Ellen Plasman - lawyer in Amsterdam, explains how the benefits affair started

Square Audience: Ellen Pasman - De Balie“It's not an affair, it's a benefits scandal” Watch this nice broadcast by de Balie. There is an interview every Friday afternoon. This week (May 26, 2023), it's with Ellen Pasman, the author of the book “Kafka in the rule of law”, a lawyer specializing in, among other things, “unlawful government action”. An inspiring book. The interview took place on May 26, 2023 at De Balie, a cultural center and debate stage in Amsterdam. In the interview, Pasman spoke to Yoeri Albrecht, the director of De Balie, about her book and the benefits affair, criticizing the role of the legislator, the judge, the officials and the ministers. The interview can be viewed or listened to online via De Balie TV or Radio Plein Publiek. Ellen Pasman is also known for defending Willem Oltmans, who also fought a long trial against the state. His journalistic practice has been thwarted. He was ultimately found in court for millions of dollars in damages. Did the Oltmans process play a role? Has there been a time in your life before that has determined your direction. She has always been interested in the press. It originated earlier. When asked to do this by the secretary of the NVJ, she said yes. Opposing the government, defending the individual, is what they hate most about. If you're talking about abuses, about Fred Spijkers, whistle-blower. They then throw themselves at this man. It must be shut down altogether. That's what happened to Oltmans. You will discover patterns. So why does it have to take 25 years? They don't rush into anything. They are successive officials, people change. At Oltmans, the evil genius was Minister Luns. The cabinet was misinformed by him. The awe was apparently so great that people thought they had to act in their mind. No expense is spared. You can also see that at Spijkers. Runs in the tens of millions. Here it's in the billions, in the benefits scandal. The national lawyer has litigated against the parents. You are too late, formal legal force. Unnecessary. If the court decides otherwise, it is time-barred. How much butter do you want to have on your head as a state? Pels Rijcken can tell the state that it must be acknowledged that unlawful action was taken. The one on the right shows them all corners of the room. I am very happy with the statements. At any cost, it must be defended. What is the explanation, how is it possible? The proper functioning of the system is designed by the people who sit there. In the public interest, a government is in favour of doing laws and regulations properly. An extra-legal way. A crucial moment in the book (It's not meant to be like that, whether or not...) appears to be different. Not in the paper yet. It is not an industrial accident, the intention was to do something about fraud. We worked with signals. There is talk of discrimination. Also on the basis of income. (Note: this is NOT correct). The Legal Aid Council determined that they were not entitled to help. It is inconceivable. It is not legal. Where was the decision to do this? Innocents are being prosecuted. HOTHOR: high surcharge, high risk. They need help, they can't work otherwise. Not a nanny. That is what has been focused on. That's a qualification, they're poor, black, dual nationality, no resources. The limits of the allowance, otherwise you will not get to HOTHOR. (Note: This is incorrect information). It's about the Combiteam Approach Facilitators. These are the childminder companies where book surveys were done unannounced. They found nothing. That was in accordance with the law. They caught sight of the target group. FIOD in 2009 and 2010, we're calling it quits. That's when Opstelten came up with the idea to set up a ministerial committee to combat fraud. From that time on, it has started running. (also incorrect). Far too strict and off the rails. A train crash from all sides. The judge has taken the strictest possible approach. Only once. State may/can be anywhere. Art 26 Awir (General Income-Related Regulations Act): the amount must be recovered. That's clear. The government cannot read its own legislation. This piece is not clear. From 2009, the state attorney gave advice on this. Litigation was even filed for 27 euros, even by the country lawyer. You don't have to interpret that law like that. People have been completely emptied, up to suicide, out of home placements. Refrigerators became army and army. Parents commit suicide. A lack of proper advice from the lawyer. A prime minister must understand his profession. That committee set up by Opstelten is not going to be added. What does that committee do, it was better to keep it as secret as possible. The fact that you don't understand the consequences is so remarkable. If you're going to recover large amounts of money, what do you think will happen to those people? And who can also go to court. Asscher says, we should write them off then. Then you won't see those consequences. Doesn't do anything. There is continuity of office. Despite this awareness, nothing was done about it. They showed up at the very last minute via the secretary. Do you know how many documents are involved? Letters are just easy to find. This book is over 2 years old. Despite that, that you show that these are reprehensible mistakes on the part of the government. These are reprehensible mistakes by the government. The victims are within their rights. This realization has completely failed. Whoever has to fix it does nothing. It's even going to carry out a procedure. These final compensation arrangements are done incorrectly, because the definition of damage is different for everyone. We're sinking further and further into the swamp. The courts take revenge. They state that legal protection has been denied. So you can always go to court. The judges worked for more than 10 years. They are complicit. The well-functioning courts have been corrected. There are people with backbones and people without. Even judges are ashamed of their actions. There were several courts, besides Rotterdam, there were glimmers of hope. Almelo, The Hague, East Brabant. Have you spoken to a lot of people? A number of them. So not directly involved in the first instance. The Council of State claimed that there is nothing to do about institutional bias. She did not get an article published. As punishment, she wrote a book. The law does not appear to be restored. The political leadership of a department must then intervene. This did not happen. This needs to be countered. The political directive should be to approve fraud involving surcharges. The prime minister calls it the powerful government. Civil servants can be held liable under civil law (not administratively) .Is it an industrial accident? No. This is intentional and has many consequences. People can be held personally liable. There are a few arrests. You can hold people accountable. People should be removed from their jobs. This is a common complaint that nothing happens. That they just get away with it. People cannot be trusted. It must be possible to be held accountable. There is a perjury investigation. This can lead to conclusions. (Note: will not be continued). Saying really bad things is perjury. In combination with unsurfaced documents.Kafka Quotes:The Trial: Someone must have falsely accused me, according to Jozef K. He is coming to trial. It will be completely destroyed. In the benefits scandal, people also thought this. Hardly anyone knows the lists. People came there based on signals. What is a signal? A difficult word. In this case, someone who hated someone... gives a signal. It has not been made concrete here. Aleid Wolfsen says it was selected. Art. 1: discrimination. The Constitution has been violated in many ways. It's gruesome. Has faith in the rule of law not disappeared? Not quite. Rotterdam and Overijssel District Court: there are always people who do try to do well. A start has been made with gaining insight. That law was deliberately misinterpreted. It does not have to be reclaimed. Innocent persons are arrested. A hopeless process. The book was written in 1914. Ellen Plasman herself was shocked how appropriate it was. Kafka seemed like terrible fantasies. It was the reality. It is the character of some in the state who are not being corrected. The administrative court should overturn such a decision. “Can you explain to me where this is?” It's the people in the state. Institutions are embodied by individuals. Why not that liability anyway? We still have a long way to go. I did not get the opinion piece posted. The role of the press. This has been going on since 2006, and a journalist could have written it too. Not invited at all. Jesse Frederiks, provides a soothing explanation. It's also a shame. That's not how we mean it. The tax authorities are ideally equipped to combat legal fraud in an orderly manner. There are no good intentions at all. It was the benefits department. ' It was definitely not well intentioned.” It's now going to cost billions. The word HOTHOR: as soon as abbreviations come, it's wrong. That sends shivers down your spine. Much more can be gleaned from the book. Journalists: invite Mrs. Pasman.