012 5:53:24 AM PST by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jdirt; butterdezillion

PING


2 posted on 01/23/2012 5:57:09 AM PST by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Leo Ping ~


3 posted on 01/23/2012 6:00:12 AM PST by simplesimon (" God doesn't call the qualifed , He qualifes the CALLED! ".. FReeper TomasUSMC...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

ping


4 posted on 01/23/2012 6:04:39 AM PST by SwatTeam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Thank you

EL


5 posted on 01/23/2012 6:05:12 AM PST by Eureka_Lead (No political party has ever become a dictatorship when the citizens have firearms - Stay Vigilant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

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.


6 posted on 01/23/2012 6:10:21 AM PST by sneakers (EAT YOUR PEAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Ping


7 posted on 01/23/2012 6:14:54 AM PST by STJPII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STJPII

cross examine ping


8 posted on 01/23/2012 6:21:06 AM PST by maine yankee (I got my Governor at 'Marden's')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Ping...


9 posted on 01/23/2012 6:54:56 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Seems to be fairly complete though with numerous typos.

It contains a discussion of precedent versus dicta for Minor v Happersett.


10 posted on 01/23/2012 6:57:54 AM PST by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt; STARWISE

bookmark and ping


11 posted on 01/23/2012 7:17:55 AM PST by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt; LucyT; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; Silentgypsy; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Nepeta; ...
Ping!

"AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases."
Leo Donofrio

12 posted on 01/23/2012 9:37:05 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; Red Steel; LucyT

Ping

Bravo


13 posted on 01/23/2012 9:39:42 AM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Been biting my tongue since I found out about it. I am reading it very closely right now. That man is brilliant.


14 posted on 01/23/2012 10:39:48 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

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.


15 posted on 01/23/2012 11:21:35 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

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.


16 posted on 01/23/2012 11:23:18 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
... this is the true common law genesis of jus soli subjection, which happens to be a uniquely Christian tenet of law ...

Well, there's the trouble right there: The Resident is a Muslim, therefore Christian concepts do not apply to him.

17 posted on 01/23/2012 11:24:30 AM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

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.


18 posted on 01/23/2012 11:58:42 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

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).


19 posted on 01/23/2012 12:08:14 PM PST by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All
If the link to the Amicus Brief, found within Leo's article, doesn't work for you...he has posted a new link to the document on SCRIBD found in his comments section:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/#comments

20 posted on 01/23/2012 12:11:22 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SteveH

“As Leo stated, English common law was actually changed in 1772 which is not reflected in the excerpt.”

I would have to reread Leo’s brief, but I would be surprised if he said that. The Act of 1772 extended natural born subject status to children of natural born subjects born outside the realm and also to their children (now that’s a real grandfather clause).

Here is “Nationality”

http://books.google.com/books?id=ka8BAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

He goes into a explaination of the source of English Nationality from the 1300’s to 1800’s.


21 posted on 01/23/2012 1:25:50 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
I would have to reread Leo’s brief, but I would be surprised if he said that. The Act of 1772 extended natural born subject status to children of natural born subjects born outside the realm and also to their children (now that’s a real grandfather clause).

Yes, you put it accurately, and I erred when I wrote that the 1772 Act changed English common law. Sorry for the confusion.

22 posted on 01/23/2012 1:35:35 PM PST by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]




Click the red pepper!

Don’t Veg Out
Become a Hero, Donate Monthly


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

23 posted on 01/23/2012 1:46:25 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; maggief; hoosiermama; SE Mom; Liz; rodguy911; Fred Nerks; Red Steel; ...

Donofrio’s Amicus Brief

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case


24 posted on 01/23/2012 3:14:12 PM PST by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jdirt; All

I am still reading Leo’s Brief, but I can state right now that this is brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

I have seen comments here regarding the inclusion of additional material regarding the difference between Natural Born Subject (NBS) and Natural Born Citizen (NBC), First, the arguments he lays out so carefully is absolutely brilliant. He makes the argument so successfully that there is little need to belittle the court with citation after citation on the matter.

