While our intrepid news establishment was busy hyperventilating over Donald Trump’s latest attempt to weaponize the Justice Department and diligently fighting their forever-war on “baseless claims” against Democrats, a teeny, tiny story slipped under their radar.
It happens.
Across the pond in a historic Dutch courtroom, a handful of people whose names might ring a faint bell have been accused of actively participating in a coordinated campaign to deceive the public about the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines. To be clear, the contention is not that they hid a few safety signals or were a tad too generous in hyping the products’ benefits. The plaintiffs allege that the whole operation was intentionally engineered to cause massive, unimaginable harm. In other words, if the pandemic were the world’s biggest treehouse, this gang was basically Frank Lloyd Wright.
The ambitious architectural vision, according to the plaintiffs’ attorney, was the infamous “Great Reset”—the World Economic Forum’s grandiose plan to replace freedom with bug burgers, 15-minute cities, and a transcendent joy in [*checks notes*] owning nothing. And the vehicle for ushering in this brave new world? A handy global vaccination campaign, of course. Word on the street is that “Please voluntarily surrender your autonomy” tested poorly with focus groups.
The civil suit specifically names 17 defendants, but the ones you probably care most about are Bill “Depopulate the Planet” Gates and Albert “Laughing all the Way to the Bank” Bourla. The rest are a who’s who of Dutch government officials, public-health authorities, medical advisers, and media executives—plus the Dutch state itself.
Apparently, culling the global herd takes a village.
On the other side of the courtroom is an attorney representing seven ordinary Dutch citizens who say they suffered catastrophic injuries after receiving Covid vaccines. They filed the suit in July 2023, alleging that the defendants knowingly lied about the shots’ safety. In an especially cruel twist, two of the seven have since passed away—without ever getting to enjoy even a few minutes of sworn-in squirming.
As much as we’d all like nothing more than to see Manboobs in particular being perp-walked through town in a too-small, flea-infested orange jumpsuit, this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Nobody’s facing hard time (yet), although a finding of deliberate deception could crack open a whole new can of handcuffs down the road.
A girl can dream. (Sadly, a girl cannot issue an arrest warrant. I checked.)
As one might imagine, Gates tried to play the get-out-of-court card, arguing that the Netherlands is not, in fact, the boss of him. But a judge ruled that because the allegations against him were joined at the criminally suspicious hip to those involving his Dutch co-defendants, the Netherlands had every right to make him its problem. It also ordered the pie-faced philanthropist to pay a financially devastating €1,400 (around US$1,560) in legal costs for making the plaintiffs fight to keep him in the case, a sum presumably requiring him to lift at least two whole couch cushions.
With Gates’s escape attempt successfully thwarted, attorney Peter Stassen argued for allowing testimony from a familiar roster of international experts—including former investment banker Catherine Austin Fitts, Pharma research veteran Sasha Latypova, and former Pfizer VP Dr. Mike Yeadon—who insist they have smoking-gun evidence that the jabs were willfully misrepresented, that serious risks were systematically concealed, and that the people on trial knew precisely what they were doing.
The official response to this proposed expert testimony was essentially: How about absolutely not. In November of last year, the court declined to hear the experts under oath at the oral hearing. A subsequent order clarified that they could sit in the public gallery, but would have no more procedural status than a tourist who wandered in looking for the bathroom.
So yes, please come all the way to the European Low Country with your evidence. Lovely to have you. Now kindly find a chair next to someone’s husband and try not to participate in the judicial process.
Stassen, seemingly unfamiliar with the time-honored legal principle of Just Go Away Already™, reached into the backup-plan bag. Since the experts couldn’t testify live, he assembled a four-and-a-half-hour video of their statements and submitted it to the court alongside additional written material. The written material was accepted, the video was not. Translation: the allegations were permitted to enter the building—provided they used their indoor font.
A less persistent attorney might have taken the hint, developed a sudden and keen interest in gardening, and thrown his phone into the nearest lake. Stassen instead challenged the rejection. When that failed, he challenged it again. After months of legal lollygagging, just two weeks ago, the court agreed to allow the experts’ videotaped statements into the record as a separate exhibit. Not live testimony, mind you. Let’s not get reckless and allow people to say things in a room specifically designed for people to say things. But the cinematic monologues at least made it past the velvet rope.
