Disclaimer:

This publication is submitted for informational and public interest purposes only. It reflects my personal experiences, lawful assertions, and constitutionally protected viewpoints as a U.S. citizen, protected under the First Amendment and relevant international speech frameworks (including Article 19 of the UDHR and ICCPR). It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be interpreted as imputing misconduct to any named or unnamed individual, law firm, institution, or authority.

All statements of fact are based on publicly available records and firsthand knowledge. Commentary is offered in good faith, with full respect for the rule of law and due process. Legal counsel referenced herein are noted solely for transparency regarding lawful support.

For complete legal disclaimers and clarifications, please see the full disclaimer at the end of this publication.

All rights reserved.

What if your social media posts, written on American soil and protected by the Constitution, could be weaponized against you, or could be used to create guilt-by-association targeting of others, in a foreign courtroom—without your knowledge, consent, or opportunity to respond? What if this isn't just a hypothetical scenario, but a documented reality that could affect any American citizen?

The Line That Was Crossed

I wish to be absolutely clear that my actions, public commentary, and legal responses are undertaken entirely independently in my professional capacity as a U.S. citizen and journalist.

I have had no involvement in, knowledge of, coordination with, or consultation regarding any legal strategy, defense preparation, witness coordination, or case-related decision-making in any UK proceedings.

My advocacy reflects exclusively my own journalistic work, constitutional rights, and professional obligations as an independent media figure.

Any inference of coordination, strategic consultation, or legal collaboration based on personal relationships fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of protected speech and the complete independence of my professional work.

Timeline Independence: My advocacy regarding constitutional protections, health freedom, and government accountability represents longstanding professional work that predates and exists entirely independently of any knowledge regarding specific UK legal matters. Any temporal correlations reflect my ongoing journalistic mission and constitutional advocacy, not strategic coordination or case-related planning.

If a precedent like this stands, any American's lawful speech can be criminalized by insinuation alone

On May 5, 2025, I published a Substack essay titled “Four Years of Lawfare and Black Ops: The Silence Ends Here. It was a personal account—truthful, lawful, and protected by the U.S. Constitution—detailing the censorship and targeting I believe I’ve endured for speaking freely.

That article has now been cited in UK legal proceedings of which I am not a party and with which I have no involvement, coordination, or consultation regarding legal strategy or defense preparation.

Let that settle in: my own words—written on American soil, protected by American law—have been entered into a foreign legal proceeding, reframed as if they imply criminal intent or wrongdoing.

I was never informed. Never consulted. Never given a chance to respond.

But I am responding now.

The Catalyst: A Substack Post as “Evidence”

What triggered this? A deliberate repurposing of protected speech.

The May 5th Substack piece, rooted in truth and public record, was cited in a UK prosecutorial letter related to a private prosecution - a proceeding initiated by private parties and a prominent UK-based multinational law firm rather than government prosecutors. My image, words, and constitutionally protected commentary were recontextualized to suggest criminal association and coordination—despite the fact that I am not, and have never been, a party to the case.

This is not a misunderstanding. This appears to constitute narrative weaponization—the deliberate use of innuendo and speculation to create an impression of criminality where none exists. When legal actors acknowledge they have no evidence of coordination yet still frame lawful activities as 'orchestrated campaigns,' this approach raises concerns about due process standards.

If this dangerous precedent is allowed to stand, it sets a terrifying standard: that lawful speech, even when truthful, can be criminalized by insinuation alone.

Speech Surveillance and the Insinuation Playbook

Even more telling is what the prosecutorial correspondence reveals about their methodology. While meticulously documenting timestamps of my public posts and social media activity, they provide zero evidence for their central accusation of criminal coordination.

The letter states that based on observed connections, 'it seems likely' that coordination exists and that separate campaigns are 'orchestrated' to disrupt legal proceedings.

Notice the phrase: 'it seems likely.' This is speculation masquerading as evidence.

The same correspondence acknowledges having no proof of instigation or coordination, yet despite this admission, it creates an aura of criminality around perfectly lawful activities—public advocacy, journalism, social media posting—without providing any actual evidence of coordination or wrongdoing. No communications. No financial records. No meeting logs. Nothing.

