Biological Weapons: The Trial of Truth #3 The Shocking Closing Argument
Genocide, transhumanism, criminal elites, the Epstein case: the lawyer brings out the heavy artillery against the architects of the Great Reset.
Essentiel News and BAM! present the French translation of attorney Peter Stassen’s closing argument in the trial accusing Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, Mark Rutte, and other officials of intentionally deploying a biological weapon known as the “COVID vaccine” against the Dutch population. This text was provided in Dutch by Attorney Stassen, and we are republishing it here with his kind permission. The translation was done by Senta Depuydt (with the help of Deepl), without any additions or adaptations, and the links and notes are those from Mr. Stassen’s original text. The video of the hearing in Dutch is available at the bottom of the article.
Amsterdam Court of Appeal
Hearing: March 9, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.
Case Number: 200.360.223/01 PS/D100816/PS
Brief - Maître P.W.H. Stassen
Regarding:
Three Dutch plaintiffs who suffered side effects from the COVID-19 vaccine
Counsel: Attorney P. (Peter) W.H. Stassen
Stassen & Kemps Attorneys
Against:
1. van Dissel, J.T.
2. Koopmans, M.P.G.
3. Rutte, M.
4. Kaag, S.A.M.
5. de Jonge, H.M.
6. Kuipers, E.J.
7. Gommers, D.A.M.P.J.
8. Hoekstra, W.B.
9. Van Nieuwenhuizen, C.
10. Sijbesma, F.
11. The Dutch State Counsel: R.W. (Reimer) Veldhuis, Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn N.V.
12. Bourla, A. Counsel: D.C. (Davine) Roessingh, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.
13. van Cann, G.J.M. Counsel: P. (Pieter) A. Lichtendahl, AC&R
14. Gates III, W.H.B. Counsel: W. (Willem) Heemskerk, Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn N.V.
15. Van der Voort-Kant, A.C. Counsel: Ekker, A.H. (Anton) Ekker Advocatuur
16. Hofstra, E.I. Counsel: Mr. R. (Reimer) W. Veldhuis Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn N.V.
17. Jansen, P.E. Counsel: Mr. P. (Pieter) A. Lichtendahl AC&R
Members of the Court,
Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Introduction
Today we are addressing a matter of global significance. This goes without saying, as my clients’ petition targets those responsible for the Covid-19: The Great Reset project, in which Covid-19 mRNA injections play a crucial role.
You can only render a balanced judgment in this case by taking into account the facts and circumstances in which the petition was filed. This is the context of the petition. A significant portion of the grievances against the first-instance decision concerns the fact that the judge did not take this context into account, or at least not sufficiently.
I will convince you in this argument that this alone constitutes a violation of the fundamental standards of a fair trial. This is so serious that it is necessary to waive the prohibition on appeals. Indeed, without this, my clients would not have access to a fair trial. The context of the case is therefore of paramount importance for assessing the admissibility of this appeal.
To help you understand the context of this case, I will first address the official narrative regarding COVID-19 and contrast it with a number of facts that are now common knowledge. I note in this regard that since the appeal was filed, a new element has also emerged, namely new facts so significant that the claim that the context of the case was not taken into account can now be substantiated by facts. I am therefore primarily of the opinion that invoking these new facts does not violate the “two conclusions” rule set forth in Article 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, I consider that the unrestricted application of the rule of two conclusions is contrary to the proper conduct of the proceedings, as this constitutes a new development.
The Defendants’ Official Narrative on COVID-19
To explain the context, allow me first to remind you of what, according to the leaders of the Covid-19 project and thus also the defendants in these proceedings, constitutes the official narrative. This narrative is readily found in Dutch legislation[1].
It is important to note that this narrative from governments and international organizations, including the UN and NATO, is the same worldwide. The only explanation for this is that the Covid-19: The Great Reset project is a global project. It is therefore a project of the globalists.
