May 11, 2006

GVC EVALUATES WHETHER TO SUE? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME...


Wow...this just blows my mind. And THEY think that Americans are sue-happy? Give me a break. Save your cash because you don't have a chance in hell in court. Well, maybe Aruba's court because you are a blonde blue-eyed dutch boy. Everyone bow down now!


Whoever harmed Natalee should thank their lucky stars that they didn't commit this crime in the U.S. They would be fried. Then they'd get to see what a REAL prison is like.


So you are having nightmares now? Imagine them ten fold...your nightmare becomes reality when you are sleeping in a 10x10 cell with a very large angry black man that has promised to 'shank' you. Don't drop the soap. You would never the sun because would be too scared to go outside to the courtyard...surely you would be killed or brutally beaten. You fit in nowhere. You end up becoming someone's little bitch and all you can do is cry very quietly at night so no one can hear you.


Thank your lucky stars. Whoever is responsible or helping in the the cover-up should never even even think about coming to the U.S. You will never be welcomed and some psycho out in the streets will plot to kill you...and most likely succeed.



Now that's justice! An eye for an eye. Disagree? I don't care.








Geoffrey van Cromvoirt evaluating whether he will sue for damages for prejudice





DIARIO Aruba

Thanks Getagrip!



AMSTERDAM - Geoffrey van Cromvoirt, in an interview with SBS 6 Actienieuws of Holland, said that he doesn’t have anything to do with the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.


The young Dutch 19 year old came into the picture after the ‘Opsporing Verzocht’ program, which was recorded in Aruba, aired.
He could have seemed to be another person in the case. Ironically, van Cromvoirt had wanted to participate in the reenactment of the case along with his sister.


“I’ve always wanted to appear on television, but not in this way”.


The Dutch youth was asked via telephone to go to the police station one week after ‘Opsporing Verzocht’ aired.
When he went to the police station, he was detained immediately. The accusations were rape and murder.


According to van Cromvoirt, police officers put him under a lot of pressure when he was detained.
“They said things that were making me crazy. They said that they would arrest my whole family. Things like that can make you crazy and that same night I went completely crazy. After they took away all my clothes and left me with only my underwear.” This, according to the Dutch youth, who continued to say that they were afraid that he would hang himself. He said that he would never do this, and that he slept in his underwear for two long days on a cement bed.


“Geoffrey’s detention caused a lot of harm to our family. My wife is very much in despair”. This, according to Geoffrey’s father, Willem van Cromvoirt. Officially, the Dutch youth is still a suspect in this case, but the father hopes that the case will be dismissed. (He hopes the CASE is dismissed, or just the charges against his son? Hmmm...)


Now, family lawyers are evaluating the possibility of bringing a case for damages for prejudice.


9 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.aruba.com/phpNews/wmview.php?ArtID=621 General News
December 02, 2005 - 11:00
Republican Hyde, Chairman Of Committee On International Relations: Aruba Boycott Has No True Support Republican Henry Hyde, Chairman of Committee on International Relations in the US House of Representatives, commented yesterday to local media that he believed the boycott call by the Governor of Alabama is not receiving true support in the U.S. He considers the boycott an individual action and not one that would be sustained nationwide.

"We want to resolve this case as fast as possible. We do not believe that the boycott would help the case," Hyde said. I believe the relationship between the Aruban and the U.S. congresses is good. I think the people who understand the complicity of the two justice systems are less worried and will not support the boycott, he added. "Aruba is a very important strategic area. It is a friendly island and we have to maintain a strong relationship with it," he said.

Hyde and a delegation of 5 other congressmen had been on the island for one night, staying at the Renaissance Resort after they were denied permission to deplane in Venezuela on Monday. The delegation traveled yesterday morning to Rio de Janeiro and Brasilia, Brazil and Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic.

The New York Republicans want to dismiss the civil case, but the NYC Democrats say they will fight Henry Hyde hell. Henry Hyde has investemts linking to CNC.

Michelle said...

Who cares about the politicians! It's the people who make the decision on where they want to travel. And the boycott is a GRASSROOTS movement. Look it up in the dictionary.

Anonymous said...

Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com. Please include your name and where you're writing from. I respond at the end of the show.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS: We're back. During a brief visit to New York last week, Aruban suspect Joran van der Sloot and his father Paulus were served with legal papers, notifying them of a suit filed by the family of Natalee Holloway in New York's Supreme Court. Now you can understand that Natalee's family says that they believe Joran did it and they want accountability.

