'Clean signal dissident' lawfare doctrine

How to use AI intelligently to generate barrister-grade court submissions quickly

I have submitted a pre-action protocol letter to Carlisle Magistrates’ Court today in my case initiated by Cumbria Constabulary and timidly prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). My non-crime is “parking on the street causing no loss, harm, or injury” — yet they have invented a case and stubbornly continue to pursue it no matter how irregular the legal proceedings. In our last episode, having filed a complaint with the latter for refusing to talk to me, they had scheduled a call to discuss their refusal to talk to me, but the call didn’t happen, because they refuse to talk to me. Seriously.

I learned something today, which is that military intelligence refer to those who calmly, peacefully, clearly, selflessly — and lawfully — dissent against the state as “clean signal” dissidents. This is what I do as my vocation: no ranting, no raging, no radicalism. Just calm intellectual dissection of the information landscape around me, and clear exposition of that is real. The ability of an unrepresented litigant-in-person (LiP) such as myself to withstand the procedural onslaught is totally transformed by artificial intelligence. My “job”, such as I have one, is to model the creative process and spread the doctrine, so others can copy what I do.

The letter below was generated as follows in a session where the AI was already well trained on the specifics of the case. The summary is: I am using two AI engines in parallel so I don’t end up with a confirmation bias of one AI that likes to flatter my own beliefs. The result is far tighter and stronger than anything a single human or solo AI can do on its own; a three-way collaboration. So, the recipe I followed…

• [AI1] I got the first AI (ChatGPT) to generate a basic framework for the correspondence and the key concerns, that I reviewed for accuracy.

• [AI1] I asked the AI to pose me questions so I could give it a tight brief for a judicial review letter to the court. I put these into a Word document and typed in my answers.

• [AI1] A first draft was generated from this written spec and edited framework, which I then manually edited for presentation purposes.

• [AI1] I fed this back in, and asked the AI for comments and improvements, which I reviewed and acted upon where appropriate.

• [AI2] I then did a parallel training in a second AI on the same content (Grok rather than ChatGPT), and asked it to generate a letter for the same purpose, uncontaminated by the first AI.

• [AI2 to AI1] I fed this second AI output into the first AI (ChatGPT), and asked it to give its general impression for sanity checking, and then review each point in turn and suggest how to improve its own draft.

• [AI1 to AI2] Then I fed the draft from the first AI back into the second AI, for review, and pasted back its comments, for another round of edits and improvement.

• [AI2 to AI1] I asked the second AI for only essential edits on the updated draft, and fed those suggestions back into ChatGPT to converge their answers. This is the important bit — seeking alignment between the AIs.

• [AI1 + AI2] Ask both engines to do a final check so there’s agreement it is ready to go. When both are OK, then I have my green light.

This quality of legal analysis might take a junior barrister 1-2 weeks normally, and not be of this quality. The moral core is still Martin, as the AI only mirrors the prompter and their spirit. I am accountable for the content and any errors: AI is only an aid, not a replacement, doing for rhetoric what a spreadsheet does for arithmetic. I have had to review every piece by hand, and not let automated text reach the world without my own mind being applied. There is a lot of curating of the responses and careful evaluation of what advice to act upon, and it’s taken me all day.

Still, I hope you appreciate the quality of the final product and find it useful in setting the bar for your own AI-powered LiP endeavours. Here’s my effort at ‘clean signal dissent’ with ‘twin-turbo artificial intelligence’…

---

To: The Justices Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court

Pre-Action Protocol Letter under Part 54
Judicial Review of Magistrates' Court Conduct

Claimant: Martin Geddes
Proposed Defendant: The Justices Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court, in their public administrative capacity, responsible for the listing and procedural management of the case.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review under the Civil Procedure Rules. I intend to challenge the legality of the court’s conduct in the matter of the above case, including the issuance of a defective summons, the listing and handling of the Mention hearing on 3 March 2025, and the failure to respond to correspondence raising substantial procedural and jurisdictional issues. This letter is also copied to Cumbria Constabulary and the Crown Prosecution Service as interested parties, whose conduct forms part of the factual basis of this challenge.

This claim is brought against the Justices in their public administrative capacity only, and does not seek to challenge any judicial determination on the merits. The review concerns the legality of the procedural decisions taken under colour of judicial administration.

Details of the Decision to be Challenged

1. The decision of the Magistrates’ Court to list and proceed with a Mention hearing on 3 March 2025 while there was no lawful prosecutorial authority clearly in place, and no evidence of a crime particular to the Defendant disclosed.

2. The decision to ignore two defence motions submitted prior to that hearing:
(a) Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process
(b) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Evidence/No Case to Answer

3. The failure of the court to respond to my formal emails of 14 March and 29 March 2025, requesting clarification of prosecutorial standing and listing authority.

4. The general procedural irregularities that render the proceedings ultra vires.

I note that Cumbria Constabulary, in their letter dated 20 February 2025, explicitly refused to withdraw the prosecution. However, the Crown Prosecution Service appeared at the Mention hearing on 3rd March 2025 and confirmed that they had received the file only minutes before and had no evidence to present. Despite this, the court proceeded to list a trial for 11th June 2025. I seek Judicial Review of the procedural and administrative decisions that led to this situation, which caused significant prejudice and reflect systemic failures in prosecutorial delegation and court oversight.

