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

Smedema: Persistent Denial of Legal Counsel

Drawing upon the provided sources and our previous discussion, it becomes abundantly clear that Hans Smedema faced profound and multifaceted obstacles in his persistent efforts to secure legal counsel, both within the Netherlands and internationally. These difficulties form a central pillar of his allegations of a systemic obstruction of justice orchestrated by the Dutch government and other powerful entities. The sources meticulously detail a consistent pattern of alleged denial of legal representation, which Smedema believes was a deliberate tactic to isolate him, silence his accusations, and prevent any thorough investigation into his claims.

Systematic Denial of Legal Representation

One of the most frequently reiterated obstacles was the systematic denial of legal representation. Smedema repeatedly emphasizes that since approximately the year 2000, he has been unable to secure consistent and effective legal assistance in the Netherlands. He attributes this pervasive denial to the alleged involvement of the Dutch Royal Family and the classification of his case as a “State Secret”. Smedema contends that this alleged high-level involvement created a climate of fear and intimidation within the Dutch legal community, leading lawyers to refuse his case to avoid potential repercussions.

Pressure from Unnamed Sources

Smedema recounts numerous instances where lawyers, after initially expressing interest in representing him, abruptly withdrew their services. He claims these withdrawals were invariably attributed to pressure from unnamed sources, reinforcing his belief in a concerted effort to prevent him from accessing legal recourse. He points to specific legal professionals as examples of this alleged intimidation. For instance, Ad Speksnijder, a lawyer who was reportedly assigned to Smedema by the Dutch Bar Association, is consistently cited as an example of this phenomenon. Smedema alleges that Speksnijder remained largely unresponsive and displayed a conspicuous lack of interest in his complex case, leading Smedema to believe that he had been pressured by the Ministry of Justice or other influential actors to limit his involvement or altogether withhold assistance.

Bram Moszkowicz

Furthermore, Smedema sought representation from the firm of Bram Moszkowicz, a prominent Dutch lawyer. While a lawyer from Moszkowicz’s firm initially agreed to take on his case, this representation was ultimately withdrawn. Smedema attributes this withdrawal to the intricate and potentially perilous nature of his allegations, suggesting a reluctance to challenge the Dutch government directly.

Pels Rijcken, the Prestigious Law Firm

Smedema also details attempts to obtain legal assistance from Pels Rijcken, the prestigious law firm that traditionally represents the Landsadvocaat (the Dutch government’s legal advisor). He mentions contacting specific lawyers within the firm, including Wemmeke Wisman, Hans van Wijk, and Annelieke Wissink, but claims that his requests for legal assistance were consistently denied. This refusal is particularly significant, according to Smedema, as he believes that seeking an investigation into his claims aligns with the state’s interest in upholding justice.

Dutch Bar Association

Beyond individual lawyers and firms, Smedema alleges that professional legal bodies, such as the Dutch Bar Association and the disciplinary board for lawyers, were complicit in denying him representation. He claims that these institutions refused to appoint him a lawyer despite his persistent claims of being unable to secure representation due to the alleged conspiracy and the chilling effect it had on legal professionals. He even wrote to the president of the Bar Association to request the appointment of a lawyer, and while one was appointed, this lawyer had very few meetings with Smedema, and a subsequent request for another lawyer was denied.

Impact

The impact of this alleged lack of access to legal assistance was profound. Smedema contends that it severely impeded his ability to gather evidence, navigate complex legal procedures, and pursue legal action against the Dutch government effectively. Without legal counsel, he was forced to represent himself, a significant disadvantage when facing a well-resourced state apparatus allegedly determined to suppress his claims. As noted in one source, this situation made it “increasingly difficult, in fact, impossible, to prove his right”.

US Asylum Processes

Smedema also encountered significant difficulties in securing legal representation during his US asylum processes. He attributes this to the unusual and politically sensitive nature of his case, the gravity of his allegations against the Dutch government, and a perceived reluctance of American lawyers to take on such a complex and potentially risky international matter, particularly without concrete, readily available evidence.

Financial Constraint

Adding to these difficulties, Smedema claims that he faced financial constraints that further hindered his access to legal representation. The costs associated with pursuing legal action, both domestically and internationally, coupled with his alleged loss of income due to the ongoing situation, created a significant barrier to securing the legal assistance he desperately sought.

Dutch State Bears a Responsibility

Furthermore, Smedema expresses his belief that he is entitled to free legal aid in Spain, paid for by the Dutch government, arguing that their alleged persecution forced him into exile in the first place. This claim underscores his perception that the Dutch state bears a responsibility to provide him with the legal means to address the injustices he alleges he has suffered.

In various sources, Smedema states that he has approached hundreds of lawyers who have refused to take his case. This staggering number further emphasizes the extraordinary difficulties he encountered in his search for legal representation and reinforces his narrative of a widespread reluctance within the legal profession to engage with his claims due to the alleged power and influence of the entities he accuses.

Extreme Difficulty

The document “fighting-the-unknown-part-4-asylum-denied.pdf” corroborates Smedema’s account of the extreme difficulty in obtaining legal counsel. It mentions that for the past four years (from the perspective of that document), no lawyer had been willing to take his case, often citing being “too busy”. It also details his attempt to have a lawyer appointed by the president of the Bar Association, which resulted in only three meetings and a subsequent denial of another lawyer. This source also highlights the inherent difficulty of proving his claims without a lawyer, especially given his starting point of an alleged “cover-up” where documentary evidence might be suppressed. Lawyers themselves reportedly indicated that there needs to be a “case” before they can get involved, further illustrating the Catch-22 situation Smedema found himself in, unable to build a provable case without legal assistance, which he could not obtain. The emotional toll of the situation, as mentioned in one excerpt, also made it exceptionally challenging for Smedema to conduct his own defense effectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hans Smedema faced a formidable array of obstacles in his pursuit of legal counsel. His consistent narrative across the sources paints a picture of a legal system where the alleged involvement of powerful figures and the classification of his case as a state secret created an environment in which lawyers were either unwilling or unable to represent him. This systematic denial of legal assistance, coupled with financial constraints and the inherent complexities of his allegations, significantly hampered his ability to seek justice and further solidified his belief in a pervasive conspiracy designed to silence him.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

legally based on this Blog and eBooks by the victim Author:

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