Cumbria Magistrates: real men or robots?

A court is sending me a summons with no sender accountable for its contents

In the latest episode of “corrupt police and courts scamming the public for information and money”, I have received another letter from Cumbria Magistrates that continues the pattern of being a legal simulation for which nobody wishes to be accountable. You can read the last episode here, where they send me another piece of legalese artwork in the post in relation to a parking ticket. When there is no accountability then there is no authority, and it is an abuse of position and process (which are crimes). I would have fallen for their tricks in the past, but now it is all too obvious and feeble.

This correspondence has an address at the top, but does not formally state it is the registered address. That seems pernickety, but it does matter — as at every stage I have been given correspondence that lacks all required legal disclosures, indicating this is a fraud, not genuine law enforcement. More importantly, the letter comes from nobody — there is no name, positional authority, or signature.

Here is the threat contained — I did not send my financial information, as they have failed to disclose who it is being sent to and is the data controller. If they want to prosecute me for parking (lawfully as it happens), then I have every right to hold them to the law, too!

At every step it becomes more obvious why there is “no fine or forfeit without a jury of one’s peers” in our ignored constitution — rendering these “administrative prosecutions” as treasonous. No wonder it’s impossible to get any man or woman to put their name to these actions! As you can see, this letter was sent by a robot, but I cannot sue a robot for acting ultra vires and abusing public office for commercial gain.

I am slowly learning how to play this game, however, and it is always to bat it back and honourably ask them to comply with their own laws. The more they refuse (and we share these stories of official wrongdoing) the greater the public awareness of how rigged the system is, and the harder it becomes for them to continue in the face of visible illegitimacy. Hence the following will be in the post shortly — I hope it inspires you to push back against legal theatre pretending to be criminal justice.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Concerns Regarding Summons Validity – Request for Clarification

I am writing regarding the summons issued to me, dated 10 December 2024, in relation to case number [REDACTED]. While I am fully committed to engaging with the process in good faith, I have identified procedural deficiencies in the summons that I respectfully request clarification on before proceeding further.

1. Lack of Named Sender or Signature

The summons does not include the name, title, or signature of the individual responsible for issuing it. Under Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) Rule 4.7, court communications must be clear, including proper identification of the sender. The absence of such information raises concerns about the authenticity and validity of the summons.

2. Lack of Authentication

The summons does not demonstrate authentication, such as a signature or stamp, to confirm it has been lawfully issued. This appears to breach CrimPR Rule 7.3(1), which requires summonses to identify the issuing court and provide clear evidence of lawful authority.

3. Non-Compliance with the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023

The document does not provide a registered physical address, as required by Section 86 of the Act, and instead relies on indirect contact details, which may not meet statutory requirements.

4. Denial of Natural Justice

Without proper identification and authentication, I cannot verify the summons' legitimacy or meaningfully engage with the process. This may constitute a procedural breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

Request for Clarification

To address these concerns, I kindly request that the court provides:

1. Verification of the summons' authenticity, including the name and title of the individual who issued it.

2. A signed or authenticated copy of the summons.

3. Confirmation that the court has complied with the applicable legal and procedural standards.

I respectfully ask that these issues be addressed promptly to ensure my ability to engage fully and fairly with the process. I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,
Martin Geddes

I will be surprised if this system of unaccountable extortion of the public lasts until March. Let’s see what happens — I will keep you informed. Natural justice does not permit anonymous administrators conducting private business under guise of public office.

Some art photography from the Aglow exhibit in Bishop Auckland last night