But the question, as a legal matter, can a suit like this which really didn't seem to have a whole lot of facts, survive in a New York court. Joining us now Scott Balber, one of the Holloway family attorneys who wrote the complaint filed against Joran and Paulus van der Sloot.

Thanks a lot for coming on the program. Appreciate it.

SCOTT BALBER, ATTORNEY FOR NATALEE HOLLOWAY'S FAMILY: Thanks for having me.

ABRAMS: All right. Let me read some of the charges that you lay out against Joran van der Sloot that he willfully caused personal injury to Natalee as a result of a sexual assault upon her. Wrongfully and lawfully and intentionally detained and directly restrained Natalee Holloway, depriving her of her personal liberty through force and/or threat of force. Abducted Natalee Holloway and prevented her from returning to the custody of her parents.

This is all from the civil lawsuit. My concern was that I read this, you don't explain upon what you're basing this. A lot of conclusions. This was done to Natalee. That was done to Natalee. Joran did this to Natalee, et cetera, but you don't say where you're getting this from.

BALBER: It's not our obligation in this threshold complaint to articulate what our sources are, but I can assure you that Chadbourne and Parke, a serious law firm, John Kelly is a serious lawyer, and we don't put anything into a complaint that we are not abundantly certain we can prove, and in fact in many instances already have the evidence developed.

ABRAMS: But then—but what's the point of the legal papers then? I mean shouldn't the legal papers at least provide some of the support, because I mean, it seems if this is the case, then you can really just throw out a lawsuit there and say, well, I believe that this person did this to that person and this person did that to that, and then at a later point that, what then the judge has to sort through it and say all right now come to me and explain to me why you believe any of this is true?

BALBER: Well a complaint, as you know Dan, is a notice pleading and actually this complaint has far more detail than many. We will during the course of discovery and motion practice in this case be able to lay out our cards on the table one by one in the manner we deem appropriate without necessarily giving our adversaries too much of an understanding of where our basis lies at this point.

ABRAMS: But it's pretty clear, right—I mean we know this case pretty well. It's coming from statements that were made by Joran van der Sloot. It's coming from other people who claim that they've been mistreated by Joran van der Sloot in the past, et cetera. It's coming from eyewitnesses. I mean that's where the information stems from, right?

BALBER: Among other sources, that's right.

ABRAMS: Let me ask you about where you filed the lawsuit, all right? I mean this is an Alabama girl, Alabama family, and for an incident that occurred in Aruba, with defendants that live in Aruba. And you're filing it in New York, and there's no question, look, you slapped the papers on him, as a result he has got the papers in hand and now he's going to have to respond in a New York court.

Fair enough. We know he's going to have to respond in a New York court now, but when you lay out the factors to consider why a New York court should consider a case about an Alabama girl about something that happened in Aruba, seems like a real long shot for you.

BALBER: Well it's actually not a long shot at all. Let's start with one of the comments you made. Once we served the defendants in New York, we have unassailable personal jurisdiction over them. There's no question...

ABRAMS: But that doesn't mean anything. Right. So that means that they have to show up in court and they have to respond. OK.

BALBER: That's correct...

ABRAMS: ... and then the judge is going to do an evaluation to say does this belong in a New York court and when you weigh the factors in New York State, just about every lawyer I've spoken to has said at the very least, you guys have an uphill battle.

BALBER: We certainly have a battle. I wouldn't describe it as an uphill battle. There are—there's several factors that the courts consider and the number one...

ABRAMS: We're going to put them up. As you're speaking, we're going to put up the five factors to consider in New York. Go ahead.

BALBER: I don't have a video, so I can't...

ABRAMS: No, that's all right...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: You know them, so no need...

BALBER: I do know them...

ABRAMS: ... what they are.

BALBER: But the first premise is that tremendous deference is given to the plaintiff's choice of forum and the plaintiff's choice of forum here is New York. Beyond that, there's a whole host of private interest and public interest factors. Now, while you're right, that the events took place in Aruba, there are witnesses in Alabama, Natalee is from Alabama, one of my plaintiffs, Beth Twitty is from Alabama...

ABRAMS: Right.

BALBER: ... Dave Holloway is from Mississippi, Joran van der Sloot lives in the Netherlands, and quite frankly, we have witnesses from other jurisdictions...

ABRAMS: How does that bring New York into play?

