RIP Robert (Bob) Ballantyne: By Chief Strong-Blood

In the last article that was written by me, and was titled: PM Ralph Gonsalves and the DPP messed up the David Ames situation, from the reply to this article and many more articles that are published in this forum, I get the strange premonition that there are some loose ends that should be tied up and in some case reiterated. I am of the opinion that, if there is confusion in one person’s mind, there will be many like that person. So I am taking this opportunity to simplify what I have previously stated and to go deeper into details. 

I speak of no other but C. Ben-David, a man who “appears” to be one who looks at the messenger, rather than at the quality of or lack thereof of the message. To answer C. Ben-David’s question, and to set the record straight for all, especially for those who, from the level of my legal accuracy, the degree of my confidence (wrong word not my confidence, my arrogance) and the level of legal knowledge I display in my articles, when I confront these long practicing legal (lawyers) professionals, may have received the impression that I am a lawyer. 

I am not a lawyer, and I do not have a law degree; However, I am better at law than most trained and long practicing lawyers are. I do not have the slightest inclination of ever becoming a lawyer or doing law. But I bet you one thing, I, Allan H. F. Palmer, can hold my own and in most cases can outperform some of the best lawyers, from any part of the world, without being intimidated by their training, their experience, or shaken by their reputation. 

Now C. Ben-David said, and I quote, “I believe that Dave Ames was rightly charged with the crime of income tax evasion (not paying taxes he and/his company may owe to government -- personal income tax plus business income tax) and the crime of theft (stealing the income tax of his employees and stealing the NIS contributions of his employees, both of which he was legally required to transfer to the government of SVG).”

While Ben-David is in a state of belief that David Ames was rightly charged, I know for sure that David Ames was not rightly charged in the case that is before the court. The charge of theft that was brought against him by the director of public prosecutions is the wrong charge, and this is according to the law. I will declare it here: David Ames did not commit the offence of theft but he may have embezzled monies from the company. 

Although embezzlement is a form of theft, the manner in which the theft was done is what is responsible for changing the legal terminology and therefore the evidence that must be presented before the court to prove a case of theft is slightly different to that of embezzlement. Here is why it is not theft but embezzlement.

Harlequin Holdings is an independent entity, and David Ames was an agent, in this case legal representative (not legal counsel) of that company. The profits or the monies owned by the company are the property of Harlequin Holdings, which is an entity independent of David Ames. All of the company’s assets remain the property of Harlequin Holdings until they are paid out to workers as salaries, or to investors as dividends on their investments. 

David Ames was entrusted with the resources that include monies of Harlequin Holdings. If David Ames misappropriated or stole the monies he was entrusted with, it may became embezzlement. I do not believe here, I know it is not theft but it would be embezzlement. 

Let me say one thing about embezzlement in this case; the state cannot be the virtual complainant in an embezzlement case unless they are bringing it against someone like Tamara Marks. I will say here that, even in the Tamara Marks situation, the state framed the wrong charges against her, for which she in turn pleaded guilty. Now let us consider that Tamara Marks is a lawyer and her husband Ronnie Marks is a lawyer. I hereby declare them bush lawyers. 

I am also declaring all the members of the DPP’s office including Colin Williams and the attorney general in her professional capacity as bush lawyers as well. Here is why, had I been Tamara Marks lawyer, I would have had her plead not guilty, take the matter to trial, and after the prosecution rested its case, I would then move an oral motion for the judge to dismiss the matter on the grounds that the evidence that the dunce DPP Colin Williams presented did not support the charges of theft but that of embezzlement. However, the Tamara Marks legal fumble is a topic for another forum/article. Tamara Marks should have been charged with embezzlement and not theft. 

Harlequin Holdings is the only one that has the authority to bring embezzlement charges against David Ames and, even if it was theft, the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines does not have the authority to report against David Ames with theft and list itself as the virtual complainant for the simple fact that David Ames did not steal anything from the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Now tax evasion is different from embezzlement, in that all this charge constitutes is that the person who is so named failed (for whatever reason) to pay taxes he was entrusted to pay on behalf of his company or on behalf of himself or his workers. You would have noticed that I said tax evasion yes, theft no. I also suggested that, instead of theft, David Ames should have been charged with embezzlement, and it is wrong for the government to be the person from whom the monies were allegedly stolen from, as is listed in the charge. 

So the two errors in the DPP case are:

1) The charge is not theft as is stated in the official charges, but embezzlement. That is one ground for dismissal because the state’s evidence will not support the charges.

2) The virtual complainant cannot be the government as is listed on the official charge but Harlequin Holdings. This is the second ground for dismissing the charges. 

Now let us recap: 

a. I Allan H. F. Palmer declare here I am not a lawyer
b. The charges of tax evasion is correct
c. The charge of theft is wrong; it should have been embezzlement
d. The virtual complainant (VC) as the DPP states the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines is also wrong, The VC in the embezzlement case should be Harlequin Holdings and not the government of St Vincent and the Grenadines as mentioned in the official document.

So, my brother Ben-David, instead of giving your uninformed opinion, let me suggest that you first consult a lawyer, have them review my statements and let them tell you I am wrong and why I am wrong. I guarantee you they will not be able to say I am wrong