>>104497432OK so here's a little lesson in how the courts work:
Suing somebody doesn't mean you're right and they lose.
The longer version of this is that in order to sue you have to file with the court, which means you need to have a case to argue before the court. This can be something relatively simple but still take a tremendous amount of work because you need to prove it, because it is your assertation, so you have to produce the evidence, and the entity you are suing then gets the right of reply, where they produce their own evidence. The two sets of evidence are then "discovered". If there is any merit to the argument you're making, the case will proceed to court and a date will be set for a preliminary hearing at which you set out your argument. This system prevents you from simply filing against anybody you don't like without ever presenting any evidence until you reach court (although some people do manage that, and guess what, it's usually dealt with harshly by the judge).
At court you present your evidence formally and highlight the specifics of your argument based on that evidence. You can't introduce hearsay (except incidentally) and it can never form the main support of your argument. You can introduce witnesses who can testify to what they've witnessed, but usually you'll be introducing expert witnesses whose credibility is then tested by the defense, both on the merits of what they're arguing on your behalf in court and on previous activities of the witnesses. Introducing an expert witness doesn't win you the case; everybody does it, and the credibility of their arguments is what wins or loses the case.
So for example if you want someone to say "solar winds" then they need to be an expert on solar winds and present credible evidence backing up your position. Since nothing like that exists, you've just lost a lot of money arguing nothing.
