[wintertime]

Could you explain what has happened in a manner that non-lawyers can understand?

[so_real]

The article is about an affidavit (sworn statement of fact) being filed wherein the affiant (Strunk) indicated:

"8. That the Court responded favorably to Plaintiff's argument and contention expressing familiarity with the difference between the Natural and Native born, as there is within Jewish law similar precedent and commented that the Court agreed there is a difference and would read the SCOTUS decision Plaintiff provided.".

This boils down to the affiant believing the Judge "gets it" -- the Judge understands there is a difference between "natural born" and "native born" and is open to the implications that fact holds. Of course, this may still ultimately bear no fruit. The affiant may have misconstrued the Judge's interest, or the Judge's interest may have little bearing on the proceedings of the case. So ... this is not a "win", but maybe, just maybe, a Judge might understand that Mr. Obama lacks the credentials to be POTUS.