Sayer Ji: A Statement on Due Process, U.S.–UK Cross-Border Speech, and a Foreign Arrest Application Made Without Notice

A factual record of procedural events and constitutional concerns arising from lawful U.S. speech, protected regulatory activity, and public association

Placed on the public record on 12/29/25

Also published to X (@SayerJi) on 12/29/25 for public awareness and documentation.

Executive Summary

This statement documents how my lawful speech and civic engagement in the United States, undertaken in my capacity as a journalist and public commentator, were later cited to support an ex parte (without notice) arrest application in a foreign criminal proceeding—specifically, a June 9, 2025 application in the United Kingdom—despite my having no party status or standing and without the basic procedural safeguards ordinarily required before such action is contemplated, including notice, an opportunity to be heard, and adversarial testing.

At no point was I charged with any offense, named as a party, or afforded an opportunity to respond. Nonetheless, my public speech, associations, and lawful regulatory engagement were treated as if they carried procedural or criminal significance in institutional settings where I had no role and no jurisdictional nexus (no direct legal connection to the forum or proceeding).

I place this account on the public record to document what occurred, explain its human impact, and preserve an accurate record of how constitutionally protected American speech was incorporated into foreign legal processes absent due process. This account is intentionally measured. I do not recount every detail—not because such details do not exist, but because the events themselves demonstrate how information can be repurposed and escalated procedurally once removed from its original context.

I waited months to speak publicly, but continued silence risks letting this become normal—where a foreign organization's report about American speech can eventually be used to justify arrest applications against Americans in foreign courts.

All speech referenced herein was created and published on U.S.-based platforms, while I was physically present in the United States, and was lawful under U.S. law at the time it was made.

Personal Context and Human Impact

The prospect that lawful American speech could expose me to foreign arrest and detention created uncertainty affecting my family, livelihood, and ability to engage in professional, civic, and expressive activities. Reputational effects constrained publishing and public participation. Resources were diverted toward defensive measures. This was not an abstract legal concern; it had immediate and tangible consequences for daily life.

Summary of Relevant Events

Over an extended period, representations concerning my lawful speech and public activity were introduced into institutional and quasi-legal settings outside the United States, despite my having no party status, no standing, and no notice of their use. These representations were not based on allegations of unlawful conduct. They arose from:

• Public commentary and writing conducted within the United States

• Participation in public debate on matters of policy, science, and governance

• Lawful engagement with regulatory oversight mechanisms

• Public association in lawful civic and professional contexts, such as participation in public forums on health policy

At no time was I informed that such material was being incorporated into processes that could expose me to coercive legal consequences, nor was I afforded an opportunity to contest, contextualize, or correct it.

Timeline of Relevant Procedural Events

The following chronology is provided solely to establish sequence and timing. It does not assert motive, causation, or legal conclusions, and it should not be read as expressing any view on the merits of any referenced proceeding.

• March 24, 2021 — As described in publicly available records, the UK-based organization Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) published the “Disinformation Dozen” report, identifying me based on lawful U.S. speech. I was not contacted or afforded any opportunity to respond, per available documentation.

• September 2021 — Per parliamentary records, in written and oral testimony to UK parliamentary committees, Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, repeatedly relied on the “Disinformation Dozen” report to characterize named U.S. citizens, including myself, using analogies to organized criminal networks, sexual groomers, and actors responsible for loss of life. These analogies appear in parliamentary records; I do not interpret or endorse their intent. These statements were made under parliamentary privilege, despite the absence of any criminal charges, judicial findings, or jurisdiction over my conduct, per available documentation.

• May 5, 2025 — I published a long-form essay on a U.S.-based platform describing my personal experience with CCDH-affiliated censorship and reputational harm, per available documentation.

• May 28–29, 2025 — I became aware, over the course of that period, that this U.S.-based publication and other protected speech had been entered into a foreign criminal proceeding in which I was not a party, had no standing, and received no prior notice, per available documentation.

• May 30, 2025 — I transmitted formal written correspondence to relevant authorities in the US and UK objecting to the use of my protected speech in a foreign legal context, per available documentation.

• June 1, 2025 — I submitted a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Britain’s independent legal profession regulator, raising concerns regarding cross-border legal ethics and due-process standards, per available documentation.

• June 6, 2025 — I publicly confirmed the filing of that regulatory complaint, per available documentation.

• June 9, 2025 — An ex parte (without notice) application was made by a prosecuting party in a UK proceeding seeking authority for my immediate arrest and seizure of devices, despite my status as a non-party and public observer. The application cited my lawful U.S. speech, public associations, and regulatory complaint activity. I received no notice of this application and was afforded no opportunity to be heard. The presiding judge declined the application in full, per available documentation.

• December 1-3, 2025 — During public court proceedings in the underlying case, the June 9 arrest application concerning me was referenced on the record, making these procedural events part of the public court record, per available documentation.

This chronology is included for clarity of record only and does not purport to describe the intent, legal merits, or outcome of any action referenced. Based on information available as of December 29, 2025, no ongoing proceedings involving me are known.

