October 24, 2005
HarryTho 10/24 Natalee Holloway Update And CommentaryTopics: Natalee Holloway
We have a couple of regular news updates before moving to what's going on with the talking heads at the cable shows. If time allows, we'll get to some research items tonight, otherwise, if Richard crashes early, we'll touch on a couple of such items tomorow.
Scared Monkeys has it that the Kalpoe lawsuit against Skeeters costs too much money. The lawyer for Deepak Kalpoe, Rudi Ooman, contends that his client does not have the financial means to bring a lawsuit against Jamie Skeeters in the United States, however, he is looking into other possibilities of bringing charges against Skeeters - that is, if it doesn't cost too much money.
According to Oomen, Kalpoe had never said what's on the tape. "Everybody can hear that tape was put together with cutting and pasting."
However, if the tapes have been fraudulently altered by an American, then the FBI should have jurisdiction here. The Aruban government can complain via the American Consulate General on Curacao. This will activate the State Department to request the assistance of the US Justice Department. The FBI could receive their marching orders after the Justice Department authenticated the deceptions contained within the tapes.
Aruba Getagrip posts, "Paulus van der Sloot initiates preliminary case for damage and prejudice."
Paulus van der Sloot went to court with his lawyer to initiate a preliminary case of damage and prejudice, due to his being jailed during the case of the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. It could be that the case is based on the fact that van der Sloot's career is now affected because of the days he sat in jail.It appears that the suspects have now comenced their retaliatory adventures.
And there's also the little matter of Paul van der Sloot being able to make a living. From the AP, we learn that Paulus van der Sloot's petition before the Aruban Court has to do with clearing his name so that he can be re-employed. The Dairio's rendition of a suit for damages is a secondary issue that only can be raised after Paulus van der Sloot clears his name. Clearing his name refers to removing his name as a suspect in the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance.
On the cable side of the news:
Rita Crosby on MSNBC News aired that Condelizza Rice, US Secretary of State, met with Beth Twitty in order to show her support. There seems to be some report that Condelizza Rice traveled to Aruba, as well.
Police Chief Dompig reported that he had the Skeeter tapes and has sent them to Holland to be authenticated, and also that he has requested FBI involvement. Further, the police chief commented that the influence of the US Secretary of State will have a positive effect on the Court in Aruba.Despite the wonderful and uplifting "War Cries" of the foregoing, we need to remember that Aruba petitioned their Minister of Kingdom Relations concerning the American media's blasts of abuse of their judicial system.
Beth Twitty said that she would go to Aruba next week with Paul Reynolds and answer questions. Also, the Aruban authorities, via the FBI, will be responding to questions about the night of Natalee Holloway's disappearance. Beth also refered to her efforts to get the record straight in Aruba. She highlighted statements taken by police that she claims were not recorded by the investigating officers. Beth said that she believes the prosecuting attorney was never up to prosecuting this case.
Paul Ciolino was upbeat about the pressure being applied by the US Secretary of State upon the Aruban judicial system.
Wendy Murphy claimed that the Secretary of State's presence establishes a code that Aruba better get going. Wendy outlined a rape charge that could be forthcoming.
As to Rice's visit to Aruba, it would appear to me that the only reason for our Secretary of State to "visit" Aruba is to make apologies and assure the Aruban government of the cooperation of the United states of America. Let us not forget that it was Condelizza Rice who requested the assistance of the Aruban government in this case.
More as available.
Posted for HarryTho
Posted by Richard at October 24, 2005 11:25 PM
Forgot to mention. Jug took EIGHT "friends" to his prolonged initial confrontation with the van der Sloots but left Beth sitting outside for whole that time. Why?
One possible explanation that I read is that they might be thinking that Natalee was hiding in the house and that Beth's voice would finally deprive her of desire to unhide. I deem this explanation far-fetched. More likely Jar and Jug wanted to filter out off Beth any clue that van der Sloots may give out regarding real circumstances of Natalee's disappearence.
Posted by: George at October 25, 2005 3:43 AM
Our dutch minister of foreign affairs, Ben Bot, had a meeting yesterday with Condoleeza Rice at the State Department in Washington. No mention in our newspapers about the Natalee case, just that Ben Bot urges Rice to make haste with a new US ambassador in the Netherlands. The one they want, Arnall, is at this moment busy with accusations against his company Ameriquest.
