I, Christ, not Anthony Farrell, am publishing the following defence document against a false charge of harassment laid against him, as I am fully entitled to do, for many reasons: far too many to list here. So, I will limit my self to just three:
1 – This document and court-case affects everyone of the 95% of Gibraltarians, of all ages, who have been unlawfully injected with either the Pfizer Covid-19 poisonous mRNA bioweapon of mass destruction shots, or poisonous mRNA flu-shots, dental anaesthesia poisonous mRNA injections, etc., etc., and the cross border workers, and thus is absolutely definitely in the public interest, because there is not enough room in the Supreme Court’s public gallery for them all to attend.
2 – I am the co-author and thus co-owner of the document with Anthony Farrell and thus fully entitled to publish my own work, in the public interest.
3 – As the Rightful King, it is my solemn duty to maintain The Laws of God (my Laws) to the UTMOST of my power, in order to PROTECT my faithful subjects from harm, irrespective of from whatever direction that harm comes. That includes, but is not limited to, harm from fraudulent evil politicians and their unlawful policies; their fraudulent evil RGP policy-enforcer flunkies, who, along with the fraudulent evil judiciary, enforce their unlawful legislated policies that are prohibited by my Law, and who are not there to protect my subjects, but to protect themselves and the evil politicians FROM justice at the hands of my subjects.
Signed: Christ – your Rightful King.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GIBRALTAR Case No:2026/ORD/017
BETWEEN
HELEN CARTER, Claimant
and
ANTHONY FARRELL, Defendant
Re: Helen Carter v Anthony Farrell
Clarification of Defendant’s Position Ahead of the Hearing
in The Supreme Court on 31 July 2026
The Defendant has filed a bundle with this report. References to the Defendant’s bundle are in the format [TF/tab/page].
References to the Applicant’s Bundle of Documents are in the format [D/tab/page] OR [DM/tab/page].
1 – Procedural Developments
1 – On 10 June 2026, Mr Martinez filed a witness statement [DM/1] in support of an application for summary judgment under CPR Part 24, together with a draft order seeking final determination of the claim [DM/2].
2 – At the case management hearing on 23 April 2026, the defendant presented a short skeleton argument setting out why these proceedings were appropriately suited to determination under CPR Part 7, rather than Part 8 [TF/1]. Although the jurisdiction issue was determined, and the Defendant will refrain from comment on that until given directions from the Gibraltar Messenger, no ruling was made on that Part 8 versus Part 7 procedural issue. I wish to maintain the position previously advanced for the case to proceed under CPR Part 7.
3 – The claimant has sought to advance this matter by way of summary judgment have previously adopted Part 8 procedure. Both routes are inappropriate in the present case.
4 – Summary Judgment is reserved for claims where the defendant has no real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for a trial. That test is not met here. My defence under Section 91(3) raises substantial factual disputes — including the purpose, context, and proportionality of my communications — which cannot be resolved without disclosure and witness evidence.
5 – Part 8 procedure is likewise unsuitable. It is designed for cases where no substantial dispute of fact exists. Yet factual disputes are central to this claim. The omission of my two‑page argument from Mr. Martinez’s witness statement is itself proof that contested evidence exists. That document was handed directly to the judge and copies given to both the legal representatives of The Claimant before the hearing. The document previously made for CPR 7, must be introduced as evidence. Its exclusion distorts the record and is one of many stark illustrations why Part 8 cannot fairly accommodate this case.
6 – Part 7 procedure is the correct and proportionate route. It is the standard process for claims involving disputed facts. It allows for pleadings, disclosure, witness evidence, and trial. Only under Part 7 can the court properly consider the full evidential picture, including my two‑page argument and the wider context of my communications.
7 – It should also be used to facilitate the essential showing of the highly relevant documentary Democide on The Rock made specifically for my case [TF/2].
8 – Summary judgment and Part 8 are inappropriate procedures. Part 7 is the only acceptable framework for meaningful engagement with the evidence, ensuring fairness and due process.
9 – The witness statement of Mr. Martinez, the draft court order, and prior to that, the witness statement of Helen Carter, amount to three court documents which contain numerous factual assertions, characterisations and conclusions which are disputed. The draft order includes proposed wording that:
10 – “The Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.”
11 – It is an opinion, not a Court finding. Disputed factual matters have not yet been determined.
2 – Communications With the Claimant – (Section 91 (3) Defence)
1 – In paragraph 9, of Mr. Martinez’s statement, it is stated that “The only defence raised by the defendant is that his conduct was pursued “for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime” or was reasonable in the circumstances within the meaning of section 91 (3) of the Crimes Act 2011. [DM/3].
2 – My communications were at all times made with a clear and legitimate purpose: the prevention of and cover-up of further ongoing crime, the reporting of suspected criminal wrongdoing, and the assessment of strategic threats to public health and safety. Whenever, they were directed at or about the claimant, it was always in her professional capacity as Director of Public Health, never ever concerned with her private life, and were factual, evidence‑based, and proportionate. As such, they were undertaken with reasonable excuse and cannot properly be characterised as harassment within the meaning of Section 91(3).
Opening Assertion
3 – Sure, I communicated with the claimant. However, every communication was made with reasonable excuse under Section 91(3) of the Crimes Act 2011 — crime prevention and strategic threat and harm to Gibraltar. These were not personal, vindictive, or distress‑aimed messages. They were professional, evidence‑based, and directed at preventing harm to the people of Gibraltar.
4 – Written communications are my normal practice: Here in Gibraltar, habitually, I write to many leaders, and the Claimant Helen Carter is simply one amongst many. To characterise such communications as harassment is to criminalise the very notion of reporting wrongdoing and protecting the public from medical tyranny.
