State Capture in the Netherlands: A Systemic Breach of Foundational EU Principles and a Mandate for Union Intervention

Introduction: From Individual Grievance to Systemic Crisis

The Hans Smedema affair is not an isolated case of individual injustice. It is a meticulously documented fifty-year case study of systemic institutional failure and state capture within a European Union Member State. The central thesis of this paper is that the sustained, high-level obstruction of justice and the comprehensive failure of domestic remedies constitute a profound and ongoing breach of the core values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), specifically the rule of law. This paper will provide the legal and factual basis demonstrating that this situation erodes the principle of mutual trust among Member States and necessitates direct intervention by European Union institutions as a matter of constitutional imperative.

——————————————————————————–

1. The Anatomy of Systemic Failure: A Chronology of the Hans Smedema Affair

To comprehend the gravity of the breach of EU principles, it is essential to first understand the architecture of the alleged state-sponsored obstruction. This section presents a dispassionate, fact-based summary of the core allegations, establishing a clear timeline of events that form the foundation of the case for EU intervention.

1.1. Genesis of the Allegations and the Initial Cover-Up (1972-2000)

The foundational events of the case began in 1972. The allegations detail the drugging, torture, and sexual abuse of Hans Smedema and his then-girlfriend, Wies Jansma. The alleged perpetrators included individuals who later rose to high-level state positions, notably Mr. Joris Demmink, who would eventually become the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice. As a result of these events, Mr. Smedema alleges he was subjected to a campaign of clandestine conditioning, including torture, which was designed to and allegedly succeeded in inducing a 28-year period of profound amnesia and memory repression. This period concluded with the gradual return of his memories beginning in March 2000.

1.2. The Architecture of Impunity: State Capture Mechanisms

The allegations describe a sophisticated architecture of state capture, established to ensure total impunity for the perpetrators. The primary mechanisms include:

• The Royal Special Decree: It is alleged that between 1973 and 1975, Her Majesty Queen Juliana issued a secret decree ordering the Ministry of Justice to ensure that no investigation or prosecution concerning these crimes would ever occur. This act effectively placed the perpetrators above the law and shielded their actions from any form of judicial scrutiny.
• Judicial and Police Control: Joris Demmink, in his capacity as Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice, is alleged to have wielded “decisive and compelling” influence over all top appointments within the police and judiciary. This is claimed to have created a patronage network and a pervasive “culture of fear,” ensuring loyalty and silencing dissent within the very institutions tasked with upholding the law.
• State-Sanctioned Surveillance and Control: Mr. Jaap Duijs, a neighbor of the Smedemas, was reportedly paid by the Ministry of Justice to live opposite their home. His alleged role was to monitor their activities, bug their home and office, and maintain psychological control. For this role, he allegedly received “100,000 guilders for the purchase of the land and a monthly allowance of 1,000 guilders” from the Ministry of Justice, ensuring the cover-up remained intact through direct, state-sponsored surveillance.
• Executive Complicity: In a stark illustration of alleged high-level complicity, the sources claim that in 2004, the Balkenende Cabinet offered Hans Smedema a payment of 5 million euros in exchange for his silence and a commitment to keep the crimes hidden from public knowledge.

1.3. The Weaponization of State Institutions

Dutch state institutions were allegedly perverted from instruments of justice into tools of oppression. The sources describe a coordinated, multi-decade campaign to officially label Mr. Smedema as “delusional” and “insane”—a tactic professionally described as “institutional gaslighting.” This campaign involved specific psychiatrists, including Prof. dr. Onno van der Hart and drs. Frank van Es. They are alleged to have played central roles in brainwashing, illegal conditioning, and secretly administering powerful antipsychotic medication, specifically Risperdal, disguised as “baby aspirin,” to suppress memories and manufacture the appearance of mental instability. This allegation is reportedly corroborated by a hospital file in La Marina, Spain, dated March 24, 2022.

This sustained campaign effectively neutralized his ability to seek help, as every attempt was met with a pre-existing, state-sanctioned narrative of psychiatric illness, thus foreclosing any possibility of a domestic legal remedy.

——————————————————————————–

2. The Collapse of Domestic Remedies: A Manufactured Legal Impasse

A common defense against international intervention is the argument that a complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. This section dismantles that defense by demonstrating, with specific and documented examples, that every available domestic avenue for justice was systematically and intentionally foreclosed by the Dutch state. This created a Kafkaesque trap from which there was no internal escape.

2.1. Systemic Denial of Investigation and Prosecution

As the following documented instances demonstrate, the State’s binding obligation to investigate credible allegations of serious crime was not merely neglected, but actively and unlawfully subverted by officials at multiple levels of the justice system.

2.2. The Impossibility of Securing Legal Counsel

Access to legal representation, a cornerstone of the right to a fair trial, was allegedly rendered impossible. The sources describe a “cordon sanitair,” a systemic and universal refusal by hundreds of Dutch lawyers to provide assistance since 2004. The hypothesis presented is that Mr. Smedema was secretly and unlawfully placed under a form of state guardianship (curatele) in the 1970s, a measure that would render him “legally incompetent” (handelingsonbekwaam) and thus legally unable to enter into a contract with a lawyer. This systemic denial of counsel stands in cynical contrast to the Ministry of Justice in its final refusal of liability, which cynically advised him to simply ‘seek a lawyer’.

2.3. The Failure of National Oversight Bodies

Attempts to engage national oversight bodies proved equally futile. The Dutch National Ombudsman repeatedly refused to investigate the case, citing jurisdictional limitations due to the involvement of the judiciary. This refusal is particularly significant when contrasted with the alleged verbal confirmation from a judge of the CTIVD (the independent oversight committee for intelligence services) in 2008. The judge reportedly confirmed the existence of a “cover-up and conspiracy” and specifically advised that the Ombudsman could be approached, suggesting the Ombudsman’s interpretation of its mandate was, at best, overly narrow and, at worst, complicit in the obstruction.

The demonstrable failure of every conceivable domestic remedy leaves no other conclusion than that the Dutch legal system was intentionally made inaccessible, justifying the escalation to the European Union level.

——————————————————————————–

3. The Legal Basis for European Union Intervention

The systemic failures documented in the previous sections are not merely internal matters for the Netherlands. They constitute direct and severe violations of its binding obligations under the Treaties of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This section articulates the precise legal articles that have been breached, forming the basis for Union intervention.

3.1. A Systemic Breach of the Rule of Law (Article 2 TEU)

The alleged decades-long, state-sponsored campaign to ensure impunity, manipulate legal processes, and shield high-level officials from accountability represents a systemic failure to uphold the rule of law. This is a foundational value of the Union under Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union. This situation is not without precedent. The recent Dutch childcare benefits scandal (Toeslagenaffaire) provided a large-scale, well-documented example of systemic state maladministration, institutional bias, and a culture of bureaucratic indifference to citizens’ fundamental rights in the Netherlands, demonstrating that the state apparatus is not immune to such profound failures.

3.2. Violation of the Right to an Effective Remedy (Article 47 CFR & Article 19 TEU)

The state-engineered impossibility of exhausting domestic remedies is, in itself, the primary and ongoing violation. By systematically denying access to police reports, impartial courts, and, most critically, legal counsel, the Netherlands has violated the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial. This right is guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) and reinforced by Article 19 TEU, which mandates that Member States provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law. The obstruction itself is the breach.

3.3. Violation of the Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman Treatment (Article 4 CFR)

The allegations of electroshock torture, forced drugging with antipsychotics without consent, and the sustained campaign of psychological “institutional gaslighting” constitute severe violations of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The credibility of these grave claims is reinforced by an extraordinary external action: the alleged step taken by former U.S. President Obama’s administration to file a complaint against the Netherlands with the UN Committee Against Torture (UNCAT) in January 2017. This action by a major non-EU state serves as powerful validation that the allegations of torture were considered substantial and credible at the highest international levels.

3.4. The Corrosion of Mutual Trust

The principle of mutual trust is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The allegations of a compromised national justice system, where police, prosecutors, and courts are subject to illicit influence and fail to provide basic legal protections, fundamentally erodes the confidence required for other Member States to recognize and execute its judicial decisions. A Member State that cannot guarantee the rule of law within its own borders poses a direct threat to the integrity of the entire EU legal order.

These clear violations of EU law are further substantiated by credible, external, non-EU sources.

——————————————————————————–

4. External Corroboration and the Inadequacy of Prior International Appeals

While EU law provides the basis for intervention, the credibility of the underlying factual claims is paramount. Powerful external validation from a major non-EU state reinforces the gravity of the allegations. Furthermore, re-contextualizing the previous failures of international human rights bodies reveals them not as judgments on the merits, but as further evidence of the Dutch state’s successful obstruction.

4.1. The Significance of United States Judicial and Investigatory Findings

The documented involvement of United States authorities provides a source of credible, external validation of the core claims. This involvement includes:

1. FBI/CIA Investigation (2009): During Mr. Smedema’s first asylum request in the U.S., a professional investigation was allegedly conducted by the FBI/CIA, which found the case to be credible.
2. Judicial Findings of Judge Rex J. Ford: A U.S. Immigration Judge, Rex J. Ford, confirmed key facts of the conspiracy. His findings included the confirmation that the three children were not biologically Mr. Smedema’s and that the account of the conspiracy was factual, describing the case as unique in American history.
3. High-Level U.S. Government Action: The alleged decision by the Obama administration, just before leaving office, to initiate a UNCAT complaint—”State America against State Netherlands”—is an unprecedented action by a non-EU state against an EU Member State over human rights violations and serves as a powerful indicator of the perceived severity of the case.

4.2. A Pattern of Deception: The European Court of Human Rights Rejection

The 2006 rejection of the case by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) must be re-evaluated. This decision was not a judgment on the merits but a direct result of the alleged state obstruction. The court’s dismissal on the grounds of “failure to exhaust domestic remedies” was, according to the sources, based on false and manipulated information provided by the Dutch Ministry of Justice. The Ministry’s submission allegedly concealed the systemic impossibility of securing legal representation, as evidenced by the “cordon sanitair” of lawyers, thereby presenting a fraudulent picture of available domestic remedies. By accepting this false premise, the ECHR—an instrument of human rights protection—was unwittingly transformed into a tool that sanctioned the cover-up and perpetuated the injustice.

The failure of past international appeals, therefore, does not weaken the case for EU action; it strengthens it by demonstrating the sophistication of the obstruction and the urgent need for a new and decisive course of action.

——————————————————————————–

5. Conclusion and Call to Action: A Constitutional Imperative for the Union

The Hans Smedema affair demonstrates a catastrophic and long-standing failure of the rule of law in the Netherlands. This failure, characterized by systemic obstruction and the active subversion of justice, poses a direct threat to the European Union’s foundational values and legal integrity. The exhaustion of all conceivable domestic remedies, compounded by the manipulation and subversion of prior international appeals, leaves decisive action by EU institutions as the final available avenue for justice and the only means of reaffirming the Union’s commitment to its own constitutional principles.

5.1. Formal Recommendations to EU Institutions

Based on the evidence and legal analysis presented in this paper, the following recommendations are directed to European Union policymakers and legal experts:

1. Declare Admissibility of a New Petition: A new petition to the European Parliament, constructed on the comprehensive legal and factual framework of this white paper, must be declared admissible and taken up for a full hearing. The claims demonstrate a clear and profound link to the Union’s field of activity, specifically the upholding of its foundational values.
2. Initiate a European Commission Investigation: The Committee on Petitions is urged to formally request that the European Commission open an investigation into the Kingdom of the Netherlands for its alleged systemic failure to uphold the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of a citizen, as required by the Treaties.
3. Activate the Rule of Law Framework: The European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report on the Netherlands must address the systemic issues raised in this case. Specifically, it should investigate and report on the documented denial of access to justice, the mechanisms of institutional capture, and the accountability of state institutions in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals.

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

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

Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful ‘El Albir’, Costa Blanca, Spain