Gates's defence — no deception, no proof, no causal link

District Court of the Northern Netherlands

Hearing of 27 November 2024

Case number / docket number C/17/190788 / HA ZA 2023-172

Statement of defence in the matter of

William Henry Gates III, residing in Medina (United States of America), defendant sub 15, lawyer: Mr W. Heemskerk of The Hague,

versus

1. [claimant 1], residing at [redacted],

2. [claimant 2], residing at [redacted],

3. [claimant 3], residing at [redacted],

4. [claimant 4], residing at [redacted],

5. [claimant 5], residing at [redacted],

6. [claimant 6], formerly residing at [redacted],

7. [claimant 7], residing at [redacted],

claimants, lawyer: Mr A.G.W. van Kessel of Leeuwarden.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 By summons dated 14 July 2024 (hereinafter: the “Summons”), the claimants (hereinafter: “[claimant 1] et al.”) summoned Mr William Henry Gates III (hereinafter: “Gates”) to appear before your District Court. In addition to Gates, [claimant 1] et al. also summoned sixteen other parties: fifteen natural persons and one legal entity, the State of the Netherlands.

1.2 In short, [claimant 1] et al. contend that Gates and the other defendants, as a group and each individually, acted unlawfully towards [claimant 1] et al.. This unlawful conduct allegedly consisted in Gates and the other defendants intentionally misleading [claimant 1] et al. and thereby inducing them to have themselves injected with Covid-19 injections which the defendants knew, or at least ought to have known, were not safe and effective.

1.3 These allegations are incorrect. Gates did not mislead [claimant 1] et al., nor did he act unlawfully towards [claimant 1] et al. in any other way. There is no basis whatsoever for granting the claims of [claimant 1] et al.. In what follows, Gates will refute the contentions and allegations of [claimant 1] et al..

2 [CLAIMANT 1] ET AL. HAVE PLEADED (WHOLLY) INSUFFICIENT FACTS

2.1 In these proceedings [claimant 1] et al. seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants (as a group and each individually) acted unlawfully towards them by “intentionally and unlawfully misleading them and thereby inducing them to have Covid-19 injections administered which the defendants knew, or at least ought to have known, were not safe and effective”.[fn 1] Following on from that, [claimant 1] et al. claim that the defendants be ordered, jointly and severally, to pay damages, to be assessed in separate damages-assessment proceedings.[fn 2]

2.2 Gates submits at the outset that [claimant 1] et al. have pleaded wholly insufficient facts for these claims to be granted. To that end it is required (at the very least) that [claimant 1] et al. assert facts (and, if disputed, also prove them) on the basis of which the legal consequence they seek can be invoked. [claimant 1] et al. have not discharged that burden of assertion.

2.3 In order to discharge the burden of assertion resting on [claimant 1] et al., they may at any rate be expected to state, with reasons and substantiation: (1) that they had themselves vaccinated, and if so, (2) with which vaccine they were vaccinated, (3) when they did so, and (4) which (allegedly unlawful) conduct of (which) defendant(s) induced them to do so. [claimant 1] et al. have not made these essential elements of the burden of assertion resting on them plausible at all. [claimant 1] et al. have submitted no proof of vaccination showing that – let alone when –

[fn 1] Summons, petitum, under 1.

[fn 2] Summons, petitum, under 2.

they were vaccinated; they have stated nothing about which vaccine they allegedly received (and whether those were the mRNA vaccines in question which [claimant 1] et al. contend are dangerous); and they likewise leave undiscussed which conduct and statements of which defendant(s) were decisive for them personally in having themselves vaccinated, and whether that conduct and those statements in fact took place before [claimant 1] et al. had themselves vaccinated (which is a minimum requirement for the existence of a causal link).

2.4 Moreover, [claimant 1] et al. have made no substantiated assertions regarding the damage they allegedly suffered. In support of their alleged damage, [claimant 1] et al. submit only (virtually identical) doctors' statements which can by no means be regarded as neutral, objective, reliable and expert (see on this point paragraph 4.3.4). These doctors' statements must therefore be disregarded and cannot serve to substantiate the damage of [claimant 1] et al..

2.5 In this state of affairs, Gates expressly disputes that [claimant 1] et al. had themselves vaccinated, and, if they did so after all, that they did so as a result of any act of his (or of the other defendants), and that they suffered damage as a result. [claimant 1] et al. have (by a long way) not discharged the burden of assertion resting on them. For that reason alone the claims must be dismissed.

3 [CLAIMANT 1] ET AL. ADVANCE FACTUALLY INCORRECT CONTENTIONS

3.1 As regards what [claimant 1] et al. have in fact asserted, those contentions lack any factual basis. The positions taken by [claimant 1] et al. are based on nothing other than conspiracy theories, and they are a string of unfounded suggestions and speculations that run counter to the worldwide consensus on the existence of the coronavirus and the safety of the vaccines. Gates disputes everything [claimant 1] et al. have asserted, except to the extent that this statement of defence shows that Gates acknowledges its correctness.

3.2 The coronavirus and the vaccines

3.2.1 First of all, [claimant 1] et al. appear not to acknowledge that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (hereinafter: the “Coronavirus”) and the respiratory disease it causes actually exist. They are under the impression that the “narrative” based on this is part of a malicious premeditated plan to inject the world's population with a vaccine that, according to [claimant 1] et al., is unsafe (or even toxic). That is not correct. The Coronavirus exists and can cause various health complaints, the seriousness of which must not be trivialised. There is no worldwide conspiracy, and the vaccines that protect against the Coronavirus are safe and have been approved and authorised by the competent authorities.

3.2.2 That the contentions of [claimant 1] et al. are incorrect has been convincingly demonstrated by several other defendants in these proceedings. Thus, defendants sub 1 to 11, 14 and 17 have addressed in their statements of defence, among other things: (1) the existence of the Coronavirus and the scientific consensus on it, (2) the course of the coronavirus pandemic in the Netherlands, (3) government policy aimed at combating the coronavirus pandemic and the decision-making on it, and (4) the development, authorisation and safety of the mRNA coronavirus vaccines.

3.2.3 Gates adopts the contentions of the other defendants on these matters and makes them his own. These contentions must be regarded as repeated and incorporated here. In particular, Gates refers to chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the statement of defence of defendants sub 1 to 10, 14 and 17 (hereinafter: the “Statement of Defence of the State et al.”, hereby submitted by Gates as Annex 1) and chapter 3 of the statement of defence of defendant sub 11 (hereinafter: the “Statement of Defence of Bourla”, hereby submitted by Gates as Annex 2).

3.2.4 In addition, Gates considers it important to rebut explicitly two crucial inaccuracies in the Summons of [claimant 1] et al. concerning the safety of the coronavirus vaccine. These are the contentions of [claimant 1] et al. that: (1) the mRNA coronavirus vaccine contains graphene oxide,[fn 3] and (2) it follows from the Pfizer report of 30 April 2021 with no. FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054 cited by [claimant 1] et al. (hereinafter: the “Pfizer Report”) that Pfizer's mRNA coronavirus vaccine is unsafe.[fn 4] Gates disputes these contentions as follows:

(1) The mRNA coronavirus vaccines do not contain graphene oxide

3.2.5 As explained at length in the Statement of Defence of the State et al. and in the Statement of Defence of Bourla, the chemical composition of the mRNA coronavirus vaccines is public, and the published list of ingredients shows that graphene oxide is not a constituent of the mRNA coronavirus vaccine.[fn 5] The assertions to that effect on the part of [claimant 1] et al. are incorrect and insufficiently substantiated. For the rebuttal of the contentions advanced by [claimant 1] et al., Gates expressly refers to section 6.3 of the Statement of Defence of the State et al. (Annex 1) and section 3.3.3 of the Statement of Defence of Bourla (Annex 2).

(2) [claimant 1] et al. misinterpret the Pfizer Report

3.2.6 In addition, [claimant 1] et al. fundamentally misinterpret the Pfizer Report.[fn 6] On the basis of the Pfizer Report, [claimant 1] et al. argue that a clinical trial with Pfizer's mRNA vaccine was carried out in which 42,086 people took part, of whom 1,223 persons died and 11,361 persons allegedly sustained serious

[fn 3] See Summons, para. 150 et seq.

