This week on Sunday(?) Update: a Dutch civil case puts the COVID criminals on trial; Berenson gets shut down by an appeals court; and the Canadian government is still trying to justify the Emergencies Act.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:
Welcome. This is James Corbett of The Corbett Report with your altogether ridiculously named Sunday Update for Friday, October 30, 2026.
And now for the real news.
Billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, the Dutch government and 13 other defendants failed to appear in court last week to attend a substantive merits hearing in a landmark civil case in the Netherlands. The gaggle of globalists are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to deliberately inflict harm on the world during the COVID-19 scamdemic through the deployment of bioweapon clot shots masquerading as COVID “vaccines.”
PETER W. H. STASSEN: As implementers of the COVID-19: The Great Reset project, the defendants have deliberately and unlawfully misled my clients with the aim of having them receive a COVID-19 injection—an injection that qualifies as a biological weapon, or at the very least cannot be distinguished from one. The evidence supporting this assertion is on the records in these proceedings.
SOURCE: The Narrative On Trial | Full Oral Plea | English Language Version
SASHA LATYPOVA: In my expert opinion, the COVID-19 mRNA injections are not medicinal products in a legal sense, and the appropriate classification is that of a medical countermeasure deployed under militarized biodefense laws and rules. So we can say that this is a biochemical substance that is legally and functionally indistinguishable from a potential biochemical weapon. They’re built on a technology platform that is formally recognized as a dual use and therefore weaponizable.
SOURCE: The Narrative On Trial | Full Oral Plea | English Language Version
JOSEPH SANSONE: Dr. [Francis] Boyle’s analysis proceeds from the technical facts to a legal conclusion. The technical issues are that the mRNA payload, the lipid nanoparticle delivery system, the origin of the payload and the biological effects of the injections, you know, obviously, are causing harm. And the legal issue is whether that payload and delivery system was designed and deployed for peaceful medical purposes or as a biological weapon.
Dr. Boyle’s expert legal opinion is that they were deployed as a biological weapon prohibited under the Biological Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which he lobbied for and drafted.
So, Dr. Boyle’s legal opinion is not just an expert legal opinion. It is in fact a demonstration of legislative intent.
SOURCE: The Narrative On Trial | Full Oral Plea | English Language Version
The case, brought by seven anonymous individuals who were injured by Pfizer’s mRNA injections—two of whom have died of their injuries since the case was first brought—is a civil case suing the defendants for their tortious conduct. Although this is not a criminal prosecution and will result in no prison sentence for any of the defendants, the lawyer arguing the case and the claimants’ expert witnesses are seeking to prove in court that there was a conspiracy to deploy bioweapons on the global population during the scamdemic, and that this deliberate plot resulted in demonstrable harm to the defendants and, by implication, to Pfizer’s victims around the world.
In 2024, Gates attempted to remove himself from the case, arguing that the Dutch court did not have jurisdiction over him. That appeal was rejected, with the court citing the Epstein associate and involuntary sterilization enthusiast‘s many public appearances advocating for COVID vaccination, as well as his documented ties to the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset project, as evidence that he is part of the group identified in the suit, and thus that the court does have jurisdiction to hear the case against him.
GATES: We’re gonna have this intermediate period of opening up, and it won’t be normal until we get an amazing vaccine to the entire world.
GATES: And then the final solution—which is a year or two years off—is the vaccine. So we’ve got to go full-speed ahead on all three fronts.
COLBERT: Just to head off the conspiracy theorists, maybe we shouldn’t call the vaccine “the final solution.”
GATES: Good point.
COLBERT: Maybe just “the best solution.”
[GATES LAUGHS]
SOURCE: Bill Gates: Global Innovation Is The Key To Achieving A Return To Normal
The merits hearing held last week was not attended by a single defendant. In their stead, the defendants sent their team of attorneys, who spent their time ignoring the facts of the case and attempting to impugn the claimants’ witnesses.
The judges will now weigh the merits of the case and could issue a written judgment as early as December 9th.
PETER W. H. STASSEN: So now this court has a very important role to play: it should choose its side. Let us see if it’s at [sic] the side of the people or at the side of the executors of the COVID-19 project.
I really hope—and that’s also why I’m a lawyer, why I’m an attorney—that I can, on behalf of my clients, which [sic] have the courage to do this litigation, that we can have a court address what’s really, really going on.
SOURCE: Press conference 1:30 PM ET · after the Leeuwarden hearing vs Gates, Bourla & the Dutch State
In related legal news, a federal appeals court in the United States has thrown out a lawsuit against former US President Joe Biden and a team of Pfizer executives by journalist Alex Berenson.
