We don't know that the judge would have actually issued a default judgment. He says in the ruling:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.
Well, oridinarily a court still finds against that party for not mounting a defense. In this instance, the judge takes up their cause for them. Who's to say he wouldn't have done that without the proceeding??
I am new at FR, but this is the first time I’ve been confronted with someone who is willing to skew the document to try to support their weak position.
You cite a PARTIAL statement in the judge’s ruling. You wrote:
We don’t know that the judge would have actually issued a default judgment. He says in the ruling:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.
However the complete statement in the ruling reads:
Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.[Citation] Nevertheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of the arguments and the evidence. The court granted the Plaintiff’s request.
Clearly the ruling went as I detailed. Taitz was offered a default judgement but refused and asked the court to judge her evidence. Rather than take the win, she demanded an audience rather than an action. Instead of petitioning the Secretary of State to uphold the court’s decision, Plaintiff is now licking wounds because Taitz is a poor lawyer.
I previously presented the best analogy, Taitz was playing Black Jack and was dealt a 21, but then asked for another card. Stupid.