We would want the law and the economy to work as expected for every citizen. This is what we are taught. See Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, 2 Thibaudeau v. Canada (M.N.R.), 3 and Miron v. Trudel.4. See also Fraser v Canada and Griggs v. Duke Power. Frazer and Griggs confirm that all discrimination in policy is illegal; not just in the employment context. See also the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3] A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/pmb/eeo/directives/upload/Civil-Rights-Directive-2011-01CProcedures-11_5_2010-wk.pdf The Equality Act 2010 safeguards against inequality in the UK and also Canada; not only in the employment context but in the provision of Government services. The Act is directly applicable in Canada based on the BNA 1867. Equality in payment, equality in benefit and equality in service is the litmus to vett genuine, good intentional government. Based on the law above, we could accept essentially equal services and benefits as we contribute, protect and defend equally. ClIck here.

  

  We would want the law and the economy to work as expected for every citizen.  This is what we are taught.  

See Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, 2 Thibaudeau v. Canada (M.N.R.), 3 and Miron v. Trudel.4. See also Fraser v Canada and Griggs v. Duke Power.

Frazer and Griggs confirm that all discrimination in policy is illegal; not just in the employment context. 

See also the 14th amendment.  The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868,

provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.[1][2][3]

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law.

As a whole,

the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more

constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/pmb/eeo/directives/upload/Civil-Rights-Directive-2011-01CProcedures-11_5_2010-wk.pdf

The Equality Act 2010 safeguards against inequality in the UK and also Canada;

not only in the employment context but in the provision of Government services. 

The Act is directly applicable in Canada based on the BNA 1867.   

Equality in payment, equality in benefit and equality in service is the litmus to vett genuine, good intentional government.  Based on the law above, we could accept essentially equal services and benefits as we contribute, protect and defend equally. 

Yet, in giving Murdaugh his Appeal,  the trier of fact, the Jury,   made an error of fact or law and thereby gave him grounds for appeal.  This is grounds for appeal.  The law says there must be proof of a death and then of a killing. "Probability" is not enough.  There must be proof of actual premeditated, intent to kill.  The facts provided only amount to a probability that he was a killer and that he intended to kill. The Jury made an error in that the facts provided do not establish a murder at any particular time, day or date.  But, there is the suggestion that you see him walking through a door at a kennel at 5:00 pm and then you are told that his wife died in that building at 5:01 pm.  There is no photo of the body, no coroners report confirming where the body was found and no evidence of the cause of death, that she was actually clinically dead. Photos of persons in a Coma would not be proof of death. A coroner's report is proof of death.   The case ran on circumstantial evidence.  Where was her body during the trial?  The DA must have time for these issues and discussions or are you Stan from Leon? I thank God for you but a wrongful conviction is unconscionable. Do we agree?  Warren helped a white man with his legal problem today.   We start with the Duty of proof or burden of proof on the DA. The question for the jury, Judge or the trier of fact is whether the burden is satisfied.   The requisite evidence to satisfy the burden was not provided to the Jury where you could see the District Attorney fulfilled his burden;   the DA's onus. I don't really know if she is dead. I don't know how she died really.   I don't see any discussion of forensic evidence that says  he killed her any more than the neighbors killed her. The DA saying it's Murdaugh is not enough.   

 I would say it might have helped to just maintain the honor of the office and say there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. This is not to say the District Attorney in Court was not a handsomely well spoken and amicable type who could have been an airline captain also or a school teacher.   But, a bad man is not necessarily a murderer.  

But, what if Cain killed Abel by stealing Abel's Job offer and then said he did it for the hegemony, for the more white, for  the South  or for the Jamaican just after Abel graduated? What if Abel or his brother Seth are the ancestors of Israel but he was born in what is Egypt  today or he was born in what is Sicily before there was any continental divide and before were any such states, nations ID cards  or identity?  

Who could do such things?  

