Last Updated 04/07/2026 published 04/07/2026 by Hans Smedema
Page Content
The Strategic Failure of US Asylum and the Ford-Obama Evidentiary Gap
I. The Strategic Failure of US Asylum and the Ford-Obama Evidentiary Gap (2009–2017)
The 2009 proceedings before the Miami Immigration Court represent a high-stakes failure to capitalize on a window of sovereign intervention. While Judge Rex J. Ford and the Department of Justice identified five distinct grounds (Nexus) for asylum following a rigorous seven-month FBI/CIA investigation, the failure to secure formal, written findings from the bench transitioned this case into a decades-long institutional stalemate. This evidentiary omission was not merely a procedural oversight; it was a catastrophic miscalculation that ignored the reality of transnational state capture. By failing to transcribe a formal US judicial record regarding the multi-perpetrator paternity findings and the scope of US intelligence involvement, the path was cleared for the Dutch State to maintain its campaign of “institutional gaslighting” under the shield of sovereign immunity.
The subsequent reliance on executive clemency—the eight-year “Obama wait” for a Presidential Pardon sought in 2017—was a tactical disaster. This delay allowed critical evidence to stale and permitted the Dutch State to reorganize its blockade. Most importantly, it resulted in the nullification of the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) as a jurisdictional hook. Had the 2009 findings been converted into a formal court order, the DAFT could have been invoked to challenge the Dutch State’s breach of protection for a resident under US jurisdiction. Instead, the “mutual trust” shield remained intact, facilitating the petitioner’s ongoing civiliter mortuus.
| Aspect | Expected Political Outcomes (Obama Pardon) | Actual Legal Realities (Friendship Treaty Nullification) | Strategic Impact of Delay |
| Timeline | Immediate executive intervention and recognition of findings. | Eight-year delay (2009–2017) while perpetrators remained in power. | Evidence reached “staleness” threshold; US jurisdictional interest evaporated. |
| Jurisdiction | US pressure forcing a Dutch investigation into high-level actors. | Dutch reliance on the “Mutual Trust” doctrine and lack of US judicial mandate. | The DAFT was rendered unenforceable as a remedy for state-sponsored harm. |
| Status | Validation of the “5 Nexus” grounds for international redress. | Continued “Civil Death” (burgerlijke dood) and systemic non-investigation. | Allowed the Dutch State to refine the “delusional” label without a contradictory record. |
II. Anatomy of the Domestic Blockade: The “Cordon Sanitaire” and Article 13
The Dutch legal system enforces a Cordon Sanitaire designed to ensure the civiliter mortuus of the victim. This is not merely a professional boycott by individual firms; it is a “Secret Curatele”—a backend administrative protocol within the judicial electronic system. This clandestine guardianship flags the petitioner’s profile, warning attorneys that they cannot validly contract with him or secure state compensation, effectively rendering his natural person legally void.
The foundation of this blockade is the 2004 “Bruinsma Blockade,” where Detective Haye Bruinsma, acting on ministerial instructions, refused to generate a proces-verbaal. This created a circular evidentiary loop: attorneys demand a proces-verbaal to substantiate claims, yet the State refuses to generate the document, later using its absence to justify the refusal of representation. This is a clear violation of the principle nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans—the State cannot rely on a blockade it created to deny justice.
The blockade was codified in late 2025 by Dean I. Aardoom-Fuchs, who weaponized the “prospects of success” test (geen kans van slagen) under Article 13 of the Dutch Counsel Act (Advocatenwet).
- Weaponized Merits Testing: The Dean utilizes the “manifestly unfounded” standard to reject Article 13 applications, ignoring that the lack of evidence is a direct result of the 2004 Bruinsma Blockade.
- Statutory Traps: The requirement for five written rejections and a Juridisch Loket diagnostic is impossible to meet when firms, under the influence of the “Secret Curatele,” refuse to provide written reasons for their boycott.
- The Appeals Blockade: Challenges to the Dean are dismissed by the Hof van Discipline as an “abuse of law,” closing the domestic door to counsel.
III. The “Spanish Anchor”: Bypassing the Secret Curatele via the EIO
Spanish jurisdiction provides a strategic “backdoor” to force Dutch investigative action through the “Ubiquity Principle.” Because the effects of the ongoing harassment and chemical subjugation are felt on Spanish soil, Spanish courts possess full jurisdiction. By filing a Denuncia (criminal complaint) for stalking and harassment against “Unknown Perpetrators” while naming Arne Smedema as the autor intelectual (intellectual author), we establish an independent criminal file outside Dutch control.
