Is Douglas Defreitas Guilty Or Not Guilty

The following article does not reflect the views of NEWS784, but solely that of the author.send all articles to news784svg@gmail.com.

By Allan H Palmer

Ralph Gonsalves have spent all of his adult life, trying to hold St. Vincent and the Grenadines (S.V.G) and Vincentians, S.V.G’s citizens’ hostage. His plans matured in the year 2000, when he appeal to the greed, the lust for power and the overwhelming desire for personal elevation of many trade unionist; who chose to satisfy their personal greed at the expense and over the welfare of their members and the welfare of the nation. These so-call leaders, used their influenced of their union office, to aid Ralph Gonsalves in holding an entire nation and its people hostage. Like the devil himself, he refused to accept the fact that the people had no confidence in his ability to lead a nation and rightfully so. They had rejected him at the pole in more than four general elections, which he contested as a political leader without ever winning a seat. As a matter of fact, each time he contested a general election before 2000, when he took the nation and its people hostage, he lost his electoral deposit. So engulfed in demonic hate he was, that he vow to make the country ungovernable and he led the people who were blinded by his devilish deception into accomplishing his acts of the Road Block Revolution that is today, still the greatest act of nation hate S.V.G have even seen.

Nice Radio Boss Douglas De Freitas
Nice Radio Boss Douglas De Freitas

Then several years after he deceived the people into entrusting him with the reigns of leadership of St. Vincent and the Grenadines; he attempted to take the nation hostage again. This time, he attempted to do so, with a cunning demonic grin on his face, as he tried to manipulate the nation into entrusting him with the task of revising nation’s constitution. Ralph Gonsalves, with a well-planned master stroke, had some distinguished help. His only intention was to entice the people into hand over their soul and their country to him by adopting a new constitution. This dirty constitution, would have given him a technical rights to change the laws to suit his unending reign as political leader of St. Vincent and the Grenadines without any opposition. As well as giving him the authority, to hand down the leadership of the country to anyone he so choose. This time around, his master stroke turned into a silly joke, because the people saw through his nasty intent and rejected him and his dirty constitution.

One reason why, the power hungry dirty intent of Prime Minister Ralph Ginsalves was not manifested into the permanently hijacking the country was because of NICE radio; the political mouth piece of the opposition. It was through this media (NICE Radio) that the Vincentian masses were shown the dirty intent of Ralph Gonsalves, who was using the office of Prime Minister to get away with all sought of nasty behavior and criminal acts and the theft of an entire nation, via legal deception. This would have been the biggest travesty in the history of the Caribbean.

As a result, sometime later, NICE Radio was sued for some unrelated trivial matter by Ralph Gonsalves and he was awarded a hefty monetary judgment by the court. It was Gonsalves’ hope that the award from the court, would brought Nice Radio to its knees, thus giving him the freedom to manipulate the masses when and as he please, with his lies and deception and ultimately taking control of their will, their thought and their ability to think objectively. But this was not to be, for Gonsalves’ master stroke turned into another silly joke. This was so because NICE radio is still going. Thanks to the people within the diaspora who chipped in with their proverbial pennies, nickels and dines.

Then Gonsalves came up with his Cyber Crime Bill; like the dirty constitution, that bill had within it, an infamous clause that is designed to criminalized honest people who speak the truth, who stand up for their rights, the rights of others and Justice, or preform any valiant acts; of whistle blowing etc. Unfortunately this bill should not have been allowed to become law, but with a lack of public participation and public protest that dirty cyber crime bill is now law. But who is going to enforce this law?

Ralph E. Gonsalves saw NICE radio as the only obstacle between, him and his plans plan of ultimate governance of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. So the day after the 2015 General election, Douglas Defreitas was arrested and charged for offences that was allegedly committed for uttering word on his radio station. Ralph Gonsalves government held Mr. Defreitas’ word to be such which were likely to caused public fear and alarm. But were they? If one examines Mr. Defretias’ words in the context in which they were spoken via NICE radio, anyone especially a legal mind, will conclude that the words do not constitute an offence. But such words must be taken in the context with which they were used.

I was fortunate to have been tuned into NICE radio on the evening of December 9th 2015, when the words were uttered. However, in order for such words to constitute the crime, as he was charged, they must first meet the under mentioned standard.

  1. The words must be maliciously uttered,
  2. The words must be uttered to bring about an unlawful end,
  3. The words must have been acted upon,
  4. There must have been people who were or may have been negatively affected by the end results of such utterance.