[fn 4] See, among others, Summons, paras. 42, 45, 55, 85, 99, 108 and 143.

[fn 5] See Statement of Defence of the State et al., section 6.3, and Statement of Defence of Bourla, section 3.3.3.

[fn 6] See also Statement of Defence of the State et al., paras. 6.4.1 et seq., and Statement of Defence of Bourla, paras. 88 et seq.

permanent injury. According to [claimant 1] et al., the Pfizer Report shows that the mRNA coronavirus vaccine is dangerous.

3.2.7 The Pfizer Report, however, provides no evidence of anything of the kind.

3.2.8 First, the Pfizer Report is not an account of a clinical trial but an analysis of the adverse events of the vaccine reported to Pfizer worldwide. As the Pfizer Report shows, a total of 42,086 adverse events were reported. The figures mentioned, 1,223 reported deaths and 11,361 reports of persons with serious permanent injury, must not be set against the total number of adverse events (as [claimant 1] et al. do), but against the total number of vaccines administered. It is precisely that latter number that has been blacked out in the Pfizer Report submitted by [claimant 1] et al..[fn 7] Against this background, the figures in the Pfizer Report rather confirm the safety of the vaccines than their lack of safety; according to the European Medicines Agency (hereinafter: “EMA”), more than 330 million doses of the vaccine had been administered worldwide by 29 April 2021.[fn 8]

3.2.9 Second, [claimant 1] et al. suggest that the reported adverse events are a consequence of the coronavirus vaccine, but that is incorrect. The Pfizer Report shows only that the reported adverse events occurred at a certain point after vaccination, not that they occurred because of the vaccination.[fn 9] [claimant 1] et al. evidently confuse correlation with causation. That the reported adverse events were caused by the vaccine is not supported by the Pfizer Report, nor can it be inferred from it.

3.2.10 Third, [claimant 1] et al. misrepresent specific statistical data from the Pfizer Report. For instance, [claimant 1] et al. assert, among other things, that the Pfizer Report shows that 11,361 persons suffered serious and permanent physical injury, whereas the Pfizer Report in fact states that 11,361 persons had not fully recovered during the period covered by the Pfizer Report.[fn 10] Those are two fundamentally different things. The Pfizer Report does not show that 11,361 persons (i) never recovered at all (including outside the reporting period), let alone (ii) that they were left with serious permanent injury as a result of the vaccination. This contention of [claimant 1] et al. is therefore (also) incorrect.

[fn 7] See Exhibit 40 to the Summons, section 3.1.1, p. 6: “It is estimated that approximately [blacked out] doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorization for emergency support on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”

[fn 8] See Bourla-48, EMA, Assessment report on the annual renewal of the conditional marketing authorization (Comirnaty), 2021, available at www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/variationreport/comirnaty-h-c-5735-r-0046-epar-assessment-report-renewal_en.pdf, p. 16.

[fn 9] See Bourla-49, Reuters, Pages of suspected side effects released about Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine [...], 17 March 2022: “The FDA has confirmed that "In fact, reviews by FDA and CDC have determined that the vast majority of the deaths reported are not directly attributable to the vaccines. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.", available at www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSL2N2VK1G1/.

[fn 10] See Exhibit 40 to the Summons, p. 7.

3.2.11 As is likewise concluded in the Statement of Defence of the State et al. (Annex 1) and the Statement of Defence of Bourla (Annex 2),[fn 11] it cannot be inferred from the Pfizer Report submitted by [claimant 1] et al. that the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine is dangerous. Nor is this consistent with the fact that the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine was approved by the EMA, as (again) explained at length in the Statement of Defence of the State et al. and the Statement of Defence of Bourla.

