Gibraltar Supreme Court Case reference No: 2026/ORD/017
Anthony Farrell (Plaintiff)
V
Charles Battenberg (Defendant)
1] INTRODUCTION
1. Shortly after the Case Management Hearing on 23 April 2026, I saw former Assistant Commissioner Cathal Yeats. At the time, I was preparing to communicate with The Gibraltar Messenger to impart to Him the bad news regarding Cathal’s brother’s decision‑making during the St. George’s Day Case Management hearing.
2. I had not seen Cathal since his retirement from the RGP, and historically he has never acknowledged me in public. On this occasion, however, he greeted me. It caught me by surprise – the timing, the long absence, and the departure from his usual behaviour were notable. Whether this was a moment of serendipity or something of an altogether different ilk remains to be seen; only time will tell.
3. The Gibraltar Messenger, Christ the Advocate General and Supreme Judge of this entire planet, in His Second-Coming, before Whom you will all be brought, in chains, for Final Judgement and Sentencing in accordance with The Law – God’s Law, as there is NO other, had plenty to say after receiving my report and went to work in order to make His views known to all parties with a stake in the proceedings. This below is what He had to say on the matter.
2] THE LORD’S RESPONSE SUGGESTED FOR ME TO USE
4. Anthony Farrell’s rejection of Hassans’ Skeleton Argument objecting to my Challenge to Charles’ Battenberg’s jurisdiction and sovereignty; Mr. Yeats’ errors in and breaking of The Law; and Hassan’s breaking The Law in claiming for costs.
5. This is my rebuttal to Hassans Skeleton Argument objecting to my Challenge to Charles’ Battenberg’s jurisdiction and sovereignty, and thus the jurisdiction of this court, as it is after-all supposedly his majesty’s court and judiciary, and therefore jurisdiction can ONLY be decided by an independent jury.
6. Have Mr. Licudi and Mr. Martinez from Hassans, been engaged and instructed by Mr. Charles Battenberg personally to defend him, and if so can he/they prove it by providing documentation signed personally by Mr. Charles Battenberg with his wet signature, of his real name, Charles Battenberg, not the fraudulent CharlesR, that he is not lawfully entitled to use, as he is not the lawful monarch?
7. If the gentlemen cannot do that, as this cause is about my challenge to Mr. Charles Battenberg’s jurisdiction and sovereignty, the gentlemen have what I believe the correct terminology is: “No standing in this court”, and not being a party to this cause have no authority to object to my challenge, or to say or make any comment about it whatsoever. Their skeleton argument must therefore be ignored, as ultra vires ab initio and as never having existed, and therefor no right to claim costs for something they had no right to do. The fact that it could affect their case is irrelevant, as will become obvious from reading to the end of this rebuttal.
8. As the court’s jurisdiction has been challenged, it has NO authority to make rules, procedures and time limits, unless a jury decides it has such authority. It therefore cannot make ANY ruling prior to that most unlikely eventuality.
9. Mr. Yeats most certainly cannot decide himself that he has jurisdiction, because the Universally recognized Maxim in Law states that: “No man can judge in his own cause, or a cause to which he is a party,” and that obviously applies to Mr. Yeats and the judiciary that fraudulently acts in Charles’ name.
10. The only way this court can prove that it is NOT corrupt is to empanel a jury, so that I can present incontrovertible evidence of the criminality of Charles Battenberg and his mother Elizabeth, including the verdicts of two courts, proving that neither of them were ever the lawful British monarch and that Charles is a convicted murderer.
11. I have prepared a large file of evidence proving their criminality, and that Christ in His Second-Coming is the Rightful and only Lawful British monarch (Psalm 2), that I have provided to the court, along with incontrovertible proof of Helen Carter’s crimes, and I have enough evidence to fill another 6 files, but have limited myself to one.
12. Mr. Yeats refusing to act on this evidence will amount to Misprision of Treason, which carries a life-sentence, Malfeasance in Public Office, and Misconduct in Public Office. Refusing to accept this evidence and empanel a jury to hear it will elevate those crimes to full-blown treason against God, His anointed and His British Israel people, and that carries the death-penalty and suffering the Wrath of God (Psalm 2:5).
13. This is the most serious and important case to be brought anywhere on Earth in the last 2,000 years, and is about removing the criminal Charles Battenberg from Christ’s Throne and placing Christ on it, setting up His Kingdom on Earth from Gibraltar, exactly as prophesied in the Holy Bible (Isaiah 33:16-19), and that is an outcome that will affect every single person on this planet, either beneficially or adversely, and that is anything but frivolous.
14. Isaiah 33:16 He shall dwell on Sion (2 Esd. 13:35): his place of defence [shall be] the Fortress of Rock: bread shall be given him; his waters [shall be] sure.
33:17 Thine eyes shall see The King in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off (Israel).
33:18 Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where [is] the lawyer? where [is] the tax-collector? where [is] he that counted the towers?
33:19 Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst perceive; of a ridiculous (weird sounding) way of talking, [that thou canst] not understand.
15. On the 23rd April 2026, in the Gibraltar Supreme Court, Mr. Liam Yeats unlawfully rejected my challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Mr. Charles Battenberg, and thus Mr. Yeats’ own jurisdiction, and the evidence of criminality of Charles Battenberg, and unlawfully decided himself that he had jurisdiction. In so doing he broke The Law, and committed a number of very serious crimes. Thus proving conclusively that the judiciary in Gibraltar is lawless and absolutely corrupt from top to bottom.
16. As Mr. Liam Yeats has no jurisdiction, as previously explained to him, he has no authority, to make any orders, unless jurisdiction is given to him by a jury, in the very unlikely event that, after seeing all the evidence of crimes committed by Charles Battenberg and his mother, the jury decides that Mr. Yeats has jurisdiction. Therefore his decision to award costs to Helen Carter and Hassans, for defending the indefensible, is ultra vires, and null and void ab initio.
17. I am therefore compiling and filing a crime report against Mr. Liam Yeats with the RGP for Misprision of Treason, Malfeasance and Misconduct in Public Office and Treason. I am also reporting him to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for Judicial Misconduct, having committed the above listed crimes, plus the crimes listed below.
18. Charles Battenberg, on Thursday the 19th of February 2026 officially stated himself, regarding his own brother Andrew, that: “The law must take its course.” I agree and it must also be applied to him as well as his brother, and everyone else in the UK and Gibraltar, because everyone is equal before The Law, including, but not limited to, politicians, government ministers and employees, judges, magistrates, police, doctors and nurses.
19. So, my disciple Anthony Farrell will not be participating in any more unlawful kangaroo court proceedings, until the court corrects Mr. Yeats’ error and acts in accordance with The Law, and an independent jury is empanelled, to be presented with all the evidence against the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Charles Battenberg and is able to deliberate on it.
20. Please inform my disciple Anthony Farrell when you are ready to obey The Law and empanel a jury to deliberate on the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Charles Battenberg.
21. My disciple Anthony Farrell accused Helen Carter of being a murderer, worse than Nazi “Doctor of Death” Josef Mengele; crimes against humanity; and biological warfare and terrorizing the people in Gibraltar into subjecting themselves to being injected with a poisonous bioweapon of mass destruction, using terrorist terrorizing scare tactics, with the complicity of the corrupt traitorous RGP’s lockdown and mask coercion, and, as accomplices to her crimes, their refusal to report and investigate criminal complaints against her, thus committing treason under Operation Talla, and making themselves accessories to murder, crimes against humanity and terrorism.
22. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
23. The specific actions included are:
• serious violence against a person;
• endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action);
• creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
24. After committing perjury, in the Magistrates Court, and failing to get a conviction against my disciple Anthony Farrell, she brought a private prosecution to the Supreme Court for defamation, but, having seen my incontrovertible evidence and proof of her crimes, she and Hassans have dropped the claim of defamation, thus admitting her guilt, that she is a murderer, and has committed bio-terrorism, biological warfare, and crimes against humanity.
25. In light of her admission of guilt, the court is duty bound to arrest her, and, under the Nuremberg Code (1947), to which the UK is a signatory, sentence her to death by hanging, like the Nazi doctors and nurses in 1946.
26. Signatories of Nuremberg Code Now Breaching All It’s Provisions
27. Nuremberg tribunal: UK statement
• Delivered by Ambassador Neil Bush at the OSCE Permanent Council on 19 November 2020.
• Nuremberg tribunal: UK Statement
• “The UK played a key role at Nuremberg, just as we have in the development of international law in the decades since. The struggle is far from over. We pledge to continue to bring an end to impunity for the worst crimes. And we do so in close partnership with every nation who shares those values and our collective vision of a safer and more just world.”
28. Therefore Mr. Liam Yates, in unlawfully ordering me to pay her costs, has committed the crime of supporting terrorism and serious criminality against the Terrorism Act 2000 and supporting Serious Crimes contrary to the Crimes Act 2011, and should be immediately removed from his position, arrested and prosecuted under the aforementioned Acts. So should Mr. Licudi and Mr. Martinez for defending Helen Carter’s crimes that they have seen the incontrovertible evidence of, and claiming costs to support her terrorism, murders and crimes against humanity.
