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

An Analysis of the Fairness of Internal Dutch Resolution Mechanisms in the Hans Smedema Affair, Based Solely on hanssmedema.info

I. Introduction

A. Report Objective

This report provides an analysis of the perspective presented exclusively on the website hanssmedema.info regarding the fundamental question of whether Hans Smedema possessed a fair opportunity to resolve his case within the legal and administrative framework of the Netherlands. The focus is strictly on the portrayal of internal Dutch mechanisms and their alleged fairness, or lack thereof, as depicted on this specific online source.

B. Scope and Methodology

The scope of this analysis is rigorously confined to the information, claims, narratives, and arguments presented on the website hanssmedema.info.1 No external sources, independent verification of claims, or alternative perspectives on the Hans Smedema Affair have been consulted or considered. The methodology employed involves the systematic identification, synthesis, and analysis of the website’s content concerning Mr. Smedema’s interactions with the Dutch system. This report aims to objectively represent the website’s viewpoint on the fairness of internal Dutch processes available to Mr. Smedema; it does not seek to validate or refute the veracity of the allegations made on the site. All claims and perspectives discussed herein are attributed solely to hanssmedema.info.

C. Structure Overview

The report begins by summarizing the narrative of the Hans Smedema Affair as presented on the website, establishing the context of the conflict. It then details the specific interactions with the Dutch system documented on the site. Subsequently, the report analyzes the website’s claims regarding procedural fairness, systemic obstruction, and rights violations. Following this analysis, the website’s definitive conclusion on the possibility of achieving a fair outcome within the Netherlands is examined. The report concludes with a summary of the findings, reiterating the source’s perspective.

II. The Narrative of the Hans Smedema Affair According to hanssmedema.info

A. Origins of the Conflict

The website hanssmedema.info traces the origins of the affair to a specific alleged incident in 1972. It claims that Joris Demmink, identified as a high-ranking official within the Dutch Ministry of Justice, sexually assaulted Mr. Smedema’s then-girlfriend (who later became his wife).1 This event is presented not merely as a criminal act but as the foundational catalyst for what the website describes as a decades-long, state-level operation against Mr. Smedema.1 The narrative immediately frames the situation as one involving powerful state actors and an alleged imperative to suppress the truth from the very beginning.

B. The Alleged Conspiracy and Cover-Up

Central to the narrative presented on hanssmedema.info is the assertion of a protracted and elaborate conspiracy orchestrated by the Dutch government. This alleged conspiracy, spanning decades, is claimed to involve figures at the highest levels, potentially including the Dutch Royal family, with the primary objective of protecting Mr. Demmink and silencing Mr. Smedema.1 The website portrays this conspiracy not as the actions of a few rogue elements, but as a systemic and pervasive effort embedded within the state apparatus, designed to prevent any accountability for the alleged 1972 incident and subsequent actions against Mr. Smedema.1

C. The Claim of “De Facto Statelessness”

A crucial element of the narrative on hanssmedema.info is the claim that, around 1975, a secret governmental decree effectively rendered Hans Smedema “De Facto Stateless”.1 According to the website, this action stripped him of his fundamental rights as a citizen and placed him under state control without his knowledge or consent.1

This alleged status is presented as fundamentally altering Mr. Smedema’s relationship with the Dutch state and its legal system. The website uses this claim not simply to describe a legal condition but as a core argument explaining why the Dutch system was inherently incapable of providing him with a fair hearing or justice. By positing that the Dutch state itself secretly imposed this status, the narrative implies that the very entity from which redress would normally be sought was simultaneously the perpetrator that allegedly removed his legal standing and rights necessary to pursue such redress effectively. This framing suggests an a priori impossibility of achieving a fair outcome internally; the system allegedly responsible for his predicament could not, by its own actions as described on the website, be expected to adjudicate the matter justly or provide the protections typically afforded to a citizen.1

