Eva Jinek does not understand that Rachel Hazes allows the conflict with her daughter Roxeanne to run so high. “If you have nothing to hide, it’s no problem to give documents, is it?”
Roxeanne Hazes suspects that the settlement of her deceased father André’s million-dollar inheritance has been tampered with, but her greedy mother Rachel systematically refuses to provide relevant documents. The judge has now determined that Rachel is indeed a fake heir and urges her to share the relevant documents.
Eve stunned
It is incomprehensible that Rachel has allowed such a media circus to come, says Eva Jinek. She says in her talk show to lawyer Royce de Vries: “I think everyone agrees that we would rather not talk about this. That it shouldn’t be necessary for a family conflict to be discussed in court and on a talk show.”
She continues: “If that is also in your client’s interest – because she says: I have always had the best interests of my children at heart and I do not want this at all, why is Roxeanne not allowed to see the documents so that she can see whether it was done at the time? really valued? What is the effort of giving your child those documents?”
Gossip press
Rachel could then have prevented summary proceedings, says Eva. “Now she still has to give those documents. Why didn’t she just give it to her to see?”
Her lawyer Royce: “There were concerns that those documents would not be handled discreetly. That is why it has been said: ‘Let’s choose an intermediate form.’”
Kamp-Rachel continues to portray Roxeanne as someone who leaks to the tabloid press, while Rachel pretty much has her own tabloid: the Story.
Blindfolded
Royce then repeats his story that Roxeanne was allowed to see the documents, but only if she jumped through Rachel’s hoops first. Her conditions were bizarre: Rox just barely had to report blindfolded and hopping. Eva: “She wasn’t allowed to take it home and take pictures?”
Rachel’s gown to that: “Because there were concerns that it wasn’t handled discreetly. At the same time, we received questions from the tabloid press showing that they had been given access to documents. My client did not want that if she was going to provide documents… She had concerns.”
“This is even worse!”
Eva thinks that’s a fallacy. “Isn’t it much worse what happened now? That it turned out this way?”
Royce: “The question is whether you would have prevented this preliminary injunction.”
Eva: “If you have nothing to hide, it’s no problem to provide documents, is it?”
Royce: “That is why inspection is also offered.”
Eva: “I understand that, but if someone says: ‘I just want to be able to take it home to study it.’”
Court reporter Saskia Belleman: “I can imagine that you want to look through those documents in your own time with your advisors around you at home.”
Fake heir
Royce continues to straighten out what is crooked. Although the judge has clearly established that Rachel is a fake heir, he says: “The lawyers had already closed the divorce file several months before the death, but apparently something has been left administratively. We have correspondence from that time that from both a…”
He recovers: “Or at least from André Hazes’ lawyer who says: ‘Dear André, I hereby close the file, because you are back together.’ In addition, those lawyers also stated: gee, they were reconciled and asked us to withdraw those proceedings and, as far as we know, that also happened then.”
Facts
The ladies at the table are not impressed by Royce’s ramblings. Saskia: “Apparently that did not happen in court. The procedure was still there.”
Eva: “You say: ‘There is enough evidence that they were back together’, only the formality is that the divorce proceedings were filed with the court. That’s not a matter of interpretation, is it? That’s just a fact, isn’t it?”
Saskia: “It is a fact that the case had not yet been closed in court.”
Saskia finds it ‘strange’ that the interests of Rachel’s children did not seem to have been properly represented at the time. “Anything that would be earned in the future has gone to Rachel and not to the children. I also have my doubts about that, because: why would you do that? Why not let the kids share in that?”
Royce: “Because the rights eventually became her property.”
Bad mother
Hazes critic Johan Derksen sticks to it. If he’s in Inside today when asked about the judge’s verdict that Rachel is indeed a fake heir, he says: “A bad person and a bad mother. I think it’s too unimportant to sit down and argue about it. Actually, I don’t give a shit what that family has among themselves.”
And who supports table guest Roxane Knetemann in this matter? “Roxanne, of course. I can’t imagine being robbed by your mother, you know. I come from a family in which my mother would actually give everything for us and if you hear that your mother is actually withholding money that might be meant for you…”
