Yes, I read why it was thrown out.

Because it was thrown out, the accuracy of the claims were not tested. The filing did not provide extensive support internally. (I read it--even in the best case it was pointing to some smoke and saying someone had been shot; disagreements about whether, say, Pennsylvania runs its process in a sufficiently fraud-proof way is a far cry from a documentation of fraud.) So your supposed facts are basically at the level of hearsay; the only exception to hearsay-level "evidence" been your documentation that known election fraud is, as I claimed, extremely rare.

Why do you talk about facts if you're not willing to document them, at least when someone else (e.g. me) goes, "Hey, the facts to me look totally different from what you claim, they look like this to me (citation) (citation)"?

And you're the one saying "Intellectually dishonest much?"