Last Updated 12/02/2025 published 05/12/2024 by Hans Smedema

Smedema’s Paradox: Proving the Unprovable

Proving the Unprovable

The sources you provided detail Hans Smedema’s claims of a vast conspiracy orchestrated by the Dutch government, including the Ministry of Justice and the AIVD (Dutch intelligence agency), to obstruct justice and cover up crimes committed against him and his wife. His central argument revolves around the seemingly impossible task of having to prove his allegations while the very entities he accuses are simultaneously suppressing and manipulating the evidence he needs.

Burden of Proof Reversed:

• Smedema repeatedly emphasizes the absurdity of being told, as the victim, to provide proof, when the Dutch Ministry of Justice and AIVD allegedly control and manipulate that evidence [1-12]. He asserts this creates a dystopian, “upside-down” scenario, reminiscent of Kafka’s “The Trial,” where he is trapped in a system designed to ensure his failure [2, 9, 13-17]. He highlights how the burden of proof is unjustly placed on him, while the accused parties operate with impunity [1, 3, 4, 9].

Evidence Suppression and Manipulation:

• Smedema details numerous instances of alleged evidence tampering, including:
• Falsified DNA tests: Smedema claims paternity tests related to his children were falsified with the cooperation of family members and medical professionals [1, 18-20]. He further claims that the Dutch government is blocking access to reliable DNA testing that would support his case [8, 21, 22].
• Manipulated medical records: Smedema alleges that his medical records, including an MRI scan related to his alleged forced sterilization, were falsified [19, 23]. He describes a scar related to the sterilization being dismissed as normal skin damage [23]. He claims this manipulation of medical evidence is part of a broader effort to discredit him by portraying him as delusional [2, 23-28].
• Deleted files: Smedema accuses the Ministry of Justice and AIVD of deleting crucial police and prosecution files related to his case, further hindering his ability to prove his claims [1, 29]. He mentions 50 such files being deleted or hidden [29, 30]. He also reports that a large file about him and his wife, held by the Dutch Secret Service in Frankfurt, was deleted within three days of being discovered by the American CIA [31].
• Deleted photo: Smedema states a photo showing his wife in a compromising position with Jaap Duijs, a man he claims raped his wife and worked for the Ministry of Justice, was deleted by his children [2, 32]. He asserts that this photo is crucial evidence proving Duijs’s perjury in court and is an example of obstruction of justice [32].
• “Royal Special Order”: Smedema claims the core of the conspiracy is a “royal special order,” purportedly signed by Queen Juliana, which shields the perpetrators from investigation and prosecution [4, 9, 33-39]. He alleges this order effectively placed his case outside the reach of normal legal procedures and granted immunity to those involved [4, 35, 40, 41]. He believes this order is the reason lawyers are unable or unwilling to help him, police and prosecutors refuse to investigate, and he is denied access to information [3, 23, 35, 37, 38, 41-43].
• Denied Legal Assistance: Smedema contends that he has been systematically denied legal assistance due to the alleged royal order and the cover-up [3, 23, 33, 37, 42, 44, 45]. He reports contacting hundreds of lawyers, all of whom refused his case [42]. He provides specific examples of lawyers he believes were intimidated or prevented from representing him, citing Ad Speksnijder and Johan Verwilligen [42, 46, 47]. He notes the Dutch Bar Association and the disciplinary board for lawyers refused to appoint him a lawyer [42].
• AIVD Involvement: Smedema implicates the AIVD in surveillance, harassment, and manipulation of information to discredit him and protect the alleged conspiracy [4, 29, 30, 48-50]. He describes a “cordon sanitaire” established around him to control information and isolate him from potential support [43].
• “Delusional” Label: Smedema asserts he has been wrongly labeled delusional to discredit his claims [1, 2, 4, 23, 25, 26, 28, 51-57]. He views this as a deliberate tactic to dismiss his allegations and obstruct his pursuit of justice [1, 4, 43].

Smedema’s narrative presents a complex web of accusations against the Dutch government and legal system. His consistent emphasis on the obstruction of justice and manipulation of evidence highlights the central paradox he faces: being tasked with proving accusations against a system that actively works to erase the proof.

More Insights

The original passage focuses on Hans Smedema’s claims of evidence suppression and manipulation as part of a larger conspiracy by the Dutch government to obstruct justice in his case. Here are a few related facts and ideas from your source material that can expand on and enhance these concepts:

1. Expanding on the “Delusional” Label:

• The source material highlights how the alleged “gaslighting” Smedema experienced contributed to the “delusional” label. Smedema recounts being secretly drugged with antipsychotics, possibly contributing to his perceived mental instability. [Source: “All notes 04/12/2024”] This reinforces his claim that authorities deliberately sought to discredit him and undermine his allegations by manipulating his mental state.
• Smedema claims that forced psychiatric evaluations, potentially orchestrated by figures like Professor Onno van der Hart, played a key role in solidifying the “delusional” narrative. The sources detail his allegations of being subjected to unnecessary electroshock therapy and coerced into signing documents, further supporting his view that the mental health system was used against him. [Source: “All notes 04/12/2024”] This adds another layer to the concept of evidence manipulation, showing how Smedema’s mental state itself was allegedly manipulated to discredit him.

2. “State Security” as a Mechanism for Evidence Suppression:

• The sources provide specific instances where “State Security” was allegedly used to justify the denial of information and the blocking of investigations. Smedema claims that the “Frankfurt Dossier,” which he believes contained damning evidence, was erased under the guise of “State Security.” [Source: “All notes 04/12/2024”] This concrete example shows how this concept could be used to shield potentially incriminating information from scrutiny.
• Smedema alleges that his reports about a listening device planted by Jaap Duijs were dismissed on “State Security” grounds, despite potentially exposing criminal activity. [Source: “All notes 04/12/2024”] This reveals a possible pattern where legitimate concerns were disregarded under the umbrella of “State Security,” effectively suppressing potential evidence.

3. Financial Buyouts as a Form of Evidence Suppression:

• The source material reveals Smedema’s claim that he was offered 5 million Euros on two occasions in exchange for his silence. He interprets this as an attempt to “buy” his silence and prevent him from pursuing legal action or publicly disclosing potentially incriminating information. [Source: “All notes 04/12/2024”] This adds a new dimension to the concept of evidence suppression, suggesting that financial incentives were used to discourage him from seeking justice or revealing what he knew.
• The alleged buyouts further support Smedema’s claims of a cover-up, implying that those in power had something to hide and were willing to use considerable financial resources to prevent exposure. [Source: “All notes 04/12/2024”]

These points demonstrate how your source material provides specific details and examples that can enhance the themes of evidence suppression and manipulation presented in your original passage. By weaving in these additional facts and emphasizing the “gaslighting,” the misuse of “State Security,” and the alleged financial incentives, you can create a more compelling and nuanced exploration of Smedema’s accusations against the Dutch government.

Thematic Outline: Hans Smedema’s Allegations Against the Dutch Government

I. Core Accusation: Systematic Obstruction of Justice and Evidence Manipulation

A. Smedema’s Paradox: Proving the Unprovable

1. Burden of Proof Reversed: Victim forced to prove claims while the accused control the evidence.

2. Kafkaesque Scenario: Trapped in a system designed to ensure failure.

B. Evidence Suppression and Manipulation Tactics

1. Falsified Evidence

a. DNA tests related to paternity.

b. Medical records, including MRI scan related to alleged forced sterilization.

2. Deleted Evidence

a. Police and prosecution files.

b. Frankfurt Dossier held by Dutch Secret Service.

c. Photo implicating Jaap Duijs.

3. Financial Buyouts Offered in Exchange for Silence

II. Mechanisms of Suppression and Control

A. “State Security” as Justification

1. Denial of information and blocking of investigations.

2. Dismissal of reports about listening device planted by Jaap Duijs.

3. Erasure of the “Frankfurt Dossier.”

B. “Royal Special Order” as a Shield

1. Protection of perpetrators from investigation and prosecution.

2. Circumvention of normal legal procedures and granting of immunity.

3. Explanation for lack of legal assistance, police inaction, and information denial.

III. Impact on Smedema’s Pursuit of Justice

A. Denied Legal Assistance

1. Systematic refusal of representation by lawyers.

2. Intimidation and prevention of lawyers from taking the case.

3. Refusal of Bar Association and disciplinary board to appoint a lawyer.

B. “Delusional” Label as a Discrediting Tactic

1. Deliberate misdiagnosis to dismiss allegations.

2. Forced psychiatric evaluations, drugging with antipsychotics, and electroshock therapy.

3. Contribution of alleged gaslighting to the perception of mental instability.

C. AIVD Involvement in Surveillance and Harassment

1. Manipulation of information to discredit Smedema.

2. Establishment of a “cordon sanitaire” for isolation and control.

IV. Key Figures and Institutions Implicated

A. Dutch Government (Ministry of Justice)

B. AIVD (Dutch Intelligence Agency)

C. Jaap Duijs

D. Professor Onno van der Hart

E. Family Members (complicity in falsifying evidence)

F. Medical Professionals (complicity in falsifying evidence)

V. Central Themes

A. Power and Corruption

B. Truth and Deception

C. Individual vs. the State

D. The Failure of the Justice System

 

Google NotebookLM Insights,

based on this Blog and ebooks by Victim-Author,

Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile surviving in beautiful ‘El Albir’, Costa Blanca, Spain