Verbal Communications Clarification
5 – Take for instance, my verbal communications with the claimant. These have been extremely few and far between — occurring only twice or at most three times over a period spanning five years, Magistrates court hearing cross-examination apart. Each occasion was brief, non‑hostile, and highly relevant to her professional role. This is an indicator that my conduct was proportionate, limited, and only directed at legitimate public‑interest concerns rather than any personal pursuit or special interest in Helen Carter. [TF/3]
Expanded Context Covering The Defendant’s Written Communications
6 – Over the years, I have consistently written to a wide range of leaders and oversight bodies in pursuit of crime‑prevention, crime-safety and accountability. Such leaders include The Chief Minister, The Governor, Members of Parliament, The Speaker of Parliament, Faith Leaders, the Commissioner of Police, News Broadcasters and Public Health Directors — including the claimant’s two predecessors, Dr. Sohail Bhatti and Dr. Autilia Newton. The Claimant, Dr. Helen Carter is simply one amongst many recipients of such communications, and her inclusion as a leader, spanned an extraordinary era governed by a manufactured global crisis on an unprecedented scale, aimed at population reduction and control.
7– One of the main reasons why the Gibraltar Messenger brought me to Gibraltar in 2018 was tied to discipleship and a duty of care. Given my work experience, my boss wanted me to investigate wrongdoing, report risks, and act to prevent harm and identify threat.
8 – This broader framing demonstrates that my conduct is consistent, justified, and proportionate. For under the alias SleuthER, I do indeed frequently investigate wrongdoing, report risks, and act to prevent harm.
9 – My communications also engaged with police officers of all ranks and embraced the spirit of Project Servator, reinforcing that my focus was more times than often, on public safety and threat assessment and prevention. It was not a personal pursuit against any one individual, or in this case, the claimant.
10 – The following exhibits illustrate the consistency and thoroughness of my Section 91(3) defence:
• Policing The Corona State Report (7 July 2021) — Demonstrates my investigative role in exposing systemic strategic risks during the early stages of the manufactured global crisis. [TF/4]
• Email & Briefing Paper to Parliament re: Inquiries Act / Covid Inquiry — Shows my engagement with constitutional oversight, ensuring accountability through lawful reporting channels. [TF/5]
• Crime report to Commissioner Richard Ullger (July 2024) — Confirms direct reporting and high‑ranking acknowledgment of suspected criminality to the highest policing authority, consistent with duty of care. [TF/6]
• Follow‑up crime report — Illustrates persistence in pursuing unresolved strategic threats, reinforcing proportionality and public‑safety focus. [TF/7]
• Communications with the claimant (Director of Public Health) — Places Carter’s inclusion as one small part of a wider pattern of legitimate crime‑prevention activity.
11 – My communications were not harassment — they were concerned with crime prevention of the most serious kind:
a) Bio-terrorism;
b) Democide;
c) Crimes against Humanity;
d) Murder;
e) Depopulation by deception.
12 – Call it what you will, my concerns were focused on existential threats and crime-prevention, and Section 91(3) protects that. I boldly go where others fear to tread.
Matthew 23:24
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
13 – The Claimant, aided and abetted by her legal team, have flattered me by overstating my input and contribution to the highly insightful and thought‑provoking articles placed on the Gibraltar Messenger website. I’m afraid that no credit can be claimed for the articles for which they falsely attribute to me, and in so doing potentially seek injunctive measures upon. Let me be clear about this, I am not the Gibraltar Messenger, and I am most certainly not Christ. Suffice to say, under the alias SleuthER, I go about my business as part of a small team with a unique focus concerning the huge prophetic importance of The Rock of Gibraltar. This collective interest and effort, ensures that investigations, reports, and communications are varied, balanced, thorough, and directed under the supervision of The Gibraltar Messenger, Christ with the very best interests of the people of Gibraltar at heart.
Supporting Observation
14 – My communications were not harassment — they were concerned with crime prevention of the most serious kind and an existential threat, and Section 91(3) protects that. I have gone where others feared to tread.
15 – As Stipendiary Magistrate Charles Bonfante recently observed at the close of my criminal trial where I was convicted of contempt of parliament but given a conditional discharge of six months: “I have no doubt whatsoever that the defendant held a belief that he was acting for the good of the people of Gibraltar.”
16 – On the other hand, The Claimant seeks to use unlawful legislation to weaponise against critical thinking in a dumb-down world, riddled with double-face masks, triple boosters, four months to flatten the curve and six-feet social distancing. Silence on such matters is not golden. It’s yellow.
3 – Existence of Genuine Factual Disputes
17 – I dispute numerous material factual assertions contained throughout the witness statement of Mr Darren Martinez and the witness statement of Dr Helen Carter.
18 – Those disputes extend to the factual background, the characterisation of my conduct, and other matters relied upon in support of the application.
19 – In my respectful view, these factual disputes are not suitable for determination within the confines of a summary judgment application. They require proper factual examination under CPR Part 7 with appropriate directions concerning disclosure, witness evidence, and any other steps the Court considers necessary.
4 – Participation
20 – If the Court determines that this matter should proceed under CPR Part 7, as it should, because that is the correct route to ensure fairness and a level playing field.
21 – I am still willing and able to participate. Should the Court give such directions under CPR Part 7, I would be able to respond fully to the claimant’s allegations, including by serving a detailed witness statement addressing the disputed factual matters.
5 – Costs
1 – There are two principal reasons why there will be no compliance with the court cost order.
a) To pay a cost order in this case would break God’s Law;
b) To pay a cost order in the case would be an offence under The Terrorism Act 2018 in Gibraltar.
REASON 1 – TO PAY A COST ORDER IN THIS CASE WOULD BREAK GOD’S LAW
“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. – Christ”
2 – This above quote is taken directly from Christ in His Second Coming (The Gibraltar Messenger), and was part of a clearly defined section from Him inserted by me with His permission, as part of my own witness statement entitled Gibraltar’s Supreme Court Criminality [DM/p.95]. The above quote is the definitive stated position of The Gibraltar Messenger regarding the Defendant who serves as one of His disciples, whom the court subjects to this unlawful civil litigation claim. This originated after the claimant was labeled a “murderer” before Magistrate Charles Bonfante in a criminal trial where the defendant was acquitted (16th October 2025).
