His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to ac

His beliefs may or may not conform to reality. I don't find it worthwhile to prejudge the cases based on my read of someone's actions. He's not required to act in a rational manner and the less rational a plaintiff's behavior, the more outlandish the claims may be (see also: Paul Ceglia). So I'm going to stick with no opinion either way and wait for the hard evidence, rather than trying to read the behavior of people I don't know, who may or may not conform to my ideas of rational behavior, which is something we've yet to establish. This is very important given that flat-out crazy parties (see also: SCO) have tied up the courts for, well, decades based on stuff and nonsense (and mostly the latter). As I can't prove whether plaintiff or defendant are rational until I see evidence, we're stuck with "stay neutral until you get the facts." I've read plenty of cases and I've yet to see a case where prejudging the parties was a good idea. Contrarily, I've seen plenty of people get excited about nonsense that was laughed out of court later. So no, there just isn't a good reason to rush to judgement on this or any other case. Whether the plaintiff or defendant is right is something we should wait to decide later, once we have a more complete set of facts.