The defense of Emily Yanson

By Modesto P. Sa-onoy

The discussion last week on the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor of the Department of Justice to indict Emily Yanson of the crime of falsification and perjury was based merely on the press statement of the complainants Olivia, and Leo Rey Yanson. The statements of course are self-serving and with tints of propaganda. Both sides do this so that it is for the readers to take a closer look, to separate the chaff from the grains, to get to the truth.

To counter the understandably selective presentations of the complainants, the lawyers of Emily Yanson sent to the press their side of the story based on her counter-affidavit and an appeal for review and ultimately the junking of the complaint.

One point I had asked in earlier columns was a clarification why Leo Rey and his allies in this family feud did not act when, as he now claims, Emily was allegedly “falsifying” the annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission about the composition of the board of directors and officers of the Vallacar Transit Incorporated. He and his mother under oath say that Emily was not a stockholder, and therefore not a director, much less a secretary of the board from 2016 up to 2019.

If Emily committed a crime for making what they claim are falsified reports, and they allowed her to continue doing the same act, are they not likewise liable for allowing a crime to be continually committed in their presence and full knowledge?

I asked that question before but, it is worth repeating because that observation is common sense. It is unbelievable that people learned in law could not see it or seeing but ignored it for reasons we can only surmise.

In their reply to the accusation, Emily’s lawyers concluded that Leo Rey was estopped from complaining not only because he knew but that he also approved the reports of Emily and even wrote to Emily that he addressed as “director” when he said that he could not attend the meeting in July 2019. It is the secretary who issues the call for a meeting and Leo Rey wrote Emily – as what?

The puzzle here is why the DOJ prosecutor failed or ignored these facts. It does not need a law degree to see this defect in the prosecutor’s appreciation of the documents that are clear on their faces that ordinary citizens with an understanding of the English language can comprehend. The prosecutor who recommended the indictment will not be asked to explain because they usually are considered to have just “erred” and therefore the mistake will just be corrected.

As Mark Anthony bewailed against the murderers of Julius Ceasar, “Ah, justice thou hast been fed to brutish beasts and men have lost their reasons!” And we might add, their conscience.

For the citizens and to the afflicted ones, that mistake cannot be just waved away like a noisy fly because the error appears to be conscious and that a great harm has been inflected on the innocent.

There is also another point raised by the lawyers of Emily Yanson that I had earlier commented on. This refers to the claim that Emily falsified the report to the SEC when she wrote that Olivia Yanson was not a stockholder. Olivia insists she was and still is and in fact last year issued certifications under oath as the corporate secretary of VTI for the filing of cases against the Yanson 4.

I wrote last year and I reiterate, about the December 20, 2017 extra-judicial agreement of the heirs of Ricardo B. Yanson after his death in 2015. In the agreement, Olivia waived her share of Ricardo’s corporations while all the properties were divided equally among the siblings of Ricardo that included Emily. It is clear she received shares of stocks in VTI. Olivia voluntarily agreed to the terms of this agreement but now she changed her mind and wanted it annulled.

That case has not yet been decided by the court and as I opined earlier that agreement still subsists, and therefore binding. The DOJ prosecutor said that the agreement does not prove Emily has shares of stocks of the corporation, only that she is an heir.

So, to repeat my earlier question, what about the other siblings? Where did they get their shares to claim ownership?

Continued tomorrow.