Present, the ………………………two thousand and twenty three, at the request of
1. Mr. ……………………………….., resident in ……………..;
2. Mrs. ………………………………, resident in …………….;
3. Mr. ……………………………….., resident in …………….;
4. Mrs. ………………………………., resident in …………….;
5. Mr. ……………………………….., resident in ……………..;
6. Mrs. ………………………………, resident in ……………..;
7. Mr. ………………………………., resident in ……………..;
All-in this case choosing residence at the law firms as mentioned at the top of this summons, whereby the attorneys at law mentioned above will represent them in this procedure.
TO PROCEED TO WRITTEN AND UNCONDITIONAL ENDORSEMENT OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRIMARY SUMMONED DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT BY DELIVERING A WRITTEN AND SIGNED STATEMENT TO THE ATTORNEYS OF PLAINTIFFS BY MEANS OF FORWARDING TO POSTBUS 7004 5605 JA EINDHOVEN, THE NETHERLANDS WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF SERVING THIS WRIT.
THUS WITH EXPRESS NOTICE ON WHEN IGNORING THIS SUMMONS, PRESENT WRIT WILL BE FILED AT THE COURT AS WRIT OF SUMMONS, IMPLYING AFOREMENTIONED DEBTOR WHEN IGNORING OR TARDYING TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS WRIT
1. Mr. EVERHARDUS ITE HOFSTRA, resident in …………….. (……. …), municipality of ……………….., …………… .., issuing my writ there to this address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
2. Mr. JAAP TAMINO VAN DISSEL, resident in (…… …) ………………, ………….., issuing my writ there to this address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
3. Ms. MARIA PETRONELLA GERARDA KOOPMANS, resident in (……. ..) …………….., municipality of ……, ………………, issuing my writ there to this address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
4. Mr. MARK RUTTE, born ……………, 1967 in The Hague, in accordance with the Personal Records Database, resident in the municipality of ’s-Gravenhage at an address of which the defendant aforementioned has put in a request to keep this address confidential to all third parties, therefore I will not mention this confidential address on this writ, issuing my writ there to this confidential address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
5. Mrs. SIGRID AGNES MARIA KAAG, born …………………, 1961 in Rijswijk (ZH), in accordance with the Personal Records Database, resident in the municipality of ’s-Gravenhage at an address of which the defendant aforementioned has put in a request to keep this address confidential to all third parties, therefore I will not mention this address on this writ, issuing my writ there to this confidential address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
6. Mr. HUGO MATTHEÜS DE JONGE, resident in (…….. ..) ………………., …………………. …, issuing my writ there to this address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
7. Mr. ERNST JOHAN KUIPERS, born ………………………, 1959 in Meppel, in accordance with the Personal Records Database, resident of the municipality of __________ at an address of which the defendant aforementioned has requested the municipality to keep this address confidential to all third parties, therefore I will not mention this confidential address on this writ, issuing my writ there to this confidential address, and leaving a copy of this writ to:
8. Mr. DIEDERIK ANTONIUS MARIA PAULUS JOHANNES GOMMERS, resident in (…….. ..) ……………………., ……………… …, issuing my writ there to this address and leaving a copy of this writ to:
9. Mr. WOPKE BASTIAAN HOEKSTRA, born ………………….., 1975 in Bennekom, municipality of Ede, in accordance with the Personal Records Database, resident of the municipality of __________ at an address of which defendant aforementioned has requested the municipality to keep this address confidential to all third parties, therefore I will not mention this confidential address on this writ, issuing this writ on this confidential address and leaving a copy of this writ to::
10. Ms. CORNELIA VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN, born in Ridderkerk on …………., 1963, in accordance with the Personal Records Database, resident of the municipality of __________ at an address of which defendant aforementioned has requested the municipality to keep this address confidential to all third parties, therefore I will not mention this confidential address on this writ, issuing this writ on this confidential address and leaving a copy of this writ to:
11. Mr. ALBERT BOURLA, born on …………….., 1961 in Thessaloniki, Greece and resident of the United States of America on …………………………………….., NY 10001, in consequence of article 55 Dutch Legal Action. ……:
12. Ms. GISELLE JACQUELINE MARIE-THÉRÈSE VAN CANN, resident at ………………….. … in (……… …) ………………., issuing my writ there to this address and, leaving a copy of this writ to::
13. Mr. PAUL JANSEN, born ………………, 1967 in Zutphen, with no known place of residence or abode:
(non-governmental organization (NGO, WEF))
14. Mr. FEIKE SIJBESMA, born ……………………….., 1959, resident at ………………………. …. in (……… …) ………………, issuing my writ there to this address and, leaving a copy of this writ to::
15. Mr. WILLIAM HENRY BILL GATES III, born in Seattle, United States on ………………………, 1955, resident at ……………………………………, Washington, United States of America.
16. Mrs. AGNES CATHARINA VAN DER VOORT-KANT, born on ……………………., 1967 in Hessisch-Oldendorf, Germany, with no known place of residence or abode:
17. The STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS, a legal entity under public law, residing in 's-Gravenhage ("the State"), on the basis of article 48 Dutch Legal Action. issuing the writ to the attorney general’s office at the High Council of the Netherlands residing in (2511 CB) 's-Gravenhage at Korte Voorhout 8 and leaving a copy of this writ to:
To appear at the hearing of the District Court Noord-Nederland, location Leeuwarden, not in person, yet represented by an attorney, at the hereafter given time, adjudicating in this case, which hearing shall take place at the courtroom
Zaailand 102 in (8911 BN) Leeuwarden, on Wednesday-----------------------------2023 at 10 AM.
a. in case a defendant fails to appoint attorney and/ or fails to make advance payment of the Court fee, and the prescribed deadlines and formalities have been observed, the judge will issue default judgement and award hereupon described claim, unless this deems him to be illegitimate;
b. in case at least one of the defendants appears at the hearing and has made advance payment of Court fee, between all parties equal judgement will be passed, which will be considered judgement on contradiction;
c. on appearance at hearing levy of Court fee will be made to all defendants, to pay within four weeks counting from the time of appearance;
d. the costs of Court fees is mentioned in the most recent appendix of the Court Fees Civil Cases Act, to be found also on the website: www.kbvg.nl/griffierechtentabel
e. from an insolvent person, a by or under the law fixed Court fee for insolvent persons is levied, if he has produced the following on the time of levy of the Court fee:
1e a copy of the decision of assignment, as meant in article 29 of the Act on Legal Aid, or when impossible due to circumstances reasonably not to be held to his account, a copy of the request, as meant in article 24, second paragraph, of the Law on legal aid, or
2e a statement from the directorship of the Legal Aid Board, as meant in article 7, third paragraph, part e, of the Act on Legal Aid showing that his income does not exceed the incomes as meant in the Order in Council under article 35, second paragraph, of that law;
f. on defendants who appear before the same attorney and draw/make identical conclusions or defend themselves on the basis of Section 15 of the Civil Registry Rights Act only once a joint Court Fee is levied;
IN ORDER TO:
If then on the following grounds and on behalf of the plaintiffs, hereinafter collectively referred to as “M...... et al.”, to hear make a claim and conclude as follows:
1. The text of this summons defines a number of concepts. In order to avoid confusion, a number of key concepts are already explained here.
2. Covid-19: Where this summons talks of Covid-19 it always refers to the WHO’s pretend life-threatening lung disease caused by the alleged Sars-Cov-2 virus. The use of the term Covid-19 in this summons does not in any way imply that plaintiffs acknowledge there was a life-threatening lung disease caused by a dangerous pathogen. Nor does the use of the term Covid-19 mean that plaintiffs acknowledge the existence of the Sars-Cov-2 virus. On the contrary, plaintiffs contend that Covid-19 is a project initiated by NGO’s and funded by the World Bank which project is among others carried out by defendants.
3. Pandemic: Where this summons talks of a pandemic it always refers to the WHO’s pretend Covid-19 pandemic. Thus the use of the term pandemic in this summons does not in any way imply that plaintiffs acknowledge there was a health risk caused by a dangerous pathogen. On the contrary, plaintiffs contend there is no evidence of this.
4. Covid-19 vaccine / Covid-19 injection: Where this summons talks of a Covid-19 vaccine or a Covid-19 injection it always refers to the injection fluid of which defendants claim it to be a medicine which is safe and effective in the context of protecting from the pretend disease Covid-19. The use of the term Covid-19 vaccine or Covid-19 injection in this summons does not in any way imply de plaintiffs acknowledging there is such a drug. On the contrary, plaintiffs contend there is no evidence for the medicinal effect of the Covid-19 vaccine so that there is no question of a medicine.
5. With regard to the facts presented in this summons with regard to the defendants, M...... et al. state and also offer, if necessary, to prove further that all defendants knew at the time of the commission of their unlawful conduct of all the facts and circumstances that M...... et al. put forward in this summons.
6. So as not to fall into repetition, those facts and circumstances concerning the defendants will be presented separately. The orders in which defendants’ unlawful conduct is described in this summons was deliberately chosen for the purpose of preventing a flood of information. For these reasons, plaintiffs urge this summons be read in the order presented and in its entirety in order to obtain a complete picture of the contentions plaintiffs make of the wrongful conduct against each of the defendants.
7. With regard to the productions submitted, a number of them consist of video material. Associated with this, this summons is accompanied by a USB-stick in which the full summons including all productions and the video material arranged by production number is included.
8. If a number of pages of a document is presented when submitting the paper productions and the complete document is presented on the USB-stick, M...... et al. hereby submit the entire document placed on the USB-stick to your court as production and evidence.
9. Of all videos a Windows media player suitable download has been placed on the USB-stick. In the indication of this, reference is always made to the corresponding production number. With regard to the submission of video material by M...... et al. , it is expressly noted that M...... et al. submit the entire video material placed on the USB—stick as production and evidence to your court.
10. The world-wide officially used narrative concerning Covid-19 is that there is a Covid-19 pandemic caused by a new Coronavirus called Sars-Cov-2. On February 28, 2020 this world-wide official narrative has been introduced in the Netherlands by the OMT(Outbreak Management Team) as part of the RIVM (Dutch CDC). Following this introduction of this narrative, the RIVM reported to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in her letter of February 28, 2020 among other things, the following:
‘… Meanwhile the virus has been given the name SARS-CoV-2, the disease is called Covid-19 …’
11. The letter from the RIVM to the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport of February 28, 2020 is submitted as PRODUCTION 1. In an open letter dated March 12, 2020 on the WHO’s website, the WHO informs the world that there is a so called Covid-19 pandemic and that they are cooperating with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to have the private sector play a role in this. As PRODUCTION 2., M...... et al. submit a copy of the open letter dated March 12, 2020 on the website of the WHO. According to the official narrative this pandemic could solely be contested if everybody will let themselves be vaccinated with Covid-19 injections against this. Unless everybody is vaccinated it will endanger in particular the most vulnerable. To vaccinate supposedly would be the only way out of the pandemic and those who took the vaccination did so not only for themselves but especially for another. The constant message has been that the Covid-19 injections had been tested extensively and are safe and effective.
12. This narrative is the basis of their actions according to the defendants. The Covid-19 policy based on this narrative has been indiscriminately accepted, embraced and executed by the defendants. All this without a thorough social, scientific, economic an ethical debate. Defendants maintain their actions based on this narrative are in the best interests of humanity and public health in particular.
13. M...... et al. got the Covid-19 injections because defendants gave them every reason to do so. M...... et al. trusted the defendants due to their social positions, knowledge and responsibilities. In the absence of a thorough public debate concerning the accuracy of the narrative, there was no reason for M...... et al. to doubt the Covid-19 injections having been tested extensively, were safe and effective and getting them would be a benefit to themselves and their fellowman.
The Covid-19 injections have caused severe personal damage to M...... et al.
14. M...... et al. started questioning the narrative on the Covid-19 injections after the occurrence of health damage to them and many others in their environment. For M...... et al. this gave rise to their quest for the real state of affairs concerning the alleged pandemic.
15. Over the course of time a tremendous amount of information has become available which makes it plausible that the narrative used by the defendants cannot possibly be true. From that information also follows that defendants must have known this narrative was not true. As a result M...... et al. have come to see defendants’ behavior in a completely different perspective and conclude defendants acted unlawfully toward them. M...... et al. will substantiate their claims in this regard with evidence in this procedure.
16. M...... et al. want your court to examine the admissibility of their claims and decide on them on the basis of wat they base their claims on in these proceedings.
17. M...... et al. are conducting this case on the basis of their legal interest in obtaining the damage claimed by them and the declaratory judgement formulated below.
18. The motivation of M...... et al. to conduct this procedure is partially prompted by the social interest in the process of truth finding that is necessary to be able to decide on the claims in court. In view of this social interest, M...... et al. aim not only to serve their own interests, but also and not least the interests of their fellow human beings.
19. The aforementioned social importance cannot be overestimated. The arguments of M...... et al. and defendants are incompatible and diametrically opposed. A similar contradiction is evident in society and is the cause of great social tensions.
20. With the intervention of the judiciary M...... et al. want to expose the truth on Covid-19 .
21. In the context of truth finding M...... et al. point out two important facts the judiciary must not ignore. Primarily it is about the fact that all defendants are part of a larger whole which is mainly surrounded and led by NGO’s. These private entities are numerous and share the characteristic of masquerading as benefactors. The actions of this larger whole are largely led by defendant sub 15, hereinafter referred to as: “Bill Gates”. To this end, a partnership under the name of GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance (hereinafter to be referred to as: ‘GAVI’) has been set up in the year 2000. On GAVI’s website her influence and connectedness with all aspects concerning vaccination is aptly portrayed by means of the following image.
22. As a second important fact in the process of truth finding, M...... et al. point out that the parties shown in the image above, because of their global influence, have it in their power to determine and have determined the narrative about Covid-19 and the Covid-19 injections.
23. Only the truth can eliminate the contradictions observed above and remove social tensions.
24. M...... et al. seek declaratory judgement that defendants are jointly and severally liable for all damages resulting from committed torts from defendants as a group and individually as described in this summons.
25. M...... et al. claim damage from defendants as a result of the personal injury and financial loss suffered from Covid-19 injections, to be made up by state and to be settled in accordance with the Law.
26. Defendant sub 1, hereinafter referred to as : ‘Hofstra’ is personally associated as an expert with the Outbreak Management Team (hereinafter referred to as: ‘OMT’) of the National Institute for Safety and the Environment ( hereinafter referred to as: ‘RIVM’) and in that capacity also professionally connected as a doctor to the Municipal Health Service Fryslân (hereinafter referred to as: GGD). In the fight against infectious diseases in the Netherlands, the Centre of Infectious Disease Control of the RIVM (hereinafter referred to as: ‘CIB’) has an advisory and coordinating role. Hofstra is also president of the Dutch Association for Infectious Disease Control (NVIB) and is an advisor at the Network Centre, where the work of Hofstra consists of writing scenarios for exercises in the field of infectious diseases and supervising those exercises from a so-called response cell. As PRODUCTION 3, M...... et al. submit the declaration of interests which Hofstra has issued with the OMT showing the aforementioned positions.
27. By being a member of the OMT Hofstra had all the information on Covid-19 and the virus Sars-Cov-2 that was necessary for the OMT to come to the best possible advice regarding the control of the pandemic.. These advices have always been followed and have resulted in the narrative stating vaccination would be the only way out of the pandemic with M...... et al. as undisputed and true.
28. The advices of Hofstra were always in line with the final advice of the OMT. The OMT did not have data from which, on careful examination, the scientific conclusion could be drawn that there was a threat to public health that required government interventions, let alone massive deployment of Covid-19 injections.
At the time of giving these opinions, there was no question of excess mortality. As PRODUCTION 4, a data statement from the CBS provided by plaintiffs showing no excess mortality.
29. Hofstra knew the capacity of healthcare was not at stake. To the extent that capacity already seemed limited, this was due to government policies related to care, including the handling of an inappropriate PCR test and the scaling down of care capacity for years. As PRODUCTION 5, information is produced relating to the 1972 government breakdown of the Dutch care capacity. It should be noted that no data are made available by the government as regards the size of the care capacity over the period after 2018. Defendant sub 8 in his capacity as president association intensive care has stated in an interview in 2021 the number of IC beds had been reduced to in total 950 beds. As PRODUCTION 6, submitted by plaintiffs an article from de Telegraaf dated October 21, 2021 showing this statement of Gommers. When taking office of defendant sub 6 in 2017 the Netherlands still had 2056 IC beds.
30. Hofstra is an important participant in the Covid-19 project to be described below. Hofstra has made his positions at the OMT, the NVIB and the Network Center subservient to the implementation of the Covid-19 project. This includes writing scenarios for pandemic exercises held in connection with the Covid-19 project and, as chairman at the NVIB leading a misleading pro Covid-19 vaccination campaign in collaboration with the GGD’s for the benefit of the Covid-19 project. All this while Hofstra being a member of the OMT knew the Covid-19 injections did not serve the health of the Dutch people including M...... et al., but to facilitate the implementation of the Covid-19. These claims will be explained in detail later in this summons.
31. Hofstra has done everything he can to make the massive Covid-19 injection campaign a success for the benefit of the Covid-19 project. In an open letter on the website of the NVIB dated April 17, 2021 Hofstra writes the following on the matter:
‘…From the beginning of the pandemic, we at the GGD’s are continuously carrying out and scaling up source and contact research, testing, vaccinating and advising municipalities, institutions and all residents of the Netherlands. At the GGD’s , thousands of people have been hired and trained in a very short time to perform all tasks as well as possible. And everyone works extremely hard to tell people they’ve tested positive and have to do source and contact tracing, or to explain to disappointed callers that unfortunately it’s not their turn for vaccination yet. These are sometimes not easy conversations...’
As PRODUCTION 7, M...... et al. submit a copy of the open letter from Hofstra dated April 17, 2021.
32. Later in this summons it will appear that with this open letter Hofstra deliberately misled the Dutch public, including M...... et al.. In April 2021, Hofstra knew the Covid-19 injections, at least certain batches of them, were life-threatening. Hofstra also knew at the time the Covid-19 injections offered no protection (transmission) against the alleged virus.