3 – In the previously mentioned quote from Christ, I ought to point out that when mentioning “law”, He is to all intents and purposes not referring to Gibraltar’s UNLAWFUL LEGISLATION, but crucially in this instance, He is referring to GOD’S LAW.
4 – Respectfully, while acknowledging that Liam Yeats ruling to date disregards God’s Law, I, on the other hand, in my capacity of a disciple of Christ in His Second Coming, refuse to break God’s Law, which I would otherwise be doing, if I were to comply with an UNLAWFUL court order, which in any case, I myself, of my own volition, consider to be UNLAWFUL and served on me in such a manner as runs contrary to GOD’S LAW.
REASON 2 – IT’S AN OFFENCE – GIBRALTAR’S TERRORISM ACT 2018
5 – Notwithstanding God’s Law, under Gibraltar’s UNLAWFUL TERRORIST legislation, for me to pay the costs, knowing what I know, and believing what I believe, I cannot see any reason whatsoever why Section 35 (3) (a) and (b) would not be engaged. The same might equally apply for Section 36 and 37 which all fall within Part 4 TERRORIST PROPERTY.
6 – I declare this to be my firmly held stance because providing money to fund and support The Director of Public Health’s civil litigation claim against me is utterly repugnant, as per the cost order, especially when I have repeatedly and consistently reported the JABS TO GIB roll-out programme as an act of medical tyranny, as unleashed on the largely unsuspecting and somewhat gullible population of Gibraltar.
7 – In my opinion, as a former Strategic Intelligence Analyst in the police service, by definition, paying money would entail me committing offences falling under the above mentioned Sections as itemized in PART 4.
“The Director of Public Health exercised the public health leadership of Gibraltar’s COVID-19 vaccination programme, including recommending changes to eligibility and vaccination policy, which the Government and Gibraltar Health Authority implemented.”
Confirms the Director of Public Health’s formal leadership of Gibraltar’s COVID‑19 vaccination programme, through PGD authorisation with ministerial consent. [TF/8]
8 – Prior to taking up her post in The Gibraltar Health Authority in September 2021, shortly before the Pfizer poisonous injections were put into the arms of Gibraltar’s children, the claimant had held the position of Deputy Regional Director for Public Health (Midlands) which has a population of 6 million. The claimant was responsible for all 14 West Midlands Local Authority Chief Executives and their Directors of Public Health, the Mayor and 3 Strategic Coordinating Groups. In addition, she directly reported to the Chief Medical Officer and Secretary of State for Health.” Dr Helen Carter occupied a senior regional Public Health England leadership role throughout the commencement and first eighteen months of the UK’s COVID-19 pandemic before coming to Gibraltar.
Raising funds for terrorism.
Section 35. (3) A person commits an offence if he –
(a) provides money or other property; and
(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used, in full or in part, for the purposes of terrorism.
Use and possession of money or other property for terrorism.
Section 36.
(1) A person commits an offence if he uses money or other property for the purposes of terrorism.
(2) A person commits an offence if he –
(a) possesses money or other property; and
(b) intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
Arranging funds for terrorism.
Section 37.
A person commits an offence if he –
a) enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another; and
(b) knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
9 – By way of a brief illustrative example, on 7th July 2021, in producing a 95 Theses for both The Magistrates Court and the Commissioner of The Royal Gibraltar Police.
10 – The cover letter for Policing The Corona State addressed as it was to Richard Ullger had its first word as “Bio-Terrorism”. The starkly worded opening sentence is replicated below as follows:
“Dear Richard,
Bio-terrorism on an unprecedented scale rules rife across the globe just at the moment. With respect, the Royal Gibraltar Police under your leadership, as government foot-soldiers, seem to be unwittingly or otherwise, playing your own small but unmistakably evil part in the genocidal plan being enacted on the world stage. Evidence of this is unfolding, in the here and now, on The Rock.” [TF/9/p.1-2]
11 – At this juncture, I wish to make known to the court that over the years, I have repeatedly called-out the “JABS-TO-GIB” roll-out programme. I have on several occasions filed crime reports to The Royal Gibraltar Police. Many times I have referred to the jabs as “BIO-WEAPONS”, and was doing so, well before the current Director of Public Health took up her position in Gibraltar in September 2021. This was not personal to the claimant as an individual. It was entirely to do with her decision making in her position as Director of Public Health.
12 – Bio-terrorism was an issue raised before Charles Bonfante during the criminal trial where the claimant happened to be one of the complainants and where the defendant was acquitted. During that criminal trial, bio-terrorism was mentioned with specific reference to the work of Professor Francis Boyle [TF/10/p.3-10].
“It is my expert opinion that, [the covid injections] meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction according to Biological Weapons [Convention],” his affidavit states.
13 – Notable legal and policy work
• Drafted the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti‑Terrorism Act of 1989 — implementing the Biological Weapons Convention
• Counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina — involved in developing the genocide indictment against Slobodan Milošević
• Legal advisor to the Palestinian Delegation — Middle East Peace Negotiations, 1991–92
• Amnesty International USA board member — human rights & genocide policy work
Academic qualifications
• A.B. Political Science — University of Chicago, 1971
• J.D. Harvard Law School — Magna Cum Laude, 1976
• A.M. Government — Harvard University, 1978
• Ph.D. Political Science — Harvard University, 1983
Professional standing
• Professor of International Law — University of Illinois College of Law (from 1984 onward)
• International law practitioner — previously practised tax and international tax law at Bingham, Dana & Gould
6 – The documentary “Democide On The Rock”
1 – During one particular interim hearing, the Stipendiary Magistrate eventually agreed to watch the ten minute preview of the documentary “Democide on The Rock”, and in so doing was persuaded to watch the entire documentary. That was Bonfante’s brave choice after initial reluctance.
