Defence R. Geissen in criminal proceedings of the Public Prosecution Service on behalf of N. Achikzei, Z. Mehraban and Mr. P.H. Ruijzendaal

Court of Utrecht,
Vrouwe Justitiaplein 1
3511 EX Utrecht

Subject: OM/Geissen of 19 April 2012 at 13:45
Public Prosecutor’s Office: 16/440678-09

Dear judges,

You hereby receive my statement of defence in triplicate, one copy for the court, one copy for the Public Prosecutor’s Office and one copy for the declarant. I have indicated to the examining magistrate that I find it very annoying to be regarded as a suspect in a case in which the notifier, in the run-up to this dubious criminal case, was brutally murdered in view of the risk that this criminal case could lead a life of its own in the media. It has been shown that persons in the vicinity of the notifier Narges have deliberately tried to pin the murder on me (production 1) and that the Public Prosecution Service has so far been very lying in its reports in the media (production 4).

Because at the time of the assassination I had Mrs. A. Balfoort of the Utrecht Probation on the phone to discuss the information report on this case, it was soon clear to the Public Prosecution that I had nothing to do with the murder and had been falsely accused. I also attach the e-mail that I sent in confidence to Mrs Balfoort so that she could form a clear picture of the situation that had arisen (appendix 14).

I appeal to Article 261 paragraph 3 of the Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as: WvSr). There is no question of insult, defamation or slander because my publications are not contrary to the truth. On the contrary, my publications should be seen as a legitimate protection measure against a perceived threat in which the public interest demanded the charge.

The correctness of my accusation that the person making the allegation was involved in fraud has been confirmed by a detective and another victim. The date of birth of Narges Achikzei and Narges Mehraban is the same (production 12). It is not unlawful to link Narges Achikzei to “Mrs. N. Mehraban” because I knew that Narges Achikzei and Haroen Mehraban were connected through an informal Muslim marriage and because Narges Achikzei had presented himself to me as Narges Mehraban (Appendix 13). I was 100% sure that I had exposed the right persons as fraudsters because the day before their exposure on InternetOplichting.nl (production 13) I had received an e-mail from lawyer Peter Ruijzendaal stating that I was not allowed to place anything negative about his clients on the internet (production 14).

Most likely the scammers knew that it wouldn’t be long before I discovered their shameful mention on the internet and would help the victims to solve these scams. Interestingly, the alias of the swindler (“Inge de Man”)

to which a moderator of InternetOplichting.nl had sent a notification message is most likely linked to the e-mail address narges999@gmail.com of Narges Achikzei (production 15). I consider it very likely that Mehraban/Achikzei forwarded the notification message to their lawyer Peter Ruijzendaal and that he was able to make a profit and follow up on the threats already made in the context of their legal extortion campaign. It is certain that Narges Achikzei was dismissed with immediate effect (production 5) and that I reported this to the police (production 6).

I would like to point out to the multiple chamber that the passages from the documents that the Public Prosecutor added to the writ of summons were removed on his own initiative a few weeks before receipt of the writ of summons. Not because I doubted the correctness of my accusation, but because I didn’t feel like whining with these criminals at the time (Annex 8).

I find it embarrassing that Ruijzendaal, who works for RBB Advocaten in Zeist, joined himself as an authorised lawyer on behalf of S. Achikzei, and Z. Mehraban as the injured party in this criminal case because in my firm opinion he provoked, stimulated, facilitated, liked, benefited from and harassed me about the dismissal of Narges Achikzei and the subsequent lawsuits (Appendix 5). For me there was no possibility to avoid the conflict or to avoid it. The swindlers demanded through their bailiff payment of the penalty payments imposed by misled judges because they falsely claimed that they were not swindlers and therefore there would be a question of a tort on my part.

As a good citizen, I have ignored the judgments of misguided civil judges (“shit in, shit out!”) and I have persistently urged the police/judiciary, the court and the bailiff to find out the truth, called for mediation and warned that the conflict will escalate if one does not intervene in time. I saw Narges Achikzei’s vicarious shame and I knew that, as a compliant Afghan lady, she did what her husband and/or his lawyer ordered her to do. The same applies to Sahar Achikzei. Her behaviour is controlled by Haroen Mehraban and his lawyer Peter Ruijzendaal and everything she does and has done should be placed in the light of the prevention of loss of face for these gentlemen and the collection (or having collected) of the imposed penalty payments (appendix 9). After receiving the judgment of the District Court of Utrecht and my report, the bailiff JWGD decided to terminate the collection measures on behalf of Achikzei/Mehraban (appendix 10).

It is clear that there is no question of libel, that my accusations were made with the general interest in mind and that all my actions were aimed at finding a final solution. I was determined to prevent this group of perpetrators from making more victims. Unlike all other victims who used pseudonyms, I have not been able to find a solution to the problem.

Unlike all other victims who used pseudonyms, I made my accusations neatly under my own name (“Ralph” or “Geissen”). All those involved are exposed ‘with the buttocks’ according to the principle of equality. I am proud of the fact that in the Netherlands I can legally fingerprint criminals on the digital pillory after a report has been made to the police and there is no question of a false report. In accordance with Judicial guidelines I would be allowed to proceed to the order of the day and the Public Prosecution Service would not even have been allowed to proceed with my prosecution in the first place (appendix 11).

Please note that in the investigation report of the Ministry of Justice “Your company or your life. Nature and approach to extortion of business” victims are explicitly recommended to (1) report to the police, (2) not to pay the extortionists anything and (3) to draw attention to the extortionists. As a good citizen, I have followed the advice of the research report very closely. According to the experts, shouting helps at the Public Prosecution Service. I find it unacceptable that I should be prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service for drawing attention to these cases because it can be demonstrated that I have followed the Public Prosecution Service’s advice (production 19).

On the basis of health and safety legislation and CSR, I felt obliged to bring the legal extortion campaign to a successful conclusion, to the left or to the right, with or without the involvement of the Public Prosecution Service. According to a TGO detective, I did my best to free Narges Achikzei. Because I was not only an employer for Narges Achikzei but also an internship supervisor for her sister, my efforts were very high and – in hindsight – I wasted too much time on these matters. I knew that our employee Narges Achikzei was the victim of a forced marriage and I saw from her that she disagreed with the criminal acts she had to perform from her husband and his lawyer. So I sent quite a few solution-focused emails to Achikzei, Mehraban, Ruijzendaal and Bureau Binnensticht. In fact, I approached everyone who could play any role in bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion and preventing escalation.

The Public Prosecution Service can argue that I was guilty of ‘stalking by e-mail’, but that article of the law is not in the Penal Code and, partly in view of the specific circumstances, there was never any question of stalking that could be prosecuted under criminal law. The victim of the ‘stalking by e-mail’ is no longer among the living and will not be able to testify against me. She cannot tell the court that she acted wrong because she was brutally murdered a number of days before her appointment with the examining magistrate. She cannot apologize to me and many others for her bad behaviour or explain why she did those things.

The court is asked to take the testimonies of Ruijzendaal/Mehraban with a pinch of salt if they continue to insist at high and low that it was Narges Achikzei’s wish to see me convicted by the court. The gentlemen are demonstrably lying and they have a lot to hide. They want me to pay the penalties imposed by misguided civil courts, for the Public Prosecution Service to prosecute me, for the multiple chamber to convict me and for claims for damages on behalf of S. Achikzei and Z. Mehraban to be subsequently awarded by civil courts.

They can litigate free of charge because the Council for Legal Assistance pays all the hours (€220) of lawyer Ruijzendaal. They themselves know that they sell lies as truth, there is no question of pseudologia fantastica. It is a case of legal extortion in which the Public Prosecution Service, without embarrassment, assists the perpetrators and tries openly to mislead the multiple chamber in order to see an innocent citizen convicted.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office has called on the help of the public via television programmes and various websites to solve the murder case. As a good citizen I honestly ventilated my thoughts about this case and gave the Public Prosecution the golden tip on the basis of which they could have solved this case professionally. Which is not to my credit. Because of the peculiar actions of the Public Prosecution Service, I have officially submitted a request to the Chief Public Prosecutor with regard to a fact-finding investigation by the National Criminal Investigation Department. I have insisted on the dishonourable dismissal of a number of police officers whose corruption/failure can be legally proven (appendix 12).

I hope that the court will rule that a formal complaints procedure with the police followed by a request for dishonourable discharge sent to the Chief Public Prosecutor, in view of the reluctance of citizens to press charges against police officers, is of an equivalent level as an official report. I would prefer not to press charges against police officers on the grounds of respect for the function of office. In my opinion, however, I could validly publicly accuse the police officers of the facts I mentioned in my request to the Chief Public Prosecutor without the Public Prosecutor’s Office being able to prosecute me for them. In accordance with the motion adopted by the House of Representatives, I may proceed to the order of the day.

If the Public Prosecution Service were to accuse me of having accused police officers by name on the internet, because officer Anita Frielink (ps) filed a complaint against me for libel, I would point out to the court that an internet page is in fact nothing more than an information carrier. The character of the internet is public, my argument as expressed on the internet page “Solution Zeister Brandmoord” (appendix 7) I wrote to help TGO because at the time I assumed that TGO was actually interested in the true facts behind the Zeister fire murder. TGO investigators had promised us the day after the murder that they would solve the case. I agreed with the detective that I would send the instructions to solve the murder by e-mail to Zeister police. The detective confirmed that my e-mails would reach the right people.

It can be shown that I first sent the link to the internet page, in accordance with the agreement, to Politie Zeist. The court itself can establish that my intentions with the publication were not primarily aimed at damaging the reputation of agent Anita Frielink (ps), but that my argument was aimed at solving cases and preventing Judicial errors because I think that every suspect has the right to a fair criminal trial and that the Public Prosecution Service is not allowed to lie to criminal judges.

After the police took note of mining arguments and sent me a request to remove the information, I removed the pages from the internet. My goal had been achieved, the police had taken note of my objections. The fact that the Public Prosecution did nothing with it and believed that it would continue its dubious policy undisturbed, despite my strong criticism of TGO, is something that the Public Prosecution itself decided. As a good citizen, I have made every effort to prevent Judicial errors. If the Public Prosecution believes that I have mainly been involved in defamation of persons and police officers on the internet, they will give the court a very distorted picture of the reality. If the multiple chamber states that my accusations against Anita Frielink (ps) can only be made public if I have filed a complaint, I will still file a complaint against Anita Frielink (ps) because of forgery and the filing of a false complaint (production 16).

The truth must be able to be told, even if it is painful and disagreeable for those involved and they feel hurt in their pride, namus and honour. It should be noted that the Achikzei/Mehraban family had already built up a very bad reputation when they were still living in Russia and that many victims reported to me to complain about them (production 10).

Amnesty states that every month a woman is murdered in the Netherlands for honour crimes. The women are often accused of adultery, but honour killings are also committed when the woman has chosen a partner who is disapproved by the family or who rejects a marriage candidate who was chosen by the family. Sometimes it is not death, but mutilation that is the purpose of the attack. Amnesty believes that the government is responsible for protecting these women. Drawing attention to bad people via social media (see “Kony 2012”) with the aim of gathering as many supporters as possible to force the government to take measures against the bad people can never be condemned by the multiple chamber if it has been proven that the bad people whose criminal prosecution is desired have actually broken countless articles from the criminal code.

Case law in Germany (Ehrenmord Morsal) shows that family members of a vengeance victim must learn to live with the accusations made against them by those involved and bystanders regarding complicity in the murder. According to the court, relatives of the Afghan Morsal were to a large extent morally responsible for the honour killings carried out by her brother. The court ruled that Morsal’s family members had to live with the strong allegations of complicity in the murder. In honour killings, fanatics in the vicinity of the victim always play an important role in the run-up to the murder. In all honesty, I have only pointed out those fanatics who have had a very negative influence on the happiness of our former co-workers and who are most likely to have a high degree of moral responsibility for the honour killings. Peter Ruijzendaal and Haroen Mehraban are the so-called perpetrators in the background who have had a decisive influence in planning the assassination of Narges Achikzei (production 2).

It is well known that I speak very negatively of Ruijzendaal/Merhaban and Anita Frielink (ps). But expressing a negative opinion about persons is allowed in the Netherlands because we know Freedom of Expression (art.7 of the Constitution). Because I am involved as a columnist/owner in various websites, have been appointed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs as part of the Dutch knowledge economy, am an involved/witness who has made a report, am an unofficial spokesman for a large group of victims and the man to whom Narges Achikzei would have preferred to marry, my Freedom of Expression of Opinion cannot be restricted by the court because this is in conflict with human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948). I am certainly not the only person who expresses his negative opinion about the police action, this Afghan family and their lawyer. Local residents, those involved and other acquaintances point to honour killings and relationship problems (Annex 3) and court reporters complain about the unprofessional attitude of the police (Annex 4).

Because the Public Prosecutor has chosen to put me in the media as a Muslim convert, I hereby also appeal to Freedom of Religion (art. 6 of the Constitution). Within Islam honour killings are an absolute taboo, according to Sharia the perpetrators of honour killings should be punished according to the eye-to-eye principle. My faith movement preaches burning for Ruijzendaal/Mehraban before the eye of a rotating camera so that they will feel the same pain/ humiliation as Narges Achikzei. From a criminal point of view the multiple chamber should not condemn me if I ever publicly express this view because it is an inseparable part of my religious conviction. However, we do not live under Sharia law in Afghanistan and we must all comply with Dutch laws and regulations. I find a life sentence for Ruijzendaal/Mehraban with TBS because of NPS acceptable as an alternative punishment for their crimes. Partly in view of my religious beliefs, the court can only conclude that I have so far very restrained myself in my reporting in the media. I have never been guilty of sedition or hate speech. On the contrary, I have prevented those around me from taking action against Ruijzendaal/Mehraban. My accusations are legitimate and neatly expressed within the safe margins of Dutch law. I have never sought the proverbial edge of criminal law in order to provoke a criminal case, I have absolutely not wanted this case and all the hassle surrounding the legal extortion campaign and the murder. Until now, I have been very restrained in vilifying Ruijzendaal/Merhaban and Anita Frielink (ps). I have never in my life broken articles from the WvSr. My criminal record is blank.

If the Public Prosecution Service had chosen to charge any other person who has spoken out very negatively about the police action and/or Ruijzendaal/Mehraban, there would have been a greater chance of being convicted by the multiple chamber on account of ‘defamation’. The case against me is hopeless and I think the attackers and the Public Prosecution realise this as well. Anita Frielink (ps) is involved and should in that capacity simply be interrogated by the National Criminal Investigation Department in the context of finding the truth. Like Ruijzendaal/Mehraban, Anita Frielink (ps) has an interest in Narges Achikzei’s eternal silence and in concealing the facts surrounding the Zeister fire murder and Narges Mehraban’s fraudulent practices.

Apparently Anita Frielink (ps) is very fond of continuing her career with the police, but given all the facts that have been put on the table, it is inevitable that she will be dishonorably discharged in due course. That’s why Bureau Binnensticht should never have taken on the murder investigation without the supervision of the Rijksrecherche. It is not surprising that Bureau Binnensticht made so many mistakes in the criminal investigations and executor presented MDNDR021 to the multiple chamber with an invented motive and tries to have me convicted for libel and ‘stalking by e-mail’.

For the sake of my own safety and on the advice of many, it was decided not to attend this criminal proceedings in person. If the multiple chamber has any additional questions regarding my defence, I would be happy to answer them. We only wish to avoid a confrontation with Ruijzendaal/Mehraban in court because they have built up a very bad reputation in that respect in view of the threats they have made during previous meetings in the corridors of the District Court of Utrecht. I hope that the court understands this and will understand that I have put forward good reasons for not complying with the obligation to appear. At the reception of the Utrecht District Court I said at the 4th dubious lawsuit (= petition for bankruptcy dated 1 September 2009) of Ruijzendaal/Mehraban when submitting the documents that for security reasons I will not be present and I explicitly warned against the risk of attacks in the Courthouse. You can check this if you wish, there are not so many male employees working at the reception desk of the Utrecht District Court and so often it does not happen that there is a warning for an attack in the Courthouse. It is significant that I have warned the court about an attack and that the Public Prosecution Service nevertheless chooses to place me in the dock as a whistleblower on behalf of those who have been charged with involvement in the assassination attempt.

The National Centre of Expertise on Honour-Based Violence (LEC EGG) will most likely agree with me that the risk of a recurrence of an outbreak of violence is very high among this group of perpetrators, they perform a tragedy for the stage and I am expected to take on the role of the suspect/victim. I don’t want to play their sickly game, I don’t want to see their plays. The risk that Haroen Mehraban plays the stage during the criminal proceedings that he is angry / sad / insulted and the attack on me opens is i.m.o. too great. Many people choose to remain silent about the motives behind the Zeister fire murder also in view of the threats that have been made and the very bad reputation of this offender group. I think that nothing is ever solved with silence and lying and that the Public Prosecution Service has the moral duty towards me, the multiple chamber and many other victims to handle these cases very carefully so that on the one hand repetition of honour-related violence is prevented and on the other hand all the guilty parties are presented before the multiple chamber where Prosecution can explain to the multiple chamber why Narges Achikzei had to be murdered in the thought world of the offender group. I find it scandalous that I am being prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service on the basis of a false report by a victim of honour crimes who has been burnt black underground for years.

