drugs control vs. gun controlI posted some things similar to this post a few months ago about drugs and guns and the lack of some people to want the government to control anything. Since that time, and many blood baths later,  exactly ZERO progress has been made, so I want to expand on this more and try to remove the emotional response that it evokes where it often comes down to semantics and ignoring other laws designed to have a similar outcome.

I’m also including information for people from other countries, who just cannot fathom what the big problem is in the U.S. for not adopting “sensible gun control” laws.

For the purpose of protecting citizens from controlled substances, I think most people will agree that legal interventions can control availability, lessen consumption and reduce the harm associated with the use and abuse of drugs. If the same logic were to be applied to firearms, it very well could have the same results, e.g., to control availability, lessen violence and reduce the harm associated with use and abuse of firearms. As with drugs, this does not mean that the “bad guys” won’t have access to them, but it would probably have an impact, along with an impact on the many other deaths caused by firearms that are supposedly in the hands of the “good guys”. With a few exceptions like marijuana, alcohol and tobacco, I don’t think many really believe that heroin should not be controlled. My question is, why should firearms be any different?

DEA_badge_CAs an overview of the laws, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act are the federal U.S. laws regulating the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of controlled substances “drugs” in the United States and under international treaties. The enforcement authority is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As far as I am aware, there are no state or local laws that override the federal laws, with the exception of marijuana, which has not yet been hashed out. In other words, you can’t just drive to the next state or order online if you want to buy heroin legally.

USA_-_ATF_BadgeThe National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA) and other laws, including the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), are the equivalent federal laws regulating weapons and firearms in the U.S. The enforcement authority for both NFA and GCA is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As far as I am aware, there are many state and local laws that override the federal laws, and it makes for a confusing mess for both citizens and other countries trying to stem the flow of firearms into their own countries. In other words, you can easily drive to the next state, or sometimes even the next city, or order online if you want to buy a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 legally.

For a historical perspective, the gun control controversy began with the very dated wording of the 2nd Amendment, which is part of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution contained in the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791. It reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  As one would expect,  there have been many amendments to the constitution, 33 in total, which were made to fit the times and circumstances, as the original “living” Constitution had intended. But for some reason this particular amendment seems to be stuck in the past, even though it really only mentions “Arms” [firearms] meant for “Militia” [military] use as was logical in a time when the U.S. had a relatively small standing army and relied on the state militia system who could be recruited during wartime.

In the 1930s, the U.S. had a lot-of very publicized gangster violence — think Dillinger, Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde, etc, much like today with mass shootings. Rather than ban harmful weapons that had few safe uses, which would have required amending the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, most harmful weapons were heavily taxed and a registration system to control their transfer was started. The NFA did not create much controversy at that time, unlike gun-control today, because most of the public had had enough of the violence and groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) did not have much power.

The categories of firearms regulated under the NFA have changed over time, and so have the restrictions put on them. In many respects, most military style firearms are so restricted that it is already a de facto ban ffor individuals to own them. If people want the right to bear military style firearms, they need to join the military or the Guard and Reserves, but they still won’t be able to take their military style firearms home, as is done in some countries like Switzerland.

When it came to an individuals a right to “bear arms”, the courts had already ruled that the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, the amendment allowed state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. In the 1970s the NRA pushed for a re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms, and hence the controversy that exists today. What resulted was a rather odd court decision that the government cannot ban handguns, but it also did not allow for individual right to military style firearms or other types of firearms that were not handguns. In other words, the door was left open to ban other firearms that are deemed to be too unsafe, for example assault style and semi-automatic firearms.

EvacuationEven if this was not the case, using the 2nd Amendment as a catch-all for any “sensible gun control” would be the equivalent comparison if “medicaments” [medications], like mercury purgatives to induce vomiting blood, were enshrined in the  first ten amendments. Interestingly enough, one of the signers to the U.S. Declaration of Independence named Benjamin Rush was a staunch supporter of mercury purgatives and bloodletting, but thankfully it never got enshrined in the first ten amendments to the constitution! Regardless, the laws need to reflect the relative harm of what modern weapons cause, compared to an18th-century musket.

drugsBy way of example, I think it would be completely possible the classify firearms in a way similar to how controlled substances are classified. Controlled substances are divided into five schedules (or classes) on the basis of their potential for abuse, accepted scientific or medical use, and accepted safety under medical supervision. Substances in Schedule I have a high potential for abuse, no accredited medical use, and a lack of accepted safety. From Schedules II to V, the substances have a currently accepted medical use, with a decrease in potential for abuse.

In contrast, the firearms classifications are generally referred to as Title II for the NFA and Title I for the GCA, but there is very little distinction made based on their accepted use or evidence-based accepted safety in relation to potential for violence and harm caused, both physically and psychologically. In the examples I use the term “recreation” to include sport shooting and other activities that are done primarily for fun that need to be weighed against their potential to harm.

Schedule I controlled substances are drugs like Heroin, LSD, MDMA “ecstasy”, date rape drugs, etc. That means that they have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted use and there is a lack of accepted safety for use even under supervision. This also includes naturally-occurring drugs like marijuana, mescaline, peyote and psilocybin mushrooms, which other than for some medical and religious purposes are not legal.

800px-PEO_M249_Para_ACOGSchedule I controlled substances are analogous to weapons and firearms that are regulated by Title II under the NFA, including machine guns, short-barrelled shotguns/rifles, destructive devices (e.g., bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines and similar devices), silencers and any other weapon (AOW) as defined as “any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive,” other than a handgun with a rifled barrel. As far as I am aware, most people do not disagree with this level of gun control, but a notable exception was when a gun instructor was shot and killed by a nine-year-old kid he had been teaching to shoot an Uzi, which was possible due to loopholes in the laws, and odder yet that the shooting was viewed as an “industrial accident”.

Where it seems to get tricky for some people to grasp is where schedule I controlled substances are also analogous to firearms that are regulated by Title I under the GCA, including semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, pistols and handguns, with a large magazine of ammunition configured for rapid fire and combat style use. That comparison means that they have a high potential for violence, have no currently accepted use and there is a lack of accepted safety for use even under supervision. In other words, the only use for these weapons other than military and law enforcement is recreational use and mass murder. I do not include hunting in this category, because it is questionable if using semi-automatic firearms is really hunting, with a few exceptions, like for people who are disabled. When compared to the harm that they inflict, it would be much better for people to acquire reasonable hunting and shooting skills with a more appropriate and less harmful firearm.

Schedule II controlled substance are drugs like fentanyl, morphine, cocaine, methamphetamines and many pain relieving opioids, anaesthetics and sedatives. That means that they have a high potential for abuse, but have currently accepted use with severe restrictions and abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical problems.

handgunSchedule II controlled substances are analogous to handguns with a rifled barrel that are regulated by Title I under the GCA. That comparison means that they have a high potential for violence, but have currently accepted use with severe restrictions and abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical problems. In other words, there is a use for these weapons other than military and law enforcement, e.g., personal defense and recreational use, but they require severe restrictions.

