SENATOR RAND PAUL, AND THE RENEWED CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI

 “The Renewed Criminal Referral of Anthony Fauci”, and to begin with, ever since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out worldwide in early 2020, Anthony Fauci has been at the center of it. Well, it has been about 5 years later now and no one has been held accountable. In light of this, Senator Rand Paul has said it has been Fauci who must be held accountable; in fact, Senator Rand Paul insisted that the evidence pointed to COVID-19 originating at a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where gain-of-function research was happening – and that it all pointed to Fauci.

But, now there is a vested interest in pursuing criminal action against Fauci, and it this becomes more apparent as Senator Rand Paul renewed his criminal referral of Dr Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice on Tuesday, accusing the former NIH director of orchestrating a cover-up related to NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that allegedly contributed to 18 million global COVID-19 deaths. Paul cited Freedom of Information Act emails showing Fauci’s awareness of the research despite his congressional testimony denying NIH involvement, along with allegations of record destruction and perjury. This follows Paul’s prior referrals in 2023 and 2025, amid ongoing debates over the pandemic’s origins and potential preemptive pardon by President Biden.

In addition, Fauci has been accused by some of overreach and has faced calls for LEGAL accountability. Of course, this has been a subject of interest for many, especially those who experienced significant harm and loss as a result of the made-up covid responses and even the COVID jabs and boosters.

And so, we have to have a detailed discussion on what legal accountability would entail and explicitly establish that Fauci has in fact committed a crime. In light of this, a crime is generally understood as being a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property, and is against the law. Different nations may have aspects of the law that are unique to their relative context, but when it comes to criminal law – this is typically standard across different jurisdictions. And so, what is key to establish for the purpose of our discussion, and also in light of the criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, is Fauci’s culpability in committing unlawful conduct. In addition, there must be a causal link between the unlawful conduct and the resulting consequence or harm to the (literal) millions of people in the US and the world at large. But, before we proceed, here is what Senator Rand Paul had to say concerning the rationale behind the renewed criminal referral.

WHY THE CRIMINAL REFERRAL OF ANTHONY FAUCI WAS INITIATED TO BEGIN WITH

But, while we speak of the renewed criminal referral of Anthony Fauci, it is worth noting why this criminal referral was initiated to begin with. In essence, Senator Rand Paul long pointed to an email from February 2020 in which Fauci detailed a call with British medical researcher Jeremy Farrar, who was director of the Wellcome Trust at the time. According to Fauci, those on the task force call, including Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other “highly credible” scientists with expertise in evolutionary biology, expressed concern about the “fact upon viewing the sequences of several isolates of the nCoV, there were mutations in the virus that would be most unusual to have evolved naturally in the bats and that there was a suspicion that this mutation was intentionally inserted.”

“The suspicion was heightened by the fact that scientists in Wuhan University are known to have been working on gain-of-function experiments to determine the molecular mechanisms associated with bat viruses adapting to human infection, and the outbreak originated in Wuhan.

DID FAUCI COMMIT UNLAWFUL CONDUCT RELATING TO THE COVID VIRUS AND PLANDEMIC RESPONSE?

And so, let’s begin by asking whether Fauci committed unlawful conduct (1) first, while leading the NIAID, (2) second, in his role in the plandemic response that was coerced on states and nations, and (3) thirdly even possibly with respect to the creation and leak of the virus itself. Well, right of the bat, it certainly appears so because in July 2024, the US District Attorneys began working together to criminally charge ANTHONY FAUCI with racketeering, collusion in creating the Wuhan virus and premeditated murder of thousands via Remdesivir and the Covid jabs.

Frankly, we could stop here – because this fairly establishes Fauci’s culpability in both the creation of the COVID virus, and the plandemic response; including the interventions used, being Remdesivir and the Covid jabs – all pointing to unlawful conduct. But, this is not even the gist or end of Fauci’s unlawful conduct. Back in the month of May, Lawrence Tabak, the Principal Deputy Director of the NIH, confirmed that Anthony Fauci committed a federal crime by providing false testimony to Congress under oath. Under US Code Title 18 and section 1001, it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make false statements to Congress. The penalties for such an offense can include up to five years in prison.

Then there is the abuse of children. In particular, Fauci used children as guinea pigs for so-called medical interventions. Fauci made sure that none of those children had guardians, which is illegal, and then he hid what he was doing to his board. In addition to all of this, Fauci was also disposing of the corpses of these children who died in illegal experiments.