3.3 The role of Gates during the coronavirus pandemic

3.3.1 Furthermore, [claimant 1] et al. advance incorrect contentions about the role Gates allegedly played in carrying out the conspiracy they presume, which supposedly seeks to bring about a ‘Great Reset’. In summary, [claimant 1] et al. appear to contend that Gates, whether or not through legal entities or other organisations that according to [claimant 1] et al. are under Gates' control, prepared the ‘Covid-19 project’ and had it carried out worldwide by, among others, the Dutch government and the World Health Organization (hereinafter: “WHO”). There is, however, no truth in this whatsoever.

3.3.2 First, [claimant 1] et al. overlook the fact that Gates cannot be identified with the organisations with which [claimant 1] et al. associate him. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (hereinafter: the “Gates Foundation”) is, as a legal entity, a separate legal person with its own rights and obligations. The same applies to other legal entities with which [claimant 1] et al. associate Gates, such as Microsoft and Heineken, and to organisations with which the Gates Foundation cooperates, such as the public-private partnership Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (hereinafter: “Gavi”)[fn 12] or the John Hopkins Center for Health Security (hereinafter: the “John Hopkins Center”). All contentions concerning the acts and conduct of these organisations are irrelevant to the claims against Gates.

3.3.3 Second, [claimant 1] et al. contend without foundation that the Gates Foundation, together with Gavi, determines the policy of the WHO.[fn 13] That is incorrect. The WHO is part of the United Nations, and its policy is determined by the World Health Assembly: the highest decision-making body of the WHO, consisting of delegations from all member states.[fn 14] The decisions and policy of the World Health Assembly are implemented by the Executive Board of the WHO, on which 34 persons with technical qualifications in the field of health care sit.[fn 15] The Gates Foundation and Gavi are not part of the governance structure of the WHO, nor are they part of the World Health Assembly or the Executive Board of the WHO.

[fn 11] See Statement of Defence of the State et al., section 3.6, and Statement of Defence of Bourla, section 3.3.4.

[fn 12] Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the grounds of the interlocutory judgment of your District Court of 16 October 2024 state that the Gates Foundation is affiliated with Gavi and the World Economic Forum, but that requires qualification. The Gates Foundation is connected to these organisations as a partner, but has no company-law relationship with them.

[fn 13] Summons, para. 204.

[fn 14] See: https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly.

[fn 15] See: https://www.who.int/about/governance/executive-board.

3.3.4 Moreover, [claimant 1] et al. have also not demonstrated that (let alone in what way) the Gates Foundation and Gavi exert decisive influence on the WHO or other international organisations. It remains a bare assertion, which Gates disputes.

3.3.5 Third, it is incorrect that Gates has been engaged for years in preparing the so-called ‘Covid-19 project’. Gates understands the Summons to mean that [claimant 1] et al. believe this is apparent from an accumulation of various events which, according to [claimant 1] et al., are connected with one another. In essence, however, the events mentioned by [claimant 1] et al. have nothing to do with one another, and they in no way show that Gates has been engaged for years in preparing the alleged ‘Covid-19 project’. Gates explains this below.

3.3.6 First of all, [claimant 1] et al. cite two media appearances by Gates which, according to them, show that Gates knew that a coronavirus pandemic would come.[fn 16] They refer to Gates' TED talk of 3 April 2015[fn 17] and Gates' interview with Vox of 27 May 2015,[fn 18] in which, according to [claimant 1] et al., Gates was spreading fear about the arrival of the Coronavirus.

3.3.7 That Gates was already aware at that time of the coming of the Coronavirus cannot, however, be inferred from these videos and is not based on facts. In the videos mentioned, Gates warned of new pandemics by reference to historical examples, not because he had prior knowledge (which, incidentally, [claimant 1] et al. have neither asserted nor demonstrated), but because scientists and public health experts have long known that the world is vulnerable to new infectious diseases. The idea that Gates deliberately planned the Coronavirus or knew that the Coronavirus was coming rests on a misinterpretation of his call for preventive measures to be taken. His messages in the videos mentioned were intended precisely to help prevent a pandemic or to combat one as effectively as possible, not to predict or cause one.

3.3.8 In addition, [claimant 1] et al. draw incorrect conclusions from the pandemic exercises organised by the John Hopkins Center. According to [claimant 1] et al., these show that the Covid-19 project was prepared worldwide.[fn 19]

3.3.9 This too is based on misinterpretations. The pandemic exercises to which [claimant 1] et al. refer were not organised to prepare a worldwide pandemic, but to help governments and international organisations, by means of a simulation of a hypothetical situation, prepare for preventing and combating

[fn 16] Summons, paras. 206-207.

[fn 17] Exhibit 66 to the Summons.

[fn 18] Exhibit 67 to the Summons.

[fn 19] Summons, para. 214.

a possible future pandemic. These pandemic exercises were based on known scientific risks of new infectious diseases, and the insights from the simulations were shared publicly by the John Hopkins Center. Gates refers in this respect to the website of the John Hopkins Center, where this information can still be consulted.[fn 20] The fact that no information was kept secret points precisely to the intention to make the world more resilient to pandemics, not to prepare one in secret.

3.3.10 Furthermore, [claimant 1] et al. contend that the Gates Foundation commissioned Moderna and Pfizer to develop an mRNA coronavirus vaccine and that Moderna and Pfizer had been working on this since 2011, that is, well before the coronavirus pandemic.[fn 21] That, however, does not appear from the exhibits submitted by [claimant 1] et al. with the Summons. The alleged investment by the Gates Foundation to which [claimant 1] et al. refer in Exhibit 73 to the Summons relates to the development of an mRNA vaccine to prevent HIV infections and therefore has nothing to do with alleged preparations of a vaccine against the Coronavirus. Moreover, the patent application submitted by [claimant 1] et al. as Exhibit 72 to the Summons shows no involvement whatsoever of the Gates Foundation, nor of Gates personally.[fn 22] These documents lack relevance.

3.3.11 Finally, [claimant 1] et al. refer to two media appearances by Gates in which he allegedly reinforced the “official Covid-19 narrative” and in which he allegedly said that the coronavirus vaccines were safe and effective.[fn 23] According to [claimant 1] et al., this is all the more reprehensible because Gates at that time allegedly knew that the coronavirus vaccines were not safe, for which [claimant 1] et al. again refer to the Pfizer Report and contend that Gates knew that the coronavirus vaccines contained graphene oxide.[fn 24]

3.3.12 Gates fails to see how any involvement in a worldwide conspiracy could be apparent from these videos. Other than by contending that Gates knew that the coronavirus vaccines were not safe, [claimant 1] et al. do not explain this either. As regards that knowledge, however, Gates has already explained that the contentions of [claimant 1] et al. concerning the safety of the coronavirus vaccines (and more particularly concerning the Pfizer Report and the incorrect contentions about the presence of graphene oxide in the coronavirus vaccines) are not correct (quite apart from the fact that [claimant 1] et al. have also not made it plausible that Gates was personally aware of the Pfizer Report or of the chemical composition of the coronavirus vaccine).

[fn 20] See https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/clade-x-tabletop-exercise and https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/tabletop-exercises/event-201-pandemic-tabletop-exercise.

[fn 21] Summons, paras. 215-218.

[fn 22] See Statement of Defence of Bourla, para. 42, footnote 44.

[fn 23] Summons, paras. 219 and 222. Exhibits 75 and 76 to the Summons.

[fn 24] Summons, paras. 222-224.

3.3.13 [claimant 1] et al. do not contend that Gates, on the basis of other information, was aware of the lack of safety and effectiveness of the vaccines that [claimant 1] et al. presume, and they have not been able to demonstrate this either. How the two videos of 30 April and 2 December 2020 respectively provide evidence of Gates' participation in a worldwide conspiracy and of intentional deception of the public escapes Gates entirely.

3.3.14 Incidentally, Gates wishes to point out that the Gates Foundation is a foundation under American law that operates on an entirely non-profit basis with the aim of improving global health care and combating poverty. In that connection, the Gates Foundation funds various projects concerning the control of infectious diseases, including indeed projects relating to combating the Coronavirus. Contrary to what [claimant 1] et al. appear to suggest, the Gates Foundation does not operate in secret but, on the contrary, extremely transparently, among other things by publishing all its investments in an online database, by reporting regularly to the International Aid Transparancy Initiative Standard and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by publishing its audited annual reports and tax returns, and by making public the vast majority of the research the Gates Foundation funds.

