- 2 days ago
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I'm thrilled to be here in the Netherlands the day before the substantive merits hearing
00:05to take place in Learwarden at the District Court of Northern Netherlands in the case
00:10that has become known as the case against Bill Gates.
00:13In a world exclusive, I'm here with attorney Peter Stassen to discuss the case ahead of
00:19tomorrow.
00:20Peter, how are you feeling?
00:22I'm feeling confident.
00:23Very confident?
00:25Confident as can be, for sure.
00:27In this case, from the very beginning, you have been very clear from the writ of summons
00:32about the message, which is that COVID-19 was not a disease, but a project, COVID-19, The
00:39Great Reset.
00:40Can you speak more to that and tell people how you're putting the entire narrative on
00:45trial?
00:46Yeah, that's correct what you say.
00:48Our clients find it very important to address this case in the way they really want.
00:52And they really want that it has been seen that it is a project.
00:56And as you said, COVID-19, The Great Reset.
01:00That's a well-known name from the book from Klaus Schwab, but it's more than a book.
01:05It's a real project.
01:06And we show in this case that there was a group of people who is acting on behalf of this
01:14project.
01:15And all the defendants in our litigation are part of this group.
01:22And you should know that the case is a civil case.
01:25I know there's some misunderstanding about that.
01:27But in the civil cases, you have also in the Netherlands, the doctrine of tort.
01:32So it's a civil case based on tort.
01:35And what we have put together is a court document.
01:39It's a case file on behalf of our clients.
01:41I'm the only acting lawyer now, as you know.
01:44We quite elaborate have shown that this group is acting on behalf of this project.
01:51And that has some very interesting legal consequences.
01:56Because if a group acts, then you also get group liability.
02:01And then maybe, you know, from normal situations, if somebody is hurt by a group and he cannot
02:08say who hit him exactly, that doesn't matter legally.
02:11Because if you are part of a group and you contribute to the group, then you're liable.
02:15So that's a very important basis for this civil case based on tort, group liability.
02:21And now it's my job to show the court that this group really exists and that the defendants
02:27are part of the group.
02:29And I think that's the major discussion we will see in court.
02:32You mentioned there'd been some misunderstanding surrounding this case and clarified that it
02:36was indeed a civil case.
02:38So I think it's worth going back to ground zero and talking about when this case was filed.
02:42So in July 2023, seven plaintiffs, two of whom have now passed away, filed this claim.
02:48So it's probably worth talking about what this case is and what this case isn't.
02:53Can you describe a bit more?
02:55Exactly.
02:55Seven plaintiffs.
02:56So people who have taken the Pfizer injections.
03:00And I think a lot of people can understand they felt misled.
03:04They felt misled by the government.
03:06They felt misled by people they had seen on television.
03:09They felt misled by the whole system, in fact.
03:12And they were misled because they were told that this was a safe and effective vaccine
03:18and, in fact, the only way out of a crisis, a crisis situation.
03:23We know all the measures that were taken.
03:26So these people came to the conclusion we have been totally misled.
03:30And we're looking for a lawyer to really look at this case and address it in the right
03:36way because you can address such a case, of course, in more ways.
03:40We see lots of litigation all over the world, especially on the product liability basis.
03:47But that's something our clients absolutely didn't want.
03:50Because if you take such a basis, then you immediately go in the narrative that that was
03:55a product where there was something wrong with.
03:57But our clients have seen and understood that this is a project.
04:01And the product that was presented to them in this project was exactly the product,
04:06the project intended to give them.
04:09And that's a far, far worse situation.
04:13And that's the situation we are actually in.
04:15And that's my conclusion.
04:17And that's also what my clients want to be presented for the court.
04:21So if you look at that way, then you need to have a much broader view of what is happening.
04:27And then you come to the project side of this whole case.
04:33And then the COVID-19, the Great Reset project is a project that is misunderstood by a lot of
04:39people because they only hear this COVID-19 and Great Reset.
04:43But it's the Great Reset that was started, or let's say accelerated, with the whole COVID-19
04:51situation, the pandemic, as you can correctly say, I think.
04:55And so that's what we present to the court is something totally else than, let's say,
05:01a product liability case.