33. Hofstra should have spoken out against the advice of the OMT and also as a doctor opposed the actions of the GGD in which citizens, including young people from the age of 12, were encouraged to take a Covid-19 injection without parental consent with a so - called ‘jab-buss’ at schools. Because all this was advised by Hofstra, or at least he did not speak out against it, M...... et al. continued to follow the narrative and had the Covid-19 injections.
34. Hofstra can be blamed for not taking his responsibility as a doctor, OMT-member, chairman of the NVIB and advisor at the Network Center and therefore acting socially careless towards M...... et al. with the damage suffered by M...... et al. as a result. M...... et al. would not have made (been able to make) the Covid-19 injections if Hofstra had performed his task with the required social diligence. The advice of the OMT would have sounded different, at least Hofstra would have publicly opposed this advice, so that M...... et al. would have been adequately warned and would not have had the Covid-19 injections.
35. Defendant sub 2, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Van Dissel’ has been director of the CIB since August 15, 2013. As indicated above, the CIB is part of the RIVM. In that capacity, Van Dissel is chairman of the OMT. According to the website of the CIB, the CIB is the point of contact for the World Health Organization (hereinafter referred to as: ‘WHO’) and the Centers of Disease Control of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as: ‘CDC’). The CDC in the US is equal to the Dutch RIVM. In this sense, Van Dissel, like the other defendants, is connected to the bigger picture as described in this summons. Van Dissel has always publicly and deliberately defended the obviously unlawful advice of the OMT knowing that these recommendations were wrong and harmful and would be followed by the vast majority of the Dutch population.
36. Given Van Dissel’s expertise and the position he holds, Van Dissel instilled in M...... et al. the great confidence in the narrative where vaccination would be the only way out of the pandemic and Covid-19 vaccines would be safe and effective.
37. On the eve of the vaccination phase, it was Van Dissel who, as director of the RIVM, made a strong case for the large-scale roll-out of the vaccinations. In connection with this, Van Dissel deliberately participated in the deception of the Dutch population by means of the lie that vaccinations would create herd immunity. Van Dissel has also made possible the role of the RIVM as manager of the large-scale vaccination program. Van Dissel expressed the wish that all vulnerable people would be vaccinated as soon as possible. As PRODUCTION 8 is submitted an online article from RTL news dated December 9, 2020 which shows this.
38. Van Dissel can be blamed for not taking his responsibility as chairman of the OMT and therefore acting socially careless towards M...... et al., resulting in the damage suffered by M...... et al.. M...... et al. would not have gotten (been able to get) the Covid-19 injections if Van Dissel had performed his task with the required social diligence. The advice of the OMT would have sounded different, at least Van Dissel would have publicly opposed this advice, so that M...... et al. would have been adequately warned and would not have had the Covid-19 injections.
39. Defendant sub 3, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Koopmans’ is professor of virology at the Erasmus MC in Rotterdam. In addition, Koopmans has been head of the so-called viro-science department (virus science department) of the Erasmus MC since 2006. Koopmans is a regular invited expert of the OMT. Koopmans has been a member of the WHO since 2014. Koopmans has always publicly supported the OMT’s advice. During the period Koopmans supported the aforementioned advice, she was appointed by the WHO as a researcher and charged with the research that took place in Wuhan and focused on the origin of the Sars-Cov-2 virus. The WHO terminated this appointment after journalists from the United States uncovered Koopmans was a member of CDC in Guangdong, China and in that capacity had advised on the building of laboratory capacity for the detection of emerging infectious diseases and in China, had several collaborations in the field of research into the emergence of viruses. All this had been publicly concealed by Koopmans. As PRODUCTION 9, plaintiffs submit a journalistic article written by Luis Miguel and placed on the website of The New American on December 12, 2021.
40. Koopmans closely followed the trials carried out by Moderna and Pfizer for their Covid-19 vaccines. In this connection, the plaintiffs refer to the interview that Koopmans gave on April 10, 2020 to Mr. Bohlmeijer, correspondent Goede Gesprekken. Koopmans as a prominent member of the WHO and the OMT has all first-line information regarding the aforementioned trials. Because of this Koopmans knew Moderna had already started its Covid-19 vaccine trials in 2017 and Pfizer had already started its Covid-19 trials four days after the Chinese government released the genetic code of the alleged Sars-Cov-2 virus on January 8, 2020 to the world. The evidence for this contention will be discussed in more detail by plaintiffs in this summons. Koopmans knew Covid-19 was a project and not a disease. Nevertheless, Koopmans followed the official narrative of her important client, the WHO, in the execution of this Covid-19 project.
41. With regards to Koopmans’ information position, it is particularly important that Koopmans had access to the Pfizer safety reports, which were still secret at the time, including the Pfizer report FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054. From the latter report it is clear that, among other things, more than 42000 cases were reported to Pfizer before February 28, 2021, of which 1.223 deaths and 11.361 cases of serious and permanent injuries. Koopmans has concealed this extremely disturbing information from the public. This report will be discussed later in this summons and will be submitted as production 40.
42. Misinforming the public by concealing important information and spreading false information is a manipulation technique that has been used extensively by defendants. It is unfortunate and bizarre that the defendants, including Koopmans in particular from the Dutch branch of GAVI, namely the Vaccination alliance founded a ‘Think Tank Disinformation’ in the last quarter of 2019. The participants in this Think Tank Disinformation only concern people who are strongly in favor of mass vaccination of people. In her role as a participant in the Think Tank Disinformation, Koopmans has developed and applied a ‘framework for thinking’ that aims to steer the public debate. The direction in which it was steered was exclusively pro-mass vaccination. The framework for shaping this direction made use of the social polarization about whether or not to take the Covid-19 injections. Following a third meeting of the Vaccination Alliance and the Think Tank Disinformation, a report was drawn up. This report includes the following quotes:
‘…The Think Tank can take on multiple roles, precisely because of the diverse profile of its members. In order to consciously engage with the middle group, the right tone must be found. It is not only about facts, but also about the (emotional) dynamics of the group. By recruiting the right influencers, with whom you can gain trust, this group gets the feeling of being heard and understood.…’
‘… 4. Good to bet on various people who take position and show leadership, these can be experts from their professional backgrounds, but you can also use an authentic person (e.g. famous football player) to have a message proclaimed once ‘I take the vaccine’…’
43. As PRODUCTION 10, M...... et al. submit the report of the third meeting of the Vaccination alliance and the Think Tank Disinformation.
44. Koopmans concealed her role in the Think Tank Disinformation and concealed the fact that she and the influencers recruited by Think Tank Disinformation steered the public debate pro mass vaccination. It is shocking that Koopmans, in her position as a member of the OMT, had the aforementioned Pfizer report FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054 and concealed the information and conclusions available from it to the public, including M...... et al.. In M...... et al.’s opinion, this means that Koopmans spread disinformation and the Think Tank Disinformation actually aimed to ensure that the public was falsely informed using influencers for this purpose. All this in order to enable mass vaccination with Covid-19 injections – which Koopmans knew were harmful - for the success of the Covid-19 project.
45. Koopmans can be blamed for not taking her responsibility as a scientist and OMT and WHO member and therefore acting socially careless towards M...... et al., resulting in the damage suffered by M...... et al.. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections if Koopmans had performed her task with the required social diligence. The advice of the OMT would have sounded different, at least Koopmans would have publicly opposed this advice, so that M...... et al. would have been adequately warned and would not have had the Covid-19 injections.
46. Defendant sub 4, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Rutte’ is Prime Minister of the Netherlands and a prominent member of the World Economic Forum (hereinafter referred to as: ‘WEF’). As PRODUCTION 11, plaintiffs hereby submit the details of Rutte and his former employer Unilever as published on the website of the WEF and a number of photographs showing the relationship between Rutte and the president of the WEF, Mr. Klaus Schwab.
47. Schwab is Rutte’s superior. This is evident, among other things, from various letters from Schwab to Rutte. As an important example of such a letter, M...... et al., as PRODUCTION 12, submit a letter from Schwab to Rutte dated October 21, 2020. This letter shows that ideas and plans are being forged from the WEF to reform the so-called post Covid-19 world. In this letter, Schwab instructs Rutte to ensure that the Netherlands lead these reforms in Europe. These reforms have already been referred to as the Covid-19 project. The Covid-19 injections are crucial here. Rutte has accepted this assignment and is carrying it out on behalf of the WEF, which explains why Rutte advises the Covid-19 injections to the Dutch population, including M...... et al..
48. Rutte, in collaboration with defendants, in particular defendant sub 6, has systematically put out the narrative in many public speeches, abusing his office as Prime Minister in the process. Rutte was guilty of the “you’re doing it for your fellow man doctrine” that dismissed people who made the perfectly normal choice to continue their lives in a way that was customary for a flu season, as irresponsible and harmful to society. The Covid-19 measures taken under Rutte’s leadership had nothing to do with public health, but with the implementation of the Covid-19 project. Rutte’s proposals of the Netherlands as a ‘sick patient’ and the Covid-19 measures – with vaccination as a ‘medicine’ as a central theme, were ingredients that Rutte abused to deceive the Dutch population, including M...... et al., into accepting the Covid-19 measures. M...... et al. mention the following examples.
49. During the press conference on February 23, 2021, Rutte stated the following, among other things.
‘… It remains incredibly exciting what we are doing today, even if it may seem like small steps. We have to be very aware of that. That is precisely why these basic rules are so important. And that is precisely why it is so important that we continue on the path that Hugo de Jonge will now update you on. The path that through testing and vaccination will hopefully lead to a summer with far fewer restrictions…’
50. In addition to this, De Jonge brought up the following on the path which should be hoped for, according to Rutte::
‘ …The end of the crisis has begun with the start of vaccination, but the end itself will still take a while. The way out of the crisis is done in three stages. Until enough people have been vaccinated, measures and intensive testing will continue to be necessary. The fact that we are making more possible with the numbers that are slowly increasing is, Mark already mentioned it, incredibly exciting…
Vaccinating. It is going faster and faster. The millionth shot has been made. We expect to put the two millionth shot in mid-March and at the end of March on the verge of April, we are at three million – if the deliveries go well, of course, because the speed with which the vaccines arrive, determines the speed with which we can vaccinate.
There are also hopeful first signals about how the vaccines protect against transmission of the virus’
51. As PRODUCTION 13, plaintiffs submit information concerning the press conference given by Rutte and De Jonge on February 23, 2023.
52. During the press conference of Rutte and De Jonge on May 11, 2021, they explain what ‘step 2 of the opening plan for society’ looks like. Rutte explains, among other things, the following.
‘… You know we are on our way to a hopefully beautiful summer thanks to the vaccinations. Hugo de Jonge will say more about that in a moment and also about our expectations for the summer holidays and the accompanying travel advice…’
53. In connection with this, De Jonge made the following point about the expectations for the summer holidays.
‘… It can just be a beautiful summer. The vaccination campaign is well underway. This week the seven millionth injection will be given and in the second half of May [2021] all people at sixty years of age or older and all people with a high medical risk – such as people with leukemia or people with Down syndrome- can at least have had their first vaccination. And that’s an important milestone we’ve been working towards …
And in addition, we have succeeded in offering a first vaccine to everyone who works with vulnerable people in healthcare… ‘
As PRODUCTION 14, plaintiffs submit information concerning the press conference given by Rutte and De Jonge on May 11, 2021, also as an example, a similar press conference set up in the United Kingdom.
54. Rutte knew the narrative about the so-called Covid-19 pandemic to be untrue and that the Covid-19 injections – in particular certain batches – causes serious bodily injury. The hope Rutte had imagined was in reality nothing more than a way of deceiving the Dutch people in order to make a success of the Covid-19 project. The deception of Rutte was unprecedented, all the more so now that at the time of his statements quoted above, he was already aware that in the Pfizer trial cited above by Koopmans (Pfizer report FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054), more than 1200 had already been reported dead and, according to reports, more than 11.000 people suffered serious injury after taking the Covid-19 injections.
55. On October 10 of 2022, a hearing took place in the European Parliament in which Mrs. Janine Small, a director of Pfizer, formally admitted before the hearing committee that Pfizer had never tested the Covid-19 vaccine for preventing transmission. Rutte is familiar with this. Rutte also knew that the ‘you do it for your fellow man doctrine’ he propagated is a lie and is merely intended to use psychological deception to induce people to have the Covid-19 injections. As PRODUCTION 15 , plaintiffs hereby submit part of the interrogation of Pfizer and the short interview of Ongehoord Nederland dated October 12 2022 in which Rutte is confronted with the statement of Mrs. Small, dismisses it as nonsense and indicates that he still supports the Covid-19 injections and advises everyone to ‘just’ get vaccinated with them.
56. Rutte can be blamed for not taking his political and social responsibility as Prime minister of the Netherlands and therefore acting socially careless towards M...... et al., resulting in the damage suffered by M...... et al..
57. Rutte committed his unlawful conduct with the aim of supporting the interests of Schwab and the WEF in the Covid-19 project. Article 97a of the Penal Code provides:
‘He who enters into contact with any person or body established abroad with a view to induce such person or body to provide support for the preparation, promotion or inducement of revolution, to strengthen such a person or body in the intention conceived for that purpose, or to promise or assist such person or body, or to prepare, promote or bring about upheaval, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or temporary imprisonment not exceeding thirty years or a fine of the fifth category.’
58. As indicated in the Reading Guide, all the conduct complained of is attributed to all defendants. Similarly, what has been said above with regard to Article 97a of the Penal Code applies equally to Hofstra, Van Dissel and Koopmans.
59. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections if Rutte had performed his task with the required social diligence. The advice of the OMT would have sounded different, at least Rutte would have publicly opposed this advice, so that M...... et al. would have been adequately warned and would not have had the Covid-19 injections.
60. Defendant sub 5, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Kaag’, holds the office of Minister of Finance and is a prominent member of the WEF. Prior to entering this post, Kaag worked mainly for the United Nations (hereinafter referred to as: ‘UN’), who plays an important role in the larger whole referred to above, through its affiliation with the WHO. During her ministry, Kaag started working for the WEF and is part of a so-called Think Tank. In this Think Tank, plans are devised for the implementation of a total realignment of, among other things, the Dutch society. This rearrangement is referred to by the WEF as ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’. In order to be able to implement the Great Reset, it is very important that in countries the in the UN included agenda 21 (from 1992) and the agenda 2030 (from 2015) ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (hereinafter referred to as: SDG’s) become the benchmark for the reorganization of the societies in all countries that are member of the UN. The participation of Kaag as a Dutch minister in a Think Tank of an NGO, more specifically the WEF is contrary to the social position of Kaag because the Great Reset is not in the interest of the Dutch population and therefore not of M...... et al.. In addition, the plans and the impact of the Great Reset on the entire Dutch population were never submitted to the Dutch Parliament. Devising and executing the Covid-19 project qualifies as a tort of Kaag against M...... et al..
61. Kaag presents herself as a minister who, within the framework of the Great Reset, has to coordinate the SDG’s at national level and is a member of a stream of thinkers at the WEF. As PRODUCTION 16, plaintiffs submit a recording of an interview with Kaag in which Kaag presents herself as such. This recording also shows what the Great Reset will mean.
62. The Great Reset assumes nothing is still good and everything will have to be improved again – without the consent or consultation of the population – differently and therefore according to the WEF. This same philosophy is imposed on the world by the UN through her Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. The imposing of this philosophy is accompanied by the following slogan of the UN: ‘Build Back Better’. Many politicians around the world in similar positions to Kaag’s have propagated this philosophy and used the slogan ‘Build Back Better’. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Kaag commits herself to this Build Back Better assignment of the WEF and the UN. To prove this M...... et al. submit a letter from Kaag dated May 27, 2021 to the WHO (as part of the UN and affiliated with the WEF) in which she demonstrates her broad support for the Build Back Better mission as PRODUCTION 17 .
63. The ideas of Kaag and her Think Tank and the many topics and systems that according to those ideas of Kaag, should be implemented in today’s society, have been visualized by the WEF in an image. This line of thought is spread by the WEF through its website and the book that can be downloaded for free Covid-19: The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab dated July 13, 2020. Schwab praised the Great Reset in a video from the WEF at the beginning of June 2020. The aforementioned image with the visualization of the ideas for which Kaag stands, an image and a download of the book Covid-19: The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab and also the aforementioned video are submitted by plaintiffs as PRODUCTION 18.
64. A core condition included in the plans for the implementation of the Great Reset concerns the vaccination with Covid-19 injections for the entire population in order to counter an ‘existential future health crisis ‘pretended in the official narrative of the WHO and the WEF. The plans of the WHO and the WEF are urging the population, especially the generation of Millennials and future generations, to call on the international community without delay to ensure vaccination for all. The accompanying message is no one will be safe until everyone is vaccinated. As PRODUCTION 19, plaintiffs submit two videos of Klaus Schwab dated January 26, 2021 respectively July 2022 in which Schwab expresses the ideas – which Kaag strongly supports – and indicates no one will be safe until everyone is vaccinated.
65. As a minister and member of the WEF, Kaag advocates these plans and therefore also advocates Covid-19 injections. All this while Kaag knows that many people died during the Pfizer trials, which have been mentioned several times in this summons, and that thousands of people suffered serious permanent physical injuries.
66. The Covid-19 project is crucial to be able to realize the Great Reset advocated by Kaag and the other defendants. In order to ensure the WEF can direct and control the Dutch government in the context of the Covid-19 project, the Ministry of Kaag, among others, has ensured that information is exchanged directly between the WEF and her Ministry through the Permanent Representation (PR). All this without informing the Dutch parliament. As a result it is absolutely clear that Kaag, like the other defendants, does not serve the interests of the Dutch population and therefore not of M...... et al.. What has been stated on Rutte about Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Kaag.
67. As PRODUCTION 20, plaintiffs submit information concerning the Representation of the Netherlands in Geneva and the answer to parliamentary questions from Kaag in which she acknowledges her dual position..
