Last Updated 24/03/2025 published 20/03/2025 by Hans Smedema

Smedema: Allegations of Dutch Legal Violations

Hans Smedema has presented a wide array of allegations concerning legal violations committed against him and his wife, primarily by the Dutch government and related entities. These allegations span domestic and international legal frameworks and include obstruction of justice, violations of international human rights conventions, and breaches of EU law. His narrative, as detailed in the sources, paints a picture of a systematic and multifaceted campaign designed to silence him, suppress the truth, and protect powerful individuals and institutions from scrutiny.

I. Domestic Obstruction of Justice:

Smedema consistently alleges a deliberate and persistent campaign by the Dutch government to obstruct his pursuit of justice within the Netherlands for over two decades. He claims this obstruction takes numerous forms, all aimed at preventing his allegations from being properly investigated and addressed.

Denial of Legal Representation:

A central tenet of Smedema’s accusations is the systematic denial of his right to legal counsel in the Netherlands since approximately 2000. He believes this denial is a deliberate tactic to isolate him and prevent him from effectively pursuing his claims. Smedema alleges that lawyers in the Netherlands have been either intimidated or explicitly instructed not to take his case due to the alleged involvement of the Dutch Royal Family and the classification of his case as a “State Secret”. He recounts instances where lawyers initially showed interest in his case but later withdrew their services, citing pressure from unnamed sources. Specific examples mentioned include Ad Speksnijder, a lawyer assigned to Smedema by the Bar Association, who allegedly remained unresponsive and disinterested, suggesting external pressure. Smedema also sought representation from the firm of Bram Moszkowicz, but a lawyer from that firm also withdrew. Furthermore, he claims that the Dutch Bar Association and disciplinary boards for lawyers were complicit in denying him representation, and that Pels Rijcken, the firm representing the Landsadvocaat, refused to assist him. This lack of legal assistance has severely hampered his ability to gather evidence and pursue legal action.

Blocking the Filing of Charges and Investigations:

Smedema asserts that his attempts to formally report alleged crimes have been consistently thwarted by the Dutch police, who he believes were acting under orders from the Ministry of Justice. He claims police officers refused to document his accusations, ensuring they never reached a point of serious examination, thereby protecting those in power. Smedema cites specific instances:
◦
The case of Haye Bruinsma, a vice detective with the Drachten police, who was allegedly explicitly forbidden by the Ministry of Justice from filing an official report (Proces-Verbaal) regarding Smedema’s allegations of false accusations against him.
◦
The case of Ruud Rosingh, a managing prosecutor, who allegedly initiated an investigation into the alleged rape of Smedema’s wife but was allegedly forced to relocate by the Ministry of Justice when he refused to halt the investigation. The College Procureurs Generaal was allegedly involved in this action.
◦
Smedema also alleges that prosecutors were ordered to stop rape investigations.
•

Suppression and Manipulation of Evidence:

Smedema repeatedly accuses the Dutch government of systematically manipulating, suppressing, or destroying evidence related to his case. This includes the alleged alteration or deletion of police files, medical records, and the purported “Frankfurt Dossier,” which he believes contained incriminating information. He points to inconsistencies in official records and missing files as evidence of tampering. For instance, he claims a scar from an alleged forced sterilization was dismissed as “normal skin damage” in medical records. Smedema also alleges that 50 files related to his case were deleted by the Ministry of Justice and the AIVD. He claims the “Frankfurt Dossier” disappeared within three days of its alleged discovery.
•

Exploitation of Legal Procedures and Loopholes:

Smedema alleges that the Dutch government has exploited legal technicalities and loopholes to obstruct his pursuit of justice both domestically and internationally. He claims they manipulated procedures to secure unfavorable rulings, denied him due process, and used legal technicalities to dismiss his complaints. A key example of this alleged exploitation is the misuse of a bilateral judicial treaty with the US to prevent him from gaining asylum.
•

Invocation of “State Security”:

Smedema argues the Dutch government has repeatedly invoked “State Security” as justification for denying him access to information and blocking investigations. He believes this excuse is exploited to protect those involved in the alleged conspiracy, including the Royal Family. He contends that this classification has prevented proper scrutiny of his claims.
•

The Alleged “Royal Special Decree”:

A cornerstone of Smedema’s narrative is the alleged existence of a “Royal Special Decree,” supposedly issued by Queen Juliana around 1972/73. He believes this decree shields individuals involved in the alleged crimes against him and his wife from prosecution, effectively granting them immunity and placing them above the law. Smedema claims this decree has been upheld by subsequent monarchs. He believes the decree prohibits investigation and prosecution, mandates the suppression of evidence, silences witnesses and legal professionals, and authorizes his labeling and discrediting.

