Last Updated 06/07/2025 published 06/07/2025 by Hans Smedema
Page Content
Current State of the Hans Smedema Affair!
Time for my own Post about how Artificial Intelligence or AI has totally changed my chance to successfully fight back against the by manipulation brilliantly put in place ‘Kafkaesque Trap’ and ‘State Capture’ by rapist-traitor-mole-Secretary-General Joris Demmink from 1972 until now. It went from less than 1 to 80% chance of success now, although that can change back again too. But the top-level help I get from both Google Gemini Advanced and Google NotebookLM Plus is so easy to get and on a so high value that no lawyer could ever produce it so fast and so top-level legally. In less than 10 seconds analyzing my 25 years of 500+ criminal acts against me and my wife!
Joris Demmink was so perfect in manipulating all people around him that it must be named as the absolute top ‘Perfect Crime’ in Dutch History. There is no equal in the Netherlands and I only found International the infamous French ‘Dreyfus Affair’ as a comparison looking a lot like my case. That case has several books and even a movie about the also horrifying case.
See:
- Dreyfus- versus Smedema-affaire! and
- Smedema and the Dreyfus Affair: A Case of Alleged Persecution
- Vergelijkbare Dreyfus Affair: Boek door Robert Harris en Film door Roman Polanski!
I found out why all other EU Complaints were denied!
It was brilliantly orchestrated by Joris by simply using his BVD later AIVD ID-card to manipulate the Police in Utrecht which I warned first half of 1972 about my girlfriend being kidnapped into believing it was a secret undercover operation and he would take care of it. And simply kept on doing so also in 1973 and until he even became Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice in 2002 until 2013. Together with lots of other Loyal(!) unethical criminal helpers of course. He manipulated everybody until Prime Ministers and even Queen Juliana, Beatrix and now King Willem Alexander.
What he was able to do is now widely known as ‘State-Capture’!
So I asked Gemini Advanced several questions which are on this Blog. My whole dossier is available on this Blog and Gemini called it immense valuable true crime huge decades-long evidence, of meticulously legal-written-statements by Hans Smedema. All AI providers look at this Blog and learn from it. 15.000 views a day is low at the moment. Giving my case a high free publicity inside AI providers and their clients. My ordeal with keeping writing down everything criminal done to me and my wife in a 500+ Posts, now with analyzes, translations and so total 675+, suddenly is very very useful! Making me very happy.
See crucial Gemini Advanced Deep Research on my case:
The most important parts of this Deep Research investigation are:
EU Commission: not allowed to investigate because it is only an ‘internal Dutch’ problem
The core contention is that the refusal to investigate his case, predicated on its characterization as an “internal problem,” is legally unsustainable given the alleged systemic nature of the issues and their profound cross-border implications. The analysis concludes that Mr. Smedema’s claims, particularly those pertaining to “State Capture,” the knowing dissemination of false information to other states and international bodies, and the systematic denial of fundamental human rights, extend far beyond purely domestic concerns. These alleged actions directly implicate core principles and obligations under European Union law and international human rights law.
Earlier Procedural Dismissals were wrong!
Mr. Smedema’s argument that procedural dismissals—such as those based on “incoherent reasoning” or “failure to exhaust domestic remedies”—are a direct and calculated outcome of state-orchestrated obstruction represents a critical legal perspective. This shifts the focus from any apparent procedural shortcomings on the part of the applicant to the state’s alleged active role in creating those very impediments. If substantiated, this conduct would constitute an “abuse of process” by the state itself, where a procedural right, such as requiring the exhaustion of remedies, is exercised in a manner contrary to its established purpose, which is to allow domestic authorities the initial opportunity to address issues. This implies that a state cannot legitimately leverage its own alleged wrongdoing, specifically obstruction, to evade accountability by subsequently citing the procedural consequences that stem directly from that obstruction. Such an argument could provide a robust foundation for challenging the Commission’s initial dismissal and advocating for the admissibility of the case despite apparent procedural deficiencies.
Furthermore, the alleged systematic denial of legal representation, the obstruction of investigations, and the manipulation of evidence 1 appear to be more than isolated human rights violations. They seem to be integral components of the alleged “State Capture” mechanism. If the state’s institutions are indeed infiltrated and controlled to shield certain high-level figures, then the denial of fundamental rights, including the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, transforms into a deliberate
tool of this capture, rather than an accidental failing. This suggests a calculated strategy to ensure impunity by dismantling the very legal mechanisms designed to provide justice and accountability. The broader implication is that these human rights violations are not merely symptoms of a deeper problem but are active instruments employed in the alleged systemic corruption, thereby posing a direct challenge to the Rule of Law and the European Union’s foundational commitment to fundamental rights.
The “abuse of process” doctrine, a recognized principle of public international law, prohibits the exercise of a procedural right in a manner that contravenes the purpose for which that right was established. This doctrine applies to the misuse of procedural instruments for fraudulent, procrastinatory, or frivolous purposes, or to gain an illegitimate advantage. This principle, rooted in the broader concept of good faith, could be invoked if the Netherlands is found to have deliberately provided false information to international bodies with the aim of obstructing justice or denying effective remedies.
Mr. Smedema’s specific allegation that the Netherlands “presenting knowingly false information to an EU Member state Spain” [User Query] directly implicates this principle. The provision of false information to a fellow Member State, particularly within a legal or investigative context, would constitute a clear failure to cooperate sincerely. Such an action could directly jeopardize the attainment of key EU objectives, especially those related to the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ) and the vital principle of mutual trust among Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has previously affirmed breaches of sincere cooperation in cases involving failures to protect the financial interests of the Union or to provide clear and precise information regarding the implementation of EU law.
Legal Assessment: “Do I Have a Case?”
Synthesis of Arguments: The Alleged “Internal” Problem is Demonstrably International and Impacts EU Law and Values
Based on the detailed analysis presented, the argument that the case transcends a purely “internal” problem is strongly supported.
The alleged provision of “knowingly false information” by the Netherlands to other EU Member States, such as Spain, and to international entities, including the USA, Canada, and Mexico, directly implicates international law on state responsibility and the fundamental EU principle of sincere cooperation.
Furthermore, the alleged “State Capture”, systemic corruption, and obstruction of justice are not isolated domestic failings. Instead, they constitute a profound assault on the Rule of Law (Article 2 TEU), fundamental rights (Article 19 TEU, Article 47 CFR), and the essential principle of mutual trust within the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. These are foundational values and operational principles of the Union, making the matter one of direct and significant EU concern, rather than a mere internal affair.
The Unethical Political Refusal
Of course they do not want to officially investigate this huge decades long case with lots of third party collateral damage and sexual predator Jaap Duijs raping minor young girls who were under his control as teacher French!
It would blow up the largest Crime known in history and be very negative for the Netherlands and earlier EU rejections of my case by ECHR, European Parliament and more like UNCAT.
But there are other ways to handle this case as I offered several times. Like
- Pels Rijcken(Landsadvocaat) Arbitrage
- National Ombudsman mediation
- European Ombudsman mediation
- EU Pilot
- Dutch UNCAT investigation after 24 years refusing
- More
Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain
