Smedema’s Paradox and Claims of EU and UN Violations

The sources extensively detail Hans Smedema’s assertions that the Dutch government’s actions against him violate both EU laws and UN systems. His claims center around a lack of due process, obstruction of justice, and the use of state power to silence him.

EU Law Violations:

Article 2 TEU (Treaty on European Union):

• Smedema repeatedly cites this article, which enshrines the EU’s founding values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and human rights. He argues that the Dutch government’s actions, including the alleged cover-up, denial of legal assistance, and manipulation of evidence, directly contradict these values. [1-3] He specifically highlights the alleged use of a “Royal Special Decree” as evidence of a system that places certain individuals above the law and undermines the principle of equality. [4-6]

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

• Smedema contends that the Dutch government violated numerous articles within this Charter, including:
• Article 19 (Right to Asylum): He claims that King Willem-Alexander unlawfully blocked his asylum offer in the US, interfering with his right to seek asylum from persecution. [7-9] He further alleges that this action was motivated by the Dutch government’s desire to protect its reputation and avoid the scrutiny that would accompany an investigation into his allegations. [10, 11]
• Article 21 (Non-discrimination): He asserts that he was discriminated against due to his opposition to the alleged conspiracy, facing persecution and denial of legal assistance while those involved in the alleged crimes enjoyed protection. [7-9, 12]
• Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial): Smedema argues that the Dutch legal system failed to provide him with an effective remedy or a fair trial. He cites the refusal of lawyers to represent him, the alleged judicial bias, the suppression of evidence, and the prioritization of psychological evaluations over legitimate legal arguments as evidence of this violation. [4, 7, 8, 13]
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): While technically not EU law, the ECHR is closely tied to the EU legal framework. Smedema claims violations of several ECHR articles, including:
• Article 3 (Prohibition of torture): He alleges being subjected to psychological torture through the constant denial of information, deliberate attempts to label him delusional, and ongoing harassment and surveillance. [14, 15] He specifically points to instances of forced psychiatric evaluations and medical interventions, such as electroshock therapy. [13, 14]
• Article 6 (Right to a fair trial): Smedema asserts that he was denied a fair trial due to the alleged cover-up, lack of legal representation, and judicial bias. He details instances where he was prevented from presenting evidence or effectively defending himself in court. [4, 13, 16, 17] He claims that judges worked in collusion with the alleged conspiracy to ensure his claims were dismissed and he was punished. [4, 13]

UN Systems Violations:

• United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT): Smedema contends that the Dutch government’s actions constitute violations of several UNCAT articles, including:
• Article 2 (Obligation to prevent torture): He argues that the Dutch government failed to take effective measures to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. [18, 19] He cites the alleged “Royal Special Decree” and the systematic denial of justice as evidence of a system that enables and protects perpetrators of torture. [6, 20]
• Article 4 (Criminalization of torture): Smedema asserts that the Netherlands failed to adequately criminalize and prosecute acts of torture, specifically in his case. [21] He claims that this failure stems from the alleged protection granted to those involved in the conspiracy, allowing them to act with impunity.
• Article 14 (Right to redress for torture): He argues that he was denied effective redress for the torture and ill-treatment he allegedly suffered. [12] His efforts to seek justice through legal and administrative channels were repeatedly obstructed, reinforcing his belief that the system was rigged against him. [13]
• UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and Special Procedures: Smedema states that former President Obama filed a complaint on his behalf with the UNHRC or as a special procedure under UNCAT. [22, 23] However, he expresses uncertainty about the complaint’s progress and believes that the US withdrawal from the UNHRC under President Trump further hindered his pursuit of justice. [22] He also contacted the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, but received only a brief acknowledgment. [22, 24]

Smedema’s claims of EU law and UN system violations paint a picture of a government using its power to silence dissent and obstruct justice. He believes these violations demonstrate a disregard for his fundamental human rights and a systemic corruption that protects the perpetrators of the alleged crimes against him and his wife. Whether these violations can be proven in a legal setting remains uncertain, as Smedema consistently highlights the challenges of obtaining evidence and securing legal assistance in a system he believes is designed to protect those in power.

More Insights

The original passage effectively outlines Smedema’s central argument that proving his accusations against the Dutch government is a paradoxical task, as the very entities he accuses control the evidence needed to support his claims. To enhance this concept and provide more specific context, consider incorporating these facts and ideas from the source material:

1. Expand on the “American Confirmation” as a Counterpoint to the Dutch “Delusional” Narrative:

• Smedema repeatedly emphasizes that during his asylum requests, American investigations by the FBI and CIA confirmed his allegations, including the non-paternity of his children. He claims this demonstrates the existence of suppressed evidence and exposes the “delusional” label as a deliberate tactic to discredit him. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024, The Hans Smedema Affair]
• Highlighting Judge Rex J. Ford’s alleged finding of five valid grounds for asylum in Smedema’s case emphasizes the contrast between the American and Dutch legal systems’ responses. This detail further supports Smedema’s view that his claims are valid but suppressed within the Netherlands. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024]
• Smedema alleges that President Obama filed a complaint on his behalf with the UN Human Rights Council, suggesting high-level recognition of his case. However, he also claims that the US ultimately chose to uphold the bilateral treaty protecting the Dutch Crown, showcasing the power dynamics he believes are at play. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024]

