A response to the false statements made in the court—see Episode, 10, “Lies in the Courtroom”—came swiftly. The widow, Luna Vermeulen, entered the combat. At her side were lawyers who could still be trusted. Thank God there are still a few out there. 

Despite the fact that the lawyers could open all the books, they still weren’t completely satisfied. The lies spewed out by Nabod were too pervasive to eradicate. Here’s an example. Nabod said that Luna Vermeulen was draining company assets and preparing to abscond to South Africa. How do you contradict that? You can say it’s not true, but there is no proof if it’s simply not the case. Go ahead, you try it. How do you prove the truth? And if a judge doesn’t insist that Nabod has to “put his cards on the table” (offer proof), Nabod and his lawyer can just keep on telling their porky pies. 

Looking at a drama like this turns my stomach. I see the same game, the same so-called cleverness or cunning, that goes on in the underworld. I got more than enough of that in the eight months I spent researching my book Steve Brown: Drug Baron in Blue Jeans. You tell lie A, you stand behind lie A, you believe in lie A, and you make the other party prove it ain’t so. A law-abiding citizen is powerless against this sort of slander, and a crooked lawyer knows that. And makes use of that knowledge. After all, they get paid by the hour.

Come with me and I’ll show you how this game is played. The summons was issued for Luna Vermeulen “in person” on 6 April and on 15 April for Luna Vermeulen as “executrix of the estate” for her husband, Leo Boer, who died on 5 June 2020. The defendant was Nabod who lives in Australia. The two cases involving Luna Vermeulen were combined and handled simultaneously. On 16 April there was an oral hearing and trial was on 23 April. 

In essence, Vermeulen and her lawyers wanted the attachment of all Boer companies to be lifted and Nabod prevented from threatening her, contacting her, or stalking her. Why was it important to lift the attachment? Simple: in partnership companies, a shareholder has to “work”, for instance take out a loan to finance a certain project. That can’t happen if the assets are attached. Thus, by taking this action, Nabod has steered his father’s companies into a sandbar, or—if you will—onto the rocks. Instead of cooperation, Nabod’s conduct has been characterised by opposition.    

The judgement

1. A prejudgement attachment can only be lifted if errors of form have been made or the law appealed to by the party levying the attachment is found to be unsound. That is not the case. Even if the bailiff mistook another door for Vermeulen’s front door and failed to deliver the writs to her, the judge in preliminary relief proceedings doesn’t think that’s very important. 

2. The judge in preliminary relief proceedings agreed to the attachment of the companies and shares in his father’s companies because the situation involved goods in possession of third parties or claims by Vermeulen on those third parties. The court found that Nabod had a considerable claim on the estate of his father and that the underlying case that was still in full swing should provide clarity on the matter. There was also no reason to bring in evidence in the prejudgement attachment case about how the accounts administration of Boer Vastgoed were taken hostage in the cloud. The court ruled that the claim had merit.

And with this judgement, the companies of Leo Boer, which he sacrificed his heart and health to develop, were taken hostage by Nabod. It would have been better if Nabod had let go of his aggression and contempt for the widow, the wife of his late father, and had found a way to cooperate in executing his father’s will. If Nabod had loved him at least that much, if he had respected him that much, that would have been the obvious path to take.     

3. Nabod could not lay claim to sums owed to Vermeulen by third parties, but he did anyway. This attachment was reversed by the court. A bank account attachment for a future claim of uncertain extent was also lifted. 

4. The court also found that Nabod approached Luna Vermeulen in an intimidating manner. This behaviour was characterised by threats and gross insults both on a structural basis and so often that Nabod could not be let off with a promise to cease and desist. Violation of the restraining order was punishable by a fine of €1,000 per occurrence with a maximum of €50,000.

5. Moreover, it was clear that Nabod made accusations and/or imputations that Leo Boer died due to the action or negligence of Vermeulen. These accusations were particularly hurtful and there was no foundation for them whatsoever, so the court pronounced them unjust. The constitutional right of Nabod to freedom of speech did not outweigh Vermeulen’s right to privacy. Moreover, the judge in preliminary relief proceedings did not get the impression from Nabod’s attitude during the trial that he would refrain from such accusations in future. Violations carry a €2,500 fine per occurrence, with a maximum of €100,000.

That’s it for now. 

Nothing else remained for Luna Vermeulen than to get through the main proceedings so that she could be finished with this unsavoury dispute with Nabod once and for all.