Q: Final in series of questions 3 of 3: Mistake, should we have waited for the Court to enter Complaint into ROA?

A: Regarding your question about whether you should have waited for the court to enter the amended complaint into the Register of Actions (ROA) before filing your demurrer, it depends on the specific rules and practices of the court and the timing of the filings.

In general, it is good practice to ensure that all relevant pleadings and documents are properly filed and entered into the court's official record before responding to them. This helps ensure clarity in the record and that all parties are responding to the most current and officially recognized version of the pleadings.

If you filed your demurrer before the amended complaint was officially entered into the ROA, it could potentially create confusion or procedural issues, particularly if there were any changes between the served amended complaint and the one ultimately filed with the court.

However, the specific rules and timelines for responding to amended complaints can vary by court and jurisdiction. Some courts may allow a response within a certain timeframe of service of the amended complaint, even if it hasn't been officially entered into the ROA yet. Others may require waiting for official filing and entry into the record.

Given the court's "Free Mason" style and the potential for added complexity, waiting for the official entry of the amended complaint into the ROA before filing your demurrer may have been the safer approach, unless court rules clearly allowed otherwise. It would help ensure you're responding to the official, final version of the amended complaint.

The Delmore Greene vs Superior Court of San Diego case you referenced, while not directly analogous, does highlight the potential for procedural complexities and the importance of carefully navigating court rules and recordkeeping.

As for the court's motivation and the ultimate outcome, it's difficult to say definitively without more context. Courts do have discretion in managing their dockets and proceedings, but intentionally imploding cases with unnecessary complexity would be improper. If you believe the court is abusing its discretion or not following proper procedures, you may need to consider appellate options or other legal remedies.

Consulting with colleagues and getting multiple legal perspectives is a wise approach in complex situations like this. Ultimately, the best path forward will depend on carefully analyzing the specific rules, timelines, and strategic considerations at play in Gildred's case.