Who am I

My name is Kim Hendrikse, I'm an expat New Zealander living in the Netherlands. In the early years of the Internet I developed and operated an early search engine of the Dutch Internet called Search.NL. The following article states that in 1999 computable magazine voted my search engine as the third best scoring search engine of the time, just behind Altavista and HotBot.

https://www.eindhovenfotos.nl/1/ilse.nl.html#news1-y8

I also developed and operated an early search engine of the New Zealand internet called www.searchnz.co.nz. I sold this engine, the URL for this engine still exists and contains some of the original graphics from way back then, though the search engine itself has been replaced.

What exactly happened

It all began in 2005, about a year after I moved to a new home in Guttecoven/Limburg the Netherlands. Myself and my family were subjected to an extensive period of one sided harassment and crimes committed by a neighbour and lasted 10 1/2 years later. It only ended after ourselves and a group of local people began a campaign to protest the council after which the council bought his house to move him on.

This was one sided harassment towards us, and it wasn't a conflict rather a succession of crimes and harassment typically named "stalking". The response from the authorities has been shocking, they withheld police support, withheld evidence, withheld accountability and ultimately withheld justice. I can't find the words to describe the disgust I have for organisations I once respected.

Between a rock and a hard place

Our house is situated off from the street with access over a shared driveway between two other neighbours. A conflict started between the two other neighbours from which we also were affected. We did our best to simply not become involved. For the first 8 years I wasn't even living in the Netherlands, I was living and working in London.

I installed cameras

I installed the first set of 4x cameras in 2008 in reaction to a false police report filed against me. However in 10 1/2 years not a single time did the police request to view the video to verify any of the very many false police reports filed against me (A study referred to in professor Suzanne van der Aa's [University of Tilburg] book "Stalking in the Netherlands" states that every single stalker in the study utilized one or more "neutralising techniques", such as filing false police reports). They requested the video twice to check incidents between the other two neighbours. The chief of police told me that they were not allowed to check for clues or do any investigation. He didn't say from whom he wasn't allowed to do this.

Protecting my family

Terrible things happened. 5x cars were burnt to the ground in Guttecoven over the period. One time after an incident I checked the video and found that 4x people had used our property as access on their way to another property. When I discovered this I passed the video onto the police. My partner would ring me late at night in London saying that she heard sounds and I'd have to check all the cameras to try and ascertain if it was ok for her to go back to sleep. She would sometimes wake up screaming with terrible nightmares. In response to the insecurity I developed this software to link sensor inputs to video so I could have some degree of security that my family was safe.

Technological arms race

Meeting the ever increasing barrier to prosecution became a technological arms race. "The video was fuzzy", so I upgraded the cameras to more than HD quality. "You can't see it properly", so I installed more cameras. Now I have around 15x. After 8 years of problems the DA's office (Openbare ministerie, DA==District attorney or officier van justitie) even refused to prosecute for trespassing because my video didn't contain an audio track and I could not prove that I told him to go away. Despite having sent a "stop stalking" letter a year earlier and having installed a "No trespassing, article 461 from the criminal law book" sign to make it clear. Now I can't even keep him off my property without equipping all my cameras with microphones.

A formal decision to do nothing

In 2011 a former member of the enforcement (handhaving) section of the council told me that the mayor's office (College burgemeester en wethouders) had made formal decisions "to do nothing". At that time it was already a couple of years that the police were no longer responding to our calls. In the Netherlands, the mayor is the head of the police department for these matters. This state of lawlessness from the authorities continued for years.

The DA's office lose all the evidence

In 2014 the DA of the time (A well-known author and blogger) calls me and says "I'm terribly sorry but we've lost all of the evidence, do you have a copy?". Luckily I had backups. She said "Once again, I'm terribly sorry, I've no idea how this can happen".

We arrange a meeting with the police and teamveiligheid (Team safety)

After months of asking we are finally told that we can meet with team safety. Present was the team chief of police, victim support, team safety and us. After describing some of situation in which we live we were asked how they can help us. I responded that for a start the police can come when we have problems and we ring them. The chief of police responded that it was not true that they don't come when they call and that if there was talk of criminal actions they have to come.

Just 3 weeks later the guy stole one of my cameras. I caught him red handed on camera. I was at work so I E-mailed team safety, who immediately E-mailed the community support officer. No one came, when I was at home I could verify what I saw and called the police again. Still no one came, I was so upset that our daughter goes to the police station to ask why no one comes and she was told that they DA had left a note that the police could only come to our address under specific circumstances.

A further two weeks and I had arranged lawful (via wet politiegegevens, WPG) insight into my police file. I see in black and white that the police had made a formal decision never to come to our address except in circumstances of extreme violence. So the chief of police had not told the truth to team safety. Later, in words reminiscent of great lines such as "I did not have sex with that women" or "it's just locker room talk", he said it had been written up incorrectly. It should have said "they would no longer come to mediate". We didn't want mediation, we wanted the witnessing eyes of a police officer on the case. At that time, the police had already been violate our human rights like this for years already. It was also in violation of article 3 of the police law which requires them to provide safety for us. In addition to the police withholding support, the DA's office simply cancelled everything we filed.

Precedent forming

7 months before the council actually bought his house the council expressed over the phone that they didn't want to form a precedent that you could get the council to buy your house by behaving badly. A precedent that they ended up setting anyway. Unless of course it wasn't proven that he behaved badly... As an interesting side note, during the same conversation the jurist estimated that between the police and the council that the cost for this situation was already likely > 1,000,000 euros.

10 1/2 years of obsessive harassment, council buys his house

After 10 1/2 years of harassment with the police effectively stating that the obsessive harassment of a neighbour is not a criminal offence we protested at a council meeting and in blindingly fast speed, just 2 1/2 months after our first protest the council had bought his house for 209,000 euros and moved him out. Peace at last. They then spent an additional 180,000 euros clearing out the rubbish that was left behind, approximately 100x containers of 20 cube each. It took around 7 people and heavy machinery approximately 7 weeks to clear. Strangely, the council didn't even flinch to absorb the extra cost. Finally, after cleaning up the property beautifully, they sold the property for 185,000. The 204,000 euros loss to the council is effectively his profit and reward for 10 1/2 years of harassing his neighbours.

The police didn't follow the intake protocols for stalking

The police have an online available description of protocols that they are supposed to follow when they receive a report of stalking. In this case they didn't follow them. When I asked the chief of police why they didn't following them he replied "because they are not compulsory". The public are led to believe that this well-defined list of protocols is something that the police follow, this is far from the truth and is very misleading towards the public who would think that the existence of these protocols means that they are carried out. Dr Corine de Ruiter, professor of forensic psychology (recherchepsycholoog) from Maastricht University states in her blog that so long as the intake protocols for stalking remain guidelines that the police will remain an unreliable partner in the battle against deadly stalking (She says uses a different term here "huiselijk geweld").

https://fpblog.nl/2016/08/23/commentaar-op-de-reactie-van-recherchepsycholoog-cleo-brandt/

An enormous amount of evidence

13 years on, 5 years after the initial police report for stalking was filed (Dr. Eric Blaauw told me that guidelines are that the case should come to court within 6 months) and only after a complaint to the ombudsman, the case finally comes to court. In total I had filed 434 videos of evidence, clearly the largest submission of evidence for a stalking case ever submitted in the Netherlands, maybe in the world as each video took around 30 minutes of processing time to gather, convert, archive and write up. That's 27x 8 hour days just preparing the video evidence.

Another case goes missing

Before the case comes to court I check the less of cases that the DA says he will bring forward to the judge. One of the assault cases that involved an additional neighbour from a few doors away was not on the list. This case and be judged "ready for prosecution" by an earlier DA. Victim support couldn't find the case and the DA's office administrational staff searched for 3 days but could not find any trace of the case. I filed a complaint with the ombudsman who then got the police to re-send the case through to the DA's office. Two cases go missing for the one victim? Quite some co-incidence.

They refused to use all of the evidence or submit all of the crimes

However, the district attorney refused to submit the last 7 months and some 277 videos (And a whole lot more I suspect). He said "there's no point, I have more than enough evidence for a conviction, normally I have to make do with a few E-mails". I said, but the rest of the videos are of better quality for prosecution, the frequency is higher and there are more instances of harassment that are crimes by themselves, and some contained audio clarifying otherwise strange behaviour. He said "trust me, it's not necessary". He also refused to take to court the proven case of mail fraud, where he was signing as me and stealing my parcels, he refused to take to court instances of vandalism and also the stealing of a camera, all caught on video.

Finally, for the crimes of 10 1/2 years stalking, multiple assaults, resisting arrest the DA asked for a punishment of 4 months suspended prison sentence.

The DA tells the judge untruthfully that I was still to be prosecuted

Catastrophically, the district attorney also told the judge untruthfully that I was still to be prosecuted later. This was news to me as I've done nothing criminal and they had told us so more than a year earlier. There were a great many police reports filed against me I'm told, clearly false reports. The next day I call up the DA (as he had given me his phone number and told me to call whenever I want to. Maybe because I was also a witness in the case) and asked him if I were to be prosecuted. He replied "No". I said was that a mistake then? He said "yes". I said he needs to print a rectification. He said "why? don't worry about what the press think, you should see what they all say about me". I called victim support and he told me that the DA had said "I wouldn't know what for??" in response to me being prosecuted for something.

I searched the Internet and found articles claiming that he had lied to and misled the judge before leading to the collapse of one of the biggest criminal investigations every carried out in Limburg/The Netherlands, the seizure by 200 government officials of 134 houses, 20 cars, hennep plantations, weapons. Because he lied, claims the article (See the links at the end of this page), the case collapsed. I guess this was what he was referring to.

Two weeks later, the neighbour was acquitted of everything I filed. The judges repeating the incorrect statement that I might still be prosecuted for something. 15 hi-res video cameras, 434 videos of evidence, studying criminal, administrative and civil law and talking to nearly every expert in the country as well as reading every case of stalking involving neighbours in the court archives had amounted to nothing. 13 years without seeing a functioning "rechtsstaat" (democratic state of law). The DA's office didn't appeal the decision. Only the threat of 20 hours community service for assaulting a police officer had survived, but I hadn't filed that case.

Zero accountability

All of the police, the council and the public prosecutor's office have refused to handle my complaints about this.

I filed a complaint with the council. The council have to handle complaints within 6 weeks or 12 weeks if they make use of a commission. About 3 days before the 12 weeks expires the council send us an invitation to attend a commission meeting. We go to the commission meeting and the first thing they say verbally is that they are not going to handle the contents of the complaint. They asked what we wanted. I replied that I would like them to answer the issues on the complaint to which they replied that would not happen. I asked them to then put on paper that they were not going to handle the complaint, they refused to do this. I filed a complaint with the ombudsman however it was very difficult to get the ombudsman to handle the complaint because we did not have a piece of paper on which the council state they would not handle the complaint. By using verbal communications and not putting anything on paper the council are able to avoid most accountability measures.

A viable deadly threat

During that meeting however and important piece of information was revealed. At a certain stage the council replied "Oh no, we didn't buy his house because you protested, we bought his house because ....... and he would take everyone with him". Using different words, they communicated to us that in essence we were told he had made (either an explicit or implicit) deadly threat towards his neighbours which after making investigations they deemed viable. So why were they still allowing him to remain out of custody and interacting with us then? They could have at that time made use of article 67 from the law book of prosecution progression (artikel 67 van de wetboek van strafvordering) as mentioned in the intake stalking protocols to put him into pre-arrest. Instead they chose to continue to expose us to what is now known was a viable deadly threat.

My lawyer filed a freedom of information request to the council for everything pertaining to this case, they sent around 500 pages almost entirely comprised of my own material I had sent them and no useful decisions to my lawyer and the bill to me.

I take the police to court

I filed a freedom of information request to the police. They refused to comply, we took them to court and won. The judge ordered that they have to make a new decision as to which parts really are secret and which parts can be released. They made a new decision that everything is secret. They also enacted a facility to prevent me from obtaining any further information till the case is handled and they are appealing the case, it should come to court by the end of the year (2018).

If the police win the case, then they will have by means of a precedent effectively removed the police from being subject to the freedom of information act without the involvement of parliament. The Netherlands will lose one more democratic safeguard.

Conclusion

It's quite clear that the DA's office had no intention of ever letting this guy be accountable for the criminality committed against us. Not while it was happening and not afterwards. It's also quite clear that the authorities will never willingly explain or be accountable for their actions. Like school yard bullies, the authorities held everyone back from intervening and gave this guy a free hand to harass us, steal from us, attack us, vandalise our property and steal our post. And all then they made sure that he would not be prosecuted. They clearly had hoped that the cases would expire and no longer be prosecutable. The only reason it got to court at all was because I made a complaint to the ombudsman who deemed the complaint grounded, and because I made it got clear that if they try to cancel the case I would file a so called "article 12 procedure" which forces it to be evaluated by a higher authority.

The whole way this was handled, ending in "blaming the victim" in the press is a disgraceful smear on the integrity of the Dutch criminal justice system.

Bizarre situation

Here are a bunch of links in time order. Try and find the commonality, take note of the dates. Sorry they are all in Dutch, maybe google translate can help: (The link about Bruce Springsteen is just for fun).

https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1039807/liegende-officieren-zaak-joep-j-vrijuit
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/10/11/om-niet-ontvankelijk-in-fraudezaak-na-liegen-en-bedreigen-a1430794
https://www.facebook.com/plasmanadvocaten/posts/%EF%BF%BC%C2%A9-copyright-2013-dagblad-de/750324884983580/
https://www.1limburg.nl/boze-families-verstoren-raadsvergadering-sittard-geleen
https://www.1limburg.nl/einde-zicht-van-langslepende-burenruzie-guttecoven
https://www.1limburg.nl/bruce-springsteen-brengt-bliksembezoek-aan-limburg
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/04/13/doodzonde-van-officier-moet-gevolgen-hebben-a1599397
https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180221_00056384/weigering-inzage-politiegegevens-over-burenruzie-onterecht
https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180508_00061422/dossier-guttecoven-bij-rechter
https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180522_00062344/twintig-uur-taakstraf-na-burenruzie-van-tien-jaar
https://www.limburger.nl/cnt/dmf20180903_00072588/sittard-geleen-verliest-op-burenruzie-boerderij
https://www.1limburg.nl/leegloop-bij-justitie-zeven-officieren-vertrekken

Enjoy the software!