You have already factually been given the «simplest» _direction_ which is to go to a damn library, head to the «law» section of said library, then look through the books for yourself; whether you find anything to your liking or not is another matter;
Regardless of what you «believe» regarding the «official» stories, I mean, sure, you can «believe» the «official» stories about 9/11, JFK, etc., just like you can «believe» that the «official transcripts» resulted in the «Defendant» losing the case (even though he actually «won» the case in reality).
Unless you actually SEE IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES, similar to taking one's own photographs of UAPs, rather than demanding for «evidence» like a pseudo-skeptic, you simply aren't doing much more than «surface-level» investigation; better yet, GET yourself INTO a «court-case» where YOU are the «Defendant» then make SURE to ask the «judge» if you see a gold-fringed flag at the front of the room whether it happens to be a flag of admiralty or maritime, for and on the official public-record; AND DO NOT LET HIM DODGE THE QUESTION; it's been reported that, when someone did this, they «officially» had to find him «guilty» but, towards the end of the hearing, the «judge» talked to the Defendant & said that they would actually be dismissing the case & dropping all charges (apparently whispering to him very quietly), but, they had to make it «look» like he «lost» before the eyes of the rest of the public; just to make sure I put this into more context, they said they would let him go free, but, just don't ask about that flag, they were insistent.
And a «conspiracy theory» used as a derogatory term is nothing more than a LAZY man's way to NOT bother «FIELD-TESTING» claims FOR HIMSELF; I did read about someone's experiences, and, was mentioned towards the end of the previous paragraph, something which I later on did field-test for myself.