Non-Party Procedural Consequences

In effect, my speech and associations were cited as procedurally relevant in a criminal process, despite my lack of formal status. I was:

• Not charged

• Not served

• Not named as a party

Yet this resulted in exposure to an ex parte application for arrest and device seizure, without notice or an opportunity to be heard. In practical terms, this imposed significant burdens typically associated with party status, absent the corresponding procedural protections.

Lawful Oversight Activity

My regulatory complaint constituted a lawful exercise of oversight rights available to any member of the public.

Filing such a complaint is a lawful and protected act under both U.S. and UK professional oversight frameworks and is routinely available to any member of the public.

The subsequent citation of that complaint as justification for arrest measures represented a significant departure from ordinary expectations regarding the treatment of non-party regulatory engagement—particularly involving a foreign national acting within their own constitutional protections.

For readers seeking documentation of related regulatory activity undertaken through appropriate professional channels, see:
Public Update: Formal Regulatory Complaint Filed – Supporting Cross-Border Legal Ethics.

Procedural Dynamics and Jurisdictional Asymmetry

These events illustrate how jurisdictional asymmetries permit reputational narratives to be cited in procedural contexts when transferred across borders.
Within the United States, the conduct described would not support an arrest application absent notice, standing, and adversarial testing. When repurposed abroad, however, the same material was treated by a prosecuting party as sufficient to justify physical restraint.

This statement is published under U.S. First Amendment protections and is not directed at any foreign audience or proceeding.

The replication of this dynamic across both criminal and Court of Protection jurisdictions underscores how reputational narratives can migrate between forums, acquiring procedural force without party status or due-process safeguards when transferred across borders.

Broader Implications

This highlights potential challenges for protected speech in cross-border contexts, where procedural safeguards may vary.

The procedural logic applied here does not depend on the content of the speech involved and could be applied to any American whose lawful expression becomes controversial abroad.

In practical terms, this means that journalists, advocates, and ordinary citizens may face foreign legal exposure based solely on lawful domestic speech if similar mechanisms are employed.

Concluding Statement

What occurred demonstrates how constitutionally protected American speech can be rendered vulnerable through cross-border procedural mechanisms when due process safeguards are absent or weakened.

The durability of constitutional rights depends on whether procedural protections endure when speech becomes contested, cross-border, or inconvenient.

This statement is placed on the public record to ensure that what occurred is accurately documented, clearly understood, and not quietly normalized.

Sayer Ji,

Founder of GreenMedInfo.com

Chairman and Co-founder of the Global Wellness Forum

(Affiliations listed for identification only)

Legal Position and Reservations

Non-Interference and Independence

This statement addresses only my personal experiences and procedural concerns as a non-party; it does not reference, analyze, or opine on the merits, evidence, or parties in any underlying proceeding. This statement is not submitted to comment on, influence, interfere with, or advance any position in any ongoing or contemplated legal proceeding in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. It is not made on behalf of, in coordination with, or in consultation with any party, witness, legal representative, or interested person in any such proceeding. To the extent any referenced proceeding remains active, this statement is not intended to and should not be construed as influencing its course or outcome.

Source of Knowledge
My knowledge of the events described herein derives from my status as the individual named and affected, and from the occurrence of the events themselves, not from participation in any legal strategy or privileged communication. All descriptions herein are based solely on publicly accessible materials and my direct experiences, without access to or reliance on non-public information.

Third-Party Privilege

Nothing in this statement should be construed as a waiver of any applicable privilege or protection held by any third party.

Rights Reservation
All rights, claims, and defenses are expressly reserved.

Jurisdiction
All rights herein are asserted under U.S. law; no waiver of jurisdictional defenses is intended.

Distribution Notice

For the avoidance of doubt, and consistent with the public and procedural nature of this statement, a copy has been transmitted to the following United States government entities, offices, and representatives solely for purposes of record-keeping, oversight, and situational awareness:

• U.S. Department of State – Office of the Legal Adviser; Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; and the Office of the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (Sarah Margon Rodgers)

• U.S. Embassy, London – Political and Consular Sections

• U.S. Department of Justice – Office of International Affairs; Criminal Division (Public Integrity Section); and Office of the Attorney General (Hon. Merrick B. Garland)

• Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) – Civil Liberties and Privacy Office

• U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary – Majority and Minority Counsels

• U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – via the Office of Senator Marco Rubio

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – Office for Civil Rights (in relation to guardianship, health data, and elder-protection issues)

• U.S. Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security (regarding cross-border data and reputational security)

• Office of Inspector General, Department of State – for archival and administrative purposes

• Office of Special Counsel (OSC) – Disclosure Unit, for constitutional and due-process recordkeeping

• Pam Bondi – United States Attorney General

• Legal Advisors and Strategic Counsel:
  – Thomas Renz, Esq. – Principal, Renz Law LLC
  – Scot Tips, Esq. – International Legal and Strategic Counsel

Transmission to these entities and officials is for informational and record purposes only.

No agency, department, or official has endorsed, adopted, or taken any position on the contents of this statement.

This document is published solely within the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of transparency, constitutional protection, and the preservation of due process. It is not directed toward, nor does it seek to influence, any judicial or administrative process outside U.S. jurisdiction.

---