The strategic mechanism here is the European Investigation Order (EIO). Once a Spanish judge opens an investigation, they are mandated to issue an EIO to the Dutch authorities.
- Procedural Mandate: The EIO requires specific acts, including the interrogation of Arne Smedema and the seizure of AIVD/Ministry of Justice logs.
- Non-Refusability: Dutch authorities cannot invoke the “Secret Curatele” or the “delusional” label to refuse the order. Because the request originates from a sovereign Spanish judicial authority, the Dutch State is legally obligated to execute it under EU mutual recognition protocols. This shifts the investigative burden from captured Dutch police to the independent Spanish judiciary.
IV. Forensic Analysis of the “Sham Trials” and Evidence Tampering
The 2009 and 2011/2012 sentences must be treated as procedural nullities. These were not legitimate trials but “sham trials” designed to formalize a criminal cover-up.
- ECHR Article 6 Violations: Judge Jeroen van Bruggen and the Arnhem Court of Appeal denied the right to call witnesses and explicitly refused DNA paternity testing that would have provided objective proof of the claims involving Rieks Perdok.
- Chemical Incapacitation: During these hearings, the victim was subjected to “chemical submission” via Risperdal, fraudulently repackaged as baby aspirin, rendering him non compos mentis for his own defense.
- State-Sponsored Fraud: Forensic analysis confirms that the Dutch Ministry of Justice, under the direction of Joris Demmink, paid a 3,000-euro bribe to the BruTaal editor to alter the manuscript of Vechten tegen het Onbekende. The goal was to insert fabricated phrases—specifically, “I remember signing something”—to create false evidence of consent to secret state agreements.
V. Procedural Remediation for International Petitions (ICCPR/UNCAT)
Previous international filings have been neutralized by the OHCHR Intake Unit’s administrative filters. To survive the “Next-Day Rejection” (observed in reference WUR/34291), a strict “Narrative Sanitization” is required. The 2026 ICCPR filing failed because it admitted non-exhaustion of remedies and included incoherent historical narratives involving 1973 Royal Decrees.
The Sanitization Blueprint:
- Contemporary Focus: Focus strictly on verifiable civil violations within the last five years, such as the 2025 Ministry of Justice rejection (Ref: 6155331) and the Article 13 refusal by Dean Aardoom-Fuchs.
- Article 14 Framing: Complaints must be framed under Article 14 (Access to Justice) of the ICCPR. We must utilize the precedents of Airey v. Ireland and Steel and Morris v. UK to argue that the Dutch legal aid blockade renders the right to court illusory.
- Partitioning the “Same Matter”: To avoid the “Same Matter Doctrine” filter, the ICCPR petition must remain strictly civil/political, ensuring zero factual overlap with the active CAT complaints (WUR/25656) focusing on torture.
- Exhaustion Argument: Mark “Yes” for exhaustion. Argue that all effective avenues are exhausted via the final 2025 Ministry rejections and the engineered Article 13 blockade.
VI. The “Super-Pro-Se” Path: Sub-District Court Strategy
The Dutch kantonrechter (sub-district court) is the only domestic forum where the Cordon Sanitaire can be bypassed. Under Article 96 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, representation by an attorney is not mandatory for claims under €25,000.
Instructional Steps for Art. 96 Proceedings:
- Initiation: File a pro se claim against the Ministry of Justice or specific perpetrators (e.g., Arne Smedema) for tort-based damages or contract violations.
- Subpoena Power: Utilize the court’s power to demand the production of documents and call witnesses, including the independent anesthetist who identified the 2022 Risperdal poisoning.
- Objective Record Generation: The primary goal is the generation of official court transcripts and witness testimonies. These records serve as “objective fact-finding” that can be used to neutralize the “delusional” label in supranational filings.
Final Closing: This roadmap moves from a position of institutional defensive paralysis to offensive jurisdictional arbitrage. By utilizing Spanish Investigation Orders and the Dutch Sub-District Court, we force the Dutch State to choose between sovereign accountability and the collapse of its own “Mutual Trust” shield.
My own remarks:
Two UNCAT cases are active, so I just wait for those top level cases to develop first. A simple Spanish Denuncia is impossible it would take years and interfere with the UNCAT cases.
ing. Hans Smedema B. Sc., Torture-survivor according to the Istanbul Protocol, in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain.