[quote author=ketchim link=topic=106300.msg714488#msg714488 date=1474924337]
I would say that bird too old fuh he ..... he barely ha pubic hair.
Arthur Chung had a great sense of humor :
That is why he became Guyana's FIRST President
[/quote]
is that why he married someone else soon after sex with her ::confused::
the report is clear...he seduced her one day then tossed her the next then go marry someone else.
wat is that age difference again
and is that report accurately representative of that case in totality. something is amiss man..it does not read right.
the impression I got is that there is only a 1 year difference in ages of the 2 and that were betrothed young..that he used the conditions of the deal to have sex and then dumped. she sued and the judge let him go based not on the act that governed that but according to new law
man all of this is nonsense to me.... Chung was a limited man from that decision.
when was that original act passed again ::confused::
in the meantime people guided by that law lived hard by it. there is a history to the law, economics etc..its sociology based on the relative social evolution around it.
law is a guide though to promote justice for all. that is why law is always interpretive..all of it and a judge has leeway to interpret. and there are courts of appeal to deal with problems that may arise for decisions in lower courts..all the way to the highest courts.
there is the class element to law as to the fact the judges are elitist and can be any and all the society makes them out to be. judges also tend to produce decision that buttress the status quo and to support laws in place neutralizing their interpretive side.
so what I did was to see what actually went on from the report, who get hurt who lost who won or did better....from the claims and counter claims. that is what I wanted to see.
then on that basis I proceed to used the laws in place to dispense the fairest judgement I could muster.
the plaintiff was wronged and the law permitted it. she gave up her body convinced she was going to be married to the man she gave her body to... as per all the arrangements up to then. the man knew clearly what he was doing. he used the plaintiff..deliberately, clearly, without any doubt at all. under the law that is breech of agreement and human exploitation.
it was clear he wanted to have sex with the plaintiff, but had no intention at all of marrying her. and so he fooled her completely..deliberately. that he used the conditions of the agreement to gain her confidence.
and if at 16 he may not have been all that mature..or mature enough to be as devious as all this suggest then some one may have made up the difference in smarts and maturity by advising the defendant to behave as he did..which makes utterly no difference at all. he is fully culpable no matter if even his mother for example guided him to so behave
why wud Chung let him go without even an admonition...that the court knew exactly what he had done, that it was reprehensible behavior and that he would make him pay appropriately if he could but that he did not think the law allowed him to do that..or some such
the law is supposed to promote social peace, harmony. to make all happy that it is fair and functional. that was a bad judgement on the evidence..the case as presented in the lead article of this thread. if that is all there is to it it was a bad judgement.
there is nutten more to be said unless we can investigate what went on and determine that ourselves..get the full story facts.
[quote author=ketchim link=topic=106300.msg714411#msg714411 date=1474905745]
Plaintiff with an African, Ashton Chase
[/quote]
think he was conferred an OBE later on in Life 8)
22 years old is not old by any standard. the plaintiff cannot be regarded as an old bird.
you are west indian bwoy. the way you think and write..the same west indian I lambaste all the time. you can see why. you are a brutal, linear thinking. socially unsympathetic type of person whose behavior only produces more of that kind of thing.
that is why the west indies fail because the conditions do not produce west indians with the mind and make up that produces the necessary vision and courage to make a nation in which we are safe, broad and put in place institutions and relations that produce a human situation
it does not matter what you start with, how you grew up but when you come to a point at which you know you must live accordingly or we make the hell we currently live..face the dire global potential we now face.
what is clear in the lead article is that the plaintiff was wronged. that is the clearest fact in the article. what you do with that but sweep it away. but that is insane!!!!
I dont know what the true story was/is. I don't trust the article. but from what is clear, the heart of the matter is that the plaintiff was wronged and that Chung's court had to recognize that fact. it did not. it was a bad decision according to that in my estimation
you do not recognize that central fact about the plaintiff. but that is the way you are. were you a judge I wud not want to come to your court for any reason at all
the heart of the matter is that the plaintiff was wronged and that Chung's court had to recognize that fact.
it did not. it was a bad decision according to that in my estimation
[/quote]
You really think her lawyer the legend Ashton Chase is a Mook ?
[quote author=ketchim link=topic=106300.msg714503#msg714503 date=1474927588]
Yuh 16 year ole son come home and announce this 22 year old he know
last 3 Months wanna get married to he : she gih him lil punani.
State your Personal position.....
[/quote]
the conditions of Guyana permitted that kind of relations to develop. in time and context all is normal. that type of thing wont happen in Guyana currently..social advance in the 50+ years since then
![[Image: CJ0169.jpg]](http://jagan.org/About/PPP/CJ0169.jpg)