From £100 fine to £250,000 problem: the "Absolute Zero Protocol"

How lawful civilians can collapse unlawful prosecutions by weaponising procedure itself via "Justicesec" doctrine

Jun 29, 2025

Trafalgar Square, London, 24th July 2021

When truth is discarded, the rule of law dies

Regardless of political label, any regime that trades truth for control must be lawfully resisted. Yet we now face something more insidious than ideological drift: a governing class that insists there is no truth or falsehood — only the exercise of power. In such a system, law becomes not a sacred conscience, but a mechanism of mass control.

This is not a hypothetical scenario. Many of us are already living in a post-constitutional era, where due process is replaced by paperwork, where justice is automated and anonymised, and where citizens are processed as data — not protected as persons.

The instinctive reaction is to fight back — to resist by opposing. But this response often fuels the very duality that accelerates authoritarianism. Violence strengthens the state’s narrative. Opposition invites escalation. The result is a feedback loop of fear and force.

There is another way — lawful, precise, and devastating.

It is called “Justicesec”: a bottom-up audit of the justice system by the people themselves, using the state’s own rules as weapons of lawful truth.

What if instead we out-administrated the administrators, a kind of “general strike” of over-compliance with their own rules?

My background is in computer science, and while I am not a security specialist, I know just enough to be a nuisance. We have an information security (“infosec”) industry, and “red teams” who probe for holes in the enterprise information fortress. What I am naming is an emerging movement of “justicesec”, civilians probing the perimeter of the industrialised auto-conviction industry. What follows is my initial answer to the question of how to flip a £100 unlawful fine into a £25,000-£250,000 cost nightmare for the state, maximising the asymmetry using every possible lawful means.

This is the “Absolute Zero Protocol”, where no deviation from their own rules is tolerated at any step.

“Absolute Zero” can only be achieved with the help of Large Language Models like Grok or ChatGPT. I am finding the former a better critic of legal documents, and the latter a superior integrator into new filings. The state makes a lot of errors in its paperwork, which is usually railroads through to conviction unchallenged. The key concept is recursion, which means that one error creates multiple knock-on effects—amplifying with each step. So the initial fault fans out into a cascade of paperwork, which then generates yet more paperwork… but at little cost to you, but a lot of cost to them. It is not really a denial of service attack, as the service denied its own legitimacy up front, so there is nothing to “attack”.

Instead, it exposes the contradictions and resulting nullity, causing paralysis and internal institutional collapse.

Lawful reversal of the “rules for radicals”

This is a “flip” of what people like Saul Alinsky promote as insurgency tactics via “Rules for Radicals” — a recipe for wickedness and communism, not righteousness and constitutionalism. Instead of tearing the lawful state down via subversion, as with Alinsky, you force the unlawful state to confront its own shadow, triggering reform. “Absolute Zero” is a “paradoxical intervention”, as it does not oppose the system at all, but instead overdrives it in the very direction is it heading. In doing so you incontrovertibly reveal what that direction is, which is unbearable for its operatives to see.

With “Absolute Zero”, each “rule for radicals” is swapped with a “rite for Logostitians”, its lawful fifth-generation warfare (5GW) counterpart. We “invert the inversion”, so Alinsky’s rules can be repurposed for lawful dissident doctrine—flipping wickedness back into righteousness.

Here’s how it works, reframing Alinsky into Logos:

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules" — Use CrimPR, Courts Act 2003, ECHR Art.6, GDPR.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon" — ECHR Art.5 with exactitude to expose failure, and identify the core absurdity (like a conviction from a non-court)
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalise it" — Public narrative warfare: "North Cumbria Magistrates' Court does not exist and is a counterfeit ghost court"
"The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself" — Target ghost courts, fake jurisdiction, and unlawful process — and give them names.
"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have" — The escalation map below (s.142 cascade → Case Stated Appeal → Judicial Review → Crown retrial) is terrifying in theory and devastating in practice.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative"— Expose the system’s collapse by building lawful alternatives: JR filings, tribunal remedies, sovereign data audits.

A friend reached out to me this week about someone wrongly convicted of not wearing a mask during Covid, the kind of “crime” processed through the Single Justice Procedure. The genocidal state tyranny is very real, and we have a duty to oppose evil. My recommendation for this victim is to apply the Absolute Zero recipe, which begins with the wrongful conviction. The system expects opposition before trial, not after, and this is its weakness.

