Lesbische swingfeesten: an overview

After consulting with my lawyer, who approved, I am hereby placing online the letters as written by me, my lawyer and the other party's lawyer, plus some supporting comments to navigate the letters.

They are in Dutch, of course, and currently no text version is available for the scanned pages.

• links.html
  The original page which was the starting point for the web page ban.
• lesbische_swingfeesten.php
  The page which my employer did not like, even in this modified version. It contains the starting of the story, so you'd better read it first.
• lesbische_swingfeesten_versie_1.php
  The original version of the page. Since they systematically ignored the changes I made to accommodate their main objections, or slag them off as insignificant, I might as well re-publish it for historical value. Note the factual error that I corrected in the second version (never at any time has Polderland pointed out any other factual error, or I would have corrected it too). In the edited versions I had removed the name of Theo van den Heuvel, and I should also have mentioned Debbie Kenyon-Jackson.
• As text: 2004-03-26.txt;
  As PDF: 2004-03-26.pdf
  With this letter I retract my so-called resignation. It was obtained under duress, without possibility to inform myself, the facts were misrepresented, etc etc, and therefore not valid.
• 2004-03-29-vandermeer.1.2.gif, 2004-03-29-vandermeer.2.2.gif:
  The first reaction of the other party. If I didn't resign myself, they fire me on the spot instead.
• 2004-03-30-vandermeer.1.1.gif:
  The other party being fussy because I sent an email to the secretary about my proposed holidays this year, as was agreed before this whole affair.
• As text (uncorrected OCR): 2004-04-09-nxppen.txt;
  As scan: 2004-04-09-nxppen.1.4.gif, 2004-04-09-nxppen.2.4.gif, 2004-04-09-nxppen.3.4.gif, 2004-04-09-nxppen.4.4.gif:
  My lawyer pointing out how it really is. We demand that they let me access my work, and that my salary is paid.
• 2004-04-13-vandermeer.1.2.gif, 2004-04-13-vandermeer.2.2.gif:
  The other party complaining they did not get enough time to respond. We are nice and given them some more time.
• 2004-04-14-vandermeer.1.3.gif, 2004-04-14-vandermeer.2.3.gif, 2004-04-14-vandermeer.3.3.gif:
  The other party setting a ridiculous deadline for a ridiculous demand. They seem to think I can influence how Google presents its results, and appear to claim that Google putting the word "bi" near the word "polderland" (if one queries for those two words) is somehow bad for the reputation of the company. They also claim I am misprepresenting the facts, while they are the ones doing it, as we point out in the reply.
• 2004-05-04-nxppen.1.4.gif , 2004-05-04-nxppen.2.4.gif , 2004-05-04-nxppen.3.4.gif , 2004-05-04-nxppen.4.4.gif :
  The previous letter contained so much nonsense, that a very long letter from my lawyer was needed to respond to it. And he didn't even use all the details that I gave him, or the letter would have been a lot longer still.
• 2004-05-19-vandermeer.1.3.gif, 2004-05-19-vandermeer.2.3.gif, 2004-05-19-vandermeer.3.3.gif:
  Again they claim I misprepresent the facts. They seem to like repeating that. An actual court case is getting nearer.
• 2004-06-17-nxppen.1.1.gif
  My lawyer inquiring when the other one is not available for trial.
• 2004-06-22-nxppen.1.1.gif:
  Letter to the court, asking to set a date, sent a considerable time after the deadline set for response.
• 2004-06-22-vandermeer.1.1.gif
  The other lawyer writing his dates, much too late, complaining about lack of time.
• 2004-06-28-nxppen.1.1.gif
  My lawyer supplies the other one with the proposed summons, and the productions in the case.
• 2004-06-28-rechtbank.1.1.gif
  The court, setting a date (4 august). It is a date the other lawyer is not available.
• 2004-06-28-dagvaardingkortgeding.html
  The summons.
• 2004-07-02-nxppen.1.1.gif
  Maybe we need to reschedule, if the other party plays it tough.
• 2004-07-05-nxppen.1.1.gif
  To the other lawyer, informing him of the date of trial.
• 2004-07-08-nxppen.1.1.gif
  Am I agreed with a short postponement? On the phone I agree, but not to a long one.

• About a week before the trial, I discuss the trial with my lawyer. The other party has given up its resistance about the date, it seems.

  However, on 4 august 2004, the morning of the trial, my lawyer phones me and tells me that the summons was not delivered in time to the right place, probably due to some mistake. The other party only informed him yesterday, 5 minutes before office closing time. He was very much not amused by that. They could have informed him when the legal deadline had passed, a week ago. They were aware of the text of the summons, since they had received the final draft. They were also aware of the date. This looks very much like a stalling tactic, since they didn't agree to go ahead with the trial anyway. Would a party which has confidence in its case need that?

• dagvaarding_1.5.gif, dagvaarding_2.5.gif, dagvaarding_3.5.gif, dagvaarding_4.5.gif, dagvaarding_5.5.gif:
  the claim.
• 2004-10-05-rechtbank.txt: The verdict (partial text). I lost, but the judge offered in my opinion very little reasoning for his decision. Unfortunately, since the proceedings so far had already cost me a lot of money, and appeal and/or further procedures would probably cost at least the same amount more without guarantee of success (and my faith in the justice system was rather shocked), I could regrettably not go on to get my right.
  2004-10-04-rechtbank.1.5.gif, 2004-10-04-rechtbank.2.5.gif, 2004-10-04-rechtbank.3.5.gif, 2004-10-04-rechtbank.4.5.gif, 2004-10-04-rechtbank.5.5.gif:
  The scans of the full text.
• elsevier20040501.gif
  A similar case where an employee apparently resigned but didn't intend to.
• intermediair20040415.gif
  A columnist calling a company hypocritical.