The rise of the "procedural crime"

How sovereign-minded defendants are called to witness tyranny by law enforcement

I am in the insane position of being prosecuted for a non-crime of parking on a street, contravening no enforceable restriction, and with no evidence of loss or harm to anyone. At every stage the police, Magistrates’ Court, and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have declined to back out gracefully, but now their procedural tricks are catching up with them. In my last update I shared the Judicial Review pre-action protocol letter to the court, sent on Friday of last week. It is now close of business on Thursday, with the Easter long weekend ahead of us. I have had zero acknowledgement from either the court of CPS, let alone response.

This unforgivable situation is a total breakdown in the normal machinery of justice. A Judicial Review is a serious step, invoking the High Court, which carries great legal weight. Ignoring it compounds the month-long engagement blackout from the Court and Prosecution. For a constabulary, court, and prosecution all to go into hiding is practically unheard of. But then again, for a litigant in person to file credible Judicial Review papers, elevating a 24 year old van in a non-crime into a national-level PR crisis, is also “not normal”. But it wasn’t me who broke all the rules on how to initiate and conduct a criminal prosecution!

When held against strict constitutional standards (such as needing a victim, not a victimless administrative lapse), as well as diligent adherence due process, it is likely that the vast majority of criminal cases in the UK are invalid. I am not alone, so the stakes are high: this is about turning back the debt slavery aspect of industrialised jurisprudence. Most convictions for motoring offences (like not having insurance) or “invented” crimes (like not paying your TV license). These are behavioural control and revenue enforcement dressed up as criminal proceedings. What I am doing is acting as a witness to the tyranny, and reversing the “process is the punishment”, using the burdensome tools of accountability upon them.

I have filed a motion to stay proceedings, which is itself not particularly exciting. What might give a wry smile to readers is this extract from the cover letter.

I have to remark that these proceedings are irregular at every stage:

- The vehicle Fixed Penalty Notice does not explicitly name Cumbria Constabulary or a responsible person

- The Notices of Intended Prosecution come from a synthetic identity lacking legal personage hiding behind a PO Box via commercial bulk mail indistinguishable from marketing circulars that are routinely discarded

- The Chief Constable of Cumbria Constabulary will not confirm or deny the authenticity of this correspondence, and then the police suppress this exculpatory evidence in their Initial Details of Prosecution Case.

- A malicious s172 prosecution [for not filling in forms] is initiated in retaliation for me seeking lawful due process

- The summons comes from a court whose name does not appear on the HMCTS website, and a polite inquiry as to jurisdiction was rebuffed with scorn by the judge at the Mention hearing

- No evidence has been offered of a crime particular to myself; I am not even personally accused of a specific wrong ten months after the event

- Motions to correct these procedural issues are treated as if they do not exist

- The prosecutor took on the case explicitly admitting a lack of review, so he could not engage with my arguments at the Mention hearing

- The prosecution has not substantively responded (in over a month) to any of my correspondence asking basic questions of due process, including withdrawing an offered phone call following a formal complaint... and thereafter providing no further response

- The court itself has ceased to interact with me when challenged to explain its conduct and prosecutorial standing, also for over a month

- PC [REDACTED] goes on holiday right after every communication to the police with no other contact given for service

- CPS cannot even give me a named officer responsible for the case, or the date on which they took over the case from the police — trivial administrative demands

The failure to even acknowledge a Judicial Review PAP letter in two business days raises foundation questions of integrity, professionalism, and fairness by the Court and HMCTS. All I ask is that the law is upheld and justice is served; this motion to stay is not an evasion of accountability, but rather an insistence on it.

No honest public servant should fear these questions, and no court can be constituted to break the law. Yet the official silence speaks very loudly of an existential fear of the public seeing the reality of how unlawful revenue enforcement is, in fact, being upheld via procedural games.

This is a criminal prosecution, a serious matter. While the motoring circumstance is slight, the due process failure is of constitutional weight. Does this self-evidently unsatisfactory situation, touching on the absurd, really require the High Court to intervene?

What I am facing is a collapsed and dormant malicious prosecution that nobody wants to take responsibility for, but every delay compounds the unfairness and procedural failure pushing on misconduct in public office. While I am titled the defendant, I have the status of investigator and prosecutor of these “procedural crimes”. The alleged traffic violation was trivial, but the violation of due process and constitutional protections is historic. I happen to be a rare defendant who is supported directly by the public, with time to dedicate to official accountability, having “lawfare” experience using AI as support, and nothing to lose in terms of reputation, together with a global publishing platform of my own.

