Last Updated 12/02/2025 published 16/01/2025 by Hans Smedema

Systemic Corruption in the Dutch Justice System

The sources allege several systemic issues within Dutch institutions that facilitated the alleged cover-up of crimes and the obstruction of justice in Hans Smedema’s case. These issues point to a system that may prioritize protecting powerful individuals and maintaining the status quo over ensuring accountability and justice for victims.

1. Prioritization of Prosecution Evidence Over Truth:

Professor Wagenaar, a Dutch academic, criticizes the Dutch justice system for prioritizing the prosecution’s evidence over an active pursuit of the truth [1-6]. Smedema claims that his attempts to file charges and present evidence were met with resistance, while charges against him, often based on flimsy evidence, were readily accepted and investigated [1, 2, 4, 5]. He argues that judges prioritize verifying the prosecution’s narrative instead of considering all available evidence and seeking the most plausible explanation [1, 2, 4, 5]. This alleged bias towards the prosecution’s version of events, coupled with the alleged manipulation and suppression of evidence, may have created an environment where Smedema’s claims were consistently dismissed or minimized, hindering his ability to present his case effectively.

2. Reliance on Psychiatric Evaluations to Discredit Defendants:

Professor Wagenaar also criticizes the Dutch justice system’s alleged tendency to rely on psychiatric evaluations to discredit defendants before the facts of a case are established [4]. This resonates with Smedema’s experiences of being labeled “delusional” or “paranoid” without a thorough investigation into his claims [4]. This labeling, according to Smedema, was used to dismiss his accusations and deny him access to legal assistance and justice [4]. By portraying Smedema as mentally unstable, the alleged conspirators may have aimed to undermine his credibility and make it easier to dismiss his accusations as the product of a delusional mind.

3. Denial of Legal Representation:

Smedema repeatedly highlights the alleged systematic denial of legal representation as a key factor in his alleged isolation and silencing [1, 4, 7, 8]. He claims that lawyers were either intimidated or explicitly instructed not to represent him due to the alleged involvement of the Dutch Royal family and the classification of his case as a “State Secret” [4, 7]. Smedema’s accounts describe numerous instances where lawyers, after initially expressing interest, abruptly withdrew their services, citing pressure from unnamed sources [4, 7]. This alleged obstruction of legal assistance, if true, left Smedema navigating a complex legal system without proper guidance, severely undermining his ability to pursue justice effectively.

4. Blocking the Filing of Charges and Investigations:

Smedema asserts that his attempts to formally report alleged crimes were consistently thwarted, alleging that police officers, acting under orders from the Ministry of Justice, refused to document his accusations, effectively preventing formal investigations [1, 4, 7, 9, 10]. Smedema recounts specific instances where police intervention was allegedly blocked, such as the cases of Haye Bruinsma and Ruud Rosingh, who were allegedly prevented from investigating or filing reports related to Smedema’s allegations [1, 9, 10]. Smedema believes that this alleged inaction ensured that his allegations never reached a point of serious examination, effectively protecting those in power and preventing any potential exposure of wrongdoing.

5. Manipulation and Suppression of Evidence:

Smedema accuses the Dutch government of systematically manipulating, suppressing, or destroying evidence related to his case [1, 4, 11-13]. He alleges that crucial documents, including police files, medical records, and the alleged “Royal Special Decree,” were altered, deleted, or made inaccessible to him [1, 4, 11, 12]. Smedema cites inconsistencies in official records, missing files, and altered medical reports as evidence of this alleged tampering [1, 4, 11, 12, 14]. He points to the alleged disappearance of the “Frankfurt Dossier,” an intelligence file that allegedly contained incriminating information, as a parallel to the fabricated evidence used in the Dreyfus Affair [11]. This alleged manipulation and suppression of evidence, if true, was central to the alleged strategy to discredit Smedema and prevent him from obtaining justice.

6. Exploitation of Legal Procedures and Loopholes:

Smedema accuses the Dutch government of exploiting legal technicalities and loopholes to obstruct his pursuit of justice [4, 15-18]. He claims they manipulated procedures to secure unfavorable rulings, denied him due process, and used legal technicalities to dismiss his complaints [4, 15, 16]. He highlights the alleged misuse of a bilateral judicial treaty between the Netherlands and the US to prevent him from gaining asylum [4, 15-17]. This alleged exploitation of legal mechanisms suggests a deliberate effort to suppress Smedema’s case and maintain the alleged cover-up, potentially demonstrating a willingness to manipulate international agreements and legal processes to achieve their goals.

7. Culture of Impunity and Protection of the Elite:

Smedema’s experiences, along with Professor Wagenaar’s criticisms, point to an alleged culture of impunity within the Dutch justice system [1, 4, 18-21]. Smedema alleges that the potential existence of a “Royal Special Decree,” which he claims shields powerful figures from accountability, reinforces this perception of a system designed to protect the elite at the expense of justice [1, 4, 14, 18, 20, 22]. This alleged decree, if true, would represent a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law, allowing those in power to operate outside the bounds of legal accountability and potentially perpetuating a system where the powerful are protected and victims are silenced.

8. Exploiting “State Security” as a Shield:

Smedema claims that Joris Demmink, the former Secretary-General of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, repeatedly invoked “state security” to justify the suppression of evidence and to block any investigation into Smedema’s allegations [21, 23, 24]. Smedema alleges that Demmink convinced the government that investigating his claims would threaten national security, effectively creating a barrier to justice and further marginalizing Smedema’s claims [23, 24]. By framing the case as a threat to national security, the alleged conspirators could justify extreme measures, such as denying access to information, blocking legal representation, and even interfering with international legal processes.

9. Lack of Transparency and Accountability:

Smedema points to the Dutch government’s response to his WOO (Wet open overheid, or Public Administration Act) requests, stating no files exist, as potential evidence of deliberate deletion or classification rather than proof that his claims are unfounded [25, 26]. This lack of transparency, coupled with the alleged six-month delay in response from the AIVD (Dutch intelligence agency), reinforces Smedema’s belief in a system that may prioritize secrecy and self-preservation over accountability and the pursuit of justice [25, 26]. The alleged withholding of information and the potential manipulation of records may have been intended to obstruct Smedema’s efforts to gather evidence and to maintain the alleged cover-up.

These alleged systemic issues, as described by Smedema, suggest a complex and deeply ingrained system of alleged corruption and abuse of power within Dutch institutions. If true, these issues may have created a climate where powerful individuals could act with impunity, silencing victims and obstructing justice to protect their interests and maintain the status quo. Smedema’s case, as presented in the sources, highlights the potential dangers of unchecked power and the importance of a robust and transparent system that upholds the rule of law and protects the rights of all citizens, regardless of their status or connections.

Google NotebookLM Insights,

legally based on this blog and ebooks by Victim-Author:

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