Last Updated 26/02/2026 published 25/02/2026 by Hans Smedema

SUBJECT: URGENT PETITION (VERZOEKSCHRIFT) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION

regarding the Unconstitutional 1972/1973 Royal Decree, the Imposition of Civil Death, and the 2004 Cabinet Buyout Offer.

REFERENCE:

Rechtbank Den Haag Filing No. 019-755-655-164 / CSG Decision 2025/546585

Your Majesty,

Pursuant to the fundamental right of petition enshrined in Article 5 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I respectfully submit this urgent petition to Your Majesty. This petition concerns a severe, ongoing constitutional crisis involving the highest echelons of the Dutch State apparatus, specifically the Ministry of Justice and Security.

I appeal directly to Your Majesty because the administrative bodies operating beneath the Crown, specifically the Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven (CSG) and the Public Prosecution Service (OM), are actively enforcing a historical, clandestine executive instrument that systematically strips me of my fundamental legal rights and perpetuates a state of severe evidentiary distress (bewijsnood).

To facilitate a rapid and precise executive review by the responsible Minister, and to prevent the dilution of this inquiry across multiple governmental departments, this petition is strictly confined to two undeniable, highly documented historical events that demonstrate absolute institutional liability.

I. The 1972/1973 Unconstitutional Royal Decree and the Imposition of “Civil Death”

In late 1972 or early 1973, an extraordinarily irregular and highly classified Royal Decree (Koninklijk Besluit) was purportedly presented to, and signed by, Her Majesty Queen Juliana. It is alleged that the Monarch was manipulated into signing this instrument by state actors operating within the intelligence services (BVD/AIVD) and the Ministry of Justice, most notably Joris Demmink.

The operational mandate of this decree was entirely unconstitutional (ultra vires). It sought to grant absolute immunity to the perpetrators of severe capital offenses (sexual violence, forced drugging) committed against me. More egregiously, the decree enacted a formal “civil death” (burgerlijke dood) and a clandestine guardianship (geheime curatele) upon my person, finalized just prior to my marriage on February 23, 1973. This decree explicitly forbade legal professionals from providing me with assistance, framing such actions as “Unlawful-Interference,” thereby establishing a permanent, impenetrable wall of systemic obstruction.

As Your Majesty’s legal advisors will undoubtedly confirm, the punitive concept of burgerlijke dood was formally and absolutely abolished in the Netherlands in the year 1814 via Article 4 of the old Dutch Civil Code. Consequently, any executive decree, intelligence directive, or secret court ruling (such as the alleged 1973 session in Zwolle) that purportedly enacts a civil death or permanently deprives a citizen of their right to legal representation under the guise of “State Security” is absolutely void ab initio.

The Ministry of Justice and Security continues to hide behind this unconstitutional classification, preventing any police investigation and starving me of the “objective information” required by the CSG. The State cannot demand procedural compliance while actively maintaining a clandestine administrative apparatus designed specifically to render those requirements impossible to fulfill.

II. The 2004 €5 Million Cabinet Buyout: An Extra-Judicial Admission of Liability

The existence of this unconstitutional subjugation is conclusively proven by the State’s own subsequent actions. In 2003 and 2004, recognizing the mounting pressure of my persistent attempts to file formal police reports, the Dutch government initiated clandestine negotiations to execute a massive financial buyout (afkoop) to purchase my permanent silence.

These negotiations were brokered by ir. Klaas Keestra, Vice President of the NOM in Groningen, acting as a direct intermediary for Minister Veerman and the Cabinet of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. The negotiations commenced during a private flight to Beaune, France, where the financial offer systematically escalated until it reached a maximum authorized sum of 5 million euros. The central, non-negotiable condition attached to this buyout was the enforcement of strict secrecy restrictions (geheimhouding restricties) designed specifically to hide the involvement of the Crown and to permanently classify the systemic criminality of Ministry officials.

A formal meeting to finalize this 5 million euro settlement was scheduled for August 12, 2004, at 16:00 in Groningen with Minister Veerman. When I ultimately refused to accept this silencing money out of a desire for material truth-finding, the Ministry of Justice immediately retaliated. In late September 2004, the Ministry formally ordered the Public Prosecution Service (OM) to block all police investigations—specifically targeting the efforts of Detective Haye Bruinsma in Drachten (as proven by the attached Audio Evidence)—citing “state security” as the absolute pretext for obstruction.

III. Request for Executive Action and Disclosure

The Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven recently rejected my compensation claim (Decision: 2025/546585) citing a lack of objective police reports. This represents a Kafkaesque administrative trap: the Ministry of Justice demands police reports that the Ministry of Justice itself actively ordered destroyed or blocked under the guise of the 1972/1973 Royal Decree.

As this matter is now formally before the Rechtbank Den Haag (Administrative Law Division, Filing 019-755-655-164), the continuing silence of the State constitutes an ongoing violation of Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

I respectfully request that Your Majesty’s Office forward this petition to the responsible Minister with instructions to provide immediate, transparent answers to the following specific inquiries:

1. Confirmation of the Decree: Does the Ministry acknowledge the existence of a classified 1972/1973 Royal Decree, or any equivalent executive/intelligence instrument from that period, that invoked state security to suppress the investigation of the crimes committed against Hans Smedema and imposed a clandestine guardianship (geheime curatele) or burgerlijke dood?
2. Confirmation of the Buyout: Does the Ministry acknowledge that in 2003/2004, intermediaries acting on behalf of the Cabinet, including ir. Klaas Keestra and Minister Veerman, negotiated a financial settlement ultimately reaching 5 million euros in exchange for my permanent silence regarding these historical events?
3. Release of the Archives: Will the Minister instruct the immediate declassification and release of the original text of the 1972/1973 Royal Decree, the records of the 1973 secret court session in Zwolle, and the 2004 Bruinsma/OM Leeuwarden police obstruction files, so they may be lawfully submitted to the Rechtbank Den Haag pursuant to Article 8:42 of the Algemene wet bestuursrecht?

Should the responsible Minister refuse to answer these questions by invoking State Secrecy or the privacy of the Royal House, this petition and the subsequent ministerial refusal will be submitted directly to the Rechtbank Den Haag as definitive, contemporary proof of bewijsnood (evidentiary distress) and systematic state obstruction.

I await the formal response of the responsible Minister.

Respectfully and faithfully submitted,

Ing. Hans Smedema

Enclosures (Bijlagen):

• Annex A: Evidence of Admission of Liability – The Cabinet Buyout (2003-2004) [NOM/Keestra Evidence].
• Annex B: Evidence of Police Obstruction (April 2004).
• Annex C: Objective Audio Evidence.
• Annex D: Formal Receipt of Appeal, Rechtbank Den Haag (Filing No. 019-755-655-164).

See: Subject_Urgent Petition (Verzoekschrift)Pursuant to Article 5