jury trials

[desifemlove]

https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/article ... ystem.html

should we get rid of jury trials?

i saw Prakash Ramadhar on morning brew this morning talking about it, but it's a complex issue not cut and dry as some would make it.

[sMASH]

be falsely accused of a crime, then u see the judge is a school padnah of the man accusing you.

[Dizzy28]

be falsely accused of a crime, then u see the judge is a school padnah of the man accusing you.

I could only assume it would be more than 1 judge taking part in a jury less trial to limit this scenario to start with.

[bluesclues]

Removing jury trials will make the judiciary a target for total corruption. Once it gets infiltrated, there will be no way to reverse course, and jury trials will never be allowed to be reinstated again. They could then create extreme laws and jail half the country if and when it suits them. By then, even protesting about it will get you jailed.

[meccalli]

http://www.judges.org/uploads/jury/Why- ... ociety.pdf

[Daran]

It is a very complicated issue and has many sides.

However, it's often the case where jurors simply don't understand the law well enough to be judging on these cases. Having a committee of judges (who are impartial) assess cases will lead to much more deserved verdicts.

However, as many suggested it can be subject to corruption.

A good balance would perhaps be both.

However, let's be real this discussion is pointless, we need to catch criminals first.

[desifemlove]

be falsely accused of a crime, then u see the judge is a school padnah of the man accusing you.

same can happen in a jury trial too.

[sMASH]

the likely hood of buying out one that is selected kinda lesser than a judge u know...
and as pointed out, a bench of judges could work.

but all three have their merits and flaws

[desifemlove]

http://www.judges.org/uploads/jury/Why-Jury-Trials-are-Important-to-a-Democratic-Society.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/04/us/a- ... -case.html

kind of not wise in our society and racial, ethnic and religious composition.

[bluesclues]

It is irresponsible for the judiciary or any member thereof, in a democratic society, to even suggest such a move as to remove a jury of peers from the judgement process. It in itself is an indication of corruption and an attempt at perverting and corrupting the justice system.

I would beware anyone suggesting such a thing as they are obviously a power grabber, willing to sacrifice the safety of the citizens of the country to elevate themselves within society selfishly.

I can tell u, that anyone suggesting this in trinidad, is testing the population to see how stupid they are and if they will let it slide. But believe me, for this u are to kick up a fuss. Kick up a very big fuss. Simple as it seems it leaves an entire society vulnerable to tyranny. Trust noone, and keep your position guarding the guards. Do not give it up.

[sMASH]

depending on how judgement is set up, u might have jurors who don't understand the laws enough give appropriate decisions. eg, not understanding the difference between actual evidence and circumstantial evidence. or not being able to separate emotion from the evidence....

each has their merits and flaws.

usually in the more gruesome cases western world tends to have juries, usually.

[bluesclues]

depending on how judgement is set up, u might have jurors who don't understand the laws enough give appropriate decisions. eg, not understanding the difference between actual evidence and circumstantial evidence. or not being able to separate emotion from the evidence....

each has their merits and flaws.

usually in the more gruesome cases western world tends to have juries, usually.

I give an a for effort in parotting. But with that logic we should remove the citizens ability to vote too unless they can demonstrate a complete understanding of economic management, governing and managing resources in general. We have many uneducated voters who dont understand heads nor tails of what is said on the podium. But we accept their vote at the ballot box. And driving. Lets not give anyone a driving license unless they also pass a trigonometry and physics exam.

This is why its called a jury of peers. A randomly selected jury is a reflection of and representation of society. If too many times selected jurors dont understand or have the aptitude to process the law at the level of a lawyer or judge, that's a reflection of society, and that is the purpose of a jury of peers in making a judgement on it's fellow citizen. To translate what is said above by smash... the claim is..

That the average trini is too stupid and too ignorant of the law to make up a good jury.

At the end of the day who fault is that? Who's responsibility is it to educate the citizenry and empower them with understanding of the law. And again, that's the point. If the average citizen is too stupid to understand the law, then that would have something to do also with the reason why there is a defendant in a criminal case.

So it is disingenuous, to on one hand say...

'We know that trinis do not understand the law on average'

While on the other hand say

'Let us judge them harshly from a professional standpoint even though we know when we ask them if they 'understand' and they say yes, that they really dont understand.'