Let us return to this official narrative. According to the defendants in this case, it goes as follows: in December 2019, a new coronavirus emerged in the Wuhan region of China, initially called (novel coronavirus) 2019-nCoV and now officially known as SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus). In the Netherlands, the development of the virus was closely monitored. On January 28, 2020, on the recommendation of the Outbreak Management Team (OMT), the virus was classified as a Group A disease under the Public Health Act (Wpg), and all provisions of the Wpg applicable to Group A infectious diseases were declared applicable to the response to the virus outbreak.
That is the official account. The classification of the suspected virus as a Group A disease had significant legal consequences. First, it created a legal reporting requirement for this alleged new infectious disease. Second, it activated all the control powers provided for under the Wpg, and finally, the Minister of Medical Care became responsible for combating this alleged new disease.
In short, a health surveillance state was established, in which citizens’ fundamental rights were eroded, and the defendants continue to prolong it by invoking this official narrative.
My clients assert that this official narrative and the manner in which the defendants, as a group, promoted, imposed, and enforced this narrative, were unlawful. As a result of these unlawful acts, my clients were misled, which led them to get vaccinated against COVID-19. To this day, the defendants continue to assert that the use of these COVID-19 injections was a necessity and that these injections constitute a safe and effective vaccine against the novel COVID-19 disease, according to the official narrative.
The fact that the defendants do not contradict this narrative and continue to support it is clearly evident from the evidence I have presented in this proceeding.
My clients’ health has been severely impaired as a result of the COVID-19 injections. I consider it a miracle that they are still here today. For this reason, my clients have the right and the interest in ensuring that the honest and independent experts they have summoned to testify under oath before a judge, in the context of a trial, may be heard and questioned. This is the only way for my clients to assess their chances of success in any substantive proceedings they might initiate. The Leeuwarden court has denied them this opportunity, and I will explain why this constitutes a violation of the fundamental standards guaranteeing access to a fair trial.
Facts of Public Record
How does this official version, defended by the defendants as executors of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project, relate to the facts that are now common knowledge? I will cite a few of them that should not escape your attention, though this list is by no means exhaustive. But before that, I would like to make an important point. When I mention facts of public knowledge, these are in part “facts” that are the result of a preferred—and therefore false—reality controlled by the defendants. These are therefore, in part, lies that have been integrated into a new normal by the executors of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. I will return to this later in my explanation. I am now referring to facts that are now known to everyone because they have been acknowledged and made public by official authorities or because they are known to a broad public as established facts.
This brings me to a list of facts that are now known to everyone. The new disease allegedly caused by the coronavirus, Covid-19, has never been more dangerous than a mild flu, a fact also confirmed by Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University in California and now by the WHO itself.
The PCR test cannot detect infections, as its inventor and Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis, as well as former Pfizer Vice President Dr. Mike Yeadon, German university professor Dr. Klaus Steger, American university professor J. Jay Couey, Italian professor Gabriele Ségalla, and Canadian physicians Dr. Mark Trozzi and Dr. Roger Hodkinson, who have confirmed that the supposed dangers of the coronavirus and COVID-19 never existed, but that the public was panicked on “political orders.”
The Verwaltungsgericht Osnabrück, the Administrative Court of Osnabrück in Germany, issued a very important ruling on September 3, 2024[2]. This ruling has been published, and I have included the ECLI number in this brief. This ruling is of great importance to your court. It was issued by judges who, just like you, are judges in Europe, and you cannot ignore the facts they established in this case. In short, this case concerned the legal obligation to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or to provide proof of recovery from COVID-19 in order to work in a hospital and in certain other contact-intensive professions.
The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) had reviewed this regulation in light of the German Constitution and found it permissible. For this reason, the case brought before the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) was, in principle, inadmissible.
