I have been preparing for over 3 years for this moment alongside an army of Americans armed not with weapons but with pens—ready to take action. As Tore Says LLC, I challenged the OSHA mandate, taking the fight to the Supreme Court to defend the right to protect my child’s healthcare choices. I filed writs invoking the Ohio State Constitution, which explicitly prohibits such mandates, only to have the Ohio Supreme Court dismiss them without any legal explanation. Why are those justices still sitting on the bench? Their time is running out.
This article has been crafted over 40 months to be proposed to the people, Attorney Generals who remember their OATH and fight for the people they serve.
I don’t just highlight problems—I craft parsimonious, effective solutions. Always. I refuse to engage in content that merely stirs outrage or dwells on the horrors we face. I focus on practical, actionable solutions, and I bring them to you today. I urge you to join this fight for accountability, justice, and freedom. Together, we can make it happen. I am not just a voice; I am a THINKTANK grounded in Occams Razor.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s legacy is one of controversy and betrayal. Mandating experimental vaccines and endorsing protocols, like the use of remdesivir—declared dangerous by nations like China for increasing fatality rates—was nothing short of criminal. These actions violated the principles of informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical medical practice. Instead of prioritizing health, Fauci and the Biden administration seemingly used the pandemic as an unprecedented opportunity to conduct large-scale human experiments under the guise of public safety. The truth? This wasn’t about saving lives—it was about gathering data for statistical analysis, no matter the human cost.
Reports suggest President Biden may pardon Fauci, signaling that the administration tacitly acknowledges the harm inflicted. Why would Fauci need a pardon if his actions were sound? Such a move confirms suspicions that the pandemic response wasn’t about protecting people but maintaining control while masking devastating failures. The same administration coerced citizens into obedience through relentless media campaigns, demonizing dissenters and branding skepticism as conspiracy. Millions of Americans, desperate to trust their leaders, complied in good faith, only to realize their trust was exploited.
During the pandemic, countless healthcare providers engaged in practices that violated the principles of medical ethics, patient rights, and international law. Patients were denied access to medical care or outright dismissed from practices for refusing what is now widely acknowledged as an experimental vaccine. Mounting evidence links these vaccines to devastating consequences, including “turbo cancers,” severe heart conditions, and the sterilization of both males and females, among other ailments. This coercion was not confined to providers alone—health insurance companies played a pivotal role by mandating vaccination among providers as a condition for maintaining eligibility within their networks. These actions breached the Nuremberg Code and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit medical experiments without informed consent, labeling such acts as crimes against humanity.
Broken Trust: How Healthcare Abandoned Ethics for Profit
Healthcare providers and insurers cannot hide behind ignorance or institutional pressure claims. They knowingly violated federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination, and the Patients’ Bill of Rights, which guarantees access to medical care. By compelling participation in experimental medical treatments under the threat of exclusion from necessary care, they inflicted irreparable harm on countless individuals and families. Reports now reveal a disturbing trend of insurers leveraging financial incentives to enforce compliance, demonstrating that profit was prioritized over patient safety and ethical medical practice.
This is not a partisan issue. It’s about justice for every American who suffered under pretenses. Pardoning Fauci is not a gesture of leadership—it’s an insult to the millions who trusted their government only to be betrayed. The time has come to hold those responsible accountable, demand answers, and rebuild a nation where leadership serves the people, not experiments on them.
When will Democrats wake up and see they were duped? With righteous indignation, we must ask: how many lives were lost, livelihoods destroyed, and families torn apart in the name of policies that were neither transparent nor scientifically sound? And with deep compassion, we must stand beside those who followed these mandates in good faith, recognizing their obedience was coerced under fear and manipulation by a complicit media machine.
To make matters worse, it has become increasingly clear that Biden does not have control of his administration. Following a stroke in 2021, credible concerns about his cognitive capacity arose. Who, then, has been making these decisions? Faceless bureaucrats and unelected officials appear to have seized power, steering the country into chaos while hiding behind Biden’s increasingly frail figure.
So What Do We Do? Cry About it?
Solutions drive me, and I present them to you now. These two avenues offer exceptional efficacy in holding accountable all who participated in these crimes. This includes law enforcement, government agencies, judges, healthcare professionals, organizations, and the media. No one who played a role in these injustices will be beyond scrutiny. Federal and State Avenues.
The power to pardon is one of the most sweeping authorities granted to a president by the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 2, allows a president to forgive federal crimes, offering clemency to those they deem worthy. Yet this power, as absolute as it may seem, is not invulnerable to scrutiny when wielded for corrupt purposes. The Constitution may grant presidents the authority to pardon, but no individual, not even the commander-in-chief, is above the law. When corruption taints this sacred power, justice demands that we examine its misuse.
