Censuur in Nederland 1996-2014 ©. Databank met gratis informatie over overheid, bedrijfsleven, jeugdzorg, gemeente, milieu, onderwijs, rechtspraak, media, verkiezingen en politiek. Het doel van de website is kennis in gratis informatie en gratis informatie in kennis om te zetten. Lees eerst de uitgangsformule van mijn websites, daarna over het complot tegen politicus redacteur Hop 1996-2014. Denk eens na over de (voorspelbare) manier waarop de deskundige en daardoor lastige politiek actieve Hop door (rancuneuze) medewerkers van rechtbanken en bestuursorganen steeds opnieuw wordt aangepakt. (547) Denk verder na over wat er om u heen gebeurt en bespreek de inhoud van mijn websites binnen uw netwerk. Veel leesplezier. J. Hop Ermelo.

Referentie 1: Bron Memo Openbaar Ministerie Team Gevoelige Zaken over Hop 4 juni 2012 Daphne van der Kolk aan Ron Tenge Citaat: De heer Hop is een kinderbeschermingdeskundige die veel families en ouders bijstaat wanneer zij te maken krijgen met de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming en andere jeugdzorg instanties. Hij is van huis uit geen jurist of hulpverlener maar heeft in de loop der tijd veel ervaring opgedaan met dergelijke zaken. Daarbij laat hij zich zeer kritisch uit over deze instanties. Tevens is hij oprichter van de (gemeentelijke) politieke partij Groep Hop. Zie ter info de site www.burojeugdzorg.nl, geen website van BJZ, maar een domeinnaam geclaimd en ingevuld door de heer Hop.

Referentie 2: Bron Memo Openbaar Ministerie Landelijk CoŲrdinerend officier van justitie Bovenregionaal Recherche Overleg (BRO) Teamleider Maatwerkzaken  over Hop 11 juni 2012 Citaat: Complicerende factor in het verhaal is dat de heer Hop een politiek zeer actieve persoon is. Citaat: Het Gevoelige Zaken Overleg (GZO) is voorstander van een frontale opsporingsactie op Hop oftewel halen en (als spraakzame "Don Quichot") doen bekennen en vervolgen. Peter van Hagen aan mr. R. Tenge en D. van der Kolk.

Referentie 3: Bron advocaat jeugdzorg op hoorzitting Hof van Discipline 150304: "Citaat: "De heer Hop was als voortrekker bezig het systeem lam te leggen. In eerste instantie werd in dit kader gebruik gemaakt van hinderlijke, maar wel legale middelen als het systematisch klagen en het systematisch om informatie vragen" Bron Regel 21, 22 en 23 Pleitnotities advocaat X .

Vraag iedereen die u kent in gemeenten waar Groep Hop © meedoet aan verkiezingen gemeenteraad 2014 vooral Groep Hop te stemmen.

Censuur in Nederland ©
Groep Hop ©

 

Complaint J. Hop Ermelo (The Netherlands) against the State of the Netherlands (Zutphen District Court) against three judges rejected the request objection to the United Nations Committee on Civil and Political Rights

Nederlands: 710     English: 712     German: 713     France: 714     Espana: 715     Russia: 716     Arabic: 717

De Zutphense (ver)hoormethode representatief voorbeeld van "corruptie coalities rechtbanken, Raad voor de Kinderbescherming en jeugdzorg" in Nederland

Uit het recht op een 'fair trial', zoals beschermd door artikel 6 EVRM, valt nog een aantal nadere procedurele garanties af te leiden. Deze hangen voor een deel samen met het beginsel van 'equality ofarms', het recht voor de in de (bestuurs)rechtelijke procedure betrokken burger om met 'dezelfde wapenen' als de overheid te kunnen procederen. Zo heeft het EHRM uit artikel 6 EVRM de positieve verplichting voor de rechter afgeleid om processtukken te verstrekken aan de klager. In de zaak Kerojarvi waren de klager, een oorlogsinvalide, bepaalde medische rapporten onthouden, waarop de rechterlijke beslissing over de mate van zijn invaliditeit en corresponderend recht op compensatie mede was gebaseerd. Op deze wijze had de klager volgens het EHRM niet ten volle kunnen participeren in de rechterlijke procedure en daarmee had hij geen eerlijk proces gehad.Z" In een andere zaak acht het Hof de onmogelijkheid voor de klager om op een deskundigenrapport te reageren in strijd met het recht op een eerlijk proces ex artikel 6 EVRM

 

 

 

Commission/Sub-Commission Team (1503 Procedure) Support Service Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais des Nations Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Ermelo, September 10, 2008.

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

Subject: COMPLAINT International Convenant on Civil and political Rights PART III

COMPLAINT in accordance with complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

Page 26. Under the 1503 procedure, the Commission has the mandate to examine a consistent pattern of gross and reliable attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms ocurring in any country of the world. Any individual or group claiming to be the victim of such human right violations may submit a com,plaint, as may any other person or group with with direct and reliable knowledge of such violations.

COMPLAINT in accordance with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1

Article 14.1: Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing bij a competent, INDEPENDENT and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 14.3: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him

Article 14.3: (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

Article 14.4: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses, against him and to obtain the attendence and examinatation of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him

Article 17: 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

THIS IS NO COMPLAINT to review the evaluation of facts and evidence by the national courts and authorities, NO review of the interpretation of domestic legislation

 

 

Previous.

This complaint was already received at your Office on 26 augustus 2008 in Dutch language and returned with a letter "With the compliments of the Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights PLEASE WRITE IN ENGLISH. So today the complaint is posted again to you in ENGLISH

This complaint dated September 1, 2008 was already received at your Office on 5 september 2008 in ENGLISH language and returned with a letter "After careful consideration of the contents of your petion (communicatyion/complaint) we sincerely regret having to inform you that the Inited Nations Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise, for the reasons indicated on the back of this letter: "The Human Rights Committee is not generally in a positions to review the evaluation of facts and evidence bij the national courts and authorities, nor can it review the interpretation of domestic legislation" along with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 and Complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

FOR THE THIRD TIME I SEND YOU THIS COMPLAINT again and implemented your advise in two factsheets you send me:

Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 

and 

Complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

I propose to the United Nations that in the future when you return a complaint to a person with the request to write in English you also include these two fact sheets immediately.

 

 

 

1. 1. The complainant J. Hop. It should undersigned, J. Hop, Joubertstraat 24, 3851 DM Ermelo, The Netherlands a complaint against the State of the Netherlands because the State of the Netherlands do not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer.

 

2. 2. Admissibility. The complainant J. Hop is PERSONAL the victim of a violation of human rights as a condition for proceeding to the UN Committee on Civil and Political Rights.

 

3. 3. The complaint is filed with the basis for the complaint: Article 6 ECHR and Article 14 BUPO enumerate a number of procedural safeguards that everyone should enjoy "in determining his civil rights and obligations" or "in determining the merits of an it was criminal ".

These safeguards are:

  1. The right to an independent and impartial court. The impartiality of the court must show beyond any doubt, because he has to judge about others.
  2. The right to a fair and public hearing of his case. A fair treatment means that among the adversary proceeding manner. This requires that the parties are aware of all the arguments and evidence presented to the court and that they can discuss this for the court.
  3. The right to the hearing within a reasonable time.

The requirement of independence and impartiality is particularly strict rated: "Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done." Firstly, the judicial system and the courts are structured so that in respect of the litigants no doubt about the independence and impartiality of the court may arise (objective or structural impartiality). Then the judge may not personally biased (subjective or personal impartiality) or put them under pressure.

 

4.1 The complaint concerns a request dismissed three judges objection. Mr. R.A. Eskes, Mr. D. Vergunst and Mrs. I.G.M.Th Weijers-van der Marck of the Court Zutphen, The Netherlands.

4.2 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges whose disqualification was requested. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest. The three judges whose disqualification was requested all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and / or

4.3 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges whose disqualification was requested. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. Er is sprake van belangenverstrengeling. There is interest. The three judges whose disqualification was requested all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated and all three have denied a written indictment against J. Hop on paper.  The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.4 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges whose disqualification was requested. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. Er is sprake van belangenverstrengeling. There is interest.The three judges whose disqualification was requested all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated and all three have refused J. Hop copy of this information. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.5 There is no law objectively speaking, by Judge. Mr. D. D. Vergunst whose disqualification was requested.  He has in his judgement be guided by the wrong interests.  There is interest in the exercise of secondary by Judge Mr. D. D. Vergunst The judges were challenged Vergunst DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.6 There is no law objectively speaking, Judge Mr. D. D. Vergunst whose disqualification was requested. He has in his judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest in the exercise of political rights. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

and/or

4.7 The case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop Ermelo should NOT be handled by Zutphen District Court but by an other district court in the Netherlands

 

 

5.1 There is no law objectively speaking, by the three judges who have objection to the request decides. They have in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest. The three judges who have objection to the request decide all three are interested in the case that these three judges against plaintiff J. Hop are treated. This case concerns a case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop and the complainant believes that a case where a court ordered the prosecutor and thus is a direct party should NOT decide on that case.

and/or

5.2 There is no objective right spoken by the three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland), who also objection to the request have decided. The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen have occurred in their judgement be guided by the wrong interests. There is interest. The President of the Court Zutphen in a TV broadcast of Gelderland Broadcasting legislation declares that he wants to adjust to a court challenge by the complainant Hop and / or other expert and thereby to the judicial officers of the Commercial Court Zutphen difficult opponents impossible.

and/or

5.3 The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland) objection to the request have decided frustrate a right enshrined in the ACT because it does not reach them.

and/or

5.4 The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland) who have objection to the request decides are of the opinion that an expert and therefore difficult opponent no opportunities may be applicable to a regular supply by law in the law; com a request for objection.

and/or

5.5.0 The three judges and / or the President of the Court Zutphen (Television Broadcasting Gelderland) who have objection to the request to decide the collegial relations with the three judges at which a request was submitted objection prevail over a right enshrined in the ACT to Judges to challenge a while:

5.5.1 - it is convincing evidence that the three judges ARE INTERESTED were challenged in the proceedings against the complainant J. Hop. Hop.

5.5.2 - it is convincing evidence that the indictment against J. Hop in the proceedings Zutphen District Court against J. Hop was NOT for the hearing put in writing so that plaintiff J. Hop had no time and no facilities has been good for his defence to prepare and / or documents in itself to serve

5.5.3 - it is convincing evidence that the procedure Zutphen District Court against J. Hop complainant J. Hop has received no copy of a file! Only the three judges had a COMPLETE copy of a file in possession of the three judges who had the procedure Zutphen District Court against J. Hop went decide how important that these three judges themselves were interested.

 

 

6. Convincing evidence that the three judges themselves were directly interested in the proceedings Zutphen District Court against J. Hop and wanted to decide the matter without the written indictment against plaintiff J. Hop on paper and without complete trial file for J. Hop to the hearing, it is absolutely necessary in the present objection TO BE VERY STRICTLY TO THERE OWN INTEREST and for the sake of COLLEGIATE INTERESTS and no walk to take the LAW. The State of the Netherlands does not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer

 

 

7.0 There is "inappropriate behavior" of the Zutphen District Court against plaintiff J. Hop  in which the court is acting contrary to law as written laws, regulations, general measures of governance and the like. They include rules to find what may or may not. It is therefore imperative conduct to be respected. These serve not only to indicate how they should behave, what to do and leave, but it is also true that non-compliance, in violation of certain unpleasant or harmful consequences. This conduct is called legal standards laid down in the law.

Apparently it succeeded Zutphen District Court (after the smear Vedivo campaign against Hop (137) with as a base websites that were not Hop websites) only of the RELIABLE, EXPERT and thereby tough opponent to win using "inappropriate behavior" where all the written law and to conduct an "impartial judge" on the side were put to Hop into an unfair indictment trial without written on paper and without copy trial file intends to tackle in Thus a RELIABLE, EXPERT and thereby tough opponent to the hearings of the Court Zutphen will be undone by judges in that case to decide who always Hop hearings on the child would have had.

7.1 In the present complaint are the three judges challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED in the proceedings Zutphen District Court against J. Hop (plaintiff) in which case they themselves are also court and also in that case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop have decided without charge in writing to J. Hop and without trial file for J. Hop Article 6 ECHR and Article 14 BUPO. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING.

7.2 In order to make clear to the United Nations Committee on Civil and Political Rights that there was "inappropriate behavior" of the Court Zutphen are examples of extreme conduct in the Netherlands and how a judge should behave.

Example 1. Source: Judiciary in the Netherlands. Issue: Council for the Judiciary, The Hague in October 2002.

1.1 Quote page 3. Introduction. For years judges were suffering from a dusty image. Judges were older gentlemen who, dressed in black dresses, all day boring read codes. What is happening outside the court, because judges were not aware of. That image is true no longer. If there is JUDICIARY today for a significant proportion are women. In addition, the court in modern society. The court must not only know the law but also know what is living under the the citizens. It gives support for his statements.

1.2 Quote page 4 rule 1,2,3 and 4. General What is justice. The judge expresses law. HE TAKES A INDEPENDENT ruling AS TWO PARTIES HAVE A CONFLICT.

Example 2. Source: Judiciary in the Netherlands. Issue Council for the Judiciary, Den Haag december 2004. Page 6 quote: "An important prerequisite for fair law is that an independent court"

Example 3. Guidelines for the impartiality of the judiciary created commissioned by the Dutch Association for the Judiciary and the meeting of presidents of courts and appŤlcolleges Source: www.burojeugdzorg.nl/480.htm A quote from this guidance by the profession itself compiled: "Guidance for the" impartiality of judges. "A quote:" A judge shall also not deal with cases in which he is so concerned that his judicial impartiality under discussion could come to the fore. "

Example 4. The northern town mayor has Oostpolder mr WLFC ridder van Rappard and this mayor has as one of its secondary function: "member committee Collection Members Judiciary." From the regulation committee objections Noordoostpolder town is the requirement that the president and the (deputy) members not part may make or not operating under the responsibility of an administrative organ of the town Noordoostpolder (Article 2 quarters member of the Regulation). Furthermore, the members do not participate in considering an objection if it called into question their impartiality might be (Article 13). It is therefore unacceptable that a member of the bezwaarschriftencommissie decide on a case in which he / she is itself an interested party.

Example 5. With each court "judges commissioners". The court commissioner is responsible for monitoring whether a trial should be carried out under the correct procedure and that he has yet additional powers. A court commissioner shall never rechtspreken in a court case in which he also has been commissioner, he should leave this task to one of his fellow judges.

Example 6. Source: Conference on March 16, 2001, Congress Center "The Reehorst" Ede. Course law. Complaint law, disciplinary, civil law, criminal law; implications for practice and policy. Complaint law implications for practice and policy E. Roelofs - de Bruin. Roelofs - de Bruin. By Mr. Paul te Horst, Director of Legal Consultancy Achterhoek / Warnsveld (Gld)

6.1 Quote page 4: Some legal principles of the grievance. A. Independence: Members of the Complaint Commission from their profession not to the complaint. Even with the policy of the institution. THEY MAY HAVE DIRECT NO INTEREST IN THE COMPLAINT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.

6.2 Quote page 18: "The president sends a complaint to the above requirements, as formulated by the competent college has been submitted to the person against whom complained and asks him or her to a written response"

6.3 Quote page 18: "Both parties gain during the proceedings about the decision (copies of) the pieces."

Example 7. Source: Annual Report Province of Noord-Brabant. Provinciale Klachtenverordening Jeugdhulpverlening Noord-Brabant 1998  

Quote page 10 the first paragraph: "The members of the committee may not be associated with a facility, institution or agency under the force of the regulation. They shall in any case referred to an employment relationship with people who have such an institution and directors of an institution. IMPORTANT IS IN ANY CASE THAT EVEN THE APPARENT OF INTEREST TO BE AVOIDED. Furthermore, the members are not linked to an organisation which is committed to the defence of youngsters and their parents, guardians, step-, foster parents in the jeugdhulpverlening, as the Justice Foundation in Familiezaken (SOR) or the Advice and Complaints Youth (AJK). Members may finally also not an employee or director of the province.

Example 8. Dekenale opinions Bar Association.

Source: Association of Lawyers for the district Zutphen mr BAI Baks, Dean 1 april 1996 on mr X / Hop Quote: As you write, you shall enter or do you want to act for Mr X with the former wife of the Mr Hop-Mrs X is married. Of course, you are free to decide for Mr X to act, but not against Mr Hop if it comes to issues that are still in the divorce. It is certain that in the past for Mr Hop in his divorce contra Mrs X are occurred. It allows you are not free than ever concerning divorce odf related issues AGAINST him to act.  Here indeed is true according to which ancient jurisprudence mariageproblems of so delicate and highly personal nature, that a lawyer is totally forbidden ever to act against his former client.

Source: ACT 1 november 1996 Board of Trustees of the Order of lawyers in the district Mr. Zutphen. JH Brouwer. Subject: X mr / Hop. Quote: Meanwhile, I have taken note of the file, in particular of your letter (mr X) on October 8 last, it shows you that you are somewhat free to Mrs X and her children to act and make their views known them to third parties.  In our conversation I have indicated a different view on it. I refer first to the contents of the letter from Mr. Baks 1 last april where you're asked to confirm that you nor for Mr X, nor for Mrs X against Mr Hop in divorceproblems or related disputes will occur. Mr. Baks ex officio action has so far reserved you are unwilling to act.  In response to your letter dated 16 april 1996 showed up at that time nor Mrs X, neither Mr X in any case against Mr. Hop freedom. Mr.  Baks have you by letter dated October 7, 1996 asked him to explain why you've considered - despite his previous dekenale opinions - none again for Mrs X and her children to have to occur. Given the history outlined the state can no longer free for Mrs X to (continue to) act. You have shown me your efforts with immediate effect to be regarded as terminated and has expressed willingness in the future again for Mrs X to act if the disputes with Mr. Hop, respectively his current partner, dealing with divorce or related issues.

Example 9. Source www.burojeugdzorg.nl/114.htm 29 937 Amendments to the Law legal judicial officials in connection with a few additions to the system of secondary of judicial officers and court officials in training during the binnenstage. Quote: "The impartiality and independence of the judiciary is one of the key achievements of our state. The obligation to report, registration and disclosure of secondary in Lower House, 2004-2005, 29 937, No. 3 5 Article 44 Wrra stems from the idea that openness is in the interest of confidence in (the impartiality and independence of the) judiciary. The established jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the impartiality of judges means that there are no facts or circumstances that may be, whatever the personal creation of the court, raising doubts about whether the judge is impartial. There may not even a semblance of partiality. "

The State of the Netherlands taking on, the complainant raised above examples NORM, NOT meet the requirement complainant J. Hop a fair trial to offer. The judges were challenged DIRECTLY INTERESTED Zutphen District Court in the case against J. Hop because they are in their roles as childjudge ever had to do with Hop as RELIABLE, EXPERT AND THEREBY tough opponent TO THE HEARING. The judges who decide on the objection have been interested in the case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop.  

Example 10. On March 7, 2002, the Law 'Dualisering communal'. This law gave a series of changes with it for both the council as the College of B and W. which results in a clear separation between the functions and powers of the council and the college. The Board determines especially the frameworks within which the college develops and implements policies. Below is a list of the most important changes:
The alderman: Aldermen may from outside the council (even from outside the town) are appointed;
Aldermen may no longer on the board;
Aldermen may not be more members-let alone a president-raadscommissie;
The relationship between the wethouders and 'own' groups in the council is looser.

 

 

 

8.0 remarks and substantiation of the claim that J. Hop is a RELIABLE, EXPERT and thereby tough opponent is that the childjudges of the Court Zutphen like to say at the hearings wanted kinderbeschermingszaken with ten years experience as the basis and Practice.

8.1 Professional ethics and mental institution J. Hop. For people like Agent / procesvertegenwoordiger in an emotionally vulnerable and often difficult situation such as child protection to assist in proceedings against administrative organs and judiciary is a good mental institution. It is of great importance both mentally and mentally able to withstand the problems facing the agent to gain. Because the action of the agent as an honest and therefore often difficult opponent will be "correcting others" for example after winning complaintcases and / or other proceedings will this action by authorised by the other criticism and resistance calls. The person against whom occurred (often RvdK employees and / or "youth authority bureau") will be the action of the Agent / procesvertegenwoordiger see as an intrusive and this is all the more so because Hop known procedurally and systematically to complain and to proceed and for information to ask. Systematic to standards and dangers to ask to see how the comparison has been reached.

8.2 From an integrity, competence and thus difficult Agent / procesvertegenwoordiger can be expected that he continues to perform his duties well, despite the resistance against the action and the resulting negative influences. This is all the more when criticism on the functioning of the judiciary in the past in cases often linked to access to children and later more often in cases linked to child protection.

8.3 Hop is honest, upright and incorruptible. In the past, Hop therefore never addressed proposals of a counterparty, or judiciary committee to investigate complaints at a maximum of one sheet of A4 to submit, not repeated the same complaints against a defendant to serve a maximum of 5 to submit complaints and no more complaints to be submitted on the issue of contactjournaal gezinsvoogd. This mentality of Hop in the interest of the citizen who came to assist Hop Hop often costly to because Hop in a growing number of institutions as the youth representative was refused. Recent imported complaint law to requests from the "youth authority bureau" to Parliament and the Minister as soon as possible was adapted to an expert and therefore difficult opponent to be switched on. This meant, therefore, as the end of all Provincial Complaint Commissions Youth in the Netherlands.

8.4 Hop citizens will advise NO COMPLAINTS more to go but is advising people only to litigate with a REQUEST, and ACTION COMPLAINT against the "youth authority bureau" and RvdK. This once again the Zutphen District Court on its path encountered any court of first instance Zutphen long remained on the submitted appeals refuse to go with is also increasingly critical of Hop on the uneven turnaround by the Court Zutphen be handled by petitions. The annoyance of the Zutphen District Court against Hop that does not go through university study has yet proved to be equal with the submission of appeals on the basis Wob and Article 5.5 Woj. it was only bigger. It took the Zutphen District Court also complete the "youth authority bureau" in the Netherlands as a "buddy" at Hop because the lawyer of that profession who was deployed against Hop alleged at the hearing by the court Zutphen "that if the submission of a Reference, and COMPLAINT APPLICATION in child protection would be granted the "gate of the dam would be." There are so enormous (financial) interests in both the judiciary and the "youth authority bureau" in the Netherlands for costs Hop off to the submission of a Reference, COMPLAINT APPLICATION by citizens and to prevent and criticism of the unequal turnaround of petitions and appeals and appeals on the basis Wob and Article 5.5 Woj.

8.4 The legal profession about Hop: "Quote:" Mr. Hop was a forerunner busy lamb to the system. In the first instance was in this context using nuisance, but legal means as the systematic complain and ask for information systematically "Source Rule 21, 22 and 23 Pleitnotities X lawyer at the public hearing of the Court of Discipline 150304."

8.5 In addition, the State like that on top of every child a risk analysis would make and the "youth authority bureau" in the Netherlands but is not pediatric aimed at scaling up. Criticism of Hop on cooperation judiciary, RvdK and "youth authority bureau" and working CONTENTS on the petitions from the RvdK and "youth authority bureau" to childjudges to enable even faster petitions from governing bodies there by them to hunt and ever more children growing quickly OTS and UHP to provide to the childjudges of the Court in Zutphen wrong frowned cases. The profession childjudges in Zutphen exploded when Hop criticism went on the childjudges van Zutphen that they had better watch out and better their work had to do and had to check the dates on the reports of the youth in accordance with the date of faxverzoeken to spoeduithuisplaatsingen of children and that the profession had to do with truth and after had to determine whether the AANKLACHTEN OF THE JEUGDZORG is right and could be substantiated with FACTS.

Example 1. Source: Judiciary in the Netherlands. Issue: Council for the Judiciary, The Hague in October 2002.

1.1 Quote page 3. Inleiding. Introduction. For years judges were suffering from a dusty image. Judges were older gentlemen who, dressed in black dresses, all day boring read codes. What is happening outside the court, because judges were not aware of. That image is true no longer. If there is JUDICIARY today for a significant proportion are women. The court must not only know the law but also know what is living under the the citizens. It gives support for his statements.

1.2 Quote page 4 rule 1,2,3 and 4. General What is justice. The judge expresses law. HE TAKES A INDEPENDENT ruling AS TWO PARTIES HAVE A CONFLICT.

Apparently, the judges of the Court Zutphen still NOT as judges in modern society and feel the childjudges being so attacked by Hop that legislation and standards for an "independent court" and "independent judiciary" because it is them in the case against non Hop reach for all but secured to the side is put to Hop to be switched on.

8.7 Studies and rulings with J. Hop as Agent against administrative organs in the Netherlands.

General administrative procedure law against an administrative body with Hop
547   Appeal Nienhuis / Leenders with Hop as procesvertegenwoordiger against "youth authority bureau" UNFOUNDED the Council of State
JH3   J. Hop against Ermelo town. Ermelo is not obliged to play detective. Judge gives equal in Ermelo refusal overview of all financial cooperation for this purpose. Hop got it right in his objection to the late finalisation of the case by the municipality. Question Hop: "Is it not strange that a municipality is not obliged an overview of all financial partnerships on the matter?"
   
The fight for the issue of contactjournalen gives you a perfect insight into the youth mentality
070   The article "Childthieves" by Prof.. Dr. Dr. A. A. de Swaan was adopted by the Hop used as a basis contrary to issue contactjournaal
069   Unfair trial to complaints handling! The complainants had no documents and no contactjournaal
068   VEreniging Director VOogdij institutions (Vedivo) would determine what judges and citizens should read
067   Smear campaign against Hop!  Youth Foundation Office Utrecht refuses Hop after complaining about name institution and contactjournaal
335   Smear campaign against Hop!  Letter Office Youth Foundation Utrecht that no copy of the contactjournaal is given
130   Smear campaign against Hop!  Office Youth Foundation Limburg refuses contactjournaal issue and participates in smear campaign against Hop
066   Smear campaign against Hop!  Youth and Family Foundation North-Holland refuses Hop "incitement to complain about after issuing contactjournaal"
252   Smear campaign against Hop! Press Release gezinsvoogdijinstelling Hop on a struggle for issuing contactjournaal gezinsvoogd
251   Smear campaign against Hop!  Letter gezinsvoogdijinstelling Hop on all customer
250     Support for Hop!  Platform customer organisations pleased that parents campaigning for the issue contactjournalen
222     Complot against the law!  The case Admiral / Vermaas gives direct insight into the importance citizens in contactjournaal
062   Smear campaign against Hop!  mr. PA Offers AKJ and Veringmeier start and losses interim relief against Hop to rechtbankpresident mr PA Offers
064   Calling the gezinsvoogden: "Take your own account and your OWN CHILDJUDGE and demonstrate to 200 million additional
065   Hop takes action with parents and shares leaflets at ministries and Parliament to issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd
063   Hop calls no longer demonstrate in The Hague after censorship in the Netherlands after demonstration judges gezinsvoogden
116   Smear campaign against Hop! Preference for subsidized klachtondersteuners in the provinces Flevoland, Gelderland, Overijssel
316   Smear campaign against Hop!  Preference for subsidized klachtondersteuners province in South Holland
220   Smear campaign against Hop!  Beroepsverbod for Hop in three provinces after refusing Hop complaints up A4-paper to be presented
061   The judgement HVRM Mc Michael! Netherlands violating human rights
053   Vedivo opens a help desk for gezinsvoogdijinstellingen to assist them in their fight against Hop
055     Contactjournaal: First bonafide ruling by Opinion Judicial College Child
056   Contactjournaal: Second bonafide ruling Provincial Complaints Noord-Brabant
057   Contactjournaal: Third bonafide ruling Provincial Complaints Groningen
058    Contactjournaal: Fourth bona fide ruling Provincial Complaints Commission of South Holland
059   Contactjournaal: Fifth bonafide ruling Provincial Complaints Rotterdam Haaglanden
060   Sixth bonafide ruling Provincial Complaints Buenos Aires
137     Memo Margriet Storms to all sectormanagers Youth Bureau Amsterdam on Vedivo wording to refuse to Hop
054   Vedivo decision to issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd
137   Smear campaign against Hop!  Vedivo leads smear campaign against Hop with a U.S. base sites that are NOT Hop
052   Smear campaign against Hop!  Beroepsverbod Hop for now because he refuses to stop growing the same complaints to be submitted
051   Smear campaign against Hop!  Complaint founded!  Hop is wrongly denied as interests of citizens complaining
050   Letter Platform CliŽntenorganisaties Family to Hop with the hope that Hop his work will continue
084   Smear campaign against Hop! Lawyer youth: "Hop should bleeding" after winning the battle for issuing contactjournaal
300   Liegen and cheating is the norm for the operation of the youth in order to demonise people and to break
020   Rene Diekstra: "Might is right! Who has more power reserves unpunished increasingly rights"
134   Hop advises citizens not to submit more complaints against the youth but objections on the basis of 5.5 Woj
   
Hop actions and Improving appearance law: RvdK should together with citizens entering and leaving the court hall
014  

LMT RvdK agree with Hop that rvdK representatives enter and leave the court hall together with other parties

142   Use first name RvdK representatives by childjudges after hearing on the complaint of Hop to the court Utrecht taboo
141   After March 29, 2000, the deadlines for handling and authority to RvdKinvestigation still exceeded
144     Director General Council for the Child leaves after complaints from Hop on interest in court Den Bosch
012   Staff members of the Council for the Child project after Hop has left the table to childjudge
   
Hop after ten years of experience advising citizens NO COMPLAINTS more against the Council for the Child to submit
136   First Hop complaint against RvdK unfounded! Rights of access father and children can not be enforced decision
085   2006 The procedure in 2006 against Hop RvdK puts children against parents' dispute over compliance with rules leeftijdsadequate "
357   Nine complaints founded!  Mother X with Hop as Agent against Council for the Child Protection Department of South-West
667   Too many complaints founded!  Mother X with Hop as Agent against Council for the Child Protection Department of North-West
666   2006 Complaint founded! Father X with Hop as Agent against RvdK Lelystad calls his doctor to change informerstatement
168   Complaint founded! Hop, 19 complaints against the Council for the Child!  All 19 complaints well-founded
298   Complaint founded! The case P. Perfect complaints handling by the director of the Council for the Child
209   Complaint founded! Raadonderzoeker replaced after complaint about partiality for the mother
208   Complaint founded! Research Council for the Child in the MŁnchhausen syndrome by proxy
325   Complaint founded! Raadsrapport wrongly declared after a successful complaint not destroyed
606   Eight Complaints founded! Father X with Hop as authorized by the Council for Child Protection North-West
321   Complaint founded! RvdKinvestigationer Council for the Child Protection Directorate East partisan during RvdKinvestigation
673   Complaint founded! Mother X with Hop as Agent against RvdK on "verification informerstatements"
672   Complaint founded! Mother X with Hop as agent. Gebezigde qualifications in writing to court too many tone
688   Complaint founded! Father X with Hop as agent on long-term research, no mediation, no flawless investigation
   
Improving appearance law: Hop breaks for parents by prohibiting access file outward
106   Hop from Ermelo Zutphen breaks to the court by refusing access by ordinary citizens around trial files
117   Complaint founded against Registrar of the Court of Arnhem, a Registrar, the Law on Inspection of file know
143   Griffieformulier "Guardianship: The Mother" at the request of Hop to the clerk of the court removed at court of Arnhem
   
Complaining with Hop against GGD, MHC, educationalists and psychiatrists
322   Complaint against MHC founded Hop against psychiatrist of MHC Assen, various complaints founded
195   Complaint founded! Geert van Spronsen with Hop against Mw Drs C. Snijder PAR pedagoog Amsterdam Snijder PAR teacher Amsterdam
687   Complaint founded with Hop as Agent in the case P. tegen GGD Twente GGD against Twente
195   Complaint founded! Geert van Spronsen with Hop against Indicatieorgaan Lelystad
   
  Complaining with Hop against judges and courts on incomplete and outdated records additional assignments
390   211004 Arnhem Court president has a complaint about incomplete task of Hop additional jobs was well-founded
607   Zutphen Court has complaint from Hop on an outdated register additional judiciary was well-founded
   
Complaining with Hop as agent on behalf of minors and their parents against Judicial Establishments JJI
471   Keiharde commitments directorate JJI Harreveld in consultation with Hop during suspension session Opinion Judicial College Child
086   Notice Hop BASED on publication names government employees with their phone number with the government
   
Hop after ten years of experience advising citizens NO COMPLAINTS more against "youth authority bureau" to serve
690   The danger! The legislature has been previously assumed that the lack of access to the childjudge could be offset by an internal complaints procedure. That route, however, for many of them in the dark jungle voortstrompelende civil litigants not easy to find
300   The standard! "Quote:" Mr. Hop was a forerunner busy lamb to the system. " In the first instance was in this context using nuisance, but legal means as the systematic complain and ask for information systematically "Source Rule 21, 22 and 23 Pleitnotities X lawyer at the public hearing of the Court of Discipline 150304."
050   All complaints BASED contrary to issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd be here if repeated and inserted considered
689   Max Wattimena! 12 complaints well founded based on Hop as Agent of mother X agsinst of Max and others Youth Bureau Amsterdam
137   Max Wattimena! Unwanted double employee family member internal complaints visible in smear campaign against Hop
693   Complaint against bjz17151696 founded SBJNB explained by Provincial Complaints Commission because of harassment of teenage mother
460   Complaint founded! Logtenberg  against VVP VVP intercept correspondence relating to complaints by Director VVP
461   Complaint founded! Logtenberg against SBJG intercept correspondence relating to complaints by policy
681   16 founded complaints against Youth Foundation Groningen in two rounds with Hop acting on behalf of complainants
204   VVP Complaint founded Provisional Pleegzorg Flevoland had after two years no internal legislation after complaints
691   History!  Complaint against founded with Hop Foundation Center for Pleegzorg Rotterdam
694   Complaint founded with Hop against Youth Foundation Office in Rotterdam Stadsregio Provincial Complaints
700   History!  Complaint founded with Hop as Agent against "inadmissible" provides a definition of "foster parents"
126   Complaint against swsg44200840 founded Foundation William Schrikker Group "Parents wrongly received no hulpverleningsplan"
669   Complaint against Foundation founded William Schrikker Group INCOMPREHENSIBLE after almost a year OTS not have a Plan To suit made of
198    Complaint founded Youth Foundation at Noord-Brabant provincince on harassment of teenage mother
676   The procedure against SBJF with Hop!  From six children, the OTS and off since they were not too happy SBJF
134   Hop advises citizens not to submit more complaints against the youth but objections on the basis of 5.5 Woj
198    13 klachten gegrond tegen Stichting Jeugdzorg Noord-Brabant in eerste klachtronde with Hop als gemachtigde van klagers 13 founded complaints against Youth Foundation North Brabant in the first klachtronde with Hop acting on behalf of complainants
674   19 founded complaints against Youth Noord-Brabant in two rounds with Hop acting on behalf of complainants
670   Again many complaints founded Youth Foundation Stichting Jeugdzorg Noord-Brabant in three klachtrondes with Hop acting on behalf of complainants
678   Complaints from mother X with Hop against Youth Foundation filed against North Holland BASED declared during Vedivo smear campaign
682   Complaints founded with Hop acting on behalf of parents against Office Youth Foundation Zealand
683   Complaint founded in the case J. with Hop as Agent against Foundation Salvation Army Welfare and Health
684   Complaint founded in the case Z. with Hop as Agent against Foundation Salvation Army Welfare and Health
685   Complaint founded in the case E. with Hop  as Agent against Foundation Salvation Army Welfare and Health
686    Complaints founded with Hop as Agent v Office Youth in South Holland Province Complaints
051    Vedivo smear campaign.   Complaint of Hop BASED against beroepsverbod for Hop on the basis of websites that are NOT Hop
668   Complaint founded! Director of Youth and Family Melbourne UNAUTHORIZED Hop refusing to internal complaints (Vedivo smear)
680   History!  Fight Hop on behalf of complainants against youth offices to issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd! "Youth and VVP" urge the Minister to regulation (6) (Omroep Gelderland) for internal complaints to adapt to complaints of abuse for their own purposes by third parties (read Hop ) Incurred as a means to raise the interests of complaints from individual complainants "direct action" (read struggle of parents with Hop as Agent for the issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd) in contention to protect them from contamination
692   Censorship in the Netherlands Hop refuses up to 5 complaints to submit to Provinciale Klachtencommissie Jeugdhulpverlening Noord-Brabant
211   Vedivo smear campaign against Hop meant to fight after issuing contactjournaal end of all Provincial Klachtencommissies in Netherlands
006   Challenge of Hop unfounded Zutphen District Court to get a sequel to the United Nations complaint Hop
Omroep Gelderland : President Zutphen District Court wants to challenge regulations adapt to object to childjudges
   
Method part "youth authority bureau" is not INCOMPETENTIE and by the appalling practice of this profession to costs to keep on a path even if there are very serious mistakes. To join a stream of complaints BASED declared an end at the request of "youth authority bureau" legislation for "youth authority bureau" NOT KINDGERICHT and only intention was to scale to more and more children to be able to give a staatsopvoeding
070   The article "Childthieves" from 1997 by Hop as a basis for any resistance against "youth authority bureau" is used
300   "Quote:" Mr. Hop was a forerunner busy lamb to the system." In the first instance was in this context using nuisance, but legal means as the systematic complain and ask for information systematically "Source Rule 21, 22 and 23 Pleitnotities X lawyer at the public hearing of the Court of Discipline 150304."
006   Beroepsverbod in 2007 for Hop in Zutphen District Court after use article "Childthieves" in proceedings against "youth authority bureau"
220   Beroepsverbod for Hop in 3 provinces after his refusal complaints against "youth authority bureau" at a maximum of A4 paper to be presented
137   Vedivo ACT for smear campaign against Hop contrary to contactjournaal taken in a small room without hearing
668   Complaint founded!  Director of Youth and Family Noord-Holland UNAUTHORIZED Hop refusing to internal complaints (Vedivo smear)
067    Beroepsverbod for Hop in the province of Utrecht after record number of complaints against founded declared "youth Utrecht"
052   Beroepsverbod Hop for Youth Foundation in Noord-Brabant after huge numbers of founded complaints declared
121   bjz01099530 Stasi practice contrary to the ninth commandment without hearing is representative of the operation of the Youth Assistance Foundation Office with Friesland as incompetent general manager mw. drs. BA Katee
121   bjz01099530 General Director of Youth Foundation Office Friesland mw. drs. BA Katee  again in the mistake with the unauthorized refusing Hop interests as family H. bij de Interne klachtencommissie Stichting Bureau Jeugdzorg Friesland Internal complaints to the Office Youth Foundation Friesland
137    Beroepsverbod for Hop in Amsterdam from memos show that about Hop within the youth in orbit
130     Beroepsverbod for Hop in the province of Limburg after procedural and systematic complain against "youth Limburg"
677   A Stasi practice contrary to the ninth commandment without hearing is representative of the functioning of the internal complaints of the Foundation William Schrikker Group as chairman with Mrs. M. Moons Moons
677   A Stasi practice contrary to the ninth commandment without hearing is representative of the modus operandi of the Foundation William Schrikker Working with the director drs K. Verwey, MMC Verwey, MMC
066   bjz34186307 Beroepsverbod for J. Hop on account of "incitement to complain about issuing contactjournaal" A Stasi practice contrary to the ninth commandment without hearing is representative of the operation of the Youth Assistance Foundation North Holland with the Director ESP Oudejans
678   A Stasi practice contrary to the ninth commandment without hearing is representative of the functioning of the internal complaints of the Youth Assistance Foundation North Holland with the president HR Smits (Chairman), Mrs. mr AB Boukema (Vice-Chairman), Mrs. drs L. Rooijer (lid), Mevrouw MAC Gouwenberg (Secretaris) Rooijer (member), Mrs MAC Gouwenberg (Secretary)
680   History! Fight Hop on behalf of complainants against family to issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd! "Youth and VVP" urge the Minister to regulation (6) (Omroep Gelderland) for internal complaints to adapt to complaints of abuse for their own purposes by third parties (read Hop ) Incurred as a means to raise the interests of complaints from individual complainants "direct action" (read struggle of parents with Hop as Agent for the issue contactjournaal gezinsvoogd) in contention to protect them from contamination
211   Vedivo smear campaign against Hop meant to fight after issuing contactjournaal end of all Provincial Klachtencommissies in Netherlands
006   Challenge of Hop unfounded Zutphen District Court to get a sequel to the United Nations complaint Hop
Omroep Gelderland : President Zutphen District Court wants to challenge regulations adapt to object to childjudges
   
Characteristic process Zutphen District Court was handling other turnaround for requests / professions parents!
GHK   OTS to 4 years 310808! Dirkje Logtenberg Dijkhof-candidate elections Hop Group 2010 delivers robust resistance against SGJ
519   OTS to 4 years 310808!  SGJ has no bezwaarcommissie, Gelderland Youth Foundation offices have teh bezwaarcommissie!
426   OTS to 4 years 310808!  Remarks opposition 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 against Logtenberg SGJ / SBJG hearing Rb Zutphen 300807
453   OTS to 4 years 310808! History! Beroepschrift Logtenberg founded but is still cause for opposition 1
454   OTS to 4 years 310808! History! Beroepschrift Logtenberg founded but is still cause for opposition 2
455   OTS to 4 years 310808! History! Beroepschrift Logtenberg founded but is still cause for opposition 3
456   OTS to 4 years 310808! History!  Beroepschrift Logtenberg founded but is still cause for opposition 4
517   OTS to 4 years 310808! History!  Beroepschrift Logtenberg founded but is still cause for opposition 5
518   OTS to 4 years 310808! History!  Beroepschrift Logtenberg founded by administrative Mrs J. Barrau rechtbank Arnhem Barrau court Arnhem
710   OTS to 4 years 310808! All opposition Logtenberg BASED returned and well founded with Hop as procesvertegenwoordiger
   

 

 

9. One of the grounds for Mr.  Vergunst was a challenge because all his (reformed) additional positions. In the play Hop as procesvertegenwoordiger went to the proceedings against the Reformed Youth Foundation.  Vergunst testifies assets of (reformed) faith and he also writes that the elements of (reformed) believe a noticeable undertone to his environment for his work.  Vergunst had therefore BASED declares to be here because the procedures involved with the Reformed Youth Protection Foundation (SGJ) as a counterparty of parents with Hop as procesvertegenwoordiger and SGJ a direct interest in the elimination of Hop as integrity, competence and thus difficult opponent .

Dirk Vergunst, Vice-President court Zuthphen
My work I do not see in the first place as an opportunity to actively witness of my faith. The quality of the work is central, albeit that this should be embedded in a life of (collegiate) dienstbetoon, charity and a uitnemender deem than the other. Thus, I, frankly, my hands more than full. I hope that these elements for my area the noticeable undertone forms of my work, both in the collegiate dealings in relation to the litigants. That is not to say that I am not for my conviction results, on the contrary. Amazement about my faith, as I often encounter, with astonishment, I am responding on disbelief: look at the sky, the trees, your own hands and put me out again how can that you only have to view the material instead for the miracle. Then sometimes creates space for living in a message of a God who wants to keep people, not because they are so sweet, but because He is love.

Source: Impact, Christian are in work, relationships and society No 3rd year on July 3, 2002, The Crazy Bob's?

De Gekke Henkie's?! The Crazy Bob's?  Christian at your workplace.  Does that mean your work as good as possible?  Or the chance to seize non-believer colleagues to tell the gospel?  Ten people plus a statement: "Christians would be more pronounced in their work. Clearer witnesses, and clear their views on professional and social issues. It is not just a good act, Christians have an open and widely read book. "


Nolda Griffioen, Operation Engineer Shell
Delivered Christian.  What's that?  Does it mean that I daily my neighbor in the tram should ask 'Are you born again? "  Does the jealously prove that despite my christenzijn I'm still a professional? Life as a child of God is my love for my fellow human beings, integrity, listening and acting. Delivered Christian is subtle.  I pray God for wisdom.   It is often wrong.  I get a question and got itself into a discussion which I blinded by verbal warfare bid or not really listen to my opponent.  In retrospect I pray: 'God, where were you? "  But where was I?

Richard Doornbosch, officer Ministry of Finance
It is important to realize that Christians have no monopoly on charity.  They are not the only ones who seek a just society.  Obviously you as a Christian first and just do your work and not the whole day on a chair to stand for the gospel to preach.  The belief anywhere in the hair bijslepen, generates more than a little irritation.  The lunch or a beer after work in the tavern often gives me more opportunity to explain what the faith means to me.  So not always and everywhere with the gospel on the tip of my tongue.  But hopefully always approachable and identifiable as Christian.

Dirk Vergunst, Vice-President court Zuthphen
My work I do not see in the first place as an opportunity to actively witness of my faith. The quality of the work is central, albeit that this should be embedded in a life of (collegiate) dienstbetoon, charity and a uitnemender deem than the other. Thus, I, frankly, my hands more than full. I hope that these elements for my area the noticeable undertone forms of my work, both in the collegiate dealings in relation to the litigants. That is not to say that I am not for my conviction results, on the contrary. Amazement about my faith, as I often encounter, with astonishment, I am responding on disbelief: look at the sky, the trees, your own hands and put me out again how can that you only have to view the material instead for the miracle. Then sometimes creates space for living in a message of a God who wants to keep people, not because they are so sweet, but because He is love.

Mirjam Siesling, AIO faculty Rights - University of Utrecht
As a Christian you have no reason to hide your lifestyle banks stabbing. This applies not only to work, but for every day and every circumstance.  I try in my work as far as possible always to remember that God has made me with the talents I have. D  That I want the best possible use against my neighbour and honor of him.
My immediate colleagues know that I am a Christian and I can open with them about this.  The content I have not directly to do with philosophical problems in my work.   I know that it can be different.  Someone who has worked here, concerned many of his Christian views in his research. The mixing of personal opinions and objective scientific research was not thank him declined. I regret that they were with him apparently does not mind change.

Johan Bac, a judicial official in training - public prosecutor in Utrecht
Jesus had very strong views, but the man never lost from sight.  Christians with strong views and a bit zendingsijver can sometimes emphasize too much the first and the second too many lose sight of.  If there is anything where my non-Christian colleagues are sensitive to, it is that finger finds that, without ever having listened.
In addition, we must also hand in his own bosom dare stabbing.  The much beleden pursuit of a high professional level and a good fellowship (completely agree incidentally) is sometimes a fig leaf to a deep, substantial conversation from the path of a clash of minds to avoid.  Recently a colleague asked whether I still have no problem with euthanasiemeldingen I get on my desk.  I've explained to him what I think, but it left.   Perhaps a nice opportunity.

Cor Verkade, teacher and onroerendgoedontwikkelaar
Christians sometimes feel guilty when they meet colleagues, neighbors or fellow students not living in a message have told you, they are therefore responsible for the zielenheil of those who are not confronted with the message.  In my belief Christians are just as much responsible for it spreading the good message and the consequences that that has created by others (disgust, hardening, disgust). We must find the right place and manner to the most intimate that we have to share with families chosen for this purpose.  And the wee screaming and the neurotic.  Also in these situations: 'Not by force or by violence but by my Spirit will take place. "

Esther Roeleveld, financial consultant
If you most of the day working, then you take your christenzijn back to work.  You can not even turn on you at the moment you enter the office goes, as you coat hanging on the rack.  In my christenzijn on my work, competence in the first place.  In so doing I try to love God and serving the people and society to act.  I believe that the value of your work in the eyes of God based on the intention with which it is done. So witnesses by your good work to do and with the right intention! Is God the driving force behind your work so you want to make a difference in the lives of others?  Or does it actually do to influence, salary and self?  Are you trying to open everybody to act and nobody are unable to operate, including those colleagues that you at first sight and which may not seem so boring?

Teunis van Kooten, lawyer and doctoral candidate at the Free University
In your work, I think two things are important.  First, you just do good work. So not during working things for the church regulate: since we stick flawlessly throughout.   Secondly, (work) arrangements with colleagues and you meet them socially slightly (not too soft incidentally) to prepare.  Take it to observe others. While there is always something for everybody or to remark, then you become settled.   In conversations with colleagues - for example about the underlying weekend - you can tell what about your motives, without insisting on something.  Also you can say - in my box that still plays regularly - why a particular case whether or not it adopts a certain strategy choose. You can change the facts in a positive way for your client colors, but what you ga therein?

Leon Frantzen, director DKN Financial Consultants Ltd
Martyn Lloyd-Jones said a few decades ago: 'I am never tired to say that no evangelical church should organise campaigns to attract outsiders, but itself must begin the Christian life in practice. " In his book Let the nations be glad writes J. Piper: 'Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church; worship is. Piper: "Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church; worship. Missions exists because worship doesn't.' Missions exists because worship does not. " If I were these two different statements (which has nothing to do seem to have with our workplace) released on the argument, then I come off at the 'deugdenlijst' of Petrus (see 2 Peter 1:5-7).  In compliance will lead to piety (verse 8). The emphasis is not for nothing on a piece of zeal (fresh 5).  It is a gift and a mission. God wants to do things in our lives, along with us.  God calls us forward in life.  Asking us to do?

Justin de Jong, surgeon in training
Christian operate.  Not in the handling of the knife but with problems that sometimes occur at the beginning and end of life.  The popular of every individual and belief in the afterlife give an extra dimension to your profession.   In discussions with dissenters gives you something more to report than what is the quality "or" everything is still below last. "  You will be a mad Bob found, but fully accepted.  By open, without too intrusive, and to see where you stand for, you can make people curious to identify the source of mad Bob.  God does the rest.

 

 

10. President Court Zutphen is a political opponant against Hop on subject of "lekenrechtspraak"

Might is right. Mr. Vrieze President of the Court Zutphen: "Training and reflection are not devoted to a jury.

10.1 There is resentment of at least one to know Mr. G. Vrieze President of the Court Zutphen or more of the judges against the complainant in this case. The complainant has criticised the law and its political position "entering lekenrechtspraak" to the quality of justice in the Netherlands. Mr. G. President of the Court Zutphen is a staunch opponent of the introduction of lekenrechtspraak.

10.2 Source: Law Dagblad 11 april 2008.

From one of our editors

Vrieze juryrechtspraak looks bleak in: without justification guilty or innocent?

Jury promotes non-law expertise. "That says an appellate court. Mr. G.  , president of the court Zutphen, in his speech during the installatiebijeenkomst today lekenrechtspraak on the grain.   In 'various media' - the Judiciary always keep the general - would the introduction of juryrechtspraak weather 'ns advocates, because that would be democratic. According Vrieze democracy goes on legislation that applies to everyone and not volksgerichten, at least he warns. Enfin, onderstaand kort z'n cri de coeur in het 'debat'. Finally, shortly following his cri de coeur in the 'debate'.  His statement reads: A jury has been no improvement of the competence of the judiciary and also increases the confidence in the law.  Mr. Vrieze: "What has the society to a jury without justification" guilty "or" innocent "calls?  The far-reaching decisions every day in the courtroom have taken a thorough explanation is needed. "Mr Vrieze thinks that the law could be improved:" By investing in the expertise of judges when it comes to critically examine all sorts of evidence.  And to open a stand for the idea that experts believe may vary.  For example, there are already invested in continuing training, improvement of the inquiry, a nationwide database of certified experts and reflection afterwards.   Training and reflection are not devoted to a jury. "

10.3 How much money should the company still academically trained judicial officials invest if this profession "expert" and therefore difficult opponents trying to turn it off and death to silence by NOT INDEPENDENT JUDGES on a case, no indictment written on paper to continue and no trial file copy to the profession because it is not true because a tricky opponent should be off?

10.4 This appears all the more given the ruling of Jeanne Dijkstra editor of Wegener's Weekly Ermelo to the Council for Journalism. Hearings, and interviews. Quote of the ruling Council for Journalism: "The defendant stressed that it is not a member of a political Party and entirely neutral. It has been 15 years working for Ermelo's Weekly and is known as a reliable reporter. "Hear and interviews. Quote from its defence to the Council for Journalism:" From all sides in Ermelo, the call heard to this political party (Group Hop) death in silence and I am sadly out that this is probably true "writes Mrs. Jeanne Dijkstra editor of the Weekly's Ermelo to the Council for Journalism.

0.5 This appears all the more because during the last provincial elections in Assam verkiezingsposters of the "Group Hop" everywhere on the verkiezingsborden were met on overplakt to "Hop Group" death to remain silent.

10.6 Macht is Judiciary! Remarks www.burojeugdzorg.nl/20.htm From all sides are heard and the call once again by the Court Zutphen honoured to plaintiff J.  and the political group (Group Hop) dead silence.  The unfounded stated objection of three judges of the court Zutphen as described above is yet another proof that attempts are made with integrity, competence and thus difficult opponent and complaining to the UN J. Hop as far as possible to frustrate and silenced them.

 

11. The request for disqualification of Vergunst was rejected but the objection had implications for the vervolgprocedures in the case. Judge Vergunst was also replaced in the case. What then did was very strange that the same Judge Vergunst suddenly functioned as persrechter and in this case as a spectator who also was present at the sessions pertaining to the community where Mr. Vergunst was also a member of .

12. The Zutphen District Court fits this practice occasionally, there is a structural process. Also in the vervolgprocedure after the refusal of Mr. Hop fit these three judges same tactics and ignoring the Mantovanelli judgement by the applicants do not have all submitted documents to be available . During a wrakingszitting of the court was again denied that the Tribunal on the documents had not received while a receipt of the court in the possession of applicants. The investigation of the relevant documents was carried out by the investigating judge Mr. Eskes. This investigation lasted so long that the result which would be of importance for other cases pending in court. An appeal to this investigation should not benefit because the new investigating judge was simply ruling on these matters. The outcome of the study was that a 3 numerous pieces belonged to a different procedure while the documents submitted 9 productions concerned.

13. The Zutphen District Court loses by this process of its judges and its president's credibility as an independent court. From a court challenge unfounded but proceeds to applying what is the objection and a president who invited his own frustration at the television at law remedies and there are obviously no good abilities can go as well as a court without meeting the legal requirements as well as an agent refuses a court which allows no independent judges participate in sessions can not be maintained that they have credible manner . Ergo er wordt afbreuk gedaan aan de onpartijdigheid van de rechterlijke macht wat zou moeten leidden tot grootscheepse schoonmaakacties. Ergo it is detrimental to the impartiality of the judiciary which would have led to massive schoonmaakacties.

 

14.1 There is Judiciary with double standards by the court Zutphen.

14.2 The case Congregation Salvation Army at the town of Zutphen was WEL by the court Zuthpen referred to the court Almelo because in this case, an employee of the Zutphen District Court was concerned.

Measuring double standards because

in the case Zutphen District Court  against J. Hop Ermelo was NOT referred to another court while the Zutphen District Court in the case Zutphen District Court against J. Hop itself childjudges three of the Zutphen District Court and the court itself Zutphen were interested.

14.3 legislation quote: She may be a case brought by her to further treatment refer to another court if its judgement on involvement of the court handling of that case by another court is desired. "

Section 8.1.3

Referral, joinder and split

Art. (8.1.3.1) [Reference] (8.1.3.1)
-1. The court may in its pending case for further treatment refer to the court where another case is pending if its treatment of those cases considered by a court is desired. They may be a case brought by her to further treatment refer to another court if its judgement on involvement of the court handling of that case by another court is desired.
-2. A request to change can be made until the start of the trial.
-3. If the court that a case has been referred agree to the referral, be placed on the case documents related to her.

14.4 In the case Congregation Salvation Army at the town of Zutphen was WEL by the court Zuthpen referred to the court Almelo LJN: BA2013, President of the Court of Almelo, 07 / 189 GEMWT AQ1 V

14.5 Decision: The court has Zutphen, applying the provisions of Article 8:13, the first paragraph of the Awb the application for interim injunction referred to the Interim of the court Almelo

  LJN: BA2013, President of the Court of Almelo, 07 / 189 GEMWT AQ1 V

Date pronunciation: 30-03-2007

Publication Date: 02-04-2007

Judicial: Administrative Others

Type of procedure: Provisional facility

Inhoudsindicatie: In the present dispute, the relevant question is whether the immediate urgency that the decision of January 31, 2007, partially modified by a decision of February 15, 2007, which includes the imposition of a burden under penalty with respect to overrule explicitly asked noise because activities from the building, suspended or otherwise produced an interim measure was taken. APV Zutphen, vrijheid van godsdienst. APV Zutphen, freedom of religion.

Pronunciation TRIBUNAL ALMELO
Administrative Division


Registration: 07 / 189 GEMWT AQ1 V

Ruling of the President ruled as provided for in Article 8:84 General Administrative Law Act dated March 30, 2007

in the dispute between:

Kerkgenootschap the Salvation Army,
established in Almere, applicant,
Agent: mr BJW Walraven, a lawyer in Rotterdam,

and

the College of Mayor and Aldermen of the town of Zutphen,
defendant.


Third-party: Adamanshuis Foundation, established in Zutphen.


1. Decision on which the request relates
Decision of defendant dated January 31, 2007 and the amended complaint pending decision dated February 15, 2007.


2. Process
Following defendant received complaints relating to noise caused by the activities carried out by the applicant be developed in the building Hagepoortplein 4A in Zutphen (the pledge), officials employed by defendants town checks and noise.  By letter dated May 22, 2006 defendant has communicated to the applicant within a period of one month brassband and other activities with enhanced music are no longer allowed. Defendant has also indicated that he is considering using its powers to impose a burden under penalty if after the expiry of that period the noise standards are exceeded. The applicant is given an opportunity to give his views.  By letter dated June 14, 2006, the applicant has a view.  By letter dated July 11, 2006 defendant applicant has indicated that, having regard to the agreements made between him and the applicant, he sees no reason to enforcement action. By decision of January 31, 2007 (primary decision 1) defendant has a burden to the applicant under penalty imposed containers that, essentially, an applicant penalty forfeits if the primary decision 1 explicitly defined maximum allowable noise standards are violated.  The begunstigingstermijn is made on February 1, 2007.

That the applicant in a letter dated February 13, 2007 filed an objection.   Concomitant to the voorzieningenrechter of Zutphen asked the court to take an interim measure includes the suspension of primary decision 1. By decision of February 15, 2007 (primary decision 2) the defendant has begunstigingstermijn of primary decision 1 until May 1, 2007.  Having regard to the provisions of Article 6:19, the first member of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb) is the objection of co-applicant deemed to have been directed primarily against decision 2.  Defendant has on the case related documents on February 20, 2007 introduced.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 8:13, the first paragraph of the Awb is the application for interim injunction referred to the President ruled on this court.
Defendant on March 1, 2007 further documents in the dispute.

Public examination of the application has taken place in court on March 26, 2007 where the applicant has represented by JCY van Vliet, JNJ Wisseborn and RLJ Keijzer, assisted by his agent said.  Defendant was represented by mr FBM of Aanhold and N. van Buitenen.  Third-party is represented by P. Will.   


3. Recitals

The core of the dispute Under Article 8:81 of the Awb, if prior to a possible appeal to the court objection was made by the proposer of the appeal to the President ruled on the court an interim injunction be sought.  In assessing such a request should be considered whether immediate urgency, given the competing interests, introducing an interim measure.  Insofar as this review means that a judgement is pronounced that also the subject of the bezwarenprocedure touches, this view has a provisional character.  Therefore, in this case the question to be answered or the immediate urgency that the decision of January 31, 2007, partially modified by a decision of February 15, 2007, which includes the imposition of a burden under penalty with respect to overrule explicitly asked noise because activities from the building, suspended or otherwise produced an interim measure was taken.

Grounds of objection / interim measure
He submits that the primary defendant is not competent to impose a burden under penalty.  In support of this allegation he performs the following.
  First, the burden primarily aimed at redressing the violation of Article 4.1.5 of the General Local Regulation of the town of Zutphen (APV).  This article provides no authority for the provision of further limits / noise.  Given this defendant may not take enforcement action against exceeding the noise standards set by him.  Alternatively, the applicant that if jack can be searched by the Decision residential and verblijfsgebouwen Environment, rule 1.1.2, introductory and b of the annex to this decision in this case prevents this connection.  Indeed, it is stated that in determining noise, the noise in support of calls to profess the religion or beliefs or attending religious or philosophical meetings and lijkplechtigheden and sound in connection with the holding of these meetings or ceremonies, disregarded.

Secondly, all activities of the applicant protected by Article 6 of the Constitution.  The first paragraph of this article gives the possibility of limiting the freedom of religion, but only through a formal law.   Restrictions through one - fleshed - APV determination not to comply.  The case law cited by the defendant sees the exercise of freedom of religion outside buildings and places so they decided jurisprudence in this case does not apply.  The petitioner also refers to in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Ivbpr) enshrined freedom of religion. The imposition of the burden is premature because there is still no violation occurred.

If it is found that defendant does have jurisdiction to impose this burden, then the applicant alternatively that the inclusion of limits and the determination that violation of these limits to forfeiture of a penalty resulting in a single act is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.  Furthermore, there is no undue begunstigingstermijn.

At the meeting, the applicant claimed that the burden is unclear, what is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

Considerations of the voorzieningenrechter
Having regard to the provisions of Article 125 of the Municipalities Act in conjunction with Articles 5:21 and 5:32 of the Awb first defendant is competent to impose a burden under penalty if it is acted in violation of a legal requirement.  First, once it has been determined that such a violation exists, should be reviewed or defendant reasonably use of this power has been able to make.

Regarding the power to impose a burden under penalty, the President ruled the following.

Article 4.1.5, the first paragraph of the APV provides that it is prohibited to aircraft or audio or lichtapparaten into force, or acts in a manner that one or surrounding environment, for the sound or is caused lichthinder . The second paragraph of this article stipulates that the College of the ban waiver may be granted.
The ban does not apply, insofar as Article 2.4.16, based on the Environmental Management Act regulations, the Law noise, the Wegenverkeerswet 1994, the Zondagswet, the Penal Code, the Air Cargo, the road signs and traffic Rules 1990 or the applicable Vuurwerkbesluit be.

Between parties is not in dispute that the building activities can not be regarded as an establishment within the meaning of the Environmental Management Act and that the Article 4.1.5, the second paragraph of the APV said laws do not apply.  The President supports this view.

The term 'noise' is not further defined in the APV.  In order to assess whether there is noise, the defendant sought by the meetwijze and norms that are customary in authorisation companies.  In this case, the defendant sought by the standards of the Decision residential, and verblijfsgebouwen Environment and / or the Decision catering, sports and recreatieinrichtingen Environment. Unlike applicant shall conduct of this defendant. The President ruled in this context refers to the judgement of the Administrative Department of the State Council (hereinafter: the Department) by May 1, 2002, LJN AE2053. Now only connection defendant has sought to standards above Acts (Acts and the defendant is not fully applicable stated) is the editor of regulation 1.1.2, introductory and b of the annex to the Decision living and a verblijfsgebouwen Environment no such connection in the way. The President considers therefore that the defendant, by the narrowing of the term 'noise' in Article 4.1.5 of the APV connection has been able to find the noise standards for establishments within the meaning of the Environmental Management Act. Now, in this case there is a narrowing of an already prescribed standard (in Article 4.1.5 of the APV) and not of a new standards, missing the complaint of the plaintiff in this factual basis.

He submits that all activities protected by the freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Constitution and international treaties. In this respect, the President ruled the following.

Article 6, first paragraph of the Constitution provides that each entitled to have his religion or belief, individually or in community with others, free to profess, except everyone's responsibility under the law. The second paragraph of this article stipulates that the law concerning the exercise of this right outside buildings and private places can make rules to protect the health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorder.

Given the wording of this article can this fundamental right, if not exercised outside buildings and private places, only be limited by a formal law without possibility of delegation.  This does not mean that all activities developed in the framework of the godsdienstbelijding in buildings and decided to place such protection encounter. The President refers to the ruling of the Department of January 5, 1996, published in AB 1996, 179, which also has defendant.  The argument of petitioner that this precedent in this case does not apply because this ruling only looks at religious gatherings in the open air (and therefore comes under Article 6, second paragraph of the Constitution) is not correct.  The Department has in this judgement in its considerations explicit reference to Article 6, first paragraph of the Constitution.

In this ruling, the Department determined that the - with the right to profess connected - a sound connex law, which must be distinguished from the right to profess sec and that subordinate.  This connexe right can in principle be limited by a municipal regulation as the APV.  In doing so, the following should be adhered to:
a. The restriction of the right to connexe sound is not related to the contents of the profess.
b. The restriction is necessary to ensure the interests that the legislation which limit the rest, aims to serve and does not go beyond in order to protect those interests strictly necessary.
c. The restriction does not go as far that of the right connexe no significant remains.

The President should examine whether the burden meets these criteria formulated by the Department.
The burden, as it was formulated in primary decision 1, reads - basically - as follows (underscore made by the Interim):

I. I.  For activities on your property that would be far surrender of the fundamental right of the connexe it right, as preparatory activities in churches, including the exercise of zangkoren and (brass) bands apply in the specified periods of the day as the noise limits as indicated below:

Table A-standards.

Wanneer moet worden geconstateerd dat op enig moment niet aan dit onderdeel van deze last wordt voldaan, verbeurt u van rechtswege een bedrag van € 1.000,- per constatering van de overschrijding van de geluidsnormen, tot een maximum van € 10.000,-. When should be noted that at any time not participating in this part of this burden is met, you automatically forfeits an amount of € 1,000, - a finding by the crossing of the noise, to a maximum of € 10,000, -.

II. II. Voor activiteiten in uw pand die aan het grondrecht connexe rechten raken, zoals het recht op geluidsversterking, geldt: For activities in your premises that meet the fundamental rights connexe touching, such as the right to sound, holds:
1. 1. In de vermelde perioden van de dag als maxima de geluidniveaus als onderstaand vermeld onder A. In the mentioned periods of the day as the noise limits as indicated below at A.
2. 2. In afwijking van het gestelde onder 1. Notwithstanding the provisions under 1. is op alle zondagen en maximaal vijf feestdagen per kalenderjaar gedurende ťťn eredienst een maximaal geluidsniveau toegestaan als onderstaand vermeld onder B. on all Sundays and public holidays up to five per calendar year during a worship a maximum permissible noise level as indicated below under B.
3. 3. In afwijking van het gestelde onder 1. Notwithstanding the provisions under 1. en in aanvulling op het gestelde onder 2. and in addition to the alleged under 2. is op maximaal acht dagen naar keuze per kalenderjaar een maximaal geluidsniveau toegestaan als onderstaand vermeld onder B gedurende ťťn activiteit gedurende maximaal vier uren, mits hiervoor vooraf ontheffing is verleend op basis van artikel 4.1.5 APV. is at a maximum of eight days per calendar year to choose a maximum permissible noise level as indicated below B during an activity for a maximum of four hours, provided that prior exemption was granted on the basis of Article 4.1.5 APV.

Tabel met A-normen en B-normen. Table A-and B-standards standards.

When should be noted that at any time not participating in this part of this burden is met, you automatically forfeits an amount of € 1,000, - a finding by the crossing of the noise, to a maximum of € 10,000, -.

At the meeting showed that this burden is not clear. Agents also defendants were initially divided on the scope of the burden.  After explanation of the defendants Agents voorzieningenrechter assume that the defendant has the following aims with the burden.

There is a distinction between three categories of activity.
Category 1 includes activities that directly affect the fundamental right.  This means the holding of worship without sound.
Category 2 includes activities that the right to sound (one on the fundamental right connex) touching.  This means strengthening the sound during worship.
Category 3 includes activities that would be far surrender of the right or the right to connexe sound.  This means all activities other than the worship.

The burden is not on category 1 so that no maximum allowable noise.   The burden will be only category 2 and 3.
For category 2 apply to single explicitly defined times / situations, the (higher) B standards.  This is a worship on Sundays and public holidays worship at five per calendar year.  It may be waived for an activity of up to four hours at a maximum of eight days per calendar year.  For the 'extra' worship, the (lower)-A standards.
For category 3 apply fully the (lower)-A standards.

Verweerders gemachtigde heeft ter zitting een aantal voorbeelden gegeven ter verduidelijking van de reikwijdte van de last. The defendants told the House authorized a number of examples to clarify the scope of the burden.
•  Het zingen (zonder microfoon) en het spelen van brassbands (niet versterkte muziek) tijdens erediensten ressorteert onder categorie 1, zodat hiervoor geen maximale geluidsnormen gelden. • The singing (no microphone) and playing brassband (not enhanced music) during worship comes under category 1, so no maximum noise.
•  Het bespelen van een elektrische gitaar (versterkte muziek) tijdens erediensten ressorteert onder categorie 2. • The play of an electric guitar (enhanced music) during worship comes under category 2.
•  Het bespelen van een elektrische gitaar, het spelen van brassbands en het zingen (al dan niet met een microfoon) buiten erediensten ressorteert onder categorie 3. • The play of an electric guitar, playing and singing brassband (with or without a microphone) outside worship comes under category 3.

The President noted that the scope of the burden he first became clear after the defendants had authorized this explanation and after examples were discussed.  Such unclear burden is contrary to the principle of legal certainty.  Even so, primarily in decision 1 objection does not be maintained unchanged.  In the last defendant will object so that it should formulate an explanation and that is susceptible to all parties, including the applicant and third-party activities for which clear what standards apply.  The President notes in this context also that uncertainty about the scope of the burden can be prevented by the terms "like" and "including" no longer in use but explicitly describe what actions the burden see.

At the meeting, the applicant claimed that he, in order to meet the load, a large number of worship such as funeral and huwelijksdiensten, can no longer hold, given the maximum allowable number of worship. T In this respect, the President ruled that the holding of worship sec is not limited.  Religious Communities, without sound, fall under category 1 and are no noise in the burden.  The burden is because, in terms of worship, but only on the strengthening of the sound during this worship.

The last show that over a number of worship (one per Sunday + one every five public holidays per calendar year) and for eight operations per calendar year, the broader B standards. At the meeting showed that the applicant holds worship more than the preceding one, so during this' extra 'worship within the lower A-standards should be stayed.  It is not clear whether voorzieningenrechter fulfilling the A-standards implies that during such worship no use of a microphone.  If that were the case, which the predecessor to the faithful only onversterkt may speak, there may be violating the above a threshold and / or c criterion.  Indeed, for the right to his faith / beliefs to profess in community with others to use, it is understandable that he is required or he can be heard.  Not clear is whether the standards are lower A-sufficiency.

Given the above voorzieningenrechter can not assess whether the burden is contrary to freedom of religion, as enshrined in Article 6 of the Constitution.

Primary 1 decision, because of the ambiguity of the scope of the burden and uncertainty due to worship or where the A-standards must be met has been an infringement of religious freedom, objected not be maintained unchanged.  The President will also suspend this decision than to 6 weeks after the defendant has taken a decision on the appeal of the applicant.

With a view to the finals desire to dispute the voorzieningenrechter will also discuss the remaining land.

He submits that the imposition of a burden is premature because there is no violation of the alleged noise has been made.  In this respect, the President ruled that the figure in the jurisprudence of the last preventive under penalty qualification (including the Department on January 25, 2006, AB 2006, 229).  A load may preventively, before the last defined offence has been committed, be imposed if there is a danger of violation of a concrete by or under the Act made provision that is virtually certain likelihood will take place and if that offence in the decision can be described with that degree of clarity from the viewpoint of legal certainty is required. In this case it is clear from the documents that the applicant is not prepared adequately acoustic measures to meet the prescribed noise.   Indeed, plaintiff has only the upstairs around isolated and the isolation of the great hall consists only of insulating glazing.  Furthermore the applicant to defendant indicated that he's activities, with sound work will resume.  The violation of the noise will therefore virtually certain probability. Where exactly is a defendant in violation will have to indicate clearly the burden.

He submits that the defendant in the burden under penalty has no begunstigingstermijn.  This complaint is outdated now defendant in primary decision 2 still has a begunstigingstermijn.

To sum up the judge's preliminary voorzieningenrechter that defendant has rightly deemed competent to impose a burden under penalty.  The burden could be no objection maintained unchanged because of uncertainty one of the scope of the burden (violation of the principle of legal certainty) and the other in advance because it is not clear whether there is contrary to religious freedom under Article 6 of the Constitution.  In the next decision-making in the last defendant objection will be editing so that the scope of the burden for all parties is clear.  Furthermore, defendant must consider whether to worship, which must be met in the A-standards, the use of sound through a microphone by the predecessor for allowing him to present the believers will be understandable, can be satisfied with this A-standards.

Consequently, there has been justified primarily decide to stay 1 and 2.

Having regard to the provisions of Article 8:84, fourth paragraph, in conjunction with article 8:75 of the Awb, the President ruled the defendant's fair to condemn the costs incurred in reasonably applicant has had to make in connection with the consideration of this request, the cost of third professional granted legal aid (2 points at € 322, -) and travel expenses of the three representatives of the applicant to appear in court.

Certainly, therefore, is as follows.


4. Decision
The President of the Court Almelo,

Right way:

- Reject the application for interim injunction to suspend primary and decisions 1 and 2 to 6 weeks after the forthcoming decision on the objection in the prescribed form has been made;
- Condemns defendant in the litigation expenses incurred by the applicant, which costs shall be determined at € 691.20 by the town of Zutphen payable to the applicant;
- Understands that the town of Zutphen in the applicant Registry at € 285, - reimburse.

Against this judgement is no further appeal.

Thus given by mr WMB Elferink, in the presence of Mr. AEM Lever as a registrar.

Transcript sent on March 30, 2007
AW AW

 

 

15. Hop has discovered that the Netherlands at any costs is trying to prevent objection and appeals against indications of children AVAILABLE TO ALL MEANS AND METHODS. So there are huge financial interests to get rid off THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN and J. HOP AS EXPERT AND TOUGH OPPONENT by objections and appeals against statements.

Procedures parents Logtenberg against Proposition Care Foundation Indication with Hop as agent by the Court of Zutphen. Kenmerk nummer 06/1769 AWBZ 257. There is unequal and the slow turnaround of the handling of appeals by parents against indication assessment AWBZ indications for long-term care by things so long to stretch to inadmissibility.  At the court hearing Zutphen Hop discovered that the prescribed standard for an indication of Youth Bureau and / or indication Foundation Indication Stelling Make sure the IQ standard for a child "A FICTITIOUS IQ FIGURE IS NOT SCIENTIFIC UNDERBUILD". The discovery of Hop has tremendous consequences for children and make the difference whether a child is trapped in a DEVICE with an assessment of needs assessment Care Foundation or a different way care resulting in an indication Youth Bureau. Mr.. K. Duyvendijk was a judge who rejected the interim and then the case just as long to leave until the appeal "inadmissible" could be declared.

Mr. K. Duyvendijk was one of the judges of the Court that the objection of Zutphen Hop UNFOUNDED, and declares he has also played a role in delaying the completion of interim provisions in appeal against indication Care Foundation indication where the WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MARK IQ that apparently invented by a director and has enormous implications for the future of a child

339 Source jeugdzorgbrigade quote: "It can indicatieproces by a clever design (for distinction of gravity of indications and limitation to indicatiediagnostiek instead behandeldiagnostiek take place faster"

339 Source jeugdzorgbrigade quote: "A key recommendation from the first reporting was the deletion of thousands of unnecessary (re) indications, which are only on bureaucratic grounds should take place. This would be much unnecessary work and considerable costs have brought. The ministries of Health, Welfare and Sport Justice and have the recommendation of the jeugdzorgbrigade forward picked up. The result is that an estimated 10,000 fewer indications needed to be made. "

339 Source jeugdzorgbrigade quote: "d. Limit the information to what is absolutely necessary for an indication. Every measure should be targeted for the indicatieproces. Remember that within the bureau for youth indicatiediagnostiek and not behandeldiagnostiek. This implies that not all details and aspects relating to the issue of the customer need to be addressed, but only what is necessary in order to provide an indication to come. "

339 Source jeugdzorgbrigade quote: 10. Reconciliation Act on the youth, Civil Code, "AWBZ and WGBO (Law geneesk. Behandelovereenkomst). If youth bureau indicates a AWBZ institution, is based on the WGBO consent of both parents as (from 12 years) the minor itself. Under surveillance pupils and / or their parents may not want that agreement, enabling the necessary care not, or only by recourse to the courts, can be given. This is odd gezienhet fact that the juvenile court has already supervised . As a result, youth agency more than once confronted with a very difficult or not feasible task for minors who AWBZ specific need. This problem is caused by the Law on youth, BW, inadequate care and WGBO basins.

The following possible solutions are possible:

a. adaptation of the WGBO in the sense that an exception is made for the instemmingvereiste in the event of a supervision order (OTS) and an authorization abduction in a AWBZ care setting;

b. adaptation of the Law Wet op de Jeugdzorg in the sense that in case of abduction in a AWBZ-childhome instemmingsvereiste the institution of the WGBO is replaced by the authorization of the childjudge;

c. waiver of the parent from custody in the event no agreement is granted.

 

 

16. What does the jeugdzorgbrigade do and who is who in the jeugdzorgbrigade?

LINKS! Source: Request objection quote: "This is all the more because kinderrechters in the Netherlands working with the youth have been given guidance on how the youth must submit petitions so that the kinderrechter as soon as possible on petitions from the youth can decide."

www.burojeugdzorg.nl/339.htm Source JEUGDZORGBRIGADE!

Quote: 17. Make an appointment with all the childjudges about petitions so that no "substantive" information have to contain (this refers to annexes), but only business and legal information. Currently, a survey conducted in the framework of Better Protected in which the information is collected for kinderrechters the most relevant for decisions to be taken. The findings will be released in late June the project on reconciliation process in the chain, which also wants to improve information exchange.

Membership jeugdzorgbrigade

The jeugdzorgbrigade is as follows: Frank de Grave is chairman, Dick van Hemmen and Thijs Malmberg are members of the brigade. The support is in the hands of Capgemini. For the first reporting of Bosteels Esther was responsible. Marian Louppen bears responsibility for the second and final report for this. The supervision from Capgemini lies with Prof. Dr. Caren A. van Egten. of Egten.

The family van der Vee are residents of the town Nunspeet

Dick van Hemmen is mayor of the town Nunspeet with the following additional functions from that period:

Mayor of the town Nunspeet Ir. D.H.A van Hemmen
- Lid archiefcommissie Streekarchivariaat* nee -- Member archiefcommissie Streekarchivariaat no *
- Plv. -- Plv. afgevaardigde Algemeen Bestuur Recreatiegemeenschap Veluwe* nee Deputy General Board Recreatiegemeenschap Veluwe no *
- Plv. -- Plv. gemachtigde naar vergadering van aandeelhouders NUON ENW* nee Agent meeting of shareholders to NUON ENW no *
- Plv. -- Plv. gemachtigde naar vergadering van aandeelhouders Vitens NV* nee Agent meeting of shareholders to Vitens no NV *
- Beschermheer Oranjevereniging Nunspeet* nee -- Patron Oranjevereniging Nunspeet no *
- Beschermheer Harmonie Nunspeet* nee -- Patron Harmony Nunspeet no *
- Lid stuurgroep Toekomst Waterketen Gelderland nee -- Member Steering Future Water Gelderland no
- Lid College van Arbeidszaken van de VNG nee -- Member of the Labour College of VNG no
- Lid CDA-royementscommissie nee -- Member CDA no royementscommissie
- Voorzitter Raad van Toezicht ROC-Flevoland onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- Chairman of the Supervisory Board of ROC-Flevoland expenses / vacatie
- Voorzitter Raad van Toezicht NAI (Nederlands Ambulance Instituut) onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- Chairman of the Supervisory Board of NAI (Dutch Institute Ambulance) expenses / vacatie
- Voorzitter Platform jeugdgezondheidszorg onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- President Platform Youth Health Care expenses / vacatie
- Voorzitter Raad van Toezicht Stichting TriAde onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- Chairman of the Board of Trustees Foundation TriAde expenses / vacatie
- Voorzitter stichtingsbestuur De Kubus, Centrum voor Kunst en Cultuur onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- The Cube Foundation Committee Chairman, Centre for Art and Culture expenses / vacatie
- Lid Raad van Toezicht van Parc Spelderholt onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- Member of the Board of Trustees of Parc Spelderholt expenses / vacatie
- Voorzitter Spectrum Centrum Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling Gelderland onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- President Spectrum Centre for Social Development Gelderland expenses / vacatie
- Lid Jeugdzorgbrigade onkostenvergoeding/vacatie -- Member Jeugdzorgbrigade expenses / vacatie

Source: www.groephop.nl / nunspeet.htm

During the provincial elections province Gelderland everywhere electionposters of Groep Hop were removed also in the town Nunspeet.

Source: www.groephop.nl/nunspeet1.htm

 

 

17. There is a direct relationship between the disabling of Hop and the suppression of objections and appeals by parents against "youth foundation office" decisions and the work of the jeugdzorgbrigade and NOT the provision of a fair trial to Hop

There has been given by the complainant on the foregoing, it has a direct connection between the work of the jeugdzorgbrigade to the position of parents of children ever to undermine and smear campaign against Hop on Hop as difficult and formidable opponent in court and politics off and death in silence

The work of the "youth foundation office" in the Netherlands is based on a STASI OPERATION IN CONFLICT WITH THE NINTH GEBOD parents may not object to decisions of the youth in the Netherlands and if parents do not agree with decisions "youth foundation office" from the custody of their children absolved

There is also Hop with facts substantiated what the reason was to Hop no fair trial to offer. Hop with all possible means should be eliminated.

If anything Hop established than he was assassinated at the behest of the rechtersleger to safe the huge financial interests in the "youth foundation office" and objections and appeals against decisions of parents of the youth, referring to FACTS above, costs to prevent

The rechtersleger and the youth have created the climate for Hop costs off

 

 

 

18. CONCLUSION. The State of the Netherlands does not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer. Referring to the grounds 1 to 17 what grounds here as repeated and inserted be considered

The State of the Netherlands does not meet the requirement a citizen a fair trial to offer. The complainant in violation of Article 6 ECHR and Article 14 BUPO a number of procedural safeguards that everyone should enjoy "in determining his civil rights and obligations" or "in determining the merits of a criminal prosecution against him" has wrongly NOT .

The complainant has not received the following guarantees:

  1. The right to an independent and impartial court. The impartiality of the court must show beyond any doubt, because he has to judge about others.
  2. The right to a fair and public hearing of his case. A fair treatment means that among the adversary proceeding manner. This requires that the parties are aware of all the arguments and evidence presented to the court and that they can discuss this for the court.
  3. The requirement of independence and impartiality is particularly strict rated: "Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done." Firstly, the judicial system and the courts are structured so that in respect of the litigants no doubt about the independence and impartiality of the court may arise (objective or structural impartiality). Then the judge may not personally biased (subjective or personal impartiality) or put them under pressure.

The State of the Netherlands in view of the above, together with FACTS and EXAMPLES does not meet the requirement in this case to offer a citizen plaintiff J. Hop Ermelo The Netherlands a fair trial.

 

The complainant requests that each complaint based on International Convenant on Civil and political Rights PART III

COMPLAINT in accordance with complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

Page 26. Under the 1503 procedure, the Commission has the mandate to examine a consistent pattern of gross and reliable attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms ocurring in any country of the world. Any individual or group claiming to be the victim of such human right violations may submit a com,plaint, as may any other person or group with with direct and reliable knowledge of such violations.

COMPLAINT in accordance with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1

Article 14.1: Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing bij a competent, INDEPENDENT and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 14.3: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him

Article 14.3: (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

Article 14.4: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses, against him and to obtain the attendence and examinatation of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him

Article 17: 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

against The Netherlands to be declared well founded.

Yours sincerely,

J. Hop

Joubertstraat 24, 3851 DM Ermelo, The Netherlands

 

Productions:

 

Productions:

 
10 september 2008 Complaint J. Hop The Netherlands to the United Nations. Complaint is based on International Convenant on Civil and political Rights PART III articles 14,1, 14.3, 14.4, 17 and 19 and page 26 complaint procedures Fact Sheet No 7 (Rev. 1)
712

COMPLAINT in accordance with complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7

COMPLAINT in accordance with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1

Article 14.1: Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing bij a competent, INDEPENDENT and impartial tribunal established by law.

Article 14.3: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him

Article 14.3: (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

Article 14.4: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses, against him and to obtain the attendence and examinatation of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him

Article 17: 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks

Article 19: 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference

701   Production 1. Call Zutphen District Court for hearing without trial file for Hop in violation of Article 6 ECHR and 14 BUPO
702   Production 2. Letter J. Hop 15 oktober 2007 with a request to forward names of judges within 1 week after the date
703   Production 3. Mr. Letter Registrar October 18, 2007 with the names of the three judges: (25) Mr.. RA Eskes, (42) Mr. D. D. Vergunst (43) Mr. Madam. IGMTh Weijers-van der Marck Zutphen District Court that the case against Hop on 5 november 2007 at 09:30 hours deal
704   Production 4. Objection Hop three judges: (25) Mr.. RA Eskes, (42) Mr. D. D. Vergunst (43) Mr. Madam. IGMTh Weijers-van der Marck
705   Production 5. Letter Zutphen District Court to Hop which is informed that his request for disqualification should further motivate
706   Production 6. NO COPY process-verbal case number 89285 KGRK 07-665 Zutphen District Court hearing objection Hop avaible
707   Production 7. Pleitnotities Hop with detailed justification objection three judges: (25) Mr.. RA Eskes, (42) Mr. D. D. Vergunst (43) Mr. Madam. IGMTh Weijers-van der Marck Zutphen District Court that the case against Hop on 5 november 2007 at 09:30 hours deal
708     Production 8. Objection Hop 3 Zutphen court judges declared UNFOUNDED on 5 november 2007 zaaknr. 89285 KGRK 07-665 89285
709    History! Procedures Rb Zutphen against Hop hearing without trial file for Hop in violation of Article 6 ECHR and 14 BUPO
Omroep Gelderland 180608 Everything from the cabinet, informative TV broadcast over the objection of the childjudge
710 History! Complaint September 1 J. Hop Ermelo (Netherlands) v unfounded objection Zutphen District Court at the United Nations
711   This complaint was already received at your Office on 5 september 2008 in ENGLISH language and returned with a letter "After careful consideration of the contents of your petion (communicatyion/complaint) we sincerely regret having to inform you that the Inited Nations Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise, for the reasons indicated on the back of this letter: "The Human Rights Committee is not generally in a positions to review the evaluation of facts and evidence bij the national courts and authorities, nor can it review the interpretation of domestic legislation" along with Human Right Civil and Political Rights: The Human Rights Committee Fact Sheet n 15 (Rev) 1 and Complaint procedures Fact Sheet no. 7
   

 

Handleiding procedureel weerwerk tegen verzonnen verhalen van jeugdzorg, RvdK, rechters, OM en gemeente:
003 De zes wetten van Hop, uitgangspunt in iedere procedure
080 De succesvolle tegenwerking van ouders door "jeugdzorg" bij kinderbeschermingsmaatregelen
123 Organisatiecriminaliteit. Hop: Kinderbeschermingsmaatregelen na verzonnen verhalen is fraude!
134 Zorg dat u de omschrijving van een verdachte goed kent en toepast!
007 U gaat systematisch werken en probeert jeugdzorgpersoneel uit te horen tijdens een gesprek
550 Model informatieverzoek justitieel informatieregister Info: (OM)
355 Model informatieverzoek politie
173 14-daags informatieverzoek school bij kinderbeschermingsmaatregelen
464 Model informatieverzoek school m.b.t. welzijn en ontwikkeling minderjarige
465 Model informatieverzoek school m.b.t. afschrift complete dossiers
102 Model informatieverzoek bureau jeugdzorg Info: (20)(815)
226 Model informatieverzoek bureau jeugdzorg, incl. verzoek OR, beŽindiging UHP
575 Model informatieverzoek Voorziening voor Pleegzorg Info: (505)
110 Model informatieverzoek gemeente. Info: (623)
664 Model klacht geen ontvangstbevestiging binnen 14 dagen Info: (653)(470)
360 Model verweerschrift tegen verzoekschrift RvdK om OTS van uw kind
361 Model verweerschrift tegen verzoekschrift RvdK om machtiging uithuisplaatsing van uw kind
679 Handleiding voor ieder gesprek tussen ouder en gezinsvoogd de lijst Tielse Risicofactoren
643 Verzoek aan "jeugdzorg" beŽindiging uithuisplaatsing (Vervolg met 663)
663 Verzoekschrift KIR beŽindiging UHP binnen 14 dagen na beslissing op 643
103 Verweerschrift tegen verzoekschrift verlenging UHP "jeugdzorg"
696 Verweerschrift tegen verzoekschrift verlenging UHP en OTS "jeugdzorg"
645 Verzoekschrift opheffing OTS wegens gewijzigde omstandigheden
In Memoriam Gerrie van der V. 095 710
226 Verzoek aan "jeugdzorg" wijziging omgangsregeling (Vervolg met 245)
245 Verzoekschrift KIR wijziging omgangsregeling binnen 14 dagen na beslissing op 226
647 Bezwaarschrift tegen vooraankondiging schriftelijke aanwijzing (SA)
657 Verzoekschrift KIR binnen 14 dagen tegen beslissing schriftelijke aanwijzing (SA)
658 Checklist ouder bij procederen tegen de kinderrechter, jeugdzorg en RvdK
128 Modelklacht tegen "indicatiebesluit" jeugdzorg bij kinderbeschermingsmaatregel
659 Modelklacht tegen plan van aanpak gezinsvoogd
366 Modelklacht tegen hulpverleningsplan zorgverlener
640 Modelklacht tegen niet vermelden beroepsmogelijkheden onder besluit "jeugdzorg"
642 Modelklacht vaststelling omgangsregeling per email en niet met een besluit
639 Modelklacht tegen raadsrapport RvdK
641 Verzoek om kilometervergoeding bezoek kantoor jeugdzorg/kosten omgangsregeling
499 Klacht tegen weigering kilometervergoeding bezoek kantoor jeugdzorg/kosten omgangsregeling
227 Faxverzoek aan de kinderrechter direct faxen na ontvangst van een oproep hoorzitting
756 Faxverzoek aan de kantonrechter/politierechter direct faxen na ontvangst van een oproep hoorzitting
418 Vervang parkeerbedrijf door jeugdzorg en/of RvdK mbt de bewijslast
Kloppen de nevenfuncties bestuurders gemeente
Info Hop:A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P&Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z
Welke kandidaten/bestuurders hebben niet opgegeven baantjes in de stembureaus verkiezingen gemeenteraad 2014?
Correcties, verbeteringen, aanvullingen internet informatie, procedureel weerwerk jeugdzorgindustrie
Contact Dhr. J. Hop Email: groephop@gmail.com

 

top
Censuur in Nederland ©
Stem Groep Hop in 2014
Politicus/redacteur/auteur: J. Hop, Joubertstraat 24, 3851 DM Ermelo. Plaats uitgave: Ermelo. Uitgever: J. Hop Ermelo.
Disclaimer 2013 en vrijwaring. Op alle websites Censuur in Nederland en Groep Hop is een "2013 disclaimer" van toepassing. Procedures inzake belemmering vrijheid van meningsuiting tegen politicus/redacteur/auteur J. Hop Ermelo uitsluitend via rechtbank Zutphen met gelijktijdig verzoek om beeld- en geluidsopnames te mogen maken van de complete hoorzitting t.b.v. publicatie op internet en/of andere media. Door mijn website te raadplegen accepteert u mijn vrijwaring. J. Hop streeft ernaar dat alle informatie op deze website correct is. J. Hop verleent ten aanzien van die informatie echter geen enkele garantie, noch kan J. Hop worden geacht een dergelijke garantie stilzwijgend te hebben verleend. J. Hop zal in geen geval aansprakelijk zijn voor schade van welke aard dan ook, waaronder directe, indirecte of gevolgschade, voortvloeiend uit of in verband met het gebruik of betreden van deze website.