Leo makes this point so well, so simply. Folks, the big difference between NBS and NBC can be summed up like this: An NBS cannot EVER become the ruler of Britain, an NBC cab become POTUS. Why? Because a Monarch derives their position from a spiritual religious claim. The King or Queen derives their royalty from God, and is the head of the Church of England. In the United States, NBC is derived from loyalty to the Nation. While patterned after NBS, NBC is quite different and this stems from the separation of Church and State in our nation.

By further illustrating that there were classes of NBS which gave rights to those born to PARENTS (meaning 2) who were subjects and those who were born to aliens - non-subjects. There were real distinctions made, and rights were handed out accordingly. This is not and never has been the case in the United States where a Naturalized citizen is no different to a citizen.

Leo makes his points with a simple elegance that is easy to read, follow, and understand. What more could anyone ask?

Furthermore, though there is no limit to the page length of an Amicus Brief, there is one for the lawyers in the cases, 25 pages I think. Orly said somewhere on her site she was limited in time and length. So Leo, while he didn’t have such a limit, he may well have decided to be as succinct as possible.

What ever his reasons for not beating the court over the head with all the examples (and I don’t claim to know what those are), I think this brief is excellent. It should be required reading in Law Schools. It is brilliant in its tone, language, and outstanding in it’s research.

Leo, well done! Thank you for giving us our history back!!!


25 posted on 01/23/2012 4:19:40 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan; SteveH

Hey guys, forgive the interruption.... But Leo likely did not mention the 1772 change because it frankly is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He was describing the original source of the tern Natural Born Citizen, and informing all that there are profound differences between NBS and NBC.

He was giving what amounts to a historical account of the origination of the term so that we can understand why the founders chose not to refer to the people of the USA as subjects and instead chose “Citizen”. That seems pretty clear to me. I have never seen the historical background of the term so I found the research and information to be very enlightening!


26 posted on 01/23/2012 4:25:59 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Just askin’ but why don’t federal election laws preempt state laws?


27 posted on 01/23/2012 4:42:23 PM PST by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; jdirt; LucyT

Thank you very much.


28 posted on 01/23/2012 6:15:39 PM PST by Silentgypsy (If this creature is not stopped it could make its way to Novosibirsk!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: esquirette

All elections are state elections.


29 posted on 01/23/2012 6:28:20 PM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Danae

“Hey guys, forgive the interruption”

Not a problem.

“1772 change because it frankly is irrelevant to the discussion at hand”

Oh, I agree, it may have a bigger relevence to the first naturalization law (1790). And I think Steve and I came to an understanding.

“there are profound differences between NBS and NBC.”

But that’s the part that needs more explanation. The Founders used both terms. In fact, in Massachusetts, they used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” in the exact same way, in the exact same context (individual acts of naturalization)as late as 1790. And the Massachusett’s Constitution drafted by John Adams in 1780 used both terms the “citizens of the Commonwealth” and the “subjects of the Commonwealth”. There are other examples from other states where the term “natural born subject” was used.

So while there are profound differences between the terms, it doesn’t appear that anyone was fight a duel because someone else called them a subject instead of a citizen.


30 posted on 01/23/2012 6:28:59 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Well, that was a long and productive read!

I sincerely hope that the judge finds the time to read even just a little of this brief. It is exactly how I see Natural born as opposed to Citizen. Although both have the same rights as the other, none other than the Natural born can be Commander in Chief or Vice President for that matter.

Allegiance lies with the country. Owing allegiance to another country is counter productive. Obama never sides with the United States... I wonder why? Maybe because he was brought up to hate this country as his mother and grandparents did.


31 posted on 01/23/2012 7:00:57 PM PST by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

What you say is true. However I think Leo did a BRILLIANT job of illustrating the differences along with how and why they are important. It was long overdue to be honest and I am glad he did it.

In reality, NBC and NBS are similar in that they describe members of a society. However, when one looks beneath the surface more is revealed about just how different they are.

Thanks for an interesting discussion on it!

~D


32 posted on 01/23/2012 9:42:32 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Danae

This is an astounding piece of work! Thank you Mr. Donofrio.
I am amazed at the clarity of this body of work.

Be fun to be a fly on the wall at the Whitehouse tonight.


