From Corsi's facebook page:

Race Religion: Itsa locator.

I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

[Natural-born citizen is a specific clause; the 14th Amendment is a general clause; a specific clause governs over a general clause -- generalia specialibus non derogant.]

It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.

[...]

Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling [denying Obama's motion to dismiss], that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.

[...]

If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.

Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored. And I shall not debate.

Garrett Papit wrote:
Leo did a good job of tearing holes in the English Common Law "natural-born subject" argument [in his amicus brief] with his religion argument as well. The King of England is supposed to be Christ's representative on Earth...much like the Pope in the Catholic Church. The US is Constitutionally prohibited from using a definition of citizenship that requires Christian faith. End of story.

Garrett Papit is the one who posted hundreds of idiotic comments at Orly's World Facebook group under the name "E. Vattel". When Steven Feinstein figured out who it was from the writing style he PM'ed Garrett and Garrett deleted the account never to be seen again.

From Corsi's facebook page:

Race Religion: Itsa locator.

The founders clearly understood this was a discredted doctrine that English courts had made clear was not the law of England and, of course, American courts would not mention when they discussed American adoptuion fo English law. Has Leo gotten anything right yet?

Yes.

He has been right to stay out of poker games with competent players where he might lose.

He has been right to drop out of chess tournaments against superior players where he would certainly lose and damage his bogus rating.

He has been right to stay out of courts, at least after his incompetence led to sanctions in the Old Carco case.

Right about the law, though? If he has ever been right about that, I have missed it. At least he has had the sense to keep his bogus ravings about the law on his blog, instead of in court filings, perhaps to avoid more sanctions.

The lack of historical analysis evident in every judicial opinion which has discussed Obama’s eligibility is staggering. If you compare Judge Malihi’s recent opinion in Georgia, and the Ankeny case from Indiana, to important citizenship decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, it becomes clear what separates the men from the boys. In a word; research.

[...]

Unfortunately, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, we have the second worst piece of stinky refuse the Court has ever passed wind upon. And the appearance of true justice has once again been utterly humiliated. Consider that Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur, a man born of an alien father. And in 1898, when Wong was decided, had the public at large, and the Court at large, known that Arthur was born a British subject in the U.S., then there would have been no need to determine the citizenship fate of anyone else born in the country to alien parentage.

[...]

Today, we shall strip another foundational building block from the opinion in WKA. I refer to the mysterious “paper” written by Philadelphia attorney, Horace Binney, in 1853. My research has revealed that the his paper, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws, was published in three editions, not two, as was erroneously suggested by Justice Gray. Furthermore, Gray’s suggested chronology of publication is false.

[...]

Mr. Binney and his editors at the ALR deleted the infamous passage relied upon by Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. It did not survive the peer review process and was gutted in the third and final edition of the paper. Furthermore, the necessity for their being three versions of the same paper – all published within three months of each other – was caused by two consecutive screw ups by Binney in quoting the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790. As we shall discuss in detail below, Binney not only misquoted the statute in the first edition, but he compounded the error by applying speculative analysis to the statute as if it contained the misquoted provision.

"Unfortunately, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, we have the second worst piece of stinky refuse the Court has ever passed wind upon."

Really? The second worst? Which two(or more) of the following cases does Leo consider to be BETTER decisions than the case that guaranteed citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants?

- Dred Scott v. Sandford
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- Korematsu v. United States

So I'm listening to a November 2008 interview with Leo, and while he may say other interesting things later, one thing in particular jumped out at me:

Donofrio v. Wells was the FIRST lawsuit that Leo ever filed.

I don't know if that was previously known, but I think that says a lot about Leo.

(Also, Leo sounds a lot more manic and crazy than I expected.)

So I'm listening to a November 2008 interview with Leo, and while he may say other interesting things later, one thing in particular jumped out at me:

Donofrio v. Wells was the FIRST lawsuit that Leo ever filed.

I don't know if that was previously known, but I think that says a lot about Leo.

Explains why his application to SCOTUS for a stay was thin on citations. Like, nearly completely lacking citations.

Appellant respectfully submits that the only purpose for
remanding the matter back to the Secretary of State would involve
the issue of whether Democratic candidate Barack Obama be
required to prove to Respondent that he was born in Hawaii.

Appellant, in both his original Complaint and Motion For
Summary Judgment, contends that candidate Obama is not eligible
to the Presidency as he would not be a "natural born citizen" of
the United States even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii , since,
as was argued in Appellant's original complaint brief, as well as
Appellant's brief in support of Motion For Summary Judgment,
Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya and therefore, having
been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is
not a "natural born citizen" as is required by Article 2, Section 1,
of the United States Constitution.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA:

First, I must address, out of respect for Senator Obama, that
Judge Sabatino's lower court decision makes an egregious error
wherein it states that Appellant suggested Senator Obama's
father might have been born in Indonesia. Appellant never made
any such allegation in any of Appellant's papers. I have been
assured by his Honor's clerk that the error will be corrected.

As regarding the issues surrounding Senator Obama's birth
certificate, and if it may please this Honorable Court, I would point
out that Senator Obama has not been presented with a genuine
legal request from a party with proper standing to command
him in any way, and therefore he has no legal responsibility
to submit or to bend his integrity. And for that, he certainly
deserves respect.

Appellant believes that if Senator Obama is presented with a legal
request from a government authority sanctioned to make such
request, that Senator Obama will respond accordingly and put
this issue behind him forever.

That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate
Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office
of President since is not a "natural born citizen" by the Constitution.
Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order the
Secretaries of the several States to remove Barack Obama's name from
the ballots.

That means it was the ONLY lawsuit he ever filed.

Old Carco?

Wasn't Old Carco an ongoing case that Leo and the Kreep tried to buttinsky?