05:02We present to the court that it's about a project where these injections were a crucial
05:08part and were also not intended to be safe or effective.
05:13But were intended to be the opposite.
05:15So this is about an attack.
05:18This is about an attack.
05:19And that's also why we present to the court lots of legal grounds that you can say this
05:26was, for example, an attack on the Netherlands.
05:30It was an attack on our kingdom.
05:32It is an attack on our free rights.
05:36There are much of rights here at stake.
05:40And so the basis is the misleading of the clients done by a group acting on behalf of a project,
05:50COVID-19, the Great Reset.
05:51And as you know, you publicize a lot of that yourself.
05:55This project involves much more.
05:57It also involves the digital identity, which is, I believe, one of your subjects, very important
06:03to you.
06:04And all these subjects, climate change, you can go on and on the way we eat our food and
06:12we produce our food.
06:13The whole, what we now have in the UN, the discussion about the bankruptcy of water, the
06:19tokenizing of everything.
06:20It's all in this project.
06:22And that makes that we present something to the court that we say, look at it, the very
06:28broad way.
06:30And so the actors in this project are also to be found on a lot of places.
06:36It's a very big group.
06:37And Klaus Schwab identified this group himself.
06:41He was talking about it.
06:42We penetrate the cabinets.
06:44It's what he said.
06:45He said he has a lot of political figures and business figures and he talks about foreign
06:52cities in the world where he has this network.
06:55That's what he identified.
06:57And we use in this litigation, we use what they say.
07:01And that's the very interesting thing because we use what is on the record said by lots of
07:07influential persons who are really players in this project.
07:11What we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President
07:20of Argentina and so on, that we penetrate the cabinets.
07:25So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I would know that half of
07:36this cabinet or even more half of this cabinet are for our actually young global leaders of
07:44the World Economic Forum.
07:46Right.
07:46And now the defense is, it's not us.
07:49Yeah, we are contributors to the World Economic Forum or we are even a member of them.
07:55But no, no, no.
07:56We have nothing to do with this project.
07:57So what we're going to see in this court case now is a confrontation about from two realities
08:03in which only one can be true.
08:06And that's an enormous, enormous impact, I think, also for the judges who needs to decide
08:13on that because what is presented in this case is, as far as I'm aware, never presented
08:20in this way.
08:22So the misleading starts indeed with the clients, but then the picture gets enormously big.
08:28And I think that's really challenging in this case to bring this in a clear message to the
08:34court.
08:35And then it gets, I think, also a bit difficult for the court because we see all these NGOs,
08:42these private organizations, the WHO, the United Nations, these are all private, private organizations.
08:51And we see them acting.
08:53And we see, in fact, we see our own politicians and business people who we associate with our
08:59own countries or we see them acting on behalf of this plan.
09:05But this plan was a plan which has never been chosen for by the people.
09:09So there you get a really fundamental discussion because, in fact, the politicians and everything
09:18surrounding them, this group that we are talking about, they have another boss than we think
09:24they have.
09:25And this is getting clear in this legal discussion.
09:28And that's also a necessity because we need to identify them as a member of this group.
09:35So, in this case, I think it's very interesting to see how seven plaintiffs can come to such
09:44an approach about proving by whom they were misled.
09:51And then you reach a very big group and you reach a project, what I call very nicely a project,
09:56but we are talking about a criminal project.
09:59COVID-19, the Great Reset, is a criminal project.
10:03And if you can see, as you have seen in the pandemic, these are terrorists.
10:09They give terror to the people.
10:11And that's one of the major ingredients about how they pushed these injections.
10:15But, in fact, everything is done by deception.
10:19Deception is a very important part.
10:20You've mentioned so many things that make this case exceptional.
10:23And something in particular they said was about these product liability claims.
10:28This is not one of those cases.
10:30And I think what people don't seem to understand, perhaps, what's happening all over the world,
10:34is there's plenty of product liability cases, people suing the government or suing AstraZeneca
10:40like we have in the UK.
10:41And in those cases, the taxpayer is essentially funding both sides, the claimant and the defence,
10:49because we know how these will end, essentially, with potentially non-disclosure agreements.
10:54And the taxpayer is essentially bankrolling the beast.