However, the Administrative Court declared itself competent in this case based on new facts and new perspectives. These new facts and circumstances primarily concerned the subsequent publication of the partially redacted protocols of the RKI Crisis Staff, which we refer to here as the OMT. The Administrative Court examined these minutes and concluded that the COVID-19 injections-19 did not offer the most vulnerable members of society effective protection against infection and that it was therefore already certain in 2022 that this false narrative of an effective vaccine and the resulting legal obligations in Germany for certain professionals were contrary to the fundamental rights of citizens. More importantly, the Administrative Court also noted the excessive political influence exerted by the RKI-Krisenstab. In short, it considers these to be criminal measures. The defendants in this case, including the members of the OMT, were also aware of this. In this context, it is certain that the defendants knew, at least after 2022, that there was no effective vaccine and that these were in fact political orders. Yet they continue to lie and deceive on this matter, which clearly shows that they worked together as a group on a criminal scheme.
I am bringing this decision to your attention because, although it has been published, it is not being taken into account due to the deliberate failure of the political, media, and scientific landscape controlled by the executors of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. Nor is this decision being addressed by the sham parliamentary inquiry into the coronavirus established in the Netherlands, which also refuses to acknowledge the legal proceedings initiated by my clients or the conclusions published by the experts they have presented.
The so-called “anti-coronavirus” measures have been economically destructive (particularly the lockdowns) and have resulted in death and serious “side effects” for millions of people[3].
In my note in this brief, I have already indicated that these are in fact “primary effects.” According to the findings of Professor Denis Rancourt and the pathologist and PCR test manufacturer Dr. Roger Hodkinson of Canada, there have been at least 20 million deaths worldwide and 2.4 billion “serious side effects.”
The European agency responsible for authorizing “vaccines” (EMA) has since confirmed the following in a letter dated October 18, 2023[4], in response to questions from former Member of the European Parliament Marcel de Graaff:
“… You state that, based on the authorized indications, the vaccines ‘may only be administered to individuals seeking personal protection and are not authorized for the purpose of reducing transmission or infection rates (transmission control).’ You also state that the authorized indication does not correspond to the uses promoted by pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and healthcare professionals.”
“You are absolutely correct in pointing out that COVID-19 vaccines are not authorized to prevent transmission from one person to another. The indications pertain exclusively to the protection of vaccinated individuals.
Information on COVID-19 vaccines clearly states that the vaccines are intended for active immunization to prevent COVID-19. Furthermore, the EMA’s assessment reports on vaccine authorization mention the lack of data on transmissibility…”
These, then, are the EMA’s responses.
This means that, according to the EMA, the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine could only be carried out on the basis of informed consent within the context of a doctor-patient relationship. Everything we have seen and heard in the “new normal” regarding a vaccine that was “rigorously tested,” according to former Minister De Jonge, cannot in any way be attributed to the marketing authorization granted by the EMA. By explicitly, implicitly, and subliminally confirming the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 injections over a long period, the proponents have employed the brainwashing methods developed by the former Nazi German Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels.
It is therefore now common knowledge that the official narrative on Covid-19 is false and that all campaigns urging people to “act for others” were based solely on lies. Yet the defendants persist down this path. Their court documents are crystal clear on this point, and it is therefore abundantly clear that we are dealing with professional liars.
And now, let’s move on to the new development I was referring to. You have certainly heard about the Epstein files. It’s impossible to avoid them. Without any speculation or uncertainty, the contents of these files clearly establish the following: there is a malevolent elite organized on a global scale. At the top of this elite are, in any case, several families who own the central banks and have usurped the right to create money out of thin air. They are the ones who lend this money to governments at interest and enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers. Mr. Epstein plays an important role in this network. He is the bankers’ advocate and also a very important figure within the Trilateral Commission created by the Rockefellers, another family of bankers. Mr. Epstein is a self-proclaimed transhumanist, someone who has no regard for ordinary people, unless they belong to the financial aristocracy.
At the request of his superiors, Epstein is involved in implementing the transhumanist agenda, which is largely based on the desire to exterminate the majority of the world’s population. This transhumanist agenda is a key component of the Great Reset, of which its proponents are the executors.
In 2011, Mr. Epstein had already lobbied, at Bill Gates’ request, the largest U.S. bank, JP Morgan Chase, in favor of a financial model that would allow for profit through “vaccines.”
It is important to note that a few years earlier, the WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic so that it could declare, on June 11, 2009, the false swine flu pandemic, also known as Mexican flu (H1N1 flu). It is also important to note that the WHO was created after World War II and that, starting in the 1970s—in the absence of any real pandemics—it has been increasingly funded by private entities. Private actors do not give money for no reason, but do so to make money. Bill Gates, through his foundation, takes the prize as the WHO’s largest private donor.
Neither Morgan Bank nor the Gates Foundation saw any problem with accepting Epstein’s role as an intermediary, even though they knew of his conviction for sexual abuse of minors. This entire financial model—featuring a donor-advised fund, offshore arrangements, and a bank hedge fund to quietly pocket profits—was set up well before the planned and simulated Covid-19 crisis unfolded. Of course, no doctors were involved, as the bankers, Gates, and all the other participants didn’t care at all about health. The World Bank Group, of which our Queen Máxima is the advocate for financial health, inclusion, and economic development, also played an important role. The trigger mechanism for this complex and obscure financial construct was the number of “PCR-test deaths,” which now allows you to understand why the defendants, as executors of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project, imposed the PCR test. The planned Covid-19 crisis, including a sufficient number of “PCR deaths,” was a prerequisite for enabling the anticipated financial gain and is therefore no coincidence.
The Epstein files prove that Epstein’s superiors control the institutions that are supposed to enforce law and order worldwide. In any case, Bill Gates is part of this network and plays a crucial role in it when it comes to making money from the so-called vaccines. This aligns perfectly with the statement made by Gates himself during a 2010 TED Talk[5], in which he claimed that new vaccines, healthcare, and “reproductive health services” (meaning abortion and sterilization) would reduce the global population by 10 to 15 percent. It is shocking, yet equally understandable, that none of the defendants in this case have voiced any criticism of Gates. Apparently, they are all vulnerable and cannot afford any criticism.
Today, a portion of these Epstein files—approximately three and a half million pages out of more than five million—has been made public, with numerous redactions, and these files attest to the involvement of bankers, intelligence agencies, media outlets, Hollywood figures, government officials, universities, and also numerous so-called scientists, all corruptly linked to this network and serving this transhumanist, even satanic, ideology.
A side note. In their closing arguments in response to the main proceedings—admittedly a completely separate proceeding involving other plaintiffs—the State and its co-defendants wrote the following:
“The State wishes to emphasize that the consequences of the theories set forth in the complaint are not trivial. The narrative used in these theories—that of a malevolent elite preying on the population—can ultimately undermine the democratic rule of law. It already provides a group of people with justification for online hate speech, (death) threats, and worse.”
It is therefore now common knowledge that the Dutch government is lying. The democratic rule of law is indeed being undermined by a malevolent elite that is attacking the population. This is what the Epstein files prove. The fact that the defendants deny the existence of such a malevolent elite undermines the proper functioning of a democratic rule of law. It is these blatant lies by the defendants, which are in complete contradiction with the duty of truthfulness provided for in Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that have completely misled the trial judge. There is no doubt that fundamental standards have been violated.
Let us return to the Epstein files. Several critical observations are in order in this regard.
1. The members of this elite network, now partially exposed, are not being prosecuted.
2. The members of this elite network are bound by a code of silence and deny anything of real significance.
3. Citizens are not receiving all the information regarding this elite network.
4. The information provided on a personal level about the members of this network is always too scant to draw truly irrefutable legal conclusions regarding these individuals in the context of what is known as “Pizzagate.” If you don’t know what this is, you should find out, because it’s something you need to know.
5. These Epstein files will therefore have a significant psychological impact on the global population. It will be a great disappointment for them to see that virtually no action is being taken against this elite and its accomplices.
6. This inaction is already leading to further demoralization, which, when you think about it, must be the goal of this malicious elite; otherwise, all the information would have been disclosed and hundreds, if not thousands, of arrests would have already been made.
7. This planned demoralization of the global population is already accompanied by a further erosion of trust in institutions. It cannot be otherwise.
8. As a result, many are already less reluctant to the idea of democratically legitimizing the replacement of existing institutions with new ones.
