Skip to content
Interest of JusticeThe Leeuwarden Files

The defence · On the timeline

Filing
3 Sep 2025

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

Gates — no secret plan, and the Gates Foundation is not a party

Bill Gates (defence)

Defence filing · the court has not ruled on these claims

In 30 seconds

Bill Gates's rejoinder (final written answer). He keeps his full defence, says the claimants link unrelated events into one narrative, and stresses that he is not the Gates Foundation and did not steer the WHO, NATO, the UN, the WEF or the EU.

Cheat sheet

  1. Gates says the virus exists, the vaccines were tested and authorised, and they contain no graphene oxide.
  2. He says the claimants misread a remark by General Van Kappen, the role of NATO's StratCom centre, and a New Zealand records release.
  3. He says a secret global plan could not be kept hidden, as these bodies publish their documents and are scrutinised by the press.
  4. He says the claims mainly target the Gates Foundation, which is not a party, and that its investments are not his.
  5. He says the claimants have not shown individual damage, and notes mismatched dates in claimants 4 and 5's vaccination records.

Key passages · underlined

It is therefore inconceivable that a (to be clear: fictional) global plan to withhold facts and events could be kept secret from the world.
Why it matters Gates's core answer to the claimants' 'Great Reset' theory — such a plan could not stay hidden.Page 4 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
Even if the Gates Foundation were to have made investments in the organisations mentioned, this does not automatically equate to having (and exercising) decisive influence. Furthermore, investments by the Gates Foundation are not investments by Gates personally.
Why it matters This draws the line between Gates the person and his foundation. That matters because only Gates personally is being sued.Page 4 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
the dates in the vaccination records of claimants 4 and 5 do not correspond with the accompanying screenshots
Why it matters A specific challenge to the claimants' own evidence that they were vaccinated. The State and Bourla raise the same point.Page 6 · 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