While I cannot speak to the intentions of others, the documented pattern of events raises legitimate concerns about the use of speculation to create impressions of criminality. This is the insinuation playbook in action: imply criminal conspiracy through careful language while acknowledging you have no evidence to support it.

This approach is particularly troubling when applied to journalism and public advocacy. The correspondence treats my published articles, social media posts, and editorial commentary—all forms of protected journalistic expression—as potential evidence of criminal coordination, simply because they address matters of public concern.

A deeper question emerges: why are my posts being systematically tracked, surveilled, cataloged, and submitted in foreign legal proceedings in the first place? This surveillance and documentation of my constitutionally protected speech—conducted without my knowledge or consent—raises serious questions about both motive and methodology.

Is this politically motivated retaliation? The targeting appears directly connected to the UK-based, multi-year campaign that wrongfully accused me of 'killing people with misinformation' by challenging COVID-era policies—a campaign that placed me on the discredited "Disinformation Dozen" hit list Tellingly, the prosecutorial document also cites my investigative journalism exposing UK government infiltration of U.S. executive operations during the Biden-Harris era—findings substantiated by America First Legal's FOIA revelations—information I disclosed through investigative reporting in the Erased Podcast interview, which these documents specifically cite as concerning.

This pattern indicates that my surveillance and targeting may constitute retaliation for my journalistic exposure of foreign interference in U.S. democratic institutions—precisely the kind of government-sponsored censorship that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has now formally dismantled. As Rubio recently explained to investigative journalist Mike Benz: "American taxpayers through the State Department were paying groups to attack Americans and to try to silence the voice of Americans... Some of these people got de-platformed. They got taken down. They couldn't communicate. So it's outrageous."

Rubio's description of how the censorship apparatus operated—where "they were literally tagging and labeling voices in American politics... tagging them as foreign agents"—mirrors exactly what has happened to me through the UK-based CCDH's "Disinformation Dozen" campaign. The Secretary's zero-tolerance stance is clear: "We don't want to see an American who happens to be living in London or happens to be living in Europe post something online about American politics or any politics, and all of a sudden they're facing ramifications over there."

What I'm experiencing represents exactly this prohibited cross-border targeting. As Rubio emphasized: "When you have foreign entities taking actions that go after Americans for speech, that becomes a foreign policy irritant for the United States, and more than an irritant, it becomes an impediment... to cooperate." The surveillance and weaponization of my constitutionally protected speech in UK legal proceedings constitutes precisely the kind of foreign retaliation against American citizens that the current administration has declared "unacceptable."

That this same pattern of targeting has now evolved into the weaponization of my speech in legal proceedings suggests a coordinated effort to silence dissenting voices through cross-border legal intimidation.

The surveillance methodology itself is troubling. My posts are being timestamp-analyzed, cross-referenced, and presented as if their mere existence implies criminal coordination. This transforms routine social media activity and journalistic commentary into perceived evidence of wrongdoing—a dangerous precedent that effectively criminalizes the exercise of free speech itself.

The documentation goes further, cataloging my associations with prominent political figures like RFK Jr., Tony Lyons, and Marla Maples—treating lawful political relationships as if they were evidence of conspiracy rather than protected political expression and association. Given this level of surveillance, it raises serious questions about what other constitutionally protected activities are being monitored and for what reasons—including my recent White House visit and other civic engagements with prominent figures. This transforms routine social media activity, journalistic commentary, and constitutionally protected political associations into perceived evidence of wrongdoing—a dangerous precedent that criminalizes both free speech and freedom of association.

Why I Took Action

On May 30, I formally submitted a letter to the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), asserting my rights and objecting to the misuse of my speech in this context.

This action was necessary.

The day prior, a direct communication was issued to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, formally alerting him and his office to the cross-border misuse of my constitutionally protected speech. Courtesy copies were also shared with the U.S. Embassy in London, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and members of my legal advisory team.

I took this stand to affirm a principle: that American speech must remain sovereign—not selectively criminalized by foreign actors or private legal interests.

The Broader Issue: Protected Speech on Trial

If this precedent stands, speech—lawful, constitutionally protected, and internationally affirmed—can be criminalized by insinuation alone. And this is EXACTLY what I have been warning the public about as a journalist and whistleblower in my previous writings—work for which I have been targeted, defamed, debanked, deplatformed, and subject to tactics that fall within classical definitions of lawfare.