10:58And I don't think that people understand that and why it's so different to a product liability claim.
11:03You are, with your plaintiffs, holding the individuals that you have named accountable.
11:08And you're saying directly that these people were directly responsible for harming these
11:14seven injured plaintiffs, two of whom are now deceased.
11:18And that's one of the reasons that I support this case personally so much,
11:22is that all we are seeing is people thinking that they are potentially getting justice and
11:27truth and exposure of that truth.
11:29But what's really happening is people are being silenced with non-disclosure agreements,
11:33with payouts, bankrolled by the taxpayer.
11:35And you are the only person in the world with the spine, I may add, that standing up to those
11:43who have implemented this, you call them the executors of this project that you speak of.
11:49And we're not seeing that anywhere else in the world.
11:52You are holding the individuals accountable, the executors of this project.
11:58Yeah, that's exactly the excitement I have for my clients.
12:01They want these people who really, companies cannot do anything.
12:07Only people in companies can do anything.
12:10That's the same with governments.
12:11Governments, in fact, don't exist.
12:12It exists by the people working there.
12:14So you need to look who is doing what.
12:16And in this project, people.
12:19And we can simply assess which were the important people who misled my clients.
12:25And they listened to what Bill Gates said.
12:28They listened to what Alba Bula said.
12:30They, of course, listened to a lot of Minister of Health and other ministers, what they said
12:35on television.
12:36They have seen them all on television.
12:37They heard about them.
12:38And another important point I want to make, if you are talking about the doctrine of tort,
12:43it's not only what people are doing.
12:46It's also what they are not doing.
12:48So what they let out, what the omissions, exactly, what they should have done.
12:53And that's very clear with the media.
12:56They left out everything which was really important.
12:59So that's censorship.
13:01And also on this basis, we address these persons.
13:05Because these persons had all very important positions.
13:09Or they were ministers, or they were captains of industry, or they were media figures.
13:15And they should have done it the right way, with the responsibility they had.
13:20But they did the opposite, because they were these executors of this project.
13:24And this we want to make clear.
13:25My passion about it is that people really get to understand this case, which is why we
13:29have made some very important documents available on thenetherlandscase.com for people to read
13:34and familiarize themselves with it.
13:36One thing that struck me, reading through some of the paperwork that you have provided to
13:42me, is that what we have seen take place, of course, in the Netherlands, happened in lockstep
13:47worldwide.
13:48So you talk about the fact that people, these people in charge, the people and the heads
13:55of these various organizations, whether it be pharmacovigilance or the mass media, what
13:59they should have done.
14:01But the point is, they're being dictated to by malicious actors to not do the right thing.
14:09And this is where, again, it's so unique, because there's nobody saying they're working.
14:16This is all intentional.
14:17There's nothing about this that wasn't planned.
14:19So they were all working in lockstep.
14:22The message was the same worldwide.
14:24And this is why you say very, very clearly, this was a project run by a malicious global
14:32elite.
14:33I prefer parasites, to be honest.
14:35And the intention of that was to coerce people into doing something through fear mongering,
14:41through propaganda, and essentially forced people into doing something they otherwise
14:46never would have done.
14:47Yeah, that's fully correct what you say.
14:49It's a total scripted project.
14:51We have, of course, described in the Writ of Summons how it was planned.
14:55People also know about event 201.
14:57There were exercises before that.
15:00But this is a scripted project.
15:03And indeed, it's hard to imagine for somebody who's not really in this stage of thinking
15:09already.
15:09But this is a global project.
15:11They hold it out globally.
15:13We heard everywhere on the world the same words.
15:15Build back better.
15:16People know this.
15:17It was said everywhere, also in the Netherlands.
15:21It was synchronized in a certain way.
15:25For the people who see this, you cannot unsee it.
15:29Yes, planned.
15:31And it's a big, big deception.
15:33But the media are having a very big part in that.
15:36So you put forward that it's a complete deception.
15:39It's a fraud upon the people worldwide, not just of the people in the Netherlands, in order
15:45to roll out what your expert witnesses describe as an injection that's legally and functionally
15:53indistinguishable from a bioweapon.
15:55So that was the point of this pandemic.
16:00For sure.
16:00That's one of the crucial points of this pandemic, yeah, is this pandemic, as we should say, because
16:08it was really planned.
16:09Yeah, the crucial thing was to give enough deception and coercion to get people taking
16:15this injection.
16:15And that's exactly the claim that my clients have.
16:18They say it was an unlawful act to mislead us so that we would be willing to take this
16:23injection.
16:24We don't say that the defendants gave them this injection or no.
16:27The unlawful act is that they were misled.
16:30And then they were, yeah, of course, if you are misled, you cannot be really willing.
16:35There's no informed consent.
16:37But at that moment, you are accepting.
16:39And that's the core.
16:42They otherwise never would have taken this injection that people that were in positions
16:46of trust and people, figures such as Bill Gates and Albert Baller, they were automatically
16:51trusted because of their positions.
16:53So when you're being told every day this repeated message, and this was a lot of this was about
17:00doing it for your loved ones and doing it for your neighbours, going, get injected and
17:04protect, protect other people around you.
17:06So people have been lied to on so many levels.
17:10And I think that you address almost every single one of those things from your writ of summons in 2023
17:18and to date.
17:19And the evidence has only gotten more and more and more powerful.
17:23And that brings us to the experts.
17:25Evidence that's been submitted.
17:28And one of the battles that you have had is in having their oral testimony heard before the court.
17:36Their written submissions have been submitted, I think, since the 7th of December 2025.
17:40That's correct.
17:41Yeah, that's right.
17:42So there's no issue with any of the expert witness statements that have been submitted.
17:45You've had reports written by Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer, Sasha Latapova, Dr.
17:52Joseph Sansone, Catherine Austin Fitz.
17:54And also, interestingly, you had agreement in writing from Professor Francis Boyle that he was
18:04willing to give expert testimony in support of this case, because it's the only case in the world
18:12that's saying what he was saying for a very long time, in that these frankenshots, as he called them,
18:18were bioweapons or are bioweapons, because they're still being rolled out.
18:23And he died just over two weeks after he agreed in writing to be an expert witness in this case.
18:29Can you speak to that a bit more?
18:32Yeah, of course.
18:34We knew, of course, that he was the expert on bioweapon legislation in the US.
18:42And it was, in fact, surprising that he also reacted directly to our request to have him as a witness
18:50in this case.
18:51It was email contact, but he immediately said, yes, OK, I'm very busy, busy here,
18:56but because I have a lot of students and I need to do lots of things,
18:59you could really see this as a really active professor at the moment.
19:03So we suggested, let's do this by Zoom or something.
19:06I really want to cooperate.
19:09And we went from there, we thought.
19:13But it came to a very abrupt end.
19:16Because, in fact, in a period of two weeks, there was no contact anymore.
19:21And that had to do with him not being there anymore.
19:25So that really shocked us at the time.
19:27I think that was shocking for a lot of people when he passed away,
19:30because as you said, he was very busy.
19:32He was very busy with his students.
19:34He was very busy in his life.
19:36And I've read the email myself.
19:38And he seemed very keen and excited to be a part of this.
19:41And I think that his evidence would have shattered any of the defendant's evidence.
19:48But, I mean, he was trusted enough to write legislation in the US,
19:52the US bioterrorism legislation.
19:55And he was the leading expert on this.
20:00And his testimony is actually presented by Dr. Joseph Sansone in this case.
20:04So he presents his legal analysis on his behalf.
20:09And also, Dr. Joseph Sansone presents his own evidence as a psychotherapist.
20:14And he's coined the phrase psychopathic authoritarianism,
20:18which you have actually referenced in your submissions to the court.
20:22So can you speak more to that and why that's relevant in this case about,
20:26especially when it's to do with the perpetrators, the defendants themselves?
20:29Yeah, I think it is very important having somebody with a psychological background
20:34explaining what really is happening in a psychological sense.
20:39Because if you are not seeing what is happening, it is almost inconceivable.
20:47But Dr. Sansone describes that a system can work as a psychopath.
20:51So the whole system gets a psychopath.
20:53And in fact, that's exactly the situation we are in.
20:56This COVID-19 agenda is an anti-human agenda.
21:01It's clearly that everything that was normally from God given will be attacked.
21:08There are so many aspects on this Great Reset Project,
21:10but it's important to understand that this anti-human behavior,
21:14this psychopathic behavior is explained, why it can exist.
21:18Because otherwise, to a court, I think it really adds something to a court
21:22to give also a more educated basis of how it can be that it's dead.
21:29There are almost no words for it.
21:31Dead ridiculous, I would almost say.
21:33But it's also very severe how this can happen.
21:36And I think, yes, it is worthful to have.
21:39Yeah, because I think that people find it quite unfathomable that their government,
21:44that anyone that's allegedly meant to care about them would try to intentionally harm them.
21:48I think that that's still quite unfathomable for people.
21:51They can't quite believe that anything would have been intentional,
21:55that they were just doing their best.
21:56There's still people that believe that.
21:57And I wonder what the judiciary think.
21:59But this is why your expert witnesses are so important,
22:02because when you put the narrative on trial, you have to hit every mark.
22:06So the experts that you have, when you talk about the great reset,
22:10Catherine Austin-Vitz, of course, who speaks to that,
22:13and going direct reset, as she calls it, and Mr. Global.
22:17So they have tried, it seems they have tried,
22:21to keep the expert oral testimony out of court altogether.
22:26You've had that fight for a long time, and I think they ruled in November, 26th of November, 2025,
22:33that the experts would not be heard at this substantive hearing taking place tomorrow in Learwarden.
22:40That was decided.
22:42You fought.
22:43Their written submissions were accepted.
22:46Exactly.
22:47But you actually came up with a very creative idea to have the experts' oral testimony submitted on video.
22:53Yeah.
22:54And that was submitted.
22:56It was rejected.
22:58You objected to that rejection.
23:02And that oral testimony submitted on video now stands on the evidential record.
23:07So their voices are heard, which is quite a win,
23:12which you also think that had something to do with the public pressure.
23:17Because we released this oral testimony for the world to be able to see what the court didn't seem to
23:23want to hear.
23:25And you think that public pressure had a lot to do with them overturning their own decision, reversing.
23:32To be, to have real justice, justice must be seen, because justice behind the closed door is no justice.
23:38And the message is clear.
23:40And the message is clear.
23:41COVID-19 was not a disease, but a project.
23:45COVID-19, the great reset.
23:47And that's what you keep bringing it back to, talking about this project that's not over.
23:51It's ongoing.
23:52It's got everything to do with the digital dystopia that's looming.
23:57Albert Baller attacked Mike Eden directly.
24:00For sure.
24:01And said that he wasn't qualified to say what he was saying.
24:04And Albert Baller is a veterinarian.
24:07Yes.
24:07Yeah.
24:08But he did get quite emotional.
24:10He's submitted hundreds of pages.
24:12They haven't just written on paper, it's safe and effective.
24:14We've done nothing wrong.
24:16No, no.
24:16Yeah.
24:17He submitted such a case file backing up with all documents of IMA, who said it was safe.
24:22Yeah, we know IMA said it was safe.
24:25So he really took this very serious.
24:28The defense on Mike Eden, he took also, that was in fact the same defense as he had in the
24:34other procedure, this preliminary procedure.
24:36He put this also in this case file again.
24:39And this is a litigation, of course.
24:41There's also a strategy.
24:42So we are very happy that Mr. Bourla wrote such a lot.
24:46So now we can put this all on the table and look at it.
24:49Put it to the test.
24:50And put it to the test.
24:51And he believes it's very bitter that he is being accused of this.
24:56Yeah.
24:57When he, again, this is where I say he got emotional.
25:00He submitted an awful lot of productions, you call them here.
25:04So supporting documents to his evidence.
25:07But his emotion in it, that he found it personally bitter that he was being sued.
25:13And you've submitted their own documents, Pfizer documents, that prove that the harm
25:19occurred.
25:20They knew that the harm occurred.
25:21They knew that this would happen.
25:22They rolled it out.
25:23It was intentional.
25:24It was not experimental.
25:26It was not an accident.
25:28And you make that very, very clear.
25:31I think even calling it a vaccine will be a very big problem for them because it is a non
25:36-investigational
25:37product.
25:38None of the people in the world, or let's say very little, will have understand that this
25:44is not a real medical product at all.
