One case. Forty-four courts. Zero legitimacy.

When simulation replaces law, court identity collapses and civil rights vanish

I have been “convicted” by forty-four different courts.

Or by none at all — because any lawful conviction requires a single, identifiable tribunal established in law. When procedure becomes attached to workflow labels, database codes, and administrative constructs instead of statutory courts, the result is identity fragmentation, not judicial authority. This is the operational reality of the Single Justice Procedure in England and Wales.

To test what had happened in my own case, I ran every document I was sent through a year-long AI-assisted analysis, asking it to extract all explicit and implicit references to the supposed “court” behind the process. The outcome is stark: forty-four distinct court identities for one prosecution. No functioning rule-of-law system should ever produce more than one.

This pattern signals a serious structural breakdown in judicial integrity, raising concerns under multiple international fair-trial standards. According to the AI advisory models I used, the SJP’s architecture exhibits features that fall below the minimum procedural guarantees expected of any regular tribunal under international norms — particularly regarding tribunal establishment, traceability of judicial acts, transparency, and access to remedy.

Criminal convictions are being issued without a clearly constituted tribunal, without a verifiable judicial act, without an inspectable place of adjudication, and without meaningful access to open justice or review. In my own case, I was denied the most basic safeguards: a sealed order, the identity of the court, the record of the judicial act, and even the ability to challenge the process.

The lawful number of tribunals permitted in a lawful case is one. No more, no less.

I hope this gives a clearer sense of the battle I am fighting. This is not a personal grievance — it is a matter of public dignity, institutional integrity, and the reputation of the law itself.

---

THE COMPLETE LIST OF 44 COURT IDENTITIES

(Grouped by type so you can see how the simulation splinters)

🔴 A. CORE SUMMONS / SJPN IDENTITIES

1. North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)

2. North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court — Code 1752

3. North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752) sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court

4. North & West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (Carlisle) (1752)

5. North & West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (Carlisle), Code 1752

6. 1752 North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court

7. Court: Carlisle Magistrates’ Court (as tribunal)

8. Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court (used as a judicial identity)

🔵 B. LJA-AS-COURT IDENTITIES (LJA = Local Justice Area)

(these are legally impossible, but HMCTS/GLD used them as courts)

9. North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court LJA: 1752

10. North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court Local Justice Area

11. Magistrates’ Court for the Local Justice Area of North and West Cumbria

12. The Local Justice Area as the court (doctrinal position)

🔶 C. CARLISLE-BASED IDENTITIES

(location treated as the tribunal)

13. Carlisle Magistrates’ Court (as the trial court)

14. Carlisle Magistrates’ Court (as listing venue only)

15. Carlisle & District Magistrates’ Court

16. Carlisle Magistrates’ Court, Rickergate

17. The Court at Carlisle

18. Magistrates’ Court – Carlisle & North Cumbria

🟣 D. NORTH/CUMBRIA REGIONAL IDENTITIES

19. North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court

20. North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (SJP court)

21. Magistrates’ Court – North & West Cumbria (sitting at Carlisle)

22. Magistrates’ Court – Cumbria North

23. Magistrates’ Court for the Cumbria North Area

24. Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (Carlisle)

25. Magistrates’ Court for Cumbria

🟢 E. PIPE-FUSED / HYBRID COMPOSITE IDENTITIES

26. North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court | Carlisle Magistrates’ Court

27. Workington Magistrates’ Court | West Cumbria Courthouse

(These are single entries, treated as one entity — an HMCTS signature quirk that still constitutes a separate court identity.)

🟡 F. ADDITIONAL REGION-BASED IDENTITIES

28. North West Magistrates’ Court

29. Cumbria North Area Magistrates’ Court

30. North & West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (Carlisle) (variant without code)

🟤 G. JUDICIAL PERSONA IDENTITIES

(“The Justices” treated as the court)

31. The Justices at Carlisle

32. The Justices sitting at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court

33. The Justices sitting at [no named court]

34. Magistrates, Cumbria North (judicial persona as tribunal)

These cannot be courts in law — yet they were used as if they were.

⚫ H. ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ACTING AS “THE COURT”

35. Central Ticket Office (issuing court-process threats)

36. Cumbria Constabulary (acting as court gateway)

37. Criminal Justice Unit (described as “taking over the court process”)

38. HMCTS (generic, no court specified)

39. HMCTS Disclosure and Library Team (asserting court authority/existence)

These 5 entities unlawfully assumed judicial functions.

🟧 I. META-COURT IDENTITIES

40. The National Magistrates’ Court (doctrinal assertion that names don’t matter)

41. The Court (undefined; used in enforcement and penalties)

42. The Magistrates’ Court (generic, no location; used in official notices)

43. Magistrates’ Court (unnamed) (generic template wording)

44. Magistrates’ Court for [Area] (floating-format identity in debt warnings)

These appear in templates, warnings, and enforcement paperwork as if they were the actual tribunal.

---

If you walked out of a shop and the cashier handed you forty-four different till receipts for one purchase, you would not assume the bookkeeping was sound.
You would assume something was seriously wrong.

Now imagine those receipts didn’t even come from the same shop.
Or the same chain.
Or the same town.
You would ask the only reasonable question:

“Where did this transaction actually take place?”

That is all I am doing.

A criminal conviction — any conviction — requires one real court, not a handful, not a dozen, and certainly not forty-four. Until the State can produce the judicial equivalent of a single, lawful till receipt — a verifiable tribunal, a sealed order, and a traceable judicial act — we are not dealing with justice. We are dealing with administrative noise posing as law.

---

The SJP system now requires daylight, scrutiny, and repair.
We must re-anchor criminal process in real courts, not workflow simulations.
We must restore verifiable judicial acts, not automated outputs.
And we must ensure that no member of the public ever again stands in my position — told they have been convicted, but unable to discover who convicted them, where, or by what lawful authority.

A justice system that cannot produce its own till receipt is not something we can quietly overlook.

It is something we must fix.