The suit accused the pharma executives of conspiring with the Biden administration to pressure Twitter to censor Berenson’s account because of his opposition to Pfizer’s death jabs. The second circuit ruled that a lower court was right to throw out Berenson’s suit because he had agreed to Twitter’s terms of service, which stipulate that the platform “may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason.”
Asked why any person—let alone any journalist—would agree to let Twitter, a third-party middleman, interfere with their ability to communicate their message to the public, Corbett Report founder James Corbett said “Beats the f@*! out of me. All y’all are crazy for using Twitter in the first place. RSS for the win, yo,” before throwing up a series of increasingly baffling gang signs.
Finally this week, the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the Canadian government’s appeal of two lower courts’ rulings that its use of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to deal with the Freedom Convoy protests was not justified.
The case revolves around the Canadian government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act—a statute granting extraordinary temporary measures to the government to wield emergency powers during times of insurrection or invasion—to combat a group of peaceful protesters who had gathered in Ottawa to honk their horns, sing “O, Canada,” and let their children play in bouncy castles.
In January 2024, a federal court ruled that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was not justified, a decision that was upheld by a federal appeals court earlier this year.
The extraordinary measures were used to target peaceful Canadian citizens engaged in peaceful protest of the Canadian government’s draconian and coercive COVID vaccination mandates. As Reclaim the Net notes, the federal appeals court noted the egregious nature of the government’s actions, including its order to freeze the bank accounts of those participating in the protests:
“The most egregious problem with the Economic Order, in our view, is that personal banking information belonging to individuals who were suspected of having committed offenses under the Regulations could be shared with the RCMP and CSIS without a warrant or any form of prior authorization,” the Appeal Court ruling reads.
The Canadian government’s decision to continue appealing this ruling, and thus continuing to bring former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s sneering contempt for the Canadian public back into the spotlight, is baffling. But, on that note, here is former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demonstrating his sneering contempt for the Canadian public:
EVA CHIPIUK: A number of people have testified in this inquiry referencing your widely published comments calling the unvaccinated “racists” and “misogynists,” and we have heard testimony in this inquiry about how some of your officials wanted to label protesters as terrorists. Would you agree with me that one of the most important roles of a prime minister is to unite Canadians and not divide them by engaging in name calling?
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Uh, I did not call people who were unvaccinated names.
TRUDEAU: The small fringe minority of people who are on their way to Ottawa, who are holding unacceptable views that they are expressing [sic], do not represent the views of Canadians who have been there for each other, who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values, as a country. [sick]
SOURCE: Trudeau says “fringe minority” in trucker convoy with “unacceptable views” don’t represent Canadians
As of press time, it’s unclear whether the former Prime Minister and disgraced blackface enthusiast will be personally involved helping the Canadian government with their appeal, or whether he’ll be too busy with his new role as Katy Perry’s backup dancer.
And that’s the news you won’t see anywhere else.
For more insight, analysis, enlightenment and kick-ass journalism, become a member of The Corbett Report at corbettreport.com.
There is a fundamental constitutional issue concerning the Netherlands that deserves far greater international attention, particularly in legal proceedings involving the Dutch State, former government officials and internationally influential private actors.
The Netherlands is one of the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, alongside Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The constitutional framework of the Kingdom is established by the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Article 43 of this Charter contains an explicit obligation:
Each constituent country is responsible for the realisation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, legal certainty and good governance. Safeguarding these principles is a responsibility of the Kingdom itself.
This is a constitutional obligation, not a voluntary political commitment.
Yet Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution prohibits judges from reviewing Acts of Parliament against the Constitution and treaties.
This means that a Dutch citizen cannot obtain judicial review of an Act of Parliament against the Constitution, even when that citizen argues that the legislation violates fundamental rights that should be guaranteed by the Dutch Constitution.
The significance of this restriction extends far beyond an individual lawsuit. It concerns the constitutional distribution of power itself.
Legislation determines the legal framework for taxation, social security, property, economic regulation, public expenditure, corporate activity and investment. These laws shape the relationship between citizens and the state, the distribution of economic resources and the conditions under which political and economic power can be exercised.
What is not recognised, even in these proceedings, is that Acts of Parliament cannot be reviewed against the Constitution by the judiciary. An essential form of independent constitutional control over legislative power is absent throughout the entire Kingdom of the Netherlands. This also has implications for this case.
As a consequence, the balance between legislative, executive and judicial power, and the possibilities for citizens to challenge the constitutional limits of state power, effectively do not exist. The question now is: what, then, is actually happening in this case? Is it marketing?
Because there is another remarkable feature within the Kingdom itself.
Sint Maarten has a Constitutional Court under Article 127 of its Constitution. This Court can review certain legislation of this non-European constituent country for constitutionality before it enters into force. However, individual citizens cannot directly initiate proceedings before this Court; that authority belongs to the Ombudsman. Many people, even within the legal profession, are unaware of this.
