Court invite: Carlisle, Monday 1st Sept, 2pm

The public is welcome to attend an historic Section 142 hearing on "ghost courts"

I have a hearing scheduled at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court next Monday at 2pm to re-open my case as a miscarriage of justice. (Logistics at the end.) You are warmly invited to attend the public gallery, to stand in support of the rule of law and to express concern about its ongoing erosion. The hearing itself may be adjourned or conducted in a perfunctory manner. What truly matters is the narrative battlefield — and the record of citizens gathering outside. This is not the story of a “lone crank” spinning pseudo-legal fantasies, but of a person exercising their fundamental right to appear before a tribunal unambiguously established by law.

A test case of lawful court constitution

On the surface, this case looks trivial: a motoring matter about parking beside a bush. But beneath that veneer lies a far deeper struggle — the very jurisdiction and constitution of the court itself. I have been confronted with multiple shifting court names, none of which appear to have a statutory instrument as their “birth certificate.” HMCTS has astonishingly claimed that “court names have no legal meaning” — an assertion that contradicts centuries of legal tradition and constitutional practice.

If correct, this would mean the state has been summoning and convicting people through entities with no lawful existence. The implications are seismic: the potential nullity of tens or even hundreds of thousands of convictions processed through such “ghost courts.”

What makes this challenge unique is my invocation of the “Absolute Zero” doctrine: activating every statutory safeguard, every procedural remedy, every lawful avenue of redress all at once. Where the “freeman of the land” ideology rejects authority outright, I insist on the opposite: the maximum enforcement of Parliamentary law. By mapping the entire “defect surface” of the state’s procedural apparatus, I act as a kind of civilian auditor inside the justice system, occupying the notional position of “defendant” but functioning as a tester of constitutional integrity.

The immediate legal mechanism here is Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which empowers the court to “replace a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make.” In plain terms: I am asking the court itself to recognise the invalidity at its core and to confront the constitutional consequences. Section 142 is not an appeal as such, but a safety release valve.

The next move — High Court review

I am debating whether to file a Part 8 claim in the High Court before the hearing on the “ghost court,” or to wait a little longer. Doing so would immediately force the magistrates to defer to the supervisory jurisdiction of the higher court. Yet it would also deny them their final chance to correct the error cleanly. There is, meanwhile, a rather amusing clash brewing between the court and the prosecution: which side will end up shouldering the blame when the procedural fraud inevitably collapses, given enough escalation and time? For now, I am minded to wait patiently, gather more data, and observe whether the system is determined to self-destruct its own legitimacy.

The non-case for a non-crime

Let me be clear: I claim there was no crime to answer to at all.

• No accusation personalised to me.

• No legal person named on the Notice of Intended Prosecution.

• No formal issuer of the Single Justice Procedure notice.

• No information laid that connects me to any alleged offence.

• No court constituted in law on the summons as issuer.

• No lawful handoff from police to Crown Prosecution Service.

• No prosecutor with proper standing.

• No application of the Full Code Test.

• No timely disclosure of evidence.

• No court order before enforcement.

This was not a prosecution in any meaningful legal sense. It was an administrative fabrication, manufactured out of nothing in order to sustain the conveyor belt of convictions and fines. The problem for the state is that it cannot afford exposure of the fraud, because it would implicate not just one case but potentially hundreds of thousands.

The high stakes of constitutional failure

The collision between my insistence that they uphold the law, and their insistence on evading it, has resulted in a spectacular blockade of all remedy. What we are witnessing is not bureaucratic clumsiness or error. It raises the spectre of malfeasance in public office and even conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The stakes are therefore very high. This is not a trivial motoring conviction “gone wrong.” I have deliberately dangled myself as a constitutional piñata — one of those papier-mâché donkeys children beat with a stick — so that every blow, every abuse, every silence can be documented as evidence of systemic failure. I have taken that beating for over six months, not for private gain, but for the greater good.

Timeline of procedural abuse

Below is a structured chronology of events in my case, documenting the collapse of due process and the emergence of the “ghost court” problem. Each entry highlights the failure to uphold law, respond to lawful applications, or correct defects.

Phase I: Initiation of Proceedings

28 Nov — Single Justice Procedure Notice issued

• No named issuing authority.

• Court named as “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court”, which does not exist in law.

10 Dec — Summons issued

• Issuing authority named as “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”, also not constituted in law.

Phase II: Early Motions Ignored

28 Feb — Motion to dismiss for lack of evidence (no cause of action)

• Filed; not ruled upon at Mention hearing.

28 Feb — Motion to dismiss for abuse of process (lack of jurisdiction)

• Filed; not ruled upon at Mention hearing.

• Exculpatory evidence withheld.

10 Mar — Order with summons to trial issued

• No ruling made on earlier motions.

Phase III: Silence and Deflection

14–29 Mar — Repeated letters to Court re: legality of 3 Mar Mention hearing

• Acknowledged, but no substantive response.

30 Mar → 23 May — Formal complaint to CPS

• Acknowledged, call promised, downgraded to written reply.

• No resolution.

Phase IV: Pre-Action and FOI Exposure

11 Apr — Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to Justices at Carlisle on standing/jurisdiction

• No response.

16–22 Apr — Motion to stay proceedings

• No response by deadline.

14 May — HMCTS FOI confirms named court does not exist

• Court provides no cure.

15–20 May — Requests to CPS & Court for prosecutorial identity & service contacts

• Ignored.

23 May → 2 Jun — PAP to Crown Prosecution Service

• CPS reply (2 Jun, by post not email as requested).

• Standing not cured; no acknowledgement from court.

Phase V: Judicial Review Obstructed

27 May → 9 Jun — Judicial Review filed (27 May), received (30 May), refused (9 Jun)

• Refused on “non-exhaustion.”

• Contradicts remedy record; resulted in potentially void trial.

10–11 Jun — Written jurisdictional objection + recording request at trial

• Objections not addressed; dismissed as “without merit.”

• No order issued upon conviction.

Phase VI: Post-Conviction Remedies Stonewalled

13–21 Jun — Requests for hearing logs/recordings

• Acknowledged; no substantive response.

23 Jun — s.142 application filed

• Acknowledged; no substantive determination until default notice.

2 + 9 Jul — Case Stated s.111 appeal submitted

• No acknowledgement or refusal certificate.

• Statutory duty ignored.

11 Jul — Complaint to Court re: silence on recordings, s.142, Case Stated

• No reply.

19 Jul — DSARs to HMCTS, CPS, Police

• Acknowledged, but statutory deadlines missed.

• CPS/Police responses defective and politically biased.

• HMCTS gave no response at all.

Phase VII: Escalations and Continued Silence

22 Jul — HMCTS lists s.142 hearing (1 Sept)

• Claims LJA 2014 “validates NWCMC.”

• No legal basis provided.

25–26 Jul — PAP to Government Legal Department (Part 8 claim) + Ghost Court Briefing circulated

• Sent to HMCTS, CPS, Police, GLD.

• No substantive engagement; sidelined administratively.

27–28 Jul — Conditional complaint to JCIO re judge

• Acknowledged, but jurisdictional challenges sidelined.

31 Jul–Aug — Pre-action defaults, FOIA escalations, Notices of Procedural Default to Court & MoJ

• No cure offered.

• Pattern of institutional silence persists.

I stand in a constitutional void

The above record demonstrates a systematic blockade of all remedies:

• Jurisdiction denied (ghost courts named, no statutory instruments).

• Motions ignored (never ruled upon).

• Complaints stonewalled (acknowledged but unresolved).

• Disclosure withheld (logs, recordings, evidence suppressed).

• Supervisory review obstructed (JR refused on false grounds).

• Appeals buried (Case Stated ignored, statutory duties breached).

What remains is a constitutional void: a citizen prosecuted without a court, without a prosecutor, and without due process — yet with every safeguard supposedly available on paper.

