Last Updated 12/02/2025 published 28/01/2025 by Hans Smedema

Smedema’s Allegations of Absurd Dutch Obstruction of Justice!

Smedema’s narrative portrays a complex and disturbing picture of alleged obstruction by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, a key element of his broader claims of a vast conspiracy. While the sources emphasize the lack of independent verification for Smedema’s claims, they also highlight the extraordinary circumstances he describes, and it is in this context that Judge Ford’s statement must be considered. Judge Ford’s statement, “no one could have done a better job than you under these extreme circumstances” suggests that Smedema’s actions were reasonable and perhaps even commendable, given the difficulties he faced [1]. This statement, if accurate, carries significant weight because it is attributed to a US Immigration Judge who, according to Smedema, had direct knowledge of his case [1-7]. Smedema claims Judge Ford conducted a thorough investigation, involving the FBI and CIA, into his allegations [5-22].

Judge Ford’s alleged assessment of Smedema’s case as “unique” due to the finding of five valid grounds for asylum further underscores the gravity of the situation, according to Smedema [1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15-18, 21-29]. Judge Ford, according to Smedema, also said that “America had no sympathy for [his] wife at all” and that if what she did came out in the news, no one would feel sorry for her either [1]. Judge Ford also allegedly told Smedema that she “got exactly what America said [she] deserved after all [her] lies and deceit” [1]. Smedema believes that Judge Ford knows everything about his case, as the judge reopened the 2009 Florida case in January 2014 and offered him asylum on March 15, 2017 when he was in the air from Los Angeles to Amsterdam above Montana [1].

These circumstances, as portrayed in Smedema’s narrative, include not only the alleged actions of the Dutch Ministry of Justice, but also a broader conspiracy that has allegedly targeted Smedema for decades, involving powerful figures in the government, justice system, and even the Royal Family. The following analysis will examine Smedema’s claims of Ministry of Justice obstruction and how these alleged actions relate to the question of whether Smedema “could have done a better job.”

1. The Systematic Denial of Legal Representation

Smedema contends he was systematically denied legal representation, a significant obstacle for anyone seeking to navigate a complex legal system [3, 6, 10, 18, 28, 30-38]. He claims lawyers were pressured or intimidated into refusing his case, leaving him to represent himself despite his lack of legal expertise [3, 6, 10, 18, 28, 30-38]. This alleged denial of access to counsel directly undermines his ability to build a strong case and presents a severe disadvantage [3, 6, 10, 18, 28, 30-38]. If lawyers were indeed prevented from taking Smedema’s case, it becomes more difficult to argue that he could have “done a better job,” since the basic requirements for an effective legal challenge were denied to him.

2. The Blocking of Formal Investigations and Charges

Smedema alleges that his attempts to report crimes were consistently blocked, police refused to document his claims, and prosecutors were ordered not to investigate [10, 30, 32, 38, 39]. This systematic obstruction within the Ministry of Justice and law enforcement prevented his case from being formally examined. The refusal to allow him to report crimes or file charges highlights a deliberate effort to prevent Smedema from pursuing legal recourse and undermines the typical paths to justice [10, 30, 32, 38, 39]. In such a system, Smedema’s capacity to do better was limited by the inability to initiate normal procedures.

3. The Alleged Manipulation and Suppression of Evidence

Smedema claims the Ministry of Justice actively suppressed or manipulated evidence, including medical records, legal documents, and the “Frankfurt Dossier,” making it extremely difficult to prove his claims [10, 13, 30, 32, 40-45]. He says files were deleted and altered, and he was denied access to information that could support his case [10, 13, 30, 32, 40-45]. This alleged manipulation of evidence suggests a deliberate strategy to undermine his credibility and make it impossible for him to access justice [10, 13, 30, 32, 40-45]. If the evidence he needed to prove his claims was actively being suppressed or manipulated, the question becomes not whether Smedema could have done a better job, but whether anyone could have overcome such obstacles.

4. The Use of “State Security” as a Shield

Smedema argues the Dutch government invoked “State Security” to justify their obstruction, preventing scrutiny of his case and limiting his access to information [10, 28, 32, 46]. The invocation of “State Security” allegedly allowed the Ministry of Justice to deny him access to information and legal assistance, and to block any investigation into his claims [10, 28, 32, 46]. This alleged abuse of power prevented Smedema from accessing the necessary resources to build his case, and this obstruction can be seen as an effort to ensure his claims were never taken seriously.

5. The Intimidation and Silencing of Potential Witnesses

Smedema claims potential witnesses were silenced, intimidated, or removed from their positions, hindering his ability to gather corroborating testimonies [3, 10, 30, 32, 37, 46-49]. If witnesses who could have supported Smedema’s claims were actively silenced or intimidated, then the lack of external corroboration is not necessarily an indication that his claims are false, but rather, that powerful forces were at work to prevent those claims from being substantiated. This tactic would isolate Smedema and make it difficult for anyone to independently confirm his claims, making his quest for justice even more challenging [3, 10, 30, 32, 37, 46-49].