Schedule III controlled substances include many barbiturates, steroids, pain relievers, stimulants and sedatives. That means that they have a potential for abuse, but have currently accepted use and abuse may lead to moderate physical or high psychological problems.

1280px-Modern_Hunting_RifleSchedule III controlled substances are analogous traditional rifles and shotguns that are regulated by Title I under the GCA. That comparison means that they have a potential for violence, but have currently accepted use and abuse may lead to moderate physical or psychological problems. In other words, there is a use for these weapons, e.g., personal defense, hunting and recreational use, but they require some restrictions. As far as I am aware, when talking about “sensible gun control“, very few people are looking to change the laws about these firearms.

Schedule IV-V controlled substances are analogous to the rest of the firearms that are regulated by Title I under the GCA, e.g., mostly antique firearms. That comparison means that they have a potential for violence, but have currently accepted use and abuse may lead to only limited physical or psychological problems. Again, as far as I am aware, when talking about “sensible gun control“, very few people are looking to change the laws about these firearms kept for historical, folkloric or decorative value.

Really, both systems need to be completely re-worked in an evidence-based way. For controlled substances the classification system should include alcohol and tobacco, while some others are all less harmful and should probably have a lower classification and cannabis even lower or not at all. The hypocrisy in the current situation is that there are many people suffering needlessly pain due to chronic health conditions for lack of being able to use controlled substances, some as mild as marijuana. Meanwhile, other substances like alcohol and tobacco inflict a huge toll. At least for alcohol people are usually held responsible for the harm they inflict on others by way of drunk driving laws and other compensatory methods through the courts and for tobacco there are higher health insurance premiums and the ongoing cost of taxes. By not scheduling these drugs properly the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world for non-violent drug offenses with a huge expense to the taxpayer, and accomplishing almost nothing for the safety or well-being of other citizens.

Re-working gun control needs to begin with allowing the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)  to study gun violence and it’s implications, and then classifying firearms appropriately based on the harm they cause relative to their intended application of good use. For firearms there is almost no accountability for harm done in many U.S. states, unless it is used while committing a crime. Oftentimes, there is also very little redress because of inadequate training, unsecure gun storage, lack of parental supervision, reckless handling, accidental discharge and negligence by manufacturer’s or sellers’ in not providing adequate safety measures. These situations would never be allowed when it comes to controlled substances, or practically any other product on the market for that matter. As a side note, it would probably make sense for controlled substances that are handled by the AFT, e.g., alcohol and tobacco, to be enforced under the DEA, and leave the AFT to focus on the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, etc.

Bubba heroin dogLike many people, I found it very sad when the dog Bubba was recently found on heroin and methamphetamine. Rightfully, his owner was arrested and will face charges for animal cruelty. What I can’t understand is all of the so called “tragedies and accidents” that I read about on a daily basis about situations with guns that cause harm. Wouldn’t it also be right that any gun owner who’s firearm causes harm to others for any of the things mentioned above was also faced charges? At very minimum, manufacturer’s, sellers’ and people who own firearms should be required to purchase liability insurance based on the potential for harm, for both bodily injury and damages, just as is required to operate a vehicle.

 

Note: Here are some of the other posts I made after recent mass shootings for reference:

drugs and handguns Obama executive order guns

100B5982I am writing this post about falls and broken bones so that it might help other caregivers whose stroke survivor partners are at a high risk for falls and do not always realise the risks and consequences.

My husband uses a wheelchair full-time, can only stand a few seconds with assistance, and needs help with all transfers to and from his wheelchair. In the past before he had multiple broken bones from falls he had more mobility and could stand and take a few steps with assistance and could do most transfers with minimal assistance and oversight. He was also on his way to building up more strength and balance, and we had hoped he would one day be taking his first unassisted steps to walking.

Over the past 7 years my husband has had femur, tibia, fibula, humerus and rib fractures, e.g., most of the major long bones and mostly on his stroke affected side. They were either caused by falls from the wheelchair during a seizure and unavoidable or happened when he transferred or did something alone without my oversight because he was trying hard to be independent. Especially the lower leg fractures, which for various reasons were not treated well, caused him to lose a lot of strength that he is still trying to rebuild from 3 years later. Along with numerous other falls that caused cuts, concussions, bumps and bruises, they have all caused us both a lot of wear and tear and stress on a daily basis.

In the early days of strokes I remember reading studies about the highest causes of morbidity after stroke and was surprised to learn that for younger previously fit survivors falls were higher on the list than for older survivors. My husband was 47 and in reasonably good health when he had strokes caused by a twisted intestine and subsequent severe sepsis. I registered the risk of falls, made the house as safe as possible, always tried to take great care with transfers and made sure that he kept as mobile as possible with physical therapy, standing and excercising to avoid bone weakness and to gain strength. He also has help from some very trusted caregivers who we trained well and have been very loyal and conscientious about his care. Regardless, I don’t think we realised how profound the risks and consequences of falls would be until after we lived it. It is only now as I write this that my husband is telling me that no medical people had even warned him about the risks and consequences of falls, despite having over 4 months of rehabilitation. I always just assumed that he knew this, and am shocked, but also more understanding about some of the risks he has taken.

Falls happened, and have taken a huge toll on his recovery and the quality of life for both of us. There is not much that we could have done about the falls that were caused by post-stroke seizures or other situations like a faulty wheelchair that they refused to fix after fighting with them for 3 months. But for the avoidable falls, the most common thread is that he felt he could manage on his own or in one situation, me not realizing how dangerous a situation was when he was trying to help me on a household task so I could make a work deadline. The other cause was that a smaller injury like a hurt knee from physical therapy  caused him to have a bigger injury like a broken arm because of spasms or a broken rib caused a broken leg because of not having as much strength to keep his balance. In the world of strokes, smaller consequences often ripple into much bigger consequences in ways that most people just can not understand, and the list is too long to document them all.

It now makes perfect sense to me why younger or previously physically fit survivors are at a greater risk from falls. I think that the desire to do more independently and not always realising limitations can have a bigger impact than with older people, who are often more aware of their limitations, which often started pre-stroke. Looking back, I’m not sure that either of us would have done things much differently, other than making sure I was always right there in case things went amiss. That was something we both struggled with, because we both did not want him to lose all of his independence to do things without me hovering over him. There is a saying in the stroke world “Use It Or Lose It” and we have both fought hard for him to stay active and not lose his much fought for capabilities. Even sometimes when I was there things went amiss, like when I went to break a fall and he flew over my head causing injury to us both or when I helplessly watched nearby as he struggled to take twisted sheets out of the washing machine, but was not close enough to get there in time to catch the fall.

We were both previously sailors, and we always called my spotting him using the Dutch idiom “een oogje in het zeil houden” —  “keeping an eye on the sail”. Unfortunately, even with the best intentions, it just is not always possible and things happen. Coming to terms with that has been hard for both of us. Knowing that at any moment a situation can become life threatening in an instant is something that takes a huge toll on the psyche for both of us, but is something we know we are living with on a day-to-day basis and needed to adapt to.

