Comment: Sometimes lack of curiosity is what kills the cat

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So, did he refile today? (see in situ)

Sometimes lack of curiosity is what kills the cat

I know curiosity killed the delegates, but I'd like to know what happened.

Actually you could say that in this case a lack of curiosity is what killed the dele-cats. There was plenty of evidence out there, easily found by anyone who cared to look. Red flags galore. Enough to make anyone who was even slightly inquisitive have some very serious misgivings about supporting the lawsuit, much less signing on as a plaintiff.

Some people who are just now waking up to how bad this thing is (some of them frantically trying to blame the judge for it) are the *same* people who were on the front lines of trying to squash any curiosity, the same ones who were encouraging delegates to sign on with the lawsuit without looking closely at any of the evidence that the way it was being done was very, very bad. This effort was greatly assisted by some strategic banning and deletion, of course.

But as to your question about refiling, I don't think there was any inclination to refile on the part of the L4RP but it's also my understanding that there was no option to refile. The judge allowed for exactly one amended complaint and that opportunity was used to file something *worse* than the first. Everything since then has been procedural formality on the way toward dismissal with prejudice, and dealing with the appeal-that-was-not-an-appeal.

The next big question is whether the plaintiffs will be forced to pay legal costs for the defendants, on the grounds that a lawsuit with zero facts alleging any specific wrongdoing by any defendant is by definition a frivolous lawsuit.