Appeal Against Gates & Pfizer CEO Filed | Re: To Hear Bioweapon Witnesses Evidence In Court
Appeal filed yesterday to compel court testimony from five experts who were prepared to present bioweapon evidence & the Great Reset as motive & were denied, causing this Appeal to be filed
Appeal Filed In Bill Gates Dutch Case
From Dr. Yeadon:
Enclosed is the notice of appeal and accompanying letter, which Peter Stassen, lawyer for the injured Dutch citizen ps, personally filed with the Court of Appeal in Leeuwarden today. This is the notice of appeal against the order of August 20th regarding the request for preliminary evidence.
The court decided NOT to allow the five independent expert witnesses to provide testimony in court and to face cross-examination by lawyers for the defendants.
This appeal letter points out that there were no grounds for this decision and to reconsider the decision.
We have been asked to share this information as much as you can.
Best wishes
Mike
Crucially, the plaintiffs demand this testimony be conducted "without any restriction on the publicity of this trial, with the possibility for all (international) journalists to take photos and record videos to truthfully report on it."
Original filings here - PLEASE SHARE THIS NEWS FAR AND WIDE!
ON BOTTOM OF POST YOU CAN READ A SCREENSHOT IN ENGLISH
The same witnesses are ORDERED to be heard in Costa Rica - the case is moving forward with a recent WIN and we need to fundraise again to EXPAND it to International Human Rights Court and Criminal - We just got testimony all WHO covid vaccines were EXPERIMENTAL and the WHO refused court ORDERS for the safety data. Its TIME TO GO BIG AND WIN AGAINST THE TOP WRONGDOERS - HELP US FUND THE GLOBAL CASE FOR HUMANITY
Follow the Dutch case: https://rechtoprecht.online/
Court Must Decide Whether to Hear Witness Evidence Of Bioweapons & Great Reset Against Gates and Pfizer
Yesterday, September 15, was a big day in the global fight for COVID accountability. Attorney Peter Stassen personally filed a comprehensive appeal at the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal on behalf of vaccine-injured Dutch citizens, escalating their historic lawsuit against some of the world's most influential figures including Bill Gates and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.
For those unfamiliar with this case, it represents one of the most ambitious legal challenges to COVID policies worldwide.
The lawsuit argues that COVID-19 injections were not medical products but military "countermeasures" that qualify as bioweapons under international law. It’s true.
The defendants include not only Gates and Bourla, but former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (now NATO Secretary-General), former Health Minister Hugo de Jonge, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab.
By this application, the applicants appeal against the decision of 20 August 2025 rendered by the District Court of Noord-Nederland with case number / application number: C/17/199273 / HA RK 25-17, as well as against the procedural decisions taken prior to that decision regarding the publicity of the oral hearing and the denial to the public and 'non-accredited journalists' of the opportunity to make images and sound recordings of the hearing.
REQUEST 1. 2. 3. 4. To grant, by way of interim relief, the immediate permission for the experts nominated by the applicants to present their expert opinions on this case before your court, either in person or via video link, using reports and factual material to be submitted by the experts in these proceedings. This is without any restriction regarding the publicity of these proceedings and with the possibility for all (international) journalists to take photos and videos of the hearing in order to truthfully report on it, and with the opportunity for the respondents to also hear other experts before your court; To set aside the order under appeal; To grant the applicants' request as submitted in the first instance; To order the respondents to pay the costs of both instances, all of this, to the extent permitted by law, provisionally enforceable.
The question now is whether the Dutch legal system will demonstrate the same courage as Costa Rican courts to examine the witness evidence that challenges government assumptions about what occurred during the pandemic response.
The appeal challenges the August 20, 2025 District Court of Noord-Nederland ruling that denied testimony from five expert witnesses. As Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer Vice President who was among the rejected witnesses explained, the court decided "NOT to allow the five independent expert witnesses to provide testimony in court and to face cross-examination by lawyers for the defendants."
This procedural roadblock will sound familiar to anyone following international COVID litigation. The pattern has become troublingly consistent across multiple jurisdictions. We fight on regardless of Lockstep, keeping faith, holding the law up.
