Show me where I asked that.
pointed out that the Chilean Supreme Court - aka its highest ranking judicial body - went against Allende with the rest of the government. In fact they ruled him in breach of the constitution on multiple counts, which would affirm the finding of the CoD that Allende was operating outside of the constitution as well.
The issue at hand is Pinochet's legitimacy, not Allende's.
In short, the two other branches of the Chilean government determined that Allende's legitimacy was forfeit. If Allende had no legitimacy, then his overthrow cannot be a violation of what was not there.
You're confusing a question about Allende's lack of legitimacy with a question about the legitimacy of Pinchet's coup.
Meanwhile legitimacy was conferred upon his successor Pinochet by the CoD's request to oust Allende,
Such a request can only "confer legitimacy" if it is part of the CoD's constitutionally defined powers.
the subsequent endorsement of the coup after Allende's ouster,
You're again confusing "support" with "legitimacy".
and the convention Pinochet called to repair and restore the constitutional government that Allende had breached.
Ex post facto actions may justify the coup, but they do not legitimate it.
Legitimize, not legitimate.
That's not what you said in Post #132: "Unpalatable as he [Allende] may have been, he was the country's legitimate president."
You're confusing a question about Allende's lack of legitimacy with a question about the legitimacy of Pinchet's coup.
The only confusion here is your own, as this discussion began when you described Allende as Chile's "legitimate president." I've already indicated why he was not with little to no substantive answer from you, only your usual word games.