ASSESSING FAUCI’S MALICIOUS INTENT TO HARM THROUGH COVID PROTOCOLS

Having established Fauci’s unlawful conduct, we then also have to assess whether Fauci acted maliciously to cause harm. For clarity, malicious intent is the intentional desire to cause harm, damage, or injury to someone or something. It is the kind of misconduct that is NOT due to, say, laziness or ignorance, but rather it is a conscious decision to act in a harmful way. Well, with respect to this, not only did Fauci act with malicious intent to cause harm, but he has even done this before in relation to a different case.

First, the proof of Fauci’s malicious intent to cause harm is found in his intentional distortion of information and scientific fact, especially seen in the plandemic responses – including the claimed safety and efficacy of the COVID jabs. In fact, even he conceded that it was mostly guess work or discussions he does not recall, and yet, they formed mandates on their guesses, and subjected society to them.

Secondly, Fauci’s malicious intent is also seen with his dismissive attitude towards the inalienable freedom of choice and the bodily autonomy of people. In particular, he intentionally contributed to a plandemic response that would make vaccine mandates inescapable, thus robbing individuals of the ability to make an informed choice on whether to take the vaccine, while some (among those who did not take it) lost their jobs and livelihoods. This binary outcome where you either take the jab or lose access to basic necessities, or institutions in society was intentionally curated with malice, as you’re about to hear Fauci express. And this resurfaced during a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing, in which Representative Dr Rich McCormick, being a medical doctor himself, questioned Fauci on him making it difficult for people to live their lives in dignity, and robbing them of the ability to make informed healthcare decisions.

BUT, as alluded to, Fauci has also done this prior; that is to say, he has previously acted with malicious intent to cause harm before! In particular, this relates to the drug AZT. Clinically called Zidovudine, but nicknamed AZT after its components, the drug was said to have shown a dramatic effect on the survival of AIDS patients. But there were tremendous concerns about the new drug. It had actually been developed a quarter of a century earlier as a cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved and forgotten because it was so toxic, very expensive to produce, and totally ineffective against cancer. It was said to be powerful, but unspecific, meaning that the drug was not selective in its cell destruction. Well, Fauci pushed AZT, and it killed an estimated 330,000 people. AND, When doctors found effective treatments as a much safer and plausible alternative, Fauci proceeded to silence them – REFUSING to test those alternatives. All of this is to say that Fauci is not new to the unlawful conduct of maliciously harming people, while instituting measures to silence others.

DID FAUCI BENEFIT FROM THE COVID RESPONSES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS

But, then following this, additional evidence of culpability and malicious intent is found in how Fauci benefited financially from the curated and made-up Covid response at the expense of others. According to RFK Jr, not only does the NIH get the royalty [from the Moderna injection], but the individuals who work for Anthony Fauci, they each get what they call patent margin rights. So they’re gonna collect royalties – around $150,000 a year forever, potentially, from those vaccines. [PAUSE] This reveals that the COVID response was a coordinated effort, for which he knew the likely outcome, hence he was able to profit from it.

Furthermore, in his 492-page book, Robert F. Kennedy reveals how Fauci committed a crime against humanity. In particular, as NIAID Director, Fauci controlled $6.1 billion in annual research funding. NIAID’s funds are expected to improve American health, as well as to eliminate viral allergic illnesses and autoimmune diseases. However, under Fauci’s watch, the chronic disease crisis has become worse. The turning point came in 2000. In Gates’ $127 million mansion, him and Fauci forged an alliance. Their goal was a vaccine empire with unlimited expansion potential. Gates called it “philanthropic capitalism” (which you would have heard him speak about). But, what this meant is that public health became their vehicle for diabolical plans, while profit became their engine.

EVEN IF FAUCI CLAIMS DENIABILITY, HE STILL ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Assuming that Fauci would attempt to claim deniability, it would also be possible to show that he engaged in a crime of omission through negligence – based on his words. So, Fauci knows that COVID was not a naturally forming virus, and that it was leaked in the lab in Wuhan – because the US worked with China on that virus and leak. However, in private communication, Fauci would merely concede that the COVID virus does not seem natural, BUT, he proceeded to commission the publishing of the ‘Proximal Origins’ letter (which you’d recall from our previous discussions), and this letter, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine on 17 March 2020, was written by a group of virologists including Kristian G. Andersen, Andrew Rambaut, W. Ian Lipkin, Edward C. Holmes and Robert Garry. The authors examined possibilities of an accidental leak of a natural or manipulated virus from a laboratory, and (very deceptively) concluded that genomic analyses indicated that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”. So, Fauci’s crime of omission here was not investigating his suspicions as a person curating a pandemic response! He is therefore responsible for silencing critical discourse in 2020 on the origins of COVID.

