Connect with us

COVID-19

Bill Gates to stand trial in Netherlands COVID vaccine injury lawsuit

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. Other defendants include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.

A Netherlands court last week ruled thatĀ Bill Gates can stand trialĀ in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19Ā vaccines.

According to Dutch newspaperĀ De Telegraaf, the seven ā€œcorona skepticsā€Ā sued GatesĀ last year, along with former Dutch prime minister and newly appointedĀ NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and ā€œseveral membersā€ of the Dutch government’s COVID-19 ā€œOutbreak Management Team.ā€

Other defendants includeĀ Albert Bourla, Ph.D., CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.

ā€œBecause Bill Gates’ foundation was involved in combating the corona pandemic, he has also been summoned,ā€Ā De TelegraafĀ reported.

According to Dutch independent news outletĀ Zebra Inspiratie, the plaintiffs allege that Gates, through his representatives, deliberately misled them about the safety of theĀ COVID-19Ā shots, despite knowing ā€œthat these injections wereĀ not safe and effective.ā€

Dutch independent journalist Erica Krikke told The Defender that the seven plaintiffs – whose names are redacted in the lawsuit’s publicly available documents – ā€œare ordinary Dutch people, and they have been jabbed and after the jabs they got sick.ā€

Krikke said that of the seven original plaintiffs, one has since died, leaving the other six plaintiffs to continue the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in theĀ District Court of Leeuwarden. According toĀ De Telegraaf, ā€œGates had objected because, according to him, the judges did not have jurisdiction.ā€ Accordingly, the court first ā€œhad to rule in the so-called incident procedure,ā€Ā De Andere KrantĀ reported.

According toĀ De Andere Krant, Gates was represented by theĀ Pels RijckenĀ law firm, based in The Hague, described as ā€œtheĀ largest and the premier litigation law firmĀ in the Netherlands.ā€ Gates did not appear at the Sept. 18 hearing, but attorneys for Gates argued that the court ā€œhad no jurisdiction over him because he lives in the United States.ā€

However, in itsĀ Oct. 16 ruling, the Leeuwarden court ruled it does have jurisdiction over Gates.Ā De Andere KrantĀ reported that the court found ā€œsufficient evidenceā€ that the claims against Gates and the other defendants are ā€œconnectedā€ and based on the same ā€œcomplex of facts.ā€

Other defendants who reside outside of the Netherlands, including Bourla, did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction.

The court ruled Gates must pay attorneys’ fees and additional legal costs totaling 1,406 euros (approximately $1,520). A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 27.

ā€˜Even if … your name is Bill Gates, you still have to go to court’

In remarks shared withĀ De Andere Krant, Arno van Kessel, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, welcomed the ruling. ā€œIn its verdict, the court has clearly recorded the basis of our conclusions of claim,ā€ van Kessel said.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender it is ā€œquite interestingā€ that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Leeuwarden instead of The Hague, where normally, all cases against the government related to COVID-19 are filed.

ā€œIn general, COVID-19 court cases have been very unsuccessful in the Netherlands,ā€ Terhorst said. ā€œThere is a slim chance it will be successful.ā€

She added:

I think most judges support the COVID-19 vaccination agenda and will find it hard to believe the vaccinations have caused injuries. So, we have a long way to go, regardless of the case.

Krikke shared a more optimistic outlook, saying that the court sent a message that ā€œeven if you are rich and your name is Bill Gates, you still have to go to court.ā€

New Zealand-based independent journalistĀ Penny Marie, who has closely followed the proceedings in this case, told The Defender she hopes the Oct. 16 ruling ā€œwill hopefully set a precedent and help plaintiffs in similar cases around the world regarding jurisdiction,ā€ in cases ā€œwhere the defendant does not reside in the country of the plaintiff.ā€

ā€œFor parties who make claims against those involved in the implementation of theĀ Great ResetĀ and other international actions, such as the COVID-19 emergency response initiated by the WEF [World Economic Forum] and imposed on all U.N. member nations, I hope that this ruling provides an opportunity for others to follow suit,ā€ Marie added.

Father of vaccine-injured plaintiff made ā€˜emotional plea’ to the court

At the Sept. 18 hearing, plaintiffs also delivered statements. According toĀ Zebra Inspiratie, ā€œOne of the victims, who is very ill, was also given the opportunity to make a plea. She was no longer able to speak and was represented by her father. It was anĀ emotional plea.ā€

Krikke said the plaintiff’s father told the court that his daughter, who was previously healthy, fell ill after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and could no longer speak, telling the judge that he ā€œwould really like to speak to Bill Gates directlyā€ to ask him what happened to his daughter.

ā€œAfter that, the judge was really quiet,ā€ Krikke said.

The Oct. 18 ruling also addressed the plaintiffs’ claims aboutĀ Gates’ roleĀ in the WEF’s ā€œGreat Resetā€ project.

ā€œThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also affiliated with the World Economic Forum … an international organization whose statutory objective is to unite ā€˜leaders from business, governments, academia and society at large into a global community committed to improving the state of the world,ā€™ā€Ā the rulingĀ states, adding:

This is a project aimed at the total reorganization of societies in all countries that are members of the United Nations … as described by [WEF founder and executive chairmanĀ Klaus Schwab] in his bookĀ Covid-19: The Great Reset. …

Characteristic of this political ideology is that this forced and planned change is presented as justified by pretending that the world is suffering from major crises that can only be solved by centralized, hardĀ global intervention. One of these pretended major crises concerns the Covid-19 pandemic.

The ruling also states, ā€œTheĀ Bill & Melinda Gates FoundationĀ isĀ affiliated with ā€˜Gavi, the Vaccine Allianceā€˜ … an international partnership in the field of vaccinations between various public and private entities.ā€

This article was originally published byĀ The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please considerĀ subscribing to The DefenderĀ orĀ donating to Children’s Health Defense.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

COVID-19

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to face sentencing July 23

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich is slated to be sentenced on July 23.

In a recent update by The Democracy Fund, the groupĀ noted that ā€œSentencing for Ms. Lich is scheduled for July 23rd and 24th before Justice Perkins-McVey in Ottawa.ā€

In April of this year, Lich and Chris Barber wereĀ found guiltyĀ of mischief for their roles as leaders of the 2022 protest and as social media influencers. The conviction came despite the non-violent nature of the popular movement.

TDF also noted that the full 108 page judgment of Justice Perkins-McVey’s ruling is now available online.

According to TDF, the ā€œCourt determined that both Ms. Lich and Mr. Barber were leaders of the Freedom Convoy 2022 movement and were involved in organizing and leading trucks and other vehicles from western Canada.ā€

ā€œWhile there was no evidence that Ms. Lich owned a vehicle emitting fumes or honking, or that she blocked access to buildings, the Court noted her creation of the Freedom Convoy 2022 Facebook page, which gained a large following, and her involvement in setting up the GoFundMe and later GiveSendGo fundraising pages,ā€ noted TDF.

As for Barber, his sentencing has been furtherĀ delayed. The delay in his case follows an update he gave earlier this month in which heĀ announcedĀ that the Crown wants to jail him for two years in addition to seizing the truck he used in the protest. As such, his legal team has asked for a stay of proceedings for the time being.

The Lich and Barber trial concluded in September of 2024, more than a year after it began. It was only originally scheduled to last 16 days.

Lich and Barber were initially arrestedĀ on February 17, 2022, meaning their legal battle has lasted longer than three years.

The actions taken by the Trudeau government were publicly supported by Mark Carney at the time, who won re-election on April 28 and is slated to form a minority government.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Vaccines: Assessing Canada’s COVID Response

Published on

The AuditĀ David Clinton's avatarĀ David Clinton

I planned to be ā€œfirst in lineā€ for the shots as soon as my age cohort became eligible. By early March however, COVID itself dropped by the house, leading to the most uncomfortable (although non life-threatening) week of my life.

It’s been five years since COVID hit and one part of me wants to stuff it all in a closet somewhere and forget about it. But perhaps certain events – and especially government errors and overreach – should be documented. So this post will identify actions at all levels of government from those early days that, given our understanding of the threat available through the benefit hindsight, were both misguided and damaging.

I haven’t completely forgotten the mood through the early months in 2020. Politicians faced near-unanimous public demand for an aggressive response. Much of that sentiment was the result of messaging coming from foreign governments (mostly in the U.S.). But the local sentiment was definitely there.

To be fair, Governments got some things right and, taking into account the chaos and uncertainty of those early months, even some of their mistakes were understandable. But it’s the job of government to lead. And to avoid making choices – even popular choices – that will lead to predictable harms.

Vaccine mandates starting in 2021 were a case in point. Federal authority largely stemmed from the 2005 Quarantine Act and the Contraventions Act that allowed officials to issue tickets for non-compliance with the Quarantine Act. Provincial mandates were based on laws like Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. The question isn’t whether the mandates and their enforcement were legal, but whether they caused more harm than good.

As the first vaccines started arriving in Canada around February 2021, I planned to be ā€œfirst in lineā€ for the shots as soon as my age cohort became eligible. By early March however, COVID itself dropped by the house, leading to the most uncomfortable (although non life-threatening) week of my life.

After recovering, my family doctor advised me to wait three months before getting the shots so my body could get back to normal. During those months, I got access to preprint results from theĀ Israeli study into natural immunityĀ which showed that:

Natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity

Those results were later confirmed byĀ CDCĀ andĀ NEJMĀ studies, among others.

Given that context, I didn’t see any justification for exposing myself to even minimal health risks associated with vaccines. Which meant that, despite demonstrably posing no threat to public health, I would (at various times) be unable to:

  • Board domestic commercial flights, VIA Rail, Rocky Mountaineer trains, and cruise ships within Canada
  • Board international flights or trains departing Canada
  • Freely return to Canada through an overland point of entry
  • Upon return to Canada, bypass the 14 day quarantine under the Quarantine Act
  • Upon return to Canada via air, bypass the three day quarantine in (expensive) government-approved hotels
  • Engage in ā€˜non-essentialā€ activities like restaurants, gyms, events (details varied from province to province)
  • Enter Parliament
  • Seek employment in federally regulated air, rail, and marine sectors

What should Canadian governments have done? Remove restrictions on individuals with natural immunity, obviously. Which, by the way, would have come with the valuable bonus of entirely avoiding the truckers protest and consequent confrontations.

If authorities were reluctant to take us at our word on immunity, they could have followed the European Union’s lead by emulating their Digital COVID Certificate for proof of recovery. Were they worried about people without immunity creating fake certificates? Hard to take that one seriously. There were more fake vaccine passports littering the streets of Ontario than abandoned Toronto Maple Leafs car window flags in a normal early May.

In the end, my own suffering was negligible. I didn’t really want to visit family in the U.S. all that much anyway. But for millions of other Canadians, the real-world stakes were far higher. And all that’s besides theĀ billions of dollarsĀ wasted during those years’ government policies.

To be sure, resisting unscientific street-level calls for vaccine mandates would have required courage. But shouldn’t acts of courage be a source of pride for public officials?

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience,Ā upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X