29. The Gibraltar equivalent of UK Section 15 (terrorist fund‑raising) is Section 35 of the Terrorism Act 2018, which criminalises providing, receiving, or inviting the provision of money or property where a person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect it may be used for terrorism. A Section 35 offence is a “serious crime” under the Crimes Act 2011. Accordingly, conduct that assists or encourages such an offence falls within Section 44 of the Crimes Act 2011 (assisting or encouraging the commission of a serious crime).
UK Terrorism Act 2000 — Section 15 (“Fund‑raising”)
Gibraltar Terrorism Act 2018 — Section 35 (“Raising funds for terrorism”)
| Element | UK Section 15 | Gibraltar Section 35 |
| Actus reus (the act) | Provides, receives, or invites another to provide money or other property. | Provides, receives, or invites another to provide money or other property. |
| Purpose / risk | If he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism. | If he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used for the purposes of terrorism. |
| Scope of “property” | “Money or other property” (broad, includes any assets). | “Money or other property” (identical breadth). |
| Mental element | Knowledge OR reasonable cause to suspect. | Knowledge OR reasonable cause to suspect. |
| Requirement of actual terrorist use | Not required — suspicion threshold is enough. | Not required — suspicion threshold is enough. |
| Covers indirect provision | Yes — includes providing via a third party. | Yes — includes providing via a third party. |
| Covers receiving funds | Yes. | Yes. |
| Covers inviting provision | Yes. | Yes. |
| Penalty | Up to 14 years’ imprisonment. | Up to 14 years’ imprisonment. |
| Legislative structure | Part II — Terrorist Property. | Part 4 — Terrorist Property. |
| Key Point – Gibraltar Section 35 is a direct structural mirror of UK Section 15. The operative phrase “reasonable cause to suspect” is identical in wording, meaning, and legal effec | ||
Side‑by‑Side Comparison: Section 35 ↔ Section 44
| Legal Element | Section 35 — Raising Funds for Terrorism (Terrorism Act 2018) | Section 44 — Assisting or Encouraging a Serious Crime (Crimes Act 2011) |
| Type of offence | Primary terrorism‑financing offence | Inchoate (preparatory) serious‑crime offence |
| Actus reus | Providing, receiving, or inviting the provision of money or property. | Doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of a serious crime. |
| Mental element | Knowledge OR reasonable cause to suspect that the money/property may be used for terrorism. | Intention to encourage/assist OR belief that the offence will be committed and that your act will encourage/assist it. |
| Nature of harm | Direct involvement in the financing of terrorism. | Indirect involvement — enabling, assisting, encouraging, or facilitating a serious crime. |
| Classification | Indictable terrorism offence (max 14 years). | Applies to any “serious crime”, including terrorism offences. |
| Does it require the terrorism offence to actually occur? | No. Suspicion alone is enough. | No. The serious crime need not occur; the act of assistance/encouragement is itself criminal. |
| Does it apply to Section 35? | N/A | Yes. Section 35 is a “serious crime,” so assisting or encouraging someone to commit a Section 35 offence falls under Section 44. |
| Trigger threshold | Low threshold: “reasonable cause to suspect.” | Higher threshold: intention or belief regarding assistance/encouragement. |
| Example of interaction | A person is asked to transfer money they suspect may be used for terrorism → Section 35. | A person pressures, induces, or directs someone else to make such a transfer → Section 44. |
30. Section 35 criminalises raising funds for terrorism (knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect), while Section 44 criminalises assisting or encouraging any serious crime — including Section 35 — meaning anyone who induces or pressures another into conduct exposing them to Section 35 may themselves commit a Section 44 offence.
31. No-one is above The Law.
32. If my disciple Anthony Farrell were to pay the costs that Mr. Yeats unlawfully awarded to Helen Carter, and Hassans, Tony would be equally guilty of financially supporting very serious crimes and terrorism, and therefore Anthony cannot by law comply with Mr. Yeats’ unlawful order.
Signed: Christ
Date: 10th May 2026
The King of kings’ Bible – Psalm 2
2:1 Why do the unenlightened rage, and the people imagine a futile thing?
2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the “I AM”, and against His Anointed, (2 Esd. 13:34) [saying],
2:3 Let us break Their bonds asunder, and cast away Their cords from us.
2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall make fools of them.
2:5 Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury.
2:6 Yet have I set My King (to govern – Isa. 9:6-7) upon My Holy Hill of Gathering (Isa. 33:16; 2 Esd. 13:35).