Democide On The Rock – Preview
2 – Respectfully, The Supreme Court Judge needs to follow The Stipendiary Magistrate’s example and watch it. Produced by Muad’Dib, the documentary was purposefully made for the Defendant’s trial, against the former Complainant who now is the current Claimant in this civil claim.
3 – The Claimant arrived shortly before these poisonous injections were shamelessly put into the arms of children in Gibraltar. From my unique vantage point, as a former Principal Intelligence Analyst of South Yorkshire Police, I hold a firm belief that Sections 35(3) and/or 36(2) and /or Section 37 are both engaged and applicable.
4 – I do have reasonable cause to suspect bio-terrorism is at work both here in Gibraltar, and further afield in England, and frankly, unlike the claimant Dr Helen Carter, I for one refuse to play any part in the globalists’ medical tyranny. Given that, my position regarding the current cost order for £1,500 is set in stone.
5 – I am unwilling to pay the claimant in her capacity as Director of Public Health any funds whatsoever because from my vantage point, and The Gibraltar Messenger is in full agreement I might add, if I were to pay her costs, I believe the substantive offences falling under Section 35, 36, and 37 would indeed be engaged and there then could follow for me extremely severe penalties. I do have reasonable cause to suspect that the funds paid to The Director of Public Health would be in furtherance of the bio-terrorism injections deviously meant for population reduction.
6 – The penalties for these offences are outlined in Section 54. Furthermore, Section 56 deals with issues of Forfeiture in connection with the substantive offences under sections 35 to 39. Frankly, the consequences for me complying with this court order, operating under UNLAWFUL legislation, given what I know about the Covid cover-up, would be spiritually catastrophic. I will have no part in financially supporting any such internal tyranny as unleashed on the people of Gibraltar and before that in the Claimant’s case, the Midlands region in England. Here I stand, I can do no other.
7 – Furthermore, in an effort to help the court and the two legal representatives of the Claimant, if they after having been first alerted to these serious assertions of mine, then choose to continue to pursue costs against me in this outlandish civil litigation case, then I suspect they would in such circumstances put themselves at risk of committing inchoate offences under Sections 36 to 46 of the Crimes Act 2011.
8 – I would wish to point out to the Court that it is known that the Claimant has been made aware of the existence of the Democide on The Rock documentary, made specifically for the previous criminal trial in The Magistrates Court where the Defendant was acquitted. The Prosecution were asked to notify their clients of its existence.
9 – There can be no plausible deniability, should they continue to embark upon this crazy litigation case, the one that is now being waged against me, via a proposed summary judgment tactic to shield the Claimant from the inevitable scrutiny that would arise within a Part 7 CRP route.
10 – Suffice to say, a crime report will be prepared in readiness to file with The Commissioner of The Royal Gibraltar Police, Owain Richards, should any cost order be pursued against me for trying to prevent serious criminality. Operation Talla and The Speirs Directive notwithstanding [TF/11], the Democide on The Rock cannot be allowed to go unchecked and has to be addressed one way or another.
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].
7 – Illustrative Examples
No1 Section 91(3) of The Crimes Act 2011
1 – In Darren Martinez’ witness statement, it makes reference to my witness statement paragraph 21 which says as follows:
“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 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 and 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.”
2 – In paragraph 19.7 of the Claimant’s witness statement dated 19th February 2026, it states the following about the Defendant: “On 27th October 2025, he published an audio clip addressed to me alleging I had murdered people” and “encouraged people to take poison”. The claimant’s assertion is somewhat imprecise and utterly devoid of the appropriate context.
3 – Firstly, and for clarification purposes, the audio-clip in question featured within my article entitled “Only Pinocchio’s Fools & Horses”, which was posted on The Gibraltar Messenger website on 27th October 2025. The audio clip was a re-creation of the exact same prepared words which I had read out before the Stipendiary Magistrate Charles Bonfante on 16th October 2025. This was part of my summing-up speech where the Claimant was one of three complainants from The Gibraltar Health Authority. Moments later, after I had read out those exact same words, I was acquitted on all three counts. [DM/p107-121]
4 – The precise wording for my reading was given to me beforehand by The Gibraltar Messenger, who wanted me to read-out three similar sounding messages to the three complainants who were each in turn trying to get me convicted of a crime when I was trying my level best to prevent them from committing further serious crime.
5 – The Words of The Audio Clip as Read Out in The Magistrates Court 16th Oct 2025
“Dr. Helen Carter, why are you continuing to push the Pfizer Covid poisonous bio-weapon of mass destruction injections on the people of Gibraltar to maim and murder them? You just this week issued a call for people to come and be poisoned saying that the non-existent Covid is still with us. There is no Covid virus, no one anywhere on earth has been able to isolate and prove that it exists. Why do you suppose that is? It’s because it does not exist and has been used to cover up the real cause of the symptoms, falsely labelled Covid-19 and that cause is 4G and 5G EMF radiation poisoning that gives the exact same symptoms as the non-existent Covid virus. If you switch off the 4G and 5G wifi and cell signals it will disappear and then all that people might get is the normal winter flu. The 4G and 5G is why it is supposedly still with us.
You used a fraudulent PCR test in order to get false positives, a test that the inventor Kary Mullis said cannot diagnose anything and he challenged Dr Fauci to a televised public debate to prove that Fauci was a liar and a conman after which challenge he suddenly and unexpectedly died to shut him up before it could take place.
I tried to warn you and I asked you to watch the documentary ‘Died Suddenly’ and later asked you had you watched it and you accused me of harassment when all I was trying to do was to get you to inform yourself about the dangers of the Pfizer COVID poisonous mRNA bio-weapon of mass-destruction injections and stop murdering people.
Even now with all the heart attacks and cancers skyrocketing you are still calling people to come and take these poisonous anything but safe and effective bio-weapon injections that are not vaccines but a gene altering deadly weapons of mass destruction.
You are even asking pregnant women to come in and be injected with something that causes spontaneous abortions and stillbirths and was specifically designed to do so by falsely saying they are vulnerable when they are not vulnerable except to believe in your lies. When are you going to deliberately stop murdering people?
First do no harm. I’ve tried to help you and save you from murdering more people with these human experiments and save their lives and for doing that you have complained to the police instead of thanking me. You’re worse than Mengele who was hanged at Nuremberg, as I tried to warn you about to stop you murdering more people If you had one ounce of decency left in you, you would immediately stop these poisonous injections, apologise to me, and here and now withdraw your complaint against me.”
6 – This was the precise wording as used in court before my acquittal on 16th October 2025. I do not retract it, and I do not alter it. It reflects my sincerely held beliefs both then and in the here and now. In her Notice of Intent, Dr. Carter threatened defamation proceedings but she appears not to have pursued such a course.
7 – The reading of this script was not some random outburst. I was having to defend myself in a criminal court. It was not a threat. It was not harassment. It was not unsolicited. It was not outside the proceedings. It was part of my structured closing argument.
8 – The reason why it was subsequently placed online needs contextualizing because both Darren Martinez and the Claimant have been very selective and imprecise in how they quote the contents of the audio clip. A similar sounding message was read out for Sandra Gracia, the former Director of Nursing, showing that my messaging went beyond Dr Carter alone.
9 – It shows how different individuals responded differently. It shows Carter’s escalation as a choice, not an inevitability. It shows that I am prepared to quote fully, while the claimant quotes selectively. Neither the Stipendiary Magistrate, nor the Prosecution interrupted or tried to stop me reading these messages. My statement was not ruled out of order.
10 – My only regret was that neither the Claimant nor Sandra Gracia were present to learn that I was trying to help both of them. The intended message was for their ears. Sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind. This was not for theatrics. I wanted them to hear my message directly. I wanted them to understand my motivation. I wanted them to see that my intent was corrective, not malicious. I wanted them to witness my sincerity because there was no hostility. So the only versions they saw was the highly selective, de-contextualised fragments in their own statements.
11 – As the Defendant, I was not attacking them from a position of power. I was not initiating proceedings against them. I was not using the court to target them. I was responding to their accusations. I did not whisper it. I did not bury it. I did not conceal it. I did not send it privately to Helen Carter. I did not leak it anonymously. The article got published with editorial approval, because the subject was in the public interest. This directly contradicts the framing that The Claimant and her legal team wish to portray. The two complainants were absent at the time when I read this out, when they could have otherwise been present. That was their choice.
12 – The trigger for penning for the Gibraltar Messenger article was the subsequent remarks of The Chief Minister Fabian Picardo, as made on the GBC about the leader of The Opposition Keith Azopardi, just a few days after my acquittal. Timing is critical to understand here. That the discussion had been all about the McGrail Inquiry, not the Covid-19 issues, made the following strange remark all the more startling.
“Well, look, I’ve had to face those sorts of concerns on so many issues. These are conspiracy theories befitting the fools who think that vaccines are bad for us. Um, and I do hope that the leader of the opposition for whom I have the highest intellectual regard is not falling into that nonsense style conspiracy.” Fabian Picardo
13 – It was obvious to me that The Chief Minister had me in mind when he made this derogatory remark, as aired on the GBC. Granted, I was always the most vocal opponent of the injections and the related Covid-19 measures and have the scars or “badge of honour” to prove it. Perspective is important. It was Picardo’s quip itself coming from the lips of The Chief Minister which spawned Pinocchio’s Only Fools and Horses article.
Section 91(3) of The Crimes Act 2011 is a defence argument
14 – Email communications with the claimant did occur, and I do not seek to deny that. Verbal communications were limited to two very short non-hostile encounters, during a period spanning almost five years. What matters for the purposes of Section 91(3) of the Crimes Act 2011 is the purpose, content, and context of those communications. At all times, my written communications were motivated by crime prevention, public‑health protection, and strategic threat assessment, rather than any personal, emotional, or distress‑aimed intent.
15 – The claimant held a senior public‑health position with statutory responsibilities relating to Covid‑19, emergency planning, and public‑safety oversight. My communications were therefore directed at her in her professional capacity, never once about her private life. Each communication was made for the legitimate purpose of raising serious concerns about potential wrongdoing, systemic failures, or emerging threats that could impact the wider public. These concerns included matters relating purely to public‑health governance, risk assessment, and the conduct of officials during the Covid period. The people’s will is sovereign and, by and large, public opinion governs. We elect officials to represent our will as best they can, and as part of that, public figures must expect and tolerate — as a job requirement — sharp criticism. [TF/12]
16 – Under Section 91(3), harassment requires conduct likely to cause alarm or distress, carried out without reasonable excuse, and forming a course of conduct. My communications were made with reasonable excuse, namely: the prevention of further crime, the reporting of suspected wrongdoing, and the fulfilment of civic duty in circumstances involving potential strategic threat. The tone and content of my communications were factual, evidence‑based, and directed at matters of public interest. They were not personal, vindictive, obsessive, or intended to cause distress.
17 – Furthermore, these communications form part of a broader and consistent pattern of public‑interest reporting all done within a spirit of Project Servator, including:
• Policing The Corona State Report as presented to The Commissioner (7 July 2021);
• Report on Peter Openshaw as filed to The McGrail Inqiury Legal Team (Apr 2022);
• My email and letter to Parliament regarding the Inquiries Act (March 2024);
• My crime report submitted to Commissioner Richard Ullger (July 2024);
• Follow‑up crime reports to Commissioner Richard Ullger (November 2024).
18 – These actions demonstrate a consistent behavioural identity: I investigate wrongdoing, report concerns to appropriate authorities, and act to prevent harm as I was trained to do for seventeen years. My communications with the claimant were simply one part of that wider pattern of legitimate, justified, and proportionate crime‑prevention activity. They cannot properly be characterised as harassment under Section 91(3).
