Last Updated 12/02/2025 published 31/01/2025 by Hans Smedema

Smedema’s Legal Battles: A Multifaceted Strategy

Smedema employed a multifaceted legal strategy, combining domestic and international actions, to expose what he believed was a vast conspiracy against him [1, 2]. His key strategies included seeking legal representation, filing complaints, engaging independent professionals, seeking asylum, and using public outreach [1-3].

1. Seeking Legal Representation:

Smedema’s pursuit of legal representation was a crucial part of his strategy, though he faced consistent obstacles [4, 5]. He sought legal counsel to navigate the complex legal systems and present his case effectively [4-8].

• Obstacles: Smedema claims he was systematically denied legal representation, starting in 2000, because lawyers were allegedly 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” [4, 9-12]. He recounts instances where lawyers, after initially expressing interest, withdrew their services, citing pressure from unnamed sources [4, 10, 11, 13]. He points to specific lawyers, like Ad Speksnijder, as examples of this alleged intimidation [4, 8-11, 13]. He also claims that the Dutch Bar Association and the disciplinary board for lawyers were complicit in denying him representation [4, 10, 11, 13, 14]. Smedema also alleges that Pels Rijcken, the firm representing the Landsadvocaat, would not provide him with legal assistance [15, 16]. He believes the lack of legal assistance was a deliberate strategy to silence him [6, 10, 17].
• Impact: The denial of legal representation left Smedema navigating complex legal systems without proper guidance, severely undermining his ability to pursue justice effectively [5, 6, 10, 17]. He viewed this as a deliberate attempt to prevent him from pursuing justice through legal avenues and a strategy to isolate and silence him [6, 10, 17].

2. Domestic Legal Actions:

Smedema attempted to use the Dutch legal system to seek redress for the alleged injustices he and his wife suffered [18].

• Filing Complaints: Smedema filed complaints with several Dutch oversight bodies, including the police, the Ministry of Justice, the CTIVD (Review Committee for the Intelligence and Security Services), and the National Ombudsman [18, 19]. He sought investigations into his allegations of abuse, manipulation, and obstruction of justice [18, 19]. However, these efforts were allegedly blocked, ignored, or dismissed [8, 18, 19], reinforcing his belief in a systemic cover-up [18]. Smedema also reported instances of alleged abuse and fraud to the police [18].
• Engaging with the Dutch Legal System: Smedema attempted to file charges and appeals with legal bodies, including the College van Procureurs Generaal and the Gerechtshof [18]. He also tried to report instances of alleged abuse and fraud to the police [18]. However, Smedema claims these attempts were met with obstruction and manipulation, with police refusing to document his accusations [18]. He asserts that his complaints were consistently rejected or ignored [18].
• Challenges: Smedema claims the Dutch legal system prioritized prosecution evidence, rather than seeking the truth [20, 21]. He also believes the system exploited legal procedures and loopholes to obstruct his pursuit of justice [22-24]. He alleges that his attempts to file charges and present evidence were met with resistance, while accusations against him were readily accepted [20, 21]. He also asserts that the Dutch government manipulated procedures to secure unfavorable rulings and denied him due process [22-24].

3. International Legal Actions:

Smedema pursued various international legal avenues, believing that the Dutch system was rigged against him [14, 19, 25].