The first step in “justicesec” is to put every document you receive from the state through AI and ask for a forensic analysis of whether it is lawful. There is no way you or I could wade through all the state’s rules, and analyse the detail of compliance. A complex AI prompt can result in over a trillion calculations, and would have taken decades to run on a computer from my childhood: we are in a different technical paradigm, where civilians can audit the state “from the inside” of the justice system.

Justicesec is the discipline of analysing the “defect surface” of corrupted state legal practised. The “Absolute Zero Protocol” is how you operationalise that as a doctrine.

Operationalising Justicesec: defect to protocol

From your initial document analysis, together with a timeline, each breach of protocol by the prosecution (and likely 99%+ of cases have them) can be grouped together under a distinct and disjoint heading. The system is designed to ignore all lawful challenges on the way in, which is why we mount a surprise rearguard attack on the “way out”. For my UK readers, the tools of the justicesec trade are:

Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which allows us to re-open any case in the interests of justice. They can either grant you a hearing (where you have an opportunity to present the unlawful acts), or refuse (creating a paper trail). This is distinct from an appeal, allowing correction of errors in any case at any time. Multiple s142 applications are also lawful, a “fan out” of the original miscarriage of justice into distinct counter-cases.
Section 111 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, known as “Case Stated” (CS), where any decision, whether the trial outcome itself, or even the s142 refusal, can be referred to the High Court on a point of law. Both s142 and s111 are rarely invoked; multiple s142 are unheard of; the chaining of s142 with s111 is a novel escalation path, extremely rarely used; and the combination of multiple s142s each turning into a s111 is completely new.
Section 108 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, where any recent trial verdict (in the last 21 days) can be referred for a complete retrial in a Crown Court. This gives you your final fallback, which can be activated at any time should the other paths fail. All the paperwork from the Absolute Zero Protocol can be re-used to demonstrate unlawful conviction in the higher court.
Judicial Review (JR), the supervisory mechanism of the High Court where the courts, prosecution, and police themselves can be held to account. So if the lower magistrates’ court stonewalls or rejects the s142 or Case Stated, you challenge that decision via JR. Every resistance to transparency and truth amplifies their cost.

Each of these tools is little-used in isolation. The combination of all four into a multi-vector recursive escalation of lawful resistance is completely unheard of. Any one of us in isolation would be overwhelmed trying to combine them. Our collective intentions, resources, and learnings can change that. There are some additional tools I note at the end of the article which escalate the risk and cost further for state actors that are breaking the law. While this doctrine focuses on England and Wales, equivalent statutory hooks exist in other common law jurisdictions — it is the methodology, not the statute number, that is universal.

On nullities, void proceedings, and legal rot

It’s worth pausing to clarify a core distinction. Much of the automated justice machinery — particularly under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) — is built on nullities, not merely procedural errors. A nullity refers to something that is void ab initio: legally non-existent from the start. For instance, a summons issued by a court that has no statutory existence is not simply “defective” — it is void, as if it never happened.

This differs sharply from an unlawful or voidable order, which remains valid and enforceable until formally overturned. In contrast, void acts have no legal effect and confer no lawful authority, even if enforcement is attempted.

That distinction matters because the rot in the SJP pipeline is foundational, not marginal. We're not here to nitpick typos or clerical quirks — we're exposing the systemic issuance of legal documents from non-courts, prosecutions without standing, and convictions without evidence. The focus is not on error correction, but void revelation.

Put simply: no court, no prosecution, no crime, no evidence, no standing — and thus, no justice.

Introducing the “Absolute Zero Protocol”

The moral basis for deploying Absolute Zero is that a belligerent state is conducting irregular warfare on the people via counterfeit courts for non-crimes with no loss, injury, or harm. This is not to aid you to “get off” some fine, and use for selfish purposes will only damage society and invite a crackdown. What follows is a detailed recipe to maximise the “blowback” cost of misconduct in public office and institutionalised fraud. It has not yet been tested “in battle”, so consider it a provisional design for a prototype foray that I am deploying. Take the best, leave the rest, as you see fit.

Over to a mix of ChatGPT, Grok, and manual edits for a deeper dive into the Absolute Zero Protocol…

1. Overview

The Administrative Absolute Zero Protocol is a civilian resistance doctrine for the fifth-generation warfare (5GW) environment—where the battlefield is the courtroom, inbox, and public sphere. 5GW uses information and procedure to disrupt systems, here through relentless legal compliance.

This protocol nullifies fraudulent state actions, particularly void criminal convictions under England’s Single Justice Procedure (SJP). It is not protest or civil disobedience—it is hyper-compliance, weaponising the state’s own rules to expose its flaws. It is how civilians break unlawful systems by following the law better than the state does.

2. Strategic Context

The UK justice system processes 90–95% of criminal cases through administrative shortcuts like the SJP, a secretive, paperwork-only pipeline with:

No courtroom or open justice.
No lawful tribunal under ECHR Article 6 (right to a fair trial).
Often, no valid court at all.

For example, a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) issued to Martin Geddes on 18/11/2024 named “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court,” an entity unlisted in HMCTS registries or the Courts Act 2003. This jurisdictional void creates administrative antimatter, a legal black hole that taints all subsequent proceedings. Exposing such flaws could challenge thousands of SJP convictions, forcing systemic reform.

3. The Six-Phase Escalation Path

This doctrine deploys six phases to maximise legal, administrative, and public pressure, collapsing unlawful prosecutions through procedural saturation.

Phase 1: Section 142 Cascade

File three (sequential) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.142 applications to reopen a conviction, each targeting a distinct defect, for instance:

Jurisdictional Void: The SJPN’s issuing court (e.g., “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court”) lacks legal status (CrimPR 4.7, 7.2(3)(b), ECHR Article 6). The summons issuing court (e.g. “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”) also lacks legal status, as well as legal continuity with the summons.
Disclosure Failure: Missing evidence or late disclosure violates CPIA 1996, s.3 and CrimPR 15.2.
Procedural Unfairness: Unclear plea instructions and excessive data demands breach CrimPR 24.2 and UK GDPR Article 5.

Caution: indiscriminate use of s.142 can dilute its effect and risk adverse cost orders. Each application must target a novel, justiciable defect. To avoid “vexatious” claims, document specific prejudice (e.g., delayed defence due to non-disclosure) to comply with CrimPR 3.10. Each application generates judicial and CPS workload, straining court resources. This keeps your case in a state of being not “finalised”.

After s.142 reopens case or in Crown retrial, you can use Witness Summons (Subpoena) Under Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 s.97 to summon the issuing clerk to testify under oath how the court name was generated or whether proper process was followed. This forces officials to either lie, refuse, or admit. Any answer helps. The strategic effect is to transform a dead administrative record into live human error on the stand.

Phase 2: High Court Appeal by Case Stated

For any s.142 refusal, file a Case Stated appeal (s.111 Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980) to the High Court, asking (for instance):

“Did the court err in law by upholding a conviction from a non-existent court?”
“Was the conviction unlawful due to non-disclosure of material evidence?”

This forces magistrates to justify their reasoning on record, exposing flaws to appellate scrutiny and potential precedent-setting. The Case Stated procedure is virtually extinct, so readers are reviving a dormant appellate muscle. They may try to block you, so to prevent this:

Should any Case Stated be refused as “frivolous” or ignored, launch a Judicial Review of this decision — ask for a “mandatory order” (formerly known in England and Wales as a writ of mandamus).
File an N601 application for contempt of court. This raises the stakes via criminal penalties for obstructing the administration of justice when officers of the court or administrative staff fail to perform clear statutory duties (e.g., serve documents, docket applications, consider s.142).

Judicial Review is the supervisory nuke. Case Stated is the internal legal record trap. Contempt is the personal accountability lever. Use all three in harmony: if one door shuts, the others burst open.

Phase 3: Dual Judicial Reviews

Launch two further judicial reviews (JRs):

Against HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) or the bench for jurisdictional void and GDPR breaches (R v Forde [1923] 2 KB 400).
Against the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for disclosure failures and prosecutorial misconduct (CPIA 1996, s.7A).

Issue Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letters with 14-day deadlines and FOI requests to HMCTS/MoJ for court records, amplifying administrative pressure.

