Hey---I'm sorry you can't grasp a few basic principles of constitutional law. Not that I'm an expert, but I certainly didn't fall asleep in class when they were talking about this kind of stuff.
What we have here is a simple failure to communicate. You (BoR) are making what is essentially a normative argument - i.e., you want to discuss how things should be. And that's fine - everyone's entitled to an opinion on such things. But what HG has been telling you is how things actually are. As the law stands now, these folks don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent means nothing to their chances of getting some redress for their grievances. As the law stands now, they have virtually no case at all.
You may think that's bad - that's perfectly fine. But the actual reality of the situation as it really exists is not contingent upon your opinion of it - it is the way it is, no matter how you happen to feel about it. And in those terms - in terms of actual reality - HG is almost certainly correct.
It's the difference between how things are versus how we think they should be.