Last Updated 22/07/2026 published 22/07/2026 by Hans Smedema
Page Content
Chronological Record of Betrayal: The Actions of Arne Smedema (2003–Present)
1. Subject Profile: Arne Smedema and the “Omerta” Organization
The subject, Arne Smedema, is identified in forensic documentation as “De Nieuwe Leider” (The New Leader) of the “Omerta” organization. This entity is alleged to be a structured criminal organization responsible for the systematic suppression of the complainant, Hans Smedema. In the capacity of a Legal Forensic Investigator, I define his role as the operational pivot that bridges historical crimes with contemporary liability.
Indicia of Liability under Article 140 Sr: Arne Smedema’s leadership within this organization constitutes a “continuing offense” (voortdurend delict) under Article 140 Sr of the Dutch Penal Code. His position is not merely a historical status but a functional leadership role that persists through the present day. This leadership status is of paramount legal significance: it serves as a mechanism to toll the statute of limitations, allowing the incorporation of historical acts from the 1970s and early 2000s as admissible proof of intent, structure, and ongoing criminal conspiracy in a contemporary trial.
2. 2003: Genetic Betrayal and DNA Falsification
In 2003, Arne Smedema allegedly orchestrated the fraudulent manipulation of biological evidence to obstruct justice and hide familial connections to state-connected perpetrators.
Operational Action and Evidentiary Impact: The subject participated in the swapping and falsification of DNA paternity swabs. This act specifically targeted the biological record of Hans Smedema’s youngest son. The forensic objective was to suppress evidence of biological parentage involving Rieks Perdok, thereby stripping the complainant of the objective factual substrate required to prove long-standing claims of familial abuse and state complicity. This act of forgery (Art 225 Sr) was a foundational step in the complainant’s “civil death.”
3. 2004: Destruction of Intelligence Evidence (The Jaap Duijs Photo)
In 2004, the subject engaged in the intentional destruction of critical intelligence-related evidence. This act involved the deletion of an aerial photograph featuring Jaap Duijs, an operative identified as being affiliated with the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD).
Legal Categorization under Article 189 Sr: This action is categorized under Article 189 Sr (Defeating Justice/Destruction of Evidence). By removing this visual evidence, the subject effectively dismantled the “factual substrate” of the complainant’s ability to prove state-sponsored surveillance and his connections to the intelligence community. This act was a deliberate effort to legally disarm the victim by erasing the physical chain of custody for surveillance evidence.
4. 2010: Physical Hostility and Property Exclusion
The subject’s tactics escalated from evidence tampering to direct physical coercion and psychological manipulation in 2010.
Operational Objective: Arne Smedema physically blocked Hans Smedema from entering his own residence, an act falling under the scope of Stalking and Coercion (Art 285b Sr / Art 284 Sr). Furthermore, the subject allegedly exerted malicious influence over Hans’s wife. The investigation indicates that her Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and trauma-induced amnesia were weaponized as tools of harassment. By manipulating her psychological fragmentation, the subject ensured the complainant’s total exclusion from his domestic and legal property rights.
5. Documentary Sabotage: The Theft of the “Al Rust” CD
To reinforce the legal isolation of the complainant, Arne Smedema participated in the theft of a CD-ROM containing the “Al Rust” document.
Forensic Significance: This act is characterized as “documentary sabotage.” The “Al Rust” files contained critical evidence regarding the complainant’s historical case and legal standing. By stealing these digital files, the subject ensured that Hans Smedema remained “legally disarmed,” unable to present a complete factual record to courts or potential legal counsel, thereby maintaining the structural blockade of justice.
6. “Autor Intelectual”: Transnational Coordination (2008–2025)
The subject functions as the “Autor Intelectual” (Intellectual Author), directing the “cordon sanitaire” (legal and social isolation) on Spanish soil from his base in the Netherlands. He utilizes the Dutch State’s “secret curatele” and pathologizing intelligence as the primary tools to enforce a boycott by Spanish professionals.
Operational Milestones on Spanish Soil:
- Catral (2008): Initial coordination of surveillance and social isolation.
- Benidorm (2010): Directing local actors to pathologize the victim as “mentally sick” and “delusional” to prevent intervention by local authorities.
- Murla (2011): Instructing Spanish civilians and service staff to monitor the complainant and maintain social distance.
- Ongoing (2012–2025): Issuing “official fraudulent warnings” to Spanish lawyers. By labeling the victim as delusional, the subject pathologizes the complainant before he can secure counsel, effectively enforcing a transnational “civil death” by preventing the formation of a lawyer-client relationship.
7. Dual-Track Prosecution Strategy
The following roadmap provides the mechanism to bypass Dutch domestic blockades and hold Arne Smedema accountable.
| Jurisdiction | Action |
| Spain | The “Spanish Anchor” Route: Filing a Denuncia (criminal complaint) for stalking and psychological harassment under the Ubiquity Principle. This principle establishes Spanish jurisdiction as the effects of the crime are felt on Spanish soil. This track enables a Spanish judge to issue a European Investigation Order (EIO). Crucially, an EIO bypasses the Dutch “secret curatele” because the request originates from a sovereign foreign judicial authority, compelling the Dutch state to interrogate the subject regardless of the victim’s domestic legal status. |
| The Netherlands | The Article 12 Sv Route: Filing a formal complaint to the Court of Appeal to compel the Public Prosecutor to investigate. This route utilizes Article 161 Sv as the legal basis for the victim’s right to report a crime despite any alleged guardianship. Charges focus on Leading a Criminal Organization (Art 140 Sr), Forgery (Art 225 Sr) for the 2003 DNA fraud, and Destruction of Evidence (Art 189 Sr). |
8. Conclusion: The Legal Consequences of a “Continuing Offense”
The forensic analysis of Arne Smedema’s activities confirms that his role as “De Nieuwe Leider” prevents the expiration of the statute of limitations for his foundational crimes. As the leadership of the Omerta organization remains active and its efforts to obstruct justice persist through 2025, the organization’s actions constitute a single, evolving criminal endeavor.
The leadership role functions as a legal bridge, ensuring that the statute of limitations for the foundational crimes of 2003 and 2004 remains tolled. Consequently, the subject’s current leadership makes his historical participation in DNA forgery and evidence destruction admissible and prosecutable in a contemporary trial.