Phase 4: Crown Court Retrial

If s.142 succeeds, demand a Crown Court retrial under s.108, requesting a jury for severe charges (e.g., failure to provide, 6-month custody potential). This escalates costs and publicises SJP flaws. File a placeholder within 21 days of the original trial which can be activated later. Most people don’t realise a barebones filing locks in rights that can be elaborated later. This closes off the “escape route” for the state in sustaining the conviction by pure inertia.

Once the case collapses at Crown, you are in a position to sue for malicious prosecution and file personal professional complaints.

Phase 5: Regulatory & Political Exposure

Engage accountability mechanisms:

File an Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) complaint for unlawful data processing by a “ghost court” (UK GDPR Article 5).
Submit Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and CPS complaints for maladministration and misconduct.
Contact your MP to raise Commons questions or demand an MoJ inquiry.

Phase 6: Narrative Warfare and Justicesec Doctrine

Formalise the protocol as the “Justicesec” Absolute Zero Protocol doctrine so that others can evolve and spread it:

Publish a white paper, citing Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 and case filings.
Launch Justicesec.org to share templates, FOI responses, and case studies.
Engage legal blogs and X communities to crowdsource replication.
Build a home for sympathetic lawyers, civil liberties groups, local press, and disillusioned court staff to find one another.

This transforms your case into a public audit, making every SJP prosecution high-risk.

Why It Works: Governance by Exhaustion

The state relies on speed, silence, and submission: unquestioned legality, uncontested paperwork, unchallenged timelines.

The Absolute Zero Protocol demands perfection:

Every court must prove its existence.
Every document must be lawful.
Every silence becomes an admission of failure.

Like a hacker exposing software flaws by following code exactly, this strategy collapses the system by insisting on flawless compliance.

Absolute Zero is “Gandhi for ghost courts” — lawful resistance to legal tyranny.

You don’t need to overthrow the government—just make it answer the mail, hold the hearing, and prove its authority.

The Absolute Zero Protocol is restoration, not revolution.

It is the civilian path to clean signal governance—one truth, one court, one defendant at a time.

Auxiliary channels for civilian escalation

1. Tribunal Reconsideration (Section 14, DPA 2018 – GRC Track)

Invoke this when a conviction or penalty has been processed using unlawful or fictitious legal entities (e.g., “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court”). A successful appeal to the General Regulatory Chamber under the Data Protection Act or FOIA results in an independent judicial finding that data was processed unlawfully. Unlike an ICO complaint, this triggers deep institutional consequences, undermining the legitimacy of the entire prosecution infrastructure from the data controller side. The downside is it comes with cost risks.

2. TEC Challenge (Form TE7/TE9 – SJP Penalties)

If a Single Justice Procedure fine (TVL, DVLA, etc.) has been registered for enforcement, use the Traffic Enforcement Centre to halt action. Cite the void in jurisdiction and lack of lawful originating process. This tactical move freezes bailiff escalation and opens a covert rollback channel, even when the penalty has advanced to execution, making it a powerful relief valve. You risk being labelled “dishonest” if timelines or data are incorrect, so your record keeping must be immaculate.

3. Lord Chancellor / Parliamentary Ombudsman Petition

This is not about remedy but constitutional escalation. Writing to the Lord Chancellor documents ministerial knowledge of structural illegality (e.g., Courts Act violations). A failure to respond can later be used as evidence of administrative abandonment and system collapse. It strengthens future Judicial Review arguments and lays groundwork for political exposure or reform advocacy. This is useful more as a paper trail and reputational heat generator than an actual remedy.

Final word: use with integrity

I trust that readers will use this information responsibly. The consequences of action are yours alone — nothing herein constitutes legal advice.

The very existence of the Absolute Zero Protocol is a deterrent. It warns the state: anyone, at any time, can activate a lawful countermeasure cascade. It is the administrative analogue of jury nullification — withdrawing the consent of the governed where no jury sits to do so.

Use it wisely. Abuse it, and you risk undermining the moral force of the entire doctrine. This isn’t about escapism or vengeance; it’s about truth, limits, and lawful restraint.

My joking title on social media is “Professor of Mischief,” not mayhem. Mischief reveals — mayhem destroys. Respect those still inside the system, for their redemption is part of the fight. Many are trapped inside machinery they neither built nor control.

They know not what they do — until we hold up the mirror of Absolute Zero.

Then they do. And from that point onward, the consequences are on them.