The claimants' filings · On the timeline
7 Mar 2025
C/17/199273 · Request for provisional evidence, Leeuwarden
Three applicants ask the court to hear five experts under oath
Three applicants (Stassen & van Kessel)
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
A separate petition by three other people who say they were harmed by Covid-19 injections. They asked the Leeuwarden court for provisional evidence (hearing evidence before a case), to question five experts under oath before deciding whether to join the main case or sue.
Cheat sheet
- The three applicants are not the main-case claimants; they say they may intervene in the main case or bring their own claim.
- They named five experts — Catherine Austin Fitts, Mike Yeadon, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt and Joseph Sansone.
- Proposed questions cover the Great Reset, whether Covid-19 exists, vaccine safety, and the applicants' biological-weapon argument.
- The applicants cite the death of Francis Boyle on 30 January 2025 as a reason to secure evidence quickly.
- The cover letter says the applicants lack the scientific standing to prove their own findings, so they need the experts.
- The petition is against the same 17 defendants as the main case.
Key passages · underlined
This case focuses on the claimants' position that Covid-19 is not a disease but a project, namely Covid-19: the Great Reset.
Hearing these experts under oath is a necessity for the evidence provided by the applicants because these experts can also be regarded as witnesses and their relevant factual knowledge also (partly) consists of their observations as witnesses.
Within three weeks of his written agreement to make a statement in these proceedings, he suddenly died on 30 January 2025.
However, the applicants do not have the knowledge, experience and scientific standing to put sufficient weight on the legal scale with their own findings in order to be able to assess their evidentiary position and arrive at a balanced legal judgment.
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.