FEDERAL REMEDY AVENUE
The boundaries of the pardon power were established as early as 1866 in Ex parte Garland, where the Supreme Court confirmed that the president could pardon federal offenses before, during, or after legal proceedings. However, while this case emphasized the breadth of the pardon power, it left open a critical question: what happens when this authority is abused? The Court’s silence on the matter tacitly acknowledged that even this power must conform to constitutional principles. A pardon resulting from bribery, conspiracy, or obstruction of justice threatens the very foundation of the justice system and invites judicial intervention.
One explicit legal limitation on the pardon power is its inability to shield criminal behavior surrounding its issuance. Federal law, particularly 18 U.S. Code § 201, prohibits public officials from accepting or offering bribes. A pardon issued in exchange for personal gain, financial incentives, or political favors constitutes bribery. For example, if evidence emerged showing that clemency was granted in return for campaign donations, lucrative contracts, or silence from co-conspirators, it would render the pardon a criminal act, stripping it of legitimacy. Furthermore, 18 U.S. Code § 371, which criminalizes conspiracies to defraud the United States, would apply if individuals used the pardon power to obstruct investigations or evade accountability.
This potential for abuse is not hypothetical. Joe Biden granting his son a pardon retroactively for an entire decade aligns with the general precedent in federal and executive processes, where 10 years is often considered the standard timeframe for evaluating claims, asset forfeiture, and other retroactive actions. This “rule of thumb” reflects the established window within which such matters are typically addressed under federal practices. This pardon underscores the potential for pardons to undermine justice rather than serve it.
The courts have long grappled with balancing presidential authority and constitutional fidelity. In Schick v. Reed (1974), the Supreme Court emphasized that while the pardon power is broad, it must align with the wider principles of the Constitution. It cannot be a tool to violate the laws it was meant to enforce. This echoes the foundational ruling in United States v. Lee (1882), which reminded the nation that no one—not even a president—can operate above the law.
Yet, abuses of the pardon power would not be limited to mere ethical dilemmas. Imagine a president issuing amnesty to those responsible for actions that violated fundamental human rights, such as forcing experimental medical treatments on an unsuspecting population during a global health crisis. Under the principles of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Code, such acts—mandating participation in untested medical procedures without informed consent—constitute crimes against humanity. If a pardon were issued to shield perpetrators from accountability, it would not absolve them of guilt. Courts, if pushed, could challenge whether the pardon was a product of criminal conspiracy or an attempt to obstruct justice.
This is not just a theoretical scenario. Allegations have been manifesting for the past four years that health officials colluded with pharmaceutical companies to promote experimental treatments while suppressing safer alternatives, all under the guise of public health. The documentation of this is in the hands of Congress, among others. If those officials are pardoned to shield them from prosecution, it would be evident that such an action by the president is a clear case of obstruction. Moreover, any evidence of financial incentives exchanged for such a pardon could trigger prosecution under federal bribery statutes.
What would a foreign entity like the WHO have promised? We know Tedros was awarded his position after working with Epstein Foundation VI on AI for 16 years in Ethiopia before his appointment.
Contrary to common belief, you do not bribe someone just by giving them a monetary payment. Under federal and state laws, bribery includes offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value to influence or be influenced in performing official duties. The “something of value” could be anything that implicates a money transaction but could also be a gift, a favor, a promise, or something else.
The primary federal statute governing bribery is 18 U.S. Code § 201, which defines corruption as corruptly giving, offering, or promising something of value to a public official intending to influence an official act. The statute also applies to public officials who solicit or accept such benefits. Notably, the phrase “something of value” is broadly interpreted by courts to include anything that could be seen as a personal advantage or benefit to the recipient.
Like all presidential powers, the pardon power is not a device of self-preservation nor an amici brief for criminality. Its abuse erodes public trust, undermines democratic institutions, and threatens the very notion of justice. Wielded corruptly, it leaves a stain on the presidency that no amendment or provision can cleanse. Although courts are hesitant to interfere with the executive branch’s authority, there is a duty to act when the rule of law is being threatened by abusing that power. No act of clemency can undo the truth, and no pardon should serve as a tribute to corruption.
STATE AVENUE REMEDY
Although a presidential pardon may protect people from federal prosecution, it does not apply to state-level crimes. This distinction is key to preserving justice, as state laws frequently furnish means of accountability when federal remedies fall short. State attorneys general have the power to bring charges based on violations of state law, so people who commit crimes in their jurisdictions can’t escape prosecution, even with a presidential pardon. States like Texas and Ohio have strong legal systems to help hold such individuals accountable when their actions break their laws.
The Legal Framework for State-Level Prosecution
A presidential pardon applies strictly to federal crimes, as established by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. State-level offenses, however, remain entirely outside the scope of presidential authority. This principle was underscored in Murphy v. Ford (1975), where the courts affirmed that a presidential pardon does not affect state prosecutions. Actions constituting coercion, fraud, or medical malpractice that fall under state statutes can still lead to prosecution at the state level.