The case has faced additional “challenges” and set backs beyond mere court procedural obstacles. Co-counsel Arno van Kessel was arrested in what sources describe as a military-style raid and remains detained, leaving Stassen to represent the plaintiffs alone. This dramatic and sketchy development adds another layer of complexity and fear to an already unprecedented and stressful legal challenge.
Real injured parties are behind every legal filing
The legal challenge emerges from devastating personal tragedy and pain caused by the bio agent products Gates and Bourla PROFITED HEAVILY off of, and this is a real pain and tragedy that cannot be reduced to mere statistics or just blown off by the court.
Originally the case was filed by seven vaccine-injured Dutch citizens, but now the case proceeds with only three remaining plaintiffs. One died from complications they attributed to vaccination injuries during the litigation, and three others have officially withdrawn from the case.
The surviving plaintiffs sadly face an uncertain future. Court documents reveal that two of the remaining three Dutch plaintiffs "have only a heart function of approximately 30 percent as a result of the Covid-19 injections, whereas it was 100 percent before the injections, and recovery has proven impossible." These individuals report that "the applicants' life expectancy has become highly uncertain as a result of the Covid-19 injections."
Behind every legal theory lies human suffering and an injury that must be remedied. These are real people who went from healthy hearts to 30% cardiac function, and they are just seeking their right to normal everyday judicial recognition of what they characterize as systematic violations of international law and their rights to informed consent.
At Interest of Justice, this procedural obstacle strikes us as way, way, way too familiar, and frankly, way, way, way too predictable. In 2023, we were forced to file an appeal on our Nuremberg case after the Costa Rica lower court refused to hear testimony from many of these same expert witnesses in our case originally filed in 2022.
The Costa Rica Court of Appeals ultimately did what we PRAY THE DUTCH COURT WILL DO - the Appeal Court ruled that these experts absolutely must be heard for their expert evidence and testimony. The whole multi year saga we have been on led to our recent victory in May 2025 where we successfully proved the World Health Organization lacked safety data. Yes, we will reach out and get that evidence to the Dutch Attorneys in case it can help their case.. It takes a VILLAGE! We are a TRIBE OF LIGHT-WORKERS WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM!
The pattern really is beyond troubling don’t you think? The lower courts just ignore everyone and go so far to Lockstep dismiss any and all expert testimony challenging official pandemic narratives, forcing costly and time-consuming appeals to secure basic procedural fairness. Its pathetic and it costs our side so much time and money its obscene.
Side note about the damn delays the courts cost us by running us all in circles when we file covid cases: Our main case is now prepared for filing after two years of comprehensive legal preparation and fundraising necessitated by this very dynamic, so to all the donors who pitched in, it took forever, but funded multiple cases so now our main case can be filed with everything we need to win hands down.
We have observed this systematic Judicial and Administrative resistance to hearing certain covid related evidence across multiple jurisdictions, suggesting institutional reluctance and LOCKSTEP LEGAL BIAS. It’s pathetic to us that people calling themself “Authorities” are flat refusing to examine mountains of claims that challenge fundamental assumptions about pandemic response policies.
The Dutch court has shamefully acted in breach of duty, just like the lower court in Costa Rica, who ultimately LOST because they INCORRECTLY rejected these same expert witnesses!
The rejected expert witnesses:
Bringing substantial credentials and crucial expertise to the litigation.
Dr. Michael Yeadon's pharmaceutical industry experience is exceptional. He served as Pfizer's Vice President and Chief Scientist for many years, later co-founding a biotechnology company that Novartis acquired for $325 million. His insider knowledge of pharmaceutical development processes and regulatory pathways makes him uniquely qualified to testify about how these products differ from traditional vaccines. We are proud to say he is IoJ’s Chief Scientist fighting in multiple CR court cases with us since 2021, and even helping us WIN some cases against the Health Ministry
Sasha Latypova brings unparalleled credentials with 25 years of pharmaceutical R&D experience, having founded multiple contract research organizations and worked with over 60 pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. Her technical expertise in regulatory compliance, manufacturing processes, and clinical trial management provides essential insight into how COVID products bypassed normal safety protocols. Her meticulous documentation of Department of Defense contracts demonstrates the military rather than medical nature of the operation. Current HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy says she has done “impeccable research to uncover the fraud”.
