Black People : Legal Ethics UK

Orisons

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 14, 2005
2,971
494
London in the United Kingdom
Occupation
Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
To what extent do ethics relate to a lawyer’s professional duties?

There is a consensus that ‘Ethics’, the moral principles that govern human behaviour individually and collectively are a direct result of each human being’s cultural ethos/asili combining with the programming received via their individual socioeconomic status which can vary from the nobility to the gutter, which subsequently dictates the quality of formal education they receive from England’s schools, colleges and universities also ranging from none at all to Oxbridge, significantly impacting how they perform within society’s cultural matrix; with this essay addressing the various means in which good ‘Legal Ethics’ is being projected and promoted as the norm by both the government and the judiciary through regulatory organisations with regard to the way legal professionals interact on a personal and professional level with both the public and the judiciary in the 21st century. 1[1]


However, the general principles of ‘Legal Ethics’ aspiring to create consistently moral as opposed to amoral or immoral lawyer behaviour via Consequentialism, Rule Consequentialism, Deontology and Principlism, are in themselves theoretical ideals that aren’t easily defined or adhered to due to the real-world challenges of lawyer’s diverse range of tasks generating conflicts of interest for both lawyers and clients leading to consciously ‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad’ acts, consequences, which are both rarely as opposed to consistently straightforward to predict, generate, discern or produce like black or white.

These“Rule”, “Outcome” or “Character-based” principles 2
[2] cannot avert genuine mistakes by lawyers and clients which can also strategically mask arch intellectual’s initiatives, subterfuge; the conscious focus by the manipulatively self-serving with regard to their own best interest by deliberately doing the wrong as opposed to right act. 4[3] Why, Alice Woolley in ‘Philosophical legal ethics: Ethics, morals and jurisprudence-Introduction: The legitimate concerns of legal ethics’ asserts that “Legal Ethics should never be concerned with the morality of lawyers or of clients, rather it should be concerned only with the morality of the acts lawyers or clients do [or propose to do].” 5 [4]

Professional status in the Sciences, Technology, Medicine, the Judiciary, Education, Accountancy and most areas of human activity have governing bodies, organisations whose primary function is to maintain and enhance the quality of professional being produced, thus assuring that their members are fit for purpose, are perceived as well as truly being a benefit as opposed to blight, malignant parasite to society.

These modern governing bodies that could be viewed as the natural extension of the “Guild” system in England in the Middle Ages aren’t new to lawyers, whereas their utility of a code of conduct is comparatively new as highlighted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s [SRA] first code of conduct appearing in 1960 and the Bar Standards Board’s [BSB] Bar Handbook’s 1979 debut along with the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives [CILEx] itself not being created, affiliated to the Law Society until 1st January 1963, all of which could be viewed as a somewhat desperate rearguard with regard to maintaining the “Independence” of the judiciary from government control.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether the SRA and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [SDT], the BSB, CILEx, and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers [CLC], etc, shouldn’t just be part of the civil service, government as opposed to their current independent status, as underlined by the manner in which the Legal Services Act 2007 has placed them and all of the judiciary’s other regulatory organisations under the overall supervision of the Legal Services Board [LSB]. 6
[5]


Additionally, due to legal professionals generally, lawyers especially being such integral components of the legal system that applies the statutes that govern and administer justice in England for everyone from the ruling elite to the underclass; significantly raises the high ethical plane on which specifically lawyers have to be seen to function as standard, comparable to the profoundly challenging ethical dilemmas medical doctors face, the crux of this essay.

With regard to solicitors and barristers, the SRA, BSB and CILEx’s similarly worded codes of conduct serve as both a guide and deterrent to lawyers either consistently deploying exemplary ethically sound behaviour towards both the public and the judiciary, or risking punitive economic sanctions including actually being struck off, removed from the Law Society Roll, Bar Register, CILEx list, etc, for serious breaches like fraud or theft. 7
[6]

Clare Sandford-Couch & Jonathan Bainbridge (2015) “Educating towards ethical lawyers: a progress report” article details ongoing initiatives to make “Legal Ethics” a significant module in undergraduate law degrees in England, as a means of addressing this issue, actually training would-be lawyers from the outset to cope better with the so diverse means by which lawyers can find themselves in difficult conflict of interest situations, serious ethical dilemmas, and how to resolve them, despite concluding.

“First, it would appear that there are many unresolved issues of “Pedagogy v Pragmatism”. Some matters are practical, such as increased staff workloads, or staff reluctance to change their teaching or to move away from tried and tested teaching methods. Class sizes, contact time, and additional strain on often straitened university resources may also be contributory factors.” 8
[7]

Clare Sandford-Couch and Jonathan Bainbridge truly believe that fully integrating “Ethics” modules in undergraduate law degrees is the way forward with regard to making lawyers function in a consistent ethically fair manner in their so diverse workload in the real world; whereas if just knowing about rules, regulations and laws were the answer to crimes, criminal behaviour; there would be no need for the jails worldwide or the striking off and public shaming of solicitors by the SDT, of barristers by the BSB and legal executives by the Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service Disciplinary Tribunal [BTASDT] in England and Wales at regular intervals.

Case in point, in 2019 Ieuan Michael Jones, a solicitor who charged vulnerable clients high fees and fraudulently took their probate money was struck off [14/02/2020] by the SDT and ordered to pay £34,823. . David Walter Phillips a fellow partner in the same partnership was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay costs of £14,924. 9
[8] Keisha Hackett a solicitor working for Duncan Lewis Solicitors was struck off [03/02/2020] by the SDT and ordered to pay costs of £14,375.for failing to correctly assess an asylum seeker’s entitlement to legal aid and subsequently charging him a £2,400 fee which she paid directly into her bank account with no receipt. 10[9]

Michael O’Maoileoin, a barrister, failed to report promptly or at all to the Bar Standards Board as required by rC65.3, that, following a SRA disciplinary hearing on 16 February 2018, that he had been struck off the Roll of Solicitors on 8 March 2018, which is why he was subsequently Disbarred by the BSB – effective from 6 June 2019 11
[10] Barbara Hewson, a barrister, posted offensive tweets about a fellow barrister’s competence while also making allegations about his teenage daughter, which is why she was suspended by the BSB for 2 years Effective from 18 December 2019. 12[11] Mr. Peter Moss, a barrister who from April 2009 – April 2016 failed to pay his income tax and VAT and was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in custody; was subsequently disbarred by the BSB 27/09/2019 13[12] Lee Alan Sowden, a barrister, was tried and convicted of making indecent photos of children and was sentenced on 2nd November 2018 to 12 months’ imprisonment and given a 10-year sexual harm prevention order, and was also disbarred by the BSB from 3 December 2019. 14[13]

Anisa Ahmed was found guilty by the BTASDT on 27 February 2018 of displaying poor as opposed to high standards of personal and professional conduct and also misrepresenting to her clients her professional qualifications and status. The Disciplinary Tribunal ordered immediate indefinite exclusion from membership of CILEx. 15
[14] Raymond Spencer George Clarke was found guilty by the BTASDT on the 26th November 2019 of 3 charges with regard to engaging in legal representation, litigation and advocacy in the County Court while not being fully trained or professionally qualified to do so. The BTASDT ordered that Mr. Clarke be excluded from CILEx for 6 months and he will also not automatically be re-admitted to the Chartered Institute, will have to re-apply for membership of CILEx. 16[15]

Concluding, the fiduciary relationship between clients seeking advice and other legal services from fully qualified legal executives, lawyer and barristers within the English legal system is based on trust in these legal professionals competence, proficiency with regard to relevant current statutes and regulations and their integrity, focus on their client’s best interest, which lawyers are supposed to temper, balance ethically with their legal duty to uphold the legal system/Justice as opposed to their own vested interests; which is why the SRA, BSB, CILEx insist on their members following their code of conduct with regard to acceptable professional behaviour towards clients and the rest of the judiciary.

Legal professionals have to actually as well appear to be consistently ethical, competent and fair, with regard to activities that range from drafting wills, individual to corporate property/asset conveyance and contracts, issuing, defending writs, and defending prosecuting civil and criminal litigation; thus providing equable access to justice for everyone as opposed to just the ruling elite. Vigilance by the SRA, BSB, CILEx and the other regulatory authorities with regard to ethical behaviour by lawyers being the only acceptable norm is vital in order to undermine the cynical conspiracy theorists who assert that the English Legal system is still just a Freemason dominated upper-class gentleman’s club; means of social control in which only the lower echelons and BAME UK citizens, etc, are constantly being convicted while also being more harshly sentenced, with longer jail terms for similar crimes to whites, as highlighted by ethnic minority groups generally being 26% of the UK’s prison population., as opposed to the leniency shown as standard to white middle and upper- class perpetrators of fraud and a diverse range of criminal activity. 17
[16]


[8] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/s...d-lied-about-bills-struck-off/5103099.article

[9] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/s...m-seeker-legal-aid-struck-off/5102952.article

[10] https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/disciplinary_finding/183528.html

[11] https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/disciplinary_finding/183552.html
[12] https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/disciplinary_finding/183539.html

[13] https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/disciplinary_finding/183547.html

[14] https://cilexregulation.org.uk/disciplinary-records/ahmed-anisah/

[15] https://cilexregulation.org.uk/disciplinary-records/clarke-raymond/
[16] http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/WhatWeDo/Projectsresearch/Race
 
Last edited:

Orisons

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 14, 2005
2,971
494
London in the United Kingdom
Occupation
Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
The above is a 1500 word essay that I completed as a second year law undergraduate for which I’ve received a quite disappointing grade, thus I’m enquiring as to the grade that any of the academically inclined on Destee would give my essay?

Isn't anyone who genuinely believes they are not programmed
graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?


Dodgy Maths!.jpg
 

Orisons

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 14, 2005
2,971
494
London in the United Kingdom
Occupation
Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
QUOTE="Orisons, post: 1030387, member: 7204"]
The above is a 1500 word essay that I completed as a second year law undergraduate for which I’ve received a quite disappointing grade, thus I’m enquiring as to the grade that any of the academically inclined on Destee would give my essay?

This university's grading system gives grades from A+ to E which is the lowest pass grade, with F being a fail.

Aren't ANY of you going to give my "Legal Ethics" essay your grade?


Isn't anyone who genuinely believes they are not programmed
graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?


Dodgy Maths!.jpg
[/QUOTE
 

Orisons

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Jan 14, 2005
2,971
494
London in the United Kingdom
Occupation
Mechanical Designer/Project Manager
The Criminal Law essay below also received an obviously mediocre grade, thus I'd also value your grading of this essay, in that am I wasting my time casting pearls to SWINE? ROFL

This essay will address the legal issues of a somewhat bizarre double homicide by Alan, a soldier of his parents Brian and June including the role of Dr Chris who subsequently treated the seriously wounded Brian before he died.

Homicide, the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace is legally categorised as either murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. A murder is when the Actus Reus [AR] criminal act and the Mens Rea [MR] intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is generated by conscious malice as exemplified in a standard definitive case [sdc] like R v Moloney (1985) and DPP v Smith (1961), especially malice aforethought as opposed to in self-defence or some other mitigating circumstance

A homicide is defined as voluntary manslaughter as opposed murder despite the AR causing a human fatality that could be viewed as murder when either ‘loss of control’ 2 [1] (Coroners and Justice Act 2009, ss54&55) as highlighted in the sdc R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer, ‘diminished responsibility’ (Homicide Act 1957 s2 amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 S2) as highlighted by a sdc like R v Anthony Martin (2001)1[2] or ‘participation in a suicide pact’ (Homicide Act 1957 s4) 3[3] is utilized as a partial defence, mitigating circumstance with regard to the death. 4[4]

A homicide can also be defined as involuntary manslaughter when the MR is not conscious malice aforethought so much as an ‘unlawful and dangerous act’ as exemplified by the Road Traffic Act 1988’s homicide offences; or with ‘gross negligence’ homicide’s MR offences as highlighted by The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 re the deaths of vulnerable adults and children while in the care of their parents, other relatives and within the private and public social, health care institutions. 5[5]

Causation in homicide cases is generally defined as the most significant factor of a defendant’s action or omission’s AR via their ‘conduct’ being profoundly wrong, specifically in the case of a ‘result’ crime’s AR leading to serious injury or death, in effect murder, especially when the ‘Novus actus interveniens’; that is, the chain of causation is unbroken by any significant intervening act, event or omission mitigating the subsequent end result as in sdc R v Smith (1959), R v Cheshire (1991), especially with regard grievous bodily harm and murder. 6
[6]

Causation with regard to homicide can be straightforward when the victim’s death is immediate in conjunction with irrefutable evidence as to who, what the killer was, but can become very complex when the victim’s death isn’t immediate giving rise to a range of scenarios, rationales, reasons why the victim doesn’t survive including contributory interventions, acts or omissions by people other than the defendant and even a specific unusual characteristic of the victim like a weak heart or haemophilia causing a fatality in a circumstance in which it would be reasonable to assume that 90% of people would survive.

‘Factual’ causation ‘sine quo non’, has to prove usually by the “but for” test that the victim would not have expired but for the defendant’s action added to the damage done by the defendant to the victim initially still being the major as opposed to insignificant factor of the homicide. ‘Legal’ causation requires verification by the court that the damage done by the defendant continuing to be the main reason the homicide occurred following the precedent set by sdc R v Smith (1959), and especially R v Cheshire (1991); where despite the victim dying due to picking up a respiratory infection becoming the AR, while receiving hospital treatment after being shot as opposed to his death being directly due to the damage sustained post being shot by the defendant, that fact did not break the chain of causation, the initial judgement which the Court of Appeal upheld with regard to the ‘Legal’ cause of death still being the initial shooting of the victim by the defendant. 7
[7]

The term ‘transferred malice’ is a scenario with regard to a defendant’s criminal activity’s AR plus their malevolent MR adversely harms, seriously injures or kills someone other than the intended victim, subsequently becoming a crime of identical severity in the eyes of the law as if the act had impacted, hit or terminated the original target as exemplified by sdc’s like R v Latimer (1886) and R v Gnango (2011) rulings. 8
[8]
Application of the statutes above to Alan’s assertion that despite being a soldier who legally possessed several rifles, he shot his father Brian accidentally due to sneezing while pointing a loaded rifle at him to allegedly frighten him places the AR, responsibility for this homicide firmly on his shoulders; whereas assuming that his allegation with regard to the circumstances is true, that MR would place Alan’s crime in the involuntary manslaughter as opposed to voluntary manslaughter or murder category.

However, a potentially valid counter argument would be that as a soldier by profession Alan would, should know better than the average ‘reasonable person’ that a loaded gun should never be pointed at anyone or thing other than a target on a gun range, apart from at the enemy in wartime.
Additionally, despite Alan’s assertion that he and his father were only arguing as opposed to fighting, his defence team making a plea for this homicide to be placed in the voluntary manslaughter via temporary insanity, ‘diminished responsibility’ isn’t plausible with ‘loss of control’ via sneezing also impossible to verify, making involuntary manslaughter his only plausible defence.

Alan’s difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that only his assurance is available as opposed to verifiable factual evidence from a legal standpoint that his MR was not simply an armed malevolent, malicious assault on both parents, which would place what had transpired in the grievous bodily harm, to murder category. In the sdc R v Moloney (1985) where in similar circumstances Moloney as a soldier shot and killed his stepfather after a mutual challenge as to who could load and be ready to fire a rifle quicker with the defendant post being dared by his stepfather to fire a live round, firing directly at his stepfather and then asserting that “I never conceived that what I was doing might cause injury to anybody. It was just a lark.”

The court’s judgement set a precedent with regard to murder by “Indirect Intention” as opposed to manslaughter etc whereby the defendant not ‘wanting’ to kill his stepfather is not a rational defence for clearly ‘intending’ to kill him by pointing a loaded rifle and subsequently firing it directly at him in a circumstance where grievous injury or death is the only certain outcome.

Further application of the above statutes with regard to Alan allegedly in “shock”, subsequently firing a second shot at an expensive vase, missing and killing June, his mother outright, once again places the AR, responsibility for this homicide on him despite his asserted rationale, MR’s attempt to make another involuntary manslaughter plea plausible again despite the truly bizarre circumstances, in that following the transferred malice precedent set in the case of R v Latimer (1886) couldn’t it be argued that his conscious attempt at destruction of an “expensive” vase [why exactly] going tragically wrong, was transferral of his malicious act towards the vase to June his mother legally identical to a MR consciously focused on his mother’s demise.

Alan, by firing a second shot generated rational speculation as to why any ‘reasonable man’ would be firing live ammunition in his parent’s house as opposed to at a firing range in the first place; and then having already seriously injured, caused grievous harm to his father with the first shot, fire another shot anyway, place himself as a soldier, professional gunman; in the efficient hit-man as opposed to an innocent son having an unfortunate accident that has seriously harmed one parent and executed the other zone, his assertion’s are aspiring to promote as a feasible truth; especially firing the second shot [terminally injured her where exactly] which resulted in the instantaneous death of his mother.

This scenario is further complicated by the storm delaying the arrival of the ambulance to take the severely injured Brian to hospital, and Brian’s wound subsequently becoming infected in hospital, along with Brian being allergic to the antibiotic he was given by Dr. Chris to fight the infection; which along with Dr Chris doubling the antibiotic dosage even further severely weakened, traumatized and frightened Brian into jumping out of the second story window while trying to run away from Dr Chris, actually being killed by the fall.

Alan could plausibly assert that the chain of causation has been broken due to the fact that Brian didn’t die from the injury he sustained post being shot, that he was in fact killed by the fall. However, the causation statute’s precedent set in the case of R v Cheshire (1991), R v Kimsey (1996), and R v Pagett (1983), with regard to the original injury being “a substantial and operating cause of death”, the primary AR, as exemplified by Brian initially being shot and injured by Alan leaves Alan as opposed to Dr. Chris still liable for this homicide.

However Dr. Chris’s mistake with regard to not perceiving in any accurate manner diagnosing Brian’s allergic reaction to the antibiotic he had administered, and obviously negligent doubling of Brian’s antibiotic dosage when Brian’s condition worsened; as opposed to utility of a different antibiotic that could have not so adversely affected Brian’s mental state, halted the infection, saved Brian’s life; aligns with the precedent set in the sdc of R V Blaue (1975), a ruling that marginalizes Dr Chris’s errors significance with regard to Brian’s homicide’s AR; as an example the chain of causation not being broken in this case by unpredictable circumstantial variables like Dr Chris’s errors or Brian’s allergic reaction to the antibiotic as an example of an unusual victim characteristic, the ‘thin skull’ test in no way alleviating Alan’s responsibility as the perpetrator who shot his father in the first place.

Alan’s liability ranges from at best involuntary manslaughter to murder despite the verifiable fact that Dr Chris’s errors with regard to both antibiotic selection and dosage evolved into being the AR of Brian’s demise, but due to Dr. Chris having no conscious MR with regard to harming as opposed to saving Brian there is only a limited possibility of him facing even an involuntary manslaughter as opposed to probably at worst a medical negligence charge. 9
[9]

Concluding, Alan’s defence team would have to try to present to the jury the circumstances in which Alan shot and grievously wounded his father as a tragic accident, a catalyst that caused him to fire the second shot that killed his mother outright, Alan committing involuntary manslaughter despite the AR, as his MR wasn’t malevolent so much as negligent with regard to their health and safety.

However, the Crown prosecution team would assert that Alan’s actions displayed both the AR and MR of at least voluntary manslaughter whereas following the precedent set in the similar sdc of R v Moloney (1985) judgement with regard to ‘Indirect Intention’ not being a valid ‘partial’ defence with regard to murder, [especially with only Alan’s word as opposed to verifiable evidence re him to not wanting to kill his father] is in no rational manner highlighted or evidenced by the ‘direct intention’ he displayed by pointing the rifle at him and firing.


Dr. Chris’s inept diagnosis of Brian’s allergic reaction to antibiotics coupled with the weakened and frightened state these errors reduced Brian to, as highlighted by Brian‘s panic stricken fall from the second floor to his death, despite being the AR, legal cause of Brian’s death is unlikely to in any significant manner prevent Alan being arrested and charged for his father’s murder; whereas Dr. Chris is unlikely to face even an involuntary manslaughter as opposed to medical negligence charge; due to his MR’s primary focus always being on helping as opposed to harming Brian.


Homicide Act 1957
Road Traffic Act 1988
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004
Coroners and Justice Act 2009





[1] Herring J (2017) LEGAL ETHICS Page 82 Oxford University
[2] Ibid Page 85
[3] Ibid Page 103
[4] Ibid Page 79
[5] Ibid Page 108 .
[6] Ibid Page 15
[7] Ibid Page 57
[8] Ibid Page 29 & 30
[9] Herring J (2017) LEGAL ETHICS Page 57 & 58 Oxford University Press

Isn’t ANYONE who genuinely believes they are not programmed graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?



 
Last edited:

Groeteschele

Well-Known Member
MEMBER
Apr 6, 2020
199
36
giphy (1).gif



The above is a 1500 word essay that I completed as a second year law undergraduate for which I’ve received a quite disappointing grade, thus I’m enquiring as to the grade that any of the academically inclined on Destee would give my essay?

Isn't anyone who genuinely believes they are not programmed
graphically illustrating that their programming is COMPLETE?


View attachment 19268
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Orisons Law Forum : Legal Ethics UK v USA Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 0
R Black Poetry : Shoot hoops for dollarsand like a group of scholarssearch for knowledgeand never touch garbagedon't want an medieval universityjest eat my legal Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 2
R Black Poetry : Have pride like URKEL and can divide a circle into three equal parts there's a knife in legal art wow cut myself looking at a girl strut butt deft boo Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 0
R Black Poetry : Not ADAM but like a hot pattern I’m a guide in this brisk Needlework never a feeble jerk but legal Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 2
R Black Poetry : Not ADAM but like a pattern I’m a guide in this brisk Needlework never a feeble jerk but legal clerk Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 0
OldSoul Black People : AFTER THE TRIAL A Legal Toolkit for Prisoners and Their Loved Ones Black People Open Forum 0
IFE Law Forum : RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 12
Lunar Cycle Law Forum : Legal And Binding? No, But a Lynching Just The Same Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 1
Lunar Cycle Law Forum : A LEGAL AND BINDING LYNCHING IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 56
R Black Poetry : kick it wicked legal in America with an evil character superior Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 3
BLAQ LOVE POURAHTREE Black Poetry : A Legal Secretary or Paralegal? Which Gender? Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 1
jamesfrmphilly Black People Politics : california-hires-eric-holder-as-legal-defense-against-donald-trump Black People Politics 0
OldSoul OldSoul : Meet the only Black woman who owns a legal weed dispensary in Colorado OldSoul 7
R Black Poetry : HE SAID: folks come with quotes dumb legal in America a evil character can't touch my // Skills go Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 4
Liberty Black People Politics : Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to Join Board of NAACP Legal Defense Fund Black People Politics 4
Cb_parent Black People Politics : NAACP legal defense fund petitions judge for Michael Brown case Black People Politics 13
RAPTOR Law Forum : "It is Officially Open Season on Black Folks": Legal Expert Decries Handling of Wilson Grand Jury Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 4
Kemetstry Law Forum : INDIANA MAKES IT LEGAL TO SHOOT COPS Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 1
R Black Poetry : Wear a feeble bandanna in a legal manner never abandon Life even after random strife pissed sometime Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 0
E Black Relationships : Should polygamy be legal in America? Black Relationships 86
Destee Law Forum : When Marijuana was ILLEGAL it had a Black Face - Now that it's LEGAL it has a White Face ?! Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 52
Destee Ghana : Legal Requirements for Doing Business / Buying / Importing From Ghana to USA ? Ghana 6
Destee Black People : Majority Black City Leaders' Legal Woes - Coincidence, Conspiracy, or Cointelpro ? Black People Open Forum 0
davidepatton The Front Porch : i have put together a petition to address the issues of legal slavery in our country it reads as fol The Front Porch 3
legit-writer Law Forum : Adversarial System - The Legal System and Lawyers Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 20
Clyde C Coger Jr Law Forum : Yes, That Legal Notice You Got From Facebook Is Real Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 9
IntuitioninMD_2 Black People : Are Casinos and Video Slots REALLY legal? Black People Open Forum 10
Shikamaru Black Money Business Jobs : [Legal History] Birth Certificates, Identity, Law, and You Black Money Business Jobs 2
Destee Law Forum : Is It Legal to Post Pictures of People Online - Without Their Permission? Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 13
Keita Kenyatta Black People Politics : U S A To Offer Legal Backing For "targeted Killing": Source Black People Politics 1
Ankhur Black People Politics : The President has the Legal Power to Create Jobs Black People Politics 3
Clyde C Coger Jr Law Forum : Texas man wrongly put away for 18 years denied compensation after legal glitch Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 11
Ankhur Black Entertainment : the movie "RED" omen of future of legal wet ops? Black Entertainment 0
Destee Black People : Why is it Legal to Sell Your Blood but not Your Sex ? Black People Open Forum 7
Amnat77 Black Entertainment : Hudson to play Winnie Mandela amid legal threats Black Entertainment 11
P Black People : Is it fair or legal to charge Black radio, royalties for playing music? Black People Open Forum 6
Destee Law Forum : Do We Need Black People Working in the Legal System? Law Forum - Prisons - Gun Ownership 10
R Black Poetry : I’m Legal Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 1
L Black People : Legal Perversion Black People Open Forum 1
Destee Black People : Reparations - Partial Legal Victory Black People Open Forum 18
K Black Authors : Legal Debts From Plagiarism Short Stories - Authors - Writing 1
howardtsu Black Poetry : Eve & Howard (Legal Eagles) Black Poetry - Get Your Flow On! 1
K Black People : KER'S CONCESSION NO LEGAL BEARING Black People Open Forum 1
Destee Black People : Why Are Cigarettes Legal? Black People Open Forum 8
Clyde C Coger Jr Black Entertainment : Trump official Lynne Patton confirms she sought ethics guidance on appearing in a TV series Black Entertainment 0
Clyde C Coger Jr Black People Politics : Trump Organization plots return to Dominican Republic, sparking ethics concerns Black People Politics 0
jamesfrmphilly Black People Politics : republicans-vote-to-gut-ethics-office Black People Politics 5
chuck Black People : What Shall Determine Our Ethics/Morality/Etc. These Days? Black People Open Forum 49
A Black People : Ethics Test... Black People Open Forum 9
P Black Jokes Humor : Test your ethics!!!! Black Jokes Humor 3
Similar threads


















































Destee Chat

Latest profile posts

Life is just a breath, but your works last forever.
@Destee
During this time, I wanna to wish everyone on this site the most blesseth and positive energy throughout
the rest of 2020 as we continue to persevere and raise awareness during this plandemic.
Continue to stay safe
and healthy. We're in the perfect time to self-care and boost our immune systems through at home remedies.
@Destee
I know this is my first status update since 2020 begin, but all of us agree that 2020 delivered a low-blow
to each of us with the miscellaneous events we have recently seen which brought all of us great displeasure.
Destee wrote on Joyce's profile.
Thanks for the Blessing! Love You! :kiss:
Making sure I do more than I did yesterday. Progress is the Concept.
Top