I don't know if you are still reading this. In case you are --

it did not go as expected

That's kind of what I suspected.

My understanding is that bill collectors use notices of obligations/debts followed, after a stated period, by a notice of default to get ex parte judgements against a debtor. It supposedly works, because the other party didn't bother to challenge the claim when given a chance

But that is NOT an ex parte hearing. That is the debt collector filing a lawsuit, serving notice on the defendant (if they did), the defendant does not show up, so the plaintiff gets a default judgement. That is not ex parte, even though one side did not show up. Ex parte is outside of the court room, with only the judge and one party invited. Here both parties were invited but one chose not to show up.

Think of ex parte as: "exclude the party." Here, nobody was excluded from discussions with the judge, in open court.

This default judgement could get vacated, but very few people know that, much less do something about it (if they knew anything, it would not have happened in the first place).

So, if they are saying this is an ex parte hearing, they are full of shit.

This is not something they can actually argue against

Sure, they can. They can just make up some bullshit and say it is not a violation, and if the judge agrees, that's it (unless appealed). There has to be MUCH more than just this, IMO, if the goal is to WIN.

I plan on posting an update tomorrow reflecting a change in the planned flow of events due to the vaxx now being mandated.

Yes, keep us posted!

A lot of us are trying to figure out the legal tricks used so we can get back to the rule of law. I just don't think these guys are on the right track. I hope I'm wrong and you win.

I don't know if you are still reading this. In case you are --

it did not go as expected

That's kind of what I suspected.

My understanding is that bill collectors use notices of obligations/debts followed, after a stated period, by a notice of default to get ex parte judgements against a debtor. It supposedly works, because the other party didn't bother to challenge the claim when given a chance

But that is NOT an ex parte hearing. That is the debt collector filing a lawsuit, serving notice on the defendant (if they did), the defendant does not show up, so the plaintiff gets a default judgement. That is not ex parte, even though one side did not show up. Ex parte is outside of the court room, with only the judge and one party invited. Here both parties were invited but one chose not to show up.

Think of ex parte as: "exclude the party." Here, nobody was excluded from discussions with the judge, in open court.

This default judgement could get vacated, must very few people know that, much less do something about it (if they knew anything, it would not have happened in the first place).

So, if they are saying this is an ex parte hearing, they are full of shit.

This is not something they can actually argue against

Sure, they can. They can just make up some bullshit and say it is not a violation, and if the judge agrees, that's it (unless appealed). There has to be MUCH more than just this, IMO, if the goal is to WIN.

I plan on posting an update tomorrow reflecting a change in the planned flow of events due to the vaxx now being mandated.

Yes, keep us posted!

A lot of us are trying to figure out the legal tricks used so we can get back to the rule of law. I just don't think these guys are on the right track. I hope I'm wrong and you win.

I don't know if you are still reading this. In case you are --

it did not go as expected

That's kind of what I suspected.

My understanding is that bill collectors use notices of obligations/debts followed, after a stated period, by a notice of default to get ex parte judgements against a debtor. It supposedly works, because the other party didn't bother to challenge the claim when given a chance

But that is NOT an ex parte hearing. That is the debt collector filing a lawsuit, serving notice on the defendant (if they did), the defendant does not show up, so the plaintiff gets a default judgement. That is not ex parte, even though one side did not show up. Ex parte is outside of the court room, with only the judge and one party invited. Here both parties were invited but one chose not to show up.

Think of ex parte as (exclude the party). Here, nobody was excluded from discussions with the judge, in open court.

This default judgement could get vacated, must very few people know that, much less do something about it (if they knew anything, it would not have happened in the first place).

So, if they are saying this is an ex parte hearing, they are full of shit.

This is not something they can actually argue against

Sure, they can. They can just make up some bullshit and say it is not a violation, and if the judge agrees, that's it (unless appealed). There has to be MUCH more than just this, IMO, if the goal is to WIN.

I plan on posting an update tomorrow reflecting a change in the planned flow of events due to the vaxx now being mandated.

Yes, keep us posted!

A lot of us are trying to figure out the legal tricks used so we can get back to the rule of law. I just don't think these guys are on the right track. I hope I'm wrong and you win.