Corruption in Cumbria — case update

A juryless court and unnamed police facilitate revenue enforcement operations

Cumbria is one of the most beautiful places in England, whether it be the Lake District, Eden Valley, or Solway coast. My current relationship with it is soured via my dealings with the local police and courts. I am being persecuted for seeking due process and holding Cumbria Constabulary to account for what gives every impression of being an illegal revenue enforcement operation.

Cumbria Constabulary refused to authenticate defective and obfuscatory notices that harvest money from what presents as an entrapment operation, Instead, they decided to prosecute me for questioning potential fraud, engaging in multiple further violations of due process via a defective summons. Going after an anti-corruption activist is unfortunate timing given DOGE revelations in the USA! I am one of the very few people with the time, experience, and motivation to push back.

These issues are endemic in the Anglosphere. It is well-established constitutional law in the USA that a driving license is not required for private travel on the public highway. Yet we are tricked and coerced into forgoing those common law rights, and instead forcefully made to subscribe to the “benefits” of commercial maritime law and all its false presumptions. We know exactly what these courts are doing to harvest money off us, and it is hard to stand against. Their weakness is how they tend not to follow their own rules — including in this particular case.

The story so far…

• I attended Appleby Horse Fair last summer as a photojournalist.

• My ancient van was ticketed in a parking entrapment operation — misleading event signs, covered up road signs, blanket enforcement. There is no case to answer, and no victim in common law.

• The notices from the police all decline to give the force’s institutional name, a man or woman’s full name, a legible signature, or a real address — only a PO Box. In essence they are from a nobody, being legalese artwork, following the template of a fraudster. You are asked to presume authority, which I challenged, and did not get a satisfactory response.

• I wrote to the Chief Constable to ask him to authenticate the notices, and got no response. I suspect that is because they dare not attach themselves to an illegal ultra vires moneymaking scam operating in the shadow of the force’s image and brand.

• I gave a final response saying I could not engage with the force (or whoever was sending them) unless their notices were properly identified and authenticated. Fair enough? I can’t send my personal information to nobody in particular!

• Rather than back down, they instead double down and initiate a prosecution for obstructing the highway, and a Section 172 offence for not responding to an (unlawful) demand for driver details. This comes with fines of up to £2,000 and 9 penalty points (where 12 is disqualification), and massively hiked insurance premiums if convicted.

• The summons has no named person issuing it, no signature, no magistrate’s name, no court seal, and comes from a court name not listed on the HMCTS website. The police statement is about generic reduced visibility for lots of cars, and does not make a case my specific vehicle caused any obstruction. It fails to disclose that I have attempted to authenticate their notices, and not refused to respond — rendering it void. There is no public interest in prosecuting this.

• I challenged the court on the authenticity of the summons, and got only a cursory response.

• I further challenged the court on the authenticity of the summons, and got a partial response (yet to be published).

• I demanded that the Chief Constable withdraw the case as it is self-evidently a textbook malicious prosecution as revenge for asking for due process and preventing fraud. The stakes are higher than normal as I am a citizen journalist and whistleblower on corruption, including police participation in COVID-19 war crimes and crimes against humanity.

• When I asked the court for proper service details of the prosecution and a copy of the photographic evidence, the police wrote back saying they were passing it all on to the Crown Prosecution Service at the last minute. Did the police even have authority to prosecute this? Is there any valid photographic evidence? I don’t know.

I am guessing that Cumbria Constabulary have realised that this case is a PR liability and want the Crown Prosecution Service to do the clean-up job for them. There is no way any jury would ever convict you of anything in these circumstances, and case law says that the charges should be dismissed. The jurisdiction, standing, due process, evidence, and inequity issues are all individually fatal to the case, and taken together it is a naked abuse of the justice system. It doesn’t stop them making the process into a punishment, or a rigged tribunal financially raping you, but we are shining a light on their fraud.

If there was a jury trial I wouldn’t need to think about the Single Justice Procedure, handoff between prosecutors, courts that “sit at” another court and have questionable jurisdiction, seeking out hidden evidence (that I still haven’t seen), defects in service, no timely service, the minutiae of case law on signs lost in vegetation, the correct format of fixed penalty notices, the history of complaints for engaging in zealous revenue operations, the internal police policies of corresponding with the public, or a pile of other matters that have looshed me for weeks. I would just tell the jury what happened and leave it to them to giggle and dismiss it all as money-driven nonsense.

To give you a sense of how dirty the whole thing is, below is the request for adjournment that I sent to the court yesterday. They may ignore it, they may kick the can down the road. It doesn’t matter — I am getting to put in writing that they are up to no good. Judicial Review, Crown Court appeal, misconduct complaints… I don’t ever back down. While this is all highly stressful, I am not the one facing a long prison term for misfeasance, fraud, and perverting the course of justice. I have already seen how magistrates acting as agents of the local council ignore due process for council tax liability orders, so my expectations of justice are suitably low. That said, the court deserves an opportunity to do the right(eous) thing.

I can only do this as I have my tens of thousands of readers globally give me constant encouragement. Enough of you pay (the content is always free) so that I can spend days engrossed in legal research — so a big shoutout to those who keep my rent covered and fridge full. It is agony having to face this after all the harm done to us by officialdom over the last few years, but I know history is on our side. The state is being exposed as complicit in child sex trafficking, medical genocide via bioweapons, propaganda operations on its citizens, treasonous taxation, and debt slavery via securitisation of birth certificates.

These corrupt “justice” systems can’t have long to last. I will keep you updated!