BALBER: Well New York is the choice of forum, elected by the plaintiffs and the defendants were served here and there is no superior choice of forum. Every forum, take your pick, be it Aruba, Alabama, Mississippi, the Netherlands isn't perfect and when you have a whole host of imperfect jurisdictions, deference is given to the choice by the plaintiffs and that's our case here.

ABRAMS: Yes, that—again, that's—I mean here are some of the factors the court has to consider.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: The burden on the New York courts, I don't know if that will be a big issue. Potential hardship to the defendant, that would be a big issue in either Alabama or New York.

BALBER: Well let me stop you right there.

ABRAMS: Yes.

BALBER: Obviously, it's not a hardship because both Joran van der Sloot and Paulus van der Sloot were able to make their way to New York just last week...

(CROSSTALK)

BALBER: ... without...

ABRAMS: (INAUDIBLE) You don't just say...

BALBER: Well...

ABRAMS: ... oh they were able to get here once and therefore there's no issue of potential hardship to the defendant in getting back to the place.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: I mean that's not where the inquiry ends.

BALBER: It's certainly a part of the inquiry and of course you consider the hardship to the plaintiffs of having to litigate either in Aruba or in the Netherlands.

ABRAMS: The unavailability of alternative forum for the lawsuit, that's one of the issues that you've been focusing on. The residency of the parties, on that one you have big problems, where the basis of the cause of action arose. Again, not a good one for you guys.

BALBER: Well you skipped one I think abruptly and that is the residence of the parties. Why is Alabama or Mississippi or Aruba or the Netherlands superior?

(CROSSTALK)

BALBER: As I said, there's problems in all of those different forums.

ABRAMS: Wait. But the residency of the parties—one of the things you're suppose to consider is are they from New York.

BALBER: Correct.

ABRAMS: They're not.

BALBER: That's correct. They're not from New York.

ABRAMS: OK. Anyway, look, it's an interesting case and I understand why it's being done, but again, I just think it's important for the viewers to understand that as a strictly legal matter, this could be an uphill battle for the family. Mr. Balber, I know you don't like that characterization of uphill battle. You refer to it as battle, but I appreciate you coming on the program. I have to say when I saw that your firm had signed off on it, it definitely added to the validity for me of considering the case.

BALBER: Well we like the tough battles, uphill or otherwise.

ABRAMS: Scott Balber, thanks a lot for coming on the program.

BALBER: Thanks for having me.

Anonymous said...

Poor guy has nightmares, what does he think Natalee's family has gone through for a year. Self-centered egotistical woe is me just like Paulus. I don't know if he had anything to do with Natalee, I haven't seen the dots connected, but he sounds like Deepak wanting to sell a book or do a movie about himself and not talking about Natalee. He said noone gives a damn about Natalee.. according to Dave's book. dream on Deepak.

Anonymous said...

When you examine the shoes that Joran wear on those pictures taken at Aruba airport and on the sex boat, his k-swiss tennis shoes are clearly of size 11 and no larger. Further, his both bare feet shown by the pool at his house were not as big when compared to his 6'4" build. Joran obviously has a small footprint, please don't let his monster potato head fool you. He is a coward preying on young gentle women. And he is a cold small feet sissy that can rape and kill by animal instinct. Check the pics on flickr.com, and you know what I seen.

Anonymous said...

Well, maybe Aruba's court because you are a blonde blue-eyed dutch boy. Everyone bow down now!
---------------------------------
of course we all know about how Dutch Law works by now: "If you aint Dutch you aint much."

Anonymous said...

So you have said many times before that the security guards should sue. So why should this guy not sue if he did nothing wrong??
It's the same thing, ain't it?

Michelle said...

Mickey Johns has been offered an attorney from the US, but he hasn't been talking to anyone because he is afraid of the consequences. I guess their "class" of people aren't as good as the Dutchies...so why bother, if they will just retaliate against them?

In addition, where are they going to get the money for an attorney? Those guys COULD sue and have every right to sue, but by taking no action they are just screwing themselves. I've had a source offer them legal assistance. MJ is too afraid to talk. They don't have to stay in Aruba, either. We can help them. But you can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped.

dennisintn said...

hyde was just collecting his "retirement benefits" on his aruban trip. he has the morals of a turnip. he'll probably retire to his free lodgings on aruba as soon as his term is over this year. great spokesman for the arubans. just about as believable as aruba steve.
dennisintn