Example No 2 of Factual Disputes of Ownership
1 – In paragraph 23 of his statement asking for summary judgment, Mr Martinez incorrectly attributes an Open Letter addressed to Owain Richards to me. The document he relies upon was authored and signed by The Gibraltar Messenger as “Christ”. It is not my letter. I had no say in the contents of the letter. Neither does the associated leaflet belong to me, as Mr. Martinez yet again wrongly attributes. I wrote neither the contents of the letter nor the article/leaflet in question. I did not ask for such a letter to be written.
2 – The letter was directed towards The Police Commissioner, and was published on The Gibraltar Messenger website not by me, but by The Gibraltar Messenger Himself. In short it was not my letter, it was not my leaflet and in a similar vein the following quotation cited, has therefore been incorrectly attributed to me. The quote is not mine. I have little or no control over what The Gibraltar Messenger may choose to write about the court case involving one of His disciples, nor indeed do I control what gets published on the website.
“In them I have officially passed judgement on Helen Carter of the GHA, Liam Yeats of the Supreme Court, and Gilbert Licudi and Darren Martinez of Hassans for their criminal actions. If you want to start to redeem yourself and the treasonous RGP, as you should, you need to arrest and prosecute them…”
3 – The witness statement of Mr Martinez illustrates the existence of a substantial dispute of fact. It attributes to me the authorship of words and publications which I know for sure were not mine. The determination of such disputed factual issues requires the Court to hear evidence, assess credibility and make findings of fact. In this example, the attribution is material because it goes directly to my conduct. Resolving that disagreement requires findings of fact under Part 7.
Illustrative Example No 2 of Factual Disputes
1 – Mr Martinez’s witness statement provides a further illustrative example of a substantial dispute of fact. At paragraph 21, of his witness statement, he attributes to me words contained within Section 2 of my witness statement as though they were my own words. However, Section 2 is expressly presented as “2] THE LORD’S RESPONSE SUGGESTED FOR ME TO USE”, begins in a different voice, refers to me in the third person (“My disciple Anthony Farrell…”), and concludes with Christ’s signature before my own witness statement resumes at Section 3.
2 – Accordingly, Mr Martinez has attributed to me authorship of words which once again I know are not mine. The resolution of that dispute requires the Court to examine the document itself, hear evidence if necessary, and make findings of fact that cannot be done under Part 8.
Example No 3 Carter’s Reliance on Unverified Online Material
1 – In Paragraph 11 of her witness statement, the Claimant states that she is “aware from information published online” of the circumstances of the Defendant’s dismissal. The Claimant ridicules “He was dismissed after producing a report advancing extreme and incoherent beliefs regarding terrorism and public institutions”.
2 – In seeking to ridicule me so, she does not identify the source of this information, she does not verify it, and she provides no substantiation.
3 – The claimant is referring to my dismissal from South Yorkshire Police in 2010. Her account is contradicted by seven authoritative sources in TF[ ]:
• The Employment Tribunal (Judge Little) — which found the Defendant’s employment to have been “unblemished” and “exemplary,” and recorded that he made an “enormous contribution to the work of the Force.”
• Counsel for the Respondent (Mr Jones) — who confirmed the Defendant’s exemplary record and significant contribution.
• The Dismissing Officer (Nigel Hiller) — who stated that “there was no allegation of misconduct whatsoever,” that the dismissal was “a sad day for South Yorkshire Police,” and of the Defendant’s views he said this: ‘Your views are very sincere and you may be right but it is, I’m afraid, incompatible at the moment with where we are’ (Director Hiller, Director of Finance, South Yorkshire Police, 2nd Sept. 2010).
• Detective Superintendent Adrian Teague, Director of Intelligence — who immediately after my dismissal hearing was over, escorted me out police headquarters for the last time, and once outside, warmly shook my hand while saying, “Thank-You. You have done something massive.”
• Dr Rory Ridley-Duff — the Senior Lecturer from Hallam University (Sheffield), being a resident in South Yorkshire, attended my three day employment tribunal as an academic observer, having never previously met me. After witnessing the evidence placed before the employment tribunal, and studying the verdict, Dr. Ridley Duff launched a campaign to have me re-instated as the Principal Intelligence Analyst of South Yorkshire Police. Unlike Dr, Helen Carter, Dr. Rory Ridley Duff was qualified to comment from an informed position. He saw through the spin of my employers, and appreciated that I had come to the conclusion that it was less likely that the events of 9/11 and 7/7 were al-Qaeda terrorist attacks than ‘false flag’ terrorist operations carried out by the intelligence services of western governments.
• My dismissal case reached around the world and attracted favourable support from Professor David Ray Griffin, prolific author of a dozen or so books about 9/11 and Richard Cottrell, author of “Gladio – A Dagger in The Heart of Europe”.
4 – Helen Carter’s account in contrast is based solely on unverified online hearsay and is materially starkly inconsistent with the factual record. It is an example of how correction under CPR Rule 7 is appropriate in order to prevent the court being misled.
5 – These examples are illustrative only. They demonstrate that material issues of factual attribution arise within Mr Martinez’s witness statement which cannot fairly be resolved without the Court hearing evidence and making findings of fact. They therefore support my submission that these proceedings are properly suited to CPR Part 7, an argument which I raised in The Supreme Court on 23rd March 2026.
8 – Clarification Concerning GIBOPOLY Gesture
A. The Nature of the GIBOPOLY Gesture
1 – The GIBOPOLY initiative was a harmless satirical and light‑hearted symbolic gesture, not a financial transaction. The £1,500 in GIBOPOLY notes was never intended as legal tender, nor presented as such. To call the money counterfeit notes is ludicrous as they are obviously a version of Monopoly money. It was a peaceful, expressive act designed to convey that I am not intimidated by Hassans PLC, their institutional influence, or their previous conduct toward me. The gesture was openly delivered to Hassans’ reception staff, who accepted the package with professionalism.
