[Seizethecarp]

“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

The IN plaintiffs did not find recently discovered eighteenth century contemporaneous quotes by the founding fathers themselves (and numerous quotes by the founders in the early nineteenth century as well) explicitly citing Vattel’s NBC over Blackstone's NBS.

Any future litigation before SCOTUS would be much more extensively researched that the case brought into the IN courts.

These new quotes from the founders have been posted to you, and the fact that this newly discovered evidence was unavailable to the IN court is known to you, yet you continue to ignore the quotes and still cite the deficient case brought by the IN plaintiffs and the erroneous logic of the IN courts (an unknown fact of Arthur's ineligibility established precedent).

[Mr Rogers]

“the fact that this newly discovered evidence was unavailable to the IN court is known to you”

Put up or shut up. WHAT new found quotes are relevant, and why?

Vattel had one sentence, and it didn’t translate as ‘natural born citizen’ until AFTER the Constitution was written. From the French, it still does not.

“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens” is translated “The natives or indigenous people are those who are born in the country of Parent citizens.” The 1760 & 1787 translations into English had “The natives, or indegenes, are those...”

I agree with what Vattel says, but it isn’t a legal description of NBC.