Legal Analysis and Strategic Roadmap: Rejection of Appeal by the ‘Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven’ (February 19, 2026)

1. Situational Analysis and Current Status

Analytical Introduction The rejection issued by the Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven (Victim Compensation Fund) on February 19, 2026, serves as the final administrative barrier in the multi-decade Hans Smedema Affair. Procedurally, this decision concludes the “Bezwaar” (objection) phase and marks the essential pivot point for escalation to the “Beroep” (judicial appeal) at the Court in Den Haag. By exhausting internal administrative remedies, the case moves from a realm of state-controlled discretion to a judicial forum where discovery and oversight can finally challenge the systemic “Omerta” maintained by the Dutch state since the 1970s.

Rejection Synthesis The current rejection follows a pattern of systemic refusal to investigate, mirrored by the 2025 denial from Minister of Justice David van Weel and repeated stalling by the AIVD. The Fund’s decision relies on the petitioner’s perceived “outlaw” status—a condition where material evidence is disregarded because the claimant is labeled “delusional.” This refusal represents a continuity of the 45-year policy of administrative deference to a “Secret Decree,” ignoring the substantive ‘Bezwaar’ filed in November 2025 which detailed decades of state-sponsored conditioning and amnesia.

The “Evidence Paradox” The core of this administrative hurdle is the “Evidence Paradox.” While the Dutch Fund maintains a “no evidence” posture, US Immigration Judge Rex J. Ford (Case A087-402-454) found an unprecedented “5 good grounds for asylum.” This is a unique occurrence in US judicial history. The paradox is clear: a neutral foreign judiciary validated the credibility and nexus of the persecution, while the Dutch administrative apparatus continues to treat these same facts as non-existent. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental breakdown in the Dutch administrative process and a refusal to acknowledge external judicial findings.

Connective Tissue This administrative denial is the legally required exhaustion step. It clears the path for the judiciary to address the “State within a State” narrative, moving the battleground to the Court in Den Haag where the focus must shift from administrative rubber-stamping to constitutional accountability.

——————————————————————————–

2. Evidence Grounding: The US Asylum Precedent vs. Dutch Administrative Denial

Analytical Introduction The 2009 findings in US Case A087-402-454 represent the primary external validation of the Smedema claim. While the Dutch state hides behind psychiatric labeling, the US Court established the credibility of the applicant. The Dutch Fund’s refusal to acknowledge these findings—particularly the nexus of persecution—constitutes a critical legal vulnerability that the upcoming ‘Beroep’ will exploit.

Comparison of Findings (US Case A087-402-454 vs. Dutch Position)

Synthesis of Corroboration The “Strategic Weight” of the evidence is grounded in documented occurrences that the Dutch state cannot continue to ignore:

1. The 97th General Army Hospital Frankfurt File: A 30+ page intelligence dossier detailing Dutch state monitoring. While the Dutch Ministry of Justice claimed in 1987 that this file did not exist, its reality was proven in 1997.
2. The Al Rust Settlement: In 1997, US Military Intelligence officer Al Rust received a $1 million settlement for damages after being wrongfully discharged for helping Smedema. This settlement was based on the existence of the very “non-existent” Frankfurt file.
3. Ambassadorial Recognition: Former US Ambassador Paul Bremer’s 1996 statement that Smedema had “never done anything wrong” and his invitation to seek asylum provides a high-level diplomatic counter-narrative to the Dutch “criminal/insane” framing.
4. The Joris Demmink Factor: The role of the former Secretary-General of Justice as a “mole” who leveraged state security to block investigations since 1972 is a recurring material fact in US records.

Connective Tissue The upcoming judicial appeal will frame the Dutch Fund’s refusal to reconcile its position with these US-validated findings as an arbitrary violation of the duty to investigate, moving the evidence from “delusion” to “material fact.”

——————————————————————————–

3. Deconstruction of the “Delusional” Narrative

Analytical Introduction The Dutch state utilizes psychiatric diagnoses as a “Cordon Sanitaire” to invalidate material evidence. By labeling a victim “delusional,” the state bypasses its duty to investigate crimes under UNCAT Article 15. If the state uses “conditioned suppression” (amnesia via brain programming) to hide crimes and then diagnoses the recovery of those memories as a disorder, the diagnosis itself becomes an instrument of torture.

Conflict of Medical Opinions

Impact on Justice The “delusional” narrative has concrete real-world casualties. The firing of Jack (the nephew), a Rijkspolitie officer dismissed for “unlawful interference” after attempting to report the case, proves this is not a hallucination but a material conspiracy with administrative consequences. The state uses these diagnoses to deny Smedema legal representation, creating an “outlaw” status where due process is suspended under the guise of mental health.

Connective Tissue The judicial appeal must argue that the psychiatric evaluations are “fruit of a poisoned tree,” specifically the brain programming conducted by Onno van der Hart. The focus in Den Haag must shift back to the material evidence of rapes and infertility.

——————————————————————————–

4. Strategic Framework for Judicial Appeal (Beroep) in Den Haag

Analytical Introduction The ‘Beroep’ in Den Haag marks a total departure from administrative deference. The objective is to force a discovery process regarding the “State within a State” infrastructure. We are no longer asking for compensation; we are litigating the state’s failure to investigate torture.

Core Legal Arguments

1. Violation of UNCAT Article 15: This article prohibits the use of evidence or statements obtained through torture. We will argue that the petitioner’s amnesia and subsequent psychiatric “diagnoses” are results of conditioning (torture) and cannot be used by the Fund to deny the claim.
2. Fraud and Evidence Manipulation: The appeal will cite the falsified MRI data from DiaSana (2006) and the deleted NOS rape video (1974 raid). These are high-impact evidentiary “ghosts” that the Court must address as instances of state-level evidence destruction.
3. The “Royal Secret Ruling” as a Constitutional Breach: We challenge the 1975/76 Queen Juliana ruling (the “Secret Decree”) which created a “TBS-like” status for the petitioner. This decree effectively placed a citizen outside the protection of the law, creating a “State within a State” that is fundamentally unconstitutional.

Required Documentation Checklist (Subpoena Targets)

• The 30+ page Frankfurt Intelligence File (97th General Army Hospital).
• All records regarding the 1975/76 Royal Decree concerning the “Smedema/Jansma” cases.
• The original raw MRI data from DiaSana Diagnostic Center (2006) before manipulation.
• The 1974 NOS raid video (deleted/intercepted) and associated police reports.
• AIVD and Ministry of Justice records of payments to “Omerta” participants (e.g., Jaap Duijs).

Connective Tissue By forcing the Court to address these specific evidentiary manipulations, we move the case from a personal grievance to a constitutional challenge of Dutch sovereign accountability.

——————————————————————————–

5. Conclusion: The “Dutch Watergate” and Sovereign Accountability

Analytical Introduction The Hans Smedema Affair is the “Dutch Watergate,” exposing a systemic failure where the Ministry of Justice, the AIVD, and the Crown collaborated to protect a criminal organization. This case is a challenge to the integrity of the Dutch constitutional system and the accountability of the Monarchy to its citizens.

Strategic Impact Summary A successful judicial appeal in Den Haag will dismantle the 45-year Omerta. This litigation is the only path to proving that the state’s duty to protect citizens under international conventions cannot be superseded by secret royal rulings or intelligence maneuvers. We are seeking to end the “outlaw” status imposed by the 1975 decree.

Final Directive The Den Haag filing must represent a total departure from administrative deference. All subsequent strategies must maintain unwavering professional rigor, prepared for eventual presentation to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The focus remains on the intersection of material evidence and the violation of UNCAT Article 15. The era of administrative silence is over; the era of judicial discovery has begun.