This isn’t just overreach:

It is a violation of due process. It is a distortion of legal boundaries. It transforms journalism into evidence of conspiracy. And it puts every journalist, advocate, and dissident at risk.

I wish to be absolutely clear: my actions and public commentary are undertaken entirely independently. I have not coordinated with, advised, or been consulted by anyone regarding legal strategy or defense preparation in any UK proceedings. My advocacy reflects my own journalistic work and constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen.

All statements, articles, and commentary referenced represent my independent journalistic analysis and constitutionally protected editorial work. These materials were created in my professional capacity as a health freedom advocate and investigative journalist, not as coordination with or consultation for any legal proceedings. The transformation of independent journalism into perceived 'evidence' of coordination represents a fundamental threat to press freedom and the First Amendment.

Pattern Recognition: The Speech Suppression Playbook

This isn’t happening in isolation.

In 2021, I was listed in the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)'s now widely discredited "Disinformation Dozen" report — a document that sought to label dissenting medical voices as dangerous, bypassing due process. Reports and firsthand accounts at the time raised concerns about CCDH's potential involvement in coordinated reputation attacks, as well as threats of legal action that may have been connected to affiliated entities.

The CCDH's pattern of targeting extends beyond health freedom advocates. The organization was subsequently found to be involved in black operations targeting then-presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., demonstrating a systematic approach to undermining political figures and public voices who challenge established narratives. This revelation came to light after investigative reporters Paul Thacker and Matt Taibbi exposed UK election interference, uncovering internal documents that detailed coordinated efforts to influence American political discourse.

This revelation further underscores concerns about CCDH's role as a coordinated attack apparatus rather than a legitimate research organization, calling into question the credibility and motives behind any materials sourced from this entity.

Coordinated Legal and Congressional Response Has Begun

The legitimacy of CCDH and its affiliated operations is now under direct legal and congressional scrutiny. In 2023, X Corp. (formerly Twitter) filed a federal lawsuit against CCDH, alleging unlawful scraping, misrepresentation, and interference with advertiser relationships designed to economically harm the platform and suppress dissent. Simultaneously, multiple individuals listed alongside me in the so-called “Disinformation Dozen”—including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny—have initiated or are involved in legal and strategic efforts to challenge the reputational and economic damage inflicted by this UK-based entity.

In parallel, my own legal action, initiated by 5 co-plaintiffs on CCDH’s digital hitlist, was filed in response to the misuse of my constitutionally protected speech in a foreign legal context—part of a wider push to establish meaningful precedents against cross-border censorship and retaliatory lawfare.

This growing resistance has reached Capitol Hill. In 2024 and again in 2025, congressional committees led by free speech advocates in both chambers issued subpoenas and launched formal inquiries into CCDH’s funding sources, foreign entanglements, and influence over U.S. tech platforms and policy enforcement regimes. These inquiries aim to determine whether U.S. taxpayer dollars were improperly funneled into transnational censorship programs under the guise of “disinformation research.”

Together, these actions represent a rising wall of legal and institutional accountability—one that seeks not revenge, but restoration of lawful speech, due process, and sovereign digital rights.

👉 For detailed documentation of UK election interference operations, see: Election Exclusive: British Advisors to Kamala Harris Hope to "Kill Musk's Twitter"

Lawfare as Process-Punishment: When Legal Threats Become Political Weapons

Within months after the release of CCDH’s disinformation dozen report, individuals ideologically adjacent to these initiatives—such as Brian Rothschild of a Utah-based organization—publicly discussed launching mass tort lawsuits against us not for legal merit, but to "make it expensive" for those they oppose. This was described as classic lawfare: punishment through process, not justice.

Those tactics failed in the U.S. system. While I cannot speak to the intentions of others, the documented pattern of events raises legitimate concerns about similar approaches emerging under different jurisdictional frameworks.

👉 For deeper context, see: Black Ops Go Digital: How NATO Operatives Deploy Military Grade PsyOps to Transform Private Citizens into Public Enemies

A U.S. Response Has Begun

On May 28, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a landmark policy:

“It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil.”

Backed by Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, this policy activates visa restrictions for foreign nationals who engage in censorship of U.S. citizens.

