On defaults and sovereign immunity - when laws are applied differently to "popular" and "unpopular" litigants, there is no rule of law

It has been reported in the press that last week a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has allegedly issued a default judgment of 10.5 BILLION dollars against Iran in favor of victims of 9/11 - without any evidence that Iran had any hand in 9/11.

I would love to analyze this particular twist in application of default laws and giving or withholding "sovereign immunity" in the United States where an unpopular litigant, "Islamic Republic of Iran", is denied "sovereign immunity", and gets a judgment against it without any evidence that supports the judgment, while a political and financial ally, Saudi Arabia, gets a preferential treatment by the same judge, "sovereign immunity", and a dismissal of an identical lawsuit, by the very same judge, just several months ago, even though Saudi Arabia citizens and legal residents participated in 9/11.

I wrote on this blog about, let's say, identity-specific application of laws in the United States - favoring friends, disfavoring "unpopular litigants", to the point that recently a criminal defender was bypassed for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court because of who she was - a former public defender, courageous and successful.

But, interestingly enough, when I downloaded from Pacer.gov the docket report of the case where the default judgment was reportedly made, In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-cv-09848, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York , the last docket entry in the docket report was 02/05/2016.
  

So, I am still looking as to where the "default judgment" of Judge Daniels was posted, and, when I discover it, I will run a full report.

Yet, application of sovereign immunity to Saudi Arabia and refusal to apply the same to Iran, on the same topic, by the same judge is bizarre at best.

When courts, or any other governmental officials, bend or break the law to cast stones at "unpopular" people, entities or countries, that means that there is no rule of law, and that the principle of "no rule of law for those we do not like" can be applied against any one of us, at any time.