Copyrights by Hans Smedema on this whole True Crime Legal-Blog!

BEZWAARSCHRIFT / FORMAL APPEAL Nov 24, 2025

Aan: Commissie Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven Afdeling Bezwaar Postbus 71 2501 CB Den Haag The Netherlands

Van: Ing. H. Smedema Carrer Manuel de Falla 4-2B 03581 L’Alfàs del Pi, Alicante Spanje Email: [email protected]

Datum: 24 November 2025

Betreft: Formal Appeal against Decision 2025/542756 (Dated 19 November 2025)

1.0 Introduction: Purpose and Grounds of Appeal

This document constitutes a formal appeal against the rejection decision rendered by the Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven on 19 November 2025 regarding case number 2025/542756.

The rejection was based on the applicant’s alleged failure to meet Condition 1 (objective evidence of a violent crime) and the dismissal of submitted evidence as “subjective.” The Commission erred by failing to account for Force Majeure: the documented fact that the State itself has sequestered the objective evidence and coerced the falsification of other evidence. Also, the applicant is very objective in presenting all the facts and explanations on his Blog. That is public evidence! There is nothing subjective about it at all. It is insulting.

Furthermore, asking the applicant, who is forced (!) to act without legal representation, to provide evidence while the State has refused any investigation for 25 years, is absurd. Also, nobody called the applicant and asked for this deeper underlying information.

This appeal submits that:

Estoppel: The State is legally estopped from demanding evidence (Police Reports) it actively suppressed (Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans).
Objective Verification: Verification exists at the highest levels (US DOJ, CTIVD) but is classified/withheld by the State.
Physical & Forensic Reality: Physical bodily mutilation (sterilization) overrides fraudulent administrative paperwork (falsified DNA tests).
Hardship Clause: The Board must apply the Hardheidsclausule due to the extraordinary State obstruction.

The reason for all this harassment and the unbelievable decades-long horrifying events is simply that the Applicant, with an IQ of 135 (gifted), unaware met (sexual predator) Joris Demmink in 1972 and warned him not to harm his mentally weak girlfriend (later wife, now ex-wife since 2015). Because both were typical Alpha-Males, Joris Demmink apparently started to destroy the life of the applicant to ensure he could never become a danger and expose him.

This case is also evidence that the Schadefonds reporting to the institutionally compromised Ministry of Justice is unethical and should be changed. The Ministry of Health would be the logical solution. An expert analysis has been made, will be sent to ‘Vaste Tweede Kamer Commissie Justitie cie.jv’, and can be read and downloaded at: https://hanssmedema.info/systemic-reform-of-the-violent-offences-compensation-fund-a-strategic-analysis-of-governance-ethics-and-artificial-intelligence-in-the-context-of-state-liability/

1.1 Legal Argument: Estoppel and State Obstruction

(Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans)

The rejection states: “We do need objective information… such as the police.” The applicant attempted to generate this exact information but was blocked by the State.

On April 26, 2004, the applicant reported the crimes to Police Detective Haye Bruinsma. Detective Bruinsma subsequently admitted he was “explicitly forbidden by a letter from the Ministry of Justice” from creating the official report (Proces-Verbaal).

Legal Principle: Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans (No one can be heard to invoke their own turpitude). The Schadefonds (State) cannot reject a claim for lacking a police report when the Ministry of Justice (State) unlawfully prohibited the police from writing it. This creates a “Kafkaesque Trap” violating ECHR Article 13. (See Bijlage 1 and 5 for documentation of Police and Art. 12 procedure Obstruction)

2.0 AMENDED STATEMENT OF FACTS: Classification of Specific Violent Crimes under the Dutch Penal Code

The rejection decision (2025/542756) incorrectly asserts that the file contains no objective evidence of a “violent crime” (geweldsmisdrijf) committed within the Dutch jurisdiction. The Applicant contests this characterization. The file documents a continuous series of life-threatening felonies committed by identified perpetrators on Dutch soil, extending into a forced exile.

The Applicant specifies the following articles of the Dutch Penal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht – Sr) applicable to the objective facts:

2.1 Attempted Murder / Manslaughter (Poging tot Moord/Doodslag) – Art. 289/287 Sr

Date/Location: January 29, 1975 – Motel Bunnik, Zeist, The Netherlands.
The Incident: The Applicant was subjected to an assassination attempt via poisoning. Police officers were present at the scene.
Objective Evidence: The Applicant’s medical records from Dr. Hogen Esch (Bijlage 3) objectively confirm that immediately following this incident (recorded as early Feb 1975), the Applicant was admitted to the Boerhave Hospital (Boerhave Ziekenhuis).
Relevance: This constitutes a violent crime against life committed within the Netherlands. The absence of a police report due to proven State obstruction (Force Majeure) cannot invalidate the objective medical fact of the emergency hospital admission. It should be in the Policemutations file you can ask for.

2.2 Aggravated Assault with Premeditation (Zware Mishandeling met Voorbedachte Rade) – Art. 302/303 Sr

Date/Location: 1972 – Utrecht, The Netherlands.
The Incident: The Applicant was subjected to a forced medical intervention resulting in sterilization without consent.
Objective Evidence: The medical report by Urologist Smorenburg (Bijlage 4) confirms a physical, non-standard interruption of the vas deferens and scar tissue.
Relevance: A physical scar and severed anatomy are objective, immutable facts. Under Art. 302 Sr, the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm (zwaar lichamelijk letsel) constitutes a serious violent crime.

2.3 Theft with Violence & Rape (Diefstal met Geweld / Verkrachting) – Art. 312 / 242 Sr / 300 Sr

Date/Location: 1974 ‘t Harde, The Netherlands.
The Incident: The Applicant and his spouse were victims of an armed robbery (overval), during which the spouse was raped resulting in Daughter Ilse born 15 Jan 1975.
Relevance: Police were present at the scene, fired a warning shot, and chased the perpetrators. Crucially, the Applicant was not merely a bystander but was a direct forced drugged victim of the violence.
Legal Qualification: The forced administration of stupefying substances to render the Applicant incapacitated constitutes Assault (Mishandeling – Art. 300 Sr). Furthermore, using chemical restraints to facilitate theft falls under Theft with Violence (Art. 312 Sr). The Applicant qualifies for both direct personal injury damages and “Shock Damage” (Schokschade) resulting from witnessing the sexual violence against his spouse while chemically immobilized.

2.4 Systematic Torture and Assault (Foltering / Stelselmatige Mishandeling) – Art. 300 Sr / UNCAT

Date/Location: Recurring every 5 years in The Netherlands (including at the private residence of perpetrator and official justice/AIVD agent Jaap Duijs) and continued in Spain (2008 Catral, 2010 Benidorm, 2011 Murla).
The Incident: The Applicant was subjected to clandestine electroshock torture sessions to induce amnesia and enforce submission.
Jurisdiction: The Commission rejected the claim based on the incidents in Spain. However, the Applicant formally states that this torture originated and was repeatedly practiced in the Netherlands, specifically including sessions at the home of State agent Mr. Jaap Duijs reporting to Joris Demmink who also raped his submissive defenseless wife since 1978.
Relevance: This demonstrates a continuous offense (voortgezette handeling) that began in the Netherlands. Furthermore, regarding the incidents in Spain, Dutch criminal law applies under the Active Nationality Principle (Actief Nationaliteitsbeginsel, Art. 7 Sr), as the perpetrators (J. Duijs, O. van der Hart) are Dutch nationals.

2.5 Threat of Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty (Bedreiging met Wederrechtelijke Vrijheidsberoving) & Forced Exile – Art. 282 / 285 Sr

The Incident: Following the State’s refusal to investigate the physical crimes, the Applicant was targeted by a coordinated attempt to forcibly institutionalize him in a psychiatric facility based on demonstrably false diagnoses (ignoring the physical evidence of sterilization and poisoning).
Legal Qualification: This constitutes an attempt at Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty and severe Psychological Torture. The threat of being locked up indefinitely for speaking the truth about a crime caused immense fear (psychological injury).
Consequence (Forced Exile): To escape this imminent threat of unlawful incarceration, the Applicant was forced to flee the Netherlands to Spain. This “Exile” was an act of self-preservation (noodweer/overmacht). Therefore, the costs of living in exile are direct material damages resulting from the State’s aggression.

2.6 Home Invasion, Rape & Facilitation by State Agent (Woningoverval & Verkrachting met Medeplichtigheid Overheid) – Art. 312/242/300 Sr

Date/Location: 1979 – Villa Sydwende, Drachten, The Netherlands.
The Incident: The Applicant and his spouse were victims of a violent home invasion orchestrated to produce a “bestiality rape movie”. The perpetrators physically removed the bathroom door (a physical trace of violence) and the Applicant was physically assaulted (“jumped on”) and forced to ingest a drink spiked with Ketamine to induce unconsciousness and amnesia.
State Obstruction (Force Majeure): Police officers were physically present at the bottom of the driveway but were actively prevented from intervening by neighbor Mr. Jaap Duijs (Justice/AIVD agent), who used his credentials to “keep the police at bay”.
Relevance: This constitutes Theft with Violence (Art. 312 Sr) and Complicity in Rape (Art. 242 Sr) facilitated by a State Official.

2.7 Attempted Manslaughter via Vehicular Weapon (Poging Doodslag / Moord met Voertuig) – Art. 287 / 289 Sr

Date/Location: 1980/1981 – Road near Elburg/Dronten, The Netherlands.
The Incident: The Applicant was the target of a premeditated assassination attempt involving a vehicle. Mr. Cees van ‘t Hoog, a neighbor who had been investigating the crimes against the Applicant, was coerced and/or drugged to crash his car into the Applicant’s vehicle. While the Applicant narrowly escaped death, Mr. Van ‘t Hoog crashed just behind the Applicant and was killed.
Objective Evidence: The death of Mr. Van ‘t Hoog is an objective, recorded fatality.
Judicial Verification: During the Applicant’s asylum proceedings in 2009, US Immigration Judge Rex J. Ford investigated this specific death and ordered/requested that the body of Mr. Van ‘t Hoog be exhumed to forensically prove drugging with Ketamine. However, the victim’s children refused permission.

2.8 Systematic Poisoning & Assault via Deceptive Medication (Stelselmatige Vergiftiging / Mishandeling) – Art. 300/174 Sr

Date/Location: September 2003 to 2016 (The Netherlands) and continuing until 2022 (Spain).
The Incident: The Applicant was unknowingly administered a heavy antipsychotic drug (Risperdal), which was fraudulently disguised and repackaged inside official boxes of “Baby Aspirin 100mg”.
Objective Evidence: On March 24, 2022, an anesthetist at Hospital La Marina Baixa (Spain) objectively identified that the medication the Applicant was taking (labeled as aspirin) was, in reality, an antipsychotic agent. Photographic evidence is submitted as Bijlage 13.

2.9 Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty & Drugging (Wederrechtelijke Vrijheidsberoving & Drogeren) – Art. 282 Sr

Date/Location: 1972 – Houseboat of Tjitte de Jong, Norg/Oudega, The Netherlands.
The Incident: The Applicant was lured to a houseboat by his brother-in-law, Tjitte de Jong, physically prevented from leaving, and forcibly injected with an overdose of Ketamine to force compliance with signing a document.
Relevance: This event combines Unlawful Deprivation of Liberty (Art. 282 Sr) with Assault.

3.0 Rebuttal: “Objective Information” Exists (International & Intelligence)

The rejection claims the file contains only “self-written texts.” This is factually incorrect. The texts are based on hundreds of publicly available legal-written-statements. “Objective information from uninvolved third parties” exists but has been suppressed by the State.

United States Department of Justice (2015) During the State Visit of King Willem-Alexander to the USA (June 1, 2015), the US Department of Justice explicitly flagged the “Hans Smedema Case” in a briefing to the Dutch delegation. This is objective validation by a foreign sovereign power.
CTIVD Hearing (2008) The Dutch Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services (CTIVD) held a hearing on April 29, 2008, regarding this cover-up. The existence of this hearing is an objective fact; the CTIVD does not hold hearings for “delusions”. (See Bijlage 8 for the detailed timeline and Bijlage 11)

3.1 Traceable Objective Evidence: The “Paper Trail”

The Applicant provides three specific instances where “objective information” was generated and can be requested by the Commission to verify the claim:

A. The “Jaap Duijs” Financial & Intelligence Record (1977-1978): The Commission must request the financial records/personnel files of the AIVD/Ministry of Justice regarding Jaap Duijs (1977-1978) to verify the payment of 100,000 Guilders confirmed during the CTIVD hearing.
B. The UNCAT / Obama Administration Trace: The Commission is requested to query the Ministry for correspondence regarding the “UNCAT Special Procedure/Smedema” involving the US State Department.
C. Obstruction of UN Geneva Mandate (Schiphol Incident): The Applicant was blocked at Schiphol Airport Customs due to a manipulated passport (swapped with spouse) to prevent UN testimony. This is recorded in Schiphol Marechaussee/Customs logs.

