TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @CoviLeaks
reSee.it AI Summary
Here in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeal, a historic case moves forward. Expert witnesses fight for against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla, the former Dutch PM, and others. Gates must attend or send counsel. With world attention on war, this case unfolds quietly but its consequences reach far. I’m here with Sasha Latypova, Shannon Joy, Andrew Bridgen to ensure it gets attention for the jab injured, the bereaved, and those who asked questions. The case is happening.
@CoviLeaks - Fiona Rose Diamond
Here in Amsterdam at the Court of Appeal as a historic case moves forward. Expert witness testimony is being fought for against Bill Gates, Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO), the former Dutch Prime Minister and others. Yes; Bill Gates MUST attend trial or send a lawyer... with a defence. He’s not wriggling out of this one! With the world’s attention fixed on war (understandably), this case is unfolding quietly... but its consequences will reach far beyond today. I’m here with Sasha Latypova, Shannon Joy, Andrew Bridgen and others to make sure this moment gets the attention it deserves! This is the beginning of public scrutiny and accountability; for the jab injured, the bereaved, and everyone who was told to stop asking questions. This case IS happening. Please share and follow me for updates - I’ve linked a video explaining this case. #COVIDJustice #Netherlands because #TheyLiedPeopleDied
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary.
On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed.
This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm.
Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity.
The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere.
The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So today, I'm in The Netherlands, and I'm stood outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam. And this is the first case of its kind. For the first time in a national court, senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors have been brought together as defendants in a single case over the COVID response. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. That alone makes this case extraordinary.
And today, March 9, an important step in that case is happening here at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. But to understand why it matters, we need to be clear about what today's hearing actually is. So this is not the main trial. That trial is going ahead, and, yes, Bill Gates, even if he does not appear himself in person, must have representation and offer a defense in that case. And today's hearing is about a procedural question, but a very important one.
Should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial of the case. They wanted experts to testify, documents to be examined, and key scientific and legal claims to be tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. So today, the Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should be itself reviewed.
So today's hearing is about something fundamental in any justice system, the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, the door opens for expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence. If it is refused, the claimants must continue their case without that preliminary examination. Now the reason this hearing exists at all goes back to the main lawsuit, which began in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court in The Netherlands, and their claim is straightforward but extremely serious.
They say they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. According to the claimants, those representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. Some of us already know they lied and people died. So in legal terms, this is a tort claim, civil.
A claim that the defendants, Albert Baller of Pfizer, Bill Gates, and others breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. The claimants are asking the court to do two things. First, to declare that the defendants acted unlawfully, and second, to award compensation for the harm that resulted. But before that trial proceeds further, the claimants asked for something very reasonable. They asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court.
That is why the provisional evidence request was made and why today's appeal matters. At the heart of the request are expert witnesses. And these experts come from different disciplines, but together they address the scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions of this case. So let's briefly look at who they are. Catherine Watt is a legal researcher specializing in public health law, international regulatory systems, and her work examines how pandemic policies and vaccine regulation operate across national and international legal frameworks.
Sasha Latipova has decades of experience in pharmaceutical industry operations. Her analysis focuses on the regulatory processes governing vaccine development, manufacturing, and approval. Doctor Joseph Sansone is a psychologist who whose work looks at the psychological impact of crisis messaging and behavioral compliance in populations. Catherine Austin Fitz is a financial analyst who studies institutional power structures and the influence of global policy networks on national decision making. And then there is doctor Mike Yeadon.
Doctor Yeadon is an English pharmacologist, a former vice president at Pfizer where he led research in respiratory medicine. The his evidence challenges the safety narrative surrounding the COVID vaccines and has argued that the products were inadequately tested and that the biological design of the vaccines raises serious concerns about toxicity and harm, and that's putting it mildly. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. That's how confident these claimants are. And that is precisely what the claimants are asking for.
They are asking for the chance to present evidence, call experts, and have the facts examined openly in a court of law. So that brings us back to why today is so important. Today is not about deciding the entire case. Today is about deciding whether that examination of evidence should be allowed to happen. So in a democratic society that we're all told that we live in, governed by the rule of law, courts exist to resolve disputes through evidence and argument, not through assumption.
So allowing this appeal would mean the court is prepared to let that process take place. It would mean the claims and counterclaims can be because there are counterclaims, can be tested in public. And that matters not only for The Netherlands. If courts are willing to examine these issues openly, the consequences could extend far beyond this one case. Legal scrutiny here could encourage similar challenges elsewhere, including in countries where such questions have not reached the courtroom.
In that sense, what happens here may influence debate about accountability, transparency, and public trust in many other jurisdictions. Today's decision is about whether the courts are willing to allow that scrutiny, whether the evidence will be heard, and whether the public has the opportunity to seize those arguments tested under the rules of so called justice. For the claimants, that is all they are asking for, the chance to put their evidence before the court and to let the truth be examined. And before I finish, I want to say something on a personal note. So those of you who know me and know my work know that I've spent the last six years fighting against the lies, fighting for truth, for justice, and for freedom.
I have worked directly with and helped platform several of the expert witnesses that we want to see giving evidence in this case. For the past three years, I have also dedicated myself to giving a voice to the COVID, jabbed, injured, and bereaved through the truth be told campaign in The UK. That campaign has been seen around the world, and I've spoken to families whose lives have been shattered. People who say they were ignored, dismissed, silence, and when they tried to speak about what happened to them, nobody listened. Because of that injustice, and while I've witnessed myself and have been victim to myself, two years ago today, I started my degree.
But there is another kind of justice in question here. For those of us who stood against this from the very beginning, who questioned the narrative, who warned about the risks, who were called conspiracy theorists, extremists, dangerous, there has never once been a moment where anyone in authority said, you were right. Not once. And yet the evidence now being raised in this case is the very same evidence many of us were sharing, researching, trying desperately to get out to the public years ago. We never wanted to be vindicated through the harm that many of us feared would happen.
None of us wanted to see people injured. None of us wanted to see families grieving. But that harm happened. So what is happening here matters because this case is not just about compensation. It's about justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability.
It's about whether powerful institutions can mislead the public without consequence. And for those of us who stood up early, who took the attacks, the censorship, the smears, this could represent something that we have not yet been given in any form, justice and, yes, vindication. Not because we ever wanted to be right, but because the truth deserves to be heard.
reSee.it AI Summary
@Tonyshingler01 shares his personal experience with the AstraZeneca jab, stating that he was diagnosed with GBS post-vaccination and suffered from long-term disabilities. He expresses distrust towards the NHS, regulators, and government, holding them accountable for their actions. #CrimesAgainstHumanity
@CoviLeaks - CoviLeaks
This is @Tonyshingler01 This is what the government call 'safe and effective'. No it is not rare, yes it is very real. No, they didn't want to save lives with this experimental jab. Tony is part of the #TruthBeTold family and one of the strongest and most resilient people I have met. '3 years ago today since I took the AstraZeneca jab, I was diagnosed with GBS post AstraZeneca, 14 months in hospital, 8 on a ventilator. Never again will I trust NHS, regulators or government for what they’ve done and how it has left me with permanent disabilities.' The government and all those culpable will be held to account for #CrimesAgainstHumanity