The Oral Video Plea

  The plaintiffs asked for their international party experts to appear before the District Court of the Northern Netherlands, to give their evidence orally and under oath.

The Court declined that request.

The judgment of 26 November 2025 did not reject the experts, determine their evidence inadmissible, find their expertise unreliable or conclude that their opinions were wrong. Instead, the Court declined to hear their oral testimony during the substantive hearing—or at a separate hearing—citing, among other considerations, the complexity of the proceedings, the considerable hearing time required and the need to afford the defendants the opportunity to present experts and witnesses in response.

Their evidence, however, could still be placed before the Court.

And so, The Video Plea was born.

Attorney Peter W.H. Stassen devised a powerful and creative response: if the experts could not stand before the three judges in Leeuwarden to explain their evidence, their evidence could be recorded and placed before them.

In a series of specially recorded examinations, the participating experts give an oath for the purposes of the recording, answer structured questions and present their evidence directly, in their own words.

The Court can see them. The Court can hear them. The Court can hear their reasoning.

The Video Plea was submitted to the Court and served upon the defendants on 22 September 2026, alongside further written evidence from several of the experts—exactly one month before the hearing on the merits. It does not consume the precious hours allocated to that hearing; both the Court and the defendants have the material in advance.

The Video Plea was submitted to the Court and every defendant as Exhibit 157, together with further written expert testimony.

The further written expert testimony submitted alongside the Video Plea was accepted. The video was not. The following day, the Court rejected Exhibit 157. No defendant’s attorney had objected to it. No reason was given by the Court for refusing it.

Attorney Peter Stassen objected immediately, and what he told the Court about the evidence it had just refused could not be more significant:

“Exhibit 157 therefore serves not only to clarify my clients’ arguments, but above all to substantiate those arguments. Crucially, this video submission serves as evidence for the claimants’ assertion that Covid-19 is not a disease but a project (Covid-19: The Great Reset) and that the Covid-19 injections are a biological weapon being deployed as part of this project, which is crucial to the project that is still being carried out to this day. It therefore constitutes crucial evidence for the factual basis of the claimants’ assertions that the defendants are implementers of the aforementioned project and, in that capacity, have acted and continue to act unlawfully towards the claimants by inducing them, through deception, to receive a Covid-19 injection.” 

This wasn’t peripheral evidence. This wasn’t some irrelevant attachment. 

Attorney Peter Stassen made clear, this was evidence intended to substantiate the central allegations and evidence at the heart of their case, sworn testimony addressing their assertion that the Covid-19 injections are a biological weapon, deployed as part of the Great Reset project, and that the defendants themselves are implementers of that project.

And the Court rejected it.

Mr Stassen warned that excluding this evidence was “preventing a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 of the ECHR.” 

And then he went further stating:

“This decision undermines the functioning of the rule of law.” 

Peter Stassen is not an attorney who frightens easily. He does not fear the prominent and demonstrably insulated defendants, and he does not fear challenging the judiciary itself. His concern is the truth, the evidence, and his duty to put both before the Court, wherever that leads.

So what exactly was in those four and a half hours that the Court refused to admit?

You don’t have to wonder. You’re about to see it.

So please watch and listen closely. And please share. We need the eyes of the world locked onto this case, and firmly on the Dutch judiciary. They must know they are being watched - because history is being made right now.

For seven years, we have watched dissenting scientists, doctors, researchers and professionals struggle to have their evidence heard on some of the most consequential questions of our time. We believe evidence should be confronted, scrutinised and answered—not silenced.

The hearing on the merits takes place on 22 October 2026 at 12:30, before a three-judge chamber of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands in Leeuwarden.