The claimants' filings · On the timeline
Letter
22 Jan 2026
22 Jan 2026
200.360.223/01 · Court of Appeal (Amsterdam)
Claimants' lawyer asks Amsterdam court for time, experts, livestream
Claimants (Stassen), for the three appellants
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
Stassen's email to the Court of Appeal setting out procedural requests for the 9 March hearing. It shows how the claimants wanted the admissibility hearing to become a hearing on the whole context of their case.
Cheat sheet
- Asks for at least one hour of speaking time instead of the standard 10 minutes, citing four defence statements to answer.
- Argues admissibility cannot be judged apart from the context, which he describes as the claimants' biological-weapon and 'Great Reset' arguments.
- Asks to bring the five nominated experts, with an online link for any who cannot travel and an interpreter.
- Asks the court to film the whole hearing, livestream it and share the recording, and to exempt non-accredited press from the press guideline.
- Accuses the judiciary-accredited press of contributing to 'censorship' of the main case; the defendants deny all of the claimants' allegations.
Key passages · underlined
Given the number, scope, and content of these statements of defense, the maximum speaking time of 10 minutes in the first round provided for in the procedural rules is insufficient.
The appellants request your court to allow them to bring the proposed witnesses/experts Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, Michael Yeadon, Joseph Sansone, and Catherine Austin Fitts to the hearing so that they can be heard by your court
The appellants request that your court record the oral hearing in its entirety using audio and video in the courtroom and broadcast it via livestream, as well as provide the recording to the (lawyers of) the interested parties.
The revised press guideline does not come from the King and is not a law.
Every defendant denies the claims, and the court has not ruled on them. Allegations are the claimants' pleaded positions, quoted as theirs. This is analysis and commentary, not legal advice. Interest of Justice is not a party to the case.