3.3.15 All in all, Gates concludes that [claimant 1] et al. have in no way been able to demonstrate that Gates is part of a worldwide conspiracy that induced [claimant 1] et al. to take a coronavirus vaccine while he knew that the vaccine was not safe and not effective. The claims of [claimant 1] et al. are built on thin air and cannot succeed.

4 [CLAIMANT 1] ET AL. DO NOT ESTABLISH A SINGLE REQUIREMENT OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT (TORT)

4.1.1 Not only do [claimant 1] et al. advance factually incorrect contentions, they also fail to establish a single element of an unlawful act. The (incorrect) contentions advanced by [claimant 1] et al. do not show any intentional and unlawful misleading of [claimant 1] et al. (whether or not in a group context), nor have [claimant 1] et al. made it plausible that they suffered damage as a result of the coronavirus vaccine, let alone that this damage is causally linked to the conduct of which Gates (or the other defendants) is accused.

4.1.2 Only to the extent that the contentions of [claimant 1] et al. must be understood as being directed at derivative liability of Gates as (co-)director of the Gates Foundation, the position is that any contention concerning the liability of the Gates Foundation is lacking; nor can any liability of the Gates Foundation otherwise be assumed/established. That claim would already fail on that ground. For the rest, Gates puts forward the following defence.

4.2 No unlawful conduct by Gates

(1) No breach of Article 97a of the Dutch Criminal Code

4.2.1 Gates understands that [claimant 1] et al. accuse him of having supported and enabled the alleged interests of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (hereinafter: “WEF”) in carrying out the purported ‘Great Reset’.[fn 25] According to [claimant 1] et al., Gates thereby breached Article 97a of the Dutch Criminal Code (Sr). This, however, is impossible to follow.

4.2.2 Article 97a Sr makes it a criminal offence to seek support abroad for an unlawful change to or abolition of the order of succession to the throne, with the aim of protecting the Dutch constitutional form of government against such an upheaval.[fn 26] [claimant 1] et al., however, do not explain why there would be any threat in that regard, nor what role Gates would have played in it, nor why a breach of Article 97a Sr in this case would provide a basis for awarding damages to [claimant 1] et al., having regard to the relativity requirement of Article 6:162 DCC.

(2) No assault

4.2.3 In addition, [claimant 1] et al. contend that Gates is guilty of assault by intentionally harming the health of [claimant 1] et al.. Gates understands the allegations of [claimant 1] et al. to mean that he acted in breach of Article 300 Sr.[fn 27] That is not the case either.

4.2.4 Assault is a serious criminal offence and requires the intentional and unlawful infliction of bodily injury.[fn 28] As explained in the Statement of Defence of Bourla (Annex 2),[fn 29] the vaccines meet the statutory standards of safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality, and the purpose and effects of the vaccines have been clearly communicated to the public. There is therefore no question of intentional infliction of injury; the vaccines are safe and, insofar as Gates influenced [claimant 1] et al. at all in taking a vaccine, Gates was also entitled to assume that safety.

4.2.5 Furthermore, [claimant 1] et al. were not forced to take a vaccine, which is why there can be no question of unlawful administration of a vaccine. Insofar as [claimant 1] et al. were vaccinated, they consented to it. In general terms, therefore, there can be no question of assault.

[fn 25] Summons, paras. 58-59 and 226.

[fn 26] M.A.H. van der Woude, in: T&C Strafrecht, commentary on Article 97a Sr.

[fn 27] Summons, para. 277.

[fn 28] H.D. Wolswijk, in: T&C Strafrecht, commentary on Article 300 Sr. See also: Supreme Court (HR) 9 September 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:2677.

[fn 29] See Statement of Defence of Bourla, sections 3.2 and 3.3.2.

4.2.6 Moreover, Gates did not personally administer the vaccinations to [claimant 1] et al., so that this act cannot in any event be attributed to him.