25:47And Mr. Borla can make a very thick piece of paper.
25:50But I don't think you can doubt what Sasha Latipova has written in her report.
25:56And the reports are lying there exactly, as you say, from December 7, 2025.
26:02But I never reacted on them.
26:04You mean they never specifically responded point by point to what the experts were saying?
26:09No, in fact, not at all.
26:10If you look at Sasha Latipova's report, so he made this statement of defense, but he really
26:17did not go into the details of Sasha Latipova.
26:20And I think that's something the judges need to see.
26:23But that's what we see in the courtroom as well.
26:26And I think moving on to what you expect tomorrow in Learwarden, during this five-hour
26:34substantive hearing on the merits, and just to rewind, to talk about how this, again,
26:40the case started is seven plaintiffs who have been injured by the Pfizer COVID injection,
26:45who are exposing the truth for the love of truth, to be honest.
26:50Again, that's what makes it so unique.
26:52And holding individuals accountable under Dutch tort law.
26:58So the result would be damages for physical harm and psychiatric harm, or psychological harm,
27:08as you might say, for the plaintiffs.
27:10And the individuals named, the 17 defendants, are being held individually responsible on
27:15their personal assets.
27:16So it's really important, I think, that people understand that.
27:19But the potential outcomes of what might happen tomorrow, it's very different across the world.
27:26And we've spoken about appeal before and what that might mean.
27:29So first, just let's touch on what might happen tomorrow in the five-hour hearing.
27:35You are speaking for, you've got two sessions.
27:37The defendants have two sessions, so you essentially respond to each other.
27:42You will have questions from the court for about 50 minutes, I think it is.
27:4755 minutes, they plan.
27:48Yeah.
27:49So first of all, what do you think will happen tomorrow in the courtroom?
27:55Yeah, of course, I will start.
27:56So the first half an hour, I know.
27:58I will tell a lot about the Great Reset and the defendants and how this all acts together.
28:07Until now, I have not really seen a real litigation debate, let's call it like that.
28:13So you still have, you have also been in Amsterdam, and you saw that the whole answer was in fact,
28:19there's a safe and effective vaccine and good day.
28:22They spoke for five minutes after you spoke for...
28:25I hope there is more tomorrow.
28:27They already indicated to the lawyers from the defendants that they didn't need a lot of time,
28:32so 10 minutes and some a bit more.
28:35Similar to what we've seen in that they might...
28:37I think, yes.
28:38So they'll repeat the narrative that it's safe and effective.
28:41But it doesn't, this is what doesn't match for me,
28:44because Albert Borla has submitted such substantive productions, hundreds of pages.
28:49They've all submitted a defence, and they might all, you know, be denying what they're being accused of,
28:55what we know to be true, what the experts know to be true,
28:57and I think what the world knows to be true.
28:59And we know, we don't need to have too much discussion about it,
29:02that Bill Gates won't be in the courtroom tomorrow.
29:05Albert Borla won't be in the courtroom tomorrow.
29:08International defendants, it's not possible for them to be forced to be in the room.
29:13We expect some of the Dutch defendants to be in the room,
29:17but every single one of them is represented.
29:19I think there's, is it five or seven lawyers?
29:22Yeah, five lead lawyers at the defendant's side,
29:24and of course they bring several colleagues from the offices.
29:27Their whole office comes in, all in black robes,
29:29and you're sat there on one side.
29:31Yeah.
29:32And then you've got about, I don't know, it was like 20-something of them,
29:35all black-robed on the other side, and yet they say very little.
29:38It doesn't matter if it's one or 20, it depends what they have to say.
29:42Yeah.
29:43And until now it was not a lot, so.
29:45No, but this has been three years in the making.
29:48So this is the hearing that we have been building up to.
29:51I say we because I feel part of this now, by the way,
29:53but you have been working towards this from writing the writ of summons.
29:57Yeah.
29:58And filing this claim in July 23.
30:00This is a very important hearing because this would be a decision maker going forward,
30:06but it doesn't mean it's the end.
30:07No, this is indeed exactly as you say.
30:10This is the first oral hearing where we get really to talk about the content of the case
30:16with the judge.
