Screen a client, counterparty, payer or corporate against the sanctions lists published by the designating authorities themselves — the UK Sanctions List (FCDO), OFSI, the UN Security Council, the EU consolidated list and OFAC's SDN and non-SDN lists. Use when onboarding, before taking a payment, before completing a transaction, or whenever a name must be checked against sanctions. Produces candidates and provenance, never a clearance: the record names every list searched with its publication date and count, states what was NOT searched, and ends at a blank decision block. Fails closed — a cache that is missing, damaged, truncated or stale is reported NOT SEARCHED and the process exits non-zero, so nothing can read an incomplete run as clean. Matches across transliteration, diacritics, homoglyphs and initials, because nobody spells a name the way the publisher does. Standard library only; screening opens no network connection.

Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.

Searches the domestic courts of 122 jurisdictions — 153 databases, 49 automated — for extradition and arrest-warrant surrender decisions, each in its own language and vocabulary. Answers the question no commercial database does: how are OTHER executing states treating this requesting state, or this ground? Searching by requesting state localises its name per jurisdiction (AE becomes 'Emiratele Arabe Unite' in Romania, 'Emirati Arabi Uniti' in Italy), so the sweep finds what those courts actually wrote. Every hit passes a relevance gate; every search leaves a dated report, so the research is reconstructable months later. Use when asked what foreign courts have said about surrender to a given state, whether any European court has refused extradition on prison conditions, assurances or Article 3, for comparative extradition research, or to build a foreign-authority section of an extradition argument. Not for domestic case law of the user's own jurisdiction, and never a substitute for reading the judgment.