Smedema Case: Allegations of Impropriety in the Dutch System

While the provided sources do not directly reference the Dutch ‘Behoorlijkheidswijzer,’ they offer substantial information that, when combined with our conversation history, enables a detailed analysis of Hans Smedema’s case through the lens of ‘behoorlijkheid’ (propriety) within the Dutch legal and governmental systems. ‘Behoorlijkheid’ encompasses principles of proper conduct, ethical decision-making, transparency, accountability, and fairness, expected of government officials and institutions. Smedema’s allegations, as presented in the documents, suggest numerous failures in upholding these principles.

1. Systemic Obstruction of Justice and Violation of Due Process

• Deliberate Refusal to File a “Proces-Verbaal” [1, 2]: A core tenet of ‘behoorlijkheid’ is ensuring that citizens have the right to report crimes and that law enforcement agencies duly record and investigate these reports. Smedema repeatedly alleges that police, specifically H. Bruinsma in Drachten, refused to officially record his reports of alleged crimes [1, 2]. This refusal constitutes a severe breach of protocol and ‘behoorlijkheid’, effectively obstructing a formal investigation from its inception and denying Smedema’s fundamental right to due process [1]. The police’s obligation is to meticulously record complaints, particularly those alleging serious criminal conduct, and to initiate appropriate investigative measures [1, 2].
• Failure to Conduct Adequate Investigations [1, 3]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ demands that credible allegations of criminal activity are met with thorough and impartial investigations. Smedema alleges that despite reporting a series of grave crimes, including persistent sexual offenses dating back to 1972, Dutch authorities failed to conduct any meaningful investigation [1, 3]. He contends that critical witnesses were not interviewed, and potentially exculpatory evidence was either ignored or suppressed [1, 3]. This alleged lack of investigation directly contravenes the principles of ‘behoorlijkheid’, which mandate a just and equitable inquiry into all credible allegations of criminal behavior.
• Intentional Withholding of Crucial Information [4, 5]: Transparency is a cornerstone of ‘behoorlijkheid’, ensuring that individuals are afforded access to information relevant to their cases. Smedema consistently claims that Dutch authorities deliberately withheld essential information about the alleged crimes and the relevant legal procedures [4, 5]. This alleged lack of transparency violates ‘behoorlijkheid’ by impeding Smedema’s ability to understand and effectively pursue his claims, undermining the principles of openness and accountability.
• Impeding the Filing of Official Complaints [1, 2, 6]: A key aspect of ‘behoorlijkheid’ is facilitating access to justice, ensuring that individuals can lodge official complaints and seek legal remedies. Smedema alleges that authorities actively prevented him from filing official complaints [1, 2, 6]. Such actions, if substantiated, would constitute a serious violation of ‘behoorlijkheid’ by obstructing Smedema’s access to legal redress and undermining the principles of fairness and equality before the law.

2. Denial of Fair Legal Representation and Access to Justice

• Systematic Refusal of Legal Assistance [7-9]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ requires that all individuals have equal access to legal representation and the opportunity to present their case before the courts. Smedema claims that numerous lawyers and legal firms refused to take on his case [7-9]. This widespread refusal, potentially stemming from the controversial nature of his allegations or external pressures, raises serious concerns about ‘behoorlijkheid’ and whether Smedema was unjustly denied his right to legal counsel [7-9]. The inability to secure legal representation undermines the principles of equal access to justice and fairness.
• Ineffective or Illusory Legal Assistance [4, 10]: Even when legal assistance was ostensibly provided, Smedema suggests it was often inadequate or ineffective [4, 10]. He cites instances where assigned lawyers appeared disinterested or lacked the necessary expertise to handle his complex case [4, 10]. This highlights a potential failure of ‘behoorlijkheid’, as merely providing nominal legal assistance without ensuring its quality and effectiveness does not satisfy the principles of fairness and equal protection under the law.

3. Undermining Credibility and Infliction of Psychological Harm

• Attempts to Discredit and Delegitimize Smedema [4, 11-13]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ requires that authorities treat all individuals with respect and avoid actions that could unfairly prejudice their case. Smedema alleges that authorities and other actors have attempted to discredit him by portraying him as mentally unstable or delusional [4, 11-13]. These attempts to undermine his credibility violate ‘behoorlijkheid’, as they could influence the perception of his claims and prejudice the outcome of any potential investigation or legal proceeding [4, 11-13].
• Infliction of Psychological Harm Through Systemic Obstruction [14-17]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ demands that government actions do not inflict unnecessary harm on individuals. Smedema describes his situation as “psychological marteling” [14-17]. The deliberate creation of uncertainty, denial of information, and systemic obstruction of his efforts to seek justice allegedly caused him significant psychological distress [14-17]. Such actions, if proven, would constitute a serious violation of ‘behoorlijkheid’, demonstrating a disregard for Smedema’s well-being and fundamental rights [14-17].

4. Allegations of Conspiracy, Cover-Up, and Conflicts of Interest

• Collusion and Complicity of Family Members [4, 11, 18]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ requires that legal proceedings are free from undue influence and conflicts of interest. Smedema alleges that his wife and other family members were actively involved in a conspiracy against him [4, 11, 18]. If substantiated, this would represent a grave breach of ‘behoorlijkheid’, potentially compromising the impartiality of investigations and legal proceedings [4, 11, 18].
• Falsification and Manipulation of Evidence [8, 19]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ demands the integrity of evidence presented in legal proceedings. Smedema claims that DNA tests and medical records were falsified to undermine his claims [8, 19]. Such actions, if proven, would constitute a severe violation of ‘behoorlijkheid’, demonstrating a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice and manipulate the legal process.
• Involvement of High-Ranking Officials and the Royal House [20-22]: A core tenet of ‘behoorlijkheid’ is that all individuals are treated equally under the law, regardless of their social status or connections. Smedema suggests that the alleged conspiracy involves high-ranking officials within the Dutch justice system and even members of the Royal House [20-22]. Such connections, if proven, would represent a fundamental breach of ‘behoorlijkheid’, raising concerns about conflicts of interest, abuse of power, and a potential cover-up to protect powerful individuals and institutions [20-22].

5. Suppressing Exculpatory Evidence and Ignoring New Facts

• Ignoring Evidence Favoring Smedema’s Claims [4, 11, 23]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ requires that all relevant evidence is considered, regardless of whether it supports or contradicts the prevailing narrative. Smedema alleges that evidence supporting his claims, such as findings by a urologist, was downplayed or ignored by investigators [4, 11, 23]. This suppression of potentially vital information violates ‘behoorlijkheid’ and undermines the pursuit of truth and justice.
• Failure to Incorporate New Information [24]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ demands that investigations remain open to new information and adapt as new evidence emerges. Smedema indicates that new facts continue to emerge during the procedures [24]. A failure to incorporate these new facts in a dynamic fashion would contravene ‘behoorlijkheid’.

6. Enduring Harm and Absence of Effective Remedy

• Prolonged Suffering and Inadequate Redress [14-17]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ requires that individuals who have suffered harm due to government actions are provided with effective remedies and redress. Smedema believes that the alleged conspiracy and cover-up have caused ongoing harm to him and his wife, including psychological distress, financial losses, and social isolation [14-17]. The prolonged nature of this suffering, allegedly resulting from official misconduct, underscores a systemic failure of ‘behoorlijkheid’ within the Dutch system.
• Lack of Effective Recourse [7, 8, 25, 26]: ‘Behoorlijkheid’ necessitates the existence of accessible and effective mechanisms for individuals to seek justice and redress grievances. Smedema expresses frustration that despite his efforts to seek justice through official channels, he has been unable to obtain an effective remedy for the alleged wrongs [7, 8, 25, 26]. This lack of recourse highlights a fundamental failure of ‘behoorlijkheid’, leaving Smedema without a means of holding those allegedly responsible accountable for their actions.

In conclusion, Hans Smedema’s account, as presented in the provided sources, raises serious and profound questions regarding the adherence to principles of ‘behoorlijkheid’ within the Dutch legal and governmental systems. The alleged failures in due process, transparency, accountability, and fairness warrant a thorough and impartial investigation to ensure that justice is served and that such alleged misconduct is not tolerated within a system bound by the rule of law and ethical governance.

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