2claim for injunctive relief had been previously denied and, thus, the
matter proceeding totrial would be Plaintiffs’ cause of action for declaratory judgment.
This Court having reviewed the evidence presented now finds that
of the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Secretaryof State and
Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory judgment. Specifically,this Court makes the following findings and conclusions relative to Plaintiffs’ claim fordeclaratory judgment.
1. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutional qualifications of President Barack Obamabefore the Indiana Elections Commission (“IEC”) and sought to have him removed from theIndiana ballot.
2. The IEC unanimously denied Plaintiffs’ challenge on February 24, 2012.3. The review of the decision of the IEC is governed by the Administrative Ordersand Procedures Act (“AOPA”).
I.C. § 4-21.5,
I.C. § 4-21.5-5-1 (AOPA
This Court, by separate Orders, has disposed of these other matters. Because this Courthas concluded that Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed with prejudice, thereasons set forth in that Order are incorporated herein and provide further bases for this Order.Put simply, since Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is devoid of merit, judgment in favor of the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Secretary of State is proper.
For the procedural and background section of this Order, this Court relies on the docketentries as appropriate. Such pleadings are not evidence; however, they are filings that providethe procedural history for this litigation.
This Court notes that Plaintiff Taitz did not technically file a challenge before the IECchallenging the qualifications; however, Plaintiff Taitz appeared before the IEC and providedinformation and evidence to the IEC. Plaintiff Taitz is a party to this litigation and hasrepresented the other plaintiffs as their counsel. Accordingly, this Court finds that PlaintiffsTaitz is in privity with the other plaintiffs who filed challenges (before the IEC) to theconstitutional qualifications of President Obama.
Small v. Centocor, Inc.
, 731 N.E.2d 22,27-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000),
(privity “includes those who control anaction, though not a party to it, and those whose interests are represented by a party to anaction”);
State v. Speidel
, 392 N.E.2d 1172, 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979) (court to look beyond thenominal parties and looks to those whose interest makes the real parties).