see the evidence

And what did the judges say when instead of producing actual evidence, you said you'd forcibly coerce them into watching something that has already been ruled to have no legal value?

Their irrational fear of seeing anything that contradicts the narrative needs to be overcome. Who ruled that the mules shown in the movie cannot be a step towards prosecution?

70 court rulings said that all of this evidence is inadmissible nonsense.

You're allowed to contradict the narrative, but you're not allowed to have a trial if you don't have evidence.

I'm talking about the movie 2000 mules, which clearly shows fraud. There are no court cases about it because law enforcement is scared to go there.

Movies that are inadmissible as evidence in court don't clearly show ANYTHING.

That movie shows everything

And which part of "everything" was court admissible when you went to a judge?