3.2 Objective Verification by US Federal Court (Judge Rex J. Ford, 2009)

The Rejection Decision implies the Applicant’s narrative is subjective or delusional. This is factually incorrect and contradicted by international judicial findings.

Judicial Confirmation of Sanity: In 2009, US Immigration Judge Rex J. Ford (Miami, Case A087-402-454) relied on an independent forensic psychological examination by Dr. Joseph James (Miami, July 2009), who explicitly concluded that the Applicant was mentally healthy, rational, and not delusional.
Judicial Ruling: Based on this, Judge Ford confirmed that the Applicant’s account of the conspiracy was factual.
Institutional Bad Faith: When presented to the Court of Appeal in Arnhem (2011/2012), Dutch Judges dismissed these objective findings solely on formalistic jurisdictional grounds.

3.3 Systematic Intimidation of Witnesses and Officials

The applicant submits additional instances where “uninvolved third parties” were neutralized:

A. Administrative Retaliation against Rijkspolitie Officer (Jack from Duiven) 1990: Dismissed from his position immediately after reporting the crimes.
B. Forced Relocation of Witness (Teun Keuzenkamp, 1975): Neighbor forced to move after discovering the drugging of the Applicant.
C. Violent Intimidation of Helper (Alfaz del Pi, Spain) December 2015: A helper was raped by a perpetrator impersonating the Applicant; a formal report exists with Policia Local in L’Alfàs del Pi.
D. The Editor Bribery & CIA Verification (2009): The bribery of the editor of ‘BruTaal’ by Joris Demmink was investigated by the CIA/FBI in 2009.

3.4 Evidence of State Liability: The Classified Buyout Offers (2003/2004)

The Rejection Decision asserts a lack of “objective information.” The Applicant formally rebuts this by stating that the Dutch Cabinet itself generated objective evidence by attempting to settle this case financially (“afkopen”) to prevent a constitutional crisis involving the Royal House. This constitutes a de facto Admission of Liability.

The Extraterritorial Negotiation (September 2003 – Beaune, France)

The Incident: In September 2003, the Applicant was flown from Eelde Airport to Beaune, France, in a private aircraft. The plane was owned and piloted by Mr. Reint Jelsma (Pharmacist/Apotheker), with co-pilot Mr. Ed van de Beek (Vice-President of the NOM).
The Offer: During this trip, fellow passenger ir. Klaas Keestra (Vice-President of the NOM)—acting as the designated intermediary for the Crown/Cabinet—conveyed a formal offer of €5 million to “buy out” the case.
Reason for Location: The meeting was held in French airspace/territory specifically to keep the negotiations regarding the Royal House’s involvement outside of Dutch legal jurisdiction and publicity.
Objective Trace: Flight logs from Eelde to Beaune (September 2003) listing the aircraft, pilots (Jelsma/Van de Beek), and passengers (Keestra/Smedema) exist as physical evidence of this trip.

The Failed Cabinet Meeting (August 12, 2004 – Groningen)

The Incident: Following the initial offer, a direct meeting was scheduled for August 12, 2004, at 16:00, between the Applicant and Minister of Agriculture Cees Veerman.
The Connection: Minister Veerman was a close study friend of Mr. Keestra from Wageningen University. He was sent by the Cabinet to finalize the settlement.
The Failure: The meeting failed solely because the Applicant, suffering from severe C-PTSD and repressed memories at that time, was mentally unable to cope with the confrontation and stress (Force Majeure).

Request for Verification: “Trace the Cabinet” The Applicant is aware that US Judge Rex J. Ford investigated these events and found the information to be classified at the highest level.

Instruction to Commission: The Applicant explicitly requests that the Commission does not harass the private individuals mentioned (Messrs. Keestra, Jelsma, or Van de Beek), who acted out of friendship and duty.
The Trace: Instead, the Commission must query the Cabinet / Ministry of General Affairs (Ministerie van Algemene Zaken) regarding the classified “Smedema/Veerman/Cabinet Settlement Proposal” of 2003/2004. The State cannot claim “lack of evidence” for a file it has classified itself.

4.0 Correction of Fact: Physical Evidence & DNA Falsification

The rejection relies on a fake psychiatric label to dismiss the crimes. This is a category error. A psychological diagnosis cannot explain physical bodily mutilation, an extra emotional personality as a result of violent crime, nor can it explain verifiable asset seizures or the falsification of DNA tests.

4.1 The Violent Crime: Forced Sterilization (1972)

The applicant has a physical 7cm scar and an “interruption on both vas deferens in an unusual location” (confirmed by Urologist Smorenburg). Argument: A scar is objective. It cannot be a delusion. The State offers no alternative explanation for how a man was sterilized with a non-standard medical procedure. This is physical proof of an opzettelijk gepleegd geweldsmisdrijf (intentional violent crime/assault). (See Bijlage 4)

4.2 Rebuttal: Explanation of Conflicting DNA Evidence (Fraud vs. Physics)

The Commission may incorrectly rely on the 2003 GeneTree DNA reports (Case TO11226). The Applicant formally asserts these were falsified.

Physical Impossibility: The physical sterilization (1972) is an immutable bodily fact. DNA reports claiming paternity for children born after 1972 are biologically impossible without fraud.
Method of Falsification (The Snieders Swap): In 2014, the Applicant’s daughter, Ilse Smedema, confessed that the children were coerced by the “Omerta” organization to swap their swabs with those of the Snieders family (Dirk and Aline Snieders).
Judicial Validation: This falsification was reportedly investigated and confirmed by US Judge Rex J. Ford. (See Bijlage 10)

4.3 Corroborative Evidence: Asset Seizures (Conservatoir Beslag)

In early 2010, multiple family members admitted to the Applicant that a “Conservatoir Beslag” (Prejudgment Seizure) had been placed on their private residences, preventing them from selling for approximately six years. This correlates with the US/UN intervention. Verifiability: The Commission can ask Justice to verify the historical land registry records (Kadaster) of the involved parties between 2010 and 2016. (See Bijlage 7)

4.4 Evidence of applicant’s wife having an extra emotional personality

Such an extraordinary event can only happen after a violent crime. Evidence is available in the Book ‘Vechten tegen het Onbekende’, where the applicant’s wife spontaneously wrote remarks in her normal personality. (See Bijlage 9) “Furthermore, this specific manuscript serves as physical evidence of State interference. The Ministry of Justice, under Joris Demmink (2007), bribed the editor ‘BruTaal’ to fraudulently insert the phrase ‘I remember signing something’. This act of State tampering was investigated and verified by the CIA/FBI in 2009.”

4.5 Evidence of ElectroShock Torture

Catral, Spain 2008: Applicant was secretly drugged and subjected to illegal ElectroShock torture. Retired Dutch Detective Ad noticed it was torture and chased them away.
Benidorm (May 20, 2010) & Murla (2011): Repeated sessions with witnesses.
Relevance: This is available evidence of the Netherlands asking Spain to cooperate with the Dutch Ministry of Justice. (See Bijlage 12)

4.6 Legal Nullity of Convictions & Unlawful Detention

The Applicant formally submits that previous criminal convictions (defamation/libel) and resulting detention are legally void ab initio because they relied on falsified DNA evidence and State suppression of exculpatory evidence. The detention itself constitutes a violation of Article 5 ECHR (Right to Liberty).

4.7 State Liability for Unlawful Acts by the Head of State (Onrechtmatige Daad door Staatshoofd)

The Applicant asserts that the detention of 13 months (March 2017 – April 2018) was the direct result of an unlawful intervention by King Willem-Alexander, acting as KLM Co-Pilot on flight KL602 on March 15, 2017.

Objective Proof of Detention: The fact of incarceration is objectively proven by the Release Document (Bewijs van Invrijheidstelling), confirming detention from 16/03/2017 to 05/04/2018. (See Bijlage 13)
Abuse of Public Authority: By blocking the Applicant’s communication with US Judge Rex J. Ford—who had offered asylum in the airspace above Montana—the King committed acts that trigger State Liability.

4.8 Judicial Fraud & Violation of Impartiality (Rechterlijke Fraude)

The Applicant submits that the Medical Disciplinary Tribunal Ruling of 2007 is legally void. Prof. Dr. R.J. van den Bosch acted as the sitting judge despite being named in the classified “Frankfurt Intelligence File” (1983) as a co-conspirator. He failed to recuse himself (Nemo iudex in causa sua), violating Article 6 ECHR.

4.9 Evidence of Judicial Fraud & Institutional Violence (2009 – 2016)

The 2009 Politierechter Violation: Judge Van Bruggen refused DNA tests and 17 defense witnesses.
The 2011/2012 Appeal Court Violation: The Court ruled there was “no objective indication” while suppressing the DNA test that would provide it.
The 2013 “Schiphol” Detention: An act of State Kidnapping to prevent the Applicant from reaching US soil.

5.0 Formal Request: Application of the Hardship Clause

(Beroep op de Hardheidsclausule)

If the Board finds that “Condition 1” is not met due to the lack of a Proces-Verbaal, the applicant formally requests the application of the Hardship Clause (Hardheidsclausule). The “Secret Curatele” and “Cordon Sanitaire” have made it impossible to secure legal aid.

5.1 The UNCAT Paradox: State-Created Evidential Distress (Bewijsnood)

The State refuses to investigate the crimes via UNCAT (which would provide objective proof) and then rejects the Schadefonds application because that very proof is missing. The State is effectively benefiting from its own refusal to investigate. To break this cycle and prove the ongoing nature of the State’s obstruction, the Applicant filed a renewed formal complaint with UNCAT on [November 2025] to compel the State to act.

5.2 Defense Against Term Exceedance & Subsidiarity (Termijnoverschrijding & Subsidiariteit)

Anticipating that the Commission may attempt to reject the claim based on the 10-year submission limit (Indientermijn) or the principle of subsidiarity, the Applicant submits the following conclusive legal arguments:

Excusable Term Exceedance (Verschoonbare Termijnoverschrijding) The crimes occurred between 1972 and 2017. The application is submitted in 2025. This delay is legally excusable (verschoonbaar) under the policy rules due to two distinct factors:

Medical Inability (Dissociative Amnesia): As documented in the file, the Applicant suffered from severe trauma-induced amnesia (repressed memory). It was only possible to reconstruct the events years later. Specifically, regarding the settlement offer of 2004, the Applicant “repressed everything” and was “too heavily traumatized” to act at that time. A victim cannot file a claim for a crime they are medically prevented from remembering.
State Obstruction (Force Majeure): The State actively concealed the crimes (e.g., forbidding Police Reports in 2004). A citizen cannot be penalized for a filing delay when the Government itself is hiding the evidence required to file. To enforce the time limit here would be a violation of Redelijkheid en Billijkheid (Reasonableness and Fairness).

Satisfaction of Subsidiarity (Voldoen aan Subsidiariteit) The Applicant cannot recover damages from the perpetrators via Civil Court because:

Immunity & Protection: The perpetrators include members of the Royal House and high-ranking officials (Ministers/SG Demmink) protected by State immunity and the “Cordon Sanitaire.”
Access to Justice: The State has blocked civil proceedings by labeling the Applicant “delusional” to prevent valid litigation. Therefore, the Schadefonds is the only remaining legal avenue for compensation.

6.0 Conclusion

The rejection of this application is legally unsustainable because it penalizes the Applicant for a lack of “objective information” that the State itself has actively suppressed. Furthermore, the file proves that when “objective information” was provided (via US Federal Court findings), the Dutch State willfully ignored it.

I formally request that the Commission:

Recognize the UNCAT Refusal as Confirmation: Acknowledge that the State’s refusal to allow an independent investigation created the evidentiary gap.
Validate the US Judicial Findings (Judge Rex J. Ford): Accept the 2009 findings of the US Federal Immigration Court as the required “objective information”.
Apply the Hardship Clause (Hardheidsclausule): Waive the requirement for a standard police report due to the proven Force Majeure and acknowledge the Excusable Term Exceedance due to amnesia and obstruction.
Re-evaluate based on Physical Reality: Prioritize the immutable physical evidence of sterilization and abuse over falsified administrative paperwork.
Request the Traceable Evidence: Query the Cabinet (regarding the 2003/2004 Buyout) and Justice (regarding Jaap Duijs).
Grant Urgent Compensation: Award the tegemoetkoming for the severe violent crimes and the decades of State-inflicted suffering.