I therefore come to the question of what the Epstein files really are. They are a psychological operation aimed at enabling the continuation of the Great Reset. The argument is that if the trial judge had been aware of these facts and circumstances, he would have understood the importance of hearing the honest experts my clients presented and would have granted this request. As judges, you cannot ignore this reality.
I have already pointed out that not everything considered to be common knowledge is necessarily true. The truth must be sought, and your primary task, as judges, is to establish the actual facts and circumstances so that you may render a balanced judgment. The same applies to your assessment of the admissibility of this appeal. My task is to provide you with the facts for that purpose.
The adage from Roman law , “Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius”—Give me the facts, and I will give you the law —also applies to the assessment of the admissibility of this appeal. This implies that, in a trial, it is up to the parties to present and prove the facts and thus define the scope of the dispute on which the judge must rule. You must therefore take into account the facts I present in your judgment.
Expert Evidence and Its Significance
The context of the claim should now be clear to you.
I now turn to the necessary elaboration to make you aware of the actual facts, which are essential to a fair trial. The actual facts do not fundamentally differ from what I clearly set forth at the trial court level. We are witnessing the greatest genocide of the world’s population ever seen. This is a key component of the Covid-19 program, of which the defendants are the executors.
To delve deeper into this analysis, you need the findings of genuine experts, independent of those implementing the Covid-19 Great Reset program. All suggestions by the defendants regarding the experts proposed by my clients must therefore be immediately rejected. Given the context of this case, it cannot be otherwise.
In this context, you cannot ignore the findings of the experts proposed by my clients. Their motivation is clearly not money, fame, or power, but a love of truth. Truth is the motivation and the field of inquiry of the true scientist. That is why some of them have come to this courtroom today at their own expense, and you would do well to ask them questions if anything seems unclear to you in the video messages and reports they have sent you. You have, of course, read the reports and watched the videos, but I would like to explain some important points that emerge from them.
Statement by Joseph Sansone
I will begin with Joseph Sansone’s statement. It is based on an affidavit by the late Professor Francis Boyle, who established and concluded the following. Professor Boyle is the foremost authority on biological weapons legislation. He knew better than anyone that the Covid-19 mRNA injection is a biological weapon. He also made this known loud and clear to the whole world, after which he passed away in good health shortly after agreeing to testify under oath before the court in Leeuwarden.
Professor Boyle’s argument is based primarily on the fact that Covid-19 mRNA injections contain derivatives derived from illegal military gain-of-function research. As a result, Covid-19 injections are by definition classified as a military biological weapons system, i.e., a biological weapon. This biological weapon consists of two integrated components: the pathogenic payload and the delivery mechanism.
There is no doubt that the pathogen payload is the product of illegal gain-of-function research. In this regard, Boyle refers to an article published in the scientific journal “Nature Medicine,” a link to which I have included in this paper[6]. When you open this link, you will immediately read the warning that “real scientists” “believe” that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. You then immediately understand that what are called “real scientists” in the new normal are not scientists, but religious fanatics. It is these scientists behind whom the defenders are hiding.
The Nature Medicine article cited by Boyle was published in 2015. Its title is: “A group of coronaviruses circulating in bats, similar to SARS, has the potential to infect humans.” I’ll share with you what the abstract of this study included in the article tells us. It says: “Based on these results, we synthetically developed a fully infectious SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrated robust viral replication, both in vitro and in vivo.” It is written here: “We, the researchers, have created an SARS-like coronavirus with a spike protein optimized for human infection.” I can’t give a better example of illegal gain-of-function research. And who wrote this 2015 paper? Among others, researchers affiliated with UNC Chapel Hill and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Wuhan? Yes, Wuhan! You know, the place where, according to the official narrative, people were dropping dead in the streets when COVID-19 broke out because a bat had mutated there.
The Spike protein, the pathogenic payload of the biological weapon, is the result of this research. It is therefore not a natural Spike protein, but a synthetic pathogen developed illegally and optimized to infect humans. The mRNA Spike protein, which contains the instructions enabling human cells to produce precisely this pathogenic Spike protein, is one of the two essential components of the Covid-19 biological weapon.
Let’s now turn to the delivery system, the NLP. You know, the lipid nanoparticles that encapsulate the mRNA payload and deliver it inside cells. The propaganda term used to describe them is “fat globules,” as if they were something as innocent as a stick of butter. What did Boyle say about this? Boyle stated that it was actually an enhanced delivery platform made possible by nanotechnology. As Boyle explained, this technology was paid for, developed, funded, and designed by the Pentagon and its research institute, DARPA[7].
This nanotechnology platform was not incidental. Dr. Boyle points out that the virus itself was atomized and treated with nanotechnology from the very beginning. This indicates a long-term program focused on the application of advanced delivery systems. This technology was used in the COVID-19 injections. Boyle found that the NLP delivery system used in the injections is the result of a specific, military-funded program aimed at developing nanotechnological biological weapons.
In Sansone’s presentation, you can read further about the legal implications. It also provides a well-reasoned explanation of why Gates and Bourla can be considered suspects in crimes against humanity as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Statement by Sasha Latypova
Sasha Latypova has a very impressive resume that shows she knows better than anyone the procedures and formal requirements in the field of drug development. This resume is part of the case file in this matter.
Latypova informs you that the technique used in mRNA injections against COVID-19 is officially recognized as a “dual-use technology.” This is a technology that can be used for medical purposes but is also highly suitable for the manufacture of a biological weapon.
She informs you that as early as 1997, U.S. defense advisors classified mRNA-based gene therapy platforms and NLP as technologies that could be used as biological weapons.
Latypova explains that even fragmented RNA disrupts the host’s gene expression, even without coding for specific proteins. The officially permitted amount of DNA debris in Covid-19 mRNA injections is therefore particularly concerning.
Latypova also informs us that Covid-19 was not a public health incident, but a secret global military operation. In the United States, a state of emergency was declared on February 4, 2020, under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). The PREP Act provides for a state of emergency in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear military emergency. This state of emergency was therefore declared in the United States on February 4, 2020, and will remain in effect at least until December 31, 2029.
When a product is classified as a “countermeasure,” all laws and regulations related to consumer safety, including manufacturer liability, are suspended. This category of products may only be distributed in the event of a declared state of emergency related to a biochemical or nuclear war or an act of terrorism.
The emergency use authorization procedure for countermeasures may be used in the United States only if the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services declares a state of emergency based on a recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration, the European equivalent of which is the EMA.
Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) exempts “countermeasures” from pharmaceutical regulations and informed consent requirements for administration. This applies as long as the state of emergency is in effect, that is, at least until December 31, 2029, in the United States. But you can see that the situation is exactly the same here in the Netherlands. On the day I filed my appeal, a new COVID-19 vaccination campaign was launched, in which the public was urged to participate en masse.
Under this legal framework of a state of emergency, compliance with pharmaceutical legislation is voluntary and not mandatory. This effectively results in a situation of anarchy. Latypova draws your attention to the fact that misleading representations regarding the safety, efficacy, or content of products granted emergency use authorization are permitted under U.S. federal law. Similar exceptions to the law have been invoked in EU member states. European Regulation 2016/369 on emergency aid (as amended in 2020) authorizes the European Commission to completely suspend current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) standards during a declared emergency.
This suspension is effectively implemented in Europe through supply agreements with pharmaceutical companies. These agreements fully exempt pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, from any liability for injuries or deaths resulting from a dangerous product, except in cases of “willful misconduct” as strictly defined. It is no coincidence that European supply contracts are similar to the provisions of the U.S. PREP Act in this regard. The mutual recognition agreement between the FDA and the EMA (fully in effect since July 2019) allows qualified persons in the EU to blindly accept data from U.S. batches. Consequently, statements from EU member state health authorities or manufacturers cannot be considered reliable sources of information.
