Dear Mister Mark P. Dillon,
i received your writing to not to proceed with my request OTP-CR-117/19 on 20-05-2019.
i write you to ask you to reconsider now removed evidence has been restored online again.
In chronological order:
11-12-2017 I informed the chamber of the fact that the medicine used in treatements of psychiatric illnesses are poison. The proof exists of a url to the European Chemical Agency, showing that Haldol is a toxic substance (toxic if swallowed accompanied by a skull en bones). This link worked a the time the chamber member were informed.
23-01-2018 The Chamber votes in favour of the Wet Forensische Zorg, Wet verplichte GGZ, Wet Zorg en Dwang knowing that the medicine used in these treatements are poison.
05-10-2018 I inform the King of the fact that these medicine are poison
01-01-2019 The Wet Forensische Zorg is activated
10-01-2019 I inform local authorities of the informednes of both the chamber member and the king.
21-01-2019 I inform the Office of the Prosecutor with proof that these medicine are poison and proof of the informedness of the King and the chamber members.
23-01-2019 I withdraw the request to arrest king and chamber member from the local authorities. They didn’t react at all.
06-02-2019 The information on the ECHA website about Haldol being a poison is removed and a “nothing wrong with it” version is added
25-02-2019 After consideration i decided to formaly ask the king and chamber members to be prosecuted.
27-02-2019 I noticed that the site was updated and informed the Office of the Prosecutor about it.
20-05-2019 The Prosecutor informs me of his decision to not to proceed, mentioning the he could reconsider if new evidence arises.
25-06-2019 I talk to members of ECHA on twitter and got the link to the proof restored.
Knowing that the proof that Haldol is a poison was offline when you reached your conclusion to not to proceed, could you reconsider your conclusion now this proof is back online again ?
about - evidence - guilty - writings - reconsider