Go Back   Let's Roll Forums > Blogs > St Jimmy
Connect with Facebook

Rate this Entry

11 attorneys stabbed me in the back

Posted 10 Oct 2016 at 09:52 AM by St Jimmy

Since January 2005 I’ve been represented by no less than 11 law firms, that all stabbed me in the back (or at least tried to). They have billed me for over 60,000 euro (for pleading against me, that is).
You must have heard the phrase: “everything you say can and will be used against you”. It is really the good cop/bad cop routine they play. The good cop (attorney) to defend you against the bad cop (police). When you’re the victim of state terrorism, the stupidest thing you can do, is to trust an attorney.

Attorney 1, J.D. van der Heijden - Van der Heijden was ordered (without my consent) to represent me from January until May 2005. He pleaded that I must be locked up in a psychiatric hospital, because I’m dangerous because of a mental disorder, which is clear because I think being locked up in a psychiatric hospital, without the right to appeal and without having committed any crime, is a violation of my human rights.
Law firm 2, Palthe Oberman attorneys Christiaan Oberman and Karol Hillebrandt - Represented me from September 2005 till July 2015 to plead that because I misbehaved terribly towards my employer ABN AMRO bank, they had to know I was mentally ill, so they had no right to fire me (because this is prohibited when somebody is ill), and had to pay my overdue salary. When in 2011 I noticed that in front of the Supreme Court, my own attorneys were pleading against me, that ABN AMRO didn’t owe me any money, I replaced him. In June, July 2015 I made commitments with Palthe Oberman again, knowing that since 2011 all attorneys had pleaded against me even worse than him, and then he pleaded that the unlawful blocking of my bank accounts (which almost starved me to death) shouldn’t be lifted. I later found out that Oberman knew psychiatrist Jules Tielens, that discussed with ABN AMRO how I could be locked up, and fantasised the expert testimony (without examining me) that led to me being tortured for half a year in a psychiatric hospital in 2005. Oberman has published a book for Kluwer publishers and in June 2015 got a reward for pleading against me, by taking a spot in the court that rules over the attorneys (Raad van Discipline).
Law firm 3, Cleerdin & Hamer - Represented me in January 2008. He pleaded that I must be locked up in a psychiatric hospital, because I’m dangerous because of a mental disorder. When I asked about representation to get damages from the police that had their dog take a few bites out of my leg, said that they didn’t have any attorney with this kind of expertise (Cleerdin & Hamer is one of the bigger law firms in the Netherlands).
Law firm 4, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, attorneys Stefan Sagel and Rogier Duk - Represented me from February 2011 until June 2012. De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek is the largest law firm of the Netherlands and has consulted ABN AMRO in various legal matters. When they represented me in front of the supreme court (Hoge Raad) they pleaded against me (thus for their client ABN AMRO). Only 11 days after they made commitments to represent me, they published an article in Kluwer TRA (where Sagel and Duk were the editors) arguing that ABN AMRO didn´t have to pay me. In this piece my name was mentioned, and that I was locked up in a psychiatric hospital for 6 months because I suffer from a dangerous mental disease (making it impossible for me to lead a “normal” life). During the procedure Duk made a switch to the law firm BarentsKrans that represented ABN AMRO in the court case against me. I found 2 court cases in the Netherlands where R.A.A. Duk represented ABN AMRO (such a conflict in interest is forbidden, even in the Netherlands) in Dutch: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inz...HR:2010:BM8906
http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inz...NL:HR:2015:163
Law firm 5 Bosch, attorney Marlies Vegter - Represented me in March, April 2012. After she indicated to help attorneys Duk and Sagel, stopped representing me. Was editor at published SDU that published my name in combination with mentioning that I was locked up in a psychiatric hospital for 6 months because I suffer from a dangerous mental disease.
Law firm 6 Keizerhof, attorney Jolien van Woudenberg - Represented me from July 2012 to October 2014. Offered to represent me not only in my court case, but also against SDU and Kluwer (that illegally published my name), while Van Woudenberg was a co-worker of Sagel and Duk at Kluwer. After the higher court (Gerechtshof) in September 16, 2014 finally ruled that ABN AMRO had to pay me, first informed me I had to be very happy with the result (while the higher court had illegally decided to give me less than what ABN AMRO owed me), then refused to compute the amount ABN AMRO had to pay me correctly (with a difference of some 350,000 euro). When I informed her I wasn´t happy with her letter, on October 3, 2014 stopped representing me (before ABN AMRO paid me).
Law firm 7 Versteeg Wigman Sprey, attorney Wendela Bierman - Represented me in October, November 2013. We agreed that she would take action against the unlawful publications (amongst others SDU, Kluwer, UWV and rechtspraak.nl) that mentioned my name, making it impossible for me to get a decent job. After we agreed she would take action, suddenly sent me a mail, that she didn´t want to represent me, because the publications did not illegally mention my name.
Law firm 8 attorney H.L. Van Lookeren Campagne - Represented me in October, November 2014? After I contacted him about appealing to the Supreme Court, about the erroneous way the higher court had restricted what ABN AMRO had to pay me, suddenly ABN AMRO paid me 96,000 euro. I thought this was a good sign and asked him if we could reach an agreement. After he sent me an unspecified bill of 3000 euro I asked an explanation. He replied that he had lost interest in my case.
Law firm 9 attorney Ton Vermeulen - Represented me in November, December 2014. Sent me a bill for more than 3000 euro to inform me that he wouldn’t appeal to the Supreme Court (cassatieadvies).
Law firm 10 Hehenkamp Van Riessen & Eisenberger, attorney Ruud Eisenberger - Represented me in February, March 2015 to send one letter to ABN AMRO. After I asked him when he would take action against ABN AMRO, stopped representing me, and then billed me for 5400 euro. With the help of the president of the Raad van Discipline (Schoonbrood-Wessels), the deken (Pieter van Regteren Altena), bailiff (Van der Meer en Philipsen) and Rabobank has illegally blocked my bank accounts from June 2015 on (with over 200,000 euro).
Law firm 11 Van der Meij, attorney Haije Wind - Represented me in October, November 2015. Wanted me to pay Eisenberger 8500 euro, and after I refused, stopped representing me.

ORDE VAN ADVOCATEN
The Netherlands is divided in a number of regions (arrondissementen), at the head of each region is a deken that must prevent attorneys from breaking laws. When somebody files an official complaint the deken has the obligation to sent the complaint to the Raad van Discipline, that decides on the complaints.
In January 2012 I telephoned the office of deken Germ Kemper for help to find a new attorney, when I got the advise to contact Kennedy Van der Laan, that’s connected to ABN AMRO. On April 3, I petitioned to Kemper to help me against my own attorneys Sagel and Duk. On April 17, I filed my (first) official complaint against deken Kemper.
On July 21, 2012 I filed an official complaint against attorney Sagel. Sagel’s defence was by former deken Harro Knijff (a well-known name in conspiracy circles as the attorney of Joris Demmink).
After the deken kept refusing to send the complaint against Sagel to the Raad van Discipline I appealed to the court (Bestuursrechter). That simply stated that the deken doesn’t have any obligations according to the law (Advocatenwet). My appeals to the supreme court (Raad van State), were simply declared inadmissible.

On November 20, 2012 I filed my official complaints (4 at the time) against deken Kemper directly to the president of the Raad van Discipline, that only sent the complaint to another deken (Meijer) after I petitioned to replace her (wrakingsverzoek). A personal assistant of (then) Queen Beatrix, jonkheer mr. Th.S. Roëll, ruled that the president of the Raad van Discipline was acting in accordance to the wishes of the Dutch legislation (the Queen).
Deken Meijer in turn refused to send the complaint (back) to the Raad van Discipline to be judged. My appeal and higher appeal were simply declared inadmissible.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 1034 Comments 0
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 0

Comments

 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Ad Management by RedTyger