Skip to content
Interest of JusticeThe Leeuwarden Files

The claimants' filings · On the timeline

Filing
6 Dec 2024

C/17/190788 · District Court of the Northern Netherlands, Leeuwarden

Claimants file vaccination records and try to widen their claim

Claimants (Stassen / Van Kessel)

Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled

In 30 seconds

A three-part filing for the 11 December 2024 court date — the claimants hand in their vaccination certificates, try to amend (widen) their claim to cover conduct after the July 2023 summons, and ask for a preliminary hearing. The court refused the filing at this stage, but later let it back in with the reply.

Cheat sheet

  1. The claimants file their Covid-19 vaccination certificates and ask that they be treated as confidential under the GDPR.
  2. They say the RIVM deleted their vaccination data from the 'Mijn RIVM' portal, and suggest this may apply to the whole population.
  3. The amended claim asks the court to declare the defendants acted unlawfully right up to the final judgment, including by staying silent.
  4. The claimants argue that simply filing defences that uphold the official account was itself further misleading conduct.
  5. They announce evidence from Francis Boyle and Michael Yeadon to support the claimants' biological-weapon argument.
  6. They ask for a planning hearing on handling each group of defendants, sworn expert witnesses and independent media access.

Key passages · underlined

upon checking their Covid-19 mRNA vaccination certificates via ‘Mijn RIVM’, it has become apparent that the RIVM has deleted all the claimants’ Covid-19 mRNA vaccination data.
Why it matters A concrete factual allegation against the public health institute about the claimants' own records. The defendants later point to gaps and date mismatches in the certificates.Page 4 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
By merely submitting their statements of defence, in which the defendants consistently upheld the false narrative, the defendants acted in a further misleading and unlawful manner.
Why it matters An unusual legal move — the claimants treat the defendants' own court defences as a fresh wrong. This is the basis for stretching the claim up to the final judgment.Page 4 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
including those by Professor Dr Francis Boyle, which show that the Covid-19 injections qualify as biological weapons in the legal sense.
Why it matters The first time the claimants name the experts behind their biological-weapon argument. That argument drives the later fight over hearing experts under oath.Page 7 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
d. Allowing independent media access to all public oral hearings and to all examinations of national and international expert witnesses;
Why it matters The start of the claimants' push for public and media access to the hearings, an issue the court returns to in November 2025.Page 8 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy

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.

Keep this library open

Free to read, for good. Not free for IoJ to host.

Every document here was gathered, translated and checked by hand, and the whole record stays online for history, whatever happens to other sites. Interest of Justice is reader-funded, with no corporate or pharmaceutical money. If this library helped you, help keep it open.

Keep it openFollow to the judgment