In her contribution, Latypova also explains that, although the FDA granted a Biologics License Application (BLA) to Pfizer’s COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in August 2021, this was contrary to U.S. legislation on marketing authorizations for biological products and to international legislation on clinical trials on human subjects. COVID-19 mRNA injections brought to market via the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) procedure without research cannot officially obtain a BLA license without first demonstrating that these injections fully comply with the research standards required for a BLA license. Yet, what is legally impossible has happened, demonstrating just how widespread corruption is among the highest-ranking and most powerful regulators. A formal request from Children’s Health Defense to revoke the BLA and reclassify Pfizer’s product as an EUA is currently under review by the FDA[8].
Similar emergency laws have come into effect in the European Union. In this context, EU officials and other public authorities have entered into abusive contracts with Pfizer and other manufacturers for the supply of COVID-19 vaccines. In doing so, all consumer safety rules and import and export laws have been circumvented.
The key relevant statements and the timeline of events in the European Union and the Netherlands are described in detail in Latypova’s documents. I have attached these documents as an appendix to my appeal.
All mRNA vaccines against COVID-19, presented as “safe and effective,” were ordered and funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) as “prototypes” and “large-scale production demonstrations.” The U.S. Department of Defense and NATO oversaw the development, production, and global distribution of all so-called COVID-19 treatments.
The COVID-19 injections were brought to market in December 2020 as “Emergency Use Authorization countermeasures.” This regulatory framework has nothing to do with the standard regulations applicable to pharmaceutical products. When a product is classified as a “countermeasure,” all laws and regulations regarding consumer safety, including manufacturer liability, are suspended. This category of products may only be distributed in the event of a declared state of emergency related to a biochemical or nuclear war or an act of terrorism.
The emergency use authorization procedure for countermeasures can only be used in the United States if the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services declares a state of emergency based on a recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration, the European equivalent of which is the EMA.
Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) exempts “countermeasures” from pharmaceutical regulations and informed consent requirements for administration. This applies as long as the state of emergency is in effect, that is, at least until December 31, 2029, in the United States. But you can see that the situation is exactly the same here in the Netherlands. On the day I filed my appeal, a new COVID-19 vaccination campaign was launched, in which the public was urged to participate en masse.
Under this legal framework of a state of emergency, compliance with pharmaceutical legislation is voluntary and not mandatory. This effectively results in a state of anarchy. Latypova draws your attention to the fact that misleading representations regarding the safety, efficacy, or content of products granted emergency use authorization are permitted under U.S. federal law. Similar exceptions to the law have been invoked in EU member states. European Regulation 2016/369 on emergency aid (as amended in 2020) authorizes the European Commission to completely suspend current current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) standards during a declared emergency.
This suspension is effectively implemented in Europe through supply agreements entered into with pharmaceutical companies. These agreements fully exempt pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, from any liability for injuries or deaths resulting from a dangerous product, except in cases of “willful misconduct” as strictly defined. It is no coincidence that European supply contracts are similar to the provisions of the U.S. PREP Act in this regard. The mutual recognition agreement between the FDA and the EMA (fully in effect since July 2019) allows qualified persons in the EU to blindly accept data from U.S. batches. Consequently, statements by health authorities in EU member states or by manufacturers cannot be considered reliable sources of information.
In her contribution, Latypova also explains that, although the FDA granted a Biologics License Application (BLA) in August 2021 for Pfizer’s Covid-19 mRNA injection, this was contrary to U.S. legislation on marketing authorizations for biological drugs and to international legislation regarding clinical trials on human subjects. COVID-19 mRNA injections brought to market via the non-experimental Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) procedure cannot officially obtain a BLA license without first demonstrating that these injections fully comply with the experimental standards required for a BLA license. Yet what is legally impossible has occurred, demonstrating just how widespread corruption is among the highest and most powerful regulatory authorities. A formal request by the Children’s Health Defense organization to revoke the BLA and reclassify Pfizer’s product as an EUA is currently under review by the FDA[9].
Latypova concludes that the defendants misleadingly promoted the COVID-19 injections under a false medical label as safe prophylactic vaccines against COVID-19. The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and related public health legislation served as a convincing cover—a legal charade—while the actual regime in force was and remains the legislation on chemical and biological warfare and the accompanying emergency exemptions.