33 posted on 01/23/2012 10:14:54 PM PST by wingtip (The mainstream media has just been "Newtralized")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Danae

This is an astounding piece of work! Thank you Mr. Donofrio.
I am amazed at the clarity of this body of work.

Be fun to be a fly on the wall at the Whitehouse tonight.


34 posted on 01/23/2012 10:17:38 PM PST by wingtip (The mainstream media has just been "Newtralized")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Well that was a most excellent brief. I don’t think I have ever read something so comprehensive spanning centuries of time on a single subject that had to be brought together in one place.

Leo’s brief should find its way in the reference libraries of the best legal scholars for all time. And those legal professors today who state the case has no merit or basis in fact look like grade school students compared to Leo’s amazing amicus.

I realize there is a mantra to the legal profession but I have wondered over the years how could any lawyer look someone straight in the eye and claim there is no rational reasoning in this issue.

I would have been tempted to add several things more. Like Chester burning all his papers and how he denied the rumors more than once. I would have been tempted to correlate the age of the president, 35, with the age countries can press one into military service. I would have railed on the media and the corruption of the government. I would have scolded the politicians and the society for allowing our history to be swept away.

But with grace and restraint, Leo wrote a masterpiece of history.


35 posted on 01/24/2012 3:15:08 AM PST by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Jet Jaguar; Lady Jag; Slings and Arrows; maggief; Dog; BP2; Candor7; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...

thanks for the ping!


36 posted on 01/24/2012 6:20:02 AM PST by bitt (Socialism works great until you run out of Chinese money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wingtip

They are not on the wall. They just land on his face.


37 posted on 01/24/2012 6:34:59 AM PST by US_MilitaryRules (Unnngh! To many PDS people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

Whether or not federal elections are actually state elections is going to be the issue. In the area of campaign finance, for example, federal law is preemptive over state law in federal races. There are cases that hold that the secretary of state signing off on election results is a pro forma act and not substantive.

If this goes anywhere, the attorneys had better have a very good federal preemption argument.


38 posted on 01/24/2012 6:41:23 AM PST by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: esquirette

There are very few Federal laws that address the election process.

Here are the ones I found that various states do reference:

* Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
* National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)
* Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA)
* Voting Rights Act of 1965

Most seem to be addressing the ability to vote.

States control who is on ballots and how they qualify.

The requirements from various states show that the process is very different state to state.

Surely the White House and Democratic party will use all the tools they can to fight this should this not go their way. That is for sure.


39 posted on 01/24/2012 7:38:42 AM PST by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
Bookmarked! I am no expert, but I have skimmed the article and probably will read more carefully later.

My own UN educated guess is that the secret Obama is hiding is not a Kenyan birth but that Obama Sr. is not the biological father. Just a hunch.

And if and when a Republican like Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal runs for president, the media will “discover” this fact and bring up the natural born citizen rule as argued by the brief. (This assumes that Obama’s biological father was not Obama Sr. but an American citizen.) They will spin it as a discovery Obama made about himself, and was hounded into disclosing by the evil right-wingers. And unless Rubio or Jindal runs in 2012 it won't make a difference to Obama anyway. If they could spin Clinton's crimes as no big deal, this should be easy. They will do whatever they have to do.

But that's just speculation, at best. I hope this case turns up some answers.

40 posted on 01/24/2012 8:24:04 AM PST by cvq3842
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bluecat6

This could end up to be a very good states’ rights case.


41 posted on 01/24/2012 9:41:36 AM PST by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Danae

“However, when one looks beneath the surface more is revealed about just how different they are.”

There certainly is the conceptual difference between the two. But I suspect that would not matter to someone like Justice Scalia.

“What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended” (A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 1997)

And

“In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” . . . Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation” District of Columbia v. Heller

So my guess is he would ignore much of Leo’s analysis of the Calvin’s Case and the derivation of the terms.


42 posted on 01/24/2012 10:57:22 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Thanks for the ping. I’ll download it.


43 posted on 01/24/2012 12:06:43 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan

Well, something tells me that we might just find that out one way or another.


44 posted on 01/24/2012 5:45:00 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bitt

Thanks for the ping!


45 posted on 01/24/2012 8:13:26 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson