THE LIBRARY · 59 ITEMS · SIX SHELVES
Every document, on its shelf
The whole record grouped the way lawyers read it — what the court decided, what each side argued, the evidence, the hearings. ★ marks the key documents to start with.
Court rulings & orders
What the judges decided, and the letters that set the rules of the fight.
Ruling — Gates stays in the case
The court rejects Gates's challenge and rules it has jurisdiction over him, because the claims against him are closely linked to those against Leeuwarden resident Hofstra. This is not a ruling on whether the claims are true.
Ruling — the request to hear experts under oath is refused
The court's decision refusing the three applicants' request to question five experts under oath, with costs awarded against the applicants. It closed off this route at first instance and led to the appeal.
Ruling — oral hearing ordered, wider claim allowed, experts not heard
The court's judgment on the procedural points. It admits the claimants' widened claim, refuses a preliminary hearing and refuses to hear party experts or witnesses at the hearing, and orders an in-person oral hearing with all parties present.
Ruling — 30 minutes per side, 5 hours for the hearing
An interim ruling (a decision on procedure, not the merits) that set the ground rules for the 22 October 2026 hearing. The court refused the claimants' request for 120 minutes and set deadlines for any new documents.
Ruling — appeal inadmissible, never decided on the merits
The final ruling in the appeal. The court held the legal bar on appeal applies and no exception exists, so it never examined whether the experts should have been heard.
A week before the hearing, the court lets the experts' video in
The court changes course and admits the separately submitted video testimony of the experts (about 3 h 19 min — Latypova, Yeadon, Fitts and Sansone), to be filed on 21 October. The defendants may respond after the hearing.
Court orders a short hearing on jurisdiction, one judge
An interim judgment ordering an oral hearing on Gates's jurisdiction challenge. The court refuses the claimants' requests for four hours of speaking time and a full three-judge bench.
Court refuses the claimants' filing for now, orders written rounds
A short procedural order (a 'roll decision', a scheduling ruling) from the full three-judge bench. It refuses the claimants' 11 December filing as premature, says written replies come first, and asks whether the deceased claimant's heirs will continue her case.
Ruling — the case continues in the late claimant's name
A short interim ruling (in Dutch) on two housekeeping issues — whether the case was ever put on hold after claimant 6 died, and how long the claimants get to write their reply. It keeps the late claimant in the case and sets the next deadline.
Court schedules the evidence hearing for 9 July 2025
A one-page letter (in Dutch) from the court clerk to the claimants' lawyer setting the hearing date for the separate request by three other people to have experts heard under oath. It opens the 'second case' track that later went to appeal in Amsterdam.
Written rounds closed — court will first rule on procedural points
A short scheduling order after all replies and rejoinders were in. The court says it will first decide the procedural disputes by judgment, then set a date for the oral hearing.
Court offers three possible hearing dates in October 2026
A short court letter to the claimants' lawyer listing the three dates on which all parties and the court were free for the oral hearing. It narrowed the hearing to October 2026.
Amsterdam court summons parties to the 9 March hearing
The court's notice that it had received the defences and would hear the parties in person on 9 March 2026. The Dutch letter itself is missing from our set; this card is built from the English copy of the court's 20 January email quoted in the claimants' lawyer's reply.
Court sets the hearing — 22 October 2026 at 12.30
The court clerk's notice fixing the date and time of the oral hearing in the main case and naming the provisional three-judge panel.
Amsterdam court sets the hearing rules — one hour each, livestream
The court's answer to the claimants' 22 January requests, with the timetable for 9 March. Paired with the foundation's press invitation for a press conference after the hearing.
Court — experts may sit in a side room; livestream allowed
The court's answer to the claimants' and the journalists' organisational requests. It set the experts' status at the hearing and announced a livestream.
Court sets the hearing timetable and livestream rules
The court's letter deciding who may join the hearing online, how the livestream will work, and the minute-by-minute timetable for 22 October 2026.
The court refuses the video; the claimants object
The court accepts the written evidence but rejects the video exhibit. The claimants' lawyer answers with a full objection citing the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR), and a supplement on 1 October.
Next — the judgment
At the end of the hearing the presiding judge said the court would announce the date in advance, on its social media and rechtspraak.nl, and expected to rule between 9 December 2026 and the end of February 2027.
The claimants' filings
The summons and everything the seven filed after it.
The summons — seven claimants sue seventeen defendants
The writ that started the case. Seven claimants allege that 17 defendants, as a group and one by one, misled them into taking Covid-19 injections they knew or should have known were not safe and effective.