The hearing on the substance of the case finally took place on October 22 in Leeuwarden, the picturesque capital of the Friesland province in the Netherlands, to deafening American media silence. Also notably absent from the gathering were the actual defendants, who sent their attorneys instead. Gates wasn’t there. Bourla wasn’t there. Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte wasn’t there. I guess when you have enough money, even your legal reckoning can be outsourced.
Stassen, meanwhile, appeared with a case file reportedly approaching 14,000 pages along with hours of recorded statements. In addition to being armed with enough documentation to choke an industrial shredder, the man did not mince words.
“The real case is that COVID-19 was not a disease but a project,” Stassen told reporters outside the courthouse. He alleged that the jabs were developed as military countermeasures, deliberately circumventing ordinary safety requirements, and that censorship and propaganda were used to conceal the operation. He explicitly accused the defendants of violating the Nuremberg Code, the post-WWII ethical principles established in response to gruesome Nazi medical experiments, which require voluntary, informed consent for human-subject research. Which is to say, the plaintiffs weren’t suggesting someone accidentally left a warning label off the box.
Alas, after Stassen presented his damning evidence, the defendants’ attorneys categorically denied [*checks notes again*] every charge. So no, this wasn’t the part of the movie where someone cracks under questioning and admits to a global genocide. The closest thing to a confession was probably somebody asking whether anyone even checks the parking meters. But beneath the explosive accusations and the Byzantine bureaucratic paperwork was the question the judges actually had to answer: had the plaintiffs established that the defendants were legally responsible for their [*journalistic integrity makes me call them alleged*] injuries?
The verdict: We’ll let you know.
No liability finding was announced. Nobody flipped. Nobody squealed. Nobody, tragically, was led off in handcuffs. According to a hearing report, the judge identified December 9 as an initial target date for the ruling, before warning that the complexity of the case could push it into February of next year—or beyond.
So, what happens next? Well, the judge could dismiss the case, find some or all of the defendants liable, or demand more evidence. (Fourteen thousand pages, and there’s still a possibility of “Could you elaborate?” Perhaps His Honor was hoping for a pop-up book or a dramatic reenactment.) And even a ruling of deliberate deception wouldn’t automatically land anyone in the clink, because civil cases are all about who owes who what, not who gets the top bunk. But a liability finding could put the defendants on the hook for compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
And you know, nothing says justice served like giving some billionaire mass murderers the equivalent of a parking ticket.
The big hope is that the court concludes there was intentional duplicity. That still, unfortunately, does not mean an automatic conviction. But let’s just say it’s also not the sort of thing you can fix by having your publicist post “We remain relentlessly committed to transparency” on X.
Whether this case turns out to be a historic Climax of Consequences or an expensive exercise in Dutch paperwork remains to be seen. But if a court determines that some of the world’s most powerful people knowingly lied about the potentially lethal consequences of Covid vaccines, I’m pretty sure the lazy, disinterested American media will have to cover it.
Unless Trump decides to rename something that day.
POLL REDUX FOR FINICKY PHONES:
What happens next?
Swift public hangings.
A few fines and wrist slaps.
Years of appeals and delays.
Literally nothing.
*combo/unsure/other
I have been WAITING for you to cover this, cuz, like you noted - nothing but crickets from MSM. We all need to get on our knees and pray to the only one who swings for justice and avenging the innocents, who relieves the burden of the oppressed. Because in real life, the expected outcome will be a great big nothing burger. But more than one of us can say, “I know a Man.” Pray for a miracle!
Thanks Jenna! I’m not usually an optimist about this sort of thing, but in this case nothing meaningful is going to come of it, and nobody will ever find out.
At times like this I’m reminded of the time Bill Gates was hit in the face with a whipped cream pie, and I think 1) what a missed opportunity, and 2) that’s the day he decided that the earth was overpopulated and he was going to do something about it.