Replies

The potential problem is that the plaintiffs rejected a default judgment so they can present their evidence and facts. The judge has to accept their evidence and facts before he will rule in their favor. Doesn't matter if Obama showed up or not - that doesn't make the plaintiffs automatically right. So far no judge has accepted Orly's arguments so I am not so sure this guy will be the first.

It doesn't matter if the plaintiff's are right or wrong..what matters is protocol..o was a no-show after being supoened..not cool. The court will grant a default to Orly,et.al..because obama forfeited his chance to play, not because Orly presented her arguments. As I stated in an earlier post, “our beloved country will be a vastly different place a week from now”.

I don't see how it can work that way. What if the judge thinks the plaintiff arguments are wrong? He is not going to say “they law says he is eligible but he is off the ballot because he didn't show up to my court.” He can't ignore the evidence if he accepts it in his court.

Besides, the WND stories say he offered a default judgment but the plaintiffs REJECTED it. They thought it more important to get their evidence on the record. I don't think a default judgment is automatic.