30:18Yeah.
30:18We had one hearing before, but it was only about Bill Gates and the competence of the court,
30:23so that was also an oral hearing, but it was a formal question where the Dutch applied Dutch law,
30:30Dutch international private law, and then Bill Gates had to come in,
30:33exactly on this group aspect, as I explained to you.
30:36But this is the first oral hearing which should be really about the content of the case
30:40and the legal basis of the case.
30:41Therefore, there should be scrutiny, and that's why you're saying that the court,
30:46in a way, is potentially restricting that time and that scrutiny?
30:50I think in that time, you cannot really, really assess the case.
30:55That's not possible.
30:56If we talked about having the expert evidence before court, yes, that's very positive
31:02that now this video evidence is also in there, next to the written evidence of the experts.
31:08But what we also have seen in this process, I objected two times.
31:13So the evidence was there more than four weeks before the court hearing.
31:18I objected two times, and now the court...
31:21And it was made public.
31:22And it was made public, yeah.
31:23That's very positive.
31:25Yeah, but the court also said, and you can think something about that.
31:28I will not speak it out loud.
31:29The court also said, well, now we accepted it.
31:33That is true.
31:33But now we accepted it in that late stage, that maybe the other parties cannot react on it in the...
31:42So you're talking about the video plea that's now been accepted, that the court has said to you
31:47that we've accepted this video plea.
31:50However, due to the late stage of submission, it was actually submitted on Monday.
31:55Yeah, in fact, it's the late stage of acceptance.
31:57Yeah, at the beginning of the week.
31:58So they have actually said that due to that late submission, we're going to give the defendants an opportunity to
32:04respond to that after the hearing.
32:07Exactly.
32:08So that gives some kind of clue as to there's going to be further discussions after this substantive hearing.
32:15Now, to talk about what potentially might happen, it's not just two options.
32:20It's not just the potentially a decision coming in in six weeks time, say, with the court saying there's no
32:26case to answer and you must have...
32:39No.
32:40No.
32:45No.
32:46Do we also have a second choice?
32:50Yeah, so tomorrow the court will assess this case, the parties will speak...
32:55...and then, of course, they close this oral hearing around 5.30, I think.
33:00And then the court will think about this case.
33:02And they need to come to a kind of decision because they need to decide what we are going to
33:07do next.
33:08And I think in this case it should not be possible that there comes a final verdict after this oral
33:13hearing...
33:14The court should always look at the case and then ask itself
33:18who needs to prove what, what proof is already there.
33:22And a logical thing is that there would be an interim judgment
33:26about proof, interim verdict.
33:29So potential for further evidentiary hearings,
33:33further exchanges of evidence where the court may set out
33:37one side needs to provide this and one side should respond.
33:40Yeah, but the court has a lot of freedom.
33:42So if they say, please, parties, inform me more about this subject,
33:46the court can do, in fact, whatever it wants.
33:48It's the boss about how the litigation goes forward.
33:53But yeah, there should be a kind of interim judgment from that.
33:58So essentially at this point, there's five requirements
34:00that you have to meet.
34:02We won't go into a huge amount of detail about each of them,
34:05but you could list the five.
34:06Yes, of course.
34:08First, we need, it's the doctrine of thought.
34:10So first, we need to state an unlawful act.
34:13And the unlawful act is, of course, my clients have been misled.
34:17Yeah.
34:17Then we need to say there was damage.
34:20So we say this damage is there because the integrity of the body has been violated.
34:26It's a crux of injury.
34:26Yeah.
34:27But that doesn't need to be even injury in the physical sense.
34:31It can also be otherwise.
34:33It's also because this litigation is about having a declaration from the court
34:39that it was unlawful.
34:40We also do not really need to prove the damage.
34:42This will be assessed in another litigation, but a part of damage must be there.
34:47Then, of course, there must be a causal link between this unlawful act.
34:53Causality.
34:53Causality.
34:54Causal link.
34:54Causal link.
34:55Yeah, your English is better than mine, that's for sure.
34:58But there should be a causal link between this unlawful act and this damage.
35:03And the perpetrators?
35:04No, and the damage that my client suffered.
35:07There should be a causal link.
