Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.
IOW, the Plaintiffs did not present a valid argument for which relief could be granted. Everything else is just fluff. Telling me repeatedly to read post 27 (which I did a long time ago, thanks ....) does not change the facts.
If you read post 27 "a long time," ago then why did you say you read the PDF instead in post 67??? The passage you cited here doesn't show any "facts." It's a legal dodge. The court claims the Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, yet they cited Vattel who is quoted by the Supreme Court in one of the decisions cited by the Indiana judges. Why is that okay for the Supreme Court but not for Ankeny to do??
Second, I've shown where these Indiana judges misrepresented the plaintiffs' argument in a direct contradiction. IOW, this court has a severe problem: either they lied about what the plaintiff's argument was or they were too stupid to realize that they contradicted themselves and misrepresented what the plaintiffs were arguing. What this leaves us with is a court that severely undermines its own credibility and legal reputation. This case does NOT help Obama other than to provide poorly supported subterfuge.