The jury system was created precisely for this. Since society makes the laws, society also interprets those laws. And interpretation will occur on a cultural mentality and education level. Not from the professional law-giver's perspective. This in itself makes the justice system fair. As if a jury doesnt like a law they can utilize jury nullification in the courtroom until the law is properly amended to suit society's requirement. It doesnt matter what level of education or training they have in law-making and interpretation. If every time you pick a jury, half of them are illiterate and still running on standard 2 vocabulary, that is a reflection of the society you are judging when a person has to stand at the defence.

Thus in this case i would say to the judiciary.

'Sit ur ass down, and do your job' 'and i dont want to hear anything about this again'.

[bluesclues]

To put things into more detailed perspective...

Lets just say a law is made.

'Anyone found guilty of litering will be put to death'

In the case without a jury, the judge will simply look at the evidence, or if the defendant admits to the crime, and that's it.. defendant receives the death sentence for littering

With a jury of peers(made up of people who may have also littered but not get caught, faulted by the lack of bins or other contributors, including laziness or inability to take their garbage with them to the nearest bin). Will look at the evidence, and/or even with the admittance of guilt, can decide the punishment is too harsh for the crime and lead the dismissal of the case. For whatever reasons the jury sympathizes with the defendant, are the same contributing factors that led to the person littering under draconia's law giving system. If they repeatedly do this case after case denying the state the ability to put to death ppl caught litering, then the state is forced to ammend the law and stop wasting time clogging up the system with a law society does not wish to enforce as it is.

The judiciary must also remember it's purpose in judgement of God's children, and the guiding and rehabilitation of souls. That the power of judgement and decision-making was divided among the citizenry in these manners to steer us away from the tryannic rulings of a king and his court. It's a form of decentralization (power distribution) that divides the responsibility of choice and judgement among the peoople. Lest the judge does not know he will also be judged in death. A thing all should bare in mind when making their rulings. To be fair and merciful. Or be judged as harshly by God when he lays out his charges.

As it is said. A man can obey all the law yet still fail in the sight of God. Thus beware. Any measure aimed at removing a step that was implemented to defend against tyranny is a step back towards tyranny. In the end hoowever, it is your choice to protect your democracy, or let it slip away and be nipped at little by little till it's all gone.

[desifemlove]

depending on how judgement is set up, u might have jurors who don't understand the laws enough give appropriate decisions. eg, not understanding the difference between actual evidence and circumstantial evidence. or not being able to separate emotion from the evidence....

each has their merits and flaws.

usually in the more gruesome cases western world tends to have juries, usually.

I give an a for effort in parotting. But with that logic we should remove the citizens ability to vote too unless they can demonstrate a complete understanding of economic management, governing and managing resources in general. We have many uneducated voters who dont understand heads nor tails of what is said on the podium. But we accept their vote at the ballot box. And driving. Lets not give anyone a driving license unless they also pass a trigonometry and physics exam.

This is why its called a jury of peers. A randomly selected jury is a reflection of and representation of society. If too many times selected jurors dont understand or have the aptitude to process the law at the level of a lawyer or judge, that's a reflection of society, and that is the purpose of a jury of peers in making a judgement on it's fellow citizen. To translate what is said above by smash... the claim is..

That the average trini is too stupid and too ignorant of the law to make up a good jury.

At the end of the day who fault is that? Who's responsibility is it to educate the citizenry and empower them with understanding of the law. And again, that's the point. If the average citizen is too stupid to understand the law, then that would have something to do also with the reason why there is a defendant in a criminal case.

So it is disingenuous, to on one hand say...

'We know that trinis do not understand the law on average'

While on the other hand say

'Let us judge them harshly from a professional standpoint even though we know when we ask them if they 'understand' and they say yes, that they really dont understand.'

The jury system was created precisely for this. Since society makes the laws, society also interprets those laws. And interpretation will occur on a cultural mentality and education level. Not from the professional law-giver's perspective. This in itself makes the justice system fair. As if a jury doesnt like a law they can utilize jury nullification in the courtroom until the law is properly amended to suit society's requirement. It doesnt matter what level of education or training they have in law-making and interpretation. If every time you pick a jury, half of them are illiterate and still running on standard 2 vocabulary, that is a reflection of the society you are judging when a person has to stand at the defence.

Thus in this case i would say to the judiciary.

'Sit ur ass down, and do your job' 'and i dont want to hear anything about this again'.

So what happens if there is an Afro or Indo defendant, and despite the evidence being clear, the jury say dey ent like he cos he Afro/Indo? would that be fair?