Grounds for Judicial Review

1. Illegality in Issuance of Summons and SJPN: The SJPN (dated 18 November 2024) and the subsequent summons (dated 10 December 2024) were issued without sufficient particulars of any alleged offence, contrary to Criminal Procedure Rule 7.2. No sworn evidence was provided, no complainant identified, and the supporting statement from PC Smith failed to establish any actus reus or mens rea linking me to an offence. This violates the requirement that a summons may only be issued where an offence known to law is disclosed (R (Nash) v Chelsea Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 453 (Admin)). As such, the proceedings were ultra vires from inception.

2. Lack of Jurisdiction Due to Court The decision to list and proceed with the Mention hearing on 3 March 2025 was in excess of jurisdiction. First, the venue identified in the summons — “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” — does not appear in the HMCTS’s list of formally constituted Magistrates’ Courts. This was raised in my Motion to Dismiss (submitted 28 February 2025), with reference to HMCTS fraud warnings (Exhibit A), and official listings (Exhibits B and C). Despite this, no confirmation of lawful constitution or venue authority has been provided. Under R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, proceedings obtained or conducted unlawfully must be stayed or quashed.

3. Prosecutorial Standing Defects: Cumbria Constabulary remained the prosecuting authority as of 26 February 2025 (confirmed in writing by named officer [REDACTED]). The Crown Prosecution Service only appeared on the day of the Mention hearing, with no evidence of prior review, file handling, or authority to act. This defect in prosecutorial standing renders the listing and conduct of the hearing procedurally invalid (R (DPP) v Chorley Justices [2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin)). Where prosecutorial authority is not properly transferred or evidenced before a court hearing, the court has no power to hear the matter. In the absence of lawful standing, any purported listing is an act in excess of jurisdiction and thus void.

4. Service Failures: The FPN dated 8 June 2024, the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) referenced 16 July 2024, and the Section 172 request (due 12 July 2024) were not lawfully served. The FPN was affixed to the vehicle without a named sender or signature, contrary to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 s.54. The NIP was not served within the 14-day statutory time limit required under s.1 of the same Act.

Additionally, no proof of service has been provided for any of these notices. I lawfully rejected bulk mail not bearing a named recipient, and there is no evidence of personal service or proper postal compliance. These defects violate Section 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and Criminal Procedure Rules Part 4.

The Magistrates’ Court’s decision to issue a summons on 10 December 2024 — and to proceed with a Mention hearing — was based on these improperly served and procedurally invalid documents. As such, the issuance and listing were themselves unlawful, being founded on defective or unlawful prosecutorial material (R v York Justices [1971]).

5. Procedural Impropriety in Listing the Mention Hearing Without Lawful Prosecution. The Magistrates’ Court listed and conducted a Mention hearing on 3 March 2025 despite the absence of a confirmed prosecuting authority. Cumbria Constabulary confirmed they were still the prosecuting body as of 26 February 2025, while the CPS appeared on the day of the hearing with no advance disclosure, review, or standing established.

This violated CrimPR 5.4 (requirement for clear prosecutorial roles) and CrimPR 3.2 (duty to manage cases justly). The effect was to deprive me of adequate time and legal clarity to prepare any defence, placing me at a significant structural disadvantage as a litigant-in-person. This constitutes a breach of my Article 6 ECHR right to a fair hearing (R v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [1999]).

The court’s decision to proceed under these conditions was also Wednesbury unreasonable. No reasonable judicial body, faced with acknowledged uncertainty over prosecutorial standing, motions on file, and a CPS representative with no evidence, would have proceeded with listing or conducting a hearing. This constitutes both procedural impropriety and administrative irrationality (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948]).

6. Procedural Impropriety in Failing to Consider Motions and Correspondence. I filed two motions on 28 February 2025 — (1) Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process and (2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Evidence — both raising issues central to jurisdiction and fairness. The court failed to acknowledge, list, or rule on these motions during the 3 March 2025 hearing.

Further, my follow-up correspondence dated 14 March and 29 March 2025 requesting clarification of standing and case status received no substantive response. This contravenes CrimPR 3.2, which requires the court to manage proceedings actively and fairly. It also constitutes a breach of Article 6 ECHR, as I was denied meaningful procedural participation. These omissions echo the deficiencies addressed in R (Guardian News) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420, where failures in judicial process transparency warranted review.

Relevant Authorities

The legal defects in this matter are consistent with established case law on the limits of Magistrates' Court jurisdiction and prosecutorial standing:

• In R (Nash) v Chelsea Magistrates’ Court [2013] EWHC 453 (Admin), it was held that a Magistrates’ Court has no jurisdiction to issue a summons unless the information laid before it discloses an offence known to law. In this case, the Single Justice Procedure Notice was issued absent sworn evidence, without identifying any specific complainant, time, or actus reus linked to me personally. The proceedings are thus void ab initio.

