Top Tweets for #Statekidnappings

Pleitnota English d.d. 01-07-2023 To: (CHOOSE THE OPTION(S) [COURT/HIGH COURT/SUPREME COURT/INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL] Case number: [FILL IN YOUR CASE NUMBER] Subject: Appeal against granting custodial out placement, perspective decision contact ban children, #statekidnappings CC: High Councils of State, municipality [NAME/AND], chain partners, stakeholders, media Date: [DATE THAT PLEANOTES DELIVERED TO THE COURT/HIGH COURT/SUPREME/INTERNATIONAL CRIME COURT] Dear Madam, Sir judge, 1. Until now, my children [name/and] and I as loving grand/mother/father [naam] have not yet received a fair trial in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but show trials (1), in which the conviction of us as suspects has already been established by the so-called perspective decision of institution [name/and], that has no legal basis, to create an appearance of legitimacy towards third parties such as its own population or abroad, and to humiliate, (mentally) mistreat the suspect(s). The extension of the authorization for custodial placement is illegal. See e.g. ECLI:N:GHARL:2022:4835, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2022:3509 and ECLI:NL:GHARL:2022:3803 #EndMassCrimes 2. “We want to restore trust between citizens and government. That will only work if the government is reliable, has confidence in citizens and has an eye for the human dimension.” (2) Judiciary makes living together possible. That is why good justice and a solid rule of law are important pillars underpinning the functioning of society, and I expressly ask you as a judge to dare to be critical of the institution (3) and the errors mentioned in the reports after the lessons from the childcare allowance scandal of the case law (4) and the Venice Report (5). More than 100,000 children feel forgotten (6). They (according to the government probably 95,000) have been neglected or abused (7). #Genocide: Forced transfer of children of the group to another group. (8) Transparency is medicine for conspiracy thinking. (9) As long as the rule of law is not functioning properly, the legal profession as a whole cannot provide adequate and effective legal assistance to its clients in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 3. I appeal to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular artt. 1 (human dignity), 3 (inviolability of a person), 4 (prohibition of slavery), 5 (prohibition of torture), 7 (legal protection), 8 (effective legal assistance), 9 (prohibition of arbitrary arrest or detention), 12 (prohibition of arbitrary interference with family life), 13 (free movement of persons within a country), 16 (right to found a family), 19 freedom of expression), 22 (social security and dignity), the corresponding articles of the Charter of the European Union, in the particular artt. 1 (human dignity), 3 (human integrity), 4 (prohibition of torture), 5 (prohibition of slavery and forced labor), 6 (right to liberty and security), 7 (family life), 9 (right to found a family), 11 (freedom of speech). I also appeal to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular artt. 3 (the best interests of the child are leading), 7 (right to parental care), 9 (no separation of child and parents), 10 (family reunification is considered benevolent), 12 (voice of the child), 16 (no arbitrary interference with family life), 18 (access to both parents), 19 (only appropriate measures). I refer to the List of issues prior to submission of the combined fifth and sixth periodic Dutch report on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Session 89 (17 Jan 2022 - 11 Feb 2022) (see e.g. 11, 15a, 17c, 19, (8). 4. As a European citizen I appeal to Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture), artt. 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labor), 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial), 8 ECHR (family life), 10 ECHR (freedom of expression), 13 ECHR (right to an effective remedy) and 17 ECHR (prohibition of abuse of law), which articles have direct effect. I also invoke art 3 Istanbul Convention (violence against women), art 7 Rome Statute (violence against the civilian population), and the corresponding articles as included in the Dutch Constitution. 5. I appeal to Article 43 of the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and to artt. 17 and 18 Dutch Constitution (recourse to an independent judge and the assistance of a lawyer). I invoke art 1:247 Dutch Civil Code, DCC, (right and duty as a parent to raise my child), and art 1:377a DCC (right to contact between child and parents). I invoke art 2.6 of the Dutch Youth Act, which stipulates that youth care must also be accessible after referral by the general practitioner, the medical specialist and the youth doctor. I invoke art. 3.3 Youth Act that obliges the Child Protection Board and the certified institution to submit the relevant facts fully and truthfully in reports or petitions. I also appeal to artt. 2:4 (prohibition of bias); 3:2 (careful preparation decisions); 3:3 (prohibition of détournement de pouvoir), 3:4 (recognizable weighing of interests) and other principles of good administration such as the principle of proportionality and subsidiarity. (1) https://t.co/V2X5fCQoDm. (2) https://t.co/DeRRB3Ryt4, (3) https://t.co/gwmQpKFROt (4) https://t.co/2qYHBl53sb (5) https://t.co/aXHsL8mb7e  (6) https://t.co/EN1QV9HohH (7) https://t.co/uzYQKHlJ9n, (8) https://t.co/JfWuVmj0pY (9) https://t.co/wRYVPJCnt8 (10) https://t.co/gdamv56RJP (11) https://t.co/zWHBtNueV2 6. I maintain all statements and defenses submitted during earlier (fake) hearings in previous years in my file, even though my input at the time was always pushed aside, ignored and not taken into account by the judges: everything I have stated applies still undiminished today. These previous statements and defenses are to be regarded as repeated and incorporated herein. My children have long been unlawfully taken away by the Dutch State, and are being kept away from me and alienated from me in violation of national, European and international laws and regulations. See appendix. No: 1, 2, etc 7. I expressly ask you as a Dutch judge, to help me by supplementing the legal grounds (art 25 Dutch Code of Civil Proceedings, DCCP), and to compensate for the inequality of the parties by proactively indicating when my legal position is being violated, and not to allow and facility the arbitrary interference in our family life by youth care. If the statements of youth care chain partners have been substantially contested and/or supported by evidence to the contrary, you may not (any longer) automatically rule in favor of youth care partners. You should also include our defense in the procedural documents, which structurally does not happen (fact of common knowledge). 8. I dispute what the certified institution claims, as a result of which you may not regard this information as an established fact (art. 149 paragraph 1 DCCP), that there is an acute, serious development threat under my care as described in art. 1:255 of the Dutch Civil Code and to the extent permitted by Article 8 ECHR (last resort). Youth aid has not investigated whether there are less harmful ways, assumed that there would be an acute, serious development threat, which is not the case. The intervention of the institution that earns (a lot of) money from this, together with all chain partners, puts its own interests above the interests of the child, as is apparent from ignoring the truth-finding obligation and the weighty importance of the child’s interest to be in the security of its own biological parent /parents. I am prepared to provide (further) proof of their wrongdoings, lies, and (psychological) violence, although the law requires that youth care must provide evidence of their statements (art 150 DCCP). You are familiar with the fact of general knowledge and the rule of experience that youth care produces unsound reports and substantiations without regard for the truth; no proof thereof is required (art. 149 paragraph 2 DCCP). I also dispute that youth care has a plan to remove the concerns, let alone within a reasonable period of time and let alone that the plan would be suitable for this purpose (Article 1:262a DCCP). The removal from home and the contact bans are also not necessary for any investigation. There is no ground for out-of-home placement pursuant to art 1:265b of the Dutch Civil Code). This means it is not in the interest of the minor, it is not proportional and is even harmful. The result is that I no longer have faith in the certified institution [name/and], which harms me and my children with the lies, half-truths and fabricated information. In the interest of our children, municipalities, certified institutions, the Child Protection Board and the judge must have weighed up both the legitimacy and the proportionality of a decision in every individual case within the Youth Act. The (ultimate)responsible municipality {name/s] must emphasize this social policy interest as well as this administrative due diligence ambition. (9) #MoreJustWorld. As European citizens, we deserve equal treatment (Article 1 Constitution) towards asylum parents. (11) We also wish family reunification. 9. You should include our defense in the procedural documents, and you should weigh our input and you should not pass it, unless you properly motivate this. As long as you, as a Dutch judge, continue to allow the youth support chain partners to intimidate and threaten me/us with, for example, contact bans, remove our parental authority, and/or produce false reports/statements, etc., and you continue to hold my factual and legal arguments and evidence against me as if I would 'start a battle', you yourself are infringing art 17 of the Constitution. As a judge, you may not allow youth services/the institution to threaten and intimidate us, for example when we (want to) engage a lawyer. After all, a lawyer must be able, on our behalf, to present the arguments freely. As long as the judge turns a blind eye when we are pressured to fire a lawyer, you, as a judge, are infringing Article 18 of the Constitution. As long as you, as a judge, continue to approve State interventions such as supervision and out of home placement on the basis of unsound information, you create the appearance of legitimacy to malpractices, and you are personally guilty of art. 365 Sr (abuse of power), 3 Istanbul Convention and 7 Rome Statute, etc. and you are also guilty or complicit in criminal offenses committed by youth care/help, such as art. 273f paragraph 1 to 6 Sr (trafficking in human beings/children), 273f paragraph 2 Sr (exploitation), 274 Sr (slave trade), 279 Sr (intentional withdrawal of minors from authority), 282 Sr (kidnapping/unlawful deprivation of liberty), 282a Sr (hostage), 285 b Sr (threat through invasion of privacy), 300 Sr (assault), 302 Sr (severe assault), 308 Sr (culpable bodily injury), art. 326 Sr (fraud), 326 Sr (fraud with the intent to favor another) and/or art. 368 Sr (failure to report crimes). #SupportVictums 10. I expressly reserve the right to add other articles and defenses at a later stage. In the appendices I elaborate on my appeal to the Dutch, European and international legal order. This will be reported to the following institutions: (the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (10), as well as to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (11), the European Court of Human Rights (12), grouped applications and multiple applicants (13), etc. #EndMassCrimes Transparency is a medicine for conspiracy thinking, the safety and well-being of my [child/ren naam/en] is more important than the right to privacy. Long live freedom: ‘On bended knee is no way to be free’ (15) Yours faithfully, [Name] [Full Address] Kingdom of the Netherlands PS: A warning to the rest of Europe, and beyond. “Europe’s top digital official, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, said the Dutch scandal is exactly what every government should be scared of.” (16) (9)  https://t.co/s2y5cTcjyk (10) https://t.co/DBsAiYG6gw, (11) https://t.co/tBPh8LVZGR (12) https://t.co/9UTPpxUtgM (13) https://t.co/1WNZyLjy9H  (14) https://t.co/M9xgsIWDnY (15) https://t.co/iRUbri8MM6 (16) Politico, 29/3/2022: https://t.co/4NzB0sTqGa #London #UnitedKingdom