Martin Geddes posted an interesting account the other day of his Traffic Penalty Tribunal experience with 'the system!' Here it is...

Since then we've heard that the judgement unfortunately didn't go his way (which Martin knew would probably be the case), and I had a great chat with him yesterday to get the 'inside' on it!

The especially interesting thing for me was that Martin managed to get 'the other side' to listen a bit. Not only were they starting to listen but there may even have been a hint of empathy too! If you haven't read this post on his substack, I urge you to do so. It's not long - and it is very interesting - or you can listen to him speaking about it.

Sadly, the adjudicator, though showing signs of understanding towards Martin in the tribunal, bottled it in the decision.

I did not expect any other outcome, as to do so would call into question the legitimacy of the tribunal, as well as the lawfulness of clean air zones.

To me this was especially interesting for two main reasons.

  1. Martin was mainly using constitutional and moral arguments
  2. He began by coming across as understanding of their situation and wishing to see their perspective

Arguments Based On the Rule of Law

Instead of using the more ludicrous arguments we're more accustomed to seeing in the Freedom Movement to do with contracts, strawman, all caps etc., Martin used arguments resting on moral obligation, Constitutional Law, Due Process, and the lack of civil liberties. Really good to see.

The machinery of government at all levels is not committing fraud at the administrative level so much as breaching Constitutional Law.

Though Martin successfully raised more profound matters of moral principle and individual rights and although the administrators showed encouraging signs of empathy, it was also quite evident that the tribunal process was being run by administrators who no longer understand their broader, over-arching responsibilities in law. They simply do what they're told - and follow orders. They are unfortunately labouring under the erroneous belief that statute is the highest authority.

As Martin says, however, there were moments of real humanity here and even moments of discomfort. For that, they should be given credit, because it shows they are human and realise that there are deeper matters of obligation and responsibility at play here - which brings me onto my second point about disagreement.

Simply hurling accusations and 'hate' at 'the other side' is not going to cut it in this process. The Justice System has gone badly wrong because those in the system - but, more importantly most people in society, have forgotten how a free society is supposed to work. They fundamentally don't understand how a society should operate that is based on Individual Rights and Natural Justice - and they certainly don't understand the Constitutional constraints that are in place over 'government'.

That being the case, we have to reach out to them and have these important moments of discussion. Many in the system are genuinely convinced that they are doing right and are operating under the Constitution. Their skills and expertise in the system should not be underestimated and many of them believe they are striving for justice.

There is a disagreement between those of us who understand Natural Justice and how the Constitution is supposed to work with those labouring under their distorted view who have been gaslit and miseducated. That means we have to approach this fairly, responsibly and sensitively or things will not move forward. 

Agree to Disagree

A disagreement, however, is not an opportunity for compromise. When you disagree with someone in an argument, the ultimate desired conclusion is not one of compromise but one of resolution. That’s a different thing. Resolution is a condition in which both parties arrive at a higher understanding as a result of the synergy of each prior position. It is both parties taking on a new understanding by assimilating the other person’s original appreciation or grasp of the situation.

Watch Teal Swan's short video here on 'Agree to Disagree' - this is important and explained superbly:

Yes, sometimes one party might just have been plain wrong - and if their argument lacks reasoned logic or moral principles, then that is more likely. But rarely is that the case as there is frequently something to be gained from the other perspective. More often than not, both parties could be seen as a team to get to the 'root of it all' and come to a more sophisticated understanding.

In this case, we have our concern that law has somehow ‘lost its way’ and, as Martin puts it, the council and administrative courts have been tricked into following the ‘Law of Rules’ rather than the ‘Rule of Law’. But they (the courts/council) have an obligation to resolve administrative matters and despite what people may think, they have skills and knowledge in doing that. The courts have an important role and the judiciary, magistrates and legal profession do understand only too well some of the minutiae that is often missed on the general public! There may well be issues at that lower level of how 'justice must not merely be done must also be seen to be done'. By that I mean that separation and impartiality is part if it, and, frankly, that does look sinister in some places within the system. But, broadly speaking, the most significant and overriding problem is their lack of understanding of the Constitutional constraints placed upon them

Both parties have the opportunity to reach that higher understanding that law must return to its proper function: to meet out justice - which is based on organic human conscience and not merely punishment based on some crass pre-determined matrix.

There is nothing shameful about those in the legal profession or the court system being reminded by laymen (without their training), of the essence of what justice is really about. Often it is in our technical understanding in our workplace roles that, overtime, can cloud the original essence of our purpose.

It was the same in my field of education. It was often those outside the education sector, who sometimes had the greatest insights into what true learning is really about. It sometimes takes people removed from the area of expertise to see the nuggets of truth. This does not invalidate the experts! We need their expertise too and it’s the same in law.

So disagreement, rather than being a condition, is actually more a process. Disagreement is the potential for a shift to occur towards enlightenment, if the energy is right. Coming to greater understanding will take time and effort and you certainly cannot expect a public servant who is surrounded by a powerful authoritative narrative suddenly to 'get it' just because he's received a notice of liability making what to them are 'crazy claims'. Remember that their belief in 'government authority' is only a reflection of that same belief in the public at large.


But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, this was one partial success experienced by one brave man in a tribunal which, unsurprisingly, did not go the way we or, more importantly, Martin, would have preferred. The greatest win in this situation, in my view, is surely in bringing about the correct energetic for both sides to empathise and see the sense in each other’s arguments. That is pure magic and it is ultimately the way we will win - one day!

We must create for ourselves situations where we can kindly and patiently challenge adjudicators and others in the system to think about what they are doing - or not doing! I don't suggest necessarily (except perhaps the warriors like Martin!) that we should do this while being 'in trouble' with the system. Instead we should be calling them out at all times and especially when we're not legally on the back foot!

Currently 'they' underestimate the harm they are causing by 'going along' with a justice system that largely rests on statute and not courts of conscience. Apart from breaking the Constitutional Common Law (e.g. possibly Misconduct in Public Office?), they are committing a crime under Natural Law by enforcing unconstitutional statute or administrative rules. This will not bring about nice consequences for them (or us) and so we must help them come to a new position of understanding so that they can then bravely push back against parliament itself.

If we increase our engagement with the system in this manner, with greater discernment, maturity and a sense of responsibility, then we will begin to show signs that we are trustworthy as a society to self-govern.

William Keyte - 3rd February 2024