If any police or prosecutors are reading this — you deserve better! Your work is valuable and important, and ought to be highly regarded and well rewarded. Abuses of the justice system like this damage you every bit as much as the public. Step back and consider the real cost to you and your conscience. It would have been OK to lawfully summons me for a parking matter, even if the case was weak, and process imperfect. It is not OK to punish people for seeking due process, weaponising prosecution to prevent questioning of authority or exposing institutional misconduct. The latter will be resisted with all moral force possible.

---

To — Chief Clerk, Carlisle Magistrates’ Court

Formal request for adjournment

I write to formally request an adjournment of the hearing currently scheduled for 10th March 2025 on the following grounds.

1. Late involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

Based on my email of 14th February 2025 to the court seeking full disclosure of evidence and prosecution service information, I was contacted by [REDACTED] of the Criminal Justice Unit on 17th February 2025, indicating that Initial Details of the Prosecution Case (IDPC) are to be served shortly.

The CPS has only recently been assigned this case, approximately 21 days before the hearing date. The matter is not just a minor traffic offence, but the possible use of ultra vires legal simulations for entrapment and revenue enforcement. In this context, the remaining timeframe is insufficient for them to:

• Review the evidence and assess the viability of prosecution.

• Determine whether the Full Code Test (Evidential and Public Interest Tests) is met given the circumstances of alleged malicious prosecution, notably for the s172 offence.

• Comply with disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and allow for any pre-trial evidential challenge.

Proceeding under these circumstances would constitute a violation of my right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

2. IDPC has not yet been served

To date, I have not been served with the IDPC, despite three months passing since the complaint was laid with the Court on 18th November 2024, and two months since the summons was issued. The prosecution must provide the IDPC in a timely manner — “as soon as practicable” — under Criminal Procedure Rules 8.2, and this has not been done. Under Rule 8.4 I am entitled to sufficient time to consider any initial details that the prosecution wishes to introduce.

The principle established in R v Gaskin [1980] 1 WLR 1529 affirms that failure to disclose evidence undermines the fairness of proceedings. Likewise, R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3 highlights that non-disclosure of evidence crucial to the defence contravenes fair trial rights under ECHR. Without adequate disclosure of IDPC well in advance of the hearing, I am unable to prepare a proper defence, violating my rights under Article 6 ECHR (Right to a Fair Trial).

3. Outstanding disclosure failures by Cumbria Constabulary

The police have failed to disclose any photographic, documentary, or forensic evidence supporting the charge (if such evidence exists). The summons statement makes only a blanket assertion of “reduced visibility,” without asserting that my specific vehicle caused an unnecessary obstruction, or offering evidence of such.

The case was initially controlled by Cumbria Constabulary, not the CPS, raising serious concerns under Section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 about whether the charge was lawfully brought. The sudden transfer to CPS may be a cover for procedural violations, which requires time to investigate.

The prosecution is required under the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) to disclose evidence before the hearing. Failure to do so obstructs my ability to prepare an adequate defence.

4. Unresolved jurisdictional challenges must be addressed first

There remains an active and fundamental challenge to this court’s jurisdiction. A trial cannot proceed while its legal authority is in question.

The entity listed on the summons, “North and West Cumbria Magistrates' Court (1752)”, does not appear as an official court on the HMCTS website (see enclosed). By “sitting at” Carlisle Magistrates’ Court it introduces two distinct legal entities, whose relationship is opaque. This raises concerns about whether the summons was issued by a legally recognised judicial body, and whether the former is acting as a private tribunal under the umbrella of the latter public Court.

In R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, the House of Lords ruled that a court must not proceed if its legitimacy is in question.

5. Defective summons and potential abuse of process

Serious procedural irregularities in the issuance of the summons indicate a potential abuse of process:

• The charge is initiated by “Chief Constable CHIEF CONSTABLE”, not a properly named official, raising doubts about its validity. This is noteworthy given the prosecution have failed to put full personal and institutional names, or signature, on any correspondence, nor authenticate it when asked via the Chief Constable.

• No specific reference is made to my vehicle in the summons statement, suggesting a lack of evidential review, including photographic evidence. The late issue of the IDPC requires sufficient time pre-trial to validate that due process was followed, including a review of evidence, before issue of the summons.

• No mention is made of HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice as issuing authorities, raising concerns about improper delegation of judicial functions and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018. This has already been raised with the Court and there was no response.

As stated in CPS v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin), a defective summons or procedural abuse may render a prosecution unlawful.

Given these irregularities, an abuse of process application must be heard before any trial proceeds. The sudden CPS takeover could not have been foreseen by me, necessitating additional due process before the case is heard.

6. Judicial economy – avoiding a potentially unnecessary hearing

Given the:

• Late CPS involvement,

• Lack of timely IDPC service,

• Potential defects in the summons,

• Unresolved jurisdictional issues, and

• Disclosure failures,

I request that the hearing be adjourned for a minimum of 8 to 12 weeks, or until the following conditions are met:

1. The CPS completes a full case review, ensuring all disclosure obligations are met, and decides whether to proceed to trial.

2. The court formally clarifies and rules on its jurisdiction.

3. The abuse of process application is heard before any trial.

Failure to resolve these issues beforehand would constitute a fundamental breach of due process and a violation of my right to a fair trial.

Request for formal confirmation of adjournment

I trust that the court will recognize the necessity of ensuring a fair and lawful process before proceeding to trial.

I request written confirmation of this adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

If this request is denied, I request a formal written explanation detailing how proceeding under these circumstances would not violate my procedural rights and right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Geddes