Not sure when this was, and I guess this may be very belated, but I'm sorry you had that experience. Nowadays at least, although the text of the rules is interpreted much more literally than any real law system, and the policy is always to follow it where it is clear, vagueness in the rules is often interpreted in a convenient way, and there is quite a lot of (often ignored) precedent to deal with it, so it takes time to understand them. On the other hand, the CFJ system doesn't always get it right (in quite a few instances, later cases have struck down precedent without any particular reason that the answer should have changed - some cases are paid more careful attention than others, and sometimes emotion affects it in the case of scams), and often facts that seem completely self-evident to one person end up getting disputed (I've had this happen to me and observed it in others). I've learned through experience that it's best to avoid taking adverse judgements personally or getting ticked off about what seems to be misguided judging, especially if you're trying a scam.