Expert & witness evidence · On the timeline
7 Dec 2025
Statements filed for the claimants
Expert video statements sent to both courts
Claimants' nominated experts (filed by Stassen)
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
Short recorded statements by the claimants' nominated experts, plus Stassen's own video and Watt's written answers to a reporter. The claimants filed them with the Leeuwarden court and the Amsterdam appeal court on 7 December 2025 after both refused to hear the experts live.
Cheat sheet
- Latypova says the injections were run under military 'countermeasure' rules that bypass drug law; she calls them 'indistinguishable from weapons'.
- Yeadon, a former Pfizer research head, claims there was no pandemic and that the products were designed to harm; defendants deny this.
- Sansone, a psychotherapist, vouches for an affidavit by the late law professor Francis Boyle supporting the biological-weapon argument.
- Fitts, a former US housing official, links the pandemic response to finance — a 'Going Direct' reset and missing federal money.
- Stassen's video summarises both cases and says he told the July 2025 judge she would have 'blood on her hands' if she refused.
- Watt tells Children's Health Defense that live testimony allows cross-examination that written statements do not.
Key passages · underlined
In my expert opinion, the Covid 19 injections as deployed are indistinguishable from weapons. They are deployed under international legal frameworks for military medical countermeasures.
The first one to know which is shocking if you don't know this is, is there was no pandemic. There was no new illness called COVID 19.
I certify the authenticity of Dr. Francis Boyle's affidavit as well as his intention to testify in this case that the COVID injections and mRNA injections are biological weapons
it was pretty clear to me that much of the pandemic was essentially designed to implement the reset and, using health policy as an excuse.
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.