• Seeking Asylum in the United States: He sought political asylum in the US on three separate occasions, believing the American legal system would be more impartial [19, 25]. He filed for asylum in 2009, 2013/2014, and 2016/2017 [25]. Smedema claims a US asylum judge validated his story [25-27]. However, he believes his asylum applications were ultimately denied due to interference from the Dutch government, citing a bilateral judicial treaty that he claims prioritized the protection of the Dutch Royal family over his rights [24, 25]. Smedema believes that the Dutch government used this treaty to shield itself from scrutiny [24]. He also alleges that his asylum offer was blocked by King Willem-Alexander [28, 29]. He believes his asylum requests were a way to expose the alleged conspiracy and gain validation for his claims [19, 30].
• Complaint to the UN Human Rights Council: Smedema claims that President Obama filed a complaint on his behalf with the UN Human Rights Council in January 2017 [25]. He describes this as “State America against State Netherlands,” but hasn’t received updates on the status of this complaint [25].
• Communication with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Smedema contacted Professor Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, seeking his intervention and support, though no further action was taken [25].
• Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): In 2005, Smedema filed a complaint with the ECHR, alleging violations of his human rights by the Dutch government [25]. However, the complaint was rejected, with Smedema asserting the ECHR’s decision relied on false information provided by the Dutch Ministry of Justice [25, 31].
• Petition to the European Parliament: Smedema filed a petition with the European Parliament in June 2021, aiming to exert pressure on the Netherlands to address his claims, but it was deemed inadmissible due to insufficient legal clarity regarding specific violations of EU laws [31, 32].

4. Engaging Independent Professionals:

Smedema hired private investigators to investigate his claims and gather evidence [32].

• Private Investigators: He engaged at least two private detective firms, K2 Detectives and Paalman and de Roy van Zuydewijn Detective Consultations, to investigate his claims and gather evidence [32, 33]. However, Smedema expresses disappointment with their limited findings, attributing their inability to uncover substantial proof of a conspiracy to the alleged cover-up and obstruction [32, 33]. He suspects the firms were either influenced or lacked the resources to effectively challenge those he accuses [32].
• Legal Counsel: Smedema sought assistance from legal professionals in the Netherlands and the United States. He contacted lawyers like Ad Speksnijder and Bram Moszkowicz, but claims they withdrew due to pressure or conflicts of interest [8, 31, 34, 35].

5. Public Outreach and Advocacy:

Smedema used various methods to bring his case to public attention [3, 36].

• Blogging and Self-Publishing: Smedema created a blog and wrote ebooks as platforms to document his allegations and experiences [3, 37]. He viewed his blog as an “Open Diary” and a vital form of self-defense, using it to present his perspective and challenge the official narratives [3, 37, 38]. He meticulously chronicled events, named individuals he accused, and published documents he believed supported his claims [37]. He also strategically used his blog to create a meticulously documented narrative of his experiences, aiming to dismantle the “cordon sanitaire” around him and force accountability [2, 3, 38]. Smedema believed that by persistently and publicly exposing his allegations, he could overcome the alleged cover-up [36, 38].
• Contacting Journalists and Media Outlets: Smedema contacted journalists and media outlets, seeking to attract attention to his case, believing that public exposure could pressure the Dutch government to address his accusations [3, 36, 37]. However, he claims his efforts were often met with skepticism or a lack of interest, which he attributes to the alleged conspiracy [37].
• Contacting International Bodies: Smedema reached out to international organizations, including the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, and the European Court of Human Rights, seeking their intervention and support [3]. He hoped to bypass the alleged corruption and obstruction within the Dutch system [3].

6. Other Strategies:

• Weaponized Transparency: Smedema viewed radical transparency and open communication as a weapon, strategically using his blog and self-published ebooks to create a documented narrative of his experiences [38].
• Historical Parallels: Smedema used historical parallels, such as the Dreyfus Affair, to frame his narrative and garner support [39-41].
• Financial Compensation: Smedema repeatedly demanded financial compensation from the Dutch state for the alleged damages he incurred [42, 43]. He sought compensation for lost income, legal expenses, and psychological trauma [42, 44]. He also claimed that he was offered 5 million euros by representatives of the Dutch government in exchange for his silence, which he refused [45].

Smedema’s legal strategies were characterized by persistence, resourcefulness, and a deep belief in the validity of his claims [36]. He used a combination of investigative techniques, legal actions, public outreach, and historical framing to create a narrative and challenge the alleged conspiracy he believed was working against him [36]. Despite facing significant obstacles, Smedema continued to push his claims through various channels, seeking justice both within and outside the Dutch legal system [2].

Google NotebookLM Insights,

based on the legal written statements on this Blog and eBooks by Victim-Author:

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