Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Report of hearing complaint administrative criminal law Art 12


Published on

Violation of the integrity of the human body is a human right which can not expire (arrive statute-barred) as criminal report.
After extorted criminal report the office of justice continued counteracting in collaboration with concealing doctors who performed forgery before going. Leading to a dismissal of criminal report, claiming not to have found causal facts because in fact the case was not studied at all by their legal experts. This lead to the next step in complaint hearing about their decision. One legal expert will have to be prosecuted next to the prologation of the original case.

Published in: Law
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Report of hearing complaint administrative criminal law Art 12

  1. 1. 1 Report of Complaint Hearing Administrative Criminal Law (Dutch Art 12 SV) Lectori Salutem! This translation of a report on a complaint-hearing is in preparation of European court and/or to receive additional external expertise on the issue. In European court concerning violation of human rights the case cannot expire seen the violation of the integrity of the human body (experimental abuse). It is therefore only a matter of time to get the hammer on it. The original report in Dutch has been written down by memory of the hearing myself, so far there is no verdict yet and transcription which mean that I recall my own plea the most –more than the other parties (Judge, A-G (officer of justice) or my own solicitor), which are in result a compilation of statements. Nevertheless the essence of the hearing is written down here: the judge took note of the violation of WGBO law (WGBO stands for the legislation of agreement in medical treatment (is as a contract)). The clients solicitor starts the hearing with her plea. This plea was held oral. And the full transcribed plea was handed over after the hearing. Case investigation is going on already a long time and is still not completed yet, but it already became clear, that metal was left behind in the head what did sag down into the neck (within the spinal canal), and by with client was exposed to a serious medical injury risk, and client also was not informed about. Client even has been put inside an MRI scanner after, which normally should have been a fatal ending. (However some damaging did occur with.) Client was forced to conduct investigation himself and so far has spent 6500.- Euro in expenses for. The legal expert Dr. D. does appoint the sagging down of a clip as well as the client not being informed about. The report of Dr. D. is a difficult written (swamp-) report (full of contradictions and falsehoods) and moreover at the end of it Dr. D calls himself being not competent enough, because he is not a neurosurgeon, while first he accepted the case to review after studying it in advance. Reason why client went to Dr. H in Belgium after. Dr. H. indicated the object in the neck as being an unused Michel-clip and additional client also got exactly such a clip form Dr. H. when visiting him. Some aspects of the blamable facts in the case do have been proven now, so further investigation therefore should be done by the Office of Justice. (So far they were not at all cooperative (worse even), while actually that should have been their duty.) AG (Officer of Justice) responds that the case was a long time ago. And no causal relation has been found between the deeds and results (, because everything is (kept) hidden with counter action in investigation). The case is statute-barred in criminal law, because the final period of time for prosecution is 20 years. And added to this civilly the case also may became statute-barred by now. An unfortunate situation for the client, but therefor we want that the complaint is turned down. Thus the Office of Justice requests rejection of of complaint and maintenance of dismissal of criminal report. The Office of Justice even is in the opinion that client should go back to the doctors involved (offenders) to take up the matter with them. (Absurd.) The solicitor of the client responds, that the case civilly is still open, because client wrote all the interruptions for himself over the 15 years and has sent them provable. Investigation of the case took longer seen the situation and position of the client next to some additional occurrences in the private situation of the client. The legal expert Dr. D. wrote a (swamp-like) report, but states actually with not to be expert enough in the investigation, (and performs a breach of contract with frustration of the investigation), but did recognize the sagging down of the clip, reasons also why after Dr. H. was contacted…. And particularly Dr. H. spoke about a serious health-risk with the sagging down of
