Daubert, Shmaubert.
So Orly’s evidence was insufficient and the defendant’s evidence was completely missing. Upon what evidence, then, did the judge make his decision?
Did he flip a coin?
The decision was made for the corrupt judge. He revealed the fact with his ruling, based upon NOTHING presented in the court.
It was an administrative hearing, not a trial. The judge was not restricted to the information provided by the plaintiffs. He simply researched the applicable case law. While the plaintiff’s case was not disputed by the defendant, that does not automatically make it true. The judge compared the plaintiffs case to existing case law and found it lacking.