68. Because of her background, functions and connections, Kaag knows, like all other defendants, the narrative is false. In particular, Kaag has abused her office as Minister by actively participating in the implementation of the Great Reset and the Covid-19 project without parliamentary consent and control through, among other things, the private NGO, the WEF.
69. Kaag is to be blamed for not taking her political and social responsibility as politician and Minister and because of that she has acted socially careless against M...... et al. with the damage suffered by M...... et al. as a result. The policy of the Dutch government would not have come about without Kaag’s unlawful conduct. Kaag should not have cooperated with the plans of the WEF and the WHO and, as a Dutch minister, she should have publicly opposed the narrative, which she failed to do.
70. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections if Kaag had performed her task with the required social diligence.
71. Defendant sub 6, hereinafter referred to as: ‘De Jonge’ held the office of Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport from March 2020 to December 2021 and is a prominent member of the WEF. As PRODUCTION 21, plaintiffs provide a printout of a page of the WEF’s website showing De Jonge’s membership in the WEF.
72. As the Minister of Public Health, Welfare and Sports, De Jonge was responsible for the affairs of the RIVM. Under the leadership of De Jonge, the RIVM has implemented and executed the Covid-19 strategy of the WHO. This strategy has been based on military psychological behavioral influence tactics. These tactics are mainly based on inducing great fear, in this case of a pretend deadly virus. This with the aim of deceiving the population. In the Covid-19 project, this deception served to encourage as many people as possible to have Covid-19 injections. In doing so, de Jonge fulfilled the task apparently assigned to him by the WHO and the WEF, to deceive as many people as possible into getting the Covid-19 injections. As PRODUCTION 22 , plaintiffs provide information originating from the website of the Central Government in which, in order to implement the Covid-19 strategy, the aforementioned military psychological behavioral influencing tactics were made public policy by De Jonge.
73. The WHO declared the Covid-19 pandemic on March 11, 2020. Immediately after the outbreak of the pandemic, De Jonge carried out his task assigned by NGO’s to use the aforementioned behavioral influencing techniques against the Dutch population, including M...... et al.. In response, De Jonge was approached by many concerned Dutch citizens about the way in which he encouraged people to have the Covid-19 injections. As an example of the latter, M...... et al. refer to a plea by Mr. Frank Ruesink on April 16, 2020, of which a video recording was made which is submitted by the plaintiffs as PRODUCTION 23. In this video, Mr. Ruesink can be seen pointing out to De Jonge that Covid-19 injections are only one of many options to combat the pretended pandemic, praying and begging De Jonge to look at those alternatives as well. In response, De Jonge pulls a questionable face and indicates he considers the WHO’s instructions to be leading. De Jonge’s reaction can only be explained by the malicious intent with which De Jonge and the other defendants carry out the Covid-19 project. To prove this malicious intent, plaintiffs refer to two email messages uncovered by Wob-requests dated May 15, 2020 and May 25, 2020, respectively. Plaintiffs submit these notices as PRODUCTION 24. In the May 15 email message, De Jonge’s Ministry states:
‘… In terms of support: when it comes to behavioral change, there is often a gap between the (intentional) willingness to change and the actual behavior. Cf. also indications about app use abroad. Perhaps the gap here will be less if the carrot is dangled that there will be fewer restrictions on liberty in the future?’
74. In the email message dated May 25, 2020 the following is stated by the Ministry of De Jonge:
‘…First point in the motion of explanation we of course also explain why this new law is in the Wpg, but the first three arguments for making a law come from the 1 May letter ( the only angles on which we agree), the fourth is a kind of logic
- democratic legitimacy;
- restriction of fundamental rights;
- longer-term rules than emergency regulations, but temporarily.
-flexible so everything at min. arrangement
The point is that, of course, we are also implicitly admitting that the emergency regulations lack democratic legitimacy and are a shaky basis for the restrictions on fundamental rights, but we’re not telling that. As for the temporality and flexibility, with emergency regulations that’s fine.’
75. This email continues:
‘…We’ll just say the bill strikes an optimal balance for the dilemma that extending the objectives of the bill inevitably produces ( that sentence was my own and I am still proud of it) anything you want can be included under this phrase. We’ll produce some more sentences tomorrow. Sleep well’
76. In the period of aforementioned Ministry, he and Rutte, during many public expressions caused a huge fear of Covid-19 among the population, including M...... et al.. These public expressions consisted to a large extent of televised press conferences which took place in response to periodic OMT advices. In those press conferences, liberty-restricting Covid-19 measures were announced on the basis of the Covid-19 narrative. The message was that only if the vast majority of the Dutch population had Covid-19 injections, the measures could be lifted. In this situation proposed by De Jonge, De Jonge appealed to humanity numerous times. This is done by repeatedly telling the public that anyone who has a Covid-19 injection is doing a good deed because they would do it for their fellow man. Because of this big lie and deception, many people, including M...... et al., have felt called to be injected with Covid-19 injections.
77. Plaintiffs reiterate that the contentions they put forward with each of the defendants apply to all defendants in their knowledge of what was actually going on and what role they played in it. Against this background, it is almost incomprehensible that De Jonge, who also knew about the Pfizer trials, for example, deliberately misled so many people, including M...... et al., and deliberately endangered their lives and health.
78. Illustrative of the great deception of the Dutch citizens, including M...... et al. by De Jonge, is the interview with ‘Dit is Robbert’ (‘this is Robbert’) from the YouTube channel ‘Open kaart’ (‘Cards on the table’) from December 2020. In this interview, the following statements by De Jonge are revealed in italics. Reference is always made to the time indication on the video. Questions and answers from the questioner are placed in brackets. A screenshot of this video is presented as PRODUCTION 25.
(3:36) Of course, if you knew what you were going to end up in, we would have prepared very differently for that pandemic.
79. In this part of the interview, De Jonge conceals he is busy with the execution of the Covid 19-project that involves a schedule known to him.
(32.53) Well actually a vaccine only has advantages. A vaccine rally only has advantages.
80. As will be explained in detail in this summons, this is a Covid-19 injection posing major health risks, so that this statement is a blatant lie.
(33.03) The existence of vaccines is a victory for humanity, is a triumph for science. A triumph for science is that this vaccine was developed in such a short time.
81. As will be explained in detail in this summons, the so-called vaccines had already been developed by the WHO for the benefit of the Covid-19 project prior to the declaration of the aforementioned pandemic.
(33.59) And what we have done is actually made agreements with companies in advance: we are going to invest a lot of money, could it be possible to start production at the same time as the development and research of the vaccine? And so it actually happened that it is now much faster, techniques are used that have been tried and tested many times so that is the reason that it can now be done much faster, but we have not cut corners in any way. The safety requirements are met,. And that’s important because trust in such a vaccine is important. So if EMA says, EMA is the European Institute, European Drug Authority if that gives the green light then there really is an official mark saying: this is sufficiently safe, sufficiently effective, you can just start sing this.
82. De Jonge explains about investing money. In doing so, he shows that he does not work for the Dutch government, but for another party that he refers to as ‘we’. After all, the government has not invested in the development and research of the Covid-19 vaccines. The EMA has not stated that the Covid-19 vaccine is safe and you can just use it. It was an experiment that by its very nature is not safe.
(35.28) you know. A vaccine uhh, that is. You don’t do a vaccine for yourself, you don’t do it to protect yourself, but you actually do it to protect the people around you, the people you love. I think we should that to each other as well. I sometimes hear people say: Well I still have to see if I actually want it and everything. Then I think, well yes guys, hello uhh, that’s not how it’s done. We are in the worst crisis since the Second World War. We need to turn the page as quickly as possible. Uhh, we ‘re burdened by all the measures we have to take to keep that virus down. In the front line of care at the GGD’s , they have already been in crisis mode for ten months. They’re working their butts off and you see the absenteeism increase. They barely hold on. All we have to do is get a little shot. And then people are saying uhh well I have to see if I actually want it. Well this of course is unacceptable. I hear people say well, I don’t know exactly what ‘s in it. I don’t exactly know what’s in it. Uhh. This is really after has been…tested here uhh…whether itis good an whether it is correct and whether it is safe, side effects have been specified you know this is just the very best thing that can happen to us in this crisis. Yes and we have to thank our dear lord on our bare knees that it exists this vaccine and of course just start using it.
83. This is where De Jonge applies military psychological behavioral influencing tactics. In addition, he deliberately gives false information regarding the testing and safety of the Covid 19- vaccines. The comparison with minced-meat hotdogs is unworthy of the Minister and in flagrant violation of the key provision of Article 7 of the ICCPR.
(38.44)So England started jabbing before the EMA said it’s ok. And that was actually when there were still too few research results from that third phase, that third research phase. So you have different stages of research. The third clinical phase is that in a large group of people the vaccine is used and they look for side effects and contradictions and, the result of that third clinical phase has to be submitted to the EMA and the EMA say it’s good or not. So they give the green light. And the British already started before the EMA has made that decision. The did so with an emergency procedure. I deliberately didn’t do that because I think you’re really cutting corners by doing so. And then you get that people say; well yeah but is it ok because not even all the research results have been waited for before you start jabbing. I don’t think that’s responsible. So I deliberately didn’t do that.
84. Here De Jonge shows that he is familiar with the previously mentioned Pfizer trials and the Pfizer safety reports still kept secret from the public at the time, including the Pfizer report FDA-CBER-2021-5683-0000054. De Jonge knew that the Pfizer trial was in the third clinical phase from December 1, 2020 and that there were already many reports of deaths and serious permanent physical injury among the participants of this third clinical trial. De Jonge has concealed this crucial information. This trial with all her dead and wounded was no reason for De Jonge to abandon the Covid-19 vaccination campaign. This also means, De Jonge acts as the executor of the Covid-19 project and harms the interests of the Dutch citizens, including M...... et al..
[A large part of the Netherlands that may still have doubts, a large part would already ready tackle it if they saw that you would actually do that]
(39.38) I wouldn’t have a problem doing it in public. Or something. If that helps with the confidence issue, I wouldn’t have any problem with that. My only hesitation in doing that first is that, in doing so, I take the first place of someone who needs it much more than I do. So I don’t want that I wouldn’t think that’s OK because then I’m actually taking that jab that was meant for someone else.
85. This is yet another completely unacceptable way of influencing behavior to a Minister. It is extremely sad that De Jonge focuses on young people in particular.
(40.30) … At that moment, we’re going to explain to you viewers why it’s so incredibly important to get vaccinated. That you are not doing it for yourself but for protecting the people around you and that it is perfectly safe. And will you also get jabbed? [sure]. That’s good.
86. As outlined in this summons, no transmission control has ever been tested prior to the marketing of the Covid-19 injections, making the mantra “you do this for your fellow man” false and misleading. By speaking of ‘perfectly safe’, De Jonge misleads the public, including M...... et al.. Moreover, the agreement between De Jonge and the interviewer pretended in the interview on being ‘vaccinated’ at the same time and giving explanation to the viewers in this context has not been fulfilled.
87. At the end of the aforementioned Ministry, De Jonge stated during an interview for VARA OP1 on January 7, 2022 as follows:
‘… In the Netherlands we have a small, enlarged minority that doesn’t allow themselves to be jabbed. I don’t understand why you say under the guise of liberty: I refuse that jab, because, liberty. Yes, it is precisely that jab that helps us regain that liberty from the virus. It’s not the government that limits your liberty, it’s the virus that limits your liberty…’
88. This quote shows how De Jonge is focused on falsely inducing behavioral change in the context of the Covid-19 project he is to carry out. As PRODUCTION 26., plaintiffs submit a video of De Jonge’s interview with VARA OP1 on January 7, 2022.
89. De Jonge can be blamed for not taking his political and social responsibility as Minister of the Netherlands and therefore acting socially careless towards M...... et al., resulting in the damage suffered by M...... et al.. The Dutch government’s policy would not have come about without De Jonge’s unlawful conduct. De Jonge should not have cooperated with the plans of the WEF and the WHO and, as Dutch Minister, should have publicly opposed the narrative, which he failed to do. What has been stated about Rutte concerning Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to De Jonge.
90. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections if De Jonge had performed his task with the required social diligence.
91. Defendant sub 7, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Kuipers’, succeeded De Jonge in January 2022 as Minister of Public Health, Welfare and Sports. As far is known, Kuipers had no publicly known political career prior to this Ministry. Prior to his Ministry, Kuipers was chairman of the board of the Erasmus MC from March 2013 to January 2022 and in fact the boss of Koopmans, who had been head of the virus science department there since 2006. During this period, Kuipers was also a paid speaker and advisor for the vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca. Kuipers was vehemently opposed to stopping AstraZeneca Covid-19 injections for people under the age of sixty in April 2021, before he took office as Minister. This is also after Kuipers’ colleagues at AstraZeneca said that they considered the Covid-19 injections to be a danger to public health.
92. During the period in which M...... et al. had the Covid-19 injections, Kuipers was regularly seen on television in his capacity as chairman of the National Acute Care Network (LNAZ) through which the hospitals in the Netherlands that have an intensive care unit are united. In that capacity, Kuipers “reported” on an allegedly major threat of a shortage of ICU beds.
93. In doing so, Kuipers made it seem as if a possible shortage could arise as a result of an expected influx of Covid-19 patients. Outlining this scenario contributed significantly to the fear that had already arisen in society for Covid-19 due to statements made by the other defendants. There has never been a shortage of ICU beds, despite the fact that during the years prior to the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, ICU capacity worldwide and also in the Netherlands had already been greatly reduced as a result of government policy.
94. In line with the narrative, Kuipers stressed in a television broadcast on Thursday December 30, 2020, even before the first round of vaccination, that it would be crucial that staff remain available to deliver care. Kuipers was referring in particular to general practitioners, ambulance staff, staff in hospitals in the emergency rooms, in intensive care and in the Covid-19 departments.
Kuipers felt that this was why vaccination of these groups should be started immediately. As PRODUCTION 27., plaintiffs submit a screenshot of the interview with Nieuwsuur dated December 31, 2020.
95. On December 30, 2020, the multi-mentioned third clinical Pfizer trial was about halfway through. Kuipers’ predecessor, De Jonge referred to this trial in the interview with ‘Dit is Robbert’ of the YouTube channel ‘Open kaart’ (‘Cards on the table’) from December 2020. In this interview, De Jonge described the Covid-19 vaccines as “perfectly safe”. Pfizer was the first supplier of Covid-19 vaccines for the Covid-19 injection campaign that started on January 8, 2021. At that time, the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine was not authorized and, moreover, there were already many deaths and injuries to be regretted in that trial.
96. Kuipers’ push to start making unauthorized Covid-19 injections on Monday , January 4, 2021, or the scheduled date of January 8, 2021, was blatantly unlawful. This is all the more so because these Covid-19 injections were in a trial that Kuipers knew had many deaths and injuries as early as December 2020. In view of these facts and circumstances, Kuipers’ push to inject all essential health care personnel with the Covid-19 vaccine as early as January 4, 2021 is malicious intent. M...... et al. consider that the possible doomsday scenarios of shortages outlined by Kuipers were only intended to serve the Covid-19 project.
97. Kuipers’ television appearances and public statement prior to his Ministry contributed significantly to M...... et al.’s deception, which led to M...... et al. having every reason to have gotten the Covid-19 injections.
98. During his ministry, on February 15, 2022, Kuipers was able to deliver a seemingly sympathetic message on the occasion of a corona press conference by announcing as Minster that the Covid-19 measures were largely to be lifted and the Netherlands would reopen. Despite this communication, Kuipers, with the knowledge that the narrative is fraudulent, continued to insist on the ‘need’ to have Covid-19 injections made on a large scale in people. Kuipers implements a policy aimed at this. It should be borne in mind that the Pfizer report relating to the third clinical phase, was known to Kuipers on April 30, 2021. As indicated above, Pfizer reported 1.223 deaths and 11.361 people with permanent serious bodily injury. Under Kuipers’ responsibility, until this very day, these injections are given to mostly defenseless people without any form of informed consent and the harmful effects of the Covid-19 injections are concealed by Kuipers. What has been stated about Rutte concerning Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Kuipers.
99. Kuipers can be blamed for not taking his political and social responsibility as Minister of the Netherlands and therefore acting socially careless towards M...... et al., resulting in the damage suffered by M...... et al.. The Dutch government’s policy would not have come about without Kuipers’ unlawful conduct. Kuipers as Dutch Minister, should have publicly opposed the narrative, which he failed to do. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections if De Jonge had performed his task with the required social diligence.
100. Defendant sub 8, hereinafter referred to as:: ‘Gommers’ joined the Erasmus MC in 2014 as a specialist in intensive care medicine.
101. In the period of February 2016 to February 2022 Gommers was the president of the Dutch Association for Intensive Care (hereinafter referred to as: ‘NVIC’) and, according to the website of the RIVM invited member of the OMT.
102. In 2009, the drug manufacturer Pfizer and the NVIC signed a cooperation agreement that involved more than just providing financial support. This collaboration was carried out under the leadership of Gommers. In view of this, there are close ties between Pfizer, the NVIC and Gommers. As PRODUCTION 28., M...... et al. submit an article from the magazine: Netherlands Journal of Critical Care dated April 2, 2009 showing this.
103. Kuipers’ statements in the television broadcast on December 31, 2020 as described above at Kuipers (production 27), were confirmed by Gommers and he reinforced this by calling for a start on Monday, January 4, 2021 to give priority Covid-19 injections to all healthcare workers. When asked, Gommers indicated in this broadcast having the day off so that he himself could pick up the boxes of Covid-19 injections from the central warehouse in Oss.
104. On January 6, 2021, Gommers allegedly had a Covid-19 injection and, in front of the media praised the science and the pharmaceutical industry for working together “really cool” and making the vaccine available as soon as they did. Gommers said:: ‘We must now work together as soon as possible to ensure that everyone is vaccinated in the coming months. Then we will resume our normal lives’. It should be borne in mind that at the time of all this, the Pfizer trial, which is mentioned several times, was about half way through the third clinical phase, so that there was no factual reason to praise it. In reality, this was pure deception to enable the implementation of the Covid-19 project. The tactic of influencing behavior that Gommers used for this at this time was characterized by the use of a combination of presenting himself as a competent and reliable doctor and displaying euphoria about a new Covid-19 injection. This combination served to arose the psychological state in the Dutch people, including M...... et al., to become euphoric about the Covid-19 injections themselves and to have them put on just like Gommers so that normal life could be resumed. As PRODUCTION 29., M...... et al. submit an article from the NOS news dated January 6, 2021 about the Covid-19 injection of Gommers.
105. In order to convince those who had not had the Covid-19 injections and the later ‘booster’, Gommers adjusted his tactics of influencing behavior. Gommers did this by giving the impression of being ‘critical’ of the Covid-19 policy. It was precisely by adopting a seemingly critical attitude that Gommers gained trust, especially among people in the care sector who doubted whether they should have a Covid-19 booster injection. Gommers has given the false impression that it would be possible to make a well-considered decision to have a Covid-19 booster injection. However, an informed decision can only be made when there is sufficient (public) information available about the content of the Covid-19 injections and its short and long-term effects. That information was there, but was kept secret from the Dutch people, including M...... et al..
106. Moreover, an important argument of Gommers was that before the Covid-19 booster injection was put in place, he did this for the benefit of the patients in his hospital. In this way, Gommers also used the mantra ‘you do this for your fellow man’. That argument of Gommers was also false because there were no research results on preventing transmission through vaccination. On the contrary, Gommers, like Pfizer and all the other defendants knew that transmission testing had never been carried out because it was obviously not relevant to the Covid-19 project.
107. In view of Gommers’ knowledge and skills, including the report on the Pfizer trials that has been mentioned several times and the close ties between Gommers and Pfizer, Gommers knew better than anyone that this argument was false and that what he did would lead to enormous damage to the Dutch population and also M...... et al.. It should be borne in mind that the Pfizer report relating to the third clinical phase was already known to Gommers on April 30, 2021. As indicated above, Pfizer reported 1.223 deaths and 11.362 people with permanent serious bodily injury. Under the responsibility of Gommers, these injections are placed among the Dutch care staff. To this day, this happens to healthcare workers without actual informed consent. The healthcare workers are falsely lead to believe by Gommers by having the Covid-19 injections they protect the patients. As PRODUCTION 30. M...... et al. submit an article on the news website of NU.nl dated December 29, 2021 concerning the Covid-19 booster injection allegedly taken by Gommers.
108. Gommers committed his unlawful conduct intentionally and apparently had the intention of having care workers injected with a Covid-19 injection with the foreseeable result that this will cause injury to these people and thereby reduce the capacity of care. It is reasonable for the defendants to then attribute that decrease to (the pretended disease) Covid-19 which will then falsely legitimize Covid-19 measures again. This is a crucial part of the tort committed jointly by the defendants that amounts to carrying out the Covid-19: The Great Reset Project. Globally, this approach by officials in a similar position to Gommers has been the same. Wat is stated on Rutte about Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Gommers.
109. Gommers is to be blamed for fulfilling his social responsibility as an authoritative OMT member and chairman of the NVIC therefore acting socially careless against M...... et al. with the damage suffered by M...... et al. as a result. The Covid-19 policy of the Dutch government would not have come about without Gommers’ unlawful conduct. Gommers shouldn’t have misled M...... et al. and given his scientific and social position, he should have publicly opposed the narrative, which she failed to do.
110. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections if Gommers had performed his task with the required social diligence.
111. Defendant sub 9, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Hoekstra’, took office in 2017 as Minister of Finances, a Ministry he held until January 10, 2022. As of January 10, 2022, Hoekstra became Minister of Foreign Affairs. Hoekstra is a prominent member of the WEF and therefore familiar with the plan for a complete reorganization of society (Covid-19: The Great Reset) already cited by the WEF when Kaag was introduced. As PRODUCTION 31., M...... et al. submit a printout from the WEF’s website depicting Hoekstra as a member of the WEF.
112. Hoekstra is a protagonist of the project Covid-19: The Great Reset and considers Schwab as a dignitary. For this reason, Hoekstra writes to Mr. Schwab as ‘Your Excellency’. Schwab has deployed Hoekstra in the Netherlands as one of the important implementers of the Covid-19 project. The relationships between Schwab and Hoekstra are reflected in the fact that Schwab, in turn, through his secretary, writes to Hoekstra as ‘Dear Minister’. It should be borne in mind that in view of his appointment as Minister, Hoekstra should be regarded as ‘Excellency’ according to Dutch etiquette and not Schwab. As PRODUCTION 32., M...... et al. hereby submit a copy of a letter from Hoekstra to whom he refers to as ’Your Excellency’.
113. At the introduction of this summons, it was stated that Covid-19 is a project initiated by NGO’s and funded by the World Bank. At this point in the summons, M...... et al. will further explain their perspective on the relationship between the defendants and the WEF and in particular Hoekstra and the WEF. The WEF is a foundation under Swiss law. This legal form is similar to what is a foundation in the Netherlands. It is therefore a private organization which, when it was set up, had no formal position with any national government. As PRODUCTION 33., M...... et al. hereby submit a copy of an extract from the Swiss Commercial Register relating to the registration of the WEF there. The statutes of the WEF are also submitted.
114. On June 3, 2020, Schwab and the then future King of England announced the start of the project Covid-19: The Great Reset via an online meeting. Subsequently, the WEF sent out the written invitations to the large meeting in Davos, Switzerland in January 2021 with the name ‘The Great Reset’. Hoekstra was also invited. He received the invitation on July 10, 2020. As PRODUCTION 34., M...... et al. submit the information of the meeting as well as the correspondence of Hoekstra to the WEF as a result of this.
115. M...... et al. would like to explain to your court in more detail what it means in their perspective that the defendants have engaged with the WEF and have supported the line of thought of Covid-19: The Great Reset. In connection with this, M...... et al. first refer to the book of Schwab entitled ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ which is made accessible to everyone by the WEF via its website (see note 9 to this summons). This book was published online by the WEF in July 2020. Based on the information contained in this book and the actual events described therein, M...... et al. conclude this book was written in 2019 and prepared for publication in July 2020 in the course of 2020.
116. Defendants share the line of thought Schwab recorded in Covid-19: The Great Reset. Schwab in his book describes, the Covid-19 pandemic-crisis has ushered in the decisive moment in which many things in the world will have to change forever. M...... et al. refer to a number of citations in this context:
‘It is our defining moment – we will be dealing with its fallout for years and many things will change forever.’
117. According to this philosophy, all the ‘weaving flaws’ in the world will be exposed by the Covid-19 pandemic-crisis. In this context, the following quote is illustrative.
‘most notably social divides, lack of fairness, absence of cooperation, failure of global governance and leadership – now lie exposed as never before and people feel the time for reinvention has come.’
118. According to this philosophy, nothing will ever return to the ‘old’ normal. In this context, the following quote is illustrative.
‘Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory’
119. According to this philosophy, the old world as M...... et al. knew it, will completely disappear. In this context, the following quote is illustrative.
‘The World as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more, dissolved in the context of the pandemic’
120. According to this philosophy, very soon, we will encounter radical and huge changes, which will have major consequences for the lives of everyone including M...... et al.. In this context, the following quote is illustrative.
‘Radical changes of such consequence are coming that some pundits have referred to a ‘before corona crisis (BC)’ and ‘after corona crisis (AC) era. We will continue to be surprised by both the rapidly and unexpected nature of these changes – as they conflate with each other, they will provoke second-, third-, fourth- and more-order consequences, cascading effects and unforeseen outcomes.’
121. According to this philosophy, a radical ‘new’ normal will be created. In this context, the following quote is illustrative.
‘In so doing, they will shape a ‘new normal’ radically different from the one we will progressively leaving behind.’
122. In view of the ideas of the defendants described above, including Hoekstra, M...... et al. conclude that the defendants are carrying out an unprecedented and radical change in the Dutch population with their Covid-19: The Great Reset project. The Covid-19 injections are obviously part of this project. This is evident because the Covid-19 injections are explicitly named by Schwab with the words: ‘Nobody will be safe, if not everybody is vaccinated’. In support of this ruling, M...... et al. refer to their production 19.
123. M...... et al. refer once again to their production 32 where a letter from Hoekstra to Schwab dated February 14, 2019 was submitted. In that letter, Hoekstra, in his capacity as minister, wrote to Schwab that he was happy to work with him on bringing about technical an political developments that lead to further (financial) globalization. Hoekstra conducted this correspondence in secret and without a mandate from the Dutch parliament and therefore without M...... et al.’s consent. In view of the WEF’s philosophy, the content of this letter cannot be interpreted as anything other than an unconditional commitment by Hoekstra to cooperate fully with the project Covid-19: The Great Reset in his position as Minister of Finances. Hoekstra actually provided that cooperation for which he abused his office as Minister of Finances.
124. As indicated above, as part of the Covid-19 project, the message is given to the public that no one will be safe until everyone has been vaccinated with Covid-19 injections. For the success of the Great Reset, it is crucial that the crisis is presented as a crisis of unprecedented proportions requiring unprecedented measures. With an unprecedented financial ‘support package’, Hoekstra has ensured the realization of the image with M...... et al. that a crisis of unprecedented magnitude had actually been caused by a new coronavirus. Without Hoekstra’s cooperation, the implementation of the Covid-19 project in the Netherlands would not have been possible due to lack of access to the Dutch treasury. What has been stated on Rutte about Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Hoekstra.
125. As Minister and member of the WEF, Hoekstra is committed to the Covid-19 project and therefore also to Covid-19 injections. All this while Hoekstra knows that the reports at the Pfizer trials mentioned several times in this summons have shown that the Covid-19 injections have cost many people their lives and led to serious permanent physical injury for thousands of people.
126. As a result of the fear fed by Hoekstra and the other defendants at M...... et al. About the alleged new coronavirus, its unprecedented consequences and the idea propagated for its solution that unprecedented substantial measures were necessary, M...... et al. made their decision to have the Covid-19 injections carried out in great fear.
127. Hoekstra can be blamed for not fulfilling his political and social responsibility as Minister of the Netherlands and for acting socially carelessly towards M...... et al. with the damage suffered by M...... et al. as a result. The policy of the Dutch government would not have been established and could not have been implemented without Hoekstra’s unlawful conduct. Hoekstra should not have cooperated with the plans of the WEF and the WHO and, as Dutch Minister, should have publicly opposed the narrative, which he failed to do.
128. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections carried out if Hoekstra had fulfilled his task withe required social diligence.
129. Defendant sub 10, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Van Nieuwenhuizen’ was Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management from October 26, 2017 to August 31, 2021.
130. On March 28, 2020, Van Nieuwenhuizen adopted so-called emergency measures by means of a regulation. These emergency measures had the direct effect that authorization applications for the gene therapy-based Covid-19 injections no longer had to be accompanied by an environmental risk assessment (MRB), the submission of views by third parties was no longer possible and the decision-making mines were greatly shortened. These procedural regulations had no factual basis. There was no state of emergency. Van Nieuwenhuizen had neither the authority nor the mandate to invalidate the international Aarhus Convention as a fundamental right. As PRODUCTION 35. M...... et al. submit the ministerial regulation of Van Nieuwenhuizen dated March 28, 2020.
131. The introduction of the abovementioned legislation grossly infringed van Nieuwenhuizen’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention. This convention obliged Van Nieuwenhuizen to consult the public when genetically modified organisms were released into the environment, which Van Nieuwenhuizen deliberately did not do, according to the text of the regulation. To this end, the regulation envisages the following.
‘Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention requires the Netherlands to consult the public, within the framework of national legislation, as far as possible and appropriate, prior to authorizing the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. In the case of the fight against Covid-19, it is considered necessary to deviate from this and to have permit granting not take place according to the UOV, but according to the regular preparation procedure.’
132. As a result of the aforementioned practice, the Dutch population, including M...... et al., has been deliberately left ignorant by Van Nieuwenhuizen as to the fact that the Covid-19 injections offered involves participation in a clinical trial, the fact that the Covid-19 injections are based on gene therapy and the fact that the regulation provides important guarantees for the safety of humans and the environment before obtaining a license, were no longer applicable.
133. Worldwide, persons in a similar position to that of Van Nieuwenhuizen acted in the same way, as a result of which the lack of information identified above has occurred worldwide. The fact that all the defendants cooperated in this speaks volumes with regard to the contention of M...... et al. that defendants act unlawfully in a group context.
134. When Van Nieuwenhuizen acted unlawfully on March 28, 2020, the third clinical phase of the Pfizer trial, which was mentioned several times above, had not even started. This has blindly deviated from a treaty which is intended to provide protection for a situation such as this. This shows malicious intent on the part of all the defendants and in particular Van Nieuwenhuizen. Wat was stated on Rutte about Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Van Nieuwenhuizen.
135. Van Nieuwenhuizen can be blamed for not fulfilling her political and social responsibility as Minister of the Netherlands and for acting as a result of social carelessness towards M...... et al., resulting in the damage suffered by M...... et al. The policy of the Dutch government would not have come about without the unlawful conduct of Van Nieuwenhuizen. Van Nieuwenhuizen should not have deliberately violated the Aarhus Convention and, as Dutch Minister, should have publicly opposed the narrative, which she failed to do.
136. M...... et al. would not have had (been able to have) the Covid-19 injections carried out if Van Nieuwenhuizen had fulfilled her task with the required social diligence.
137. Defendant sub 11, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Bourla’, trained as a veterinary surgeon and, since 1993, has been a manager of the United States-based pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer. In Bourla’s long career at Pfizer, Bourla became familiar with the facets of business operations across all of Pfizer’s divisions. In 2018, Bourla became the second man at Pfizer. Effective January 1, 2019, Bourla was promoted to general manager (CEO) at Pfizer and made all important decisions at Pfizer effective January 1, 2019.
138. Bourla is a ‘contributor’ of the WEF and Pfizer is a ‘member’ of the WEF. Bourla is a protagonist of the WEF philosophy and Covid-19: The Great Reset. As PRODUCTION 37, M...... et al. submit information from the WEF’s website showing Bourla and Pfizer’s ties to the WEF.
139. Bourla has stated in public statements that in 2020 he urged Pfizer employees to rapidly develop a Covid-19 vaccine. Bourla said he had pointed out that the vaccine to be developed must be safe and effective. According to Bourla, the production of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ started on his behalf prior to the approval by the US Food And Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to as: ‘FDA’). According to Bourla, this was Pfizer’s strategy that the “vaccines” would be ready immediately after approval from the drug authorities. As PRODUCTION 38. M...... et al. submit a screenshot of a video message from December 14, 2020 showing the above. M...... et al. note striking similarity between Bourla’s choice of words and De Jonge, where Bourla stated that the Covid-19 injections had been developed ‘without cutting corners’ while De Jonge on December 26, 2020 in the same context spoke of ‘not having cut corners in any way’.
140. In an open letter from Bourla published on Pfizer’s website on October 15, 2020, Bourla makes several promises and commitments to the world’s population. The importance of transparency regarding the development of the ‘vaccine’ is emphasized by Bourla in this letter. Bourla assures the public that public use authorization can only be granted by the drug authorities if Pfizer has successfully demonstrated that three conditions are met. Only when it has been demonstrated that the ‘vaccine’ under development is effective, safe and can be produced in a consistently high quality can approval for ‘public use’ be in order, according to Bourla. As PRODUCTION 39. M...... et al. submit a printout of Bourla’s letter dated October 15, 2020.
141. For Europe, a conditional approval in accordance with Article 14 (7) of EC Regulation 726/2004 followed at the end of 2020, requiring Pfizer to collect and submit to the EMA all kinds of information in the field of the administration of the Covid-19 injections by means of a fixed timetable. As a result, it is certain that the Covid-19 injections that were given to M...... et al. were administered as part of a clinical trial. The EMA has determined that this trial will continue until at least August 2024.
142. According to its multi-recalled safety report , Pfizer conducted an extensive clinical trial from November 2020 to February 2021, in which the subjects were injected with Pfizer’s Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ known under the brand name Comirnaty / BNT162b2. 29,914 women, 9,182 men and 2,990 children participated in this trial. Within one month of the start date of this clinical trial, 1,223 subjects died and 11,361 subjects suffered serious permanent physical injury. Pfizer reports in its aforementioned safety report that they do not have data from 9,400 subjects. Whether these persons died or were injured as a result of the clinical trial is not known for this reason. As PRODUCTION 40. M...... et al. submit the safety report dated April 30, 2021.
143. The aforementioned security report was concealed by Bourla, but was released to the public in October 2021 thanks to the intervention of the judiciary in the United States of America. The data from this report show that the Pfizer Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ is life-threatening. This safety report showed that the three conditions set by Bourla in his earlier open letter of October 15, 2020 for being able to seek authorization from the drug authorities could not be met. If Bourla had done what he had assured the world’s population in his open letter of October 15, 2020, permission would never have been sought from the drug authorities and Pfizer’s Covid-19 injection would not have been administered to M...... et al. Bourla deliberately misled M...... et al. with his open letter and the concealment of the safety report from the public.
144. Bourla’s deception goes much further. Safe and effective were the keywords used worldwide to entice the majority of the world’s population to get Covid-19 injections. Bourla, like all the other defendants, repeated these words over and over again. An important motto was ‘you do it for someone else’. Defendants, notably Bourla, implied that the Covid-19 injections would prevent transmission of the supposed virus. Based on this implicit message, the public, and also M...... et al., assumed that as more people had a Covid-19 injection, the chance of infection with this virus decreased and only in this way could the pandemic be brought to an end.
145. Bourla knew, however, that Pfizer and other Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers did not pay any attention to preventing transmission of the supposed Novel coronavirus in the development of the ‘vaccines’. Bourla knew that there was a great misunderstanding among the worldwide public, and therefore also among M...... et al. on this point – co-created by him- the importance of which cannot be overestimated. The entire Covid-19 policy worldwide was based on the idea that vaccination could prevent transmission of the supposed virus making ‘vaccination’ an effective means of combatting the pretended pandemic. All this is a big lie perpetuated by Bourla and the other defendants. If Bourla had exercised the transparency he promised, M...... et al. would never have proceeded to have Covid-19 injections.