Most would give up way before this point. That’s what they depend upon.

What began as a minor fine has metastasised into: institutional silence; judicial hostility; withholding of evidence; abuse of Single Justice Procedure; obfuscation of prosecutorial standing; tactical withdrawal from engagement; a month-long evasion of basic due process. Each of these is a violation of the compact between the public and state, far more serious than an incorrectly parked van. The very concept of justice is now on trial—and the institutions can’t even file a defence. I am being punished for asking for due process, which means I am not the criminal respondent here — the state actors are. Where once the Crown assumed jurisdiction over my van, I now assert jurisdiction over their conduct.

In the court of public opinion, this case of “procedural crime” is the real trial, and is now underway with you, the reader, an active participant and witness.

There is a human cost to this. I was really ill right before the (likely void and ultra vires) “Mention” (pre-trial administrative) hearing in March — with a tooth infection, swollen glands, and poor sleep. I am not seeking mercy or sympathy as there is nothing to seek mercy for, and sickness is ordinary. I have also been subjected to endless state or quasi-state persecution over the last seven years as a censored and smeared dissident. That comes with the terrain, and is on me. It is just to point out that behind these roles of “prosecutor” and “defendant” are real people with bodies who still have to live together when they meet at the Parent Teacher Association meeting or queue beside each other at the checkout at Sainsburys.

What makes this case a “clean signal of institutional corruption” (i.e. lawful doctrine of dissent) is that I asked simple procedural questions: who is prosecuting me, when did they become the prosecutor, did they follow their own basic test to assume the role of prosecutor, and who is personally responsible for my case on behalf of the prosecution. This is not being vexatious or frivolous, given the ambiguity. The Court and CPS both refused to answer what ought to be instantly available information in any legitimate proceedings. That alone convicts the system—not me. At this point, no amount of wriggling, manipulation, or railroading can result in a legitimate trial, let alone prosecution.

Continuing only indicts the justice system, as I have no case to answer.

So here is my next email to the Court. As this matter raises issues of public integrity and constitutional due process, I am placing it on the public record via this newsletter (currently read by approximately 23,000 subscribers).

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write further to my pending Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol letter (served 11 April 2025) and my formal Motion to Stay Proceedings (submitted 15 April 2025).

At the time of writing, I have received no acknowledgement or substantive response from the Court or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concerning either filing. Nor has there been any response to correspondence over the last month relating to the following:

• Identity and standing of the prosecuting authority;

• Confirmation of jurisdiction of the court listed on the summons;

• Explanation for late service of photographic evidence and suppression of exculpatory evidence;

• Acknowledgement or adjudication of my motions to dismiss (filed 28 February 2025);

• Response to my CPS complaint (initiated 30 March 2025) and associated cancelled call (of 8 April 2025).

Despite this total procedural silence, I am expected to:

• Appear for trial on 11 June 2025;

• Prepare an outline defence with no disclosed charge particulars relevant to me personally, no properly served notices, and no engagement from any authority;

• Plan transatlantic travel from the United States in May at personal cost and risk, with no guidance from the court or CPS on whether the hearing will proceed, who is prosecuting, or on what basis.

This constitutes unacceptable prejudice, depriving me of the ability to mount any meaningful defence or plan my life responsibly. It violates:

• CrimPR 3.2 (Duty of case management to deal with cases justly);

• CrimPR 5.4 (Clarity on prosecution role and responsibility);

• Article 6 ECHR (Right to a fair hearing); and

• Basic standards of natural justice and fair treatment of a self-represented defendant.

There is currently no valid case to answer before the court. I remain accused of nothing in particular, in a proceeding initiated without lawful foundation, and sustained only by silence and institutional inertia.

I place this update on the record to support the relief already requested in my Motion to Stay. To proceed with a trial under these conditions would be unconscionable, unlawful, and institutionally reckless.

What saddens me is that it has to come to this. I am someone who has given up almost everything—career, savings, reputation, friends, family—in the defence of truth, righteousness, and justice. I don’t count the cost. I am currently in the United States confronting a familial child trafficking case and judicial cover-up. I don’t want to be a thorn in the side of those back home who are, for the most part, doing their best to administer justice in a broken system. I want them to feel proud of their work, not ashamed of their errors. Someone like me—who seeks to uphold the highest principles of law—is their ally, not their opponent. I still hope this case has a redemptive arc, because I hold no ill will toward those who are harming me.

Procedural crime is best addressed via repair and reform, not retribution and revenge.

Let us hope that some take heed of the Easter timing and the message of rebirth and renewal.

Spring azaleas at Creekwood, Tennessee.