This complements Executive Order 14149 (April 2025), which as I understand it forbids any U.S. agency from collaborating—directly or indirectly—with foreign efforts to suppress lawful American speech.

What My Letter Says

My formal communication to the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)—copied to my attorneys Scott Tips, Esq. and Tom Renz, Esq., who will be submitting follow-up correspondence on my behalf, and with a copy provided to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his office—affirms the following fundamental legal protections:

My speech is lawfully protected under:

• The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

• The presumption of innocence and burden of proof—fundamental to all civilized legal systems—which prohibits the inference of wrongdoing based on speculation rather than evidence.

• The right to practice journalism free from foreign legal intimidation—essential to maintaining a free press in democratic societies

• The right to due process and fair legal proceedings under both U.S. and international law

• Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — ratified by both the U.S. and UK

• Executive Order 14149 (April 2025), which prohibits U.S. agency collusion with foreign or third-party actors in the censorship of lawful American speech

• Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition – establishing that lawful expression cannot be criminalized by speculative inference

• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul – prohibiting government punishment of speech based on content or viewpoint

The unauthorized collection, processing, and use of my personal data—including my private residential address and protected commentary—in foreign legal proceedings to which I am not a party violates fundamental data protection principles under UK GDPR Article 6 (lawfulness) and Article 5 (processing principles), as no legitimate legal basis exists for such use.)

Any attempt to infer criminality or complicity based solely on public speech, reputation, or personal relationships is a misuse of legal framing and an affront to democratic due process.

The weaponization of foreign-origin materials — particularly from the discredited UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — without evidentiary merit or procedural necessity, appears to constitute potential abuse of process and reputational harm.

Who Received This Letter and Why

The letter was submitted to:

• The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)

With courtesy copies sent to:

• The United Kingdom Attorney General’s Office, for public interest oversight and prosecutorial integrity

• The U.S. Department of State, specifically the Office of Secretary Marco Rubio, in alignment with recent U.S. policy protecting American speech from foreign retaliation

• The U.S. Embassy in London, Legal and Political Affairs Divisions, for consular awareness and support

• The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression (Irene Khan), to notify international human rights authorities of the potential misuse of protected speech

• Scott C. Tips, JD, Esquire, President of the National Health Federation and international legal advisor in matters of speech and medical freedom

• Tom Renz, Esquire, Lead Attorney for the Global Wellness Forum and legal counsel on transnational censorship and retaliation

My legal team is actively reviewing the materials associated with this matter and will follow up with a formal legal response as necessary.

A Deliberate Tone of Restraint

I have not publicly named the law firm referenced in this matter, though I respectfully reserve the right to do so if warranted. I offer this space for reflection in the spirit of due process and professional courtesy, allowing the parties involved the opportunity to conduct an internal review and, if necessary, correct any procedural or narrative overreach.

⚖️ Contextualizing My Experience: When Speech Meets an Unstable Legal Terrain

As I reflect on recent developments surrounding the use of my constitutionally protected speech in a foreign legal proceeding, I believe it’s vital to situate what I’m facing within a wider and increasingly recognized pattern—one that has drawn scrutiny across political, legal, and journalistic circles in the United Kingdom.

In the UK, private prosecutions—where entities other than the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) can initiate criminal proceedings—have come under intensifying scrutiny in recent years. A series of high-profile miscarriages of justice, particularly the Post Office Horizon scandal, exposed how the absence of statutory oversight can lead to serious, sometimes systemic harm. In that case, over 900 individuals were wrongfully convicted, prompting urgent legislative action and government admissions of failure. The Guardian and The Week UK have both reported extensively on the long-standing prosecutorial powers exercised by the Post Office and the lack of safeguards that allowed this to persist unchecked .

In response, the UK Ministry of Justice launched a formal consultation in 2025, titled “Oversight and Regulation of Private Prosecutors”, to consider reforms such as:

• A mandatory code of practice for all non-CPS prosecutors,

• Independent inspection regimes,

• New rules around data transparency and pre-prosecution review, and

• Greater accountability when using mechanisms like the Single Justice Procedure .

This movement toward reform reflects a growing institutional awareness that prosecutorial powers—particularly those exercised outside the Crown structure—require clearer standards to prevent overreach, misapplication, or unintended consequences.