2. Connect the “Royal Special Order” to the Unprovable Nature of Smedema’s Claims:

• Smedema believes Queen Juliana’s alleged “Royal special decree” is the bedrock of the conspiracy, granting immunity to those he accuses and explaining the lack of legal recourse. This decree, he argues, makes proving his claims nearly impossible, as it operates outside the normal legal framework and shields the alleged perpetrators from accountability. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024, Hans Smedema Affair]
• The sources reveal Smedema’s claim that the decree was issued based on false information provided by those involved in the conspiracy, demonstrating the alleged manipulation at play from the very beginning. This further reinforces his belief that the system is rigged against him. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024]

3. Emphasize Smedema’s Offer of 10,000 Euros for a DNA Test as Evidence of His Belief in Objective Proof:

• Smedema’s offer to pay for an independent DNA test underscores his conviction that concrete evidence exists to support his claims. This detail highlights his frustration with the legal system’s refusal to engage with what he believes is readily available proof. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024]
• Smedema’s willingness to invest a significant sum reinforces his belief that the truth is being suppressed, and that only external, independent action can potentially uncover it. [Source: All notes 04/12/2024]

By incorporating these details and connecting them to the core argument of “proving the unprovable,” you can create a more compelling and nuanced exploration of Smedema’s accusations. Highlighting the American investigations, the alleged “Royal Special Order,” and his offer for a DNA test strengthens his portrayal of a system deliberately designed to ensure his failure, creating a chillingly Kafkaesque reality for him.

Thematic Outline: Hans Smedema’s Allegations Against the Dutch Government

I. Core Argument: Proving the Unprovable – A Paradox of Justice

A. Smedema’s Central Claim: Dutch government systematically obstructs justice and manipulates evidence to cover up crimes against him and his wife.

B. The Paradox: Smedema, as the victim, is burdened with proving his claims while the accused control and suppress the necessary evidence.

C. Kafkaesque Reality: Smedema is trapped in a system designed to ensure his failure, mirroring Kafka’s “The Trial.”

II. Mechanisms of Suppression and Control

A. Evidence Suppression and Manipulation

1. Falsified Evidence: DNA tests (paternity), medical records (forced sterilization).

2. Deleted Evidence: Police/prosecution files, “Frankfurt Dossier,” photo implicating Jaap Duijs.

3. Financial Buyouts: Offers of large sums of money in exchange for silence.

B. “State Security” as Justification: Used to deny information, block investigations, and dismiss reports (e.g., listening device, “Frankfurt Dossier”).

C. “Royal Special Order”: Alleged decree by Queen Juliana granting immunity to perpetrators and shielding them from prosecution.

III. Impact on Smedema’s Pursuit of Justice

A. Denial of Legal Assistance: Systematic refusal of representation by lawyers due to intimidation and the “Royal Special Order.” Bar Association and disciplinary board complicity.

B. “Delusional” Label as Discrediting Tactic: Forced psychiatric evaluations, drugging with antipsychotics, electroshock therapy, and “gaslighting” used to dismiss allegations and undermine credibility.

C. AIVD Involvement: Surveillance, harassment, and manipulation of information to discredit Smedema and maintain the “cordon sanitaire.”

IV. International Law Violations (EU and UN)

A. EU Law Violations

1. Article 2 TEU (Treaty on European Union): Violation of fundamental values (human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, human rights).

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Violations of Articles 19 (Right to Asylum), 21 (Non-discrimination), and 47 (Right to an effective remedy and fair trial).

3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Violations of Articles 3 (Prohibition of torture) and 6 (Right to a fair trial).

B. UN Systems Violations

1. United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT): Violations of Articles 2 (Obligation to prevent torture), 4 (Criminalization of torture), and 14 (Right to redress for torture).

2. UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and Special Procedures: Alleged complaint filed by President Obama, but hindered by US withdrawal from UNHRC. Contact with UN Special Rapporteur on Torture yielded limited response.

V. Key Actors and Institutions Implicated

A. Dutch Government (Ministry of Justice)

B. AIVD (Dutch Intelligence Agency)

C. Jaap Duijs (alleged perpetrator and government agent)

D. Professor Onno van der Hart (involved in psychiatric evaluations)

E. Family Members (complicity in falsifying evidence)

F. Medical Professionals (complicity in falsifying evidence)

VI. Central Themes

A. Power and Corruption within the Dutch government and legal system.

B. Truth and Deception: Smedema’s struggle to uncover the truth against a backdrop of alleged manipulation and lies.

C. Individual vs. the State: Smedema’s fight for justice against a powerful and oppressive state apparatus.

D. Failure of the Justice System: The Dutch legal system’s alleged complicity in obstructing justice and protecting perpetrators.

 

Google NotebookLM Insights,

based on this Blog and ebooks by Victim-Author,

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