146. The lie about preventing transmission of the supposed virus through Covid-19 vaccinations was exposed in the European Parliament on October 10, 2022. Bourla, among others, has been summoned for questioning by several European parliamentarians. Bourla has refused to appear before the European Parliament’s hearing committee. He has sent his colleague Mrs. Janine Small in his place. Ms Small has formally admitted before the hearing committee that Pfizer has never tested the Covid-19 vaccine for preventing transmission. As PRODUCTION 41. M...... et al. submit a screenshot of the hearing in the European Parliament on October 10, 2022.
147. Mrs. Small, represented by Bourla, sought to conceal the true circumstances of this startling confession by stating that it had been because of ‘the speed of science’ that no transmission investigation had been carried out. As will be explained below, the reference to the ‘speed of science’ made by Bourla and the other defendants at many times is false and a big lie. This reference is utter nonsense because, in reality, the Covid-19 injections had already been developed prior to the pretended pandemic. M...... et al. will substantiate this claim later in this summons.
148. Bourla was confronted by journalists from the Canadian TV channel ‘Rebel News’ on January 19, 2023 with the statement of his colleague Small of October 10, 2022 by journalists from the Canadian TV channel ‘Rebel News’ prior to the WEF meeting in Davos. Despite questioning these journalists for his response to Ms. Small’s statement, Bourla again refused to make a statement. Bourla thought it was enough to say ‘Have a nice day’. The transparency promised in Bourla’s open letter turns out to be all the more of a big lie. Bourla shows his contempt for anyone who has put their trust in him and Pfizer, including M...... et al. As PRODUCTION 42. M...... et al. submit a screenshot of Rebel News’ interview with Bourla dated January 19, 2023.
149. Bourla’s extremely vile modus operandi to conceal crucial information about the content and action of Comirnaty/ BNT162b2 (mRNA injections) also refers to the presence of Graphene oxide in every mRNA injection, regardless of whether it is from Pfizer or Moderna. Pfizer describes in its Covid-19 injection leaflet as active substance ‘Tozinameran’ and other substances with complex compound chemical names, which are designated by codes, more specifically the codes ‘ALC-0315’ and ‘ALC-0159’.
150. The aforementioned codes can be explained using the patent granted in Shanghai, China on 27 September 2020 with number CN 112220919A. This patent clearly shows that – especially with the mRNA vaccines against the 2019 n-Cov coronavirus – graphene oxide serves as a ‘carrier’ for lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). The Chinese patent granted on September 27, 2020 CN 112220919A and a translation thereof shall be submitted as PRODUCTION 43.. The English summary of this patent states the following.
‘The invention belongs to the field of nanomaterials and biomedicine, and relates to a vaccine, in particular to development of 2019-nCoV coronavirus nuclear recombinant nanovaccine. The invention also comprises a preparation method of the vaccine and application of the vaccine in animal experiments. The new corona vaccine contains graphene oxide, carnosine, CpG and new corona virus RBD; binding carnosine, CpG and neo coronavirus RBD on the backbone of graphene oxide; the CpG coding sequence is shown as SEQ ID NO 1; the novel coronavirus RBD refers to a novel coronavirus protein receptor binding region which can generate a high-titer specific antibody aiming at the RBD in a mouse body, and provides a strong support for prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus.’
151. In the media, so- called ‘fact-checkers’ have checked the claim that there is graphene oxide in the Covid-19 injections in response to great public concern. Those concerns were there because graphene oxide, among other things, causes people’s blood to clot. The outcome of the checks was always false that this was not present and Bourla also deliberately allowed this misrepresentation to continue.
152. Videos and scientific reports by highly reputable individuals have been published explaining with great precision, on the basis of evidence, that graphene oxide is present as the main component in all mRNA injections and primarily serves a purpose other than to influence health. M...... et al. refer in this connection to a video in which a former employee of Pfizer, Karen Kingston, gives a detailed explanation. This explanation strengthens M...... et al. in the belief that Bourla is a very important player when it comes to the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and that the Covid-19 injections forced on them were never intended to protect them against an alleged virus. As PRODUCTION 44. M...... et al. submit a screenshot related to a video by Karen Kingston.
153. In view of the above, graphene oxide qualifies as the main component of the Pfizer Covid-19 ‘vaccine’. It goes without saying that the dreaded and highly toxic graphene oxide should not have been part of the vaccine and no one who would have known about it, and certainly not M...... et al., would have been willing to have this poison injected.
154. Bourla can be blamed of grossly violating his scientific and social responsibility as CEO of the most important Covid-19 injection manufacturer and that he thereby acted socially careless towards M...... et al. with the damage suffered by M...... et al. as a result. What was said on Rutte about Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Bourla.
155. Defendant sub 12, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Van Cann’ was deputy editor-in-chief of NOS Nieuws from 2011 and became the new editor-in-chief of NOS Nieuws (hereinafter referred to as: ‘NOS’) as of September 1, 2022.
156. The NOS displays on its website its mission statement based on the Media Act. It reads as follows.
‘As an integral part of public broadcasting, the NOS aims to be the primary source of information in the field of news, sports and events, so that Dutch citizens are better able to judge developments in the world, so that they can better determine their behavior. The NOS applies the highest journalistic requirements of care, reliability, independence, pluralism and objectivity. The NOS strives to make this information accessible through all available media and to all sections of society.’
157. As (deputy) editor-in-chief, Van Cann is responsible for the directions of the Covid-19 section. It was Van Cann’s job to ensure that the editorial staff adhered to the standards applicable to journalism. With regard to the internationally applicable ethical standards for journalists, M...... et al. refer to the standards as accepted by the International Federation of Journalists. The most recent edition of the standards set by this federation is submitted by M...... et al. as PRODUCTION 45..
158. The manner in which the NOS reported on the pretended Covid-19 crisis was determined by Van Cann.
159. From the beginning of the pretended Covid-19 crisis, namely from January 2020, Van Cann has chosen to use the tone, photos and suggestions in the editorial work of the NOS to focus on maximum panic and fear among the population. M...... et al. became very afraid of the idea that a deadly virus was on its way from Wuhan. Van Cann has focused on this precisely without allowing proper journalistic research. Van Cann slavishly followed the official narrative as imposed by the WHO worldwide and followed indiscriminately by all defendants.
160. M...... et al. treat a limited number of examples below, examples which, to put it mildly, are unacceptable in view of Van Cann’s actions in view of the standards applicable to it.
161. First of all, M...... et al. would like to point out that the NOS presented the first infected corona patient as a person who was immediately transformed by the Covid-19 virus from a healthy person into someone who was (dying) dead. Dead people or sick people on the street, people in hospitals and people on ventilators in the ICU, that is how the image of an infection was portrayed by the NOS. This is despite the fact that simple journalistic research, even in the initial phase, should have immediately raised serious questions about the authenticity of the reporting that was indiscriminately taken over by the NOS from international news agencies and other channels. On January 29, 2020, the NOS reported in its article ‘How honest is China about the coronavirus outbreak?, among other things:
‘ on January 9, 2020, the nCoV2019 was identified as the cause of a series of pneumonias in patient in Wuhan. A day later, the Chinese authorities shared the genetic code of the virus.’
A copy of this article from the NOS dated January 29, 2020 is submitted by M...... et al. as PRODUCTION 46..
162. Official EMA documents have shown that it has been reported to the EMA that Moderna already had a Covid-19 vaccine available in 2017 and Pfizer as early as January 2020 and were in the process of testing these Covid-19 injections. It should be borne in mind that as far as Pfizer is concerned, this would mean that Pfizer had its Covid-19 injection ready for testing in four days and for Moderna this would mean that it already had a vaccine against a future virus for two and a half years. In this context, PRODUCTION 47. information which has come to the knowledge of MEP Cristian Terheș is submitted. This information shows that the Covid-19 injections were already in development well before the outbreak of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic. To prove this, M...... et al. offer to hear MEP Cristian Terheș under oath. The NOS and other media should have got to the bottom of this information and informed the public in detail. In reality, the media, including Van Cann and the NOS, instead of informing the public, applied outright censorship.
163. The existence of censorship is abundantly clear from the fact that no report was made on the hearing in the European Parliament of October 10, 2022 (production 41). It is shocking that Van Cann, as editor-in-chief, participated in a cover-up that perpetuated the lie that the Covid-19 injections would prevent transmission. The statement by a Pfizer director, Mrs. Janine Small, to a European Parliament hearing committee should have been world news and ‘viral’.
164. The existence of censorship is also demonstrated by the fact that no report was made of the speech by MEP Cristian Terhes on the results of special hearing committees in the European Parliament in which executives from Moderna and Pfizer, among others, were heard. As indicated above at Bourla, important information about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections has come to light. In two speeches by MEP Cristian Terhes on October 11, 2022, Mr. Terhes demonstrates the fact that the European Parliament is denied information on the contracts with Pfizer by the European Commission. Mr. Cristian Terhes also reports on the reason given to him by Pfizer, this because of ‘commercial secrets’. Mr. Cristian Terhes also draws attention to the fact that the Covid-19 injections do not protect against the transmission of the virus. Furthermore, Mr. Cristian Terhes points to the sharp increase in excess mortality since the roll-out of the Covid-19 injection campaign. Also, on October 11, 2022, Mr. Terhes raised the issue that Pfizer reported data to the EMA on the start of testing of the Pfizer Covid-19 injections as of January 14, 2020, while only three days earlier the genetic code of the pretended Covid-19 virus became known. At Moderna, the test even go back to 2017. All this should have been presented to the Dutch people by Van Cann as world news and Van Cann was responsible for ensuring that thorough journalistic research would be carried out into everything that Mr. Terhes put forward in his speeches of October 11, 2022. In this context, M...... et al. submit as PRODUCTION 48. screenshots of the two speeches by MEP Cristian Terhes dated October 11, 2022.
165. Van Cann’s responsibility and liability for Covid-19 censorship is demonstrated by the fact that she withheld all information from the public with regard to all special hearing committees set up by MEPs in October 2022. These hearing committees investigated the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections and the way in which the purchase agreements between Pfizer and the European Commission were secretly and fraudulently concluded as early as January 2020. Ursula van der Leijne has placed orders with Pfizer on behalf of the European Commission and on behalf of the Netherlands for more than EUR 71.000.000.000,00 (71 billion Euros). The Netherlands and thus the Dutch population, including M...... et al., jointly and severally guarantee the payment of this amount that has remained unpaid to date. It should be borne in mind that this purchase was closed for this amount while Pfizer’s Covid-19 injections were still in the clinical trial phase (production 38). As editor-in-chief, Van Cann has covered all this up worldwide and withheld from the public, including M...... et al. the realization of the unimaginably far-reaching (possible) consequences of these shocking facts. This is incompatible with the essence of the profession of journalist and the mission statement of the NOS.
166. In the German Parliament on October 26, 2022, the leader of the major political party AFD (Alternative für Deutschland), Ms. Dr. Alice Weidel, drew attention in no uncertain terms to the (censorship) scandals relating to (1) the interrogation of Janine Small and her statement on the failure to prevent transmission, (2) the confirmation by the European Commission that the Covid-19 injections do not protect against contamination and (3) Ursula van der Leijen has secretly made agreement with the pharmacy about the aforementioned billions of purchases. The extent of the damage caused by the Covid-19 injections is also mentioned by this MP as a subject that is censored. This Member makes no mistake about the personal liability of journalists such as Van Cann. As PRODUCTION 49, M...... et al. submit a screenshot of Mrs. Dr. Alice Weidel’s speech dated October 26, 2022.
167. In order to prove the scandals rightly mentioned by Dr. Alice Weidel and censored by Van Cann, M...... et al. submit as PRODUCTION 50, a screenshot of a video dated October 13, 2022 in which European Commissioner Wolfgang Philipp confirms in the European Parliament that the Covid-19 injections do not offer any protection against transmission.
168. The NOS, under Van Cann’s leadership, has fully cooperated in the penetrating and fear-inducing transmission of the Covid-19 narrative, which is clearly aimed at encouraging people to take Covid-19 injections through social pressure and misrepresentation. This is despite the fact that the NOS should have pointed out that it was about participating in a large-scale experiment based on gene therapy worldwide for which there was actually no reason.
169. The very first thing Van Cann and her NOS journalists should have done is to report on what is written in the leaflets accompanying the Covid-19 vaccines. The package leaflets of all Covid-19 mRNA ‘vaccines’ clearly stated that that this is a conditionally authorized ‘medicine’ that may only be administered on prescription from a doctor and must then be monitored periodically as part of a medical experiment until at least August 1, 2024. Van Cann knew that this information was withheld from the public because Covid-19 injections were not provided.
170. In order to prove that the Covid-19 injections are a conditionally authorized product in Europe, claimants submit a Pfizer package leaflet as PRODUCTION 51, Reference is made to pages 66 and 67 on which the conditions of the authorization are included in E for the period up to and including July 2024. It is noteworthy that the latest version of Pfizer’s package leaflet no longer explicitly describes these conditions.
171. Van Cann has ensured that no scientist has been able to give his opinion through the NOS, as a public and independent broadcaster, in order to communicate these important facts to the public. This is nothing but censorship. Thus, through censorship by Van Cann, the false narrative was perpetuated.
172. The aforementioned unlawful act by Van Cann against M...... et al. and the Dutch citizens is shocking because it also means that the motto ‘You do it for each other’ and ’you do it for your fellowman’ , propagated by the NOS under the leadership of Van Cann, is based on a big lie. This lie was apparently brought into the world by Van Cann for no other purpose than to put pressure on people through improper use of the state media to have an experimental Covid-19 injection that has nothing to do with health, but only with the implementation of the Covid-19 project. What has been said about Rutte concerning Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Van Cann.
173. M...... et al. also point out that, under Van Cann’s leadership, the NOS censored the numerous reports of health damage caused by Covid-19 injections by not including them or dismissing them as disinformation.
174. Finally, M...... et al. point out that, under Van Cann’s leadership, the NOS censored the countless scientists and concerned citizens of the Netherlands who, with the strength of facts and arguments, raised the legitimacy of the Covid-19 measures by not including them or dismissing them as disinformation.
175. As editor-in-chief, Van Cann is familiar with the aforementioned standards for journalism, which stem, among other things, from the Treaty of Bordeaux and the 2008 Code of Journalism in force in the Netherlands. The Bordeaux Code has as its first and most fundamental duty the standard that the journalist must have respect for truth hand for the public’s right to truth. Van Cann grossly violated that duty, with the result that M...... et al. misrepresented the facts. Had M...... et al. learned that truth through the NOS – which they followed daily- they would not have gotten the Covid-19 injections.
176. In summary, Van Cann has renounced her journalistic role as editor-in-chief of the NOS. She is personally liable for the censorship she caused by cooperating in a cover-up on the one hand and indiscriminately adopting the official and project-based Covid-19 narrative on the other hand, when even with minimal journalistic research it should have been clear that this narrative was false. The mission statement of the NOS cited above apparently applies neither to the NOS nor to Van Cann.
177. Defendant sub 13, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Jansen’ was editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper de Telegraaf from September 1, 2015 to June 1, 2023. In that capacity, Jansen led the editorial team with the same editorial responsibilities and tasks as were set out above with regard to Van Cann. He faces the same accusations as Van Cann.
178. From the start of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, De Telegraaf, with its newspaper and internet sites edited by Jansen, has done everything it can to cause great fear and panic among their readers and audience. In addition, the instructions of the information departments of all departments, in particular with regard to the Covid-19 narrative, were indiscriminately adopted under Jansen’s leadership. Given the nature and content of de Telegraaf’s reporting on the alleged Covid-19 pandemic, there is no doubt that de Telegraaf, led by Jansen, has allowed itself to be used as a weapon of fear against the Dutch population. His reporting always suggested that there were countless infections with the pretended Covid-19 virus that lead to serious illness, hospitalization and death for many at an unprecedented rate. The images in De Telegraaf’s coverage that were chosen at the start of the alleged Covid-19 pandemic under Jansen’s leadership were characterized by the fact that the pretended Covid-19 pandemic offered virtually nothing but death and destruction. The numbers of sick and dead were screened without providing a journalistic context for those numbers.
179. As PRODUCTION 52, plaintiffs submit a number of messages published by de Telegraaf under Jansen’s responsibility which show the foregoing. The terminology used here is reminiscent of was rhetoric, references with war terms contributed to the fear and panic. A battle with a virus was presented as if there were a war with a huge number of dead and wounded. Another very bad element is that the news coverage maliciously played on the idea that things could get much worse. This would not have been possible with a well-functioning and sound editorial staff that acts on the basis of journalistic responsibility. What has been stated above with regard to Van Cann with regard to the Bordeaux Code and the 2008 Code for journalism applies equally to Jansen.
180. Would Jansen like to defend himself by the fact that he has attracted ‘critical journalistic collaborators’ in the persons of Ronald Plasterk or Marianne Zwagerman, M...... et al. observe as follows. Both Plasterk and Zwagerman have been pseudo-critical of the handling of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, but have not challenged any essential point of the narrative. Jansen has used Plasterk and Zwagerman to give a false opposition a platform. This was so that the confidence of his readership in the journalistic functioning of his editorial staff was maintained, when in reality there was deliberately staff was maintained, when in reality there was deliberately great deception of the public. M...... et al. were deceived by Jansen in this way.
181. With regard to Jansen, too, the journalistic research questions relating to the Covid-19 narrative that should also have been examined Van Cann.
182. Jansen, as editor-in-chief, is familiar with the aforementioned standards for journalism, which stem, among other things, from the Treaty of Bordeaux and the 2008 Code for journalism in force in the Netherlands. The Bordeaux Code has as its first and most fundamental duty the standard that the journalist must have respect for truth and for the public’s right to truth. Jansen, like Van Cann, grossly violated that duty, with the result that M...... et al. had a false representation of the situation. Had M...... et al. learned that truth through De Telegraaf – which they also followed daily- they would not have had the Covid-19 injections. What is said about Rutte concerning Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Jansen.
183. In summary, Jansen has neglected his journalistic duties as editor-in-chief of de Telegraaf. Jansen is personally liable for the censorship he caused by cooperating in a cover-up on the one hand and indiscriminately adopting the official narrative on the other, when even with minimal journalistic research it should have been clear that this narrative was false.
184. Defendant sub 14., hereinafter referred to as : ‘Sijbesma’ has been a top executive at various companies operating worldwide, including DSM. These companies are members of the WEF. Sijbesma currently holds the positions of supervisory director of Unilever N.V., chairman of the Supervisory Board of Philips N.V., member of the supervisory board of the WEF, climate leader for the co2 pricing project at the World Bank, member of the external advisory board of the International Monetary Fund, Co- chairman of the UN Global Centre for Climate Adaptation (‘GCA’) and ambassador of the UN World Food Programme. As PRODUCTION 53, M...... et al. submit data from the WEF website about Sijbesma’s CV.
185. Sijbesma is an outspoken supporter of the ideas of the WEF, in particular of the total recast described by Klaus Schwab in his book Covid-19: The Great Reset (production 18). In order to make possible his personal contribution to this total realignment, Sijbesma is a statutory member of the WEF. To prove this, M...... et al. refer to page 2 of the extract submitted as production 33 relating to the WEF. In this recast, all factors determining a human life are made the object of forced change by the WEF and the UN. Characteristic of this political philosophy is that this forced and planned change is presented as justified by pretending that the world is suffering from major crises that con only be solved by centralized hard global intervention. Because of the perceived seriousness of these crises and the pretense that science has a solution to these crises, defendants, including Sijbesma, are implementing a worldwide plan. This plan is part of Agenda 21 (July 14, 1992) and Agenda 2030 (September 27, 2015) and is called ‘The Great Reset’. As PRODUCTION 54, M...... et al. submit pages 1 to three of the Agenda 21. As PRODUCTION 55, M...... et al. submit the first four pages of the 2030 Agenda.
186. At the beginning of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, according to himself, Sijbesma was asked by the cabinet on 26 March 2020 to scale up the testing capacity of the GGD with regard to Covid-19 testing. He was also asked to help determine the vaccination strategy. In that context, the cabinet awarded Sijbesma the title of ‘special corona envoy’. Sijbesma presented himself as a well-meaning volunteer. As PRODUCTION 56, M...... et al. provide information from www.rijksoverheid.nl about Sijbesma’s role as special envoy for the corona crisis. His ties to the WEF were deliberately disregarded by Sijbesma and the defendants.
187. Sijbesma, in his capacity as corona envoy, staged a play that was widely propagated through the media and also misled M...... et al. Sijbesma participated in the lie that the Covid-19 tests were a scarce resource. In the interview at Buitenhof on April 12, 2020, Sijbesma stated about major problems with the purchase of Covid-19 tests. Compared to other countries, the Netherlands were having difficulties and were limited to buy Covid-19 test from international producers because the Netherlands had a restrictive testing policy. As PRODUCTION 57, M...... et al. submit a screenshot of the interview in question at Buitenhof dated April 12, 2020.
188. One of Sijbesma’s ancillary activities is climate leader of the World Bank Group. The World Bank has an analysis and visualization tool accessible to everyone via the internet called ‘DataBank’. The DataBank uses the so-called World Integrated Trade Solutions (‘WITS’). WITS concerns software that the World Bank has developed in collaboration the various parts of the UN. This software allows users to view and retrieve information about world trade and tariffs. As PRODUCTION 58, M...... et al. submit information related to WITS as published on the WITS website.
189. In 2017, WITS recorded the import and export data driven between countries from Covid-19 Test Kits and from Covid-19 Diagnostic Test Instruments and apparatus. ‘The World Customs Organization’ as part of the World Bank assigned the Covid-19 Test Kits the unique classification number HS-2017 with production number 3002.15 in 2017. The Covid-19 Diagnostic Test Instruments and apparatus was assigned the unique classification number HS-2017 with production number 9027.80 in 2017. As PRODUCTION 59, M...... et al. submit the information relating to world trade in ‘Covid-19 test kits’ and ‘Covid-19 diagnostic test instruments and apparatus’ in 2017 as they were available via the WITS until September 7, 2020.
190. WITS also recorded in 2018 the inter-country import and export of many millions of Covid-19 Test Kits and Diagnostic Test Instruments and apparatus. Many millions of Covid-19 Test Kits have been purchased by, among others, the European Union and Germany. As PRODUCTION 60, M...... et al. submit the information relating to world trade in “Covid-19 test kits’ and ‘Covid-19 diagnostic test instruments and apparatus’ in 2018 as they were available via the WITS until September 7, 2020.
191. On September 7, 2020, WITS changed the data submitted as productions 59 and 60 so that the description in the lists no longer read ‘Covid-19 diagnostic test instruments and apparatus’, but was renamed ‘Medical test kits’ and ‘Medical diagnostic test instruments and apparatus’. This change has not gone unnoticed. As PRODUCTION 61, M...... et al. submit a printout of the aforementioned data in WITS as requested and printed via WITS on September 7, 2020. As production 59 shows, although the description in the lists has been adjusted, it has not been changed in the text below the lists where the word ‘Covid-19’ was still used.
192. The situation described above in WITS as of September 7, 2020 did not last long. On the same day, WITS was amended again and the word ‘Covid-19’ was also removed from the text below the lists. M...... et al. expressly offer to prove the accuracy of their statements regarding WITS by means of witnesses and expert witnesses.
193. The presentation made by Sijbesma at Buitenhof is demonstrably false in view of what has been stated above with regard to WITS. In reality, it is a Covid-19 project globally funded by the World Bank. This project is called ‘Covid-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Program ( ‘SPRP’) by the World Bank. The SPRP is scheduled to run until April 1 2025.
194. M...... et al. cannot escape the impression that the WITS system is in fact a system of monitoring the solvency of members of the UN and the World Bank. From their research in the patent registers, M...... et al. believe that the financial interests of the Rothschild world banking family in the Covid-19 project were anchored in, among other things, the patent with number US 2020/0279585 A1. This patent is described as ‘system and method for testing for Covid-19’ and was applied for by Richards A. Rothschild on 17 May 2020 and published on September 3, 2020. The basis of the patented invention is contained in the provisional application with number 62 / 240.783 dated October 13, 2015. This application concerned an invention described as ‘system and method for using, biometric, and displaying biometric data’ and previously led to a granted patent under number US 2017/0229149 A1. These patents give the inventor exclusive legal and economic rights to the invention of centrally monitoring people’s biometric data in combination with video images of their surroundings. As soon as this is the case, the Rothschild family has far-reaching rights on the basis of its patents.
195. M...... et al. suspect that this technology, patented by world banker Richard A. Rothschild, is being used by defendants as part of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. The patent will then be able to form the legal basis for the financial claim of this world banker family in connection with the use of the patented invention by virtually the entire world population involved in the Great Reset. It is significant that the WEF talks about its projects The Internet of Things and The Internet of Bodies. The patented invention is crucial for these projects in which everything, and especially people’s bodies, are connected via 5G and 6G internet technology. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Sijbesma has something to do with this in view of his aforementioned positions. As PRODUCTION 63, M...... et al. submit information from the WEF website regarding the linking of human biometric data to the Internet of Things and explanation thereof.
196. If M...... et al. had known that Sijbesma really stands for and what he is involved in, M...... et al. would not have wanted anything to do with the Covid-19 injections and would under no circumstances have had them put.
197. From the facts mentioned above follows that the defendants including Sijbesma, know that Covid-19 exists as a project and not as a disease, which in any case was already in progress before 2017 under the project name ‘Covid-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Program (‘SPRP’).
All this explains why the chairman of the WEF – Klaus Schwab – was able to publish his book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ with inside information as early as June 2020.
198. As an insider of the World Bank, the UN and the WEF, Sijbesma is fully familiar with and involved in the Covid-19 project that should lead to the Great Reset. This involvement is the real reason why the cabinet, including defendants De Jonge, Rutte, Kaag, Hoekstra and Van Nieuwenhuizen, have appointed him as Dutch corona envoy.
199. During the interview at Buitenhof on April 12, 2020, Sijbesma knew of the official narrative that (1) the Chinese authorities had disclosed the genetic code of the supposed virus to the world on January 11, 2020 and that (2) Pfizer already had a Covid-19 vaccine on January 14, 2020 – three days later - that they would test from that same date. It is evident that Sijbesma should have reported this to the Dutch public, including M...... et al., as a special corona envoy. The whole thrust of his argument was focused on nothing but the Great Reset.
200. Sijbesma can be accused of being an executor of the Great Reset on behalf of the WEF and deliberately misled M...... et al. in that regard as to the usefulness and necessity of the Covid-19 injections. If Sijbesma had actually been a special corona envoy shoe acted in the interest of the health of the Dutch population, Sijbesma would have given honest and complete information and M...... et al. would not have (been able to) have had the Covid-19 injections. What is said about Rutte concerning Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Sijbesma.
201. Defendant sub 15, hereinafter referred to as: ‘Gates’ is one of the richest people in the world. His net worth comes in large part from his interests in Microsoft. He has largely placed his assets in a foundation under American law, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is located in Seattle, United States of America. According to its website , this foundation aims to combat poverty, disease and inequality worldwide.
202. Gates is also founder of and affiliated with ‘GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance’ (hereinafter referred to as: ‘GAVI’). When GAVI was founded in 1999, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made a whopping $ 750.000.000,00 available to vaccinate children in poor countries. Through GAVI, Gates has access to every organization in the world and influence governments, the WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the vaccine industry, research and technical agencies, civil society organizations and other private philanthropists. In this context, Gates regularly visits Rutte in his office in the turret of the Binnenhof. As PRODUCTION 64,, M...... et al. submit information from RTL News and Twitter from a number of these visits by Gates to Rutte.
203. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI together are by far the largest donor to the WHO and determine WHO policy.
204. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Microsoft are important strategic partners of the WEF and contribute significantly to the development of the WEF’s strategy and its Great Reset. As PRODUCTION 65, M...... et al. submit information from the WEF’s website regarding the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Microsoft.
205. Gates wants the world to believe that in addition to being a philanthropist, he is also a future forecaster. As early as 2015, Gates predicted that wars would no longer threaten humanity’s future, but viruses. As PRODUCTION 66, M...... et al. submit a screenshot of a show at TED talk dated April 3, 2015 in which Gates shows his purportedly predictive ability. As PRODUCTION 67, M...... et al. submit a screenshot of a video from May 27, 2015 from YouTube titled “What Bill Gates is afraid of.”
206. In the aforementioned videos, Gates creates the fear of the arrival of a deadly variant of a new Corona virus on the basis of unproven statements about the Spanish flu and the Ebola virus. Gates present himself as a protector of the world by, among other things, investing in ‘computer modeling’ of viruses and stimulating new projects to be developed on a global scale in the context of detecting virus outbreaks, creating a huge testing capacity and the rapid development of methods to vaccinate everyone in the world frequently.
207. On May 15, 2018, the WEF, together with John Hopkins Center for Health Security in Washington DC, hosts a training based on a simulation of a global pandemic codenamed ‘Clade X: A Pandemic Exercise’ . the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the major ‘Philanthropy Partners’ of the John Hopkins Center. As PRODUCTION 68, M...... et al. provide a brief explanation of the pandemic role-playing game, the trailer and the full recording of the Clade X role-playing game. Its participants were not allowed to criticize the scenario of a pandemic outlined therein. Clade X was a role-playing game in preparation for the implementation of the Covid-19 project. In this summons, M...... et al. categorized the defendants according to their role in the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. In Clade X, those roles were practiced in advance, and defendants essentially played their role exactly as it was practiced in Clade X. in fact, thus the pretended Covid-19 pandemic was practiced in plain sight of the whole world.
208. Clade X had its sequel on July 18, 2018 in a special WEF meeting in Davos. An upcoming pandemic was simulated with the subject: ’6 Ways countries can prepare for the next infectious disease pandemic’. The Netherlands was also well represented at this WEF meeting. As PRODUCTION 69, M...... et al. hereby submit information from the WEF website regarding this WEF pandemic simulation dated July 18, 2018. The apparent intention of this meeting was to agree om what the future should look like after a major pandemic outbreak as practiced with Clade X specifically. In this context, the information to be read as production 69 includes:
‘…At the end of the exercise we proposed six long-term policy goals, that if enacted could prevent, or at least mitigate, the outcome of a pandemic similar in scale to Clade X:
1. Develop the capability to produce new vaccines, drugs and rapid diagnostics for novel pathogens within months, not years. …’
209. On January 18, 2019, the WEF and the Harvard Global Health Institute will release a so-called “White Paper”. It warns of an imminent outbreak of a global infectious disease. Through the White Paper, entitled ‘Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy’, the WEF and the WHO prepare the member countries (Agenda 2030 contractors) for the outbreak of a serious pandemic. As PRODUCTION 70, M...... et al. present the first three pages of the WEF Whitepaper ‘Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy’ as well as information about it from the WEF website.
210. On October 18, 2019, the WEF, together with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in New York, organized a comprehensive exercise of a high-level pandemic caused by an nCoV virus under the project name ‘Event 201’. The narrative with which the participants simulate the fight against a pandemic in role-playing games during this meeting essentially corresponds to the narrative of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic from the beginning of 2020 until – in the Netherlands – March 10, 2023. In addition to the similarity in the narrative of an infectious virus that causes many deaths, there is even more striking agreement than with Clade X during Event 201 in the way in which the media, the government and the NGO’s will present themselves to the public, including M...... et al., in the later Covid-19 crisis. At the end of this Event 201, a number of very concrete ‘suggestions’ will be given to the participants for what should happen in the event of an upcoming major pandemic. M...... et al. submit as PRODUCTION 71, information about Event 201 from the John Hopkins website as well as a full video recording of Event 201.
211. During all the simulations mentioned above, the narrative was that there had to be a vaccine to save humanity.
212. According to the official narrative presented to the world two months after Event 201 in the context of the implementation of the Covid-19 project ( the pretended Covid-19 pandemic), a new beta coronavirus was discovered from Wuhan, China at the end of 2019 that quickly spread around the world and infected and killed many people.
213. The similarities between the scenario in Clade X, Event 201 and the official narrative regarding the pretended Covid-19 crisis are convincing evidence that all these event took place within the framework of the Covid-19 project. Those preparations for the Covid-19 project included, as stated earlier in this summons, the preparation of the production of ‘vaccines’ and the application for patents on those ‘vaccines’.
214. In particular, on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the pharmaceutical companies Moderna and Pfizer have been developing beta corona virus mRNA vaccines since mid-2011. The first patent in that context was published on February 28, 2020 with number US-10702600-B1 and is based on preliminary applications dating back to October 22, 2015 and belongs to BioNTech GmbH and Moderna TX Inc. As PRODUCTION 72, M...... et al. submit the first page of the patent with number US-10702600-B1.
215. M...... et al. conclude from this patent (production 72) and its history that invention on which, according to the official narrative, the Covid-19 injections are based, already existed in 2015 and therefore there could have been no rapid development that would have allegedly taken place with ‘Warpspeed’ and ‘The speed of science’. The statements made by the CEO of Moderna to MEP Mr. Cristian Terhes (production 41) that Moderna’s clinical trials were already started in 2017 are more than plausible given the implications of this patent. In short, it is a big lie to say that after the outbreak of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, a ‘vaccine’ was developed in a few months.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has no less
$ 100.000.000,00 ( one hundred million US dollars) invested in the development of the beta coronavirus mRNA vaccines. According to the official narrative, the novel coronavirus named Sars-CoV-2 belongs to the group of beta coronaviruses. As PRODUCTION 73, M...... et al. submit information from Moderna’s website and a Google search result showing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment in beta coronavirus mRNA vaccines.
217. On December 12, 2019, Moderna and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (hereinafter referred to as: ‘NIAID’) enter into an agreement with the University of North-Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America. This agreement is entitled ‘Material Transfer Agreement’. This agreement shows that Moderna and NIAID each own half of the mRNA beta corona vaccines. With this agreement, the university is commissioned to conduct ‘non-human challenge studies’ on various ‘coronavirus vaccines candidates’. These are tests in which laboratory animals, divided into groups that have or have not received the corona vaccine to be tested, are deliberately infected with a coronavirus, hereby the effect of the mRNA beta corona vaccine is then assessed. It should be noted that in the same collaboration between the aforementioned parties, mRNA vaccines have been tested for HIV, among other things, since at least 2016. This agreement shows that the narrative that mRNA-based coronavirus vaccines were developed after a novel coronavirus broke out in Wuhan rests on a big lie. As PRODUCTION 74, M...... et al. submit the Material Transfer Agreement dated December 12, 2019.
218. In the context of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO, through its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, declared to the world on March 11, 2020 that there was a Covid-19 pandemic. Gates has since reinforced the official Covid-19 narrative in his frequent media appearances by painting the picture from the beginning of the pretended pandemic that the world could only be saved by a drug that should have an effectiveness of at least 95%. Normal medicines would not be able to achieve this effectiveness, only a yet-to-be-developed corona vaccine could possibly do so in the future. That vaccine would then have to be administered to seven billion people, according to Gates. In the early days of the pretended pandemic, Gates outlined an urgent situation in which scientists were busy developing multiple new vaccines. The hope, Gates said, was that within 18 months one of these vaccines would prove successful. This representation was false. To prove this, M...... et al. as PRODUCTION 75, submit a screenshot of a video message posted by Gates on YouTube on April 30, 2020 with the title ‘The race for a Covid-19 vaccine’.
219. As demonstrated above, the reality was that, prior to the pretended corona pandemic, funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had been working for years to develop an mRNA based vaccine against disease caused by a beta coronavirus. All patents for the so-called Covid-19 vaccine had been applied for years prior to the outbreak of the pandemic and the animal tests had already been carried out. Contrary to what Gates has suggested, there was no unprecedented achievement to finally bring a Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ to market within one year instead of 18 months.