In parallel, public discourse has also taken notice of politically sensitive cases involving figures such as Tommy Robinson, Russell Brand, and the Tate brothers, all of which have sparked debate about the role of media pressure, institutional bias, and legal process integrity in high-visibility investigations. I do not comment here on the facts or merits of any of those individual cases. Rather, I simply note the shared public concern that justice systems should remain free from politicization and that due process must be respected in both perception and practice.

I raise these examples not as direct comparisons to my own situation, but to illustrate that a broader societal conversation is now underway—one that transcends ideology and focuses instead on ensuring that legal instruments are used responsibly, proportionately, and in accordance with principles of fairness and international law.

My response—lawful, measured, and rooted in well-established rights under both U.S. and international frameworks—is part of that larger call for integrity in legal process, relevant to citizens of all nations. I’m not here to pass judgment on any legal system or individual case. I’m here to defend my rights—and to add my voice to the growing call for transparency, fairness, and due process wherever they are at risk.

Today they came for my words. Tomorrow, they may come for yours. The only question is: Will we let them

Initial Response

Update: Both the UK Attorney General's Office and the Crown Prosecution Service have acknowledged receipt of my communication through their formal intake processes. This confirms that my complaint has entered the official review pipeline and will be evaluated within their standard 20-day response timeframes. This procedural engagement represents an important first step in ensuring that cross-border speech protections are formally reviewed at the institutional level.

My legal counsel, Scott Tips, Esq. and Tom Renz, Esq., will be submitting formal follow-up correspondence to these parties and other relevant authorities in the coming days, ensuring that the constitutional and jurisdictional issues raised receive comprehensive legal scrutiny and appropriate institutional response.

What Happens Now

Through the Global Wellness Forum and in alliance with the National Health Federation, an international legal team is being mobilized to stand against the weaponization of speech. Our aim is not to retaliate, but to restore lawful integrity and transnational respect for sovereign speech rights.

🛡️ Support the Legal Defense

To contribute:

• Donate here or Learn More

• Or email me for major donor coordination: sayerji@greenmedinfo.com

“When lawful speech is twisted into criminality, the soul of liberty is on trial.”

Final Thoughts

This is about more than one letter. It is about precedent — that American journalism and speech, especially when lawful and constitutionally protected, will not be rebranded as criminal across borders.

Thank you to all who have offered support and solidarity for the principles of free speech and constitutional protection. My advocacy continues in my professional capacity as an independent journalist committed to truth, transparency, and constitutional rights.

You are helping to protect not just a voice — but a principle.

With resolve,
Sayer Ji
Founder, GreenMedInfo
Chairman, Global Wellness Forum

Disclaimer:

This publication is submitted for informational and public interest purposes only. It reflects my personal experiences, lawful assertions, and constitutionally protected viewpoints as a U.S. citizen, protected under the First Amendment and relevant international speech frameworks (including Article 19 of the UDHR and ICCPR). It does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be interpreted as imputing misconduct to any named or unnamed individual, law firm, institution, or authority.

All statements of fact are based on publicly available records and firsthand knowledge. All commentary is offered in good faith, with due respect for the rule of law, due process, and ongoing legal proceedings.

Any reference to legal counsel—including, but not limited to, Scott Tips, Tom Renz, or Tia Severino—is made solely to document the lawful support I have received in asserting my rights. These references do not imply their endorsement of any conclusions drawn herein, nor do they constitute legal representations made on their behalf.

This post is submitted as a personal declaration of rights and narrative defense. No part of it should be interpreted as an official legal accusation or an attempt to interfere with judicial or prosecutorial processes.

Legal Independence: To be unequivocally clear: I have had no involvement in, knowledge of, or consultation regarding defense strategies, witness preparation, or legal decision-making in any UK proceedings. My public statements reflect my independent analysis as a journalist and my constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen, not coordination with or advocacy for any specific legal strategy.

Complete Legal Separation: My personal relationships exist entirely separately from my professional advocacy and journalistic work. No personal relationship has involved legal consultation, strategic planning, case coordination, or shared decision-making regarding any legal proceedings. My professional activities and personal relationships operate in completely separate spheres, each governed by distinct rights, responsibilities, and legal protections.

All rights reserved.