Here is a new short video on the amicus curiae brief from an influencer who tried to be accurate and fair to investors. No sugarcoating, no “get in now” pitch, nothing to sell - just information.
If you agree, please engage with the video so that she feels the support of our community 
Thank you!
Not that I expect “Natasha The Editorialist” to change her ways, but I sent the following letter to the Portugal Resident Editor to try clue them in. As with the TR vs. PR. vs. Nationality comparison, it draws upon NG contributions - so thanks for those 
Thank you Natasha for your article of 5-December on the “Amicus Curiae” Nationality Law appeal to the Tribunal Constitucional on behalf of Golden Visa investors. While politicians love our billions in investment money, they never seem to remember the impact of AIMA and immigration law changes on our willingness to invest in Portugal.
However it does your readership a great disservice to parrot the “nothing to worry about” Pollyanna view of Golden Visa promoters. Claiming that “having residency in this country, as a foreigner, is every bit as useful as nationality” is simply wrong, for many reasons.
More (perhaps twice as many) years to Citizenship obviously means more years for Portugal to change the rules of the game - again! Will minimum stay or language requirements change as well? If Portugal can pass the current retrospective changes now, who trusts it to not make more unfavourable changes in the next 5 years?
As opposed to proper Portuguese Nationality (what most of us signed-up for)…
Temporary Portuguese Residency adds these burdens and nerve-wracking uncertainty:
And to be clear, Permanent Portuguese Residency is not “almost as good” as Citizenship either:
Wow, you guys were very busy while I was away!
First, thanks so much @kgoff74 and others for all your efforts. Especially for publicly making Leitão Amaro eat his own populist braggadocio (“left to the end… Those who pay the most… the ARIs, the so-called golden visas.”). Total self-own there António 
Thinking of any future PT legal needs, which firms most contributed to this brief? Seems Liberty Legal (Madalena Monteiro) and maybe Fieldfisher Portugal (André Miranda)? Was PAIIR/Prime Legal also involved?
Unlike our lawyers (SBPS) and most other PT firms, who just shake their fist at the sky and then resume plodding along under the same old injustices, your folks seem to be real go-getters. I like that!
Please excuse my ignorance: my nationality application was submitted in July this year (ie after June 19). So my question is the following: is the Constitutional Court ruling on both the start date to work out when residency began as well as the constitutionality as to whether existing GV/ARI holders can be denied grandfathering on the 5 years as opposed to 10 years new requirement for nationality? I feel like there are so many issues going on here.
For context, I was approved in November 2019 but as a result of Covid, I only got biometrics taken in 2022 and my card was issued in Jan 2023. So, I am wondering if I am still falling into the 5 year requirement and whether that starts from Dec 2019? I am so confused as to where I am with this.
If anyone can shed any light, I would be most grateful.
AFAIK the June 19th thing no longer applies. They dropped that part - the part that said the law would start from June 19th. So your application is alright under the old rules.
Even if the way they count time changes, it wouldn’t apply to you. If you managed to actually submit your application (surprised that they accepted it because as I heard they had changed the counting law but in practice were still counting from the date of first residence card).
So if you managed to get the actual application in, it should be pretty much legit under the law in force - even today.
In fact, yours is a classic case of why they should count from the date of application.
You are welcome. (And welcome back!) I’m glad I could contribute. It was a big team effort to get it done. I am not sure if I’m allowed to disclose the law firm names, but you can probably figure it out from the press articles. Our next step is to form something like a non-profit (as best I can tell, that’s the analog) so we have resources and can move quickly whatever the next stage is. I don’t know how long that takes or what the cost will be. But in the meantime, we built a network that we can activate as needed. I will report back when I have more info.
Well done. I eagerly await the response. 
Thank-you so much, I was most concerned about the June 19 date. I do have a tracking number for my nationality application so I assume it is in the system. This whole process has indeed been stressful especially in the beginning with the Covid delays and not knowing when we would be allowed to travel.
We keep going round and round on this. The law was changed on counting the necessary time, aimed at the MI crowd and incidentally including GV< but there still was a landing requirement and the need for regulation. So the view of the constitutional court on the elimination of the counting change is still really important. The concern is that an invalid application will be rejected in a few years, and the process will have to be restarted.
New article about the amicus brief to the TC:
It’s been eerily quiet on NG recently. It makes me nervous. 
While we wait for the TC… 
From the 12th:
Parliament has accepted the petition created by lawyer Priscila Nazareth Ferreira to discuss the inclusion of waiting time in the calculation foreseen by the Nationality Law . This week, the lawyer received an email from the Committee on Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees informing her of the decision.
So today really is d-day. Dios mio…
good luck to all of us, any minute now
How funny would it be if the response today was
Apparently the decision will be read out verbally on Monday
So the TC had to decide by today, but they could wait to announce until later… nice loophole.
Here’s Natasha at 19:40, discussing her article on the Amicus Curiae brief. I’m afraid she seems blissfully unburdened by the facts in your letter – or by any facts at all. It manages to be both garbled and offensive at the same time.
The worst thing is that she is trying to spread the idea that this is an astroturf effort by lawyers rather than a grassroots effort by real ARI investors. She says she has been on NomadGate, but clearly didn’t pay close attention.
Maybe a bit of better news…here is the update to the note on the “Rage” thread…