Please Share! Fight this 'Perfect' 40+ year (Royal) Crime!

Last Updated 27/05/2025 published 24/05/2025 by Hans Smedema

European Commission Unit C.4 – Democracy, Anti-Corruption, Union Citizenship and Free Movement Denies Huge State Capture Case!

Here is a copy of the text:

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS

Directorate C – Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights and Democracy

Unit C.4 – Democracy, Anti-Corruption, Union Citizenship and Free Movement

Brussels

JUST.C.4/AA/aa(2025)5820818s

Hans Smedema [email protected]

Dear Mr Smedema,

I refer to your message registered on 15 May 2025 under reference Ares(2025)xxxxxx (please quote this reference in any further correspondence) in which you make several claims about widespread corruption of Dutch authorities.

The fight against corruption is a key priority for the European Commission. To this end, the Commission presented on 3 May 2023 a package of measures to strengthen the EU legislative framework for fighting corruption1. This includes a proposal to provide law enforcement and prosecutors with the tools to fight corruption in all EU countries. Novelties also include an EU Network Against Corruption, bringing together law enforcement, public authorities, practitioners, civil society and other stakeholders. The measures also detail the ethical, integrity and transparency rules in place to prevent corruption within the EU institutions. This framework must not only be applied with rigour and consistency, but also be continually updated.

Furthermore, the European Commission monitors and reports on developments, both positive and negative, regarding the fight against corruption in all EU Member States. The fifth EU Rule of Law report, published on 24 July 2024, includes a specific chapter for all Member States and provides concrete recommendations to tackle systemic weaknesses, including in the Netherlands2.

Based on the information provided in your correspondence, I have unfortunately to inform you that the matter to which you refer is not related to the implementation of European Union law, and that as a result, the Commission is not entitled to intervene. Member States are solely responsible for maintaining law and order and safeguarding internal security. Consequently, any action – or lack thereof – by national authorities remains the responsibility of the Member State concerned.

In case you have information on irregularities or fraud being committed against the EU’s financial interests, you can report these to the European Anti-Fraud Office and/or the European Public Prosecutor’s office. As regards criminal offences, such as bribery,

1 Anti-corruption: Stronger rules to fight corruption (europa.eu)

2 2024 Rule of law report – Communication and country chapters – European Commission (europa.eu)

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË – Tel. +32 22991111

involving EU funds, you can contact the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), established by Regulation 2017/1939 via https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/reporting-crime- eppo.

If you consider that your rights or freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated, you may lodge a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (Council of Europe, 67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France3). Please note, however, that this Court may only deal with a complaint after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

As the European Commission is not empowered to intervene in this case, I am not in a position to follow up further on your email.

Yours sincerely,

Electronically signed

Marie-Helene BOULANGER Head of Unit

****************

Huge ‘State Capture’ since 1972 no reason to intervene?

If The Netherlands never gave permission to intervene in huge severe decades long torture cases like mine, then all EU Laws are blocked? EU can do nothing?

But my complaint has been Officially Registered on May 15, 2025! Which is the second stage in the process. And an email to the ‘vaste commissie Justitie’ was now after 12 days suddenly opened on that same day May 15! That can only mean that EU Commission Unit C.4 – Democracy, Anti-Corruption, Union Citizenship and Free Movement, had direct contact with Dutch Justice and warned them for this huge absurd case. Only Parliamentary control mechanisms can save the Netherlands now. I am not allowed legal help and therefore cannot use the other mechanism in a Court case before Judges!

Wikipedia:

State capture is a type of systemic political corruption in which private interests significantly influence a state’s decision-making processes to their own advantage.

Gemini Advanced Pro Deep Research Reaction

I argue that the EU Marie-Helene BOULANGER Head of Unit C.4 – Democracy, Anti-Corruption, Union Citizenship and Free Movement, misses the real point of the complaint! And I argue that never before in history they have received such a huge case!

