Why do lawyers not take cases that are plain as day?

Sure  - when YOU pay the $200,000+ plus in student loans and 7 years of schooling it takes to get a law degree. THEN you get to demand the services you complain about for free. So, until then, if you want to HIRE lawyers on cases where the lawyers won't take the risk of not getting paid and expend thier money on costs of litigation with a "contingent fee" then you get to hire then in the traditional fashion, you pay a retainer and an hourly rate for the work, just like you do mechanics, CPA's, handymen, Dentists, plumbers, A/C guys and literally everyone else in the world. So - the "balls" test actually lies with YOU as a starting point to make the finanical sacifices needed to address the claims you want to make. If your response is anything other than a willingess to sell off everything you own to fund the litigation you want to start, then the system doesn't need "justice" reform it needs "people" reform. Lawyers no more 'put themselves in the shoes of clients" any more than you do to give away free services or products not any other profession to that end and expecting otherwise because you need and they have, is about as unrealistic as me expecting a general contractor to build me a wonderful house at cost, and then only if I like the result, simply because they can and I want one. So - that aside - what you likely need to do in regard to what seems to be a defamation case  - is to hire a lawyer at an hourly rate to review your facts and situation and provide an actual researched opinion. If you want to proceed from there - then you know what you are getting in to.