B. Context of Long‑Standing Hostility from Hassans PLC
2 – My actions must be understood against a backdrop of genuine, unprovoked hostility I have previously experienced from Hassans PLC. This includes a Mafia‑type veiled threat made to me by Shlomo Levy, son of the Senior Partner James Levy, and a pattern of institutional behaviour that has caused me legitimate concern. My displeasure with Hassans is well‑documented and predates this litigation by years.
C. Institutional Conduct Relevant to My State of Mind
3 – My symbolic protest was also shaped by:
• Hassans’ Monopoly‑like grip on Gibraltar’s legal and political landscape.
• A Hassans consultant’s cover‑up of my complaint to the Police Complaints Board concerning my allegation of Helen Carter’s perjury during her sworn testimony in the Magistrates’ Court.
• The extortionate costs claim submitted by Mr Martínez, originally £6,250, later reduced to £1,500.
4 – These factors contributed to my decision to express my opposition symbolically rather than through confrontation.
D. No Attempt to Evade Compliance or Mislead the Court
5 – The GIBOPOLY notes were not an attempt to settle the costs order, evade compliance, deceive Hassans, or mislead the Court. The gesture was undertaken in full knowledge that the notes would not be accepted as payment. It was a peaceful expression of dissent, not a refusal to engage with the proceedings.
E. Relevance to Paragraphs 16 and 20 of Mr Martínez’s Statement
6 – Mr Martínez’s characterisation of the gesture as “mocking,” “counterfeit,” or indicative of non‑compliance omits the factual context above. The gesture was symbolic, peaceful, and transparent, and arose from a long‑standing history of hostility, intimidation, and institutional obstruction directed toward me.
7 – It was not an escalation, nor was it hateful or aggravating. It was a continuation of my established pattern of political and satirical expression concerning matters of public interest in Gibraltar.
F. Fool or No Fool
Finally, Paragraph 16 states the GIBOPOLY gesture was not a genuine attempt at payment, while paragraph 20 simultaneously describes it as an attempt to settle the costs order, and this internal contradiction requires clarification under Part 7.
9 – Clarification Concerning the Challenge to Jurisdiction
1 – Mr Martínez’s description of my challenge to jurisdiction is incomplete and misleading. He states that I disputed jurisdiction on the basis that “His Majesty King Charles III was not the lawful monarch,” yet he omits that the challenge contained evidence‑based allegations of serious criminal wrongdoing involving the reigning monarch including fraud, treason, and murder. That is hardly frivolous.
2 – Is this why the judge reached the wrong decision without looking at the evidence? The challenge was therefore not frivolous, nor was it limited to the narrow point Martínez presents. By reducing the challenge to a single sentence about the monarch’s status, Martínez distorts the nature and seriousness of the jurisdictional issue that was actually raised.
3 – This selective framing contributes to a wider pattern of wilful blindness to evidence‑based allegations of wrongdoing, a perception reinforced by the attempt to pursue Summary Judgment rather than CPR Rule 7, which is the proper mechanism for clarification.
10 – Concluding Statement
1 – I am representing myself in uncharted territory and have had to absorb each procedural requirement as it arises. I am willing to re‑engage meaningfully in light of the skeleton argument, but only if the case is managed fairly and on an equal footing. I unequivocally reject any allegation of harassment or hateful conduct.
2– My actions have been directed solely towards ensuring — realistically allowing — proper scrutiny of matters of genuine seriousness. Fairness, clarity, and due process are essential not only for my position, but for maintaining public confidence in justice in Gibraltar.
3 – These issues are substantial and of wider public significance. They cannot be addressed through accelerated or truncated mechanisms without risking an unjust or structurally damaging outcome. I therefore respectfully ask the Court to take this clarification report into full consideration. CPR Rule 7 is the only mechanism that realistically allows these matters to be examined with the requisite openness, rigour, and procedural fairness.
4 – Having quoted the relevant legislation proving: it was not harassment; and paying costs would be committing an offence under Section 35 of The Terrorism Act, I expected that to be the end of the matter.
5 – As it is now obvious that they are hell-bent on committing an offence under The Serious Crimes Act, I have no alternative but to protect the people of Gibraltar; to defend myself; and to ask the court to watch Democide on The Rock.
6 – Then firstly arrest Helen Carter for bioterrorism and waging biological warfare on the following: people of Gibraltar; the cross border workers; and the people of the UK in the Midlands causing mass death and injuries.
7 – Secondly arrest Martinez and Licudi for providing moral support and encouragement to commit the said crimes.
11 – Purpose of this Clarification
1 – This clarification is provided respectfully so that the Court has an accurate understanding of my present procedural position before determining the claimant’s application.
2 – It is not intended to constitute evidence, a substantive defence, or a response to the claimant’s witness statements. Those matters are capable of being addressed separately if the Court determines that the proceedings should continue under CPR Part 7 as should in the pursuit of fairness and justice.I write to clarify my position in advance of the hearing listed for 31 July 2026.
12. Earlier Withdrawal
1 – My previous declaration that I had withdrawn from the proceedings was made at a time when the procedural route between Part 8 versus Part 7 remained unresolved and before the claimant filed her application for summary judgment. Please see [TF/1/pp1-4]
2 – My withdrawal reflected a conscientious position in the circumstances surrounding the Court Order associated with the costs. It was not an acceptance of the claimant’s case, nor was it intended to waive my right to be heard should the procedural position escalate.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Farrell
Date: 30 JUL 2026
PS. In the process of finishing off this clarification report, there is breaking news from The US Senate about Anthony Fauci from The Gibraltar Messenger as covered by The Gateway Pundit.