It is also something that others don’t understand and sometimes think that I am being too cautious or too lenient about that he is just not trying hard enough. But they have never been there to see the immediate consequences, like the shock of not knowing if your partner is alive, dealing with the ambulance and hospital and the long-term toll it takes on care and overall health. Even health care providers don’t often get it, and seem to question me when anything happens, as if I might have been the cause of it. Then I often find that they don’t know how to properly treat someone who already has big mobility limitations and it’s difficult to get them to understand why a full leg cast or waiting many days for treatment is disastrous on both a health and care level for a stroke survivor and their caregiver partner.

There are also things that just happen because of the chaos of life, like when the dog runs out the door and almost gets hit by a car because someone had come without letting us know in advance as requested. That split second when your attention is away can be enough to cause irreparable harm that no amount of protection or oversight can change. And it’s not just the stroke survivor who deals with all the pain and consequences. I now have back problems because of falls, making it harder for me to give care. I also have a difficult time working because I can not always be there to catch him if he falls, and rarely can visits family or friends because of the difficulty in organising care. The financial consequences for working have been disastrous and the social consequences just as bad —   I have had one trip to visit my family in 7 years.

I’m not writing this to scare any of you or to elicit pity. I’m writing this because I think it is important to know what the consequences of falls can be. If you or your partner are ever in doubt about something being safe, it’s better to be safe “keeping your eye on the sail”. If your partner becomes frustrated with you doing that, please read them this, and let them know that although you would both like things to be different, sometimes there is just no other choice. If they still won’t listen to you, get a physio therapist or others who really understand the ramifications to make it clear to them (I am happy to help if needed). Also please feel free to have others read this, whether they be health providers who often have very little experience of the real consequences of strokes, or friends and family who may not understand why you can’t make it to a social gathering or why you are stressed leaving your partner alone to run to the shops and don’t have time to chat.

Most importantly, I’m writing this because there are times that it just isn’t possible for you to be there to catch a fall, and the inevitable happens. Although it is horrible to experience and causes a lot of pain and guilt on both sides, it’s important to realise that there are just some things we don’t have the power to protect our stroke survivor partners from or for them to protect themselves from. We still have no easy answers after 7 years, but I hope that maybe this post helps a struggling caregiver or their partner to have some peace in a situation that none of us asked for, least of all our stroke survivor partners.

 

Here are a few links that I will continue to add to as I rehash past research on this topic:

Fractures After Stroke 
Falls, Fractures, and Osteoporosis After Stroke
Hip fractures after stroke and their prevention

We had a blast at the Rob Scholte Museum today with Rob Scholte, Robert Pit, Mike, Remco and Jos.

We had a nice afternoon today and celebrated my 53rd year on the planet. We went to a local nature recreation area and had a nice walk and a late lunch out on the terrace. It’s a nice restaurant and friendly and they also welcome dogs too. Jane had a nice time running around, and was really good with the other dogs at the restaurant. Jansen was always so good at restaurants and bars and it’s nice to see that Jane must have learned from him.

Original abstract paintings in acrylic on canvas, board and paper.In English it says:

Open Studio

Exhibition in the garden
Sunday 20 September
from 14.00 to 17.00
Buurtje 9, Andijk

Everyone is welcome!
(If the weather is bad it is cancelled
check on Facebook: Robert Pit Paintings)

Rob had some special visitors today. His old friend Remco and Jos came over with Rob Scholte, a well known Dutch artist that he admires. I had not told Rob that Rob Scholte was coming with them and he was really surprised. At first he could not speak and had tears in his eyes. Rob Scholte was great and gave him a big hug.

Rob enjoyed telling Rob about his work and showing him his paintings. We also heard about what was happening with the Rob Scholte Museum, and sadly about the ridiculous politics with the local government that he is having to deal with to keep it open.

We had a really nice visit and I think that the 2 Rob’s instantly became friends. They have a lot in common with both being crazy artists — and I mean that in a good way!

Rob Scholte MuseumNote: There is a petition to keep the Rob Scholte Museum open if you are interested in signing. It is only in Dutch, but the gist of the problem is that the local government reneged on a contract and are threatening to close it, after much investment in time, energy and money by Rob and others.

It sounds like a real powerplay by a few narrow minded politicians. It makes no sense, and is extremely short-sighted, especially because it is in an economically depressed area and can bring tourists to the area along with being a cultural and social sanctuary for the local community.

 

I have every reason to believe that a person is monitoring all that I write, and I am happy to share with them these quotes. Yes, it is in my rights to post opinions and views, even if others do not agree with them. Maybe this person will want to summons all of the quoted writers for slander ― have fun!

Norman Rockwell Fleeing HoboThat person is welcome to comment on this or any other post I have made. My guess is that the person in question has no courage to defend their actions because they know they are morally corrupt, and are only looking to threaten us with frivolous allegations of slander to hide behind their own guilt.

Only cowards hide behind lawyers and try to blame others for their actions. It’s time for this person to grow-up and pull up their big girl/boy panties and take responsibility for their actions and the damages that they have caused. What a warped, despicable and cowardly person — get a life!

This painting reminds me of just how much I wish Jansen was able to bite despicable cowards in the butt ― go Jansen! As for me, I am very happy to let karma take care of cowards….

In the interest of freedom of expression, these are some quotes that come to mind about some recent situations…

Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don’t have brains enough to be honest.
― Benjamin Franklin

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
― Desiderius Erasmus

One may outwit another, but not all the others.
― François de La Rochefoucauld

The only thing more frustrating than slanderers is those foolish enough to listen to them.
― Criss Jami, Killosophy

The craftiest trickery are too short and ragged a cloak to cover a bad heart.
― Johann Kaspar Lavater

Cunning is the art of concealing our own defects, and discovering the weaknesses of others.
― William Hazlitt

Cunning grows in deceit at seeing itself discovered, and tries to deceive with truth itself.
― Balthasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom

[The witch] would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.
― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe / The Magician’s Nephew

I’d be glad of a retaliation that wouldn’t recoil on myself; but treachery and violence are spears pointed at both ends: they wound those who resort to them, worse than their enemies
― Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights

The code of the con is to know just enough about everything so you can lie about anything.
(attrib: E. Tancarville)
― Dan Garfat-Pratt, Citations: A Brief Anthology

We can all be conned but at what point do we realize that we’re being conned and to what point do we allow ourselves to be conned?
― Guy Ritchie

The secret of being a top-notch con man is being able to know what the mark wants, and how to make him think he’s getting it.
― Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Lies don’t fit snugly into disguises. Eventually the cloak falls off and you’re left staring at the naked truth which is always an uncomfortable situation.
― Richelle E. Goodrich

The petty man is eager to make boasts, yet desires that others should believe in him. He enthusiastically engages in deception, yet wants others to have affection for him. He conducts himself like an animal, yet wants others to think well of him
― Xun Zi

All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things
― Robert Southey

People always overdo the matter when they attempt deception.
― Charles Dudley Warner

Nothing is so boring as having to keep up a deception.
― E. V. Lucas

The coward only threatens when he is safe.
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Some people are cowards… I think by and large a third of people are villains, a third are cowards, and a third are heroes. Now, a villain and a coward can choose to be a hero, but they’ve got to make that choice
― Tom Hanks

The coward wretch whose hand and heart Can bear to torture aught below, Is ever first to quail and start From the slightest pain or equal foe.
― Bertrand Russell

A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit
― Thomas Jefferson

The coward’s weapon, poison
― John Fletcher

The coward sneaks to death; the brave live on.
― George Sewell

“When someone has proven by their actions a pattern of deception, conning, and treachery to benefit themselves, while inflicting pain on those that are vulnerable and who have been manipulated into their moral trust, there is no excuse that can be made for them, or punishment strong enough for them, other than for them to have to live with themselves in the company of their own moral misery.”
― Ellyn

We had a lovely day today and spring is finally here. It was nice to sit out in the garden. Lots of gardening to do, but I’ll let nature do her thing with the daff’s and soon to be tulips first.

