Dekkers Ignored Tenth Urgent Request
The following letter was sent by telefax to the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, on December 12, and by airmail post on December 14.
75/9 Non Pa Sang
Pha Khao District
Loei Province 42240
December 15, 2006
Mrs. Christine Dekkers (Mevrouw Christine Dekkers)
Attorney General (Procureur-Generaal)
Attorney General’s Office (Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen)
2000 Antwerp (Antwerpen)
Subject: City Officials Uncooperative in Search for Missing Loved One
I refer to nine urgent requests in the past 19 months for your assistance in the search for Oliver Albert Chanyut Chokjanphen, a minor, age 17, who was separated from his mother, Thanomjit Chokjanphen, in Antwerp between 1996 and 1999 (see enclosure).
Employees of school, city administration, police, judicial, postal and so-called “non-governmental organizations” in Antwerp are uncooperative. Many conspired to deny the family information; some committed fraud to cover up.
Oliver Chanyut’s family, who live in Thailand, fear for his safety.
In the last resort, the family turned to the highest legal authority in Antwerp. But there has been no reply from you or any indication that the correspondence received due and proper consideration.
Kindly order the police to put Oliver Chanyut in direct telephone contact with his family.
On behalf of the Chokjanphen family, I am,
Enclosure (as stated)
No Response by the Attorney General of Antwerp, Christine Dekkers, to Ten Urgent Requests for Contact with Loved One!
The attorney general of Antwerp can act directly in many matters. The attorney general has done so before. That would be by far the most effective way of handling this particular matter which involves the international traffic in children, pedophile rings and complicit officials, especially in Antwerp.
Following routine procedure, the attorney general could refer the requests to an assistant attorney general. However, an assistant attorney general, Marc Tack, who was an assistant prosecuting attorney in Antwerp's juvenile court before his current position, ignored many similar requests addressed to him in 2004. Other assistant attorney generals mishandled the requests when they were assistant prosecuting attorneys in Antwerp's main courthouse.
The attorney general's office could contact the city police directly and request that it put a child in immediate telephone contact with his family. Indeed, that would be the most effective way to respond to a family's request for contact with a loved one that has been repeatedly refused by city officials.
In fact, referral of this matter by the attorney general to anyone else would be "passing the buck" and a clear signal to dispose of it through routine procedures, in effect, to ignore the family's requests and to invent excuses for not cooperating with the family, to write false reports about the child, and to stir up complaints against the child’s family and possibly murder the child to destroy incriminating evidence.
It is likely that the attorney general referred the family's requests to the prosecuting attorney for Antwerp. That can be considered standard routine procedure, but it would be inappropriate in this particularly urgent and long-neglected matter.
The prosecuting attorney, or his secretary, would refer the family's letters to an assistant prosecuting attorney in his office.
The assistant prosecuting attorney would have three options:
(1) Order the police to put the child in immediate telephone contact with his family;
(2) Refer the requests to a judge of instruction who, in turn, would
(a) Order the city police to find the child and put him in direct contact with his family or
(b) Refer the matter back to the prosecutor;
(3) Refer the requests to assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court.
Referral of the urgent requests to assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court would be a further signal to ignore the requests and, also, to cover up the matter.
The assistant prosecuting attorneys in the juvenile court could follow one of three routines:
(1) Refer the requests to the juvenile division of the city police.
The chief of the juvenile division, Sonja DeBrynt, would refer the requests to social workers with the juvenile division of the city police who would contact local city school employees and ask for information about the child and then report back to the chief of the juvenile division who would report back to the assistant prosecuting attorney at the juvenile court.
(2) Refer the letters to the Provincial Department of Social Services where social workers would contact school employees and request information about the child and report back to the assistant prosecutor.
Social workers and directors of the Provincial Department of Social Services have long been notorious for erratic and immature behavior, violent public displays of anger, utter lack of common decent manners, general dishonesty and unreliability. Some have been reported to have close links to pedophile, prostitution and child trafficking rings.
(3) Refer the family's requests to social workers in the juvenile court. The social workers would go to the school and visit the child’s living quarters and then report directly to a judge in the juvenile court with a recommendation to put the child in telephone contact with his family.
The attorney general, Dekkers, might have requested written reports from policemen and/or social workers that would excuse her intransigence.
It is possible also that Dekkers has conflicts of interests in this matter and that she herself could be complicit in the kidnapping and trafficking of Oliver Chanyut and in fraud committed by the kidnappers, traffickers and corrupt officials.
It is possible also that Dekkers, to cover cronies, is ignoring the matter in the hope of taking advantage of statutes of limitation. Earlier, many court officials seemed to believe that by blocking any court decision in this case they would prevent the family from complaining to the European Court of Human Rights which will not accept complaints without a court decision in the state concerned within the previous six months.