You said they got it wrong and it was a corrupt ruling. I'm curious where you think the law went against what they ruled, in other words, how did they interpret the law 'corruptly'
I asked you to expand on your wild claim, you couldn't.
I was trying to learn your position and potentially go on your side if you had a solid argument. 1 thing you're right about is me not having an opinion on if the court is corrupt or not, because I don't have any information saying they're corrupt. I wanted to learn your argument, but you failed to convince me, and likely anybody else, with you've mentioned.