 

We have removed this post

For the time being, we have removed this post because we want to avoid baseless claims of defamation by anyone trying to threaten us not to take further action within the Dutch judicial system.

We believe that the Dutch police and prosecution service will eventually acknowledge that they made errors and will take the appropriate measures to protect us and others in a similar situation.

We have not removed this post because we believe we have made any wrongful or untruthful statements.We believe that all statements that were made fall under freedom of speech laws, which are legally enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Dutch constitution.

Furthermore, all statements that have been made were because the Dutch judicial system has so far failed us. All information that has been posted has been in the interest of our own protection and rights to justice, the protection of other handicapped and disabled people or the protection for other pet owners in regard to victim’s rights to justice, or lack thereof, in the criminal justice process in the Netherlands.

Je suis JansenWe are undeterred in our search for justice, but we also do not want to waste our time and energy on frivolous and damaging accusations – hasn’t there been enough damage done? This whole situation has caused serious stress related health problems. It is just not worth it, and we believe that justice will prevail, and even if it does not, that karma will!

We thank everyone for their support, and hopefully by even needing to make a post like this you will understand how difficult our situation has been. Should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome to post them here or contact us on our contact page.

— Robert and Ellyn

Noordhollands Dagblad_logo

Andijkers Robert Pit en Ellyn Larson zoeken naar gerechtigheid

Noordhollands Dagblad – Internetpetitie voor Andijker hondje Jansen

Door Connie Vertegaal  28-2-2015

NHD hondje
Robert Pit en Ellyn Larson met kunstenaar Nico Haakman die Jansen heeft geschilderd met een foto uit de krant als voorbeeld. Robert en Ellyn zijn heel blij met het schilderij. Hun overgebleven hondje Jane kijkt toe. foto Marcel Rob

2015-02-28 Noordhollands Dagblad - Internetpetitie voor Andijker hondje JansenANDIJK – Het schilderij van hun overleden hondje Jansen was een prachtig mooi lichtpuntje. Andijkers Robert Pit en Ellyn Larson konden even hun ellendige situatie vergeten. Uit machteloze woede over het, in hun oordeel, falend politie-onderzoek naar hun vergiftigde hond en het toedienen van een overdosis medicatie aan de gehandicapte Robert, is het stel een internetpetitie gestart.

De petitie is al door meer dan honderd mensen ondertekend. Zij vragen om gerechtigheid voor Robert, Jansen en Jane, de ander hond van Ellyn en Robert, die ziek werd van het gif, maar het drama wel overleefde. Ellyn wil ermee naar de hoofdofficier van justitie stappen. Zo diep zit haar frustratie over wat haar en Robert het afgelopen half jaar is overkomen.

Twee trieste gebeurtenissen volgden elkaar op. In september kreeg Robert, die door een hersenbloeding aan een rolstoel gebonden is, door een van zijn verzorgers een overdosis epilepsiemedicatie toegediend. Robert raakte bewusteloos en ademde niet of nauwelijks. Ellyn heeft hem mond-op-mond-beademing gegeven en zo waarschijnlijk zijn leven gered. Toen de ambulance arriveerde, maakte de man zich uit de voeten.

Ellyn kwam er pas vier dagen later achter dat Robert even daarvoor samen met zijn verzorger een flinke som geld van zijn bankrekening had gehaald. Het geld is verdwenen. De verzorger heeft in november drie dagen vastgezeten als verdachte, maar is sindsdien vrij en de zaak is geseponeerd. ,,Want de politie heeft het geld niet gevonden bij hem. Maar dat lijkt me logisch als je twee maanden wacht’’, zegt Ellyn verontwaardigd.

Kort na de vrijlating van de man hebben de jackrussel-hondjes Jansen en Jane gegeten van een bol rattengif dat in de tuin van Robert en Ellyn lag. Jansen overleed na een paar dagen aan de interne bloedingen die hij kreeg. Jane werd ook ziek, maar overleefde het drama.

Goedheid

Na een artikel in deze krant over de vergiftiging van Jansen stond op een dag Wervershover Nico Haakman op de stoep bij Ellyn en Robbert. Hij had de foto van Jansen, die bij het artikel stond, nageschilderd. ,,We kregen het schilderij van hem. Het was zo warm, zo fantastisch. Dat heeft ons zo geholpen om weer te geloven in de goedheid van mensen’’, vertelt Ellyn.

Wat blijft is de frustratie over het optreden van de politie. Ellyn en Robert verdenken de verzorger van Robert ervan de bol gif in hun tuin te hebben gelegd. ,,Om ons te bedreigen, denk ik.’’ Maar een poging om de aangifte van vergiftiging van Jansen te koppelen aan de eerdere aangifte na wat Robert in september overkwam, leidde tot niets. ,,De politie doet er niets mee. Als de politie dit meteen serieus had genomen, hadden misschien rattengif bij de man kunnen vinden. Maar daarvoor is het nu natuurlijk ook al te laat.’’

Ellyn wijst op de bewijzen die er zijn in de aanslag en beroving van Robert. De vingerafdrukken van de man zitten op het medicijnflesje. Op Facebook geeft hij toe dat hij Robert een overdosis heeft gegeven. Ook heeft Ellyn Facebookchats bewaard waarin de man Robert overhaalt om zijn geld van de bank te halen, want daar zou het niet veilig zijn. Dit is als bewijsmateriaal aan de politie overgedragen, maar die deed daar niets mee.

Leugens

Ellyn werd destijds overal buiten gehouden. ,,Ik vertrouwde die verzorger nooit maar Robert had een goede band met hem. Of laat ik zeggen, hij stond erg onder zijn invloed. Ze deelden een passie voor kunst. Toen ze naar de bank gingen, zeiden ze dat ze naar een expositie gingen. Allemaal leugens. Robert is makkelijk beïnvloedbaar, door zijn ziekte is hij zo geworden. Robert is een makkelijke prooi als gehandicapte. In andere landen geldt dit als verzwarende omstandigheid, in Nederland blijkbaar niet.’’

Gevaarlijk

De petitie roept op het sepot op het onderzoek op te heffen, het onderzoek te heropenen en de man te verbieden als verzorger van zieken en gehandicapten aan de slag te gaan. ,,Dit is een zeer gevaarlijke man. Straks maakt hij weer een slachtoffer. Dit moet halt toe worden gebracht.’’

De petitie is te vinden op: https://www.change.org/p/the-dutch-police-and-prosecution-service-we-want-justice-for-the-victims-of-3-crimes of via Facebook bij Justice for Jansen.

Reactie van de politie

‘We hebben er alles aan gedaan’

ANDIJK – De politie heeft er alles aan gedaan om deze zaak off te heleren, zo laat woordvoerder Leon Veldt weten. ,,We vinden deze situatie heel vervelend voor deze mensen, maar we kunnen echt niet meer doen.’’

Het gif onderzoeken, waaran het hondje is overleden, is niet meer mogelijk. Het lag er al even en er habben andere mensen aan gezeten. Er zijn geen getuigen die iets hebben gezien.

Ook de zaak rondom he verdwenen geld is gestrand wegens een gebrek an bewijsmateriaal. ,,En zonder bewijzen kunnen we niet zomaar iemand gaan beschuldigen’’, legt Veldt uit. ,,Het bewijs dat dezen mensen hebbeen aangedrage, is niet voldoended bleken.’’

Ellyn en Robert een ‘artikel 12 procedure’ starten, dat is een verzoek om het onderzoek to heropenen. Een petitie zal de uitkomst daarvan niet beïnvloeden, aldus Veldt.

 

 

Noordhollands Dagblad_logo

Andijkers Robert Pit and Ellyn Larson search for justice

Noordhollands Dagblad – Internetpetitie voor Andijker hondje Jansen

By Connie Vertegaal  28-2-2015

NHD hondje
Robert Pit and Ellyn Larson with artist Nico Haakman who has painted Jansen with a photo from the newspaper as an example. Robert and Ellyn are very happy with the painting. Their remaining dog Jane looks on. Photo Marcel Rob

2015-02-28 Noordhollands Dagblad - Internetpetitie voor Andijker hondje Jansen

ANDIJK – The painting of their deceased dog Jansen was a wonderful and beautiful bright spot. Andijkers Robert Pit and Ellyn Larson could forget about their miserable situation. From impotent rage about it, in their judgment, failing police investigation into their poisoned dog and administering an overdose of medication to the handicapped Robert, the couple started an Internet petition.

The petition has been signed by more than a hundred people. They ask for justice for Robert, Jansen and Jane, the other dog of Ellyn and Robert, who became ill from the poison, but has survived the drama. Ellyn wants to take the petition to the chief public prosecutor. So deep is her frustration about what has happened to her and Robert in the past six months.

Two sad events followed each other. In September Robert, who is bound to a wheelchair by a cerebral hemorrhage, by one of his caregivers was administered an overdose of epilepsy medication. Robert became unconscious and was barely breathing. Ellyn gave him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and so probably saved his life. When the ambulance arrived, the man ran away.

Ellyn found out four days later that moments before that Robert with his caregiver had taken a large sum of money from his bank account. The money has disappeared. The caregiver was held for three days in November as a suspect, but has since been released and the case has been dismissed. “Because the police did not find the money on him. But it seems to me logical if you wait two months”, Ellyn says indignantly.

Shortly after the release of the man the jack russell dogs Jansen and Jane ate a sphere rat poison that was in the garden of Robert and Ellyn. Jansen died after a few days later of the internal bleeding. Jane was ill, but survived the tragedy.

Goodness

Following an article in this newspaper about the poisoning of Jansen was Nico Haakman at the door of Ellyn and Robert. He had the photo of Jansen, who was in the article, repainted. “We received the painting from him. It was so warm, so fantastic. That has  helped us so much to believe again in the goodness of people”, says Ellyn.

What remains is the frustration over the actions of the police. Ellyn and Robert think the caregiver of Robert has the ball of poison placed in their garden. “To threaten us, I think”. But an attempt to link the declaration of the poisoning of Jansen’s to the earlier declaration of what happened to Robert in September, led to nothing. “The police do nothing with it. If the police had immediately taken this seriously, maybe they could have found rat poison on the man. But this is of course now, too late”.

Ellyn points to the evidence in the assault and robbery of Robert. The fingerprints of the man are on the medication bottle. On Facebook, he admits that he administered Robert an overdose. Ellyn has also saved Facebook Chats where the man persuades Robert to get his money from the bank, because he said the money would not be safe there. This evidence has been handed over to the police, but they did nothing with it.

Lies

Ellyn was left out of things. “I didn’t trust the caregiver, but Robert had a good relationship with him. Or let me say, he was very under his influence. They shared a passion for art. When they went to the bank, they said they were going to an art exhibition. All lies. Robert has become easily influenced because of his illness. Robert is an easy prey being disabled. In other countries, this is seen as an aggravating circumstance in the Netherlands apparently not”.

Dangerous

The petition calls to lift the dismissal on the case, to reopen the investigation and to forbid the man from working as a caregiver of the sick and disabled. “This is a very dangerous man. Soon he might make another victim. This should be brought to a halt”.

The petition can be found at: https://www.change.org/p/the-dutch-police-and-prosecution-service-we-want-justice-for-the-victims-of-3-crimes or via Facebook at Justice for Jansen.

Reaction from the police

‘We have made every effort’

ANDIJK – The police have made every effort to clear this case up, as spokesman Leon Veldt put it. “We find this situation very disturbing for these people, but we really can not do more.”

The poison investigation, which caused the dog to die, is no longer possible. It was laying there for a while and other people could have touched it. There are no witnesses who saw anything..

Also the case around the missing money is stranded for lack of evidence. “And without evidence, we can not just go and accuse someone”, Veldt explains. “The evidence that these people have presented has not proved sufficient”.

Ellyn and Robert can start an ‘Article 12’ procedure, which is a request to reopen the investigation. A petition will not affect the outcome, says Veldt.

We have removed this post

For the time being, we have removed this post because we want to avoid baseless claims of defamation by anyone trying to threaten us not to take further action within the Dutch judicial system.

We believe that the Dutch police and prosecution service will eventually acknowledge that they made errors and will take the appropriate measures to protect us and others in a similar situation.

We have not removed this post because we believe we have made any wrongful or untruthful statements.We believe that all statements that were made fall under freedom of speech laws, which are legally enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Dutch constitution.

Furthermore, all statements that have been made were because the Dutch judicial system has so far failed us. All information that has been posted has been in the interest of our own protection and rights to justice, the protection of other handicapped and disabled people or the protection for other pet owners in regard to victim’s rights to justice, or lack thereof, in the criminal justice process in the Netherlands.

Je suis JansenWe are undeterred in our search for justice, but we also do not want to waste our time and energy on frivolous and damaging accusations – hasn’t there been enough damage done? This whole situation has caused serious stress related health problems. It is just not worth it, and we believe that justice will prevail, and even if it does not, that karma will!

We thank everyone for their support, and hopefully by even needing to make a post like this you will understand how difficult our situation has been. Should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome to post them here or contact us on our contact page.

