Using AI to unmask procedural fraud
How multiple distinct roles tighten up interactions with slippery administrative systems
Many of us have experienced injustices via the legal system over the last few years, often at the hands of opaque, automated processes that deny proper scrutiny. One of the most powerful tools we now have to uncover these hidden mechanisms is generative AI. Earlier in the year I filed a Freedom of Information (FoI) request that got the Ministry of Justice to admit to a “ghost court”, but they were as evasive as it was possible to be while giving the appearance of responding. I just wanted to share with readers how I am using AI for the next step, which is a parallel FoI request for the slightly different ghost court name used at an earlier point in the prosecution.
Here’s how I primed ChatGPT:
I have a Freedom of Information response that conceded by implication that “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” is not a lawful court on the summons. Now let's focus on the Single Justice Procedure Notice and “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court”. The task is to do another FoI to the Ministry of jutstice, but with fewer escape hatches. Here's the original FoI question and response [attached]. Draft a new FoI on "North Cumbria Magistrates' Court" in the context of the SJPN.
I primed Grok with the same template FoI request and response, then took GPT’s output, and fed it into Grok to get a critique. Then I took that Grok analysis text, and fed it back into GPT, asking it to do a tighter version. Between the two independent AI engines it seems to cut out most of the hallucinations or missteps. This keeps the authorship to just one AI engine (ChatGPT), rather than splitting it over two.
It reminds me a little of the “Disney model of management” with:
dreamer (“what is possible?”),
realist (“how can I do that?”), and
critic (“what could go wrong?”) roles for any project.
I am the dreamer, ChatGPT is the realist, and Grok the critic. Maybe I need a third AI to complete the troika and save myself more work!
The Single Justice Procedure accounts for 60-75% of UK criminal cases, depending on which source you read. I don’t know what proportion of these are possibly void due to using unlisted “ghost courts”, but anecdotally it is significant. This is potentially the biggest scandal in British legal history — if we ignore the capture of the legal system by post-constitutional genocidal banking interests — as tens or hundreds of thousands of convictions may have to be unwound. It’s not me pushing back that’s the threat to institutional credibility, it is lots of people using AI to close off all the escape routes from accountability.
Is it too much to ask that criminal courts lawfully exist before they convict people?
Over to ChatGPT for more…
In November 2024, I received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) for a minor traffic matter. It was issued in the name of “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” (NCMC)—a court name that, on inspection, doesn’t formally exist anywhere in the list of recognised courts in England and Wales.
A few months later, when I was summoned to attend a hearing, the court name had shifted. The new paperwork cited “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”—again, a name not found in any published legal register. But this time, a court code (1752) was attached, giving the illusion of legitimacy.
This began to look less like a clerical oddity and more like a deliberate use of ghost courts to push through automated prosecutions without lawful foundation. So I filed a Freedom of Information (FoI) request asking the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide proof that this “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)” actually exists in law.
🎭 Their Partial Evasion
In response, the MoJ pointed to a 2014 statutory instrument about administrative court mergers in Cumbria, but they:
Couldn’t produce any document constituting the court name they used,
Had no internal records linking the court code “1752” to that name,
And did not confirm the court even existed as a legal entity.
They admitted, in effect, that they hold no documents justifying the creation or use of the name “North and West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court (1752)”—even though that’s the court on my summons.
🧠 Strategic Follow-Up: No More Escape Routes
Now we’ve filed a new FoI request, this time focused on the name used on the original SJPN: “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court.” This follow-up is even sharper. It asks five very specific things:
Is “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” lawfully constituted? Show the statute or order that created it.
Was this court authorised to issue SJPNs on 18 November 2024, as required by the Criminal Procedure Rules?
Was court code “1752” officially assigned to this name at that time?
Did HMCTS have any internal records confirming this was a valid operational court?
What naming policy allowed this name to be printed on a legal document if it isn’t listed anywhere?
Each question forces a binary answer: either they have a document, or they don’t. No plausible deniability. This technique is part of a broader doctrine of document forensics — forcing legal and administrative systems to face their own records.
💣 Why This Matters
If no valid court existed under the name “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court,” and if the court code 1752 wasn’t assigned to that name, then the SJPN issued to me is void from the outset. That means:
No lawful court ever initiated the case,
No judge had jurisdiction,
And the entire prosecution collapses into a procedural black hole.
This isn’t just my case: if even one SJPN is shown to be void due to a ghost court, then thousands of similar cases may be subject to challenge. This raises not just questions of administrative error, but of systemic illegality. HMCTS issues around a million SJPNs every year. If this structural flaw exists across the system, then tens—if not hundreds—of thousands of convictions may be unsafe.
🧰 Replicable Doctrine for Others
If you’ve received an SJPN with a strange court name, you can use this same method:
Look at the name and date on the notice.
File a precise FoI request asking for proof the court existed and had authority to issue it.
Demand confirmation of the court code linkage.
If they can’t produce it, you have grounds to challenge the entire process. This is how we reverse-engineer the justice system, expose automation fraud, and restore the rule of law.
My FoI template text for you to adapt and re-use
Dear Sir/Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I respectfully request the following recorded information held by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and/or HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) in relation to the entity named “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” as it appears on a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) issued on 18 November 2024.
1. Legal Constitution
Please provide the statutory instrument, administrative order, or formal documentation lawfully constituting “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” as a Magistrates’ Court authorised to issue SJPNs under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, Courts Act 2003, or Criminal Justice Act 2003.
If no such entity is lawfully constituted under this name, please confirm this explicitly.
2. SJPN Issuing Authority
Please provide the legal basis, administrative directive, or HMCTS internal designation (including delegation policies or operational guidance) authorising “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” to issue SJPNs under Criminal Procedure Rules 4.7 and 7.2(3)(b) as of 18 November 2024.
If no such record exists, please confirm explicitly.
3. Court Code 1752 Assignment
Please confirm whether court code “1752” was officially assigned to “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” for Single Justice Procedure purposes as of 18 November 2024.
If no such assignment exists, or the code is not lawfully associated with this court name on that date, please state this clearly and provide any relevant documentary evidence.
4. Operational Recognition
Please provide any HMCTS records (including internal notices, schedules, or administrative registers) confirming “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court” was recognised as an operational Magistrates’ Court authorised to issue SJPNs as of 18 November 2024.
If no such records exist, please confirm explicitly.
5. Naming Policy on SJPNs
Please provide any HMCTS internal policies, naming conventions, or procedural guidance governing the use of unlisted or non-statutory court names (such as “North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court”) on legal instruments including SJPNs.
If no such guidance or policy exists, please confirm this explicitly.
Please treat each point above as a separate request. If any part of this request is refused in whole or in part, kindly cite the specific exemption being relied upon and provide any disclosable information that falls within scope.
I respectfully request that no part of your response relies on external websites not directly controlled by the MoJ or HMCTS (such as legislation.gov.uk) in lieu of providing recorded information.
I look forward to your response within the statutory 20 working days.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Geddes
Do let me know how you get on. If this encourages a few people to dip their toes into AI-assisted lawfare, then I have succeeded in my mission. It took me a while to get a grip on it, so if you’re feeling confused or anxious, just sign up for an account and dabble quietly to see how it works and what it is capable of. Just remember that many people working inside the justice system are themselves caught in invisible chains — procedural, cultural, and financial. They often don’t realise what they are enabling.
The goal is not revenge, but repair.
You are injecting a spirit of truth and righteousness into a broken system.