4.2.7 Finally, as regards the claimants [redacted], it is the case that, according to the doctors' statements they submitted (Exhibit 91 to the Summons), they experienced no physical complaints whatsoever from the vaccinations. In the absence of bodily injury, there can in any event be no question of assault in their cases.

(3) No genocide

4.2.8 Furthermore, [claimant 1] et al. contend that it is “plausible” that Gates and the other defendants are guilty of a breach of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of the International Crimes Act.[fn 30] They therefore ask your District Court to investigate whether genocide has occurred. This presumption of [claimant 1] et al., however, is not explained at all and is based on nothing. Your District Court should disregard it.

(4) No conduct contrary to what is proper in society according to unwritten law

4.2.9 Finally, [claimant 1] et al. contend that Gates cooperated in carrying out the “Great Reset project and the widespread deception required for it”.[fn 31] According to [claimant 1] et al., this conduct of Gates is contrary to what is proper in society according to unwritten law.[fn 32]

4.2.10 However, there is no unlawful conduct on the part of Gates. As explained, the acts of other (international) organisations cannot be attributed to Gates. Moreover, Gates has not been guilty of misleading [claimant 1] et al.. With the media appearances to which [claimant 1] et al. refer – and on which they evidently base their allegations against Gates personally exclusively – Gates did not have the purpose of misleading the world's population, including [claimant 1] et al., into taking an unsafe and ineffective coronavirus vaccine. The messages and statements in those video messages were accurate and truthful, made precisely with the aim of informing. There is no question of deception, let alone intentional deception.

4.3 No damage

4.3.1 Furthermore, [claimant 1] et al. have not made it plausible that they suffered damage. Although, for referral to damages-assessment proceedings as referred to in Article 612 DCCP,

[fn 30] Summons, para. 281.

[fn 31] Summons, para. 286.

[fn 32] Summons, para. 286.

only the possibility of damage needs to be made plausible,[fn 33] [claimant 1] et al. do not even reach that threshold.

(1) The vaccine does not contain dangerous or toxic substances

4.3.2 In support of the plausibility of damage, [claimant 1] et al. contend that they were vaccinated with “the toxic graphene oxide”. According to them, it is therefore plausible that they experience (or will experience) permanent adverse effects from the vaccinations.[fn 34]

4.3.3 As already explained, it is incorrect that the coronavirus vaccines contain graphene oxide. The plausibility of damage can in any event not follow from that. Insofar as [claimant 1] et al. believe that other toxic or dangerous substances are present in the vaccines, they do not assert this.

(2) In this respect too, [claimant 1] et al. fail to discharge the burden of assertion resting on them

4.3.4 Furthermore, the plausibility of damage cannot follow from the doctors' statements that [claimant 1] et al. submitted as Exhibit 91 either. As explained at length in the Statement of Defence of the State et al. (Annex 1), as well as in the Statement of Defence of Bourla (Annex 2), the statements submitted are broadly identical to one another, the doctors' statements contain the personal opinions of Mr A.H. van Walraven on the coronavirus vaccinations and the government policy pursued, and the doctors' statements contain untenable conclusions as to the causal link between the complaints that allegedly occurred and the coronavirus vaccinations.

4.3.5 The doctors' statements can therefore by no means be regarded as neutral, objective, reliable or expert, and must be disregarded. All of this is explained at length in chapter 7 of the Statement of Defence of the State et al. and section 4.2.2 of the Statement of Defence of Bourla. Gates adopts these contentions and makes them his own.

4.3.6 Moreover, as regards the claimants [redacted], it is the case that they experienced no physical complaints whatsoever from the vaccinations.[fn 35] That these claimants suffered damage is therefore not plausible at all.

(3) Allegedly suffered non-material damage is not eligible for compensation

4.3.7 Finally, [claimant 1] et al. have not made it plausible that they suffered non-material damage eligible for compensation. They contend that their non-material damage consists, on the one hand, of the mental harm experienced ([claimant 1] et al.

[fn 33] See also: Supreme Court (HR) 21 April 1967, ECLI:NL:HR:1967:AB5476, NJ 1967/241, HR 22 June 1979, ECLI:NL:PHR:1979:AC6624, NJ 1979/516, HR 13 June 1980, ECLI:NL:PHR:1980:AC3099 NJ 1981/185 and subsequent case law.