— Robert and Ellyn

We have removed this post

For the time being, we have removed this post because we want to avoid baseless claims of defamation by anyone trying to threaten us not to take further action within the Dutch judicial system.

We believe that the Dutch police and prosecution service will eventually acknowledge that they made errors and will take the appropriate measures to protect us and others in a similar situation.

We have not removed this post because we believe we have made any wrongful or untruthful statements.We believe that all statements that were made fall under freedom of speech laws, which are legally enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Dutch constitution.

Furthermore, all statements that have been made were because the Dutch judicial system has so far failed us. All information that has been posted has been in the interest of our own protection and rights to justice, the protection of other handicapped and disabled people or the protection for other pet owners in regard to victim’s rights to justice, or lack thereof, in the criminal justice process in the Netherlands.

Je suis JansenWe are undeterred in our search for justice, but we also do not want to waste our time and energy on frivolous and damaging accusations – hasn’t there been enough damage done? This whole situation has caused serious stress related health problems. It is just not worth it, and we believe that justice will prevail, and even if it does not, that karma will!

We thank everyone for their support, and hopefully by even needing to make a post like this you will understand how difficult our situation has been. Should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome to post them here or contact us on our contact page.

— Robert and Ellynt.

Gerechtshof Amsterdam klaagschrift ex artikel 12 SvI’ve had a few questions about the dismissal of the case by the prosecution service and wanted to give some information.

Most of what follows is a condensed version of “Consensual Criminal Procedures, C.H. Brants-Langeraar and “The Dutch criminal justice system“, P.J.P. Tak.

Role of the prosecutor and the police

The Dutch Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) divides crimes into felonies (misdrijven) and misdemeanours (overtredingen). With a few exceptions, misdemeanours are tried by a single judge (kantonrechter). Felonies are always tried in a district court (arrondissementsrechtbank), of which there are 19, spread around the country, sometimes by a panel of three judges, sometimes by a single judge.

The Dutch prosecutor is a powerful figure in Dutch criminal procedure, with an immense amount of discretion. Dutch public prosecutors are trained in the same way as judges and the Public Prosecution Service is regarded as part of the judiciary.Their most important tasks are: controlling and monitoring an impartial pre-trial investigation by the police, compiling the dossier and deciding whether or not to prosecute on the basis of their findings.

It is the police who do the actual investigative work and in this they are fairly independent, although formally under the supervision of the prosecutor. Prosecutors do not, for example, usually interview suspects or witnesses themselves, although they may tell the police to do so. The police also take the first steps in the compilation of the dossier, which is then handed over to the prosecutor for completion.

The police have the power to apprehend a suspect and take him to a place for questioning by the assistant prosecutor (hulpofficier) a police officer of a certain rank. The purpose of an arrest is interrogation, after which the prosecutor or assistant prosecutor may order that the suspect be held in custody for three days (with an extension of a further three days if strictly necessary) – but only if the arrested person is suspected of an offence punishable by more than 4 years imprisonment.

The decision whether or not to prosecute, and on which charge(s), is the exclusive prerogative of the prosecutor (known in Dutch law as the monopoly principle). There is no formal hearing to assess the sufficiency of the evidence, but the prosecutor is required to inform the victim of the outcome of his deliberations. Although the decision (not) to prosecute is one that is made by the individual prosecutor on the case while the law binds him only to the very generally worded considerations of public interest, he is not entirely free in the way he uses this discretionary power.

Prosecutors are bound to the directives from the procurators-general. For many sorts of crime, these stipulate that the prosecutor must, or must not, prosecute under certain circumstances.If the prosecutor does not prosecute while a directive stipulates that he should, this could play a part if the victim or other interested party should attempt to compel prosecution.

The existence of prosecutorial directives means that many if not most decisions on (non) prosecution are a matter of routine, although the magisterial role of the prosecutor in principle requires him to balance the interests in each specific case. The Dutch criminal justice system has a range of out-of-court measures at its disposal – most of which are imposed by the prosecutor and in minor cases by the police. This includes grievous bodily harm, some cases of manslaughter, theft, intimidating a witness, blackmail, and many other offences of a more or less serious nature.

Cancelling the prosecution of a crime

The principle of opportunity is a principle in Dutch law (opportuniteitsbeginsel), Swedish law, Slovenian law and French law, which says that a crime will be punished only if its prosecution is considered opportune. This means that public prosecutors have the discretion to cancel the prosecution of a crime. Cancelling the prosecution of a crime is called a sepot or seponering (in Dutch). If the prosecution of a crime is cancelled, it can still be resumed later. – the ne bis in idem principle, also known as double jeopardy, does not apply to sepots.

By law, the opportunity principle (principle of expediency is a better term for the Dutch situation) governs the prosecutor’s decision to prosecute and filters down to the police at the investigative stage. For this, there is no explicit legal basis, but in practice the police have considerable discretion in deciding which cases to pursue, sometimes even if serious crimes are involved. It is, of course, unlikely that they would ignore a murder, but they may well simply note a citizen’s report of a theft or burglary (usually for insurance purposes), perhaps visit the house and then take the matter no further if they feel it is unlikely that the case could ever be solved and that further investigation is a waste of time.

Although the law makes no mention of such police-discretion, it is primarily based on prosecutorial directives. These may be regarded as quasi-law and it is in the directives from the prosecution service, themselves based on a generic form of the opportunity principle, that (non) prosecution policy – as opposed to decisions in individual cases – is formulated and anticipated by the police.

Reversing the prosecution cancellation – Article 12-procedure

The only way that the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute can be reversed, is through a so-called Article 12-procedure (Artikel 12 Wetboek van Strafvordering). Article 12 Sv gives any person with a reasonable interest in prosecution the right to apply to the appeal court in order to have the prosecutor’s decision to either drop the case or to deal with it himself out of court, overturned.

Under Article 12 Sv, the appeal court reviews the complete case, hears all concerned (including the defendant) and then takes the decision on whether or not prosecution should follow as if it were the prosecutor; i.e., the court must take all of the interests involved into consideration and then decide, on the basis of the opportunity principle, whether prosecution is in the public interest. If it so decides, it may then order the prosecutor to prosecute.

Article 12 Sv is the only way in which a private person can formally influence the decision on prosecution, but the appeal court, not the interested party has the last word: if the court upholds the prosecutor’s original decision, there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

Rules of evidence

The evidentiary rules in the Netherlands constitute what is known as a negative system of evidence: the court must have a legal sufficiency of evidence of a certain legal sort and may not convict unless that evidence has convinced it of guilt.

An offender can be convicted only when the Court, during the Court trial, is convinced by the evidence that the offender has committed the offence defined by statute as charged (sect. 338 Code of Criminal Procedure – CCP). The evidence may not rest upon the testimony of a single witness (unus testis nullus testis), and a conviction may never be based solely on the statement of the accused. A guilty plea is unknown.

The court is free in assessing the truthfulness and quality of the evidence. In the verdict, the court has to state the reasons for convicting the accused. The burden of proof as a rule lies with public prosecutor. The court may play, however, an active role in gathering evidence during the trial by ordering further investigation. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Five means of evidence are defined by statute (sect. 339 CCP):
– the court’s own observations during the court hearing, e.g. photos or audio/video-recording;
– the statement of the accused in or out of court, provided the statement is filed;
– the statement of a witness in court, including hearsay testimony;
– the statement of an expert in court; and
– written (police) materials.

The Code distinguishes five categories of written materials (sect. 344 CCP):
– written decisions by members of the judiciary;
– reports by members of competent agencies, e.g. police reports on facts or circumstances personally perceived or experienced by them;
– documents of public agencies concerning subjects related to their competence containing the communication of facts and circumstances perceived or experienced by these agencies;
– reports of experts; and
– all other written materials. The latter category may only be used in relation with the content of other means of evidence.
Conviction may be based on a police report without further additional evidence being required.

Prosecution through penal orders

The prosecutor has a number of measures at his disposal, many of which would come under the heading of diversion in other jurisdictions. They are not aimed at removing offenders from the criminal justice system as such, merely at keeping them away from court while still keeping them within reach of the prosecutor and allowing for a punitive reaction on the part of the state. See Chapter IVA ‘Prosecution through penal orders’ (Titel IVa. Vervolging door een strafbeschikking, Arts. 257a-h Sv).

In a so-called penal order (strafbeschikking), the prosecution service may impose:
– a task penalty to perform non-remunerated work or compulsory participation in a training course;
– a fine;
– a withdrawal from circulation of seized objects;
– an order to pay to the treasury a sum of money to benefit the victim;
– the withdrawal of a driving license for a period of up to six months.

Furthermore, the order may consist of instructions to be complied with by the offender. Those instructions may not restrict the offender’s freedom of religion or his civil liberties. The instructions may consist of:
– the surrendering of objects that may be eligible for forfeiture or confiscation;
– the payment to the treasury of a sum of money that is equal to the profit of the crime;
– the payment of an amount of money to a public fund the aim of which is to support victims of crimes. The amount of money may not be higher than the maximum statutory fine set for the offence; or
– compliance with specifically-designed instructions during a probationary term of one year maximum.

Legal position of the victim

The term victim does not occur in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other criminal law statute. The victim has a procedural role only in his capacity as witness, informer or injured party. He has few rights in the pre-trial and trial phase. He has no
right to present a criminal charge or to be heard in his capacity of victim on the charge presented by the public prosecutor. The victim has neither the right to counsel nor the right of appeal.

Due to the changing attitude towards the weak legal position of the victim, and in line with the United Nations Declaration on Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and the Abuse of Power as well as the EU Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, a number of guidelines have been issued by the prosecution service on how to treat victims. The guidelines oblige police and prosecutors to inform the victim whether the prosecution of the offender will take place, and about the possibility of financial compensation from the offender.

Furthermore, the legal position of the victim has been substantially improved by the 1993 Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. He now has access to police files, and the right to be informed by the public prosecutor on the standing of the criminal procedure. Since 2005 the victim has a restricted right to give an oral statement during court trial, the so-called victim impact statement. The model of restorative justice is gaining an increasing number of supporters.

Obligation to pay compensation (sect. 36f CC)

The 1996 Compensation Order Act introduced the possibility for the court to impose an obligation upon a person convicted of a criminal offence to pay the State Treasury a sum of money for the benefit of the victim of the crime. The Treasury shall remit the money received to the victim without delay. In cases of non recovery of the full amount due, the Court can order default detention of one year maximum. This measure was introduced in order to improve the legal position of the victim in the criminal procedure. This measure can also be imposed in addition to a penal order.

 A general note about complaints with the justice system in the Netherlands

I find it very strange how complaints with the justice system in the Netherlands are handled. For example, if you have a complaint against the police, you are required to file a complaint with the police. If you have a complaint with the prosecution service you are still required to call the prosecution service to get the status or information about the  case (Slachtofferloket – part of Openbaar Ministerie). It’s maddening, because I think everyone is protecting themselves rather than trying to get to the bottom of it.

vogI’ve had a few questions about background checks and qualifications for caregivers and wanted to give a few details.

When we originally met the caregiver in January of 2013, he was staying at a neighbour’s house to share costs, because he was looking to move back to the area after living in other cities and doing some work abroad. In the Netherlands it can take a long time to find housing, especially if you are lower income and have not been on registered waiting lists for a long, long, time. Originally we were only on a friendly basis with the caregiver because my husband enjoyed his company. After about 3-4 months, the caregiver and our neighbour had a disagreement and we let him stay at our house for about a month while he looked for housing.

It was during this time that we signed the first care contract with the caregiver in April of 2013. In many countries it is possible to do a background check when hiring a caregiver, but in the Netherlands it works a little differently. For personal care workers who provide personal care (persoonlijke verzorging) or individual/personal support (individuele begeleiding) there are no statutory registers, even if they are certified carers (verzorgenden). Unless they are certified nurses (verpleegkundigen), which is not needed for my husband’s situation, the only check that we can do with them is to get a certificate of conduct. A certificate of conduct (Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag, VOG) is a document by which the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice declares that the applicant did not commit any criminal offences that are relevant to the performance of his or her duties.

At that time I had asked for a Certificate of Conduct and was told by the caregiver that it was not possible because they were no longer registered in a municipality administration system (GBA). I contacted the municipality where the caregiver last lived, and they also confirmed it was not possible because they were not in the administration system. I also found a document from the municipality that listed the caregiver as no longer being in the municipality administration system, so in that way, the story checked out.

The caregiver was hired for individual/personal support (individuele begeleiding). Other than needing to follow instructions that were given and know how to provide care in an emergency situation, he was not in need of other qualifications. He also had a daughter who was disabled and used a wheelchair and had done volunteer work with people at a physical rehabilitation center, and therefore had experience with care.

These things checked-out but I was not able to get personal references because the daughter had passed away and the rehabilitation center did not keep records about volunteers. I questioned him enough to know that what he was saying was accurate based on information I could find, others had told me when I asked around, or I had experience of at the rehabilitation center.

For the first 5 months he only helped with a few hours of occasional personal support and when I was away for work, which was 3 days in total. He was provided with full instructions and when i away we had the primary caregiver for personal care (ADL assistance), to oversee things, and be on call in case of an emergency.

It was not until I had taken a trip to visit family in late August of 2013 that he stayed with my husband for 2 weeks, that we had any real concerns. Again, he was provided with full instructions and we had the primary caregiver and other caregivers for personal care, to oversee things, and be on call in case of an emergency. He was hired to be with my husband if he needed assistance, to help with shopping and cooking meals and to do minor housekeeping.

The issues we had with him were that he threatened to leave my husband alone, used money that was supposed to be for my husband to buy himself a lot of food/wine, tried to manipulate my husband into doing things that he wanted to do, and was overall very slovenly and did not clean-up after meals or keep the house tidy. We decided not use his services if I was away again, and did not have any contact with him for a few months.

In late 2013 my husband decided he wanted to do singing and painting with the caregiver for about 2 hours a week. Again he was hired for individual/personal support (individuele begeleiding). Other than needing to follow instructions that were given and know how to provide care in an emergency situation, he was not in need of other qualifications. We hire based on experience and the specific tasks they are helping with. The caregiver’s tasks were practical help with painting, opening and mixing paints, cleaning-up, etc., support for arts-related activities such as visits to workshops, and provide care as needed in an emergency. He also occasionally would do singing with my husband, or do cooking with him, which were both good therapy for him. The caregiver was a painter, singer, and cook, which along with following instructions, they were the primary qualifications for the job.

At that time we signed another care contract with the caregiver. I asked again for a Certificate of Conduct along with a tax declaration form proving he was a freelancer so that we could not be held liable for taxes. Because he was registered at the chamber of commerce (KvK), thus proving his tax status, I did not really push on the tax declaration. Because he only worked limited hours and I was always present, I also did not push on the Certificate of Conduct.

Nevertheless, I did ask for these documents, and was continually put off by the caregiver after repeated attempts, which is about the same time that he started to be very difficult for me to work with. By this time there should have been no reason not to provide what was asked, because the caregiver had since registered in another municipality, and was thus registered in the municipality administration system.

My husband still liked to work with the caregiver even though the caregiver was becoming increasingly difficult for me to work with as the person who needs to train, schedule, and administer his care. Whenever we would have discussions about this the caregiver would threaten to quit, and upset my husband badly. In many way, I felt I had not choice but to either totally go against my husband’s wishes, which I have no legal right to do, or deal with a difficult caregiver who my husband liked and trusted.

It was not until the day that they decided to go to the “workshop”, the day that everything happened in September 2014, that I really wish I had pushed more for the Certificate of Conduct. Unfortunately, even if we would have had it, I don’t think it would have changed anything.The Certificate of Conduct only lists criminal offences that are relevant to the performance of his or her duties and there needs to have been a conviction. From what I have learned about possible other illegal activities that may be on record, I “think” that only one of them was prosecuted for a domestic situation, and therefore I don’t think it would have been reason not to provide the Certificate of Conduct. .

Something needs to change with the system so that individuals hiring caregivers are able to find out if a caregiver is a potential risk. It needs to be a simple registration for both a background check and tax status, that is not onerous for the caregiver or the person hiring them (this is especially important for those who work limited hours). The current system is not supporting that, though I have heard that some sort of register may be coming out soon. Unfortunately, that is too late for what happened to my husband and also our dogs.

Note: In 2014 the municipality administration system (GBA) was replaced by the Municipal Personal Records Database (BRP). It is now possible to receive a Certificate of Conduct even if the applicant is not registered in the Municipal Personal Records Database.

We have removed this post

For the time being, we have removed this post because we want to avoid baseless claims of defamation by anyone trying to threaten us not to take further action within the Dutch judicial system.

We believe that the Dutch police and prosecution service will eventually acknowledge that they made errors and will take the appropriate measures to protect us and others in a similar situation.

We have not removed this post because we believe we have made any wrongful or untruthful statements.We believe that all statements that were made fall under freedom of speech laws, which are legally enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Dutch constitution.

Furthermore, all statements that have been made were because the Dutch judicial system has so far failed us. All information that has been posted has been in the interest of our own protection and rights to justice, the protection of other handicapped and disabled people or the protection for other pet owners in regard to victim’s rights to justice, or lack thereof, in the criminal justice process in the Netherlands.

Je suis JansenWe are undeterred in our search for justice, but we also do not want to waste our time and energy on frivolous and damaging accusations – hasn’t there been enough damage done? This whole situation has caused serious stress related health problems. It is just not worth it, and we believe that justice will prevail, and even if it does not, that karma will!

We thank everyone for their support, and hopefully by even needing to make a post like this you will understand how difficult our situation has been. Should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome to post them here or contact us on our contact page.

— Robert and Ellyn

500 Euro biljetI’ve had a few questions about the bank money and medication overdose and wanted to give a few details.
The caregiver was hired to provide practical help with painting, opening and mixing paints, cleaning-up, etc., and support my husband in going to arts-related activities like visits to workshops. Previously this caregiver had also helped out when I was away, but we no longer trusted him for that after some incidents happened the previous year. I wanted to fire the guy, but my husband did not. I think the caregiver had my husband convinced that without him he would not be able to do his painting, which he really loves, and has been really good for his therapy.
 
Because I did not trust the caregiver, I was always around when this caregiver was helping my husband paint. When the situation happened it was the first time they were going somewhere — an art workshop. A few things didn’t seem right to me about what the caregiver and my husband were telling me, and I let my husband know not to trust the caregiver. I had also talked to his primary caregiver who we both trust, and she also warned my husband about him. Unfortunately, strokes affected my husbands judgement, and he listened to the caregiver instead of me or his primary caregiver.
 
Instead of going to the art workshop they went to the bank and withdrew a large amount of money. It was on the way home in a wheelchair taxi that the overdose of medication was administered. The guy showed up at the door with my half-unconscious husband. At the time I did not know that they had gone to the bank and knew nothing about the money. We think the money was taken when I was on the phone with the ambulance people after my husband became completely unconscious. The guy ran away before the ambulance arrived, and by that time I was needing to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to keep my husband breathing. It was only later that I learned about the money.
 
Unfortunately, the police seemed to accept all of the excuses and stories given by the caregiver. The caregiver seems to be quite a clever con-man, and despite the caregiver giving contradictory statements in Facebook messages, which I have given to the police, the police have not accepted them as evidence. Since then I’ve learned about 4 or 5 other illegal activities that this caregiver has probably done over the years, most of which he has not been prosecuted for. From what I have gathered he has a record and is a known offender. I’ve supplied all of that information to the police, but they still won’t take more action, even though the prosecution service said the case could be re-opened with more evidence.
 
We have filed a complaint, but are still waiting to hear about it. That’s why we started the petition — we plan to send it to the police, prosecution service and the court that has the complaint. We are hoping that some local and international attention might shame them into action.

We have removed this post

For the time being, we have removed this post because we want to avoid baseless claims of defamation by anyone trying to threaten us not to take further action within the Dutch judicial system.

We believe that the Dutch police and prosecution service will eventually acknowledge that they made errors and will take the appropriate measures to protect us and others in a similar situation.

We have not removed this post because we believe we have made any wrongful or untruthful statements.We believe that all statements that were made fall under freedom of speech laws, which are legally enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Dutch constitution.

Furthermore, all statements that have been made were because the Dutch judicial system has so far failed us. All information that has been posted has been in the interest of our own protection and rights to justice, the protection of other handicapped and disabled people or the protection for other pet owners in regard to victim’s rights to justice, or lack thereof, in the criminal justice process in the Netherlands.

Je suis JansenWe are undeterred in our search for justice, but we also do not want to waste our time and energy on frivolous and damaging accusations – hasn’t there been enough damage done? This whole situation has caused serious stress related health problems. It is just not worth it, and we believe that justice will prevail, and even if it does not, that karma will!

We thank everyone for their support, and hopefully by even needing to make a post like this you will understand how difficult our situation has been. Should you have any questions or comments, you are welcome to post them here or contact us on our contact page.

— Robert and Ellyn