AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.

[UPDATED: 1:23 PM – SCRIBD download for Amicus Brief.]

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.

[See commenting rules here.]

About these ads

4 Responses to “AMICUS BRIEF – Georgia POTUS Eligibility Cases.”

  1. naturalborncitizen Says:

    There’s one substantive typo in the procedural history… hearing set for Jan. 26, 2012, not 2011. Whoops. The court has been notified and I was told by the clerk not to worry about.

    There are a couple of other minor typos, but nothing substantive… missing quotation mark here, extra space there… not bad for having no sleep in 40 hours. :)

    I have one more essay on all of this to come… then, I think, and pray… that I am done with this issue.

    My feature film was invited to a very cool film festival and Im going to be giving all of my attention to artistic endeavors going forward.

    Warm regards, peace and love to all, enemies and friends. I mean that. Love is the answer, people.

    Leo

  2. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Regarding the page count, I was informed by the court clerk that since the Amicus Brief was not a filing by a party, there was no page restriction. The court has accepted the brief and may do with it as it pleases.

    Furthermore, please understand the nature of an Amicus Brief. It means “friend of the court”. Again, I am not representing any of the parties. And the Court is not required to place any weight on the brief, or to even read it at all. This is the nature of an amicus brief.

    I have no illusions one way or the other about the relevance of my work to the court. But they have accepted it, and there is no problem with the page count.

    I repeat, the brief has not been filed on behalf of a party.

    Chill.

    Leo

  3. naturalborncitizen Says:

    SCRIBD download link.

  4. naturalborncitizen Says:

    I have been asked to clarify pg. 19 of the Amicus Brief:

    “Since the common law application of jus soli requires, as its basis of power, submission to Christ, the framers could not have intended to incorporate the jus soli element of natural allegiance into Article 2, Section 1. Therefore, it begins to look more and more likely that the specific intention of the natural-born citizen clause was to require both, jus soli, and, jus sanguinis.”

    It’s the “natural allegiance” aspect of jus soli which is not incorporated into A2, S1. This is why simple birth on U.S. soil is not enough to make one a natural-born citizen. The words “natural born”, in “natural-born subject”, cannot be synonymous with the words “natural born”, in A2, S1.

    Since naturalization statutes have always been necessary to create citizenship for those born abroad to citizen parents, we know that birth on U.S. soil was required to be a natural-born citizen, but the “natural” part of that phrase must come from a source other than the English common law, as it relates to natural allegiance, owed via birth within the power of the King as God’s monarch on Earth, as that power emanates throughout his realms (jus soli).

    Jus sanguinis allegiance, as recognized by the nomenclature of the English common law, is initiated through the blood of one’s parents, which is related to the science of nature, as was discussed in Bacon v. Bacon.

    The non-denominational Law of Nations definition of “natural-born citizen” requires both jus soli and jus sanguinis, which makes sense under international law, as to a chief executive, so that there is a singular and undivided allegiance from birth, so that conflicts as to treason and treaties would be avoided. Avoiding, and/or settling, such entanglements is the very purpose of international law, aka the Law of Nations.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), adopted a definition of natural-born citizen that requires birth in the country (jus soil) to citizen parents (jus sanguinis).

    Leo

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: