Lawful Path Forums

On the one side there is little me and on the other are banks, government, politicians, media and ... supermarkets. Since 2003 I’ve often thought my life would be over soon, but I am still alive. To keep the story readable I’ll focus on just one the human rights violations perpetrated against me.
Because my bank accounts were blocked from June 3, 2015, I could not buy food, lost over 15 kilograms in weight and almost became homeless. In a time period of 6 weeks on 12 days I did not have one bite to eat.
I’m having difficulties translating all the judicial terms from Dutch to English. In this paragraph I’ll name the most important terms I’m not sure of. There is a difference between a provisional measure (voorlopige voorziening) and the main verdict (bodemprocedure). The verdict in a provisional measure is made by the provisional judge (voorzieningenrechter). I am the victim of a confiscation that blocks my bank accounts (conservatoir beslag).
One reason I am unable to defend myself in a court of law is because I am not allowed to ask for a verdict by the provisional judge in a civil case, because only an attorney is entitled and am not allowed to appeal to the higher courts (Gerechtshof en Hoge Raad).

Confiscation of my bank accounts
Since 2005 I have been plaintiff in a court case against my employer ABN AMRO. On September 16, 2014 the higher court (Gerechtshof) finally ruled that ABN AMRO should pay me my overdue salary, which was around 600,000 euro gross, increased with compensation for my costs in the law suit, or an estimated 350,000 euro net, see: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... :2014:4060
My attorney Van Woudenberg resigned on October 3, because she didn´t want to make ABN AMRO pay me. On October 6 I sent my own letter asking ABN AMRO to pay me 600,000 euro gross. To my surprise in October and November 2014 ABN AMRO paid me around 240,000 euros.
On February 23, 2015 I made arrangements for attorney Eisenberger to represent me in making ABN AMRO pay me according to the court order of September 2014. On February 26 Eisenberger sent a letter to ABN AMRO, asking for my overdue salary. On March 30 I mailed Eisenberger asking to take action as agreed. He replied that he quit because I do not trust him (true indeed: only a complete idiot trusts a lawyer).
On April 2 Eisenberger sent me his “decreased” bill for an amount of 4266 euro. On April 15 I objected to the bill, because: he had not done anything for me and the hours were unreasonably high. On April 16 I received a new bill (dated April 14, 2015) for 16 ½ hours at 5410 euro. On May 10 Eisenberger replied by mail to my letter of April 15 stating he had read it with dismay and would submit the dispute to the Court.
On May 14 Eisenberger requested the court to confiscate (conservatior beslag) all the credit on my payment account under Rabobank Nederland and overdue salary by ABN AMRO, for a debt of 7873 euro. On May 15 judge Schoonbrood-Wessels approved the request of Eisenberger for an estimated debt of 7033 euro for all of the credit on my payment account. Judge Schoonbrood-Wessels presides over the court that rules on (the complaints against) the attorneys (Raad van Discipline). After discussing the matter with the dean (deken), Eisenberger sent the decision of May 15 at writ by his bailiff Van der Meer Philipsen to Rabobank Amsterdam on June 1.
On June 2 Eisenberger at writ by his bailiff sent the decision of May 15 to me, so only now I learned of his actions. On June 3 Rabobank sent me a letter that not only my payment account were blocked, but also my complete savings account.

Errors in the confiscation
There are errors in the blocking of my bank accounts by the confiscation (conservatoir beslag):
1) I did not have the chance to defend myself before my accounts were blocked.
2) The bill of 5410 euro for a total of one letter was unreasonable, making the acts of attorney Eisenberger a criminal offence.
3) Even if my debt could be estimated at 7033 euro, it shouldn´t be possible that all of my credit on the bank accounts were blocked for much more.
4) The ruling of Judge Schoonbrood-Wessels was under “Rabobank Nederland”, while the blocking was performed by “Rabobank Amsterdam” (these are different Legal entities).
5) Schoonbrood-Wessels only decided to confiscate my paying account (my savings account wasn’t even requested), so my savings account with 225,000 euro should not be blocked.
These make not only the acts of attorney Eisenberger a criminal offence, but also of judge Schoonbrood-Wessels, dean Regteren van Altena, Bailiff Van der Meer Philipsen and Rabobank Amsterdam.

Attorney nr. 3 - Oberman
On June 12 and 15, 2015 I made a deal with attorney Oberman to represent me. To lift the confiscation, there were two options (art. 705 Rv): 1) the blocking is unsound or 2) provide security.
There are errors in the confiscation, so Oberman could prove that the confiscation is unsound; he did not even try. Oberman didn´t offer security to Eisenberger, then asked another provisional judge to rule (in Kort geding). Predictably the judge on July 6 ruled that the confiscation would not be lifted.
In the meanwhile Eisenberger on July 6 filed a second request to the court to confiscate (conservatior beslag) all the credit on my savings account under Rabobank Amsterdam, for a debt of 20,756 euro. This request was approved on July 8 of which I was informed by writ of the bailiff on July 10.
Since then I sent mails to several attorneys, knowing it would be improbable that anyone would help, but knowing that talking to an attorney might help me to understand the situation. One attorney, who said he would solve the problem of the blocking of my bank accounts within 2 weeks, made the commitment to represent me on October 30, he resigned November 13.

Survival of the fittest
Already on June 3, 2015 I put information on the Internet, the Dutch forums of Tros Radar and Rechtenforum. Tros is a government network, so this was quickly removed. My reasons for this were to prevent the government from murdering me with nobody knowing and the hope that some people would wake up from the state conditioning to find out what is really going on. For the same reasons I told several people what has happened.
City of Amsterdam. The city of Amsterdam has the obligation to help me to lift these problems and to provide welfare support. On June 5, 2015 I asked for welfare support, which was rejected the same day. On June 30 I objected to the decision of June 5, which was granted on July 28. Then on August 18 they again rejected my application for welfare support, on August 17, I had already appealed to the court because Amsterdam refused to help me to solve the blocking of my bank accounts. Starting from June 15 I requested help from the debt counselling of the city of Amsterdam, who said that the blocking of my bank accounts was impossible but refused to help me. On February 4, 2016 the judge rejected my appeal. On March 3 I submitted my higher appeal (with the Centrale Raad van Beroep).
Human rights organisations. Starting from June 5, 2015 I contacted human rights organisations like Amnesty International and the International Red Cross. When these did not help me I even sent mails to human rights organisations in countries like China and Russia, with no reply.
Food. On June 29, 2015 I contacted my personal doctor (huisarts) to help me. He answered he wouldn’t help me, but when I persisted asked the debt counselling of the city of Amsterdam for help. The debt counselling told my doctor they would help, but – of course – didn’t. The debt counselling arranged food from the Food bank (Voedselbank), where on July 3 they gave me poisoned food.
I also asked help from organisations like the Salvation Army. Basically there are several “charities” that do not prevent people from becoming homeless, but provide them with food. On July 15 one of these organisations gave me a list of places where I could get food for cheap or even for free. To my surprise since then I ate enough to get back some of my weight loss. On September 2 one of these organisations poisoned me, giving me a fever and diarrhoea, by which time some of the volunteers of these charities were replaced by secret agents. Since then it again became very hard to eat.

Money
In the meanwhile my employer ABN AMRO, on March 6, 2015, petitioned the judge to terminate my contract. On October 20 judge Van Buitenen decided to terminate my contract and that ABN AMRO had to pay me 26,560 euro to grant the request. On October 23 I asked a bailiff to execute the court order of October 20, only on November 4 he issued a writ to ABN AMRO summoning payment within two days. On November 9 I asked the bailiff to confiscate the possessions of ABN AMRO, which the bailiff refused. The bailiff informed me on November 10 that he had received 12,839 euro. On November 12 the bailiff credited my bank account with 12,000 euro.
On November 29, 2015 I requested the UWV for unemployment support (werkeloosheiduitkering). Because ABN AMRO had informed UWV I had no right for salary in the last year, I expected UWV to reject my request. On December 21 I filed a request for correction (correctieverzoek). On December 22 UWV rejected my request for unemployment support. On January 13, 2016 UWV decided to grant me unemployment support for 4348 euro gross per month.

Main case against Eisenberger
At the same time the main case (bodemprocedure), concerning the amount of money I own for his letter, against attorney Eisenberger is running.
On July 3 I asked the court (kantonrechter) by provisional measure as incidental claim (Incidentele Conclusie) to lift the confiscation of my bank accounts totally or limit it to 7033 euro. The court decided that on 31 July both Eisenberger, in the incident, and I, in the main case, could reply. On November 6 judge Marres rejected my incidental claim, because this would make the effect of the confiscation an empty shell. On November 11 I requested (verzoekschrift ex art. 32 Rv) for judgement on my request to limit the confiscation, which was simply ignored. After my request was sent to Eisenberger, it was sent back to me, because it was not my turn to submit a document.
On November 26 Eisenberger replied (Repliek) and on 8 January, 2016 I rejoined (Dupliek). On February 5 the court decided that it would issue a verdict on February 12, at which date it postponed the verdict to March 11, which I haven’t received yet.

Corruption
There is only justice when judges are impartial and attorneys act for the interests of their clients. When I am up against the big bank ABN AMRO, there is no possibility of impartial judges and attorneys simply don’t have any reason to fight for their clients. Attorney Oberman received a nice present for harming my interests, he was appointed in the court that judges the attorneys (Raad van Discipline).
The Dutch royal family, basically a family of bankers, owns 10% of the stocks of ABN AMRO, and for several years was even comlpletely owned by the government. Rothschild is connected to both ABN AMRO and Rabobank. The king makes the laws, appoints judges and elects the majors of cities. The major of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan, in 1992 cofounded the law firm Kennedy Van der Laan, which represents ABN AMRO in legal matters. The CEO of ABN AMRO is Gerrit Zalm, member of Bilderberg: cofounded by Prince Bernhard and at present with King Willem-Alexander and Princess Beatrix as prominent members. As well Prince Pieter van Vollenhoven as “Princess” Mabel Wisse Smit in the beginning of the 1990s worked for ABN AMRO, from 2000 on Van Vollenhoven worked for Equity Capital Markets (a joint venture between ABN AMRO and NM Rothschild). The stepfather of Mabel was with Rabobank.
Judge Marres, who ruled against my incidental claim, works for insurance company Delta Lloyd that is involved with ABN AMRO in a joint venture. I requested to change him (wrakingsverzoek) because he’s not impartial, which was rejected on October 23.
Judge Van Buitenen, who was to rule on the petition of ABN AMRO to terminate my contract, worked with the head of Labour Affairs of ABN AMRO (Hansma) in a group to advise the cabinet on a law. On May 13 I petitioned to change Judge Van Buitenen. On June 1 I appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), after which on June 5 the lower court informed me to process my request of May 13. On June 12 this request was rejected, see: http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... 015%3a6796

On April 8 the Judge decided to postpone the judgement in my court case against HRE advocaten until May 6.

On January 22, 2014 I felt some kind of radiation coming from a ceiling lamp. When I looked behind the lamp, to my surprise I saw 16 power cables attached to this one lamp. On January 23 I filed charges with the police for breaking and entering in my apartment and trying to kill me. The police threatened to lock me up if I refused to speak to the state psychiatrists of Mentum.
The psychiatrists said that 16 power cables to 1 lamp (instead of 2) was nothing strange and offered to treat me. On the scheduled appointment at my house on January 28 nobody came (which I already expected). I have proof that my employer ABN AMRO broke into my apartment in 2004.

Last May 7, I complained at the bike shop that 2 ½ weeks before had put 5 new spokes in my rear wheel that they´ve broken again. He said that there can only be one explanation that by now 12 spokes are broken, that I rode up on off the sidewalk too wild.
Since I bought this bike new in 2008, I’m already riding on my 4th rear wheel, while I also had to change my bicycle saddle 3 times.
On May 9 the side of my bed was broken in two, see the picture.

The next quote is from John Marks’ The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: The CIA and Mind Control (1979): http://www.whale.to/b/m/10.htm
“Once the PAS had identified a target as having potential mental instabilities, staff members sometimes suggested ways to break him down, reasoning that by using a ratchet-like approach to put him under increased pressure, they might be able to break the lines that tied him to his country, if not to his sanity. Keehner stated, "I was sent to deal with the most negative aspects of the human condition. It was planned destructiveness. First, you'd check to see if you could destroy a man's marriage. If you could, then that would be enough to put a lot of stress on the individual, to break him down. Then you might start a minor rumor campaign against him. Harass him constantly. Bump his car in traffic. A lot of it is ridiculous, but it may have a cumulative effect."”
I don´t think people without “potential mental instabilities” exist.

Firestarter wrote:
I don´t think people without “potential mental instabilities” exist.

I agree. The word "potential" leaves a lot of wiggle room.

I have read a lot on the enneagram and was sent to a course about the typology DISC (similar to the types of the enneagram). It is strange that typologies can be used to predict how people react. These typologies are extensively used, not only by human resource managers, but apparently also by governments to control the population.
Of course horoscopes are the most known typologies, which I do not really take seriously.

On May 6 the Judge postponed the decision in my court case against HRE advocaten until June 3.

On June 3 the court postponed the judgement in my trail against HRE advocaten until July 1.

On July 1 the verdict in my court case against HRE advocaten was postponed to July 29.

Firestarter wrote:On January 22, 2014 I felt some kind of radiation coming from a ceiling lamp. When I looked behind the lamp, to my surprise I saw 16 power cables attached to this one lamp. On January 23 I filed charges with the police for breaking and entering in my apartment and trying to kill me. The police threatened to lock me up if I refused to speak to the state psychiatrists of Mentum.

That same day I talked to 2 psychiatrists of Mentrum for 45 minutes, that told me it’s not strange when suddenly 16 power wires (instead of 2) are attached to a lamp. They told me that they were willing to give me treatment for my delusions; I answered I expected them to at least make a house call first. At the appointment on January 28, nobody showed up (which I had already expected); a day later they delivered a letter that they came to my house but I didn’t open the door.
On November 29 I got a bill for the talk with Mentrum on January 23 from my health care insurance Univé for an amount of 1073 euro. On December 8 I filed a complaint at Univé. On December 16 Univé decided my complaint is unfounded. On December 22 I asked Univé to re-evaluate my complaint; on January 7, 2015 they decided that also the re-evaluation shows that the complaint is unfounded.
On January 13 I filed a complaint against Mentrum (this had to be judged within 6 weeks). On June 18 Mentrum sent me a time estimate of 8 hours for the talk on January 23 (of 45 minutes), at a cost of 1440 euro. On September 3 I finally received the decision of the complaint commission (dated August 3) that the bill wasn’t unreasonable (this should’ve been within 6 weeks from January 13).
On May 29 the bailiff of Univé sent me a letter that I had to pay before June 2, increased with an additional administrative cost of 154 euro and 0.89 euro interest. On July 1 (after getting another letter from the bailiff) I replied that I wouldn’t pay because the bill was illegal because I didn’t receive health care for an amount of 1073 euro. On October 26 I was subpoenaed by the bailiff for November 3, for an amount of 850 euro. On October 29 I petitioned the court to declare the subpoena inadmissible because the time was too short to answer or provide me with an additional time of 4 weeks for my reaction to being summoned. This petition was ignored by the court, after which on November 17 the court passed default judgement that I had to pay. On January 21, 2016 I was summoned by the bailiff to pay 860 euro according to the verdict of November 17 (which I paid within 2 days) and that I also had to pay an additional 508 euro.
On February 18 (within 6 weeks) I summoned the bailiff of Univé to set aside the default judgement. When I delivered this subpoena at the Court house in Amsterdam, the government official yelled at my request for a confirmation that it was received, that if I want a copy I should make this myself.
After the 3 legal documents after my subpoena, the bailiff got an additional chance to present it’s case and then they informed me that the court plans to pass judgement on June 20, 2016.

The verdict of November 17 was issued by Judge Mr. C.L.J.M. de Waal, that works for both Kluwer and the court that rules on the official complaints against the attorneys in Amsterdam (Raad van Discipline). Several attorneys that represented me to harm me, worked for Kluwer and I have been deceived by several corrupt judges that also work for Kluwer (the largest publisher in the Netherlands). The judge that on May 15, 2015 decided that my bank accounts should be blocked, Mr. Drs. A.P. Schoonbrood-Wessels, is the chairman of the Raad van Discipline.
The law firm De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (the largest law firm in the Netherlands), that represented me in front of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in my court case against ABN AMRO to harm my interests, is the law firm that also regularly represents both ABN AMRO and Rabobank (that blocks my bank accounts since June 3, 2015). In November 2008 Rabobank and Rothschild started cooperating in mergers and acquisitions, with legal counselling of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (ABN AMRO has for many years been connected to Rothschild). Jaap W. Winter of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek was invited to the Bilderberg conference of 2011 (coincidently when De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek was representing me).
In 2013 Marianne Tijssen of the board of directors of ABN AMRO was placed in the board of Univé. In 2009, 2010 Univé sold insurance together with ABN AMRO. In the supervisory board of the Nierstichting both Ir. Boudewijn Dessing (of Univé) and Mr. Caroline van Gent (attorney at BarentsKrans) are members. BarentsKrans was the law firm that represented ABN AMRO in the court case against me.
Mr. Eberhard van der Laan was selected by the then Queen Beatrix as major of my home town of Amsterdam. Before Van der Laan became major he cofounded the lawfirm Kennedy Van der Laan, that regularly councils ABN AMRO in legal matters. When I asked the head of the attorneys of the district Amsterdam (deken) for help in finding a suitable attorney in my court case against ABN AMRO, they advised me to ask Kennedy Van der Laan.

On July 18, the judge in my court case against Univé health insurance decided to postpone the verdict to August 15.

On July 29, the verdict in my court case against Hehenkamp Van Riessen Eisenberger was postponed until August 26.