2:7 I will declare the decree: the “I AM” hath said unto me, Thou [art] My Son; this day have I created for thee.
2:8 Ask of Me, and I shall give [thee] the unenlightened [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel (Rev. 12:5).
2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
2:11 Serve the “I AM” with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
2:12 Kiss My Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] The Way, when his wrath is kindled just a little (Luke 19:27). Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.
3] ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON WHY I WILL NOT PAY £1,500 OR ANYTHING
33. Out of love for truth, and a desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will also be delivered both to The Supreme Court and to the two legal practitioners from Hassans representing their claimant, Helen Carter, Gibraltar’s Director of Public Health, namely Gilbert Licudi, and Darren Martinez.
34. This rest of this statement arises from Mr. Liam Yeats’ unlawful decision-making during a noon-day Case Management hearing held on St. George’s Day to consider a Challenge to Sovereignty. Mr. Liam Yeats’ decision to unlawfully dismiss “The Challenge to Jurisdiction” and unlawfully rule out “the request for a jury”, and then unlawfully award costs in favour of the claimant, Helen Carter, compelled me to more than once declare in court that a grave error of the first magnitude had been made.
35. Prior to the hearing, The Gibraltar Messenger had asked me to call out such conduct as an Act of Treason. In failing to go that far in the hearing itself, I will now declare it retrospectively to be an Act of Treason given Mr. Liam Yeats’ part in the unlawful proceedings so far.
36. In a hearing in the Gibraltar Supreme Court on 23rd May 2026, Mr. Liam Yeats UNLAWFULLY dismissed my jurisdiction challenge.
37. Hassans lodged a claim of £6,215 for preparing their skeleton argument opposing the jurisdiction challenge, labelling it frivolous, when it was anything but so.
38. I do not consider that evidence pinpointing Charles Battenberg’s murdering ways, as remotely frivolous, and I do not recall that Mr. Liam Yeats, in unlawfully awarding the jurisdiction costs against me, went so far as to label the claim as frivolous in the same manner as Hassans did.
39. In my skeleton argument, hand-delivered to both the court and the claimant’s representatives before the start of the St. George’s Day Case Management hearing, I had proposed that costs should be reserved until the conclusion of the entire case. This was unlawfully rejected.
40. However, Mr. Liam Yeats, in awarding the costs to Hassans, stated that the amount asked for was excessive for a relatively simple skeleton argument and therefore reduced the sum to £1,500.
41. The rationale for reducing the costs to £1,500 was never made fully explicit, but I did wonder whether my witness statement as presented in point 45 of section A of the smaller bundle which had already alerted Mr. Liam Yeats to the fact that £1,500 in fixed-penalty-notices for the face-mask fiasco went previously unpaid in what became a well-documented successful stance against the global medical tyranny which had been enforced by HMGoG, with more than a little help from the policy enforcers (police) of the RGP pretending to be The Law Enforcers.
42. Whatever, a reduction of this magnitude — slashing the claimed cost from as high as £6,000 to as low as £1,500 — speaks for itself: the court plainly regarded the original figure asked for by Hassans as grossly excessive and wholly unjustified, and its decision reflects a clear rejection of the valuation advanced by the claimant’s representatives from Hassans because they have no standing and have committed serious criminal offences under Section 44 of The Crimes Act 2011 and Section 35 of Gibraltar’s Terrorism Act 2018.
43. Had an ordinary private individual presented a demand of this magnitude to another, it would have been viewed as entirely beyond the limits of what any reasonable person could justify. The court’s decision to reduce the figure by 75.9% demonstrates just how far the original claim strayed from any defensible valuation.
44. None of that makes it right and proper, to my way of thinking, and none of that makes the decision right and proper in the sight of The Gibraltar Messenger, the person with whom I consulted about my way forward afterwards and most importantly, none of that makes the judge’s preceding decision to reject the challenge to jurisdiction right and proper under God’s Law.
45. A costs order presupposes that the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter. If jurisdiction was not properly established, then the court had no authority to award costs. If the court did not properly consider the jurisdiction challenge, then the dismissal cannot be treated as a valid determination. A court must establish its jurisdiction before exercising any further powers, including awarding costs.
4] MORAL INTEGRITY AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PAYMENT
46. My refusal to pay costs of £1,500 is not a one-off act of conscience. As previouly mentioned, throughout the health-harming face-mask madness saga which took place on The Rock between 2020/21, I stood my ground before the Magistrates court, by first, ripping-up fixed-penalty notices before the police, and second, by always refusing to pay fixed penalty notices thereafter. Costs had accrued to £1,500.