The consequence is that everything falls under a minister within the same Kingdom, yet constitutional judicial review is organised differently, while direct access for citizens remains restricted. Consider, then, what the judge in this case is actually doing.
Then there is the perennial argument concerning the “European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)”, which is regularly invoked as an alternative safeguard. But the European Court of Human Rights is not a constitutional court for the Netherlands. It is a political process, with all the consequences that entails.
Applicants generally have to exhaust domestic legal remedies before approaching Strasbourg. The Court applies strict admissibility requirements, and the Convention does not provide equivalent protection for every fundamental right recognised under the national Constitution, particularly certain social and economic rights.
More importantly, legal protection that only becomes available after years of litigation may come too late to prevent irreversible consequences.
By then, a person may already have lost their livelihood, property, financial independence, health or social standing.
A judgment delivered years later does not necessarily restore the life someone has lost in the meantime. Let me tell you from personal experience that this is certainly a very old, well-rehearsed route in the Netherlands. People are deprived of all kinds of things, and nobody can do anything about it. And nobody takes responsibility because of the system and the implications of the distribution of power.
This raises a fundamental question concerning constitutional responsibility.
Article 43 of the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands places responsibility for safeguarding fundamental rights, legal certainty and good governance upon the individual constituent countries and ultimately upon the Kingdom.
That responsibility cannot be reduced to the mere existence of legal procedures through which citizens, after suffering harm, may attempt to obtain protection.
The state is constitutionally obliged to respect and safeguard fundamental rights. Citizens should not have to bear the entire burden of discovering, proving and obtaining correction of violations arising from the exercise of public authority.
Constitutional responsibility rests with those who exercise state authority and must ensure that this authority is used lawfully, not with the people who suffer the consequences of its misuse.
There is also an international dimension that must not be overlooked.
The Netherlands plays an important role in international trade, finance, investment, corporate structures and multinational economic activities.
Legislation enacted within the Dutch constitutional framework can influence financial flows, corporate arrangements, investment decisions and economic relationships extending far beyond Dutch national borders.
Consequently, the constitutional mechanisms through which legislative power is controlled — or where judicial constitutional review is absent — may have consequences for the exercise and distribution of economic and political power internationally.
This does not mean that Article 120 itself creates international economic power. It means that the constitutional framework within which Dutch legislative power operates is relevant to understanding how that power is exercised and how its consequences extend through international relationships.
The legal proceedings in Leeuwarden involving Bill Gates, the Dutch State and former government officials should therefore also be considered within this broader institutional context.
The question is not solely whether the defendants are liable for the allegations brought against them. Those allegations require investigation and evidence.
The broader constitutional question is whether the Dutch legal order provides sufficient independent control over the exercise of public authority, particularly where government policy, legislation and influential international interests intersect.
Under Article 43 of the Charter, the Kingdom has expressly assumed responsibility for safeguarding fundamental rights. At the same time, the Dutch Constitution itself restricts the authority of the judiciary to review parliamentary legislation against those fundamental constitutional guarantees.
This is a structural tension that deserves serious international investigation.
After all, fundamental rights are not merely declarations of principle, nor should they be rights that only become meaningful after citizens have exhausted their financial resources and devoted years of their lives to legal proceedings.
Fundamental rights are intended to place real limits on the exercise of power.
And when those limits cannot be enforced against parliamentary legislation through independent judicial constitutional review, the question arises whether the constitutional responsibility to safeguard these rights is actually being fulfilled — and who can be held accountable when it is not.
There is another important fact that deserves attention in connection with the Leeuwarden proceedings.
On 15 September 2026, the Dutch Royal House officially announced that Queen Máxima would participate in United Nations meetings concerning global financial health and digital public infrastructure.
The announcement explicitly confirms that the Gates Foundation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are part of her longstanding UN advisory network, with which she has worked closely since 2009.
In a separate publication, the Royal House also acknowledges that the Gates Foundation has provided funding to the United Nations in support of the office assisting Queen Máxima in her UN activities.
This establishes a documented institutional and financial relationship, rather than merely an incidental meeting.
While Bill Gates is a defendant in civil proceedings in which the Dutch State and former government officials are also parties, the Dutch Queen maintains an established international working relationship with his foundation.
This does not, in itself, establish interference in the legal proceedings. It does, however, raise a legitimate question concerning transparency, institutional accountability and the separation between public authority and private international influence.
Who independently oversees these relationships, their financial dependencies and their influence on government policy, particularly within a constitutional system in which judicial review of parliamentary legislation against the Constitution is prohibited?
In short, what exactly are we looking at here, both legally and from a marketing perspective?