6. The Alleged International Interference and Exploitation of Treaties

Smedema alleges the Dutch government interfered with his attempts to seek asylum in the US, exploiting a bilateral treaty to prevent him from securing protection, and that this interference included the Dutch King personally blocking his asylum request [10, 14, 20, 30, 32, 50, 51]. If the Dutch government was able to manipulate international legal mechanisms to block Smedema’s asylum request and return him to the Netherlands, this indicates a level of power and influence that makes it very difficult to imagine what Smedema could have done differently to secure asylum. He says that the King lied to Judge Ford, stating that Smedema did not want asylum [50-53]. This, if true, would show a deliberate effort to undermine Smedema’s efforts [50-53].

7. Psychological Manipulation and Discrediting Tactics

Smedema claims the Ministry of Justice, in conjunction with medical professionals, worked to portray him as mentally unstable, undermining his credibility [10, 30, 32, 34, 37, 54]. If these claims are true, then the consistent depiction of Smedema as “delusional” by the Dutch authorities would not be a reflection of his mental state, but rather part of a calculated effort to discredit him [10, 30, 32, 34, 37, 54]. Smedema believes the “delusional” narrative is designed to counter the findings of the American investigation, which he claims, supported his version of events [10, 30, 32, 34, 37, 54].

Considering Judge Ford’s Statement

Given these allegations, Judge Ford’s statement that Smedema could not have done a better job, suggests that the judge recognized the extreme nature of the challenges Smedema faced [1]. Smedema believes that Judge Ford had found five valid grounds for asylum and conducted an independent investigation into his claims [1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15-18, 21-29]. The fact that Judge Ford, an independent US judge, allegedly reached such a conclusion, lends credibility to Smedema’s claims. Judge Ford’s alleged actions, including his investigations and reopening of the case, show that he took Smedema’s case seriously [5-22, 29, 50, 51, 55]. If, as Smedema claims, an American judge with access to FBI and CIA investigations believed his story, this supports the idea that Smedema’s efforts were not futile, but rather undermined by a powerful and pervasive conspiracy.

Smedema’s claims of having been offered financial buyouts to remain silent also supports his narrative of an active effort to suppress the truth [30, 32, 43, 45, 46, 56-58]. The fact that Smedema refused these alleged offers suggests he was more interested in exposing the truth than in personal gain [30, 32, 43, 45, 46, 56-58]. Smedema believes that the fact that he was offered money to remain silent suggests that there was an attempt to hide the truth and implies the guilt of the parties involved [30, 32, 43, 45, 46, 56-58].

Conclusion

While it’s important to acknowledge that the sources for this analysis are primarily based on Smedema’s personal accounts and interpretations, the alleged obstacles he describes paint a picture of a system designed to prevent his claims from being heard [1-4, 8-11, 23, 25, 31, 32, 37, 46, 48, 53-56, 59-85]. If the Dutch Ministry of Justice was actively working to suppress evidence, block investigations, and deny legal assistance, then it is hard to imagine what Smedema could have done to have a better chance at proving his claims and securing justice. If Judge Ford’s statement is accurate, it suggests that, despite these monumental obstacles, Smedema did everything that could reasonably be expected, given the extreme circumstances. Smedema’s case is unique in that it not only highlights the challenges individuals face when confronting powerful institutions, but also raises questions about the influence of international relations and the potential for the misuse of legal systems to protect the powerful.

Smedema views the alleged involvement of the Dutch Royal family, and King Willem-Alexander in particular, as proof of a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Dutch state [29, 44, 50-53, 57, 86, 87]. He believes that the alleged actions of the Royal family demonstrate the lengths to which the powerful in the Netherlands will go to in order to protect themselves and their interests. The fact that Smedema alleges that the King lied to a US judge suggests a significant attempt to interfere with due process [50-53]. The alleged interference of King Willem-Alexander also suggests that the conspiracy extends beyond the Dutch Ministry of Justice and has high-level support in the Dutch government.

In summary, while independent verification is crucial, the alleged actions of the Ministry of Justice, and the extraordinary circumstances Smedema describes, suggest that his efforts were undermined by forces beyond his control. In light of this alleged obstruction, Judge Ford’s statement, if accurate, that Smedema “could not have done a better job,” may well be a reasonable and valid assessment of the situation.

Google NotebookLM Insights,

‘Mistake ‘he’ changed for ‘she’ and in red’ is my error improvement!

based on his ‘legal written Statements’ on this Blog and eBooks by Victim-Author:

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