Katherine Watt's legal research has been groundbreaking in documenting the legal frameworks that enabled unprecedented pandemic policies. Her extensive analysis of federal legislation and emergency powers provides crucial context for understanding how normal regulatory protections were systematically dismantled. IoJ took some of her work for researching further in our current FDA Citizen Petition.
Catherine Austin Fitts served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of Housing and brings essential expertise in financial analysis of large-scale policy implementation, particularly the economic incentives driving pandemic responses.
Dr. Joseph Sansone, a psychotherapist, has documented psychological warfare aspects of pandemic policies, courts may find his testimony more relevant to broader social impacts rather than technical product classification issues.
A sixth proposed witness, Professor Francis Boyle, who drafted the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, died in January 2025 after agreeing to testify in both the Dutch case and Interest of Justice's Costa Rica litigation, representing a significant loss to international COVID accountability efforts.
The challenge for any court is separating potentially valuable technical expertise from predetermined conclusions (bias) about global coordination that may not meet evidentiary standards for legal proceedings.
In our opinion, arguing The Great Reset was a motive to roll out harmful countermeasures is pretty over the top & VERY hard to prove by ANY WITNESS, and the wrong witness who seems biased or harmful is usually potentially harming the case… so there is that.
What’s in the Appeal filed yesterday?
The appeal's legal arguments center on fundamental procedural fairness under European law. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees fair trial rights, including the examination of witnesses under the same conditions for both parties. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 47 ensures effective remedy for rights violations, while Article 52 governs the scope and interpretation of rights.
The Dutch Code of Civil Procedure Articles 194-202 provides for court-appointed experts, requiring written reports with detailed conclusions and ensuring both parties have equal access during investigation.
The plaintiffs argue that denying their expert witnesses violates these fundamental procedural guarantees, particularly given the case's unprecedented nature and international implications.
From the appeal documents, the plaintiffs' legal strategy focuses on proving that COVID-19 injections qualify as "countermeasures" developed under military rather than civilian health authority.
The filing states:
"The Covid-19 injections demonstrably involve 'countermeasures' or 'countermeasures' developed and produced without significant safety guarantees in case of chemical, nuclear, radiological, and nuclear attacks."
The appeal goes further, alleging that European Medicines Agency officials were "acting as the executor of the malicious Covid-19 project, treated these 'countermeasures' as 'vaccines' in the false perception—preferred reality—created by the EMA and all defendants."
Most significantly, the filing characterizes what occurred as nothing less than "the most organized violation of human rights" in history, executed through what they term "Covid-19: The Great Reset project." The appeal argues that defendants continue this alleged project "at full speed to this day through deception and intimidation and (among other things) the use of the murderous Covid-19 bioweapon."
This military classification argument, if accepted, would place the products outside normal pharmaceutical regulation and potentially under international bioweapons treaties.
The scope of defendants reflects the international nature of pandemic policy coordination. Beyond Gates and Bourla, the lawsuit names numerous Dutch officials including former Prime Minister Mark Rutte (now NATO Secretary-General), former Health Minister Hugo de Jonge, and members of the Dutch COVID-19 Outbreak Management Team.
International defendants include European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab.
Two expert witnesses have already provided written opinions submitted as exhibits with the appeal. According to the filing, Latypova and Watt's analyses support the plaintiffs' core argument that what occurred constituted "the most organized violation of human rights" in history through what they term "Covid-19: The Great Reset project."
From our perspective at Interest of Justice, this case presents a fundamental strategic question that affects all COVID accountability litigation. Is it more effective to pursue broad conspiracy theories or focus on narrow, provable legal violations? It’s a very IMPORTANT question!
The "Great Reset" framing, while emotionally compelling, and true, presents significant legal challenges that may undermine what could otherwise be a strong case.
European courts have consistently rejected conspiracy-based arguments lacking definitive proof of deliberate coordination for improper purposes. Proving intentional coordination for ulterior purposes requires concrete evidence, not expert opinions about circumstantial connections. Just trying to stay grounded here…
The witnesses' documented bias toward Great Reset conspiracy theories, while providing passionate advocacy, may actually harm their credibility in these formal legal proceedings seeking to prove a broader conspiracy to deny human rights (crimes against humanity). Courts prefer expert testimony focused on narrow technical questions rather than broad interpretive frameworks about global coordination. Bias comes up in any common law court as a hostile witness that can be removed. They are 100% correct, but let’s be real about the difference of theories of intent and evidence.
A more targeted approach might prove legally stronger, even in this Dutch case as it goes forward. They could likely win by focusing on specific regulatory violations, abuse of emergency powers, or experimental medical procedures conducted without proper informed consent like Sasha and Katherine are showing in the Appeal. These narrower claims are already in the case and require less speculative evidence and align better with established legal frameworks. It was wise to put Sasha and Watts legal concrete evidence in to request the Appeal to hear the team of experts, it’s not speculating anything, its DOCUMENTING legal waivers and conflict of law allowing informed consent waivers that Dutch law doesn’t contemplate or allow! It could work. Pray.
We do hope their valiant efforts work NOW in the lower courts Appeal process, without having to get Denied now in this court and then be forced go to a full Appeal to prove the lower court erred, just like we had to with Sasha before in 2023 to get our right to be heard enforced by higher judges.
The challenge to win the Dutch case lies in separating potentially valuable technical expertise about pharmaceutical development processes and regulatory pathways from broader theories that courts find difficult to evaluate based on admissible evidence standards.
Sometimes the strongest legal strategy is also the most focused one. Informed consent is key.
The timing of yesterday's appeal carries strategic significance, coinciding with the Netherlands' 2025 COVID vaccination campaign launched September 15, targeting people 60 and older, medical high-risk groups, and healthcare workers. The campaign runs through December 5, 2025, based on Health Council recommendations that notably reduced eligibility for younger adults compared to 2024.
The appeal requests interim relief seeking permission for nominated experts to "present their expert opinions to the judges in this case, either in person or via video call, based on reports and factual material submitted by the nominated experts."
The filing emphasizes the urgency of their request, stating that "the applicants' life expectancy has become highly uncertain as a result of the Covid-19 injections" and that expert testimony is essential because "this was never about a medicine or vaccine for the benefit of the world's population" but rather involved "countermeasures" indistinguishable from bioweapons.
Crucially, they demand this testimony be conducted "without any restriction on the publicity of this trial, with the possibility for all (international) journalists to take photos and record videos to truthfully report on it." The transparency demand appears designed to prevent the kind of closed-door proceedings that have characterized other high-profile COVID litigation.
This transparency demand reflects lessons learned from other COVID litigation where limited public access hindered accountability efforts. The plaintiffs clearly understand that public scrutiny often proves essential for ensuring fair proceedings in cases challenging powerful interests.
The legal precedent context presents both opportunities and challenges. The European Court of Human Rights has generally supported vaccination programs as legitimate public health measures in cases like Vavřička v. Czech Republic (2021), where the Grand Chamber held that compulsory vaccination does not violate physical integrity rights when serving legitimate public health aims.
However, the Dutch case attempts to distinguish itself by arguing this involves not vaccines but countermeasures indistinguishable from bioweapons. If proven, this classification could place their claims outside normal vaccination policy jurisprudence entirely. The challenge lies in meeting the evidentiary burden required for such extraordinary claims.
The appeal acknowledges this difficulty, noting that defending against these charges requires defendants to "cling to the official narrative until their last breath," but expresses hope they might "resign from their role as executors in this malign global project and voluntarily take responsibility for the immeasurable and often irreparable damage they have caused."
The filing's language reflects the plaintiffs' view that what occurred transcends typical medical malpractice or regulatory violations, arguing instead for recognition of systematic crimes against humanity.
From a procedural standpoint, the appeal raises important questions about judicial efficiency versus thoroughness in complex cases involving novel legal theories. The lower court's reasoning that expert testimony would conflict with ongoing main proceedings reflects common civil procedure principles designed to avoid duplicative litigation and conflicting findings.
Yet this efficiency rationale becomes problematic when fundamental rights are at stake and the expert testimony addresses core factual disputes central to the legal claims. The appeal argues that without expert analysis of whether these products qualify as medical treatments or military countermeasures, the court cannot properly adjudicate the underlying human rights violations alleged.
The broader European litigation context shows mixed results for COVID-related legal challenges. Contract transparency cases have achieved some success, with the EU General Court ruling July 17, 2024 that the European Commission failed to provide adequate public access to vaccine purchase agreements. The European Public Prosecutor's Office continues investigating vaccine procurement, particularly communications between Commission President von der Leyen and CEO Bourla.
However, direct challenges to vaccination policies have generally failed. The European Court of Human Rights rejected interim measure requests against France and Greece's vaccination requirements in 2021, consistently finding that "momentous competing interests of the community" justify restrictive measures during pandemics.
The Dutch appeal's success may depend on successfully distinguishing their bioweapon allegations from typical vaccine policy challenges. This requires not just expert opinion but concrete evidence of deliberate misclassification and military rather than medical development pathways.
This Dutch appeal represents more than a single court case. It's a test of whether any legal system has the institutional courage to examine evidence that challenges powerful interests when fundamental human rights are at stake.
For those of us working on COVID accountability across multiple jurisdictions, certain patterns have emerged clearly. Courts initially resist hearing evidence that challenges official narratives. Procedural roadblocks appear consistently. Appeals become necessary to secure basic fairness. The process becomes exhausting and expensive, seemingly by design.
Yet persistence through proper legal channels can eventually secure hearings for crucial evidence. Our Costa Rica experience proves not to give up on justice. The question remains whether victims of these policies should have to endure years of legal battles and enormous financial costs simply to have their evidence heard by supposedly impartial tribunals. The systematic nature of these procedural barriers raises uncomfortable questions about whether the system is designed to exhaust challengers rather than examine evidence.
The precedential implications extend far beyond the Netherlands. Success could validate expert witnesses' credibility for future litigation and establish frameworks for accountability. Failure, particularly on procedural rather than substantive grounds, could discourage similar challenges and entrench official narratives regardless of their accuracy.
The international legal community watches to see whether the Dutch court system demonstrates the independence necessary to examine all relevant evidence in cases of profound public importance. Justice requires that evidence be heard and evaluated according to established legal standards, particularly when fundamental human rights intersect with public health policies in unprecedented ways.
The human stakes remain paramount throughout these legal complexities. The plaintiffs face uncertain life expectancy due to severe cardiac complications they attribute to vaccination, while reporting that medical professionals refuse to acknowledge potential connections. Their courage in pursuing accountability while battling serious health consequences deserves recognition regardless of legal outcomes.
The plaintiffs have courageously brought forward deeply personal testimonies about life-altering health consequences, supported by expert analysis of unprecedented policy implementations affecting billions worldwide. Their appeal deserves careful judicial consideration based on legal merits rather than political convenience or procedural efficiency.
Interest of Justice will continue following this case closely as it develops, particularly whether the Dutch court system will demonstrate the courage to examine evidence that powerful interests prefer to keep buried. The stakes could not be higher for COVID accountability worldwide.
We support the Dutch litigants,Attorney(s) and experts - they are real hero’s to humanity!
We're at a critical moment in the global fight for accountability right now!
After years of legal battles, we've achieved what many thought impossible - we got authorities to admit in court that COVID measures were experimental, and we're the first to successfully prove WHO lacks safety data. These legal breakthroughs are creating opportunities worldwide, including potentially supporting cases like this Dutch appeal.
But legal victories require sustained support. Our recent wins in Costa Rica consumed years of resources, whilst being very valuable and lengthy case to win, we now face the next crucial phase.
Private Nuremberg Hearing Releases September 19 - Never Before Seen
The hearing that started it all - the next steps are in process and ACTION IS COMING!
This Friday, we're releasing footage of a groundbreaking hearing where Sasha Latypova, Dr. Michael Yeadon, and other experts testified directly to government officials
You will be able to see PRIVATE President Office/Health Ministry Foreign Affairs Office testimony that contributed to their eventual court defeat which sets up the main case to win hands down, cannot lose at this point to prove GLOBAL FRAUD.
The Nuremberg Hearing Project represents solutions others haven't achieved. We've cracked the code on getting these same critical expert witnesses heard in court, in Presidential and Health Ministry Private Hearings and we're positioned to replicate this success across multiple jurisdictions.
The Dutch case, our upcoming filings, and similar efforts worldwide all benefit from shared evidence and coordinated legal strategies.
Every contribution, whether monthly support or one-time donations, directly funds our fight for justice in as many cases filings as it takes! We've come too far to step back now. With courts finally starting to hear evidence, and expert witnesses gaining credibility through successful testimony, we're entering the most promising phase of accountability litigation with the lowest funds reserve to fight yet. We need your help!
You can be a real hero help us maintain momentum when it matters most and when most people already gave up support and caring. The window for justice may not stay open forever and we can’t do this alone. You can make a very real difference to help now!
Support the Nuremberg Hearing Project Monthly Supporter Program
One-Time Contribution helps too!
This is a multi year - multi Attorney battle - Support is beyond appreciated to fuel the fight. Gates and co wont be an easy win - Keep us in the fight - Your generous donation goes a very long way!
RELATED READING:
Judge REJECTS Attorney General Dismissal Of Nuremberg Hearing November 9, 2023. Costa Rica Hearing To Stop Covid [non] Vaccines Is ON TRACK.
![Judge REJECTS Attorney General Dismissal Of Nuremberg Hearing November 9, 2023. Costa Rica Hearing To Stop Covid [non] Vaccines Is ON TRACK.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!63u6!,w_280,h_280,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F58e9f075-5e40-40ec-9d5e-85579cfc850f_474x316.jpeg)
The legal fund is pretty low and therefore still needs your support! Please help the legal fund if you are able. NOW is the time to make a real difference by donating support to the team at the tip of the spear!
![Watch Todays Court ORDERED Nuremberg Hearing To Hear Appeal Asking Court To Stop Covid [non] Vaccine Experimentation](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!flIy!,w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3f0042ed-3d32-4e08-bec7-ba94b4586469_800x800.png)
How Is Nuremberg Code Enforceable? Court Hearing ORDERED For November 9, 2023 To Take Covid-19 [non] Vaccines OFF The Market
![How Is Nuremberg Code Enforceable? Court Hearing ORDERED For November 9, 2023 To Take Covid-19 [non] Vaccines OFF The Market](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!fLtq!,w_280,h_280,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa18194fd-abc3-4e8c-9cd6-c532d2830eb2_474x316.jpeg)
Court Hearing To Determine If Covid Vaccines Violate Costa Rica's Medical Morality Code ORDERED For November 9, 2023: Nuremberg Code Is Law!
ENGLISH TRANSLATION FROM THE APPEAL IN GATES et al DUTCH CASE
Back to the Beginning of the Dutch Case:
Report of the first hearing in the Dutch court case against the State of the Netherlands, Albert Bourla, Bill Gates and 14 others regarding Covid19. Partly in Dutch but you can get subtitles by adjusting the settings.
This hearing was about allowing expert witnesses to be heard, namely Catherine Austin Fitts, Sasha Latypova, Mike Yeadon Katherine Watts and Joseph Sansone. Jim Ferguson was there in support of the lawyers leading the case, in particular Arno van Kessel who was arrested by a military task force and is now being held in a highly secured prison.
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1942239265582104782
I am, along with others I am sure, unable to fathom the judicial resistance to presenting factual evidence in these cases.
Are the judges compromised - politically/ personally/ financially?
Seems like most of them need to have a backbone or grow a pair.
Just saying.
8 months and still waiting. When will these greedy genocidal criminals be arrested?
World law enforcement agencies must arrest Bill Gates, Walensky, Birx, Fauci, Dr. Peter Marks, Collins, Daszak and all former and present DOD, CIA, CDC, NIH, WHO, FDA, HHS and big pharma and big tech. executives involved for crimes against humanity!
Fraud and Genocide are ...not included... in the total immunity from legal liability agreement under the PREP Act for the big Pharma criminals!
Nuremberg Code and RICO laws apply now! The Trump DOJ better wake the Fk Up and get busy!
Federal Crimes, Insurrection and conspiracy are what RICO laws are for!
Trial at 2 PM, Executions at 2:27 PM. Rope is reusable!