ACCOUNTABILITY AS THE RESULT OF THE PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH

All of this is to say that there was a lot of planning that went into the COVID hoax, with premeditated outcomes – thus making it easy to establish Fauci’s criminal liability. HOWEVER, if they had it their way, this would not even be a conversation – because they wanted absolute control over people and a monopoly on truth. BUT, they did not plan for the Church of Jesus Christ!

In fact, you’d recall that Anthony Fauci came to Washington even on January 8th last year to answer questions on how he flipped his position on public policy for masks, how the agency he headed funded risky research in China, and how post-infection immunity was downplayed – especially as a chief architect of the US’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He was behind closed doors for two days of questioning from the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. And this was the first time he answered questions under oath since November 2022. Members of the panel asked Fauci about how he flipped positions on mask policy, seeing that he started from the position that masks wouldn’t work to curb transmission of COVID-19, according to emails he sent in early 2020, to then being an ardent supporter of not only wearing masks but mandating masks. Last year, he was also confronted by Senator Rand Paul in a committee hearing about statements he made concerning natural immunity; and this next clip is from the committee hearing in 2022.

ANTHONY FAUCI MIGHT JUST LOSE HIS AUTOPEN IMMUNITY

Then finally, while we are having these discussions, a key part of accelerating the vaccine reckoning is ensuring that the relevant stakeholders do not hide behind legal loopholes. Which brings us to an interesting development where effects are actually being made to ensure that Anthony Fauci is held accountable despite the weird autism immunity from former US president Joe Biden.

The judiciary being among the 7 areas targeted by globalists, and we ought to begin with a focus on why the judiciary is such a pivotal institution, and this we ought to unpack in light of the doctrine of the separation of powers. This doctrine essentially outlines the division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. It is based on the argument that such a separation limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws.

Make no mistake, it was not always a well executed doctrine. And as such, modern constitutional systems show a great variety of arrangements of the legislative, executive, and judicial processes, and the doctrine has consequently lost much of its rigidity and dogmatic purity. In the 20th century, governmental involvement in numerous aspects of social and economic life resulted in an enlargement of the scope of executive power, a trend that accelerated after World War II. Some who were concerned about the consequences of that development for individual liberty have favoured establishing means of appeal against executive and administrative decisions (for example, through an ombudsman), rather than attempting to reassert the doctrine of the separation of powers. Although, I tend to think that these issues and historical abuses of power by certain branches of government (like the executive) underscores the importance of the separation of powers, in that they reveal what an imbalance of power among the branches of government has the danger to create or allow. Not only that, but it shows the plausibility of constitutional republicanism which is a system that places the constitution as the highest law in the land, which legally enshrines the separation of powers, and insists on judicial independence- as opposed to the highest power residing with whoever becomes the president of prime minister of an nation.

So, in constitutional democracies or constitutional republics (think the US, South Africa, or India) not only is the constitution the highest law in the land, but as far as formal legal processes are concerned, the judiciary is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. This is to say that courts have the power to declare any law or conduct unconstitutional. Courts also have the power to review conduct of the other arms of the State to the extent that the conduct is inconsistent with the Constitution, and to hold them accountable – and so, they ultimately serve as the most important system of checks and balances.

Evidently, and in light of the judiciary serving as a system of checks and balance, I would argue that – more than anything else – the doctrine of separation of powers underlies the principle of judicial independence, being the idea that only the judicial branch of government should discharge judicial functions and that it should do so free of interference from the other two branches. And so, it is this accountability and constitution-enforcing power vested in the judiciary that has made it a target for those who seek to undermine the rights, liberties and systems of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitutions and laws of the legislative branch of government.

HOW THE JUDICIARY IS BEING TARGETED AND ATTACKED

We then have to proceed to look at how the judiciary is being targeted and attacked. One of the most notable ways that corporations and cabal-linked have tried to erode the role of the judiciary is by capitalising on a system that removes the courts from discussions of accountability. For instance, we recently spoke about the target on food and agriculture, and highlighted the pursuit for protection from liability that is being spearheaded by Bayer and Monsanto. Well, the idea behind this is to remove courts as a check and balance against agrochemical companies. More specifically, since so many institutions in society have been co-opted by diabolical actors and special interest groups, it has both become vital to find alternative options (e.g., creating a robust independent media, AND ALSO to protect the viable options that remain.