220. The reality is that preparations for the pretended Covid-19 pandemic have been made in all respects under the leadership of Gates. On the one hand, the Covid-19 vaccine was already fully prepared and on the other hand, Gates, the WHO and the WEF had already practiced worldwide with the parties needed to impose the measures of the pretended Covid-19 pandemic on the population, including M...... et al.
221. A particularly bad aspect of Gates’ media appearance is that he has said that as soon as the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ was on the market he would use it immediately, regardless of which manufacturer it came from. They would all be safe and effective ‘vaccines’. M...... et al. have derived great confidence from this statement by Gates. At the time Gates made this statement, on December 3, 2020, Pfizer’s clinical trials of its Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ had already killed subjects. M...... et al. refer to what Bourla has said about the Pfizer safety report of April 30, 2021 (production 38). In support of Gates’ statements of December 3, 2020, M...... et al. as PRODUCTION 76, lay over a screenshot of an interview with Gates at the Today Exclusive show as posted on YouTube with the title ‘It Looks Like Almost All The Vaccines Are Going To Succeed’.
222. Gates prides himself on his knowledge of mRNA technology and, as the largest funder of its development, knows better than anyone how far that technique has progressed and what it actually entails. Gates is the person par excellence who has made all aspects of the development of the Covid-19 mRNA ‘vaccines’ possible. Gates has followed this development closely and protected his own financial interests through patens, participations and agreements.
223. It is inconceivable that Gates, who had all interest and all means, would not have known that in Pfizer’s clinical trials subjects had already died in the period of November/December 2020 and subjects had suffered irreparable bodily injury. Moreover, in the opinion of M...... et al., it is certain that Gates knew that an important element of the development of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines lay in the application of the very dangerous graphene oxide as described at Bourla. There is no doubt that Gates intentionally harmed the health of M...... et al.
224. The influence of Gates on the Covid-19 deception deliberately caused together with the other defendants cannot be overestimated. Gates is the main private driving factor in WHO policy. This is because Gates, together with GAVI, accounts for an important part of the WHO’s budget, at least 15 percent of it. The contractors of Agenda 21 and Agenda 20230, including the State of the Netherlands, comply with what the WHO prescribes. Through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gates also sponsors various Dutch institutes, including universities, to ensure that the ideas needed for the Great Reset are incorporated into the minds of as many people as possible. The latter is crucial for the success of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. Information from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website shows that these institutions have accepted nearly half a billion Euros from Gates in recent years in exchange for their cooperation in the rollout of the 2030 Agenda and the Great Reset. As PRODUCTION 77, M...... et al. submit an Excel statement containing information obtained via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website showing the amounts and recipients recorded therein in this regard.
225. Gates can be blamed for preparing for years and now implementing the pretended Covid-19 pandemic, which he knew would be disastrous worldwide, for the benefit of the 2030 Agenda and the Great Reset. In this way, Gates, in cooperation with the defendants, made it possible for M...... et al. to be deceived and thereby have the Covid-19 injections made. Without Gates’ unlawful conduct, M...... et al. would not have (been able to) have the Covid-19 injections made. What is stated about Rutte concerning Article 97a of The Penal Code also applies to Gates.
226. On March 13, 2013, defendant sub 16, hereinafter referred to: ‘Kant’, was appointed director with full power of attorney at the Lareb Adverse Reaction Centre ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Lareb’). As of December 28, 2021, Kant exchanged this formal position at Lareb for the position of chairman of the Board of Directors of Lareb. In this capacity, too, Kant is solely and independently competent. Kant has therefore been the de facto policymaker at Lareb since March 13, 2013. As PRODUCTION 78, M...... et al. submit data from the Trade Register relating to Lareb.
227. Lareb is an organization whose legal form is a foundation. Lareb is funded by the Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS).
228. Lareb cooperates with the MEB and supports it in its statutory task in pharmacovigilance. Lareb informs the MEB by means of alerts. When it comes to vaccines, Lareb also informs the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). RIVM can then take measures. For example, adjusting the package leaflet, tightening up who can use the medicine or receive the vaccine, or withdraw a medicine from the market. Lareb is therefore a crucial intermediary in identifying side effects of the Covid-19 injections and warning in that context.
229. On September 8, 2020, RIVM awarded the contract to develop a ‘Covid Information and Monitoring System’ (CIMS). It was crucial that in this system of the RIVM the side effects of the different batches of the different Covid-19 vaccines are registered per batch number on the basis of the relevant batch number and – if permission was not explicitly refused - on the basis of the BSN number of the person in question.
230. A processing agreement was concluded between RIVM and Lareb in the context of privacy regulations. The purpose of this processing agreement was to enable Lareb to request the vaccine product and batch number from the CIMS system of the RIVM on the basis of the patient’s BSN number. In this way, Lareb supplements the data on the side effects of the Covid-19 injections in the CIMS system of the RIVM.
231. An agreement was concluded between De Jonge and Lareb whereby Lareb was instructed to register the side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines on the basis of the BSN number and batch number.
232. The importance of keeping a record in which the batch numbers to be distinguished are related to the reported adverse reactions is evident. After all, a batch number is a number assigned to a production round of drugs. If something goes wrong in the production process, it is logical that the entire production round (batch) is affected by the same defect.
233. Batch numbers are the means of choice for checking that the quality of medicinal products is constant and that they are safe and effective. Without registration on the basis of batch numbers, there can be no effective detection of defects in quality, safety and effectiveness.
234. In view of the foregoing, there is no doubt that RIVM and Lareb are able to provide an overview of the registered side effects of the Covid -19 injections per batch number.
235. The Ministry of Kuipers was requested, by way of a Woo request dated August 4, 2022, to publish summary lists of all batch numbers of the Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen and Novavax vaccines. This Woo request also requested that a record of adverse reactions and deaths linked to the batch numbers of the aforementioned vaccines be made public. By the decision dated March 29, 2023, Kuipers announced that VWS has submitted a search query to RIVM, Lareb and the CBG - MEB. Kuipers said that the requested documents were not found at these authorities. The search query therefore did not yield any documents. For this reason, the Woo request was not granted. As PRODUCTION 79, M...... et al. submit the Woo decision of Kuipers dated March 29, 2023.
236. As indicated above, Lareb has a crucial role in pharmacovigilance. According to Lareb’s website , as an independent organization, it regularly conducts research. According to Lareb, the aim of these studies is to gain more insight into known side effects of vaccines and medicines and to recognize new side effects earlier. According to its website, Lareb also collects information about the course, risk factors, treatment and burden of side effects. All this with the aim of increasing the safety of medicines and vaccines. It is incompatible with this task in pharmacovigilance that Lareb claims that it cannot make data on adverse reactions available on the basis of batch numbers.
237. The remarkable assertion of the Lareb, and thus Kant, observed above, that no data can be provide by batch numbers, has only one explanation: Kant is lying. This lie by Kant serves a different interest than the interest of public health. Kant’s lie is of great importance for the success of the Covid-19 project. Worldwide, people in the same position as Kant are perpetuating this lie with the aim of making the Covid-19 project a success.
238. Kant’s lie conceals the huge differences in harmful short-term effects between the different Covid-19 injection batches. Kant knows this better than anyone because she is familiar with all the possibilities of the CIMS system and, as an independent authorized director on behalf of Lareb, has accepted the assignment of the Ministry of Kuipers to register the side effects per batch.
239. Kant will not be able to refute plaintiffs’ allegations that it knowingly and intentionally caused Lareb to neglect its pharmacovigilance role. The evidence for plaintiffs’ contention is evident and will be presented and explained below.
240. Lareb, led by Kant, kept a record of the side effects of the Covid-19 injections for the Covid-19 project and always registered the relevant batch number.
241. Until November 19, 2022, Lareb registered side effects and deaths reported to it not only for the benefit of RIVM, but also for the international data system under the name ‘Vaers’. Part of Kant’s cover-up was the deliberate leaving unmentioned for the Dutch population of side effects and deaths due to Covid-19 injections on the basis of batch numbers. As indicated above, Kant vehemently denied that these data were available.
242. However, these data were placed by Kant in the international Vaers registration system on the basis of batch numbers. In Vaers, these data could only be found at Dutch level with knowledge of the Vaers system and the search variables and codes to be used in it. However, all Dutch data was deleted in Vaers on November 18, 2022.
243. The data as found in Vaers until November 19, 2022 can be obtained via a historical databaseaccessible online. As a result, claimants have access to the Covid-19 batch data recorded in Vaers before November 19, 2022.
244. An important example of the very large differences in batches of Covid-19 injections concerns the Covid-19 Pfizer batch EM0477. This batch is of great importance because it was already administered to the Dutch population in January 2021, the start of the vaccination campaign, and immediately led to many and serious reports of side effects and deaths. This batch is characterized by the fact that shortly after injection, more than thirty people were reported dead in February and March 2021. More specifically, with regard to the batch EM0477, this batch led to 71 reports of adverse reactions, of which 34 reports of deaths. It should be noted that a reading of the reports drawn up in connection with these reports always reveals the ‘Regulatory authority number’ linked to the Lareb official in question. The first letters of this characteristic always concern ‘NL-LRB’. Shockingly, the side effects and deaths described in these reports almost all occurred within a few days and the harmfulness of this batch of Lareb and therefore Kant cannot have escaped notice. While this batch had already led to more than thirty reports of deaths at Lareb in March 2021, there was no signal from Kant’s side that the safety of the ‘Covid-19 vaccine’ could no longer be guaranteed. As PRODUCTION 80, M...... et al. submit information from the Vaers system concerning the reposts of the 34 deaths reported to Lareb from batch EM0477.
245. The fact that the Pfizer batch EM0477 given as an example was particularly lethal compared to other batches administered in the Netherlands during the same period can easily be established by comparison with other Pfizer Covid-19 batches administered to the Dutch population during the same period, such as the batches with numbers EJ7133, EJ6975 and CE6792. These others batches have only one report of non-fatal side effects. As PRODUCTION 81, M...... et al. submit a comparative overview in which the aforementioned batches administered in the Netherlands are included.
246. Comparison of international data on the Pfizer Covid-19 batch EM0477 with international data from other Covid-19 batches also reveals huge differences - more than a factor of 100 - in terms of the number of reported deaths and injuries per batch. As PRODUCTION 82, M...... et al. submit three pages concerning a 908-page international comparison between the batches.
247. The existence of very large differences in lethality and side effects of Pfizer Covid-19 injection batches was proven by research carried out in Denmark under the direction of Professor Peter Riis Hansen. Professor Hansen is affiliated with the cardiology department of the University of Copenhagen and an expert at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). His research show that approximately 4% of all batches are responsible for more than 70% of all reported adverse reactions, 27% of all serious adverse reactions and 47% of all reported deaths after vaccination. As a result of this investigation, questions were asked in the European Parliament on May 10, 2023. As PRODUCTION 83, M...... et al. present Professor Hansen’s research and information about his appointment at EMA and about the questions asked in the European Parliament about his research.
248. Despite all the facts and evidence, Kant persists in her lies. Kant’s lies serve the Covid-19 project and constitute a deliberate and direct attack on the health of the Dutch people, including M...... et al. Kant literally states: ‘We can say that fear of the vaccine was unjustified’. This is a lie and deception of unprecedented proportions and it goes without saying that Kant is acting unlawfully towards M...... et al. and the entire Dutch people. As PRODUCTION 84, M...... et al. submit a screenshot of an article in the AD of November 20, 2021 in which the aforementioned statement is included.
249. The role of Kant in the Covid-19 deception deliberately caused together with the other defendants cannot be overestimated. As indicated above, Lareb and therefore Kant is funded by the Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG) and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS). Kant was paid by the pharmacy and the Ministry of Kuipers and corrupted Lareb over a period of ten years, so that the Covid-19 project and the Great Reset could be deployed through the Covid-19 injection campaign. To this end, Kant leads Lareb.
250. As for the almost unimaginable seriousness of Kant’s conduct, M...... et al. are keen to point out that Kant is an important participant in the Disinformation Think Tank. M...... et al. have stated to Koopmans that it is precisely the Think Tank Disinformation that promotes the provision of disinformation for the Covid-19 project through influencers recruited for this purpose. It is all the more unfortunate that Kant is personally involved in giving Covid-19 courses for GPs in which she leaves these GPs unaware of what Lareb actually registered in the batches to be distinguished and does not tell the GPs of her position at the Disinformation Think Tank. As PRODUCTION 85, M...... et al. submit information regarding the aforementioned Covid-19 courses for GPs given by Kant.
251. Kant, together with her Lareb foundation, has been an important source of information for claimants about the safety and effectiveness of the Covid-19 injections. It was Kant who deliberately falsely reassured plaintiffs by covering up the very important signal that some Covid-19 batches are far more deadly and/or harmful than others. Had Kant shared this information about the large differences in reports in the batches to be distinguished with the Dutch population – which was her task – the plaintiffs would not have (been able to) have had a Covid-19 injection and would not have suffered any damage. What is stated on Rutte about Article 97a of the Penal Code also applies to Kant.
252. Defendant sub 17, hereinafter referred to as: ‘The State’, has as its primary task the protections of its citizens. The State is not permitted to transfer this task for which it is exclusively responsible and liable to a foreign power. This is without prejudice to whether that foreign power is a foreign legal person governed by public law or an organization governed by private law. In carrying out its primary task, the State has to actively protect its citizens regarding their fundamental rights and international human rights. This is to ensure that its citizens fully enjoy these rights at all times. An important part of these rights for this case can be found in the ethical principles developed by the judiciary in its Nuremberg trials. These principles are recorded in the Nuremberg Code 1947. The core of Nuremberg Code 1947 forms the basis of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concluded in New York in 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ICCPR’). That article reads as follows:
‘No one shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one may be subjected to medical or scientific experiment without his freely given consent.’
253. The State can be charged that without a freely given permission by its citizens, including M...... et al., to participate in the Covid-19 experiment (Covid-19 project), a medical and scientific (behavioral) experiment was carried out on all its citizens, including M...... et al., causing serious damage to M...... et al.
254. To the extent the State considers since not every citizen has taken a Covid-19 injection, it is not a medical and scientific experiment on all its citizens, that view is based on a misreading of Article 7 of the ICCPR. After all, the data of citizens without Covid-19 injections are also registered by the RIVM and the experiment was partly aimed at influencing the behavior of citizens through torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and punishment. The Covid-19 measures imposed on its citizens by the State under the influence of defendants in the context of the Great Reset included torture by, among other things, having to wear sickening face masks and maintaining a minimum distance of one and a half meters from each other. The Covid-19 measures were inhumane given their malicious nature as explained in detail in this summons. For all citizens, these measures, even if not everyone was aware of them under the influence of fear and deception, are inhumane and degrading. In addition, the State has punished citizens who have opposed the unlawful Covid-19 measures.
255. That the State unlawfully failed to protect its citizens, including M...... et al., is shown by the fact that the State is involved with the other defendants and allowed the other defendants to corrupt the institutions that should have protected the citizens. It was obvious to the State that the other defendants were working together for years to erode the power of the State in order to make the Dutch population, including M...... et al., susceptible to the Covid-19: The Great Reset project. That all defendants are affiliated with the private foundation the WEF and that their actions are aimed at the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project is certain given the information position of the State. After all, this information position is partly determined by defendants such as its officials and subordinates. In addition, the WEF, in the person of Schwab, already openly stated in 2017 that is would penetrate all cabinets in the world through its members. As PRODUCTION 86, M...... et al. submit a video related to Schwab’s 2017 ruling. The fact that the State allows the WEF and in particular defendants to play their harmful role within Dutch relations for so long results in the fact that, in Schwab’s words, ‘we have to prepare for a more angry world’ and therefore ‘necessary action’ must be taken. Schwab expressed the gloomy future that this entails for the Dutch population, including M...... et al., in a speech from July 14, 2020. M...... et al. submit a screenshot of Schwab’s video dated July 14, 2020, as PRODUCTION 87,
256. The extremely reprehensible and evil acts and omissions of the State are clearly unlawful and lead to more and more excesses affecting the Dutch people, including M...... et al. Defendants are all fully responsible and liable for these excesses because they are at their core always traced back to the obviously unlawful Covid-19: The Great Reset project in which defendants cooperate fully and in which defendants do not hesitate to abuse the institutions of the State for this purpose. M...... et al. cite a number of examples of this.
257. A first example of an excess is that the State allowed WEF partner Gates to make an investment of EUR 880.000.000,00 in the Heineken beer group here in the Netherlands. Heineken is a WEF partner that in the Netherlands during the pretended corona crisis in July 2021 by means of malicious manipulative television advertising encouraged people, especially the elderly, to get vaccinated with Covid-19 injections. This manipulation used the false pretense that freedom would only belong to people vaccinated with Covid-19 injections. This translated into the WEF/ Heineken credo ‘The night belongs to the vaccinated’. With this, Heineken carried out the Covid-19:The Great Reset project with agreement of the State. The State should have prevented all this to protect its citizens, including M...... et al. It should be borne in mind that it was precisely among the elderly who were addressed and deceived with the aforementioned creed that many deaths and injuries as a result of the Covid-19 injections were reported. As PRODUCTION 88, M...... et al. provide a screenshot of Heineken’s video as well as information from the WEF website regarding Heineken and information regarding Gates’ investment in Heineken.
258. A second excess to which M...... et al. draw attention is the fact that the State and its officials have not applied Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That article reads as follows:
1.Public colleges and officials who, in the course of their duties, become aware of a crime for which they are not responsible for investigating shall be obliged to report it without delay, with the documents relating to the case, to the public prosecutor or to one of his assistant prosecutors,
a. if the crime is an official offense within the meaning of Title XXVIII of the Second Book of the Penal Code, or
b. if the crime was committed by an official who thereby breached a special duty of office or used power, opportunity or means conferred on him by his office, or
c. if the crime infringes or makes unlawful use of a regulation of which the implementation or enforcement is entrusted to them.
