The Dutch Case Alleging Genocide: Links to full written testimony of Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt included in appeal filed 9/15/25

Appeal of Aug. 20, 2025 order denying application for preliminary evidence proceedings; appeal filed Sept. 15, 2025.

Sep 18, 2025

Dear Readers,

I am republishing Katherine Watt’s excellent summary of the appeal that attorney Peter Stassen has submitted to the court. This appeal includes written testimonies that both, Katherine and I provided. Links to both of our written affidavits are in the article below.

Bailiwick News

Netherlands case update: appeal of Aug. 20, 2025 order denying application for preliminary evidence proceedings; appeal filed Sept. 15, 2025.

Katherine Watt

Sep 16, 2025

In July 2023, Attorneys Peter Stassen and Arno van Kessel filed a complaint on behalf of seven plaintiffs injured by Covid-19 vaccines, in the District Court of Northern Netherlands at Leeuwarden, against Everhardus Ite Hofstra (member of National Institute for Safety and the Environment, Centre of Infectious Disease Control, Outbreak Management Team and related organizations); Mark Rutte (Prime Minister of the Netherlands at that time), Albert Bourla (CEO of Pfizer), William Gates (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and other defendants serving in government, non-governmental and media leadership positions.

July 2023 - Summons and Claims, Plaintiffs v. Hofstra et al, Case Ref. C/17/190788, Case No. 23/172 (7 plaintiffs’ case)
June 2025 - Conclusion of Reply and Increase of Claim, Plaintiffs v. Hofstra et al (7 plaintiffs’ case)
Case documents, Plaintiffs v. Hofstra et al (7 plaintiffs’ case)

In March 2025, attorneys Stassen and van Kessel filed an application for preliminary evidence proceedings on behalf of three other individuals, also injured by Covid-19 vaccines:

March 7, 2025 - Cover letter, Application for Preliminary Evidence Proceedings (English translation) - “…This request is of great public importance because, if granted, legal and convincing evidence will be provided by the witnesses/experts submitted in the request regarding (among other things) the following questions: 1. Whether the Covid-19 mRNA injections, which the respondents claim are safe and effective, qualify as bioweapons currently being used to commit genocide; 2. Whether a Great Reset (which the respondents dismiss as only a possible future scenario) is underway and what this means…”
March 7, 2025 - Application for Preliminary Evidence Proceedings (English translation)
Case documents, Three Petitioners' Application for Preliminary Evidence Proceedings

A hearing was held July 9, 2025: audio recording at RechtOprecht website (in Dutch, redacted), transcript unavailable as of Sept. 16, 2025.
In August 2025, the judge reviewing the application denied the request.

Aug. 20, 2025 - Order denying application for preliminary evidence proceedings (English translation)
Aug. 20, 2025 - Press statement, Attorney Peter Stassen (English translation)

On Sept. 15, 2025, Attorney Peter Stassen filed an appeal of the order denying the application, at the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal in Leeuwarden.

Sept. 15, 2025 - Cover letter, Notice of Appeal and Request for Preliminary Injunction (English translation)
Sept. 15, 2025 - Notice of Appeal and Request for Preliminary Injunction (English translation)
Case documents, Appeal against decision of Aug. 20, 2025

