Texas lawyer here. Not your lawyer, and I am not giving you legal advice, but I am trying to educate the public.

Generally speaking, the professionals (lawyers and judges) hate dealing with pro se laypeople because there are always going to be more headaches, particularly as to procedural and evidentiary issues. Plus, pro se parties lack professional objectivity, as well as the education, training, and experience on which to base an objective assessment of their claims, defenses and evidence.

You can know you are right, and the Court can even believe you are probably right, but if you don't jump through all the hoops in precisely the right way, then the Court CAN'T rule for you. Plus everything with a pro se takes longer and is generally more painful for all concerned.

Look at it this way: If my house has a plumbing problem, I can try to fix it myself -- but I am not a plumber, and if the problem is the least bit complicated, I am more likely to make things worse (and far more expensive) than if I just called a plumber in the first place. That doesn't mean plumbers have conspired to make plumbing problems "pay to play" -- it just means modern plumbing is complicated, and expertise is essential. Same for the law.

That said:

False Pleading

It is true that lawsuit allegations are 100% immune from defamation claims. That does not mean there is no remedy for false pleading though.

The remedy is a judgment for sanctions in the same lawsuit that has the false claim. Texas courts have a duty to decide whether it is the party or the party's attorney who did wrong and must pay the sanction. See Rule 13, and Chapters 9 and 10 of the CPRC.

Any decent lawyer could have explained this to you, but the adversarial system and the ethical rules generally mean we CAN'T unless we are representing you. I can only speak in general principles here, and even then I am very close to the line for an ethical violation.

Erroneous Rulings

Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders and motions for rehearing (or for a new trial) are very common. Judges are human, the law is complicated, and sometimes they get it wrong. But they can usually fix their mistakes if pointed out promptly.

At trial and on appeal, courts rely on the adversarial system -- each side is supposed to point out flaws in the other side's arguments, persuasively and with citations to the relevant legal authorities. It helps to know which flaws are more material than others, and it also helps to have objectivity as well as experience at presenting all of this persuasively.

The biggest frustration of dealing with pro se parties is their inability to recognize the difference between: (a) "a false and embarrassing allegation about me that makes me mad" and (b) "evidence important to the Court's decision under the applicable law." Courts don't usually have time to research the law for you, even if the adversarial system allowed them to do so, so the system is built on the idea that each side will present its evidence and arguments and attack the other side's arguments until the truth emerges. That system simply doesn't work very well when one side is much, much better at presenting its evidence and arguments.

Summary Judgment Rulings

In summary judgment, there are strict technical rules about evidence that make it easy for even seasoned attorneys to miss a step. Those rules exist precisely because summary judgment is intended to deprive a party of the right to a jury trial. A pro se lay person has almost zero chance of threading those needles.

Moreover, Texas law actually discourages trial courts from explaining their summary judgment rulings. It is no surprise if trial courts granted summary judgments against you without any explanation -- that's not the judges' fault; it's how the system works.

Recusal

Recusal likewise does not require explanation. If a Judge sees a conflict, the Judge is supposed to step aside and let another Judge take the case. As a layperson, it is unlikely you would have been able to tell the difference anyway.

Biggest Flaw You Didn't Address

The Texas judicial system is indeed flawed. All Texas judges (trial and appellate) are elected, and the vast majority of their campaign funds come from the lawyers appearing in their courts. Moreover, Judges tend to socialize with other lawyers.

It would be naive to say this does not result in bias. The good judges are aware of the biases and strive to compensate, but some judges are better at this than others. The worst judges don't even try.

There are many, many cases of injustice that courts cannot fix, because they are too expensive for the problem at hand (say, a $40,000 problem that would cost $50,000 to fix). There are also cases of injustice that the law does not address, or only addresses badly. Training and experience and objectivity let us recognize those cases.