2.They shall provide the public prosecutor or the assistant public prosecutor designated by the latter, on request, with any information concerning criminal offences of which they have not been charged with the investigation and which have come to their knowledge in the course off their duties.
3.The provisions of the first and second paragraphs shall not apply to an official who, by making a declaration or supplying information, would create a risk of prosecuting himself or any person whose prosecution he could excuse himself from giving evidence.
4.Equal obligations shall apply to legal persons or bodies of legal persons whose tasks and powers are defined by or pursuant to the law, in so far as designated for this purpose by general administrative order.
5.Rules may be laid down by or pursuant to order in council in the interest of proper implementation of this Article..
6.The reporting of crimes referred to in point (c) of the first paragraph may be further restricted in consultation with the public prosecutor and in compliance with the rules referred to in the previous paragraph.
7.The nomination for a general administrative measure as referred to in the fourth or fifth paragraph shall not be made until after the draft has been published in the Dutch Official Gazette and two months have elapsed since the date of publication.
259. M...... et al. are of the opinion that the righteous and trustworthy officials of the State who have knowledge of the official misconduct alleged in this summons are obliged to report without delay, with the documents relating to the case, to the public prosecutor or to one of his assistant prosecutors. In the opinion of M...... et al., the fact that there is no declaration under Article 162 of the Code to that may be called an excess.
260. M...... et al. note that many benevolent and well-informed Dutch citizens expressed their major objections and concerns to Dutch officials, but that nothing was subsequently done. A striking example of this is that on January 4, 2023, Mr. Ton Koenderink in the municipality of Haaksbergen, by using his right to speak, fully informed the city council about the Pfizer safety report of April 30, 2021 (production 40) and its implications. It is particularly unfortunate that, as this video shows, the State is silent on its own citizens. A screenshot of the extremely important and striking lecture by Mr. Ton Koenderink dated January 4, 2023 is submitted as PRODUCTION 89,.
261. A third and final particularly bad excess, attributable to the State, which M...... et al. would like to point out is the following. During the pretended Covid-19 crisis, the State has openly threatened people who did not want to have Covid-19 injections with death on national television. To this end, the State, through its public broadcasters NOS, NTR and VPRO, had two horrific video messages drawn up and broadcasted them via the Central Government P.O. Box 51 television information channel. In these videos, the clear message is given that the people without Covid-19 injection must be killed immediately. To prove this, M...... et al. submit two screenshots of videos from October 2021 as PRODUCTION 90, The message of the State contained herein is abject and infamy. M...... et al. were mentally abused by the State upon seeing these video messages.
262. If the State had fulfilled its duty to protect its citizens, M...... et al. would not have had( been able to have) the Covid-19 injections.
263. Plaintiffs are all Dutch citizens residing in the Netherlands who have placed their trust in what the defendants have conveyed and have consequently been misled and thereby have gotten multiple Covid-19 injections. All plaintiffs suffer damages as a result of this deception and as a result of the Covid-19 injections placed on them as a result of this deception. The damage suffered by the plaintiffs is both material and immaterial within the meaning of Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code.
264. The materialistic damages suffered by the plaintiffs is pecuniary damage, in particular personal injury. As a result of the covid-19 injections, all claimants were injected with ( among other things) the toxic graphene oxide without their free consent. It is plausible that the Covid-19 injections, and in particular this poison that is part of those injections, cause permanent adverse health consequences in humans. This makes it plausible that all plaintiffs suffer personal injury. The personal injury manifested in the plaintiffs sub 4, sub 6 and sub 7, in the form of grievous bodily harm. There are currently no external physical signs of serious bodily injury among the other plaintiffs, but there are less far- reaching complaints. This does not alter the fact that it is plausible the Covid-19 injections have also caused physical injury to them. With regard to the latter, it should be noted that it is plausible that the health of claimants will also suffer from these Covid-19 injections in the long term. With regard to their personal injury and its plausibility, plaintiffs refer to the diagnoses made by medical specialists. These diagnoses are submitted as PRODUCTION 91,
265. In addition to material damage, all plaintiffs suffer immaterial damage within the meaning of Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. This damage consists of the mental damage experienced by the plaintiffs ( feelings of pain, suffering, shame, powerlessness and uncertainty about their health) as a result of the deception caused by the defendants. The Covid-19 injections themselves, more specifically the fact that the claimants know that they have been injected with them while they cannot know exactly what the consequences will be, also lead to immaterial damage within the meaning of Article 6:106 of the Dutch civil Code.
266. In the context of the non-material damage, it is further noted that the plaintiffs have reasoned that the defendants intended to cause them harm. It is also noted, in connection with the provision of Article 6:106 (1) (c) of the Dutch Civil Code, that plaintiffs sub 2 and 3 and sub 4 and 5 are each other’s spouses.
267. It is settled case law that, in order to refer to the proceedings for damages, it is necessary and sufficient that the existence or possibility of damage resulting from an attributable deficiency or tort is plausible. Plaintiffs believe that the present summons has more than met this standard for reference to the damages state proceedings.
268. Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code provides that he who commits an unlawful act against another person, which can be attributed to him is obliged to compensate the damage suffered by the other person as a result.
269. Regarded as torts are; infringement of a right and an act or omission contrary to a legal duty or to what is appropriate in society according to unwritten law, barring the existence of a justification.
270. In this summons, plaintiffs have described in detail the manner in which defendants were guilty of carrying out the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens required for it. As a result, defendants have manifestly acted unlawfully. In addition, all types of unlawful acts mentioned in Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code apply to defendants. Below, plaintiffs will provide non-exhaustive examples of this.
271. When it comes to the infringement of the rights of claimants, the claimants refer in particular to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides:
Nobody shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without his freely given consent.
272. Plaintiffs have found themselves in a situation where they have been subjected to an ongoing medical and scientific experiment without their free consent.
273. Article 2 of the Penal Code provides that the Dutch Penal Code applies to anyone who commits any criminal offence in the Netherlands. None of the defendants, including those residing abroad, can evade his or her legal obligation to comply with the Dutch Penal Code.
274. As stated above, Article 97a of the Dutch Penal Code treats crime against the safety of the State. This article reads as follows.
An attack undertaken with the intention of bringing the Empire under foreign rule in whole or in part or to separate part of it shall be punished by life imprisonment or temporary imprisonment for not more than thirty years or a fine of the fifth category.
275. Plaintiffs believe that the defendants’ conduct in carrying out the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens required for it should be qualified as an act contrary to the legal duty to refrain from committing criminal conduct within the meaning of this article.
276. Its further noted that the defendants’ actions are classified as ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 300 of the Dutch Penal Code. In doing so, defendants intentionally harmed plaintiffs’ health. This article reads:
1. Maltreatment shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of the fourth category.
2. If the offence results in serious bodily injury, the guilty person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than four years of a fine of the fourth category.
3. If the offence results in death, he shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than six years or a fine of the fourth category.
4. Intentional harm to health shall be treated as ill-treatment.
5. Attempting to commit this crime is not punishable.
277. Specifically for the benefit of plaintiffs sub 4, sub 6 and sub 7, who have suffered grievous bodily harm at the hands of the defendants, reference is hereby made to Section 308 of the Dutch Penal Code. This article provides as follows.
1. A person whose fault is due to the result of serious bodily injury to another person or such bodily injury as to result in temporary illness or impediment to the performance of his duties or occupation shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of the fourth category.
2. If the guilt consists of recklessness, he shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine of the fourth category.
278. With regard to the State and its officials in particular, it should be reiterated that plaintiffs point to a flagrant violation of Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which legally obliges officials to report crimes of office.
279. Finally, plaintiffs here point to defendants’ obligation to comply with legal obligations under the International Crimes Act. Article 3 of this Law criminalizes genocide. This article reads as follows.
1. He who for the purpose of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic or religious group, or a group belonging to a particular race::
a. kills members of the group;
b. inflicts grievous bodily harm or mental injury to members of the group;
c. intentionally imposes on the group living conditions aimed at its total or partial physical destruction;
d. takes measures aimed at preventing births within the group; or
e. forcibly transfers children of the group to another group,
is found guilty of genocide and, shall be punished with life imprisonment or temporary imprisonment for not more than thirty years or a fine of the sixth category.
2. Collusion and incitement to genocide that takes place in public, orally or in writing or image, are punished as well as the attempt.
280. Plaintiffs want your court, in its investigation of the truth, to also examine whether genocide has been committed against plaintiffs on grounds (b) and (c) of this section. Plaintiffs contend that this is plausible, in view of the facts and circumstances they have fully and truthfully supplied in this summons.
281. In this summons, the plaintiffs have set out in respect of each of the defendants what function they perform in society. In addition, defendants are categorized into groups according to which social position they (mainly) occupy.
282. In particular, public officials are subject to the standard of serving the citizen, including M...... et al., with integrity so that trust in the government cannot be betrayed. Defendants sub 1 to 10 have grossly violated this trust through the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens required for it. Insofar as this action is not prohibited by the Law and rules of conduct, this action is contrary to what is appropriate in society according to unwritten law.
283. For the pharmaceutical industry, its raison d’être depends on the confidence that citizens can place in the safety and effectiveness of medicinal products that citizens can assume have been properly tested. In view of this and the fact that medicines affect people’s health, the pharmaceutical industry has a duty to be very careful with the health interests of citizens when it comes to safe, effective and well-tested medicines. The main aim of the pharmaceutical industry’s actions must be not to betray the trust of the citizens. Through the cooperation of the pharmaceutical industry in the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens required for this, the pharmaceutical industry has grossly violated this trust. Insofar as this action is not prohibited by the Law and rules of conduct, this action is contrary to what is appropriate in society according to unwritten law.
284. As far as the mass media are concerned, it should inform the public in a careful, reliable, unfettered pluralistic and objective manner. In this context, the mass media should carefully monitor the information it gives to the public. In doing so, the mass media should leave room for different opinions and facilitate a balanced debate. This summons explains that the mass media is censoring and thus cooperating in the implementation of the Covid-19 : The Great Reset project and the widespread deception required for this. Insofar as this action is not prohibited by the Law and rules of conduct, this action is contrary to what is appropriate in society to unwritten law.
285. For (officials at) non-governmental organizations, they are committed to the idea that they want to support people and governments in their mission to allow humanity and its environment to flourish without profit. They present themselves as benefactors who want to support this mission. This way of presenting oneself creates in the public the justified expectation that these organizations and their officials will not act in their own interests. In view of this, these organizations and their officials are subject to the unwritten standard that they must not harm the interests of people and their living environment. In this summons, it is described in detail that defendants Sijbesma and Gates are cooperating in the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception required for this. This project is harmful to people’s health and their living environment. Insofar to what is appropriate in society according to unwritten law.
286. In the case of semi-government, the State and the citizen must be able to count on the fact that the public tasks entrusted to them at the expense of the Dutch people, including M...... et al., are carried out with integrity and care. Kant, through the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens required for this, has grossly violated this trust. Insofar as this action is not prohibited by the Law and rules of conduct, this action is contrary to what is appropriate in society according to unwritten law.
287. As stated above, the State’s primary task is the protection of its citizens. Incompatible with this for the State is to facilitate and allow the Covid-19: The Great Reset project being implemented and the widespread deception of citizens in the Netherlands required for this. Insofar as this action is not prohibited by the Law and rules of conduct, this action is contrary to what is appropriate in society according to unwritten law.
288. This summons has consistently stated that without the unlawful conduct of defendants, both separately and in association, plaintiffs would not have had a Covid-19 injection which would have prevented their harm from occurring.
289. In view of the group liability to be asserted below, the conditio sine qua non link is not a requirement for the admissibility of the claims of M...... et al.
Attribution of damages to defendants
290. The torts alleged against the defendants may be imputed to them because they are attributable to a cause of action which, by law and in common opinion, is attributable to them. After all, defendants have all actively cooperated in the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens, including M...... et al..
291. Article 6:166 of the Dutch Civil Code provides that if one of the persons belonging to a group causes unlawful damage and the likelihood of causing damage in this way should have prevented those persons from engaging in their conduct in a group, they are jointly and severally liable if these behaviors can be attributed to them.
292. In this summons, plaintiffs have pointed out to your court the group relationship between all the defendants. The introduction to this summons includes an image relating to GAVI’s partners. In this summons, it is extensively stated and justified how the defendants who all belong to the circle of these partners, actively cooperated in the implementation of the Covid-19: The Great Reset project and the widespread deception of citizens, including M...... et al. Each of the defendants should have refrained from his or her unlawful conduct in the context of this project because it increased the likelihood of causing harm( by taking a Covid-19 injection).
Defendants’ defence and refutation
293. Plaintiffs are not aware of a legally relevant defense of defendants to plaintiffs’ claims, which is why plaintiffs in this summons cannot address and refute that possible defense of defendants.
294. To the extent that the burden of proof falls on plaintiffs under Section 150 of the Code, plaintiffs shall provide evidence by hearing witnesses and expert witnesses. In this context, the following persons may be heard under oath.
- plaintiffs and defendants
- the doctors who, according to production 91, diagnosed the plaintiffs
- MEP Cristian Terheș
295. Article 107 of the Code provides that if a court has jurisdiction over one of the defendants jointly involved in the proceedings, that court shall also have jurisdiction over the other defendants, provided that the claims against the various defendants are related in such a way as to justify joint hearing for reasons of expediency.
296. Defendant Hofstra is domiciled in Goutum, municipality of Leeuwarden and therefore your court has jurisdiction under Section 99 of the Code to hear the claims against Hofstra. Because the claims against the various defendants – who have acted in a group – are so related that reasons of expediency justify joint hearing, your court has jurisdiction under Section 107 with regard to all defendants to hear and decide on the claims brought by the plaintiffs against them.
May it please the court to pass judgement:
(1) declare that defendants as a group and individually, have acted unlawfully towards plaintiffs by intentionally misleading them in an unlawful manner and thereby inducing them to get Covid-19 injections of which the defendants knew, or at least should have known, that these injections were not safe and effective.
(2) provisionally enforceable to order the defendants jointly and severally, as the one paying the other shall be released, to compensate the plaintiffs to be compensated for their damages, to be made up by a damage assessment procedure and to be settled in accordance with the Law.
(3) order the costs of these proceedings pursuant to an order for costs to be ordered by your court for this purpose, provisionally enforceable.
 the GGD is administrative part of the Fryslân Security Region.
 This advice goes to the Ministry of VWS (Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports)via the Administrative Coordination Consultation (BAO). The BAO tests the substantive advice for administrative feasibility and practicability and ultimately determines the control policy.
 As will be explained below, Van Dissel also knew that the Covid-19 vaccinations have never been tested to prevent transmission of the supposed virus.
 Mr Schwab, who is one of the founders of the ‘Covid-19 The Great Reset’ project, will be discussed in more detail in this summons.
 The basic rules are still in force and read: (1) get tested and stay at home if you have sypmtoms; (2) keep a distance of 1.5 meters from others; (3) wash your hands often and cough and sneeze into your elbow; (4) work from home as much as possible; (5) avoid crowds: leave when it’s crowded; (^) travel outside rush hour as much as possible; (7) wear a face mask in indoor public spaces.
 Legal Aid Attorney.
 Frank Ruesink MBA / Founder of Liefdevol rebelleren, Freedom Speaker & System changer.
 Underlined by attorney
 Gommers is also registered as an inventor of a ventilation system (ADVS) for which patents were filed in the United States with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on September 30, 2016. In the meantime, a patent has been granted in this connection under number 10773045. There is also an application for a patent on this invention under number 20180093063. The rights from the patent with number 10773045 have been transferred to Kirura Holding B.V.
 M...... et al. dispute that defendants, including Gommers, were actually injected with a Covid-19 injection fluid.
 Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Aarhus, 25-06-1998
 This can be compared with the EMA, EU/EEA Heads of Medicines Agencies and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
 This report has the number 090177e196ea and is dated April 30 2021
 According to Pfizer, this brand name is composed of parts of the words Covid-19, community, immunity, and mRNA.
 Variants of this motto have been used in all languages worldwide.
 The name Moderna comes from a contraction of the words ‘Mode’ and ‘RNA’.
 This patent has a publication date of January 15, 2021, but was untraceable with usual search terms, including the patent number, until mid- June 2021 with the search engine offered by WEF partner Google on the internet and used by the vast majority of the world’s population.
 Bolded and underlined by attorney.
 Until September 1,2022, Van Cann worked as deputy editor – in – chief alongside Mr Gelauff who was the editor – in – chief until this date. Gelauff subsequently retired and, as far as M...... et al. can tell, is no longer active as a journalist.
 The various versions of the Pfizer vaccine Comirnaty leaflet, which have been prepared over time, up to and including the November 2022 version un E. “Specific obligations to be fulfilled after the granting of a conditional authorisation.” At that point, the planned end date of the experiment, namely August 2024 was mentioned.
 The complete agenda 21 has been placed on the USB stick.
 The complete agenda 2030 has been placed on the USB stick.
 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD) and in consultation with organisations such as the International Trade Center, the United Nations Statistical Department (UNSD) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
 The compleet patent has been placed on the USB stick.
 Cladism is an analysis method used in biosystemetics to determine the presumed evolutionary relationships between organisms. The word ‘Clade’is derived from this.
 The video-material of this production has been placed on the USB stick
 Bolded and underlined by attorney.
 Dr. Fauci was the director of this organization from 1984 to en 2002.
 https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php In the search system of this database, the data entered by Lareb employees in Vaers can be found in the so-called expert mode. To do this, the DC Split Type: NLPFIZER, NLMODERNATX or NLJNJFOC must be entered in the ‘Demographics’tab.
The full overniew can be downloaded from:
 T.F.E. Tjong Tjin Tai, The Damage assessment Procedure, no. 401, with reference to, among others, HR 30 June 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AX6246, RvdW 2006, 681, rov. 3.5.2 and HR 23 September 1988, ECLI:NL:HR:1988:AD5713, NJ 1989, 743 and S.D. Lindenbergh, GS Schadevergoeding, art. 6:97 Dutch Civil Code, int. 5.6.
 New York, 12/16/1966