Seven Dutch citizens are suing their own State, Bill Gates and the chief executive of Pfizer. Almost everything written about that case describes something other than the case. This is what is actually in the documents.
I downloaded the files — about fourteen thousand pages, all published at thenetherlandscase.com — had the hearings transcribed, and counted what is actually pleaded against what is only said out loud. Seven things came out of that:
- 1“Biological weapon” is not in the original writ at all. The phrase everyone associates with this case was added two years later, by amendment.
- 2Eugenics appears nowhere in the pleadings. The claimants’ lawyer argued it for about thirteen minutes in his opening speech. Depopulation: nothing. Satanism and transhumanism: one mention each.
- 3The Great Reset is pleaded 151 times; the Nuremberg Code three. The first is the hardest thing in this case to prove. The second is the easiest.
- 4Graphene oxide — the most mocked claim in the subject — is pleaded with a granted patent attached, translated and filed as Exhibit 43.
- 5A claim only gets into a case if you can back it with a document. How believable it sounds makes no difference.
- 6The easiest thing to prove is the thing they pleaded least. The Nuremberg Code appears three times, and informed consent seven, against 151 for the Great Reset. Proving the Great Reset means showing that seventeen people acted to a common plan. Proving a breach of the Nuremberg Code means showing one thing: that the risk people were told about was not the risk that existed.
- 7And there is an argument nobody has made. The Netherlands is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 8 protects your right not to have things done to your body. Used properly, it would put the State to its explanation instead of making seven injured people prove a worldwide project.
These claims were pleaded. They were not proved. No court has ruled on any of them. Judgment is due on 9 December.
I have spent hours on this piece, and will on the rest of the series, for two reasons.
The first is the black pill — the moment when people have given everything to seeking justice, lost, and decided that nothing could ever have been done. That is worse than never trying, because it takes the hope with it. A case lost on the facts teaches you something. A case lost on technique teaches people that the system is closed.
The second is that I hope what I went through in Singapore can be of use to someone else, and especially to this case, now that so many people are watching it. In November 2021 I sued the Singapore Government, relying on the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and Article 9(1) of our Constitution. The application was prepared by my then lawyer, M Ravi, and the papers are here. No court ever ruled on the argument. I did not have the knowledge or the resources then to see it through. My fuller account of these five years is here.
What’s in the Pleadings
So I took the pleadings themselves — the writ of 14 July 2023, the amendment, the Reply, and the Evidential Deed of 22 September 2026 — and asked AI to count how many times certain key words appear. That is about sixty-four thousand words of formal pleading in all. Anyone can repeat this. The documents are published, the words are in them, and counting is arithmetic.
Counting words is a blunt instrument. A concept can be pleaded properly in few words, or mentioned often and pleaded badly. What the counts show reliably is what is absent altogether, and where the weight of the claim was placed.
| What it says | Times | What it says | Times | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Great Reset | 151 | Nuremberg Code | 3 | |
| Patents | 36 | Gain of function | 1 | |
| Biological weapon | 31 | 5G | 1 | |
| Graphene | 21 | Transhumanism | 1 | |
| Genocide | 19 | Satanism | 1 | |
| Informed consent | 7 | Lab leak | 0 | |
| Event 201 | 6 | Eugenics | 0 | |
| World Economic Forum | 3 | Depopulation | 0 |
The Great Reset is the hardest thing in this case to prove. The Nuremberg Code is the easiest.
That is worth sitting with. To prove the Great Reset, the claimants have to show that seventeen people acted together to a common plan. To prove a breach of the Nuremberg Code, they have to show one thing: that the risk people were told about was not the risk that existed. And at the hearing, Pfizer’s chief executive accepted that myocarditis and pericarditis are side effects of the injection.
Exhibit 43
Graphene oxide deserves its own section, because it is the claim people laugh at hardest, and it is pleaded with a granted patent attached.
The writ says the makers concealed “the presence of graphene oxide in every mRNA injection, regardless of whether it is from Pfizer or Moderna”. It does not leave it there. It relies on a Chinese patent, CN 112220919A, granted on 27 September 2020, filed in the case as Exhibit 43 with a translation.
… a recombinant nano-vaccine … carnosine, CpG and the novel coronavirus RBD are bound to the backbone of graphene oxide.
That patent is real. It is granted, dated, translated and filed. Whether the conclusion drawn from it holds is a different question, and I will come to it in Part 3 — because that patent is a different product, by a different company, in a different country. The gap between a true document and a wrong conclusion drawn from it is exactly the kind of gap that loses cases.
But nobody who calls graphene oxide a conspiracy theory has read Exhibit 43.
What Was Left Out
Of everything that has circulated in five years, none of this appears anywhere in the pleadings: eugenics and crypto-eugenics, depopulation, nanobots, self-assembling structures. Satanism and transhumanism get one passing mention each. 5G gets one, with no claim built on it. Gain of function gets one, and the lab leak none at all — and at the hearing the lawyer dropped that strand himself: “a lab leak… has not been proven… it is irrelevant to the assessment of this case.”
So the picture most people have of this case is back to front. It is not that the claimants pleaded the conspiracy theories. It is that out of everything the movement believes, these seven people and their lawyer were willing to put their names to a small, specific set of it — in a court document, under a duty to tell the truth, with exhibits attached, delivered by a bailiff to seventeen named defendants.
They left most of it out. That is a story about discipline, not gullibility.
The full article is on my Substack. It has the parts that would not fit here: how I learnt the difference between what is pleaded and what is merely said, what happened when I sued the Singapore Government in 2021 and why it never got anywhere, all nine claims set out one by one, and the European Convention argument that nobody in this case has made yet.
You are most likely reading this from Singapore. What I need most is reach beyond it, and that is what the Substack is for. Please send that version to anyone outside Singapore who is following this case, or who ought to be — a journalist, a lawyer, a doctor, anyone connected to it. I really do hope our side wins.
Five years of this, with no salary and no institutional funding. To see what Healing the Divide has done, and to support the work, go to healingthedivide.cc/support. Thank you very much.
I am rooting for them. I also think there are real gaps in the evidence — some of them serious, one of them sitting in the claimants’ own Reply, and at least four of them fixable before an appeal.
Part 2 — Eugenics in Singapore, in Plain Sight. Thirteen minutes in the video, and nothing in the pleadings. The 1960 minutes the lawyer named but never filed — and the one country that never bothered to hide any of it.
Part 3 — What Still Needs Proving. The gaps in the evidence, including the sentence in the claimants’ own Reply that works against them.
Part 4 — Avoiding the Black Pill.
With thanks. This series rests on work that is not mine. Peter Stassen and his seven clients brought the case and have kept it going for three years. Fiona Rose Diamond and the team behind The Narrative on Trial published the file and made it findable. The experts put their names to written statements and sat for recorded examination, which is harder than it sounds. Everything I quote is at thenetherlandscase.com. Read it yourself.
This is an AI-assisted article. If I have made any mistakes, please contact me.
This article reports on documents filed in civil proceedings in the Netherlands (Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, C/17/190788 / HA ZA 23-172), on a published judgment of the Singapore High Court, and on my own court papers, and expresses honestly held opinions on matters of public interest. It does not allege wrongdoing by any person or institution. The Netherlands proceedings are ongoing and judgment has not been given. Quotations from Dutch-language material are working translations. The featured image is an illustration, not a photograph; no defendant attended the hearing in person.
Sources. Writ of summons, 14 July 2023; amendment of claim; Reply; Evidential Deed, 22 September 2026; Exhibit 43 (patent CN 112220919A); the video evidence and the court’s orders of 23 September, 2 October and 14 October 2026; the hearing of 22 October 2026. All at thenetherlandscase.com. Attorney-General v Ng Kai Hoe Raymond [2026] SGHC 162. HC/OS 1189/2021. Vavrička and Others v Czech Republic, applications no. 47621/13 and five others (ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 8 April 2021). Articles 93 and 94 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Share your feedback
Tell us what you think. We read every message.
Leave a Reply