Why does the article state that Hollander showed up at Salas' home and shot her son and husband as if those were facts when the headline says that he is a suspect?

Why are lawsuits aiming to increase equality between the sexes called "seemingly frivolous"? Where do they get the justification for it "seeming" like they were "frivolous" to them? Isn't that equivalent to making the claim that you can mind-read, given that there are none of the usual indications for lawsuits being frivolous?

Why would Hollander want to kill Salas when she seemed to play little role in his life and he seemed to have little animosity toward her, merely mentioning her in passing in a text he wrote as "a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama" and the one case he ever had before her being allowed by her to proceed, with his only criticism of her being that she didn't "[move] the case along fast enough"?

Why would a men's rights lawyer want to kill another men's rights lawyer?