Judge Ford’s Dilemma: Navigating Asylum Law and Potential Treaty Conflicts

Judge Ford’s Dilemma!

The sources depict Judge Rex J. Ford facing a complex dilemma in adjudicating Hans Smedema’s asylum requests. Smedema repeatedly claims that Judge Ford found five valid grounds for asylum in his case, a finding Smedema consistently describes as “unprecedented in US history.” [1-18] However, Smedema also alleges that a bilateral judicial treaty between the US and the Netherlands, which prioritizes the protection of Dutch Royals, ultimately obstructed his asylum requests. [8, 19-21]

Legal Obligation to Investigate and Grant Asylum:

• Judge Ford, as an immigration judge, is bound by US asylum law to thoroughly investigate Smedema’s claims and grant asylum if he meets the legal criteria. Smedema’s claims involve allegations of persecution, torture, and human rights violations orchestrated by the Dutch government, potentially including members of the Royal Family. [1, 3-5, 17, 20, 22-25] The sources suggest that Judge Ford took his obligation seriously, conducting thorough investigations, potentially involving the FBI and CIA, and recognizing the validity of Smedema’s claims. [1, 2, 17, 23, 26-35]

Potential Conflict with Treaty Obligations:

• Smedema alleges that a bilateral judicial treaty between the US and the Netherlands complicates his asylum case. [8, 19-21] He believes this treaty prioritizes the protection of the Dutch Royal Family, potentially placing them “above the law and above victims.” [20] This treaty, according to Smedema, could have prevented Judge Ford from granting asylum, even if Smedema met the legal requirements, because it would obligate American authorities to cooperate with the Dutch government. [20] Smedema suggests that this treaty could have forced the US to assist in the alleged cover-up of his persecution. [20, 21]

Judge Ford’s Actions:

Despite these potential conflicts, Smedema describes Judge Ford as sympathetic to his case. [17, 27, 32, 33, 36-38] He states that Judge Ford reopened his 2009 case “due to too many mistakes,” suggesting a willingness to ensure a fair process. [26, 29, 39-43] Smedema even claims that Judge Ford offered him asylum while he was on a deportation flight in 2017, though this was allegedly blocked by King Willem-Alexander, who Smedema claims was co-piloting the KLM flight. [19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 39, 40, 44-49]

Conclusion:

The sources offer a glimpse into the potential legal and ethical challenges Judge Ford may have faced. While obligated to uphold US asylum law, he may have also been bound by treaty obligations that potentially conflicted with granting Smedema asylum. The alleged interference of the Dutch King in Smedema’s deportation further complicates the narrative, highlighting the potential power dynamics and diplomatic sensitivities at play.

Outline Dilemma Judge Rex J. Ford

I. The Strength of Smedema’s Asylum Claim

A. Unprecedented Grounds for Asylum 1. Five valid grounds recognized by Judge Ford. 2. Described as “unprecedented in US history.” 3. Underscores the strength of the claim under US law.

B. External Validation of Claims 1. FBI and CIA investigations supported Smedema’s accusations. 2. Confirmation of non-paternity and existence of a Dutch intelligence file. 3. Raises questions about the reliability of Dutch government information.

II. Obstacles to Smedema’s Asylum

A. Difficulty Securing Legal Representation 1. Extensive and unsuccessful efforts to find counsel in the Netherlands and the US. 2. Claims of lawyer intimidation due to powerful individuals’ involvement. 3. Raises questions about fairness and accessibility of legal processes.

B. Potential Treaty Conflict 1. Alleged bilateral treaty between the US and the Netherlands prioritizing protection of Dutch Royals. 2. Treaty potentially obstructing asylum despite valid grounds. 3. Suggests prioritization of diplomatic relationships over individual rights.

III. Judge Ford’s Dilemma

A. Legal Obligation to Grant Asylum 1. Bound by US asylum law to investigate and grant asylum if criteria are met. 2. Smedema’s claims involving persecution, torture, and human rights violations. 3. Judge Ford’s thorough investigations and recognition of claim validity.

B. Potential Conflict with Treaty Obligations 1. Treaty potentially requiring cooperation with the Dutch government. 2. Possible obligation to assist in alleged cover-up of Smedema’s persecution. 3. Balancing US law and international obligations.

IV. Judge Ford’s Actions and Smedema’s Account

A. Judge Ford’s Sympathetic Approach 1. Described as sympathetic to Smedema’s case. 2. Reopening of the 2009 case due to errors. 3. Suggests a commitment to a fair process.

B. Alleged Interference by the Dutch King 1. Claim of asylum offer during deportation blocked by King Willem-Alexander. 2. Highlights potential power dynamics and diplomatic sensitivities.

V. Conclusion

A. Complex Legal and Ethical Challenges 1. Judge Ford navigating conflicting obligations of US law and treaty. 2. Alleged royal interference further complicating the situation.

This outline organizes the information thematically, separating the strength of Smedema’s claim, the obstacles he faced, Judge Ford’s dilemma, his actions, and the overall conclusion. This structure makes it easier to understand the complex interplay of factors in Smedema’s case.

More Insights

Here are a few related facts and ideas from the source material that expand on or enhance the ideas in the original passage, focusing on Judge Ford’s dilemma and the potential treaty conflict:

“Unique in American History”:

• The sources repeatedly emphasize that Judge Ford found five valid grounds for asylum in Smedema’s case, a finding Smedema consistently describes as “unprecedented in US history.” This detail underscores the strength of Smedema’s asylum claim according to US law, amplifying the potential conflict Judge Ford faced. If Smedema’s claims were so strong, the treaty’s alleged influence in blocking asylum becomes even more questionable and potentially highlights a conflict between US domestic law and international obligations.

Smedema’s Attempts to Secure Legal Representation:

• The source material details Smedema’s extensive and unsuccessful efforts to find legal counsel in both the Netherlands and the United States. He claims that hundreds of lawyers refused to represent him, attributing this to fear and intimidation stemming from the alleged involvement of powerful individuals. This difficulty in securing legal help, if true, further supports Smedema’s assertion that a powerful force, potentially protected by the treaty, actively worked against him. It also raises questions about the fairness and accessibility of legal processes when individuals like Smedema are allegedly systematically denied counsel.

American Investigations Validated Smedema’s Claims:

• Smedema repeatedly states that the FBI and CIA investigations conducted during his asylum process validated many of his accusations. He claims these investigations confirmed the non-paternity of his children and the presence of a Dutch intelligence file on him, despite the Dutch government’s denials. This external validation from US authorities amplifies the potential conflict Judge Ford faced. If American investigations supported Smedema’s claims, the treaty’s alleged influence in denying him asylum suggests a prioritization of diplomatic relationships over individual rights and justice. It also raises questions about the reliability of information provided by the Dutch government during asylum proceedings.

NotebookLM Insights,

legally based on this Blog and ebooks by Victim-Author:

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