[baigan]

I personally think jurors should be properly educated...
I think we need reasonable and mentally healthy jurors to make rational decisions.
Lower IQ jurors are more likely to rely on their emotions, may be persuaded easily by fear and whatnot and they may depend on the first impressions to make their decisions instead of hearing both sides.


I don't think they should remove the jury of peers from the judgement system though, that'll lead to corruption...
They should however have better educated jurors.


lol bluesclues, the driving permit comment... but tbh I think they should change the whole process of obtaining a permit in Trinidad. Finland has a nice system in place.

[sMASH]

To blu, u made a good point on the benefits if the jury, d-femme, made a good point on the drawback of a jury,
And baigan made a point I have come to see as a fault in most societies; that we do not educate people on the laws in which they live, and then hold them to 'ignorance is not an excuse'.

But, knowing the law and understanding how it works are not the same thing. There are many educated, informed, knowledgeable persons who can't think rationally.

Each avenue has potential to be just or unjust.


This question has no best answer.





What I feel we can do is implement an appeal system. The initial case for minor matters, will be done to save time. If someone has a query or a discrepancy about the verdict or the penalty, the judgment can be postponed and the appeal can happen with jurors, or even w public forum. But this will not be to change the decision, but merely to challenge it to see If others would agree with it or not. If the verdict and penalty is seen as fair then it is carried out and an additional fine is imposed for the appeal. If it is not then it goes to another hearing.


I would more like the public to get involved in the appeal to have the greatest chance of being a general consensus.



But at the end of the day, it boils down to having more courts to handle more cases.
The if at least u can have delays/postponement reduced, that will go a long way.

[bluesclues]

depending on how judgement is set up, u might have jurors who don't understand the laws enough give appropriate decisions. eg, not understanding the difference between actual evidence and circumstantial evidence. or not being able to separate emotion from the evidence....

each has their merits and flaws.

usually in the more gruesome cases western world tends to have juries, usually.

I give an a for effort in parotting. But with that logic we should remove the citizens ability to vote too unless they can demonstrate a complete understanding of economic management, governing and managing resources in general. We have many uneducated voters who dont understand heads nor tails of what is said on the podium. But we accept their vote at the ballot box. And driving. Lets not give anyone a driving license unless they also pass a trigonometry and physics exam.

This is why its called a jury of peers. A randomly selected jury is a reflection of and representation of society. If too many times selected jurors dont understand or have the aptitude to process the law at the level of a lawyer or judge, that's a reflection of society, and that is the purpose of a jury of peers in making a judgement on it's fellow citizen. To translate what is said above by smash... the claim is..

That the average trini is too stupid and too ignorant of the law to make up a good jury.

At the end of the day who fault is that? Who's responsibility is it to educate the citizenry and empower them with understanding of the law. And again, that's the point. If the average citizen is too stupid to understand the law, then that would have something to do also with the reason why there is a defendant in a criminal case.

So it is disingenuous, to on one hand say...

'We know that trinis do not understand the law on average'

While on the other hand say

'Let us judge them harshly from a professional standpoint even though we know when we ask them if they 'understand' and they say yes, that they really dont understand.'

The jury system was created precisely for this. Since society makes the laws, society also interprets those laws. And interpretation will occur on a cultural mentality and education level. Not from the professional law-giver's perspective. This in itself makes the justice system fair. As if a jury doesnt like a law they can utilize jury nullification in the courtroom until the law is properly amended to suit society's requirement. It doesnt matter what level of education or training they have in law-making and interpretation. If every time you pick a jury, half of them are illiterate and still running on standard 2 vocabulary, that is a reflection of the society you are judging when a person has to stand at the defence.

Thus in this case i would say to the judiciary.

'Sit ur ass down, and do your job' 'and i dont want to hear anything about this again'.

So what happens if there is an Afro or Indo defendant, and despite the evidence being clear, the jury say dey ent like he cos he Afro/Indo? would that be fair?

If its that clear then a racist element can be proven by the defence attorney within the jury. Possibly through an appeal, replacing racist elements or the entire jury altogether. There is process in place to make sure that a trial is fair and not based on biases against the person, but on those facts which relate to whether or not a crime was committed and can be proven 'without a doubt'. If the jury, and by extension the public, do not wish to recognize a written law as a punishable crime then that is different. It's not personal or biased as that law and any future ammendments would apply to everyone.

What you need to ask is what if under 'no jury' conditions the judge themself is secretly racist. What recourse or appeal would the afro/indo have? It is largely more difficult for the attorney to prove a judge is racist(DURING a trial no less). Especially as they tend to carry the air of being 'above reproach'.

[bluesclues]

What I feel we can do is implement an appeal system. The initial case for minor matters, will be done to save time. If someone has a query or a discrepancy about the verdict or the penalty, the judgment can be postponed and the appeal can happen with jurors, or even w public forum.

Dont you think that will create more work and time since

A) the judge wouldnt be able to deny an appeal/request for a jury
B) everyone may always appeal guilty or not guilty

So ud be adding a sort of pre-processing layer but always having to default back to the full process as it already is with a jury and the current appeal system. Ie defeating the purpose.

Shortcuts is not what we're looking for here to clear backlogs. But u could slowdown the rate of incoming cases thereby allowing the backlog to be reduced over time. Dont you think as a citizen, there is something else wrong when a society is producing so much criminals it's clogging the justice system even as far as to the enforcement level?

[chit8238]

On one of the cases I was an alternate juror on, several witnesses saw the defendant kill the victim in broad daylight in a very public place. Only the defendant said he had not done it. He was young, well built and good looking. The main jury returned a verdict of not guilty. It was a clear travesty of justice. The next day I asked one of the jurors why they had done what was obviously wrong. He said he knew the guy was guilty but ONE juror (female), kept insisting that the dedendant should be set free since she thought he was innocent. He told me he got fed up along with the others and they gave in to her after a long time. I told him if I was not an alternate, I would never give in to doing something wrong since that was my duty to give a correct verdict and if I remained alone, I would have voted differently. Of course the points about corrupt judges are valid but I am just sharing my experience with some very stupid and naive jurors (mind you these jurors were generally well educated from my interactions with them) who made a mockery of the system by their ease of being influenced, illogical thinking, ignoring several independent witnesses and believing the defendant and caving in to one juror's influence just for convenience. I was very disgusted and the judge, when the verdict was stated, was also visibly upset but he/she could not come out and state that the verdict was assinine. He/she pulled them up on some other minor point.

[sMASH]

Theirs is no right answer to this question.

At my job, what I used to do to issue work permits for the day, was handle each as soon as they could be so that there could be no backlog. But in the morning there would be like 15 jobs waiting to go on, so what no would do was make arrangements for the jobs that would take some time to prepare, the issues the jobs that can go out quickly, then attend to the jobs that would take greAt preparation, and in between the first set of jobs jobs that needed a bit of time to prepare would start being able to be sent out. And then as those go out, the high preparation jobs would be able to go out too.

But, each job needed the utmost attention to detail, where u could risk a legal infringement, a safety infringement, and quite literally put millions of dollars of equipment and persons lives at risk. (I put them in order of importance).



Justice delayed is justice denied, but u can't sacrifice justice just to save time. Imagine if u were the person being wrongly sentenced.


So that is why I say, handle quickly what can be handled quickly, put some measures in place to address those stubborn ones, at the potential cost of the appellant if they were unjustly treated, then handle the more critical cases as necessary.



Each strata would have varying combinations of benches or jurors, but all in all we simply need more courts, and less postponement.

I can u understand a postponement to allow proper evidence to be presented. But I can't handle police not showing up, jurors missing, judges missing...
Those things indicate a lack of organisation skills, a lack of foresight, a lack of contingencies for undesirable situations, and improper prioritization.

If police don't show up without a valid reason, they should be considered being in contempt of court. If judges have to be on leave, there should be standby's to take their place, for the lesser cases.


These things have been done before, by the Romans and their legions. Although rigid, they had contingencies to deal with varied changes in situation. So no matter what was going on, they could progress past that and not let it be a hindrance.

[sMASH]

We need more courts and less postponement...

[bluesclues]

End of the day. Each citizen has a constitutional right to a 'trial by a jury of his/her peers'.

So what in fact is being asked is for the public to surrender this right, and have it edited out of the constitution.

[sMASH]

[dude2014]

Do we still have Indictable Offences (Preliminaries Enquiries) Act 1994 on the books? Some persons have been languishing in jail for more than 14 years to have one started. When you are finish with this you can face a Trial BY JURY.

Hereunder is the Act to abolish that injustice - where the preliminary inquiry was to be abolished, etc. Makes for good reading if you are interested in Law. Best act in the 21st Century.

The Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings) …
www.ttparliament.org/legislations/a2011-20.pdf
... Act,2011. (2) ... No.20 Administration of Justice ( Indictable Proceedings) 2011 225. ... No.20 Administration of Justice ( Indictable Proceedings) ...

or Act 20 of 2011. Check the Ministry of Legal Affairs Website

Problem was Section 34 of the Act – Ish Galbaransingh and others .............

[bluesclues]

So the cj palancing with 7 million dollars in taxpayer money travelling the world for the year and getting paid for it. Then coming to ask to remove trial by jury so that they could secretly let off all they rich friend that get brought before the court and jail all d poor ppl and allyuh almost just let them get away with it. Lol

What a cj have need for all this extravagance? The public should be very unpleased with this use of money. It may be their right to budget and assign themselves whatever salary they want. But dont be ridiculous. Talking about have no money to feed jurors. And spending 7 million on plane trips. Its unethical.

U all mad. Told u once told u twice. Dont let noone touch the constitution where it pertains to your God-given rights.

For a cj to say it isnt a God-given constitutional right suggests he doesnt know the basics of law and human rights. this makes me very worried about the influence his thinking would have on the entire judiciary. He has become elitest, and proud. If he were thinking clearly he would realize that even if he could gurantee that he and the current judiciary were all straight and fair players(7 million in travel doesnt seem all that straight and fair tho). He couldnt guarantee that those that come after he retire and dead and buried wont be corrupt. In fact. If u remove jury trial now a mafia boss will send his son to school to learn law and grow him up with the distinct purpose of becoming chief justice by age 25. The judiciary would be a ripe target for biased and corrupted psychopaths to infiltrate and take control of.

Anyway, This man just threaten allyuh constitutional rights with a political hoodwink eh. So if allyuh trust him after that that is allyuh. Personally, this kinda mentality is the kind u want to weed out for democracy to thrive.

Do your job without trying to take away ppl God-given rights. Ridiculous!

[sMASH]

when i thought about his competence, i remembered the section 34 debacle. it wasn't them that figured it out, it was a reporter. when the story hit the airwaves or the print, he was home reading/viewing and that is how he had realized section 34 was a problem...

i dont know if u all remember that.

now that the person who is removing a time tested fail save, is found to be indulging himself with the funds he says are not enough.

[desifemlove]

depending on how judgement is set up, u might have jurors who don't understand the laws enough give appropriate decisions. eg, not understanding the difference between actual evidence and circumstantial evidence. or not being able to separate emotion from the evidence....

each has their merits and flaws.

usually in the more gruesome cases western world tends to have juries, usually.

I give an a for effort in parotting. But with that logic we should remove the citizens ability to vote too unless they can demonstrate a complete understanding of economic management, governing and managing resources in general. We have many uneducated voters who dont understand heads nor tails of what is said on the podium. But we accept their vote at the ballot box. And driving. Lets not give anyone a driving license unless they also pass a trigonometry and physics exam.

This is why its called a jury of peers. A randomly selected jury is a reflection of and representation of society. If too many times selected jurors dont understand or have the aptitude to process the law at the level of a lawyer or judge, that's a reflection of society, and that is the purpose of a jury of peers in making a judgement on it's fellow citizen. To translate what is said above by smash... the claim is..

That the average trini is too stupid and too ignorant of the law to make up a good jury.

At the end of the day who fault is that? Who's responsibility is it to educate the citizenry and empower them with understanding of the law. And again, that's the point. If the average citizen is too stupid to understand the law, then that would have something to do also with the reason why there is a defendant in a criminal case.

So it is disingenuous, to on one hand say...

'We know that trinis do not understand the law on average'

While on the other hand say

'Let us judge them harshly from a professional standpoint even though we know when we ask them if they 'understand' and they say yes, that they really dont understand.'

The jury system was created precisely for this. Since society makes the laws, society also interprets those laws. And interpretation will occur on a cultural mentality and education level. Not from the professional law-giver's perspective. This in itself makes the justice system fair. As if a jury doesnt like a law they can utilize jury nullification in the courtroom until the law is properly amended to suit society's requirement. It doesnt matter what level of education or training they have in law-making and interpretation. If every time you pick a jury, half of them are illiterate and still running on standard 2 vocabulary, that is a reflection of the society you are judging when a person has to stand at the defence.

Thus in this case i would say to the judiciary.

'Sit ur ass down, and do your job' 'and i dont want to hear anything about this again'.

So what happens if there is an Afro or Indo defendant, and despite the evidence being clear, the jury say dey ent like he cos he Afro/Indo? would that be fair?

If its that clear then a racist element can be proven by the defence attorney within the jury. Possibly through an appeal, replacing racist elements or the entire jury altogether. There is process in place to make sure that a trial is fair and not based on biases against the person, but on those facts which relate to whether or not a crime was committed and can be proven 'without a doubt'. If the jury, and by extension the public, do not wish to recognize a written law as a punishable crime then that is different. It's not personal or biased as that law and any future ammendments would apply to everyone.

What you need to ask is what if under 'no jury' conditions the judge themself is secretly racist. What recourse or appeal would the afro/indo have? It is largely more difficult for the attorney to prove a judge is racist(DURING a trial no less). Especially as they tend to carry the air of being 'above reproach'.

This is difficult to prove, nobody can read minds. trindiad is a small place, and only certain amoutn of people who can be jurors, it would be more costly.

[desifemlove]

So the cj palancing with 7 million dollars in taxpayer money travelling the world for the year and getting paid for it. Then coming to ask to remove trial by jury so that they could secretly let off all they rich friend that get brought before the court and jail all d poor ppl and allyuh almost just let them get away with it. Lol

What a cj have need for all this extravagance? The public should be very unpleased with this use of money. It may be their right to budget and assign themselves whatever salary they want. But dont be ridiculous. Talking about have no money to feed jurors. And spending 7 million on plane trips. Its unethical.

U all mad. Told u once told u twice. Dont let noone touch the constitution where it pertains to your God-given rights.

For a cj to say it isnt a God-given constitutional right suggests he doesnt know the basics of law and human rights. this makes me very worried about the influence his thinking would have on the entire judiciary. He has become elitest, and proud. If he were thinking clearly he would realize that even if he could gurantee that he and the current judiciary were all straight and fair players(7 million in travel doesnt seem all that straight and fair tho). He couldnt guarantee that those that come after he retire and dead and buried wont be corrupt. In fact. If u remove jury trial now a mafia boss will send his son to school to learn law and grow him up with the distinct purpose of becoming chief justice by age 25. The judiciary would be a ripe target for biased and corrupted psychopaths to infiltrate and take control of.

Anyway, This man just threaten allyuh constitutional rights with a political hoodwink eh. So if allyuh trust him after that that is allyuh. Personally, this kinda mentality is the kind u want to weed out for democracy to thrive.

[b]Do your job without trying to take away ppl God-given rights. Ridiculous![/b]

Henry II of England was God?? cool, learn something new everyday, ent?

[sMASH]

Dat is real history u dust off there.

[bluesclues]

@desinoob... ive explained this before in the religion thread. So i wont do so again here except to point you to the facts posted in this link. Which should be a sufficient guide for ur learning


http://www.christian-attorney.net/jury_ ... bible.html

Right to trial by jury is a democractic right, where the laws of democracy were revealed to paul by God, where paul is a representative and symbol of the church. The history of the formation of democracy is in the bible.

In short.. God gave democracy to the church, and the church was given power to force the monarchy to surrender it's power to give it to you, the citizens to prevent tyranny.

God did this because the only people deserving of being kings were prophets. Thus if there were no prophets on the earth, there would be no kings. And God empowered the church to enshrine these rights across the earth. Reducing the monarchy to a mere figurehead. A mascott of tradition. He did this to block their claim to 'the divine right of kings' because they were claiming kingship based on blood lineage. But the real requirement for kingship was to possess divinity and having true communion with God's spirit. Not just blood descendance which every first born son of a king wanted to claim, and second son and bastard child would kill to replace.

How willing do you think the monarch was to surrender that great power of being judge jury and executioner?

#henry_shmenry

Many people fought and died for you to have this right today. To protect you. The laws handed down to you in democracy were well crafted to safeguard u EVEN IF you were governed by criminals and corruption. It is simply that now they are realizing that and trying to get those things out of the way that will make them your elite masters.

You feel you can make law better than God? Hahahaha
Lol all law and all hiearchy of authority on this earth is mimic clone of the heavenly hierarchy. That is why you will find that i seem to understand law so well with only basic real legal background. Because i know the source of man's law, i know the image it imitates, and thus i know all law, it's purpose and reason.

U guys have not a clue. Not even studying law in university, not even having silk means u understand the truth and wisdom that brought the law u have today. it is like crafting a language. Who is genius enough? Trust me.. u have no clue. So allyuh feel allyuh could make law better than what God give you through the prophets and the church.. well what can i say... go ahead if thats what you want. U will learn.