Five requests to the court, including the OMT recordings

By e-mail

Roladministratie.handel.rb.leeuwarden@rechtspraak.nl

District Court of the Northern Netherlands

Commercial/Civil Division

For the attention of the docket judge

LEEUWARDEN

With a copy to: willem.heemskerk@pelsrijcken.nl, andrey.birg@debrauw.com, davine.roessingh@debrauw.com, kloosterboer@ekker.legal, marieke.bredenoord@debrauw.com, nicole.vantriet@debrauw.com, niek.vonk@debrauw.com, reimer.veldhuis@pelsrijcken.nl, procesondersteuning@imcarf.nl, rol@pelsrijcken.nl, tim.vandenmeijdenberg@debrauw.com

Re: [redacted] et al. / The State et al. Your ref.: C/17/190788 / HA ZA 2023-172

Our ref.: D100607

E-mail: stassen@uwadvocaten.nl & a.vankessel@ivka.nl

Eindhoven, 14 May 2024

Your Honour,

With reference to the interlocutory judgment of 1 May 2024, the trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. request you as follows.

(I) Request under Article 31 DCCP

An obvious clerical error has crept into the judgment as regards the listing and designation of the parties. The parties to the interlocutory proceedings are, after all, exclusively Gates as claimant in the interlocutory proceedings and [redacted] et al.[fn 1] as defendants in the interlocutory proceedings. Moreover, the designation of the parties in the judgment includes a ‘Sigrid Agnes Maria Kant’, whereas no person of that name is taking part in the proceedings.

In view of this obvious clerical error, [redacted] et al. request your court to correct the interlocutory judgment and to designate only Gates as claimant in the interlocutory proceedings and [redacted] et al. as defendants in the interlocutory proceedings.

[fn 1] In view of the death of [redacted], the deliberation that followed in connection with it, and the fact that after this deliberation the trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. requested by deed dated 10 January 2024 that the proceedings be suspended with respect to [redacted] as of 10 January 2024, the trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. understand by [redacted] et al.: [the remainder of this footnote is not in the redacted copy]

Page 2 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

In the context of this request, [redacted] et al. point out that this is an obvious clerical error, or at least an (other) obvious mistake, that lends itself to simple correction. Although, strictly speaking, [redacted] et al. need not assert any procedural interest for this request, they submit that this interest lies in the interest of the rule of law in the due conduct of proceedings. This is a case of great public importance that is attracting worldwide attention because of the far-reaching implications of the important contentions in these proceedings disputed by the defendants in the main action, including the contentions that Covid-19 is not a disease but a project in the context of Covid-19: The Great Reset, and that the injections were not safe and effective. Obvious clerical errors in the judgment may lead to (further) confusion in the public Covid-19 debate.

(II) Request under Article 358(4) DCCP

[redacted] et al. request your court, under Article 358(4) DCCP, to open the interlocutory judgment of 1 May 2024 to interim appeal. The following is relevant in this connection.

On 21 February 2024 Gates filed his interlocutory statement. The case was then placed on the cause list for a response in these interlocutory proceedings on the part of [redacted] et al. Initially that was for the cause list of 6 March 2024 and, after an extension was granted, the response of [redacted] et al. was on the cause list of 20 March 2024. This statement of defence was sent to your court and the other parties well in advance. On 19 March 2024 Gates's trial lawyer sent your court an e-mail. The request in this e-mail read as follows:

‘May I ask you, on the basis of Article 87(1) DCCP, to order an oral hearing in the interlocutory proceedings, or at least, on the basis of Article 87(8) DCCP, to give the parties the opportunity to set out their position orally at a hearing’

In support of this request, Gates's lawyer rightly referred to the right to oral argument. By referring to Articles 87(1) DCCP (oral hearing) and 87(8) DCCP (the rule that if no oral hearing has taken place, the court, before deciding the case, gives the parties, at their request, the opportunity to set out their position orally), Gates's lawyer made clear that an oral hearing, or at least the opportunity to set out the positions orally, was being requested.

Page 3 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

The letter of Gates's lawyer was processed on the cause list with cause-list date 20 March 2024. It was noted on the cause list that [redacted] et al. could respond to Gates's request on the cause list of 27 March 2024. The trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. gave their response on the cause list of 27 March 2024 and unmistakably indicated that, making use of their right to oral argument, they would wish to argue the case, possibly with the aid of audiovisual means; that, with a view to the oral argument to be held, they wished to submit additional exhibits; and that they requested the court to have the oral argument take place before the three-judge chamber of your court with a first round of speaking of three hours and a second round of speaking of one hour. Taking that into account, there was no objection whatsoever to an oral hearing, as a proper reading of the letter of 27 March 2024 shows.

The interest in oral argument, the speaking time requested and the hearing before the three-judge chamber were substantiated in the letter of 27 March 2024 by pointing to the particular fact that the parties' contentions are diametrically opposed in a way that is not possible within one and the same reality.

The interlocutory judgment completely disregarded the fact that both Gates and [redacted] et al. requested to set out their positions orally, and the request of [redacted] et al. to be allowed to argue the case was not even mentioned, nor was it decided upon. The judgment merely allowed an oral hearing, with the admonition addressed to the parties that the speaking time for the parties would be a maximum of half an hour and that extensive oral and written submissions would not be permitted. According to this decision of your court, the hearing may take only one and a half hours in total.

It is further relevant in this regard that [redacted] et al. must also have the opportunity at a hearing to address your court personally and to explain their position in their own words. The trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. have understood from their clients that this is their express wish, all the more so since a number of them have suffered such physical and psychological injury as a result of the Covid-19 injections that they are taking into account that they will die prematurely and will not live to see the end of these court proceedings.

[redacted] et al. are of the opinion that the formal course of events described above is contrary to the due conduct of proceedings and to the requirements of

Page 4 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

Article 6 ECHR. De facto, this judgment gives [redacted] et al. no opportunity, as requested by them, to make use of their right to set out their positions orally. In view of the nature and content of the case, that cannot be done within half an hour. It is relevant in this regard that the answer to the question whether your court has jurisdiction depends solely on the answer to the question whether Gates committed an unlawful act in the Netherlands. An oral explanation of the position of [redacted] et al. on this deserves much more than half an hour of speaking time. In this way there can be no question of the due conduct of proceedings and a fair trial.

In view of the foregoing, [redacted] et al. wish to be able to lodge an appeal against your judgment of 1 May 2024 already at this stage of the proceedings. If [redacted] et al. could only lodge an appeal against it at the same time as the final judgment in the interlocutory proceedings, that would mean a serious violation of their right to explain their positions orally with due observance of the requirements of the due conduct of proceedings. Moreover, in the opinion of [redacted] et al., your court would thereby show partiality. In connection with the latter, [redacted] et al. further note that this would also constitute a ground for recusal.

(III) Request under Article 21 DCCP and Article 843a DCCP

The declaratory judgment claimed by [redacted] et al. that ‘the defendants in the main action, as a group and each individually, acted unlawfully towards the claimants by intentionally and unlawfully misleading them and thereby inducing them to have Covid-19 injections administered which the claimants knew, or at least ought to have known, were not safe and effective’ is of inestimable public importance. All the more so in view of the content and significance of the evidence for the contentions of [redacted] et al. set out and explained in the summons. Since the summons was served, too, much new evidence for these contentions has come to light, which cannot have escaped your court's notice.

In explanation of the request to be formulated below, [redacted] et al. point in particular to the following.

By order of the German court, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) in Berlin, documents (‘Protokolle’) of the ‘RKI-Krisenstabs’ from January 2020 to April 2021 were very recently released.

Page 5 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

During the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, the RKI-Krisenstabs functioned in a manner comparable to the OMT. Unlike in the Netherlands, there is now in Germany (some) insight into what was discussed during meetings comparable to the OMT meetings. In Germany, the meetings were recorded by means of written minutes drawn up afterwards. In the Netherlands, the OMT meetings were initially recorded for this purpose with sound equipment. The State has a limited number of these recordings at its disposal.

In the Netherlands, there is no publicly accessible, verifiable source information on the actual conduct of the OMT. Kuipers, by letter to the House of Representatives of 19 October 2022[fn 2], stated – in brief – that he would not release this information, invoking the interest of the State. Kuipers does not say what that interest of the State might be. In Germany, the German court has now held in a comparable case that this interest does not exist.

The aforementioned German protocols of the RKI-Krisenstabs are the subject of debate in the German mass media[fn 3] and can be requested via the internet[fn 4]. At present, a number of passages in them are still blacked out, which is the subject of further court proceedings.

Some important quotations from these documents are the following.

[fn 2] https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-b09a2675d060063336224c9c79207853f96f8de7/pdf

[fn 3] See for example: https://www.nordkurier.de/politik/geschwaerzte-rki-files-vermehrtes-auftreten-von-nebenwirkungen-2387877?trk=public_post_comment-text

[fn 4] https://my.hidrive.com/share/2-hpbu3.3u#$/

Page 6 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

Quotation from the RKI protocol of 16 December 2020:

[quoted passage reproduced as an image in the original; not present in the extracted text]

This shows that within the RKI the view prevailed that the consequences of the lockdowns were in part more harmful than the consequences of the Covid-19 virus assumed by the RKI.

Quotation from the RKI protocol of 30 October 2020:

[quoted passage reproduced as an image in the original; not present in the extracted text]

Page 7 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

This shows that it was the RKI's view that the wearing of face masks by ordinary citizens was not to be recommended.

A reading of the Protokolle shows that there was no contradiction worth mentioning at the meetings. This can be explained by the fact that renowned scientists with a fundamentally different view did not take part in the meetings and that their known scientific opinion was at no point the subject of scientific debate at these meetings. Well-known, renowned scientists with a fundamentally different scientific view have, however, certainly spoken out clearly and addressed their colleagues in doing so. One may think here of, among others, Professor Dr Pierre Capel (Professor of Immunology), Professor Dr Theo Schetters (biologist), Professor Dr Sucharit Bahkdi (microbiologist) and Dr Peter Borger (molecular biologist).

[redacted] et al. note that the defendants in the main action, and in particular the State of the Netherlands, are not putting forward all the facts fully and truthfully in these proceedings. For example, the State of the Netherlands makes no mention of the content of the OMT recordings it has at its disposal. This is, however, of great procedural and public importance for the assessment of the claim of [redacted] et al. In view of the claims of [redacted] et al. and all the evidence used by [redacted] et al., [redacted] et al. have a legitimate interest in being able to take note of the content of the OMT recordings which Kuipers has indicated the State of the

Page 8 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

Netherlands has at its disposal. This therefore concerns the OMT recordings which Kuipers, in his letter of 19 October 2022, indicates that he or the State has at his disposal. These recordings relate to a legal relationship to which [redacted] et al. are a party, since they are victims of the unlawful act committed against them by the defendants in the main action.

In view of the foregoing, [redacted] et al. request your court to order the State of the Netherlands to introduce all still existing recordings referred to in Kuipers's letter of 19 October 2022 into the proceedings in the main action without delay and in their entirety – without any censorship – so that the court and the parties can take note of them and the court can, partly on the basis of these recordings, conduct a thorough investigation of the facts before reaching a decision.

(IV) Request to the court and/or the officials of the court

In the initiating summons, [redacted] et al., specifically with regard to the State and its officials, pointed to Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which officials are legally obliged – in brief – to report (official) crimes. [redacted] et al. also pointed to the legal obligations under the International Crimes Act. Article 3 of this Act makes genocide a criminal offence. This article reads as follows.

1. 2. Any person who, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic or religious group, or a group belonging to a particular race, as such:

a. kills members of the group;

b. causes serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. deliberately inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or

e. forcibly transfers children of the group to another group, shall be guilty of genocide and liable to life imprisonment or a fixed-term prison sentence not exceeding thirty years or a fine of the sixth category.

Conspiracy to commit genocide and incitement to genocide which takes place in public, orally or in writing or by image, shall be punished in the same way as an attempt.

[redacted] et al. have requested your court, in its investigation of the truth, also to investigate whether genocide has been committed on the grounds b and c

Page 9 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

of this article. The following is relevant in this connection.

Your court will by now undoubtedly be familiar with the EMA's answer of 18 October 2023 to questions put by Member of the European Parliament Marcel de Graaff[fn 5]. This EMA answer includes, among other things, the following:

‘… The authorised indications

You state that based on the authorised indications, the vaccines ‘should only be administered to individuals who seek personal protection, and they are not authorised for the purpose of reducing transmission or infection rates (transmission control)’. You also state that the authorised indication does not align with uses promoted by ‘pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and health professionals’.

You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individuals only.

The product information for COVID-19 vaccines clearly states that the vaccines are for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19. In addition, EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of the vaccines note the lack of data on transmissibility.

EMA will continue to be transparent about the approved uses of COVID - 19 vaccines and identify areas where we need to tackle misconceptions…’

This shows unequivocally that the narrative used by the defendants, including Gates, that the Covid-19 injections would prevent transmission is false. Equally important is that it shows that the mass Covid-19 injection campaigns supported by the defendants, including Gates, were entirely unlawful, if only because under European regulation (the authorisation) the injections could only be administered on an individual doctor's prescription (which would have been impossible in such numbers).

[fn 5] https://marceldegraaff.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-10-18-Letter-to-MEP-Marcel-de-Graaff-Reques_231119_122959.pdf

Page 10 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

It is by now a matter of common knowledge that Covid-19 injections (can) be lethal, (can) cause serious bodily harm, and that excess mortality remains persistently high.

Further convincing evidence of the contention of [redacted] et al. that Covid-19 is not a disease but a project in the context of Covid-19: The Great Reset follows from the recent fact that the caretaker cabinet, in which some of the defendants are represented, has announced, against the express wish of a majority of the House of Representatives, that at the end of May 2024 it will agree to what is consistently and wrongly referred to in the media as the ‘pandemic treaty’ of the World Health Organisation (WHO) of the United Nations[fn 6]. It follows from this that, de facto, constitutional law in the Netherlands is being sidelined in order to implement private arrangements[fn 7], more specifically the arrangements in the context of Covid-19: The Great Reset. In the judgment of [redacted] et al., it is thereby beyond reasonable doubt that this is a coup d'état in which the defendants, or at least some of them, are involved.

[redacted] et al. wish, at this stage of the proceedings, to learn from the court, or at least from the officials of your court, whether they have by now, on the basis of Article 162 DCCrP, reported genocide, or at least any other criminal offence, against the defendants in the main action.

(V) Request for security during physical hearings at your court

[redacted] et al. request your court to ensure adequate and reliable security at the entrance to, during and after the physical hearings to be ordered in their case at your court. In the judgment of [redacted] et al., the evidence they have used indicates that the defendants pose a great danger.

[fn 6] https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/artikel/5450277/kabinet-verdrag-who-pandemie-tweede-kamer-ratificatie?redirect=rtlnieuws#:~:text=Pia%20Dijkstra%20na%20de%20bekendmaking,WHO)%20van%20de%20Verenigde%20Naties.

[fn 7] After all, this is not a treaty, but the further amendment of the International Health Regulations agreed between private participants in the United Nations (an NGO).

Page 11 of 11 [redacted] et al. / The State et al. 14 May 2024

Statement of dates of unavailability

The dates of unavailability of [redacted] et al. are as follows:

(2024)

May: entirely unavailable

June: 13, 14, 21

July: 21 to 31 inclusive

August: 1 to 23 inclusive

September: 3, 12, 23

October: none

November: none

This letter is accompanied by the B-form for the cause-list hearing of 15 May 2024. A copy of this letter is also being sent by e-mail to all trial lawyers of the defendants in both the main action and the interlocutory proceedings.

Trusting that we have hereby informed you sufficiently.

Yours faithfully,

Mr P.W.H. Stassen Mr A.G.W. van Kessel