Well, one of these viable options has ALWAYS been the courts, as frequently, if a bad actor steps too far out of line, a legal framework exists to constrain their actions. And so, for this reason, a plan of the industries which profit from poisoning people has long been to take away the ability of the courts to check them by passing laws (or securing court rulings) that shield them from liability and hence terminate the lawsuits that can stop their egregious conduct! So that is option one.

The other is a capitalisation on out-of-court settlements over trials p particularly in personal injury cases. More specifically, personal injury is an area of law involving cases where someone injured due to the negligence or wrongdoing of another pursues compensation from the liable party. The purpose of seeking compensation is to help the victim recover financially and get their life back on track after an accident.

Regarding resolving these cases, two approaches are typically available: settlement and trial. A settlement involves a negotiation between the injured party and the defendant, where they agree on compensation outside of court. In contrast, a trial involves a formal legal proceeding in a court of law, where a judge or jury determines the case’s outcome. To exemplify this, I believe you would have heard of cases where a big news story broke out about a massive development: it could be a scandal about how a company poisoned water sources in a local area that led to many being sick, or a company that sold defective products, or even a sexual abuse case between a notable figure and one of his workers. And hearing this, many begin to prepare for what could easily be one of the most revelatory trials in modern history, but then… as quickly as the story broke out, there is an out-court settlement before the trial ever begins, while a non-disclosure agreement that likely came with the settlement makes it such that anyone with important information canNOT say anything about the case. And so, the case never reaches court, and the judiciary is effectively out of the equation; while the offending actor simply pays the settlement amount and goes on about their business.

Well, many big corporations and public figures have capitalised on this option, because they know trials can be messy and revelatory, and come with retribution in the form of a court ruling or jury verdict. Meanwhile, victims often need the money anyway, and will thus agree to a settlement. It is how some of Epstein’s victims never spoke out publicly (and perhaps never can) and it is also how Johnson’s & Johnson’s curated an opioid crisis in the US for years, before courts became part of the conversations. But, in comparison, he is why it’s important to have courts in the equation, even to the extent that settlements are part of court ruling. In 2019, after J&J had spent years saying it cannot be held accountable for people’’s addiction to opioids, an Oklahoma judge ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million after ruling the drugmaker liable for fueling an opioid epidemic in the state by deceptively marketing painkillers – and so, in addition to the settlement, there was an indictment of the company in a formal setting.

Similarly, there is also the culpability of J&J in the talc baby powder crisis, and bankruptcy settlements. In light of this, J&J has been attempting to resolve the lawsuits through a subsidiary company’s bankruptcy. This was (of course) met with opposition, including a group of cancer victims who asked a federal judge to block Johnson & Johnson’s proposed bankruptcy settlement of tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging the company’s baby powder and other talc products caused their illnesses, according to a court filing. Then, in April this year, a US bankruptcy judge rejected Johnson & Johnson’s $10 billion proposal to end tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its baby powder and other talc products cause ovarian cancer, marking the third time the company’s bankruptcy strategy has failed in court. Evidently, things tend to work out better and much more retributively for diabolical corporations when courts are involved.

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN BRAZIL: A CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT AND CAUTIONARY TALE

This brings us to the third avenue through which the judiciary has been attacked, and that is blatant corruption. And in the status quo, Brazil stands as an almost cautionary tale on what happens when the Supreme Court is captured by diabolical actors and special interest groups. In essence, the separation of powers among different branches of government is one of the greatest guarantors of liberty. Like we’ve established at the beginning of our discussion, we essentially have a system where no single branch, or person, can amass too much power if checked by the others. But a formal separation of powers means nothing if one branch has the means to intimidate the others into surrendering their constitutional prerogatives.

And what is happening now in Brazil underscores this point: a single Justice of the Supreme Court has usurped dictatorial power by threatening leaders of the other branches, or their families, with arrest, imprisonment, or other penalties. This person has destroyed Brazil’s historically close relationship with the US by, among other things, attempting to apply Brazilian law extra-territorially to silence individuals and companies on US soil. And the situation is unprecedented and anomalous precisely because that person wears a judicial robe: whereas we can always negotiate with leaders of a country’s executive or legislative branches, there is no way to negotiate with a judge, who must maintain the pretense that all his actions are dictated by law. So we’ve seen a concerning development where the usurper cloaks himself in the rule of law and the other branches insist that they are powerless to act.

HOW THE JUDICIARY IS BEING TARGETED AND ATTACKED

Then another way that the judicial system is being targeted and attacked is through infiltration. Simply put, many of the attempted judicial coups against the Trump administration were bought and paid for by George Soros through a network of NGOs. For example, on January 22, 2023, it was revealed that George Soros invested over $40M on assisting District Attorneys in getting elected to target political opponents and lower the priority on criminal offenders. Soros has backed 75 prosecutors in total and 3 out of the 75 are targeting Trump.