D. Alleged Consequences for Smedema

The website details severe and devastating personal consequences allegedly suffered by Mr. Smedema as a result of this purported conspiracy and the failure of the Dutch system to protect him. These include a profound loss of trust and sense of betrayal by both his family and the government, which he accuses of actively working against him.1 Financial ruin is cited, encompassing loss of income and substantial legal costs, alongside a claim that he refused a 5 million euro offer intended to buy his silence.1

Furthermore, the website recounts significant physical and psychological trauma. It alleges five separate assassination attempts linked to his efforts to expose the alleged truth.1 Claims of being drugged, subjected to forced “brainwashing,” and persistent gaslighting aimed at discrediting him are also detailed.1 Ultimately, these experiences, coupled with a perceived total loss of freedom and security, allegedly forced Mr. Smedema into exile in Spain.1 The website presents these hardships not as unfortunate personal circumstances, but as direct and calculated outcomes of the alleged state-sponsored conspiracy and the systemic denial of justice within the Netherlands.1

III. Documented Interactions with the Dutch System (per hanssmedema.info)

A. Attempts to Report Crimes and Seek Investigation

The website hanssmedema.info describes numerous attempts by Mr. Smedema to engage with Dutch authorities to report the alleged 1972 assault and subsequent crimes purportedly committed against him, such as the alleged assassination attempts. These efforts reportedly involved approaching the police and the Ministry of Justice.1 However, the website asserts that these attempts were consistently met with refusal and obstruction. It claims that Dutch authorities systematically refused to investigate his allegations, ignored the reports he filed, denied him access to relevant information, and actively worked to thwart his efforts to uncover the truth, allegedly including pressuring witnesses to remain silent.1

B. Engagement with the Legal and Judicial System

Regarding Mr. Smedema’s experiences with the Dutch courts and formal legal processes, the website alleges a profound lack of fairness and access. Specific claims include being subjected to unfair trials where, according to the site, presenting a defense was not permitted.1 Furthermore, the website contends that his attempts to file formal charges against those he accuses were systematically thwarted.1 A significant barrier highlighted is the alleged difficulty in securing legal representation within the Netherlands. The website posits that lawyers refused to take his case due to pressure exerted by the Dutch government 1, effectively denying him the means to navigate the legal system.

C. Interactions with Intelligence Services (AIVD)

The website also mentions interactions with the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD). Far from portraying the AIVD as a potential avenue for impartial investigation or redress concerning state misconduct, the narrative on hanssmedema.info implicates the service as part of the machinery of obstruction and cover-up.1 The AIVD is depicted as another state institution allegedly working against Mr. Smedema’s pursuit of truth and justice.

D. Summary Table of Alleged Interactions and Unfairness Claims

The following table summarizes the key interactions with Dutch authorities and the corresponding claims of unfairness as presented on the website hanssmedema.info:

 

Interaction Type (as described on website)	Authority Involved (as claimed on website)	Website’s Claimed Outcome	Alleged Unfairness Cited (per website)	Source Reference
Reporting alleged 1972 assault & subsequent crimes	Police, Ministry of Justice	Refusal to investigate, obstruction	Systemic bias, cover-up, ignoring evidence	1
Seeking legal redress/trials	Dutch Courts, Legal System	Unfair trials, defense denied, charges thwarted	Judicial bias, procedural irregularities, denial of due process	1
Attempting to secure legal counsel	Lawyers in the Netherlands	Refusal to represent	Alleged government pressure, intimidation	1
Interactions regarding alleged conspiracy/persecution	AIVD, Police, Ministry of Justice	Obstruction, cover-up, denial of information, witness pressure	Complicity in conspiracy, active obstruction	1
Overall engagement with the State	Dutch Government (incl. Royal Family per website claims)	Declared “De Facto Stateless”, persecution, forced exile	Fundamental denial of rights, systemic injustice, betrayal by state	1

This table highlights the website’s portrayal of a consistent pattern of alleged denial and obstruction across various branches of the Dutch state, reinforcing its central argument regarding the impossibility of obtaining a fair internal resolution.

IV. Analysis of Fairness Claims on hanssmedema.info

A. Alleged Procedural Violations and Judicial Bias

The website hanssmedema.info bases its claim of unfairness, in part, on specific alleged violations of procedural norms within the Dutch legal system. The assertions that Mr. Smedema faced unfair trials, was denied the opportunity to present a defense, and was prevented from formally filing charges against his alleged abusers are central to this argument.1 Within the narrative presented, these are not depicted as isolated administrative errors or misunderstandings. Instead, they are framed as deliberate and targeted actions, integral to the alleged broader conspiracy. The website suggests that these procedural rights, fundamental to a fair legal process, were specifically denied in his case precisely because of the high-level actors allegedly involved.1 This portrayal transforms claimed procedural irregularities into evidence of a calculated effort to ensure the judicial system could not be used effectively by Mr. Smedema to challenge those implicated in the alleged cover-up.

B. Alleged Systemic Obstruction and Refusal to Investigate

A core theme on hanssmedema.info is the alleged systemic obstruction encountered by Mr. Smedema when attempting to engage with executive and investigative bodies within the Netherlands. The website consistently claims that institutions designated to uphold the law and investigate crime – namely the police, the Ministry of Justice, and the AIVD – actively refused to investigate his serious allegations.1 The narrative includes claims of ignored reports, denial of access to crucial information, and even pressure exerted on potential witnesses.1

This portrayal constructs a situation where the very mechanisms designed to provide access to justice were, according to the website, the primary agents blocking that access. If the police refuse to investigate reports of crime, and the Ministry of Justice oversees or condones this refusal, then the initial steps required to trigger a formal legal process are effectively barred. The website presents this alleged blockage by the designated ‘gatekeepers’ of the justice system as a fundamental reason why internal resolution was impossible; the doors were purportedly locked from the inside.1

C. Alleged Abrogation of Fundamental Rights within the Netherlands

The website argues that Mr. Smedema was denied a fair chance within the Netherlands not only through procedural obstruction but also through the alleged abrogation of his fundamental rights and security. The claim of being rendered “De Facto Stateless” by secret decree is paramount here.1 This alleged status, imposed by the state itself according to the narrative, inherently implies a lack of state protection and a stripping of the legal standing necessary to pursue claims against that state.

Furthermore, the website juxtaposes the expected rights and protections afforded to a Dutch citizen with Mr. Smedema’s alleged reality: living under the threat of assassination attempts, being drugged, subjected to psychological manipulation (“brainwashing,” “gaslighting”), and ultimately forced into exile for safety.1 A fair legal process typically requires participants to possess recognized legal standing and be free from undue threats, coercion, or fear for their personal safety. The website contends that these foundational requirements were deliberately removed in Mr. Smedema’s case by state-linked actors.1 Therefore, the narrative argues, participation in any internal Dutch process was rendered fundamentally unfair, dangerous, and ultimately untenable, necessitating his departure from the country.1

D. Alleged High-Level Complicity and Cover-up

Perhaps the most significant argument presented on hanssmedema.info for the impossibility of a fair internal resolution is the claim of complicity reaching the highest levels of the Dutch state. The website implicates senior figures within the Ministry of Justice and suggests potential involvement or knowledge extending to the Dutch Royal family in the alleged conspiracy and cover-up.1

According to the logic presented on the website, if the individuals and institutions at the apex of the legal and political system are themselves involved in orchestrating the suppression of truth, then no subordinate part of that system can be expected to act impartially or effectively. Within this narrative framework, lower-level officials, judges, police officers, and prosecutors would be unable or unwilling to challenge the interests of their superiors or the state apparatus allegedly invested in the cover-up.1 This claim of top-level corruption serves as the ultimate justification on the website for the futility of seeking justice through internal Dutch channels; the system itself, from its highest echelons downward, is portrayed as fundamentally compromised and rigged against Mr. Smedema.1

V. The Website’s Conclusion on the Viability of Internal Dutch Resolution

A. Synthesis of the Website’s Position

Based on the totality of the narrative, claims, and arguments presented, the website hanssmedema.info reaches an unequivocal and stark conclusion: Hans Smedema was systematically denied any fair or meaningful opportunity to resolve his case inside the Netherlands. The possibility of achieving justice through internal Dutch legal or administrative channels is portrayed as non-existent.

B. Supporting Arguments from the Website

This conclusion, as presented on the website, rests on several interconnected pillars of argumentation drawn from Mr. Smedema’s alleged experiences:

• Inherent Systemic Bias: The alleged existence of a deep-rooted conspiracy involving high-ranking officials and potentially the Royal family rendered the entire Dutch system inherently biased against him from the outset.1
• Lack of Legal Standing: The alleged imposition of “De Facto Statelessness” stripped him of the fundamental rights and legal recognition required to effectively engage with and challenge the state apparatus.1
• Blocked Avenues: Systemic obstruction by key institutions (police, Ministry of Justice, AIVD) allegedly blocked all conventional avenues for reporting crimes, seeking investigation, or obtaining official information.1
• Denial of Due Process: Alleged procedural irregularities in courts, including the denial of defense and the inability to file charges, coupled with the claimed inability to secure independent legal representation due to government pressure, made fair legal participation impossible.1
• Persecution and Lack of Safety: Severe alleged persecution, including physical threats (assassination attempts) and psychological manipulation, created an environment where pursuing the case within the Netherlands was not only futile but also dangerous, ultimately necessitating exile.1

C. The Narrative Shift to International Arenas

Consistent with its conclusion that internal resolution was impossible, the website hanssmedema.info details Mr. Smedema’s efforts to seek redress and validation from international bodies and foreign governments, such as the United Nations and authorities in the United States during asylum requests.1 This narrative shift towards external intervention is presented as a direct and necessary consequence of the alleged comprehensive failure and corruption of the Dutch system.

Moreover, the website claims that US agencies (CIA/FBI) investigated his allegations during his asylum process and found supporting evidence, although this purported report is allegedly being blocked by the Netherlands.1 This claim serves to bolster the website’s argument about the impossibility of internal resolution. By highlighting alleged external validation (even if claimed to be suppressed), the narrative implicitly reinforces the idea that the failure lay entirely within the Dutch system, compelling Mr. Smedema to seek justice elsewhere – a path portrayed as the only one remaining after all internal doors were allegedly slammed shut.1

VI. Concluding Summary

A. Recapitulation

This report has analyzed the perspective presented solely on the website hanssmedema.info concerning whether Hans Smedema had a fair opportunity to resolve his case through internal Dutch mechanisms. The analysis was strictly limited to the content provided on that website.

B. Summary of Findings

Based exclusively on the narrative, allegations, and arguments found on hanssmedema.info, the conclusion presented by the website is that Hans Smedema was systematically and comprehensively denied any fair chance to resolve his case within the Netherlands. The website constructs a narrative detailing an alleged decades-long, high-level conspiracy and cover-up originating from a 1972 incident involving a top Justice Ministry official.1 This alleged conspiracy is claimed to have permeated the Dutch state, leading to Mr. Smedema being declared “De Facto Stateless,” subjected to severe persecution including assassination attempts, and systematically obstructed by police, the judiciary, and intelligence services when attempting to seek investigation or legal redress.1 According to this source, these factors rendered the Dutch system not merely unfair, but entirely inaccessible and hostile to his pursuit of justice, ultimately forcing him into exile and necessitating attempts to seek resolution through international channels.1

C. Final Disclaimer

It must be emphasized that this report solely reflects the perspective, narrative, and claims presented on the website hanssmedema.info. The analysis contained herein does not constitute an independent verification, validation, or judgment regarding the accuracy or truthfulness of the allegations made against individuals or institutions mentioned on the site. The findings are strictly confined to the information available on hanssmedema.info and represent the website’s position on the fairness of internal Dutch resolution possibilities for Hans Smedema.

Works cited

1. The Hans Smedema Affair: A Story of Betrayal, Conspiracy, and the …, accessed May 1, 2025, http://hanssmedema.info

Google Gemini Advanced 2.5 Pro Deep Research,

based on the legal-written-statements on this Blog and e-books by victim Author:

Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful ‘El Albir’, Costa Blanca, Spain