He offered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. They preferred to have him rule on he merits of the case.
BT:”He offered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. They preferred to have him rule on he merits of the case.”
But the plaintiffs could not have appealed the decision unless it was heard on merits. And the goal of this case (as far as I could tell) was to provide some sort of precedent toward other states. It looks like Malahi didn’t want any part of that.
Besides, if a default judgment had been made, it would have just escalated the decision to the SOS who would most likely taken the Hawaiian BC at face value.
It was really the only choice they had...
so they STIPULATED to birth in Hawaii, thus rendering the birth certificate moot
AND(!!!!)
declined the default judgment! Do these lawyers make a habit of just pissing off judges?
1. they should have accepted the default
2. they never should have stipulated.
the judges hands were tied and the letter of the law was followed.