Is the legal system a conspiracy against the public

Is the legal system a conspiracy against the public?

using the 'legal fiction' one could argue that they are tricking a human being into consenting to something, when the government or ruling elite  know that he does not know what he is consenting to, and when  ostensibly they conspire to stop him finding out about it without inordinate difficulty


the defence of the ruling elite would be that  ignorance of the law is no defence


the government performs this 'trick'  by using a device called a 'legal fiction'.

when you are born your parents inform the authorities of your birth and you are given a birth certificate, at the same time a  legal person, strawman, or legal fiction is created.


a person  in legal terms also includes a corporation.


the government then uses your 'legal person' to make charges against you - like council tax for instance.


the government ,it is alleged, does this by tricking you into representing your legal person, strawman, or 'legal fiction' in court, if you refuse to pay.


once you 'consent' to representing your legal fiction their rules then apply, even though you dont know what those rules are.


you are then under their jurisdiction and you cannot win.

some people are now not consenting to represent their strawman.

It's not exactly a conspiracy but an organised plan nevertheless.

How else would it all work?

We are very lucky in the West to live in countries where everything is laid on for us. 

Somebody has to pay for it all.

when a bod wants to purchase goods and services he contracts with an individual or firm to purchase them.

the council however does not say - we have the following services to offer you , do you wish to contract with us to purchase all or some of them?.

instead the council  engages in what amounts to demanding money with menaces.

it says we are providing these services whether you like it or not and we are going to make you pay for them or get you put in jail.

the last time i looked demanding money with menaces was contrary to the common law and could  not succeed in court.

so this is where they wheel out their 'legal fiction' by saying -are you mr john smith?

the man concerned thinks that refers to him and says 'yes'.

the charge can only be made against the legal fiction mr john smith and not against the man john of the smith family, but if the man admits to being or representing mr john smith  he then brings himself
within their jurisdiction, but without knowing it.

nothing i say should be construed as legal advice

i dont think its as simple as that

if you want to expand your knowledge of this subject watch this talk given by a man who has put his studies into practice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8aUEMmyXRI