Attorney Peter Stassen has informed nominated witnesses that the court has extended its deadline to rule on the main (7 plaintiffs) case from Nov. 12, 2025 to Dec. 24, 2025. The appeal of the court’s Aug. 20, 2025 denial of three applicants’ application for provisional evidence proceedings is also still pending. Excerpts from July 9, 2025 hearing transcript on the three applicants’ application for provisional evidence: Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: ...I hereby open the hearing. Today concerns three applicants... I will begin with the most recent letter I received about the press guideline that must be observed. You have objected to that. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: Correct. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: Would you like to add anything? Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...I wrote to you [July 8, 2025]: “Having returned from a hearing at the Limburg District Court, Roermond location, I am reading the email regarding the admission of journalists to tomorrow’s hearing…In a constitutional state, the profession of journalist is open to any person who feels called to report in an honest way on matters of public relevance. The point is that the truth should not be suppressed; censorship must not get a chance. The standards applicable to journalists serve to protect this calling. The openness of justice—and therefore the rule of law itself—is jeopardized if journalists are hindered in their work. That implies—this is my clients’ position—that in a rule of law no distinction may be made between journalists who, for payment, join an association and commit to all sorts of rules in exchange for a piece of plastic, and journalists who wish to practice their calling without all of that. In view of this, it is indeed the applicants’ position that in a constitutional state making such a distinction in journalists’ powers is impermissible, and that the new press guideline is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Therefore, we believe all journalists—people with that calling; I think many are in this room—should be free to make recordings. What’s more, that is not objectionable, because recording equipment nowadays is so small and quiet that it presents no problem for order in the courtroom.”Mr. P.W.H. Stassen:...In a constitutional state, adjudication is entrusted to individual judges and, in this matter, that is you, Madam Presiding Judge. From your position in the rule of law, you determine the order in this courtroom—no one else. You have no superior here who tells you what to do…And that applies as well to the question of whether the journalists present here can do their work freely. You therefore do not have to abide by the press guideline when making that decision. But that also means, in my clients’ view, that you cannot hide behind it either. It is your decision. You determine whether that guideline is applied in this courtroom—what my clients can only perceive as censorship—or not. And that decision is yours. I believe the decision should be that recordings may be made freely and that there is no reason at all to apply that press guideline. Thank you. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: ...I was instructed to impress upon you, the public—this is what I heard via the communications department—that videos and audio recordings are not permitted.... Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: Yes, but then none of the [defendants’] lawyers can actually provide an argument as to what interest of their clients would be harmed… it does not matter whether camera one or two records this or not. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: I recognize the significant public interest, and this morning we discussed various options—what can we offer? Because we also understand that you want more people to be able to take note of this. We thought we could make an audio recording... Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...I cannot agree to that proposal. Of course not, because that too is a restriction. All the non‑verbal communication is not captured in that—here, from counsel, from those present. It is too limited. A case like this simply cannot be censored. That is our position. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: Well, it is the only option I can offer...It is also of public interest that this not be swept under the rug, let me put it that way… I will begin my introduction. What is today about? It concerns the three applicants seated there. All three of you, as I have read, received a Covid‑19 injection, and afterwards you suffered serious health complaints. In your view, that can only have been caused by the injection, because no other cause can be identified. Together with your counsel, you now request that five people be heard, as experts or as expert‑witnesses. Specifically on the question—which would be of importance in the main proceedings, as I understand it—whether there is a Great Reset, or whether the injections are bioweapons, yes or no. You want to assess your prospects regarding the procedure you intend to bring—either instituting your own action or joining the action on the merits that is currently pending, the main case that is ongoing but not yet concluded. Hence your request to hear those experts/expert‑witnesses. That is also the only thing we will address today. It is solely about the question: should experts or expert‑witnesses be heard so that you can make an assessment? It is not about the merits. It is not about whether a tort has been committed. It is also not about whether the damage you suffered can be attributed to that. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...may I still make two points of order? First, I heard you say, in connection with the recording, the names of the expert‑witnesses—if I understood you correctly. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: Yes, perhaps those may be mentioned. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: They certainly may be mentioned. Absolutely. These people are entirely fine with that. They want to speak in the public interest. So their names may be mentioned—loudly if you wish. That is one point of order I wanted to make...It looks like we can begin. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: Yes. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: Madam President. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” This is a saying I take from the Bible, John 8:32. As regards that truth, in civil proceedings the starting point is the court’s passivity. The law provides in Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the court investigates and decides on the basis of what the parties have put forward in support of their claim, application or defense, unless otherwise follows from the law. My clients are considering starting a new proceeding and, as you said, to decide whether to bring a case, my clients want the views of the expert‑witnesses put forward in the petition. And because the question was raised in the defense: it concerns, by definition, witnesses as well. They too can testify from their own observation about the existence of the Great Reset, the ongoing genocide and the deployment of a bioweapon, because they—like you and I—live in a time when all of this is taking place. The precise manner and form of the preliminary taking of evidence is, of course, up to your court, with this proviso: my clients insist that the five proposed experts be heard in the courtroom under oath, so that a debate can take place. Furthermore, it is essential that the experts be given the opportunity to submit documents and that the investigation not be closed until the experts have been able to give an exhaustive, evidence‑based answer to the questions before us. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: It is true that the application is primarily directed against natural persons who are, for the most part, employed by the State. The State et al.—and by that I mean all respondents—argue that there is settled case law that conduct by persons in connection with their work for the State must be attributed to the State. Reading the case law cited by the State shows there is indeed personal liability where a personal and sufficiently serious reproach can be made. Precisely for that reason, respondents have been involved in this application and there is a compelling interest in this request. What is special about the proposed expert‑witnesses is their expertise, integrity, and independence. Each has demonstrably delved very deeply into the subjects on which my clients seek clarity. Each has a background, education, knowledge, skill and experience that allows expert treatment of these subjects. Michael Yeadon, as a scientist, knows Pfizer and the industry in which it operates and can explain that the Covid‑19 injections are, by design, a bioweapon. Catherine Austin Fitts understands macro‑economic processes and politics and can demonstrate, explain, and prove that we are indeed in a Great Reset. Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt know U.S. regulation in the field of “vaccines,” and Katherine Watt can explain that, applying those regulations to the letter, no technical legal boundaries were crossed with the Covid‑19 injections, contrary to what it seems in the preferred reality. This expert opinion by Watt is particularly grave. Through her study of this topic, Watt can demonstrate, explain, and prove that since 1902 the real purpose of vaccine regulation has been to enable harmful substances for humans to be “approved” through a sham validation process—“approved” in quotation marks. The truth is that this sham validation process aims to mislead people in order to make them willing to have biologically toxic mixtures of substances injected. Latypova’s expert opinion largely aligns with Watt’s but differs on the Emergency Use Authorization used for admitting the Covid‑19 injections. She can explain that those Emergency Use Authorizations indicate the countermeasures—the injections—may not be mass‑produced and may not be deployed on the whole population. To that extent, these two experts are not 100% aligned, which once again shows there is no scientific consensus. The questions for Latypova and Watt are primarily factual: the course of events—the modus operandi by which a bioweapon was shepherded through the regulations. Joseph Sansone can explain why the late Professor Dr. Boyle, the U.S. top legal expert on bioweapons regulation, could only conclude that the Covid‑19 injections are a bioweapon. And that bioweapon was developed at the behest of DARPA, the U.S. Department of Defense. With his background as a psychologist and his experience in U.S. legal proceedings, Joseph Sansone can also explain why these—for many—unpalatable facts are true. None of the experts has any direct or indirect self‑interest in their opinion. The integrity of the proposed experts is not in dispute; nor is their independence. None has financial or other interests that would impede an independent opinion. The State et al. believe they can argue that there is no interest in the requested preliminary taking of evidence because it is already clear how the expert‑witnesses will answer the questions. That is an Orwellian and false argument. It concerns an examination under oath, in which all parties can put questions to the proposed experts and respondents are given the opportunity to have a counter‑expertise conducted. Such a process, which may be assumed will crystallize into two diametrically opposed camps of experts who must each give and substantiate their expert opinions under oath—such a process has simply never taken place. Only an expert opinion established in that way gives my clients sufficient insight into their legal position to determine whether they can prove unlawful conduct in the form of genocide by means of a bioweapon. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: For these reasons, it is necessary that the proposed expert‑witnesses be heard by way of preliminary evidence—precisely to determine applicants’ position. The requested preliminary taking of evidence therefore cannot be replaced by a written repetition of public statements that the proposed expert‑witnesses have previously made. We already spoke about public interest; to make clear what the immense public interest is here, I will outline what it means if the request is granted or rejected. Granting the request means that the proposed expert‑witnesses can be heard under oath, by you and all parties, in a hearing open to the public. The experts will give their opinions and support them with evidence on which their views rest. As judge, you—and I and all other counsel—can ask the questions that until now have never been put to an expert in a courtroom. Is there genocide? Are the vaccines a bioweapon? Are we in a Great Reset with the aim of a New World Order? What is the role of governments, NATO, mass media, NGOs, and national authorities? And more importantly: how do you know this so certainly? Those answers can then be probed further by you and by all parties. Moreover, the experts, as said, will be under oath. Should respondents wish, they can have their own expert‑witnesses heard in counter‑examination or deploy them to put critical questions to the proposed experts about their reasoning, underlying evidence, and data. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: My clients would welcome that. A preliminary expert report, with its procedural safeguards and in particular the professional legal principle of hearing both sides, is the yardstick par excellence for my clients as seekers of justice to assess whether they will start proceedings or not. A one‑sided written statement from the proposed experts is, for all these reasons, not weighty enough for applicants to assess their legal position. Such a one‑sided statement simply does not have the weight and evidentiary force of an expert‑witness opinion produced in a careful legal process with the possibility of adversarial testing. Aside from all this, the interests of applicants also carry a great public interest. Society benefits from knowing whether it lives in truth or in a preferred reality. In the statement of reply you mentioned in the main proceedings, I went into the theme of the preferred reality in depth. You confirm that statement is in this procedure and you are familiar with it. Already because of the public interest, the request to hear the proposed expert‑witnesses must be granted. And contrary to what the State et al. argue, pitting experts from two opposing camps against each other is the only way to bring out the truth and to determine applicants’ legal position. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: The mere fact that these camps of experts exist shows there is no scientific consensus on these subjects. That the State will find many pseudo‑experts in its camp, my clients do not doubt. I predict the State et al. will not succeed in finding experts who are truly expert, independent, and impartial. For that reason no names are given in the defense. It’s still “whose bread I eat, his word I speak.” It follows that rejecting the request would deprive my clients of the ability to have the foundation of their claim supported by expert‑witness evidence clothed in the procedural safeguards of a preliminary expert‑witness report. My clients would then have to litigate without the opportunity first to assess their legal position. Far more weighty, however, is the impairment of the public interest a rejection would bring. Not only do my clients have the right and interest to see and hear how these expert‑witnesses, in an open process under oath, answer questions from the court and all parties and support their views—everyone has this interest. Everyone has the right and interest to know whether he or she has been placed in a preferred reality; whether he or she is being threatened, attacked, driven to death, made ill, or otherwise deceived and mistreated by a bioweapon. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: And to be able to know this, there must be a public procedural debate in the courtroom in which experts not only state their opinions but can also be compelled, under oath in public before the court, to answer questions from the court, all parties, and any counter‑experts. Only then can society see that no trace will remain of the preferred reality and of the pseudo‑experts acting for the executors of the project Covid‑19: The Great Reset. The hard truth will prove to be that respondents are co‑perpetrators of mass murder of the Dutch population, or at least are accessories to it, and that they have deceived and mistreated the entire Dutch population and murdered many well‑meaning people who placed their trust in them. If the State et al. truly embraced the truth and wanted to combat disinformation, they would have no choice but to support this request. This risk to respondents—that nothing remains of the preferred reality—is obviously the real reason why respondents oppose my clients’ request. If the preferred reality is pierced, respondents’ liability is established and it is over and done with them as suppressors and deniers of the truth. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: In other words: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Frankly, my clients find it incomprehensible that, in this situation, the judges in your court have still not filed criminal complaints against respondents and that respondents are still at large. The State et al.’s defense rests on disqualifying the proposed experts, asserting there is no interest, and claiming this request would delay the main proceedings. Starting with the latter: whether joinder or intervention is possible in the main proceedings is up to the three‑judge panel in that case. At the time of filing this request, clients had not yet decided whether they would join or intervene or start a new action... Their questions are factual in nature. What was injected into them? Is it a vaccine or a bioweapon? All of applicants’ questions are, at their core, factual. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: Applicants are interested in nothing other than the true facts, and all their questions relate to that. Where the questions concern regulation, they aim to obtain an explanation of how respondents, within that regulatory framework, were able to bring a bioweapon to market as a so‑called vaccine. It is a factual explanation of the course of events—the modus operandi by which a bioweapon was piloted through the regulations. I repeat: that is a question of fact. The defense hammers on this, but these are factual questions; we do not need a legal institute for that. Once those facts are judicially established—which is what a legal process is about—then the legal characterization and the assessment of applicants’ legal position will be child’s play, and it will also be clear in law that there is a bioweapon with which genocide is being committed. The questions to the experts are precisely aimed at establishing the hard legal facts needed to draw conclusions—or at least obtaining sufficient insight into how that relates to their legal position. It speaks volumes that respondents believe they can disqualify the experts by citing their past public statements, for example on the characterization of the Covid‑19 injections as a bioweapon. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: Precisely because of those expert opinions, these are the experts par excellence. But respondents’ brazenness goes further when they write in their defense that they can set at least as many other experts against them. Does that mean that for respondents it is already certain that those other experts will never change their opinions—not even after the proposed experts have been heard? That is what respondents’ statement assumes. Apparently respondents determine what those other experts will say. There is no other conclusion. And so it is. The mainly veterinarians whom respondents deploy as pseudo‑experts have indeed always said what respondents wanted to hear. It is precisely the experts proposed by applicants who have the right qualifications. I have submitted their CVs and they attest to that, including Michael Yeadon’s, which I sent later—you have seen it. We are waiting for the CVs of the State et al.’s experts—which will pale in comparison. They are missing from the State et al.’s defense, and that is no coincidence. Even if respondents can produce numerous pseudo‑experts who support their assertions, it is not about the number; it is about the quality. There are only a handful of experts worldwide who are willing to answer the questions, independently and with integrity, under oath before the court and expose themselves to a dialogue. These experts have been named in this procedure. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: If my clients cannot avail themselves of preliminary evidence in this way, then this court does not want to know the truth and certainly will not set anyone free. For that reason too, there is only one proper decision on this request... Dr. Yeadon is the expert par excellence, and if someone wants to refute his conclusions, he gives them the opportunity to do so. To date no one has come forward to refute his conclusions, nor have any proceedings been brought against him for so‑called disinformation. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: This despite all the big words about scientific consensus that respondents invoke. Yeadon has always substantiated his expert opinion with arguments and evidence—often peer‑reviewed studies. The statements Yeadon makes qualify him precisely as an expert in this case. Everything I submit to you about Yeadon’s qualifications applies equally to the other proposed experts. Citing Yeadon’s past statements as a defense against this request is a futile exercise and proves nothing except that Yeadon has studied the subject for years and wants to entrust his findings to the public. <bliep>, by contrast, is himself a party to this and to the main proceedings, so his opinion about what is true or not is of no significance.... Furthermore, for anyone who wants to understand it, it is easily explained that it is precisely <bliep> who uses the term disinformation. That fits entirely with NATO PsyOps and Info Ops deployed to keep the official narrative intact. It is clear that <bliep> is completely partial and where he stands. <Bliep>’s purpose with his defense is to silence Yeadon to prevent him from being unmasked as a mass murderer and dragging his co‑respondents down with him. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...Securing evidence is—this is a serious example—of great importance, not only for applicants but for society as a whole. Finally, I would emphasize that it is for your court, in your supreme legal judgment, to determine whether my clients—and with them the entire Dutch population—may know the truth and thus be set free. If we truly live in a rule of law and you truly wish to dispense justice, you have no choice but to grant this request. I persist in the request and thank you for your attention. [Remarks by defense counsel available in full transcript] Mr. P.W.H. Stassen:...Yes, I have a few remarks. If I listen carefully, none of the lawyers actually responds to what I have truly said here on behalf of clients. That underlines that we are in a situation where all respondents apparently—this is quite obvious—are simply obliged to maintain the official narrative, which we have also often discussed in the main proceedings. We return to this in the statement of reply. Maintaining the official narrative is an absolute precondition for being an executor of the project Covid‑19: The Great Reset. And you see it before your eyes: how that official narrative—against better knowledge—“safe,” “effective,” vaccine development, all that nonsense—must be repeated. Because these executors of the Covid‑19 project are obliged to do so. That is why we stand here squarely opposed, while the facts have long since overtaken the official narrative. I want to give some context to how we are sitting here today, which is actually unimaginable. Let me begin with the reaction of Mr. <bliep> for <bliep>. He says, “I refer to the court’s judgment,” and I hear in that that he does not distance himself from the defenses that have all been raised. He does not distance himself, and I therefore infer that he sees no reason to distance himself; I thus take it that he aligns himself with them. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: And of course we—on behalf of applicants—find that very unfortunate. The statement of reply you have read is packed—packed, packed—with evidence with which the entire official narrative and the preferred reality are, at the very least, on the verge of bursting and, in my view, already exploded. A recurring point is the ability to address private individuals. I have already said the necessary about this in my notes. If you can make a sufficiently personal and serious reproach, you can indeed address private individuals. That is precisely why, for example, not the NOS and not De Telegraaf have been sued, but <bliep>, because they behaved unlawfully on a personal level and a serious reproach can be made about that. They cannot hide behind an institution funded by tax money, such as the NOS, or something like De Telegraaf, which incidentally was banned for years after the Second World War for collaboration with the Nazis. They cannot hide behind that... Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...coming back to <bliep>, because some feel the need to stand up for them: They have, through the [media] organizations they control, brought nothing to light about what my clients should have known. If they had been properly informed, with all available information—including the Pfizer report that we have often discussed, which I believe was on the table as early as April 2021—then no one here would ever have taken a shot. They did not bring any of that to the public. They only cooperated in implementing the project Covid‑19: The Great Reset, with the goal of misleading people into taking an injection. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...I can tell you that the experts have often been willing, with many parties, to set out opinions in writing, but concluded that people don’t listen or easily set them aside. These experts insist that if they cooperate, there will be a preliminary expert‑witness examination, so that they can present their case before an institution—in this case the judiciary—the highest institution in the rule of law. Nothing stands above the judiciary. That is where they want to speak. These expert‑witnesses are not at all waiting to scribble some little piece without being heard here at court. They have an expert opinion, but they know it is useless if you only put it on paper. These people are now fully censored. That applied to Michael Yeadon as well. He is fully censored—has made perhaps 200 videos and you probably know none of them because they never get through. He is fully censored, has attended conferences, done everything, but you hear and see nothing. That is also thanks to <bliep> [media defendants], among others, because they broadcast nothing about it. They do nothing with it. That is why we said in the main proceedings that the tort claim continues up to the date of the judgment. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: And that is the situation. Another very important point, paragraph 1.7 of those notes: it says, “The opinion of the persons named by applicants runs counter to the broad scientific consensus.” In my introduction and submissions I already said there is no scientific consensus. But let me go a step deeper. What is scientific consensus? We can at least establish that there is disagreement. I can name five world‑class experts who do not at all support that “scientific consensus.” But scientific consensus is not democracy. It is not the case that if most people say A, then it is scientifically true. The question is: who has the best‑substantiated judgment? It is not about, “we all think it’s so, so it’s so.” No. Who has the best arguments? “Scientific consensus” is, in itself, a monstrosity of an expression. Consensus does not make something true or false. In science there is always room for debate and only provisional truths exist. If you test a hypothesis and you arrive at a positive answer, that is provisionally true. But in science we have often seen that what was assumed true is later overtaken by another hypothesis that is again tested true. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: So the whole concept of scientific consensus is, I think, part of a large psychological and information operation to mislead people by saying: look, we have so many experts—all paid by the State—who have declared this; now it is true. That is not what this is about. This case is about truth‑finding, and you cannot cut the corner by saying there is already a scientific consensus. No, that is precisely why these experts must be heard, and not others. And of course in counter‑examination anything can be set against them and those people can be asked anything. But that is why it is vital that these particular experts be heard—those outside that monstrosity of “scientific consensus” on which the State relies. It is a flop and that will also become apparent when these people are heard. They will substantiate very well how they arrive at their opinions. That substantiation is lacking from all respondents. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...It says that claim is utterly hopeless. I find that exceedingly disrespectful to the judiciary. That [main] case—with 146 exhibits of evidence—has been brought before the three‑judge panel of your court. And this party simply says: “this is hopeless.” What is this? I would say: let’s wait and see. I tell you: that case is not hopeless. That case is rock solid, and we will see. And then this “chilling effect.” What nonsense is that? If you truly believe the case is hopeless, why then are you chilled? What are you worried about if it is so hopeless? Something in this reasoning doesn’t add up. Either it is promising and then there is a chilling effect, or it is hopeless and then there is no chilling effect. Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ...I think the starting point should really be that applicants themselves may determine in which experts they place their trust. That must be the starting point. That respondents disagree with that choice has only one reason: these experts are independent, expert, and have integrity. And what does that mean? That if they deliver a well‑substantiated expert opinion, it affects not only my clients’ legal position but also its mirror image—namely respondents’ legal position. Because if my clients can assess their legal position on the basis of the evidence that will indeed come to light in this expert‑witness examination—and I predict it will stir up much I do not yet know, because these experts know a thousand times more than I do—then respondents’ legal position will be shaken, namely that they will simply be held liable for tort, as claimed. That is what this is about. So respondents argue on the basis that they say: “you have no interest in determining your legal position.” But the underlying driver is, “do not touch our legal position,” because for now we still get away with it thanks to that whole apparatus of the preferred reality. “And please do not pierce it, because then we have a problem.” Thus this discussion is conducted with forked tongue here today in the courtroom. Applicants’ legal position is tied up with respondents’ legal position. Those positions cannot be viewed independently of each other and explain all the odd defenses we hear. Well then, let us look briefly at those respondents. I will not say too much, but for example Mr. <bliep>, mentioned several times today: the police unions in Italy, I believe a week or two ago, simply filed a criminal complaint about crimes against humanity...They do so because, with thousands of pages of Pfizer papers, they substantiate that they were gravely mistreated, that fraud was committed—corporate fraud—and everything that goes with it, up to and including murder. Then it is not so strange that the conflict in one party’s legal position affects the other’s if that evidence comes up, because this is about truth‑finding. Yes, and this is then fought out in a legal process. And look, for example, at <bliep>. Yes, he has already fled to Singapore. There is no extradition treaty, so that man is far away. They are already covering themselves. Look at what kind of people these are. Look at <bliep>. He happens to end up at NATO and thinks he can enjoy immunity there. Because that is in the NATO treaty. None of this is a coincidence. And yes, they try—essentially—to escape the dance by misleading and hurling false ad hominem arguments—because that is what they are. They fire them at the highly respectable experts we have proposed. With false ad hominem arguments they try to attack those experts, and the underlying interest—I hope I have outlined it well—is the work of a crime syndicate of which respondents are a part. And in that crime syndicate…I am making very clear where this defense all comes from—and that crime syndicate commits genocide. The largest genocide ever, against the entire world population. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: I am going to interrupt you. Once again, today is not about the substance... Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: No, but they have addressed the substance, so I will say something about it. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: Could you try to conclude? Mr. P.W.H. Stassen: ... As I already said: this is criminal. Criminal. Genocide of the entire world population through deception, coercion, intimidation, and terror—and through the deployment of that Covid‑19 bioweapon. And I think—let me underline it again—if you, as judge, reject this request, which I do not expect, but if you did, then you must reckon with the fact that the same blood will be on your hands as on respondents’. That is—because they will continue with this project Covid‑19: The Great Reset. The deployment of a bioweapon is at issue. Deception is the method—deception, intimidation, and so on. So this must become a public debate—it cannot be otherwise. And it must be in the courtroom, because that is the highest institution in a rule of law. It cannot be left to politics—as has become apparent. It must be in the courtroom. So today the rule of law must show what it is worth. I wish you great wisdom in your decision. Yes. Judge Ms. J.A. Werkema: ...A decision will issue in six weeks. We will consider it carefully. I hereby close the hearing and thank you all for coming.
All content is free to all readers.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment