Excuse the unusually dramatic presentation. This is important.

Please share this speech like mad.

(My source)

Bombshell?

Clearly this is no bombshell to anyone following the Amsterdam case against:

Please ensure familiarity with all the expert witness statements. (See Katherine’s post (via Sasha) – at the end of this one)

First, here is a dubbed in English version of the appeal hearing in Amsterdam Monday, March 9th 2026, at which attorney Peter Stassen lays out his reasons why the expert witnesses should be heard in court in the main proceedings scheduled (I think) for October of this year. He uses the opportunity to clearly present the details of the engineered fake Covid crisis – as evidence that the severity of the crimes against humanity make censorship of expert testimony wholly inappropriate.

This is an extraordinary essential address – in the second highest court in the Netherlands.

We must excuse the translation speeding and slowing occasionally. There are subtitles.

Strong suggestion

Please consider sending the video

( https://youtu.be/ + BpwuUf5ykqI )

and Peter’s opening address

( https://youtu.be/ + cT5VBfjx9MI )

to unaware friends, colleagues.

These two complement each other and are both in highly respected public environments.

Obviously they are both here but you may consider less packaging, as the addresses stand on their own.

Why a civil suit?

A reminder of why the attorney chose to bring a civil suit against multiple individuals and not, for example, make allegations of criminal conduct and against corporations.

The Netherlands, unusually, allows tort (civil liability) cases to be brought against individuals. If found guilty, the court can award financial compensation to the plaintiffs. This is about establishing what has happened, not about jailing, for example, the guilty parties. The most propitious path to that objective is what has been selected.

Our testimony, myself and the other four (remaining) expert witnesses, is definitely going to feature in the substantive proceedings.

Evidence has been filed and accepted by the court already, in writing and on video.

The only question is whether we are to be permitted to give that evidence in person in the court and to face cross examination by the defence. This is obviously what we want to be able to do.

Imagine if such proceedings were to be recorded or even live-streamed? I understand it is a public process in that there were people in the public gallery. At one point in the above address, we hear them laugh, loudly, when the counsel for one of the defendants rather limply reaffirmed that “The vaccines were safe and effective”. The judge crossly reproved them, suggesting they be quiet or to go and laugh elsewhere, which is priceless.

Best wishes

Mike

The full set of expert witness accounts

Catherine Austin Fitts

Katherine Watt

Myself

Prof. Francis Boyle, architect of the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act had agreed to testify—but died suddenly before the hearing, under circumstances that remain unclear. Dr. Sansone has taken on the mantle of presenting this evidence.

Here is the best resource for all expert witness statements and full details of the case(s).