If all the citizens in a country are paying a harmonized sales tax but only some citizens get an income support depending on their current location, there is something inequitable taking place. What if Ford said he would fight for US hegemony and bet all he had on winning that war but did not want to see every American receive an income support?  What if this discussion on a national income support transpired between a few souls on the American and the European side and the Americans  did not take the European suggestion to make their income support national so they would have a strong  buyers  market that could buy and absorb the  industrial made goods without resorting to all that publicized violence over the years when jobs were cancelled often in the work automation?  The European in America wanted to be comfortable  with income support money and calm; see everyone feel safe.  The European in America back then was partially a Jew or whole Jew or a Catholic or maybe a Protestant; just in the same way as it is today.  So, then Jews would be suffering in the bad economy when it is not funded. Maybe he is the banker. Maybe he was looted when he always had more  in the 1930's in that mid-west town in the way he does things.  Implementing an income support was the obvious simple answer.  Who would be defiant in this obvious rationale?  The Europeans wanted to invest.  It would be nice if Ford had a domestic market that was totally funded with income support and if it was, it does not mean he would not get his corporate pork barrel monies from the government. Its not an "either or" scenario with the population dying off and the vehicles piling up but paid for.  They shied away when the national market was unstable and inconsistent. All European citizens had an income support in a strong Domestic European market. Ford did not have a strong  Domestic market but one full of violence and looting.  The income support was paid to citizens on the eastern seaboard mainly.  Americans.   But, instead he wanted the US government to effectively pay for every vehicle he built and cover the resultant labor costs?  You would have a car brand but you would not really have a market or any people as Ford continued to automate.  This is not really murder but you see people are dying and there is insufficient money per citizen and it's a deliberate decision in hoping to ensure a better  bargaining position where they have no income support and need money in securing cheap labor. Regardless  of the business motive, it could be genocide.  You never hold car companies responsible for something like that. They build cars and good cars. I like the brand. You would hold the government responsible for something like genocide where the UDHR treaty obligation to pay rests on the government. It would seem that we must  But, when we bring attention to problems in America affecting all people that include Jews and Catholics, on the moment of resolve in that land when are about to respect the Jews in Europe and their economic wisdom, are we apprehended?; apprehended and told to think about the suffering of the Jews  elsewhere in the world in some unusual conflict where we must give our resources and then maybe eventually our lives in what may be an expression of an identity struggle for someone also and then the solution as to a total income support for all of North America in submission to Jewish European wisdom is delayed again when it would help the Jews in North America who are tired of feeling nervous; tired of people cannibalizing their business referrals, messages, emails and phone calls in the notion of "the sniveling more Creole white saying he should be able to steal calls from another more genuine servant of the community in business who is less white and hope not to get arrested"? why would that have to happen? If I was white, I would not associate myself with the black in trying to be the black agent's bad son. I would be the good white son in the bible and ensure she gets her messages and phone calls.   If I was white, I would not need to steal her business. This type of thing might not happen at all in a less desperate economy when you have enough cover from the economy to provide sufficient cover  to your family. You will happy for what ever gravy deals you get and you will finish each deal with quality instead of turning everyone around into an accomplice on the theft of business information which is that the phone calls, emails and messages constitute.  You might see it happen again and again if its a parasite mind that we are addressing.  But, this devaluing of the less white is not a part of the Creole jungle that has to be reiterated as if to make the town feel more like home. Where is home_______________ that you think this could happen any where as if it is to be taken as the normal? Police are watching.  On my exam, it says it is a breach of the... and is stamped out by the profession.   We make this observation as we remember Judaism and America as a nation are synonymous and someone needs to know this when we remember Haym  Salomon who was one of the founding fathers.   The Jews also want humane treatment for all Americans and also due process of law as recorded in "To Kill a Mocking Bird."