The Official form with max. 5000 characters is absurd in this case. Normally they only receive easy simple complaints that are only about legal interpretations of National and EU Laws. This forced me as the lone severely traumatized victim, still without any legal (forbidden) representation, to put this huge case in too simple words. Also I was not prepared to add 2 files as evidence and could only give general Google NotebookLM files, not specifically designed as evidence. Unit C.4 – Democracy, Anti-Corruption, Union Citizenship and Free Movement has therefore no experience at all in an exceptional historic case like this of State Capture since 1972.

The Kafkaesque trap that I have to prove as the traumatized handicapped victim, without legal help, what has been obstructed by the perpetrators like Joris Demmink and his associates(and manipulated Cabinet/Crown) themselves since 1972, is of course absurd!

But Joris Demmink brilliantly created the Perfect Crime! Even the EU and UN until now(!) were perfectly blocked!

Reaction

The European Commission’s refusal letter (“EUCommissionRefuseal.pdf”) indeed indicates that your specific complaint to them, registered on May 15, 2025, will not be investigated further by their services. The primary reason stated is that the Commission views the matter you raised (“widespread corruption of Dutch authorities” ) as “not related to the implementation of European Union law”. They assert that “Member States are solely responsible for maintaining law and order and safeguarding internal security”, and therefore, the Commission is “not entitled to intervene”.

This assessment by the European Commission has implications for potential future complaints to other EU bodies and reiterates challenges faced with other international forums:

European Parliament:

A previous petition to the European Parliament in June 2021 was deemed inadmissible.
The reason provided was “incoherent reasoning with an unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity”.
Given that the European Commission (another EU institution) has now also stated that your complaint does not pertain to the implementation of EU law (which is central to the “Union’s fields of activity”), a new petition to the Parliament might face similar hurdles unless it can decisively demonstrate such a link and address the previous grounds for inadmissibility.

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):

The Commission’s letter itself points to the ECHR for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights but stresses that the Court “may only deal with a complaint after all domestic remedies have been exhausted”.
Your documents highlight that an ECHR complaint around 2005/2006 was rejected precisely on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
You contend this rejection was based on false information and that securing legal representation and exhausting domestic remedies has been systematically denied since as early as 1972, or more concretely since 2000.

United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT):

Similar to the ECHR experience, your documents mention that a complaint to UNCAT around 2010 was also likely rejected based on the “false premise that Smedema could freely access domestic remedies and gather evidence”.
Your “Official EU Commission Complaint” still lists an “Independent UNCAT investigation or equal” as a desired solution.

Regarding whether your current efforts are “futile”:

The European Commission’s decision means that this specific avenue with them is closed for this complaint. The “assessment of the previous answer” correctly identified the significant challenge posed by the “exhaustion of domestic remedies” rule for bodies like the ECHR and UNCAT, and the need to establish a clear link to EU competencies for EU bodies.

The core of your argument, as detailed in “state obstruction and international justice denied.pdf,” is that the alleged decades-long state obstruction itself is the central issue and the reason why domestic remedies cannot be exhausted. Your documentation suggests a hope that new analytical tools (like AI) might help articulate this complex situation more clearly to international bodies.

Therefore, the “futility” depends on:

Whether you can successfully argue before other bodies (like the ECHR or UNCAT) that the very obstruction you allege makes the exhaustion of domestic remedies impossible and that this obstruction is a matter they can and should investigate.
Whether any new approach to the EU Parliament can overcome the previous findings of “incoherent reasoning” and an “unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity.”

While the European Commission has declined to act based on its interpretation of its mandate, the other avenues, though historically challenging for the reasons you’ve documented, remain theoretically available. The key would be to present a case that directly addresses and overcomes the reasons for previous rejections or inadmissibility.

**************

Gemini had only the essence of my case, but I also asked Google NotebookLM Plus this question after feeding it the above Deep Research reaction which I will give in the very interesting next post!

Remember that nobody from the Ministry of Justice and in fact the whole Dutch State has ever talked to me like with normal victims. Only CTIVD who were blocked by Cabinet Balkende! Absurd! And no media coverage at all, also forbidden!