35:09And there is an important aspect, what we already talked about a little bit, is that
35:13it's about also they are individually accountable, but also as a group.
35:18Yeah.
35:19And in the group liability, you don't need to explain who caused what out of this group.
35:26So that's an interesting discussion.
35:27Maybe we see something there about in the court tomorrow.
35:30Jointly and separately.
35:31Yes.
35:32But it also affects the causal link you need to state.
35:37But, okay, the causal link is, of course, an important thing.
35:41And then we need to have attribution, I think you call it in English.
35:45We need to…
35:46Attributability.
35:47Yeah.
35:48I won't repeat.
35:49I don't know if we have it, that the act can be attributed to the defendants.
35:54Exactly, yeah.
35:54And that you also can attribute the damage to them.
35:58Right.
35:58That's an important point.
36:00And then we have a fifth category.
36:03We call it relativity.
36:04And that is that you at least show to the judges that the norms that were violated also
36:11are intended to protect against this kind of clients, of this kind of damage, excuse
36:16me.
36:17And I think that's clear if you, in fact, look at the Nuremberg Code or the International
36:22Treaty on Rights, EVBPR, the political rights, civil and political rights treaty, yeah, then
36:29I think this is exactly what should have been protected.
36:32This should not have happened.
36:37Right.
36:38Yeah.
36:38And then…
36:59For sure.
37:33That's really different then because…
37:35Yes, it's…
37:48No, you can, as an attorney, you can make this appeal as big as you want.
37:52So, as long as you keep adding grounds to this appeal, you can state even new facts, you
37:58can bring in new evidence, you can even change the basis of your claim.
38:02That's also possible.
38:03There are no limitations as long as you do it, of course.
38:07If you do it limited, you get a limited appeal.
38:09But if you throw everything in you want to throw in, there's no limits to what you can
38:13do to appeal.
38:16And I think the most important thing to say is that it's not over.
38:20Whatever happens tomorrow and beyond that day, this is going to carry on because you
38:26will not drop this fight.
38:29No, I took this assignment from my clients and I will do it to the full.
38:34Yeah.
38:34And I have still good hope that the court will really look at this case and not come too
38:42quick to a final verdict.
38:44It should be, it really deserves to have a real, real debate in the court.
38:50And that's also one of the very important things.
38:53We talked about censorship.
38:55And in fact, the court is the, I think, the last place in where the rule of law applies
39:00where you cannot easily censorize them.
39:03And that is also one of the privileges I have as an attorney.
39:06I can speak in the court.
39:07So, it will not be easy to censor me.
39:10It's my part of my job is to speak.
39:13And it's live streamed.
39:14So, and potentially.
39:35Yeah.
39:38You.
39:39You.
39:43You.
39:44You can't predict everything.
40:14You.
40:14You.
40:27You.
40:29You.
40:31You.
40:31You.
40:33You.
40:43Okay.
45:00Yeah, and you go along with the narrative.
45:03That's my biggest problem with it.
45:41For sure.
45:42And that's also very, also what you do, is now publish the case file on the website.
45:50That's really important.
45:52Other people, other lawyers, other attorneys can do with it whatever they want.
45:57They should use it freely.
45:59And now you also have at least one example that such a case is possible.
46:03We will see the outcome.
46:03We will see if there's an appeal needed or not.
46:05But in fact, everybody in the situation of my clients should be able to find an attorney
46:11who at least tries the same.
46:14And I think, yeah, that's a privilege for me to be able to do this, of course.
46:19That's, yeah.
46:29Okay, or the U.S.
46:30No, that's.
46:31So it's not.
46:41Yes.
47:05I like it a lot.
47:06Yeah, yeah.
47:06Very well known.
47:07Bye.
47:47Bye.
48:12Bye.
48:12Of course, everybody interesting in the court hearing is very much appreciated also by my
48:17clients because that they want this case to be seen.
48:21And that's also where you come in, Fiona.
48:24You bring a very, very, very big contribution there.
48:28That's almost no words to describe what you have done in this aspect.
48:32So really thank you for that also on behalf of my clients.
48:36Bye.
48:37Bye.
48:41Bye.
48:43Bye.
48:50Bye.
48:59Bye.
48:59Bye.
49:00You