What I have done and what I have left behind can be expected from all good citizens/employers in the Netherlands. It is civic duty and a sign of being a good employer, no more than that. I don’t need to receive a medal for this, but prosecution as a reward for fulfilling civic duties and answering questions from the Public Prosecution Service goes beyond all bounds. Narges Achikzei was murdered in spite of all my efforts, not thanks to my efforts as the perpetrator group wishes it to appear. It is embarrassing to see that the Public Prosecution Service has ignored all judicial guidelines and (inter)national laws and regulations in order to be able to give me this false criminal case as a present. Apparently, the Public Prosecution Service expects that it can handle the murder of an Afghan refugee very carelessly, in which criticasters/whistleblowers are silenced and the perpetrator group and a number of police/judicial employees ‘keep the lines closed’.

People are animals that work together and share ideas. If I were to follow the last court ruling to the letter, I would not even have been allowed to send my defence to the multiple chamber or to send a request for a fact-finding investigation by the National Criminal Investigation Department to the Chief Public Prosecutor. If the court decides that I shouldn’t be allowed to breathe or take food, I would also ignore that verdict because it is simply contrary to Universal Human Rights and is contrary to what I see as my civic duties and rights. I have the right to protect myself and my interests from perceived threats. I have the right to pillory criminals and urge the prosecution to prosecute them. I have the right to ignore judgements of deceived judges.

As also indicated in my report, there is a division within the Public Prosecution Service. The Public Prosecutor’s Office can conclude that a number of honest investigators openly support my view. The day after the fire, the police said on the radio that the murder was probably related to honour killings or extortion of a company. Three detectives and the probation officer have pointed to my high intelligence. Only agent Anita Frielink (ps), whose corruption can be legally proven by me, pretends that I don’t have an overview of them all. The prosecution will have to choose which group to join on the basis of my defence and evidence submitted. The Prosecutor can demand acquittal or conviction.

It is clear that an acquittal for me must be linked to a conviction for Ruijzendaal/Mehraban and Anita Frielink (ps). It has been legally proven that the declarants lie and urge the conviction of an innocent citizen and thereby shield themselves with useless judgments that have been pronounced by misguided judges in the hope that the multiple chamber will adopt the views of misguided judges on a one-to-one basis. The multiple chamber cannot settle with a proverbial tap on their fingers, what they have done is too serious for that. Since I find myself in the position that I can substantiate my accusations with facts, I expect that the multiple chamber will vigorously and unambiguously punish the dubious practices of the declarants and the Public Prosecution Service.

While I understand that it is very unusual for a citizen to be given the right to disregard court rulings, that is what the panel of judges should seriously consider in this exceptional case. For me it is one of the possibilities to avoid the legal extortion campaign, the other possibility is prosecution of the offender group by the Public Prosecution Service followed by the award of (higher) damages by the court so that claims between parties can be set off against each other.

In the context of finding out the truth and with a view to my last report, I request the multiple chamber to order forum.fok.nl, misdaadjournalist.nl and godvoordommen.nl to disclose the IP addresses of users who have been guilty of libelous defamation and/or threats. The websites have made it known that they are only prepared to disclose the IP addresses after the court has ordered them to do so. After obtaining the IP addresses, the police can request the name and address details from CIOD and examine whether there are connections with the perpetrator group that is responsible for the murder of Narges Achikzei. The identity of “musicioso” is known, that is Masoud Mehraban the brother of Haroen Mehraban. Masoud Mehraban has probably been appointed on behalf of the family/clan to lead the smear campaign against me on the internet and research will show that he is also responsible for a number of other defamatory messages. Honour killings are a typical group crime.

I think that the authors/initiators of the Zeister fire murder should be brought before the public prosecutor’s office before the multiple chamber in order to be tried, whereby all victims of fraud are given the opportunity to join that criminal case. My position is similar to the issuing of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for Joseph Kony. The Court chooses to prosecute the leader of the criminal group and will not prosecute all brainwashed child soldiers who murdered their parents on command.

If the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the declarants consider it necessary to make their views on this criminal case known to the media prior to the court’s substantive proceedings, I reserve the right to respond publicly to them. I will then publish all documents on the internet and contact Members of Parliament so that questions about this can be put to the Minister of Justice.

Although class justice seems to play a role in the prosecution policy of the Public Prosecution Service, I request the multiple chamber to respect Article 1 of the Constitution. Everyone is equal to each other and if, in the opinion of the multiple chamber, offences have been accepted as proven, this must be followed by a conviction, regardless of the social position of the perpetrator(s).

In my opinion, the multiple chamber should at least pass judgment to that effect:
1. the criminal investigations following the murder of N. Achikzei and the fraudulent practices of N. Mehraban were carried out very carelessly by the Zeist police.

2. The Commission is of the opinion that Mr Achikzei has made a false declaration in order to camouflage involvement in fraudulent practices and to lay the foundations for conducting numerous legal proceedings in the context of an extortion campaign.
3. N. Achikzei, H. Mehraban, P.H. Ruijzendaal have been guilty of libel, fraud, extortion, harassment and threats.
4. Anita Frielink (ps) is guilty of forgery, false reporting and complicity in defamation/blasphemy, fraud, extortion, harassment and threats.
5. it is not unlawful that R. Geissen has ignored judgments of misled judges because he has followed the advice of the Public Prosecution Service.
6. the Public Prosecution must destroy (copies of) the surveillance images of the assassination of N. Achikzei.
7. Prohibitions against contact are imposed on H. Mehraban, P.H. Ruijzendaal, S. Achikzei and Anita Frielink (ps).
8. the Prosecutor must take a prosecution decision within 30 days on the basis of the report made by R. Geissen in October 2010.
9. forum.fok.nl should publish the registration details and IP addresses of users “EFG11” and “Musicioso”.
10. godvoordommen.nl should publish the registration details and IP addresses of users ‘De Vries’, ‘Afghan’, ‘Afghan007’, ‘Unbelievable fucker’, ‘We live like a lion’.
11. crimejournalist.nl should disclose the registration details and IP addresses of users ‘Ralph you are going to pay’ and ‘Best friend of Ralph G.’.

I will proceed to the order of the day and will await the decisions of the multiple chamber and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Yours sincerely,
R. Geissen

Overview of appendices & productions:
Appendix 1: Correspondence with the Public Prosecution Service
Annex 2: Police reporting in the media
Annex 3: Opinions of local residents, stakeholders and acquaintances
Annex 4: Opinions of court reporters
Annex 5: Peter Ruijzendaal’s opinion
Appendix 6: Criticism of Zeister police via www.loedertje.nl prior to the murder of Narges Achikzei
Annex 7: Solution Zeister fire murder
Annex 8: Deleted own-initiative accusations
Appendix 9: S. Achikzei forwards messages R. Geissen to lawyer Ruijzendaal
Appendix 10: JWGD terminated collection measures for Achikzei/Mehraban
Annex 11: Motion adopted on citizens’ digital naming and shaming of criminals
Annex 12: Letter to the Chief Officer with regard to the request for fact-finding by the National Criminal Investigation Department.
Appendix 13: Narges Achikzie e-mailed for a short time under the name “Narges Mehraban”.
Appendix 14: Reclassification employee A. Balfoort is alibi of R. Geissen.

Production 1: Defamation & slander against Ralph Geissen
Production 2: Honour killings in Dutch criminal law
Production 3: Criminal conviction against executor MDNDR021
Production 4: Lies police Zeister fire murder
Production 5: Dismissal letter N. Achikzei
Production 6: Change against Margins Achikzei
Production 7: Strange e-mails sent by Narges Achikzei to Geissen (Fw:)
Production 8: IP address 82.169.250.170 = Haroen Mehraban (or someone else speaking on his behalf)
Production 9: Legal Aid Board paid all hours of authorized lawyer Ruijzendaal
Production 10: Exterminator who was co-defeated speaks very negatively about the Achikzei/Mehraban family.
Production 11: Strange message from IP address 93.125.238.254
Production 12: Watchman finds out the home address of Narges Mehraban-Achikzei from the victims
Production 13: InternetOplichting.nl: ABN AMRO account number 47.86.32.320 for N. Mehraban
Production 14: Ruijzendaal knew that his criminal clients were listed on InternetOplichting.nl.
Production 15: Email address of Narges Achikzei (narges999@gmail.com) is linked to alliases of internet fraudsters.
Production 16: Deceitful declaration of office by agent Anita Frielink (ps)
Production 17: Lawyer Ruijzendaal coordinates the (legal) extortion campaign
Production 18: False subpoena of Ralph Geissen due to corruption Anita Frielink (ps)
Production 19: Main passages: “Your company or your life”.
Production 20: Co-duped Buitendijk points to ‘the gentleman N. Mehraban’.
Production 21: Presumably Haroen Mehraban forwarded an e-mail from me to the brother of executor MDNDR021
Production 22: Geissen’s reaction to the 5th dubious civil lawsuit of Ruijzendaal/Mehraban.
Production 23: Fake notes from Ruijzendaal to the Mayor of Zeist, Chief of Police Utrecht, Chief Public Prosecutor and Police Chief Zeist.