Click the red pepper!
Don’t Veg Out
Become a Hero, Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
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 ...
“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”
He goes into a explaination of the source of English Nationality from the 1300’s to 1800’s.
Yes, you put it accurately, and I erred when I wrote that the 1772 Act changed English common law. Sorry for the confusion.
Donofrio’s Amicus Brief
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!!!
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!
Just askin’ but why don’t federal election laws preempt state laws?
Thank you very much.
All elections are state elections.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
thanks for the ping!
They are not on the wall. They just land on his face.
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.
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.
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.
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.