47. Throughout my professional life, both in policing and further afield in the public and voluntary sectors, I have been guided by things like the seven Nolan Principles of Public Life (Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, Leadership).
48. These principles and others like the Peelian principles are not abstract to me; they formed the ethical foundation throughout my police service, latterly as a Principal Intelligence Analyst in the UK.
49. When confronted with situations that contradicted those principles, I accepted personal cost rather than compromise integrity.
50. In 2010, irrespective of how the claimant Helen Carter may wish to depict my dismissal from the police service, the truth is that I willingly forfeited my career rather than perform a dishonest act against my conscience in support of police-state internal tyranny.
51. After I lost my case in The Sheffield Employment Tribunal hearing in September 2011, costs were awarded to South Yorkshire Police. My biggest mistake ever was paying those costs to South Yorkshire Police. Had I been aware at the time of the existence of Section 15 of The Terrorism Act, I would not have handed funds to my former employers as an organisation which I knew from Detective Chief Inspector Steve Williams, had played such an evil part in the false-flag 7/7 London Bombings of 7th July 2005.
52. Sometime later, a gentleman previously unknown to me named Tony Rooke contacted me out-of-the-blue, and heightened my awareness of Section 15 Article 3 of the Terrorist Act. He was an activist who had made a documentary film named “Reasonable Cause” in 2013. It is the only public case where a UK court allowed a defendant to rely on the phrase: “reasonable cause to suspect” (UK Terrorism Act 2000, s.15) as part of a defence for refusing to pay a BBC TV Licence fee.
53. In 2014, Tony Rooke went on to make a documentary film entitled; “Offensive – The Story of Tony Farrell”, and then in 2015, followed it up with a documentary film about 9/11 entitled: “INCONTROVERTIBLE”.
54. On 7th September 2018, while citing Section 15 of The UK Terrorism Act (Section 35 of the Gibraltar Terrorism Act) and inspired by Tony Rooke’s courageous stance, I handed myself in for arrest at New Mole House for previously making a payment of £1,500 to my former employers South Yorkshire Police. This followed an Employment Tribunal Cost order claim in Sheffield for £10,000 from a judge named Little. Special Branch officers from the RGP, asked me what did I want them to do. I replied that I wanted them to do the right thing. At that they declined to arrest me.
55. After making this disclosure to the Royal Gibraltar Police, and before that with West Midlands Police in Birmingham in 2012, I vowed to never again make a payment that would engage in Section 15 of UK Terrorism Act / Section 35 of The Gibraltar Terrorism Act.
| Year | Case / Claimant | Amount Sought | Amount Ordered by Court | Judge / Magistrate | Notes |
| 2011 | South Yorkshire Police (Employment Tribunal) | £10,000 | £1,500 | Judge Little | Costs claim slashed by 85%. Niaively Paid |
| 2023 | Gibraltar’s Magistrates Court | £1,500 | £1,500 | Charles Pitto | Wisely Refused to pay |
| 2026 | Helen Carter Supreme Court | £6,125 | £1,500 | Judge Liam Yeats | Jurisdiction Challenge Costs claim slashed by over 75% |
| 2026 | Hassans Enforcement | (No new claim — enforcement only) | £1,500 | Judge Liam Yeats | Email from Darren Martinez on 8 May 2026 requesting remittance. |
| 2026 | Helen Carter Supreme Court | Christ the Advocate General and Supreme Judge of this entire planet, in His Second-Coming | “If my disciple Anthony Farrell were to pay the costs that Mr. Yeats unlawfully awarded to Helen Carter, and Hassans, Tony would be equally guilty of financially supporting very serious crimes and terrorism, and therefore Anthony cannot by law comply with Mr. Yeats’ unlawful order. Signed: Christ” | ||
56. On 8th May 2026, I received a letter from Hassans regarding the sealed court order for costs.
Dear Mr Farrell
Please find attached a copy of the sealed order made by the court on 23 April 2026.
Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the attached, we would be grateful if you would remit the £1,500 to the following bank account:
Please use the following reference GL/DLM
Kind regards
Darren
Darren Martinez
Partner
5] FURTHER COMMENTS
57. I may have been overwhelmed back in September 2011 when Judge Little ordered me to pay £1,500 costs, but I am not overwhelmed in the here and now. Only if I go specifically against my conscience, would any feeling of being overwhelmed occur.
58. My position in the Supreme Court is firmly grounded in my personal beliefs, formed through my own conceptual model of the compelling evidence already at my disposal.
