The claimants want four hours and three judges

By e-mail

Roladministratie.handel.rb.leeuwarden@rechtspraak.nl

District Court of the Northern Netherlands

Commercial/Civil Division

For the attention of the docket judge

LEEUWARDEN

With a copy to: willem.heemskerk@pelsrijcken.nl

Re: [redacted] et al. / The State et al. Your ref.: c/17/190788 / HA ZA 2023-172

Our ref.: D100607 / 02023008/AK/HV

E-mails: stassen@uwadvocaten.nl & a.vankessel@ivka.nl

Leeuwarden, 26 March 2024

Your Honour,

In the above-mentioned case, on 21 February 2024 Mr W. Heemskerk, who is affiliated with the office of the State Advocate (landsadvocaat), filed an interlocutory statement on behalf of defendant 15 in the main action (hereinafter: ‘Gates’), in which it was claimed, among other things, that your court declare that it lacks jurisdiction with respect to Gates to hear the claims of [redacted] et al.

In this jurisdiction motion brought by Gates, the trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. (the undersigned) responded on the cause list of 20 March 2024 and moved that Gates's claims be dismissed. The statement of defence in the interlocutory proceedings was sent by the trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. to your court and the other parties more than a week in advance.

By letter of 19 March 2024, the aforementioned Mr W. Heemskerk requested your court, on the basis of Article 87(1) DCCP, to order an oral hearing in the interlocutory proceedings, and in doing so referred to the principle of the right to oral argument that applies in Dutch procedural law.

[redacted] et al. take the view that Gates's request for oral argument in relation to his interlocutory claim should be granted, in view of the aforementioned principle of the right to oral argument.

[redacted] et al. further understand from Mr W. Heemskerk's letter that Gates contends that the ‘background’ to his request for oral argument lies in the fact that [redacted] et al., in their statement of defence regarding the jurisdiction of your court:

‘… adopt numerous new contentions, none of which they adopted in the summons, and that on our side there is a need to set out our position on these orally before your court’

There are, however, no new contentions compared with the summons. The only new contention of [redacted] et al. was subsequently included in paragraph 11 of the statement of defence in the interlocutory proceedings. There, [redacted] et al. contended that the death in October 2023 of claimant number 6 † was the result of the unlawful act committed by Gates (unlawful and intentional deception by Gates in person and as part of a group).

In view of the foregoing, it is not clear to [redacted] et al. what Gates actually wishes to argue when making use of his right to oral argument in the interlocutory proceedings.

The trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. also wish to make use of the right to oral argument in these interlocutory proceedings. On the occasion of this oral argument, they wish, on behalf of [redacted] et al., to address the unlawful act committed by Gates, in person and as part of a group, against the claimants in the main action in the Netherlands (and in fact against the entire world population), and the rules of Dutch procedural law which establish your court's jurisdiction. The trial lawyers of [redacted] et al. expect to need four hours of pleading time for this (including reply).

With reference to chapter 5 of the national rules of procedure for civil summons cases before the district courts, [redacted] et al. further note the following.

As far as [redacted] et al. can ascertain, Gates, contrary to the rules of procedure (provision 5.3), did not submit an extra copy of the procedural file when requesting oral argument. Nor are [redacted] et al. aware that your court informed Gates that submitting it could be dispensed with.

[redacted] et al. are further of the opinion that, in view of the importance and complexity of the case and the particular fact that the parties' contentions are diametrically opposed in a way that is not possible within one and the same reality, this oral argument should take place before a three-judge chamber of your court.

Before the oral argument, [redacted] et al. will submit a number of exhibits which will shed further light on the extent and seriousness of the unlawful act committed by Gates, in person and as part of a group, against [redacted] et al. These exhibits will also be explained during the oral argument, possibly with the aid of audiovisual means.

The one and a half hours that the rules of procedure reserve as standard for the entire oral hearing are insufficient for [redacted] et al. The fact that the parties' contentions are diametrically opposed in a way that is not possible within one and the same reality means that arguing this case will require much more time. The minimum speaking time for [redacted] et al., as the defendants in this interlocutory matter, amounts to three hours for the first round of speaking (response) and one hour for the second round of speaking (rejoinder).

This letter is accompanied by the B-form for the cause-list hearing of 27 March 2024. A copy of this letter is also being sent by e-mail to Mr W. Heemskerk.

Trusting that we have hereby informed you sufficiently.

Yours faithfully,

Mr A.G.W. van Kessel Mr P.W.H. Stassen