in my first comment from that post, I say that the courts themselves are manipulating their audience with no reasonable grounds other than to make the institution as a whole appear to be just (and authoritative, virtuous, trustworthy etc)
i.e. the courts (and it's employees) are attempting to perform a confidence trick on those attending (or otherwise observing) upon entering the chambers (or even beforehand)
courts are just mediators/arbiters of dispute
they only handle whatever is presented to them in court. they do not delve in and do their own private investigations. they just take info from both sides and weigh up the accuracy, proof, details that sound more reliable and least doubtful
imaging you wanted to fairy tail create a narrative that you own $1bill
you and a buddy can secret handshake to play the roles of opposition
both enter a court on opposite sides saying there is a dispute over $1bill. where neither side asks to prove it exists. or shows that it exists. but simply want to show a dispute over who owns a said $1b. where the amount is not in dispute
(thus no real money needs to exist)
a few days into court your oppositions agree to settle that someone owns the $1b and the other is now happy with that decision..
now you have a judgement that X(winner) owns $1b
which is then used to be proof of collateral that X is a billionaire
.. but there was no real money
courts are not tricking anyone. they are just mediators. however the real trickers are those that abuse the courts into declaring a verdict that benefits those in the courts oppositional seats of defence and claimant