[fn 34] Summons para. 265.

[fn 35] Die [sic] Exhibit 91 to the Summons.

mention feelings of pain, suffering, shame, powerlessness and uncertainty about their health), and, on the other hand, of ignorance of the precise consequences of the vaccine.[fn 36] In doing so, [claimant 1] et al. evidently invoke Article 6:106(b) DCC, but they wrongly overlook the fact that mere psychological discomfort is insufficient for an award of damages.[fn 37] [claimant 1] et al. have put forward insufficient concrete and objective data from which it can be inferred that psychological harm has arisen in their case. The doctors' statements to which [claimant 1] et al. refer are in any event not sufficient for this.

4.4 No causal link

4.4.1 Gates repeats that [claimant 1] et al. have not made it plausible that they ever had themselves vaccinated; no proof of vaccination has been submitted for any one of them. But even more importantly: they have not even asserted, let alone made plausible, that they had themselves vaccinated as a result of the videos of Gates they mention. On the contrary: [claimant 1] et al. state explicitly that, prompted by the “many public statements” of the then Minister De Jonge and the then Prime Minister Rutte, which “consisted to a large extent of press conferences on television”, they “felt called upon to have themselves injected with Covid-19 injections”.[fn 38] [addition by counsel].

4.4.2 If these public statements of the then Minister De Jonge and the then Prime Minister Rutte were what prompted [claimant 1] et al. to have themselves vaccinated, then it was quite clearly not the two videos of Gates of 30 April and 2 December 2020 respectively that induced [claimant 1] et al. to take a coronavirus vaccine. Incidentally, they do not contend the latter either, and at the hearing in Gates' jurisdiction motion, which took place on 18 September 2024, this was also explicitly denied by the lawyers of [claimant 1] et al..

4.4.3 A causal link between the conduct of which Gates is accused and having a coronavirus vaccine administered has therefore not been made plausible by [claimant 1] et al.. Bearing in mind that [claimant 1] et al. have, in addition, also not asserted with substantiation: (1) that the vaccine in general can potentially lead to the alleged damage, and (2) that the vaccine in the case of [claimant 1] et al. actually did lead to the alleged damage, the required causal link between the conduct of which Gates is accused and the alleged damage can certainly not be assumed.

4.5 No group liability

4.5.1 Finally, there is no group liability under Article 6:166 DCC. For that, [claimant 1] et al. would have had to assert with substantiation that: (1) Gates

[fn 36] Summons, para. 266.

[fn 37] Asser/Sieburgh 6-II 2021/143b

[fn 38] Summons, para. 77.

participated in (2) conduct in a group context, (3) the likelihood of which causing damage should have deterred him from participating in that group, that (4) Gates' participation can be attributed to him, and that (5) (at least) one of the participants in the unlawful group conduct caused the damage. [claimant 1] et al. have not succeeded in this.

4.5.2 The facts asserted by [claimant 1] et al. in no way show that there was conduct in a group context. As stated, [claimant 1] et al. wrongly draw all kinds of non-existent connections between events and conduct of defendants that have nothing to do with one another. None of the ‘facts’ asserted by [claimant 1] et al. actually shows that the defendants worked together in bringing about and carrying out a ‘Great Reset’. Moreover, Gates did not act unlawfully (and the same applies to the other defendants). For that reason Gates (and the other defendants as well) is not liable under Article 6:166 DCC.

5 CONCLUSION

On the basis of the foregoing, Gates moves that all the claims of [claimant 1] et al. be dismissed, with costs as provided by law.

[signature]

Lawyer

Handled by: W. Heemskerk and P.F.B. Mulder

Correspondence: P.O. Box 11756, 2502 AT The Hague

Telephone: +31 70 515 3847

E-mail: willem.heemskerk@pelsrijcken.nl

Case no.: 11020837

Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn N.V.

LIST OF ANNEXES

1 Statement of defence of the State et al. of 10 January 2024

2 Statement of defence of Bourla of 21 February 2024