Beste bewuste bondgenoten, vergeet de rechtszaak in Leeuwaarden niet. De getuigen hebben blijkbaar een video gemaakt. Het wordt interessant om te zien of de rechters in Nederland gaan reageren op hun publieke getuigenis onder ede. En hun getuigenis zou ondertussen toegelaten zijn. https://www.ninefornews.nl/eerst-geweigerd-nu-toegelaten-nieuwe-wending-in-de-zaak-tegen-bill-gates-in-leeuwarden/ Kan dit een revolutie teweegbrengen in rechtszaken? Wat als men steeds vaker digitale getuigenissen gaat toelaten? Kan de sociale media druk leggen op de rechtbanken? Is dit overigens de reden waarom advocaten in Antwerpen terug een papieren pleidooi moet indienen? Voelen ze de beu al hangen? To be continued... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 22 October, after more than three years of relentless litigation, seven plaintiffs reach the substantive hearing in their extraordinary case against the Dutch State, Mark Rutte, Bill Gates and other defendants. Before three judges of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands, the evidence goes directly to the heart of the Covid injections, deception, the Great Reset – and the narrative the world was told to accept. The plaintiffs asked for their international experts to give evidence orally and under oath before the District Court of the Northern Netherlands. The Court declined to hear them. So, attorney Peter W.H. Stassen devised another way to put their evidence before the Court. Recorded under an oath for the purposes of the Plea, the experts answer Peter Stassen’s questions and present the evidence they intended the judges to hear. The complete Video Plea was submitted to the Court and every defendant as Exhibit 157 on 22 September 2026. The accompanying written expert evidence was accepted. The Video Plea was rejected. No reason was given. Peter Stassen immediately objected, warning the Court that excluding this evidence prevented a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR and “undermines the functioning of the rule of law.” This is the evidence the Court refused to admit. Watch it. Hear it. Share it.