Your "technical person" is incompetent in the same way in which you are accusing the courts: He or she knows nothing about the law. No legal person would throw

Your "technical person" is incompetent in the same way in which you are accusing the courts: He or she knows nothing about the law. No legal person would throw out a case as you suggest. This is what courts do. They hear cases. They don't make rash assumptions and jump to conclusions. If you were falsely accused of a crime and "everybody knew" you did it, you would want the same from the courts. What the courts do not do is to gain expertise in every field in which they may have to rule. It may take a lifetime of practice to gain the expertise to be able to make the arguments to defend a position, but understanding those arguments is comparatively easy. The risk is that the court may only have half the story. It may not have the experience to see that a valid argument is trumped by some other concern, and rule incorrectly. This is the advantage of the adversarial system that we have. If one side makes a weak argument, the other can counter it. The legal experts of the court need only decide if those arguments are valid in the context of current law, and the jury decides if the assumptions are true.