Sept. 15, 2025 Notice of Appeal, excerpts:
…[1.] By this application, the applicants appeal against the decision of 20 August 2025 rendered by the District Court of Noord-Nederland with case number / application number: C/17/199273 / HA RK 25-17, as well as against the procedural decisions taken prior to that decision regarding the publicity of the oral hearing and the denial to the public and 'non-accredited journalists' of the opportunity to make images and sound recordings of the hearing…
[9.] The right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR was seriously violated by the court of first instance. This is as follows. The applicants' trial was not public within the meaning of Article 6 of the ECHR because the doors of the court and the courtroom were closed to the public, while the majority of the large public present were denied access to the courthouse and the courtroom and thus could not witness the proceedings…
[11.] The applicants have argued, with reasons, that the Covid-19 injections are not so-called vaccines. By vaccines, the applicants mean products that at least qualify as medical products intended to protect or improve human health. In this context, the applicants argue that the Covid-19 injections are in fact a bioweapon and that a misleading, sham validation process has taken place involving, among others, the European Medicines Agency, the State of the Netherlands, and all other respondents in the context of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. The applicants have explained that the question they wish to submit to the experts nominated in the application, Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt, is a factual one, namely how the Covid-19 bioweapon in question could be passed through the regulations…[emphasis added]
[16.] It should be noted that the court, in its order, wrongly designated the experts nominated by the applicants several times as "party experts." The nominated experts were not engaged by the applicants. For this reason alone, they are not party experts. The applicants never designated the experts they nominated as party experts, nor did they leave any misunderstanding regarding their independent position. On the contrary, the applicants stated loud and clear that these experts were independent and explicitly intended, with their request, to have them engaged by the court, and nominated them precisely for that reason. By disqualifying the fully independent experts nominated by the applicants as "party experts," the court left no misunderstanding that it itself was biased…
[18.] Furthermore, the court should have recognized that, by rejecting the application, it left unanswered questions concerning the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, or agencies of the [European] Union. This is inconsistent with European law, which, in the case of questions of this nature, urges or obliges the court to refer preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice. The purport of this European legislation is crystal clear that questions concerning the validity of acts of bodies of the European Union cannot remain unanswered, a principle of legal protection which the court of first instance completely ignored in its rejection decision…
[19.] Two of the nominated experts, Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt, after learning of the court's rejection of their request, took the initiative to provide a statement for the main proceedings before the District Court of Northern Netherlands, citing public interest considerations. This is a direct consequence of their awareness of the court's reasoning in the order under appeal under paragraph 3.11, in which the judge, outside of her statutory duty, unnecessarily, unsolicited, and completely incorrectly advocated for the appointment of experts other than those nominated by the applicants, arguing that the other expert appointed by the court would then be "independent." Therefore, the applicants neither commissioned nor paid for this. The applicants are, of course, very grateful for this willingness and gratefully make use of these reports, not only in their own interest but also, and especially, in the public interest. Against this background, an expert opinion by Sasha Latypova is introduced into the proceedings as exhibit 3, and an expert opinion by Katherine Watt as exhibit 4. Latypova's expert opinion is accompanied by more than a gigabyte of underlying official data on which she bases her reasoned and, above all, particularly serious conclusions. Watt, primarily based on the applicable regulations and their historical development, provides evidence of the correctness of her conclusions. These expert opinions demonstrate without a doubt that the "COVID-19 vaccines" touted by the defendants in the preferred reality as "vaccines against Covid-19," as well as guarantees for the safety of their development and guarantees for the quality of their production, are nothing but bioweapons. After reading these expert opinions and the evidence on which they are based, it should be clear to everyone that this was never about a medicine or vaccine for the benefit of the world's population.
In reality, the Covid-19 injections demonstrably involve "countermeasures" or "countermeasures" developed and produced without significant safety guarantees in case of chemical, nuclear, radiological, and nuclear attacks. Their producers, often located in the USA, are entitled to very broad immunity from civil liability under the applicable regulations there. The EMA, also acting as the executor of the malicious Covid-19 project, treated these "countermeasures" as "vaccines" in the false perception—preferred reality—created by the EMA and all defendants. They failed to further investigate these countermeasures based on so-called "Mutual Recognition Agreements" and allowed them onto the European market under a "Conditional Market Authorization." All of this was done in the full knowledge that this was not a "safe vaccine" but a highly damaging "countermeasure" that is indistinguishable from a bioweapon and is therefore a bioweapon. This course of events also explains why the producers in Europe received essentially the same civil exoneration from the executors of the global Covid-19 project as exists in the USA based on the country's countermeasures regulations. The applicants cannot yet imagine a greater and more serious global violation of human rights… [Emphasis in original]
[21.] In view of the foregoing, the applicants also argue that their application to this court should be deemed admissible, despite the prohibition on legal remedies under Article 200 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, due to a breach of essential procedural rules, as first accepted by the Supreme Court in its Enka v. Dupont judgment. The criterion for an essential procedural breach is the violation of such a fundamental legal principle that their case can no longer be considered fair and impartial. The grounds for appeal and the explanations in this application, as well as the submitted exhibits, demonstrate that this criterion is amply met…
[24.] Moreover, even if these experts were biased in the aforementioned sense – quod non – there is no legally respectable reason to exclude them. Their expert opinions, which contradict the government's Covid- 19 narrative, provide every reason to hear these experts, appointed by the court, to determine the applicants' legal position in a public trial where the respondents have the opportunity to present their own nominated (party) experts during the inquiry or to engage them to question the experts nominated by the applicants. The applicants' counsel addressed this extensively at first instance, pointing out that only a handful of qualified experts worldwide are willing to report their substantiated scientific opinion to a judicial body, contrary to the monstrosity of the "scientific consensus" emphasized by the respondents, and that precisely these experts were nominated by the applicants. An alternative is therefore not available, and the court therefore also lacks alternative experts who necessarily meet this profile to enable a meaningful preliminary expert report for determining the applicants' legal position. This requires qualified experts who do not have the approval of the respondents as executors of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. The court's entire argument is therefore aimed at nothing other than suppressing the Truth by denying the respondents the preliminary expert report they requested…
[30.] In paragraph 3.15 of the decision under appeal, the court further considers that it is unclear why the questions to be asked to expert Watt about US regulations and authorities regarding viruses, vaccines, and biological and bacteriological weapons would be relevant. However, the applicants' lawyer made it perfectly clear at the hearing that these questions are relevant to understanding how a bioweapon could be passed through regulations and imposed on the applicants under the guise of a "vaccine." The answer to this question and the expert debate on it will shed light on the truth regarding the feigned COVID-19 crisis and the official government COVID-19 narrative, which the respondents have defended against their better judgment to this day. This insight, to be provided by the experts nominated through their expert opinion, is crucial for determining the legal position of applicants who must demonstrate in a legally plausible manner that the respondents as a group intentionally committed an unlawful act, by misleading the [applicants,] as executors of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project with the aim of having them injected with Covid-19 [vaccines] – which is in reality a bioweapon…