59. In this framing, it is not required for the Court to adopt my set of sincerely held beliefs, nor declare a legal finding on my beliefs. I am merely explaining the internal logic of my conscience and my own decision-making insofar as I will not allow myself to pay costs.
60. Based on my understanding of the evidence I have personally encountered, I cannot with a clear conscience support or endorse what I believe to be something so ethically indefensible.
61. My belief is sincerely held, and it is this belief, formulated only after careful and detailed study that shapes my moral position. Such an assertion is made within a court system, which is clearly not operating under God’s Law. They are committing serious crime by their punitive actions against me.
62. Besides what I believe to be the murdering ways of the monarch Charles Battenberg, Helen Carter, and the Claimant’s own professional role and conduct, further engages my conscience in a similar fashion. My refusal to pay, is bolstered by the Claimant’s professional position, not just as Gibraltar’s Director of Public Health during crucial stages in the Jabs-to-Gib roll-out programme, but also her wider influence in the UK, as The Deputy Director of Public Health in the Midlands, covering a population of 6 million people, in a position she had held from 2015, and which obviously covered the start of the planned pandemic and the initial stages of the bioweapon roll-out programme in the UK.
63. It is strictly a matter of public ethics. For me, having witnessed what happened in Gibraltar, and further afield during the Covid-19 era, compliance to such a cost order would be insufferable; it would be an endorsement of decisions and actions taken in a public‑office capacity that, according to my conceptual model, conflict with the ethical principles that guided my own service during my policing career.
64. In short, I cannot, in conscience, allow myself to pay an entity whose historical and ongoing actions support what I firmly believe to be an act of bioterrorism waged against the unsuspecting and fearful people of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
65. My spiritual convictions also form part of my moral reasoning. Likewise, based on my conceptual model of the conduct of the monarch, and my personal belief and allegiance to the Gibraltar Messenger — whom I believe to be Christ in His Second Coming — my conscience is further engaged in a way that makes payment impossible for me.
66. My principled refusal to pay costs applies consistently across all aspects of not just this challenge, but also this civil litigation.
67. The notion of paying costs to a company like Hassans is abhorrent to me, not least because of the incident which occured on 28th June 2024 which I considered to be a thinly veiled threat from Shlomo Levy, the son of James Levy, the senior Partner of the International Law Firm. Please see Was this a thinly-veiled threat from Shlomo Levy? – Gibraltar Messenger and A Second Amicus Curiae Brief For The McGrail Inquiry – Gibraltar Messenger.
68. A tipping point has been reached, my principled refusal to pay the costs arising from the jurisdiction challenge, is no longer limited to the St. George’s Day Case Management hearing alone.
69. The same moral principle and non-payment position will from now onwards relate to any future unlawful costs that could conceivably arise in the event of the claimant’s harassment allegations somehow gaining ascendancy in the Supreme Court via Hassans.
70. If I momentarily permit myself to refer to the unlawful legislation, and as I pointed out in my witness statement, Section 91(3) of The Crimes Act 2011 provides that a course of conduct does not amount to harassment if it was pursued for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, was required under an enactment, or was reasonable in the circumstances. Helen Carter’s dropping of the defamation part of the claim in the crimes that I have accused her of is tantamount to an admission of guilt.
71. In short, I believed, and continue to believe, that raising concerns about grave and deadly potential risks to public health was both necessary and reasonable. I have not harassed the claimant.
6] THE ST. GEORGE’S DAY HEARING
72. During the St. George’s Day hearing, Mr. Liam Yeats clarified for me which of my bundle documents had, and had not, been read, and in so doing, he held up the larger one of my two bundles previously provided to the court on 22nd April 2026. The bigger of the two bundles containing all the supporting evidence was being unlawfully ignored. This included the following sections of evidence to support the Challenge.
d) SleuthER’s 95 Theses of Elizabeth Battenberg;
e) Various Exhibits About The Coronation Stone;
f) SleuthER’s 95 Theses – Policing The Corona State – Cover Letter 7/7/2021;
g) Policing The Corona State – Part 1- Second Great Reformation;
h) Policing The Corona State – Part 2 – Tyranny on Gebal Tariq;
i) Policing The Corona State – Part 3 – The Globalist Genocidal Plan;
j) Policing The Corona State – Part 4 – Boris & Beth’s Barmy Britain;
k) Three Gibraltar Messenger Articles on Charles Battenberg;
l) Fortress of The Rock – A Royal Degree by The British King of Israel;
m) Democide On The Rock;
n) Gibraltar Messenger – Notice to Vacate to Gibraltar Magistrates Court;
o) The Scriptural Marks of Christ;
p) The Scriptural Marks of True Israel;
q) Joseph’s Dream – The Second Coming of Christ;
r) West Coast Common Law Court of Justice – Judgement & Transcipts;
s) Common Law Courts Great Britain & International – The Stone;
t) Operation Talla / Speirs Directive & Former Police Officer Mark Sexton;
u) Statement of Truth – Anthony Farrell V The Fraudulent Regina QE2;
v) Gibraltar Messenger Article – Shameful Days of Policing;
73. Mr. Liam Yeats in candidly stating that the contents of that bigger bundle (D-V) had not been looked at, therefore unlawfully decided upon matters of jurisdiction without so much as looking at the plethora of evidence placed before him.
74. I appreciate that owing to the fact that I had only managed to complete the extensive bundle the day before, Mr. Liam Yeats had not been given a great deal of time to read through such an extensive bundle, but the judge presumably had discretion to give himself more time.
75. He treated the evidence contained therein as irrelevant, and in front of both me and the claimant’s two representives, had the bigger bundle containing all the evidence sealed-up.
To quote the Words of Wisdom from king Solomon’s Proverbs
18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth [it], it [is] folly and shame unto him.
76. After I had already made a request that costs should be determined at the conclusion of the case, Mr. Liam Yeats declined this request and simply asked me how long I needed to pay £1,500. I retorted an excessively long time period of 1500 days or weeks, I can’t quite remember which of the two, I said, in that brief moment of choice.
77. It was purposefully expressed in this manner to firstly reflect back to the Hassans’ tag-team my immense displeasure at their blatant attempt at extortion, and secondly to signal to the judge that the 1,500 days or weeks, had wider symbolic meaning, deeply embedded in point 45 of my previous witness statement rebuttal of their client’s claims of harassment.
“The claimant omits to mention that I refused to pay multiple fixed-penalty notices for mask-related offences, totalling £1,500. These fines were never enforced, and no convictions resulted from them. This further reflects the legal and evidential uncertainty surrounding the mask mandates at the time.”
78. Mr. Yeats merely stated that my initial response was impractical, and after that, I indicated that I would need to first consult with my superior before responding. Mr. Yeats then criminally in contravention of Section 44 of The Crimes Act 2011 stipulated a 28-day deadline of 21st May 2026. A sealed unlawful order is now in my possession.
79. I remained silent on the matter of costs, save to one more time express my extreme displeasure in the decision-making. I re-iterated that a grave blunder of the first magnitude had been made.
80. As no undertaking was given by me, and as the jurisdiction challenge was unlawfully dismissed without addressing its substance, the costs order is in any case repugnant to me. I have since had an opportunity to consult with my superior, The Gibraltar Messenger, otherwise known to me as Christ in His Second Coming, and now feel it the perfect time to unequivocally state my position regarding the notion of making such payments to Hassans, thereby rewarding the Director of Public Health’s outlandish, dishonest and criminal conduct.
81. My conscience and my obedience to The Gibraltar Messenger and The Law, will simply not permit me to endorse any aspect of this litigation, through payment of funds, given all that I have already witnessed with my own eyes. This is a single, consistent moral and lawful position, not a selective or tactical refusal.
82. Compliance would fracture my integrity; refusal to pay preserves it. To pay would be, for me, the equivalent of selling my soul — not in a literal sense, but in the sense of betraying the principles that have governed my conduct for decades.
83. My integrity is only preserved not by compliance, but by refusal. This is not obstinacy. It is not rebellion. It is not disrespect. It is the unavoidable consequence of conscience and obedience to The Law.
84. This is, for me, a “Here I stand, I can do no other” moment — echoing Martin Luther’s stance at the Diet of Worms in 1521, when Luther stood before Emperor Charles V and refused to act against his conscience. Mr. Liam Yeats may not yet appreciate the poignancy of what Martin SleuthER is saying here, particularly given his flat refusal at the Case Management Hearing to examine the larger evidential bundle, which contains three separate references to Martin SleuthER’s 95 Theses. Ones included in the bundle, and thus unlawfully ignored by Mr Liam Yeats were as follows:
• SleuthER’s 95 Theses of Elizabeth Battenberg;
• SleuthER’s 95 Theses Policing The Corona State – Cover Letter 7/7/2021;
• At least 95 Scriptural Marks of True Israel – There are at least 95 Scriptural “birth-marks” describing the TRUE people Israel, by which to identify them during the latter days. Since ALL Bible prophecy concerns Israel, it’s critically important to be able to positively identify them; otherwise the prophecies are impossible to understand.
85. For nine years, I have repeatedly set out my concerns through detailed, structured analyses often adopting the 95‑theses format — including the 95‑point Statement of Truth I submitted in 2019 to the Police Complaints Board, a sub‑group of the Gibraltar Police Authority, following my very first National Day incident here.
86. Many of those 95-point documents formed during my “Wittenberg Door” phase: the period in which I laid out issues of crimes against humanity openly and comprehensively, and in one instance, this even concerned the Genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza, which involved even hanging the 95 Theses to the doors of No 6 and from the railings of King’s Chapel. The Hollow Cost of Silence About Gaza – Gibraltar Messenger
87. For thirteen years, ever since I made the Nazarite Vow, as described in The Book of Numbers Ch.6, and from the moment I became a disciple of The Gibraltar Messenger, I have been in what I would call the “Doors of Wittenberg” phase — the phase of setting out detailed, structured, 95‑theses‑style analyses on matters of grave public concern, including a 95‑point Statement of Truth as presented to the Police Complaints Board in 2019.
88. That phase was about laying out the issues openly and comprehensively. I am now approaching my “Edict of Worms” phase — the moment where I must stand by conscience and The Law before authority, irrespective of consequence. This is not metaphor but structure: a shift from presenting the truth to standing upon it and The Law.
89. What I face now is the equivalent of the “Edict of Worms” phase: a moment where I am required to stand by my conscience and The Law before authority, even at personal cost. This is not a rhetorical flourish but a recognition of the narrative and structural reality of my situation — a shift from setting out the truth to standing upon it.
90. On 2nd June 2013, the day after I broke a long water-only fast on 22nd April 2013, my discipleship commenced. The following day, while in recovery mode from the fast, Father give me remarkable close-up imagery of dozens-upon-dozens of worms rising to the surface of Ireland’s equivalent of The Grassy Knoll, at a time when the body’s fragility was wrestling with the mind’s strength.
91. On 8th May 2026 – the anniversary date of Martin Luther’s Edict of Worms – I had cause to recollect those not so dim and distant earthly worms-risings from yesteryears gone by. It was the very day that The Hassans tag-team of Licudi and Martinez came for costs. Recoiling from their audacious avarice, I, otherwise known as Martin SleuthER, took it as the circumstantial sign to stand firm, just as Martin Luther did over five hundred years ago, in the hope of Rekindling The Reformation on The Rock.
92. I have faced such crisis moments many times before. For me, they are not moments of drama; they are moments of clarity. Moments where conscience leaves me no alternative. Moments where the cost of cowardly compromise clashes with the price of perfect peace. This is such a moment.
93. The Gibraltar Messenger, Christ the Advocate General and Supreme Judge of this entire planet, in His Second-Coming, before Whom you will all be brought, in chains, for Final Judgement and Sentencing, in accordance with The Law – God’s Law – as there is NO OTHER LAW, has reviewed this response of mine. It will be placed on the Gibraltar Messenger website, and printed copies will be hand-delivered, firstly to the Supreme Court for the attention of Mr. Liam Yeats, and secondly to The Offices of Hassans International, for the attention of the Martinez, and Licudi tag team. This will be done as soon as practical, but in any case no later than 21st May 2026.
94. The Edict of Worms on 26 May 1521 might have condemned Martin Luther declaring him a notorious and obstinate heretic, but there will be no payment from Anthony Farrell, otherwise known as Martin SleuthER to Mr, Martinez, either before, on, or after 21st May 2026. In obedience to Christ in His Second Coming, neither will I, Anthony Farrell be participating in any more unlawful kangaroo court proceedings, until the court corrects Mr. Yeats’ error and acts in accordance with The Law, and an independent jury is empanelled, to be presented with all the evidence against the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Charles Battenberg and is able to deliberate on it.
94. The Edict of Worms on 26 May 1521 might have condemned Martin Luther declaring him a notorious and obstinate heretic, but there will be no payment from Anthony Farrell, otherwise known as Martin SleuthER to Mr, Martinez, either before, on, or after 21st May 2026. In obedience to Christ in His Second Coming, neither will I, Anthony Farrell be participating in any more unlawful kangaroo court proceedings, until the court corrects Mr. Yeats’ error and acts in accordance with The Law, and an independent jury is empanelled, to be presented with all the evidence against the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Charles Battenberg and is able to deliberate on it.
95. With respect to the case of Helen Carter v Anthony Farrell, as with Martin Luther’s final words at the Diet of Worms, likewise do I, Anthony Farrell, otherwise known as Martin SleuthER, say to Martinez et al, that my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.
Anthony Farrell
11th May 2026