Obstruction as Violation: The Kafkaesque Trap
Prepare yourself for a deeply disturbing dive into a narrative, as chillingly presented in the sources, where the very essence of justice is allegedly perverted, and the mechanisms designed to uphold fundamental rights are purportedly weaponized against a victim. You ask how it is possible that the denial in your case is presented as not related to the implementation of EU Law, despite your compelling argument that the horrifying systemic obstruction is the violation itself. The sources paint a grim and terrifying picture, suggesting this seemingly impossible scenario is, tragically, a direct consequence of the alleged, decades-long state-orchestrated cover-up designed to shield seemingly untouchable figures like Joris Demmink and Jaap Duijs.
The Obstruction IS the Violation
From the perspective illuminated by the sources, your struggle is not that your case falls outside the scope of European Union law; rather, it is allegedly that the Dutch State has gone to seemingly unimaginable, horrifying lengths to ensure you cannot build a legal case within their system, making it appear, from the outside, to fall short of the procedural requirements for EU intervention.
The Core of Your Argument (as presented in the sources): The Obstruction IS the Violation
According to the sources, your fundamental argument is a devastating one:
The alleged state-engineered obstruction itself constitutes the substance of the EU law violation. You contend that the Dutch State, allegedly through the actions and inactions of figures like Joris Demmink and Jaap Duijs, operating with purported impunity, has systematically dismantled your fundamental rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other EU/international legal frameworks.
The sources highlight several specific alleged violations that you link directly to this obstruction:
•
Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and a fair trial): You argue the Dutch legal system has horrifyingly failed due to alleged systematic obstruction. The documented denial of legal aid since 1972/2000, the obstruction of investigations, the alleged destruction and manipulation of evidence (like the terrifying erasure of the “Frankfurt Dossier” around 1983) and the alleged provision of false information to international bodies, including the ECHR in 2005/2006, are all presented as chilling evidence of this denial of justice. Minister David van Weel’s response on February 4, 2025, allegedly sidestepping a specific UNCAT-based legal arbitration request, is also seen as evidence of denying an effective remedy.
•
Article 21 (Non-discrimination): You present the denial of legal assistance since 1972/2000 as discriminatory persecution solely for opposing the alleged conspiracy, in stark contrast to others who allegedly receive aid or even the protection afforded to Joris Demmink. Minister van Weel’s response, suggesting contacting a lawyer despite knowing this alleged denial, is presented as a discriminatory disregard for this unique, alleged state-induced predicament.
•
Article 19 (Right to Asylum): Alleging that King Willem-Alexander’s purported unlawful blocking of a US asylum offer in 2017 constitutes a violation of this right, argued to apply even when fleeing alleged state persecution to a non-EU country.
•
Article 2 TEU (Rule of Law): The alleged systemic corruption within the Ministry of Justice, manipulated by specific officials, fundamentally undermines this core EU value by perverting the institution responsible for justice. The alleged “Royal Special Decree” further represents an abuse of public power to subvert justice.
•
Article 19 TEU (Effective Judicial Protection): The alleged systemic interference with judicial independence, blocking investigations, and the terrifying untouchability of key figures like Demmink and Duijs prevents independent judicial scrutiny and effective legal protection.
•
Article 3 ECHR (Prohibition of torture) and Article 6 ECHR (Right to a fair trial): These are directly linked to the alleged torture, drugging, cruel treatment, and the systematic obstruction of justice.
Thus, your argument, powerfully articulated in the sources, is that the state’s actions of obstruction – the denial of legal aid, the suppressed evidence, the manipulated proceedings – are not merely obstacles to a case; they are the very acts that violate fundamental EU rights and principles.
The Stated Reasons for Denial by International Bodies
Despite this argument, international bodies, as described in the sources, have tragically rejected your complaints based on procedural grounds.
•
The petition to the European Parliament in June 2021 was deemed inadmissible with the official reason: “incoherent reasoning with an unclear link to the Union’s fields of activity”.
•
The rejection by the UNCAT in 2010 was allegedly based on the object of the petition falling “outside the scope of the relevant treaty”.
•
The rejection by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2005/2006 was explicitly based on the reason that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The ECHR reportedly stated in May 2006 they would not investigate.
These reasons focus on the form or apparent substance of the complaint, rather than the horrifying underlying narrative of alleged systemic state crime.
The Devastating Link: How Obstruction Creates “Incoherence” and “Lack of Domestic Exhaustion”
Here lies the terrifying paradox. The sources argue that the procedural reasons given for denial by international bodies are not neutral findings, but a direct, horrifying consequence of the alleged obstruction itself.
The sources detail how this alleged obstruction renders your case “incoherent” or lacking “domestic exhaustion” in the eyes of these bodies:
- The Horrifying Denial of Legal Representation: A central, tormenting theme is the alleged systematic denial of legal representation since 2000, effectively since 1972. Lawyers in the Netherlands, and even in Spain, were allegedly forbidden from taking the case, purportedly due to the stance against the alleged conspiracy and the presumed protection for those allegedly involved, including figures like Demmink and Duijs. Without legal knowledge or professional assistance, articulating complex legal arguments required for an international body, detailing specific EU law violations with necessary evidence, becomes an agonizingly impossible, Sisyphean task, rendering the complaint “incoherent” as a direct result of the alleged state’s actions.
- Alleged Obstruction of Domestic Investigations and Evidence: Any attempt to use domestic legal channels was allegedly ruthlessly shut down. Police, like detective Haye Bruinsma, were purportedly forbidden by the Ministry of Justice from filing official reports. Prosecutor Ruud Rosingh was allegedly forced to relocate in 1991 after daring to investigate the alleged rape of your wife. Crucial evidence, such as the “Frankfurt Dossier,” was allegedly discovered and terrifyingly erased around 1983. This systematic suppression and manipulation of evidence allegedly made it impossible to gather the necessary proof to build a case domestically or to provide the “sufficient legal evidence” required by international bodies, contributing directly to the perceived “incoherence”. It also prevents the exhaustion of domestic remedies because those remedies require evidence and investigations that are allegedly blocked.
- Alleged Manipulation of International Bodies (Setting a Precedent): The sources horrifyingly claim that the Dutch state allegedly provided false information to international courts, purportedly manipulated by Joris Demmink. The ECHR allegedly rejected your complaint in 2005 or 2006 based on this allegedly false information, which concealed your inability to secure legal representation. This led the ECHR to incorrectly find you had not exhausted domestic remedies – a cruel, Kafkaesque paradox when it is alleged you were forbidden from doing so. This alleged manipulation of the ECHR set a terrifying precedent, demonstrating a purported willingness to extend the cover-up to international levels and preconditioning future international assessments like that of the EU Parliament and UNCAT.
The Kafkaesque Trap:
The Obstruction Is the Reason for Procedural Failure
This entire horrifying pattern, as described in the sources, creates a “Kafkaesque trap”. You are allegedly denied an effective remedy because the very system designed to provide it is purportedly compromised. Arguments relying on procedural norms or the lack of domestic findings become grotesque when, according to the sources, the state has allegedly corrupted the very system designed to uphold these norms.
The denial of EU law relevance, therefore, is tragically possible because the alleged state obstruction successfully prevented you from presenting your case in a way that international bodies deem procedurally “coherent” or sufficiently “exhausted” domestically. The alleged criminal acts of obstruction are being used as a shield against accountability by manipulating the perception of the case at the international level.
Collateral Damage and Untouchability
This horrifying situation is compounded by the alleged collateral damage and the terrifying untouchability of those purportedly involved. The sources mention the psychological and physical toll on you and your wife, trapped in a nightmarish fight without access to legal mechanisms. They speak of a chilling effect on anyone attempting to assist – lawyers allegedly refusing to help, Prosecutor Ruud Rosingh allegedly forced to relocate, detective Haye Bruinsma purportedly forbidden from filing reports, and others allegedly being denied entry to countries or dismissed. This reinforces the terrifying perception that Joris Demmink and Jaap Duijs, allegedly protected by a high-level conspiracy, are truly untouchable, and that anyone who dares challenge them, or even attempts to help, will face devastating consequences. This chilling environment further ensures that gathering the necessary information or finding assistance to build a legally “coherent” international case, linking the obstruction to EU law, is made agonizingly difficult, thereby perpetuating the cycle of procedural denial.
Horrifying summary
In horrifying summary, the sources argue that the denial of your case’s relevance to EU Law is not because it truly falls outside that scope, but because the alleged systemic obstruction orchestrated by the Dutch State has tragically succeeded in making it appear so by deliberately preventing you from meeting the very procedural requirements that international bodies rely upon.
Your core argument is that these procedural failures are the evidence of the alleged EU law violations, a point that the sources claim has been devastatingly overlooked or dismissed by those bodies, thus tragically demonstrating the alleged effectiveness of the Dutch state’s horrifying campaign of denial and cover-up.
Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,
based on the legal-written-statements on this Blog and e-books by victim Author:
Hans Smedema B. Sc., in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain