PHILIPSBURG:--- Attorney at Law Jairo Bloem dispatched another letter by email to MP Andre Bosman, based on article that appeared in the Antillians Daglad on November 11th, 2014. In that newspaper article Bosmas was quoted as saying he is not obliged to respond to letters sent to him by email and that he only has to respond to letters that are sent to him by registered mail. Below is the contents of the letter sent again by email to MP Bosman.
"Dear Mr. Bosman,
You were quoted in an article that appeared in Antilliaans Dagblad on Tuesday, November 11, 2014 first and foremost disputing that you received the first open letter directly, admitting that you did receive a second letter per email, contending that you are not bound, or do not feel bound, to respond to letters that are not delivered to you by registered mail. One and other because matters can be put by anyone on the internet and alleged unclarity pertaining to the source. You were moreover quoted stating that it is unclear that our office represents the Hon. Minister Cornelius the Weever, since the letters never stated such.
Your contentious are factually incorrect and also as such remarkable, because:
- the first open letter was also directly sent to you by email;
- client has a read receipt;
- you subsequently immediately reacted by making more public statements, that were meanwhile also disputed by client;
- the content of your subsequent public reaction clearly shows that you took well notice of client's open letter;
- the open letter explicitly states that our office represents the Hon. Minister Cornelius de Weever;
- client's second letter refers clearly to the first open letter that as stated was also directly emailed to you;
- you actually stated to the media in no uncertain terms that you needed to confer with your party, before reacting, thereby committing to react.
Now all of a sudden, after you were attended by means of a summons, this time directly addressed to you, to the fact that the reaction promised by you is still regretfully lacking, you adopt a complete different nota bene somewhat murky and in any case factually incorrect position, by alleging that you did not receive the first letter and that you would in any case not be bound to a reaction because - in short - the letters were not sent by registered mail to you.
You are thereby first and foremost negating and backpedaling on your published commitment to react after conferring with your party.
Please note that the purpose of sending a letter by registered mail is to ensure receipt thereof. 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. The only reason the summon(s) were not also sent to you per registered mail is because client did not possess your personal (house) address. Please rest assured that the court petition will be addressed to your home address and served personally to you.
Client views your latest reactions as yet other attempts to evade the issue at hand and further unnecessary delay matters. You had ample time to address your shortcomings. 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.
I trust to have informed you adequately herewith.
Yours truly,
Regards,
Jairo Bloem
Attorney at Law"
Click here to view letter sent to MP Andre Bosman.