Posted by: Louiza at October 25, 2005 6:06 AM
Seems,that Mansur is interfiring in all the way with this investigation. I am surprised that the ALE & FBI has not take in account of that situation, banned him from keep in giving them false tips. The media sure will have to investigate Mansur info, before making this public.
Is it possible that Beth really does not know anything where she is, because it is Jug that has been in contact with both parties. Nathalee is not her daughter and I do not think he cares about her welfare? That is why I guess is Beth is afraid of knowing the truth.
In the other hand why Beth is afraid of going to ALE? Let me wonder that she knows what is going on, she is trying to hide the sun with her thumb.. Now she involved Mrs. Rice, but it won’t force ALE to make an investigation only with Beth’s believes or facts.
In the case that Dpak, decides t sue Skeeters and Phil, is it possible to have an Attorney appointed by the court???
Posted by: antoinette at October 25, 2005 11:17 AM
Court-appointed attorneys are generally a privilege of only criminal defendants; I'm not aware of ANY legal system allowing court-appointed attorneys for plaintiffs, however, if Deepak succeeds to initiate a CRIMINAL prosecution (what I consider unlikely with respect to "the tape"), he basically needs no attorney.
Posted by: George at October 25, 2005 11:27 AM
Thank you for the post. Regrettably, it is that time in the American election cycle when the mudslinging commences between the political parties.
May a warm tropical breeze embrace you,
Posted by: harry at October 25, 2005 2:49 PM
George is correct. Plaintiffs get free legal representation in the criminal courts. The only option for free representation in the civil courts is called maintenance. Under a maintenance arrangement, the plaintiff agrees to compensate his/her legal representative with a portion of the monetary damages awarded. A routine maintenance arrangement calls for some one-third of the damages awarded (compensatory and punitive) to be paid to the plaintiff's legal representative. Clearly, Deepak's lawyer, Rudi Oomen, could advertise in the New York Times for an American law firm to pursue damages on behalf of Deepak Kalpoe in the United States of America under a maintenance agreement.
Posted by: harry at October 25, 2005 3:01 PM
Dutch legal canons may preclude Rudi Oumen from public advertising related to contingency attorney-client agreements. However, some his statements may be interpreted so that respective non-public negotiations are in progress.
Posted by: George at October 25, 2005 3:09 PM
Actually, Rudi Oomen's would not physically put an ad in the New York Times. He would use his referral system to attract the attention of an associate law firm in the United States to consider the case for maintenance. Rudi Oomen would not be forbidden from such an action, because, to my knowledge, no charges have been filed against Jamie Skeeter and/or Dr. Phil, as of yet. And, the ad would not be one promoting the case, but one requesting assistance.
Though not being familiar with the specifics in question under Dutch Law, certainly Deepak Kalpoe could request such assistance. Rudi Oomen, therefore, acting as Deepak Kalpoe's agent, could request such assistance on his behalf. The fine line here differentiates whether or not Rudi Oomen is advertising his case in a promotional matter in order to sway judicial/public opinion. If he is not, then Rudi Oomen is just an agent, requesting assistance, for Deepak Kalpoe.
Posted by: harry at October 25, 2005 5:43 PM
Canons of attorney's ethics prohibit attorneys from functioning as agents in certain relations. While specific canons vary by jurisdiction, it is safe to presume inappropriateness for a Dutch lawyer to participate in advertising related to contingency attorney-client agreements, no matter what his role would be (or none at all).
Posted by: George at October 25, 2005 7:18 PM
Let us clear this impasse: Is it your position that under Dutch Law, Rudi Oomen, as attorney for Deepak Kalpoe, is prohibited from requesting assistance from an American law firm in order to file suit in the United States under a maintenance arrangement against American defendants? The foregoing represents our point of discussion.
Posted by: harry at October 25, 2005 8:34 PM
Not exactly. I believe that Rudi Oumen as an attorney admitted to practice law in the Kingdom of Netherlands is forbidden from participating anywhere in public advetising regarding an assistance by any law firm in any lawsuit on contingency basis, and for this reason negotiations are held without public advertising.
Posted by: George at October 25, 2005 11:25 PM
You could be right concerning the notion of public advertising for contingency representation.
Posted by: harry at October 25, 2005 11:43 PM
Articles Related to Natalee Holloway:
- HarryTho 10/24 Natalee Holloway Update And Commentary - Oct 24, 2005