PHILIPSBURG–Democratic Party (DP) Member of Parliament Cornelius de Weever is poised to take Dutch Parliament Second Chamber Member Andre Bosman to court over allegations Bosman made about him, as well as Bosman’s refusal to retract his “slanderous” remarks about De Weever.
De Weever’s attorney Jairo Bloem confirmed that a case against Bosman would be filed in the Netherlands. This comes after Bosman was quoted in an article in Antilliaans Dagblad on Tuesday, November 11, in which Bosman disputed receiving a letter calling on him to remedy his statement.
The liberal democratic VVD party member disputed in the article that he had received the first open letter, but admitted that he had received a second letter by e-mail.
Bosman is “first and foremost negating and backpedalling” on his published commitment to react to De Weever’s request after conferring with his party, said Bloem in a third letter addressed to the Dutch politician dated November 17.
De Weever views Bosman’s latest reactions to the calls for a retraction “as yet other attempts to evade the issue at hand and further unnecessarily delay matters. You had ample time to address your shortcomings,” according to Bloem. “The summons sent and deadlines given are in conformity with the law. You are presently in default and client will consequently initiate proper legal procedures against you.”
Bloem stated in this latest letter to Bosman on behalf of De Weever that Bosman contended that he was not bound, or did not feel bound, to respond to letters that were not delivered to him by registered mail.
“One and other, because matters can be put by anyone on the Internet and alleged un-clarity pertaining to the source. You were moreover quoted stating that it is unclear that our office represents Minister Cornelius de Weever, since the letters never stated such,” said Bloem.
“There is no rule of law that compels client to send you a summons per registered mail. The mere fact that you are in receipt and able to take well notice of the letters, as is also evidenced from the ‘proof of reading receipts,’ your own public statements and response e-mail yesterday clearly show that you did receive client’s e-mails and were able to take good notice of the content thereof,” wrote Bloem.
The only reason the summons was not also sent to Bosman via registered mail is that De Weever did not possess Bosman’s personal (house) address.
“Please rest assured that the court petition will be addressed to your home address and served personally to you,” said Bloem.