Everyone is under the law — even the police

I am holding Cumbria Constabulary to account as a whistleblower and journalist

The COVID-19 era lockdowns and coerced healthcare treatments were a multi-level betrayal — not only of the public, but also of those who in good faith signed up to serve the public, yet were tricked or blackmailed into harming the people. Police deserve our respect by default, as at the best of times it is an emotionally difficult and sometimes dangerous job, with few plaudits. Many of them are victims of the engineered social division, woke agenda, and medical dictatorship. While a police state is oppressive, the average constable is not in it for unearned personal gain.

It pains me to have to go “all in” on holding yet another public body to account, but here I find myself once again. A trivial parking incident and entrapment operation has snowballed into an exposé of the use of institutional non-entities as fronts for legal simulations to scam the public. In this case, Cumbria Constabulary are running an illegal revenue enforcement operation, or at least their staff appear to be with at least tacit consent, and the local courts act as debt enforcers bypassing due process. This seems to be par for the course for the administrative state operating under parliamentary tyranny.

This letter is aimed to get them to back down from a malicious prosecution (for not sending a form to a legal nobody) that is flawed in every way possible. I am invoking full whistleblower protection, as that is exactly what I am doing. The fraud is subtle, and relies of the ignorance of the public, and their presumption of authority and authenticity — hallmarks of any fraud. The identity of the fraudsters is always concealed behind a veil of anonymity and false identity. I hope publishing this encourages others to push back, and demand that public officials serve the public, and not commercial interests that enrich themselves.

---

Dear Chief Constable,

Demand for Immediate Withdrawal of Malicious and Procedurally Defective Prosecution

I write to demand under the law the immediate withdrawal of the prosecution against me in relation to Case [REDACTED] scheduled for a hearing at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court on 10th March 2025. This case is not only defective in its procedural and evidentiary foundation but also appears to be a malicious, ultra vires, and retaliatory action devoid of lawful authority. Proceeding with it would expose Cumbria Constabulary to legal and reputational consequences, as it involves serious breaches of due process, misrepresentation of legal authority, and potential abuse of power. Any officer knowingly proceeding with an unlawful case may face personal liability under misconduct in public office laws.

Lack of Authority and Authentication

No correspondence or notices issued in this case have been properly authenticated under Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR 4.1, 7.2, and 7.3). They lack:

• A named accountable officer initiating the prosecution.

• A valid registered or statutory entity responsible for the case.

• A signature or confirmation of lawful authority.

The prosecution notice states that it is “initiated by the Chief Constable” but provides no specific named prosecutor. An office, such as the “Chief Constable,” cannot lawfully initiate proceedings, as an identifiable human being must be accountable for prosecution under English law. This omission renders the proceedings void ab initio, as it directly violates CrimPR and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The use of unsigned notices or “pp” (per procurationem) signatures suggests that those sending correspondence may lack direct legal authority to do so and are aware of this defect. Without proper authentication and authority, these notices amount to an unlawful simulation of legal process, potentially constituting fraud by misrepresentation under the Fraud Act 2006, Section 2. You have previously been put on notice of these concerns on 14th August 2024 and have failed to rebut them with evidence of lawful standing.

Entrapment, Lack of Evidence, and Procedural Irregularities

The allegations rely on a blanket enforcement approach rather than individualised proof of wrongdoing. The obstruction charge is inherently flawed because:

• Entrapment: Official event road signage at Appleby Fair directed motorists to park in the location where enforcement was later applied.

• Lack of obstruction: No individualised proof exists that my vehicle unnecessarily obstructed the highway. Available photographic evidence, including passing traffic at speed, contradicts the assertion.

• Unlawful enforcement: Mandatory signage was obscured by vegetation, rendering any enforcement action unlawful.

• Defective police statement: The statement from PC2275 Smith does not demonstrate direct knowledge that my vehicle, specifically, was obstructing traffic, providing only a general claim of reduced visibility rather than evidence of unnecessary obstruction.

• Blanket enforcement approach: Every vehicle, regardless of position or road width, was given a fixed penalty notice, rather than individualised assessment.

The Section 172 charge (Failure to Provide Information) is similarly flawed due to:

• No proof of proper service: There is no legally admissible proof that I was served a valid request for driver information.

• Unlawful demand for self-incrimination: Under Article 6 of the ECHR and Saunders v UK (1997), individuals cannot be compelled to provide self-incriminating evidence unless due process is followed.

• No established legal obligation: The issuing authority was not properly identified, and this was challenged in writing. Given this failure, there was no lawful duty to respond to an ambiguous request.

Cumbria Constabulary is attempting to prosecute a driver for failing to provide information to a legal non-entity (Central Ticket Office) that hides behind a PO Box and unsigned correspondence, while simultaneously refusing to authenticate its own defective notices. This directly contradicts foundational principles of equity in law. No jury would convict in such circumstances. Continuing with this case is a textbook example of malicious prosecution.

Abuse of Process and Retaliation Against a Whistleblower

I am a whistleblower and citizen journalist exposing institutional corruption, including the irregularities of this case and broader misconduct that Cumbria Constabulary may have participated in, such as COVID-19 lockdown enforcement and experimental bioweapon injections. Given my public profile, this prosecution appears to be a retaliatory measure to silence legitimate dissent. The evidence suggests that the Central Ticket Office is a revenue-driven legal simulation rather than a genuine enforcement action, designed to bypass due process by relying on magistrates’ procedural bias toward law enforcement.

This places Cumbria Constabulary in breach of:

• Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which protects individuals exposing systemic wrongdoing.

• Police Reform Act 2002 (Section 37), which criminalises targeting individuals who highlight police misconduct.

• Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 10 – Freedom of Expression), which prevents state bodies from suppressing legitimate public interest disclosures.

• Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015 (Section 26 – Misuse of Public Office), which establishes legal liability for officers engaging in corrupt prosecution practices.

Legal and Reputational Consequences if the Prosecution Proceeds

Should you fail to withdraw this prosecution, I will escalate matters as follows:

• Seek immediate case dismissal via pre-trial application.

• Seek transfer of the case to a Crown Court outside of Cumbria Constabulary’s jurisdiction, as the Magistrates’ Court appears compromised and unable to proceed with a fair hearing.

• Initiate a High Court Judicial Review against Cumbria Constabulary’s enforcement practices.

• File a misconduct complaint against all responsible officials.

• File a complaint with the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for procedural fraud.

• Pursue financial damages for malicious prosecution. You personally are put on notice that my penalty charge for failing to secure any conviction following notice of malicious prosecution is £9,999, in addition to my previously provided schedule of fees.

• Expose this prosecution publicly, making clear its political and revenue-driven nature.

• Request full FOI disclosure of internal discussions regarding this case.

• Escalate this matter to external media, legal watchdogs, and independent anti-corruption investigators.

If you insist on continuing, you must provide:

• Signed and authenticated evidence that this prosecution is lawful.

• Names of officers and officials personally responsible for issuing and maintaining this case.

• Full procedural compliance documentation, including all internal communications related to this prosecution.

Final Demand

It is clear that this prosecution is not in the public interest, nor does it meet the standard of good faith law enforcement. Rather, it is an attempt to weaponize the legal system against a known activist, violating my fundamental legal rights. The case lacks standing, jurisdiction, cause of action, and lawful remit, rendering it void ab initio and requiring mandatory dismissal.

I require written confirmation within 7 days that all charges have been withdrawn. Failure to do so will be taken as confirmation that Cumbria Constabulary is knowingly proceeding with an unlawful prosecution, triggering immediate legal escalation.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Geddes