II. International Obstruction of Justice:

Smedema claims the Dutch government’s influence extends internationally to obstruct his attempts to seek justice abroad.
•

Interference with Asylum Attempts:

Smedema alleges that the Dutch government actively worked to prevent him from gaining asylum in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. He specifically claims the Dutch government exploited a bilateral judicial treaty between the Netherlands and the US to prevent him from gaining asylum, arguing it prioritized the protection of the Dutch Crown over his human rights. He believes this misuse of the treaty effectively prevented American authorities from granting him asylum, even after a US asylum judge, Rex J. Ford, reportedly found five valid grounds for asylum in his case based on FBI investigation findings. Despite this, his asylum requests were ultimately denied. Smedema also alleges that King Willem-Alexander personally blocked his US asylum offer while serving as a co-pilot on a KLM flight in 2017. Furthermore, he claims the Dutch government pressured authorities in Canada and Mexico to deny him entry and return him to the Netherlands.
•

Provision of False Information to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):

Smedema alleges that the Dutch government provided false information to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), leading to the rejection of his complaint. He believes this false information concealed the alleged cover-up and his inability to secure legal representation. He filed a complaint with the ECHR in 2005, which was ultimately rejected.
III. Alleged Violations of International Human Rights Conventions:
Smedema contends that the Dutch government has violated several articles of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
•

UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT):

Smedema alleges specific violations of UNCAT articles:
◦
Article 2 (Obligation to prevent torture): He argues the Dutch government failed to implement effective measures to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, pointing to the alleged “Royal Special Decree” and the systematic denial of his rights. He believes there was a secret Royal decree to strip him of his civil and human rights.
◦
Article 4 (Criminalization of torture): Smedema believes the government’s refusal to investigate his allegations and prosecute those responsible amounts to a failure to criminalize torture.
◦
Article 14 (Right to redress for torture): He contends the Dutch government denied him his right to redress for the alleged torture he has endured, highlighting the lack of legal representation, suppression of evidence, and continuous dismissal of his claims.
◦
Article 15: Smedema also invokes Article 15, stating that statements made as a result of torture should not be invoked as evidence, except against a person accused of torture.
•

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

Smedema also claims violations of the ECHR, including:
◦
Article 3 (Prohibition of torture): This aligns with his UNCAT Article 2 claims.
◦
Article 6 (Right to a fair trial): He argues the Dutch legal system failed to provide him with a fair trial due to the alleged obstruction of justice, denial of legal representation, and suppression of evidence.
IV. Alleged Violations of EU Law:
Smedema petitioned the EU Parliament, alleging violations of EU laws and fundamental rights by the Netherlands. Although his petition was deemed inadmissible due to “incoherent reasoning with an unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity”, Smedema identifies specific articles within the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that he believes were violated:
•
Article 19 (Right to Asylum): He argues this was violated because King Willem-Alexander unlawfully blocked his asylum offer in the US.
•
Article 21 (Non-discrimination): Smedema claims he faced persecution and denial of legal assistance for opposing the alleged conspiracy, while those involved were protected.
•
Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial): He believes the Dutch legal system failed to provide him with a fair trial.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hans Smedema alleges a comprehensive and long-standing pattern of legal violations by the Dutch government, encompassing domestic and international obstruction of justice, breaches of international human rights conventions, and infringements of EU law. These allegations, while primarily presented from Smedema’s perspective and lacking independent verification within the provided sources, raise serious concerns about the rule of law and the protection of individual rights within the Dutch legal system. He believes these violations are driven by a high-level conspiracy to silence him and protect powerful individuals and institutions.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the ‘legal-written-statements’ on this Blog and eBooks by the victim Author:

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