PHILIPSBURG:--- The integrity of the judicial process in Sint Maarten is under intense scrutiny following serious allegations that the Court of First Instance was misled into issuing a premature and unlawful ruling in a high-profile case involving the Sint Maarten Medical Center (SMMC).
Despite plaintiff Terence Albert Jandroep having fully complied with a court-ordered financial obligation well within the prescribed deadline, attorneys representing SMMC allegedly withheld material information from the Court. As a result, a judgment was issued seven hours before the legal deadline expired, based on the demonstrably false premise that no payment had been made.
~Premature ruling by Higher Court unexplainable~
The Higher Court ruling should, by law and procedural logic, have been rendered only after the expiration of the court-imposed deadline, not on the same day while the deadline was still running. Until 5:00 PM on December 16, the plaintiff remained fully entitled to comply with the order to provide security. Issuing a ruling at 10:05 AM, seven hours before the deadline expired, extinguished that right prematurely and created the false appearance of non-compliance. Such timing is incompatible with basic principles of due process, legal certainty, and fair access to justice, particularly where proof of payment already existed and was in the possession of the opposing party’s legal representatives.
The Facts: A Timeline That Raises Alarming Questions
The controversy arises from proceedings concerning security for costs (case SXM202500205), directly connected to the main appeal on alleged medical record fraud (case SXM2025H00030).
- Court-ordered deadline: Tuesday, December 16, 5:00 PM, Verdict 18 November 2025
- Monday, December 15: Mr. Jandroep successfully transferred Cg 5,000 to the Stichting Derdengelden (trust account) of SMMC’s hired law firm of Curacao, which is legally immune because of its entanglement in a conflict of interest construction
- Tuesday, December 16: Although the funds were indeed received and under their control, SMMC’s attorneys allegedly failed to inform the Higher Court officials
- Tuesday, December 16, 10:05 AM, same morning: The Court issued a ruling declaring the appeal inadmissible, seven hours before the deadline, on the erroneous assumption of non-payment
The payment is verifiable through bank records and was made on the express instruction of SMMC’s legal counsel prior to the verdict on November 18, 2025.
“Quo Vadimus?” A Legal System at a Crossroads
Mr. Jandroep, a forensic risk analyst and the plaintiff in the proceedings, condemned the events in strong terms:
“When a powerful institution and its legal representatives abandon the duty of truthfulness to block a former Covid survivor's access to justice, the rule of law itself is endangered.
Quo Vadimus?
Where are we heading when bank records, deadlines, and basic procedural integrity are ignored by those sworn to uphold the law?”
Disciplinary Complaints and Institutional Liability
An official disciplinary complaint has been filed with the Dean of the Bar Association against the involved attorneys, alleging violations of the Duty of Truthfulness under Article 18c of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In parallel, the Board of Directors of SMMC has been formally held liable for:
- all damages suffered by the plaintiff, and
- the full actual legal costs incurred in the appeal.
The Underlying Issue: Medical Record Fraud
According to Covid Survivor Jandroep, the procedural maneuver is a premeditated attempt to prevent substantive judicial review of the main case. That case contains forensic evidence alleging systemic manipulation and falsification of medical records within the Sint Maarten Medical Center.
Blocking the appeal on procedural grounds, he argues, serves only one purpose: to shield the merits of the case from public and judicial scrutiny.
Ultimatum and Escalation
Mr. Jandroep has issued a 24-hour ultimatum to SMMC and its legal representatives to:
- voluntarily correct what he describes as a procedural ambush, and
- accept full legal and financial liability.
Failure to do so will result in immediate escalation to:
- the Common Court of Justice, and
- relevant international legal and oversight bodies.
The facts are apparent, the evidence is physically verifiable, but up to what level is this medical case rigged?
