That is absolutely correct. Unless you have evidence, it is nothing. When an investigator came to me with facts, evidence, he had to have something concrete. I’ve seen neigh unto nothing on this issue to convince me it is anything more than a canard. It is tilting at windmills.
No cases start without admissible evidence.
Discovery can not be a fishing expedition. It must be based be show to reasonably appear to lead to admissible evidence. Mere assertion means nothing. And you can not have discovery absent a pending suit (except in the rarest of circumstances)
Evidence comes from facts, not conjecture or supposition.
I don’t understand your last question.
I don’t understand your last question.
You just answered it, you are not acting like a reasonable person, rather one with an particular bent...your ignore the known information and hide behind what is not yet revealed...do you want the truth or are you happy to continue to be ignorant and not pursue the truth? According to your comments you are not interested in the truth and accept the hiding of facts as nothing to see. So once again what was your prior name on FR?
If no one in the world has standing, they don't go anywhere either. Curious that.