This was also an effort long in the making. For instance, in 2023, we were aware that in the US, the hard Left controlled the Executive Branch and the Senate. But the Judicial Branch was a big wrench in the works, as it’s full of Donald Trump appointees and others who simply won’t go along with the Left’s authoritarian, pro-abortion, internationalist, socialist agenda. George Soros, however, was bent on changing that. In particular, the Washington Free Beacon reported in 2023 that (quote) “progressive megadonor George Soros has ramped up donations to a group dedicated to packing the Supreme Court, signaling progressives’ determination to reshape the judiciary even after a string of defeats.” Soros’ Open Society Foundations has also poured no less than $4.5 million into Demand Justice in order to “support policy advocacy on court reform.” According to the Free Beacon, “that’s nearly double the $2.5 million Soros gave the group in 2018, when it formed to oppose Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

Now, the organisation Demand Justice actively supports the violent intimidation of Supreme Court Justices: In the wake of the leaked 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Demand Justice executive director Brian Fallon called for the removal of protective fencing around the Court to help protesters provide ‘more accountability’ of justices. Meanwhile, Soros’ support for Defend Justice is just one part of a much larger agenda. In light of the money Soros has sunk into the Legislative Branch, this $4.5 million looks like a drop in the bucket. He gave $128,485,971 to Democrat candidates in the 2022 midterm elections, which no doubt played a considerable role in the outcome. And it isn’t as if we weren’t warned. As far back as 2004, then-Senator Hillary Clinton declared, (quote) “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.” But, this problem is not just in the US, it was also seen in Romania – even implicating USAID.

THE U.S. AND MEXICO: MEASURES TAKEN TO ADDRESS JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

By contrast, we then need to consider what happens when the judiciary is filled with people with a Christian conscience or inclined to Christian values; and when the judiciary can also better be held accountable – and here, we must consider the US. First, Trump secured 4 appointments in the US, and this has had a massive impact in ensuring that there is a majority of justices in the SCOTUS that preside over cases with a Christian conscience or are inclined to Christian values. Secondly, This has also had a massive impact in how cases on the weaponisation of laws and institutions have played out in the US. Therefore, electing leaders who have these focuses is important for how we protect the integrity of the judiciary.

In light of this, we ought to address the relationship between Trump and courts further. First, I would argue that president Trump is not trying to undermine the role of the judiciary in holding him and his executive orders accountable. This is considering that early all of the legal challenges are working their way through the courts. Some of the president’s actions have been blocked or allowed temporarily pending further court action. The court allowed the deferred resignation, or voluntary departure plan, by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to continue. Harvard University’s legal challenge to the administration’s funding freeze over anti-semitism and removal of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs has yet to be heard by the court.

However, the contention in the status quo tends to be when Trump wins cases against liberal judges – like we saw when a federal appeals court BLOCKED activist Judge Boasberg’s plan to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt. The contention also tends to arise when Trump holds judges accountable for breaking the law. But, if we just look at the facts of the cases, it is easy to deduce the legality and even political legitimacy of what has taken place. For instance, former AG Bill Barr has never hesitated to criticise Trump. However, his support of the Trump administration’s arrests of judges who were obstructing the work of federal agents who were attempting to arrest criminal aliens is unequivocal – and it is based on what the law dictates, being that “These judges do not have the right to interfere with the federal government performing its legal functions.”

Meanwhile, proof of the importance of a president who appoints exceptional justices is the recent ruling from SCOTUS,  striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions: Trump himself stated that i this, “The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the RULE OF LAW!”

So, having embarked on this expose on the 7 areas targeted by globalists in these 2 weeks, we are presented with a crucial responsibility to take the necessary action against the adversaries devices. We know who we war against, and we know their targets, therefore, we must mobilise our capabilities: both the spiritual weapons given to us that are mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds, and also the abilities available to us to consolidate resistance and attacks through formal legal recourse. And, indeed, we must not miss this opportunity.

Which brings to mind the Words of the President of Loveworld Inc., the highly esteemed Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., when he said that “Man was not made for the law, the law was made for man and so it can be changed,because those that drafted them are not God.”

Well, indeed, we have surely prayed, and continue to pray. Therefore, in this glorious Year of Completeness, all satanic and globalist agendas are suspended; they will live in our world, and we will not live in theirs, as we wrap up the Church age. And so, let us keep fighting the good fight of faith, because we have truly already won.