After drinking Budweiser or Lowenbrau (with Moshe's dna inside after 7 generations of brewing) and wearing  Levis, maybe in the will and intention of the Jewish American  elders as born in America by 1700 and 70 years old by 1770, we are all Jewish American Creoles now right up to the most Navajo of the Navajo.  The idea is that you would not just accept that things will improve but you would work  in such a way as you would know you are to have more and also the best. As Anancy, the Taino,   and his son and grand son;  and his daughter who left the boy to buy his house over him,  you would never try to buy the Golden Gate Bridge or the Empire State building or the boy's town home with a note on a cigarette box or no note in writing at all as you hand over $5000.00 or more to someone who asked you to join him in the deal.   You would not even buy a spoon without a receipt that confirms your purchase.    

Who are you really and where do you come from if this is what you did as a young person or an older person and you say your grandmother lost money this way trying to buy Port Royal or the beach where the Atlantis Hotel sits today.  The boy has let go of his rights to the field and the beach at St, Ann's Bay so you can ask for it.  

Look at who you gave the money to and ask why you won't just let the idea of owning the house or the bridge go as you are angry you lost some money. You did something like this in 2010. Since then, you only hoped the boy would pass on in the hopes of getting your money back some how. But who is giving it back when he has no proof of receiving it from you and you have no proof you gave it to him?  There is no point killing the boy or anyone else.  Just ask nicely for your money back from a man who feels like this. 

Brown hair and Brown beard

   These elders want us to have the income support money and it seems Haym Salomon did not just sign the constitution but he propagated his dna, hoping for a peaceful America with no slavery as  it was in the state where he came from where slavery was social frowned upon but also officially illegal as of 1688.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06tqvns/dickensian-episode-2

So, identity struggles and Creole hegemony assemblages around the Maypole hold us in a limbo dance where, in mocking celebrations, we duck under the solutions handed down to us from European Jewry; solutions  for a functioning society and economy that serves all regardless of race and complexion.  

By ducking under the solution and not  allowing our head to bump into and meet the solution, we  are keeping alive an  environmental anxiety that causes adrenalin and that also scares nice people away.  

It is a socioeconomic wound of desperation that could be solved for some pennies  per minute per  hour. Currently 14 pennies per minute would be enough. That works out to $70,000.00 per year.  

We have not been collecting enough sales tax  for a very long time now and we are currently already in debt for this reason.  In the late 1800's, after Lenin worked it out in the eastern bloc with the looming threat of ongoing automation  while reading Marx and Adam Smith, he  decided that they have to just do what has to be done with a sales tax as high as 27% or higher to ensure they were not in debt to anyone but themselves and they printed and issued money against the debt that the country issued to itself and  wrote on its own future and independence. That was to ensure sovereignty, independence and their own unique hegemony. Their hegemony globally is to be fruitful  and multiply  in terms of  population and have dominion.  You are selling soft drinks, chocolate, chicken and burgers for your global hegemony and not enough Americans have the global standard amounts of income support.  In your Creole identity struggles, you do not give yourself permission to exist. It is inconvenient though if you do not have your own population in North America as Europe would have to cut its population in two and this is not good for domestic European security. So try to cooperate.  Todo es bueno.                 

I think the District Attorney  proved that Murdaugh was maybe a bad man for other reasons but the DA did not prove murder.  We apply the law to the facts provided and I get fraud and theft of client funds but not murder.  If the facts outlined in Court were stayed in an exam question for a student to discuss, he would have to say the applicable laws are theft, fraud and perjury as based on the facts. The alleged murder does not correspond to the facts.  They could have alleged Assault causing grievous bodily harm also.  State the facts, then the law. Apply the law to the facts. It is evident that maybe he should not have been charged with murder and that might have been a gift; to charge him with something that cannot be established on the facts.  

  There is an error in law and fact.   It cannot be a factor of just opinion. Does the evidence prove he killed anyone or is it just we could say he probably might have or might have been someone else? Does the evidence link the alleged murder to some evidence of intent to kill? It looks like the answer here is no regarding both criterion.