• In R (DPP) v Chorley Justices [2006] EWHC 1795 (Admin), the High Court found that a prosecution conducted by a party without lawful authority — even if made in good faith — is invalid. In the present matter, Cumbria Police retained prosecutorial control until days before the hearing, with the Crown Prosecution Service only appearing at the hearing itself, without any prior notice or evidence of lawful transfer of authority. The case was therefore listed and heard without standing, breaching the fundamental requirement for valid process.

These precedents confirm that the procedural defects identified are not minor irregularities but go to the core of the court's jurisdiction and the lawfulness of the prosecution.

Evidence Relied Upon

The following documents support the grounds set out above. Copies can be provided upon request:

• FPN envelope (dated 8 June 2024), affixed to vehicle without named sender or signature.

• NIP correspondence (dated 16 July and 7 August 2024), referencing a PO Box and lacking lawful disclosures.

• Section 172 notice (due 12 July 2024), received without authentication.

• Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) (dated 18 November 2024), and summons (dated 10 December 2024), both lacking evidential foundation in breach of CrimPR 7.2.

• Photographic evidence (submitted 27 February 2025), showing obscured signage and no physical obstruction.

• Motions to Dismiss (dated 28 February 2025), covering Abuse of Process and Lack of Evidence.

• Email correspondence with court and CPS (14 March and 29 March 2025), raising prosecutorial standing and procedural irregularities.

• HMCTS documentation (Exhibits A, B, and C), showing that “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” does not appear in the official court listings.

• Written statement from Cumbria Constabulary ([REDACTED], dated 26 February 2025), confirming CPS had not yet taken over prosecution.

Relief Sought

1. A declaration that the issuance of the summons (10 December 2024) and the listing of the Mention hearing (3 March 2025) were unlawful, due to lack of jurisdiction, improper prosecutorial standing, and procedural defects.

2. A declaration that the court’s failure to address pre-hearing motions and respond to formal correspondence constituted a breach of Article 6 ECHR.

3. A declaration that the proceedings initiated by the summons and conducted up to the Mention hearing were unlawful, and that any further listings based on the same defective process would be invalid.

4. An order requiring disclosure, within the 14-day response period, of all internal correspondence, file notes, and emails between the Magistrates’ Court, CPS, and Cumbria Constabulary from 1st June 2024 to 11th April 2025, relevant to:

• (a) the initiation and management of the case;

• (b) the listing and conduct of the 3rd March 2025 hearing;

• (c) prosecutorial handover, correspondence, and authority confirmation.

This is sought under the court’s supervisory jurisdiction and the principle of fair case management (CrimPR 3.2).

5. Costs for expenses incurred due to the court’s unreasonable conduct in listing the Mention hearing without lawful authority and failing to address my motions and correspondence. These include travel, document preparation, and time spent on legal research as a self-represented litigant. I seek recovery of such costs under the principles set out in R (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346, to be assessed if leave is granted.

6. Such further or other relief as the court considers just in the circumstances.

Response Requested

In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review under the Civil Procedure Rules, I request a substantive response within 14 calendar days, by 25 April 2025.

Please confirm whether you accept the unlawfulness of the decisions challenged and are willing to agree to the relief sought. If not, provide detailed reasons and any supporting documentation. I remain open to alternative dispute resolution where appropriate.

I am currently abroad until mid-May 2025. Please send all correspondence and service of documents by email to [REDACTED] to ensure timely communication.

I am open to resolving this matter through alternative dispute resolution where appropriate.

Systemic Importance

As the defendant in the proceedings, I have sufficient interest to bring this claim under CPR 54.1. Although the case remains formally listed for trial on 11 June 2025, the Crown Prosecution Service appeared at the Mention hearing on 3rd March 2025 with no advance review, having received the file only shortly before, and offered no evidence. Since that date, there has been no response to motions by the court, and no confirmation of prosecutorial standing by the court or CPS, despite an unresolved complaint to the latter on 30 March 2025.

This ongoing failure to engage has rendered the prosecution procedurally dormant — operationally inactive, yet still legally burdensome. I remain exposed to a scheduled trial without clarity on the legitimacy of the court’s conduct or the prosecution’s authority.

The procedural and jurisdictional failures that have arisen raise significant public interest concerns regarding the integrity of the Single Justice Procedure, prosecutorial delegation, and Magistrates’ Court administration. Judicial Review is appropriate not only to address the prejudice I have suffered but also to ensure these systemic issues do not recur. This approach is supported by the principle in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450, which affirms that review may be justified where wider public interest is at stake.

These vulnerabilities are exemplified in my own experience, where defective notices, a fictitious court listing, and prosecutorial ambiguity led to an unworkable and unlawful process.

Yours faithfully,

(electronic signature)

Martin Geddes

---

Some administrators may be having a difficult week ahead, but that’s what happens when you press on with a malicious prosecution based on no crime and no evidence, using only procedural abuse to attempt to reach a conviction. They have all had ample opportunity to respond to reasonable questions about due process, and have declined to do so in a timely manner. Now it has to be done the hard way, with full accountability and exposure. My role is now witness to the systemic failure, and auditor of the justice process. What happens to me as a defendant is essentially immaterial at this point. I will keep you informed!

No AI was used in the production of this image!