Unfortunately for the Government case, the words that were spoken by Douglas Defreitas do not constitute a crime. Because of the following

  1. One the words were not maliciously uttered – It was Mr. Deferitas’ suspicion that the conditions were perfect for the commission of a crime against the electoral law; and in his foresight, he asked for mutual parties to go to the police station and volunteer their time to ensure that the integrity of the ballot boxes were maintained.
  2. The words must be uttered to bring about an unlawful end – The words were uttered to prevent a breach of the peace/ the commission of a crime by the people who are now before the high court accused of doing just that.
  3. The words must have been acted upon – this point is not important because there were not crime committed because of Douglas Defreitas’ utterance.
  4. This offence, the government prosecutors must produce actual persons who may have become alarm and explain why they were not were affected and in their testimony they must say how those word could have affected them, and conclusive evidence must be presented to show that their potential distress etc.

Given the situation and the context in which those words were used, the words were used in order to prevent the commission of a crime against the electoral laws of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Mr. Defreitas had a suspicion that a crime could be or may be committed, to sway the election in the favor of the unpopular U.L.P, and in order to prevent the commission of such a crime, he called for neutral party to go to the Barrouallie Police Station, where the ballot boxes were, “to secure/preserve the integrity of the ballot boxes.” which was a reasonable request at the time and on hindsight, it is still a reasonable request. When a reasonable person take into consideration, the political climate of the land at that time, and the fact there is a matter before the high court accusing some of the same people for electoral wrong doing one will conclude that Mr. Defreitas request was a reasonable one.

Mr. Douglas Defreitas did not call for people to break the law, he did not call for the people to riot neither did he call for the people to bum-rush the Barroullie Police Station and to take the ballot boxes; but to go to the said station to preserve the integrity of the ballot boxes. Hence the reason two independent thinking, professional Magistrates have reused themselves from hearing the matter.

It is no secret that the Government does not have a case against Mr. Douglas Defreitas, hence the reason why Government lawyer Anthony Astaphan could be heard on radio giving informal legal advice to Mr. Defreitas and his legal team. Here is what he said.

  • Defreitas’ lawyer should go to Director of Public Prosecution (D.P.P) Colin Williams office and asked him to drop the matter.
  • Go to the high Court and have the judge issue a mandamus ordering the magistrate to hear the case.

I will advise Douglas Defreitas to let his case run its natural course for the flowing reasons. Ralph Gonsalves want, company to justify the D.P.P Colin Williams’ actions on his behalf, as it relates to D.P.P Williams throwing out of the criminal court, the private criminal cases that was brought against Ralph E. Gonsalves the sitting Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines by the Female Police officer who accused him of raping and sexual assault and by the Canadian Human Rights lawyer Ms. Margaret Parson who resides in Canada, who also accused Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves for sexually assaulting her in his office, while he was Prime Minister in the high office of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Douglas Defreitas Lawyer have to ensure that Mr. Deferitas testify in his evidence-in-chief the following:

  1. His reason for summoning the people was not to commit a crime but to prevent a crime from being committed.
  2. Valid reasons why he believes a crime would have been committed.
  3. He must also state that on hindsight he do not see his words alarming or causing fear in any one in St. Vincent and the Grenadines except for those whose intent it was to break the laws of the land.
  4. Defreitas must name and accuse at the least two police officer, who work at the Barroullie Police Station; who are known supporters of the U.L.P and publicized their political affiliation to the court. It does not matter if they were working at the time, the fact that the possibility exist that they could be on duty at the station along with the U.L.P hand pick returning officers and other officials at the polling station poses a threat to the electoral law.
  5. Ben Exeter need to give evidence in this case also, and Mr. Exeter will tell the court, of the photograph he took, on December 9th 2015, in his capacity of a candidate in the general election, of the ballots and upon closer and comparative examination the photograph of some of the ballots use turned out to be fraudulent ballots.

Ben Exeter’s testimony will show that Mr. Deferitas’ suspicion was not groundless and the possibility exist that the ballot boxes would have been tampered with or may have been tampered with to accomplished the following objectives.

  1. To change the outcome of the recount of the said ballots that was to take place the following day.
  2. To remove any fraudulent ballots that may be discover in the recounting of the ballots. In order for this to be done, they will commit a crime to cover up the acts of fraud which was discovered by Ben Exeter.

 

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*