As we have seen with many other cases against Obama on his eligibility, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate a particular harm caused by the negligence of the defendant in order to survive a motion to dismiss.
If a motion to dismiss is overruled, the discovery process begins. The discovery process began in the GA Election Ballot Case and Obama ignored subpoenas for discovery. This tells me his records have not been scrubbed or edited. It’s reasonable to assume all subpoenas for discovery will be ignored by Obama. Ignoring subpoenas is contempt of Court and grounds for a default judgment. In a default judgment, the Court will rule the allegations for the complaint have merit and a hearing on damages begins.
A plaintiff who cannot show personal damage will not be allowed to proceed past a motion to dismiss. Which brings us to the De Facto Officer Docrine. The De Facto Officer Doctrine protects the governing authority from harm cause by a usurper assuming control as a government official. The De Facto Officer Doctrine does not protect the usurper from criminal liability, keep the usurper in office or make him legal.
Also, the De Facto Officer Doctrine does not apply if a person charged with a crime, assessed a tax or ordered to pay a fine due to a law signed by the usurper if the person complains the law is voidable because it was signed by a usurper and the usurper is still in office. A person charged with a crime, assessed a tax or ordered to pay a fine due to a law signed by the usurper has a particular harm to highlight for the Court. SCOTUS is very clear. A defendant is entitled to adjudication for a claim against a usurper if the defendant raises their concern before the trial begins.