AMICUS BRIEF-Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/ ^ | Jan 23, 2012 | Leo Donofrio

[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.

[esquirette]

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

[4Zoltan]

“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.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the ping. I’ll download it.

[Danae]

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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!