You’re clearly a voracious and careful reader.

The Netherlands trial is a civil (tort liability) case, with financial penalties being appropriate if the defendants are found guilty.

The charges are easier to pin on those accused, because it is alleged that they knew, or ought to have known, that their actions & inactions would result in harms to the plaintiffs.

They each had important roles in the set of processes necessary to convince the plaintiffs that there was a severe public health emergency, that there was a new disease, that it was strongly contagious and that injections with purported vaccines, rushed at utterly impossible & unprecedented pace through regulatory agencies, needed to be taken by everyone.

Every part of the foregoing paragraph is a lie. The accused knew this or ought to have known it.

I expect corruption of the trial process, evidence taking and even the verdict.

I say this based on personal experience since 2020. I’ve been involved in some way in a sizeable handful of judicial or quasi judicial proceedings around the world. So far, in every case, arbitrary and capricious bases have been cited in order to exclude my testimony from even being considered.

However, The Netherlands trial differs in two really important ways.

Firstly, lawyer Peter Stassen has assembled five, very diversely experienced expert witnesses, all of whom are not retained by the plaintiffs or the prosecuting lawyer, but are all pro bono volunteers, who actively want to give their evidence in court, under oath, and face cross-examination in as public a forum as can be secured.

Secondly, the court has permitted our testimony, both in writing as affidavits and as video recordings, to enter the official, public records.

Anyone who is shown this testimony will be unable to dismiss it as conspiracy theory. It’s too dense as a set of witness statements, from way too broad a set of perspectives, for it to mistaken or a tall tale.

There’s the rub: I don’t think the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity are faintly concerned, because they’ve made discovering the existence of the case, let alone a good summary, to a large number of people, almost impossible.

But it isn’t impossible. However, I think the only way to evade their censorship schemes is if you who read this, go and find the case summary at Peter Stassen’s website called RechtOprecht and share the link plus a short covering description, with as many other people as you can.

This Step 1 can be rather dispiriting, when most people refuse to look or resort to ad hominem attacks on you. But some, especially those for whom maintaining the illusion that “The world is completely normal, nothing scary is happening & everything is going to be alright” is becoming increasingly stressful, because of unavoidable cognitive dissonance, may be receptive now, when previously they were not.

Arguably the second step in personal enlightenment is gaining some knowledge of the malign actions of multiple people they’ve been taught to trust. The rest is up to them.

Thank you for assisting in the essential task of making as many aware of the allegations and evidence.

In my heart, I don’t regard the verdict as particularly important. Obviously I’d feel entirely different if the defendants, in part or all of them, were found guilty. The punishments, being financial, would be no problem to the defendants. But being able to point to such an outcome would be tremendously uplifting.

But even a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean nothing bad happened or that the defendants are blameless, only that the legal process prevented relevant evidence being heard, or the judge was not free to discharge their official duties.