Belgian government: prosecution of activist – covering up of childporn rings

Vogue.jpg

Some questions about the Zandvoort childporn case
Why Belgian Justice has been banned the activist Marcel Vervloesem who revealed the Zandvoort case, to talk with the media, 4 years ago ?
Why Justice has banned him to travel to other countries ?
Why Justice has banned him to contact us since his provisional liberation, 2 years ago?  He is the founder of our association ‘Werkgroep Morkhoven’. We are  members of the direction board of Werkgroep Morkhoven. We were working together during almost 40 years. We visited him during 2 years, every week in prison.
Why Justice has banned him to participate to all organisations fighting childabuse?
Was it the intention to criminalize him and our association ?
Was the Belgian Justice afraid that we should going on with our investigations about the childporn rings ?
Was it the intention to isolate him so that it would be easier to accuse him again in the tabloids ?
Justice used some new rumours in the Flemish tabloid Het Nieuwsblad and a very disputable complaint of a very disputable person to the police to take the script of Vervloesem’s book about his actions and his investigations.  Why ?
Why they used the same trick (some rumours in Het Nieuwsblad, a complaint to the police, a prosecution by Justice) ?  It is like 14 years ago when the international press (with even 3 Japanese newspapers) was interested in the Zandvoort childporn case.
Why they used the same trick also some years ago on the moment that a lot of people had many doubts about the accusations and the long media process ?  And why they used again young people with criminal records (robberies, burglaries, exactions, thefts, vandalism, drug trafficking, involantary manslaughter by drunkenness, sexual offenses,) ?
Why the Belgian minister(s) of Justice and its so called independant magistrature, accepts that ? And why they accept that the Belgian constitution is violated ?
Where are the so called freedom of expression, freedom of press, the right on defense, the right to participate to associations, the right to travel, the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty, impartial and
independant juriprudence, the right to be judges on complete files without disappearances or thefts, which is (was) guaranteed by the Belgian constitution ?
Why the Flemish tabloid Het Nieuwsblad which started the mediacampaign against Marcel Vervloesem in 1998 with a false rumour of Vervloesem’s disputable half-brother Victor, silenced the Zandvoort childporn case during all that time ?
Why this tabloid, that seems to have a special relation with the Justice of Turnhout, was spreading also the false rumour that Marcel was no longer member of the direction board of our association while we can even not longer organize general meetings with all the members of the direction board and are thus unable to take important decisions ?
Why Justice does never investigate seriously the rumours, complaints, declarations of witnesses, incorrect accusations in Het Nieuwsblad and to the police ?
Why Justice says now that Marcel Vervloesem was ‘violating the conditions of his provisional liberation’ while his judicial assistent and his supervisor, the well-known professor Cosyns, were ‘very satisfied’ about that ?
Why does Justice not investigate the complaint of Vervloesem’s daughter about the threatening (taperecorded) of his 14 years old granddaughter by the accuser ?
Why we hear nothing about the 14-year-old girlfriend of the nearly 18-year-old accuser who was found drowned
in the pond of the court of Turnhout after she had inhaled too much gas of a lighter ?
Was the mediacampaign against Vervloesem and the silencing of the Zandvoort case which gives us a lot of information about the recent childabuse case in Amsterdam, a cover up operation ?
During our investigations, Georges Zicot, the disputable inspector in the Dutroux case, was giving false information about a well-known Youth Judge in France who we found back in the Zandvoort childporn case. What is the relation between the Zandvoort case and the Dutroux case ? Was the Dutroux case with the unexplained deaths of almost 30 witnesses, also a cover up operation ?
The Belgian government always denied the existance of an international childporn network like the Zandvoort case. Was it the intention to protect the international child porn network centralized in Brussels ?
It is possible that Belgium, center of Europe, is also a center of the international organized mafia, including child- and women trade ?
I heard today that Belgian Justice found a ‘new track’ to the so called gang of Brabant whereby 20 people were murdered. It is the 43th time during the last 20 years that Belgian Justice is talking about a ‘new track’ in this
case.  Who can take this serious ?  Why they are talking about  it and are they giving false hope, every time that there a lot of questions about the credibility of Belgian Justice ?
It is clear that the Belgian church is playing a important role in cases of sexual abuse. But I am wondering that the tabloids were organizing during several months a media campaign about the scandals within the Belgian church while they organized during 14 years a media campaign to cover up the Zandvoort childporn case (90.000 victims, even babies).
Jan Boeykens
President of Werkgroep Morkhoven
Faiderstraat 10
1060 Brussels
(Belgium)
————
You can visit ‘Werkgroep Morkhoven’ on Facebook if the group will not be closed again by Facebook.
Write to Marcel Vervloesem who is seriously ill (cancer, heart, kidneys, diabetes) and was tortured during 2 years in prison: Gevangenis Turnhout, tav Marcel Vervloesem, Cel 139, Wezenstraat 1, 2300 Turnhout (Belgium)
Protest to the Belgian minister of Justice Annemie Turtelboom (liberals) annemie.turtelboom@just.fgov.be
Minister of Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, Boulevard de Waterloo 115, 1000 Bruxelles (Belgium)
Téléphone : (0031) 0 2 542 80 11 – Fax : 02 542 80 00    The minister says that she will ban ‘every form of partiality of the magistrature’.
Advertenties

Over kruitvat

I am working for the Belgian human rights association 'Werkgroep Morkhoven' which revealed the Zandvoort childporn case (88.539 victims). The case was covered up by the authorities. During the past years I have been really shocked by the way the rich countries of the western empire want to rule the world. One of my blogs: «Latest News Syria» (WordPress)/ Je travaille pour le 'Werkgroep Morkhoven', un groupe d'action qui a révélé le réseau pornographique d'enfants 'Zandvoort' (88.539 victims). Cette affaire a été couverte par les autorités. Au cours des dernières années, j'ai été vraiment choqué par la façon dont l'Occident et les pays riches veulent gouverner le monde. Un de mes blogs: «Latest News Syria» (WordPress)/ Ik werk voor de Werkgroep Morkhoven die destijds de kinderpornozaak Zandvoort onthulde (88.539 slachtoffers). Deze zaak werd door de overheid op een misdadige manier toegedekt. Gedurende de voorbije jaren was ik werkelijke geschokt door de manier waarop het rijke westen de wereld wil overheersen. Bezoek onze blog «Latest News Syria» (WordPress) ------- Photo: victims of the NATO-bombings on the Chinese embassy in Yougoslavia
Dit bericht werd geplaatst in Uncategorized en getagged met , , , , , , , , . Maak dit favoriet permalink.

4 reacties op Belgian government: prosecution of activist – covering up of childporn rings

  1. kruitvat zegt:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

    The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

  2. kruitvat zegt:

    http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/11.asp

    Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

    No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

    PLAIN LANGUAGE VERSION:
    You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

    Illustrated version

    NOTES:
    The presumption of innocence and the right to a defence are the two important principles articulated in the first part of this article. The right to a public hearing was presented in the previous article. The principle covered in the second part of the article is the non-retroactivity of law.

    DEFINITIONS:
    non-retroactivity of law means that a person should not be punished for acts which were legal when they were committed, though later changes in the law may consider those same acts illegal.

  3. kruitvat zegt:

    If the court system says you are innocent until proven guilty why is a not guilty verdict the same as innocent?

    Answer

    It is as is said “in the eye of the beholder.” Depending upon the circumstances a “not guilty” verdict could mean that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict the person on trial. There’s a pretty famous trial that supports that premise. What it comes down to is what people choose to believe. Was the person innocent or did they just “get away with it.”

    Answer

    A jury is not being asked to determine if the defendant is factually innocent, they are only being asked to determine if the prosecutor met the burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is higher than the burden of proof in a civil case, which is usually a preponderance.

    In most states, the court will conduct a preliminary hearing to determine if there is enough evidence to conduct a trial. In the US, that means that a grand jury has already determined that there is a question of fact that needs to be determined by a finder of fact (usually the jury) and enough credible evidence to support a possible conviction.

    In my opinion, O.J. Simpson got away with murder. But a second jury in a wrongful death lawsuit held him responsible and awarded millions of dollars in damages. Two different juries, two different burdens of proof, two different results.

    ANSWER

    The prosecution has to substantiate a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing or to a Grand Jury. The case isn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A prima facie case can be presented against nearly anybody within the area of a crime or related to a person who committed a crime.

    Example: Drew Peterson is suspected of killing his third wife and being involved in the disappearance of his fourth wife. The prosecution has a prima facie case against him. They could indict him, but they don’t have enough to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt so they haven’t charged him.

    Furthermore, they could make a prima facie case against any husband when his wife goes missing. It just means it can go to trial. You don’t want to do that because of DOUBLE JEOPARDY. Try a man once and fail, and it doesn’t matter what you find later. In the United States and many other western countries, you cannot do it again.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_court_system_says_you_are_innocent_until_proven_guilty_why_is_a_not_guilty_verdict_the_same_as_innocent

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s