Last Updated 13/02/2025 published 13/02/2025 by Hans Smedema

How does Smedema characterize the Landsadvocaat’s behavior?

Smedema’s characterization of the Landsadvocaat’s behavior is complex, alleging that the Landsadvocaat is hindering the resolution of his case and potentially complicit in the obstruction of justice he believes he has experienced for decades. Smedema’s perspective is rooted in his belief that the Dutch government, including the Ministry of Justice, is engaged in a conspiracy to silence him and protect powerful individuals, including the Royal Family, from scrutiny.

Key aspects of Smedema’s characterization:

1. Reliance on compromised information: Smedema alleges that the Landsadvocaat relies on information provided by the Ministry of Justice, which he believes is compromised by corrupt individuals like Joris Demmink. He suggests the Landsadvocaat may have accepted manipulated information that portrayed him as mentally unstable, further obstructing justice. Smedema criticizes the Landsadvocaat for not questioning the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, particularly regarding the alleged Obama-UNCAT case, which he believes directly implicates the Ministry.
2. Failure to act on the UNCAT case: Smedema claims that former US President Barack Obama initiated an official UNCAT complaint of the United States against the Netherlands on his behalf in January 2017. He believes that the Landsadvocaat should have been involved since 2009, when Smedema first sought asylum in the US, or at least since January 2017, when Obama allegedly initiated the UNCAT complaint. Smedema contends the current Landsadvocaat, Reimer Willem Veldhuis, is blocking a swift resolution by hiding behind a bilateral judicial treaty with the US while disregarding the international and EU obligations under UNCAT. Smedema maintains that the US has a complete UNCAT case against the Netherlands.
3. Denial of Legal Assistance via Pels Rijcken: Smedema recounts attempts to seek legal assistance from lawyers at Pels Rijcken, the firm representing the Landsadvocaat. He mentions specific lawyers he contacted, including Wemmeke Wisman, Hans van Wijk, and Annelieke Wissink. Smedema expresses frustration with the lack of legal assistance he has received, both in the Netherlands and Spain. He suggests that his case, with its alleged connections to the royal family and threats of assassination, discourages lawyers from representing him and he claims to be experiencing financial difficulties, which further hinder his access to legal representation.
4. Exploiting legal procedures and loopholes: Smedema alleges the Landsadvocaat is complicit in the exploitation of a bilateral judicial treaty with the U.S. to prevent him from gaining asylum. He believes this treaty, designed for legal cooperation, prioritizes the protection of the Dutch Crown over his individual rights and justice.
5. The Landsadvocaat’s role is to defend the state: It is crucial to remember that the role of the ‘Landsadvocaat’ is to defend the state as an entity, not necessarily every action taken by individuals or entities within the state. When alleged criminal activities occur within the state, it is in the interest of the state to investigate and prosecute those responsible, thus maintaining the rule of law and protecting its citizens. In Smedema’s case, he seems to be arguing that the state should fulfill this duty by investigating the Hans Smedema affair. This pursuit of justice aligns with the state’s overarching responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens and to uphold the integrity of its institutions.
6. Landsadvocaat reaction to Minister of Justice: Smedema’s communication to the Minister of Justice was a reaction to the Minister’s response to the request forwarded by Pels Rijcken. He characterizes the Minister’s reply as a deflection from the core issue of providing legal assistance and sees it as a tactic to avoid addressing his claims and to silence him.

Despite Smedema’s criticisms, it’s important to note that the Landsadvocaat’s office has acknowledged receiving Smedema’s communications. The Minister of Justice, responding to Smedema’s emails “through the intermediary of the Landsadvocaat,” suggests Smedema contact a lawyer if he has legal questions. Smedema characterizes this response as a deflection, as his original request was for legal assistance from Pels Rijcken Arbitrage, not a request for compensation. Smedema asserts that Pels Rijcken Arbitrage forwarded his request to the Minister of Justice, and he believes the response is a tactic to avoid addressing the core issue and to silence him. He argues that he is being forced to prove everything without legal representation, while the UNCAT rules dictate that the Justice system should be the one to investigate first. He claims the Dutch government has been violating UNCAT for 24 years.

How does Smedema link UNCAT to Landsadvocaat assistance?

Smedema believes UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture) mandates the Landsadvocaat to provide him with legal assistance. He argues that the Dutch government’s handling of UNCAT has been deliberately obstructed since 2000 to shield the royal family from negative publicity. Smedema contends this obstruction has prevented him from receiving justice and support, including an independent investigation, free legal assistance, an advance on compensation, and restoration of his reputation.

Key aspects of Smedema’s argument connecting UNCAT and the Landsadvocaat:

1. UNCAT obligations for legal assistance: Smedema argues he should receive legal assistance from the Dutch government, citing UNCAT regulations. He believes all victims, including himself, are entitled to effective, free legal assistance, which he claims has been denied to him since 2000, and effectively since 1972.
2. Landsadvocaat’s duty to uphold UNCAT: Smedema suggests the Landsadvocaat should support his efforts to stop the alleged cover-up, in accordance with UNCAT rules. He views himself as no threat to the State, but rather someone trying to prevent problems for the State.
3. Landsadvocaat’s obstruction via treaty: Smedema criticizes the current Landsadvocaat, Reimer Willem Veldhuis, for allegedly blocking a swift resolution by hiding behind a bilateral judicial treaty with the US, while disregarding international and EU obligations under UNCAT. He maintains the US has a complete UNCAT case against the Netherlands.
4. Landsadvocaat and Justice Ministry compromise: Smedema alleges that the Landsadvocaat’s reliance on information from the Ministry of Justice, supposedly compromised by individuals like Joris Demmink, has hindered his case. He suggests the Landsadvocaat may have accepted manipulated information portraying him as mentally unstable, further obstructing justice.
5. Landsadvocaat’s awareness of UNCAT case: Smedema suspects the Landsadvocaat became involved around May 1, 2017, possibly triggered by American legal action against the Netherlands, and that the Landsadvocaat, having access to UNCAT case files, likely realized the strength of the evidence against the Netherlands.
6. Landsadvocaat should question information: Smedema criticizes the Landsadvocaat for not questioning the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, especially regarding the alleged Obama-UNCAT case.

Additional context from the sources:

• Smedema’s attempts to secure legal representation: Smedema recounts attempts to get legal help from lawyers at Pels Rijcken, the firm representing the Landsadvocaat. He mentions contacting specific lawyers like Wemmeke Wisman, Hans van Wijk, and Annelieke Wissink. Smedema expresses frustration over the lack of legal assistance he has received, both in the Netherlands and in Spain. He suggests that his case, with its alleged connections to the royal family and reported threats of assassination, discourages lawyers from representing him. He also indicates that his financial difficulties further impede his access to legal representation.
• Obama’s UNCAT complaint: Smedema claims former US President Barack Obama initiated an official UNCAT complaint of the United States against the Netherlands on his behalf in January 2017. He believes the Landsadvocaat should have been involved since 2009, when Smedema first sought asylum in the US, or at least since January 2017, when Obama allegedly initiated the UNCAT complaint.
• UNCAT and investigation: Smedema believes he is being forced to prove everything without legal representation. He insists that the Justice system should be the one to investigate first, referring to UNCAT (United Nations Committee Against Torture). He claims the Dutch government has been violating UNCAT for 24 years.
• UNCAT Obstruction: Smedema accuses the Dutch government of malicious obstruction of UNCAT and many human rights. He says they give answers on requests for compensation, which he did not request, rather he requested Juridical Arbitration assistance from the Pels Rijcken Arbitration team based on the applicable UNCAT rules.
• UNCAT and juridical help: Smedema asks why UNCAT rules mandate juridical help, stopping prosecution, and financial damages in order to prevent worse outcomes.

Points to consider:

• Smedema’s perspective is that the Landsadvocaat is an integral part of a system designed to deny him justice.
• His interpretation of UNCAT’s requirements may be subjective.
• The Landsadvocaat’s role is to defend the State, which may conflict with Smedema’s demands for individual legal assistance in his case against the State.

To further explore this, consider researching the specific obligations of signatory states under UNCAT regarding legal assistance to alleged victims of torture.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the legal written Statements on this Blog and eBooks by Victim-Author:

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