Replies

statute of limitations

—that is a legal term. conversely, if the cops advise people to check the statute of limitations before reporting a possible crime, they would be asking the public to render a legal opinion before reporting a possible crime. This position runs the risk that in some cases, the public might falsely decide that the information they have is of no legal value to police investigation. Not everyone is a lawyer and not everyone can afford a lawyer. By casting a wide net, the police are more certain to obtain useful information. It is probably true that the police would have to screen the information, but they always have to screen the information anyway, and presumably a statute of limitations check is relatively straightforward as legal checks go.

psychologist’s evaluation

— but they might get a chance to file an amended complaint.

court of public opinion

— for better or otherwise, many civil lawsuits are fought in the court of public opinion. This might be an unavoidable side effect of the legal system combined with fundamental free speech related rights. It is an adversarial system, and each side can be expected to take maximal advantage of that. A death by a thousand cuts strategy, for example, would include filing an amended complaint that includes all necessary parts required by law. This strategy would entail requiring the OP to fire its ammo in public early, and use each opportunity to get more (presumably favorable) media attention to its side of the story. Can’t say for certain in any given case such as this one, but I am just guessing that it would be standard practice in certain types of lawsuits to use such a strategy.

evidence does not matter—

most evidence is not required at the complaint filing stage. Rush to judgment?

IANAL