OHIO AND TEXAS State Laws as Examples
State Laws in Action: OHIO
Ohio provides robust legal tools for pursuing justice in coercion, fraud, or medical malpractice cases. Under Ohio Revised Code § 2913.02, theft by deception is defined as obtaining something of value through misleading or fraudulent means. This statute could apply directly to healthcare providers or organizations that coerced individuals into receiving experimental medical treatments without fully disclosing their risks or experimental nature. Similarly, Ohio Revised Code § 2903.13, which addresses assault, could be invoked in cases where individuals were subjected to medical interventions against their will, leading to physical harm.
In addition to criminal statutes, Ohio enforces strict regulations on medical malpractice through its Medical Malpractice Statute (ORC § 2305.113). This law provides a pathway for victims of coerced or negligent medical practices to seek justice against healthcare providers who failed to meet the accepted standard of care. This includes cases where individuals were pressured into treatments resulting in injury or harm, underscoring the accountability mechanisms within Ohio law.
Furthermore, Article 1, Section 21 of the Ohio Constitution explicitly prohibits compulsion in healthcare. This provision ensures that no law or rule can force any person, employer, or healthcare provider to participate in a healthcare system. It also safeguards individuals from being compelled to buy or sell health insurance. In cases where individuals were coerced into medical treatments or mandates, this constitutional safeguard offers a compelling argument against such violations.
A notable legal action demonstrating the application of these principles is the writ of mandamus filed in 2021 by Terpsehore Maras (me) at the Ohio Supreme Court. (2021-1140: State of Ohio ex rel. Terpsehore Maras v. Governor of Ohio Mike DeWine Original Action in Mandamus) The writ argued that state officials violated constitutional rights by enforcing mandates contradicting the explicit protections outlined in Article 1, Section 21. The case highlighted systemic failures to uphold constitutional guarantees, illustrating the critical role of state-level legal challenges in holding institutions accountable for overreach and coercion.
These legal frameworks—rooted in Ohio’s Revised Code and Constitution—are essential for addressing injustices and ensuring that all individuals, organizations, and entities involved in unlawful coercion are held accountable.
State Laws in Action: TEXAS
In Texas, the Texas Penal Code § 22.04 addresses criminal negligence, which could apply in cases where medical professionals or policymakers failed to uphold the standard of care, resulting in harm. If individuals were coerced into experimental treatments without proper informed consent, charges such as criminal negligence or even fraud could be pursued. Additionally, Texas Penal Code § 32.46, which addresses fraud by deception, could apply if parties intentionally misrepresent medical interventions’ nature or risks.
Further, Texas offers a pathway for civil action under its Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). If healthcare providers or pharmaceutical companies engage in deceptive practices, they could face significant penalties, including damages for individuals harmed by their actions. The DTPA has been used to hold businesses accountable for misleading or harmful conduct, offering a state-level remedy for victims seeking justice.
Every state has its own set of laws that can be utilized to hold individuals and institutions accountable for fraud, coercion, or malpractice. Ohio and Texas are examples of states whose legal frameworks I have studied in depth, equipping me to act swiftly when the time arose. While these states serve as examples, the tools for justice exist in every state, ready to be employed when accountability is demanded.
The challenge is confronting these abuses and ensuring that the laws and principles meant to protect justice remain steadfast. Whether through civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, or congressional investigations, the fight for accountability must persist. Even a pardon cannot silence the voices of the victims or erase the evidence of injustice.
When the power to pardon is twisted into a tool of corruption, it doesn’t just defy the law—it tears at the heart of our nation’s integrity, betraying the soul of the people it was meant to serve. ~Tore Maras
The power to grant pardons is one of the broadest authorities bestowed on a president by the United States Constitution. Article II, Section 2 grants a President the power to forgive federal crimes, bestowing clemency on those who deserve it. But this power, as absolute as it might appear, is not outside scrutiny when wielded improperly. Although the Constitution empowers presidents to grant pardons, no person, including the Commander-in-Chief, is above the law.
When corruption usurps this sacred power, justice demands that we hold its abuse to account. ~Tore Maras
Accountability is not optional—it is a moral imperative. Pardons or legal loopholes should shield no individual or organization involved in these acts. These crimes against humanity, perpetuated under the guise of public health, demand a full investigation, transparent trials, and justice for the victims. Only then can we ensure that the sanctity of medical ethics and human rights is preserved and such atrocities are never repeated.
It is time for Americans, both left and right, to unite and end the century-long covert and methodical usurpation of our nation, standing resolute in defense of the Constitution. At the same time, our freedoms still exist—even if only on paper.
Don’t fret over a pardon in these matters; welcome it because it fortifies our claims for justice.
BONUS COMMENTARY PER HUNTER BIDEN PARDON
Joe Biden’s retroactively granting his son a pardon for an entire decade aligns with the general precedent in federal and executive processes. Ten years is often considered the standard timeframe for evaluating claims, asset forfeiture, and other retroactive actions. This “rule of thumb” reflects the established window within which such matters are typically addressed under federal practices. Most of the groundwork for Hunter’s crimes predates it.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar ! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack . I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