Latypova notes that the Dutch government and authorities relied on regulatory data and decisions from the FDA and were therefore aware of the ins and outs of the matter. The intentional nature of their illegal actions is thus established.
Katherine Watt, Mike Yeadon, and Catherine Austin Fitts
I cannot overlook the informed opinions of Katherine Watt, Mike Yeadon, and Catherine Austin Fitts. Given the time allotted to me and the lengthy introduction I have provided to draw your attention, I am compelled to explain their equally important statements even more concisely.
Katherine Watt informs you that anyone who has received a “vaccine”—whatever it may be—has been poisoned. The injection into the bloodstream of foreign substances present in all vaccines is, by definition, toxic and makes people susceptible to allergies, cancer, and autoimmune diseases. She outlines all relevant laws and regulations, and her conclusion clearly shows that we are being massively deceived by legislative and regulatory bodies in the pharmaceutical sector, and particularly by the pharmaceutical companies that produce and sell vaccines.
Mike Yeadon, a renowned scientist who held a senior position at Pfizer, is the most qualified person in the world to analyze the design of a medical product and has seen the components of the Covid-19 biological weapon for what they are. His statement on the malicious design of the Covid-19 mRNA injections leaves no room for doubt.
Catherine Austin Fitts, a former high-ranking advisor to the Bush Sr. administration and an insider in the banking system, has explained to you in clear terms how the global economic and political playing field is controlled by a cabal of criminals she refers to as “Mr. Global.” She places the Covid-19 injections within this reality.
The statements from all the experts presented by my clients help prove that the defendants’ official narrative is malicious and false, and that the defendants in this proceeding, as the group executing the Covid-19: The Great Reset project, are acting deliberately in an unlawful manner.
Closing and Conclusion
I conclude. Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that the parties are required to present the facts relevant to the decision in a complete and truthful manner. Everything you now know shows that the defendants in the first instance violated the duty of truthfulness provided for in Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the sole purpose of concealing the truth so that crimes against humanity could continue unhindered. They have thus violated the most fundamental standard of a fair trial. This undoubtedly justifies a very thorough examination of the admissibility of this appeal as well as a waiver of the prohibition on appeals.
Thank you for your attention.
Counsel, Mr. P. (Peter) W.H. Stassen
Resources:
- Video recording of the hearing, in Dutch:
The entire trial against the Covid-19 “The Great Reset” Project - Press conference in English (introduction in Dutch) of the Covid-19 Project “The Great Reset” - Recht Oprecht:
Press Conference of The Covid 19 Project The Great Reset - Recht Oprecht - Sasha Latypova: The Amsterdam Report, Part 2: English transcript of the March 9, 2026 court hearing (version corrected/approved by Peter Stassen)
Check out episodes 1 and 2 of our series:
- Biological Weapons: The Truth Trial #1 The Issues
- Interview with Sasha Latypova:
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS? THE TRUTH TRIAL?* #2 COVID VACCINES
Coming soon:
- Interview with Attorney Stassen after the hearing,
- Interview with Joseph Sansone, expert appointed by the plaintiffs
Following up on our series of articles about the ongoing court case in the Netherlands seeking to determine whether COVID injections constitute a biological weapon, our media partner Essentiel News has provided French subtitles for the 14-minute video testimony produced by Catherine Austin Fitts on behalf of the plaintiffs. This testimony is crucial because it explains the alleged motive for producing such a biological weapon:
Catherine A. Fitts explains why the government would seek to reduce life expectancy
[1] See, for example, the temporary provisions regarding longer-term measures to combat the Covid-19 epidemic (Temporary Act on Covid-19 Measures).
[2] ECLI: DE: 2024:0919.3A224.22.00
[3] As will be discussed below: main effects.
[4] https://perma.cc/YRR2-6TU5
[5] Innovating to zero! | Bill Gates
[6] A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence | Nature Medicine
[7] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)