Attorney Stassen attached a report that Sasha Latypova drafted in support of the Netherlands litigation, and a report that I drafted in support of the Netherlands litigation, to the appeal.

Latypova Affidavit - Based on my review of primary regulatory documents, leaked Pfizer’s Chemistry‑Manufacturing‑Control (CMC) files, relevant legislation in the U.S. and EU, and other publicly available documentation, it is my expert opinion that the Covid‑19 mRNA injections were deployed under military ‘medical‑countermeasure’ rules that bypassed standard pharmaceutical safeguards, rendering them legally and functionally indistinguishable from a potential bio-chemical weapon.
St. Benedict Memo - Documentation of relevant developments in relevant US federal laws. (Katherine Watt) - “As a preliminary matter, I note that there is no single, unique, distinct, determinate or stable material substance to comprise "the" Covid-19 mRNA vaccine or any single annual "formulation." Each quantity of solid, semi-solid or liquid matter, supplied to users with or
without instructions to mix the contents with liquid saline solution, may contain living organisms and sub-units from several different species of bacteria, plant, fungi and animal organisms (heterogenous organic matter), along with inorganic matter. Each component may or may not be listed in printed material accompanying the container or submitted to putative regulators. If listed, each indeterminate article of organic or inorganic
matter may or may not be listed as present in a discrete quantity, and the quantity actually present in the container may or may not correspond with the stated quantity at any given moment in time. Wide spatial and temporal variability of physical composition, and the intrinsic inaccuracy of
labeling implied by such variability, are legal: there are no US laws or regulations requiring products to be placed in containers in compliance with any physical standards or temporal stability standards, and there are no US laws or regulations requiring accurate, complete labeling or other forms of accurate, complete information disclosure.”