“information and belief” is a code phrase, a term of art in legal briefs, designed only to protect the attorney and his client from charges of perjury. The idea is you do have evidence, you’ve done your best to interpret it and come to some conclusion that you affirm as true. Later on, if it turns out you screwed up, you can say you really weren’t trying to fake out the court, but you really believed what you were saying when you said it, that any reasonable person could have understood it the way you did. All that, condensed to three, sometimes four words. The other formulation is “knowledge, information, and belief.” It’s just legal CYA, and it shows up everywhere in responsibly written legal briefs. I know, because I use it all the time in mine.
With all that said, is it not the case that in the case in question nothing beyond the “information and belief” was ever developed?