| INTELLIGENCE SHARING FROM THE GIBRALTAR MESSENGER |
| 29 JUL 26 – BOOM! Rep. Paulina Luna Calls on State AGs to Bring Charges Against Dr. “Mengele” Fauci for Crimes Against Humanity (VIDEO) www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/07/boom-rep-paulina-luna-calls-state-ags-bring/ |
| 29 JUL 26 – REDEMPTION: Award-Winning Journalist Lara Logan Likened Dr. Fauci to One of the Most Notorious Monsters in History – New Evidence Shows She Was Right! www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/07/redemption-award-winning-journalist-lara-logan-likened-dr/ |
| 29 JUL 26 – Sen. Tommy Tuberville Explodes at Fauci Hearing: ‘He Should Be LOCKED UP Before He Leaves This Building Today… He KILLED PEOPLE!’ (VIDEO) www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/07/sen-tommy-tuberville-explodes-fauci-hearing-he-should/ |
| 07 JUL 21 – Anthony Fauci featured as number 66 of my 95 Theses: Policing The Corona State & was featured in each of the opening scene of our FACE MASK MADNESS videos and in my letter addressed to Richard Ullger dated 11th June 2024 entitled: “The Spear of Destiny and The Lancing of Longinus [DM/4/pp58-70] |
| XPOSTS – Sen. Ron Johnson just pulled out BOMBSHELL data in front of Dr. Fauci exposing that COVID vaccine and Remdesivir deaths were NUMEROUS yet IGNORED, while Fauci fearmongered against Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine COVID VACCINES: 1.67 MILLION adverse events, 39K deaths, 6.9K deaths per year “Remdesivir, over five and a half years, 546 deaths per year, the COVID injection, almost 7,000 deaths per year. Which is safest. What did the FDA freak us out about? Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine!” @RonJohnsonWI |
| X POSTS 29 JUL 26 – RFK Jr. unloads on the media for their role in protecting Anthony Fauci. He says doctors who challenged Fauci’s COVID narrative were treated like “pariahs” while the public was repeatedly told to “trust the experts.” Meanwhile the “expert” himself “was lying about EVERYTHING.” KENNEDY: “There were doctors like Peter McCullough, Robert Malone and Pierre Kory, who were saying from the beginning, they were looking at the data, saying, yeah, this causes myocarditis.” “It causes blood clots. It causes myocardial, pulmonary infarctions, and they were being censored.” “They were being vilified, marginalized, demonized, delicensed, publicly scalded by the press.” “The media malpractice is really what I think we should focus on because…anybody who questioned Dr. Fauci was put…like put off on an island.” “They were pariahs!” “And the media every day was telling us, ‘trust the experts.’” “Well, he was the expert, and we now know he was lying about everything.” “He was lying about masks.” /”He was lying about social distancing.”/”He was lying about lockdowns.” “He was lying about natural immunity.” “He was lying about the ability of the vaccine to prevent transmission and prevent infection.” “He got the vaccine and immediately got COVID-19 and then he got a pulmonary infarction.” “He was lying about the origins from day one./”Why was he lying?” Because he funded those studies at the Wuhan Lab!”@RobertKennedyJr “Fauci was lying about everything.” So the media’s new favorite hobby is playing “who can ignore the truth longest.” |
| X POSTS 29 JUL 26 – NOW: Sen. Ron Johnson announces he will be firing off a SUBPOENA at Dr. Fauci regarding the COVERUP of COVID vaccine injuries and safety signals Do NOT stop pursuing justice! JOHNSON: “Dr. Fauci, my only question is based on your lack of testimony here today, based quite honestly on our investigation into the cover-up of safety signals and injection injuries, we have issued letters to a number of former FDA officials to come in for transcribed interviews, you will be getting a letter today asking for a volunteer, transcribed interview, so I’d be asking, will you comply or will I have to subpoena you?” FAUCI: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. JOHNSON: “Expect a subpoena.” |
| X POSTS 29 JUL – ICYMI Senator Ron Johnson eviscerates Fauci and Francis Collins, highlighting communications sent to and from Dr. Collins discussing the need to “shut down” medical community alarm bells about neurological conditions presenting themselves in US patients post-vaccination, as such alarm bells would inflame “vaccine hesitancy” (Trust the science, but actually, just ignore the science and trust only ‘Us’) |
| X POSTS 29 JUL 26 – BREAKING: Sen. Bernie Moreno goes absolutely nuclear on Dr. Anthony Fauci during a fiery Senate hearing: “WHO THE F— DID YOU THINK YOU WERE?” Fauci: “I invoke my Fifth Amendment right.” Quite a contrast. |
| X POSTS 29 JUL 26 – Rand Paul @RandPaul Instead of answering our very serious questions, Anthony Fauci pleaded the 5th 111 times throughout our hearing. This is where we go from here. |
| X POSTS 29 JUL 26 – PATH FORWARD FAUCI: @SenRandPaul allegations Fauci authorized or directed the destruction of federal records, a federal crime. Senator Paul “One more time to comply with the law” – Vote next week on contempt – viability Biden preemptive pardon – Fauci leaves hearing, no comment, appeared deflated From AI “Federal records are legally governed by the Federal Records Act under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 33, which dictates that records may only be destroyed through official records disposition schedules approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Unauthorized destruction is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and 18 U.S.C. § 1519” |
| X POSTS 29 JUL26 – Josh Hawley just delivered one of the most brutal moments of the Fauci hearing. “A million people dead. You’re getting rich… and you’re here taking the Fifth.” Then Hawley accused Fauci of years of self-dealing as the room fell silent. |
PPS. The breaking news on Fauci’s recent woes, arriving right on queue, surely vindicates my actions, which were always well-intentioned and for the good of the people of Gibraltar, and the costs orders claimed against the Defendant should now be reversed by a court order against the Claimant. I was always trying to help the Claimant, do no harm, not harass her.
“The fact is that it is Tony Farrell who is being harassed for telling the truth, not Helen Carter.” – Christ
Please watch this recent short video (6 mins.) where Dr. David Martin; who is a highly Credentialed Expert by and for the US Government on deciding and classifying what constitutes a bioweapon, and is featured extensively in the documentary film “Democide on The Rock”, talks about Anthony Fauci and the Covid-19 bioweapon.