Yeah, legal system deploys on and off contextualization whenever it's convenient. They always ignore the context of the dissenting side and just make up new context (as we have seen with all these Charlottesville lawsuits pretty much).

These holocaust-related lawsuits are especially absurd and quite frankly offensive to the sane mind. For example check out IHR v. Mermelstein case where they accepted Mel Mermelstein's personal testimony as the judicial notice and ignored everything that the IHR has said.

The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted his own testimony as proof but it was ignored. He then sued IHR in the United States and the case was subsequently settled for $50,000, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering. The court declared the statement that "Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944" was a fact.

Source

This is the first case I saw where plaintiff's testimony is considered indisputable, but it's certainly not the only one lol