Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
THE HAGUE/PHILIPSBURG--St. Maarten attorney-at-law Jairo Bloem by letter dated November 10, 2014, has reminded Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party of his demand to retract his "slanderous" statements in relation to his client caretaker Minister Cornelius de Weever.
Mid-October 2014, Bloem sent an open letter to Bosman asking him to do the "honourable thing" and to retract his "erroneous and defaming remarks." On October 1, during the handling of the 2015 draft Kingdom Relations budget in the Second Chamber he stated that De Weever was "simply bought" by United People's Party (UP) Leader Theo Heyliger to join the UP in Parliament as an independent member.
On behalf of his client, Bloem asked Bosman to refrain from making such remarks in the future. Bosman didn't do so. On October 22, he stated in the Amigoe newspaper, and on October 23 in The Daily Herald that "the fact that they want me to shut up is maybe an indication that I am on the right track." Bosman also stated: "People can be very angry when we say something in the Netherlands, it apparently is true."
Bloem was obviously disappointed that Bosman didn't comply with his request. "Your sudden incapability or difficulty in formulating a prompt response stands out in dire contrast to the rapidness wherein you are always seemingly capable of drawing conclusions and relating same to the media, often without any –adequate- due diligence and fact finding," the attorney-at-law stated.
Bosman told the media in October that he first needed to discuss the letter with his party, the VVD. Bloem: "The contention made by you that you must now all of a sudden confer with your party before responding makes client wonder whether or not you also discussed your first defaming statements with your party before making them. Needless to say, that this could result in your party also being liable next to you in this matter."
Bosman responded on Tuesday saying that he couldn't discuss a letter with his party that he hadn't formally received. "I haven't received an official copy. The letter was distributed to the media. That is how I took notice of it. The way to go about such a letter is through the procedural, official way. Anything can be published in the media or on the internet," he told The Daily Herald.
The Member of Dutch Parliament said he did receive the second letter, dated November 10, via email. He said that after he had received the first letter by formal means, he would answer both this letter and the second one. "Everyone posing a question receives an answer, but I do need to have the letter in my possession," he said.
Bloem demanded three things from Bosman in his November 10 letter to be carried out before November 17: to inform his client whether or not he would publically retract his disputed statements; if he had conferred with his party before making the disputed statements and whether the statements were indeed made by his person.
According to Bloem, Bosman's last statements in which he said that the fact that De Weever wanted him to shut up was an indication that he was on the right track were "also defamatory and as such tortuous," and "unnecessarily added insult to injury."
"You are responsible for your continued unfounded and derogatory statements and as such liable for the monetary equivalent of all damages suffered by client in this matter," Bloem closed off his letter.