  2. 2. 2 the Michel-Clip. The OM therefore should proceed the investigation now client obtained first proof with the deliberate endangering of client with. A-G (Officer of Justice) asks client if the clip can be removed by surgery, where upon client answers that Dr. H. mentioned, that risks of performing surgery (operation inside cervical vertebra) into the spinal canal are bigger than the situation of an unused Michel-clip which has been locked in encapsulated inside the spinal canal for more than 15 years. Solicitor of client states further that the risk for health-damage with the clip, also is a certain kind of permanent risk. The solicitor hence shows an exact sample of that kind of Michel Clip with sharp protrusions. A clip like this is locked up inside the leptomeninges, whereupon client additionally remarks that if this clip had sagged down laying around the Spinal Cord with the spikes towards the inside, that client would have been ‘breakfast’ with the MRI scan (at least murder 2nd degree). But the clips stand perpendicular y with it side against. The available sub-arachnoid space is a little more than 1mm (which is wider because the ability of moving the back) while the clip has a wide span of 3mm and is pushing against the Spinal Cord. Then the solicitor of the client also wants to show spinal scan prints with the clip visible in it. The chairwoman judge tells that this is not needed because she has studied the case herself and seen the images. Then the judge asked the client for his word (who seemed urging to speak by now) for clients additional reaction in the hearing and opening clients plea with the opinion that client has performed quiet some study in the case. Client is invited to speak and replies first that indeed unfortunately it has been a hefty study (because of the context of being forced to under concealment of facts) for himself. Client is kept away (counter acted) all the time in research. Reason also for delay in investigation is because client had to find out everything himself. (With a short excuse at start for the clear position of) client identifies the finding of x-ray film manipulation as an example of obstruction in the investigation. (If there is nothing to hide, then committing a manipulation also does not sound logic.) In art-photography post-production (manipulation) of negatives is an occurring phenomena for esthetic reasons, but in medical photography there is more need for an ambiguous standard. A colleague (artist) who graduated in differentiation completely in photography also shares this opinion based upon traces of proof of copying negatives into processed copies. MRI is not suitable to describe the exact shape of metal objects because of the distortion with, while X-ray photos as a single photo by defenition is indeed suitable. But MRI does strongly prove a presence of it, and because of this characteristic of interfering reacting on the presence of metal, and here it makes clear that there are at least two objects inside the neck present separately from each other. )The fraud concerning the CT scans with clandestine placed material inside the oral cavity client did not mention, because this just a complaint-hearing concerning dismissal of the (earlier extorted)!)) criminal report and not a substantive treatment of the case. Dr. D. performed a breach of contract, for example he calls the vene Occiptalis as the vene being hit why a thrombosis of the left vene Transversalis would have occurred, but that vene Occipitalis is even lacking in my situation as at many adults according to Dr. H. The neurologist Dr. P to whom I presented the case after being myself presentation by the husband of my solicitor also did recognize it as being a case indeed. (Dr. D. is taking plural efforts to nullify the case.)
  3. 3. 3 Thus the case is going that long, because client is hold back in research (being counteracted in the investigation after concealment of facts of surgical performance and occurences.) Client points to the fact, that as long efforts is done to bring up a case in criminal court, those actions do interrupt the statute-barring. ) Respond Indeed the case is not statute-barred yet. Client points next to it, that because of the counteractions (investigation- and process-frustration including fraud and forgery of documents written) there still is an issue of remaining hidden facts (concerning secret surgery in head and neck), precisely for those facts there still is a causal valuable long period of time of 30 years before arriving statute-barred and also that client will continue in investigation and when these facts yet to come still will be brought on table, that in that case prolongation of the case will go forth (aggravated). Therefore client is also active with preparations to go higher up (European Court). Client understands that the professional right of withdrawal of speech in juridical procedure in the first place serves to protect the image of the group of profession, because medical care also knows a certain fallibility, but an issue as this should not be enabled to hide itself under (such a matter with this kind of medical criminal activities). That should not be. (Activities with even various forms of investigation- and Legal process- frustration etc., where third parties then normally should have claimed their withdrawal of investigation.) Further client points to it, that because of this lacking in justice therefore also puts his case in the common interest. Therefore client also remarks that the case (if wanted) also may be a test case. And finally client remarks that as longs as the case is not put right, client also cannot receive the correct medical treatment. And above to be remarked with in conclusion, the whole course of events also is not conform the WGBO The Judge assented to the fact that indeed there is an issue of violation of the WGBO. Thus the court will go in consideration, it can take easily some weeks before verdict. Client states that seen he has been busy with so many years (starting from 2006 when he got first into the opportunity to start the investigation), that waiting some weeks for a verdict also does not matter (seen the time span of ten years being spent on the case by now because of the counteractions). Epiloque: The final investigation in spite of the counteractions did point out the case some further. Now I also remember that when I went inside the MRI scanner in the AMC april 2001, that there was a strange atmosphere in contact with the personal that was going to make the scan. At that time I had interpreted this in relation with the improper activities that had taken place, which had to be kept hidden wherefore so far then I could not give an explanation concerning already. When the scan was ready, the nurse made a remark like ´Hey, he is just coming back out of it again…’) meaning that nothing had happened. Actually I was more a kind of forgotten this, because then I did not see the importance of it. But indeed if such a clip was inside the neck, then that story of circumstances of strange atmosphere during the MRI scan of 2001 can have a meaning. Is there an issue of intentional tort action with the sagging of the clip )and all other activities): YES. To start with is the unused Michel Clip which was left behind right under the skull, or in other words when checking performances of treatment on a patient before closing the patient/wound again after surgery, then the clip certainly should have been noticed. And the clip on the CT-scan of November 2000 after is present too prominent to be missed. (There even was an referred order to check if the patient had not had a stroke) brain/infarct caused by the strong bleeding that occurred inside the head.) Then next I am called in without reason mentioned (just control) for again a CT scan and then
  4. 4. 4 that clip is inside the neck. Under the Michel Clip (vertebral C3) alsa a prepared ring is to be seen placed around the spinal canal, which only is to be seen at MRI scans (maybe in preparation of the next improper medical step of activity to follow up). There are traces of manipulation of the CT/RX scans at that spot. That ring is not placed by accident in (hidden) surgery. Seen CT/RX scans show traces of manipulation: scan images also are not reworked (manipulated) by accident. Adjacent to this after making a hole at the left side in the skull bone going underneath after there has been cut in the Falx Cerebelli, and the vene Sinus Rectus seems cut of plural. A very strong bleeding occurs when this vene is hit, while the vene is not right under the opening in the skull made. If this was by accident, then the space under the skull would have filled up completely with blood and in result the client would have had a severe stroke. Thus here deliberate preparations were made to prevent this, even as concerning the mechanical removing of the left vene Transversalis. Moreover for the CT scan of November 2000 the radiologist gets the assignment to check the scan for traces of a stroke, which also means that the clip absolutely cannot be overlooked. There is a clue for a drainage system (vene-deviation) to be seen. Next to this more body/foreign material has been left behind. This is a whole range in activities of NOT reported activities, while just and only a little piece of arachnoid membrane had to be cut out from (phenestration) towards the Cysterna Magna (and also not cutting the Falx Cerebelli as the did). All activities put together in short, is there a reason for: ‘Some kind of brain they wanted to steal for research ’? Afterwards false medical reporting was there and nearly all third party doctors up following gave their cooperation in image-forgery (obstruction) and/or forgery of documents in order to keep aspects of the case hidden, and thus in any case the case can not be provided of expert readings concerning. Dr. P. even called it ridiculous that third party doctors got involved inside the case with image manipulation and forgery of documents , while they even just simply could withdraw. The investigation in my own case was a laborious process. I did not had a radiologic tutor like students at the university. Errors which I made in the interpretation of scan-images I had to remark myself, because doctors that did support me because of the duty of professional obligation of silence they also were not allowed to talk to me regarding. As a result the investigation also took so long in order to arrive at the results as finally described, but nonetheless it was a case at start already. Next to investigation in my own case I also wanted find causalities why such a case can exist in the modern western world. Aspects of findings also were briefly mentioned in my plea. In conclusion the medical sector actually is an industry where crime is an (actively) tolerated career matter. The lot of people is to get ill, and apparently it is a lot from the medical lottery for several doctors to play the career/adventurer again with and to sacrifice consciously (implicitly actively permitted(!)) the patients interest of good health with. In service of development of democracy and in the interest of honest patient and noble practicing physician. Siegfried van Hoek.