First appeal
1. this mainly regarded the fact my request for cassation was thrown out in short cut procedure by the Dutch Supreme court ( or any one of them acting solo on their behalf)
1.1. Cassation was requested of verdict concerning taxes decision 2010 because the court deliberately send invitation to hearing plus court documents as well as the verdict to THE WRONG ADDRESS being another address than the one they had on file
This again was done to frustrate my right to speak for myself and the right to appeal , which I alledged constitued a violation of art 6 EVRM right to fair trial,
2. The Dutch Supreme court normally ALWAYS cassates when the applicant was not heard , even if that happened by accident , based on violation of art 6 EVRM, as the right to be heard is considered an important one
3. I am granted 900 euros in the verdict and that may seem impressive, but by going behind my back they deliberately kept me from the opportunity to add to my arguments given 2 years prior, or attend to the hearing to object, so they could sidetrack 6000 euros of my claim and leave that untreated ,
Though the verdict was promised to be given in 2016, it was not send until the BSN files showed I was emergency admitted abroad , to the wrong address to prevent appeal
4. In Europe my main argument was that appeals where people invoke their human rights, especially their right to live and not be tortured, as I did, may not be dealt with or dismissed by short cut proceedings as that violates art 1 EVRM that imposes a duty on any country to protect human rights
5. in relation to this matter, listed here are ;
1. (bit sarcastic) SUPREME COURT REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR CASSATION
2. 10-03-2018 APPEAL of that rejection TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
3. that was QUICKLY REJECTED BY T. EICKE
close friend and former collegue of Mr J Silvis, currently acting as attorney general in the dutch supreme court
4. LIST OF COURTS AND INSTANCES THAT IGNORED MY INVOCATIONS OF MY RIGHT TO LIVE
5. I think the rejection was done by just one member of the Supreme court, behind the back of that court to help out ING and his ethnic peers. In hindsight he may have written the appealed verdict himself to have it signed by a third party and that - small mistake- he was forgiven for by his friend Eicke, who disqualified the appeal to the european court behind the back of that court, to make sure this would not come to light, so he may have thrown out 2 appeals against his OWN verdict.
I feel he was involved because of the regular MO, that always implies, as it did here;
6. and I feel he sort of rubbs it in with THE REDEFINITION OF MY REQUEST TO THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY that he also meddled in to make sure the law or justice can not interfere with the murder he has going on as we speak
1. this mainly regarded the fact my request for cassation was thrown out in short cut procedure by the Dutch Supreme court ( or any one of them acting solo on their behalf)
1.1. Cassation was requested of verdict concerning taxes decision 2010 because the court deliberately send invitation to hearing plus court documents as well as the verdict to THE WRONG ADDRESS being another address than the one they had on file
This again was done to frustrate my right to speak for myself and the right to appeal , which I alledged constitued a violation of art 6 EVRM right to fair trial,
2. The Dutch Supreme court normally ALWAYS cassates when the applicant was not heard , even if that happened by accident , based on violation of art 6 EVRM, as the right to be heard is considered an important one
3. I am granted 900 euros in the verdict and that may seem impressive, but by going behind my back they deliberately kept me from the opportunity to add to my arguments given 2 years prior, or attend to the hearing to object, so they could sidetrack 6000 euros of my claim and leave that untreated ,
Though the verdict was promised to be given in 2016, it was not send until the BSN files showed I was emergency admitted abroad , to the wrong address to prevent appeal
4. In Europe my main argument was that appeals where people invoke their human rights, especially their right to live and not be tortured, as I did, may not be dealt with or dismissed by short cut proceedings as that violates art 1 EVRM that imposes a duty on any country to protect human rights
5. in relation to this matter, listed here are ;
1. (bit sarcastic) SUPREME COURT REJECTION OF REQUEST FOR CASSATION
2. 10-03-2018 APPEAL of that rejection TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
3. that was QUICKLY REJECTED BY T. EICKE
close friend and former collegue of Mr J Silvis, currently acting as attorney general in the dutch supreme court
4. LIST OF COURTS AND INSTANCES THAT IGNORED MY INVOCATIONS OF MY RIGHT TO LIVE
5. I think the rejection was done by just one member of the Supreme court, behind the back of that court to help out ING and his ethnic peers. In hindsight he may have written the appealed verdict himself to have it signed by a third party and that - small mistake- he was forgiven for by his friend Eicke, who disqualified the appeal to the european court behind the back of that court, to make sure this would not come to light, so he may have thrown out 2 appeals against his OWN verdict.
I feel he was involved because of the regular MO, that always implies, as it did here;
- going behind the back of the victim
- redefinition of statements
- and telling lies through third parties
6. and I feel he sort of rubbs it in with THE REDEFINITION OF MY REQUEST TO THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY that he also meddled in to make sure the law or justice can not interfere with the murder he has going on as we speak
No comments:
Post a Comment