Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Well it seems they are on the right course, then. There must be a reason they try to avoid it.
I'm not an expert in law by any means, but isn't this literally the case for summary judgement? The plaintiff is refusing to show up, so they can explain themselves in sentencing.
Not a criminal trial so no sentencing. If I remember correctly, the judge can allow posting notice in a newspaper if necessary and ultimately impose a default judgment. Hopefully a lawyer will chime in.
Summary judgement requires you to show you've successfully served the defendant and they've then refused/failed to appear in court.
If you can't actually serve the defendant (usually required in-person), but can show you have made sufficient effort to do so; the judge can first grant alternative means of service, such as posting notice in public, or service via email.
Once that's been done, and still the defendant fails to appear in court; then the plaintiff can submit a motion for summary judgement.
Do you realize how much of a piece of shit you have to be to avoid being served papers? You generally can't avoid a lawsuit by avoiding paperwork forever, it's still going to happen eventually.
I think the idea is to postpone this long enough to appoint even more pro-trump judges and capture the courts even more, so that when trump inevitably loses (maybe even by default), he can appeal and get a more favorable judge.
But thats on brand for the family of grifters: delay, delay, obstruct, appeal