official report
COURT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NETHERLANDS
Criminal Law Division
Session location Utrecht
Parquet number: 16-659070-18
Report of the public hearing of the police judge at the above-mentioned court on 8 November 2018.
Present:
G.A. Bos, police judge,
Mr. M. Kamper, District Attorney,
and Mr. A.Th. Verweij as Registrar.
The police judge has the case brought against the accused to be named. The accused, present at the hearing, answers the questions of the police judge that he is named:
Ralph GEISSEN,
born on 13 April 1977 in Utrecht,
registered in the Key Register Persons at an address
in Utrecht.
The police judge points out to the accused that he is not obliged to answer the question and tells him to pay close attention.
One of the declarants appeared at the hearing, namely Mrs. Anita Frielink (ps).
The defendant declares in advance to have little faith in the criminal case because one judge is easier to deceive than three judges. The defendant therefore requests that his criminal case be referred to the multiple criminal division.
The police judge mentions a written claim of the aggrieved party Johan de Boer (ps), which has been submitted by means of the prescribed form. The aggrieved party claims immaterial damages for one of the facts of which the defendant is accused.
The public prosecutor will present the case and mention the claim of the aggrieved party Johan de Boer (ps).
The public prosecutor takes the floor and says – in a factual manner – the following: A referral of this criminal case to the multiple criminal division is not an issue in view of the facts of the indictment. These facts can be settled by the police judge.
The police judge announces that she has read the defendant’s statement of defence and the criminal file, from which the history of this case has already emerged. The police judge rejected the request for referral of the criminal case to the multiple criminal court, as she did not consider this necessary.
1 of 2
Official report dated 8 November 2018
The defendant then declares – in business terms – as follows:
There is much more behind this case. Dozens of reports have been made, which are now being set aside. I ask you to obtain information from the ABN-AMRO bank. If this shows that Mrs Anita Frielink (ps) is right, then I can be convicted. If she is not right, then they are corrupt and have to be removed from the police department.
The police judge rejected the request to obtain data because she did not see the need to obtain these data.
The defendant then declares – in a businesslike manner – as follows:
It is, however, important. The public prosecutor talks about libel, but it is only one sentence on the internet. It is clear that this is a case of corruption. This case must be referred. With all due respect, I am not going to be sentenced by a police judge.
The police judge announces that she wants to discuss the first fact on the indictment.
The defendant then declares – in a businesslike manner – as follows:
This case has been dismissed.
The police judge stated that she could not proceed if the defendant interrupted her all the time.
The defendant then declares – in a businesslike manner – as follows:
I ask you an investigative question and you can quickly find the answer to it. You can now directly call the bank and this will be resolved within ten minutes. But it is not investigated. This has nothing to do with a fair judicial system. So I came here to be unjustly convicted. You must refer this case to the multiple chamber. I am allowed to defend myself and I am also allowed to be difficult. If you reject my request, I will reject you as a judge. I want a fair trial. I have no confidence in you because you are not referring the case to the multiple chamber and you reject my request for investigation at the ABN-AMRO bank.
The police judge announces that the accused will be summoned to the challenge chamber which will deal with the challenge request.
The police judge suspended the investigation for an indefinite period of time in view of the defendant’s request.
The police judge orders the defendant to be summoned by this time when a new hearing date becomes known.
Of which this official report has been drawn up, which has been established and signed by the police judge and the clerk of the court.
2 of 2