Trial by Void
Court report from the persecution, sorry, prosecution in Carlisle on 11th June
Yesterday, I endured a trial—both legal and physical. The experience of being dragged through the procedural violence of a tribunal with no lawful jurisdiction, one that openly disregards due process, brought to mind Touching the Void, the modern mountaineering classic chronicling Joe Simpson’s gruesome survival in the Andes. Like him, I have had to crawl through months of psychological attrition, facing an unrelenting descent into state-enforced absurdity. That ordeal is now behind me.
I regard the outcome as a victory—not because I was exonerated, but because I wasn’t seeking exoneration. My doctrine is “clean signal” fifth-generation warfare. My goal is the exposure of official crime, not the validation of a corrupt process.
I willingly became “bait” for a revenue enforcement regime masquerading as justice: a fraud factory operating under the colour of law, systematically skimming the public through illegal summonses and fake courts. I resisted the temptation to defend myself on the facts, and instead held the line of non-participation. Why? Because the forum was void. The process was null. I had to absorb the blows—calmly, lawfully, visibly—so that these officials would overreach on the record.
Their strategy was simple: get me to break. Break into conceding jurisdiction by arguing my case. Break into fury and lose my composure. Break by not showing up at all. I did none of these. I stood, and I watched them collapse their own legitimacy in public.
My worst exposure is now behind me. The fine is irrelevant. What matters is what’s coming next.
The Tactical Loss vs. Strategic Victory
Tactical Loss: 6 points on my license (12 triggers disqualification) and a £1,574 fine. This is eligible for a High Court stay pending Judicial Review. Real penalties are unlikely.
Strategic Victory: A documented trail of abuse—police misconduct, malicious prosecution, judicial misfeasance, and systemic institutional failure. The receipts are court-ready, should we see regime change.
This was not just a personal battle—it has constitutional weight. I will be publishing a series of articles unpacking the events of the day. But since the sun is shining and the English seaside beckons, what follows is a factual summary of what occurred. These notes have been polished up with the help of AI. You’ll grasp the essence with a quick scan.
If you’re new to the case, the full backstory is available here. This may be the best-documented breach of the institutional firewall shielding the UK’s judiciary and its industrialised abuses via the Single Justice Procedure. The next step is Judicial Review by the High Court—unless military tribunals for civil rights abuses get there first.
Morning Session
Arrival and Waiting
I arrived at the court building at 9:00am and gathered briefly with supporters outside. By 9:20am, I had entered for a 9:30am appointment, expecting a three-hour hearing, as previously indicated at Mention.
From there, I was left in procedural limbo. There was no contact from court staff until 12:15pm. Observers came and went—13 attended, though two had to leave before the noon cutoff. The waiting was as much psychological trial as legal process.
Entering the Court
The usher informally addressed me as “Martin,” not “Mr Geddes”—a tone signalling a theatre, not a tribunal.
Once inside, I informed the court I intended to raise a jurisdictional objection. The clerk told me I had to state my name and address to have standing. I complied, then delivered this:
“The summons in this matter was issued by a tribunal that does not exist in law — specifically, ‘North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)’, which has no statutory foundation under the Courts Act 2003. This prosecution is therefore void ab initio, and the matter cannot lawfully proceed.”
I offered my evidentiary bundle—initially refused. The judge challenged whether I had filed a skeleton argument in line with the Mention hearing. I explained: if the case is void ab initio, so too is any prior ruling. I had exhausted all proper channels—letters, Mention hearing, Pre-Action Protocol, and even a Judicial Review filed 30 May and rejected on purely technical grounds on 9 June.
The judge asked what I wanted. I stated clearly:
I was unafraid of a trial on the merits, but only before a lawfully constituted court.
I would not object if the summons were re-issued under valid jurisdiction.
The court could either dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, adjourn pending JR, or refer via Case Stated to the High Court.
Only at this point was my bundle finally accepted.
Prosecutor's Position
The prosecutor claimed a legal opinion had been prepared and served to me. The judge said she had seen no such document. I confirmed I had received nothing.
The prosecutor quickly backtracked, stating a senior colleague had advised against serving it.
The judge accused me of failing to submit a skeleton argument. I reiterated: I spent two months trying to engage the court and CPS. But without proof of jurisdiction, I could not submit arguments on merit.
The CPS insisted everything was regular and they would proceed to trial. The prosecutor—visibly nervous, stammering, and red-faced—offered no real rebuttal.
I restated:
The issue was architectural: the summoning body was an LJA, not a court.
The summons lacked seal, signature, and stamp.
I expected to win on merit, but jurisdiction comes first.
A second Pre-Action Protocol had been served, alleging prosecutorial misconduct.
The judge again accused me of failing to provide pre-trial argument. I explained the catch-22: in a void case, there is no valid order with which to comply.
Lunch Break
The court adjourned for lunch at 12:45pm. We reconvened at 2:00pm, re-entering the courtroom at 3:00pm. Again, the usher used my first name—“Martin”—further signalling the informality of what was supposedly a serious criminal proceeding.
Afternoon Session
Jurisdiction Ruling
The judge entered with a smirk and ruled immediately: she had jurisdiction. My objection was dismissed as having “no merit.”
Her reasoning:
The information was laid before a lawful magistrate.
Magistrates’ Courts operate as a national network.
The LJA named is statute-based, and “sitting at Carlisle” justifies venue.
She refused to address the fact that the issuing body on the summons—“North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”—has no basis in law and may constitute administrative fraud. She declined to adjourn. The trial commenced.
The Charges
Two charges were heard:
Obstruction of the highway
Failure to provide information under Section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act (on behalf of the Chief Constable)
Witness Testimony
PC Smith
A uniformed motorcycle Traffic Officer since 2013.
Claimed the incident occurred around 3:00pm during a local fair, where my van was allegedly obstructing traffic. No formal tickets were issued—only internal notices. The matter was passed to the Central Ticket Office (CTO).
I declined to cross-examine:
“With respect to PC Smith, I reject jurisdiction.”
Judge: “That issue has already been dealt with.”
Me: “I decline to engage with this misfeasance.”
Judge (laughing): “Thank you very much.”
Dawn Lightfoot (CTO)
Smiled at the judge, and had earlier been seen socialising with PC Smith in the waiting room. She confirmed the chain of process:
PC Smith reports to CTO.
Admin team enters data.
Notice of Intended Prosecution sent 12 June via first-class post.
She introduced 7 exhibits (DL1–DL7), including:
DL1: Unsealed, unsigned notice sent in a window envelope; returned “addressee not recognised.”
DL3: My fee schedule, response letter, and fingerprint.
DL4: CTO assertion of legal compliance.
DL7: My February 14 email raising 4 points of law with Cumbria Magistrates' Court.
She claimed everything was compliant.
I again refused to participate:
“I will not participate in ultra vires proceedings.”
Both witnesses appeared visibly relieved once their parts were done.
Closing and Judgment
The judge asked for any Section 10 submissions. The prosecutor said there were none. I declined to offer a defence.
The prosecutor made brief closing remarks, asserting the evidence was clear.
The judge then herself asked whether s.172 applies to parked vehicles. The prosecutor replied it did, under the theory of “causing the vehicle to stand in the road.”
The judge deliberated silently for an extended period.
Verdict
Obstruction:
Not guilty. Judge could not be sure I was the driver, though found the van caused obstruction.s.172 Failure to Provide Information:
Guilty.
Sentence
£650 fine
£650 costs
£264 statutory surcharge
Total: £1,574 due in 28 days
6 penalty points on my driving licence
I closed with this:
“This hearing is a breach of my ECHR Article 6 rights to a lawful tribunal.”
The phrase, "There are none so blind as those who will not see" seems to fittingly summarize this event. This whole thing has been such a grinding, slow, and painful process. Health and strength to you, Martin ! May your dogged persistence ultimately be rewarded many fold !
Mr. Geddes, your efforts are appreciated more than you know. Not only for the massive amount of work involved, but there is a levity component that cannot be ignored. They expected a fight and got silence. Bravo. May they all suffer an instantaneous wedgie.