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...
I’m not arguing that. I replied to a question about how the court could rule in favor of a defendant who failed to show up.
the only course they had?
they could have chosen truth justice and the american way.
how can evidence od social security fraud by the present in chief be entered into a court of law and no one is responsible for investigating? I guess i dont want to understand how it is possible that our country is beyond help