Claimants' reply — new exhibits and a wider claim against all 17
The claimants' main written answer to all six defences (about 50 pages, exhibits 92 to 146). It sets out their 'preferred reality' theory, folds in the refused December filing as Exhibit 105, and widens the claim. It also backs the separate request to hear experts under oath.
Claimant 6 dies; claimants ask to pause her part of the case
A deed (formal court filing) telling the court that claimant 6 died in October 2023 and asking for a pause under Article 225 while her heirs decide whether to continue. It also files proof that Gates and Bourla were served.
Claimants answer the jurisdiction challenge
The claimants' reply to Gates's motion. They argue Dutch law, not the EU rules, applies, and that Dutch courts have jurisdiction because the harm happened in the Netherlands and the claims are linked.
The claimants want four hours and three judges
Answering Gates's request for an oral hearing on jurisdiction, the claimants agree to a hearing but ask for four hours of speaking time and a chamber of three judges.
Five requests to the court, including the OMT recordings
After the 1 May 2024 ruling, the claimants send the court five requests — correct that ruling, allow an interim appeal, order the State to produce the OMT recordings, say whether court officials have reported genocide (as the claimants allege), and provide security at hearings.
Claimants file vaccination records and try to widen their claim
A three-part filing for the 11 December 2024 court date — the claimants hand in their vaccination certificates, try to amend (widen) their claim to cover conduct after the July 2023 summons, and ask for a preliminary hearing. The court refused the filing at this stage, but later let it back in with the reply.
Claimants' lawyers tell the full bench its refusal has no legal effect
A letter from the claimants' lawyers to the three judges, challenging the 11 December refusal. They argue that widening a claim is the claimant's legal right, and they press again for a preliminary hearing on their biological-weapon argument.
Claimants ask to continue the late claimant's case and want 36 weeks
The claimants' answer to the court's December question about the deceased claimant, plus procedural requests. Their lawyers say they cannot trace her heirs, but argue the case can go on in her name, and they ask for 36 weeks to write their reply.
Three applicants ask the court to hear five experts under oath
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.
Applicants appeal the refusal to hear their experts
The three applicants' appeal against the 20 August 2025 refusal, filed even though Dutch law normally bars an appeal here, plus a request for interim relief (a temporary order) to have the experts heard at once in public.
Claimants send the court expert videos and reports on a USB stick
A letter from the claimants' lawyer to the court filing video messages and written reports from five experts. On the claimants' account, these support their argument that the injections are a biological weapon. The letter asks for an early hearing and urges the judges to file a criminal complaint.
Expert video statements sent to the Amsterdam appeal court
A cover letter sending the Amsterdam Court of Appeal five expert video messages and four written reports in the evidence appeal (case 200.360.223). The applicants say this evidence bears on whether their appeal is admissible.
Parties state their wishes for the oral hearing
After the 26 November 2025 interim ruling, every party filed a short statement (a 'deed') on speaking time, available dates and, for the claimants, the identity of claimant 7. These filings set up the fight over how long each side could speak and what role the claimants' experts could play.
Claimants' lawyer asks Amsterdam court for time, experts, livestream
Stassen's email to the Court of Appeal setting out procedural requests for the 9 March hearing. It shows how the claimants wanted the admissibility hearing to become a hearing on the whole context of their case.
Claimants ask the court to fix its ruling and allow a livestream
An email from the claimants' lawyer asking the court to correct or add to its 11 March 2026 ruling, which he says left the experts' role undecided, and asking for a livestream of the hearing.
New evidence, including a four-and-a-half-hour "Video Plea"
Four weeks before the hearing, the claimants file supplementary submissions and an offer of evidence, with Exhibit 157 — a 4 h 36 min video of the oral plea and the experts' testimony, in English and Dutch, plus updated expert submissions.
The defence
What the State, Gates, Bourla, the journalists and Lareb's director say back, in their own words.
The State, Rutte and officials reply — no conspiracy, no case
The joint defence of the Dutch State, Rutte, De Jonge, other ministers and officials, and Sijbesma. They deny every claim and ask the court to dismiss it, with costs.
Pfizer CEO Bourla — vaccine safe, claims are conspiracy theory
The defence of Pfizer's CEO. He says the virus is real, the Pfizer vaccine met EU standards, and the claimants misread the Pfizer safety report. He chooses not to contest jurisdiction.
Gates's defence — no deception, no proof, no causal link
After losing on jurisdiction, Gates answers the claims. He denies misleading anyone and argues the claimants have not proved vaccination, harm, or any link to his videos.
Journalists Van Cann and Jansen — no personal liability for the news
The defence of the two editors-in-chief. They argue that editors are not personally liable for what their outlets publish, that press freedom covers the coverage, and that the claims lack proof.
Lareb director Kant — batches were checked, no cover-up
The defence of Agnes Kant, director of Lareb, the Dutch centre that records suspected side effects. She denies lying about batch data and denies any cover-up.
Gates challenges the Dutch court's jurisdiction
A preliminary motion in which Gates asks the court to declare it has no power to hear the claims against him, since he lives in the United States. He does not yet answer the claims themselves.
Defendants oppose the request to hear the experts
The defendants' written answers to the three applicants' evidence request. The State led with a detailed defence; Bourla and Kant joined it, and Gates left the decision to the court.
Van Cann and Jansen — sue the outlets, not the editors personally
The written rejoinder (final written answer) of the two editors-in-chief at NOS and De Telegraaf. They argue the claimants have no case against them personally, that suing them is an abuse of rights, and that the claims threaten press freedom.
The State and officials — the claimants assume a 'fictitious reality'
The joint rejoinder of the Dutch State and the 11 named officials and ex-ministers it represents. The State says the reply builds an alternative reality from speculation, that no unlawful act or damage is shown, and that the proposed experts should not be heard.
Gates — no secret plan, and the Gates Foundation is not a party
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.
Bourla — Comirnaty is safe and no batch was recalled for safety
The rejoinder (final written answer) of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, with exhibits. He adopts the State's rejoinder and says the claimants' studies are flawed. He denies any difference between batches, says no damage is shown, and says the proposed experts should not be heard.
Lareb's director Kant — no batch link to deaths, no cover-up
The short rejoinder of Agnes Kant, director of Lareb, the Dutch side-effects monitoring centre. She answers the claimants' allegations that Lareb covered up batch-linked harm and lacked capacity to handle reports.
Defendants oppose the appeal on admissibility
Four written defences filed in the Amsterdam appeal against the refusal to hear the claimants' experts. On the court's instruction they argue only one thing — that the law bars this appeal and no exception applies.
Expert & witness evidence
The statements filed for the claimants by Latypova, Yeadon, Sansone for Boyle, Fitts and Watt.
Katherine Watt's video statement and 280-page memo for the court
Watt, an American paralegal and writer, recorded a video for the Leeuwarden judges summarising her written report, the St. Benedict Memo, on US and international vaccine and biodefence law. It is one of the expert submissions the claimants want tested in court.
Watt — key documents on FDA vaccine non-regulation
A five-page annotated list of historical records Watt says show US vaccine regulation is a show rather than real control. It supports her wider argument about how vaccines reached Europe.
Expert video statements sent to both courts
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.
Watt — reading guide, appeal memo and case presentation
Three public-education pieces Watt produced before the Amsterdam hearing — a memo for Stassen, a 35-page case reading guide, and a recorded slide presentation. Together they are the most complete English orientation to both cases, written from the claimants' side.
Watt's September 2026 statement for the October hearing
A 39-page statement Watt wrote for the 22 October 2026 main-case hearing, answering Stassen's 'questions you might expect from a judge' after the court refused to hear the experts. She sent it to Stassen for possible filing.
Hearings & transcripts
Every hearing in the case — the evidence request, Amsterdam, and 22 October.
The hearing — five hours, three judges, in public
The case is heard in open court, streamed by the court, and carried live in English by Interest of Justice with the court's permission. Each side gets thirty minutes; the claimants speak about their own lives.
Hearing on the request to hear experts under oath
Transcript of the 9 July 2025 court hearing on the three applicants' evidence request. It records each side's arguments and the dispute over press recording.
Amsterdam Court of Appeal hears whether the appeal may proceed
The only hearing in the appeal — a livestreamed session on whether the legal bar on appealing the refusal to hear experts can be set aside. Includes Stassen's written plea note and an English transcript.
Press & statements
Press releases and public statements around the case.
Press conference — Stassen and Dijkstra outside Leeuwarden court
An outdoor press conference in front of the Leeuwarden courthouse to present the expert videos filed on 7 December. It shows how the claimants' side presents the case to the public and why it says mainstream media stay away.
The foundation behind the case says it will dissolve
The board of Recht OpRecht, the Dutch foundation that organised publicity for the case, says publicity and the press conference move outside the foundation, and that it has decided to dissolve.
The day before — official press release and Stassen's first interview
The case site issues its official press release with the hearing livestream, and publishes its first exclusive interview with the claimants' lawyer, Peter Stassen.
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.