Bill Gates to Stand Trial in Netherlands for Vaccine Damage, Court Rejects Jurisdiction Appeal
Bill Gates failed to escape the Dutch vaccine injury trial against him, along with former Prime Minister Rutte, former minister De Jonge and Pfizer chief Albert Bourla. Gates complained that the Netherlands had no jurisdiction over him, but the judge had a different opinion.
These are the judge's reasons.
“Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, if a Dutch court has jurisdiction over one of the defendants, it also has jurisdiction over the other defendants involved in the same proceedings, provided that there is such a connection between the claims made against the defendant. respective defendants that reasons of effectiveness justify joint treatment.
In the judgment cited in note 2, the Supreme Court held that the first condition for the application of Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the Dutch court has jurisdiction over one of the other defendants (the so-called additional defendant) on a ground other than that indicated in Article 7(7) DCCP itself. If this condition is fulfilled, the second condition for the application of Article 1(XNUMX) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the claims against the other defendant(s) are sufficiently connected to the claims against the main defendant.
5.8. When interpreting Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is important that this provision is based on the (previous) Article 8, incipit sub I, Brussels I-bis Regulation. The case law of the CJEU can be taken as a guideline in answering the question whether claims are related within the meaning of Article 7 !id l R v.3 • According to the case law of the CJEU, there are related claims when (i) the claims are based on the same set of facts, and (ii) the claims are legally so closely related that the claimant cannot reasonably be expected to bring the cases before different courts.
If both conditions are met, it can be assumed that joint claims management is justified for reasons of efficiency and that the requirement of foreseeability is satisfied. The CJEU requires as a condition for the application of Article 8 under Article 1 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation the existence of a risk of divergence in the resolution of the dispute, which occurs in the context of the same situation, in fact and in law. In assessing whether this is the case, all necessary elements of the case file must be taken into account. In this context, the CJEU has formulated a number of views which the Court must take into account in its assessment. As regards the question whether the same factual situation exists, it is important whether the defendants have coordinated their conduct. As regards the question whether the situation is the same from a legal point of view, the legal bases of the claims submitted were a relevant point of view.
Pursuant to Article 2 DCCP and Article 99 DCCP, this court has both international and relative jurisdiction to hear claims against Hofstra, since he lives within the district of this court.
Gates is a wealthy American who has invested part of his assets in an American foundation, called the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Gates is a co-director of this foundation. The foundation aims to fight poverty, disease and inequality around the world.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is affiliated with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (hereinafter: Gavi), an international partnership in the field of vaccination between various public and private entities.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also affiliated with the World Economic Forum (hereinafter: WEF), an international organization whose statutory objective is to unite leaders from business, government, academia and society at large in a global community committed to improving the state of the world.” Professor K. Schwab (here: Schwab) is the founder and chairman of the WEF.
As the Court understands, – et al. argue that Hofstra et al., and thus also Gates, are part of a global group of persons, legal entities, and other entities who, in the context of implementing a project called Covid 19: The Great Reset, misled the administration of Covid-19 injections, while they knew or should have known that these injections were not safe and effective. From Gates’ brief, the Court concludes that Gates also interpreted the position of – et al. in this way. The Court understands that…
et al. further argue in this context that Gates committed this deception internationally through two videos published on YouTube in April and December 2020, in which Gates allegedly misrepresented the necessity of the Covid-19 injections and their safety, respectively. Insofar as et al. intended to assert that furthermore any action of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should be regarded as unlawful action by Gates in this group context, the court ignores this in the context of this incident, as it has not proven this. According to et al., some other defendants who are part of the alleged group, including De Jonge and Rutte, committed the deception in the Netherlands and thus deceived them, including by holding press conferences. Since Gates could have foreseen that the group's action had created a danger of damage such as that suffered by et al., he is, according to et al., liable for this damage on the basis of Article 6:166 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW).
5.11. The Court considers that it follows that the legal basis of the claims against Hofstra et al. Gates may admit that the specific wrongful acts alleged against him differ from the specific wrongful acts alleged against Hofstra (and the other defendants). However, this does not affect all of these claims.
– it is specified that they were committed by a group and that they qualify as an unlawful act in a group context.
There is a global group of persons, legal entities and other entities that, in the context of the implementation of a project called Covid 19: The Great Reset, misled people into receiving Covid-19 injections, which they knew or should have known. these injections were not safe and effective. There is a risk that the separate adjudication of the claims against Hofstra et al will lead to irreconcilable judgments on this set of facts, which is the same for all defendants and forms the basis for the alleged liability of Hofstra et al. Daannee is, in the light of the above assessment framework, the necessary coherence under Article 7 paragraph I DCCP between the claims of Geos Gates and the claims against the defendant Hofstra again.
5.12. Gates has challenged the statements of – et al. in the context of this jurisdictional incident in a general sense and has argued that there is a lack of solid and logical foundation to the statements of – et al. This general dispute is not further substantiated and it is insufficient to be able to judge on this basis that the statements of – et al. are so unfounded that they do not constitute the above-mentioned legal basis. 5.3 cannot pass the (limited) test referred to in the context of this jurisdictional incident.
5.13. On the basis of the above, this court has international jurisdiction under Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to hear the claims against Gates. This means that the reliance by et al. on Article 6(9)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article XNUMX(XNUMX)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the positions taken by the parties in this regard, no longer need to be discussed.
Does the court have relative jurisdiction to hear the complaint against Gates?
5.14. Insofar as Gates has also challenged this court's relative jurisdiction in the context of this incident, the court finds that it has relative jurisdiction under Article 107 DCCP in conjunction with Article 99 DCCP. Article 107 DCCP provides that if a court has jurisdiction over one of the jointly involved defendants in the proceedings, that court also has jurisdiction over the other defendants, provided that such a connection exists between the claims against the respective defendants and the efficiency justifies joint treatment. As discussed above, the court has relative jurisdiction to entertain the claims against Hofstra. The consistency assumed above under Article 7(107) DCCP also applies to relative jurisdiction under Article XNUMX DCCP.
Final sum and legal costs
5.15. In light of the above, Gates' claim will be dismissed. As the losing party, Gates will be ordered to pay the attorneys' fees (including:
additional costs). The cs's legal costs are estimated at:
– lawyer's fee €1.228,00 (2 points x €6 I4,00)
– additional costs €178,00 (plus the surcharge as highlighted
– indicated in the decision)
Total €1.406,00
Case number: C/17/190788/HA ZA 23-172 16 October 2024
Then find the judge's sentence
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Read the latest news on www.presskit.it
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento