Audio + English transcript from the closed-door July 9, 2025 court hearing in the case against the perpetrators of the Covid-19 democide in the Netherlands.
Dear Readers,
As you know, I am one of the expert witnesses in the case(s) filed by victims of the covid countermeasures in the Netherlands against several defendants, including the state health officials and former Prime Minister Mark Rutte (now Sec Gen of NATO), Albert Bourla, Bill Gates and others. Other experts are Katherine Watt, Joseph Sansone, Catherine Austin Fitts and Mike Yeadon. Late Francis Boyle was willing to testify that mRNA shots are bioweapons, but he unexpectedly passed away in January of this year.
I have written about this case in these posts:
After the court denied hearing us as witnesses in the 2nd case proceeding (for additional victims), attorney Peter Stassen submitted an appeal which included my affidavit and Katherine Watt’s affidavit (St. Benedict Memo), linked in the article below:
I also discussed the case with Liz Gunn and Jim Ferguson in this interview.
Jim Ferguson is an accredited journalist in the UK, who traveled to the NL for the July 9 court hearing. There was a crowd of approximately 500 people gathered outside the court, but the public were not allowed in despite the fact that civil court cases are supposed to be open to the public and the press. Only “court approved” (i.e. defendants/state approved) press was allowed according to “court guidelines” - this is discussed below. No “approved” journalists showed up. This is censorship and suppression of civil constitutional court process by another name. Jim, an accredited journalist, was not allowed in.
Peter Stassen, the attorney for the plaintiffs, finally obtained the court audio recording in Dutch, where the names and even the voices of the defendants’ attorneys are disguised! The defendants are terrified of this disclosure so much that they have to hide the identities of the lawyers in the court that supposedly serves the public.
The audio in Dutch:
The English transcript:
Summary of the court proceeding on July 9, 2025:
A lengthy and tense hearing at the District Court of The Hague on July 9 2025 drew attention far beyond the courtroom walls. Three Dutch citizens, represented by attorney Peter Stassen, argued that the COVID-19 vaccines injured them and sought permission to question five expert witnesses, under oath—Michael Yeadon, Catherine Austin Fitts, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, and Joseph Sansone.
The objective of the plaintiffs’ request was to formally explore whether a so-called “Great Reset” or use of vaccines as bio-chemical weapons could be proven. The session was not about guilt or compensation but whether the court should authorize this preliminary evidence phase.
Court censorship of free access of media and public recordings:
Before addressing the main request on July 9, the court debated a procedural question—whether journalists, including independent journalists, could film or record the session. Stassen argued that all journalists, accredited or not, should be allowed to record freely, calling restrictions “censorship.” Judge J.A. Werkema cited the national press guideline that limits recording to accredited media. Ultimately, she permitted only an internal audio recording, to be evaluated later for public release, which is published above in this article.
Attorney Stassen argued that this is the matter as one of transparency and truth-finding. His clients received COVID-19 shots and developed serious health problems. Believing the injections were harmful by design, they wanted expert testimony on topics such as:
Whether COVID-19 vaccines could qualify as bioweapons;
Whether a coordinated “Great Reset” exists;
The roles of governments, NATO, media, and regulators.
Quoting Peter Stassen:
…this case concerns a matter of great social significance, as will be clear, and that interest is so great that the restrictions set out in the press guideline—after all, it is a guideline; you may deviate from it—should not, must not, be applied here. …Because the press guideline is, of course, central to this discussion, I want to make a fundamental remark. 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. Neither do I; neither do you. 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.
Lawyers for the Dutch State (defending the government officials), Pfizer, and several media executives opposed the request.
The State’s counsel said the proposal was legally baseless: a preliminary evidence procedure cannot run parallel to an ongoing case; the named individuals were not independent experts; and their views contradict the global scientific consensus that COVID-19 existed, there was a pandemic, and vaccines are safe and effective.
My note: these are typical arguments which are based on asserting power, not any actual evidence - “because we say so, therefore pandemic, and therefore safe and effective!”
Pfizer’s lawyers rejected the claim that former Pfizer scientist Michael Yeadon qualified as an unbiased expert, arguing that hearing him would effectively turn the session into a trial on the merits. The hearing on July 9th was a preliminary procedural hearing, not the actual trial yet.
My note: this is even funnier than the State’s argument! They are claiming Dr. Yeadon is not an expert, while also claiming that hearing him would turn the procedure into the actual trial on merits (thus acknowledging his expertise). The “unbiased” expert means the one that’s on their leash, of course.
Media representatives (former and current editors-in-chief of NOS and De Telegraaf) stressed they were being wrongly sued personally for editorial decisions made by their organizations and warned that such litigation threatens press freedom.
My note: gosh! press freedom is threatened in the court room which censored free press from it. Simply wow…
Rebuttal by Peter Stassen
Stassen stated that the respondents are protecting an “official narrative” and said their refusal to question the experts showed fear of exposure. He insisted his clients sought only factual truth and legal clarity before deciding whether to file a new lawsuit.
The new plaintiffs (in the 2nd case being presented in the July 9 hearing) wanted to determine whether to launch a new civil lawsuit or join an existing one (continuing from 2023) concerning alleged wrongdoing tied to COVID-19 vaccination policy. To inform the plaintiffs’ decision, they sought factual clarification from the proposed experts on whether the COVID-19 vaccines were bioweapons, and whether a coordinated “Great Reset” project existed including governments, media, and international organizations who knowingly contributed to public deception.
Stassen cited Dutch civil-procedure articles allowing voorlopig getuigenverhoor (preliminary hearing of witnesses or experts) when a party needs evidence to assess its claim. The experts’ testimony must occur in open court, under oath, and only then could their statements carry the necessary legal weight.
Stassen repeatedly invoked the principle of open justice and the enormous social importance of the case. He stated that “the truth must not be censored,” arguing that courts—not media or politicians—should be the venue for exposing alleged misconduct. The expert witnesses willing to testify are independent professionals—scientists, economists, and legal specialists, who have “no personal interest” other than to reveal facts hidden from the public. Hearing them publicly, he said, would demonstrate whether society lived “in truth or in a preferred reality.”
Stassen accused the State, pharmaceutical companies, and media respondents of suppressing dissent and protecting what he called the “official narrative.” He dismissed their claim of a “scientific consensus,” arguing that science advances through debate, not conformity. He said that refusing to hear the experts would prove that “the court does not want to know the truth” and warned that rejecting the request would symbolically place the court “on the side of censorship.” He concluded, stating that the request to hear expert witnesses served both private justice and public accountability; and that denying it would perpetuate concealment of crucial information about the pandemic and vaccination policy.
After hours of debate, Judge Werkema ended the hearing, noting that the court would issue a decision within six weeks. She subsequently denied the request.
We now await the response from the court to Peter Stassen’s appeal which included mine and Katherine’s full affidavits. The decision is expected toward the end of November.
Art for today: Nasturtiums, oil on panel, 9x12 in.
PLEASE KEEP FIGHTING TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH. THE INJURED AND DEAD DEMAND THIS
Break the dam of evil state lies