Help fund “triple mandamus” High Court action
Three concurrent judicial reviews compelling public authorities to act lawfully
My autumn legal insurgency
In recent weeks I have been preparing an autumn legal insurgency to expose systemic fraud by police and courts in England. I am mounting four concurrent High Court actions to expose fraud in motoring enforcement — including misnamed ‘ghost courts,’ Section 172 abuse, and fabricated offences. This fight could set precedent protecting thousands from unlawful prosecution. I need £4,000 to cover unavoidable out‑of‑pocket costs.
These are the core frauds I am exposing:
Foundational Frauds
Motoring prosecutions without evidence — relying on “guilt by association” to fabricate a case where there is no genuine cause of action.
Fictitious cause‑of‑action manufacturing — inventing offences from lawful conduct to justify opening a prosecution file.
Tactical Frauds
Procedural entrapment via Section 172 — weaponising statutory compulsion as a retaliatory tactic when the lawfulness of automated penalties is challenged, a misuse reported by campaigners and recognised in road traffic case law.
Synthetic identities in enforcement — operating under fictitious departmental names with no accountable officer, unlawful data collection, and concealment behind PO Boxes — as confirmed by FOI responses and privacy campaign reports.
So-called “ghost courts” — non‑existent or misdescribed courts used to launder administrative debt collection as judicial process, with officials impersonating judicial authority.
Unlawful enforcement of fines — pursued by entities with no lawful creditor status.
Forgery‑by‑process — issuing documents that simulate lawful notices or orders without meeting statutory form, signature, or service requirements.
Institutional Cover‑Up
Suppression of statutory appeal rights — obstructing or ignoring Case Stated, s.142 MCA, or Crown Court appeal processes while continuing enforcement.
Retaliatory judicial conduct — magistrates and legal advisers siding with the prosecution to protect defective processes instead of acting impartially.
Misuse of administrative agencies — deploying bodies such as DVLA for revenue enforcement without statutory footing or proper delegation.
The wall of silence
I am facing a “wall of silence”, and have reached a place of “total lockdown” from the state where they refuse to:
Answer my correspondence.
Respond in a timely fashion to Freedom of Information requests.
Process statutory appeals.
Provide court orders.
Adjudicate motions.
Supply exculpatory evidence.
Deliver lawfully due recordings and notes.
Reply to High Court pre‑action protocol letters.
Acknowledge complaints.
Name responsible officers.
Confirm the legal basis for their actions.
Disclose warrants of authority.
Identify the true issuing body behind synthetic identities.
Suspend enforcement when the law requires it.
Correct known falsehoods in official records
This I consider a testament to my success so far in exposing these frauds! It is a closed‑loop system designed to deny due process, suppress evidence, and prevent any pathway to lawful remedy. The illusion of lawful justice is kept up for enough people to comply, and the cost of holding the system to account on its own terms is made extremely high through obstruction. By diligence, perseverance, and foresight I have assembled what is likely the best-positioned legal challenge to the conveyor belt of automated penalties for victimless “crimes”.
Breaking the blockade
My next steps are to take this to the High Court, where precedent can be set, so others are not abused and exploited in the same way. The lower court is doing everything it can to block my access to lawful remedy, because they know that a proper appeal will expose them for malfeasance, fraud, and obstruction of justice. I am therefore being forced to escalate everything to break through their blockade — launching three Judicial Review actions (for “mandamus”) plus a Part 8 civil review.
Judicial Review #1 – To compel the court’s clerk to process my statutory appeal under s.111 “Case Stated” to the High Court. This appeal will determine whether my case ever had lawful jurisdiction at all, given it was prosecuted through a “ghost court” that does not exist in law.
Judicial Review #2 – To compel the court’s administration to issue the formal order from my June trial. They are withholding it because it is itself evidence of fraud: the named court has no legal existence, and a written order would require them to rule on my jurisdiction challenge.
Judicial Review #3 – To compel the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose the legal advice they claim to have on the “ghost court” issue, or explain why they are withholding it. They will not even acknowledge my request because the advice is fatal to their case: it should never have existed.
The Part 8 application is for declaratory relief in the civil courts, so that all victims of the ghost court can seek remedy. This is an end‑run around the criminal process, using the civil jurisdiction to decide the core question: does this “court” legally exist at all? This combination of four concurrent High Court actions — three Judicial Reviews plus a Part 8 claim — is exceptionally rare for a litigant-in-person. It is only through my rigorous training in IT, the use of generative AI, and fifth-generation warfare doctrine that I can run a “litigation blitzkrieg”.
Background operations
In the background I am doing many Freedom of Information requests, Data Subject Access requests, letters to civil society and senior judiciary, outreach to others in the same situation, gathering witness statements, filing official complaints, collating documentary evidence, maintaining a meticulous chronology of events, preparing legal briefs, designing a parallel political and media strategy, and preserving a full litigation archive for potential public inquiries.
Costs and funding need
I am a litigant-in-person, so I am not seeking to raise funds for legal representation. That said, this is not a cheap project to run, and the cost exceeds what I earn just from Substack article subscriptions (enough for daily life, but no more). Assuming the Judicial Reviews proceed to a substantive hearing, my estimated out‑of‑pocket costs are:
Court fees: estimated around £3,000.
Printing/postage/admin: £400.
Travel/miscellaneous: £400.
On top of all this, I have ordinary living expenses to contend with — and I’m simultaneously fighting an ongoing familial child‑trafficking and court‑corruption case in America (more on that soon). In the past month or two, I’ve run up nearly £2,000 in credit‑card debt covering costs to protect the mother and child involved. I do have some savings, but those are reserved for personal safety and security, not for the ongoing operational expenses of public‑interest campaigns.
If crypto suddenly moons and we all become rich — fantastic — but I cannot rely on that happening in time. I have filing fees due in the next week or two, and I can’t cover those and buy food and pay rent at the end of the month. On top of that, I’m paying a small fortune in specialist costs — including subscriptions to multiple AI engines that I use to prepare filings, analyse evidence, and run my campaign work.
The real human cost
The real outlay isn’t money — it is in pressure on my nervous system, being tied to my letter box and office equipment, foregone opportunities to restart my art business or publish new books, and ongoing trauma from endless confrontation with the state. I can deal with that, it’s part of the unconventional warrior role. What I need to share is the burden of the overheads of running a top-tier constitutional legal campaign.
Support the fight!
I have set the target at £4,000 (around US$5,300) as that covers it all. Any extra and I might treat myself to a better office printer as the one I have is ancient. If I get time I will also go back to giving TV Licensing and BBC/Capita some legal hell, as they’ve earned it! The size of the response shows the strength of public feeling. This battle to restore the rule of law goes beyond English courts.
Every contribution, wherever you are, helps push back against the machinery of unlawful governance. They know that a single High Court ruling on these points could unravel thousands of similar fraudulent convictions. This is a narrow window of opportunity to challenge a decades-old fraud mechanism while it is vulnerable to exposure. Their silence is their indictment. Join me in convicting the fraud machine!