The bottom line is stark. In its determination to steamroller a conviction while ignoring its own abuses of process, the state is now evidencing its own lawbreaking. A formal ruling that these “ghost courts” are void ab initio would mark the effective end of HM Courts & Tribunals Service as a centralised bureaucracy. Such a recognition would inevitably unleash a flood of appeals and overwhelm the justice system.

This is the natural consequence of HMCTS’s extraordinary claim that “court names have no legal meaning” — that citizens can be summoned not by a lawful tribunal but by an IT system label with no juridical existence. The longer this rot is evaded, the deeper and more destructive the damage becomes.

The jurisdiction paradox

This Section 142 hearing takes us into uncharted legal territory. Can a court re-open a void case that was never properly opened in the first place? Can a defendant “plead a void within a void”? And what jurisdiction, if any, does a mere “venue court” have to modify the record of a so-called “ghost court”?

At trial, I directly challenged the court’s jurisdiction and declined to participate on the grounds that my Article 6 ECHR right to a fair trial had already been breached. But this hearing is of a different character. I have filed a short briefing on the “jurisdiction paradox” the court now faces, and I will be asking for a ruling on the record.

Whether the bench determines that it has no jurisdiction, limited jurisdiction, or full jurisdiction — each position can be argued with honour. I will abide by whatever the magistrates say in the moment. Their ruling, however, will not be the end of the matter: it can and will be tested by a higher court in due course.

What I hope to achieve on Monday

I am genuinely ambivalent to any outcome. This is not about personal redress for a misbegotten motoring case. Even the shortcuts taken by the police and prosecution are minor details in the larger scheme of things.

The figural issue is nullity — that the prosecution is void for want of both a cause of action and a lawful forum for adjudication. It is equally void for failure to follow due process in a desperate attempt to avoid confronting the essential gap in institutional constitution.

➡️ Whether the court asserts jurisdiction or not is immaterial — only that it is documented.

➡️ Whether my pleadings are accepted or dismissed does not matter — only that they are placed on the record.

➡️ Whether the conviction is quashed or allowed to stand is ultimately unimportant — only that the opportunity to challenge was offered.

What matters is that the confrontation with the void is happening openly, visibly, and unambiguously — and that the cracks in the system are being recorded for all to see.

Logistics to attend

I will aim to be outside the courthouse by 1.30pm, and enter around 1.45pm. The hearing is at the old building on Rickergate (satnav: CA3 8QH), with a car park directly opposite.

From previous experience, my case is likely to be listed last on the schedule, which could mean a start time around 4pm. The hearing itself is unlikely to exceed 30 minutes, and it may be adjourned immediately if the bench decides to seek High Court input on jurisdiction.

We are there to uphold the rule of law, not to disturb it. I therefore ask anyone attending to act respectfully in court. Please also remember that the staff and magistrates are not the architects of this system; they have been placed in an absurd and dangerous position through no fault of their own.

This is not a personal vendetta, and it is not about Carlisle. It is about exposing the constitutional void at the heart of our justice system, and doing so with dignity.

IMPORTANT: Any last-minute updates will be conveyed via my Telegram channel — t.me/geddes.

This is bigger than me, bigger than Carlisle, and bigger than a motoring case. It is about whether law still binds the state — or whether the state now claims to sit above the law itself.

A personal afterword

The true cost of fighting the “ghost court” phenomenon is not measured in money, but in health. I have had no break this summer, chained to the keyboard without pause. At the same time, I have had to confront an extreme family situation in the USA — also involving jurisdictional fraud and even familial child trafficking under colour of law.

The logic of my “Absolute Zero” stance — absolute intolerance for institutional lawbreaking, absolute exhaustion of remedies — inevitably means absolute depletion of one’s own inner resources. The state counts on this. It knows most people will collapse or submit long before accountability can ever be forced.

That is why your moral support means everything to me. Whether you can attend in person or simply stand with me in spirit, you are part of this fight. I could not do this without you, my loyal readers. 🙏

Celebrating every single leaf (and life) as beautiful